853 Councils of Quierzy - affirms unlimited atonement, God’s desire to save all and free will

 The 853 Councils of Quierzy was to oppose Gottschalk’s views and it affirms unlimited atonement, God’s desire to save all and free will

 From Hefele's Conciliengeschichte, volume IV, page 187

https://archive.org/details/conciliengeschic04hefe/page/187/mode/1up

Latin and Dan’s translation Into English

1.  Quod  una  tantum  sit  praedestinatio  Dei.  Deus  omnipotens  hominem sine  peccato  rectum  cum  libero  arbitrio  condidit  et  in  paradiso  posuit,  quem  in  sanctitate  justitiae  permanere  voluit.  Homo  libero  arbitrio  male  utens  peccavit  et  cecidit,  et  factus  est  massa  perditionis  totius  humani  generis.  Deus  autem  bonus  et  justus  elegit  ex  eadem  massa  perditionis,  secundum  praescientiam  suam,  quos  per  gratiam  praedestinavit  ad  vitam,  et  vitam  illis  praedestinavit  aeternara.  Ceteros  autem,  quos  justitiae  judicio  in  massa  perditionis  reliquit,  perituros  praescivit,  sed  non  ut  perirent  praedestinavit,  poenam  autem  illis,  quia  justus  est,  praedestinavit  aeternam.  Ac  per  hoc  unam  Dei  praedestinationem  tantummodo  dicimus,  quae  aut  ad  donum  pertinet  gratiae,  aut  ad  retributionem  justitiae.  

"That there is only one predestination of God. Almighty God created man upright and with free will, free from sin, and placed him in paradise, whom He willed to remain in the holiness of justice. Man, wrongly using his free will, sinned and fell, and turned into the lost the mass of the entire human race. But God, who is good and just, chose from the same mass of perdition, according to His foreknowledge, those whom He predestined through grace to life, and He predestined eternal life for them. However, the others whom He left to the judgment of justice in the mass of perdition, He foresaw would perish, but He did not predestine them to perish; rather, because He is just, He predestined eternal punishment for them. And by this, we speak of only one predestination of God, which pertains either to the gift of grace or to the retribution of justice."

2.  Quod  liberum  hominis  arbitrium  per  gratiam  sanetur.  Libertatem  arbitrii  in  primo  homine  perdidimus  (!),  quam  per  Christum Dominum  nostrum  recepimus.  Et  habemus  liberum  arbitrium  ad  bonum,  praeventum  et  adjutum  gratia.  Et  habemus  liberum  arbitrium  ad  malum,  desertum  gratia.  Liberum  autem  habemus  arbitrium,  quia  gratia  liberatum,   et  gratia  de  corrupto  sanatum.  

"That the free will of man is healed through grace. We lost the freedom of the will in the first man, which we have received through Christ our Lord. And we have free will for good, preceded and aided by grace. And we have free will for evil, abandoned by grace. But we have free will, because of grace liberates, and grace has healed what was corrupted.”

3.  Quod  Dens  omnes  homines  velit  salvos  fieri.  Deus  omnipotens omnes  homines  sine  exceptione  vult  salvos  fieri,  licet  non  omnes  salventur.  Quod  autem  quidam  salvantur,  salvantis  est  donum;  quod  autem  quidam  pereunt,  pereuntium  est  meritum.  

"That God wishes all men to be saved. Almighty God wants all men to be saved without exception, even though not all are saved. But that some are saved, is the gift of the Savior; but that some perish, is the merit of those who perish."

4.  Quod  Christus  pro  omnibus  hominibus  passus  sit.  Christus  Jesus  Dominus  noster,  sicut  nuUus  homo  est,  fuit,  vel  erit  cujus  natura  in  illo  assumpta  non  fuerit,  ita  nullus  est,  fuit,  vel  erit  homo,  pro  quo  passus  non  fuerit,  licet  non  omnes  passionis  ejus  mysterio  redimantur.  Quod  vero  omnes  passionis  ejus  mysterio  non  redimuntur,  non  respicit  ad  magnitudinem  et  pretii  copiositatem,  sed  ad  infidelium  et  ad  non  credentium  ea  fide,  quae  per  dilectionem  operatur,  respicit  partem;  quia  poculum  humanae  salutis,  quod  confectum  est  infirmitate  nostra  et  virtute  divina,  habet  quidem  in  se,  ut  omnibus  prosit;  sed  si  non  bibitur,  non  medetur

 "That Christ suffered for all men. Our Lord Jesus Christ, as there is no man, has been, or will be, whose nature has not been assumed in Him; so there is no man, has been, or will be, for whom He has not suffered, although not all are redeemed by the mystery of His Passion. But that not all are redeemed by the mystery of His Passion does not relate to the magnitude and abundance of its value, but to the portion of those who are unbelieving and do not believe with the faith that operates through love; because the cup of human salvation, which has been accomplished by our weakness and God’s power, indeed contains in itself what may benefit all, but if it is not drunk, it does not provide healing."

Comments

Efraim da Silva said…
It is very interesting to see that so many people in history have affirmed unlimited atonement, and Calvinists insist and say that Arminians have no defenders and that their doctrines are not accepted in councils.
November 29, 2023 at 5:52 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more