Chosen ones

[dimitri marinis]

I’d like to talk about our struggle through our life and the agony to try to get our souls in to shape with the aim to reach the top of the spiritual ladder my question is, the sheep that are placed on His right are chosen from the beginning of the world? Is it really like that? See Matthew 25, 31-34 “Come O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world”

God bless
Dimitri

[nurse-aid]

Is there is sun rise...because of the sun itself...or because it is rising above the earth...so we can see brightness around it...or the moon light is a moon itself...or it is glowing light because of the darkness around...or the church empty itself...songs less and sleeping...hungry to the people to come in and filled it...filled with burning candles...become hot and fragrant...full of sound and loving energy...become one mighty flame going UP HIGH!

But even this is a model...of one tiny chapel, of one single soul...wondering around the earth...holding inside that mini fragrances, hit of love, soft songs....HIS presents...HIS temple...HIS place to stay....

[Eugene]

Dmitry, it's the Kingdom that is prepared from the foundation of the world, not the chosen ones. In the Orthodox teaching everyone has equal chance to inherit the Kingdom, it's the choise of the will of every individual to accept the gift of salvation or to reject it. Ortodoxy doesn't teach Calvinistic pre-destination.

[Ken McRae]

"Ortodoxy doesn't teach Calvinistic pre-destination." - Evgeny

Hi Evgeny ~

Calvinists quote not only the Fathers for support, (though mainly Blessed Augustine,) but the Scriptures as well, and particularly the epistles of St Paul. Take this one passage, for example, from the opening of the Epistle to the Ephesians:-


Ephesians 1:3-5

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will ... etc."

What is the Orthodox interpretation of these words?

in humility,
Theophilus

[Herman Blaydoe]

According to the Orthodox Study Bible:
"...being predestined by God does not nullifiy human will: in everything, God is the originator, the initiator; we merely respond, but our response is necessary. Becoming a Christian is not so much inviting Christ into one's life as getting oneself into Christ's life. What is true of Christ must become true of one who is in Him."

St. John Chrysostom writes: "'In love,' he says, 'having forordained us,' because this comes not of any pains, nor of any achievements of ours, but of love; and yet not love alone, but of our own virtue too. For if it were solely love, it would follow that all must be saved; whereas again were it from solely or own virtue alone, then both His coming was superfluous and the whole economia....Now this indeed is the work of a really transcendent love: that on our coming nigh to Him, He should vouchsafe us such high privileges, as to bring us at once from the state of enmity to the adoption of children. Do you observe that nothing is done without Christ? Nothing without the Father? The One foreordained, the Other brought us near." [Hom. 1, P.G. 62:4, 5 cols. 12 13)]

[Ken McRae]

I have noticed over time that three words in St. Paul's theological vocabulary are very rarely (if ever) used by the Orthodox, either in oral discussions or in their writings: 1) 'predestination', 2)'elect' (or election), and 3) 'reprobate' (or reprobation). These three words are intimately connected in St. Paul, and it is difficult to use either of them without calling to mind its connection(s) with the others.

Now it has occasionally occurred to me as a little unusual that, in view of their claim to the fullness of grace and truth, the Orthodox do not appear to give the same place in their theology to the theological terminology of St. Paul, at least in these three particular instances. In St. Paul's theological vision, there appears to be two basic classes of people in the world: 1) the elect, and 2) the reprobate. It seems to me, (though I may be wrong,) that the members of these two classes have been pre-determined from all eternity; at least that seems to be what Scripture says, if we search out and examine all its texts that speak of 'predestination' and 'election'.

Here are a few texts from St. Paul which illustrate his use of the word 'reprobate'. In 2 Cor. 13, he uses it three times in the space of three scripture verses. So clearly St. Paul felt strongly about the word and its full theological implications. What do the Orthodox make of these texts? What is their sense or feeling about them?

Rom. 1:28

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

2 Cor. 13:5-7

"5": Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

"6": But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates.

"7": Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

2 Tim. 3:8

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Titus 1:16

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

[Ken McRae]

According to the Orthodox Study Bible: "...being predestined by God does not nullifiy human will: in everything, God is the originator, the initiator; we merely respond, but our response is necessary. Becoming a Christian is not so much inviting Christ into one's life as getting oneself into Christ's life. What is true of Christ must become true of one who is in Him."

I find it difficult to see from this passage how Orthodox teaching differs from the Catholic or Reformed teaching on predestination. As far as I know, neither Catholics nor the Reformed teach that man's will is ever nullified by predestination. Both teach, as the above passage, that we respond 'freely' to God's working(s) within us. And again, both teach that we have no assurance of our election in Christ if we do not manifest his visible likeness in our lives.

St. John Chrysostom's vision of the mystery reminds me of the words of St Peter: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 1:2) Again, though, I cannot discern from St. John's words any difference between the Orthodox and Catholic teaching on election; though the Reformed (Calvinists) would insist that the decree of election is not based on any foreknowledge of man's works. This they would ground on Romans 9:-

9: For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

The fact remains, either way, that if God decreed the number of the elect before the foundation of the world, then those He passed over, not electing or chosing them to be in Christ, are reprobate. Now, those who have been excluded, in the eternal decree, from the number of the elect, can receive no help from our prayers for their salvation; and indeed, if God were to give us some special revelation concerning a person's eternal reprobation, then we ought never to pray for that person's salvation, but rather for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, that is, according to the eternal decrees. However, since we cannot know, under normal circumstances, who are reprobate, we must pray, in general, that God would save them.

[Marie-Duquette]

Theophilus,

Your last post led me to take notice of the word "reprobate"

Since, I don't know which translation you are using, I am looking into the three different translations that I have at home.

None of these use the word "reprobate" in the texts that you are presenting above.

I have looked into the dictionary for the meaning of the word "reprobate": the word implies one who is CONDEMNED or DEPRAVED or deemed as WORTHLESS and to be considered UNWORTHY or UNACCEPTABLE.

In the translations that I am reading in the Ancient Eastern Text, in Recovery Version of the NT, and in the Jerusalem Bible:

2Cor.13:5-10 "Examine your selves to make sure you are IN THE FAITH. Do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ is really in you? If not, you have failed the test, but we, as I hope you will come to see, have not failed it. We pray to God that you will do nothing wrong: not that we want to appear as the ones who have been successful -- we would rather that you did well even though we failed. We have no power to resist the truth; only to further it. We are only too glad to be weak provided you are strong. What we ask in our prayers is for you to be made perfect. That is why I am writing this from a distance, so that when I am with you I shall not need to be strict, with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for destroying."

In the context of 2Cor. Paul seems to be very concerned about the life-style of his converts, the Corinthians; he seems to be admonishing, warning, showing his fears and anxieties ... "what I am afraid of is that when I come I may find you different from what I want you to be, and you may find that I am not as you would like me to be; and then there will be wrangling, jealousy, and tempers roused, intrigues and backbiting and gossip, obstinacies and disorder. I am afraid that on my next visit, my God may make me ashamed on your account and I shall be grieving over all those who sinned before and have STILL NOT REPENTED of the impurities, fornication and debauchery they committed. 2Cor.12:20-21

I guess, that Paul, showing his own weaknesses to them in preceding verses to e}nhance his point, is also, giving a "warning" before his third visit to the Corinthians. And, gives his "recommendations" in 2Cor. 13:11 "In the meantime, brothers, we wish you happiness; try to grow perfect, help one another. Be united; like in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you."

Forgive this long quoting of verses in 2Cor. referring to the word "REPROBATE" that your translation shows.

I am not a theologian or Biblical scholar, but I do pray the Scriptures/Word of God as "Lectio Divina" . . .}

So, Paul's question seems to be, "Are you or are you not "IN THE FATIH"?

marie_duquette

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

Below is a prayer from the evening prayers in many Orthodox Christian prayer books written by St. John Chrysostom. Is St. John Chrysostom's explicit use of the word grace and the not spelled out in English letters the word truth in this short prayer in harmony with St. Paul's terminology or theological vocabulary? Personally I don't think that fullness of grace and truth
permanently established in the Orthodox Church that Saint Paul spoke of and with on his way to Damascus is easier to perceive looking from the outside. It's all connected inside you see.

Ephesians 2:20
having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone

John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

In this short prayer below is Saint John Chrysostom saying anything about "predestination", the "elect" or "reprobation"? "O Lord Jesus Christ, inscribe me Thy servant in the Book of Life, and grant me a good end."

O Lord, deprive me not of Thy heavenly good things. O Lord, deliver me from eternal torments. O Lord, if I have sinned in mind or thought, in word or deed, forgive me. O Lord, deliver me from all ignorance, forgetfulness, faint-heartedness, and stony insensibility. O Lord, deliver me from every temptation. O Lord, enlighten my heart which evil desire hath darkened. O Lord, as a man I have sinned, but do Thou, as the compassionate God, have mercy on me, seeing the infirmity of my soul. O Lord, send Thy grace to my aid, that I may glorify Thy holy name. O Lord Jesus Christ, inscribe me Thy servant in the Book of Life, and grant me a good end. O Lord my God, even though I have done nothing good in Thy sight, yet grant me by Thy grace to make a good beginning. O Lord, sprinkle into my heart the dew of Thy grace. O Lord of heaven and earth, remember me Thy sinful servant, shameful and unclean, in Thy kingdom. Amen.

O Lord, accept me in repentance. O Lord, forsake me not. O Lord, lead me not into temptation. O Lord, grant me good thoughts. O Lord, grant me tears, remembrance of death, and compunction. O Lord, grant me the thought of confessing my sins. O Lord, grant me humility, chastity, and obedience. O Lord, grant me patience, courage, and meekness. O Lord, implant in me the root of good, Thy fear in my heart. O Lord, vouchsafe me to love Thee with all my soul and mind, and in all things to do Thy will. O Lord, protect me from evil men, demons, and passions, and from every other unseemly thing. O Lord, I know that Thou doest as Thou wilt: Thy will be done also in me a sinner; for blessed art Thou unto the ages. Amen.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Elias Young]

"Reprobate" is found in the KJV published in 1611 A.D., compiled by three groups English Reformers (Anglicans), Puritans (radical Protestants) and pre-Cromwelian Catholic scholars as effort of good will and an attempt to unite the English kingdom under the umbrella of Christian concerns if not of "the church".

The word translated "reprobate" comes from the Greek "adokimos" and seems to contain several nuances:

1) not standing the test, not approved a)properly used of metals and coins
2) that which does not prove itself such as it ought a) unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobate

"adokimos" comes from two words:
"a" the negative particle in Greek.
AND
"dokimos":
1) accepted, particularly of coins and money.
2) accepted, pleasing, acceptable

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1113674299-3202.html#6

This may or may not help.

elias

*******
marie-duquette wrote:
Theophilus,

Your last post led me to take notice of the word "reprobate"

Since, I don't know which translation you are using, I am looking into the three different translations that I have at home.

None of these use the word "reprobate" in the texts that you are presenting above.

I have looked into the dictionary for the meaning of the word "reprobate": the word implies one who is CONDEMNED or DEPRAVED or deemed as WORTHLESS and to be considered UNWORTHY or UNACCEPTABLE.

In the translations that I am reading in the Ancient Eastern Text, in Recovery Version of the NT, and in the Jerusalem Bible:

[Claudia Antoaneta]

Sorry, Theophilus, but what would be the point in us praying for someone who anyway is to be 'reprobate', as you say? Why would God want us to do this? He'd be contradicting Himself, wouldn't He? And anyway, with this 'predestination' theory, He'd be terribly unfair and non-loving. That is not our God.
Claudia

[Ken McRae]

1 ) marie-duquette originally posted:-

"Your last post led me to take notice of the word "reprobate." Since, I don't know which translation you are using, etc.

The texts were taken from an online e-text version of the King James Version Bible (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html). The Duoay-Rheims Catholic Bible (http://www.biblebible.com/text%2Dbible/Catholic%2DBible/index.html) uses the term 'reprobate' in each instance as well, as these links indicate:- ROM 1:28 (http://www.biblebible.com/text%2Dbible/Catholic%2DBible/romans_1.html); 2COR 13:5-7 (http://www.biblebible.com/text%2Dbible/Catholic%2DBible/2_corinthians_13.html); 2TIM 3:8 (http://www.biblebible.com/text%2Dbible/Catholic%2DBible/2_timothy_3.html); and TIT 1:16 (http://www.biblebible.com/text%2Dbible/Catholic%2DBible/titus_1.html).

2 ) marie-duquette originally posted:-


"In the translations that I am reading in the Ancient Eastern Text, in Recovery Version of the NT, and in the Jerusalem Bible:

2Cor.13:5-10 "Examine your selves to make sure you are IN THE FAITH. Do you acknowledge that Jesus Christ is really in you? If not, you have failed the test, but we, as I hope you will come to see, have not failed it. We pray to God that you will do nothing wrong: not that we want to appear as the ones who have been successful -- we would rather that you did well even though we failed. We have no power to resist the truth; only to further it. We are only too glad to be weak provided you are strong. What we ask in our prayers is for you to be made perfect. That is why I am writing this from a distance, so that when I am with you I shall not need to be strict, with the authority which the Lord gave me for building up and not for destroying."
I am unfamiliar with the three translations you reference, but have often heard the two I have referenced are very close "word for word" translations, as compared to many of the modern translations which are looser and more interpretive of the original, by comparison. The example you have offered seems to support that view-point, in my opinion. The translation you have quoted from seems to translate the term "reprobate" as one "failing the test" or having "failed". This is consistent, I feel, with the theological meaning of "reprobate". Nothing is gained, imo, by the "new" translation, though, perhaps the change of words may somehow appear more sensitve or generous to this class of persons.

3 ) marie-duquette originally posted:-


"In the context of 2Cor. Paul seems to be very concerned about the life-style of his converts ... and have STILL NOT REPENTED of the impurities, fornication and debauchery they committed. 2Cor.12:20-21 ... I guess, that Paul, showing his own weaknesses to them in preceding verses to e}nhance his point, is also, giving a "warning" before his third visit to the Corinthians. And, gives his "recommendations" in 2Cor. 13:11 "In the meantime, brothers, we wish you happiness; try to grow perfect, help one another. Be united; like in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you."
The lesson of 2 Cor 13:5-7 (and context) is the same as that communicated in 2 Pet. 1:2-10, in which St. Peter exhorts us to give all diligence to confirm our calling and election (vs 10):-

2 Pet. 1

2: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3: According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5: And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6: And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7: And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8: For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9: But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10: Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

In this passage, St. Peter speaks of proving our election, whereas St. Paul, in 2 Cor 13:5-7, says prove you're not a reprobate, that you're truly one of the chosen, one of God's elect sons and daughters.

4 ) marie-duquette originally posted:-


"Forgive this long quoting of verses in 2Cor. referring to the word "REPROBATE" that your translation shows. I am not a theologian or Biblical scholar, but I do pray the Scriptures/Word of God as "Lectio Divina" . . . "
Lectio Divina is a beautiful thing, marie-duquette. Don't be fooled by 'scholasticism'. A simple unlettered soul that prays in spirit and in truth knows God infinitely better than any theologian can learn from a book stuffed with so many proud and obstructing thoughts about mysteries that can only be experienced by grace. Keep your mind anchored in the heart and not in theological treatises. That's a good general rule to follow, and I'd do well to take my own advice.

5 ) marie-duquette originally posted:-


"So, Paul's question seems to be, 'Are you or are you not IN THE FATIH'? "
Absolutely! That is the quintessential question. This is the meaning of "prove you're one of the elect" or "prove your not a reprobate".

in humility,
Theophilus

[Dr. R.E. Pound]

Dear Christian Friends, let me thank you for the kind and loving = manner displayed on this list fellowship. I am greatly blessed by this = example of not only love and kindness, but respect showed, to all = others. Let brotherly love continue, and speak the truth in love, are = very important to all of us and you display this humility and love = hereon.

Thank you also for your kindness toward me in the past and the = respectful manner in which you have helped answer my questions abut = historical Christology in the early Eastern Church I am finding much = being discussed hereon that gives me valuable insight into many concepts = I have been developing over the past several years. I am blessed by = noting the various posts on the ghosts, mephysics, and now on the issues = of predestination and free will. Thank you for allowing me to observe = and study these posts with you.

I have a very strong interest in Textual Criticism, not from the = classification of textual families, but more from the theological = influences that caused the various textual families. For example, if I = may ask, did Nestorus and Cyril of Alexandria use the same textual = families in their theological discussions? I am aware of the differences = in the textual families cited between the Adoptionists and the = Pneumatics in early Christianity and find these very interesting.

In one of the posts on the Free-Will and Predestination discussions, a = kind poster referred to an ancient Greek text that may not have used the = term for reprobation. If it would not be too much of a problem, may I = please find out what ancient Greek Text that would be and the textual = family history of that text?

However, here is my main question, can anyone direct me to some = material on the history of the textual families Origen used to develop = his Hexphala? I would appreciate this very much. It will have to be in = English, or a very easy form of Latin or Greek, as approaching blindness = prohibits me from reading and translating much from Hebrew, Greek, and = the various forms of Latin any longer, except in cases of minor usage.

Another very important question to me is, according to The Jewish = Encyclopedia, the online large edition; there were two ancient Syrian = texts. I presume this would be the Old Testament. Nevertheless, were = there two ancient versions of the older Syrian New Testaments? If so, = did one version support the usage of the Three Heavenly witnesses in I = John 5:7? I am also very concerned and very involved in the historical = textual families in this long and often painful debate over the = inclusion of the Thee Heavenly Witnesses in I John 5:7.

Dear Christian Friends, thank you for any help you may offer to me. = May the Lord bless us all as we study together, Debtor.

[Anastasios]

Hello Everybody ,
i am a new member of this extremely nice forum,
so i would like to express my personal opinion regarding
the chosen ones .
I think that it will be quite illuminating if we attempt
to investigate this problem in terms of the mystery of Redemption.
Redemption in my belief is a great and incomprehensible mystery
to human intellect, soul,and nous in general.I can't remember
the name of one the Father of the Church who states that even the angels of God are trying to take a glimpse of this mystery.
Following these lines i believe that everybody can be one of the elect ones through the illumination of the Holy Spirit and participation in the Mysteries of the church .It is clear that some people that have
received the mercy of the Most High in copious amounts are not
the elect just because God ,foreordained so,without their assent .We
are made from our Creator Maker and our Savior Who bestowed as free will ,so it is as who have to decide wether we are going to listen to His call for our salvation or not.God cannot force anybody to be the elect one ,cause that would annul what HE IS.
Of course ,nobody knows how God acts in to the ages of the ages,
and nobody can fully comprehend the totality of the mystery of
Redemption,and why some people are the chosen ones while others are not.This is all a part of God's Providence and therefore God
plans everything according to his Wisdom and foreknowledge.
He foreknows simply because for Him past present and future is all
happening now cause He is The Eternal One.He also knows that
some people are not going to be the elect ones but still he gives
life to them not in vanity but because through His infinite mercy
and the right way of exercising there free will they might be saved.
The last sentence may sounds self contradictory but that has nothing to do with the sentence itself but chiefly with the lack of understanding of the mystery of Redemption.
Why God since He foreknows that some people are not going to be saved He brings them to our world.Does He do that in vain ,or
because He seeks our eternal torment and damnation !!!!!!!!!.
So either God in a mysterious and totally unfathomable way anoints some people as His elects ones without violating their free will or we have to adopt the Heretical theory of Apocatastasis
where people are being saved (so being the elects) even though
they blasphemed with their way of life the Triune God by an utter
misuse of their free will.
Personally i choose the first answer .
Every time we engage ourselves in investigating mysteries that
are only known territory to Our Heavenly Father we run the risk
to either lead ourselves to a dead end(and blame God
for the fact that we cannot penetrate into the mysteries) or to heresy and consequently to adopt and indulge ourselves in a state of estrangement of the source of Life.
I conclude by just saying that even our Lord Jesus Christ was tempted by the devil(in His human nature only) despite the fact he was the Anointed One from the beginning and God Incarnate.
I have to stress that this is a reflection of the personal beliefs of a person who is not a scholar in thelology or even a savant in the Scriptures. I also have to apologize in advance for my english since i am not a native speaker.

[Ken McRae]

Dear Matthew,

I'm not an expert on St. John Chrysostom, and do not wish to debate the point. However, Herman's quote from St. John seems to indicate he believed in divine "fore-ordination". Now, since Herman quoted him in conjunction with the Orthodox Study Bible on 'predestination', then he must have thought St. John was speaking of 'predestination'. If you have difficulty with that, then perhaps you should take it up with Herman. If you wish to deny that the Scriptures speak of foreknowledge, foreordination, predestination, eternal decrees, election, and reprobation, then our conversation has come to a definite impasse, as I thought we had passed that point, and I'm not about to debate the presence of such theological terms in Scripture, which is a self-evident truth. Now, if you wish to discuss the meaning of those scripture texts, where such terms are being used, then I would be obliged.

in humilitry,
Theophilus

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

I do not wish to deny that the Scriptures speak of foreknowledge, foreordination, predestination, eternal decrees, election and reprobation nor did I mean to convey the conclusion that you have come to in that regard. I meant no offence and I'm sure my perspective is not always right, disregard what I wrote.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Theopesta]

rom8(28-34)"...": to them that love God = to them who are the called according to his purpose = so the calling to all righteous not to only a certain chosen peopole those who called are those who accept the callin of god honestly on the inward mind and heart and on the outward behavior and actions the two together. st. matthew the apostle distinguish between the two kinds (mat25:31-33) the calling is gift to us from god.

st. paul not speak about the distinguish between the two kinds.st. paul spoke about the purpose of god towards the all (1tim2: 4) "(AKJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" God not distinguish between those who love him. who accept the calling to the faith , are love God and belive in him God open the door of hope to all, from the side of god nothing prevent the fruits of the salvation, but from the side of man he only with himself prevent his own salvation and refuse the grace of god, man lose his hope by his will if he live under his passions. the insurance is sure for all who accept him as redeemed, but the will of man is changable 1cor 9: 27: "(AKJV) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." if my understanding is wrong forgive me all and correct to me, thanks

[Ken McRae]

Dear Matthew,

Please forgive my hastiness in dismissing your questions. I can be a little on the defensive at times, as I have allowed myself too often to be drawn into theological debates that do not warm the heart, but stir the passions into a raging flame. Your gracious reply was instrumental in my change of heart. Please forgive me if my reply is not the answer you were hoping for. I am the first to admit that this subject or field of inquiry has always appeared to me as deeply mysterious, and troublesome to neophytes, not to mention those like myself who are less than the neophytes.

Matthew originally posted:-


"Below is a prayer from the evening prayers in many Orthodox Christian prayer books written by St. John Chrysostom. Is St. John Chrysostom's explicit use of the word grace and the not spelled out in English letters the word truth in this short prayer in harmony with St. Paul's terminology or theological vocabulary?"

Yes, it is.

Matthew originally posted:-


"Personally I don't think that fullness of grace and truth, permanently established in the Orthodox Church, that Saint Paul spoke of (and with on his way to Damascus) is easier to perceive looking from the outside. It's all connected inside you see."

My comments concerning the Orthodox claim to fullness of grace and truth, perhaps, gave the wrong impression. They were not meant to be taken as criticism, but more as an observation made by an outsider. I beg forgiveness for giving the wrong impression. And I fully agree that the perception of one outside the Church is "qualitatively" different from the perception experienced by those inside.

However, having said that, I would also like to say that this matter of spiritual perception has not always appeared to me as that "cut'n dry", or "black and white". For example, you have the group of Gentiles, in the Book of Acts, who were baptised in the Holy Spirit, while not yet having received the sacrament of water baptism; and they began to speak in tongues in the midst of St. Peter's homily to them. Technically, they were not yet members of the Church, having not been baptised, and yet God poured out the Spirit on them all.

This raises the question of adult converts in general. It seems necessary to admit that the inner eye of their intellect(s) is opened to some degree before water baptism, such that they might be able to see and recognize the Orthodox faith as the true faith, or else how can their confession of faith be taken seriously?

Matthew originally posted:-


In this short prayer below is Saint John Chrysostom saying anything about "predestination", the "elect" or "reprobation"? "O Lord Jesus Christ, inscribe me Thy servant in the Book of Life, and grant me a good end."

This is a difficult question, in some ways. Not possessing a strong knowledge of St. John, the first thing I should do is confirm his authorship of this (these) prayers. Secondly, I would examine his canon of writings for other references to the Book of Life, and predestination in general, to see if they reflect some change or development of thought over the span of his life and ministry, which is sometimes the case. Blessed Augustine, as some here may know, wrote a book of "Retractions" near the end of his life; in which he corrects many of his earlier writings, at points where his thinking had changed with experience and maturity of age. St. John may have experienced similar changes in his thinking, but did not find the time to edit his writings before he reposed in the Lord. This is the inherent weakness of posthumous publications, which the author did not personally edit before, or give permission to republish after, his departure. This is something that requires proper assessment, before any attempt at a definitive statement on his doctrine of predestination, (and the Book of Life,) can be justly made.

Assuming St. John did believe, as Herman has pointed out, in divine "fore-ordination", it is admittedly difficult to see it in the short prayer you present, though not impossible. But let us, at the mercy of God, and beseeching His divine assistance, dive into this bottomless mystery, just a little. The Scriptures speak of God's eternal decrees which were firmly fixed before the foundation of the world. And that not a sparrow falls from the air, not a hair from our heads, which He did not see from all eternity. The ineffable and unfathomable mystery boggles human reason. Now, the great mystery, in this regard, that theologians concern themselves with, is the order of the divine decrees, that is, the order in which they were made. In the eternal mind of God, when was the decree of divine election made? Did it precede His eternal decree of earth's creation, that is, "before the foundation of the world," as some insist; or was it the last decree He made, concerning our lives, after or subsequent to the decree of final judgment? In my humble opinion, it must be the latter of these two. God have mercy on me, if I'm wrong !!

Now, in this light (I pray, and not darkness,) we must approach St. John's prayer. I have not turned yet to examine his other writings on this question, but on the basis of the one passage provided by Herman, I would hazard a guess that St. John believed the final decree concerning our lives, was that of election, and was made subsequent to the Great White Throne Judgment. Thus would seem to be the assumption made by his prayer to have his name written in the Lamb's Book of Life. According to the passage provided by Herman, St. John's prayer(s) of this nature are wholly consistent with his view(s) of 'fore-ordination' and 'predestination'. And according to the view that the decree of election follows after the decree of a final judgment, then God saw and heard all St. John's prayers, from all eternity, to be numbered among the elect. And St John's unceasing labours of love and faith can be viewed as an effort, not to affect or change the mind of God, but rather to make his "calling and election sure," according to the wisdom of 2 Peter 1:10.

in humility,
Theophilus

[Owen Jones]

While it is important to defer to the Fathers, it is also important to use our own minds. Any serious theological speculation has to take into account the issue of divine foreknowledge. God created man knowing that we would sin. This begs all kinds of questions as to what kind of God would do such a thing. Is he vicious? Is he capricious? Does he like using mankind as a kind of puppet on a string? Did He intentionally create a screwed up world in order to create hardship and misery for man. FAct is, most people in the world actually believe that these are the only logical answers.

It takes a great act of faith on our part to believe otherwise. But that faith does not deny that Providence is not always what it seems. That his ways are mysterious to us. The issue of Divine Foreknowledge leads us then to another set of questions that are raised. If he knows everything in advance, he must then know who will be good, who will be evil, who will rebel against him, and who will accept Him. Are you still with me? This creates a whole new set of questions and problems. But these are inescapable questions. So what do we do? Do we arrive at a hardened position such as the Presbyterians espouse? Which is just a Protestant gloss on the ancient Jewish conviction that they were the Chosen People in an absolute sense. Do we just reject the question altogether because it is too troubling? Or do we do what we ought to do as believers, which is the hardest thing to do, which is to admit that there is some element of predestination that is built into creation itself, but that it's complete meaning is beyond our knowledge, and that faith is the bridge between the absolute certainty that our fallen minds and our self-will require, and lapsing into a kind of nihilistic position that says that we can know absolutely nothing at all.

This brings me back to the fundamental Christian experience that has been completely effaced from modern consciousness, which is the expeirence of the metaxy reality, or in-between reality, or as it is translated in the Philokalia, the intermediate realm. The purpose of faith is to transport us into an intermediate realm, in which we are neither mortals nor immortals, in which we are neither depraved nor totally sinless, in which we are neither blind nor omniscient in our sight. And let's not forget that faith is a virtue, not a body of historical facts that we recognize. It is something that must be practiced, 24/7, through periods both of spiritual ecstacy and dryness. The attempt to circumvent faith, to require an absolute answer to questions, is the opposite of virtue. It is the attempt to play God, to step out of reality, to create our own second reality that is more to our liking, under the delusion that it is now something under our control.

[Anthony]

I think Matthew's post nicely illustrates an important point, which is very relevant to the original subject of the thread; namely that Orthodoxy provides us with a sane and balanced context in which to take difficult texts. Having struggled with the predestination / free will debate for years in the context of the Reformation controversies, it was an immense relief to come to Orthodoxy and get the feeling that it was really a non-issue, or better something that can be left as a mystery. One simply finds the language of election and the language of personal responsibility used side by side, in a way which is probably not to the taste either of Calvinists or of Pelagians, but that is the teaching that we are given in our prayers and elsewhere.

With regard to the text which started this thread, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the condemnation inherited by the "goats" is not prepared for them but for "the devil and his angels". This does not seem to give much basis for reading double predestination into it.

Please forgive me if there is anything erroneous or provocative in this post.

Anthony

[Anastasios]

God is the One Who was ,the One Who is ,and the One Who is to come.God is Eternal ,that is why we affirm that He foreknows and that He predestines ,the past the present and the future of every part of creation and of every living creature including man of course.

However, it should be clear, that all of the above regarding our Creator are just anthropomorphic expressions of what He Is since it is impossible to comprehend His nature and essence ,Being Superessential in all respects.Therefore it is impossible for us to penetrate deep into the actual meaning of the word foreknowledge and predestination since we relate these words in terms of the very limited scope we have about time and history .To me ,those two words have a meaning which transcends human intellect and experience which their complete meaning remains in the realm of the Divine.

Just to justify my argument ,when God created the heavenly powers He foreknew that some of them would fall.But that actual fall took place before the beginning of history and time itself!!!!!Consequently ,one can argue that the words foreknowledge and predestination could be applicable even before history itself ,long time before the creation of man ,having the same unalterable meaning because the attribute of foreknowledge belongs to One and Only ,Our God.So by trying to understand this mystery which existed even before man is not an easy thing to do since its meaning transcends time and mental human capacities.

And something else.By trying to explain the meaning of foreknowledge and predestination only in terms of time (as we usually do) is totally misleading and really truncate their actual meaning since it is like saying that the attribute of foreknowledge that God possesses is only limited through history and cannot exist without it and beyond it!!!!!!

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Theophilus,

Thank you for your kind response, I really didn't mean to upset you at all. I'm sometimes very reluctant to post anything, not talking with one another face to face can sometimes create problems as well.

It seems to me that we cannot just speak of the eternal mind of God, without creating more limitations in addition to the passions that we struggle against. I think that the endeavor to comprehend the pre-eternal mind of God is reasonably as Anthony mentioned better as something that can be left as a mystery. Thanks be to God and the revelation of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ we now have hope. We have been created in God's image and likeness and as worshipping beings, the more we pursue and hopefully us willing attach the commandments of Christ to our being the more we can move away from mere mind ventures and mindly knowledge. During this past week of Saint Mary of Egypt we can recall that she walked across the Jordan river, she knew Holy writ well although she never read it. So many Saints that loved the Lord God with all of their hearts and minds in so many different circumstances trusted in God and prayed and prayed. It is no surprise that because the disposition of their souls was forged in prayer on earth that they now have reaped what they have sown in eternity. Have they reaped what they have sown in pre-eternity? Thanks be to God they are our God loving and mankind loving intercessors. Such souls so loved God that when some of them prayed their bodies would break the human mind physical laws of gravity by the prayerful and God loving ascending spiritual movements of their souls. Owen speaks of the intermediate realm which a monastic friend was quick to point out to me is not a benign place. In Christ there is no play acting so to speak, all the world is not a stage for God, there are no pre-eternal musings or observations coming from the human mind. There is truth and the minds of men can be graced, but only by God and not our own minds. It is important to keep in mind that God didn't just create or set everything in motion and observe everything in the universe as Owen has mentioned in the past. God loves and cares He is active and is always most merciful. It is difficult for us to grasp His mercy because we really are often not very merciful at all even when we think we are. Expressions of His merciful essence and the reality of His mercy can be heard and experienced liturgically in every Orthodox Church. During the Nativity we sing "God is with us, understand, O ye nations, and submit yourselves: for God is with us. We hear of Elijah and Enoch to whom God is everything, the Lord God did not permit Elijah and Enoch to die but rather to be caught him up into heaven for now. Such blessed souls are written in the book of life, some with their own blood some with their own tears. The instrument of inscription is the same these are true love letters so to speak. Such things are the manifestation of submission to God's will, while none of them had been mindless. There is a point of inquiry that boggles human reason as Theophilus mentioned. This is particularly even more so being in the world and not always not of the world, for instance smelling the meat on my next door neighbors barbecue during lent. Now if I had Orthodox neighbors I doubt the external problems would change much. It is the internal situation that requires attention and the Lord God's foreknowledge is a issue of very great and Holy magnitude for the coffee or barbecue minded anyway. I suppose our minds really can be used in differing to the fathers like Saint John Chrysostom if we humble them. As such it seems to me that optimal use of the mind is pursued by prayer and fasting, which is an example that the Saints have embraced. It sounds easy.

Psalm 102: 25-27
Of old You laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end.

In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

St. John of Damascus writes: "One should note that God foreknows all things but that He does not predestine them all. Thus, He foreknows the things that depend upon us, but He does not predestine them- because neither does He will evil to be done nor does He force virtue. And so, predestination is the result of the divine command made with foreknowledge. Those things which do not depend upon us, however, He predestines in accordance with His foreknowledge. For, through His foreknowledge, He has already decided beforehand in accordance with His goodness and justice."

In this passage St John of Damascus is making a distinction: some things are predestined absolutely to occur: ie "those things which do not depend upon us." In the context of what he has written St John seems to mean those things which occur outside of human agency & thus outside of our free will. But this also means that nothing involving human free choice is absolutely predestined. But on the other hand many things which God brings before us could very well be predestined in order to enable our achieving salvation.

So the predestination of God for us is distinct from absolute predestination. As St John says predestination for us means how God provides the life-giving command to those whom He foreknows will accept it. Looked at in this way we can say that predestination is a word to describe how God's providence works precisely in conditions of human free will. For in this way God providentially arranges what accords with our free desire for salvation. It is His free will in accord with our free will but seen within the larger context of the Divine & eternal counsel of salvation.

This then gets back to the original intent of St Paul when he refers to predestination in Romans chapter 8. Look at the actual context of chapter 8. "12.So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-13.for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God...19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; 20.for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God"

St Paul thus is addressing the issue of salvation in the widest cosmological context. Just as we crave salvation through the urging of the Holy Spirit so the creation itself also craves this deliverance from the force of death and will achieve it only through our salvation. Thus God predestines creation to suffer along side of man after the Fall in order that just as the Fall was cosmological in effect so too salvation will be achieved only through the redemption of creation. Here we have the first indications of what St Paul means by predestination. God foreknowing the Fall and its full effects allows that through the very "groaning' of creation- ie the brokeness & suffering of creation- man will be provided with the means to restore creation. Thus in this 'groaning' of creation there is a paradox for through this tragedy of death can come the resurrection. And God has providentially written this pattern into creation that will be a foreshadowing of the Cross & Resurrection of His Son.

Crucially it is this preoccupation of St Paul- of the Fall, its effects, and of the redemption of man & creation- which provides the backdrop to the verses in Romans in which we hear about predestination. "28.We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. 29.For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the first-born among many brethren. 30.And those whom He predestined He also called; and those whom He called He also justified; and those whom He justified He also glorified."

Thus far from implying that God somehow compels people to be saved from eternity predestination means that God foreknowing the good will ("those who love Him" of vs 28) of those desiring salvation providentially provides the means whereby they may be "conformed to the image of His Son." Predestination thus refers to the providence of God and how He responds to those desiring salvation. But St Paul is also speaking within a larger cosmological context- how man's calling and God's providential response to this is written into the very fabric of the universe.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ken McRae]

Claudia originally posted:-


" ... what would be the point in us praying for someone who anyway is to be 'reprobate', as you say? Why would God want us to do this?"

Your reaction, Claudia, is quite natural and understandable. We must begin, though, by accepting the fact that our thoughts are not God's thoughts, and our ways are not His ways. He is shrouded in a cloud of mystery that, try as we may, cannot be penetrated by human reason. Humility requires that we mortify our passion to know, which led astray our first parents in the Garden. To surrender our will to know all things sounds "irksome" to us in the beginning, but God will reveal all to us, in His good time, and according to His good pleasure.

Let us learn the lesson of faith from our holy father Abraham, who when commanded of God to slay Isaac, the son of promise, upon the sacrificial altar, did not dare to question God, but in faith received Isaac raised from the dead, according to the promise of God, that in Isaac, his seed should inherit the earth. It never entered the heart of our Father Abraham to grumble against God, and say that his God would never ask of him such a heartless and cruel thing as to literally slay Isaac, and offer him up to the Lord as a burnt offering !! What 'mountain-moving' faith did our holy father Abraham possess; not to mention Isaac, who was nearly a full grown man then, and could've easily resisted his father !!

St. Paul specifically addresses your very common complaint in the following passage from Romans 9:-

9: For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24: Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Do you see what I mean? St. Paul knew that when the masses would read what he had just written, their first reaction would be to accuse God of being unrighteous. Owen has nicely encapsulated the range of emotions that people experience when they encounter and begin to struggle with this aspect of the Divine Mystery. With regard to the profoundest nature of this mystery, St Paul expostulates with these words in Rom 11:-

33: O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
34: For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counseller?
35: Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?
36: For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

But to return to your question, the point would be 'obedience' and the trying of our faith. Why would God put a tree of the knowledge of good *and evil* in Paradise, and then tell our parents not to eat of its fruit? Why was the Serpent allowed to roam freely and unchecked? And why did God permit 300,000 people to be wiped out by a single tsunami? Will there ever be an end to such questions? If we follow that path of knowledge, falsely so-called, I fear we shall never find our way back to the Garden.

Claudia originally posted:-


"He'd be contradicting Himself, wouldn't He?"

The Scriptures are full of such mysteries. Here's one that perhaps you've not encountered yet: God commanded the Prophet Hosea to marry a harlot, or prostitute. That's a fact. Now how does that comply with the Law?

Claudia originally posted:-


"And anyway, with this 'predestination' theory, He'd be terribly unfair and non-loving."

Dear Claudia, by the grace of God my mind is open for instruction. If God moves you to do so, please expound for me (us) the following words of St Paul:-

Ephesians 1:-

3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will ... etc.

In closing, perhaps my last reply to Matthew may help you some as well.

in humility,
Theophilus

[nurse-aid]

when i become pregnant...i was given a book..with pictures and stages of who was inside me...it is whole 9 month process...with stages which never maybe swithed or changed, skiped or extended...IT IS as IT IS...so i looked and i know what exactly IS going on inside me...

So GOD in HIS book, which HE Himself wrote...knew every single stage of every single one of us...It is the same as with that lillte book i was giving...just a model...

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Theophilus noted a few days ago:


I have noticed over time that three words in St. Paul's theological vocabulary are very rarely (if ever) used by the Orthodox, either in oral discussions or in their writings: 1) 'predestination', 2)'elect' (or election), and 3) 'reprobate' (or reprobation). These three words are intimately connected in St. Paul, and it is difficult to use either of them without calling to mind its connection(s) with the others.

From what has been described in the above posts I would say that it is not that these terms do not come up in Orthodox discussions. Rather these words have their own Orthodox meaning which is quite different from what one often hears otherwise. For example predestination for the Orthodox does not mean the inevitable salvation or perdition of individuals achieved through God's will. For this would overlook the vital role of free will in achieving our salvation. In fact as we can see from what St. John of Damascus wrote above it is in light of human free will that he, following the Patristic concensus, interprets predestination.

It is also important to recognise that St Paul puts such terms as 'predestination', 'election' and 'reprobate' into the larger context of God's providential purpose of salvation of mankind. As such they refer not to the inevitability of individual salvation so much as the inevitability of the Incarnation which is written into the very fabric of God's purpose for the universe. In other words predestination doe not contradict free will & the necessity of the believer to struggle towards salvation. As St Paul himself says in the verses preceding the ones on predestination & election;


So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh- for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. (Rom. 8:12)

The Orthodox then discuss predestination, election & the reprobate- but in terms of God's overall providence & especially as this relates to the Incarnation of Christ. And His providence arranges things so that we may freely return to Paradise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Daniel Jeandet]

I remember something C.S.Lewis wrote about pre-destination, it may have been in the book "The problem of pain", or whatever its called.

He made the point that God doesnt just "know" what we will do, or what we will choose, and then waits around for us to do it. He is actually seeing all the things we will ever do or have ever done or are doing, at the same time. He always sees what we will do as clearly as he sees what we are doing right now, for Him its not a matter of time or knowing the future, its all one thing.

I dont know if this is crazy talk, but God seems kind-of predictable, we can almost know the future of His love and care for us, because he doesnt change, and His mercy endures forever, but we get kind of worked up about His foreknowledge of our own choices, even though we rely for the life of our souls, on our foreknowledge of His mercy and love. Is that what hope is? Just thoughts, probably a bit silly really.

I also remember something from Saint Ephrem, in his hyms on paradise. He speaks about eve, in paradise, and her ears being purged of the devils deception. This seems to blur the line between this life and the next in some way. I find it hard to explain how I read this line. It has something to do with Saint Maximos talking about how God allows our single existence to appear as though it is divided into two distinct parts, before and after death. He says it just appears that way, and God allows this illusion for the sake of our salvation.

Owen, is this the kind of thing you are talking about above? That we can have no viewpoint or understanding, or even existence, without this inbetweeness? I am struggling to find a way to express my sense of this, and I would be happy to read more of what you have to say on it.

[Owen Jones]

Do you have that reference handy from St. Maximos? Or a link to the quote in a fuller context?

[Eugene]

One illustration of the paradox of time, free choice and destination is this. You made a chice A between A and B at a moment T1, and at the next moment in time T2 I knew about the choice you made. But my knowledge abouth the choice you made at T2 does not affect the freedom of your choice that you had at T1. Well, we say that this is because my knowledge occured at T2 after T1, but the moments in time really shouldn't matter here. What if for some miraculous reason I would knew the choice you would make at an earlier moment T0<T1, but wouldn't tell you? Would it affect the freedom of your choice? No, it wouldn't. So, the knowledge about someone's choice has nothing to do with the freedom of the choice, these are two completely different things. And the fact that God knows about the choices we made or will make (because He is beyond time) does not affect the freedom of our choice.

Logic and common sense often doesn't apply to spiritual world and God. No wonder, it doesn't even apply to modern physics! Rules of logic are created, and that which is uncreated does not obey to that which is created, the Creator Himself doesn't necessary follow the rules that He created to rule the creation.

[Daniel Jeandet]

Im sorry, I dont have the reference handy, nor do I have a link, I only remember reading it in the philokalia volume 2. Ill find it and quote it properly. It might take a day or so.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Here is an interesting reference to God's foreknowledge which comes from this morning's Matins: Sessional Hymn - Tone 5


O ye faithful, let us glorify and sing the praises of our Saviour and Redeemer, who accepted Crucifixion with His own foreknowledge and consent. He has nailed the sins of mortal men upon His Cross, delivering us from error and granting us the Kingdom.

This seems to answer the question, of God's foreknowledge & the Fall. Which more than "why?" is how God through the Crucifixion reconciles fallen man from the Fall. Following St John of Damascus' explanation of predestination then, we could say that God having foreseen the Fall, predestines the Crucifixion & Passion.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[George K.]

A guy in another forum came up with the following argument in “understanding” [or the impossibility of understanding?] the predestination/ election/ free-will issue:

"...There are future events not happening because of God's foreknowledge and intervention in order to "help" some people to be saved or lessen the punishment of those [that would have shown] disobedience (if he would have called them - though is His intention to call all and it can be said that He calls all, yet He does not do so in our timeline but in the timeline of His "non-providence", as opposed to the timeline of His providence, which is the one we experience).

Remember the movie "Back to the future?" When the guy goes back and changes the future? That is what happens; only God does not need to travel, he simply knows what would have happened and intervenes appropriately. In other words, we have God's foreknowledge seeing first and then His providence changing those things that He saw (all or some I do not know) for the better, so that those things foreseen never actually take place.

Now, don't you agree that we are the cause of what God's foreknowledge sees and that we make ourselves "called," or rather, would have made ourselves "called," but God's grace called us first, paradoxically as it may sound? It is obviously a chaotic system of 2 variables: God’s Providence and our free will, with foreknowledge being the feedback loop, which ultimately means that it cannot be modeled with precision."


Any comments? Is the above theologically correct?

gk

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

From St Maximos the Confessor:


no created thing has by nature foreknowledge of anything that will come into existence. Only God has such foreknowledge, and He transcends created things. For He knows what He is in His essence and He knows of the existence of everything made by Him before it comes into being.

Also from St. Athanasios the Great- although not directly on the subject of God's foreknowledge.


better is the sacrifice through Him [ie Christ], better the hope in Him, and also the promises through Him, not merely as great compared with small, but the one differing from the other in nature, because He who conducts this economy (dispensation) is 'better' than things originated

To have any remote understanding of God's foreknowledge is of course very difficult or even well beyond us. This is due to our weakness from sin and also just by the fact that we are created (or as it says above- "originated".)

But one comment that that I think should be made following from what we read in the Holy Fathers quoted above is that whatever God's foreknowledge is, it certainly is not human knowledge writ large. It is not simply seeing more of the timeline than we can see. For God's foreknowledge is an aspect of His nature and related to His pre-eternal Counsel for us. As such God does not simply make things happen or stop them- for this would imply precisely lack of omniscience in God- like a man who winds up toys and sets them on their course giving them a push here & there from time to time. Instead God's foreknowledge is total & immediate and completely an aspect of His providential economy of creation. But how this exactly relates to our free will is not something I think that we can really understand.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Moses Anthony]

It seems to me that if we're to understand anything about the "foreknowledge" and the "predetermination" of God; a good place to start our contemplation would be what we've just come through, and to.

The redemption of the human race wasspoken by God to the serpent in the Garden of Eden: "He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." Having been made in the image of the Trinity, man fell. Redemption was foretold because God desired union with His creation; therefore since creation was flesh, it could only by flesh be redeemed. The sacrifice had however to be pure, and so, enter The Incarnation, years of ministry, The Passion, Death, Burial , Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord. Is it overly simplistic to say that in understanding that all predetermination is, is a decision made by God before an event takes place. And that foreknowledge is the knowledge of the events which prompts pre-determination; i.e., "...that all who believe in Him should be called Sons of God, even those who believe in His name..."

CHRISTOS ANESTI
a sinful and unworthy servant

[Moses Anthony]

Please forgive me for being so absent-minded; my earlier post should have began with this question regarding Owen's post (of April 17th) concerning what the purpose of faith was. I had always thought, even as a Protestant, that the purpose of faith -beginning and end- was to please God. "...My righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him." From righteous Abraham onward to you and I today, I cannot think of any other reason for either the gift or the virtue. Again, foreknowledge giving rise to pre-determination.

CHRISTOS ANESTE!
ALETHOS ANESTE!
the sinful and unworthy servant

[leandros]

I think that the question that started this thread is actually answered in many ways.

But let me just add a small comment: 'the Place on His right' is not a Place. Eternity is not a time physical constant with infinite value.

Eternity is Trinity as Related Persons.

The place on His right refers to 'Him' not to the 'right place'.

So the notion of our future has nothing to do with 'eternity' and 'place'.

We are not going someplace to meet somebody nor do we time the meeting by our watches. The Reign of Heavens is inside us (Luke 17:21) and the Reign of Heavens has already arrived (Matthew 10:7).

[Benjamin Amis]

Sorry to dig this up, but I'm new and digging! I'm a Presbyterian who has spent several months hunting down and reading about Orthodox Christianity. I have found a great respect for the Orthodox Church in its structure, tradition and history as being the One True Church. Further, I have come to understand and accept many things that Protestantism doesn't, such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Eastern idea of original sin, the Orthodox belief of the Eucharist and baptism and the non-Protestant perspective on the priesthood of all believers.

However, there are some things that I just can't shake, and one of those is my Calvinistic belief concerning salvation. Would holding such a belief keep me outside of the beliefs of the Church and therefore keep me from ever being able to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

[Herman Blaydoe]

However, there are some things that I just can't shake, and one of those is my Calvinistic belief concerning salvation. Would holding such a belief keep me outside of the beliefs of the Church and therefore keep me from ever being able to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

Orthodoxy is a way of life, not a set of beliefs, it is an ongoing relationship with Christ the Lord. That being said, we are not a "designer religion" where we are free to believe whatever we want. As your relationship with Christ deepens, I suspectthat you will eventually come to realize that the Church and its Tradition is much wiser than we are. Calvin came along long after the Catholic and Orthodox went separate ways, and as you learn, you will soon see that Calvinistic doctrine is simply not compatible with the teachings of Orthodoxy. You will either be able to accept that and move on, or you will not be "comfortable" in the Orthodox Church.

[Ryan]

However, there are some things that I just can't shake, and one of those is my Calvinistic belief concerning salvation. Would holding such a belief keep me outside of the beliefs of the Church and therefore keep me from ever being able to become a member of the Orthodox Church?

I'm a little fuzzy on Calvinism, but wouldn't the Calvinist soteriology depend a lot on holding to the extreme Western concept of original sin, with total depravity and all that? It is the complete corruption of our nature that prevents us from being able to do anything good, unless we are forced to do so by grace. I guess my question is, what in particular about Calvinism do you retain?

[Rick H.]

I have come to understand and accept many things that Protestantism doesn't, such as . . . the Eastern idea of original sin



My question is the same as Ryan's (with the exception of the word 'forced').

Unless, there is still the thinking somehow that 'dead men can't hear,' I don't see the hindrance . . . there's no such thing as a Calvinist who subscribes to the Eastern idea of original sin.

And--at the risk of drawing a crowd to correct what is said here--I don't see how this quote could really help, but it comes to mind so I'll share it:

"I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, 'It is Jesus Christ'"

--CH Spurgeon

[Benjamin Amis]

My question is the same as Ryan's (with the exception of the word 'forced').

Unless, there is still the thinking somehow that 'dead men can't hear,' I don't see the hindrance . . . there's no such thing as a Calvinist who subscribes to the Eastern idea of original sin.

And--at the risk of drawing a crowd to correct what is said here--I don't see how this quote could really help, but it comes to mind so I'll share it:

"I am never ashamed to avow myself a Calvinist; I do not hesitate to take the name of Baptist; but if I am asked what is my creed, I reply, 'It is Jesus Christ'"

--CH Spurgeon

I believe I do hold to the Eastern idea of ancestral sin. Humanity did not inherit the sin of Adam, but we do inherit the sinful nature of Adam, and are thus fallen. We are born fallen, but not sinful. However I believe that fallen nature is adequate to keep us from choosing Christ, and therefore we must be chosen. Further, I don't believe that God forces His will upon us, but I believe He appears to those who He elects and shows Himself to them in a way that compels them to follow. We freely follow, but God knows what will cause us to follow and reveals Himself accordingly.

I agree with Spurgeon (except I'm a Presbyterian, not a Baptist). But since I want my confession to be Jesus Christ, I want to be a part of the First Church, if my doctrine will allow it.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Benjamin and others,

I think you've been given an excellent response from Herman, who said:


Orthodoxy is a way of life, not a set of beliefs, it is an ongoing relationship with Christ the Lord. That being said, we are not a "designer religion" where we are free to believe whatever we want. As your relationship with Christ deepens, I suspect that you will eventually come to realize that the Church and its Tradition is much wiser than we are. Calvin came along long after the Catholic and Orthodox went separate ways, and as you learn, you will soon see that Calvinistic doctrine is simply not compatible with the teachings of Orthodoxy. You will either be able to accept that and move on, or you will not be "comfortable" in the Orthodox Church.

The point here is that the Church does not 'keep one out' on grounds that one has not accepted a set of beliefs or doctrines; it is simply the case that the Church, as Christ's body, enshrines a way of life -- and if one does not live that life (including the beliefs that ground life), one simply isn't in the Church.

And since we are talking about a way of life, and a concrete life that is Christ's own (and not a set of ideas or feelings), it simply isn't possible to live that life by one's own design or invention. By saying, 'I will believe and do this, but I won't believe that', one is designing one's own life, not living the one life of the one Christ.

The life in Christ is not about personal doctrine; it is about personal conversion. To turn together with Christ, away from our comforts and the constructions of our will, toward the true life of the eternal God.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Mary]

I want to be a part of the First Church, if my doctrine will allow it.

I hope, this doesn't mean, that your doctrine is more important to you than following Christ...

Mary.

[Father David Moser]

Further, I have come to understand and accept many things that Protestantism doesn't, such as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Eastern idea of original sin, the Orthodox belief of the Eucharist and baptism and the non-Protestant perspective on the priesthood of all believers.

However, there are some things that I just can't shake, and one of those is my Calvinistic belief concerning salvation.

Calvin's theological system is just that - a system. The logic of the system is very tight and intact, however for its logical consistency one must accept the basic propositions (TULIP) as they rest upon each other and in a circular manner depend upon each other for validity. If you pull out one or another assumption, the whole system falls apart and becomes simply a set of unsupported assumptions. One of the primary assumptions is that of the "Total Depravity" of man - that is the Calivisitic teaching regarding the nature and effect of the fall. If you embrace the Orthodox teaching of the nature and effect of the fall and original sin, then you essentially have a conflict with Calvin's system as they are not consistent with one another. The Calivinist teaching of salvation is not compatible with the Orthodox teaching of original sin - it just doesn't fit.

This does not exclude you from the possibility of entering the Orthodox Church, however, it does mean that somewhere along the line you are being dishonest with yourself and holding onto a set unsupported assumptions left over from the collapse of the Calvinist system which was created by removing some of those basic assumptions.

By the way, the early protestant reformers did in fact accept the ever-virginity of Mary. The repudiation of that belief is of much more recent origin.

Fr David Moser

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Benjamin,


I believe I do hold to the Eastern idea of ancestral sin. Humanity did not inherit the sin of Adam, but we do inherit the sinful nature of Adam, and are thus fallen. We are born fallen, but not sinful.

Many Orthodox might agree with this much, but there is a better way to put things that will clarify the difference between the Orthodox understanding and the Calvinist understanding. What we inherit from Adam is not a "sinful nature," but a nature that is prevented from being itself by our personal separation from God. The nature itself, as God made it, is good, but the persons bearing the nature, because they are born apart from God, cannot help but abuse their nature by falling into sin. The fall therefore occurs at the level of the hypostasis, not of the physis (to paraphrase Louth). Man was not made to fall; he did that himself.

I think St. Maximus the Confessor makes the most sense on this issue. He speaks of two kinds of sin: voluntary or deliberate sin and involuntary sin, which many people unfortunately think of as natural sin. Adam's voluntary sin is not inherited, but his involuntary sin is. Here, it is better to understand "sin" as fallenness. Adam deliberately, voluntarily, fell away from God by eating of the fruit, but he afterward fell even further away as a consequence of his deliberate choice to turn his back on God.

In the fallen state, man often does not act in accordance with his nature because his fallen gnomic or "knowing" will (as opposed to the natural impulses of the body) has not the benefit of the knowledge of God to inform his choices. The Incarnation supplies that knowledge, enabling man to reorient himself in relation to God, turn away from sin, and ultimately unite with God.


However I believe that fallen nature is adequate to keep us from choosing Christ, and therefore we must be chosen. Further, I don't believe that God forces His will upon us, but I believe He appears to those who He elects and shows Himself to them in a way that compels them to follow. We freely follow, but God knows what will cause us to follow and reveals Himself accordingly.

You seem to contradict yourself when you say that God does not "force" us but does "compel" us. You seem also to believe that He compels the elect but not the unelect, which would imply that God does not will the unelect to be saved, for if He did, He would compel them, too. But God wills that all men would turn to Him and live, and He gives all men that opportunity, knowing nevertheless that some, on their own, will not do so. This plainly is not the Calvinist doctrine of election. To my mind, the Calvinist doctrine of election approaches the ancient pagan understanding of fate, which early Christian apologists preached strongly against, stressing free will and natural goodness. The fathers to cite on this are many: St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

[Benjamin Amis]

Many Orthodox may agree with this much, but there is a better way to put things that will clarify the difference between the Orthodox understanding and the Calvinist understanding. What we inherit from Adam is not a "sinful nature," but a nature that is prevented from being itself by our personal separation from God. The nature itself, as God made it, is good, but the persons bearing the nature, because they are born apart from God, cannot help but abuse their nature by falling into sin. The fall therefore occurs at the level of the hypostasis, not of the physis (to paraphrase Louth). Man was not made to fall; he did that himself.

I think St. Maximus the Confessor makes the most sense on this issue. He speaks of two kinds of sin: voluntary or deliberate sin and involuntary sin, which many people unfortunately think of as natural sin. Adam's voluntary sin is not inherited, but his involuntary sin is. Here, it is better to understand "sin" as fallenness. Adam deliberately, voluntarily, fell away from God by eating of the fruit, but he afterward fell even further away as a consequence of his deliberate choice to turn his back on God.

In the fallen state, man often does not act in accordance with his nature because his fallen gnomic or "knowing" will (as opposed to the natural impulses of the body) has not the benefit of the knowledge of God to inform his choices. The Incarnation supplies that knowledge, enabling man to reorient himself in relation to God, turn away from sin, and ultimately unite with God.



You seem to contradict yourself when you say that God does not "force" us but does "compel" us. You seem also to say that He compels the elect but not the unelect, which would imply that God does not will the unelect to be saved, for if He did, He would compel them, too. But God wills that all men would turn to Him and live, and He gives all men that opportunity, knowing nevertheless that some, on their own, will not do so. This plainly is not the Calvinist doctrine of election. To my mind, the Calvinist doctrine of election approaches the ancient pagan understanding of fate, which early Christian apologists preached strongly against, stressing free will and natural goodness. The fathers to cite on this are many: St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others.

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

I think I'm all right with the fallenness occurring within the hypostasis as opposed to the physis. Surely, it is a spiritual disconnect, not a physical one. However, I'm going to have to affirm what I believe will keep me out of the Orthodox Church. God is always the first actor in salvation, and must empower us to choose Him. Further, if God desires that we are elect, we will be elect. We cannot refuse God. Not in the sense that God drags us into salvation kicking and screaming, but that God knows the heart and mind and every person and understands how to reveal Himself to them so that, of their own free will, they recognize Him as God and worship Him. He does not force them, but they will not (not "cannot", but "will not") refuse to follow Him. And yes, this means that He does not reveal Himself to the unelect, essentially condemning them to Hell. I do not believe that God will every single human being to salvation. I believe that He wills "all humanity" (i.e., believers from all tribes, tongues and nations), but not every individual.

I would also say that the pagan idea of fate is quite different from the Calvinistic idea of election, although they do have a few, very broad, philosophical similarities, which is perhaps why so many of the Church Fathers seemed to adamantly against any form of determinism, because they sought to rid themselves of pagan thought. However, this idea of election seems quite biblical, as Theophilus seems to have pointed out several years ago in this thread.

And to answer Mary. I believe I already am following Christ. While I believe the Orthodox Church has the claim to being the First Church, I don't believe they're the only ones that have a claim on Christ and all the rest of us are damned heretics. That said, I believe that my doctrine is true. Not to the extent that everyone else is a heretic, of course, I am fine with being in a church that doesn't believe exactly what I believe. I realize I would be in a minority in the Orthodox Church, but the fact that Orthodoxy has the claim as the First Church is very appealing to me, as it would mean a lot to me to be a member of the Church which is an unbroken line back to Christ. That doesn't mean I don't have a lot of respect for Protestantism or even Roman Catholicism. I believe many of their number may be Christians just as much as many people in the Orthodox Church, although I disagree with certain doctrines from every belief. I do affirm Holy Scriptures and all of the Ecumenical Councils that are of the Orthodox tradition. I may take issue with some points of doctrine from some Church Fathers, I may be a little closer to Augustine than many Orthodox Christians (concerning election, not original sin or just war) and I may borrow many ideas from Reformers (such as Calvin) and some Catholics (like Molina). However, does that in some way "disqualify" me as being a possible member of the Orthodox Church?

I respect the history of the Church. I respect it's claims. I respect that being Orthodox is more than a set of doctrine but is a walk of life (I think that is very redeeming and biblical...definitely a welcome and refreshing change from the absurd splitting that the Western Church does at the drop of a hat!). However, my doctrine is my doctrine. I follow Christ first, and do not object if someone disagrees with my doctrine as long as they are in accordance with the Scriptures and the Councils. I just don't know where this leaves me. I don't feel like a Protestant anymore, but I don't feel quite like I would be accepted as Orthodox, either. I've spent quite a bit of time in research and even more in prayer about where I should be. This is why I've posted here. I'm trying to find out where I fit.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Benjamin,


I think I'm all right with the fallenness occurring within the hypostasis as opposed to the physis. Surely, it is a spiritual disconnect, not a physical one.

Allow me to clarify: Physis, as the Fathers use it, means "nature," not merely material or "physical." Our body, soul, and spirit (however you want to divide us) are all a part of our nature, and the nature does not sin -- the person does, the hypostasis.


However, I'm going to have to affirm what I believe will keep me out of the Orthodox Church. God is always the first actor in salvation, and must empower us to choose Him.

God is indeed the first actor in our salvation in that He created us fully knowing that we would fall and fully intending to raise us back up, not just to where we were before, but to a much a higher place. And He has empowered all men to choose Him, inasmuch as He gives all men freedom to choose good or evil, the light or the darkness.


Further, if God desires that we are elect, we will be elect. We cannot refuse God. Not in the sense that God drags us into salvation kicking and screaming, but that God knows the heart and mind and every person and understands how to reveal Himself to them so that, of their own free will, they recognize Him as God and worship Him. He does not force them, but they will not (not "cannot", but "will not") refuse to follow Him. And yes, this means that He does not reveal Himself to the unelect, essentially condemning them to Hell. I do not believe that God will every single human being to salvation. I believe that He wills "all humanity" (i.e., believers from all tribes, tongues and nations), but not every individual.

I would also say that the pagan idea of fate is quite different from the Calvinistic idea of election, although they do have a few, very broad, philosophical similarities.

You'll have to defend this assertion. Speaking, for now, on behalf of the unelect, I don't see much difference, other than that Calvinism is even crueller because only some are doomed and because the Calvinist doom is Hell and not merely Hades or reincarnation. If everyone is doomed to Hades, that's one thing; if only some are doomed to Hell while others get to go to Heaven, through no fault or merit of their own, that is quite another thing, and a very unjust thing, speaking on behalf of the unelect.


I believe that my doctrine is true. ... However, my doctrine is my doctrine.

You seem here to make the same mistake that all (pardon me) heretics make, in that you have chosen one aspect of the truth (predestined election) and made it the rule by which you judge all other aspects, instead of using the fuller truth experienced within an actual communion of believers to inform your understanding of predestined election. The very Calvinist result is that predestined election looms much larger in your doctrine than it does in Scripture or tradition, in the Fathers, or in the history of Christianity outside Calvinism.

So the question is why? Why select just this one thing, if it separates you from the first Church and all of its glory and grace?

BTW, do you know Prof. David Bradshaw at U of K? Have you talked to him about this?

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is a cross post originally made by Michael Stickles in another thread, but to my little brain, it somehow seems appropriate here:


Elder Paisios on the Hope of Salvation
"The person who is struggling to the best of his abilities, who has no desire to live a disorderly life, but who in the course of the struggle for faith and life falls and rises again and again, God will never abandon. And if he has the slightest will not to grieve God, he will go to Paradise with his shoes on. The Benevolent God will surprisingly push him into Paradise. God will ensure He takes him when he is at his best, in repentance. He may have to struggle all his life, but God will not abandon him; He will take him at the best possible time."

- From Spiritual Awakening (vol. II of Elder Paisios of Mount Athos: Spiritual Counsels), page 121.

Could this perhaps, be seen as at least a middle ground of sorts?

Herman the Pooh

[Mary]

And to answer Mary. I believe I already am following Christ. While I believe the Orthodox Church has the claim to being the First Church, I don't believe they're the only ones that have a claim on Christ and all the rest of us are damned heretics. That said, I believe that my doctrine is true. Not to the extent that everyone else is a heretic, of course, I am fine with being in a church that doesn't believe exactly what I believe. I realize I would be in a minority in the Orthodox Church, but the fact that Orthodoxy has the claim as the First Church is very appealing to me, as it would mean a lot to me to be a member of the Church which is an unbroken line back to Christ. That doesn't mean I don't have a lot of respect for Protestantism or even Roman Catholicism. I believe many of their number may be Christians just as much as many people in the Orthodox Church, although I disagree with certain doctrines from every belief. I do affirm Holy Scriptures and all of the Ecumenical Councils that are of the Orthodox tradition. I may take issue with some points of doctrine from some Church Fathers, I may be a little closer to Augustine than many Orthodox Christians (concerning election, not original sin or just war) and I may borrow many ideas from Reformers (such as Calvin) and some Catholics (like Molina). However, does that in some way "disqualify" me as being a possible member of the Orthodox Church?

I respect the history of the Church. I respect it's claims. I respect that being Orthodox is more than a set of doctrine but is a walk of life (I think that is very redeeming and biblical...definitely a welcome and refreshing change from the absurd splitting that the Western Church does at the drop of a hat!). However, my doctrine is my doctrine. I follow Christ first, and do not object if someone disagrees with my doctrine as long as they are in accordance with the Scriptures and the Councils. I just don't know where this leaves me. I don't feel like a Protestant anymore, but I don't feel quite like I would be accepted as Orthodox, either. I've spent quite a bit of time in research and even more in prayer about where I should be. This is why I've posted here. I'm trying to find out where I fit.

Dear Benjamin,

I did not at all mean that you are not following Christ. I think, all of us who are positively disposed towards Christ, have accepted Him in some way or another. But I've learned that He never leaves us where we are... He keeps challenging us to go further in and higher up. My last week at a protestant church, the songs and the sermon, made me think about the ten lepers who were healed, of whom only one went back to thank Christ. I always thought the other 9 where ungrateful. But that Sunday, I thought about them a bit longer, and wondered if they were truly not grateful, for having been given back their health, and the lives that they thought they'd lost forever. Jesus had told them to go show themselves to a priest. They obeyed. What would they have told the priest? What would they have told their surprised and joyful family? Surely they wouldn't have spoken ill of Jesus! They would've - unless they were purely evil - spoken well of Him, and maybe they even said wonderful things about Him - just like all the wonderful songs of praise that the protestants sing. The difference between them and the man who returned was that their families and their old life which God had given back to them, was more important to them. They went back to it. But the one who returned, didn't think of his family and the life that was lost to him, all he could think of was Christ. He followed Christ.

That's what I meant. You are right that many protestants and catholics will be in heaven. So will many hindus and moslims and animists. Maybe even Jehovahs witnesses and mormons. Jesus said the day of judgement will be full of surprises - some who are saved will wonder why and others who aren't will wonder why. So, I thought about all the good things that God had done for me, all the healing He'd brought about in my heart (while I was still protestant) - and I realized that it was so much easier for me to speak well of God and point to all His blessings in my life as proof that He was answering my prayers, but I wasn't truly following Him. By the way, it is just as easy to be orthodox and not be following Christ. Life with Christ is never stagnant. You're constantly pushed out of your comfort zone. You're constantly faced with the truth about yourself, about your relationship with God and others, and you have to fix your thinking (and behavior) again. And everytime you learn something new, it rocks your world, you test your doctrines again, and realize that what you thought you knew, was pretty shallow at best, and sometimes quite false. Our understanding is very limited. There's only so far that our minds can take us, and the rest of the way, is impossible without faith.

As protestants we were fond of saying that Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Did we know what we were saying? It is true. But we always tried to capture the nature of our relationship in words and in doctrines, and we disagreed with each other about this or that. But can you truly, and honestly describe your relatioship with anyone? It's impossible. It can only be experienced. In the past 31/2 years that I've been orthodox, I"ve learned that I know God less and less every year. I've also been learning what it means to 'take of the old man' and 'put on the new' - you can feel it, it's painful, it's joyful, it's very real.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Herman Blaydoe]

And to answer Mary. I believe I already am following Christ. While I believe the Orthodox Church has the claim to being the First Church, I don't believe they're the only ones that have a claim on Christ and all the rest of us are damned heretics. That said, I believe that my doctrine is true. Not to the extent that everyone else is a heretic, of course, I am fine with being in a church that doesn't believe exactly what I believe.

Um, forgive me for asking but this bear of very little brain cannot help but wonder, what if, somehow, you were to find out that Christ does not follow your doctrine? Which would you be willing to give up?

And this may be merely a technical or perhaps semantic point (please don't hate me for being anti-semantic...), but since you are not yet Orthodox you cannot be a heretic. However, if you were to become Orthodox and then decide to try and promote Calvinism within Orthodoxy, THEN you would be eligible to qualify as being declared heretical.

ORIGIN: 1300–50; ME heretik < MF heretique < LL haereticus < Gk hairetikós able to choose (LGk: heretical), equiv. to hairet(ós) that may be taken (verbal adj. of haireîn to choose).

We don't choose what to believe, we accept what is revealed, or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[David Lindblom]

Claudia originally posted:-
Your reaction, Claudia, is quite natural and understandable. We must begin, though, by accepting the fact that our thoughts are not God's thoughts, and our ways are not His ways. He is shrouded in a cloud of mystery that, try as we may, cannot be penetrated by human reason. Humility requires that we mortify our passion to know, which led astray our first parents in the Garden. To surrender our will to know all things sounds "irksome" to us in the beginning, but God will reveal all to us, in His good time, and according to His good pleasure.

St. Paul specifically addresses your very common complaint in the following passage from Romans 9:-

9: For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10: And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12: It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13: As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14: What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15: For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16: So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
17: For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
18: Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
19: Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
20: Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
22: What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
23: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
24: Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

You are right insofar as God revealing things to us. He does just this concerning the above passage. In vs. 30-33 Paul sums up all that he has previously said in ch. 9. What is that summary?

30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 as it is written,
Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.


Do you see what I mean? St. Paul knew that when the masses would read what he had just written, their first reaction would be to accuse God of being unrighteous. The masses or the Jews? John the Baptist, Paul and Jesus all dealt w/ this mentality of the Jews thinking they had it in the bag cuz they were children of Abraham and they kept the Law. Paul makes it clear that that was never the truth of things. God has chosen faith to be the entry point into the faith not human descent.


Dear Claudia, by the grace of God my mind is open for instruction. If God moves you to do so, please expound for me (us) the following words of St Paul:-

Ephesians 1:-

3: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
4: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will ... etc.The key to these vs. lies in the phrase in Him and in Christ. What is true of Christ is true for those that are in Him. Christ is the focus of God's blessings, choosing, the means of our salvation and the results of being the people of God. These things are not true of individuals outside of being in Christ. Here's an example of this concept from I Clement:

64. Finally, may the all-seeing God, the Master of spirits and Lord of all flesh who chose the Lord Jesus Christ and us through him to be his won people....

There is no predestined targeting of individuals by God for salvation while the majority of humanity goes to hell. The focus of predestination is the means and the corporate results of being the people of God.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

And this may be merely a technical or perhaps semantic point (please don't hate me for being anti-semantic...), but since you are not yet Orthodox you cannot be a heretic. However, if you were to become Orthodox and then decide to try and promote Calvinism within Orthodoxy, THEN you would be eligible to qualify as being declared heretical.

ORIGIN: 1300–50; ME heretik < MF heretique < LL haereticus < Gk hairetikós able to choose (LGk: heretical), equiv. to hairet(ós) that may be taken (verbal adj. of haireîn to choose).

We don't choose what to believe, we accept what is revealed

This is a very good point and the reason I used the term heretic in my previous post, but you don't have to have once been Orthodox to be a heretic. The term applies to anyone who "picks and chooses" what he wants to believe and builds his faith on that, rejecting everything else the Church teaches.

Dn. Patrick

[Olga]

Hello Benjamin

For what this is worth: While reading the writings of the Fathers is edifying and useful, it can lead to some confusion for some people, as there are elements of Patristic writings which can seem contradictory, if one does not have a sound grounding in how the Orthodox Church regards such writings. The equivalent would be the use of scripture passages (which, selected out of context), which are flung between differing faith traditions, particularly among folks of the denominations who subscribe to the notion of sola scriptura. It can be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees at times.

In Orthodoxy, the mind of the Church is best expressed in its liturgical and iconographic deposits and tradition. In other words, iconography (theology and doctrine in pictures), and liturgics (what is read, said and sung in church, over the whole liturgical cycle - Vespers, Matins, Compline, the Hours, Divine Liturgy, etc) express practically everything about the Faith. Orthodox services are also stuffed full of scripture and patristic writings. Once one grasps what is true and right about Orthodoxy, then one may be more confident in reading the Fathers and gaining maximum benefit from them.

Forgive me for asking, I am not in any way being patronising: Have you ever attended an Orthodox service in a language you can understand? Have you looked into iconography and what it expresses? I, for one, am happy help you in this regard.

[Benjamin Amis]

Allow me to address you all separately, going from the easiest question to the hardest.

I know of Prof. David Bradshaw at UK. I actually live just outside of Lexington, and go to school at Asbury College in Wilmore, a Wesleyan school. I did read a lecture he gave at an Orthodox Church in Kansas, but I do not know him personally and I have no approached him.

My doctrine is what my finite mind believes to be true. I expect to find out that I am wrong about a number of things on the Day of Judgment. Calvinism may be one of those things. My doctrine is not the be-all and end-all of my walk with Christ. However, my doctrine is what I believe. It is what I feel has been revealed to me concerning the nature and character of God. I am always pondering it, and minor changes are made regularly. I've had a couple instances in which my entire system of belief has changed. However, what I believe now is what I believe now. It is the best idea I have about my faith, and will continue to be the best I can do to understand an infinite God in my finiteness this side of eternity.

Unfortunately, I have never attended an Orthodox service. I don't have my own vehicle, so I am at the whim of other people at the moment. There is an OCA and Antiochian Orthodox (USA) church in Lexington, roughly 30-minutes away. I hope to attend a service as soon as I can at the latter and speak to the priest afterwards. I have, however, read up on Orthodox services and found what videos I could on YouTube (I have yet to find a Divine Liturgy video!) and I love what I've seen so far. It really draws me in, like I'm truly communing with the One True Church. I would like to attend a service in Greek sometime as well (I have studied Koine Greek for a few years now), and I'm sure it would be very beautiful. I have looked into iconography. My understanding of it is that it is used to venerate the saint (or worship our Lord) who is pictured. I also understand that there is a difference between "venerate" and "worship", as so many Protestants do not seem to grasp. Of course, I would love to hear what you or anyone has to tell me concerning this or any other aspect of Orthodoxy. I'm eager to learn.

And to Fr. Patrick, I do believe that unbelievers, the unelect, are damned to Hell. Do any of us earn the grace of our Lord who died for our sins? No, we all deserve Hell. We all deserve to perish. However, by His grace, we are saved. Our Salvation is not of works, but of His grace, through faith (that is not of ourselves). It is just that we all are damned. It is merciful that God saves His Church, just as He saved the Israelites out of all the peoples of the ancient world.

It is my belief that God created all things, and that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. When He created the world, God foreknew all that His action as the First Cause (drawing a little from Aquinas) would cause to occur in that world. He saw Adam and Eve. He saw the Fall. He saw Satan and the redemption Christians would receive in the atoning work of Christ. He saw those that would be damned to Hell. All before He created the world, He saw every result that would come from it. At that moment, He could've created any world, and He knowingly chose to create this one. For that, He made everything. He made every physical thing that has, does and will exist come into being. He made every event that has, does and will occur. He is in complete control, and ordained all of the world to pan out exactly as it has. This means, yes, He foreknew and foreordained all things, good and bad. That includes the election of some to Heaven and others to Hell.

That last paragraph is a brief summary of my thoughts on that topic. I can expound more if I need to, but I don't want to type so much that my post becomes even more cumbersome than it already is!

I have not, as you said, made "the same mistake that all heretics make." My belief in predestination is not the be-all and end-all of my Christianity. I have spoken on it because it is the doctrine I saw as most controversial that I hold vis-a-vis the Orthodox Church, and therefore I wanted to discuss it with you all here in order to receive feedback, as a Protestant who very much admires the Orthodox Church and is interested in learning more about it and perhaps even undergoing catechesis. I could speak to you about iconography, the use of a prayer rope, mariology, apostolic succession or ecumenical councils, although since I do not think I hold any views of these things that are anathema to Orthodox teaching, the discussion wouldn't last very long and would not nearly be as interesting or helpful as I believe this one has been so far.

[Antonios]

That said, I believe that my doctrine is true.

Your doctrine runs contrary to the First Church you highly acclaim.

Yet you persist on making the above statement.

What exactly is your goal? Are you starting a church?

[Benjamin Amis]

Your doctrine runs contrary to the First Church you highly acclaim.

Yet you persist on making the above statement.

What exactly is your goal? Are you starting a church?

Your first statement is why I am here. I am looking to see if I would be welcomed into the Orthodox Church with my belief. I have not been convinced my current belief is incorrect, and I will not surrender it as my belief in order to become Orthodox if I believe that what I believe is correct.

You have made me feel like I would be very unwelcome in your church.

Also, I typed a rather lengthy message to this thread not long ago. It has yet to go through and explained my belief in more detail, as well as answering some questions of others. Did that post not go through? I will be quite sad if I must re-type it. EDIT: It went through, too. Thanks. :)

[Ryan]

You have made me feel like I would be very unwelcome in your church.

Benjamin, I don't think anyone is trying to make you feel unwelcome. You are certainly welcome, but you should know what you're getting into. Part of being in the Church is accepting what she teaches. Consciously rejecting her teaching on a fundamental question like soteriology is a serious problem, which will alienate you from the faith. It's not like there's some expulsion process here, but you're going to get very uncomfortable with much of the Church's theology, hymnody, and pious practice, all of which assumes a path to salvation very different from that outlined by the Reformers.

If you really think we're the First Church, then you must accept that we have the Apostolic doctrine. If Calvinist predestination is the truth, then we are not the First Church, no matter how old we seem to be. If we teach falsehood on such a basic question, then we're not the Church that Christ founded. Any Reformed Protestant can tell you this. Part of submitting to the Church (and to God) is accepting things that don't always make sense to us, and letting go of some things that seem to be perfectly logical.

[Rick H.]

That is just perfect, you as a Calvinist went to Wilmore, I as a non-Calvinist went to Southern in Louisville. I used to think it was funny that after each Arminianism/Calvinism debate between the professors of these schools (of thought), these teachers would return to their respective schools and share how they trounced each other. I remember, at Southern, when they found out I was not a Calvinist, one in particular said, "Well why are you here then?" I told him I had no other choice for a seminary that was in driving distance, and this one was 2.5 hours away from my house each way. I remember getting up at 3:30 AM so I could beat the rush hour in both Cincinnati and Louisville, and then dragging home very late at night. That was a tough row to hoe and I wasn't one of them, but there was no other option.

I do not sense that you think Calvinism is a hill to die on, for you, based on your comments about what we might find out on Judgment Day. I remember when the Dean of the school of theology at Southern had just finished making his case for a post-trib rapture, he finished by sharing that another teacher in the same school asked him one day, "Russell what are you going to do when we are both going up into the sky as part of a pre-trib rapture one day?" To which he replied, "I am going to say Hallelujah I was wrong!"

Otherwise, as you wrote:




You have made me feel like I would be very unwelcome in your church.



I can share with you that it has been my experience that most of the attitudes and methods of dealing with 'inquirers' such as yourself here are not representative of what you would find in a face-to-face encounter with the local visible church, such as the OCA in your neck of the woods. I remember one day a lady in the Greek church came up to my wife and asked her her name. My wife told her and the Greek lady said, "Henry? . . . that doesn't sound like a Greek name?" My wife said, "It isn't." Then the lady said, "Well why are you here then?" My wife didn't know what to say. So some of that might come into play for you (as well as a shock to find out that the Greeks were mispronouncing some Greek words http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01, both omicron and omega are long 'o').

I hear what you are saying about what you believe and in this your desire to be authentic. But, at this stage of the game, I'd say don't be discouraged by your experience here, but instead hook-up with your local community and see what you think. Although you see primarily only one train of thought here, there are clearly different schools of thought to be found in Orthodoxy. You might find it a tough row to hoe, but see what you think for yourself firsthand.

[Rick H.]

Afterthought: I wonder if you have read any of John Cassian's works as it relates to an Orthodox soteriology?

It was actually in a class reader at SBTS that I was first exposed to Cassian and the Orthdox Way. He was proclaimed as a heretic in the semi-Pelagian order and we were supposed to write papers bashing him. I read him and found in his works what I had always believed for myself, and in this an introduction to Orthodoxy was gained. I wrote about Cassian as being a semi-Augustinian, thinking this might offer up a common ground, for which I promptly was awared a "D" by the teacher who received his pay check from SBTS. I guess some things don't change.

[Antonios]

Your first statement is why I am here. I am looking to see if I would be welcomed into the Orthodox Church with my belief. I have not been convinced my current belief is incorrect, and I will not surrender it as my belief in order to become Orthodox if I believe that what I believe is correct.


You have received excellent posts above by Father Deacon Matthew, Father David, Mary, and others. I suggest you re-read them.

If you feel unwelcomed, do not take it personal. It is not you that is unwelcomed, but the heresy you hold.

You will experience true healing and communion in the Church when you put the mind of the Church above yours.

Perhaps the right question at this time would be:
Do you believe your mind is greater than the mind of the Church?

[Benjamin Amis]

Afterthought: I wonder if you have read any of John Cassian's works as it relates to an Orthodox soteriology?

It was actually in a class reader at SBTS that I was first exposed to Cassian and the Orthdox Way. He was proclaimed as a heretic in the semi-Pelagian order and we were supposed to write papers bashing him. I read him and found in his works what I had always believed for myself, and in this an introduction to Orthodoxy was gained. I wrote about Cassian as being a semi-Augustinian, thinking this might offer up a common ground, for which I promptly was awared a "D" by the teacher who received his pay check from SBTS. I guess some things don't change.

I have read significantly about John Cassian, and I'm familiar with the basic principles of what he said. I will attempt to find his writings (I'm sure I can hunt them down online, if I can't find them in my College library (or the Seminary's library across the street!). I rejected semi-Pelganism long ago. Of course, I wasn't born into Calvinism, either. I'll read him and share my thoughts here afterwards.

I would like to take this moment and clarify my own doctrine. I'm not a hard determinist. I'm what some people call a "soft determinist" or a "compatiblist." I don't believe that determinism and free will are mutually exclusive ideas. While I ultimately affirm the five points of Calvinism (TULIP) I do it quite differently from Calvin, and give quite a nod to Augustine, although I take a more extreme position that the Roman Catholic Church. I've ultimately found myself in a middle-ground between Calvin and Augustine, more reserved that the former, more extreme than the latter. So, you see, I believe that my doctrine ultimately has roots in Augustine, who came around before John Cassian ever attempted his compromise between Augustine and Pelagius. Instead of affirming the compromise, I affirm Augustine and reject Pelagius in totality. Then, yes, I exaggerate parts of Augustine's metaphysics as it relates to human will and the divine election of God, but not quite to the point Calvin does. I know his ideas of original sin and just war are why he was never really accepted in the East, I don't affirm those ideas myself, but his work in soteriology is definitely worthy to be counted among the great doctrines of Early Christianity.


You have received excellent posts above by Father Deacon Matthew, Father David, Mary, and others. I suggest you re-read them.

If you feel unwelcomed, do not take it personal. It is not you that is unwelcomed, but the heresy you hold.

You will experience true healing and communion in the Church when you put the mind of the Church above yours.

Perhaps the right question at this time would be:
Do you believe your mind is greater than the mind of the Church?

I respect the history of the church as a whole, including the Protestant Reformation and even (begrudgingly) the Roman Catholic Church, for all the flaws I think it has, politically and theologically. That includes thinkers that many Orthodox would say are "outside" of the Church. You may cite this or that Church Father, but when I feel that their argument does not stand up to another argument, I don't say "well, it's a mystery, but because this man is a Patristic, he must be right and everyone else wrong." I'm going to uphold and defend the argument I believe is most logical and biblical (both are required, an argument may be completely logical within itself and fly in the face of Scripture. I could not accept such an argument as true).

I'm willing to converse with other Christians on matters of doctrine (if I did not, I do not think I would be here, inquiring about how my minority doctrine could possibly be accepted by the First Church while I am perfectly welcome in my own Protestant tradition already). I'm even willing to accept that there are mysteries (such as the Eucharist, which I was raised to believe was symbolic, came to believe in the Real Presence, and I now have no foreseeable problems with believing in μετουσίωσις. I accept that as a mystery of the Church, and I follow it. However, if I believe an argument is sound and biblical, I see no reason to cast if off, even if I may be in the minority. I respect the mind of the Church, but the mind of the Church is made up of fallible men and women, writing about an infallible God. I do not believe anyone has the corner market on God.

[Antonios]

I respect the mind of the Church, but the mind of the Church is made up of fallible men and women, writing about an infallible God. I do not believe anyone has the corner market on God.

So what makes your fallible mind greater than the Church?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Benjamin,

All this talk of “my doctrine” makes it sound indeed as if you are crafting your own religion, with its own articles of faith, and are not really interested in the first Church or the ancient Faith, only in finding a comfortable host for your doctrine. If you came to us seeking the truth instead of merely our concurrence with your doctrine, it would be worth our time to continue the discussion. I, for one, think you have your answer and that nothing else we say will make any difference to you.

Giving you over to God and the others,

Dn. Patrick

[Benjamin Amis]

So what makes your fallible mind greater than the Church?

As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if I am wrong) the only time the Church is considered infallible is when it convenes in Ecumenical Council. I have no problem with any of the seven ecumenical councils of the Church. Further, I accept the three local councils that the Church accepts (those being the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople and the Synod of Jerusalem). In this respect, I have no issue with the Church.

Moreover, I have respect for the genuine piety of many men in every tradition that I believe have wrong theology. Even if I think their doctrine is wrong, but I recognize the grace of God in their lives, the presence of Christ in their hearts, I respect them as my brothers in the faith. If anything, I think this is representative of the heart of the Church.

[Mary]

As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if I am wrong) the only time the Church is considered infallible is when it convenes in Ecumenical Council. I have no problem with any of the seven ecumenical councils of the Church. Further, I accept the three local councils that the Church accepts (those being the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople and the Synod of Jerusalem). In this respect, I have no issue with the Church.



Dear Benjamin,

We could start from what you accept. You say you accept the Ecumenical councils as infallible. Please tell me, which council supports your belief that some are chosen to be in heaven, and some are chosen to go to hell?



And to Fr. Patrick, I do believe that unbelievers, the unelect, are damned to Hell. Do any of us earn the grace of our Lord who died for our sins? No, we all deserve Hell. We all deserve to perish. However, by His grace, we are saved. Our Salvation is not of works, but of His grace, through faith (that is not of ourselves). It is just that we all are damned. It is merciful that God saves His Church, just as He saved the Israelites out of all the peoples of the ancient world.

That includes the election of some to Heaven and others to Hell.




I accept that as a mystery of the Church, and I follow it. However, if I believe an argument is sound and biblical, I see no reason to cast if off, even if I may be in the minority.

An argument may be sound and biblical, and there may be no reason to cast it off. But until we come to the place that St Paul did - the place where he considered everything that he had as rubbish , compared to gaining Christ, the place where he had no confidence at all in all his human accomplishments and credentials (Philippians 3) - we have no part in Christ. When you're stripped of your understanding, and of your good works, and your knowledge, what are you left with? That is the real you... the part of you that is no longer pretending, and totally at the mercy of God. That is the only part of you that can start building a relationship with an invisible God.

And if God chooses to give you back some of the doctrines that you used to hold dear, because they are true - then He will give them back to you - just as He gave some back to me - cleaned and no longer broken.

But are you willing to let go of everything you have always known and understood and accepted? If you're not, it will be very difficult to be an orthodox christian, because that involves a constant letting go of everything you hold dear, whether it be ideas & thoughts, possessions or security, even relationships - because we cannot be attached to anything or anyone other than Christ.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Father David Moser]

As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if I am wrong) the only time the Church is considered infallible is when it convenes in Ecumenical Council.

This is not really correct - although it is a common misconception. The Church is infallible only in its wholeness. There were many councils which were convened as "ecumenical" but which were rejected by the Church. The Church does not need a council to exercise its "infallibility" but rather the council, in order to be "infallible" needs to reflect the consensus of the Church. In as much as any person or council reflects the consensus of the Church it is infallible, however, in as much as any person or council introduces a novel doctrine or believes something that the Church does not confess, then he separates himself from the Church and cuts himself off from Christ.

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

I'll read him [Cassian] and share my thoughts here afterwards.




I am interested to see what your thoughts are when you have time for this.

[Benjamin Amis]

Dear Benjamin,

We could start from what you accept. You say you accept the Ecumenical councils as infallible. Please tell me, which council supports your belief that some are chosen to be in heaven, and some are chosen to go to hell?





An argument may be sound and biblical, and there may be no reason to cast it off. But until we come to the place that St Paul did - the place where he considered everything that he had as rubbish , compared to gaining Christ, the place where he had no confidence at all in all his human accomplishments and credentials (Philippians 3) - we have no part in Christ. When you're stripped of your understanding, and of your good works, and your knowledge, what are you left with? That is the real you... the part of you that is no longer pretending, and totally at the mercy of God. That is the only part of you that can start building a relationship with an invisible God.

And if God chooses to give you back some of the doctrines that you used to hold dear, because they are true - then He will give them back to you - just as He gave some back to me - cleaned and no longer broken.

But are you willing to let go of everything you have always known and understood and accepted? If you're not, it will be very difficult to be an orthodox christian, because that involves a constant letting go of everything you hold dear, whether it be ideas & thoughts, possessions or security, even relationships - because we cannot be attached to anything or anyone other than Christ.

In Christ,
Mary.

From what I have read of the Ecumenical Councils, I do not see any of them addressing this belief in a positive or negative way, unless you would say that the Council of Ephesus addresses it in it's repudiation of Pelagianism. The issue is the same, however, I am not a follower of Pelagius. As far as I know John Cassian's doctrine of semi-Pelagianism was never adopted by an Ecumenical Council, and so my belief was never officially condemned in the Church. As a matter of fact, my doctrine is quite close to that of St. Augustine, who, while a controversial figure in the Orthodox Church, is a recognized saint.

Mary, you make me realize that perhaps I have not been so clear concerning my Christianity as a whole. This I have been discussing with you all is important to me, as I see it is correct, just as you see the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary the Theotokos, or μετουσίωσις, or apostolic succession or the iconography to be correct doctrine. But none of these things, for me or for you, are the WHOLE of Christianity. I don't hang my hat on predestination at the end of the day. Just because I think it is right does not make it the whole of my faith. I have already stated that I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong on a great many things that I will find out in my lifetime and many more after the Judgment. I want to hide myself behind Christ, and follow Him. Ultimately, that's what I want my faith to be. I can do that and still have my beliefs, can't I? I can even recognize that others who disagree with me are no further from God than I, if they are genuine in their walk.

If I wanted a church I felt comfortable in, I've got one. the Presbyterian Church is quite comfortable to me. Many true believers in our Lord are there and worshipping and following Him. However, I'm driven to the Orthodox Church because of their heritage as the First Church. Orthodoxy, while I don't think it or anyone else as the corner market on God, does have the claim of historical supremacy. I respect that. I respect that the liturgy of the Church is unchanged. I respect that the life lived in the Church (disregard doctrine for now) is in Communion with the Early Church.

My doctrine, my mind, is very comfortable in the Protestant world. My heart is pleased at the genuine faith of many Protestants. But my heart yearns for the historical church. It has done so for a very long, long time. Ever since I first began to think for myself concerning my faith. Because of my upbringing in the Southern United States (which is overpopulated with very conservative Protestants!) I disregarded Orthodoxy like I disregarded Catholicism. Over the last year I've slowly come to realize that I made a mistake then, and I've been more and more intrigued by the Orthodox Church. I realize that my mind might not always be so comfortable there. My doctrine, is not prevalent. But does that make me a heretic? Some of you seem to think so, and that saddens me greatly. I'm not here to challenge the Orthodox Church or try to parade my doctrine through like I've got something the Church doesn't. I'm saying, "I seem to have this tension with the Church. My heart is wrought over it, because I've come to love the Church. Someone, please, help me." That's why I'm here, on this forum, in this thread. I want help.


This is not really correct - although it is a common misconception. The Church is infallible only in its wholeness. There were many councils which were convened as "ecumenical" but which were rejected by the Church. The Church does not need a council to exercise its "infallibility" but rather the council, in order to be "infallible" needs to reflect the consensus of the Church. In as much as any person or council reflects the consensus of the Church it is infallible, however, in as much as any person or council introduces a novel doctrine or believes something that the Church does not confess, then he separates himself from the Church and cuts himself off from Christ.

Fr David Moser

Interesting. As I am still very new to the way the Orthodox Church thinks vis-a-vis the western church, forgive me if I seem to be asking obvious questions, but, would this then mean that John Cassian's semi-pelagianism is Orthodox dogma? Is that even the right word to use? And if so, does that ultimately mean that my view of predestination, aside from the fact that it's originator St. Augustine was never officially condemned by the Church and is venerated as a saint, is anathema to Orthodox Christianity, and therefore I would not be welcomed into the fold of Orthodoxy?

[Mary]

And if so, does that ultimately mean that my view of predestination, aside from the fact that it's originator St. Augustine was never officially condemned by the Church and is venerated as a saint, is anathema to Orthodox Christianity, and therefore I would not be welcomed into the fold of Orthodoxy?

Dear Benjamin,

I have no time to write a whole lot right now, and I also need to re-read what you wrote. Also, others can answer your questions better than I can, because I have not read any of the Church Fathers.

But, just wanted to say - YOU are always welcome into orthodoxy. You have to separate yourself from your beliefs. We are not our beliefs. None of our beliefs have a place in the Orthodox church, because none of us are pure and holy and all-knowing - and I suppose a nice way of saying it is that we're fallible. But we are all created in the image of God - so we all have a place in the Church. Like an infant, we have to get to the place where we have no beliefs - only love.

Of course, that would raise another question - does it not matter what one believes, as long as one loves God? But that's another story, and perhaps another thread.

All I know is, my mind has always gotten in the way of relationships of any kind. So, I need to constantly give it second place. Or third. I need to trust someone other than myself, because I can easily delude myself, thinking I'm right, when I'm grossly wrong. And I choose to trust the Church, with abandon. You can't make yourself do that. It's a gradual process. But you're on the right path. Just remember, that you are far more valuable, than all your thoughts and doctrines and beliefs.

We are saved by Christ, not by thinking right thoughts.

in Christ,
Mary.

[Mary]

From what I have read of the Ecumenical Councils, I do not see any of them addressing this belief in a positive or negative way, unless you would say that the Council of Ephesus addresses it in it's repudiation of Pelagianism. The issue is the same, however, I am not a follower of Pelagius. As far as I know John Cassian's doctrine of semi-Pelagianism was never adopted by an Ecumenical Council, and so my belief was never officially condemned in the Church. As a matter of fact, my doctrine is quite close to that of St. Augustine, who, while a controversial figure in the Orthodox Church, is a recognized saint.

Mary, you make me realize that perhaps I have not been so clear concerning my Christianity as a whole. This I have been discussing with you all is important to me, as I see it is correct, just as you see the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary the Theotokos, or μετουσίωσις, or apostolic succession or the iconography to be correct doctrine. But none of these things, for me or for you, are the WHOLE of Christianity. I don't hang my hat on predestination at the end of the day. Just because I think it is right does not make it the whole of my faith. I have already stated that I'm willing to accept that I'm wrong on a great many things that I will find out in my lifetime and many more after the Judgment. I want to hide myself behind Christ, and follow Him. Ultimately, that's what I want my faith to be. I can do that and still have my beliefs, can't I? I can even recognize that others who disagree with me are no further from God than I, if they are genuine in their walk.Hi Benjamin,

Ok, I have a bit more time now, and will try to respond to a few more points you bring up.

Please forgive me if anything I've said, or the way I've responded made you feel like I haven't been taking your thoughts seriously. I do know it's important to you, if it weren't you wouldn't be talking about it. And I'm glad to hear that you're willing to accept that you're wrong about the things you believe. Can, you want to follow Christ completely, and still have your beliefs? I'm afraid only you can answer that, because next to God, you're the only one who truly knows what you believe.

I'm not from a Calvinist background, so my understanding of predestination is limited. Here's what I understand about it: God chose some to be saved and some to be damned. Is that right? If it is, then it contradicts a lot of scripture, that Christ died for the 'whole world'; that he is not willing that any man should perish, and so forth. The Orthodox services are full of the phrase: Who loves all mankind.

If some are chosen and some or not, doesn't that create a very basic problem of knowing whether you are one of the chosen or not? If you claim you're chosen, does that mean you are saved from death for sure? That all your sins are forgiven no matter what? What of all those people who claim Jesus as Lord, and preach in his name and even do miracles in his name, who in the last day, he will not recognize them? (Matthew 7:21-23) In what way were they chosen?

When I was looking into orthodoxy, it helped me to write down what I believed, and I suppose that's what you're doing too. You say you're willing to accept that you are wrong about things that you believe. Have you decided ahead of time what you're wrong about and what you're right about? In what way are you going to test your beliefs to see if they are wrong or right? How will you know?

If something is absolutely True, it will stand any kind of test that you put it through. I'm not the most brilliant of persons, so the tests that I put my beliefs and the orthodox beliefs through, was probably quite simplistic. I'd like to see how you test the teachings! I might learn something new. =)


My doctrine, my mind, is very comfortable in the Protestant world. My heart is pleased at the genuine faith of many Protestants. But my heart yearns for the historical church. It has done so for a very long, long time. Ever since I first began to think for myself concerning my faith. Because of my upbringing in the Southern United States (which is overpopulated with very conservative Protestants!) I disregarded Orthodoxy like I disregarded Catholicism. Over the last year I've slowly come to realize that I made a mistake then, and I've been more and more intrigued by the Orthodox Church. I realize that my mind might not always be so comfortable there. My doctrine, is not prevalent. But does that make me a heretic? Some of you seem to think so, and that saddens me greatly. I'm not here to challenge the Orthodox Church or try to parade my doctrine through like I've got something the Church doesn't. I'm saying, "I seem to have this tension with the Church. My heart is wrought over it, because I've come to love the Church. Someone, please, help me." That's why I'm here, on this forum, in this thread. I want help.
No, you're not a heretic. I wasn't a heretic either. However some of the things that I used to believe, where quite contrary to what the church teaches. Some of them were easy to discard, others not so easy, and still others, I don't even recognize yet to know if they're true or not, since they're so much a part of how I function and think.

Why does your heart long for a historical church? What good is a historical church if it is not the True church? And if it is the True Church, how many other churches can also be true? Would God reveal himself to different 'churches' in contradicting ways?

Please don't be offended by my questions. I mean no disrespect to your beliefs. I'm only trying to understand where you're coming from, because I don't know what you believe. And also, when you reply, please understand that I may not be able to understand what you're saying, and I may only have more questions. It's interesting how we all seem to be speaking in English, and yet, it's so hard to truly understand one another!

in Christ,
Mary.

[Michael Stickles]

Benjamin,

Perhaps this won't be as useful for you as it was for me, but have you ever read St. Athanasius' On The Incarnation (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm)? The whole issue of soteriology was a big struggle for me even before investigating Orthodoxy, and St. Athanasius really cleared up a lot of points. That work was instrumental in my own conversion.

As for the H-words ("heresy" and "heretic") - try not to take them personally. If you had expressed a belief that Orthodoxy is the One True Church, or The Church, rather than merely the First Church, the terms might be more meaningful here, but as it is I don't think they help much (personally, I try to avoid them unless speaking historically - safer that way).

That thought brings up another - rather than focusing on possible points of doctrinal conflict, I think the first approach should be to get to know the Orthodox Church more through her worship, her prayers, and her saints; to try to see her as she sees herself. Because, as I see it, the true question is not "would I be welcomed into the fold of Orthodoxy", but rather "am I willing to become Orthodox; to become part of the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ"? And that question cannot be fully answered on the basis of doctrine alone.

In Christ,
Michael

[Benjamin Amis]

Hi Benjamin,

Ok, I have a bit more time now, and will try to respond to a few more points you bring up.

Please forgive me if anything I've said, or the way I've responded made you feel like I haven't been taking your thoughts seriously. I do know it's important to you, if it weren't you wouldn't be talking about it. And I'm glad to hear that you're willing to accept that you're wrong about the things you believe. Can, you want to follow Christ completely, and still have your beliefs? I'm afraid only you can answer that, because next to God, you're the only one who truly knows what you believe.

I'm not from a Calvinist background, so my understanding of predestination is limited. Here's what I understand about it: God chose some to be saved and some to be damned. Is that right? If it is, then it contradicts a lot of scripture, that Christ died for the 'whole world'; that he is not willing that any man should perish, and so forth. The Orthodox services are full of the phrase: Who loves all mankind.

If some are chosen and some or not, doesn't that create a very basic problem of knowing whether you are one of the chosen or not? If you claim you're chosen, does that mean you are saved from death for sure? That all your sins are forgiven no matter what? What of all those people who claim Jesus as Lord, and preach in his name and even do miracles in his name, who in the last day, he will not recognize them? (Matthew 7:21-23) In what way were they chosen?

When I was looking into orthodoxy, it helped me to write down what I believed, and I suppose that's what you're doing too. You say you're willing to accept that you are wrong about things that you believe. Have you decided ahead of time what you're wrong about and what you're right about? In what way are you going to test your beliefs to see if they are wrong or right? How will you know?

If something is absolutely True, it will stand any kind of test that you put it through. I'm not the most brilliant of persons, so the tests that I put my beliefs and the orthodox beliefs through, was probably quite simplistic. I'd like to see how you test the teachings! I might learn something new. =)

No, you're not a heretic. I wasn't a heretic either. However some of the things that I used to believe, where quite contrary to what the church teaches. Some of them were easy to discard, others not so easy, and still others, I don't even recognize yet to know if they're true or not, since they're so much a part of how I function and think.

Why does your heart long for a historical church? What good is a historical church if it is not the True church? And if it is the True Church, how many other churches can also be true? Would God reveal himself to different 'churches' in contradicting ways?

Please don't be offended by my questions. I mean no disrespect to your beliefs. I'm only trying to understand where you're coming from, because I don't know what you believe. And also, when you reply, please understand that I may not be able to understand what you're saying, and I may only have more questions. It's interesting how we all seem to be speaking in English, and yet, it's so hard to truly understand one another!

in Christ,
Mary.

Thank you for this heart-felt response. :) I would love to speak with you about any set of beliefs, how I test what I believe, etc. For now, however, I'll stick with the doctrine we've been speaking on.

Your basic understanding is correct, however I can tell from your questions that it must be refined. The doctrine of predestination is not the most simple to grasp. I was not born into it. As a matter of fact, I only come into it a few years ago myself! But, as I read the Scriptures and think through the logic, it seems to fit in so well with the world around me.

First, of course, I do not believe that any Scripture is contradicted by predestination. Many who profess it interpret those verses as speaking directly to the elect (i.e., that God will save "all the elect" of humanity) and not those who are non-elect. God wishes none of His sheep to perish, and that He seeks to save men from all tribes, tongues and nations...but not every individual from them. Further, the election is unconditional. We are in sin, unable to save ourselves (as Pelagius preached, and was condemned), and cannot earn the favor of God. We are saved only because of His mercy (as the Church says, kyrie, eleison!).

Second, some elect believe that your election is not secure, no matter what. I reject that. For the Scriptures say that "if you confess with you mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (St. Paul, Romans 10:9). I believe those who confess Christ and follow Him are saved, those who do not are not. Of course, the condition of the individual's heart must be examined, and this is by God alone. Perhaps those in the Church who profess is name, preach for Him and do miracles that He rejects were truly not saved in their hearts? That does not mean that they thought they were truly following Christ, doing everything every other Christian was, and yet are left out of the banquet feast. Surely, they never truly were following Christ.

Much of my belief in predestination rests in my belief concerning Divine foreknowledge, which I detailed above (link (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=84517&postcount=54)) in the third paragraph from the bottom. If I was in some way unclear or you require further information than the brief summary I give there, let me know and I will try to be more precise.

Currently, I believe that everything I believe is right. If it is wrong, I cease to believe it because I know it is wrong! I'm always open to considering something I haven't before. I'm always ready to absorb something new, learning and growing closer to Christ. In short, no, I haven't decided on what I am wrong or right about. I'm open to listening to a different perspective on anything. For me, I test myself based on logic and Scripture. If I am thinking and come across an idea I have not had before, I will check it with logic. Does it make sense? If so, I take it to Scripture and see what I can find concerning this thought. If Scripture is against it, then it must not be true. If Scripture supports it or is silent, I continue to be prayerful and thoughtful. I take it to other Christians to get their consideration, etc. If I read something from Scripture and see it in a new light than I did before, I check it with logic. If my interpretation stands up logically, I began looking through Scripture to understand the greater context of my interpretation. If it is not squelched, I continue prayerfully and thoughtfully, seeking the advise of follow believers. This means I am almost continually rehashing at least some small belief, tossing it around in my head, listening to the opinion of other believers and prayerfully listening to our Lord guiding me.


Benjamin,

Perhaps this won't be as useful for you as it was for me, but have you ever read St. Athanasius' On The Incarnation (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/history/ath-inc.htm)? The whole issue of soteriology was a big struggle for me even before investigating Orthodoxy, and St. Athanasius really cleared up a lot of points. That work was instrumental in my own conversion.

As for the H-words ("heresy" and "heretic") - try not to take them personally. If you had expressed a belief that Orthodoxy is the One True Church, or The Church, rather than merely the First Church, the terms might be more meaningful here, but as it is I don't think they help much (personally, I try to avoid them unless speaking historically - safer that way).

That thought brings up another - rather than focusing on possible points of doctrinal conflict, I think the first approach should be to get to know the Orthodox Church more through her worship, her prayers, and her saints; to try to see her as she sees herself. Because, as I see it, the true question is not "would I be welcomed into the fold of Orthodoxy", but rather "am I willing to become Orthodox; to become part of the Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ"? And that question cannot be fully answered on the basis of doctrine alone.

In Christ,
Michael

Unfortunately, I have not. I will also see if I can find that. Surely, it is in the Seminary library here. If not, I'll find it online.

I have, over the last few months especially, been reading prayers and listening to chants of the Orthodox tradition. I thank God that I've studied Koine so that I can appreciate much of the liturgy in the original language! I find the worship of the Church to be utterly beautiful and moving. I can't wait until I can attend my first Orthodox service and participate (save the Eucharist, of course). I've been reading up on many practices of believers during the Liturgy in an attempt to understand as much as possible about what is going on in the service, although I'm sure I will not be fully prepared. I'm fine with that. The one thing that I have read in everything I've found that instructs newcomers about the Liturgy is that the Orthodox are corporate and personal in their worship, and it is very much a matter of the heart between the worshipper and God. I respect that. I love that. So much. I really can't express how excited I am about eventually experiencing it. I'm moved by the chants, which I find on YouTube from my computer...how much more will I be impacted when I witness the Divine Liturgy?

[Antonios]

The doctrine of predestination is not the most simple to grasp. I was not born into it. As a matter of fact, I only come into it a few years ago myself! But, as I read the Scriptures and think through the logic, it seems to fit in so well with the world around me.

Our Lord admonishes us to be in the world, but not of the world. We should not make assumptions that the divine is an image of the created, but rather that creation was made in the image of the divine, and this creation has been corrupted because of our sins. Death seeped into the entire cosmos, and even logic and reason has become distorted. How then can we put our faith in such corruptible things, which may be leading us to perdition?

The Church was established for once and for all, and the First Church is the Orthodox Church. This is not my belief. This is the belief since the beginning.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Paul Cowan]

For the Scriptures say that "if you confess with you mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (St. Paul, Romans 10:9). I believe those who confess Christ and follow Him are saved, those who do not are not.

There are several versus in scripture with this type wording. If you look at the words you will notice no where in scripture we "are" saved. Everyting is future tense. We will be saved. We are not saved until His second coming. We are NOT saved on any feel good bible camp come to Jesus hall meeting. This is nothing more than emotionalism and has no place in the church. We can not think our selves saved either. Jesus said those that are not against us are with us dont hinder them. He also said to those who said they did all righteous acts to get away from Me I do not know you. So where does that leave us?

I read in your paragraph tons of "I" statements and logic statements. This also is rejected by the church. I'll give you a brief explanation why. I am 43 years old. I have been in the church for 8 years. But lets say I was born into the church. I would have 43 years of churching. I should know alot, but because of school, work, friends, partying, and various other activities, most of my day is not filled with church education. and I typically sleep 6-7 hours a night. So of all that compressed down, I would really have only about 10 years of conscious knowledge of the church. Let's say I spent the entire time studying and devoted myself completely to scripture, the fathers and church doctrine. Great.

Now consider the church is 2000 years old and there have been millions of holy people throughout time who have done the same thing I have, except they all agree. Where does that leave me and my 10 years of interpretation of the church? Who am I in my short time here to argue or to presume to know more than these people what the true understanding of scripture is? Who am I but a whisp of wind who is swayed by what others try to convince me of? Why do I want to reinvent the wheel? These people already have done the work. Why would I argue with them or try to presume my logic was better than theirs? This is nothing more that what Solomon called vanity.

I commend your education. I commend your desire to learn about the Orthodox Faith. IF you ever choose to be catechised, you will be required to denounce YOUR belief system in lieu of the Church's. There are tons of "smart" people in the Orthodox church. Many of them are on this forum. But they have given up their old belief systems and embraced the Orthodox belief. We do not believe once saved always saved as you do.

Second, some elect believe that your election is not secure, no matter what. I reject that. For the Scriptures say that "if you confess with you mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

We believe as St. Paul does this is a life long race to be given to the victor. The crown is not given to those that run the race half heartedly or stop before the finish line. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins and was raised on the third day and sits at the right hand of the Father. Great. If I commit murder tomorrow, guess what? I don't go to heaven. SO what does that do to your rejection of this stance of the church?

This post has gotten way too long and I feel like I am on a rant. Forgive me. Your position touches a lot of hot spots with me as I also had to give up my self beliefs before I was allowed to enter the church. I would hope others not have to go through the pains I did.

Paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

For the Scriptures say that "if you confess with you mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

The devil knows Jesus is Lord and resents it. He is also very painfully aware that Christ resurrected from the dead. Is he therefore saved? Perhaps there is more to it? You see, Orthodoxy also believes and takes into account the lines in your Bible that were NOT highlighted.

Does God choose us because we choose Him or do we choose Him because He chooses us? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

God chooses those who finish the race, like Paul C. said. Many are called, few are chosen, not everyone finishes the race, and nobody finishes the race without God's help. But we have to accept that help, because God's grace is a gift and a gift that is forced on someone is not really a gift, is it?

Actually it is much too much for this bear of little brain to figure out. I simply try to accept the gift freely given and work to not waste it or throw it away or "misplace" it through my negligence. "Nepsis" (watchfulness) is a very useful thing.

Or so it seems...

Herman the Pooh

[Michael Stickles]

Unfortunately, I have not. I will also see if I can find that. Surely, it is in the Seminary library here. If not, I'll find it online.

If you don't find one in their library (which would be surprising for a seminary), the words "On The Incarnation (http://www.spurgeon.org/%7Ephil/history/ath-inc.htm)" in my previous post (and this one) are a link to the same online version I used.


I've been reading up on many practices of believers during the Liturgy in an attempt to understand as much as possible about what is going on in the service, although I'm sure I will not be fully prepared. I'm fine with that.

Then you should be fine. The best suggestion I can give (which I'm sure you've already thought of) is, if you're not sure what to do in any given spot, just watch what other people do; and, if at some point most everyone's doing something different than what you thought you should be doing, just follow along (unless, of course, it's going up for the Eucharist - but, again, you already know that).


I really can't express how excited I am about eventually experiencing it. I'm moved by the chants, which I find on YouTube from my computer...how much more will I be impacted when I witness the Divine Liturgy?

When that opportunity comes, may your experience be as meaningful as mine was when I attended my first Divine Liturgy. I'll be praying for that.

INXC, Michael

[Rick H.]

You know, I guess there really is a fine line between a kind of apathy that is moved primarily by fatigue/dejection and a positive disengagement and laying it all aside for the right reasons; but, as it relates to this conversation of Calvinism and the one(s) who would be Orthodox how does it really matter one iota at this stage of the game? There is no participation in the life of the Orthodox Church, there is no commitment of any kind . . . here I allow much room for the thinking of just leaving all your baggage at the door for your first visit. On my first visit I took in a U-Haul truck full of my positions and I was on full alert for error, but I remember this mood and thinking just kind of dissolved and disappeared after the Liturgy started. But, as you wrote:




The one thing that I have read in everything I've found that instructs newcomers about the Liturgy is that the Orthodox are corporate and personal in their worship, and it is very much a matter of the heart between the worshipper and God. I respect that. I love that. So much. I really can't express how excited I am about eventually experiencing it.



I would just like to echo Mike's last post above, and offer a wish that you will experience a different H-Word when you are face-to-face with a local visible community and experience the Divine Liturgy . . . Healing.

I remember the first time I darkened the door of an Orthodox Church and attended a Divine Liturgy. Instead of my usual judging and critiquing the experience--based on my beliefs--of what was going on in a new church, I remember just being kind of swept away by the experience. Things such as Calvinism and Arminianism and even Cooperation didn't matter at all. After it was over, I wasn't really sure what had just happened but I was glad to have been there. Maybe after your visit, you can start a new thread in the Casual and Personal area and let us know how it went? We wouldn't want to trample on this great conversation of Calvinism with that would we? :0)

[Mary]

First, of course, I do not believe that any Scripture is contradicted by predestination. Many who profess it interpret those verses as speaking directly to the elect (i.e., that God will save "all the elect" of humanity) and not those who are non-elect. God wishes none of His sheep to perish, and that He seeks to save men from all tribes, tongues and nations...but not every individual from them. Further, the election is unconditional. We are in sin, unable to save ourselves (as Pelagius preached, and was condemned), and cannot earn the favor of God. We are saved only because of His mercy (as the Church says, kyrie, eleison!).


Benjamin,

I'm not sure how what kind of question to ask anymore. It appears as though you approach the scriptures as if they were only written for the elect. However, I believe it is written for all mankind. Can't wait till you get to one of our services. You'll hear over and over, how much God loves all mankind.

How can the God who asks us not to practice partiality, practice it Himself, by choosing some and not others? On what basis is the choice made? You say no one deserves mercy and no one can do anything to earn God's favor. So why should He pick a few to show mercy to, and disregard a bunch of others?

Do you have any siblings? I have two. I loved my younger brother, but my sister and I never got along. However, every single time I've had an opportunity that she did not have, something I could not share with her, or something that I was chosen for and she was not, I did not enjoy it as much as I wanted to. I did not want her to be left out. If I, who am so evil, can love a sister that I did not like, how much more is the love of God for us?

in Christ,
Mary.

[Herman Blaydoe]

One little thought that has always puzzled this bear of little brain, if we are all predestined, then how do I know which way I am predestined to go? Regardless, why should I even try if it is all for nothing anyway? How do YOU know you are predestined for salvation? What if YOU are one of the "other" guys? Funny thing about all the predestination crowd, they are sure they are on the "good list" but how do they really know? Is it published somewhere? Or am I supposed to try and be good because I MIGHT be on the list?

O bother!

Herman the not predetermined pooh

[Ryan]

Foreknowledge does not mean causation. When God gave us free will, he voluntarily backed off from part of his creation, for his greater glory. God is not the author of evil. He sees the choices we make, and plans accordingly, but he does not plan our choices.

The Calvinist system is purely determinist, in my opinion. Any Calvinist understanding of "free will" renders the term meaningless. For instance, I have often read from Calvinists that the reprobates have "free will," it's just that they will always choose evil. Similarly, the elect will always choose God. In both cases, the determining factor in the choice is God's grace, or the lack thereof. It seems to me like attributing free will to a marionette. "He can walk wherever he wants to, but, unless I pull these strings, he won't."

In the Calvinist system, it seems to me, the sin of the old Adam is more powerful than the atonement of the second Adam. Original sin corrupts all men, and makes all worthy of damnation, whereas Christ's sacrifice atones for only a minority. Moreover, we are all personally liable for Adam's transgression; however, no one can claim such credit for Christ's atonement.

In the interpretation of scripture, the Calvinists seem arbitrary to me. When they come across texts that seem to state that God intends salvation for all men, they interpret this to mean "all kinds of men". They will then point to various passages on predestination to support their position. But can't we do the reverse, and interpret the predestination passages in light of God's intention to save all men?

Finally, I am not so certain that Calvinism escapes condemnation of the Ecumenical Councils, specifically the 6th. Is monoenergism implied by monergism?

[David Lindblom]

First, of course, I do not believe that any Scripture is contradicted by predestination. Many who profess it interpret those verses as speaking directly to the elect (i.e., that God will save "all the elect" of humanity) and not those who are non-elect. God wishes none of His sheep to perish, and that He seeks to save men from all tribes, tongues and nations...but not every individual from them. Further, the election is unconditional. We are in sin, unable to save ourselves (as Pelagius preached, and was condemned), and cannot earn the favor of God. We are saved only because of His mercy (as the Church says, kyrie, eleison!).

The problem is...where to begin. The problem w/ Calvinist is that they don't like to admit to the unavoidable conclusions of their deterministic theology. Most don't anyway. Look at the Westminster Confession, it states that God exhaustively ordained everything that happens in creation. Nothing takes place that He did not ordain. But then it goes on to say that He does this is some way as to not do violence to the will of His creatures. That He is not to be blamed for sin even though He ordained it...that's called a contradiction.

As for some scripture, here's a couple:

Matt. 11:20-24

20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.
21 Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.

Jesus here is blasting certain cities on account of their refusal to believe despite performing His most mighty works among them. Now, think about it for a moment, if they were not predestined to believe there is no amount of anything Jesus could have done that would have made any difference to them...they were incapable of believing. So why are they getting a worse condemnation? This scenerio only makes sense if they had the ability to believe but refused, this passage would then make perfect sense that their condemnation is greater. He goes on to say how cities like Tyre and Sodom would have repented if they had had this level of miracles done in their city. But according to Calvinist views this is not possible since their lack of repentance was predestined by God yet Christ says that they would have repented if they'd had the level of signs He showed in Chorazin and Bethsaida. Looking at this from a predestination view makes no sense and shows God to be enormously unjust on any level.

You quoted Rom. 10:9 which is taken from Duet. 30:11-14. Notice what God says to the people in the Duet. passage concerning the Law/Commandment He had given them:

11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.

14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

They were able to obey but they did not. Once again, predestination here makes no sense and when it comes to NT salvation Paul pulls these vs. forward to set up the same scenerio for believing on Christ. It's in us to do it, but will we? There's no predestination in this, in fact, if predestination is true vs. like these are nonsense or worse yet, God is deceptive.



Second, some elect believe that your election is not secure, no matter what. I reject that. For the Scriptures say that "if you confess with you mouth 'Jesus is Lord' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." (St. Paul, Romans 10:9). I believe those who confess Christ and follow Him are saved, those who do not are not. Of course, the condition of the individual's heart must be examined, and this is by God alone. Perhaps those in the Church who profess is name, preach for Him and do miracles that He rejects were truly not saved in their hearts? That does not mean that they thought they were truly following Christ, doing everything every other Christian was, and yet are left out of the banquet feast. Surely, they never truly were following Christ.Ahh, the great quandry of Calvinism. How do you know....you don't. It's not like Orthodoxy where on the one hand there is not an absolute certainty but at the same time we have all that God offers us to persevere and God is actually really on our side. W/ your view, ya never know. He might be on your side or He might be your worst enemy. There's no way to tell.


Much of my belief in predestination rests in my belief concerning Divine foreknowledge, which I detailed above (link (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=84517&postcount=54)) in the third paragraph from the bottom. If I was in some way unclear or you require further information than the brief summary I give there, let me know and I will try to be more precise. Your link is not working for me. But the usual view of the Calvinist is that God knows the future only because He has exhaustively predestined every last detail. This, to me, is a much weaker view of God. Instead of knowing all by virtue of His very nature He has to make everything happen then can sit back and say "Hey, such and such is gonna happen cuz I know all things" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge cuz I stacked the deck ahead of time)


Currently, I believe that everything I believe is right. If it is wrong, I cease to believe it because I know it is wrong! I'm always open to considering something I haven't before. I'm always ready to absorb something new, learning and growing closer to Christ. In short, no, I haven't decided on what I am wrong or right about. I'm open to listening to a different perspective on anything. For me, I test myself based on logic and Scripture. If I am thinking and come across an idea I have not had before, I will check it with logic. Does it make sense? If so, I take it to Scripture and see what I can find concerning this thought. If Scripture is against it, then it must not be true. If Scripture supports it or is silent, I continue to be prayerful and thoughtful. I take it to other Christians to get their consideration, etc. If I read something from Scripture and see it in a new light than I did before, I check it with logic. If my interpretation stands up logically, I began looking through Scripture to understand the greater context of my interpretation. If it is not squelched, I continue prayerfully and thoughtfully, seeking the advise of follow believers. This means I am almost continually rehashing at least some small belief, tossing it around in my head, listening to the opinion of other believers and prayerfully listening to our Lord guiding me.On the one hand you are to be commended for this, you're not flighty-led-along-guy. But...this is what every one else is doing and they're all coming up w/ very different ideas on foundational issues.


I have, over the last few months especially, been reading prayers and listening to chants of the Orthodox tradition. I thank God that I've studied Koine so that I can appreciate much of the liturgy in the original language! I find the worship of the Church to be utterly beautiful and moving. I can't wait until I can attend my first Orthodox service and participate (save the Eucharist, of course). I've been reading up on many practices of believers during the Liturgy in an attempt to understand as much as possible about what is going on in the service, although I'm sure I will not be fully prepared. I'm fine with that. The one thing that I have read in everything I've found that instructs newcomers about the Liturgy is that the Orthodox are corporate and personal in their worship, and it is very much a matter of the heart between the worshipper and God. I respect that. I love that. So much. I really can't express how excited I am about eventually experiencing it. I'm moved by the chants, which I find on YouTube from my computer...how much more will I be impacted when I witness the Divine Liturgy?Just start going and be willing to listen, learn and don't let what is probably quite alien steer you away from the Church. Give it time. The Church is very patient...it was w/ me.

[David Lindblom]

The Calvinist system is purely determinist, in my opinion. Any Calvinist understanding of "free will" renders the term meaningless. For instance, I have often read from Calvinists that the reprobates have "free will," it's just that they will always choose evil. Similarly, the elect will always choose God. In both cases, the determining factor in the choice is God's grace, or the lack thereof. It seems to me like attributing free will to a marionette. "He can walk wherever he wants to, but, unless I pull these strings, he won't."


This reminds me of the alleged quote by Henry Ford concerning the choices for colors for his new cars.

They can have them in any color they want...as long as it's black.

[Benjamin Amis]

I thank those of you who are trying to help me and have a discussion. However, those who only attack my belief...do you not read what I have already said? I feel like a broken record!

Paul, I assume you were never a Calvinist? If you were, you weren't taught it correctly. First of all, "Once Saved Always Saved" is not a doctrine I hold to. I profess the "Perseverence of the Saints." A very different doctrine. If you claim to be a believe, and then do horrible acts without regret, my doctrine says you were truly never saved to begin with. You will go to Hell. I do not believe in this "get-out-of-hell-free" card that people seem to think I do. As St. James says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." (James 2:14-18) We may profess faith, but faith that is not followed by deeds which are evident of a pure heart is counted as nothing.

Secondly, I don't believe every teacher of the Early Church agreed. Tertullian wasn't a fan of infant baptism. Pelagius and Augustine didn't get along too well. Yes, Pelagius was condemned, but we still do not uphold Augustine's teaching in the Orthodox Church, but the Church does seem to like John Cassian, who wrote up a compromise between the two positions, in spite of the fact that Augustine is the earlier Father. These are just a couple things, off the top of my head. I'm sure I could find more if I tried. My point is that, on the most important things, yes, the Church has agreed. But not on all points. And that's okay to me. I would be fine with keeping these beliefs of mine and worshiping with another believer that disagrees. We would still be worshiping as members of the One True Orthodox Church.

Herman, I will attempt to answer all of your posts that you've made since my last post right here in the following statements. If I miss something, please point it out to me, it wasn't my intention. The confession Paul refers to is the acceptance of Lordship over our lives. Is Satan doing that? I think not. Don't worry, I don't highlight in my Bible. ;-)

God does not choose us because we choose Him. That, is heresy in any church, even the Orthodox one. It must be the other way around. Now, do we have the ability to respond to God's call on our own or must He enable us? THAT is the crux of the argument. I say, no, we cannot respond without His prompting. Even IF He calls all people, He must first enable their response. I know I am saved, as much as any Christian can know it. I confess Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, just as you do. Those who do so genuinely are the elect. As far as I know you all, I consider each of you elect as fellow believers in Christ, and so I do consider you "Herman the predetermined Pooh". Those who do not profess His Name are not elect.

Mary. It is not partiality. We do not merit any favor from Him. There are no preconditions on the choice. It is a mystery. The Orthodox Church likes mysteries, no?

I have a brother. He is not a Christian. If it be God's will that my brother is damned to Hell. It is for His glory.

Ryan. I never said foreknowledge implies causation. That would be a logical fallacy, and I would be ashamed of it as a thinker. It is God's first act of creation that predetermines all things. He is the First Cause. The first domino in a cosmic Rube Goldberg machine, build all for the glory of the Lord. We do have free will, we could in theory reject God. However, God knows the heart and mind of every person. He knows what must be done in order to save any given soul, convincing the individual, freely, that He is Lord. Therefore, everyone God wills saved, is.

Monoenergism and monergism are completely different ideas. Monoenergis, of course, is the heresy that Christ is of "one energy." Monergism is contrasted with synergism, saying that it is only God that may work for the salvation of an individual, while synergism states that God and the man work together. I subscribe to a modified version in the middle of these two ideas. The individual does respond freely, but God must enable them by faith to accept the grace they are being given.

David, you're right. That is a contradiction. I will openly admit that God is the author of evil, the cause of sin and the fall of Satan. I have no problem with doing so. Simply put, God is making an example out of these cities, for His glory. I would love to expound upon that, and will gladly do so later, but it is 1 AM here and I should get to bed (I've been working on about three different things while typing up this message. It has taken me a while to get here, and would take me considerably longer to expound. I promise to do so later, however. I addressed the security of salvation earlier, so I won't say anything here. My link was only to post 54 in this thread, if you'd like to go back and read it.

I met with some catechumen acquaintances of mine and their priest today for lunch, and then tonight attended an Orthodox baptism tonight, for those who are interested. I went to St. Athanasius Orthodox Church (OCA). I plan on going back there for Liturgy on Sunday. It was a good experience. I'll talk more about it later, if anyone would like to hear about it. But, I am off to bed now. God bless you all.

[David Lindblom]

David, you're right. That is a contradiction. I will openly admit that God is the author of evil, the cause of sin and the fall of Satan. I have no problem with doing so. Simply put, God is making an example out of these cities, for His glory. I would love to expound upon that, and will gladly do so later, but it is 1 AM here and I should get to bed (I've been working on about three different things while typing up this message. It has taken me a while to get here, and would take me considerably longer to expound. I promise to do so later, however. I addressed the security of salvation earlier, so I won't say anything here. My link was only to post 54 in this thread, if you'd like to go back and read it.


Well, at least you're honest. Do you take this as far as R.C. Sproul Jr. does in saying that God created the un-elect for the sole purpose of having an outlet to vent His justice and wrath?

You seem like a very nice, mature guy who is honestly seeking. I pray for the best for you.

[Rick H.]

Do you take this as far as R.C. Sproul Jr. does in saying that God created the un-elect for the sole purpose of having an outlet to vent His justice and wrath?



Where does this quote come from David, I wonder if you can cite a work for this?

[Mary]

I thank those of you who are trying to help me and have a discussion. However, those who only attack my belief...do you not read what I have already said? I feel like a broken record!



Benjamin,

I need to get to work. Just a quick note:

We are not attacking your beliefs as in, we're trying to burn it up and destroy it and you along with it. We're looking at it from different angles, we're testing it, hopefully, along with you. And if we seem to be repeating ourselves, it's because we all see things a bit differently, and the same things need to be rephrased over and over and over again. So, please be patient. Also, you're not repeating yourself, you're rephrasing, and every time you answer a similar question again, I understand where you're coming from, a bit better.

You are here to test the Orthodox teachings, yes? And you're also here to see if your own beliefs are true or not, yes? In order to do that, everything we believe in must be shredded to bits to see if it holds true or if there are hidden lies in it. (Btw, this is an exciting process, that happens over and over in your life, as hidden lies and sins begin to emerge and you take them to confession - you start to fall in love with this shredding process...!)

And, you are right, that only God, through the Holy Spirit, can help us understand spiritual matters. Our discussions will be quite useless, just a lot of empty noise, if we didn't involve God in it. So, I'll be praying for you too.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Rick H.]

This is a great post Mary! It makes me wonder, for another thread possibly, do we see in the Church Fathers an understanding of the benefit(s) of dialogue such as we have here in terms of an inquirer of the faith?

[Michael Stickles]

Where does this quote come from David, I wonder if you can cite a work for this?

A quick search found a blog post (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/09/taking-calvinism-too-far-rc-sproul-jr%E2%80%99s-evil-creating-deity/) quoting Sproul as saying something like this in his book Almighty All Over; the primary references were from pages 51-57.

[Rick H.]

Very impressive Mike! Thanks!

I think I can see now what David supplied was a paraphrase on his part, but what is shared in the link you provided is very shocking on its own. I wonder what Papa Sproul thinks about junior's writing/thinking?

Either way thanks again for sharing your gift of google. :)

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I feel like a broken record! ... Now, do we have the ability to respond to God's call on our own or must He enable us? THAT is the crux of the argument.

Benjamin,

God enables all men to respond to His call, though only some do. THAT is the Christian answer: No matter what you've been through, no matter what you've been told, you still have the power to choose good or choose evil. Now consider this:

1) You are caught in a dialectical loop that allows you to draw only predetermined conclusions: “If God knows all and makes all, then God does all, enables all, and is responsible for all.” The logic in the loop makes sense if you stay within the loop, but it’s not the only way to look at things, and it tends to reduce God to a proposition one reasons from rather than a person one actually meets. This is not how God manifest Himself to us; He does not teach us to think dialectically, according to a pat system of ifs and thens.

2) The problem with your dialectic (and with Calvinism in general) is that it starts with a mystery beyond comprehension — the infinite power and knowledge of God — and reasons from there to a completely mechanistic system, in which we are all merely fated for good or for ill. This is presumptuous, to say the least, in that it requires us to assume God’s view of world without God’s infinite powers of comprehension. God, in His mercy, knows our limits and has taught us to take a different view, one which allows for free will. That, as a matter of historical fact, is the teaching of the first Church.

3) The results of your dialectic are: (a) an evil god, a god who creates evil, who enables evil, who empowers evil, who delights in evil (else why would he create it), who creates other beings to do his evil and then punishes them throughout eternity for doing just what he made them do; (b) more presumption, this time as to who is elect and who is not, with you and every other Calvinist presuming themselves to be elect. Taken together, these two results are a terrible invitation to pride of self and contempt for others. They run directly counter to Orthodox Christian faith, which teaches us to see ourselves in sinners, to see Christ in all, and to believe in a loving God who allows but does not commit evil because He wants us to be glorious free-willing beings like Him.

There are other results of your dialectic (a limited god who cannot create randomness or free will; a tyrannical trinity in which there is no free will or equality because the son and spirit can only do what the father tells them to do), but the two results in (3) above should be enough to show why God does not intend for us to see things as you do or teach your doctrine to others. Yours is a wicked doctrine which has in history created brutal, oppressive tyrannies. Not all Calvinists are wicked, of course, because they still preserve other traditions that soften their hearts, and because most Calvinists (in my experience) are not actually good Calvinists — they just grew up Presbyterian or fell in with some nice Presbyterians who were themselves bad Calvinists. You, however, seem to actually like your logically wicked god and to prefer him to the loving God of Christianity, which is why you have not been able to get outside the loop and think freely.

I’m sure what you really like is the logically easy answer. People like easy answers, so they buy into some system that solves everything for them. They become Marxists or libertarians or Calvinists, and take pride in believing they are among the moral and intellectual elite who know and accept the truth. But their truth is always a recent invention prone to problems because it doesn't fit real life. Yours is, too. Until you see that, you won’t get anywhere, and we won’t get anywhere with you.

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

[Benjamin Amis]

Greetings all,

Sorry I disappeared as I did, and sorry I haven't answered the last post yet, my semester picked up for a little while!

That said, I've been attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church (OCA) in Nicholasville, KY for nearly two weeks, and I love it. I'm still working through my beliefs, but I really have fallen in love with the history and liturgy of the Church.

I'll gladly reply to Dn. Patrick shortly, as I still disagree with him, but I simply don't have the time right now (I don't even have a computer of my own for the time being, I'm in the school library!). I just wanted to send you all a quick message and let you know that I haven't disappeared, nor have I ran away from Orthodoxy back into the Protestant church.

[David Lindblom]

Greetings all,

Sorry I disappeared as I did, and sorry I haven't answered the last post yet, my semester picked up for a little while!

That said, I've been attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church (OCA) in Nicholasville, KY for nearly two weeks, and I love it. I'm still working through my beliefs, but I really have fallen in love with the history and liturgy of the Church.

I'll gladly reply to Dn. Patrick shortly, as I still disagree with him, but I simply don't have the time right now (I don't even have a computer of my own for the time being, I'm in the school library!). I just wanted to send you all a quick message and let you know that I haven't disappeared, nor have I ran away from Orthodoxy back into the Protestant church.

Very glad to hear it. Look forward to hearing from you.

[Benjamin Amis]

Benjamin,

God enables all men to respond to His call, though only some do. THAT is the Christian answer: No matter what you've been through, no matter what you've been told, you still have the power to choose good or choose evil. Now consider this:

1) You are caught in a dialectical loop that allows you to draw only predetermined conclusions: “If God knows all and makes all, then God does all, enables all, and is responsible for all.” The logic in the loop makes sense if you stay within the loop, but it’s not the only way to look at things, and it tends to reduce God to a proposition one reasons from rather than a person one actually meets. This is not how God manifest Himself to us; He does not teach us to think dialectically, according to a pat system of ifs and thens.

2) The problem with your dialectic (and with Calvinism in general) is that it starts with a mystery beyond comprehension — the infinite power and knowledge of God — and reasons from there to a completely mechanistic system, in which we are all merely fated for good or for ill. This is presumptuous, to say the least, in that it requires us to assume God’s view of world without God’s infinite powers of comprehension. God, in His mercy, knows our limits and has taught us to take a different view, one which allows for free will. That, as a matter of historical fact, is the teaching of the first Church.

3) The results of your dialectic are: (a) an evil god, a god who creates evil, who enables evil, who empowers evil, who delights in evil (else why would he create it), who creates other beings to do his evil and then punishes them throughout eternity for doing just what he made them do; (b) more presumption, this time as to who is elect and who is not, with you and every other Calvinist presuming themselves to be elect. Taken together, these two results are a terrible invitation to pride of self and contempt for others. They run directly counter to Orthodox Christian faith, which teaches us to see ourselves in sinners, to see Christ in all, and to believe in a loving God who allows but does not commit evil because He wants us to be glorious free-willing beings like Him.

There are other results of your dialectic (a limited god who cannot create randomness or free will; a tyrannical trinity in which there is no free will or equality because the son and spirit can only do what the father tells them to do), but the two results in (3) above should be enough to show why God does not intend for us to see things as you do or teach your doctrine to others. Yours is a wicked doctrine which has in history created brutal, oppressive tyrannies. Not all Calvinists are wicked, of course, because they still preserve other traditions that soften their hearts, and because most Calvinists (in my experience) are not actually good Calvinists — they just grew up Presbyterian or fell in with some nice Presbyterians who were themselves bad Calvinists. You, however, seem to actually like your logically wicked god and to prefer him to the loving God of Christianity, which is why you have not been able to get outside the loop and think freely.

I’m sure what you really like is the logically easy answer. People like easy answers, so they buy into some system that solves everything for them. They become Marxists or libertarians or Calvinists, and take pride in believing they are among the moral and intellectual elite who know and accept the truth. But their truth is always a recent invention prone to problems because it doesn't fit real life. Yours is, too. Until you see that, you won’t get anywhere, and we won’t get anywhere with you.

In Christ,

Dn. Patrick

I have some free time right now, and so I will answer this. First, however, let me say that you have insulted me, you have attacked me, called me "wicked" and attacked me ad hominem. You are not displaying this love of Christ that you seem to hold so dear, but instead yelling at an honest inquirer who is glad he did not come to your parish. For you surely would have ran me off in your close-mindedness. Now, that said, I will explain my side of the argument, hopefully better this time, so that you may genuinely understand where I am coming from.

Your first point is a statement, not an argument. I can't reason through it because there is no reason, you're taking it upon yourself to dictate to me what God is and is not. If I attempt to argue here, all that will happen is a "yuh-huh" and a "nuh-uh" fight.

Your second point. Yes, my argument is attempting to make sense of a theological concept. That's kind of the point. We cannot fully understand God, no, but in my human undersanding this is the best I can reason. Further, I'm perfectly fine with accepting the Mysteries of the Orthodox faith, but that doesn't mean we just shouldn't try to have some kind of understanding. The only reason we're not arguing the mystery of baptism is because it's not a mystery I'm currently inclined to think on heavily. Ultimately, my doctrine does admit a mystery of God, who is and isn't elect? We don't know. God saves and condemns who he wishes. Not that Some who directly reject God and follow not His teachings shall be saved, but rather that God can act in the heart of anyone he chooses and bring them into eternal life.

Your third point proves to me that you truly do not understand where I am coming from, nor do you understand standard Calvinistic doctrine (from which I differ). We cannot think of God as "good", just as we cannot think of God as "love." We have an idea of love that is psychological and fuzzy: that is not God. We have an idea of good that is happy-go-lucky: that is not God. Surely God is infinitely good, but what does that mean? No, God created this world and knew all that would happen. If he did not desire it, on some level, to happen as it has, it would not have: He is omnipotent, is He not? Surely God's goodness is truly, as you say, beyond our comprehension. Every Calvinist should assume CHRISTIANS to be elect, not just other Calvinists. I believe you to be elect, for example. You also seem to assume that I believe, as many westerners do, that salvation is a one-time act of praying some prayer. I've never heard something sillier. Yes, God acts first and brings us to the knowledge that He is God and we are sinners and we have salvation in Jesus Christ, but we do not stop there. From there, we must work with God, daily, to develop a relationship with Him so we may grow spiritually and come more and more to partake of the divine nature. This is theosis. We should not be prideful as elect, we should be humbled that God has revealed Himself to us, and now we know what great sinners we are, and we must endeavor to work with God, synergia, allowing Him to mold us as the potter molds his clay.

God create randomness? That doesn't even make sense. Nothing can be random to God because He knows all things, unless He does not know all things, but then He is not omniscient and we are talking like liberal open theists. Surely the denial of God's omniscient is not Orthodox teaching? I hope not. I also have no problem we free will, I believe in it. I do not believe that God eliminates free will, but I believe that God, in His omniscience, knows the heart and mind of every person and knows, perfectly, how to interact with any given person. I also do not know where you get the idea of a tyrannical trinity which is ruled solidly by the Father. This is not true. For the Trinity submits to one another in mutual love and submission. They are co-equal. The Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, but He does not rule over them.

I will not address the blatant assault on my person in the last section of this point, or your last paragraph, as it's just one long insult that you daringly attach "In Christ" to for your salutation. I do hope, however, that you now have a better understanding of where I'm coming from before and can discuss with me politely, instead of yelling down at me.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Benjamin,

I did not call you wicked; I called your “doctrine” wicked, and I made it quite plain that most people who embrace similarly wicked Calvinistic doctrines are not as wicked as their beliefs. I stand by my accusation. I wrote what I wrote as a reproach for what you wrote:


I will openly admit that God is the author of evil, the cause of sin and the fall of Satan. I have no problem with doing so.

We don’t talk that way about God. It’s not the way our dialectic works. We say other things about God, taught to us by the Scriptures, where we read, among other things, that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) You, however, say:


We cannot think of God as "good," just as we cannot think of God as "love."

I understand the point you are trying to make, but in making your points you are saying things that most Orthodox Christians would find appalling and, yes, wicked. God as the “author of evil”? Anathema. “We cannot think of God as ‘good’”? Anathema. “We cannot think of God as ‘love’”? Anathema.

You and I could have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion of the philosophical problem of omniscience and free will, but the more you say about “my doctrine” the farther away you seem. The word doctrine literally means “teaching,” and your repeated use of it sounds odd and arrogant, as if you already know the truth and aren’t open to other ideas.

Our doctrine is a way of life, a way of worshipping God and sharing Him with others. We don't tell others that God is the author of evil; we tell them that God is good and that God is love, and sometimes we tell people plainly that they are wrong and are saying things that shouldn't be said.

In the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Dn. Patrick

[Shaun M.]

Greetings all,

Sorry I disappeared as I did, and sorry I haven't answered the last post yet, my semester picked up for a little while!

That said, I've been attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church (OCA) in Nicholasville, KY for nearly two weeks, and I love it. I'm still working through my beliefs, but I really have fallen in love with the history and liturgy of the Church.

I'll gladly reply to Dn. Patrick shortly, as I still disagree with him, but I simply don't have the time right now (I don't even have a computer of my own for the time being, I'm in the school library!). I just wanted to send you all a quick message and let you know that I haven't disappeared, nor have I ran away from Orthodoxy back into the Protestant church.


Mr. Amis,

I'm in the process of converting myself, though a little farther along than you, I will be received into the Church this Saturday (the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple) through holy Chrism. My process of conversion took a year and a half, and was the conclusion of a lifelong search, so I understand that it takes time. The heavenly worship at the divine services is definitely the most compelling part, especially for visitors (though I have to admit, my first time at an orthodox liturgy I was completely bored). Anyhow, all that to say, the process of conversion is long and difficult, and your patience in bearing criticisms of your belief is commendable.

Back on the subject of this thread, Calvinism is a very logical system, it begins with certain assumptions about God and man and then draws conclusions from those through a series of logical steps. Anotherwards, it's more like a philosophy than a revelation. And a philosophy based not on prayer, but on human reason. This seems very dangerous ground. "Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8) I am not saying one cannot think or try to understand what is revealed, of course we should, but based on revelation and not the philosophies of men.

Of course it doesn't seem like human philosophy while you hold to it, which is the very conundrum. My imperfect understanding is there are two basic steps to interpreting a biblical text, obedience and prayer. Human reason having a limited role if any. Unfortunately I am far too sinful to be much help understanding a mystery like God's providence, but the advice others have given (and you have taken up) of attending the divine services is probably the best. But the fundamental disagreement here does not seem be to calvinism per se, but rather the doctrine of "the Bible alone." That the Bible coupled with human reason is all sufficient. Unfortunately the role of Scripture is a topic beyond this thread, but it does seem something you may want to consider.

"I also have no problem we free will, I believe in it. I do not believe that God eliminates free will, but I believe that God, in His omniscience, knows the heart and mind of every person and knows, perfectly, how to interact with any given person. I also do not know where you get the idea of a tyrannical trinity which is ruled solidly by the Father. This is not true. For the Trinity submits to one another in mutual love and submission. They are co-equal. The Son and the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, but He does not rule over them."

I found this statement very interesting. First, you say you believe in free will, and how you describe it you seem to actually mean that. The understanding being that God providentially arranges someone to come to faith, rather than coercing them? And that, being God, he does so perfectly (obviously). This seems to be correct, and may even be what the Scriptures refer to as "predestination," but it obviously leaves room for the human heart to refuse him if it so chooses (otherwise we'd be back to coercion). I must be misunderstanding you somewhere, because a belief like that is not what anyone would term "Calvinist." Would you mind clarifying?

Shaun

[David Lindblom]

I have some free time right now, and so I will answer this. First, however, let me say that you have insulted me, you have attacked me, called me "wicked" and attacked me ad hominem. You are not displaying this love of Christ that you seem to hold so dear, but instead yelling at an honest inquirer who is glad he did not come to your parish. For you surely would have ran me off in your close-mindedness.

All of us who have come into the Church from Protestantism have carried baggage w/ us. It takes time to work through this. It's never easy to let go of long held beliefs. Some of this baggage is of the minor, less important kind...other baggage is not. What Fr Brian has told you is not meant to be insulting but, perhaps, of the tough love variety of dialogue. It is a good thing you are attending an Orthodox church w/ the intention of possibly becoming Orthodox. But, Fr Brian is right...sooner or later you're going to hit a brick wall between your Calvinist beliefs and the Church. The particulars of Calvinism have never been accepted by the Church. It's going to come down to either you renouncing these beliefs or not becoming Orthodox. It's like a catchumen at our church. She had been intending for some time to be Orthodox and had been attending catachumen classes. But there was one problem. She held to a belief in reincarnation. Numerous people over time dealt w/ her on this issue and tried to show her how both biblically and historically the Church has never accepting this. Finally our head priest just broke down and told her that she could not be Orthodox and also hold to such a non-Christian belief like reincarnation. He lovingly gave her the choice...Orthodoxy or your belief. She made her choice and walked away and we haven't seen her since. Hopefully that'll change. I hope this will not be the case for you. We're not picking on you we're just trying to be up front and honest w/ you concerning your Calvinist beliefs and the truths of the historic faith. You also have to admit that if you stated what you did about God being the author of evil most of Prostestant Christianity would also reject that...vehemently even. So we are not alone in this.

I have prayed for you and will continue to do so.

[Benjamin Amis]

Benjamin,

I did not call you wicked; I called your “doctrine” wicked, and I made it quite plain that most people who embrace similarly wicked Calvinistic doctrines are not as wicked as their beliefs. I stand by my accusation. I wrote what I wrote as a reproach for what you wrote:



We don’t talk that way about God. It’s not the way our dialectic works. We say other things about God, taught to us by the Scriptures, where we read, among other things, that “God is love.” (1 John 4:8) You, however, say:



I understand the point you are trying to make, but in making your points you are saying things that most Orthodox Christians would find appalling and, yes, wicked. God as the “author of evil”? Anathema. “We cannot think of God as ‘good’”? Anathema. “We cannot think of God as ‘love’”? Anathema.

You and I could have a reasoned, dispassionate discussion of the philosophical problem of omniscience and free will, but the more you say about “my doctrine” the farther away you seem. The word doctrine literally means “teaching,” and your repeated use of it sounds odd and arrogant, as if you already know the truth and aren’t open to other ideas.

Our doctrine is a way of life, a way of worshiping God and sharing Him with others. We don't tell others that God is the author of evil; we tell them that God is good and that God is love, and sometimes we tell people plainly that they are wrong and are saying things that shouldn't be said.

In the Way, the Truth, and the Life, Dn. Patrick

Then I have misunderstood you and apologize. Unfortunately, I believe you continue to misunderstand me.

I did not say God is not good, nor did I say God is not love. Yes, to say those things are anathema and I don't believe them. However, to say that all God is, is love...this fluffy idea of squishiness...is nothing more than seeker-sensitive Christianity that is peddled as true Gospel in Protestant megachurches everywhere. Yes, God is love...but that love is tough. We are sinful and He loves us in a way that will break us, that will put us through the wringer. Why? Because He disciplines who He loves (Pro. 3:12, Heb. 12:6).

Also, we cannot define God's goodness as this ethereal feel-goodness for the same reasons. Yes, God is good. God is infinitely good. But what does that mean? If an omnipotent God is infinitely good, wouldn't He fix everything and not send anyone to hell but openly and directly reveal Himself so that we would all believe in Him and live forever? One would think so, if He is the good that excludes all bad. But, just as proper love does not exclude pain, perhaps proper goodness must also have suffering?

As far as the term "doctrine" is concerned...I see no problem. It is a teaching...a teaching that I hold and believe. Whether you accept it or not as right teaching (literally, orthodoxy) may be debated...but it is a teaching. It is what I believe, firmly...but I'm here to honestly test it. That's all I want. I'm not here to sound arrogant or distant. I want a frank, honest discussion concerning belief.

My doctrine is just as much a way of my life...it is essential to my understanding of who God is and therefore my relationship with Him and by extension with others. God is love. God is good. But He is also the sovereign Lord and Creator of ALL things...we have to acknowledge that, or we do God a disservice.


All of us who have come into the Church from Protestantism have carried baggage w/ us. It takes time to work through this. It's never easy to let go of long held beliefs. Some of this baggage is of the minor, less important kind...other baggage is not. What Fr Brian has told you is not meant to be insulting but, perhaps, of the tough love variety of dialogue. It is a good thing you are attending an Orthodox church w/ the intention of possibly becoming Orthodox. But, Fr Brian is right...sooner or later you're going to hit a brick wall between your Calvinist beliefs and the Church. The particulars of Calvinism have never been accepted by the Church. It's going to come down to either you renouncing these beliefs or not becoming Orthodox. It's like a catchumen at our church. She had been intending for some time to be Orthodox and had been attending catachumen classes. But there was one problem. She held to a belief in reincarnation. Numerous people over time dealt w/ her on this issue and tried to show her how both biblically and historically the Church has never accepting this. Finally our head priest just broke down and told her that she could not be Orthodox and also hold to such a non-Christian belief like reincarnation. He lovingly gave her the choice...Orthodoxy or your belief. She made her choice and walked away and we haven't seen her since. Hopefully that'll change. I hope this will not be the case for you. We're not picking on you we're just trying to be up front and honest w/ you concerning your Calvinist beliefs and the truths of the historic faith. You also have to admit that if you stated what you did about God being the author of evil most of Protestant Christianity would also reject that...vehemently even. So we are not alone in this.

I have prayed for you and will continue to do so.

As far as the particulars of Calvinism are concerned...I probably don't hold them...not as you're defining them. I come out with a similar result, but my reasoning is very different and I take offense at quite a few things Calvin said. He's was an intelligent man, but he was certainly wrong on more than one count. I also understand that what I have said is quite shocking...for ANY Christian, whether they do not believe it or because they are inconsistent in their faith (as many are).

As far as tough love...it's not done well over the internet. No offense to anyone, but I have a priest here that I will seek tough love from. I'm here for a discussion to help me work through things intellectually. I appreciate that others may be trying to help...but please, just discuss the issue itself with me...at least for now.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

I'm here for a discussion to help me work through things intellectually. I appreciate that others may be trying to help...but please, just discuss the issue itself with me...at least for now.

Benjamin,

What everyone here is telling you is that to work through this issue intellectually you must understand the origin of your own doctrine and admit its limits. Like Calvin, you have started with a written text detached from its original community and interpretive tradition. From that text, you have selected certain precepts and begun to reason philosophically from them. Your reasoning has led you to certain beliefs and expressions that are plainly contrary to the ancient Faith of the first Church. You have come to us for help in working things through, but you seem only willing to work the issue through the same way every time, beginning with the same precepts and proceeding in the same way from them.

Our approach to wisdom is very different. We start with a living communion of persons, begun by Christ with His Apostles and carried on faithfully through the centuries to this present day. That communion has produced the texts both you and we are using, but it has also shown us how to use them, and it is our use of them that, both, forms our understanding of the many awesome mysteries of our Faith, and, informs the way we speak about them, our particular dialectic. It puts ideas such as predestination, election, and free will into the proper perspective, telling us what and how much to make of them. It does not solve all logical problems anymore than any strictly philosophical system does, but it does show us how God wants us to regard Him and keep us from following our own limited and faulty reason into such absurdities as you have plainly written.

Given these two very different approaches, it makes no sense for us to set aside our approach to enter into a strictly philosophical discussion with you within the limits of your doctrine, because for us “the issue itself” is the rational rut you’re in, the terrible conclusions it forces you to draw (evident in your own words), and our offer of an alternative approach to truth, which has been the basis of Christian faith from the beginning.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Benjamin Amis]

I found this statement very interesting. First, you say you believe in free will, and how you describe it you seem to actually mean that. The understanding being that God providentially arranges someone to come to faith, rather than coercing them? And that, being God, he does so perfectly (obviously). This seems to be correct, and may even be what the Scriptures refer to as "predestination," but it obviously leaves room for the human heart to refuse him if it so chooses (otherwise we'd be back to coercion). I must be misunderstanding you somewhere, because a belief like that is not what anyone would term "Calvinist." Would you mind clarifying?

Shaun

Shaun,

I would LOVE to clarify what I mean here, because this is were the very traditionalist Calvinists get mad at me and tell me that I'm not really a Calvinist. I've actually recently been looking for a better term to use to describe my view of predestination. Perhaps simply "Augustinian?" I don't know. Let me clarify, and maybe you can tell me.

Jonathan Edwards once said, to paraphrase, "God may drag us into heaven, kicking and screaming." Now, I've read quite a bit of Edwards, and I respect him. He has many good insights, but I cannot agree with this statement. It is not what the Bible teaches, it is not what the Fathers taught. Even Augustine would balk at this notion.

Let me be completely clear: God does not coerce or force anyone to accept Him. That said, coming to God is a synergistic act that takes a lifetime. We are saved daily through the process of theosis, becoming more and more like God as we learn to lean upon Him for all our sustenance and begin to partake of the divine energy of God that enables us to escape our fallen (but not sinful) nature.

What I hold as truth, is that God elects someone to heaven. Then, He reveals Himself to them in some fashion. As we sing, "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord." How God does this is not prescribed. People have very different conversion stories that range from slowly falling into the Church and follow Christ all the way to miraculous witnesses and visions of our Lord, as St. Paul had. The point being that God, when He elects a person (which, God being outside of time, He has elected all people that shall be saved already, we must only wait for His glorious plan to come to fruition in our lives) and reveals Himself to us, He knows our minds and our hearts. He knows what influences our choices and what will convince us, of our own free will, to accept Him. So, God comes to us and offers His grace, but we cannot accept it of our own ability, He must enable us with faith that is from Him (Gal 2:8-10). We receive that faith He gives us, and through it we accept His grace. Now, surely God does not give us a faith that is insufficient, does He? For does that mean God is insufficient. May it not be so! For God is sufficient for us in all of our weaknesses (2 Cor 12:9). Therefore, God will surely grant us a faith that is sufficient if He wills our salvation and will lovingly hold our hand and guide us in the way that we should walk (Prov 3:5-6), for we are His children.

And so, while we require God's election, since we cannot save ourselves (for this heresy Pelagius was excommunicated from the Church), we are not overridden by Him, but convinced, truly, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6) and so He empowers us in this way to take up our crosses and follow him (Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27).

Maybe this will shed some more light on what I'm trying to say here. I pray it does.

[Shaun M.]

Shaun,

I would LOVE to clarify what I mean here, because this is were the very traditionalist Calvinists get mad at me and tell me that I'm not really a Calvinist. I've actually recently been looking for a better term to use to describe my view of predestination. Perhaps simply "Augustinian?" I don't know. Let me clarify, and maybe you can tell me.

Jonathan Edwards once said, to paraphrase, "God may drag us into heaven, kicking and screaming." Now, I've read quite a bit of Edwards, and I respect him. He has many good insights, but I cannot agree with this statement. It is not what the Bible teaches, it is not what the Fathers taught. Even Augustine would balk at this notion.

Let me be completely clear: God does not coerce or force anyone to accept Him. That said, coming to God is a synergistic act that takes a lifetime. We are saved daily through the process of theosis, becoming more and more like God as we learn to lean upon Him for all our sustenance and begin to partake of the divine energy of God that enables us to escape our fallen (but not sinful) nature.

What I hold as truth, is that God elects someone to heaven. Then, He reveals Himself to them in some fashion. As we sing, "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord." How God does this is not prescribed. People have very different conversion stories that range from slowly falling into the Church and follow Christ all the way to miraculous witnesses and visions of our Lord, as St. Paul had. The point being that God, when He elects a person (which, God being outside of time, He has elected all people that shall be saved already, we must only wait for His glorious plan to come to fruition in our lives) and reveals Himself to us, He knows our minds and our hearts. He knows what influences our choices and what will convince us, of our own free will, to accept Him. So, God comes to us and offers His grace, but we cannot accept it of our own ability, He must enable us with faith that is from Him (Gal 2:8-10). We receive that faith He gives us, and through it we accept His grace. Now, surely God does not give us a faith that is insufficient, does He? For does that mean God is insufficient. May it not be so! For God is sufficient for us in all of our weaknesses (2 Cor 12:9). Therefore, God will surely grant us a faith that is sufficient if He wills our salvation and will lovingly hold our hand and guide us in the way that we should walk (Prov 3:5-6), for we are His children.

And so, while we require God's election, since we cannot save ourselves (for this heresy Pelagius was excommunicated from the Church), we are not overridden by Him, but convinced, truly, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6) and so He empowers us in this way to take up our crosses and follow him (Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27).

Maybe this will shed some more light on what I'm trying to say here. I pray it does.

Mr Amis,

This does not sound like Calvinism to me. Though, I'm only familiar with "TULIP," and that's probably an oversimplification in the first place. Unless I misunderstand the issue entirely, this actually seems closer to the orthodox perspective. The one point that needs clarification still; you say the faith God gives us is sufficient (of course it is, else God's mercy would be a joke), but do you mean by this that we have no choice but to act on that faith, or that this faith is enough to offer us the choice to repent or not? In other words, God's mercy is free and sufficient for salvation (I doubt anyone would dispute that), but do you mean to say he stacks things so that we don't have the option of refusing him, or that he brings us to a point where we have the option to either accept or reject him? Would you clarify please? Thanks.

Shaun

PS - I didn't mean to sound like salvation is an instantaneous point, just to clarify our role in the process.

[David Lindblom]

Mr Amis,

This does not sound like Calvinism to me. Though, I'm only familiar with "TULIP," and that's probably an oversimplification in the first place. Unless I misunderstand the issue entirely, this actually seems closer to the orthodox perspective. The one point that needs clarification still; you say the faith God gives us is sufficient (of course it is, else God's mercy would be a joke), but do you mean by this that we have no choice but to act on that faith, or that this faith is enough to offer us the choice to repent or not? In other words, God's mercy is free and sufficient for salvation (I doubt anyone would dispute that), but do you mean to say he stacks things so that we don't have the option of refusing him, or that he brings us to a point where we have the option to either accept or reject him? Would you clarify please? Thanks.

Shaun

PS - I didn't mean to sound like salvation is an instantaneous point, just to clarify our role in the process.

While put in much nicer terms it is still presenting the teaching that God does not offer salvation to all, just to a hand picked minority. It still, subtly, hangs onto to the mistaken notion that somehow it is a negative reflection on God if He offers salvation to someone that rejects it. That if He gives someone the gift of faith it simply will bring about that person's salvation no matter what and to not do so is somehow God's fault. It still leaves no room for true human freedom to receive or reject salvation. This is also the same kind of reasoning that brings him to the conclusion that evil must be God's doing. If free will were really believed then it would be understood that evil is the fault of the evil doer. Because of this it is not Orthodox teaching.

[Mary]

Let me be completely clear: God does not coerce or force anyone to accept Him. That said, coming to God is a synergistic act that takes a lifetime. We are saved daily through the process of theosis, becoming more and more like God as we learn to lean upon Him for all our sustenance and begin to partake of the divine energy of God that enables us to escape our fallen (but not sinful) nature.

What I hold as truth, is that God elects someone to heaven. Then, He reveals Himself to them in some fashion. As we sing, "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord." How God does this is not prescribed. People have very different conversion stories that range from slowly falling into the Church and follow Christ all the way to miraculous witnesses and visions of our Lord, as St. Paul had. The point being that God, when He elects a person (which, God being outside of time, He has elected all people that shall be saved already, we must only wait for His glorious plan to come to fruition in our lives) and reveals Himself to us, He knows our minds and our hearts. He knows what influences our choices and what will convince us, of our own free will, to accept Him. So, God comes to us and offers His grace, but we cannot accept it of our own ability, He must enable us with faith that is from Him (Gal 2:8-10). We receive that faith He gives us, and through it we accept His grace. Now, surely God does not give us a faith that is insufficient, does He? For does that mean God is insufficient. May it not be so! For God is sufficient for us in all of our weaknesses (2 Cor 12:9). Therefore, God will surely grant us a faith that is sufficient if He wills our salvation and will lovingly hold our hand and guide us in the way that we should walk (Prov 3:5-6), for we are His children.

And so, while we require God's election, since we cannot save ourselves (for this heresy Pelagius was excommunicated from the Church), we are not overridden by Him, but convinced, truly, that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6) and so He empowers us in this way to take up our crosses and follow him (Matt 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27).

Maybe this will shed some more light on what I'm trying to say here. I pray it does.

Hi Benjamin,

I'm SO glad you have been able to attend an orthodox service, and I'm glad you like it. I hope you'll continue to attend. It takes forever to soak it all in. =)

Some of what you've said above is quite sensible. But other things don't make any sense at all. It is true that we cannot save ourselves, and without God's help, we can't even believe in him. But I still don't understand what makes you think God only reveals himself to some and not to all. There's something in what you believe, that gets twisted somewhere, and leads you to conclude that God is the author of both good and evil. And yet, you say, God is love and God is good. How can that be?

You said in an earlier post that because of our limited understanding, although we talk about 'love' and 'goodness', we don't have a complete understanding of it, especially in relation to God's love and goodness. You are so right. We cannot conceive of a love that is at the same time just and pure and holy and merciful, because it's too big for us to fathom. And yet, we're not fully in the dark. We have many ways of knowing in what direction God's love is headed.

For instance, He cannot tell us to not show partiality, and then turn around and do so Himself. He cannot tell us to forgive 70 times 7 and then, refuse to forgive us. He cannot tell us to turn the other cheek and then blast us for hitting him.

His love isn't a mushy squishy kind of love. Even in humans, there is nothing real about such love, it's just a bunch of selfish sentimentality. I hope, none of us, when we speak of God's love, are thinking of such emotional attachments. God's discipline isn't punishment, in the way that protestants understand it. He doesn't treat us like criminals that need to go through some kind of rehab so we turn into perfect heavenly citizens.

God heals us of our sinfulness. He is not angry and he is not upset and he is not resentful. He is kind and gentle. But getting rid of sin in our life, is a long and painful process, just like getting rid of cancer. Just like a doctor does not hate a patient whose life he is trying to save, so, God does not hate the sinner whom he is trying to save. And to think that God will only heal some and not others, is so contrary to who God is! Does a fallible human doctor refuse to treat a patient even if he knows the patient won't live?

None of us is more human than the other, none of us are more in the image of God than the other. We all have an equal chance of responding to Him, or else none of us will be saved.

Other than that, I don't have much to say. I would never have dared to explore orthodoxy online! I had my beliefs ripped apart by a friend, but I already knew he was a friend, so I never misunderstood his 'tough love'. But then, he only had to rip one thing, and that got me going against my own beliefs, to test every thing I knew, to see if it really was as I always thought it was or if the orthodox way of looking at things was more consistent. I found it to be, not only more consistent, but also more true to the character of God, a thing that protestants have trouble with, because they cannot think of Love and Justice side by side, amongst so many other things.

in Christ,
Mary

[Shaun M.]

While put in much nicer terms it is still presenting the teaching that God does not offer salvation to all, just to a hand picked minority. It still, subtly, hangs onto to the mistaken notion that somehow it is a negative reflection on God if He offers salvation to someone that rejects it. That if He gives someone the gift of faith it simply will bring about that person's salvation no matter what and to not do so is somehow God's fault. It still leaves no room for true human freedom to receive or reject salvation. This is also the same kind of reasoning that brings him to the conclusion that evil must be God's doing. If free will were really believed then it would be understood that evil is the fault of the evil doer. Because of this it is not Orthodox teaching.

Mr Lindblom,

You are right, I should probably not speak for what is 'orthodox' on a question that I do not fully understand the answer to.

Shaun

[Benjamin Amis]

While put in much nicer terms it is still presenting the teaching that God does not offer salvation to all, just to a hand picked minority. It still, subtly, hangs onto to the mistaken notion that somehow it is a negative reflection on God if He offers salvation to someone that rejects it. That if He gives someone the gift of faith it simply will bring about that person's salvation no matter what and to not do so is somehow God's fault. It still leaves no room for true human freedom to receive or reject salvation. This is also the same kind of reasoning that brings him to the conclusion that evil must be God's doing. If free will were really believed then it would be understood that evil is the fault of the evil doer. Because of this it is not Orthodox teaching.

Untrue. Human freedom is surely included. I do not say that an individual cannot reject God, I say that an individual will not reject God. They are free to reject, but God, being perfect, proves Himself as the Lord to them, and they accept Him of their own free will, through the faith He enables within them.

Further, I never said that evil is not the fault of the evil doer. We do evil things freely, and we are guilty of those things when we do them and must confess our sins. However, God does permit evil and created, knowingly, the circumstances that would bring this world (and ergo this evil) into existence. That point simply cannot be argued, lest we deny the omnipotent and omniscient abilities of God.


Hi Benjamin,

I'm SO glad you have been able to attend an orthodox service, and I'm glad you like it. I hope you'll continue to attend. It takes forever to soak it all in. =)

Some of what you've said above is quite sensible. But other things don't make any sense at all. It is true that we cannot save ourselves, and without God's help, we can't even believe in him. But I still don't understand what makes you think God only reveals himself to some and not to all. There's something in what you believe, that gets twisted somewhere, and leads you to conclude that God is the author of both good and evil. And yet, you say, God is love and God is good. How can that be?

You said in an earlier post that because of our limited understanding, although we talk about 'love' and 'goodness', we don't have a complete understanding of it, especially in relation to God's love and goodness. You are so right. We cannot conceive of a love that is at the same time just and pure and holy and merciful, because it's too big for us to fathom. And yet, we're not fully in the dark. We have many ways of knowing in what direction God's love is headed.

For instance, He cannot tell us to not show partiality, and then turn around and do so Himself. He cannot tell us to forgive 70 times 7 and then, refuse to forgive us. He cannot tell us to turn the other cheek and then blast us for hitting him.

His love isn't a mushy squishy kind of love. Even in humans, there is nothing real about such love, it's just a bunch of selfish sentimentality. I hope, none of us, when we speak of God's love, are thinking of such emotional attachments. God's discipline isn't punishment, in the way that protestants understand it. He doesn't treat us like criminals that need to go through some kind of rehab so we turn into perfect heavenly citizens.

God heals us of our sinfulness. He is not angry and he is not upset and he is not resentful. He is kind and gentle. But getting rid of sin in our life, is a long and painful process, just like getting rid of cancer. Just like a doctor does not hate a patient whose life he is trying to save, so, God does not hate the sinner whom he is trying to save. And to think that God will only heal some and not others, is so contrary to who God is! Does a fallible human doctor refuse to treat a patient even if he knows the patient won't live?

None of us is more human than the other, none of us are more in the image of God than the other. We all have an equal chance of responding to Him, or else none of us will be saved.

Other than that, I don't have much to say. I would never have dared to explore orthodoxy online! I had my beliefs ripped apart by a friend, but I already knew he was a friend, so I never misunderstood his 'tough love'. But then, he only had to rip one thing, and that got me going against my own beliefs, to test every thing I knew, to see if it really was as I always thought it was or if the orthodox way of looking at things was more consistent. I found it to be, not only more consistent, but also more true to the character of God, a thing that protestants have trouble with, because they cannot think of Love and Justice side by side, amongst so many other things.

in Christ,
Mary

I really have enjoyed my time in Orthodox worship. It's not really a matter of me knowing that Orthodoxy is the One True Church anymore. It's a matter of me trying to fit into it.

My believe in particular redemption (that God only saves some and not all) hangs on the belief that God could save all if He desired, because He can perfectly convince any person of their own free will to follow Him. Yet, He does not, because people die without believing in Him. Why does this occur? I must say it is a holy mystery of God. Surely it is, as all things are, ultimately for His glory.

It is a divine paradox. Surely God is good and loving, for He is the Creator of all things, the "treasury of blessings." However, as I said to David above, God has created this world knowingly. That doesn't mean we aren't accountable for our free willed actions, but God is the one who made this world as it is, knowing all things.

It isn't that God shows partiality. For we ALL deserve death. St. Paul tells us that. Our daily prayers tell us that. It is only of God's grace and mercy that any are saved. We are unworthy of salvation, and therefore it is just of God to destroy us all, yet He doesn't. It's true, God's discipline isn't punishment. Scripture tells us that God disciplines those who He loves (Prov. 3:12, Heb. 12:6). However, I'm not sure if I can totally agree with your criminal analogy. Surely, I understand and agree in spirit, but is not our entire journey in Christ meant to rehabilitate us from sinfulness so that we become like God? I don't think we should say rehabilitation is punishment, but surely we are being rehabilitated into godliness.

I also think that your doctor analogy breaks down. Surely God is the Great Physician, but it is not just that we are sick, but that we do sin of our own free will. In God's perfect justice, He is free to let us be as we scoff at Him and disobey, however it is in His grace that we are saved, not that we deserve it because we are ill, but because He takes pity on us as we continue to harm ourselves spiritually by succumbing to sinful acts.

it is true, we are all equally human, and all equally worthy of judgment. However, it is by God's grace that we are saved, not that we do anything to merit it, but that God takes pity and heals us.

Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs. Often denominations surface because they feel like some point of doctrine should be emphasized over another, then other reactionary denominations sprout and they espouse the opposite emphasis. They're so easy to split, creating chasms between themselves. It's one of the reasons that I grew so tired of the Protestant church, they just can't seem to hold themselves together!

[Shaun M.]

Untrue. Human freedom is surely included. I do not say that an individual cannot reject God, I say that an individual will not reject God. They are free to reject, but God, being perfect, proves Himself as the Lord to them, and they accept Him of their own free will, through the faith He enables within them.

Further, I never said that evil is not the fault of the evil doer. We do evil things freely, and we are guilty of those things when we do them and must confess our sins. However, God does permit evil and created, knowingly, the circumstances that would bring this world (and ergo this evil) into existence. That point simply cannot be argued, lest we deny the omnipotent and omniscient abilities of God.



I really have enjoyed my time in Orthodox worship. It's not really a matter of me knowing that Orthodoxy is the One True Church anymore. It's a matter of me trying to fit into it.

My believe in particular redemption (that God only saves some and not all) hangs on the belief that God could save all if He desired, because He can perfectly convince any person of their own free will to follow Him. Yet, He does not, because people die without believing in Him. Why does this occur? I must say it is a holy mystery of God. Surely it is, as all things are, ultimately for His glory.

It is a divine paradox. Surely God is good and loving, for He is the Creator of all things, the "treasury of blessings." However, as I said to David above, God has created this world knowingly. That doesn't mean we aren't accountable for our free willed actions, but God is the one who made this world as it is, knowing all things.

It isn't that God shows partiality. For we ALL deserve death. St. Paul tells us that. Our daily prayers tell us that. It is only of God's grace and mercy that any are saved. We are unworthy of salvation, and therefore it is just of God to destroy us all, yet He doesn't. It's true, God's discipline isn't punishment. Scripture tells us that God disciplines those who He loves (Prov. 3:12, Heb. 12:6). However, I'm not sure if I can totally agree with your criminal analogy. Surely, I understand and agree in spirit, but is not our entire journey in Christ meant to rehabilitate us from sinfulness so that we become like God? I don't think we should say rehabilitation is punishment, but surely we are being rehabilitated into godliness.

I also think that your doctor analogy breaks down. Surely God is the Great Physician, but it is not just that we are sick, but that we do sin of our own free will. In God's perfect justice, He is free to let us be as we scoff at Him and disobey, however it is in His grace that we are saved, not that we deserve it because we are ill, but because He takes pity on us as we continue to harm ourselves spiritually by succumbing to sinful acts.

it is true, we are all equally human, and all equally worthy of judgment. However, it is by God's grace that we are saved, not that we do anything to merit it, but that God takes pity and heals us.

Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs. Often denominations surface because they feel like some point of doctrine should be emphasized over another, then other reactionary denominations sprout and they espouse the opposite emphasis. They're so easy to split, creating chasms between themselves. It's one of the reasons that I grew so tired of the Protestant church, they just can't seem to hold themselves together!

Mr. Amis,

Mr. Lindblom is right, your belief, as you describe it, is rejecting any meaningful sense of human freedom. What you describe sounds more like manipulation than freedom, true, meaningful freedom would have to mean that God gives us the option of accepting or rejecting him, without pushing us into one or the other. Freedom means that we decide whether we are saved.

What you say about evil doesn't make God the author of evil, it simply makes him aware of it. He obviously that creating a world that would turn imperfect worthwhile for some reason, maybe because he wanted us to be free to accept or reject him?

"My believe in particular redemption (that God only saves some and not all) hangs on the belief that God could save all if He desired, because He can perfectly convince any person of their own free will to follow Him. Yet, He does not, because people die without believing in Him. Why does this occur? I must say it is a holy mystery of God. Surely it is, as all things are, ultimately for His glory."

Or, perhaps, he does not so that each of us can decide for ourselves, and each of us will be personally responsible for our own salvation or not?

"It isn't that God shows partiality. For we ALL deserve death. St. Paul tells us that. Our daily prayers tell us that. It is only of God's grace and mercy that any are saved. We are unworthy of salvation, and therefore it is just of God to destroy us all, yet He doesn't."

Webster-dictionary.net defines partiality as, "inclination to favor one party, or one side of a question, more than the other; a predilection or inclination to one thing rather than to others." Among other, less relevant, definitions) So when someone says Calvinism is wrong because God doesn't show partiality, they don't mean we somehow deserve salvation, they mean that God choosing who is to be saved and who not w/o any reference to the person is partiality. Say there was a Sunday School class, and the teacher decided to give out candy. He had plenty of candy for everyone, but he only gave it to about a quarter of the class and refused to explain why. None of the children deserved the candy, but isn't it obvious that the teacher is showing partiality?

"Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs. Often denominations surface because they feel like some point of doctrine should be emphasized over another, then other reactionary denominations sprout and they espouse the opposite emphasis. They're so easy to split, creating chasms between themselves. It's one of the reasons that I grew so tired of the Protestant church, they just can't seem to hold themselves together!"

Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs, and an excellent example of this is Calvinism/Arminianism. It represents a disability to juxtapose God's sovereignty with human (and angelic) freedom.

"I really have enjoyed my time in Orthodox worship. It's not really a matter of me knowing that Orthodoxy is the One True Church anymore. It's a matter of me trying to fit into it."

I hope you will. And while all these complex doctrinal discussions are interesting, the main point is to love and worship Jesus. Christ be with you.

Shaun

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

And while all these complex doctrinal discussions are interesting, the main point is to love and worship Jesus.

But, Benjamin, you can't truly "love and worship Jesus" unless you humbly submit to the truth as revealed through the Church by Christ and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure Shaun will say amen.

With prayers for you in Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Shaun M.]

But, Benjamin, you can't truly "love and worship Jesus" unless you humbly submit to the truth as revealed through the Church by Christ and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure Shaun will say amen.

With prayers for you in Christ, Dn. Patrick


AMEN!






It doesn't let me post without at least ten characters...

[Benjamin Amis]

Mr. Amis,

Mr. Lindblom is right, your belief, as you describe it, is rejecting any meaningful sense of human freedom. What you describe sounds more like manipulation than freedom, true, meaningful freedom would have to mean that God gives us the option of accepting or rejecting him, without pushing us into one or the other. Freedom means that we decide whether we are saved.

What you say about evil doesn't make God the author of evil, it simply makes him aware of it. He obviously that creating a world that would turn imperfect worthwhile for some reason, maybe because he wanted us to be free to accept or reject him?

"My believe in particular redemption (that God only saves some and not all) hangs on the belief that God could save all if He desired, because He can perfectly convince any person of their own free will to follow Him. Yet, He does not, because people die without believing in Him. Why does this occur? I must say it is a holy mystery of God. Surely it is, as all things are, ultimately for His glory."

Or, perhaps, he does not so that each of us can decide for ourselves, and each of us will be personally responsible for our own salvation or not?

"It isn't that God shows partiality. For we ALL deserve death. St. Paul tells us that. Our daily prayers tell us that. It is only of God's grace and mercy that any are saved. We are unworthy of salvation, and therefore it is just of God to destroy us all, yet He doesn't."

Webster-dictionary.net defines partiality as, "inclination to favor one party, or one side of a question, more than the other; a predilection or inclination to one thing rather than to others." Among other, less relevant, definitions) So when someone says Calvinism is wrong because God doesn't show partiality, they don't mean we somehow deserve salvation, they mean that God choosing who is to be saved and who not w/o any reference to the person is partiality. Say there was a Sunday School class, and the teacher decided to give out candy. He had plenty of candy for everyone, but he only gave it to about a quarter of the class and refused to explain why. None of the children deserved the candy, but isn't it obvious that the teacher is showing partiality?

"Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs. Often denominations surface because they feel like some point of doctrine should be emphasized over another, then other reactionary denominations sprout and they espouse the opposite emphasis. They're so easy to split, creating chasms between themselves. It's one of the reasons that I grew so tired of the Protestant church, they just can't seem to hold themselves together!"

Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs, and an excellent example of this is Calvinism/Arminianism. It represents a disability to juxtapose God's sovereignty with human (and angelic) freedom.

"I really have enjoyed my time in Orthodox worship. It's not really a matter of me knowing that Orthodoxy is the One True Church anymore. It's a matter of me trying to fit into it."

I hope you will. And while all these complex doctrinal discussions are interesting, the main point is to love and worship Jesus. Christ be with you.

Shaun

Well, Shaun, you cite the Arminianism/Calvinism debate as a problem of the Protestant Church...but many of you seem to have a problem with any kind of predestination within the Church at all. I have presented a truly compatiblistic perspective, and this forum finds it offensive. "Let it never be that God has pre-ordained!" You say, and yet you commit a logical fallacy if you think that God, being the omniscient and omnipotent Creator, has not pre-ordained. For He is the First Cause, and set all things into motion! If God is the first act in the chain of creation, to say that He does not play a role in these things is simply to be wrong.


Again, I can try to explain my perspective, but I cannot to those that will not consider a point that is not their own.


But, Benjamin, you can't truly "love and worship Jesus" unless you humbly submit to the truth as revealed through the Church by Christ and the Holy Spirit. I'm sure Shaun will say amen.

With prayers for you in Christ, Dn. Patrick

This is true, but you are wrong. You advocate your truth as the truth. Surely the Church's truth is the truth, but you do not have a corner on the market of the interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers. Deacon, Priest, Bishop or layman...none of us are infallible. Perhaps you should consider dialogue before dictation. I'm glad I have found some in Orthodoxy that use the latter rather than the former. For if I had not, I would've walked away from a Church that I considered broken and narrow-minded.

[Paul Cowan]

I've got a wild hair tonight so i will interject where I probably shouldn't...

Benjamin: your logic is also circular. You say

you do not have a corner on the market of the interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers.
but you are espousing your interpretation of it for us. So yes, no one is infallible, but I put more weight in a collective understanding of the fathers and scripture than a single or minority view of them. I am not trying to debate you as I will surely lose, but only to contest your frustration of why forum members are not going along with "your" reasoning. There is a collective reasoning here that perhaps has more hours of study than a single individual does and over the course of years these hours have melded together to a point of common agreement.

I don't know the difference between pre ordained or fore ordained and really don't care to. God is omnipresent and omniscient. He created all and knows all. Just because He is always everywhere and knows what we each will do and not do since he is outside the timeline does not mean He pre or fore anything. It's like the ant hill scenario. Ants run to and fro doing their daily lives while a human looks down on them and watches. I can kick the dirt and disrupt their lives, I can remove twigs and leaves from their path. I can see clouds forming and know it will rain. I can shelter their colony with an umbrella or let them get deluged. Are any of these things good or bad in and of themselves? no. To the ant, I am sorta what we think God is. (poor example to be sure).

I guess what I am trying to say, is be open to what others believe of the fathers and scriptures and work within that paradigm to convince them of your position. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Push and be pushed. Love and be loved.

Paul

[Mary]

Untrue. Human freedom is surely included. I do not say that an individual cannot reject God, I say that an individual will not reject God. They are free to reject, but God, being perfect, proves Himself as the Lord to them, and they accept Him of their own free will, through the faith He enables within them.

So - you're saying - God proves himself to some in such a way that they are 100% convinced, and because they are so completely convinced, they accept Him.... yes?

I wanted to respond to every single thing you wrote, but that would just get really long. It seems to me, from reading your last few posts, that you're struggle is with God's omniscience and man's free will. Although you say you have no problem with both co-existing, your explanations of your beliefs, do have contradictions. But, you're not yet able (or willing) to see the contradictions. For example, saying that an individual will not reject God, is the same as saying he has no free will, and yet, you say he does. That's a contradiction.


Well, Shaun, you cite the Arminianism/Calvinism debate as a problem of the Protestant Church...but many of you seem to have a problem with any kind of predestination within the Church at all.

The reason we have a problem with it is because it is a lie. We see it as partiality, but I think, you see it as a part of God's omniscience.


For He is the First Cause, and set all things into motion! If God is the first act in the chain of creation, to say that He does not play a role in these things is simply to be wrong.
Does God does really set all things into motion? Are we not responsible for setting sin in motion? It says somewhere that God does not tempt anyone to sin.

God's role, is always the saving role. Every single detail of your life, down to where you're living, has been planned, so that you will have the best possible chances to be saved. (Acts 17:26-27). But not just you... every single individual in the world, including those who don't care. At every turn we take in our lives, God is there, waiting for us, ready with all the things we need to return to him.


Again, I can try to explain my perspective, but I cannot to those that will not consider a point that is not their own.


And are you willing to consider a point that is not your own? Just for a moment, sit back, and think of what it would mean, if there were no pre-destination. You don't have to stop believing it. But just let go of it for a moment, and examine a world with no pre-destination. If that is contrary to who God is, then, well and good. Your pre-destination must be real.

That's how I examined my beliefs. No one can let go of their beliefs that they've tried and defended, without a struggle. I already knew very well, everything that I believed, and I wrote it all down, just to make sure. And then, for a brief moment I wondered, in what way my faith would be different, if the Orthodox teachings were true. And so, I examined my own beliefs, while I examined the orthodox beliefs.



You advocate your truth as the truth. Surely the Church's truth is the truth, but you do not have a corner on the market of the interpretation of Scripture or the Fathers. Deacon, Priest, Bishop or layman...none of us are infallible. Perhaps you should consider dialogue before dictation. I'm glad I have found some in Orthodoxy that use the latter rather than the former. For if I had not, I would've walked away from a Church that I considered broken and narrow-minded.

None of us are infallible, not even our saints. That's what the Church says. But the Church as a whole, is infallible.

And what is your definition of 'dialogue'? That we should agree with what you say? How can we agree with something that is false? Do you feel that we are not having a dialogue because we keep repeating ourselves in different ways?

We are having a dialogue. You wanted to know what we believe. We've told you. Now you have to examine what we've told you and decide for yourself, if what we say is true or not. But instead of engaging with what we say, you keep re-iterating what you believe. How is that helping you? Why are you not taking apart the things that we say? Do you not have any doubts and questions about what we're saying?

And also - don't be offended if we're unwilling to change our position. We can't. What's true is true, and we can't pretend, just for the sake of having a 'discussion'. There will never be a consensus of any kind, because the Truth cannot be modified to include even a grain of untruth.

Narrow-minded? If you want to call it that, that's ok by me. I thought the orthodox were pretty narrow minded too, until I became one myself, then I understood.

in Christ,
Mary.

[David Lindblom]

Untrue. Human freedom is surely included. I do not say that an individual cannot reject God, I say that an individual will not reject God. They are free to reject, but God, being perfect, proves Himself as the Lord to them, and they accept Him of their own free will, through the faith He enables within them.

This is one of the frustrating things about talking w/ Calvinist, they keep changing the meaning of things to suit their theology. I've seen other C's use this kind of explanation but it seems to me to be disingenuous to their own heritage and it also seems to me cuz somewhere deep inside they are struggling w/ the implications of their doctrine. Even if I were to grant you that the above statement is true it still shows God to be handpicking some people whereby He puts them in a corner so that they will never reject Him is still not true freedom. But, this situation is simply not true to life. The example I gave you initially about Jesus doing a great glut of miracles to certain cities and then Him being frustrated that they would not believe and stating that their judgment would be far worse than those who were given less signs and rejected God. Another example, the raising of Lazarus. Here was a man dead for 4 days and starting to rot. Right in front of their eyes Jesus raised this man from the dead. Some believed while others ran back to the Pharisees who then began plotting to kill Him all the while admitting He was performing miracles. Other times Jesus healed people right before the eyes of those who immediately rejected Him. These kinds of examples are literally all thru scripture both OT and NT. People can reject salvation because they choose to. They don't want to believe for any number of reasons. So the philosophical explanation you have been presenting, which is not scriptural at all, denies plain to understand scripture. I find it odd how you say:

Surely the Church's truth is the truth...

while arguing w/ what people on this board are telling you is the Church's position on this.


However, God does permit evil and created, knowingly, the circumstances that would bring this world (and ergo this evil) into existence. That point simply cannot be argued, lest we deny the omnipotent and omniscient abilities of God.That is not what you said earlier. You said God was the cause of evil, the Devil's fall etc. Cause and allowing are a whole different ball game. This is what can be so frustrating when dealing w/ Calvinist. Their beliefs are always a moving target.


My believe in particular redemption (that God only saves some and not all) hangs on the belief that God could save all if He desired, because He can perfectly convince any person of their own free will to follow Him. Yet, He does not, because people die without believing in Him. Why does this occur? I must say it is a holy mystery of God. Surely it is, as all things are, ultimately for His glory.One could also say, as the Church and most of Christianity throughout history, that God never overwhelms human ability to reject Him. For God to make every effort to claim to love everybody and desire the salvation of all and then act against that by only working w/ a minority for some unknown reason would be disingenuous of Him.

I've run out of time, I will try and address the rest later.

[David Lindblom]

It isn't that God shows partiality. For we ALL deserve death. St. Paul tells us that. Our daily prayers tell us that. It is only of God's grace and mercy that any are saved. We are unworthy of salvation, and therefore it is just of God to destroy us all, yet He doesn't.

Yes, we all deserve death. But as Romans 11 says:

32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Yet in your scheme, God is partial because while we all deserve death He does have mercy on some. A small portion He has staked out for salvation while He leaves the rest to die in their sins. He is treating some different than others. Period. While the text above and others continually teach that God treats everybody the same. His desire is for mercy for all. Why aren't all saved? Because not all want God. They choose to reject Him. You can say, as the classic Calvinist mantra goes, that cuz we all deserve damnation God showing mercy to some only shows that He is guilty of mercy. Yet that still leaves God treating one group different than the other. What His reasons are, are of no consequence...He's being partial to one group. That goes against the grain of scripture that says God does not treat people partially.


Protestants have trouble juxtaposing many beliefs. Often denominations surface because they feel like some point of doctrine should be emphasized over another, then other reactionary denominations sprout and they espouse the opposite emphasis. They're so easy to split, creating chasms between themselves. It's one of the reasons that I grew so tired of the Protestant church, they just can't seem to hold themselves together!I couldn't agree more!

[Benjamin Amis]

Okay, I've been doing a lot of thinking on this and I think I've broken out of my Western mindset. If I was truly applying the Eastern view of original sin, there can be no total depravity, and therefore there isn't any need for the rest of the TULIP formula.

However, one thing that I'm still hanging up on. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal...He is the first cause of the universe and saw what His actions would cause. I mean, it's basic thought that A causes B causes C, etc. So, in that way, didn't God still plan and at least "permit" if not ordain all things to still happen as they have, since He started it all? Nothing takes God by surprise right? And the Scriptures tell us that Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). And, still working from the premise that God knows the hearts and minds of all people, would He not know how to convince everyone to believe in Him? And so, if God desires all to be saved...why aren't they? Or can God not perfectly persuade a free person?

I'm genuinely trying to work this out, so, please someone help me understand.

Also, I'm going on Thanksgiving Break from college starting tomorrow. I might not be able to get back here for a few days (and I'm going to miss most of the week's services, because the closest Orthodox church to my hometown is here, over two hours away!). So, if I don't get to post here again until next week, I wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving!

[Mary]

Okay, I've been doing a lot of thinking on this and I think I've broken out of my Western mindset. If I was truly applying the Eastern view of original sin, there can be no total depravity, and therefore there isn't any need for the rest of the TULIP formula.

Glad to hear you're unwinding. =)


However, one thing that I'm still hanging up on. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal...He is the first cause of the universe and saw what His actions would cause. I mean, it's basic thought that A causes B causes C, etc. So, in that way, didn't God still plan and at least "permit" if not ordain all things to still happen as they have, since He started it all? Nothing takes God by surprise right? And the Scriptures tell us that Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). And, still working from the premise that God knows the hearts and minds of all people, would He not know how to convince everyone to believe in Him? And so, if God desires all to be saved...why aren't they? Or can God not perfectly persuade a free person?Good questions! =) May I answer them?

I'll answer them in the way that it makes sense to me. That might be quite simplistic and not cover all the bases, but others can fill in all the gaps, I'm sure. =)

Yes, God knows everything and nothing takes him by surprise. He created us with free will, because forcing anyone to love you, even in the slightest degree and for all the good reasons, is still not love that is freely given. One has to be totally free, in order to love another. So, God's plan was to create little people who would be free to love Him. Like all relationships, if you never meet someone, you can't know them, much less, love them. So, all our lives long, God meets us, wherever we happen to be. That's what he uses his omniscience for. To get there before us, so He makes things ready for us when we get there. He sets people in place (they also have their own journeys that take them places, where they learn things, and know things, etc...). He weaves our lives together, that's how come there are so many instances in our lives, when we've met someone who has been able to give us the exact kind of help that we've needed at that moment. Or maybe it's a book you read, that speaks to you. Or it could be something in nature. It could be anything... but God puts it there, for us to find, and then turn to Him.

Remember the story of Cain and Abel? How many times did God plead with Cain, warning him of all the pain his foolish anger would cause? That's how He pleads with each of us. In the end, Cain left God's presence. It doesn't say God gave up on him. Cain was the one who left. That's what we all do, when we refuse to listen to God. It's not because we haven't understood that we reject Him. It is because we have understood as much as we are able, and we make a deliberate choice to leave his presence.

And you're right, he does know our hearts, and knows what will convince each one of us. That's why, each of us comes to the church with a different story of conversion. There's no end to the ways in which God works, working out every tiny detail and tailoring circumstances and relationships to make such a perfect fit for each one of us. But He never forced any of us to believe in Him. When the evidence became overwhelming to me, and I no longer had any peace going to a protestant church, I still found myself in a place where I had to make a decision. I wondered, how I could know if it really would be different on the other side? What if I was just imagining all this? I wouldn't know, till after I leaped. And it's never a happy feeling, when you have to leap and you can't see where you're going to land or who is going to catch you. My fear could've kept me from taking that leap. And forever, I would've known in my heart, that God had patiently revealed much to me, and I had turned away, because of fear.


I'm genuinely trying to work this out, so, please someone help me understand.

I'm praying for you too, along with others. The same God who helped us understand, can help you too. But I can't help you. I don't know what it takes to convince you. =)




Also, I'm going on Thanksgiving Break from college starting tomorrow. I might not be able to get back here for a few days (and I'm going to miss most of the week's services, because the closest Orthodox church to my hometown is here, over two hours away!). So, if I don't get to post here again until next week, I wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving!Hope you have a wonderful Thanksgiving too!

In Christ,
Mary.

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

However, one thing that I'm still hanging up on. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal...He is the first cause of the universe and saw what His actions would cause. I mean, it's basic thought that A causes B causes C, etc. So, in that way, didn't God still plan and at least "permit" if not ordain all things to still happen as they have, since He started it all? Nothing takes God by surprise right? And the Scriptures tell us that Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). And, still working from the premise that God knows the hearts and minds of all people, would He not know how to convince everyone to believe in Him? And so, if God desires all to be saved...why aren't they? Or can God not perfectly persuade a free person?

This is a good example of the difficulties one encounters when one applies dialectical thinking to divine mysteries. Dialectical thinking depends on known or assumed values for the symbols used in its expression. For example, “2+2=4” makes sense as long as we know that 2, 4, +, and = mean certain things. But what if 2+2 means a force of 2 from 90 degrees added to a force of 2 from zero degrees? In that case, the total force exerted on a stationary object is not 4 because the two forces are partially opposed. Ergo, 2+2=2. The point is that we must fully understand what we’re talking about before we can reason rightly about it.

The problem with reasoning about God is that we never fully understand what we’re talking about. You have said this much yourself: We say that God is “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal” just as we say that God is “good” and “love,” but when you come right down to it, we don’t know as much as we need to know about what these symbols represent. We know they are true in some sense, but we don’t know how they are true because we don’t know enough about God. We don’t understand much of anything about relations within the Trinity. We don’t know what God means when He says that the Son is begotten by the Father, or that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. We don’t fully understand what Christ meant when He said that “the Father is greater than I.” We don’t fully understand what Christ meant when He said that the Son only knows what the Father tells Him and shows Him. We are told that the Father created all things by or through the Son, but we don’t really know Who did what.

This is directly relevant to the issue you raise because, understood one way, God’s omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence and eternality could mean that the Father does indeed order everything within a strictly mechanistic system in which there is no real freedom for anyone, the Son and Holy Spirit included. Or, understood another way, the awesome powers of God could mean that the Father entrusted the Son with real freedom for creation, perhaps even allowed Him to roll the dice, even while knowing (from the way the Son rolled them) what would turn up. Two extremes, but how are we to know which is closer to the truth?

Starting from scratch, we have our own honest experience of the world, which certainly makes it appear that man is free to make his own choices and that some things happen at random. Then we have the many things that God has revealed to us and taught us to say about Him. Among those revelations is an assurance that everything is in God’s hand, that God is in control and therefore we need fear nothing. But there are many other revelations that confirm our natural perception of human freedom and of our own responsibility for accepting or rejecting Him. Both must be true, or God is a liar. How they are true is beyond us. What we make of them is, thank God, already set forth for us within the life of the Church. Only by joining that life and living it along with all others in the Church, including those who have gone on before us, can know how to think of God.

Mary, David, and the others have given you a pretty good idea of how God has taught us to think about these things. I have shown you what is plainly not permissible. No one expects you to lay aside human reason, only to recognize its limits and make your choice of faith on a broader basis for truth.

With prayers in Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

However, one thing that I'm still hanging up on. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal...He is the first cause of the universe and saw what His actions would cause. I mean, it's basic thought that A causes B causes C, etc. So, in that way, didn't God still plan and at least "permit" if not ordain all things to still happen as they have, since He started it all? Nothing takes God by surprise right? And the Scriptures tell us that Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). And, still working from the premise that God knows the hearts and minds of all people, would He not know how to convince everyone to believe in Him? And so, if God desires all to be saved...why aren't they? Or can God not perfectly persuade a free person?

In a word: humility. God is also perfectly humble. God will not save us unless we choose to be saved. He desires our cooperation but He will not compel it. Is that not PERFECT humility?

[Owen]

However, one thing that I'm still hanging up on. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal...He is the first cause of the universe and saw what His actions would cause. I mean, it's basic thought that A causes B causes C, etc. So, in that way, didn't God still plan and at least "permit" if not ordain all things to still happen as they have, since He started it all? Nothing takes God by surprise right? And the Scriptures tell us that Christ was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8). And, still working from the premise that God knows the hearts and minds of all people, would He not know how to convince everyone to believe in Him? And so, if God desires all to be saved...why aren't they? Or can God not perfectly persuade a free person?

Part of the problem here is that you are using cataphatic reasoning (positive assertions about God). You'll find that Orthodoxy comes at things differently, by employing apophatic reasoning (seeking God by going through all the things that God is not--even things that we may think God is), for the Essence of God is unknowable. This is the pattern followed by Vladimir Lossky in his Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, a book not for the theologically faint of heart.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I've been reading this thread with interest. It is at times heated; but it has remained by and large open and respectful, with misunderstandings quickly spotted and graciously moved past. Very encouraging.

I haven't much time to write just now, but did want to make a comment on the usage of 'The Lord is God and has revealed Himself to us', which was raised before as in a word on 'election', etc.:



What I hold as truth, is that God elects someone to heaven. Then, He reveals Himself to them in some fashion. As we sing, "God is the Lord and has revealed Himself to us. Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord." How God does this is not prescribed.


While I rather understand your point (i.e. that people come to a knowledge of God differently), this is a rather unfortunate choice of liturgical texts to have latched on to. This is sung in the Orthodox matins service after the litany following the six psalms. It is intoned by the deacon, who is literally pointing at the 'how': he raises his orarion which points directly at the icon of Christ. For Orthodox the 'how' of the Lord appearing to us is the Church, in which Christ is encountered, known and received. The 'how' is the incarnation, the cross, the resurrection. And the 'us' is the whole world -- a point made explicit in the Liturgy ('... who gave Himself up for the life of the world ...'). God gives Himself to all, without exception - not to an elect few, however that election is defined.

Everyone is handed the cross. The question is only what we do with it.

Thank you again for your ongoing questions and thoughts.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Judson]

Hi there, I wasn't able to read the entire thread, but I wanted to jump and ask a question:

did the Fathers ever believe or teach the doctrine of predestination? If so, why do the Orthodox reject it as vehemently as they do?

John Gill compiled a huge list of citation from the Fathers arguing in favour of predestination and other Reformed doctrines. You can read it out here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5). It's about 3/4 of the way down the page, under the heading: The cause of God and truth, part 4.

How many Fathers need to teach it before it can be accepted as church tradition and orthodoxy? Granted the early church may have written on the subject sparingly and certainly did not expound it with deep interest. I can understand if the Orthodox affirm the teachings but do not emphasize it as much, but this is obviously not the case. I see quite a consistent denial that this was believed or taught in the Eastern church. It is often relegated as a western philosophical interest.

looking forward to the interaction,

Judson.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi there, I wasn't able to read the entire thread, but I wanted to jump and ask a question:

did the Fathers ever believe or teach the doctrine of predestination? If so, why do the Orthodox reject it as vehemently as they do?

John Gill compiled a huge list of citation from the Fathers arguing in favour of predestination and other Reformed doctrines. You can read it out here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5). It's about 3/4 of the way down the page, under the heading: The cause of God and truth, part 4.

How many Fathers need to teach it before it can be accepted as church tradition and orthodoxy? Granted the early church may have written on the subject sparingly and certainly did not expound it with deep interest. I can understand if the Orthodox affirm the teachings but do not emphasize it as much, but this is obviously not the case. I see quite a consistent denial that this was believed or taught in the Eastern church. It is often relegated as a western philosophical interest.

looking forward to the interaction,

Judson.

Is predestination a predominate Evangelical teaching? I had thought not since "evangelic" and "predestined" seem to form an oxymoron. Why preach to the predestined? For what purpose should we preach to those who cannot be saved?

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Hi there, I wasn't able to read the entire thread, but I wanted to jump and ask a question:

did the Fathers ever believe or teach the doctrine of predestination? If so, why do the Orthodox reject it as vehemently as they do?

Judson,

You are asking a loaded question, which assumes that there is one easily identifiable "doctrine of predestination" that "the Fathers" taught but that the Orthodox reject. As you will find from reading this thread, there are many different doctrines of predestination, and the ones the Orthodox reject are those that deny free will to human beings and condemn them without cause of their own. Included in this thread are several citations from very early Fathers upholding the Orthodox belief in free will and real justice. These citations should have you asking why some heterodox reject free will as vehemently as they do.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Michael Stickles]

John Gill compiled a huge list of citation from the Fathers arguing in favour of predestination and other Reformed doctrines. You can read it out here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5). It's about 3/4 of the way down the page, under the heading: The cause of God and truth, part 4.

How many Fathers need to teach it before it can be accepted as church tradition and orthodoxy?

I looked over a few of the citations listed. They do not seem to me to support the Reformed view of predestination that I was exposed to, especially when viewed within the wider context of those Fathers' writings. A couple of times I was completely at a loss as to why Mr. Gill thought a given citation supported predestination.

In Christ,
Michael

[Judson]

Is predestination a predominate Evangelical teaching? I had thought not since "evangelic" and "predestined" seem to form an oxymoron. Why preach to the predestined? For what purpose should we preach to those who cannot be saved?

I would say that it was central to Reformation, of which modern evangelicalism is an offshoot. Your question of why preach to the predestined is easily answered from history. The Calvinists were the foremost evangelists in the post reformation era. William Carey, Hudson Taylor, George Whitfield to name a few. And in our modern day, they are among the most vocal advocates of world mission - ie John Piper, the Southern Baptists, etc.

It is in light of Calvinism that there is a true motivation to evangelize - that is, if God has elected some to salvation, then the evangelist can be confident of succeeding in his evangelism.

[Judson]

I guess to make it simple, could it be argued that the fathers taught that God was sovereign over all things, including the salvation of sinners? Believers in predestination would agree with wholeheartedly with you that predestination occurs without "violence done to the creature", as is confessed in all the major reformed confessions. Would you agree that creatures are free only to do what they are capable of doing, and nothing more? Man is dead in sin and trespasses and incapable of choosing God. Indeed as Paul writes in Romans 3:9-11 “THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD; ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS; THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.”

[Judson]

I looked over a few of the citations listed. They do not seem to me to support the Reformed view of predestination that I was exposed to, especially when viewed within the wider context of those Fathers' writings. A couple of times I was completely at a loss as to why Mr. Gill thought a given citation supported predestination.


Yes, admittedly, not all the citations are as strong as others. But I think it's fair to say that there are sufficient quotes that suggest that they lean in the direction of allowing God to have full sovereignty, including over the salvation of individuals. Of course you will not find them articulating the same view as the Reformed, as that doctrine had to undergo development, like any other doctrine of the church, but the seeds of it are there nonetheless, wouldn't you say?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Yes, admittedly, not all the citations are as strong as others. But I think it's fair to say that there are sufficient quotes that suggest that they lean in the direction of allowing God to have full sovereignty, including over the salvation of individuals. Of course you will not find them articulating the same view as the Reformed, as that doctrine had to undergo development, like any other doctrine of the church, but the seeds of it are there nonetheless, wouldn't you say?

No, we would not say that. Why did it have to undergo development? Was the revelation of Christ incomplete? Are those removed by time and space so much "wiser" than the Apostles themselves who walked with Christ? Doctrine does not need to develop, but each individual comes to a better understanding as their own walk with Christ deepens. That is a relational issue, not a doctrinal one.

[Rick H.]

Yes, admittedly, not all the citations are as strong as others. But I think it's fair to say that there are sufficient quotes that suggest that they lean in the direction of allowing God to have full sovereignty, including over the salvation of individuals.



My experience reading the Gill quotes was the same as Mikes. To say some of these quotes are sufficient for a leaning in the direction is really kind of a lame argument, it is really as convincing as the Reformed argument that we are all Calvinists to one degree or another. I'm not sure how long you have been doing this Judson, but your only chance here to get anyone to listen to you would be to appeal to A.W. Pink's writing in "The Sovereignty of God" on the necessity of a spirit of resignation, or especially on the following section after that on "A Sweet Spirit of Resignation."

Hyper-Calvinists like Gill, who are normally very intelligent men really do seem to get a kind of "mind block" when it comes to Calvinism. Gill is a very learned man, a great Hebrew scholar and his work on the Old Testament is super . . . but when it comes to his house of cards which supports his Calvinistic beliefs he works as a drunken man with both the Scriptures and the History of Christian Thought.

You would be better off working with the works of Gill's replacement at the Tabernacle, Spurgeon! He is a much more sober pastor and thinker when it comes to Calvinism. In fact, as Spurgeon said of Gill, that 'he used many straw man arguments and held loose interpretations of the parables,' I would say the same about the quotes you have provided from Gill here.

As far as your scripture references go, the other "side" (Arminians) can provide scripture references too for their view.

Judson, I wonder if you are familiar with the writings of John Cassian as it relates to these two views?

[Mary]

Of course you will not find them articulating the same view as the Reformed, as that doctrine had to undergo development, like any other doctrine of the church, but the seeds of it are there nonetheless, wouldn't you say?

There are always seeds of some kind or other being planted. Arius had some stinky strong seeds to sow too. I thing the Jehovah's witnesses sprouted from that. But the Church recognizes and rejects the tares. Just as the Church rejected Arius's teachings, other teachings that popped up on the side were also rejected along the way. This is possible, because the Apostles, received the full revelation of all the doctrines right from the start. They already knew, what's true and what's not. They weren't a bunch of confused fisherman, swayed by whoever came by with a powerful argument based on human reasoning. They knew the Truth. All of it.

No doctrine had to undergo development. If anything, they had a better knowledge and understanding of all doctrines, as they are the foundation of the Church, and no one starts building with a weak foundation.

The things that did get worked out over time, were the practical implications of life, in view of our New Life in Christ. So you see the situation in Acts, when they had to work out the issue of circumcision. And such practical issues continue to get worked out to the present time.

in Christ,
Mary.

[David Lindblom]

Hi there, I wasn't able to read the entire thread, but I wanted to jump and ask a question:

did the Fathers ever believe or teach the doctrine of predestination? If so, why do the Orthodox reject it as vehemently as they do?

John Gill compiled a huge list of citation from the Fathers arguing in favour of predestination and other Reformed doctrines. You can read it out here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5). It's about 3/4 of the way down the page, under the heading: The cause of God and truth, part 4.

How many Fathers need to teach it before it can be accepted as church tradition and orthodoxy? Granted the early church may have written on the subject sparingly and certainly did not expound it with deep interest. I can understand if the Orthodox affirm the teachings but do not emphasize it as much, but this is obviously not the case. I see quite a consistent denial that this was believed or taught in the Eastern church. It is often relegated as a western philosophical interest.

looking forward to the interaction,

Judson.

Yes, this was brought up on another forum by a Calvinist fella. One of the people at that forum just happened to be very good at greek and he randomly checked out one of Gill's citations against the original source and found Gill to be doing some serious cutting and pasting...the usual proof texting by Calvinists was apparently brought to use here too. Ya gotta wonder how all the great historians who did this sort of thing for a living could never find what Gill found who was not a historian. One's skeptical flag should be waving mightily. Allastair MacGrath, an Anglican I believe, also did a study of the early church and found that up until Augustine the church was one voice in favor of free will and not the truncated definition of free will given by Calvinist. Certainly you will find agreement on some issues but it is also easy to read one's own theology into the Fathers. Here's a quote from Father John Romanides that deals w/ this very thing:

The temptation facing every inquiry into the thought of St. Paul and the other Apostolic writers is to approach their writings with definite, although many times unconscious, presuppositions contrary to the Biblical witness. If one approaches the Biblical testimony to the work of Christ and the life of the primitive community with predetermined metaphysical notions concerning the moral structure of what most would call the natural world, and, by consequence, with fixed ideas concerning human destiny and the needs of the individual and humanity in general, he will undoubtedly take from the faith and life of the ancient Church only such aspects as fit his own frame of reference. Then, if he wishes to be consistent in representing his own interpretation of the Scriptures as authentic, he will necessarily proceed to explain away everything extraneous to his concepts as secondary and superficial, or simply as the product of some misunderstanding on the part of certain Apostles or a group of Fathers, or even the whole primitive Church in general.

As far as to why Orthodox are so vehemently against predestination? Well, if by predestination you mean God hand picking a minority of humanity to save and leaving the rest damned, we reject it for the same reason most of the rest of Christianity rejects it. It turns God into a maniacal micro managing arbitrary God who repeatedly says one thing and does another. It has God condemning the majority of His image bearers to damnation w/ no chance of salvation while He demands that we love our enemies. It has God being the active ultimate source of evil. Shall I go on?

[Judson]

Thanks David for your post. I'm willing to grant that Gill may have done a certain amount of cut and paste, but to say he is an example of usual Calvinist proof texting is somewhat ad hominem and does not adequately deal with the topic or the texts responsibly. A blanket approach in making arguments is not helpful. We should keep in mind that Gill, while trying to defend his position, is no illiterate or irrational fool and he has obviously pored over a good many texts. Are you saying that he is altogether wrong on this? That he is consistently failing to read correctly? That he twisted every citation? This is odd, considering that the orthodox has such a high view of the cognitive and volitional faculties of man. This is a serious charge, and I doubt one that is made on the basis of personally screening and analyzing the quotations. It's obvious that you dismissed the Gill archive as a whole because he's a Calvinist.

I agree that the Fathers could not possibly have had a refined system of predestination in mind of the Reformed sort, but are you saying that they unanimously denied the sovereignty of God in salvation? such that God is sovereign in all matters, except where human beings are made to exercise free will concerning their eternal fate? Is there absolutely no suggestion of this in the fathers? I think you will find ample clear texts in scripture and the fathers to support this, even though it has the potential to make God look monstrous.

Moving aside from the fallible interpretations of man, let us appeal to Holy Scripture, our infallible guide. Does scripture ever once deny God's meticulous providence over his entire creation, while affirming that he is just and good, not arbitrary? Have a quick gander of one compilation of clear passages here (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/verses.htm).

There are actually reasons why the early church may have de-emphasized God's total control, as the fatalism and arbitrariness of the Roman gods in Hellenistic thought was strong in their context. Thus, human free will was asserted over and against this worldview. However, a fair amount of teaching on God's absolute sovereignty is prevalent, not only in Paul's teaching, but in Hebrew thought. The will of kings was like water in Yahweh's hand. Yahweh was an electing God, choosing Abraham, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau (before they were born or could not right from wrong), so his purposes in election might stand (Rom 9). Paul simply does not affirm the free will of man when it comes to approaching God and doing his will: Rom 8:7-8 "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

The only one in church history who affirmed the full freedom of man's will in determining his own eternal destiny was Pelagius, who was condemned a heretic by the church. Everyone else, including the fathers must, therefore, have had a "truncated" (as you call it) view of man's will.

lastly, there are many other passages that are used to suggest to God is the author of evil, and the predestination passages are not the strongest ones. for example Job 2:10 "shall we accept good from God, and not evil?" and 1 Sam 18:10 "an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul ..." Brother, no one said that our God is easy to understand or accept, and no theological tradition, regardless of how many or how long it was been believed is adequate in dealing with the problem of evil. We are simply responsible and believe that God is good, while being the very God who does what he does. We are not at liberty, however, to explicitly deny what scripture seems to clearly teach.

[Paul Cowan]

We are not at liberty, however, to explicitly deny what scripture seems to clearly teach.

Nor are we at liberty to separate scripture from Holy Tradition or to interpret it on our own. If God is the same yesterday Today and forever, then the reformation must have changed things not changed from times past. If the reformed view or reformed doctrines you keep referring to are so different from what the Church teaches, or has always taught, has God then changed? If God has not changed then man is reforming his mentality where it does not belong. If God has changed, then He is a liar and what's it all for?

The reformation took out of church what it did not like. Luther took out of church what he did not like. The Latins added to the church what they liked. The Church has not changed. Man has added to or taken away what MAN likes. Man must come around to believe as the church does. The gates of hell (nor man) shall not prevail against the church.

[Herman Blaydoe]

God's humility in allowing us to have a say in our own salvation in no way denies or diminishes His sovereignty, it does not subsume "control" in any way. God is still sovereign, God is still in control, even if He specifically chooses to work in synergy with His creation rather than simply force it to His will. That is what Holy Scripture clearly teaches, or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[David Lindblom]

Thanks David for your post. I'm willing to grant that Gill may have done a certain amount of cut and paste, but to say he is an example of usual Calvinist proof texting is somewhat ad hominem and does not adequately deal with the topic or the texts responsibly. A blanket approach in making arguments is not helpful. We should keep in mind that Gill, while trying to defend his position, is no illiterate or irrational fool and he has obviously pored over a good many texts. Are you saying that he is altogether wrong on this? That he is consistently failing to read correctly? That he twisted every citation? This is odd, considering that the orthodox has such a high view of the cognitive and volitional faculties of man. This is a serious charge, and I doubt one that is made on the basis of personally screening and analyzing the quotations. It's obvious that you dismissed the Gill archive as a whole because he's a Calvinist.

I did not say this. I granted that there will be things where all Christians agree. But as far as God hand picking a minority for salvation, it is not there. I did not say God is not sovereign. That is a ongoing accusation made by Calvinist against those who do not believe in the exhaustive ordaining control of God over whether or not a person receives salvation or not. God does cause many things through many various means. God chooses people all the time but it is not for their salvation at the expense of their free will. There are many others who have exhaustively studied the Fathers and scripture that are no less heavy weights than Gill and have come to radically different ideas concerning salvation.


I agree that the Fathers could not possibly have had a refined system of predestination in mind of the Reformed sort, but are you saying that they unanimously denied the sovereignty of God in salvation? such that God is sovereign in all matters, except where human beings are made to exercise free will concerning their eternal fate? Is there absolutely no suggestion of this in the fathers? I think you will find ample clear texts in scripture and the fathers to support this, even though it has the potential to make God look monstrous.

Here's the kicker, if God is sovereign (and He is) can He not do anything He pleases? Is He any less sovereign if He chooses to let us have a measure of free will? Is the Calvinist God so small that He cannot tolerate any will besides His? Does a limited amount of freedom rob God of His control of the universe? Augustine saw things as you say. Perhaps others here and there but they were in no way representative of the church east or west. Lots of people had all kinds of beliefs...so what? What did the Church hold to, that is the question.

So you admit that the whole salvation predestination and cause of evil thing does indeed make God look monstrous. I find it endlessly amazing and sad that people come to a place of accepting a theological system that makes the unspeakably holy, pure and righteous God Who continually claims to hate evil and commands and works in His children to not commit evil to be the very Author of it.


Moving aside from the fallible interpretations of man, let us appeal to Holy Scripture, our infallible guide. Does scripture ever once deny God's meticulous providence over his entire creation, while affirming that he is just and good, not arbitrary? Have a quick gander of one compilation of clear passages here (http://www.calvinistcorner.com/verses.htm).


OK, I can give even Protestant scriptures and answers to what you posted here: http://evangelicalarminians.org/taxonomy/term/34
Or how 'bout from an Orthodox point of view: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx
Calvinist run around w/ this huge collection of individual verses and then bomb people w/ them. Most people do not have the time to answer all these isolated verses



There are actually reasons why the early church may have de-emphasized God's total control, as the fatalism and arbitrariness of the Roman gods in Hellenistic thought was strong in their context. Thus, human free will was asserted over and against this worldview. However, a fair amount of teaching on God's absolute sovereignty is prevalent, not only in Paul's teaching, but in Hebrew thought. The will of kings was like water in Yahweh's hand. Yahweh was an electing God, choosing Abraham, Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau (before they were born or could not right from wrong), so his purposes in election might stand (Rom 9). Paul simply does not affirm the free will of man when it comes to approaching God and doing his will: Rom 8:7-8 "because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

Or one could also take a more logical approach and realize that any kind of determinism on God's part for the individual salvation of a particular person or His utter exhaustive and direct control over every minute detail of creation is not a Christian concept. This despairing view of life was antithetical to the Good News of Jesus Christ Who desires all to be saved.

Look at the verse you quote, what kind of mind is hostile to God? The one set on the flesh. If we choose the way of flesh/sin then obviously we are hostile towards the God Who is holy and demands the same from us. This hardly speaks to a permanent or ordained condition.


The only one in church history who affirmed the full freedom of man's will in determining his own eternal destiny was Pelagius, who was condemned a heretic by the church. Everyone else, including the fathers must, therefore, have had a "truncated" (as you call it) view of man's will.


While I may be somewhat inaccurate in this, I believe Pelagianism was condemned on account of it's denial that the fall had any affect on humanity and that man could achieve salvation w/o any help from God at all not because he believed in free will.


lastly, there are many other passages that are used to suggest to God is the author of evil, and the predestination passages are not the strongest ones. for example Job 2:10 "shall we accept good from God, and not evil?" and 1 Sam 18:10 "an evil spirit from God came forcefully upon Saul ..." Brother, no one said that our God is easy to understand or accept, and no theological tradition, regardless of how many or how long it was been believed is adequate in dealing with the problem of evil. We are simply responsible and believe that God is good, while being the very God who does what he does. We are not at liberty, however, to explicitly deny what scripture seems to clearly teach.

Job 2:10-Thank you. This is an excellent example of how to abuse scripture in order to uphold a theological system. Is this use of the word evil meant in the sense of moral evil or calamity? I think most would agree it is calamity. Who is it that inflicted this on Job? God? He allowed but it did not come from Him.
As for the other verse, ya got me there. Very obscure and strange thing. Compared to all the rest of scripture I would not be making any theological claims based on this scripture.

[Wayne Whitmer]

Hi there, I wasn't able to read the entire thread, but I wanted to jump and ask a question:

did the Fathers ever believe or teach the doctrine of predestination? If so, why do the Orthodox reject it as vehemently as they do?

John Gill compiled a huge list of citation from the Fathers arguing in favour of predestination and other Reformed doctrines. You can read it out here (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/gills_archive.htm#5). It's about 3/4 of the way down the page, under the heading: The cause of God and truth, part 4.

How many Fathers need to teach it before it can be accepted as church tradition and orthodoxy? Granted the early church may have written on the subject sparingly and certainly did not expound it with deep interest. I can understand if the Orthodox affirm the teachings but do not emphasize it as much, but this is obviously not the case. I see quite a consistent denial that this was believed or taught in the Eastern church. It is often relegated as a western philosophical interest.

looking forward to the interaction,

Judson.

I'm an Orthodox Inquirer and long time Reformed Presbyterian. I don't know how the Father's couldn't believe in Predestination. It is in the Canon of Scripture. The issue is the rationalism of Calvin and others who took Predestination and defined it as Electing Some people to Heaven and others were damned to Hell. This was not found in the Patristic Fathers and even those quotes where one might interpret the Calvinistic definition of Predestination it is being interpreted through Calvinistic lenses. As I understand what I've read so far regarding the Orthodox understanding is that Predestination is how God ordained us to be conformed into the image of His Son but that we have free will to choose to follow Christ or not.

Am I on the right track my Orthodox friends?

[Father David Moser]

I don't really have the time to look up references and so I apologize. It is my thinking that the Orthodox teaching on predestination is that of universal predestination. God created man in order that man might enter into communion with God. We are all predestined to "salvation" - that is the participation in the life of the Holy Trinity - however our free will comes into effect in that we must work it out - that is follow the path to actualize that salvation in ourselves. A person could therefore "opt out" of that life and thereby renounce his predestination. Prior to the fall, the "deck was stacked" in our favor - we were inclined to follow Christ and to desire above all that communion with God. Since the fall, however, our predestination is still in effect, but the path to fulfilling that purpose and actualizing our salvation is blocked by sin. Thus the necessary struggle to work out our salvation with the help of God, utilizing the grace that He gives to us to accomplish this task.

Fr David Moser

[Judson]

No, we would not say that. Why did it have to undergo development? Was the revelation of Christ incomplete? Are those removed by time and space so much "wiser" than the Apostles themselves who walked with Christ? Doctrine does not need to develop, but each individual comes to a better understanding as their own walk with Christ deepens. That is a relational issue, not a doctrinal one.

Be reasonable. the orthodox would be the first to admit that all doctrines undergo development and refinement. Look at the issue of the deity of Christ, the Trinity, Nicea, the Chalcedonian definitions. These were not established by the church in the book of Acts, but centuries later. However, I agree that we need not look much further than the scriptures themselves to form our essential doctrine, and predestination is certainly taught by Paul and other writers. If you really wanted to relegate at doctrines that have no strong argument in scripture, then the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary are two big ones I would start with.

[Judson]

Nor are we at liberty to separate scripture from Holy Tradition or to interpret it on our own. If God is the same yesterday Today and forever, then the reformation must have changed things not changed from times past. If the reformed view or reformed doctrines you keep referring to are so different from what the Church teaches, or has always taught, has God then changed? If God has not changed then man is reforming his mentality where it does not belong. If God has changed, then He is a liar and what's it all for?

The reformation took out of church what it did not like. Luther took out of church what he did not like. The Latins added to the church what they liked. The Church has not changed. Man has added to or taken away what MAN likes. Man must come around to believe as the church does. The gates of hell (nor man) shall not prevail against the church.

The church has always been charged to "hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught" (Titus 1:9), knowing that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness ..." (2 Tim 3:16). The early church did not conceive of any magisterial control that lay in the hands of a hierarchy of men, save the apostles themselves. God has not changed, nor his abiding word and authority therein. This is the very reason why we, as fallen man, must always check our doctrine against God's revelation. I agree that the reformation may have taken away much of what was good in Christianity, but given the abuses and error of Rome, it was necessary.

[Judson]

I'm an Orthodox Inquirer and long time Reformed Presbyterian. I don't know how the Father's couldn't believe in Predestination. It is in the Canon of Scripture. The issue is the rationalism of Calvin and others who took Predestination and defined it as Electing Some people to Heaven and others were damned to Hell. This was not found in the Patristic Fathers and even those quotes where one might interpret the Calvinistic definition of Predestination it is being interpreted through Calvinistic lenses. As I understand what I've read so far regarding the Orthodox understanding is that Predestination is how God ordained us to be conformed into the image of His Son but that we have free will to choose to follow Christ or not.

Hi Wayne, I am in agreement with you in attacking the (hyper)Calvinistic view of double predestination, whereby, God's decree is symmetrical - that is, that he actively and volitionally ordained the salvation of the elect AND the damnation of the reprobate. This is not the Calvinism that I expouse, nor is it the position of most level-headed Calvinists. We believe that God's election is an act of grace and love, done with the sole purpose of saving. Those who are not elected are merely "passed by" and left to receive the just punishment for their own sinfulness, as John wrote, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son" (John 3:18). Election is purely salvific.

[Judson]

I don't really have the time to look up references and so I apologize. It is my thinking that the Orthodox teaching on predestination is that of universal predestination. God created man in order that man might enter into communion with God. We are all predestined to "salvation" - that is the participation in the life of the Holy Trinity - however our free will comes into effect in that we must work it out - that is follow the path to actualize that salvation in ourselves. A person could therefore "opt out" of that life and thereby renounce his predestination. Prior to the fall, the "deck was stacked" in our favor - we were inclined to follow Christ and to desire above all that communion with God. Since the fall, however, our predestination is still in effect, but the path to fulfilling that purpose and actualizing our salvation is blocked by sin. Thus the necessary struggle to work out our salvation with the help of God, utilizing the grace that He gives to us to accomplish this task.


But Fr Mosher, the problem with this view is that it does not align with the scriptural teaching of predestination. Nowhere does scripture teach universal predestination in the same way it does not teach universal salvation. Rather, "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight" (Eph 1:5ff). It is clear that predestination leads to adoption, redemption, forgiveness, salvation. As Paul writes, "29 (http://bible.cc/romans/8-29.htm)For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 (http://bible.cc/romans/8-30.htm)And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Rom 8:29). Predestination is never divorced from actual salvation; it is an unbroken chain. The orthodox view of preddestination makes the concept meaningless. That is, if everyone is predestined, then the act has no meaning. Likewise, if those who are predestined call fall away, then God is impotent to save. This makes Rom 11:29 untrue, that is, God's gifts and call could become revoked.

You say that we are to follow the path and actualize salvation in ourselves, but this again is not the vision of salvation in the mind of the apostles. Rather, Paul writes, "work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil 2:12); and "For it is by grace you have been saved (perfect tense) through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8) Salvation is never actualized in ourselves, or by ourselves. Salvation is a gift that places us in Christ through faith. We are reckoned as righteous so that we can work and please God; we do not work so that we can reckoned as righteous.

It seems to me, that the Orthodox agenda is much like the Calvinist agenda, only the inverse. And it should be admitted that there is an agenda, on both sides of the camp. The orthodox hermeneutic seeks to safeguard the free will of man and downplay the all-controlling decree of God. Calvinists seek to do the opposite, which I think is healthie, safer, and more God-honouring. Let God be true and every man a liar, afterall. This is a trustworthy saying.

[Michael Stickles]

The orthodox view of preddestination makes the concept meaningless. That is, if everyone is predestined, then the act has no meaning. Likewise, if those who are predestined call fall away, then God is impotent to save.

Not at all. You are assuming that saying "God predestined [X]" means that "[X] is God's unchangeable will which He will make sure happens, no matter what." This is not the understanding implicit in Fr David's statement. Perhaps this will be clearer if we look at what St. John Chrysostom, in his first homily on Ephesians, has to say regarding v. 5:


“According to the good pleasure,” he continues, “of His will.” That is to say, because He earnestly willed it. This is, as one might say, His earnest desire. For the word “good pleasure” every where means the precedent will, for there is also another will. As for example, the first will is that sinners should not perish; the second will is, that, if men become wicked, they shall perish. For surely it is not by necessity that He punishes them, but because He wills it.

Thus, God predestines - that is, marks out beforehand (the literal meaning of the Greek proorizo) - the salvation to which He calls all of us. This is His earnest desire, His precedent will, for all. But He does not do this to us; we are to participate with Him. If we do not participate, if we harden ourselves in wickedness, His second will comes into play.

If predestination really referred to "God's unchangeable will which He will make sure happens, no matter what," then the "second will" St. John speaks of would make no sense at all.

The concept of "God being impotent to save" is actually one I associate with Reformed views of predestination. In 1 Timothy we read of "... God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." Peter writes in his second epistle that "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Yet the Reformed view of predestination necessitates that God is unable or unwilling to accomplish what He clearly desires.

In Christ,
Michael

[Judson]

I did not say this. I granted that there will be things where all Christians agree. But as far as God hand picking a minority for salvation, it is not there. I did not say God is not sovereign. That is a ongoing accusation made by Calvinist against those who do not believe in the exhaustive ordaining control of God over whether or not a person receives salvation or not. God does cause many things through many various means. God chooses people all the time but it is not for their salvation at the expense of their free will. There are many others who have exhaustively studied the Fathers and scripture that are no less heavy weights than Gill and have come to radically different ideas concerning salvation.
I believe the term "minority" is your term; no has charged God of being cheap with his electing grace. No one knows the number, but the number is taught in scripture. It is alluded to when Paul speaks of the "fullness of Gentiles coming in" (Rom 11:25). In fact, God has not elected some small number, but a mulitude that no one could count from every tribe and language (Rev 7).


Here's the kicker, if God is sovereign (and He is) can He not do anything He pleases? Is He any less sovereign if He chooses to let us have a measure of free will? Is the Calvinist God so small that He cannot tolerate any will besides His? Does a limited amount of freedom rob God of His control of the universe? Augustine saw things as you say. Perhaps others here and there but they were in no way representative of the church east or west. Lots of people had all kinds of beliefs...so what? What did the Church hold to, that is the question.

Sovereignty has a certain definition which has to be faithful to language, history and theology. All things exists and occur according to God's sovereign decree. No where does scripture affirm that God grants man a measure of free will such that his complete control of all events is diminished, or that his will is thrwarted. This is a humanistic definition that has no precedent in scripture or the fathers. In the end, I believe we affirm essentially the same thing: that is God ordains all things (ie. he is in control of his universe), AND that humans are free to do as they will. No one denies that we are free within the limits that have been placed on us. the main point is that over, above and behind the decisions of free moral agents, is the hand of God working all things according to the pleasure of his will. I do not believe the early church has ever believed that God's sovereignty is limited by human freedom.


So you admit that the whole salvation predestination and cause of evil thing does indeed make God look monstrous. I find it endlessly amazing and sad that people come to a place of accepting a theological system that makes the unspeakably holy, pure and righteous God Who continually claims to hate evil and commands and works in His children to not commit evil to be the very Author of it.

According to our finite and depraved way of thinking, all of us struggle with the fact that God ordained events like the flood, the genocide of the Amalekites, the consigning of people to eternal hell. Don't you struggle with these things? Then your theology must not be a biblical one. i am not saying that He is monstrous. If you read carefully, I said these things have the potential of making his look monstrous. the difficulty is that we know that He is pure and good, yet ordains these things.


Or one could also take a more logical approach and realize that any kind of determinism on God's part for the individual salvation of a particular person or His utter exhaustive and direct control over every minute detail of creation is not a Christian concept. This despairing view of life was antithetical to the Good News of Jesus Christ Who desires all to be saved.


As with most things, the doctrine of God is not as simplistic as you make it out to be. God's will is not only his sovereign decree over all details in creation, but he also has a preceptive will, in which he commands the obedience of everyone, even those who disobey, and desires all to be saved, although not all will be saved. Does not will evil events in the sense that he desires it or actively brings it about, but he wills it as it is in accordance with his plans for the universe.


Look at the verse you quote, what kind of mind is hostile to God? The one set on the flesh. If we choose the way of flesh/sin then obviously we are hostile towards the God Who is holy and demands the same from us. This hardly speaks to a permanent or ordained condition.

The hostile minds are those who "are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace" (Rom 8). There are only two groups of people in Paul's and yes, those who live according to the flesh are fully volition and responsible for that choice. The important thing is that this is the default status of anyone who is not in Christ. Outside of Christ, we are all at enmity with God, condemned, of the flesh. He is not here speaking of people who elected and will be saved, but people who will reap death. Scripture says that we were all once in this state, unable to choose God and do his will, but when we were still sinners, Christ died for the ungodly.


While I may be somewhat inaccurate in this, I believe Pelagianism was condemned on account of it's denial that the fall had any affect on humanity and that man could achieve salvation w/o any help from God at all not because he believed in free will.
These two go hand in hand. You're right, he rejected original sin and believed that a person had the full ability to work his own way into heaven. This is because man's will is utterly unhindered and uninclined toward goodness or sin. ie. man could freely choose.



Job 2:10-Thank you. This is an excellent example of how to abuse scripture in order to uphold a theological system. Is this use of the word evil meant in the sense of moral evil or calamity? I think most would agree it is calamity. Who is it that inflicted this on Job? God? He allowed but it did not come from Him.
As for the other verse, ya got me there. Very obscure and strange thing. Compared to all the rest of scripture I would not be making any theological claims based on this scripture
In the hebrew, there is no linguistic distinction between calamity, trouble, and evil. We do not charge God with moral evil and never should, but the words are all the same in hebrew.

How about the "evil spirit from the Lord" from 1 Samuel? Or, how about Act 2:22ff "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 (http://bible.cc/acts/2-23.htm) this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death." How much clearer does scripture need to be on this point? If you reject it, isn't it obvious that you don't want it to be true?

[Paul Cowan]

The church has always been charged to "hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught" (Titus 1:9), knowing that "all scripture is God-breathed and useful for doctrine, reproof, correction and training in righteousness ..." (2 Tim 3:16). The early church did not conceive of any magisterial control that lay in the hands of a hierarchy of men, save the apostles themselves. God has not changed, nor his abiding word and authority therein. This is the very reason why we, as fallen man, must always check our doctrine against God's revelation. I agree that the reformation may have taken away much of what was good in Christianity, but given the abuses and error of Rome, it was necessary.

This is not true. The apostles themselves laid hands on their successors and made them Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons. As in this letter from St. Paul to Timothy Bishop of Ephesus.


2 Timothy 1:6 Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Each of the 70 apostles were given the responsibility of the Bishopric of a city to pastor. This giving them the charge to oversee the church. The church is a living entity. It is not a building. It is through those who "rightly divide the Word of Truth" that "check" the scriptures and their relationship to Holy Tradition. WE as laymen, do not have this gift of God to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" or to teach. WE as laymen are not permitted to interpret scripture. This is the role of the church as a whole and those she has apointed to do so; the Bishops.

Also please understand Rome broke away from the Catholic Church in 1054. The abuses she assumed and Luther fought against, are not those of the Orthodox Church. Luther wanted to get back to more Orthodox ways, but did not not know how so he made up his own interpretations along the way. As has every other splinter group since down to individuals of today.

I feel you are trying to "win over" a 2000 year old way of thinking. It's not going to happen. The desert fathers spent centuries pouring over this stuff compared to us which is perhaps a decade or so. The Protestant Reformation was just that , a Protest. They were westerners disgrunteled with the Latin church and decided to do away with it's doctrine. While over there in the East, the Orthodox church was maintaining its integrity and being persecuted for it. SO all the change and restructuring and new bibles and interpretations of interpretations were only clouding the minds of people had they only looked back to where it all began could saved themselves and us a ton of headaches.

paul

[Herman Blaydoe]

Be reasonable. the orthodox would be the first to admit that all doctrines undergo development and refinement. Look at the issue of the deity of Christ, the Trinity, Nicea, the Chalcedonian definitions. These were not established by the church in the book of Acts, but centuries later. However, I agree that we need not look much further than the scriptures themselves to form our essential doctrine, and predestination is certainly taught by Paul and other writers. If you really wanted to relegate at doctrines that have no strong argument in scripture, then the sinlessness and perpetual virginity of Mary are two big ones I would start with.

No, I most firmly and completely disagree with your statements. The "orthodox" would say no such thing. The Deity of Christ was made evident at His Baptism and His Transfiguration, and confirmed by the Apostle Thomas ("My Lord and my God!"), it most certainly did not "develop" even if there were some who had problems with the concept after. The Ecumenical Councils did not "develop" anything, they merely confirmed the Truth and separated it from falsehood. This is one of the major fallacies of "Sola Scriptura", because those things that were common knowledge in the Oral Tradition were simply not included in the Written Tradition (Scripture).

As to the Theotokos, her status is plainly outlined in Holy Scripture and was "common knowledge" to the Apostles and the early Church, it only became an issue when the Arians tried to discount her in order to destroy the divinity of Christ. The common knowledge of the ever-virginity was used as evidence that Jesus is divine, and so "formally" became part of doctrine.

Scriptural support:

Moses and the children of Israel came upon an impassible Red Sea, yet they were able to pass through it and it was afterwards still impassible, much to the chagrin of a certain Pharaoh.
Moses encountered a burning bush that was not consumed, and that bush exists to this day at the Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.
Eziekiel's vision of the East Gate of the Temple
That whole "resting place of God"/Ark thing. If YOU were a pious Jew, would you dare to lay a hand on the "resting place of God"? Just askin'


Dude, you come into an Orthodox forum to tell us what we believe? That is the very definition of "hubris". Are you hear to learn or to preach?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

An important point comes out of the tangent that's recently emerged in this thread (and from which I would encourage us, having seen it, to return - and to focus anew on the theme of the thread itself): namely, the question of doctrinal 'development'. It is quite right that the Orthodox Church firmly rejects any idea of the 'development' of doctrine, if this is taken to mean that she comes to believe, in time, things which she did not believe or know formerly - things that would amount to an 'addition' to that which was revealed to the disciples in Christ. Yet the Church does fully understand the idea of doctrine's developing articulation - i.e., that certain things come to be described in certain ways, with certain language, that was not known previously, or that may have emerged out of earlier confessions and statements (so, for example, the usage of homoousios as a term to articulate the relationship of Son to Father at Nicaea: this did not represent a new development in the substance of what was believed; rather, it was a newly-developed term used to articulate what was always believed and confessed in a new manner, better suited to defending that ancient confession against the errant views of the day).

That said, I hope all here can lay aside the temptation to dwell on confessional differences (always outside the scope of this forum), to react sharply and dramatically (always a temptation in the latter days of lent - in which many of our members of course find themselves at the moment), and return to the main theme of this thread.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Judson]

Dear friends,

An important point comes out of the tangent that's recently emerged in this thread (and from which I would encourage us, having seen it, to return - and to focus anew on the theme of the thread itself): namely, the question of doctrinal 'development'. It is quite right that the Orthodox Church firmly rejects any idea of the 'development' of doctrine, if this is taken to mean that she comes to believe, in time, things which she did not believe or know formerly - things that would amount to an 'addition' to that which was revealed to the disciples in Christ. Yet the Church does fully understand the idea of doctrine's developing articulation - i.e., that certain things come to be described in certain ways, with certain language, that was not known previously, or that may have emerged out of earlier confessions and statements (so, for example, the usage of homoousios as a term to articulate the relationship of Son to Father at Nicaea: this did not represent a new development in the substance of what was believed; rather, it was a newly-developed term used to articulate what was always believed and confessed in a new manner, better suited to defending that ancient confession against the errant views of the day).

That said, I hope all here can lay aside the temptation to dwell on confessional differences (always outside the scope of this forum), to react sharply and dramatically (always a temptation in the latter days of lent - in which many of our members of course find themselves at the moment), and return to the main theme of this thread.



Thanks Dcn Matthew, your post states all that i was trying to convey: true, the doctrines of Christ's deity, the Trinity, etc have required definition and articulation although it is clearly evident in scripture, but only retrospectively, now that we've stood on the shoulders of the fathers who helped us see it. But a part of me thinks that at least some semantics is at play to say that there was no "development" whatsoever - this all depends on how you define development. I see hardly any reason to distinguish the way the fathers added non-scriptural terminology in their articulation of doctrine and the way the medievals and the Reformers did that same. When I suggested that "development" I simply meant that ways of thinking about God were not known in past ages, but became known through the contribution of later theologians. is this not considered development, in some sense?

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Judson, you wrote:


Thanks Dcn Matthew, your post states all that i was trying to convey: true, the doctrines of Christ's deity, the Trinity, etc have required definition and articulation although it is clearly evident in scripture, but only retrospectively, now that we've stood on the shoulders of the fathers who helped us see it. But a part of me thinks that at least some semantics is at play to say that there was no "development" whatsoever - this all depends on how you define development. I see hardly any reason to distinguish the way the fathers added non-scriptural terminology in their articulation of doctrine and the way the medievals and the Reformers did that same. When I suggested that "development" I simply meant that ways of thinking about God were not known in past ages, but became known through the contribution of later theologians. is this not considered development, in some sense?

I don't think you quite understand the distinction I was discussing. There is an enormous difference between the developing ways in which a known and confessed doctrine is articulated over time (i.e. the way it may be spoken about in one context, with one set of concerns and one vocabulary, as opposed to the way it may be spoken about in another), and the idea that the knowledge of doctrines itself develops. The one is a deeply patristic understanding of the illumination of heart and mind that enables ancient confessions to be spoken with clarity in every age and place and culture; the other is a deeply flawed conception of developmental doctrine that was rejected by the Church as heretical when it first appeared under the guise of the 'New Prophecy' movement in the second century.

But really: all this is a tangent to the current thread. For those who are interested, discussion of the 'development of doctrine' has been and is the focus in other threads here in the Community. Let us return the present thread to its stated topic!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

Sovereignty has a certain definition which has to be faithful to language, history and theology. All things exists and occur according to God's sovereign decree. No where does scripture affirm that God grants man a measure of free will such that his complete control of all events is diminished, or that his will is thrwarted. This is a humanistic definition that has no precedent in scripture or the fathers. In the end, I believe we affirm essentially the same thing: that is God ordains all things (ie. he is in control of his universe), AND that humans are free to do as they will. No one denies that we are free within the limits that have been placed on us. the main point is that over, above and behind the decisions of free moral agents, is the hand of God working all things according to the pleasure of his will. I do not believe the early church has ever believed that God's sovereignty is limited by human freedom.

My first thought is that your understanding of sovereignty is basically flawed, depending as it does on a false dichotomy. I don't have time at the moment to go into that further (I need certain references which aren't coming quickly to mind); hopefully someone else will, or I'll come back to it later.


As with most things, the doctrine of God is not as simplistic as you make it out to be. God's will is not only his sovereign decree over all details in creation, but he also has a preceptive will, in which he commands the obedience of everyone, even those who disobey, and desires all to be saved, although not all will be saved. Does not will evil events in the sense that he desires it or actively brings it about, but he wills it as it is in accordance with his plans for the universe.

It sounds here like, instead of God's will being thwarted by human freedom, you have God's will being thwarted by God's will (distinguishing "sovereign" and "preceptive" wills does not really diminish the problem). Is God divided against Himself? I think we can agree that is not possible. But that is what you are left with if God preceptively wills that men should obey Him and that all should be saved, yet sovereignly wills that some will disobey and declines to so will their salvation. As I said before, if He desires the salvation of all but does not will the salvation of all, then under your definition of sovereignty and predestination, He is either unable to save (and thus impotent to do so), or unwilling to save (and thus at least partially the cause of the perdition of the unsaved, by His neglect).

It is the doctrine of God you are proferring which is overly simplistic, not ours. It treats God's will and man's will as entirely separate, whereas Orthodoxy understands the concept of a participation of man's will and God's will. To define this gets tricky, as man is bound within time and God is not; to a large degree it is beyond our capacity to grasp. But a summary way of putting it is that God's sovereignty (and, by extension, predestination) is inextricably related to his foreknowledge, such that our free choice is a part of it. As Bishop Elias said (emphasis added):


Divine predestination is one of the most inaccessible mysteries, locked in the abyss of divine reason and wisdom. The human mind, short on comprehension and limited in its ability to grasp concepts, will never be able to understand this mystery even if it studies and investigates it endlessly. Oh, you learned theologians, I know how you deliberate on divine predestination. You say: "predestination is the foreknowledge and preparation of God's good things by which those who are saved are unalterably saved; that it is the ascension of rational creatures to eternal life, and is the process of being chosen to grace and glory." Yet you do not understand that God foresees from the beginning all that people do within time, that this divine foreknowledge is stable, but the works of humans within time are free. How can we reconcile the unchangeability of God's providence with the free self-determination of intelligent creatures? How is it that the immutability of divine decisions does not lead to inevitability? Why is it beyond question and not subject to chance? We must remove ourselves as far away as possible from these questions and quandaries of the scholars. These questions do not edify, but only confuse the mind. These quandaries do not enlighten, but only darken the intellect. Brothers and sisters, in this realm which defies comprehension, we understand only one thing: Predestination is the combination of divine grace and human will - of the grace of God which calls, and the will of man which follows this calling.

In Christ,
Michael

[Judson]

Dear Brothers,
If we may, go back to and take a look at some specific quotes from the Fathers. I lifted these from Gill's citations, so I can't verify it's accuracy. These are just some samples that I found written by a couple of our beloved Fathers Ignatius of Antioch and Athanasius. I'd like to hear how you read these citations.

Ignatius:
"Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, To the blessed in the greatness of God the Father and fullness; to the predestinated before ages,that is, before the world began; always to be a glory, abiding, immoveable, united and chosen in the true passion by the will of God the Father, and Jesus Christ our God; to the church, worthily blessed, which is in Ephesus of Asia, much joy in Christ Jesus, and in the unblemished grace."(Epistles to the Ephesians, 16)

Athanasius:
"The grace of the Savior to us-ward hath appeared of late, as saith the apostle, when he came to us but was ‘prepared before, even before we were, yea, before the foundation of the world (proetoimasto de aute kai priu genesthai emas, mallon de kai pro tes katabotes tou kosmou) the cause of this is, in some respect, kind and astonishing; for it was not proper that God should afterwards consult concerning us, that it might not appear as if he knew not the things that belong to us; wherefore, the God of the universe creating us by his own word, and knowing our affairs better than we ourselves, and foreknowing, indeed, that we should be made good, but afterwards, become transgressors of the commandment, and for that transgression be cast out of Paradise: he being a lover of mankind, and good, before prepared in his own word, by whom he also created us for the economy of our salvation (proetoimazei en to idio logo, di ou kai ektisentemas peri tes soteriodous emon oikonomias that though we fall, being deceived by the serpent, we might not utterly remain dead, all’,‘but, having redemption and salvation before prepared for us in the word (echontes en to logo ten proetoimasmenen emin lutrosin kai soterian), rising again, we might continue immortal." (Athanas. Contr. Arian. Orat. 3, p. 245, 246, vol. i.)

For even Paul was not at first, though afterwards he was made an apostle by the will of God; so our calling, which sometimes was not, and now is, proegoumenen eche boulesin,hath a preceding will; for as Paul himself again says, he was made, that is an apostle, according to the good pleasure of his will." (Athanas. contr. Arian.Orat. 4, p. 511.)

Although these quotes do not deliver a fully orbed treatment of traditional predestination a la Augustine, I see it being taught nonetheless. The Fathers' emphasis on free will notwithstanding (indeed I believe it in as well), they seem to elevate the prior volitional will of God above man's choice in the economy of salvation, wouldn't you say? How can it be deemed rational to dismiss that they are -at the very least - hinting towards the doctrine of election here?

All I'm looking for a fair acknowledgment of the doctrine that seems to be hinted at in these writings. It may very well be that not everything the Fathers taught has not been included in Orthodoxy's core theology and that's fair enough. But if there is a claim that the Fathers NO WHERE teach anything that resembles predestination in the Augustinian sense, then I want to take issue with that distorted view.

[Judson]

It sounds here like, instead of God's will being thwarted by human freedom, you have God's will being thwarted by God's will (distinguishing "sovereign" and "preceptive" wills does not really diminish the problem). Is God divided against Himself? I think we can agree that is not possible. But that is what you are left with if God preceptively wills that men should obey Him and that all should be saved, yet sovereignly wills that some will disobey and declines to so will their salvation. As I said before, if He desires the salvation of all but does not will the salvation of all, then under your definition of sovereignty and predestination, He is either unable to save (and thus impotent to do so), or unwilling to save (and thus at least partially the cause of the perdition of the unsaved, by His neglect).

Michael, Thanks for interacting with me on this. I think it's clear from scripture that God commands and has desires that his sovereignty does not will to happen. He certainly desires that all men repent and be saved, and he likewise commands them to do that. 2 Pet 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Obviously here, God has desires (preceptive will) that he does not will (sovereign will) to happen - that would lead to universalism, a view I hope you do not hold to.


It is the doctrine of God you are proferring which is overly simplistic, not ours. It treats God's will and man's will as entirely separate, whereas Orthodoxy understands the concept of a participation of man's will and God's will. To define this gets tricky, as man is bound within time and God is not; to a large degree it is beyond our capacity to grasp. But a summary way of putting it is that God's sovereignty (and, by extension, predestination) is inextricably related to his foreknowledge, such that our free choice is a part of it. As Bishop Elias said (emphasis added):


Respectfully, it is actually your doctrine of God, not mine, that seems overly simplistic. Your logic is leading down the dangerous road of universalism. ie a singular and undivided will in God for the salvation of all. I am willing to agree with the participation of man's wil and God's, provided that above and behind man's will is the operation of God's sovereign will. Indeed, there is not an inch of this universe which is not upheld and governed by God's sovereign will. Do you agree?

Perhaps what it comes down to is not the doctrine of God perse, but the doctrine of man. Is man so free and unhindered by evil that can go to God completely unaided? Pelagius said "yes." Scripture and the church agrees that he was wrong. At the very least, man needs divine help to make the initial approach toward God. This is what it means to be saved by grace.

Blessings,

[David Lindblom]

Michael, Thanks for interacting with me on this. I think it's clear from scripture that God commands and has desires that his sovereignty does not will to happen. He certainly desires that all men repent and be saved, and he likewise commands them to do that. 2 Pet 3:9 "The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Obviously here, God has desires (preceptive will) that he does not will (sovereign will) to happen - that would lead to universalism, a view I hope you do not hold to. I don't have but a few minutes so I'll be brief. Isnt' Piper big on the two wills of God? I do not believe this passes the non contradiction rule. You cannot have A and not A be true at the same time. Here's a way I've always looked at it. God has a will. What matters as to whether or not this will will come true or not is based on who's going to bring about this will. If it is to be brought about by God-Let there be light-it will most certainly happen. If, on the other hand, God is making known His will that someone other than Himself is to bring about then it is not a sure thing. His command to repent and believe is His will and His command but it is for those other than Himself to bring about (albeit w/ His enabling). Therefore it is not a certain thing that it will happen. In this way God only has one will and is not internally divided and has Him giving some measure of freewill to His creatures. Were not the Pharisees scolded because they always worked against God's will for them?

[Michael Stickles]

Respectfully, it is actually your doctrine of God, not mine, that seems overly simplistic. Your logic is leading down the dangerous road of universalism. ie a singular and undivided will in God for the salvation of all. I am willing to agree with the participation of man's wil and God's, provided that above and behind man's will is the operation of God's sovereign will. Indeed, there is not an inch of this universe which is not upheld and governed by God's sovereign will. Do you agree?

Perhaps what it comes down to is not the doctrine of God perse, but the doctrine of man. Is man so free and unhindered by evil that can go to God completely unaided? Pelagius said "yes." Scripture and the church agrees that he was wrong. At the very least, man needs divine help to make the initial approach toward God. This is what it means to be saved by grace.

I seriously doubt that I would agree with you on the first bit above, since we almost certainly do not understand "sovereign" in the same way. And as I see it, the view I mentioned only leads to "universalism" when unnaturally joined to a false understanding of God's will and sovereignty.

As to the doctrine of man, that could be a fruitful path to pursue. But I would forewarn that how we understand "grace" likely differs from your understanding as well, and that is going to affect the whole argument (unfortunately, one of the biggest problems in explaining Orthodox beliefs to Protestants is overcoming the "language barrier" - we use the same words, but don't mean quite the same things by them, making misunderstandings almost inevitable).

To start with, on the question of whether man can go to God completely unaided, the answer is "yes" if by "unaided" you mean without an external provision of something which was not already available to him, but "no" if you mean solely on his own strength, without the grace of God. For the grace required is already available to all. As St. John of Damascus says in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (book 2, chapter 30 (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/exact_freewill.aspx)):


Bear in mind, too, that virtue is a gift from God implanted in our nature, and that He Himself is the source and cause of all good, and without His co-operation and help we cannot will or do any good thing, But we have it in our power either to abide in virtue and follow God, Who calls us into ways of virtue, or to stray from paths of virtue, which is to dwell in wickedness, and to follow the devil who summons but cannot compel us. For wickedness is nothing else than the withdrawal of goodness, just as darkness is nothing else than the withdrawal of light. While then we abide in the natural state we abide in virtue, but when we deviate from the natural state, that is from virtue, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness.

Repentance is the returning from the unnatural into the natural state, from the devil to God, through discipline and effort.

So, to follow God, or even just turn towards Him, requires His grace, but He has already made that grace available to us. Will we do what is in our power, that His power might be fully effective in us? That is the question.

Regarding man's ability to will what is good, St. John Cassian puts it this way in his Conferences (this excerpt is from Conference 13, chapter 12 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.v.iv.xii.html)):


For we should not hold that God made man such that he can never will or be capable of what is good: or else He has not granted him a free will, if He has suffered him only to will or be capable of evil, but neither to will or be capable of what is good of himself.

Incidentally, I think these two quotes summarize fairly well how we understand the Scripture "... continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose."

If I am understanding them correctly, Pelagianism and Calvinism make the same foundational error - to assume that grace is (to use a clumsy metaphor) a "thing" external to both man and God which He gives out in the same way a parent gives a birthday-present to a child. The two systems simply proceed in opposite directions from that error. But I might be confusing that with some other distinction - anyone more familiar with these things, feel free to dive in with a correction.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Stickles]

One other quote from St. John of Damascus (from the same source as the earlier quote), which might shed a little more light on the Orthodox view of predestination:


We ought to understand that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things. For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge. But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice.

In Christ,
Michael

[Michael Stickles]

If I am understanding them correctly, Pelagianism and Calvinism make the same foundational error - to assume that grace is (to use a clumsy metaphor) a "thing" external to both man and God which He gives out in the same way a parent gives a birthday-present to a child. The two systems simply proceed in opposite directions from that error. But I might be confusing that with some other distinction - anyone more familiar with these things, feel free to dive in with a correction.

Ignore that bit - I was confusing Calvinism/Pelagianism with a completely different discussion. It's not the view of grace they share, but the anthropolgy. There's a discussion of that at this blog (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/we-have-met-the-enemy/) (I won't try to summarize it).

Final thought before I kick off for the night - I think the whole issue of sovereignty and how we may differ on it might be related to the discussions here on the Freedom vs. control (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6127-Freedom-vs-control) thread. Judson, it might be worth your time to check that thread out. (and now I'm going to bed before I really start babbling)

In Christ,
Michael

[David Lindblom]

One other quote from St. John of Damascus (from the same source as the earlier quote), which might shed a little more light on the Orthodox view of predestination:



In Christ,
Michael

What St. John of Damascus says here:

...God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience.

Is what I was trying to say in my last post. He said it w/ a bit more flair.

[Judson]

I don't have but a few minutes so I'll be brief. Isnt' Piper big on the two wills of God? I do not believe this passes the non contradiction rule. You cannot have A and not A be true at the same time. Here's a way I've always looked at it. God has a will. What matters as to whether or not this will will come true or not is based on who's going to bring about this will. If it is to be brought about by God-Let there be light-it will most certainly happen. If, on the other hand, God is making known His will that someone other than Himself is to bring about then it is not a sure thing. His command to repent and believe is His will and His command but it is for those other than Himself to bring about (albeit w/ His enabling). Therefore it is not a certain thing that it will happen. In this way God only has one will and is not internally divided and has Him giving some measure of freewill to His creatures. Were not the Pharisees scolded because they always worked against God's will for them?

I think the two wills passes the law of non contradiction nicely - that's just the point, there are TWO wills. A contradiction would be to say that God's sovereign will is never frustrated; and God's sovereign wills is sometimes frustrated. This is not the claim being made. I'm saying that God's sovereign will is never frustrated, but his preceptive will (command, desire, etc) can be. Do you agree with 2 Pet 3:9 - God does not will man to perish ? This is obviously not God's sovereign will, but his will of desire.

I agree somewhat in making the distinction between what God makes happen and what man makes happen, as long as man's action is subsumed into the all-inclusive sovereignty of God. I think the mix-up is the caricature of God's sovereignty as always being his active production of something, which is not always the case. When we say that God ordained that evil be in the world, it does not mean that he authored it, created it and manifested it his creatures who serve as his automatons. Free creatures are immediately responsible for evil in the world, but God's decree allowed that it be. in other words, the world that God has planned is one with evil included and factored into it. The problem with making too strict a distinction between God's action and man's is that most of the world's history is dependent on the actions of man. If God is not somehow directing the decisions of man, then it would be a sheer strike of good luck that the Messiah would be born, die and be resurrected as scripture foretold. It must be admitted that those who opposed God's will were integral parts of God's design, for example, Judas, the chief priests, Pilate. Acts 2:23 says Jesus " was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men.." This is the prime example of compatibalism: God's sovereignty and man's free will is working in tandem toward God's desired ends.

[Father David Moser]

I think the two wills passes the law of non contradiction nicely - that's just the point, there are TWO wills. A contradiction would be to say that God's sovereign will is never frustrated; and God's sovereign wills is sometimes frustrated. .
Isn't this idea of will or wills in the persons of the Godhead addressed in the acts of the councils or in the writings of the fathers. I seem to recall that the idea that there was more than one will in the Trinity (separate wills for the Father, Son and Spirit) was quite specifically addressed and rejected. I will have to look back at my recent reading to see if I can find the citation, but if anyone else has an idea on this please post it.

Fr David Moser

[Judson]

Isn't this idea of will or wills in the persons of the Godhead addressed in the acts of the councils or in the writings of the fathers. I seem to recall that the idea that there was more than one will in the Trinity (separate wills for the Father, Son and Spirit) was quite specifically addressed and rejected. I will have to look back at my recent reading to see if I can find the citation, but if anyone else has an idea on this please post it.


I'd be very interested in reading the citation from the councils or fathers. I know this is the position of scholasticism, both medieval and reformed, but this would require the silencing of much of the Bible. Does God not desire the repentance of all, while promising to save only those who will believe? What then are we to make of 2 Pet 3:9, Deut 5:29 ('Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!), Matt 23:37 ("Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling).

If God has only one will which corresponds exactly with his desires then it would be impossible for him to desire the salvation of those who are lost.

[David Lindblom]

I'd be very interested in reading the citation from the councils or fathers. I know this is the position of scholasticism, both medieval and reformed, but this would require the silencing of much of the Bible. Does God not desire the repentance of all, while promising to save only those who will believe? What then are we to make of 2 Pet 3:9, Deut 5:29 ('Oh that they had such a heart in them, that they would fear Me and keep all My commandments always, that it may be well with them and with their sons forever!), Matt 23:37 ("Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling).

If God has only one will which corresponds exactly with his desires then it would be impossible for him to desire the salvation of those who are lost.

It makes no sense to you because you are caught up in what I call the Calvinist determinist mind trap. The verses you quote explain perfectly our position. God truly wants their repentance but He leaves whether or not they do it in their hands. Thus you have God wanting their salvation yet they will not receive it.

Also, I disagree w/ your thinking that God having two wills is not contradictory. You have one God Who, on the one hand, that desires the salvation of all then you have the other will in the same God that has for His own good pleasure (Westminster Confession) passed them over, making it impossible for them to be saved. One God, two wills w/in Him that are working for opposite results. That's contradiction plain a simple.

[Anna Stickles]

I know this is the position of scholasticism, both medieval and reformed, but this would require the silencing of much of the Bible.

I would suggest that it depends on how one reads the Bible. The Fathers are hardly literalists in their hermeneutics. Their is an understanding in Orthodoxy of a spiritual meaning and context for Scripture that goes beyond the literal words. Scripture speaks of a reality beyond itself and at best words can only convey an approximation in understanding that reality. The way this reality is described changes depending on the culture and personality of the prophet who is speaking. The OT culture was very concrete and so it talks of God in very concrete and material terms. The purpose behind vs like the ones you have quoted is not to give us exact information on the nature of God's will but is to say something about God's relationship with man.

Modern approaches to Scripture bog down in nominalist interpretations, and interpretations based on projection of our own emotional and mental reality/experiences in a way that is foreign to the Fathers.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sovereignty has a certain definition which has to be faithful to language, history and theology.

Herein lies, I suspect, the conceptual problem. By forcing a specific term to a contrived meaning, our friend is forcing God to be "faithful to language, history and theology." This is backwards. Our language, history, and theology should, rather, be faithful, as best we can, to God who is the "I am". Note the lack of adjectives. This can bascially result in creating a god in our own image, instead of simply letting God be God, which is the Orthodox approach. This is the danger of being overly analytical, because analysis requires analytical rules and God does not have to obey our rules. Therefore we must adapt our analysis to "accomodate" God, not force God to fit into our analysis. If we say "the word MUST mean THIS" and THEN say God is that word, we have fit God to our definition, we have put He who is infinite into a very finite box, rather than at least attempting to make our definition fit (in our limited way) God. God is beyond our ability to define, analyze, or "study", that is why our salvation is NOT based on head-knowledge, on scholasticism, on analysis, it is a RELATIONSHIP. We do not "study" our spouse, or try to make them "fit" our preconceived notions, or a divorce may soon figure prominently in the future.

We probably should spend less time figuring out who or "what" God is and more time on figuring out just exactly who and what God wants us to be. That, at least, seems like the more achievable task, even if it is the "harder" one in many ways. Once we figure out that who we "are" is not who we are meant to be, then we have to "do something" and that takes much more effort than the relatively simple intellectual exercise of defining "sovereign".

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[David Lindblom]

Herein lies, I suspect, the conceptual problem. By forcing a specific term to a contrived meaning, our friend is forcing God to be "faithful to language, history and theology." This is backwards. Our language, history, and theology should, rather, be faithful, as best we can, to God who is the "I am". Note the lack of adjectives. This can bascially result in creating a god in our own image, instead of simply letting God be God, which is the Orthodox approach. This is the danger of being overly analytical, because analysis requires analytical rules and God does not have to obey our rules. Therefore we must adapt our analysis to "accomodate" God, not force God to fit into our analysis. If we say "the word MUST mean THIS" and THEN say God is that word, we have fit God to our definition, we have put He who is infinite into a very finite box, rather than at least attempting to make our definition fit (in our limited way) God. God is beyond our ability to define, analyze, or "study", that is why our salvation is NOT based on head-knowledge, on scholasticism, on analysis, it is a RELATIONSHIP. We do not "study" our spouse, or try to make them "fit" our preconceived notions, or a divorce may soon figure prominently in the future.

We probably should spend less time figuring out who or "what" God is and more time on figuring out just exactly who and what God wants us to be. That, at least, seems like the more achievable task, even if it is the "harder" one in many ways. Once we figure out that who we "are" is not who we are meant to be, then we have to "do something" and that takes much more effort than the relatively simple intellectual exercise of defining "sovereign".

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

Both of you did a great job of putting this issue in proper perspective. I began suspecting this very thing you describe as a Protestant but I had no where to go w/ this....then I found the Church!

[Judson]

I would suggest that it depends on how one reads the Bible. The Fathers are hardly literalists in their hermeneutics. Their is an understanding in Orthodoxy of a spiritual meaning and context for Scripture that goes beyond the literal words. Scripture speaks of a reality beyond itself and at best words can only convey an approximation in understanding that reality. The way this reality is described changes depending on the culture and personality of the prophet who is speaking. The OT culture was very concrete and so it talks of God in very concrete and material terms. The purpose behind vs like the ones you have quoted is not to give us exact information on the nature of God's will but is to say something about God's relationship with man.

Modern approaches to Scripture bog down in nominalist interpretations, and interpretations based on projection of our own emotional and mental reality/experiences in a way that is foreign to the Fathers.

I think the Fathers were, in fact, quite literalistic in their hermeneutics - recall the debate eurcharistic debate. Ancient traditions insist that because Jesus said "this IS body", it really IS the literal flesh of our Lord. It is difficult and probably wrong to insist on an either/or approach, as if the ancients and the Orthodox read scripture "spiritually" and the modern nominally. Historical hermeneutics was a complex and multifacated undertaking, even in their day - the Antiochene vs Alexandrian schools, for example.

If the OT authors were very concrete in their descriptions of God, what reason and right have we to not take them at their word? For example, Isa 45
5 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-5.htm) “I am the LORD, and there is no other;
Besides Me there is no God.
I will gird you, though you have not known Me;
6 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-6.htm) That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun
That there is no one besides Me.
I am the LORD, and there is no other,
7 (http://bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm) The One forming light and creating darkness,
Causing well-being and creating calamity;
I am the LORD who does all these.

It's true that this passage is saying something about God's relationship with man, but certainly NOT to the exclusion of saying some pretty important things about God. It seems here that God really wants his people to know him. And here we also have a simple and comprehensive definition of his sovereignty: he "causes" well being and creates calamity. It is certainly not wrong to take scripture at its word. In fact, this is the only right thing to do. So when the believer in God's full sovereignty confesses this attribute of God, it's simply good theology stemming from good reading.

The danger comes with the denial of things that scripture clearly teaches. apophatic descriptions, when you think about it, does not release God from the "box" of theological categories any more than positive assertions do. By saying what God isn't, you are in saying in fact saying something about what he is. Categories and definitions are absolutely essential, not only to theology, but to human thought and language. Yes, God is beyond human language but he has revealed himself concretely in Jesus, and in Holy Scripture. The history of revelation has been one of the Word, of meaningful communication. We are not attempting to interpret the bones of dead animals, or oily swirls in water. God has chosen to speak and reveal himself. Definitions may be inadequte, but it does not mean they are unnecessary. They are essential; there can simply be no contention on this point, or else we are speaking nothing but jibberish, and so is God.

Herman, I disagree with your rather humanistic priorities when you say, "We probably should spend less time figuring out who or "what" God is and more time on figuring out just exactly who and what God wants us to be." This seems at odds with John 17:3, ""This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent"; and Jer 9:24 "but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD." I do not believe the Fathers considered it the highest and urgent calling to discover who we were meant to be. This is important of course, but this task, like everything else, but begin with God and who He is. Even the oft-quoted maxim: God became man that man might become God - notice which doctrine comes first, man or God?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Herman, I disagree with your rather humanistic priorities when you say, "We probably should spend less time figuring out who or "what" God is and more time on figuring out just exactly who and what God wants us to be." This seems at odds with John 17:3, ""This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent"; and Jer 9:24 "but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things," declares the LORD." I do not believe the Fathers considered it the highest and urgent calling to discover who we were meant to be. This is important of course, but this task, like everything else, but begin with God and who He is. Even the oft-quoted maxim: God became man that man might become God - notice which doctrine comes first, man or God?

How much time do you spend "figuring out" your wife? Do you not want to be the man she thinks of you as? I am not saying we are not supposed to know God, far from it! But you do not get to know your wife by reading a book about her, you do not really get to know God simply by reading a book, you participate in His Life. Conforming our life to His life is how we build our relationship to Him. So it is not odd at all. But this is rapidly turning into a "I know you are but what am I" sort of thing. Holy Scripture is not the end, it is only the beginning of the journey.

[Anna Stickles]

I think the Fathers were, in fact, quite literalistic in their hermeneutics - recall the debate recall the debate eurcharistic debate. Ancient traditions insist that because Jesus said "this IS body", it really IS the literal flesh of our Lord.
Eucharistic debate? among the early fathers? Early church history is something I've just been starting to research a little more in depth. I thought that the fact that the eucharist was Christ's real body and blood was one of those things that was never debated until the modern era. As far as I understand it, in the early Church this was accepted universally since it was an unquestionable part of the Apostolic Tradition as given to the Church. This is not a matter of hermenutics at all. The belief already existed in the Church, it was not derived from Scripture.
This is a matter of the Apostolic liturgical tradition, which is hardly fully explained in the NT. In this case interpretation of Scripture was preceded by an understanding and practice that already existed as Tradition. In Orthodoxy it is always Tradition that constrains and shapes our theology including our understanding of the Sciptures.

Tradition is the lens through which we read Scripture, and this is true whether we are Protestant or Orthodox. It's an unescapable fact that our personal theology is formed by Scripture + our tradition + our personal Christian experience.

Tradition determines things such as how we define given words in Scripture, how various aspects of the nature of God, the nature of man and God's economy of salvation are seen in the 'big picture', what we give more priority to when things seem to contradict each other, etc. Tradition and experience form the interpretive lens through which we read Scripture. This is what makes Sola Scriptura a myth. It is always Scripture + whatever is already in my mind and experience, and no matter how hard we try to be objective we cannot escape this. It is better to simply accept this and work with it.

[Andreas Moran]

I have to say that I have not studied this thread, and so my comments may have no value. As I understand predestination, it can mean many things, but is most commonly thought to mean that God has fore-ordained who will be saved and who will not be; in other words, there is an elect and a non-elect. This idea gained currency in the west through Augustine and was taken up by such reformers as Calvin. The Orthodox view is, I believe, expressed by two Fathers: St John of Karpathos (see Philokalia vol. I, p. 318) and a quote from St Theophan the Recluse (the citation for which I cannot loate just now). St John writes about the well-known matter of falling and rising up again. St Theophan says this:

The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is unnecessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. God's foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and justice, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.

Scripture indicates that no one is without sin: 1 Kings 8:46 - 'for there is no man that sinneth not'; 1 John 1:8 - 'If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves'. Predestination would then imply that some sinners are saved and many others not. The difference is repentance which Christ preached and is necessarily an act of free will, the meaning of the last sentence from the quotation from St Theophan. Predestination, to my mind, is a form of Manichaeism.

[Andreas Moran]

A further point occurs to me - how does anyone know if they are among the elect or not? And among those who subscribe to predestination, is there any belief that the torments are hell vary in intensity?

[Judson]

How much time do you spend "figuring out" your wife? Do you not want to be the man she thinks of you as? I am not saying we are not supposed to know God, far from it! But you do not get to know your wife by reading a book about her, you do not really get to know God simply by reading a book, you participate in His Life. Conforming our life to His life is how we build our relationship to Him. So it is not odd at all. But this is rapidly turning into a "I know you are but what am I" sort of thing. Holy Scripture is not the end, it is only the beginning of the journey.

I agree that we are on a journey with God and the relationship is what matters. However, there is no need, in my opinion, to pit intimate knowledge against intimate experiences. A person may not spend time "figuring out" his spouse like a mathematical problem, but there is something to be said about knowing that person, her attributes, her personality, likes/dislikes, etc. If you've ever seen that movie Saving Private Ryan, the Captain's knowledge of his wife's little quirks is the very thing that forms their deep intimacy. At any rate, knowing God is very different from knowing another person. We can and must know God only through his divine revelation and not from reason alone or the opinions of others. The "Book" is, in fact, the primary means by which we come to know God and what he's like.

[Judson]

I have to say that I have not studied this thread, and so my comments may have no value. As I understand predestination, it can mean many things, but is most commonly thought to mean that God has fore-ordained who will be saved and who will not be; in other words, there is an elect and a non-elect. This idea gained currency in the west through Augustine and was taken up by such reformers as Calvin.

I would say that the teaching was not emphasized, not that it was completely absent before Augustine. Scripture can be shown very easily to teach the doctrine of predestination. It is not a doctrine like Rome's immaculate conception, which has no precedent in scripture whatsoever.


The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is unnecessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. I would say a hearty Amen! to your essentially monergistic statement. it is grace working in us and for us through our efforts. This is to say that God's grace is the energy that is dispensed for us to do his will. The problem comes when we suggest that God's grace is not enough to save, that human works must supplement what God does not provide, so that the combination of both leads to salvation.


Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. God's foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and justice, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.


This is where i see you beginning to fall back upon on works, rather than grace. it seems so obvious in these discussions that man's freedom is always being protected at the expense of God's freedom. Is God not free? - he is the potter afterall. Does he ask the pot how he should form it (rom 9). Does he consult man when laying the foundations of the earth and determining the paths of the stars (Job 38). Does he not hold the heart of the king in his hand and direct it like a watercourse where ever he wishes? (Prov 21:1). Remember that God also has rights and freedoms that he intends to act on without hindrance. No where does scripture ever mention that he steps aside or limits his sovereign will to make way for man's freedom (I would love to interact with any passages, if there are any). Your statement "Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination" sounds like a contradiction to me, or, a major revision of language. Determination, by definition, is independent. For the divine to be dependent on man is both unbiblical and nonsensical. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I want to convey the obvious re-working of language and theology that must occur in order for these ideas to be argued. I'm curious, what authoritative source did you get this idea from?

I'm all for apostolic tradition, and I agree with all of you that tradition worked hand in hand with scripture in the early church. But what happens when tradition and scripture conflict, which it seems to be doing on this issue?

Paul wrote,
Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-11.htm)Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-12.htm)not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesd) 13 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-13.htm)Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”e (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotese) 14 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-14.htm)What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-15.htm)For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesf)
16 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-16.htm) It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-17.htm) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesg) 18 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-18.htm) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


In all honesty, I really do not see how you can square this passage with the idea that God's determination is dependent on man's choices and action. Paul seems to be saying the direct opposite. Again, I hope I'm not being a jerk. I really am interested to understand how you would interpret this teaching that seems so clear to me.

blessings.

[Judson]

A further point occurs to me - how does anyone know if they are among the elect or not? And among those who subscribe to predestination, is there any belief that the torments are hell vary in intensity?

Ultimately, a person knows he is elect by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit, by whom he cries out "Abba Father!" Externally, the evidence of election would be fruits of the Spirit exhibited in his life and a growing confidence of his being united with Christ.

Not sure about the hell question, but I personally do believe that there would be differences in intensity of punishment in hell for sinners. The bible seems to suggest that some sins are more heinous in God's eyes than others.

[Herman Blaydoe]

At any rate, knowing God is very different from knowing another person. We can and must know God only through his divine revelation and not from reason alone or the opinions of others. The "Book" is, in fact, the primary means by which we come to know God and what he's like.

It is sad that this may appear to be true for Protestants, but it simply is NOT true for the Orthodox. Holy Scripture is primarily the beginning, but it is certainly not the sole means, since we encounter Christ on a much more personal and intimate level than merely reading about Him.

[Andreas Moran]

I would say that the teaching was not emphasized, not that it was completely absent before Augustine. Scripture can be shown very easily to teach the doctrine of predestination.

It can just as easily be seen from scripture that there is no doctrine of predestination: I have seen fairly equal lists of quotations from scripture in support of both sides, and that is no way to proceed.


It is not a doctrine like Rome's immaculate conception, which has no precedent in scripture whatsoever.

This is irrelevant.



I would say a hearty Amen! to your essentially monergistic statement. it is grace working in us and for us through our efforts. This is to say that God's grace is the energy that is dispensed for us to do his will. The problem comes when we suggest that God's grace is not enough to save, that human works must supplement what God does not provide, so that the combination of both leads to salvation.

You have misread St Theophan's statement. Since you acknowledge 'our efforts', how is St Theophan's statement monergistic? Being given grace automatically to do God's will makes us automatons, whereas God made us in His image and in His likeness - and God is not an automaton. St Theophan makes clear the Orthodox position that both grace and our will are needed though in unequal proportions.


This is where i see you beginning to fall back upon on works, rather than grace. it seems so obvious in these discussions that man's freedom is always being protected at the expense of God's freedom. Is God not free? - he is the potter afterall. Does he ask the pot how he should form it (rom 9). Does he consult man when laying the foundations of the earth and determining the paths of the stars (Job 38). Does he not hold the heart of the king in his hand and direct it like a watercourse where ever he wishes? (Prov 21:1). Remember that God also has rights and freedoms that he intends to act on without hindrance. No where does scripture ever mention that he steps aside or limits his sovereign will to make way for man's freedom (I would love to interact with any passages, if there are any). Your statement "Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination" sounds like a contradiction to me, or, a major revision of language. Determination, by definition, is independent. For the divine to be dependent on man is both unbiblical and nonsensical. I'm not trying to be harsh, but I want to convey the obvious re-working of language and theology that must occur in order for these ideas to be argued. I'm curious, what authoritative source did you get this idea from?

It seems you have not realised that this is part of the statement of St Theophan who is not self-contradictory nor a reviser of language. He was not given to writing nonsense nor anything unbiblical.

You seem to be overlooking love: the fact that God is love and that all men are commanded to love Him. It would make no sense to love the One Who has decided, apparently arbitrarily (since all men are sinners) to condemn you to hell. God chose love to be the foundation of everything precisely because it is the one thing He cannot force by His will. Scripture gives us commandments: the response to a command may be obedience or disobedience. Either response comes from the effort or will of the one commanded. It would be useless and nonsensical to give commands to one who had no volition to obey or disobey. God is not unhindered because He cannot force obedience. He cannot force us to love Him. This is self-evident: Christ God commanded us to love Him but who could say that he does love God as he was commanded to?

[David Lindblom]

Paul wrote,

Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-11.htm)Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-12.htm)not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”d (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesd) 13 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-13.htm)Just as it is written: “.Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”e (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotese) 14 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-14.htm)What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-15.htm)For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”f (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesf)
16 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-16.htm) It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-17.htm) For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”g (http://niv.scripturetext.com/romans/9.htm#footnotesg) 18 (http://bible.cc/romans/9-18.htm) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

In all honesty, I really do not see how you can square this passage with the idea that God's determination is dependent on man's choices and action. Paul seems to be saying the direct opposite. Again, I hope I'm not being a jerk. I really am interested to understand how you would interpret this teaching that seems so clear to me.

blessings.Let's put a little more of the OT passage into the mix:

Genesis 25:23 (ESV)
23 And the Lord said to her, “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you shall be divided; the one shall be stronger than the other, the older shall serve the younger.”

This passage is talking about how the promises are to be passed down and through whom. It was to be through Jacob's line not Esau's. This is not about anyone's personal salvation. Esau never served Jacob in life...is this then a failed prophecy? How then was the prophecy fulfilled? Paul's quote of Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated comes from Malachi not the Genesis passage which was some 1400 years later:

Malachi 1:2-5 (ESV)
2 “I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob
3 but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.”
4 If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’ ”
5 Your own eyes shall see this, and you shall say, “Great is the Lord beyond the border of Israel!”

In this whole Rom. 9 passage Paul is dealing w/ what happened to the promises made to Abraham as pertaining to the Jews. Since the Jews by and large did not follow Christ and receive salvation then were God's promises no good? Did they fail? Much to the Jews heartburn God expanded the covenant to include the non-Jews. They could enter in w/o taking up the Law. But by faith. Who were they to shake a finger at God and say That's not fair. So what is Paul's conclusion to all that he previously wrote in Rom. 9? Why didn't the Jews attain salvation? Why didn't they receive the promises? This is the part that is habitually left out by Calvinist in dealing w/ Rom. 9.

Romans 9:30-33 (ESV)
30 What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith;
31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,
33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

No mention whatsoever of God predestining them to damnation. They tried to establish their own righteousness based on simply keeping the Law.

What was God's activity towards these Jews?

Romans 10:21 (ESV)
21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”

He chose to always be calling them to Himself. No predestining to damnation.

Romans 11:1-2 (ESV)
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?

Paul goes on to describe these Jews:

Romans 11:7-10 (ESV)
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened,
8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.”
9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.”

Sounds pretty bleak doesn't it? Especially if you notice the part about the non-elect being hardened. Sounds like the Calvinist are right doesn't it? But what does scripture say?

Romans 11:11-12 (ESV)
11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.
12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!

and:

Romans 11:23-24 (ESV)
23 And even they, (yep even those "non-elect" Jews previously described) if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Lastly:

Romans 11:30-32 (ESV)
30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy.
32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

Once the Rom. 9 is put back into context w/ Paul's own conclusion and w/ chapters 10 and 11 one gets a much different picture of what's going on in this Calvinist proof text.

[Anna Stickles]

The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is unnecessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace.
Andreas did it really say "unnecessary" or was this a typo? "Necessary" would seem to make more sense.

Thanks this was good. That last line especially makes the Orthodox position clear.

"God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination."
It reminds me of a quote from St Gregory of Nyssa.


"For the grace of God does not naturally frequent souls which are fleeing from salvation, and the power of human virtue is not sufficient in itself to cause the souls not sharing in grace to ascend to the beauty of life.

For it says: ‘Unless the Lord build the house and keep the city, he labors in vain that builds it and watches in vain who keeps it."(Ps. 126.1)And again: ‘For not with their own sword did they conquer the land; nor did their own arm make them victorious (although they used their swords and arms in their struggles), but it was your right hand and your arm, and the light of your countenance."(Ps. 43.4) What does this mean? It means that the Lord from on high enters into an alliance with the doers, and, at the same time, it means that it is not necessary for men considering human efforts to think that the entire crown rests upon their struggles, but it is necessary for them to refer their hopes for their goal to the will of God.


I think this is basically the Orthodox interpretation of "Those God foreknew He also predestined"

[Judson]

It seems you have not realised that this is part of the statement of St Theophan who is not self-contradictory nor a reviser of language. He was not given to writing nonsense nor anything unbiblical.

Well, apparently it's true that you are open to other sources of infallible authority besides scripture. However, i'm not sure how widely the belief is held among Christians, or Orthodox that St. Theophan never contradicted himself, nor ever wrote nonsense or anything unbiblical. Protestants, at least, do not attribute such infallbility even to Calvin.


You seem to be overlooking love: the fact that God is love and that all men are commanded to love Him. It would make no sense to love the One Who has decided, apparently arbitrarily (since all men are sinners) to condemn you to hell. God chose love to be the foundation of everything precisely because it is the one thing He cannot force by His will. Scripture gives us commandments: the response to a command may be obedience or disobedience. Either response comes from the effort or will of the one commanded. It would be useless and nonsensical to give commands to one who had no volition to obey or disobey. God is not unhindered because He cannot force obedience. He cannot force us to love Him. This is self-evident: Christ God commanded us to love Him but who could say that he does love God as he was commanded to?


1. Isn't it offensive to our human sensibilities that God should command anyone to love him? Why should we gloss over this, but take issue with the fact that God chooses the ones he plans to save? it seems you have arbitrarily chosen what to be offended at. You say that the will cannot be forced, yet you agree that God commands men to lwillingly ove him. So, which one is it? Either he permits the creature to love freely, or he commands them to love. I believe he regenerates the sinful heart and gives us the ability to come to him and receive his love and love him in return. As John says, "it is not that we loved God, but that he first loved us" (1 John 4:10).

2. it is certainly not unreasonable to continue to love someone whom you condemn. It is like a judge condemning his own son to execution for a committing a heinous crime. We already know that God loves all people (to a certain degree), even those who will be condemned. The question is what degree of love does God have for this sinner, and does it differ from the love he has for people burning in hell? You would have to answer, "the love is the same." the problem with this is that it makes God's love powerless to save. A love that is indistinguishable is no love at all. I'm sorry, but God does not love his saints the same as he loves sea slugs, sinners, and satan.

[Judson]

David, excellent exegesis on Romans 9-11. i completely agree with you that it does not teach reprobation, ie, God electing those he will damn (remember, I do not believe in double predestination, like many hyper calvinists do).

Yes, it does speak mainly of Israel's election and their place in grand scheme of God's plan, but this does not overturn the point that i've been trying to make: God chose Jacob over Esau regardless of the deeds they had committed. Whether we are talking about nations or individuals, what is certain is that Jacob and Esau were individuals, and God is a God who chooses unconditionally. This is in response to the Orthodox position that God chooses based on our behaviour - a notion that is completely foreign to his passage, and all other soteriological texts.

Also, this is but one of the many texts that teach that God chooses people unto salvation. How about 1 Thes 5:9 "For God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ". Also, 2 Thes 2:13, "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth." See how clear it is! The nation of Israel is no longer in view in this passage, but the language of election is being used of the Thessalonian saints most unequivocally. Any denial of this would seem to me a clear refusal to acknowledge the plain words of St Paul.

[Andreas Moran]

Andreas did it really say "unnecessary" or was this a typo? "Necessary" would seem to make more sense.

Thanks this was good. That last line especially makes the Orthodox position clear.

It reminds me of a quote from St Gregory of Nyssa.



I think this is basically the Orthodox interpretation of "Those God foreknew He also predestined"

I think you must be right about 'unnecessary', Anna. This is always the danger in taking quotes from second-hand sources which do not cite where the quote came from. But St Theophan says the same thing in various ways throughout his writings.

[Michael Stickles]

The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is unnecessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace.

Andreas did it really say "unnecessary" or was this a typo? "Necessary" would seem to make more sense.

This is an interesting one. A bit of Googling found 18 pages which give this quote with "unnecessary", but it looks like the other 17 may have just been quoting from Wikipedia's "Predestination" page (many are duplicates of that whole page).

The only page which said "necessary", however, is also the only one which provides the original source. The Google Books preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=YLmbkbpANpAC&pg=PA609&lpg=PA609&dq=theophan+%22necessary+to+combine+them%22&source=bl&ots=_7S0zfVomc&sig=oK27Iqp6WmQjB38ZhCmO5cL7OSA&hl=en&ei=9M9NS7WVAcOUtgfCnJDkDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theophan%20%22necessary%20to%20combine%20them%22&f=false) of Johanna Manley's The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox, among the selections for the 29th week after Pentecost, gives a slightly fuller version (emphasis added):


The Lord says that "The Kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force." In the writings of the Apostle Paul we find that the matter of salvation does not depend on us at all and that before our birth, God has determined for us one fate or another. What is the relationship between Divine provision and our free will? Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.

This is given as being from St. Theophan's An Explanation of Certain Texts of Holy Scripture. The only differences from the version Andreas found are: "necessary" instead of "unnecessary"; and "truth" instead of "justice". I just updated the Wikipedia entry.

In Christ,
Michael

[Benjamin Amis]

This is an interesting one. A bit of Googling found 18 pages which give this quote with "unnecessary", but it looks like the other 17 may have just been quoting from Wikipedia's "Predestination" page (many are duplicates of that whole page).

The only page which said "necessary", however, is also the only one which provides the original source. The Google Books preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=YLmbkbpANpAC&pg=PA609&lpg=PA609&dq=theophan+%22necessary+to+combine+them%22&source=bl&ots=_7S0zfVomc&sig=oK27Iqp6WmQjB38ZhCmO5cL7OSA&hl=en&ei=9M9NS7WVAcOUtgfCnJDkDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=theophan%20%22necessary%20to%20combine%20them%22&f=false) of Johanna Manley's The Bible and the Holy Fathers for Orthodox, among the selections for the 29th week after Pentecost, gives a slightly fuller version (emphasis added):



This is given as being from St. Theophan's An Explanation of Certain Texts of Holy Scripture. The only differences from the version Andreas found are: "necessary" instead of "unnecessary"; and "truth" instead of "justice". I just updated the Wikipedia entry.

In Christ,
Michael

Thank you for that, Michael. I appreciate the effort you put into tracking that down!

I know I haven't said anything in this thread for quite some time, but it has again become relevant to my interests. My question for St. Theophan would be:

"Does not God's act of creation of humanity place certain limiting factors upon our free will? Not that free will is non-existent, but, for example, we cannot choose to walk through a wall because of how God made the world, nor can we fly because the way in which God crafted the universe and our physical forms. In the same way, cannot God craft us all in a way in which we would freely choose Him due to various circumstances if He wishes all to come into salvation? If God is omnipotent, surely this could happen and no one would go to hell. Are we stronger than the will of God if we are rejecting His invitation? Are we not foiling the plans of a supposedly infinite and unfathomable being?"

Thoughts?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Thank you for that, Michael. I appreciate the effort you put into tracking that down!

I know I haven't said anything in this thread for quite some time, but it has again become relevant to my interests. My question for St. Theophan would be:

"Does not God's act of creation of humanity place certain limiting factors upon our free will? Not that free will is non-existent, but, for example, we cannot choose to walk through a wall because of how God made the world, nor can we fly because the way in which God crafted the universe and our physical forms. In the same way, cannot God craft us all in a way in which we would freely choose Him due to various circumstances if He wishes all to come into salvation? If God is omnipotent, surely this could happen and no one would go to hell. Are we stronger than the will of God if we are rejecting His invitation? Are we not foiling the plans of a supposedly infinite and unfathomable being?"

Thoughts?

In a word, no. Just because it is His will to allow us to have a say, that does not mean He no longer omnipotent, it simply means He does not want puppets. He wants us to accept Him and so He allows us to reject Him. That does not make us "all powerful" or more powerful than God. That is not even a logical conclusion. It sounds like you are saying that an all-powerful God CANNOT allow us to have choice. A god that "cannot" do something is not "all-powerful". Could He have made us that way? Of course! Did He choose to make us that way? Evidently not. Desiring to do something is not the same as having to do something. God chooses to not always get His way with everyone. Such is the extent of Divine and Perfect Humility! Are we trying to say that God CANNOT be perfectly humble? I choose to disagree.

Herman the not-so-humble Pooh

[Anna Stickles]

"Does not God's act of creation of humanity place certain limiting factors upon our free will? Not that free will is non-existent, but, for example, we cannot choose to walk through a wall because of how God made the world, nor can we fly because the way in which God crafted the universe and our physical forms.

Your question here was very helpful. Sometimes it takes the right question to help us see the right answer and this has helped me to pull together several things I have been wrestling with.

The Orthodox view is that human potential is unlimited. God in His act of creation gave this potential to humanity, but only in virtue of humanity's continued communion with Him is this potential realized. Of course Christ Himself, in His resurrected body, could walk through walls, and part of the theological significance of this is that in Christ humanity enters into its full and rightful sovereignty over creation. (Gen 1:26-28) The Orthodox view of freedom is that only in virtue of our union with God and submission into His will, does humanity become truly and fully free. In rebellion against God,through the loss of grace, the human soul and it's faculties - including knowledge, will, desire, etc. become progressively bound by sin and enslaved to Satan. Sin causes us to lose not only our sovereignty over creation but first and foremost over ourselves. (see passions 101 thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?6617-Introduction-to-the-passions-101))


In the same way, cannot God craft us all in a way in which we would freely choose Him due to various circumstances if He wishes all to come into salvation? If God is omnipotent, surely this could happen and no one would go to hell. Are we stronger than the will of God if we are rejecting His invitation? Are we not foiling the plans of a supposedly infinite and unfathomable being?"God could have made us many different ways. Hedid make us in His own image. He did create us to be capable of perfect communion with Him. This entails a certain amount of responsibility on our part. God must be faithful to Himself and to how He made us. To violate our freedom would be to destroy His own creation. It seems to be a common mistake to want to postulate that God's omnipotence means that God can do whatever we imagine as possible. God's omnipotence means that God is able to do whatever is consistent with His own nature and will. The problem here is not God, but us giving too much credence and reality to our imagination. We are not stronger then the will of God when we reject His invitation, rather we put ourselves outside the will of God when we reject His invitation, putting ourselves back into a condition of bondage, weakness and lack of freedom.

Here is a more thorough quote by St Theophan on free will and grace

Whether grace has visited by itself or a person has sought and found it, the state into which it places a man and its first effect on him are the same in both cases. The awakened one is placed by grace into the middle ground between sin and virtue. Grace draws him out of the bonds of sin, depriving sin of its authority to motivate him into action as if against his will; but it does not turn him towards the good, only allowing him to feel its superiority and joy, together with a feeling of obligation to be on its side. The person now stands at the crossroads, and he has to make the final choice. St. Macarius of Egypt says that the grace which comes to a man does not at all bind a man's will with force and does not make him constant in the good, even if he wants it or does not want it. To the contrary, the power of God residing in man gives place to freedom, so that the man's will might be disclosed: does it agree or disagree with grace? From this moment begins the unification of the will with grace. Grace influenced from without and existed on the outside. It enters in and begins to possess parts of the soul in no other way than when man's desire opens the door to it, or opens its mouth to receive it. The person has the desire for it, and it is ready to help. Man himself does not have the ability to create or confirm the good in himself, but he wants it and forces himself. For the sake of this desire, grace confirms the desired good for man. It will continue this way until the man's final mastery of himself in goodness and in pleasing God. Path to Salvation, Pt 2 ch 7 (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm#_Toc13899803) Notice what St Theophan says. The power of God gives place to man's freedom. God condescends to man in order that man might be raised to God.

(I provided the link since most of The Path to Salvation is online and there is much in this book dealing with free will and grace)

[Paul Cowan]

I'm sorry, but God does not love his saints the same as he loves sea slugs, sinners, and satan.

Yes He does.

[Paul Cowan]

Any denial of this would seem to me a clear refusal to acknowledge the plain words of St Paul.

What's obvious is that you are focused on reading scripture in one certain light and reading the english version without considering the translation errors from the original text.

[Benjamin Amis]

While I would like to thank those who replied to me, I'd like to shift my attention to the greater discussion at hand and maybe I'll even contribute something halfway useful!

I think it's important to note that election isn't a foreign idea to Orthodoxy. Now, it isn't the same as the doctrine of election as preached by Calvin (i.e., double predestination: which is the standard teaching of Calvin and not an exaggerated stance. A somewhat muted version of this doctrine is what was St. Augustine proposed against Pelagius and is accepted as the dogmatized soteriology of the Roman Church) and I can say that as a former Presbyterian (PCA, if anyone's curious). However, the idea of election is undeniable. St. Paul speaks of those who have been predetermined, foreordained, and predestined constantly. Even Christ tells us, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:44, NIV).

Yet, we must reconcile this with statements given to us by those like the Prophet Joel who says, "And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved;" (Joel 2:32a). Now, as a Protestant I always found it much easier (and logical) to reconcile the verses that seem to speak against predestination into the ones that seem to speak in favor of them. It just seemed to me that predestination was so obvious from Scripture. Well, it is. However, not the kind I was thinking.

Enter the Church Fathers. Perhaps, before we do, it would be a good idea to first discuss how the Church, from my humble perspective as a dedicated inquirer and to-be catechumen, views the Church Fathers and the rest of the saints. Saints are not infallible. They are not sinless. They all needed a Savior. When we defend the writings of a saint, we are not defending that person in and of himself (or herself) as perfect. The Church does not lightly recognize saints. It often takes time for God to reveal (and then the church to formally acknowledge) the sainthood (that is, the attainment of eternal life and communion with the Church and God) of an individual. Often, if a person was not martyred (for Orthodox martyrs are often quickly recognized as saints), God will work miracles surrounding the person. Either items or places associated with their lives, or even their bodies themselves. Stories of springs of water topping up where a saint died are not all that uncommon, and I recall one great saint whose very bedclothes (laying on which he died) where laid upon another deceased faithful and caused him to live again. These things happen within the Church and are recognized as signs from God that this person has finished the race marked out before them, as the Apostle spoke of. It is not the Church who declares a saint but God Himself, and even then the Church does its best to ensure that a person led a faithful Orthodox life before the local bishops pronounce an official declaration of glorification (formally recognizing them as a saint, and often inviting other churches to do the same. It also commissions icons to be written for the new saint).

And so, looking at the writings of the saints, it becomes quickly clear that Calvin's predestination is not Orthodox. Who should we trust to deliver to us the Gospel? People such as St. Ignatius, who met Christ Himself and studied directly under the Apostles and St. Polycarp, who was a student of St. John the Theologian (the Apostle), both bishops in the late first/early second century...or John Calvin who studied in Geneva outside of the Church as a Western lawman and scholar 1,500 years later? Now, please don't misunderstand me, I still have a GREAT respect for John Calvin (he was an intellectually honest man, and very kind-hearted...unlike many of the reformers), but he was detached from the Church historically, culturally and linguistically. The Church Fathers lived in the same lands, culture and languages of Christ and His Apostles. Let us keep in mind how important that is. Even modern, western theology (which I have studied at my time in a Wesleyan college) acknowledges how important it is to understand the linguistic, cultural and historical contexts of Scripture. Who would understand it better...myself, 2,000 years removed in time, thousands of miles in distance, and immeasurably in culture and language...or the writings of the Fathers who were the second and third generation recipients of the Gospel?

Just something to think about. I will post more later, I'm sure, but am very tired and will be heading to bed now. Hopefully this was helpful in some small way.

[David Lindblom]

While I would like to thank those who replied to me, I'd like to shift my attention to the greater discussion at hand and maybe I'll even contribute something halfway useful!

I think it's important to note that election isn't a foreign idea to Orthodoxy. ....

Wow my friend! At least from my perspective you have come a looong way! If I and everyone else were so humble and teachable. I'm also glad you clarified that Calvin's view of double predestination is not that of hyper-Calvinism but is the original view. The rest of your write up is great too.

[Judson]

What's obvious is that you are focused on reading scripture in one certain light and reading the english version without considering the translation errors from the original text.

I'm not aware of any significant textual variants in the Pauline epistles that would greatly discredit the predestination passages. I'd like to know if you could furnish some insight.

[Judson]

While I would like to thank those who replied to me, I'd like to shift my attention to the greater discussion at hand and maybe I'll even contribute something halfway useful!

I think it's important to note that election isn't a foreign idea to Orthodoxy. Now, it isn't the same as the doctrine of election as preached by Calvin (i.e., double predestination: which is the standard teaching of Calvin and not an exaggerated stance. A somewhat muted version of this doctrine is what was St. Augustine proposed against Pelagius and is accepted as the dogmatized soteriology of the Roman Church) and I can say that as a former Presbyterian (PCA, if anyone's curious). However, the idea of election is undeniable.


I think this is a fair and helpful post, thanks. You made some good points. first, that predestination is taught (in some sense) in scripture and the Fathers; second, that the saints and fathers were not infallible. I think many of us need to be reminded of these basics.

In terms of pitting Calvin against Ignatius and other first century writers, I'm not sure how helpful this is. We revere and believe the concepts that were articulated by many theologians who came much after the first and second centuries. The councils are a perfect example of this. later writers who are not directly participants in biblical culture and times are sometimes better able to articulate truth to new communities. We thank Athansius for giving us the "homoousios" terminology, etc. Even St. Paul was removed from the Palestinian environment and was not an eye-witness to the events surrounding Jesus, but that didn't disqualify him from writing and teaching authoritatively about it. Now, I do agree with you that the Fathers, above many other Christian writers, should be held with special esteem because of the period in which they wrote, but it is simply naive to think that there has been no developments or divergences in their thought down through ages. I know for one, that the physical presence of Christ in the eucharist was not universally held in the early church. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian were among a few early fathers who believed that the eucharist was a figure (figura) or representation of Christ, not literally his actual flesh. I think if we were to be intellectually honest, we would allow for more variety in the traditions that have come down. Again, back to my original point in this thread, predestination is taught by the fathers, in some sense, though developed by later thinkers.

[Anna Stickles]

Originally Posted by Judson http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=88150#post88150) I'm sorry, but God does not love his saints the same as he loves sea slugs, sinners, and satan.

Yes He does.
Paul, I think what you are trying to say here is that God doesn't change, which is true, but love is a relation, and it is certainly not true to say that sea slugs are in the same relation with God as the saints. I have to agree with Judson.

Let's turn this around and ask, can a sea slug love God to the degree the saints love God? The point here is that love is communion. The relationship of love, and the intensity of communion therein that the saints experience, is not the same as we experience, and certainly not the same as an irrational creature.

Christ says, "You are worth more then many sparrows." and it is quite clear in the ascetic literature of the Church that God loves according to the worth of that which is loved. The saints, because of their beauty and greatness are more worthy then us and therefore are more beloved of God, therefore He deigns to come to them in a deeper more intimate communion; therefore He predestines them to a greater glory. Thus we recognize Mary as the most beloved of all the saints, and the one who has the most intimate relation with God, and who has the highest place of honor and glory.

Yes, God cares for each of His creatures the same. Even the sea slug, even the sparrow, receive His unstinting care and providence - as do each of us. He never neglects or shortchanges any part of His creation, but this is not the same as love, or at least not the same kind of love, for it is not the same kind of relationship. Scripture says, "He loves the righteous but has mercy on sinners."

[Anna Stickles]

On this whole issue of predestination the parable of the talents comes to mind. The talents here are referring to grace. God gave to one man 10, one man 5, and one man 1 talent. He knew the capacity of each man and gave accordingly.

As Scripture says, from him to whom much has been given, much will be required, so God in His justice does not give to men more then they can invest responsibly. In His kindness He does not want to put us in a position of bringing guilt on ourselves for wasting what is given.

However, even though God knew that the last man did not have enough love even make the effort to reinvest one talent, nevertheless God gave to him at least that one talent. In this way God would be justified when He was judged. The man when accusing God of being stingy, was the one shown up to be in reality stingy. In the end God did not judge him, but simply let him suffer the judgement he himself made. The man determined his own relationship with God.

This shows where Calvinistic ideas of predestination break down. Calvinism assumes that God gives grace to some and withholds grace from others. Wherein in reality, God gives all a chance, even those He knows are going to reject Him. The problem in the reformed view is less with predestination and more with irresistible grace. There is certainly much Patristic literature to support predestination, there is none to support irresistible grace as a universal reality.

There is testimony in the lives of the saints that some, at the outset, receive such a degree of grace with such a strong desire for God being stirred in their hearts, that obstacles merely prompt them to strive harder, and this struggle and zeal is what compounds the grace given. So these, to whom much is given, will always reinvest what is given. St Silouan is a good example of this in the modern day.

But it is also clear from the writings of the Church that there are many who receive some degree of grace but fall away again into sinfulness, worldliness, and spiritual apathy and never recover. This is not a matter of reasoning about things from Scripture, this is a matter of the real spiritual experience of the Church over the last two thousand years.

Augustine himself came up with the idea of irresistible grace out of the experience of his own conversion, but it has been wrongly applied in a universal manner. St Theophan and other spiritual guides in the Church throughout the ages have walked thousands of people through the whole process of a conversion by grace - watching many succeed, and many fall away - and this experience can be trusted.

[Mary]

I think this is a fair and helpful post, thanks. You made some good points. first, that predestination is taught (in some sense) in scripture and the Fathers; second, that the saints and fathers were not infallible. I think many of us need to be reminded of these basics.

More than that, I think we need a constant reminder that WE of the present time, know less than the fathers did, and are therefore, less infallible.

[Mary]

Originally Posted by Judson http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=88150#post88150) I'm sorry, but God does not love his saints the same as he loves sea slugs, sinners, and satan.



Paul, I think what you are trying to say here is that God doesn't change, which is true, but love is a relation, and it is certainly not true to say that sea slugs are in the same relation with God as the saints. I have to agree with Judson.

Perhaps Paul's response was more in regards to the 'sinners' than the sea slugs. It seems, in Judson's post that he thinks God doesn't love sinners any more than he loves sea slugs.

Do you really agree with Judson's post that God doesn't love his saints the same as sinners? (leaving out the slugs and satan...).

[Michael Stickles]

I know for one, that the physical presence of Christ in the eucharist was not universally held in the early church. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian were among a few early fathers who believed that the eucharist was a figure (figura) or representation of Christ, not literally his actual flesh.

Do you have quotes from them denying that the eucharist was the actual body and blood? The Fathers saw no contradiction in considering various things (not just the Eucharist) as both reality and figure. They are not mutually exclusive categories. Though my own reading of Clement of Alexandria is limited, I certainly have not seen anything to indicate that he did not believe in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The best statement from Clement on the Eucharist I've run across is this section from his work The Instructor (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iii.ii.ii.html):



And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh.

Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality.

And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul. For the divine mixture, man, the Father’s will has mystically compounded by the Spirit and the Word. For, in truth, the spirit is joined to the soul, which is inspired by it; and the flesh, by reason of which the Word became flesh, to the Word.


This, to me, seems a perfect example of conjoining reality and figure, material and mystical, in discussing the Eucharist.

(Tertullian I've read even less of, so I'll not comment on him).

I have read in the works of some church historians the idea that some of the Fathers did not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; I have not, so far, read that in the Fathers themselves (I say "real presence" instead of "physical presence" because some of the Fathers did deny the slander that in the Eucharist the Church was engaging in cannibalism; also, because "physical presence" can give the false impression that the bread and wine are metamorphized physically into bloody flesh meat, which they obviously are not).

In Christ,
Michael

[Paul Cowan]

Originally Posted by Paul Cowan
What's obvious is that you are focused on reading scripture in one certain light and reading the english version without considering the translation errors from the original text.
I'm not aware of any significant textual variants in the Pauline epistles that would greatly discredit the predestination passages. I'd like to know if you could furnish some insight.

Nope. I am not a theologian nor a doctor of the law. I am just a country bumpkin who knows when his gut says someone is shoveling manure. There is a way to read something correctly and a way to read something into what you are reading. I see an agenda being pushed and not a desire to learn but a desire to debate.

I don't have the brain power to keep up with you nor do I wish to. SO I will just say, "So you believe".

Paul

[Paul Cowan]

Paul, I think what you are trying to say here is that God doesn't change, which is true, but love is a relation, and it is certainly not true to say that sea slugs are in the same relation with God as the saints. I have to agree with Judson.

Let's turn this around and ask, can a sea slug love God to the degree the saints love God? The point here is that love is communion. The relationship of love, and the intensity of communion therein that the saints experience, is not the same as we experience, and certainly not the same as an irrational creature.

Christ says, "You are worth more then many sparrows." and it is quite clear in the ascetic literature of the Church that God loves according to the worth of that which is loved. The saints, because of their beauty and greatness are more worthy then us and therefore are more beloved of God, therefore He deigns to come to them in a deeper more intimate communion; therefore He predestines them to a greater glory. Thus we recognize Mary as the most beloved of all the saints, and the one who has the most intimate relation with God, and who has the highest place of honor and glory.

Yes, God cares for each of His creatures the same. Even the sea slug, even the sparrow, receive His unstinting care and providence - as do each of us. He never neglects or shortchanges any part of His creation, but this is not the same as love, or at least not the same kind of love, for it is not the same kind of relationship. Scripture says, "He loves the righteous but has mercy on sinners."

I wish someone would teach me how to multi-quote... I guess I should develop my thougts a bit more rather than my typical hit and run method of making a point.

God is Love. (8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.) Yes, Love is communal. God's love does not diminsh. Not for man not for matter. God is omnipresent so God is everywhere. There is no where God is not. He does not predestine who He will love more or less than or what. He loves us all equally because He does not change. He loves the slug as much as He loves me as much as He loves St. Paul. He cannot love less! He cannot love more. He is Love. We cannot understand this just as we can't understand his essence only his energies.

All creation worships Him. All creation is subject to Him. Each member of creation loves Him differently and to different degrees because we are less and imperfect. It does not draw us nearer or further from God as God is everywhere. Only His love is experienced differently by us just as the light of Tabor was not bearable for his disciples and he did not walk in His glory all the time. God does not draw nearer to us as He is already right here but reveals Himself or rather His energies as we purify ourselves before Him.

We just heard the waters of the Jordan turned back when Christ was Baptised. So we know the waters recognize Him. We know the demons recognize Him. I know this does not translate to love, but our topic is God loving some more than others, which is ridiculous. God does not pick and choose.

Paul

[Andreas Moran]

I agree with Paul on two counts. First, the exchanges with Judson are futile: he wants debate for its own sake, and is not interesting in learning. Secondly, according to Genesis 1:32, God beheld everything He had made to be 'very good'. Man, however, has a soul and so while God loves everything He made, He has a special relationship with man. So, notwithstanding God's love of His creation ('Consider the lilies . . . even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these' - Matthew 6:28-29; the Father knows every sparrow - cf Matthew 10:29), He values man in a special way: man is 'better' than 'the fowls of the air' (Matthew 6:26), God will 'more clothe' man than 'the grass of the field' however splendid (Matthew 6:30), and 'the very hairs of your head are all numbered' so that compared to sparrows, 'ye are of more value' (Mathhew 10:31). Our value is that we confess God in ways that animals cannot. But God is 'no respecter of persons' (Acts 10:34) and loves all equally.

[Judson]

I agree with Paul on two counts. First, the exchanges with Judson are futile: he wants debate for its own sake, and is not interesting in learning. Secondly, according to Genesis 1:32, God beheld everything He had made to be 'very good'. Man, however, has a soul and so while God loves everything He made, He has a special relationship with man. So, notwithstanding God's love of His creation ('Consider the lilies . . . even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these' - Matthew 6:28-29; the Father knows every sparrow - cf Matthew 10:29), He values man in a special way: man is 'better' than 'the fowls of the air' (Matthew 6:26), God will 'more clothe' man than 'the grass of the field' however splendid (Matthew 6:30), and 'the very hairs of your head are all numbered' so that compared to sparrows, 'ye are of more value' (Mathhew 10:31). Our value is that we confess God in ways that animals cannot. But God is 'no respecter of persons' (Acts 10:34) and loves all equally.

I fail to understand your point #1: you agree with Paul because I am not interested in learning? Is this not an ad hominen argument? Point #2 seems to agree with my position and disagree with Paul's. I am of the position that God has a special relationship - and therefore a special love - with man, over and against his relationship with other created order: animals, angels, etc.

[Judson]

I wish someone would teach me how to multi-quote... I guess I should develop my thougts a bit more rather than my typical hit and run method of making a point.

God is Love. (8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love.) Yes, Love is communal. God's love does not diminsh. Not for man not for matter. God is omnipresent so God is everywhere. There is no where God is not. He does not predestine who He will love more or less than or what. He loves us all equally because He does not change. He loves the slug as much as He loves me as much as He loves St. Paul. He cannot love less! He cannot love more. He is Love. We cannot understand this just as we can't understand his essence only his energies.

All creation worships Him. All creation is subject to Him. Each member of creation loves Him differently and to different degrees because we are less and imperfect. It does not draw us nearer or further from God as God is everywhere. Only His love is experienced differently by us just as the light of Tabor was not bearable for his disciples and he did not walk in His glory all the time. God does not draw nearer to us as He is already right here but reveals Himself or rather His energies as we purify ourselves before Him.

We just heard the waters of the Jordan turned back when Christ was Baptised. So we know the waters recognize Him. We know the demons recognize Him. I know this does not translate to love, but our topic is God loving some more than others, which is ridiculous. God does not pick and choose.


While I applaud your desire to uphold the immutability of God, your reasoning does seem to betray a fidelity to Holy Scripture, where, on many occasions, God is said to hate certain individuals.

Psalm 5:5 (http://www.monachos.net/passage/?search=Psalm+5:5&version=NIV)
The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong.


Psalm 11:5 (http://www.monachos.net/passage/?search=Psalm+11:5&version=NIV)
The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.


Mal 1:2-3: "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated

Your doctrine of God does not adequately deal with these texts because it's seems clear enough that God does have varying degrees of love. The gentlest treatment of these by most commentators suggest that God's hate - at the very least - is a wilful preference or choosing of one above the other.

On the flip side, the love of God for his saints (you and me included) is very different and distinct. Paul writes that "nothing in all creation shall ever separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom 8:39). Scripture teaches a peculiar love that God the Father has for the Son, a love in which we who are in Christ also participate in and enjoy. Although God does have a general beneficent love toward all his creatures (Psalm 145:9), it's obvious that he loves his children in a deeper and fuller way - which produces certain benefits, namely, adoption as sons. Not only does this makes sense in our human experience, but it is clearly scriptural. When you say that God loves sea slugs the same way he loves me and St. Paul, this is devastating. It is clear that you are more concerned with upholding immutability over biblical revelation. Taking it to the nth degree, let me pose this question: who does God love more, Jesus or satan? Your reasoning, if exercised consistently will lead you to admit "he loves them both the same." I simply cannot agree.

Within a theological framework that has no room for a God who chooses, i understand that God's love must be equally distributed to all beings, but i have demonstrated the problems that arise as a result. Therefore, it seems to me that both systems have their problems that needs to be dealt with.

blessings.

[Benjamin Amis]

I agree with Paul on two counts. First, the exchanges with Judson are futile: he wants debate for its own sake, and is not interesting in learning. Secondly, according to Genesis 1:32, God beheld everything He had made to be 'very good'. Man, however, has a soul and so while God loves everything He made, He has a special relationship with man. So, notwithstanding God's love of His creation ('Consider the lilies . . . even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these' - Matthew 6:28-29; the Father knows every sparrow - cf Matthew 10:29), He values man in a special way: man is 'better' than 'the fowls of the air' (Matthew 6:26), God will 'more clothe' man than 'the grass of the field' however splendid (Matthew 6:30), and 'the very hairs of your head are all numbered' so that compared to sparrows, 'ye are of more value' (Mathhew 10:31). Our value is that we confess God in ways that animals cannot. But God is 'no respecter of persons' (Acts 10:34) and loves all equally.

Firstly, I mean no disrespect to you, Reader, nor do I believe you are necessarily being rash, although some said the same about me when I first came and began asking questions. Did I argue in favor of my own beliefs? Of course I did, because I wanted to "test" Orthodoxy and its belief system against mine, to see which one was more "solid", if that makes sense. As a matter of fact, my time in the Presbyterian church still has a great influence over my theology, although I am beginning to recognize its flaws and align myself with the Church. And so, unless Judson gives me obvious or insulting evidence of what you are saying, I would like to continue speaking with him.

Secondly, I agree with your points. However, if I may take them a bit further. Surely we as humans are the crowning jewel of God's creation, but it's more than that, we bear the image of God! Our Catholic friends call this the Imago Dei, and it's a vital understanding for Orthodoxy as well. God has made us like Him (i.e., in His image) and has sent Christ so that we may become like Him (i.e., through theosis).


I think this is a fair and helpful post, thanks. You made some good points. first, that predestination is taught (in some sense) in scripture and the Fathers; second, that the saints and fathers were not infallible. I think many of us need to be reminded of these basics.

In terms of pitting Calvin against Ignatius and other first century writers, I'm not sure how helpful this is. We revere and believe the concepts that were articulated by many theologians who came much after the first and second centuries. The councils are a perfect example of this. later writers who are not directly participants in biblical culture and times are sometimes better able to articulate truth to new communities. We thank Athansius for giving us the "homoousios" terminology, etc. Even St. Paul was removed from the Palestinian environment and was not an eye-witness to the events surrounding Jesus, but that didn't disqualify him from writing and teaching authoritatively about it. Now, I do agree with you that the Fathers, above many other Christian writers, should be held with special esteem because of the period in which they wrote, but it is simply naive to think that there has been no developments or divergences in their thought down through ages. I know for one, that the physical presence of Christ in the eucharist was not universally held in the early church. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian were among a few early fathers who believed that the eucharist was a figure (figura) or representation of Christ, not literally his actual flesh. I think if we were to be intellectually honest, we would allow for more variety in the traditions that have come down. Again, back to my original point in this thread, predestination is taught by the fathers, in some sense, though developed by later thinkers.

I'm not saying that one must be a first or second century writer in order to have any clout. However, it does help if one is in the spirit of the Fathers and within the Church before one begins their theological work. The Church being the Body of Christ on Earth is a very important idea in Orthodoxy, and so when the Church, either formally (as in an Ecumenical Council) or unofficially (as a consensus of belief over a period of time without a challenge), speaks to a point of dogma, it is considered to be the Church speaking as a whole, and therefore infallibly. However, those outside that community are not part of the Church. Those outside of it who speak of theology are disconnected from the Body of Christ that has been treasured and preserved since the Apostles. Therefore, it becomes quite difficult for a heterodox theologian to gain great traction within Orthodoxy because they are separated from what we view as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. As Calvin famously quotes as the beginning of his Institutes, "You cannot have God as your Father without the Church as your Mother."

Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't "wiggle room" within Orthodoxy. Many have varying perspectives on issues and all are perfectly acceptable. One of these issues is the Eucharist, as you mentioned. While the Church affirms for us that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, we do not seek to explain this Holy Mystery, as the Latin Church has done in their doctrine of transubstantiation. Now, that does not mean there aren't those who affirm transubstantiation within Orthodoxy. There are. That also doesn't mean there aren't those who affirm consubstantiation, usually thought of as a high church Protestant perspective. The Church simply doesn't dogmatize on what "truly the Body and Blood of Christ" means, because we recognize a limit to human comprehension on the things of God.

I realize that this is very different from Protestant thought, and it was (and sometimes still is) very frustrating when one looks for more answers than the Church officially provides. However, there is also a certain freedom. The Orthodox Church doesn't publish a large Catechism, as the Roman Church does. Orthodoxy is quite organic. For example, we have no set rules for catechizing, but rather that is left to the instruction of the spiritual father of the catechumen in question. Personal development of faith, in line with the Church and with consultation of ones spiritual father (or mother) is essential. We do not receive our doctrine from a single point (such as the Vatican) that seeks to answer the smallest questions on faith. Rather, our doctrine comes from the history and tradition of the Apostles, and has been preserved in consensus by the Bishops of the Church for two-thousand years.

[David Lindblom]

I would say that the teaching was not emphasized, not that it was completely absent before Augustine. Scripture can be shown very easily to teach the doctrine of predestination. It is not a doctrine like Rome's immaculate conception, which has no precedent in scripture whatsoever.
Yes it does teach predestination but it does not teach an individual predestination to salvation.


I would say a hearty Amen! to your essentially monergistic statement. it is grace working in us and for us through our efforts. This is to say that God's grace is the energy that is dispensed for us to do his will. The problem comes when we suggest that God's grace is not enough to save, that human works must supplement what God does not provide, so that the combination of both leads to salvation. So then our efforts are necessary are they not? We cannot be passive like sponges. Biblical faith is inseparable from its working out...obedience and good works.

Ephesians 2:8-10 (ESV)
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

The people of God are to be defined by their good works, they are inseparable from us. Yet, individually, we must choose to do them and actually do them.


This is where i see you beginning to fall back upon on works, rather than grace. it seems so obvious in these discussions that man's freedom is always being protected at the expense of God's freedom. Is God not free? - he is the potter afterall. Does he ask the pot how he should form it (rom 9).Once again, you think that if God doesn't do anything He pleases completely in a vacuum, completely w/o any reference to man's actions or inactions He is not free. That anyone who says God does act many times in accordance w/ man then we are limiting God's sovereignty. You forget that God in His freedom chooses to act in accordance w/ man. Look at your example of the pot and the potter. In Rom. 9 Paul was using these hard line statements as a rhetorical device to silence and humble the person accusing God of unfaithfulness to His own promises. That God casting aside Israel and going to the Gentiles and including them in the new covenant by faith was unfair. Look at how the pot and potter situation works:

Jeremiah 18:1-6 (ESV)
1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord:
2 “Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.”
3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel.
4 And the vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to do.
5 Then the word of the Lord came to me:
6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.

Boy, sounds just like you are saying doesn't it? God just does as He pleases and it doesn't matter what the people do or don't do. But read on:

Jeremiah 18:7-11 (ESV)
7 If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it,
8 and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it.
9 And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it,
10 and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it.
11 Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’

God most certainly acts in accordance w/ man's actions. He, as a sovereign Being, can do anything He pleases and it's obvious that He does choose to act in accordance w/ man.



Does he not hold the heart of the king in his hand and direct it like a watercourse where ever he wishes? (Prov 21:1). Remember that God also has rights and freedoms that he intends to act on without hindrance. No where does scripture ever mention that he steps aside or limits his sovereign will to make way for man's freedom (I would love to interact with any passages, if there are any).So is God holding the kings heart in His hand a universal statement? If so, it goes too far. Shall we bring up every tyrant and butcher ruler and blame God since He directs their hearts like a watercourse? Or is this talking as much about a godly king who is obedient and follows God's course for him and not a wooden predestining control on God's part.


No where does scripture ever mention that he steps aside or limits his sovereign will to make way for man's freedom (I would love to interact with any passages, if there are any).
Again, your view of God's sovereignty is wrong. God can be sovereign and still allow man freedom in areas. That freedom is a part of God's sovereignty. He gives man that freedom.

Acts 7:51-53 (ESV)
51 “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.
52 Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered,
53 you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”

Unless you believe God predestined these people to resist Him and kill His prophets these people, while working against God, do evil but this does not railroad Gods ultimate purposes and He can always work good out of anything.

Matthew 11:20-24 (ESV)
20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent.
21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.
23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.
24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Now why will these people get a worse judgment than the other cities? Anybody reading this in any culture or time would recognize a very basic principle. The more one is given the more that can be expected. When one is given so much and yet still, against all odds and common sense, still does wrong their greater punishment is justly due. Obviously Christ wanted these people to repent and was exasperated when they didn't. I can't see the ridiculous position of Calvinist that say that God predestined these people to damnation only to have God the Son go the extra mile w/ confirming signs, dishing out a greater judgment but knowing all along they could not repent.

Both of these examples show that God had the will/desire for their salvation but in His sovereignty allowed them to choose against His will for them. People going against the will of God for them lies w/in the sovereignty of God. It does not overturn His sovereignty. He just doesn't use His sovereignty to control every iota of people's lives.

[Anna Stickles]

Even St. Paul was removed from the Palestinian environment and was not an eye-witness to the events surrounding Jesus, but that didn't disqualify him from writing and teaching authoritatively about it. Now, I do agree with you that the Fathers, above many other Christian writers, should be held with special esteem because of the period in which they wrote,

Judson, you seem here to take closeness in time and culture as making someone authoritative. While this is important, in Orthodoxy we say that Tradition is the Holy Spirit at work in the Church. We believe that what makes Paul authoritative is the fact that he was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be an apostle and teacher and had the "mind of Christ." Likewise with other Orthodox theologians throughout the centuries. If they do not have the clear signs of spiritual maturity, holiness and spiritual gifting, they are not considered authoritative, although they are not looked down on.

I point this out just so you understand where we differ. We do not believe anyone is infallible but neither is everyone equal. There are some teachers that are accepted as having almost no errors at all, or minor ones at most, and others as being quite off base. This is not based on closeness in time and culture to the Apostles but spiritual maturity and gifting or lack thereof. Certainly in Orthodoxy St Gregory of Palamas (14th century) is considered more authoritative then many of the 3rd century fathers like Tertullian.

[Michael Stickles]

Just a note that the several previous posts within this thread which were discussing the Fathers' view of the Eucharist, and whether they agreed that it was the body and blood of Christ, have been moved to the thread "Are the body and blood still bread and wine? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?3466-Are-the-body-and-blood-still-bread-and-wine)", so that this thread can stay focused on the issue of election and predestination.

In Christ,
Michael

[Judson]

Judson, you seem here to take closeness in time and culture as making someone authoritative. While this is important, in Orthodoxy we say that Tradition is the Holy Spirit at work in the Church. We believe that what makes Paul authoritative is the fact that he was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be an apostle and teacher and had the "mind of Christ." Likewise with other Orthodox theologians throughout the centuries. If they do not have the clear signs of spiritual maturity, holiness and spiritual gifting, they are not considered authoritative, although they are not looked down on.

I point this out just so you understand where we differ. We do not believe anyone is infallible but neither is everyone equal. There are some teachers that are accepted as having almost no errors at all, or minor ones at most, and others as being quite off base. This is not based on closeness in time and culture to the Apostles but spiritual maturity and gifting or lack thereof. Certainly in Orthodoxy St Gregory of Palamas (14th century) is considered more authoritative then many of the 3rd century fathers like Tertullian.

Authority resides in God alone and his word - absolute authority, that is. Below this, there may be varying degrees of delegated authority which I would base on the closeness of the theologian to God's revealed word. Let's suppose that you are right and that Tradition is the Holy Spirit at work in the church. I would be fully onboard with this if there weren't so many contradictions and differing opinions by the saints and theologians of the church who are so influential in creating doctrine. Throughout history, the great theologians of the church had differing views on matters like baptismal regeneration, the divine inspiration of certain texts, the authority of certain bishops and patriarchates, etc. Is the Holy Spirit divided against himself?

Also, when you claim that people have had varying degrees of error, spiritual maturity, and gifting, does this not assume a standard by which to judge these things? What is the standard? How does one judge the orthodoxy of Gregory above Tertullian? The standard cannot be tradition, for we have seen the varying degrees of expression within tradition itself. If the church does not differ to one single infallible and immutable authority, then her designation of infallibility and maturity is arbitrary.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Authority resides in God alone and his word - absolute authority, that is

Sez who? Can you back that up with Scripture? Wait a minute, seems that the Church decided which writings would be authoritative and which ones would not, giving us the Bible. The Church gives the Bible authority, not the other way around. Remember the Acts of the Apostles? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Therefore the only "scriptural" conclusion is that the Church decides, led by the Holy Spirit, what is authoritative and what is not. The Church decided that Tertullian and Origen were not in accordance with the Church and that St. Gregory was. If the Church accepts it, then it is authoritative. How hard is that to figure out?

God, through His Word (the Person of Christ Jesus, not a book) gave us the Church. The Church gave us the Bible. Look it up for yourself. The chronology as recorded in Holy Scripture and history: Christ ->Church->Bible. The Church (the New Israel) is led by the Holy Spirit, just like the old Israel was led. Authority flows from Christ to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the bishops they appointed and must have the AMEN of the people. When bishops go astray, other bishops or sometimes their own flocks, set them straight.

Therefore, whatever the Church decides, must be in accordance with Holy Scripture, which is the standard the Church set to judge such things. It must be accepted by the WHOLE Church, proclaimed by the bishops in council or synod and AMENed by the people. It is a trinity, just like God. Seems like a good model to use.

What is your authority? Holy Scripture? OK as interpreted by, um, who, exactly? Yourself? Your elders? Who, exactly, are they? Where do they get their authority?

My bishops have a pedigree, they all can trace their "lines" through the laying on of hands back to the Apostles themselves. They maintain the consistent Apostolic Witness as shown through time. We have added nothing, we have taken nothing away, although how we express the Truth that is Christ Himself (not a book, not a teaching, not a philosophy) has adapted to the milieu it was and is being expressed in. If you honestly study the history, you will see that the Church has always honored the Theotokos, has always worshipped in a liturgical manner, has always reverenced the saints and martyrs, has always believed that the Eucharist was the real Body and Blood of Christ, has always proclaimed the Trinity. These things did not change, they were simply discarded or "modified" in the so-called "Reformation" to suit various agendas, not all of which were spiritual in nature.

We don't always agree on some specifics, that is the very indication that such things are not necessarily "essential". But we do not disagree on the important matters that are essential as determined by the Church, as led by the Holy Spirit, who is NOT divided. That is why I can walk into any Orthodox Church in any country in the world and KNOW what these people believe, what that church teaches. Can I do that walking into any Protestant church, even thought they all speak the same language, come from the same culture in the same town? Where is this vaunted "unity" of the Spirit? The Reformation was the beginning if disunity. Martin Luther and Zwingli hated each other, Luther celebrated at the news of Zwingli's death. And don't get me started on Calvin. Where is the single infallible and immutable authority?

I've shown you mine, now show me yours.

Herman the undivided Pooh

[Olga]

Judson, you wrote:



I would be fully onboard with this if there weren't so many contradictions and differing opinions by the saints and theologians of the church who are so influential in creating doctrine.


Long-standing readers have read these words from me on more than one occasion, but they bear repeating:

What the Orthodox Church teaches and proclaims is expressed in its liturgical services (Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, Compline, etc), and, in visual form, in its icons. Individual fathers may well contradict each other (even saints are not infallible), but the liturgical material is the distillation, the essence, the core of scripture, patristic writings, of Apostolic teachings, and other accepted sources such as the ecumenical councils. Even the prayers in an Orthodox prayer book are stuffed full of scripture, they are not merely "the words of men". Liturgics and iconography are the most accessible and clearest means what the whole Orthodox Church espouses and proclaims, irrespective of geographic location or jurisdiction.

If one were to spend a year attending as many Orthodox services as possible, keeping one's ears open to what is read, said and sung, and one's eyes open to see the actions of clergy and to absorb what is depicted in iconography, one would learn practically all that was necessary about the faith. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Every single Orthodox priest at every single Divine Liturgy, anywhere in the world, proclaims, on behalf of all the Orthodox faithful:

I believe, O Lord, and I confess that You are truly Christ, the Son of the Living God, who came into the world to save sinners, of which I am the first. Also I believe that this is Your sacred Body and this is Your precious Blood. Moreover, I pray to You to have mercy on me and pardon my transgressions, voluntary and involuntary, in word and deed, in knowledge or in ignorance. Make me worthy to partake without condemnation of Your sacred Mysteries, for the remission of sins and for everlasting life. Amen.

This prayer is also one of the pre-communion prayers for anyone who is preparing for Holy Communion.

[Anna Stickles]

Judson, I can't add much to what Olga and Herman have said, this pretty much sums it up. The only thing I can add is that things look far more confusing from outside then from inside. When you say "great theologians" who do you mean? Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Calvin? Luther? Orthodoxy would not recognize these as great theologians but ones who are mostly full of error. Orthodoxy does not recognize any of the later western theologians as retaining the right understanding of God's economy of salvation - parts are right, some things are closer then others but only the Orthodox Church has retained the fullness of the faith as passed down by the Apostles. Yes this sounds like a pretty arrogant claim, but it is what is claimed nonetheless. We do not claim that this means those outside Orthodoxy cannot be saved, or are not Christians, but it does mean that we are saying they lack something - a unity of doctrine and practice and a fullness of life and faith that can only be found within Orthodoxy. I am not saying you have to believe this, I am just saying that this is what we say about ourselves.

As Herman and Olga both mention, the Church retains the final authority on which theologians get priority, and what the content of our faith is, not as an act of some Pope, but through it's own life and experience. This is something that simply cannot be grasped except by someone who is in the Church.

This is not to be exclusivist, this is just to be real. Christ gave to His Church through the Apostles and prophets, a Way, a Truth and a Life that are all intimately connected and united in Himself. And if we are not living this Way - the Way of the Cross and Resurrection in Christ, absorbing this Truth in the Liturgy, the lives of the saints and the writings of the Church, and receiving this Life via participation in sacramental union with Christ's body, then it is going to be very, very hard, if not impossible to really see the unity.

To highlight the importance of the Liturgy I'll put here two of my favorite quotes, I just can't resist. :-)

"It is altogether wrong for us to think that we can experience anything of the spiritual life in ourselves merely, and apart from Him. God does not intend that we should acquire something exclusively personal in our experience, and he is not willing to effect anything like that for you and me. All the spiritual experience of the Christian is already true in Christ. It has already been experienced by Christ. What we call our experience is only our entering into his history and his experience." Watchman Nee,


"Christian year spirituality (ie. the litugical life of the Church) is nothing less then the calling to enter by faith, into the incarnation, the life and ministry, the death and resurrecton of Jesus. God's saving action is not only presented to us through the practice of the Christian year, it takes up residence within us and transforms us by the saving and healing presence of Christ in our lives. As we enter into the saving events of Jesus and especially the paschal mystery in faith, Christ shapes us by the pattern of His own living and dying so that our living and dying in this world is a living and dying in Him.
I have found this spirituality to be an endless source of challenge, a rhythm for spiritual awakening, and a pattern for daily dying to the power of evil and rising to the power of Christ. But we are not asked to do this spiritual challenge alone. It is a calling for me, for you, and for all God's people that is accomplished in the context of a community - the church." Robert E. Webber

[Judson]

Sez who? Can you back that up with Scripture? Wait a minute, seems that the Church decided which writings would be authoritative and which ones would not, giving us the Bible. The Church gives the Bible authority, not the other way around. Remember the Acts of the Apostles? "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." Therefore the only "scriptural" conclusion is that the Church decides, led by the Holy Spirit, what is authoritative and what is not. The Church decided that Tertullian and Origen were not in accordance with the Church and that St. Gregory was. If the Church accepts it, then it is authoritative. How hard is that to figure out?
You mistakingly think that the church's choosing of the canon was conducted at some council where leaders arbitrarily selected texts that coincided with the church's already existing doctrine. This may be good enough for Dan Brown, but a fair treatment of histor