Comparison between Arminianism and Orthodoxy

[Anya]

What are the differences between Arminianism and Orthodoxy? This is surely a huge question. I have the definition of Arminianism from Oxford Concise Dictionary of Christian Church. So, so far as I get, Arminianism

-- is against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination ("reaction against the deterministic logic of Calvinism" (p. 39)).

-- is against the doctrine of the elect

-- is against supralapsarianism and sublapsarianism

As far as I can tell, we should not have a quarrel with them. I am sure, though, that it's not that simple. Please, do fill in the gaps ... the important ones as far as you see them.

Also, at the Council of Dort (1618-19), the Arminians were condemned. Do we accept that condemnation?

And one more, the dictionary tells me that "The anti-Calvinist trend in the 17th-c. English theology was termed 'Arminian' by its opponents, though it is doubtful if Arminius' teachings had much direct influence in this case". Would anyone know if by anti-Calvinist is meant the Cambridge Neoplatonists? According to C.A. Patrides and I believe also Irena Backus the Camrbidge Neoplatonists were influenced by the Greek Fathers. I am trying to see if Arminian teaching was influenced by Orthodox dogma. Thanks.

[Rick H.]

I am trying to see if Arminian teaching was influenced by Orthodox dogma.




Based on my studies I do not see how one could support this question while maintaining any degree of academic integrity. While one could take the position that all Christian faith traditions/denominations find their Beginning, their radix, in an historic Orthodox Christianity this does not demonstrate any links or influence as I think you are considering.

However, I do appreciate the question(s) here as it relates to your other thread 'resting in God.' I suspect that you grasp the issues as they relate to the different schools of thought to be found in both soteriology and a philosophy of Christian living.

Possibly the bottom line (or the question behind the question) is found in considering as well, what is our part of the Christian life and does one size fit all?

In Christ,
Rick

[Anya]

Hi Rick Henry,

I am not sure what you've been reading. Perhaps you can let me know.

Here's some of what I've come across. Archbishop Bramhall (b. 1594), who studied at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge in early 17th c. was given the following advice by his master, Samuel Ward:


When I was a young Student in Theology, Dr. Ward declared his mind to me, to this purpose, that it was impossible that the present Controversies of the Church should be rightly determined or reconciled without a deep insight into the Doctrine of the primitive Fathers, and a competent skill in School Theology. The former affordeth us a right pattern, and the second smootheth it over, and plaineth away the knots. (qtd. in Jean-Louis Quantin p. 991 in Irena Backus, vol 2.)
These words suggest that the primitive fathers were familiar to the West at least in the seventeenth century. Quantin's article discusses the extent to which Anglican theologians in the seventeenth century engaged with the writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers.

Luther read the fathers, Lancelot Andrewes, the great Anglican divine of the early seventeenth century was familiar with Chrysostom. Isaac Casaubon was familiar with Basil and edited an edition of Gregory of Nyssa. I should add that one of the definitive studies on Andrewes is by no other than N. Lossky. I should also add that Nigel Smith has done a very interesting work on the way in which the seventeen-century radical sects in England were influenced by mystics, among whom are Dionysius the Areopagite.

[Rick H.]

Hi Anya,

I think we may have about two or three questions going here and I'm not sure that I have the energy at the present to pursue these. However I think it is interesting that in the definitions offered of Arminiansim in your first post we see 'what they are against.' This really puts it in a nutshell for me as when you read in this area more you will see various authors writing against and reacting to each other more than not. At the end of the day when these different positions are understood, and when one learns about the different schools of thought to be found within both Arminianism and Calvinism I'm not really sure what has been accomplished. In short, in my view, one can rough out a picture in one's mind if one is familiar with the issues and see a continuum whereby at one end of the line is Arminianism and at the other Calvinism. At one end free will/faith (A) and at the other sovereignty/grace (C). And, one can place hash marks on this line showing the different positions on the left and the right. But, what I'm driving at here is (again in my mind) as it relates to your original question, in the center of this line there is a middle ground called Orthodoxy that may be marked as cooperation/faith&grace/freewill&soveriegnty. Wherein as you move to either the right or the left of Orthodoxy you can see some areas of overlap with the either Armnianism or Calvinism to a point. Maybe this is too simple for some but it works for me at this stage of the game. Another model that comes to mind is to put Augustine at one end, Pelagius at the other and Cassian in the middle. I don't know if this is helpful at all or not, but after shoveling the blizzard of '08 out of my driveway today this is the best I can do.

In Christ,
Rick

PS On a side note and pertaining to some of your last post, I wonder if you may have any evidence that John Calvin was aware of Eastern Orthodoxy of his day?

[Anya]

PS On a side note and pertaining to some of your last post, I wonder if you may have any evidence that John Calvin was aware of Eastern Orthodoxy of his day?

If you start reading, you'll know that he was familiar with the Eastern Fathers, mostly with Chrysostom. He preferred the Latin fathers, but this could be explained; Roman Catholics treated Augustine with a lot of authority, so when Calvin had to defend his positions, he'd use Augustine. There is only a handful of scholarly work done on Calvin and the fathers, so this may not be a bad topic for a paper or a dissertation.

As for why ask about the difference between Arminianism and Orthodoxy--the benefit of the comparison could be used in various ways.

You put Orthodoxy in the center of the summaries you made. It does the job for me. But it could also look so provincial to anybody else outside Orthodoxy. As an orthodox, is one to shun away from others--other denominations, other cultures, ethnicities? I do not think that anyone has an obligation to take our word for granted or to believe that Orthodoxy is a hidden jewel in the West, which I believe is the expression which Bishop Kallistos Ware used in an interview. He himself has done work on uncovering the Orthodox influence in the West. There was an article by him about a convert to Orthodoxy.

This is only one of the reasons why discussing the differences between Orthodoxy and Arminianism could be important.

[Rick H.]

If you start reading, you'll know that he was familiar with the Eastern Fathers, mostly with Chrysostom.


I have a friend doing his PhD at Vandy in Early Church History but he still manages to sneak in a few papers showing how Calvin interacted with the fathers--I think this goes without saying. He has been very interested in Calvin for many years.When I asked earlier about Calvin's awareness of Eastern Orthodoxy in his day, this was prompted by my reading of Calvin and my friend's. To date we cannot find any "evidence" that he was familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy in "his day."

As for Orthodoxy and Arminianism, Arminianism is a broad term. I have been interested in a comparison and contrast of Orthodoxy and Weslyan thought/practice.

In Christ,
Rick

[RichardWorthington]

In short, in my view, one can rough out a picture in one's mind if one is familiar with the issues and see a continuum whereby at one end of the line is Arminianism and at the other Calvinism. At one end free will/faith (A) and at the other sovereignty/grace (C). … in the center of this line there is a middle ground called Orthodoxy that may be marked as cooperation/ faith&grace/ freewill&soveriegnty. … Another model that comes to mind is to put Augustine at one end, Pelagius at the other and Cassian in the middle.

In my opinion, it is very correct to put Orthodoxy and St John Cassian as a balanced ‘cooperation’ between "faith&grace/ freewill&sovereignty". However, and it is here that I have found almost all Orthodox writers come profoundly short of the Orthodoxy of St John Cassian, St John Cassian can also embrace the extremes of Pelagius and Augustine (when they are correct).



does God have compassion upon us because we have shown the beginning of a good will, or does the beginning of a good will follow because God has had compassion upon us? For many believing each of these and asserting them more widely than is right are entangled in all kinds of opposite errors
13th conference, ch xi (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.v.iv.xi.html)


Here we see that both Augustine and Pelagius are correct: one the one hand grace comes and inspires us, and yet on the other it is we who inspire God to respond to us.



how God works all things in us and yet everything can be ascribed to free will, cannot be fully grasped by the mind and reason of man.
13th conference, ch xviii (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iv.v.iv.xviii.html)


Not only does St John Cassian talk about ‘cooperation’ between grace and free will, but also that on one hand all is of God and yet on the other that all is of our own free will.

An example of translating this into a more modern context of Calvinism versus Arminianism would be the hope that certain people need due to their own personal experiences and emotional states.

Some need a rebuke that they can lose their salvation; I once read of a monk who did not know until the day of his death whether God had or would forgive his sins. When the Abbot was asked about this man, he said that God forgave him as soon as he started to repent, but that it was necessary for that man not to know this lest he fall into presumption.

Yet others need immense consolation. I have also read that there was a woman who was tortured that God might not forgive her sins. St Seraphim of Sarov said to her, "Do not be afraid, the Lord is good. He will forgive all sins - mine and yours - and will grant salvation to us both".

It is this last one - ‘infallible assurance’, if you please, of God’s forgiveness - that I have found denied by almost all Orthodox in their fanaticism to defend cooperation. I suffered greatly because of this, this is why it is so close to me! I have had St John Cassian cursed to my face by a hieromonk; I have seen Big Name Speakers trash the views of acknowledged holy people. They adhere to ‘cooperation’, but not the loving all-embracing of what is good for different people of St John Cassian. What may be good for one may be bad for another, and vice-versa. However, God’s love embraces all, relating to each in the way necessary for them.


What are the differences between Arminianism and Orthodoxy?
…
Also, at the Council of Dort (1618-19), the Arminians were condemned. Do we accept that condemnation?


Arminianism is logical and one-sided; Authentic Orthodoxy is all-embracing of the needs of each person, which includes what is good in both Arminianism and Calvinism (‘good’ being determined by having the mindset of St John Cassian).

I doubt very much that the Orthodox have seriously read (if at all) any of the post-reformation decrees of any group.

Richard
PS By chance I found justification by faith alone (which Arminians adhere to) taught by St John Chrysostom, and searching through his works on the computer (searching for "faith alone" in a download of his entire commentaries) I found places where he embraces the terminology, and places where he goes against it. This is exactly in accordance with the viewpoint of St John Cassian. The quotation (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf113.v.iii.v.html) I found is this: "What then was it that was thought incredible? That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favour". However, don’t tell our leading bishops and theologians; I don’t think they can cope with it.

[Rick H.]

Not only does St John Cassian talk about ‘cooperation’ between grace and free will, but also that on one hand all is of God and yet on the other that all is of our own free will.




Great post Richard! Thanks. The above has become my conclusion after many years of wrestling. Definitely not either/or but both/and. This is the way God has designed it to be.

In Christ,
Rick

[Kosta]

Arminianism believes Christ's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. Definately not Orthodox.

Arminianism believes all those that do not accept Christ before their death are sent to hell. Definately NOT Orthodox.

Arminianism believes salvation is by grace alone, that grace is poured upon all, thus if you reject Christ before death even if you never heard of him ,your sent to hell for resisting this "magical grace" which miraculously leads you to Christ. By resisting God's grace you cannot recieve faith, for you are saved by faith alone, and this alone "grafts" you into the body of Christ. -Definately NOT Orthodox but a very wierd heresy.

I can go on, but Arminianism is heresy not Orthodox.

[Rick H.]

Arminianism believes Christ's crucifixion was to appease the wrath of God. Definately not Orthodox.



There are different views/models of the atonement to be found within Arminianism, this is just one.




Arminianism believes all those that do not accept Christ before their death are sent to hell. Definately NOT Orthodox.



Revivalism is a strong influence in most Arminain camps (and camp meetings).




Arminianism believes salvation is by grace alone, . . . -Definately NOT Orthodox but a very wierd heresy. I can go on, but Arminianism is heresy not Orthodox.



Sorry, Kosta but you have this key issue exactly backwards here!

In Christ,
Rick

[Kosta]

AFAIK , the salvation by grace alone in Arminianism is tied together with salvation by faith alone. Another words, once you stop resisting God's grace and accept Jesus Christ, all you need is faith alone to be saved, you can lose this salvation due to free will but in the end all of the elect are predestined for Heaven since God already has the foreknowledge of who will persever till the end.

I dont see how this belief can ever fit in with Theosis. That man attains deification, a neverending process towards perfection where each are on different levels of that divinization; some stumbling and others advancing at different paces.

[Rick H.]

AFAIK , the salvation by grace alone in Arminianism is tied together with salvation by faith alone. Another words, once you stop resisting God's grace and accept Jesus Christ, all you need is faith alone to be saved, you can lose this salvation due to free will but in the end all of the elect are predestined for Heaven since God already has the foreknowledge of who will persever till the end.



Honestly, Kosta, this is really a mish mash as it relates to Arminian thought. There is a confusion in the above of Arminan and Calvinistic thinking. Possibly, some with a higher level of interest in this thread would care to sort it out? Although, I do appreciate your introduction of theosis into this discussion.

In Christ,
Rick

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I would say that Eastern Orthodox soteriology, as found in the writings of John Cassian and the like, is actually somewhat closer to Pelagianism than Arminianism has gone.

[RichardWorthington]

I would say that Eastern Orthodox soteriology, as found in the writings of John Cassian and the like, is actually somewhat closer to Pelagianism than Arminianism has gone.

Dear Mr Dombrowski,

I would not say this!

What I would say, however, is that the common teachings given to all is indeed like Arminianism.

However, when people have differing spiritual needs then the differences become apparent:

St John Cassian - and 'awake' Orthodoxy - will give the necessary treatment as required, whether it is justification by faith alone (perhaps better, without works, as the terminology has been abused), infallible assurance, irresistible grace keeping us safe, and so on. I used to need such teachings, but now do not think about them often - such is the healing of Orthodoxy!! (And how many Calvinists remain chained to the sub-belief in an angry God to keep needing infallible assurance and the like! Orthodoxy gives the medicine, but knows what dosage to use, how to diminish it, and how to lead to healthfulness again!)

'Sleepy' Orthodoxy, (non-extreme) Roman Catholicism, Anglo-Catholicism, and Arminianism - these deny the fullness of St John Cassian's teachings because they are logically opposed to their own teachings, which are also fully embraced by John Cassian. Such people also lack some basic human awareness: the viewpoint I have found time and time again is, 'if a teaching is good for me then it must be good for you; if it is bad for me then it must be bad for you' - not a very deep understanding of human needs!. (I have met numerous priest-monks and read many Orthodox books with such an approach, and so just now coined the term 'sleepy' Orthodoxy for such as these high flying church people who are ignorant of the simple things in life.)

So what you write is correct, but is only surface deep!

There is healing and strength for all in Holy Orthodoxy!

Richard

[Anna Stickles]

Richard, et al.

What a wonderful set of posts. Paul tells us to "speak the truth in love" and You have really hit the mark. Modern man (and this has greatly infected all three traditions) often is concerned with a plain and bare 'truth' disconnected from our real lives, whereas when we move into the heart of an Orthodox Christianity we move into a living Truth spoken with love.


Not only does St John Cassian talk about ‘cooperation’ between grace and free will, but also that on one hand all is of God and yet on the other that all is of our own free will.




I used to need such teachings, but now do not think about them often - such is the healing of Orthodoxy!!


Whether I needed them or not I was immersed in these teachings (and so I guess I needed them if God is always giving us what we need) but I have found that the healing Orthodoxy is bringing to me is that it is helping me gain a better understanding of my own sinfulness. I find myself, in my current state, very much needing to get out of a self-assured habit of just assuming God is going to forgive me. This whole way of thinking tends to become coldness and presumption. I simply take God forgranted and forget that I continually need Him, so yes God is always giving us what we need and what we need is not always the same.

To get back to Anya's question, I think that in many ways Armenianism is certainly much closer to Orthodoxy then reformed theology. But what happens outside the Church is that the good things in each of these viewpoints tends toward corruption. Whereas in the Church, through reading the Fathers, our viewpoint tends towards integration, because it is the Fathers who had the mind of Christ and saw the Kingdom of God and God's relationship with us in an integrated way.



For human free will, as I have said before, depends upon the help of God and needs His aid moment by moment, a thing which you and yours do not choose to admit. Your position is that, if a man once has free will, he no longer needs the help of God. Letter CXXXIII. To Ctesiphon. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXXIII.html) (10)

Does Jerome here represent the Orthodox position accurately as it has come to be fleshed out by later writers?

Does Armenianism ever really escape a wrong view of the will that basically sees our willing as separated from the grace of God? Isn't it mostly Armenianism that talks about things like prevenient grace?

To be separated is to say that we first will and then God meets us, or that God calls and then we will, or to see God doing something to us rather then communing with and commincationg with us on a continual basis. The integrated vision is to see that God is always present and continually working and we too are either hardening ourselves against Him or repenting and willing with Him. There is no before and after.

[Anna Stickles]

As far as I can tell, we should not have a quarrel with them. I am sure, though, that it's not that simple. Please, do fill in the gaps ... the important ones as far as you see them.



As I was pondering this question, Fr Dcn Matthew's comments on the Pastoral Theology thread about the importance of Orthodox theology as communicated experience came to mind. The problem with Armenianism or Calvinism or other theological system outside Orthodoxy is not so much that they do not contain some truth, and in fact at times much truth, the problem is that they are propagated and lived outside the Eucharist identity of the Church.

Those of a more Calvinist bent by virtue of their belief experience their relationship with God as having received from God once for all. This is one of those errors wonderfully addressed by St Jerome's letter that I linked in the last post. (see particularly sections 5-8) The Armenian sees grace more as given to mankind as a whole but the individual has to keep striving to grab hold of this grace. I have known people who go up and 'get saved' every couple of years, not really having any assurance in their relationship with God because it is all resting on their faith, their effort. (of course the vast number of variations on any of these beliefs almost render it impossible to really pin down.)

But our experience of our relationship with God in the OC is quite different. We enter into the Sacrament of Penance and then enter in a Eucharistic communion in which we receive healing and sanctification. Our effort is to repent, God's work is to fill us. The liturgical experience is one of exchange -our corruption for His incorruption. We offer back to Him what is His own and He offers to us His own. The ground of our faith is not our own belief but rather our sacramental participation in the Church. The means of our salvation is not our own belief, nor some prechoosing of God, but rather our repentance and His self-giving. These are just a few thoughts but I hope they are enough to show how important our liturgical experience is in the shaping of our theology.