Freedom vs. control [Archive] - Monachos.net Discussion Community

Fabio Lins

28-06-2009, 11:21 PM

Well, from what I understand, just like in us, who are images of Him, there are the will that wants something to happen and the will that allows something to happen.

God wants us to have our own relative free-will. And he allows us to stray. The first is His positive will and the second His permissive will. Thus nothing escapes His will whatever form it may take.

Now, considering foreknowledge, I don't really understand what the problem is. Knowledge does not happen because a mind is imposing itself on reality, but because it is aware of reality. God's "foreknowledge" doesn't even exist. He has ex aeternus knowledge. From outside time He contemplates all creation from beginning to end. It's like us watching ants walking on a table. The ant does not know what lies behind the book it is going over it, but I do. I have "foreknowledge" of its path. Could I manifest my ideas to the ant, maybe as a "voice from the water drop", it would think that this "god" that is me, "knows the future". "He knew I was going to meet my friends on the other side!" But in fact, I'm just speaking from outside the ant's world. My knowledge does not determine the "choices" of the ant, nevertheless it *will* meet the other ants on the other side.

This works with a limited number of variables for us because our mind is limited. But God's isn't. He can and does see *all* the variables, in all the universe, from the beginning to the end of time, at the same time from Eternity. So we are freely moving in His creation, yet, from over the "board" of Creation, He can see every tiny detail and knows where our decisions will take us. Even before we do.

Now this raises another question. Would a good father who sees his son going to the window on the 27th floor just stand still watching? Surely not. He *did* something. He came Himself to our world. It's like I partially giving up my humanity to become an ant. Just that it is far more radical a self-limitation. He united His nature to ours.

Still, He allows some to fall. In fact, we are told that most will *not* be saved out of their own decision. And obviously of God's permission. What we feel unconfortable with is why He would permit that.

I believe that the problem is with us. The point is that *we* don't believe that freely choosing to be saved is not important. We feel that if we were in God's place, we would not allow hunger and pain in the world due to insentive or outright evil people. Why do these evil people have a choice that causes so much suffering to millions? They shouldn't have! - we think deep in our hearts. The innocent shouldn't suffer. Liberty is not worth all this. - Well, obviously God thinks otherwise. He allows a group of people to be leaders in their nation. These people can choose to actually be a blessing to the people or to exploit them. Should they choose the second millions of innocents suffer. The innocent did not have a choice while the evil guys had. Still, God allows it.

The book of Job is entirely about this subject. How can a good God give permission to evil, giving it a liberty that its victim do not have?

The question is terribly disturbing. Specially when in the book God's answer, at the end, is "I am the God thy God, I do what I want and it's not up to you to question me". Not only He does not tell Job (and us) why, but the final "lesson" of the book is that it is lack of reverence for us even asking the question.

We are just mildly aliviated in the Gospel, when God, in the Second Person, witnesses to the suffering of Men in that sharpest sting: death, in the passage of Lazarus. "Jesus cried", tell us St. John. God *does* allow suffering and injustice. But He is not away, He is not indifferent. He cries for and with us. Later He says that He *is* with the suffering of the world *suffering* with us.

"for I was hungry, and ye did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not; sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not unto one of these least, ye did it not unto me."
S. Mat. 25:42-45

His answer, then, is that He *does* give us free will, He *does* know what will happen and nothing escapes this eternal knowing of what our free decisions are leading us, He *does* allow us to choose Light or Darkness and the reason why He permits that is not for us to know, yet, for those who are suffering, He is not distant or impassible. He is right there with them, crying for them, suffering with them, suffering the same injustices that He allows to come over them. He is the first victim of His own permission of people's misdoings and while we suffer only the events that come upon us, He is with all the suffering people, everywhere and in all times, bearing all the suffering in Creation at the same time. And being victorious over it and inviting us to remain with Him even in this suffering so we can be raised with Him.

In Christ,
Fabio L. Leite

Herman Blaydoe

28-06-2009, 11:35 PM

Synergy: (noun) the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects

Synergia: Syn (meaning "with") and ergon (meaning "work" or "effort") becomes synergia or "working together with" and implies a cooperative effort toward a shared goal. In the soteriology of the Church this takes on the specific meaning of "working together with" the Holy Spirit as we work out our salvation "in fear and trembling."

When I was a ship-driving officer in the US Navy, I ran into a couple of different leadership philosophies in the captains I served under. One kind kept tight rein on things and did not allow his officers much room to make decisions, making them not much more than his mouthpiece. When we had the "conn" (control of the bridge) we really did nothing more than what he told us to do. These captains, it seemed to me, were less confident in their own abilities and had to have total "control" over what we did. I don't think those captains really had control.

Other captains would give us what he expected from us and let us decide what was necessary in a given situation. One captain told me that I could not get the ship into a situation he could not get it out of. That was confidence and that, at least to me, was real total control of the situation. He gave us, as officers, what we needed and allowed us to use our own judgement, and even if we messed up, he knew when to step in and what to do to keep the ship from harm. The captains in the previous description simply tried to not allow the situation to get to that point, since they did not want to "lose" control.

God is in control, but He works with us and through us to accomplish His purpose. Sometimes it is in concert (synergia) with us and sometimes it is in spite of us. We cannot create a situation where things become "out of His control". If He is never "not in control" even when He is letting us make decisions and take actions, then He must be "in control" regardless of what we do.

At least that is what makes sense to this bear of little brain.

Herman the nautical Pooh

Evan

28-06-2009, 11:46 PM

"My knowledge does not determine the "choices" of the ant, nevertheless it *will* meet the other ants on the other side."

Well, you think that, to something close to certainty. But you're not entirely certain, nor did you allow that ant to be brought into being, knowing that he would choose to cross the table.

If no life takes root without God, and God knows what we'll do before we do it, logic suggests that our choice is, in the first instance, God's choice. But that logic was never taken by the Fathers to impute to God any moral responsibility for our choices. I think that's paradoxical, and I submit it's because God is not circumscribed by logic that He is able to preserve our freedom of morally culpable choice, despite His foreknowledge.

Only with our God is such a thing possible, and, as you say, not a problem. I think it would indeed be a problem if you felt that God needed to be circumscribed by logic insofar as He ascribes moral responsibility to actors that He brings into being, knowing precisely how they will act before they "choose" to do anything.

Think of it this way: God foreknows our actions to a certainty surpassing that which a would-be-murderer holding a gun to the back of someone's head knows that if he pulls the trigger, his victim will be shot in the head. Indeed,

If the victim is indeed shot in the head, would it be any defense to argue, "The gun may have misfired?" No? But it's less certain than that if God allows a man whom He foreknows will be a murderer to be brought into being, that man will be a murderer. Logic suggests that we should blame the man in this hypothetical less than we blame God. After all, he was merely almost certain concerning the result. God knew from the beginning what would happen.

And yet, Scripture and Tradition teaches us that we CANNOT blame God, because foreknowledge does not deprive us of free will.

Owen Jones

28-06-2009, 11:53 PM

An explanation of Acts 9:3 which is an interesting sidebar on the question. So doesn't the ox driver use coercion by pricking the ox?

A large percentage of people in the first century were tillers of the soil. Oxen were used to work the soil. The prick or goad was a necessary devise. The prick was usually a wooden shaft with a pointed spike (prick) at one end. The man working the ox would position the goad in such a way as to exert influence and control over the ox. You see, if the ox refused the command indicated by the farmer, the goad would be used to jab or prick the ox. Sometimes the ox would refuse this incentive by kicking out at the prick. As result, the prick would be driven deeper into the flesh of the rebellious animal. The more the animal rebelled, the more the animal suffered. Hence, the statement to Saul: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks."

Father David Moser

29-06-2009, 12:59 AM

One captain told me that I could not get the ship into a situation he could not get it out of.

That's kind of a nice thought - that we cannot get ourselves (the ship) into a situation that He (God) could not get it out of.

Fr David Moser

Andreas Moran

29-06-2009, 10:49 AM

I often wonder how free we are considering the effects of nature and nurture. Faith is said to be a gift given to those who show even just a tiny spark of the humility which comes from asking questions about life and so leads to seeking God. But is that spark the result of our nature/nurture? My brother and I obviously share the same origins but are totally different characters. He has no faith, isn't interested in religion and doesn't think much less worry about death and so on. Again, what about the person (like many saints whose lives we read about) who is brought up by devout parents and never questions the faith? Were they ever really free to reject it? Are there any answers to these and similar questions?

Alice

29-06-2009, 10:53 AM

Dear Andreas,

I have always wondered why some people care about the spiritual life inately and others do not care. Does it have to do with a particular sensitivity and vulnerability of the person's make-up, does it have to do with a difficult life, does it have to do with the people that influence him/her, does it have to do with the family one is reared in, does it have to do with the prayers for that person of some devout relative (?), etc....
We don't believe in predestination., but it does make one wonder.

In Christ,
Alice

M.C. Steenberg

29-06-2009, 12:25 PM

Dear Owen and others,

Thank you for the first thoughts in what has the potential to be a fruitful thread of discussion.

Perhaps we ought to begin by setting the parameters of the conversation, since it is easy to proceed by presumption.

What do you mean by freedom? Often 'freedom' is interpreted as 'the ability to make whatever choice I want'; but this is hardly the patristic view of freedom - and if it is the definition one adopts, one has problems from the outset. Freedom, in a basic patristic paradigm, the the ability of the human creature to adopt of its own measure and God-given power a life of holiness that resides in the will of the Father. Freedom is not the ability to choose 'anything', but the ability to choose the life of God. This is what makes freedom a gift, for such power would not normally reside in the creature.
How does sin influence your understanding of 'freedom'? Freedom discussed apart from the mystery of sin can hardly have a bearing on a patristic view; and yet contemporary discussions on 'free will' often impose a 'vacuum chamber' analysis that takes it little or not at all into account. Yet freedom is, to the Fathers, the gift of a will able to abide in God's will and power by its own determination and power: and if that power is disabled or distorted through sin, the concept of 'freedom' is intrinsically affected.

I think these are important contours to address at the front. When looking at the question of God's power, and setting out the (even apparent) dichotomy of man's-freedom-versus-God's-power, one is already looking several steps down the chain of experience. This dichotomy exists as the result of sin, which distorts freedom - meaning that we are not really dealing with the 'ultimate questions', but experiential examples of the history of transgression.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Owen Jones

29-06-2009, 03:31 PM

The Fathers frequently seem to equate freedom with reason or rationality, that is, the ability to chose rightly, rather than having our choices governed by the passions. Choices made under the influences of the passions are not really free choices.

Further, holiness seems to be a condition in which one chooses rightly as a matter of course and that when one is unburdened by the passions choosing rightly is the natural state. Although, of course, demonic influences still lead to a life of constant struggle, or spiritual warfare.

Freedom also applies to God, of course, and the Fathers seem to insist that God is free to chose as He wills as to our destinies. We might say that God is not whimsical in His choices, like the gods of the pagan myths, and is decidedly not driven by passions, again, unlike the gods of Homer. Nevertheless, God's freedom is in a sense absolute, which was one of the things that the Roman philosophers objected to about the Christian God. In their view, God's freedom was not absolute, but was bound by law. He could not go against the laws of nature, so to speak, the very own laws the gods had instituted, natural law being a very strong Roman concept. This does not mean just the laws of natural processes as we think of it today, but refers to the idea that all law was something embedded in natural order of things.

But there is a paradoxical aspect to this it seems to me. If God's freedom is absolute and inviolate, how does this square with our freedom? True freedom, it seems to me, results from surrendering my freedom to God's freedom to do as He wills with me. Salvation is a state or condition that results from giving up all power and control to God's power and control, whom we can count on to use wisely on our behalf, since we cannot be trusted with power and control.

Inescapably, inevitably, God exercises power control over us, and yet we are free. Given our doctrine of communion, it is better to say that God exercises His power in and through us, once we have forsaken our own desires for power and control. This does not make us robots, but paradoxically gives us the means of rational free choice.

IRENAEUS of Gaul c.130-200. Against Heresies XXXVII

"This expression, 'How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,' set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves . . ."

"If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free-will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free-will in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God."

Owen Jones

30-06-2009, 01:25 AM

ATHENAGORAS of Athens (2nd century). Embassy for Christians XXIV

"Just as with men who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice (for you would not either honor the good or punish the bad; unless vice and virtue were in their own power, and some are diligent in the matters entrusted to them, and others faithless), so is it among the angels"

THEOPHILUS of Antioch (2nd century). To Autolycus XXVII

"For God made man free, and with power over himself . . . now God vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him. For as man, disobeying, drew death on himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting."

TATIAN of Syria (flourished late 2nd century). Address XI

"Why are you 'fated' to grasp at things often, and often to die? Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it. Live to God, and by apprehending Him lay aside your old nature. We were not created to die, but we die by our own fault. Our free-will has destroyed us; we who were free have become slaves; we have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God; we ourselves have manifested wickedness; but we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it."

Michael O.

03-12-2009, 06:57 PM

In a sense, Free Will only exists on the level of consciousness upon which we operate. Indeed, as Christ says, we cannot be slaves to two masters, for if we are not slaves of our Lord Christ, we are a slave of something worldly, and working, effectually, in the favor of the angel whom has been cast out.

But even further, in terms of Soteriology, there are regular points in which it appears that Grace is what drives us to righteousness, as being the cause of our decision to follow Christ, not merely something present, "For who can resist His Will?" In the introductions with the majority of St Paul's letters, he enjoys excruciatingly elaborating upon how thoroughly those righteous in Christ were "chosen before the laying of the foundations of the cosmos" (Romans 1:1, 8:30, 9, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Galations 1:15, Ephesians 1:4, 1:5, 1:9, 1:11, Philippians 2:13, Colossians 1:29, 1 Thessalonians 1:4, 2:13, 2 Thessalonians 1:11, 2:11, et cetera), relating to the words of Christ in Matthew 22. But in the same sense, there are people appointed to inflict wickedness (Acts 4:27-28).

Out of speculation, I suspect there exists Free Will on our level of understanding, enabling us to perceive the consequences of our actions, yet preventing us from realizing the fullness of God's imminent power, that beyond our level of understanding, everything is divinely driven and worked, in such a way in which it shall remain a mystery to us, inhabiting that realm beyond our conceivability.

It has been duly noted that God does not want men to suffer in either this world nor the next, yet "The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered on the same against the Lord and against His Christ. For truly there were gathered together against Your Holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, to do as many things as Your hand and Your plan predestined to occur." If God does not want men to suffer, He would not want those in opposition to Christ to act as such, for Christ, His Only-Begotten Son, would suffer among us, and those offending would suffer in the next life, yet His hand and His plan appointed such to occur. It appears that God wants only the most righteous things to occur, yet does things out of necessity, which He appoints within Himself according to His own purpose, another aspect in this discussion which can only be concluded that it is beyond our finite minds to understand.

"For who has known the mind of the Lord?"

D. W. Dickens

03-12-2009, 08:05 PM

Effie Ganatsios

04-12-2009, 09:24 AM

Great discussion topic. I particularly think it's interesting that we become more free (from domination) the more obedient we are to God's will. That free will is ENABLED by slavery to Christ, and DISABLED by slavery to sin.

For some reason my feedback comment could not be posted.

I agree with your comment : "That free will is ENABLED by slavery to Christ, and DISABLED by slavery to sin."

We decide how we will live. We choose to live according to Christ's instructions. This is where we use the free will God has given us. He will knock but we are the ones who open the door.

""This is the judgement, that eternal light has come into the world but mankind has chosen darkness because his deeds were evil." (Jn. 3.)

The choice is ours.

And what do we find when we accept God into our lives, when we strive each day to become more like Christ, when our goal is theosis?

We find complete freedom - from our passions, from the opinions of others, from our absurd attempts to derive an identity from our appearance, from our wealth and from our education. Instead of seeing others as brothers and sisters, as our equals, we feel superior because we are slaves and believe that the above are important. Without God, when our beauty fades, when our wealth is lost, when our minds let us down, we have nothing to cling to, we are nothing, because we totally identified ourselves with temporal things.

As Mr. Dickens said in his post, when God's will is done, instead of our own, we are no longer slaves. We are truly free.

Please visit : http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm

"St. Irenaeus concurs:
This expression of our Lord, "How often would I have gathered thy children together,
and thou wouldest not, (Matthew 23:37) II , set forth the ancient law of human liberty,
because God made man a free agent from the beginning, possessing his own power,
even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by
compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will towards us is
present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. In man,
as well as the angels, He has placed the power of choice...so that those who had yielded
obedience might rightly possess the good, given indeed by God, but preserved by
themselves. On, the other hand, they who have not obeyed, shall, with justice, be not
found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment : for God did
kindly bestow on them what was good;... (Against the Heresies, IV, 37, I).

Reading the earlier posts I just saw that Owen Jones also used the above quote. Sorry about that.

Effie

Anna Stickles

05-12-2009, 02:06 PM

But there is a paradoxical aspect to this it seems to me. If God's freedom is absolute and inviolate, how does this square with our freedom? True freedom, it seems to me, results from surrendering my freedom to God's freedom to do as He wills with me. Salvation is a state or condition that results from giving up all power and control to God's power and control, whom we can count on to use wisely on our behalf, since we cannot be trusted with power and control.

Owen, I'm not sure this is a good way to look at things. God doesn't "do as he wills" with us. I think salvation consists in God reforming our thoughts, desires and intentions such that we will what He wills...both for us and the rest of creation. Therefore being saved doesn't mean that we have given up all power and control. Indeed this state would mean that we were robots. It seems to me that being saved means that God freely gives the saints access to His own power precisely because they are so in tune with Him that they can be trusted.

Somewhere in what you are saying, there is a denial that we can be healed from sin. It is those who are not healed from sin that need someone to exercise control over them in order to limit the damage they do to themselves and others. This is why God gave a the law and religious authority. But the saints have freedom precisely because they never desire anything but the good.

Another example. Joseph was given complete power by the Pharoah becuase the Pharoah trusted him completely to do what was in his best interests and the interests of Egypt. He didn't have to exercise control over Joseph because of this trust. We say of people that they are of one heart and mind - in this situation no control is needed, the two act as one, in concert.

Anna Stickles

05-12-2009, 02:44 PM

I had another thought to illstrate what I was trying to say.

To use Herman's analogy below, The officers under the confident captain had their freedom as long as they made good decisions, and were even allowed some room for error, I'm sure as part of the learning process.

But if there had been an officer who through inexperience or malice was putting the ship in danger through ignorance and bad decisions he would have lost his freedom and the captain would have taken over again and be forced either to remove the man entirely or at least watch over him constantly.

We ourselves need to be in obedience to the Church precisely because we are full of ignorance and a lack of compassion. The saints I think reach a point where they are free because they have become good officers.

Michael O.

06-12-2009, 08:56 PM

Owen, I'm not sure this is a good way to look at things. God doesn't "do as he wills" with us. I think salvation consists in God reforming our thoughts, desires and intentions such that we will what He wills...both for us and the rest of creation. Therefore being saved doesn't mean that we have given up all power and control. Indeed this state would mean that we were robots. It seems to me that being saved means that God freely gives the saints access to His own power precisely because they are so in tune with Him that they can be trusted.

Somewhere in what you are saying, there is a denial that we can be healed from sin. It is those who are not healed from sin that need someone to exercise control over them in order to limit the damage they do to themselves and others. This is why God gave a the law and religious authority. But the saints have freedom precisely because they never desire anything but the good.

Another example. Joseph was given complete power by the Pharoah becuase the Pharoah trusted him completely to do what was in his best interests and the interests of Egypt. He didn't have to exercise control over Joseph because of this trust. We say of people that they are of one heart and mind - in this situation no control is needed, the two act as one, in concert.

I see what you are trying to say, but think about this... Moses was given the task of leading the Israelites out of Egypt, and Pharaoh was given the choice of doing what was righteous and freeing them, or what was unrighteous and keeping them enslaved... Or so we would think; in Exodus 4:21, the Lord says “all the miracles I have charged thee with, thou shall work before Pharaoh: and I will harden his heart,” clearly saying rather straightforward that the Lord will be the one to make Pharaoh have the unrighteous choice, and, indeed, in Exodus 11:10, “the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not hearken to send forth the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt.” There was no issue of cooperation involved between God and this man.

It may sound like Pharaoh was then a robot under the hand of God, but who are we to say that God wouldn't do such a thing? We could say that God wouldn't do such a thing because that would be unjust, but in the words of the Apostle Paul, speaking to this exact same problematic situation in Romans 9, Μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ; "On the contrary, O man, for who are you that argues back to God?"

Anna Stickles

08-12-2009, 12:34 AM

It may sound like Pharaoh was then a robot under the hand of God, but who are we to say that God wouldn't do such a thing? We could say that God wouldn't do such a thing because that would be unjust, but in the words of the Apostle Paul, speaking to this exact same problematic situation in Romans 9, Μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταποκρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ; "On the contrary, O man, for who are you that argues back to God?"

Would God have hardened Pharoah's heart if Pharoah was not already in the position of having hardened his own heart? Pharoah didn't want to obey God. He wanted his own way. He didn't want to lose his slave labor. He didn't want to lose face. He was wholly wrapped up in considerations of his own power and wealth. But most people living this way are living in a cost benefit analysis mode. We see that at various points in the story Pharoah was ready to let the people go because it was costing him something to keep them, but then he hardened his heart again. Did God make Pharoah a robot or simply strengthen a predisposition Pharoah already had such that Pharoah suffered the full consequences of what was already within him?

Anna Stickles

08-12-2009, 12:55 AM

How does sin influence your understanding of 'freedom'? Freedom discussed apart from the mystery of sin can hardly have a bearing on a patristic view; and yet contemporary discussions on 'free will' often impose a 'vacuum chamber' analysis that takes it little or not at all into account. Yet freedom is, to the Fathers, the gift of a will able to abide in God's will and power by its own determination and power: and if that power is disabled or distorted through sin, the concept of 'freedom' is intrinsically affected.

I came across this quote by Augustine today talking about free will and how that is distorted by sin.

He talks about the fact that our loss of freedom is not due to a weakness of nature but is a result of the Fall and is our just punishment for abusing that freedom.

"Nor ought it be wondered at that either by ignorance man has not free determination of will to choose what he will rightly do, or that by resistance of carnal habit, though seeing what ought rightly to be done, and wishing to do it, he is yet unable to accomplish it. For this is the most just penalty of sin, that a man should lose what he has been unwilling to make good use of, when he might with ease have done so if he would; which, however, amounts to this, that the man who knowingly does not do what is right loses the ability to do it when he wishes. For in truth, to every soul that sins there accrue two penal consequences - ignorance and difficulty. Out of ignorance arises the error which disgraces, out of the difficulty arises the pain which afflicts.

But to approve of falsehoods as if they were true, so as to err involuntarily, and to be unable, owing to the resistance and pain of carnal bondage, to refrain from deeds of lust, is not the nature of man as he was created, but the punishment of man under condemnation. When, however, we speak of a free will to do what is right we of course mean that liberty in which man was created." On Nature and Grace

Michael O.

08-12-2009, 12:44 PM

Would God have hardened Pharoah's heart if Pharoah was not already in the position of having hardened his own heart? Pharoah didn't want to obey God. He wanted his own way. He didn't want to lose his slave labor. He didn't want to lose face. He was wholly wrapped up in considerations of his own power and wealth. But most people living this way are living in a cost benefit analysis mode. We see that at various points in the story Pharoah was ready to let the people go because it was costing him something to keep them, but then he hardened his heart again. Did God make Pharoah a robot or simply strengthen a predisposition Pharoah already had such that Pharoah suffered the full consequences of what was already within him?

Either way, it does not appear that Pharaoh really had freedom of will... If God says He is going to do something, He does it. Pharaoh was not provided with what was necessary to make a righteous decision; he was not a robot, but he was not truly free in his will. Whatever position Pharaoh was in, the Lord so determined to "harden his heart." And in declaring His position, the Lord says to Moses, "I will pass by before thee in my glory, and I will call by my name, the Lord, before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Exodos 33:19)

Anna Stickles

08-12-2009, 10:54 PM

Pharaoh was not provided with what was necessary to make a righteous decision;

What you are implying here is that God is taking away Pharoah's freedom by removing what he needed to act. This implies that God is unjust. Can we honestly say of a just and loving God who wants all to be saved and act righteously that He deliberately takes away from some the means to do so?

What Augustine says, and what I think is more consistent with the Patristic witness is that anyone who is still living in sin has already lost his freedom, not because God has taken something away but because this is the nature of what happens when we reject God, lose grace, and live in voluntary slavery to our passions and the devil.

Maybe besides asking about the nature of our freedom we ought also to ask what the Father's teach us about the nature of God's control.

Does God,
a) by Divine Fiat, out of some external necessity, or His own internal intention separated from His relationship with us, then force obedience to that necessity or intention on His creatures? or
b) is His will for us contained entirely within and grow from His relationship with each one of us?

If the saints of the Church are images revealing God's character what can we learn about God's 'control' and how He uses his authority from their example?

If we are made in the likeness of God, what are the implications in how we should treat our brother if God is like a) if God is like b)?

Michael O.

09-12-2009, 01:39 PM

What you are implying here is that God is taking away Pharoah's freedom by removing what he needed to act. This implies that God is unjust. Can we honestly say of a just and loving God who wants all to be saved and act righteously that He deliberately takes away from some the means to do so?

What Augustine says, and what I think is more consistent with the Patristic witness is that anyone who is still living in sin has already lost his freedom, not because God has taken something away but because this is the nature of what happens when we reject God, lose grace, and live in voluntary slavery to our passions and the devil.

Maybe besides asking about the nature of our freedom we ought also to ask what the Father's teach us about the nature of God's control.

Does God,
a) by Divine Fiat, out of some external necessity, or His own internal intention separated from His relationship with us, then force obedience to that necessity or intention on His creatures? or
b) is His will for us contained entirely within and grow from His relationship with each one of us?

If the saints of the Church are images revealing God's character what can we learn about God's 'control' and how He uses his authority from their example?

If we are made in the likeness of God, what are the implications in how we should treat our brother if God is like a) if God is like b)?

Indeed we are made in the εἰκόνα, the icon, or image, of God, but how shall His image stand in violation of His Omnipotence? The very name Παντοκράτορ means One Who holds Power over all, or Almighty, and that means He truly holds power over all, since He is Omnipotent. Is it possible that anything can withstand His Power if He truly has Power over all things? When speaking out against the belief that the Holy Spirit is created, Evagrius Ponticus writes that "every creation is a servant of its Creator. "All things," it is said, "serve Thee." Psalms 119 (118 in Masoretic Texts):89-91)"

It is not that God is showing unrighteousness in creating a man for unrighteousness, but is showing Divine Justice, so that when He creates a man for righteousness, He is not showing Justice, but Divine Mercy. Shall we say that God was unjust in His actions against Job? Shall we we accuse Him of injustice when He tears our bodies down, makes us poor and stricken in illness, takes those we love and surrounds us with those who hate us? Or shall we thank Him that we were not shown the Justice we truly deserve... For whatever He does to us in this life, He is still being Merciful infinitely beyond what we deserve.

In an army, a single act of treason is punishable by death. Even a single sinful thought is an act of treason against God, so I deserve damnation beyond my wildest imaginings. But it is by His Divine Mercy that I shall ever choose to show love for Christ...

As St Symeon the New Theologian says, "I did not choose to be part of the Mother Church; I was dragged into her by my hair..." Every Sunday, I pray, Ἐλέησον με καὶ συνχώρησόν μοι τὰ παραπτώματά μου, τὰ ἑκούσια καὶ ἀκούσια, τὰ ἐν λόγῳ , τὰ ἐν ἔργῳ, τὰ ἐν γνώσει καὶ ἀγνοίᾳ· "Have Mercy on me and forgive me of my transgressions, both voluntary and involuntary, in word or action, in knowledge or ignorance..." Truly, if it would be unjust for God to punish us for unrighteousness we did not choose, why must I beg forgiveness for involuntary sins? As Paul says, "to whom He wills He shows Mercy, and to whom He wills He hardens. You will then say to me, "Why does He still find fault? For who has ever resisted His Will?" Μενοῦνγε, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, σὺ τίς εἶ ὁ ἀνταπκρινόμενος τῷ Θεῷ; On the contrary, O human, who are you to argue back to God?" (Rom 9:18-20)

One may mention the writings of St John of Damascus, but we must also keep in mind that no saint is infallible, and remember that his writings were incredibly reactionary against the fatalistic beliefs of the Muslim population he came to be surrounded by. But when speaking of Augustine, not simply he, but his teachings were strongly supported in both Alexandria and Constantinople, as he was in somewhat close communication with St Cyril, who only further affirmed his condemnation of Pelagianism at Ephesus, and those in Constantinople who opposed the Nestorian heresy strongly held to Augustine's teachings. Augustine had strong ties with a layman in Constantinople named Marius Mercator, who is worth researching.

I do not imply that God has stripped Pharaoh of freedom, but that He never gave it. This is not injustice; it is truly Justice; nay, for it is even Merciful that Pharaoh was given another breath after such sin. Can we honestly say of a Just and Loving and Omnipotent God who wants all to be saved and act righteously that His taking away anything from a man would be unjust? What ultimate insolence it is to say that it is ever a possibility that a man deserves something from God. How can anything a man do ever compare to what he has been given? We are indebted to the most infinitely extreme degree, that God could damn me, no matter how righteous I may be, and I would still deserve worse, for even still, He is being Merciful upon my sinful soul.

The true question is, how can any other have any degree of power if there is already an Omnipotent Being? Would the fact that He is Omnipotent show that it is an impossibility for anything else to have "freedom." The title Παντοκρατόρ means Almighty, literally the One Who has Power over EVERYTHING.

But perhaps this belief in true freedom of a man's will, freedom from the Power of God, freedom in choice, is naught but a trickery of the greatest lie ever told, the most haunting lie that blinds man to this very day, for indeed, as the serpent said to the first woman, "God knew that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened, and ye would be as gods," for now we are to believe that we have power over our own choices, despite the Will and Power of God.

Brian Patrick Mitchell

09-12-2009, 03:29 PM

But perhaps this belief in true freedom of a man's will, freedom from the Power of God, freedom in choice, is naught but a trickery of the greatest lie ever told, the most haunting lie that blinds man to this very day, for indeed, as the serpent said to the first woman, "God knew that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened, and ye would be as gods," for now we are to believe that we have power over our own choices, despite the Will and Power of God.

So, Michael, were all of these fathers merely repeating the lie?

“If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.” St. Ignatius to the Magnesians, ANF, Vol 1, p. 61.

“[U]nless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be.” St. Justin Martyr and Philosopher, First Apology, xliii; ; ANF, Vol. 1, p. 177.

"But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to do what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it." St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.xxxvii.2; ANF, Vol. 1, p. 519.

“It is by one’s own fault that he does not choose what is best. God is free of blame.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, I.i; ANF, Vol. 2, p. 300.

“As to fortune, it is man’s freedom of will.” Tertullian, A Treatise on the Soul, xx; ANF, Vol. 3, p. 201.

“The Scriptures. . . emphasize the freedom of the will. They condemn those who sin, and approve those who do right. . . . For it is not the nature in us that is the cause of the evil; rather, it is the voluntary choice that works evil.” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, X.xi; ANF Vol. 9, p. 419.

Dn. Patrick

Aidan Kimel

09-12-2009, 05:52 PM

The question of divine agency and creaturely freedom may well be impossible for us to comprehend, much less verbally state. We simply cannot conceive or imagine what it means for the infinite, eternal, omnipotent, and transcendent Deity to create, cause, and sustain every creature and event within the world. Every time we attempt to think about this, we inevitably fall back into thinking of God as a being within the world.

Christian theologians are absolutely correct to insist, over against all fatalisms, that human beings have been given by their Creator the freedom to determine their actions; they have been given free-will. But is this all that needs to be said?

Within the world we know that human freedom and external causality are mutually exclusive: I am free to the extent that I determine my actions; I am not free to the extent that outside agencies and forces cause my actions. Within the world causes compete with each other and make a difference to each other. It might therefore seem logical to conclude, as many others have concluded, that if I freely choose X, then God has not caused me to choose X. But if we conclude this, then we have confused God as something external to us; but God is not external to us as other creatures are external to us. He is not external to us at all, just as he is not internal to us at all. God is not a being in the world; he is not a part of the world. He is not a thing that acts upon us in the way other things act upon us. In the most fundamental sense, God does not "make a difference" to the world. His creative and sustaining activity is ontologically prior to the world: it is because of God that we exist and can freely act within the world--hence the unfathomability of the mystery of divine agency and human freedom.

But while we cannot comprehend the mystery or logically explain it, I think we can state the contours of the mystery. We know by divine revelation that God is Love and perfect goodness and does not cause evil. We know by divine revelation that this universe and everything that exists within this universe exists only by the gracious will of God. We know by divine revelation that everything that happens within this universe is comprehended within the gracious will of God. And finally, we know by divine revelation, confirmed in the spiritual experience of the saints, that choosing the divine will means freedom, choosing sin means slavery.

My little mind cannot grasp all of this, and I'm sure that the above statement needs to be qualified and corrected in any number of ways. As for God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart …

Brian Patrick Mitchell

09-12-2009, 09:29 PM

To reason rightly about these things, we need to know much more than we actually do, both about God and about creation. Not knowing more, we cannot, in good Christian faith, allow our childlike reasoning to force us into saying and believing things that we are assured are not true.

The saints assure us of God's "sovereignty" to comfort us that we need not become victims of evil powers, that ultimately "all things work togther for good to them that love God." (Rom. 8:28) At the same time, the saints assure us of our own freedom to inspire us with the knowledge that we need not become slaves to any evil power, that we can only blame ourselves for our own failings. We cannot reason from one assurance to a denial of the other, for we have not enough knowledge and no basis within the Faith to do so. Within the Faith, God's sovereignty is our freedom, and we are neither unwilling slaves nor unwilling victims.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Michael O.

10-12-2009, 02:03 PM

None of the saints were liars... Heretics are the men found to be liars. In fact, Pelagianistic and semi-Pelagianistic influence on how we strive for righteousness is much easier for the theological novice to understand how he should conduct himself. However, deeper theological inquiry with such a disposition already established leads to Deism and eventually atheism.

There is much Scripture that must be disregarded in order to embrace such a belief in Free Will, and the only one who has the final say on what is Just and unjust is not of a feeble, over-limited human mind. On our level of understanding, we do determine our actions and we will suffer the consequences of such; but on the level of the Divine Darkness, that which is beyond our slight ability to grasp, everything is divinely arranged and executed as it was determined "before the laying of the foundations of the cosmos." (Eph 1:4)

It is impossible to deny the very fact that those righteous had not only been called by Christ's name, but were chosen by Him, "having predestined us to adoption by means of Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will," (Eph 1:5) as Paul seems to reaffirm as often as he finds fit in his numerous Epistles. Christ Himself tells the parable of the wedding-feast, how the Master calls many guests, and one comes who was not chosen, and he was bound and cast out, "for many are called, but few are Chosen." (Mat 20:16, Mat 22:14)

It is folly to say that while we have chosen to follow Christ of our own Free Will that we were not Divinely Chosen beforehand by the Divine Sovereign of all, Predestined to salvation as St Paul and even St Peter attest. When Christ was approached and begged to allow the sons of Zebedee to sit at His right and left hand, He said, "Indeed, My cup you (all) will drink, and the baptism which I am baptized with, you (all) will be baptized. But to sit at My right hand and at My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by My Father." (Mat 20:20, Mark 10:35-40) Once again, "it is easier for a camel (animal) to pass through an eye of the needle" than it would be for me attain righteousness without having been elected to such.

With all glory ascribed to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit...
Δόξα Σοι Κύριε, δόξα Σοι...

Brian Patrick Mitchell

10-12-2009, 03:56 PM

There is much Scripture that must be disregarded in order to embrace such a belief in Free Will ...

There is also much Scripture that must be disregarded in order to believe in the absence of all free will. Christ presents Himself to us as the Good Shepherd, not the Good Drover. He does not drive the Elect before Him like cattle; He calls to them and they willingly follow His lead, recognizing His voice. (John 10) That is how He wishes us to understand Him. The very words "many are called but few are chosen" imply that salvation is offered to all even if all do not obtain it. If we have no free will, then many are not called; only the few are called. The parable of the guest thrown out of the wedding feast can and (I believe) should be understood to mean that all who come to church are not saved, just as all who cry "Lord, Lord" are not saved, for many do so faithlessly. They come to church unprepared, just as the man came without a wedding garment. Then there is the rich man who asks Christ what he must do to inherit eternal life. Christ doesn't tell him, "You can't do anything, because you have neither the freedom nor the power to do anything. You can only do what I make you do."

All of these Scriptures cannot simply be subordinated to Paul's scriptures about predestination, for there is not within Scripture or within Tradition a principle establishing the precedence of one over the other. If we were to look for such a principle, we might be more inclined to subordinate Paul to the Gospels, and, overall, that is what the Church has done.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Brian Patrick Mitchell

10-12-2009, 05:43 PM

Pelagianistic and semi-Pelagianistic influence on how we strive for righteousness is much easier for the theological novice to understand how he should conduct himself. However, deeper theological inquiry with such a disposition already established leads to Deism and eventually atheism.

By the way, Michael, this assertion that belief in free will leads to Deism and atheism is not supported by any evidence I know of. Historically, deism and atheism arose out of the same rationalistic approach that produced first theistic and then materialistic determinism.

I should also point out that the logic behind determinism is really very simple and therefore actually much easier for theological novices (like John Calvin) who have not faced up to the epistemological problem of reasoning about things with which they have insufficient information and limited personal experience.

Michael O.

11-12-2009, 10:08 AM

I am not at all giving an utter dismissal of Free Will, but I am not giving it the weight many have attributed to it. I am, however, reaffirming that God is the Sovereign over all things, not simply over those which choose to follow. While we do have Free Will on our human level of understanding, everything is divinely arranged in a fashion beyond our understanding. How can we call the Almighty the Lord and Master of all if that does not include myself as well? Does not the potter have the right over the clay? To make from the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? Shall the thing formed answer to Him that formed it? (see Isaiah 45) Indeed, "Thy word, O Lord, abides in heaven for ever. Thy truth endures to all generations; thou hast founded the earth, and it abides. The day continues by thy arrangement; for all things are thy servants." (Psalm 119:89-91)

By what rebellious act shall we claim that God has no mastery over our lives? God shall glorify as He pleases and shall discard as He pleases... "Be attentively observing the lilies of the field, how they grow. They do not labor, nor do they spin. But I say to you, not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of these. Now if God clothes in such a manner the grass of the field, being here today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, He will much more clothe you, O you of little faith, will He not?"

Scripture does not say that He only calls those who are Chosen... For He may call many to Himself as He pleases, but He shall only choose His elect whom He shall purify by the Body and Blood of Christ. He finds so fit that not all shall be saved... Otherwise He would save all, for nothing is beyond His power.

Instead of trying to legitimize a power struggle with God, we should understand that we must strive for righteousness and revel in His everlasting Glory and imminent Power, for what greater joy is there but to find the deepest joy in the glorification of the Almighty? Was this not the purpose for which He created us? In all things He shows us His Glory and His Might, and so why should we claim responsibility for choosing Him? Is it so we can feel proud of ourselves for doing what we were supposed to do in the first place?

He shall tell men to strive, and to seek righteousness, but because it is what He has deemed necessary for the proper workings of the cosmos... And I can guarantee that a man will not simply be predestined to one place or another, but that the same man predestined for heaven has also been predestined to strive for righteousness.

The Jesuits were presented with a similar problem when they began their ministry to defame the protestants and even keep Martin Luther from joining the East, as was Luther's intention. The Jesuits so strongly believe in Free Will that they have gone so far as to claim that God is only aware of what is likely to happen, and is not truly Omniscient, understanding both that if God was all seeing and knows all that shall happen to the tiniest detail, there is no possibility of deviation from what is already linearly going to happen, and God is the Ultimate Creator of all things, including time, including every division in time, including every day, which He has arranged as King David has said as I cited above.

The freedom of decisions from God's hand is one step above the freedom of everything from God's hand, except the laws previously laid out (Deism), and if God does not have his hand in things in the world, how are we to say there is a God? (atheism) A blatant refusal that God does not work in literally all things suggests a partiality in a Universal, Infinite Being. Scripture says we are made in God's image, but how thorough of a reflection does that make us? We have been given dominion over all the plants and animals and even the stars, but have we been given dominion over ourselves? Is it not possible that we are also on another rank in this Divine Hierarchy which God has designed, in which all things fit? Protestantism itself is a rebellion against Hierarchy, but is Free Will any different? Free Will is the purest form of Theological Anarchy...

Brian Patrick Mitchell

11-12-2009, 04:58 PM

I am not at all giving an utter dismissal of Free Will, but ...

Pardon me, Michael, but you really are issuing an utter dismissal of free will. You are saying that free will is an illusion, that it is merely apparent “on our level of consciousness” because God has His hand “in literally all things” and any “freedom of decisions from God's hand is one step above the freedom of everything from God's hand.” I’m not sure what you mean by “one step above,” but you seem to be saying that any freedom means that God isn’t God, ergo belief in free will leads to atheism.

Well, as I’ve said, that is simply NOT how history has happened. The Western world did not throw away its Christian faith because it thought too much of its free will. On the contrary, it threw away its Christian faith because it thought too much of its powers of reason. It set reason up as judge over revelation and tradition and began discarding everything in Christianity that could not be proven rationally, including God (and after God, reason itself).

You have taken the same approach, discarding free will because you yourself can't make sense of it rationally. You have then interpreted Scripture entirely in favor of no free will and belabored God’s omniscience and omnipotence to the point where the line between Creator and Creation has begun to blur. By your reasoning, it would seem that our only choices are atheism and pantheism, since God must allow creation some degree of freedom for anything to exist outside God.

This strictly rational approach will not preserve anything recognizable as Christianity, because the Gospel is not a philosophy (in the sense of an understanding founded solely on reason) but an encounter with a personal, living God — something no mere philosophy has ever been able to produce.

You began this discussion with the assertion that “Free Will only exists on the level of consciousness upon which we operate.” I would suggest that God’s “sovereignty” exists only on the level of consciousness upon which God operates, that we cannot possibly comprehend all we need to know to make sense of it rationally, and that we are therefore ill-advised to climb up into the dome to assume the perspective of the Pantocrator. Our place is on the floor. We were meant to look up, not down.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Evan

11-12-2009, 06:56 PM

Michael,

In charity, it seems that St. John Chrysostom, in analyzing the key passages in Romans to which you've drawn attention, goes to great lengths to refute the point of view you're advocating.

Here is a portion of his commentary on Romans IX:

Ver. 20, 2l. Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why have You made me thus? Hath not the potter power, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm), and another unto dishonor?

Here it is not to do away with free-will (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06259a.htm) that he says this, but to show, up to what point we ought to obey (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11181c.htm) God. For in respect of calling God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is. For we ought to abstain not from gainsaying or questioning only, but even from speaking or thinking of it at all, and to become like that lifeless matter, which follows the potter's hands, and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only point he applied the illustration to, not, that is, to any enunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11181c.htm) and silence enforced upon us. And this we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations quite entire, but after selecting the good of them, and that for which they were introduced, to let the rest alone. As, for instance, when he says, He couched, he lay down as a lion; Numbers 24:9 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../bible/num024.htm#verse9) let us take out the indomitable and fearful part, not the brutality, nor any other of the things belonging to a lion. And again, when He says, I will meet them as a bereaved bear Hosea 13:8 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../bible/hos013.htm#verse8), let us take the vindictiveness. And when he says, our God is a consuming fire Hebrews 12:29 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../bible/heb012.htm#verse29), the wasting power exerted in punishing. So also here must we single out the clay, the potter, and the vessels. And when he does go on to say, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm), and another unto dishonor? do not suppose that this is said by Paul (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11567b.htm) as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will, but to illustrate the sovereignty and difference of dispensations; for if we do not take it in this way, various incongruities will follow, for if here he were speaking about the will, and those who are good and those not so, He will be Himself the Maker of these, and man will be free from all responsibility. And at this rate, Paul (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11567b.htm) will also be shown to be at variance with himself, as he always bestows chief honor (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm) upon free choice. There is nothing else then which he here wishes to do, save to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), and at no time to call Him to account for anything whatever. For as the potter (he says) of the same lump makes what he pleases, and no one forbids it; thus also when God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), of the same race of men (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09580c.htm), punishes some, and honors (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm) others, be not thou curious nor meddlesome herein, but worship only, and imitate the clay. And as it follows the hands of the potter, so do thou also the mind of Him that so orders things. For He works nothing at random, or mere hazard, though thou be ignorant (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07648a.htm) of the secret of His Wisdom. Yet you allow the other of the same lump to make various things, and findest no fault: but of Him you demand an account of His punishments and honors (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm), and will not allow Him to know (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm) who is worthy and who is not so; but since the same lump is of the same substance, you assert that there are the same dispositions. And, how monstrous this is! And yet not even is it on the potter that the honor (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/07462a.htm) and the dishonor of the things made of the lump depends, but upon the use made by those that handle them, so here also it depends on the free choice. Still, as I said before, one must take this illustration to have one bearing only, which is that one should not contravene God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), but yield to His incomprehensible Wisdom. For the examples ought to be greater than the subject, and than the things on account of which they are brought forward, so as to draw on the hearer better. Since if they were not greater and did not mount far above it, he could not attack as he ought, and shame the objectors. However, their ill-timed obstinacy he silenced in this way with becoming superiority. And then he introduces his answer. Now what is the answer?

Ver. 22, 23, 24. What if God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), willing to show His wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm), and to make His power known (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm), endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm) fitted to destruction: and that He might make known (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm) the riches of His glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm) on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm), even us, whom He has chosen, not of the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm) only, but also of the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm).

What he means is somewhat as follows. Pharaoh (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11788c.htm) was a vessel of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm), that is, a man who by his own hard-heartedness had kindled the wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm) of God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm). For after enjoying much long-suffering, he became no better, but remained unimproved. Wherefore he calls him not only a vessel of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm), but also one fitted for destruction. That is, fully fitted indeed, but by his own proper self. For neither had God left out anything of the things likely to recover him, nor did he leave out anything of those that would ruin him, and put him beyond any forgiveness. Yet still, though God knew (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm) this, He endured him with much long-suffering, being willing to bring him to repentance. For had He not willed this, then He would not have been thus long-suffering. But as he would not use the long-suffering in order to repentance, but fully fitted himself for wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm), He used him for the correction of others, through the punishment inflicted upon him making them better, and in this way setting forth His power. For that it is not God's wish that His power be so made known (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm), but in another way, by His benefits, namely, and kindnesses, he had shown above in all possible ways. For if Paul (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11567b.htm) does not wish to appear powerful in this way (not that we should appear approved, he says, but that you should do that which is honest,) 2 Corinthians 13:7 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../bible/2co013.htm#verse7), much less does God. But after that he had shown long-suffering, that He might lead to repentance, but he did not repent, He suffered him a long time, that He might display at once His goodness and His power, even if that man were not minded to gain anything from this great long-suffering. As then by punishing this man, who continued incorrigible, He showed His power, so by having pitied those who had done many sins (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/14004b.htm) but repented, He manifested His love (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09397a.htm) toward man. But it does not say, love (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09397a.htm) towards man, but glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm), to show that this is especially God's glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm), and for this He was above all things earnest. But in saying, which He had afore prepared unto glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm), he does not mean that all is God's doing. Since if this were so, there were nothing to hinder all men (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09580c.htm) from being saved. But he is setting forth again His foreknowledge, and doing away with the difference between the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm) and the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm). And on this topic again he grounds a defence of his statement, which is no small one. For it was not in the case of the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm) only that some men perished, and some were saved, but with the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm) also this was the case. Wherefore he does not say, all the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm), but, of the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm), nor, all the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm), but, of the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm). As then Pharaoh (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11788c.htm) became a vessel of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm) by his own lawlessness, so did these become vessels of mercy by their own readiness to obey (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11181c.htm). For though the more part is of God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), still they also have contributed themselves some little. Whence he does not say either, vessels of well-doing, or vessels of boldness (παρρησίας), but vessels of mercy, to show that the whole is of God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm). For the phrase, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, even if it comes in the course of the objection, still, were it said by Paul (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11567b.htm), would create no difficulty. Because when he says, it is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, he does not deprive us of free-will (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06259a.htm), but shows that all is not one's own, for that it requires grace (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06689a.htm) from above. For it is binding on us to will, and also to run: but to confide not in our own labors, but in the love (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/09397a.htm) of God toward man. And this he has expressed elsewhere. Yet not I, but the grace (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06689a.htm) which was with me. 1 Corinthians 15:10 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../bible/1co015.htm#verse10) And he well says, Which He had afore prepared unto glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm). For since they reproached them with this, that they were saved by grace (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06689a.htm), and thought to make them ashamed, he far more than sets aside this insinuation. For if the thing brought glory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm) even to God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), much more to them through whom God was glorified (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06585a.htm). But observe his forbearance, and unspeakable wisdom. For when he had it in his power to adduce, as an instance of those punished, not Pharaoh (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11788c.htm), but such of the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm) as had sinned (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/14004b.htm), and so make his discourse much clearer, and show that where there were the same fathers, and the same sins (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/14004b.htm), some perished, and some had mercy shown them, and persuade them not to be doubtful-minded, even if some of the Gentiles (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06422a.htm) were saved, while the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm) were perishing; that he might not make his discourse irksome, the showing forth of the punishment he draws from the foreigner, so that he may not be forced to call them vessels of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm). But those that obtained mercy he draws from the people of the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm). And besides, he also has spoken in a sufficient way in God's behalf, because though He knew (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08673a.htm) very well that the nation was fitting itself as a vessel of destruction, still He contributed all on His part, His patience, His long-suffering, and that not merely long-suffering, but much long-suffering; yet still he was not minded to state it barely against the Jews (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/08399a.htm). Whence then are some vessels of wrath (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/01489a.htm), and some of mercy? Of their own free choice. God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), however, being very good, shows the same kindness to both. For it was not those in a state of salvation (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/13407a.htm) only to whom He showed mercy, but also Pharaoh (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/11788c.htm), as far as His part went. For of the same long-suffering, both they and he had the advantage. And if he was not saved, it was quite owing to his own will: since, as for what concerns God (http://www.monachos.net/forum/../cathen/06608a.htm), he had as much done for him as they who were saved.

Aidan Kimel

12-12-2009, 05:03 AM

The Jesuits were presented with a similar problem when they began their ministry to defame the protestants and even keep Martin Luther from joining the East, as was Luther's intention. The Jesuits so strongly believe in Free Will that they have gone so far as to claim that God is only aware of what is likely to happen, and is not truly Omniscient, understanding both that if God was all seeing and knows all that shall happen to the tiniest detail, there is no possibility of deviation from what is already linearly going to happen, and God is the Ultimate Creator of all things, including time, including every division in time, including every day, which He has arranged as King David has said as I cited above.

I certainly don't want to intrude on an inter-Orthodox argument, but I'd like to raise a question or two about the above quoted passage.

First, what is the documentation for Luther's alleged intention to join the East? I am dubious. While it is true that on occasion Luther spoke favorably of the East and their rejection of the Papacy ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), I am unaware of any serious attempt by Luther to make contact with the Eastern patriarchs. I believe it was Melanchthon, a decade or so after Luther's death, who attempted (unsuccesfully, I believe) to establish communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch. The famous correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and Lutheran theologians occurred over a decade after Melanchthon's death.

Second, I do not think the Jesuits are getting a fair shake here. Again I ask for documentation for the allegation that Jesuit theologians of this period questioned or doubted the omniscience of God. That is certainly not the case for the famous Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to interpret predestination in light of divine omniscience (do an internet search for "Molinism").

Catholic/Protestant polemics in the 16th century were of course brutal and vicious; but it must be said that Luther left himself wide open on the doctrine of predestination. All one needs to do is to read his Bondage of the Will, which appears to defend a form of double predestination, which the Church has always condemned as heretical. At the same time, it must be said that Luther did not, unlike the Reformed, make predestination the center piece of his theology. He knew that preoccupation with predestination could undermine assurance of salvation. Luther's heirs did not follow Luther on this matter.

Michael O.

12-12-2009, 12:00 PM

Pardon me, Michael, but you really are issuing an utter dismissal of free will. You are saying that free will is an illusion, that it is merely apparent “on our level of consciousness” because God has His hand “in literally all things” and any “freedom of decisions from God's hand is one step above the freedom of everything from God's hand.”

Because there is a Divine level beyond our consciousness and understanding that is reality, does that make that which we understand any less real? God may have Divinely arranged everything in His Divine fashion beyond our comprehension, but does that mean that you yourself did not willingly choose to put pen to paper?

God is both transcendent AND imminent... He is not anything in the world, yet is omnipresent; He is not an idea and cannot be encompassed by one; He is not an emotion; He is not an object; He is not anything we can rationally imagine, yet He permeates all, "for the word of God is living and effective and sharper than every double-edged sword, and is penetrating as far as the division of both soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow," as He is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient, and altogether Infinite.

You began this discussion with the assertion that “Free Will only exists on the level of consciousness upon which we operate.” I would suggest that God’s “sovereignty” exists only on the level of consciousness upon which God operates, that we cannot possibly comprehend all we need to know to make sense of it rationally, and that we are therefore ill-advised to climb up into the dome to assume the perspective of the Pantocrator. Our place is on the floor. We were meant to look up, not down.

This, beloved Father Deacon Patrick, is simply another way to rephrase what I am claiming, that neither levels are false, that one truth does not invalidate another...

First, what is the documentation for Luther's alleged intention to join the East? I am dubious. While it is true that on occasion Luther spoke favorably of the East and their rejection of the Papacy ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend"), I am unaware of any serious attempt by Luther to make contact with the Eastern patriarchs. I believe it was Melanchthon, a decade or so after Luther's death, who attempted (unsuccesfully, I believe) to establish communication with the Ecumenical Patriarch. The famous correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias and Lutheran theologians occurred over a decade after Melanchthon's death.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_luther.aspx

Second, I do not think the Jesuits are getting a fair shake here. Again I ask for documentation for the allegation that Jesuit theologians of this period questioned or doubted the omniscience of God. That is certainly not the case for the famous Jesuit, Luis de Molina, who sought to interpret predestination in light of divine omniscience (do an internet search for "Molinism").

Theologians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14580a.htm) and philosophers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm) of the Jesuit (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14081a.htm) School, frequently styled Molinists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm), though they do not accept the whole of Molina's teaching and generally prefer Francisco Suárez's exposition of the theory, deem the above solution unsatisfactory. It would, they readily admit, provide sufficiently for the infallibility (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm) of the Divine foreknowledge and also for God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) providential control of the world's history; but, in their view, it fails to give at the same time an adequately intelligible account of the freedom of the human will. According to them, the relation of the Divine action to man's will should be conceived rather as of a concurrent than of a premotive character; and they maintain that God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of what a free being would choose, if the necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) conditions were supplied, must be deemed logically (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09324a.htm) prior to any decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of concurrence or premotion in respect to that act of choice. Briefly, they make a threefold distinction in God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of the universe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15183a.htm) based on the nature of the objects known--the Divine knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) being in itself of course absolutely simple. Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of this class of contingencies they term scientia media. For instance Christ affirmed that, if certain miracles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) had been wrought in Tyre (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15109a.htm) and Sidon, the inhabitants would have been converted. The condition was not realized, yet the statement of Christ must have been true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm). About all such conditional contingencies propositions may be framed which are either true (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) or false (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05781a.htm)--and Infinite Intelligence must know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) all truth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm). The conditions in many cases will not be realized, so God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) must know (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) them apart from any decrees determining their realization. He knows them therefore, this school (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13554b.htm) holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible. Acting now in the light of this scientia media with respect to human volitions, God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) freely decides according to His own wisdom whether He shall supply the requisite conditions, including His co-operation in the action, or abstain from so doing, and thus render possible or prevent the realization of the event. In other words, the infinite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08004a.htm) intelligence of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) sees clearly what would happen in any conceivable circumstances. He thus knows what the free will of any creature would choose, if supplied with the power of volition or choice and placed in any given circumstances. He nowdecrees to supply the needed conditions, including His corcursus, or to abstain from so doing. He thus holds complete dominion and control over our future free actions, as well as over those of a necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) character. The Molinist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm) then claims to safeguard better man's freedom by substituting for the decree (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04670a.htm) of an inflexible premotion one of concurrence dependent on God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) prior knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) of what the free being would choose. If given the power to exert the choice. He argues that he exempts God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) more clearly from all responsibility for man's sins (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm).

Catholic/Protestant polemics in the 16th century were of course brutal and vicious; but it must be said that Luther left himself wide open on the doctrine of predestination. All one needs to do is to read his Bondage of the Will, which appears to defend a form of double predestination, which the Church has always condemned as heretical. At the same time, it must be said that Luther did not, unlike the Reformed, make predestination the center piece of his theology. He knew that preoccupation with predestination could undermine assurance of salvation. Luther's heirs did not follow Luther on this matter.

The subject of Pauline predestination has been left in the field of apophatic theology where it belongs, but it is now merely overlooked and ignored in favor of Pelagius' free will, which may have been condemned as heresy, but continued to survive in semi-Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Second Council of Orange...

http://www.theopedia.com/Semi-Pelagianism

...yet continues to dominate the Will scene. I am not condemning beliefs, but proclaiming the Sovereignty of the Almighty "who covers the heaven with clouds, who prepares rain for the earth, who causes grass to spring up on the mountains," (Psalm 147:8) who declares "I am the Lord God, and there is no other God beside me; I strengthened thee, and thou hast not known me. That they that come from the east and they that come from the west may know that there is no God but me. I am the Lord God, and there is none beside." (Isaiah 45:5-6) We cannot say what would Just and unjust, for "who has known the mind of the Lord? and who has been his counsellor, to instruct him? Or with whom has he taken counsel, and he has instructed him? or who has taught him judgement, or who has taught him the way of understanding; since all the nations are counted as a drop from a bucket, and as the turning of a balance, and shall be counted as spittle?" (Isaiah 40:13-15)

Aidan Kimel

12-12-2009, 01:33 PM

Brian Patrick Mitchell

12-12-2009, 03:18 PM

The subject of Pauline predestination has been left in the field of apophatic theology where it belongs, but it is now merely overlooked and ignored in favor of Pelagius' free will, which may have been condemned as heresy, but continued to survive in semi-Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Second Council of Orange...

http://www.theopedia.com/Semi-Pelagianism

...yet continues to dominate the Will scene.

Michael, you have not simply asserted the flip side of my own view; you have railed against Free Will as "Theological Anarchy" leading to atheism. Frankly, I don't understand why you are so alarmed. Who are the Pelagians who now "dominate the Will scene"? Please be specific. Give us specific examples of current overstatements of the doctrine of Free Will.

I don't think you'll find any among the Orthodox. The Orthodox are more often accused of otherworldly fatalism, and if you read much of Orthodoxy, you should see why. Take, for example, the Morning Prayer of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow:

O Lord, grant me to greet the coming day in peace. Help me in all things to rely on Your Holy will. In every hour of the day reveal Your will to me. Bless my dealings with all who surround me.

Teach me to treat all that comes to me throughout the day with peace of soul, and with the firm conviction that Your will governs all. In all my deeds and words guide my thoughts and feelings. In unforeseen events, let me not forget that all are sent by You.

Teach me to act firmly and wisely, without embittering and embarrassing others. Give me strength to bear the fatigue of this coming day with all that it shall bring. Direct my will, teach me to pray, pray You Yourself in me.

Amen.

No excess of Free Will there. Nevertheless, it is true that, in answer to Fr. Alvin, the Orthodox have not condemned semi-pelagianism and instead honor John Cassian as a saint (Feb. 29) and patiently bear the accusation of semipelagianism as no harm to us. That is balance; that is the proper perspective: We thank God for the freedom He has given us and ask Him to guide us in using it according to His Will, while at the same time trusting that "all things work for good to those who love God." (Rom. 8:28)

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Michael O.

14-12-2009, 02:59 AM

Thank you, Michael, for the citations. May I simply point out that if you read them carefully, you will find that they do not support the assertions that you made: (1) There is no indication that Luther had any interest, much less intention, of uniting his churches with Orthodoxy. Melanchthon clearly had an interest in establishing contact with the Ecumenical Orthodox, but Melanchthon is not Luther.

Please excuse my miscommunication on this. Martin Luther held an inclination and interest in the East, but he never made any actual attempts to unite with them. However, he did try to identify himself with the East, obviously as being autocephalous from the Bishop of Rome, but also somewhat theologically as well.

(2) The citations do not state that the Jesuits in any way denied or limited divine omniscience. Had they done so, they would have immediately been denounced as heretics.

The Catholic Encyclopedia set out these definitions:

Objects or events viewed merely as possible, God is said to apprehend by simple intelligence (simplex intelligentia). Events which will happen He knows by vision (scientia visionis). Intermediate between these are conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled. God's knowledge of this class of contingencies they term scientia media.

The Jesuits were defined as such:

He knows them therefore, this school holds, in seipsis, in themselves as conditionally future events. This knowledge is the scientia media, "middle knowledge", intermediate between vision of the actual future and simple understanding of the merely possible.

This claims that God knows conditional events and all possibilities, not exactly what will happen without deviation. However, God is Omniscient, and truths are not conditional... They may still be concealed truths, but no truth is conditional. For example, if there will be a car accident on Main St in New Orleans, Louisiana tomorrow at 3:30, and this statement is true, it was also true yesterday, and last week, and a year ago, even being true 2000 years ago. As another example, Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Nothing will change this fact, and it was a fact in 69 AD, and 39 AD, as it was true centuries before it happened. However, it was not a revealed truth until 70 AD. No truth can ever change; Awareness of truths can change.

Therefore, the Jesuit claim that God only knows all possibilities as conditional truths is incompatible with true Omniscience. Claiming that God only knows "conditionally future events--things which would occur were certain conditions fulfilled" and not whether or not these conditions shall be fulfilled is to claim a lack of Omniscience.

I find the reference to semi-Pelagianism curious. Clearly the Catholic Church rejects semi-Pelagianism. The interesting question is: What does the Eastern Church think about it?

The Council of Ephesus condemns Pelagius and his teachings (by the efforts of Sts Augustine and Cyril, and the agreement of 200 bishops), effectively condemning those who adopt those beliefs for which Pelagius was anathematized.

Michael, you have not simply asserted the flip side of my own view; you have railed against Free Will as "Theological Anarchy" leading to atheism. Frankly, I don't understand why you are so alarmed. Who are the Pelagians who now "dominate the Will scene"? Please be specific. Give us specific examples of current overstatements of the doctrine of Free Will.

The idea of Free Will is most commonly over-emphasized in numerous catechisms and books on Orthodox doctrines. I understand that it is necessary that people fully know that they will suffer the consequences of their actions, but it is not necessary to emphasize the point to the degree of misconception. But primary among those with predominantly Pelagianistic beliefs is Fr Michael Azkoul, of whom I believe there is already a thread on this site.

I don't think you'll find any among the Orthodox. The Orthodox are more often accused of otherworldly fatalism, and if you read much of Orthodoxy, you should see why. Take, for example, the Morning Prayer of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow:

I am glad that you bring this up. An observation to be made is that we are quite Augustinian in prayer... For example, we pray for strength and guidance... How can God guide us towards righteousness if He is not allowed to interfere with our Free Will? If we pray for help in the completion of a task, how do we expect Him to help us? None of us here think we'll fall asleep and it will magically completed once we wake up... He would either fuel our perseverance (tampering with our Free Will) or guide others to come help (tampering with others' Free Will).

No excess of Free Will there. Nevertheless, it is true that, in answer to Fr. Alvin, the Orthodox have not condemned semi-pelagianism and instead honor John Cassian as a saint (Feb. 29) and patiently bear the accusation of semipelagianism as no harm to us. That is balance; that is the proper perspective: We thank God for the freedom He has given us and ask Him to guide us in using it according to His Will, while at the same time trusting that "all things work for good to those who love God." (Rom. 8:28)

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Once again, it cannot be overstated that an infinite number of things about the Divine are beyond our comprehension and our perception. He is Infinitely Sovereign, but that does not mean that aspects of our perceivable reality are false. Since He is Pantocrator, nothing can be autonomous beneath Him; also, I personally make decisions that I shall suffer the consequences of. It is a complicated yet simple relationship which is infinitely beyond our finite minds.

Aidan Kimel

14-12-2009, 05:38 AM

Michael O.

14-12-2009, 12:32 PM

Michael, my acquaintance with Molinism is quite limited, but I think you have misunderstood it. Molinists propose that God not only knows everything that will happen but he also knows everything that would happen circumstances were different or if God acted differently. They call this knowledge of counter-factuals "middle knowledge." This middle knowledge is most decidedly not a qualification or limitation of divine omniscience. One might call it "divine omniscience plus."

I see... From what I've been finding, it is a Christian adaptation of Aristotle's proposed solution to the problem of future contingents. Aristotle posed that a future event, while it is either 'true' or 'false' is undetermined until the time of the event. However, Molina introduced God into this theory who is aware of all 'possibilities,' both true and false, in an attempt to find a reconciliation between Augustinian understanding of predestination and libertarian views of complete Free Will; and so God has predestined His own actions in the event of any situation, stressing that man has the complete ability to resist God's Grace. This doctrine ignited controversy between the Jesuits and the Jansenists, who were considered closer to Augustine in theology than Lutherans. Jansenists stressed the efficacy of Grace in order to be saved. Here is the link to Wikipedia on Molina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Molina

Traditional views of Divine Omniscience would not rule out knowledge of counter-factuals, because God not only knows exactly what will happen, He knows exactly what will not happen. Molina just happens to phrase it in such a way that it appears that future contingents are neither true or false yet. But an important factor to remember is that while God is imminent and His Holy Spirit works in the world, God is not subject to creation and is not subject to time; every instant in time is present before Him as it has been since time was created, since all things are in His presence.

Something else to consider in Free Will is that each of our decisions are determined by that which we are most inclined towards. As part of human nature, we are naturally inclined towards selfish motives; a baby screams when he doesn't get what he wants, a teenager strives towards fornication... but an anchorite strives for righteousness. A thief has the choice to steal, but he will inevitably choose what he is most inclined towards; he believes the threat of punishment is too great and is more inclined to stay his hand. If a man decides to kill himself, he is more inclined towards the path of least resistance. But these are unrighteous motives that men are inclined towards, fueled by selfishness.

It is therefore necessary for God to show Divine Mercy on a man to incline him towards an unselfish motive. The Word in the heart of the thief will stay his hand, not for fear of punishment, but by the motivation of God's Will, whether or not he is aware of it; he will not need to reason whether or not he shall steal, but may take the idea with no motivation towards it. But if he is still inclined towards selfish motives, God's Word is not in his heart, for "My Word shall not return to me empty." Without the Word of God, we are slaves to our passions; but the Word of the Lord was within the Apostles' hearts, and they opened each letter, claiming themselves each to be a δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, a "slave of Jesus Christ." They submit to the Will of God exactly as He pleases, not forcing them, yet they are still slaves. "For who has resisted His will?"

My only prayer is that I may be enslaved to Him in the same fashion...

Also to be considered is that God does not give nearly everyone the same chance for salvation... Imagine there is a boy who lives in India; he's a kind person and is open to new ideas. He's heard of Christianity, but really does not know much about it. While he's not a bad person, his current beliefs lead him to believe that his sinful nature is something to be embraced. One day he prepares to visit London for education, where he would inevitably learn more about Christianity and be able to "freely choose" a righteous path, but the bus he is riding on is blown up by a suicide bomber and he dies without being able to choose righteousness. Are we to believe that God sees this and says, "****! Lost another one..." Does He decide, "I'll just spread some grace around here, and oh I hope they pick Me this time..."

It doesn't seem that He gave the Indian kid much of a chance; wouldn't that be as "unjust" as choosing who He shall save? Is this real world situation any different than an example of His election?

Herman Blaydoe

14-12-2009, 02:18 PM

Aidan Kimel

14-12-2009, 03:20 PM

Brian Patrick Mitchell

14-12-2009, 06:09 PM

When approaching questions like predestination, I always first ask, How does it preach? A pure Augustinianism does not preach, because it does not allow the preacher to say to every hearer, "God loves YOU."

Amen.

But Michael seems to believe that preaching Free Will is more dangerous than preaching predestination. I still don't see how, unless one preaches Free Will Alone, without Grace, which no one is.

Michael, you still haven't substantiated the existence of a Pelagian danger. You have named Fr. Michael Azkoul as "primary among those with predominantly Pelagianistic beliefs," but if Azkoul is as close as the Orthodox get to Pelagianism, then Pelagianism is no danger at all. Azkoul has been roundly criticized by other Orthodox for blaming too much on Augustine, but what he says here http://orthodoxyinfo.org/AzkoulFreeWill.htm about synergy and Free Will is well within the consensus of the Fathers and in no way Pelagian.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Michael O.

15-12-2009, 02:18 PM

Reading this, I have to wonder what your definition of "free will" is. Tampering? I don't think so. Perhaps you need to look up the definition of another word often used by Orthodox teachers: synergia. Asking God to help us is an ACT of free will, not the denial of it!

Free Will meaning the free human ability to make one's own choices. However, you would have to freely choose to build that house, and someone else would have to choose to help build the house. Will God just try to help? The teaching of human Free Will suggests that God can fail... But He is the Lord God, of whom there is no other, to whom "every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall swear." God tries to have Carl help build the house; what if Carl decides he doesn't want to help? God fails?

Some more than others I suspect.Funny. Insults are unnecessary.

Yet I cannot help but feel you are making it something that it is not. Are you saying that an all-powerful God is not able to give His creation some measure of autonomy? Are you choosing to limit God? Sounds like it to this bear of little brain.

Are you saying that an Omnipotent Being has limits on His Power? Why do you choose to limit God? Christ insults the Jews as He quotes Psalm 82:6 when they ask if He blasphemes... The very Jews whom were predestined to work against Christ, "to do as many things as Your hand and Your plan predestined to occur." (Acts 4:27-28)

Owen Jones

15-12-2009, 02:57 PM

Just a slight quibble: imminent refers to something about to happen. immanent refers to a spacial metaphor in which God is present in the world.

Michael O.

15-12-2009, 02:58 PM

Here, I suggest, is where we see the critical flaw in the way you are approaching this problem, which is also where the great Augustine went astray. Augustine eventually reached the point where found it difficult, if not impossible, to affirm God's universal salvific will: God only died for the elect, asserts Augustine, because if he died for all, then all would be saved, which we presumably know is not the case. Augustine's reasonings here haunted Western theological reflections for centuries, coming to fruition in the heresy of Jansenism. The clarity of Jansenism compelled the Catholic Church to unequivocally assert her faith that Christ died and rose again for every single human being, without exception. I am confident that the Orthodox Church agrees.

Did God die for this Indian kid? He never had a chance to choose to be purified by the Holy Spirit... God's Divine Grace and Christ's eternal sacrifice never touched this child's soul, but Christ died for him, right? My consideration of Augustine's point is that Christ bore the sins of the entire cosmos; past, present, and future... It is through Christ that we reach salvation;

"I am the door. If anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and he will come in and will go out and will find pasture.
The thief does not come except so that he should steal and kill and destroy. I came so that they shall have life, and they shall have it abundantly!
I am the good shepherd! The good shepherd lays down His life on behalf of the sheep.
But the hired worker, not being also a shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, watches the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf seizes them and scatters the sheep.
Now the hired worker flees because he is a hired worker and is not concerned about the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and I know My own, and I am known by My own.
Just as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father, and I lay down My life on behalf of the sheep.
And other sheep I have which are not from this fold. These also it is necessary for Me to bring, and My voice they will hear. And they will become one flock, one shepherd.
For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life, so that I shall take it up again.
No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself; I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This command I received from My Father." (John 10:9-18)

It is only by the Body and Blood of Christ that we are purified, only through the Word of God are we saved. Christ's death was for ALL sins, was it not? However, only those righteous are purified... There is a contradiction here. Augustine reasons that Christ's sacrifice has only purified those found "chosen in Christ," which is undeniable, but if He truly died for all, then we must admit that His sacrifice has failed to purify incalculable numbers of men... However, His Word shall not return to Him empty.

When approaching questions like predestination, I always first ask, How does it preach? A pure Augustinianism does not preach, because it does not allow the preacher to say to every hearer, "God loves YOU." I refer you to my various very fallible musings on the topic of predestination (http://pontifications.wordpress.com/predestination/).

Yes and no. We are not selling vacuum cleaners. Christianity is already unpalatable with the teaching of Free Will... I don't want to believe that I'm a sinner; I don't want to believe that I'm filthy enough to need the help of God; I don't want to believe that fornication, adultery, and all other animalistic impulse driven acts are not only filthy, but make me less of a good person; I want to believe that I'm a perfect human; I want to believe that I can reach Nirvana and be able to fornicate; I want to believe that if I die for my religion I get 72 virgins in heaven; but the truth hurts. Are you just trying to make Christianity more palatable? Trying to put a pretty bow on this Gift of Truth that tears a veil from the eyes and shows how vile we are? How does it preach? Are we to alter the Truth simply to make it more attractive? Cool, God loves ME! But what does He have against Esau? Looking at Scripture, I'm a much worse person than Esau ever was... What is wrong with this picture?

Thank you for the link. I will have a look at it.

A poor sullied soul,
Michael

Brian Patrick Mitchell

15-12-2009, 04:08 PM

Christianity is already unpalatable with the teaching of Free Will.

Michael,

It's obvious you have done a lot of reading about predestination a la Augustine and Calvin, but it's equally obvious you have not done much reading of Orthodox Christianity or intellectual history. It simply cannot be shown, rationally or empirically, that the Orthodox doctrine of synergy leads to the spiritual pride you imagine. You certainly have not shown it. It can be shown that absolute predestinationism leads to dispiriting fatalism and outright rebellion against God. We see that around us often enough: people giving up belief in God because they can't believe in your god—the evil demon who is to blame for making us all suffer.

I wish we could help you out of your error, but your reasoning is so detached from empirical reality that I'm afraid no dialogue will do any good. Lord have mercy.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-12-2009, 05:01 PM

Dear Michael,

I have only been following this discussion lightly so I don't know all of its details.

But I would like to make one comment in regards to the following since you have already made a number of similar statements:

Are you saying that an Omnipotent Being has limits on His Power? Why do you choose to limit God?

The problem here is that you are looking at God's power and defining it in a human way. In other words you see power in an almost mechanical way much like a vehicle has inbuilt to it a certain amount of power.

However to understand God's power we must first understand this theologically which means according to those God inspired insights given to and by the Holy Fathers within the Church.

Understood in this way we see that God's power is only in relation to Who He Is. As others have said it operates according to His personal love which at all points recreates the human creature in His image- ie with free will. For otherwise salvation would not be free and loving in the first place.

I'm not sure what else to say about this. I somewhat get your point as it concerns the necessity of God's grace. Yes- this is obvious. But this very grace also always works in tandem with our free assent at least as far as our active participation in the reconstructing of creation goes.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Aidan Kimel

15-12-2009, 05:53 PM

Michael, does it give you pause that the only churches that teach the kind of predestinarianism that you are advocating are the Reformed and Presbyterian?

Herman Blaydoe

15-12-2009, 10:21 PM

Free Will meaning the free human ability to make one's own choices. However, you would have to freely choose to build that house, and someone else would have to choose to help build the house. Will God just try to help? The teaching of human Free Will suggests that God can fail... But He is the Lord God, of whom there is no other, to whom "every knee shall bend, and every tongue shall swear." God tries to have Carl help build the house; what if Carl decides he doesn't want to help? God fails?

God doesn't "try" to do anything. God does or does not do, as He wills, but He acts in concert with us because He chooses to. Your comment makes no sense, sorry.

Are you saying that an Omnipotent Being has limits on His Power? Why do you choose to limit God?

I am saying no such thing and it is very disingenuous of you to try and say otherwise. Why is God not allowed to give us the ability to tell Him no? That is a limitation.

Christ insults the Jews as He quotes Psalm 82:6 when they ask if He blasphemes... The very Jews whom were predestined to work against Christ, "to do as many things as Your hand and Your plan predestined to occur." (Acts 4:27-28)

Um, yeah, so what? Yes He knew from the beginning what they would choose to do. So what? We are not puppets, we are not robots, if that is all God wanted he would have stopped at monkeys.

From which Fathers of the Church and which doctrines of the Church do you draw your interesting conclusions?

Just askin'

Herman the questioning Pooh

Michael O.

15-12-2009, 10:24 PM

Michael, does it give you pause that the only churches that teach the kind of predestinarianism that you are advocating are the Reformed and Presbyterian?

I was unaware. I have never been to either; my whole life, I have only gone to Greek Churches and learned from Greek priests. Free Will is hardly so stressed by Greeks and most of the priests I have met agree with my theological situation, however they only profess it subtly. To clarify, I have never heard a Greek Orthodox priest mention or even supplement their homily with Free Will. I am not advocating a heresy or something extra-Orthodox. I am advocating what I have been taught and have drawn from Scripture.

Brian Patrick Mitchell

15-12-2009, 10:53 PM

I was unaware. I have never been to either; my whole life, I have only gone to Greek Churches and learned from Greek priests. Free Will is hardly so stressed by Greeks and most of the priests I have met agree with my theological situation, however they only profess it subtly. To clarify, I have never heard a Greek Orthodox priest mention or even supplement their homily with Free Will. I am not advocating a heresy or something extra-Orthodox. I am advocating what I have been taught and have drawn from Scripture.

Lord have mercy. This is surprising and I hope very unusual.

But by now you should know you have been misinformed. We have shown you what the Fathers have taught from as far back as St. Ignatius (first century). Does that not give you pause to reconsider?

Michael O.

15-12-2009, 11:33 PM

God doesn't "try" to do anything. God does or does not do, as He wills, but He acts in concert with us because He chooses to. Your comment makes no sense, sorry.

Exactly, "God does or does not do, as He wills." But God views time from a standpoint outside of time (while actively working in it), viewing every instant simultaneously within infinity. Every action is present before Him. In a sense, I hope I am not being unfaithful to the truth in suggesting this, from God's point of view, God leads the Israelites through the desert the same point at which He teaches Paul His Mysteries and allows the Byzantine Empire to fall, while we limited humans witness such in the handicapped state of being finite creatures encapsulated within time. If we pray for the soul of a dead man, God sees this the same time at which He sees that man die.

I am saying no such thing and it is very disingenuous of you to try and say otherwise. Why is God not allowed to give us the ability to tell Him no? That is a limitation.

An atheist would attack this question as an argument from silence, but I would ask the flipside of this question; How is man allowed to limit God's power? This question leads to the true question at hand... How do we handle the paradox presented by asking if it is possible for God to give man the power to put limits on His power?

Um, yeah, so what? Yes He knew from the beginning what they would choose to do. So what? We are not puppets, we are not robots, if that is all God wanted he would have stopped at monkeys.

Scientific theories aside (St Athanasios wrote a polemic against the belief in evolution; please read De Incarnatione Verbi Dei where he addresses the Epicureans), time is linear and will happen exactly as it has been foreseen at the very least, however, I am arguing that it has not only been foreseen, but literally created by the Creator of all things. To God, the cosmos began in an instant, and it shall end in the same instant, while the entirety of the cosmos, including time itself, rests upon the tongue of the Almighty Lord, who spoke it into existence and shall destroy it by the same Word, the same Word Who was Incarnate in the flesh, which has weighed the entire cosmos in the same instant, in the same eternity...

Monkeys have nothing to do with God's Sovereignty; we were made in the Image (εἰκόνα [visual appearance; icon]) and Likeness (ὁμοίωσιν [similarity]) of the Triune God; but how similar are we to God, and in what ways are we still similar to God? Adam was the perfect man until sin was brought into the world. Our sinful state is that of a blinded eye; dysfunctional, but an eye nonetheless. We have lost perfection, perfection being that which Adam inherited as created in the image of God.

Scripture does not say, "He created man in His own image, autonomous, with free will to choose what he so pleases." Who are you to challenge the infinity of God's power; "Sure God has power over me, but only when I choose."

From which Fathers of the Church and which doctrines of the Church do you draw your interesting conclusions?

Saints Moses, Joshua, King David, Isaiah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, Luke, John the Theologian, Ignatius, Dionysios the Areopagite, Athanasios, Basil, Augustine the Blessed, Cyril, Gregory the Theologian, and Symeon the New Theologian. Too many books laying around, so I can't help but read them.

Anna Stickles

16-12-2009, 12:46 AM

I am glad that you bring this up. An observation to be made is that we are quite Augustinian in prayer... For example, we pray for strength and guidance... How can God guide us towards righteousness if He is not allowed to interfere with our Free Will? If we pray for help in the completion of a task, how do we expect Him to help us? None of us here think we'll fall asleep and it will magically completed once we wake up... He would either fuel our perseverance (tampering with our Free Will) or guide others to come help (tampering with others' Free Will).

Both Pelagius and Calvin, had the exact same conception of human nature and our relationship with God. It is the same set of underlying assumptions. And is it not interesting that if we take this set of assumptions to its logical conclusion, the only choices we have are Pelagius's assertion that we do not need God's help to attain perfection, but that all we need is our own will, OR Calvin's conclusion that we have no freedom and that grace must do everything.

St Jerome in Letter CXXXIII. To Ctesiphon (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.CXXXIII.html), specifically rejected the notion that God "fueling our perseverance" is tampering with our free will.

Here is St Jerome's summary of the position of Pelagius's disciple
“If I do nothing without the help of God and if all that I do is His act, I cease to labour and the crown that I shall win will belong not to me but to the grace of God. It is idle for Him to have given me the power of choice if I cannot use it without His constant help. For will that requires external support ceases to be will. God has given me freedom of choice, but what becomes of this if I cannot do as I wish?” Accordingly he propounds the following dilemma: “Either once for all I use the power which is given to me, and so preserve the freedom of my will; or I need the help of another, in which case the freedom of my will is wholly abrogated.” ( My italics)

and here is St Jerome's reply

6. Surely the man who says this is no ordinary blasphemer; the poison of his heresy is no common poison. Since our wills are free, they argue, we are no longer dependent upon God; and they forget the Apostle’s words “what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it?” A nice return, truly, does a man make to God when to assert the freedom of his will he rebels against Him! For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift. As the apostle says, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”To will and to run are mine, but they will cease to be mine unless God brings me His continual aid. For the same apostle says “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do.” And in the Gospel the Saviour says: “my Father worketh hitherto and I work.” He is always a giver, always a bestower. It is not enough for me that he has given me grace once; He must give it me always. I seek that I may obtain, and when I have obtained I seek again. I am covetous of God’s bounty; and as He is never slack in giving, so I am never weary in receiving. The more I drink, the more I thirst. For I have read the song of the psalmist: “O taste and see that the Lord is good.”
As Fr Raphael said earlier, "But this very grace also always works in tandem with our free assent at least as far as our active participation in the reconstructing of creation goes."

The Orthodox position does not take the extremes of us completely loosing our will, nor say that our will is sufficient to save us. Both of these see God's relationship with us "at a point" as a yes or no, black or white, whereas Orthodoxy is steeped in seeing things in process, as a continuous relationship, a continous struggle against the force of sin, and the power of Satan that try to drag us away from God. This continuous struggle, this continuous relationship is eternal, unbroken, starting from conception and continuing to eternity. We are always rejecting or accepting God.

What is the underlying assumption that Pelagius and Calvin both accept? That something is given once for all. That something in our relationship with God is permanent and unchangable.

St Jerome explains Pelagius's postion here, : For if God’s grace is limited to this that He has formed us with wills of our own, and if we are to rest content with free will, not seeking the divine aid lest this should be impaired, we should cease to pray; for we cannot entreat God’s mercy to give us daily what is already in our hands having been given to us once for all.

Is Calvin's position really any different? The only thing different is what is given once for all. Not free will so that we might struggle toward perfection on our own power, but a free ride to heaven. Or how about the Catholic position that says that sanctifying grace is a permanent disposition given at baptism?

St Theophan the Recluses's statements on Baptism in The Path to Salvation (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/salvation_theofan.htm), help to illustrate the Orthodox position.

Grace descends upon the soul of an infant and produces in if it exactly the same result as if its freedom had participated in this, but only on the condition that in the future the infant, who was not then aware of himself and did not act personally, when he comes to awareness, will himself willingly dedicate himself to God, will receive out of his own desire the grace which has shown its activity in him, ...

And thus through Baptism the seed of life in Christ is placed in the infant and exists in him; but it is as though it did not exist: it acts as an educating power in him. Spiritual life, conceived by the grace of Baptism in the infant, becomes the property of the man and is manifest in its complete form in accordance not only with grace, but also with the character of the rational creature, from the time when he, coming to awareness, by his own free will dedicates himself to God and appropriates to himself the power of grace in himself by receiving it with desire, joy, and gratitude. ...(part 1 ch 1 sect 4)
...
The grace-filled Christian life is supposed to begin in baptism. But those who preserve this grace are rare; the majority of Christians lose it. We see some people who are more or less depraved in their present lives, because they had poor beginnings which were allowed to develop and take root in them. Others perhaps had good beginnings, but during the early years of their youth, whether by personal inclination or through temptation from others, forgot these beginnings and acquired evil habits. Such people no longer lead a true Christian life. Our holy faith offers the Mystery of Repentance for this.(part 2 ch 1 intro)
Notice here that nothing permanent is given. Either we freely accept God or we lose grace. If we lose grace we repent to regain it. If we lose grace we become constrained, our freedom over ourselves, our own mind, soul and body is lost. We aquire evil habits that enslave us.

But in order to understand this loss, one has to have some familiarity with the Orthodox understanding of the state of Man before the Fall. Apart from this, this whole argument is simply going to go around in circles, without really conecting to the context within which the Fathers understand this whole idea of freedom.

Perry Robinson

16-12-2009, 05:58 AM

I hope my comments here will improve understanding. I've written a short note on Free Will for my students a few years ago when I taught an undergraduate course on it. http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2005/01/18/a-note-on-free-will/

There are a number of understandings of what the term means so it is important to get clear on what exactly one means by it. For my part, I believe the Orthodox Church advocates a Libertarian conception. Those of an Augustinian tradition advocate for a form of Soft Determinism. This is so either in Catholicism or Calvinism, though they are different in many important ways.

Fr.Kimel is quite right about Molinism. Molinism in no way advocates that things are uncertain for God relative to his knowing. What it implies rather is that there are conditionals which could be instantiated and God knows all of these. Which set of circumstances or "logically possible worlds" come about depends on which "world" God chooses to bring about or actualize. Any reading of Molinism by Craig, Flint or Freddoso will show this to be true and uncontroversial. Molinism is not a re-work of Aristotle's view of the matter for a simple reason. Aristotle didn't think that future tensed propositions had a truth value, and Molinists do. There are other differences, but thats huge. For Aristotle there is no truth maker for those propositions, but for Molinists there is. If this wasn't so, the main objection to Molinism in contemporary analytic philosophy (The Grounding Objection) would never have come about.

Pelagianism wasn't a thesis about free will per se. It was a thesis about human nature. Pelagius' views on free will were a consequence of his view of human nature. It is therefore possible to hold to a libertarian conception of free will without entailing Pelagianism. Specifically, Pelagius held that nature was grace and he and his followers spoke of human nature as "natural grace." As such it was impervious to alteration and so Pelagius here forms the other end of the spectrum to Origen, who though that nature could never be fully penetrated by grace. Because Pelagius though this way, the only helps necessary were external helps such as the Law, a living example, etc. To put the matter in an Orthodox way, Pelagius thought of image and likeness as the same thing, as human nature as somehow from the get-go already acheived theosis automatically, but through ignorance goofed and so they only need a right example to set them straight and external aids or "signs." This is why Cyril sensed in it an affinity for a Nestorian Christology, which is essentially adoptionistic. The divine hypostasis lays hold of the human and "adopts" it by an act of "good will" guiding it through the acts to merit salvation. Nestorius and Pelagius were heterodox bed buddies for a reason.

Semi-pelagianism is something of a misnomer, someties applied to the monks at Handratum who were aghast at some of Augustine's teaching and sometimes applied to Vincent of Lerins or John Cassion. I think modern research has shown how much of a mistake this is. (See Ogliari's work on the so-called semi-pelagian controversy, or Rebecca Waver's smaller book.) The issue is whether there is enough power in human nature for the human person to move themselves to faith and that faith can please or find favor with or "merit" God's pleasure. This looks at the matter as an all or nothing deal, which I think is a conceptual mistake. It is not that we lack the power after the fall to will the good, but rather to accomplish it. So "semi-pelagianism" conflates willing and accomplishing and its no wonder Kant was pretty Pelagian. Willing and doing are two different things. Even the good Paul says he wills he cannot accomplish. This is the weakness of our corrupted condition. To call such a position semi-pelagianism is a mistake since it doesn't imply that anything we do including the initial act is praiseworthy as it would need to if it were to qualify as a form of pelagianism.

As for Romans 9, the point of Romans 9 is to consider an objection. The objection is form Paul's Jewish opponents. Messiah brings about the salvation of his people, but this has not occured. Therefore Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Paul argues to the contrary, that the election of God does not secure salvation, but those elected also must respond in faith. God elects to bring about a specific goal or end, which is why v. 11 is crucial, so that the purpuse through the election might stand or persist. The purpose comes through the election, not the other way around. God can choose anyone he wishes to bring about his purposes, which is why Pharaoh is used as an example of election. This doesn't imply the salvation or in a guaranteed sense of those elected. This is why Paul says to the church that they can be cut off if they get too prideful. This is also why the Jews are said to continue to be elect, even in their unbelief. Agents perform their actions freely and without divine predetermination or causation and those acts, one way or another serve God's purposes. This means that agents like Joseph's brothers had their own freely formed and executed intentions toward their brother, but God brought about another end than the one they envisioned. The same is true for Pharoah.

As for Eph 1 it is true that it speaks of our predestination in Christ, but we must pay attention to vv. 10-11 which indicate that all of creation is predestined in Christ. This is why unbelievers are resurrected and made immortal. Even those who deny Christ were bought by CHrist. (2 Pet 2:1) This means that everyone is predestined to exist forever, for Christ is consubstantial with all men, but how they spend it is up to them. This is why Romans 8 which also speaks of predestination in Christ also at the same time speaks of creation being redemmed as well. Predestination is cosmic.

And predestination is in Christ. Christ then is the locus of the discussion rather than a dialectical opposition between God and creation. Christ has two wills, human and divine, and both enjoy freedom. The divine does not control or move or determine the human power of choosing in Christ. Christ then in his humanity has complete libertarian freedom. He can and does choose otherwise. But choosing otherwise doesn't mean choosing the opposite, it just means choosing different. So since there are a plurality of divine goods to choose between, choosing otherwise is perfectly compatible with Christ's impeccability as a divine person. When Christ chooses otherwise, it is not in opposition to his choosing with his divine power of choice. Consequently, humanity and divinity are not intrinsically at odds. So when Christ in his passion says "not my will" this was a genuine willing by himself qua divine person through the human power of choice to preserve his life, but since the preservation of human life is a good also willed by God via the logos of human nature, it is not a sin for Christ to will it. Christ can and does will both to go to the cross and save his life reconciling the two in himself.

More directly, any view which subordinates man to God by an act of deteminism violates Chalcedonian Christology since it subordinates the human will in Christ to the divine, violating the teaching of Maximus the Confessor and the Sixth Council.

As for foreknowledge, that is a tricker mess. I can at this stage only offer some prelimary suggestions. Knowing and causing are not the same things and it is important to keep this in mind. Neither is knowing and willing the same in God. These are two different energies. God knows many things he does not will. Another problem is thinking of God's knowledge in terms of simultaneity or at or as a single present. But if God is timeless and his knowing is timeless, then it isn't at a "now" either. Consequently, not only is there not a before with respect to God's knowledge of events, there is no legitimate way to form an objection that God's knowledege fixes events of creatures, even using tenseless propositions. The classic objection cannot get off the ground. Something else to consider is the possibility that God could will something in such a way that it might not come about. It seems if God has all power, he also has that kind of power, denoted as "shatterable motion" by Jacuqes Maritain, a Catholic philosopher of no small repute.

Anna Stickles

16-12-2009, 02:56 PM

Pelagius' views on free will were a consequence of his view of human nature.And in what ways is our thinking about free will, a thinking that defines free will as

What is free will? The basic idea is that our choices are up to us and we have options open to us. By “open” I mean that they are accessible, we can either bring them about or not bring them about. There is nothing prior to or “in back of” us that brings about the specific course of action. We bring it about. The acts are genuinely ours.determined by our view of human nature? Is the view of human nature behind this conception of free will Patristic or is it a combination of modern psychology and speculative philosophy? Do determinists have the same view of human nature as libertarians?

Is it profitable to talk about free will apart from looking at the antecedent assumptions about the creature who wills? Is it helpful to define "freedom" abstractly rather then in terms of the reality in which we exist or does this approach blind us to that reality?

Philosophy takes concepts such as free will out of context, trying to understand them better by isolating them, but since all things are related and depend upon one another this is kind of like trying to study the habits of an animal when it is living in a cage. Naturalists who really want to know about an animal go study it in the wild, in the context within which the animal lives.

Here's a quote by St Theophan dealing with the relationship between God's will and ours.

The condition for this indwelling and reigning of God in us, or the acceptance of His acting in everything, is the renunciation of our own freedom. A free creature, according to his consciousness and determination, acts from his own self, but this should not be so. In the kingdom of God there should not be anyone acting from himself; God should be acting in everything. This cannot happen as long as freedom stands for itself — it denies and turns away God's power. This stubborn resistance to God's power will only cease when our free, or self-acting, individual will and activity fall down before Him; when we pronounce the resolute prayer: "Do Thou, O Lord, do in me as Thou wilt, for I am blind and weak."

In this moment the power of God enters the spirit of a man and begins its all-encompassing work. Thus, the condition for communion with God in us is the decisive dedication of ourselves to Him.
...
One who has dedicated himself to God, or one who has been vouchsafed this gift, begins to be a doer with God and abides in Him. Free will is not destroyed but still exists, for self-dedication is not a final, irrevocable act, but is constantly repeated. The person commits himself to God, and God receives him and works in him, or through his powers. In this is the life of our true and divine spirit. He who commits himself into God's hands receives something from God and acts according to what he receives. (part 3, ch 8 sect 1)I think one important point to note is that it takes a free act of our will to willingly give up our freedom. But notice that freedom itself is retained because this is not a once for all act, but a continuous disposition,a continous free choice of the soul. And the soul is free to change this intention at anytime.

God never interferes with our basic free intention to accept or reject Him. The patristic concept of hell is that of the soul continually choosing to reject God. Heaven is the soul continually choosing fellowship with Him.

Aidan Kimel

16-12-2009, 04:46 PM

Thank you, Perry, for joining the discussion. May I ask you to expand two points--nature and grace and Semi-Pelagianism.

(1) You write, both here and on your blog (http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/we-have-met-the-enemy/), that Pelagians identify nature and grace. Presumably the Church Fathers maintain a distinction between nature and grace. Could you contrast St Augustine's construal of this distinction with one or more of the Eastern Fathers. How are they similar and different?

(2) Regarding Semi-Pelagianism: As an Orthodox Christian, how do you read the canons of the Second Synod of Orange? Are they wrong? irrelevant? consistent with Orthodoxy?

Thanks.

Brian Patrick Mitchell

16-12-2009, 05:33 PM

Thank you, Perry, for your contribution. I’d like to make sure I understand you correctly. First:

Semi-pelagianism is something of a misnomer, someties applied to the monks at Handratum who were aghast at some of Augustine's teaching and sometimes applied to Vincent of Lerins or John Cassion. I think modern research has shown how much of a mistake this is. (See Ogliari's work on the so-called semi-pelagian controversy, or Rebecca Waver's smaller book.) The issue is whether there is enough power in human nature for the human person to move themselves to faith and that faith can please or find favor with or "merit" God's pleasure. This looks at the matter as an all or nothing deal, which I think is a conceptual mistake. It is not that we lack the power after the fall to will the good, but rather to accomplish it. So "semi-pelagianism" conflates willing and accomplishing and its no wonder Kant was pretty Pelagian. Willing and doing are two different things. Even the good Paul says he wills he cannot accomplish. This is the weakness of our corrupted condition. To call such a position semi-pelagianism is a mistake since it doesn't imply that anything we do including the initial act is praiseworthy as it would need to if it were to qualify as a form of pelagianism.

I understand this to mean that Augustinians, in making the charge of semi-pelagianism, mistakenly conflate willing and accomplishing, resulting in an all-or-nothing, either/or choice: Either we believe that humans will themselves into faith and favor without God’s help, or we believe that God wills them into faith and favor without their help. The Augustinians believed the latter and mistakenly believed that those they called semi-pelagians believed the former, when in fact the supposed semi-pelagians believed that some of us do freely will to do things that earn us God’s favor, but none of us can accomplish the good we will without God’s grace.

As for Romans 9, the point of Romans 9 is to consider an objection. The objection is form Paul's Jewish opponents. Messiah brings about the salvation of his people, but this has not occured. Therefore Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Paul argues to the contrary, that the election of God does not secure salvation, but those elected also must respond in faith. God elects to bring about a specific goal or end, which is why v. 11 is crucial, so that the purpuse through the election might stand or persist. The purpose comes through the election, not the other way around. God can choose anyone he wishes to bring about his purposes, which is why Pharaoh is used as an example of election. This doesn't imply the salvation or in a guaranteed sense of those elected. This is why Paul says to the church that they can be cut off if they get too prideful. This is also why the Jews are said to continue to be elect, even in their unbelief. Agents perform their actions freely and without divine predetermination or causation and those acts, one way or another serve God's purposes. This means that agents like Joseph's brothers had their own freely formed and executed intentions toward their brother, but God brought about another end than the one they envisioned. The same is true for Pharoah.

I understand this to mean that election is a choice of means and not ends. God chooses to accomplish His ends through Isaac and not through Ishmael (Rom. 9:7, Gen. 21:12), but this does not mean that all of Isaac’s descendents are saved or that all of Ishmael’s descendents are damned, for the “children of God” are not the “children of the flesh” (i.e., the biological descendents of Abraham) but the “children of the promise” (i.e., the spiritual descendents of Abraham, those who share Abraham’s faith) (Rom. 9:8). The spiritual descendents are “Israel”; the biological descendents are merely “of Israel.” (Rom. 9:6) As for Pharaoh, God has not made Pharaoh bad; He has only used Pharaoh for His own purposes, electing or rather selecting him for that purpose by sending the Israelites to Egypt instead of Anatolia and by choosing to deliver them from bondage during this particular pharaoh’s reign.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Anna Stickles

17-12-2009, 04:03 AM

Thank you Fr Alvin for the link to Perry's blog post on how Reformed anthropology is essentially Pelagian. And thank you Perry. This is a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. I found it extremely helpful as I have been wrestling with trying to figure out the underlying similarities that I saw.

I've been currently reading St Augustine's On Nature and Grace and at least in this particular essay (I'm not wide read in Augustine) Augustine doesn't really get into defining differences between nature and grace. Mostly it is just assumed that the reader will understand the distinction.

He follows Tradition in that he is mainly concerned with defending the Patristic view of a corrupted nature, and the need for cooperation with God and support from His grace, against Pelagian's contention that our nature is sufficient in and of itself for salvation. He talks of grace primarily in terms, not of what it is, but what it does - ie heals our nature.

"behold what damage the disobedient will has inflicted on man's nature! ...It requires the grace of God, not that it may be made, but that it may be remade." In answer to Pelagius's assertion that grace is nothing more then the making of nature in the first place.

He has a beautiful passage in chapt 35 "In this matter we ourselves, too work, because His mercy anticipates us. He anticipates us, that being healed we may grow healthy and strong. He anticipates us that we may be called; He will follow us that we may be glorified. He anticipates us that we may lead godly lives; He will follow us that we may always live with Him, because without Him we can do nothing. The scripture refer to both these operations of grace..." where we can see that Augustine has a synergistic view of our relationship with God, although I am not so sure about distinguishing these as separate operations, but this may be just part of Augustine's rhetorical tecnique.

In Chapt 56 Augustine specifically says that "If he (Pelagius) were speaking of man's whole and perfect nature, which we do not now possess, his language even in that case would not be correct to the effect that to avoid sinning would be of us alone, although to sin would be of us, for even then there must be the help of God, which must shed itself on those willing to receive it, just as the light is given to strong and healthy eyes to assist them in their function of sight." This seems to follow the general view that human nature was made to need grace, and that grace is not something "supernaturally" added, but this union of grace and created nature was the "natural" state at the beginning. (See Fr Dcn Matthew's post here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=80953&postcount=6)) so it would interest me to know if elsewhere in Augustine's writings it becomes evident that he does postulate grace as a supernatural addition. Maybe someone more familiar with Augustine can comment on this.

Anna Stickles

17-12-2009, 04:04 AM

I did find one interesting difference between Augustine and the Eastern Fathers. In talking of the possibility of man's not sinning, Augustine says he is unsure whether this is possible, although he will certainly not say it is impossible, but the interesting point here is that he defines perfection in terms of having the

"love of God so perfectly as to admit no addition to it (for nothing short of this amounts to a most true, full, and perfect righteousness)." (ch 49)

and in Ch 37, "For my own part I am of this opinion that the creature will never become equal with God, even when so perfect a holiness shall be accomplished in us, that it shall be quite incapable of receiving any addition.. No; all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion."

The Eastern Fathers first of all see our potential in growing into the likeness of God as infinite, not limited. Also they do not see things in terms of a change of substance therefore in Eastern theology the danger of being changed into the substance of God is a non-issue. St Athanasius in On the Incarnation (1.4) talks of our nature in terms of being not substance
Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again.
And St Ireneaus says "This earnest, therefore, thus dwelling in us, renders us spiritual even now, and the mortal is swallowed up by immortality"

However, when reading Tertullian's On the Soul, I noticed that he has a very materialistic view of the soul inherited from Greek philosophy, thus he was postuating a kind of spiritual substance, and I wonder if Augustine is having trouble with properly articulating the nature of our transformation by grace because of seeing things in a more or less materialistic way inherited from his Platonism?

St Ireneaus himself avoids talking of change of substance and instead uses this analogy
For as the good olive, if neglected for a certain time, if left to grow wild and to run to wood, does itself become a wild olive; or again, if the wild olive be carefully tended and grafted, it naturally reverts to its former fruit-bearing condition:

...“Those who are in the flesh cannot please God:” not repudiating [by these words] the substance of flesh, but showing that into it the Spirit must be infused" (5.10.1 (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.vii.xi.html)) (This whole chapter is well worth reading, since this small quote doesn't really communicate the point, but I have already made this post overlong)

Primarily St Ireneaus is talking of the transformation of the flesh, but it would seem to me that the same approach can be taken when talking of our nature as a whole. Maybe Fr Dcn Matthew can comment.

Perry Robinson

17-12-2009, 08:45 PM

Anna,

You asked in what ways is our thinking about free will influenced by our view of human nature. That’s a good question, but I am afraid it will take us too far afield and it would take a whole lot of space. I think the notion I have glossed is essentially patristic. If you don’t think so, perhaps we can discuss it. Generally soft determinists and compatibilists do not share the same view of human nature as libertarians.

I would talk about the concept rather than abstraction as there are many different notions of what constitutes abstraction that will muddy the waters. To say that Philosophy takes concepts of freedom and such out of context I think is straight up false. The interrelation of objects doesn’t preclude conceptual analysis since their relation isn’t necessarily conceptual but causal. So your analogy to studying animals is apt. Moreover, no empirical science studies concepts so there is no other science to which we can avail ourselves. You aren’t going to understand freedom by observing human behavior since human behavior might be consistent with the lack of freedom. And God isn’t available for observation either.St. Theophan's statement is true as far as it goes, but a renuciation of our freedom is only true in so far as this is with respect to a certain mode of our willing freely and not free will per se. If it did, then either free will is not essential to being human or divine power obliterates or subordinates human nature. This will imply either an Apollinarian or Nestorian Christology.

Perry Robinson

17-12-2009, 09:04 PM

Fr.Mitchell,

Yes and no as to your first question. In so far as many, though not all Augustinians, argue that one is unable to will otherwise than the sinful, then yes. Here I am thinking of the Reformation variety. But Augustine seems to argue that we can still will the good, but only in a self directed way since our willing is always implicitly turned back on ourselves. So it is possible to will the good, but “not really.” But this too still seems to me to make it an all or nothing deal. You can only be said to will the good if you will it in terms of accomplishment. I don’t think that’s true, so there are some fine grained intuitions about action that are divided us up here.

To be fair, Augustine thinks that we will the first act of faith by God’s help. So he famously declares that the God who made you without your will will not save you without your will. But it should be kept in mind that Augustine seems to have a more Stoic notion of will in mind as a kind of natural impulse. He talks this way pretty much throughout his writings. So the idea is that the cylinder roles freely because it is its nature to do so. Humans will freely because it is their nature to do so. But that doesn’t seem to really gloss freedom but volition. I can will naturally but it doesn’t follow that I will freely. Consequently, Augustine thinks that a non-temporal and transcendental cause of our willing in salvation is God’s so willing. That is, at that point, God alone is active and we are passive.

With some of the above in mind, it is worth thinking about the Augustinian principle that all good willed by humans is directly attributable to God. John Cassian is right to being up the wish of David to build the temple. If this desire is good and from God, why is it that God refuses it? If it is bad and from man, why does God praise David for it?

As for your thoughts on election, that seems to track what I had in mind and what I take Paul’s counter argument to be.

Brian Patrick Mitchell

18-12-2009, 05:49 PM

Perry,

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

You may have already answered Fr. Alvin's question about semipelagianism:

(2) Regarding Semi-Pelagianism: As an Orthodox Christian, how do you read the canons of the Second Synod of Orange? Are they wrong? irrelevant? consistent with Orthodoxy?

But again, to make sure I understand you correctly: Are we to infer from what you have said that, from an Orthodox perspective, the Synod of Orange was simply wrong in condemning the libertarian perspective of the Fathers as "semipelagian"?

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

Anna Stickles

18-12-2009, 09:49 PM

Anna,
Moreover, no empirical science studies concepts so there is no other science to which we can avail ourselves. You aren’t going to understand freedom by observing human behavior since human behavior might be consistent with the lack of freedom. And God isn’t available for observation either.St. Theophan's statement is true as far as it goes, but a renuciation of our freedom is only true in so far as this is with respect to a certain mode of our willing freely and not free will per se. If it did, then either free will is not essential to being human or divine power obliterates or subordinates human nature. This will imply either an Apollinarian or Nestorian Christology.

But freedom isn't a concept, freedom or lack thereof is a lived experience. Certainly the testimony of the Church is that the man who lives in sin is not free. And while the fullness of freedom that existed before the Fall, particularly in regards our body, is not available now, nevertheless those like St Theophan who have renounced their freedom (in terms of a self-acting will) and become doers with God, and in this way regained their freedom of soul, (and we see too among the ascetics of the Church a far greater degree of freedom in regards the demands and limitations of the body) deserve to be listened to. And shall we deny the testimony of the Church that those who reach this height have indeed the vision of God?

I think you misunderstand me if you think that I was advocating that renouncing our freedom is the same as renouncing our free will (ie as an inherent part of our nature endowed by God). It's a renunciation of our free-acting, ie our self-will, the old man. It's a renunciation of the affirmation that our acts are genuinely ours.

What is free will? The basic idea is that our choices are up to us and we have options open to us. By “open” I mean that they are accessible, we can either bring them about or not bring them about. There is nothing prior to or “in back of” us that brings about the specific course of action. We bring it about. The acts are genuinely ours.This is postulating a will existing apart from God. It is basically a description of self-will, which the Fathers tell us we are trying to heal transforming it by grace into God/man will. No acts are genuinely ours. There are only two choices - all true willing is either in God and with Him, or in rebellion against Him we gradually lose the freedom to act, which is in essence the freedom to will, since I think it is a false dichotomy to separate our intention from it's fulfillment. Even if I will not to do something, this restraint of my powers is in effect the fulfillment of my will. To postulate a state wherein I will (and we can never stop willing) without ever bringing that willing to fruition, a state wherein I have lost all control over my own powers, is hell. Consider this description of hell by St Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria

But when man afterwards by his fall had inclined to death, it was necessary that that form should be recreated anew to salvation by the same Artificer. For the form indeed lay rotting in the ground; but that inspiration which had been as the breath of life, was detained separate from the body in a dark place, which is called Hades. There was, therefore, a division of the soul from the body; it was banished ad inferos, whilst the latter was resolved into dust; and there was a great interval of separation between them; for the body, by the dissolution of the flesh, becomes corrupt; the soul being loosened from it, its action ceases. ...The soul, therefore, governed the man, as long as the body survived; ... But after that the soul became bound, not with material fetters but with sins, and thus was rendered impotent to act, then it left its body in the ground, and being cast down to the lower regions, it was made the footstool of death, and despicable to all.We live in an illusion of freedom since prior to death we still have the freedom to move our body to action. But is our governing faculty free in regards the mind? Who but those who have surrendered into the will of God have the freedom not to have their mind wander as a permanent state? Are we really free to perfectly and continuously control all bodily functions such that we are not enslaved to it's impulses and desires to any degree? Do we have perfect emotional control? I think you get my drift. This kind of freedom is the Fathers' teaching about the state before the Fall of course.

Now if the only ones who are free in regards the powers of their own being are those whom God is "in back of" both aiding and forming their will, how can what you describe genuinely be "free will" in the patristic sense?

It seems to me that the whole paradigm of cause and effect causes as much problems as a materialistic paradigm. The more spiritually minded writers in the Church speak not in terms of causes, but of cooperation and assimilation. Picture a couple dancing. The man leads and the woman follows, but in a good dance couple, even in extemporaneus dance, the two are so intimately aware of each other and attuned to each other that the idea of lead and follow becomes for all practical purposes a moot point. in the same way, I think that in true union with God, union as it was created to be, cause and effect become a moot point. Seeing things in terms of cause and effect is simply a symptom of our fallen perception, our darkened mind.