Orthodoxy's Official Response to Calvinism The Confession of Dositheus (1673)

6,092 Views | 125 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by AgLiving06
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm neither a Calvinist nor Orthodox, but I stumbled across this last night and thought it was a fascinating read. I agree, for the most part, with the Orthodox rejection of Calvinism. I do struggle with some of the Orthodox views on things like private reading of Scripture. Is that still the view?

Orthodoxy's Official Response to Calvinism The Confession of Dositheus (1673)

I don't plan on participating much in this thread, but thought this may generate some good dialogue. I've learned much from our Orthodox brothers here, so I'm intrigued to see where this goes.
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pacifist, I've always kind of regarded the double-predestination question with a little bit of "meh". I guess it is important to some people. If it isn't directly related to the questions of "How do we please God?" and "How does one get to Heaven?"

Double-Predestination always seemed like an aside and for me. God is sovereign. He can do whatever he likes in regards to predestination. It isn't really any of our business.

Do you personally feel different?

ETA: I'm with the Reformed on many other things, just don't really care on the question of double-predestination.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. (Decree 3)

But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. (Decree 3)

I struggle with this...as there are legions of very smart people who think this is all buttoned up...but it just looks like nonsense to me. He basically confirms double predestination, then tries to undo it by simulating free will as if that's sufficient.

To me, this stuff makes way more sense to say we have "relative free will" and no "absolute free will". Basically, act like you do is what we are called to do.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Doesn't make sense to me either. God looks through the tunnel of time to see what we'll do and then predestines us based on that? Ok.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

Sola Fide
In Decree 13, the Confession of Dositheus rejects the core Protestant doctrine sola fide (justification by faith alone):
Quote:

We believe a man to be not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which works through love, that is to say, through faith and works. (Leith p. 496)
They explained that good works is a manifestation or fruit of faith, something quite different from the medieval Roman Catholic understanding of good works as meritorious.
Quote:

But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises {cf. 2 Corinthians 5:10} that each of the Faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it be good or bad.
The Jerusalem Synod's brief response to sola fide here most likely reflects the Lutherans giving greater emphasis on sola fide than the Calvinists.
I'm pretty sure Calvinists believe this.
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. (Decree 3)

But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. (Decree 3)

I struggle with this...as there are legions of very smart people who think this is all buttoned up...but it just looks like nonsense to me. He basically confirms double predestination, then tries to undo it by simulating free will as if that's sufficient.

To me, this stuff makes way more sense to say we have "relative free will" and no "absolute free will". Basically, act like you do is what we are called to do.
To me it makes more sense to say, "Only God knows. I'm going to do my best to follow his will. If I am successful in reaching Heaven and he was steering the wheel or I was, its still his grace that got me here. I don't know why I should care."

For those of you that do care about this question. Can you explain why? Won't even argue with you about it, I just want to understand why so many people make this point (which nobody can do anything about anyway) a bone of contention between us.

Its always come off as a little like taking a position on whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals. It doesn't matter in the end.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orko said:

diehard03 said:

Quote:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. (Decree 3)

But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. (Decree 3)

I struggle with this...as there are legions of very smart people who think this is all buttoned up...but it just looks like nonsense to me. He basically confirms double predestination, then tries to undo it by simulating free will as if that's sufficient.

To me, this stuff makes way more sense to say we have "relative free will" and no "absolute free will". Basically, act like you do is what we are called to do.
To me it makes more sense to say, "Only God knows. I'm going to do my best to follow his will. If I am successful in reaching Heaven and he was steering the wheel or I was, its still his grace that got me here. I don't know why I should care."

For those of you that do care about this question. Can you explain why? Won't even argue with you about it, I just want to understand why so many people make this point (which nobody can do anything about anyway) a bone of contention between us.

Its always come off as a little like taking a position on whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals. It doesn't matter in the end.
If the Bible talks about it, then it matters. To an Arminian, it matters because unconditional election makes God out to be a monster. To a Calvinist, it matters because it gives a Christian something to boast about - "I have faith and you don't."
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Orko said:

diehard03 said:

Quote:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. (Decree 3)

But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. (Decree 3)

I struggle with this...as there are legions of very smart people who think this is all buttoned up...but it just looks like nonsense to me. He basically confirms double predestination, then tries to undo it by simulating free will as if that's sufficient.

To me, this stuff makes way more sense to say we have "relative free will" and no "absolute free will". Basically, act like you do is what we are called to do.
To me it makes more sense to say, "Only God knows. I'm going to do my best to follow his will. If I am successful in reaching Heaven and he was steering the wheel or I was, its still his grace that got me here. I don't know why I should care."

For those of you that do care about this question. Can you explain why? Won't even argue with you about it, I just want to understand why so many people make this point (which nobody can do anything about anyway) a bone of contention between us.

Its always come off as a little like taking a position on whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals. It doesn't matter in the end.
I believe that most Protestants today would agree with you.

I think that (outside of small circles in the Reformed world) the Arminian vs Calvinist debates probably got washed away after the revivalist movements in the 18th/19th century and then the modernist/fundamentalist divide in the early 20th century, and political divisions today.

Having come from a Reformed background I can tell you that almost no one cared about Calvin, Zwingli, etc or their writings.
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
Serotonin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think this type of theological argument is a relic from times when nearly everyone in society had a Christian outlook.

I was just reading about the first Transatlantic telegraph messages (just ~150 years ago):
Quote:

Directors of Atlantic Telegraph Company, Great Britain, to Directors in America:Europe and America are united by telegraph. Glory to God in the highest; on earth peace, good will towards men.
and:
Quote:

it is a triumph more glorious, because far more useful to mankind, than was ever won by conqueror on the field of battle. May the Atlantic telegraph, under the blessing of Heaven, prove to be a bond of perpetual peace and friendship between the kindred nations, and an instrument destined by Divine Providence to diffuse religion, civilization, liberty, and law throughout the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable#First_contact

Can you imagine British or American government officials or leaders talking like that today? We are very far removed from that world.

Pacifist, regarding your question, you can certainly read the bible but just like with prayer it's probably best to prepare and be of the right mindset. The prayer before the Gospel reading in Divine Liturgy is useful here:
Quote:

Illumine our hearts, O Master Who lovest mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge. Open the eyes of our mind to the understanding of Thy gospel teachings. Implant also in us the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things as are well-pleasing unto Thee. For Thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe glory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine all-holy, good, and life-creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Pacifist, regarding your question, you can certainly read the bible but just like with prayer it's probably best to prepare and be of the right mindset. The prayer before the Gospel reading in Divine Liturgy is useful here:
Thanks for the response.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
The creeds say nothing about praying to the dead, icons, and the other stuff in the OP. Why make predestination the taboo Christian subject?
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
The creeds say nothing about praying to the dead, icons, and the other stuff in the OP. Why make predestination the taboo Christian subject?

I don't think anybody has called it a taboo topic?

We can certainly talk about it and debate predestination, along with praying to the dead, icons, etc.

But there "should" be a difference between essential christian beliefs (i.e. the creeds) and the "other items" don't you think?


dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did double predestination exist as a theology before the Reformation?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
The creeds say nothing about praying to the dead, icons, and the other stuff in the OP. Why make predestination the taboo Christian subject?

I don't think anybody has called it a taboo topic?

We can certainly talk about it and debate predestination, along with praying to the dead, icons, etc.

But there "should" be a difference between essential christian beliefs (i.e. the creeds) and the "other items" don't you think?
Yes. There's also a difference in debating predestination and whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals.
chuckd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
dermdoc said:

Did double predestination exist as a theology before the Reformation?
Augustine
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xix.iv.xlii.html
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
The creeds say nothing about praying to the dead, icons, and the other stuff in the OP. Why make predestination the taboo Christian subject?

I don't think anybody has called it a taboo topic?

We can certainly talk about it and debate predestination, along with praying to the dead, icons, etc.

But there "should" be a difference between essential christian beliefs (i.e. the creeds) and the "other items" don't you think?
Yes. There's also a difference in debating predestination and whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue for?

We are in agreement there's a difference between what is in the Creeds vs predestination and we are also in agreement there is a difference between predestination and sandals.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chuckd said:

dermdoc said:

Did double predestination exist as a theology before the Reformation?
Augustine
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xix.iv.xlii.html
Thanks and make sense as Calvin loved Augustine.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

AgLiving06 said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?

It leaves us in the same spot we should always start at. The Creed(s).
The creeds say nothing about praying to the dead, icons, and the other stuff in the OP. Why make predestination the taboo Christian subject?

I don't think anybody has called it a taboo topic?

We can certainly talk about it and debate predestination, along with praying to the dead, icons, etc.

But there "should" be a difference between essential christian beliefs (i.e. the creeds) and the "other items" don't you think?
Yes. There's also a difference in debating predestination and whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals.

I'm not sure what you are trying to argue for?

We are in agreement there's a difference between what is in the Creeds vs predestination and we are also in agreement there is a difference between predestination and sandals.

Great!
AgLiving06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

chuckd said:

dermdoc said:

Did double predestination exist as a theology before the Reformation?
Augustine
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xix.iv.xlii.html
Thanks and make sense as Calvin loved Augustine.

It should be no surprise that the "Magisterial" Reformers relied heavily on the Church Father's. Regardless of current beliefs, they fully intended to truly be Reformers who were restoring the Church to what the Ancient Church was.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

To me it makes more sense to say, "Only God knows. I'm going to do my best to follow his will. If I am successful in reaching Heaven and he was steering the wheel or I was, its still his grace that got me here. I don't know why I should care."

In the end, we are in the same place...I think that pastors can stumble over things trying to surmise God's justification for things because we don't like saying "God is God, and we are not".
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?
Nope. Discuss it all you want. I'm not criticizing the OP in any way.

I'm saying it is absolutely ******ed for Christians to think this is, in any way, a viable reason for division. To anybody who thinks anything like this makes anyone less or more of a Christian, get over yourself, it doesn't matter. Allowing this to be a heated division is the work of Satan.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Amen.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Orko
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Can you imagine British or American government officials or leaders talking like that today? We are very far removed from that world.
It would be awesome, wouldn't it? That is why it angers me when idiots say things like, "When were we more God-fearing in the past?" More God-fearing doesn't imply societal perfection, it implies acknowledgement and consideration.

Acknowledgement of God's Good Grace by public officials is wonderful. Not hearing it anymore just reinforces so much of what I believe about the current year.
Remember, patriot, what they took from you. Your nation's identity, its religion, and its people are no more. Remember how we got here.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Orko said:

Martin Q. Blank said:

Orko said:

Quote:

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters.
The Bible says that you can't come to God except through Christ. The Bible talks about things God loves and things God hates. It talks about God knowing all things. It talks about election and the elect.

Not once does it say that the correct belief in predestination has anything to do with salvation. Why are so many of us unwilling to leave things as a mystery? God is sovereign. It doesn't matter how he does it. It only matters that he does and that it is his free grace that gets us there.

Whether you believe in double-predestination or merely foreknowledge, God's message to you doesn't change. It literally has no effect on you and your salvation, whatsoever. In the end, you go to Heaven or Hell and your belief in predestination had nothing to do with it.
I guess your point is that we should not talk about anything that "has no effect on you and your salvation?" What does that leave us? "Believe in the Lord Jesus"?
Nope. Discuss it all you want. I'm not criticizing the OP in any way.

I'm saying it is absolutely ******ed for Christians to think this is, in any way, a viable reason for division. To anybody who thinks anything like this makes anyone less or more of a Christian, get over yourself, it doesn't matter. Allowing this to be a heated division is the work of Satan.
It's just a confession of the Orthodox Church. You're welcome to attend a church that has no confession, or is extremely limited in scope.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think the synod of Jerusalem is necessarily dogmatic on their questions. That being said, I do think it is a witness to the teaching of the Church. The first catechetical question is whether all Christians should read scripture in the common tongue.

I think a person would be hard pressed to come up with some kind of authoritative rule from the Fathers that laymen ought not read the scriptures. St John Chrysostom repeatedly encouraged his parishioners to read the scriptures, saying things like "I also always entreat you, and do not cease entreating you, not only to pay attention here to what I say, but also when you are at home, to persevere continually in reading the divine Scriptures. When I have been with each of you in private, I have not stopped giving you the same advice." Later in that same passage he says "For it is not possible - not possible - for anyone to be saved without continually taking advantage of spiritual reading."

Even so, he also notes "If a man should come here with earnestness - even though he does not read the Scriptures at home - and if he pays attention to what is said here, within the space of even one year he will be able to obtain a considerable acquaintance with them. For we do not read these Scriptures today, and tomorrow others that are quite different, but always the same section and consecutively."

So we should say perhaps what is the council of Jerusalem saying? It says - should everyone read? No. But the elaboration on that answer comes in two parts: who should read, and who should not.

Who should read:
  • those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit
  • who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read

Who should not read:
  • those who are not so disciplined
  • who cannot distinguish
  • who understand only literally
  • who understand in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy

How can we then learn, or move from one category to the other? They elaborate: "Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation." We should remember The Orthodox Church has always made it a practice to translate the scriptures into the local vernacular, and argued against the trilingual heresy (Sts Cyril and Methodius lead this one). So it good for every Christian to hear the scriptures [in Church]...which has been the historical guideline for what even is scripture anyway (those books which are read in the Church).


And why should those not read? Because "the Church knows by experience the damage it can cause." St John says as much - "[From ignorance of the Scriptures] it is that the plague of heresies has broken out."

The idea isn't to say, hey, laymen, you can't read scripture. But instead, if you're not going to come to Church, to be taught in the Church, to grow in the Faith, then there is no profit whatsoever in reading the scriptures by yourself anyway - and there is the risk of considerable damage.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I'm saying it is absolutely ******ed for Christians to think this is, in any way, a viable reason for division. To anybody who thinks anything like this makes anyone less or more of a Christian, get over yourself, it doesn't matter. Allowing this to be a heated division is the work of Satan.
The objection to heresy in and of itself is almost never the thing said, but the necessary implications of the thing said. There was nothing inherently wrong with Pelagius' teaching that man should work hard, be ascetic, struggle for his salvation. The problem with Pelagius' teaching is that it had direct and material theological implications -- and if one believed Pelagius' teaching, one would necessarily fall into a contradiction with the Faith of the Church.

This is the exact same situation with anything the Church has dogmatically defined as a heresy. A heresy is a chosen belief (the word means literally a chosen belief) that the scriptures tell us are necessary "so that the approved should become evident among you." In other words, refutation of wrong beliefs reveal, affirm, and validate the Faith.


That man has free will has always been a teaching of the Church. To set up a dichotomy between our God-given free will and the sovereignty of God is to set God against Himself. My opinion is that the ultimate theological consequences of a denial of the divinely given free will of man is to in part undermine the truth of the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, and to some extent to deny the reality or the ability of humans to have communion with the love that exists in God between the persons of the Trinity.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Thank you so much for that clarification. Very helpful as always.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Those aren't the full quotes, and I agree that by themselves they don't tell the story. He continues quite clearly as to how we understand the apparent superficial contradiction:


Quote:

...And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

We really believe in free will, what we choose or do not choose really matters.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

I don't understand this. Without these bolded words, it all makes sense - God works with us and we have the ability to reject or accept this "help". But you can't "predestinate" something that requires a choice after the fact.

it seems like this entire quote is really a defense of how we don't earn our salvation, rather than a free will/predestination clarification. On that note, I certainly concur.

Quote:

My opinion is that the ultimate theological consequences of a denial of the divinely given free will of man is to in part undermine the truth of the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, and to some extent to deny the reality or the ability of humans to have communion with the love that exists in God between the persons of the Trinity.

I don't see how. Truth doesn't change whether we have free will or not. Truth is truth. God sent his son and he died to cover our sins. To your second item, whether we have actual free will or not is irrelevant...only that we have a perception of free will...which we indeed have. But this is more of a "what is reality" question.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I don't understand this. Without these bolded words, it all makes sense - God works with us and we have the ability to reject or accept this "help". But you can't "predestinate" something that requires a choice after the fact.
Sure you can. God is outside of time, but our will exists in time. These only appear to be in opposition. In other words, from the perspective of without, everything has happened or not happened exactly as it did. From within, everything is happening, will happen, or has happened. God's creative act was a single, ongoing act of grace - so as much as the earth exists, it was predestined to exist. And as much as I exist, I exist because I was predestined to exist, because before I existed, I existed in a way in the mind of the Logos. And everything I have the potential to be existed there, but I will become what I was meant to be teleologically only by my free will cooperating with the divine image for which I was created.

Everyone was created only for one end, and in that regard everyone is predestined for salvation. But, we actively become saved (i.e., take hold that for which we are eternally predestined) within time. I don't think this is in opposition at all.
Quote:

I don't see how. Truth doesn't change whether we have free will or not. Truth is truth. God sent his son and he died to cover our sins. To your second item, whether we have actual free will or not is irrelevant...only that we have a perception of free will...which we indeed have. But this is more of a "what is reality" question.
I didn't say that a person understanding changes the reality of the Incarnation. Sorry for being unclear. When I said it undermines the truth, I meant the expression of that reality. A person who denies the free will of man by necessity denies that Christ's human will was free. And this turns His humanity into either a slave of the divine will which He had or it means His humanity was somehow different than ours.

The Sixth Ecumenical council taught:
Quote:

And as we recognize two natures, so also we recognize two natural wills and two natural operations. For we dare not say that either of the natures which are in Christ in his incarnation is without a will and operation: lest in taking away the proprieties of those natures, we likewise take away the natures of which they are the proprieties....

For should we say that the human nature of our Lord is without will and operation, how could we affirm in safety the perfect humanity? For nothing else constitutes the integrity of human nature except the essential will, through which the strength of free-will is marked in us; and this is also the case with the substantial operation. For how shall we call him perfect in humanity if he in no wise suffered and acted as a man? For like as the union of two natures preserves for us one subsistence without confusion and without division; so this one subsistence, showing itself in two natures, demonstrates as its own what things belong to each.

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division: but we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors

It is therefore not irrelevant whether we have free will or not. According to the fathers what lacks the rational will lacks the divine image. The free will is essential to the human nature, and so what lacks a free will is no longer human. What Christ assumed He deified, He sanctified. This includes our will, which is the divine image in us. This is an extremely important teaching of the Church.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Sure you can. God is outside of time, but our will exists in time. These only appear to be in opposition. In other words, from the perspective of without, everything has happened or not happened exactly as it did. From within, everything is happening, will happen, or has happened. God's creative act was a single, ongoing act of grace - so as much as the earth exists, it was predestined to exist. And as much as I exist, I exist because I was predestined to exist, because before I existed, I existed in a way in the mind of the Logos. And everything I have the potential to be existed there, but I will become what I was meant to be teleologically only by my free will cooperating with the divine image for which I was created

It sounds like you're just defining "predestined" in a way that allows for free will, and so that's how they aren't in conflict. You are, for all intents and purposes, limiting predestination to what are. What you become is something else entirely. But this is not what most mean predestination to mean.

To me, the whole "God outside of time" thing is like looking at a map. Different roads go to and through different cities. You can't say that the roads have choices of where to go, and yet still know which cities they will end up in.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

A person who denies the free will of man by necessity denies that Christ's human will was free. And this turns His humanity into either a slave of the divine will which He had or it means His humanity was somehow different than ours.

I don't think Him having the same "slave" humanity makes him less of the Incarnation. His humanity was still subject to what the Divine had him do. We are taught that he had a choice, asked for the Chalice to be taken from Him, and went to the Cross anyway.

Quote:

The free will is essential to the human nature, and so what lacks a free will is no longer human. What Christ assumed He deified, He sanctified. This includes our will, which is the divine image in us. This is an extremely important teaching of the Church.

It feels like we are going down the literal road a little far. Of sure, we don't know whether we have "free will" or not. So, we must act like we do. I think it's important that we make choices and take responsibility for our choices. But, if you believe certain things...like God being outside of time and seeing how our lives end up, then by definition, we have no choice or free will. However, we can't see how it plays out...so we should act like we have free will.

Now, there is an argument to be made that God is powerful enough to see all the possible outcomes of everything simultaneously outside of time and that's how it all works. And, I would also be fine with this too...but that's changing the definition of predestination.
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.