OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 08:17:59 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Article on Predestination: "Without me you can do nothing"  (Read 1426 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« on: May 07, 2012, 01:00:55 PM »

Here is an interesting article on predestination. I am wondering how Eastern Orthodox Christians would evaluate this. I know some will start off on the "Scholastics are Satan" stuff. But aside from that, what does everyone think?


"Without me you can do nothing" - What Calvinists and Jesuits don't understand about divine providence

Jesus did not say, “Without me you can do only a few things,” nor “Without me you scarcely can do even little things,” but rather Without me you can do nothing (John 15:5).
On the one hand, there are the Calvinists who so emphasize the divine causality as to diminish free will. Indeed, their doctrine of double-predestination makes man to be nothing more than a donkey, ridden either by Satan into hell or by God into heaven.
On the other hand, the classical Jesuits (like St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Francisco Suárez) generally struggle to give sufficient acknowledgment to the role of divine providence. Certainly, the Jesuits are not semi-Pelagian heretics, yet their writings often tend to lean toward an over-emphasis of the human will and a de-emphasizing of God’s causal powers..."

Full Article: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2012/05/without-me-you-can-do-nothing-what.html
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #1 on: May 07, 2012, 07:26:19 PM »

You can do nothing without God because it is by God that we are sustained from moment to moment, and without Him, we would cease to exist.  I see no reason to take this verse as any sort of evidence for any level of predestination.

God also caused all things from the instant of creation until the after time, by creating in the first place.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #2 on: May 07, 2012, 08:49:58 PM »

You can do nothing without God because it is by God that we are sustained from moment to moment, and without Him, we would cease to exist.  I see no reason to take this verse as any sort of evidence for any level of predestination.

God also caused all things from the instant of creation until the after time, by creating in the first place.

I'm with James.

Put in terms that are easy to understand: nothing happens without him permitting it to happen, nothing exists without him permitting to exist and no action can be taken without him permitting it to be taken.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,894


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2012, 08:53:14 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2012, 08:54:13 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
akimori makoto
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-heretical Christian
Jurisdiction: Fully-sik-hektic archdiocese of Australia, bro
Posts: 3,126

No-one bound by fleshly pleasures is worthy ...


« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2012, 08:57:22 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.

Agreed.
Logged

The Episcopallian road is easy and wide, for many go through it to find destruction. lol sorry channeling Isa.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2012, 08:59:44 PM »

I agree that this is bad proof-texting for predestination.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2012, 09:22:43 PM »

Jesus said "Without Me, you can do nothing", not "I do everything, you do nothing". Especially in the context of the passage where Christ says that every branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off, calling us to actively rely on Him as the source of our strength by which we perform our labors and the One who gives the increase.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2012, 09:24:10 PM »

What about the author's point about primary and secondary causality?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2012, 09:37:00 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.

Serious question: Why would God continually sustain everything?
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2012, 09:40:33 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.

Serious question: Why would God continually sustain everything?
Well, everything that is contingent needs a sufficient reason for its existence at every given moment. Thus, in order of the universe of contingents to exist, barring infinite regression, a non-contingent being must exist that sustains everythings else.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,506



« Reply #10 on: May 08, 2012, 12:13:42 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.

Serious question: Why would God continually sustain everything?
Well, everything that is contingent needs a sufficient reason for its existence at every given moment. Thus, in order of the universe of contingents to exist, barring infinite regression, a non-contingent being must exist that sustains everythings else.

So you say.

This is an wild assumption based on metaphysical prejudices you carry which may or may not be unwarranted.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,894


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2012, 12:51:17 PM »

Serious question: Why would God continually sustain everything?
Because He's always faithful to his creation.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,191


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #12 on: May 09, 2012, 12:24:53 PM »

nothing exists without him permitting to exist
I would go further and say continually sustains everything, as opposed to the deist god who creates everything self-existent, sends it spinning and then that's that.

Serious question: Why would God continually sustain everything?
Well, everything that is contingent needs a sufficient reason for its existence at every given moment. Thus, in order of the universe of contingents to exist, barring infinite regression, a non-contingent being must exist that sustains everythings else.

So you say.

This is an wild assumption based on metaphysical prejudices you carry which may or may not be unwarranted.

Or may be very warranted. Smiley
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2012, 02:11:00 PM »

You can do nothing without God because it is by God that we are sustained from moment to moment, and without Him, we would cease to exist.  I see no reason to take this verse as any sort of evidence for any level of predestination.

God also caused all things from the instant of creation until the after time, by creating in the first place.

This answer is ignorant and totally ignores the context.The context is clear what is all about.Being in Christ or not being in Christ.It also says that Christ has chosen the Apostles John 15:16.All who have subscribed to this answer are totally ignorant to the written text, and that is about all who have posted untill now.
Logged
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,736



« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2012, 02:16:47 PM »

I am wondering how Eastern Orthodox Christians would evaluate this.

Don't worry. The Orthodox will always find a way to disagree with you.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 13, 2012, 11:51:47 AM »

You can do nothing without God because it is by God that we are sustained from moment to moment, and without Him, we would cease to exist.  I see no reason to take this verse as any sort of evidence for any level of predestination.

God also caused all things from the instant of creation until the after time, by creating in the first place.

Would Orthodoxy deny that you need God to even begin think about turning to God?  If that is agreed to be the case then would Orthodoxy deny that God has ordained us, by nature, to turn to Him when he calls no matter what else might intervene, including our weakened will, as a result of the ancestral sin?

« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 11:53:22 AM by elijahmaria » Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #16 on: May 13, 2012, 04:22:36 PM »

Would Orthodoxy deny that you need God to even begin think about turning to God?  If that is agreed to be the case then would Orthodoxy deny that God has ordained us, by nature, to turn to Him when he calls no matter what else might intervene, including our weakened will, as a result of the ancestral sin?


St. Athanasius held to an unlimited or "prevenient" operation of grace:

"If He “lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then doth He “light every man”? He lighteth all as far as in Him lies. But if some, willfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that Light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the Light, but from their own wickedness, who willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift, ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves; for if when the gate is opened to all, and there is none to hinder, any being willfully evil remain without, they perish through none other, but only through their own wickedness." (Athanasius, Homily VIII: John i. 9, trans. Philip Schaff, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1886/1994) Vol. 14, p. 29. Cf. St. John 3:19-21; Romans 1:18ff.

Semi-Pelegianism -an attempt to mediate between Augustine and Pelagianism- held that man must initiate to receive grace. The first step to God was conceived as an act of free will with grace entering into the picture later.

Sometimes St. John Cassian has been labled by Western scholars as Semi-Pelagian, however St. John actually taught the very opposite, for example:

"'For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do according to good will.' (Phil. 2:13) What could well be clearer than the assertion that both our good will and the completion of our work are fully wrought in us by the Lord? And again 'For it is granted to you for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him but also to suffer for Him.' (Phil. 1:29) Here also he declares that the beginning of our conversion and faith, and the endurance of suffering is a gift to us from the Lord." - St. John Cassian, The Conferences, 3: The Conference of Paphnutius, 15 http://www.ccel.org/osis/xml/cassian-conferences.xml

and...

"The thief who received the kingdom of heaven, though not as the reward of virtue, is a true witness to the fact that salvation is ours through the grace and mercy of God. All of our holy fathers knew this and all with one accord teach that perfection in holiness can be achieved only through humility." -St. John Cassian, in Philokalia Volume 1, p. 83 On the Eight Vices/Pride

Rom 8:29 suggests conditional predestination, i.e. predetermination of the horizon of individuals (proorizo, or "pre-horizon" literally means to set a horizon in advance) is based on God's foreknowledge. Foreknowledge of what isn't specified by scripture. I don't think it is foreknowledge of whether individuals freely accept Christ "apart from grace" in a semi-Pelagian sense (which I don't hold).

"By the grace of God I am a Christian, by my deeds a great sinner." - Way of the Pilgrim

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved. —St. John Chrysostom

Saint Augustine was the first to interpret foreknowledge as foreordination- in his later years, and in contradistinction to all the fathers before him. His system of predestination to salvation is actually on that point on the side of the Gnostics and contra the second century Apologists.

Paradigmatic for the relationship of grace and freedom in the Christian East is the Annunciation, whereupon the the power of the Most High *overshadowed* Mary; according to St. Gregory of Nyssa:

"At once, with the coming upon her of the Holy Spirit and with her being overshadowed by the power of the Most High, the human nature in Mary... became that which that overshadowing power in essence was... Seeing, then, that while man is weak the power of the Godhead is an immense and immeasurable thing, at the moment when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin and the power of the Most High overshadowed her, the tabernacle formed by such an impulse was not clothed with anything of human corruption... even though it was human, it was grace and power. And the special attributes of our humanity derived luster from this abundance of divine power" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Letter to Ablabius (Epistles, 3).

According to Irenaeus "She was 'persuaded' [suasa est], not coerced, to yield an obedience that was no less voluntary in its affirmation than the disobedience of Eve had been in its negation. As free will could not be taken away from Eve in order to say that she was not accountable for her actions, so it could not be taken away from Mary either, in a misguided attempt to make the grace of God seem greater by minimizing or denying human free will. It was a differentiating characteristic of Byzantine philosophy and theology, and one that often provoked puzzlement or exasperation in the West, that in its views of the relation of grace and free will it did not work with the alternatives developed in the time of Augustine (Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries, Yale, 1996, p. 88)

...it is evident that for Eastern Christian thought the Augustinian formulation of the antithesis of grace and freedom, or even of nature and grace, represented a wrong question to which any answer would be wrong. (Pelikan, ibid, p. 89).
« Last Edit: May 13, 2012, 04:28:39 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 13, 2012, 06:49:20 PM »



Saint Augustine was the first to interpret foreknowledge as foreordination- in his later years, and in contradistinction to all the fathers before him. His system of predestination to salvation is actually on that point on the side of the Gnostics and contra the second century Apologists.


I agree with everything in your wonderful post except for the fact that I think you read Augustine in a very limited and limiting way.   I do not see him nearly as rigid in this as you seem to be rendering him.  It is one thing to ordain creation toward salvation, it is quite another to ordain SOME to salvation and to damn others. 

Augustine in no way joined with the latter approach to God's providence.

God is either omniscient or He is not.  Can't be a little bit all powerful, all seeing and all knowing.  You is either ALL or you ain't...if you are God.

 Smiley

XB!

I really did enjoy the balance of your post.  Wonderful!

M.
Logged

lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #18 on: May 14, 2012, 02:19:22 PM »

We do not chose when to get born, where to get born , how to get born and when to die.

Our predisposition to inquire to God or to love God is influenced by certain factors and circumstances.One that is born into an atheist minded familly has more chances to be an atheist and have an atheist philosophy than one that is born into a practicant theist  familly.One that has a satisfying life has more chances to love God than one who doesn`t.And so on.. There are examples in competitions of athletes who are more prepared that get overrunned by those who are less prepared.. 

Really what can we do without God?Or what can we do to win God's favour?Please answer me to the last.

Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,121


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #19 on: May 15, 2012, 04:27:21 AM »

You can do nothing without God because it is by God that we are sustained from moment to moment, and without Him, we would cease to exist.  I see no reason to take this verse as any sort of evidence for any level of predestination.

God also caused all things from the instant of creation until the after time, by creating in the first place.

Would Orthodoxy deny that you need God to even begin think about turning to God?  If that is agreed to be the case then would Orthodoxy deny that God has ordained us, by nature, to turn to Him when he calls no matter what else might intervene, including our weakened will, as a result of the ancestral sin?



I've always understood the Orthodox position to be that we love Him because He first loved us, and consequently that, yes, without His grace, we'd not be able to turn to Him.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2012, 05:01:43 AM »



Saint Augustine was the first to interpret foreknowledge as foreordination- in his later years, and in contradistinction to all the fathers before him. His system of predestination to salvation is actually on that point on the side of the Gnostics and contra the second century Apologists.


I agree with everything in your wonderful post except for the fact that I think you read Augustine in a very limited and limiting way.   I do not see him nearly as rigid in this as you seem to be rendering him.  It is one thing to ordain creation toward salvation, it is quite another to ordain SOME to salvation and to damn others. 

Augustine in no way joined with the latter approach to God's providence.

God is either omniscient or He is not.  Can't be a little bit all powerful, all seeing and all knowing.  You is either ALL or you ain't...if you are God.

 Smiley

XB!

I really did enjoy the balance of your post.  Wonderful!

M.
Thank you Mary, and kind of you to say.
Logged

Silly Stars
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2012, 11:36:23 AM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2012, 12:14:55 PM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?

The Catholic Church teaches that the intellect is darkened, and the will is weakened.  There is no teaching of total deprivation, though it is often confused as such. 

Therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas says, by nature we are designed to seek God, so that when he calls we are already pre-disposed by nature to hear Him...even though we "hear" him in a most crippled way with a will that is too weakened to respond as we can respond to Him after Baptism.  But it is that desire itself that begins us on our way in answer to His call.

That is what my Church teaches and that is what makes the most sense to me.

Mary
Logged

lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2012, 03:33:54 PM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?

The Catholic Church teaches that the intellect is darkened, and the will is weakened.  There is no teaching of total deprivation, though it is often confused as such. 

Therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas says, by nature we are designed to seek God, so that when he calls we are already pre-disposed by nature to hear Him...even though we "hear" him in a most crippled way with a will that is too weakened to respond as we can respond to Him after Baptism.  But it is that desire itself that begins us on our way in answer to His call.

That is what my Church teaches and that is what makes the most sense to me.

Mary

But isn`t Blessed Augustine saying that by nature due to the fall we are unable to seek God without his grace or something between this lines?
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 519



WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2012, 03:40:57 PM »

But isn`t Blessed Augustine saying that by nature due to the fall we are unable to seek God without his grace or something between this lines?

The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on predestination, justification, and original sin is not identical to the teaching of St Augustine. 
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2012, 03:57:17 PM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?

The Catholic Church teaches that the intellect is darkened, and the will is weakened.  There is no teaching of total deprivation, though it is often confused as such. 

Therefore, St. Thomas Aquinas says, by nature we are designed to seek God, so that when he calls we are already pre-disposed by nature to hear Him...even though we "hear" him in a most crippled way with a will that is too weakened to respond as we can respond to Him after Baptism.  But it is that desire itself that begins us on our way in answer to His call.

That is what my Church teaches and that is what makes the most sense to me.

Mary

But isn`t Blessed Augustine saying that by nature due to the fall we are unable to seek God without his grace or something between this lines?

Not by nature...no...He says that the intellect and will are wounded, so that communicating with God is hampered and conforming our will to the divine will is not possible.  But no, he does not say that we cannot by nature know Him when he sends his grace to us.  We know him by desire, and later, after Baptism we know him more fully by grace.

Logged

xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,368


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2012, 09:33:10 PM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?
Quote from: Papist
On the one hand, there are the Calvinists who so emphasize the divine causality as to diminish free will. Indeed, their doctrine of double-predestination makes man to be nothing more than a donkey, ridden either by Satan into hell or by God into heaven.
On the other hand, the classical Jesuits (like St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Francisco Suárez) generally struggle to give sufficient acknowledgment to the role of divine providence. Certainly, the Jesuits are not semi-Pelagian heretics, yet their writings often tend to lean toward an over-emphasis of the human will and a de-emphasizing of God’s causal powers..."

Why the early fathers believed man possessed freedom is explained by Jaroslav Pelikan: "...the very presence of sin and evil and the capacity of a creature to transgress the divine commandment was grim proof for the freedom of the will conferred in creation" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (University of Chicago Press), vol 2, p. 222).

"It is not then His prediction that brings the offenses; far from it; neither because He foretold it, therefore doth it take place; but because it surely was to be, therefore He foretold it; since if those who bring in the offenses had not been minded to do wickedly, neither would the offenses have come; and if they had not been to come, neither would they have been foretold. But because those men did evil, and were incurably diseased, the offenses came, and He foretells that which is to be" (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 59).

If freedom is the ability to save ourselves, we have no freedom. If freedom is an ability to do otherwise with respect to particular choices this, if genuine, does not negate sovereignty because if man does have freedom to make certain choices, he does not possess freedom to determine the consequences.

Freedom which is biblical must not entail either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism (that man must initiate to receive grace with grace only entering the picture later, as I discussed earler), but it may (as held by a majority of major trajectories even within Protestantism, Calvinism with its doctrine of irresistible grace being the only exception), mean the opportunity to repent can be rejected (cf. Rev 2:21: "I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality").

As St. Athanasius wrote, "If He 'lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then doth He “light every man”? He lighteth all as far as in Him lies. But if some, willfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that Light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the Light, but from their own wickedness, who willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift, ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves; for if when the gate is opened to all, and there is none to hinder, any being willfully evil remain without, they perish through none other, but only through their own wickedness." (Athanasius, Homily VIII: John i. 9, trans. Philip Schaff, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1886/1994) Vol. 14, p. 29. Cf. John 3:19-21; Romans 1:18ff).

The death of the wicked is not God's good pleasure; rather "As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!" -Ezek 33:11

The second century apologists spent considerable time discussing the topic of whether all things were predestined in the sense of being incapable of being prevented because already set to happen; it was only the Gnostics who championed this point of view before the fifth century, and afterwards it appeared only in later history of Western Christendom (e.g. John Calvin; Pelikan with most would trace this idea the later St. Augustine although some as Mary observed might disagree with this).

The uniform witness of the Eastern fathers, who, we should recall, read scripture in the original Greek as their own mother tongue, was in a different direction than Reformed Calvinists, who though making a point of rejecting the authority of the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) were, as e.g. Pelikan affirmed, influenced by its readings in key instances (cf. Pelikan vol. 1 of the above-mentioned The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine in the chapter on nature and grace).

Fr. Laurent Cleenwerke observes "The Orthodox Church does not reject "predestination" which is a Biblical concept, found for example in Romans 8:29-30: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." What the Orthodox tradition has historically rejected is the Calvinist view of predestination, which is that in the distant past, God made a decree that would predestine some to be saved and others to be lost, without reference to the person's being or actions but simply by sovereign choice. Calvinists then disagree on the order of the decrees, which shows that this anthropomorphic view is not satisfactory. The Orthodox view would be that there is a foreordained destiny based on one's eternal state of being, and God foreknows everyone completely, according to 1 Co 13:12. In this sense, there is predestination to a glorious destiny for those whom God foreknows." http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/628/

There is with respect to God's unknowable (in the Eastern tradition) essence no "pre-" understood "literally" unless God in His essence is a temporal being (as in Process Theism, Open Theism, etc.); classically understood "pre-"/"fore-"/"before" language actually stands for God's eternity, which likewise should not be reduced as a philosophical datum as in philosophical debates between A and B theories of time and the like, but as what is Uncreated and, from our perspective, beyond understanding). God's knowledge of us, His plans for us, His purpose for us, is both before and after the ages of ages as understood from our vantage point, but neither "before" or "after" as to the essence of God as He is in Himself "before all time [note: an oxymoron if taken literally!] and into all the ages, amen" (Jude 26: πρὸ πάντος τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν). This is the meaning of the pro- prefixed [English "pre-" or "fore-") words in the Greek NT, not that God exists temporally "in a time frame" (to the contrary, as St. Athanasius so brilliantly pointed out contra the Arians, Christ is said to have created all times in the book of Hebrews). Scriptural usages of terminology like "before"/"pre-"/"fore-" when used of God refer to eternity, not time.[1] In the Bible predestination is never to election, but to the circumstances of election. The biblical term "predestined" literally means before-horizon, as in Christ going before to prepare a place (a "horizon") or those who endure.

The NT frequently affirms that Christ brings us true freedom (cf. "Freedom" in Colin Brown, ed., DNTT, vol 1). *Divinized free will* (2 Pt 1:4) is neither Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian free will, but Christified free will: the freedom of Christ in us. Free will per se cannot be in contradiction to election or foreordination because Christ, who is called the Elect, laid His life down freely: "...I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again" (John 10:17-18).

Christ's crucifixion was foreknown, prophecied, foreordained, and freely chosen. One cannot insist these categories are "systematically incompatible" without sacrificing Christ's freedom, or the Father's omniscience or His will for the Son to drink from the bitter cup spoken of in the garden of Gethsemane. The union with Christ spoken of so often in scripture and the fathers is Christ in us and we abiding in Christ apart from whom we can do nothing. As the creeds affirm, Christ is not the dichotomy of God "versus" man (as in Docetism and Gnosticism); he is the unity of God and man. "In Christ" the work of man is united to the work of God. Freedom in Christ (a major biblical theme) is an attribute of the the bondslave of Jesus Christ (doulos Iesou Christou/Rom 1:1 etc); these are not contradictions or "systematic chess pieces to be alternately maximized/minimized/opposed; they are complimentary truths which learn from scripture but which we cannot fully fathom, just as God and man in Christ are not to tested on the bar of human reasoning as the heretics attempted to do, but accepted as what God has revealed, and as experienced by the God-bearing fathers. Freedom in Christ, for example, is realized in "self control" (enkrateia/Gal 5:22), which far from being autonomous control is described by Paul with no sense of contradition as a karpos tou pneumatou -a fruit of God the Holy Spirit; it is not in dialectic or opposition with God's will or act in the sense of producing a false dichotomy between determinism (as the Gnostics held) and indeterminism (as certain pagans and the Pelagians held), but theosis -union with the divine and with deified humanity (2 Pt 1:4), as all the Greek fathers held, that is to say abiding "in Christ."

"...foreknowledge was not in the least a cause of the devil’s becoming evil. For a physician, when he foresees a future illness, does not cause that illness... the physician’s foreknowledge is a sign of his erudition, whereas the cause of the foreknowledge is the fact that things were going to turn out that way. St. John Damascene, Dialogs against Manichees.
______________
[1]Oscar Cullman defined eternity as “time without end” on the basis that NT terminology should be correlated to the Semitic background rather than retroactively related to prior Greek philology, or later developments of it in Scholasticism (Cullman, Oscar, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (Philadelphia, 1953). Certainly Greek and Scholastic concepts of eternity should be tested against the biblical data they claim to illumine. "Philosophically" we might, with Cullman, ask questions such as whether non-temporality would present a formal contradiction with eternity as immanent in time. But such questions may be more a function of the methodological and terminological problems which inhere in human cognition itself (as we also find in the paradoxes which arise in our most vigorously defined mathematical systems; cf. Kline, Morris, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford University Press), e.g. there can be no complete phenomenological account of eternity by a mortal being that can be more than “unending time”; on the other hand, as even Cullman had to admit, the NT “traces back the historical incarnation beyond a preparation proper to the beginnings of time” (Cullman, op cit, p. 92); we should note this problem is no less acute for physics than it is for theology (from the perspective of contemporary physics time is in a matrix/space-time-matter-energy which came into being without cause with any of the characteristics of that matrix; the relation of time to an a-temporal nothing presents problems no less acute and vexing than the relation of time to eternity).

The attempt to try to answer such philosophical problems both theologically and philosophically seems perennial, but we guard against confusing the two lest in rejecting bad philosophy, what is then wrongly supposed to be theology ends in the same ash-heap; e..g. Hans Kung’s answers to Cullman are perfectly legitimate and, I think, "philosophically" valid:

“Let us put it once more sub specie temporis: On the basis of our temporal images we can speak of a time in which the Son of God had ‘not yet’ become man… And now sub specie aeternitatis: When we reason from the viewpoint of God’s eternal manner of existence, we must abandon transitory and temporal conceptions. God has time in its fullness without end; His time is not fragmented into a sequence of present, past, and future. Rather it is the unity of the before, the now, and the hereafter –of beginning, middle, and end. It is erroneous to conceive of the divine Logos as if He had ‘already’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity, just as it would be wrong to imagine that the divine Logos had ‘not yet’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity. From this viewpoint there is no such thing in God Himself as an eternity before the incarnation. This would amount to dissolving eternity into an interior time of unlimited duration… On the basis of our temporal images we can ask: What is the Son of God before the incarnation? From the standpoint of eternity, however, the most we can ask is: What would the Logos be without the incarnation? –a question possibly helpful in formulating the absolutely free graciousness of the incarnation. In the realm of eternity, it is impossible to speak simply in the strict sense of a non-incarnate Logos, of a prehistorical, pre-Christian, or post-Christian epoch. In this connection, all terms expressing a “pre” (like predetermination, prevision, predestination, pre-existent Christ) easily mislead, since they result, often unconsciously, in the application of inferior temporal images to God’s eternity. We must not overlook the primacy in knowing which existent act has over all forms of potency. To think of God’s knowing as first focused on the yet-undefined, on the potential and possible and only thereafter on the actual and the real, on the final existential definiteness of things, is an anthropomorphism. It is deceiving to imagine that for God knowledge of possibilities (possiblilia) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing existing things or for deciding to create them. Equally deceiving is the notion that God’s knowledge of what is necessary in His person (for instance, His omnipotence or the Trinity of Persons) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing what is free in Himself (for example the human nature of the Son)." ("Excursus: The Redeemer in God's Eternity" in Kung, Justification, pp. 285ff. Note: a book I would otherwise grade about C- or D, as if Kung would bother to hand it in to me, lol).
« Last Edit: May 27, 2012, 09:44:45 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2012, 09:48:55 PM »

Another very excellent post. 

Mary

Logged

Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2012, 09:56:50 PM »

xariskai is the spiritual emodiment of Pelikan
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2012, 10:23:41 AM »

xariskai is the spiritual emodiment of Pelikan

A Pelikan in the Wilderness

...as it were... Smiley

Much to agree with and learn from there.
Logged

lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2012, 12:08:39 PM »

But isn`t Blessed Augustine saying that by nature due to the fall we are unable to seek God without his grace or something between this lines?

The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on predestination, justification, and original sin is not identical to the teaching of St Augustine. 

I was not saying it is.. I am trying to discuss Augustine's view.
Logged
lost
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


« Reply #31 on: May 28, 2012, 12:15:46 PM »

Didn`t Blessed Augustine teach that we have lost initial justice and free-will once with the fall?And that we cannot make full conscient choices and that we do not look for God?
Quote from: Papist
On the one hand, there are the Calvinists who so emphasize the divine causality as to diminish free will. Indeed, their doctrine of double-predestination makes man to be nothing more than a donkey, ridden either by Satan into hell or by God into heaven.
On the other hand, the classical Jesuits (like St. Robert Bellarmine and Fr. Francisco Suárez) generally struggle to give sufficient acknowledgment to the role of divine providence. Certainly, the Jesuits are not semi-Pelagian heretics, yet their writings often tend to lean toward an over-emphasis of the human will and a de-emphasizing of God’s causal powers..."

Why the early fathers believed man possessed freedom is explained by Jaroslav Pelikan: "...the very presence of sin and evil and the capacity of a creature to transgress the divine commandment was grim proof for the freedom of the will conferred in creation" (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (University of Chicago Press), vol 2, p. 222).

"It is not then His prediction that brings the offenses; far from it; neither because He foretold it, therefore doth it take place; but because it surely was to be, therefore He foretold it; since if those who bring in the offenses had not been minded to do wickedly, neither would the offenses have come; and if they had not been to come, neither would they have been foretold. But because those men did evil, and were incurably diseased, the offenses came, and He foretells that which is to be" (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 59).

If freedom is the ability to save ourselves, we have no freedom. If freedom is an ability to do otherwise with respect to particular choices this, if genuine, does not negate sovereignty because if man does have freedom to make certain choices, he does not possess freedom to determine the consequences.

Freedom which is biblical must not entail either Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism (that man must initiate to receive grace with grace only entering the picture later, as I discussed earler), but it may (as held by a majority of major trajectories even within Protestantism, Calvinism with its doctrine of irresistible grace being the only exception), mean the opportunity to repent can be rejected (cf. Rev 2:21: "I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality").

As St. Athanasius wrote, "If He 'lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' how is it that so many continue unenlightened? For not all have known the majesty of Christ. How then doth He “light every man”? He lighteth all as far as in Him lies. But if some, willfully closing the eyes of their mind, would not receive the rays of that Light, their darkness arises not from the nature of the Light, but from their own wickedness, who willfully deprive themselves of the gift. For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard. And those who are not willing to enjoy this gift, ought in justice to impute their blindness to themselves; for if when the gate is opened to all, and there is none to hinder, any being willfully evil remain without, they perish through none other, but only through their own wickedness." (Athanasius, Homily VIII: John i. 9, trans. Philip Schaff, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1886/1994) Vol. 14, p. 29. Cf. John 3:19-21; Romans 1:18ff).

The death of the wicked is not God's good pleasure; rather "As surely as I live, says the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!" -Ezek 33:11

The second century apologists spent considerable time discussing the topic of whether all things were predestined in the sense of being incapable of being prevented because already set to happen; it was only the Gnostics who championed this point of view before the fifth century, and afterwards it appeared only in later history of Western Christendom (e.g. John Calvin; Pelikan with most would trace this idea the later St. Augustine although some as Mary observed might disagree with this).

The uniform witness of the Eastern fathers, who, we should recall, read scripture in the original Greek as their own mother tongue, was in a different direction than Reformed Calvinists, who though making a point of rejecting the authority of the Latin Bible (the Vulgate) were, as e.g. Pelikan affirmed, influenced by its readings in key instances (cf. Pelikan vol. 1 of the above-mentioned The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine in the chapter on nature and grace).

Fr. Laurent Cleenwerke observes "The Orthodox Church does not reject "predestination" which is a Biblical concept, found for example in Romans 8:29-30: "For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified." What the Orthodox tradition has historically rejected is the Calvinist view of predestination, which is that in the distant past, God made a decree that would predestine some to be saved and others to be lost, without reference to the person's being or actions but simply by sovereign choice. Calvinists then disagree on the order of the decrees, which shows that this anthropomorphic view is not satisfactory. The Orthodox view would be that there is a foreordained destiny based on one's eternal state of being, and God foreknows everyone completely, according to 1 Co 13:12. In this sense, there is predestination to a glorious destiny for those whom God foreknows." http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/answer/628/

There is with respect to God's unknowable (in the Eastern tradition) essence no "pre-" understood "literally" unless God in His essence is a temporal being (as in Process Theism, Open Theism, etc.); classically understood "pre-"/"fore-"/"before" language actually stands for God's eternity, which likewise should not be reduced as a philosophical datum as in philosophical debates between A and B theories of time and the like, but as what is Uncreated and, from our perspective, beyond understanding). God's knowledge of us, His plans for us, His purpose for us, is both before and after the ages of ages as understood from our vantage point, but neither "before" or "after" as to the essence of God as He is in Himself "before all time [note: an oxymoron if taken literally!] and into all the ages, amen" (Jude 26: πρὸ πάντος τοῦ αἰῶνος καὶ νῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν). This is the meaning of the pro- prefixed [English "pre-" or "fore-") words in the Greek NT, not that God exists temporally "in a time frame" (to the contrary, as St. Athanasius so brilliantly pointed out contra the Arians, Christ is said to have created all times in the book of Hebrews). Scriptural usages of terminology like "before"/"pre-"/"fore-" when used of God refer to eternity, not time.[1] In the Bible predestination is never to election, but to the circumstances of election. The biblical term "predestined" literally means before-horizon, as in Christ going before to prepare a place (a "horizon") or those who endure.

The NT frequently affirms that Christ brings us true freedom (cf. "Freedom" in Colin Brown, ed., DNTT, vol 1). *Divinized free will* (2 Pt 1:4) is neither Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian free will, but Christified free will: the freedom of Christ in us. Free will per se cannot be in contradiction to election or foreordination because Christ, who is called the Elect, laid His life down freely: "...I lay down My life so that I may take it again. No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again" (John 10:17-18).

Christ's crucifixion was foreknown, prophecied, foreordained, and freely chosen. One cannot insist these categories are "systematically incompatible" without sacrificing Christ's freedom, or the Father's omniscience or His will for the Son to drink from the bitter cup spoken of in the garden of Gethsemane. The union with Christ spoken of so often in scripture and the fathers is Christ in us and we abiding in Christ apart from whom we can do nothing. As the creeds affirm, Christ is not the dichotomy of God "versus" man (as in Docetism and Gnosticism); he is the unity of God and man. "In Christ" the work of man is united to the work of God. Freedom in Christ (a major biblical theme) is an attribute of the the bondslave of Jesus Christ (doulos Iesou Christou/Rom 1:1 etc); these are not contradictions or "systematic chess pieces to be alternately maximized/minimized/opposed; they are complimentary truths which learn from scripture but which we cannot fully fathom, just as God and man in Christ are not to tested on the bar of human reasoning as the heretics attempted to do, but accepted as what God has revealed, and as experienced by the God-bearing fathers. Freedom in Christ, for example, is realized in "self control" (enkrateia/Gal 5:22), which far from being autonomous control is described by Paul with no sense of contradition as a karpos tou pneumatou -a fruit of God the Holy Spirit; it is not in dialectic or opposition with God's will or act in the sense of producing a false dichotomy between determinism (as the Gnostics held) and indeterminism (as certain pagans and the Pelagians held), but theosis -union with the divine and with deified humanity (2 Pt 1:4), as all the Greek fathers held, that is to say abiding "in Christ."

"...foreknowledge was not in the least a cause of the devil’s becoming evil. For a physician, when he foresees a future illness, does not cause that illness... the physician’s foreknowledge is a sign of his erudition, whereas the cause of the foreknowledge is the fact that things were going to turn out that way. St. John Damascene, Dialogs against Manichees.
______________
[1]Oscar Cullman defined eternity as “time without end” on the basis that NT terminology should be correlated to the Semitic background rather than retroactively related to prior Greek philology, or later developments of it in Scholasticism (Cullman, Oscar, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (Philadelphia, 1953). Certainly Greek and Scholastic concepts of eternity should be tested against the biblical data they claim to illumine. "Philosophically" we might, with Cullman, ask questions such as whether non-temporality would present a formal contradiction with eternity as immanent in time. But such questions may be more a function of the methodological and terminological problems which inhere in human cognition itself (as we also find in the paradoxes which arise in our most vigorously defined mathematical systems; cf. Kline, Morris, Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty (Oxford University Press), e.g. there can be no complete phenomenological account of eternity by a mortal being that can be more than “unending time”; on the other hand, as even Cullman had to admit, the NT “traces back the historical incarnation beyond a preparation proper to the beginnings of time” (Cullman, op cit, p. 92); we should note this problem is no less acute for physics than it is for theology (from the perspective of contemporary physics time is in a matrix/space-time-matter-energy which came into being without cause with any of the characteristics of that matrix; the relation of time to an a-temporal nothing presents problems no less acute and vexing than the relation of time to eternity).

The attempt to try to answer such philosophical problems both theologically and philosophically seems perennial, but we guard against confusing the two lest in rejecting bad philosophy, what is then wrongly supposed to be theology ends in the same ash-heap; e..g. Hans Kung’s answers to Cullman are perfectly legitimate and, I think, "philosophically" valid:

“Let us put it once more sub specie temporis: On the basis of our temporal images we can speak of a time in which the Son of God had ‘not yet’ become man… And now sub specie aeternitatis: When we reason from the viewpoint of God’s eternal manner of existence, we must abandon transitory and temporal conceptions. God has time in its fullness without end; His time is not fragmented into a sequence of present, past, and future. Rather it is the unity of the before, the now, and the hereafter –of beginning, middle, and end. It is erroneous to conceive of the divine Logos as if He had ‘already’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity, just as it would be wrong to imagine that the divine Logos had ‘not yet’ become man in some ‘pre-temporal’ eternity. From this viewpoint there is no such thing in God Himself as an eternity before the incarnation. This would amount to dissolving eternity into an interior time of unlimited duration… On the basis of our temporal images we can ask: What is the Son of God before the incarnation? From the standpoint of eternity, however, the most we can ask is: What would the Logos be without the incarnation? –a question possibly helpful in formulating the absolutely free graciousness of the incarnation. In the realm of eternity, it is impossible to speak simply in the strict sense of a non-incarnate Logos, of a prehistorical, pre-Christian, or post-Christian epoch. In this connection, all terms expressing a “pre” (like predetermination, prevision, predestination, pre-existent Christ) easily mislead, since they result, often unconsciously, in the application of inferior temporal images to God’s eternity. We must not overlook the primacy in knowing which existent act has over all forms of potency. To think of God’s knowing as first focused on the yet-undefined, on the potential and possible and only thereafter on the actual and the real, on the final existential definiteness of things, is an anthropomorphism. It is deceiving to imagine that for God knowledge of possibilities (possiblilia) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing existing things or for deciding to create them. Equally deceiving is the notion that God’s knowledge of what is necessary in His person (for instance, His omnipotence or the Trinity of Persons) could be an anterior prerequisite for knowing what is free in Himself (for example the human nature of the Son)." ("Excursus: The Redeemer in God's Eternity" in Kung, Justification, pp. 285ff. Note: a book I would otherwise grade about C- or D, as if Kung would bother to hand it in to me, lol).


I am trying to focuss more on St. Augustine.Afaik , Blessed Augustine affirmed himself that men was created with free-will but lost it due to the fall.. I don`t remmeber quite the depth of it..
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 28, 2012, 06:50:49 PM »

But isn`t Blessed Augustine saying that by nature due to the fall we are unable to seek God without his grace or something between this lines?

The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on predestination, justification, and original sin is not identical to the teaching of St Augustine. 

I was not saying it is.. I am trying to discuss Augustine's view.

I offered what he taught in a note above.  Folks tend to take Augustine much too far simply by only reading certain parts of his thinking and not others but he did not teach that our wills were destroyed at the time of the fall.  That was not his message.  The will was damaged, or weakened as we say now, not destroyed.

M.
Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.156 seconds with 61 queries.