OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 26, 2014, 04:31:00 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 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy and Calvinism  (Read 15608 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Protestant seeker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


I'm a llama!


« on: March 09, 2003, 08:58:10 PM »

Ephesians 2:1-10

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, and in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the sprit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at
one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive in Christ even when we were dead in
transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For
it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works. For we are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us.”

  Calvinists used these verses to back up their claims about original sin. They say that being “dead in transgressions and sins” means we couldn’t have any free-will or choose in any way to believe in Christ. Dead men can’t choose or act in any way they say. They say
that to believe that man has free-will to accept God’s grace contradicts these scriptures and if one thinks so then one denies salvation by grace alone and adds works.
In other words, God doesn't do all in salvation (semi-Pelagianism) if man has free-will.
   What is the Orthodox response to this? I have read several things by Orthodox writers about orginal sin, but I haven’t seen anyone deal with these specific verses or Calvinists beliefs on them. Does anyone know what the Orthodox Church teaches and responds to
Calvinism on this regard? Any former Calvinists here have an answer?

P.S.
Logged

NULL
varangia
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 26



« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2003, 09:26:30 AM »

Hello Seeker,

You chose the second most hectic week in Orthodoxy to pose your questions!  

I'll try to get back to you in about 50 days with a specific discussion of the phrase "dead in transgressions and sins", as employed by St. Paul in Ephesians Chapter two.  In the meantime, if you have access to a good library, you can check out St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Ephesians.  For right now, it will suffice to say that for Orthodox, the phrase "dead in transgressions and sins" is one of the metaphors used to describe our post-lapsarian state.  Of course, Calvinists interpret this to mean that God specially "resuscitates" only those finite individuals whom He has chosen for salvation, to enable them to be able to respond to the Gospel.  This is the "regeneration" stage in the ordo salutis of classical Reformed theology.  Unlike Calvinists, Orthodox believe that so-called "prevenient grace" is given to all men to respond to God's invitation, and not just to some, because Christ is consubstantial with all men.  In the meantime, I suggest you look at these links:

http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

and the entries for Nov. 8, 19, and 25 on the following blog:  http://pleroma.blogspot.com

If this is your initial exposure to Orthodox theology and you're coming from a Calvinist background, it would be helpful to first understand the categories of nature and person ("ousia" and "hypostasis") in Orthodox trinitarian theology, because these categories are also applied to the Orthodox view of human nature and human personhood, and they dictate how Orthodox do soteriology and how they interpret passages that relate to God's eternal sovereignty, man's condition after the Fall, and Christ's work.

Hope this helps.

Logged

NULL
Oblio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 454

The Pointless One !


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2003, 11:32:24 AM »

Quote
In the meantime, if you have access to a good library, you can check out St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Ephesians.

I'm not sure if they are all there, but here are some online homilies ...

Homilies on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2003, 09:44:53 PM »

I cannot offer you the official Orthodox response to Calvinism (if one even exists), but I can offer you my response as an Orthodox Christian who at one time was heavily involved in Calvinism.

By the way, Luther also taught that human beings do not have free will. His treatise, On the Bondage of the Will, makes that abundantly clear.

What you referred to you in your original post is part of what Calvinists would call Total Depravity, the doctrine that Original Sin has completely ruined humankind, which is dead in sin and condemned from birth, unable to even choose to believe in Christ and do good.

To me there are good reasons for rejecting this doctrine.

1) It is contrary to ordinary common sense.

Most human beings desire the good and are subject to the law of their consciences. Many who are not Christians are nevertheless very moral and upright people.

That is not to say that their own righteousness can save them; it cannot. All human beings are sinners and separated from fellowship and communion with God. Only the grace of God in Jesus Christ can save them.

Ordinary common sense also tells us that it would be unreasonable and unjust for God to condemn people for something about which they have no choice. If I am a sinner because I am absolutely compelled to be a sinner, how can God justly condemn me?

The idea that human beings are born guilty for the sin of their remote ancestors is also contrary to common sense, the concept of justice, and the Orthodox understanding of Original Sin.

How would you feel if agents of the FBI broke into your home, threw you to the floor, then handcuffed and arrested you for a crime your grandfather committed back in 1930?

Would a reasonable person see any justice in such a thing?

How is it then that so many believe that innocent babies are born absolutely damned because of the disobedience of their extremely remote ancestors?

How is it then that some believe we were all "legally present" in Adam?

Justice is justice. If I can imagine a justice higher than God's, then I've got the wrong God.

That is clearly the case with Calvinism, which makes a kind of implacable Moloch out of the God of love.

2) Calvinism runs contrary to the plain sense of Scripture, which speaks of choices between good and evil, between serving God and serving self, and of the love of God for all mankind and His desire that we all be saved.

Though the Bible speaks of all human beings falling short of the glory of God, of our being sinners, yet it also says that human beings were created in God's image, that the Divine Word enlightens every man, that the human conscience is the lamp of God. Many persons throughout the Bible are called "righteous," and human beings, though stumbling often, are honored and respected by God for their efforts at obedience.

Look at the example of Cornelius the Roman centurion in Acts 10. He was neither a Jew nor yet a Christian, yet his alms and prayers were accepted and respected by God. Cornelius exercised his free will to pursue the kingdom of God. He was rewarded when the Lord sent St. Peter to preach the Gospel to him and he and those with him received the Holy Spirit.

The Lord did not turn His back on Cornelius and disregard His alms and prayers as "filthy rags," the products of a "totally depraved" sinner.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Cornelius earned his salvation in some way. No, Cornelius was saved by the grace of God. But it is apparent that he pursued God and did his part to acquire that grace which is freely available to all.

Now Calvinists would argue that the Holy Spirit chose Cornelius and that everything he did was the product of the prompting of the Spirit.

Well, read the account in Acts 10. There is nothing there about the Holy Spirit compelling Cornelius to act as he did. One must begin with Calvinist presuppositions and read them into the biblical account in order to see them.

Undoubtedly the Holy Spirit was working with Cornelius, just as He works with all those who seek the Lord; but there is nothing in Scripture anywhere to support the notion that God's Spirit forces people into faith and repentance.

It is true that human beings are "dead in trespasses and sins." But does that necessarily mean that we are utterly dead and must become Zombie-like creatures, completely controlled by God like marionettes? Can we not even choose to repent and be baptized?

I see no evidence of that in Scripture or the writings of the Church Fathers.

Human beings are dead in trespasses and sins because we are born into a world in which fellowship with God has been broken. Adam and Eve broke fellowship with God; that is Original Sin, and the primary consequence of it was death.

Human beings are dead to God, but Jesus Christ has trampled down death by death. We are able to exercise our free will to choose to believe, repent, and be baptized. In baptism we are raised from spiritual death and experience the "first resurrection," which is the new birth.

Calvinists would argue that dead people cannot choose anything because they are dead. Here I think they are applying a thoroughly wooden kind of literalism which is contrary to Scripture and reason.

Obviously people make choices between Good and Evil, between God and the devil. If those choices are not free, then human beings are merely pawns, and why worry about it at all? Just wait for God to move you to the proper square at the appropriate time and for the Judgment to find out if you were a white piece or a black.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2003, 09:47:36 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Protestant seeker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


I'm a llama!


« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2003, 11:39:50 AM »

Linus7 and others,

  Good answer! Thanks for your response! I think you are absolutely correct that Calvinism runs contrary to common sense and the "plain meaning of Scripture". Ironically it is the Calvinism who say that doctrine should be formulated from "the plain meaning of Scripture."

P.S.
Logged

NULL
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,841


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #5 on: October 26, 2008, 05:56:03 PM »

FROM LINUS7:  I cannot offer you the official Orthodox response to Calvinism (if one even exists),

Wouldn't that be the Confession of Dositheus?
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2008, 07:15:25 PM »

Quote
Wouldn't that be the Confession of Dositheus?

I would guess so, though I'm hesistant to call it "official" because of it's Latin character in parts, and IMO unorthodox teachings.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2009, 03:55:11 AM »

The writers of the Bible often used hyperbole. For example, expressions like "dead in our trespasses and sins," "there are none who are righteous," etc. are statements of hyperbole that are used to express the authors' sincere grief over sin and unrighteousness before a holy God. But these are not literal statements, for the Bible also talks often about righteous people such as King Josiah and the long list of righteous saints recorded in Hebrews 11.

Apart from the Cross of Christ there is no hope for redemption from sin. But free will is perhaps the greatest divinely-granted gift with which all humans are innately endowed. None of us can boast of our own salvation. Christ alone saves us, and yet we must "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling."  

One of the things that I love about Orthodoxy is the acceptance of mystery. How these apparent paradoxes are reconciled only God knows. And certainly a crucial aspect of our salvation is the humbling of ourselves before the teachings and truths of God and His Church, however difficult these truths may be for our finite minds.


I used to be a Martin Luther devotee. I was a 4 point Calvinist and a Dispensationalist. I was baptized into the Ethiopian Orthodox Church one year ago. I am so thankful for the Orthodox Faith! I only wish that I had learned about my beautiful Orthodox Church long ago.

Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2010, 08:16:53 PM »

Hard-core Calvinism with Mark Driscoll. Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2010, 09:14:01 PM »

The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 was a point-by-point refutation of the Calvnist beliefs of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucaris. Many of the decrees of the council were more Roman Catholic than Orthodox (like babies burning in hell), but they made their point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672)
Logged
dllwatkins
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2010, 04:38:24 PM »

I've briefly looked, quite a while ago, for an exposition on Romans 2:14-15 in Calvin and couldn't find anything.  No wonder, since the Holy Apostle Paul says "For when the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things in the law...show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness..."  This doesn't sound like Calvin's view of Total Depravity to me.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2010, 04:14:56 PM »

The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 was a point-by-point refutation of the Calvnist beliefs of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucaris. Many of the decrees of the council were more Roman Catholic than Orthodox (like babies burning in hell), but they made their point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672)

The Blessed Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was certainly NOT a Calvinist, not being the author of the spurious confession ascribed to him, having anathematized it and Calvinism (and Roman Catholicism), having been a tireless missionary for Orthodoxy, and having suffered martyrdom at the hands of papal agents.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17556.msg254954.html#msg254954

For more:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23839.msg365010.html#msg365010
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #12 on: June 01, 2010, 03:10:24 PM »

The Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 was a point-by-point refutation of the Calvnist beliefs of the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril Lucaris. Many of the decrees of the council were more Roman Catholic than Orthodox (like babies burning in hell), but they made their point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Jerusalem_(1672)

The Blessed Patriarch Cyril Lukaris was certainly NOT a Calvinist, not being the author of the spurious confession ascribed to him, having anathematized it and Calvinism (and Roman Catholicism), having been a tireless missionary for Orthodoxy, and having suffered martyrdom at the hands of papal agents.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,17556.msg254954.html#msg254954

For more:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,23839.msg365010.html#msg365010

Thank you Shanghaiski, I did not know this.
Logged
Super Apostolic Bros.
Is St. Andrew Luigi to St. Peter's Mario?
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 227



« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2010, 06:03:30 PM »

I guess Wikipedia can't be trusted as a source on Orthodoxy.
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: June 03, 2010, 10:44:47 AM »

I guess Wikipedia can't be trusted as a source on Orthodoxy.

Or anything, really.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 03, 2010, 01:15:57 PM »


and the entries for Nov. 8, 19, and 25 on the following blog:  http://pleroma.blogspot.com

It appears that all the articles for this blog have been deleted.

Edit:  I just noticed that this thread is several years old.  Oops. 
« Last Edit: June 03, 2010, 01:25:07 PM by akimel » Logged

sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #16 on: June 09, 2010, 07:46:57 AM »

Hard-core Calvinism with Mark Driscoll. Shocked

Just curious Jetavan. What is your opinion with this?
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: June 09, 2010, 11:45:11 AM »

Do EOs believe in any form of predestination?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Rufus
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: leet


Nafpliotis with sunglasses and a cigar.


« Reply #18 on: June 09, 2010, 04:36:14 PM »

Do EOs believe in any form of predestination?

Only that God has foreknowledge of our decisions. But we believe in free will, of course. Why?
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #19 on: June 09, 2010, 05:20:16 PM »

Do EOs believe in any form of predestination?

Only that God has foreknowledge of our decisions. But we believe in free will, of course. Why?
I just wanted to know. I wasn't sure.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2010, 02:30:07 AM »

I was Presbyterian before I became Orthodox. One thing that influenced my decision was a Presbyterian minister informing me that John Calvin oversaw the execution of Michael Servetus.

Servetus committed heresy by denying the Trinity. He was in Geneva where the Calvinists controlled the city. Calvin said Servetus would not leave Geneva alive. Servetus was burned on top of his books, his last words basically being the Jesus Prayer.

Calvin wrote:
Quote
"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are... we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."
In other words, when a Calvinist theocracy battles over theology, it must forget compassion.

The executioner image of the founder of Calvinism clashed sharply with my image of the compassionate, forgiving image of Jesus and the founders of the Christian Church. I read a case where an early saint disagreed with a heretic, but strongly protested when the emperor killed him.


This ruthlessness continued in the Puritan colonies of New England and perhaps is reflected in hostile attitudes of modern Calvinists (baptists, Evangelicals etc) towards Catholics.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 02:32:12 AM by rakovsky » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 12, 2010, 02:47:07 AM »

I was Presbyterian before I became Orthodox. One thing that influenced my decision was a Presbyterian minister informing me that John Calvin oversaw the execution of Michael Servetus.

Servetus committed heresy by denying the Trinity. He was in Geneva where the Calvinists controlled the city. Calvin said Servetus would not leave Geneva alive. Servetus was burned on top of his books, his last words basically being the Jesus Prayer.

Calvin wrote:
Quote
"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are... we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."
In other words, when a Calvinist theocracy battles over theology, it must forget compassion.

The executioner image of the founder of Calvinism clashed sharply with my image of the compassionate, forgiving image of Jesus and the founders of the Christian Church. I read a case where an early saint disagreed with a heretic, but strongly protested when the emperor killed him.


This ruthlessness continued in the Puritan colonies of New England and perhaps is reflected in hostile attitudes of modern Calvinists (baptists, Evangelicals etc) towards Catholics.

Yep. I too used to be a PCA Presbyterian. My experience was that they loved to preach grace but treated me with anything but. They say you are "saved by grace," but then after you are "saved" you'd better d*mn well toe the line!


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 12, 2010, 03:07:35 AM »

Quote
They say you are "saved by grace," but then after you are "saved" you'd better d*mn well toe the line!
Yes, because if you don't, that means you were not really saved in the first place.

And if you told us you knew you believed and were saved, and you weren't, then what were you? A liar. And chronic liars cannot be trusted.

Now we will decide how you will be dealt with! police


Calvinism is an evil system.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 03:09:51 AM by rakovsky » Logged
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #23 on: June 12, 2010, 06:28:18 AM »

I am an Orthodox Christian. However if not for a Presbyterian minister and family I would not be Christian. These were some of the most gentle, forgiving, compassionate people you would ever meet. Calvinists sometimes get a bum rap. Please don't assume they are all like you see on Youtube.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 12, 2010, 04:59:20 PM »

Many Presbyterians are unaware of Calvin (I even forgot we learned about him at Confirmation) or "Predestination" despite learning it in sermons etc. Calvinism is such a huge movement in democratic America that it includes very compassionate people and congregations. I like the "Presbyterian Church USA," which I perceive as the most liberal.

I was baptized Lutheran and my parents were married Lutheran. Luther started the Reformation, not Calvin. Why should I accept Presbyterian Calvinism?

An objective look at the founder, system, and broad experience of Calvinism, as distinguished from Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Quakerism, and Orthodoxy, shows it to be the most harshly puritannical, where the person is either fully saved 100%, or not saved and going to hell. Calvinism teaches that God chooses some people to be real Christians and they cannot resist God's choice of them, and he has not chosen to reveal himself to the rest, who will therefore suffer eternal hellfire.

Calvinism has frightening consequences. Those who know they are saved know they cannot do any serious wrong, since they cannot become unsaved. This kind of logic would lead such a self-assured person to forget the normal checks we might have.

My brother and I were confirmed Presbyterian Church USA and my brother remembers the confirmation telling him Calvin was good. And I read in a church book about Presbyterianism's history that they trace their roots from the Puritans, who they admire as very good. I see the puritans as a harsh puritannical society that violated God's laws by harshly punishing and humiliating the sinners. Perhaps Puritans abused the Christian sinners, thinking IF THEY SIN THEY MUST NOT BE SAVED, AND ARE FAKE CHRISTIANS?

I read Nathianel Hawthorne's "THE SCARLET LETTER" in highschool and the "Witch of Blackbird Pond." I know what the Puritans were like. Did they also ban alcohol and dancing?

The book that most changed my understanding of Calvinism as a teenager was:

Spare the Child: The Religious Roots of Punishment and the Psychological Impact of Physical Abuse by Philip J. Greven , Vintage Books, 1992

The title refers to the Puritan saying "Spare the Rod and Spoil the Child". The book discusses how central abusing sinning children ("beating the devil out of" the unsaved) is to Calvinist family-rearing.

After that I absolutely rejected Calvinism. The book gave me a completely different way to looking at it, and really opened my eyes. After that it was time to become either a traditional Christian or a peacenik. It was not long after that I became Orthodox! The book has been a spiritual blessing! Thank you God. The phenomenon was not something I wanted to be real, but it is better that I understand it.


I very strongly recommend this book to everyone touched by the Calvinist movement.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 05:14:57 PM by rakovsky » Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 12, 2010, 05:00:01 PM »

I am an Orthodox Christian. However if not for a Presbyterian minister and family I would not be Christian. These were some of the most gentle, forgiving, compassionate people you would ever meet. Calvinists sometimes get a bum rap. Please don't assume they are all like you see on Youtube.


True. There are some very compassionate Calvinists out there. I became a Christian through a Presbyterian college outreach ministry. So, like you, I am here today because of Presbyterian efforts. But I think the heterodox teachings of Protestantism lead people astray in so many ways. I became so confused, guilt-ridden, and frustrated by many of these well-intentioned people who claimed to speak for Christ. So, now I tend to be very critical of heresies like Calvinism, Dispensationalism, etc. I don't want others to suffer like I did.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2010, 05:07:24 PM »

Selam!
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 12, 2010, 06:21:45 PM »


(Source: http://www.calvin.edu)


1552 School Seal


Caption: A 1552 school seal from Louth Grammar School in England bears the motto “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

The schools' seal suggests whipping children is the most important part of teaching at this Calvin-era school!

This seal is taken from the UNC"s School of Education website. (http://www.learnnc.org )

North Carolina has many Calvinist "Bible-Believing" (meaning they believe the Bible, NOT church tradition) fundamentalists.
Many North Carolina schools continue to use Corporal Punishment today, and beat children, including 18 year olf highschool students with thick boards that often leave thick bruises for puritan-defined sins like "lateness" or "whispering in class."

Calvinism is an evil system of thought where its "teachers" and earthly authorities brutalize sinners in God's name.

In executing Servantus, Calvin "taught": "Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity."

This puritan system says that since the teachers are saved, they cannot isolate themselves from God, even if they whip and execute human beings. When children sin they show themselves unsaved and going to hell. They believe God tells them to beat or execute unsaved sinning humans and that in hell the demons would punish them.

THE PURITAN "TEACHERS" ACT LIKE THE DEMONS WHO THEY BELIEVE GOD USES TO PUNISH SINNERS IN HELL.

CALVINISM IS DEMONIC, not because it rejects Luther, rejects the Orthodox church or has heresies because it teaches the forever-saved to play the same role as demons, "forgetting all humanity."
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 06:53:45 PM by rakovsky » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #28 on: June 12, 2010, 07:22:23 PM »

Eh, I don't have a problem with corporal punishment. Beating kids unto bruises is extreme, but "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is something I personally agree with and anecdotally I find quite effective. Maybe it's my own Calvinist upbringing, but in my case and in the case of most of the people I grew up with, it worked quite well.

(And, I don't recall anyone ever being told they were going to hell because they acted badly. It's all predestined anyway, so why worry about such things? Cheesy  But seriously, while the religion is indeed called "Calvinism", he does not have such an absolute strangehold that he is above question. If he indeed taught that, I never saw it implemented, and we were pretty diehard Calvinists.)

While I now agree with you that Calvinism is demonic for his theology, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say corporal punishment and other social institutions you don't agree with are a result of Calvinism, or are inherently wrong by their own right because they happen to come from Calvinist cultures anecdotally.

As an aside, thanks for posting that image of The Banner. My, my...the memories come flooding back. Not all bad ones. Smiley
Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #29 on: June 12, 2010, 07:27:09 PM »


(Source: http://www.calvin.edu)


1552 School Seal


Caption: A 1552 school seal from Louth Grammar School in England bears the motto “Spare the rod and spoil the child.”

The schools' seal suggests whipping children is the most important part of teaching at this Calvin-era school!

This seal is taken from the UNC"s School of Education website. (http://www.learnnc.org )

North Carolina has many Calvinist "Bible-Believing" (meaning they believe the Bible, NOT church tradition) fundamentalists.
Many North Carolina schools continue to use Corporal Punishment today, and beat children, including 18 year olf highschool students with thick boards that often leave thick bruises for puritan-defined sins like "lateness" or "whispering in class."

Calvinism is an evil system of thought where its "teachers" and earthly authorities brutalize sinners in God's name.

In executing Servantus, Calvin "taught": "Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity."

This puritan system says that since the teachers are saved, they cannot isolate themselves from God, even if they whip and execute human beings. When children sin they show themselves unsaved and going to hell. They believe God tells them to beat or execute unsaved sinning humans and that in hell the demons would punish them.

THE PURITAN "TEACHERS" ACT LIKE THE DEMONS WHO THEY BELIEVE GOD USES TO PUNISH SINNERS IN HELL.

CALVINISM IS DEMONIC, not because it rejects Luther, rejects the Orthodox church or has heresies because it teaches the forever-saved to play the same role as demons, "forgetting all humanity."
Come on, I went to school where virtually everyone was Orthodox, teachers and students, yet we were beaten for an even greater variety of reasons than the two you mentioned.
Logged
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2010, 08:25:10 PM »

I was baptized Presbyterian ag age 15; the parish was mainline Protestant, and the stricter version of five-point Calvinism (TULIP) was not taught.  The church was, however, liturgical sterile; I wandered into Lutheranism, sojourned a bit with liberal Baptist, and latterly spent 20 years as an Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox; by that time, I had rejected anything that smacked of theological determinism.
Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2010, 08:28:53 PM »

I agree with Bogdan and Augustin717. Violence and abuse is hardly 'Calvinist' by design or in nature. At the Orthodox church I usually go to there is a Russian style icon of two lives, one with and one without God. Among other things the sinner beats his wife and kids. It is interesting to note that this icon showed this guy being given Orthodox Christian instruction. So as has been said, abuse is not perfectly synonymous with Calvin or any other individual.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 08:30:51 PM by sprtslvr1973 » Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 12, 2010, 09:04:56 PM »

Thank you for your interest. I believe you seek the truth in rejecting Calvinisting ways for Orthodox ones.

Look at the practices of Calvinist communities- the Puritans and the South today, with its frequent executions and vicious school beatings.

Now compare it to the practices of traditional Christian countries today and the spiritual Orthodox communities. Experience and a sense of compassion brought me from Calvinist Churches to Orthodoxy.


Beating kids unto bruises is extreme, but "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is something I personally agree. Maybe it's my own Calvinist upbringing.

You are right that beating children to bruises is extreme. But if you agree with fiercely beating children and teenagers with rods then you are right it is from your Calvinist upbringing. And I say this not looking down on you. It is clear how to accept the main Orthodox doctrines and become part of the church, but not having grown up in an Orthodox region it is hard to take on the customs that we would have in an Orthodox community.

(And, I don't recall anyone ever being told they were going to hell because they acted badly. It's all predestined anyway, so why worry about such things?

Why indeed. This was a central concern of the Puritan communities in meeting out their hell-style "justice." At the Evangelical school I went to we were taught that the Holy Spirit would prevent us from committing serious sins, it acted like a huge pressure against it. For the Puritan theocracy, the person's sins showed that they were unsaved. Flogging and overnight pillory swiftly followed. This is the legacy of Puritanism.


While I now agree with you that Calvinism is demonic for his theology,

Please tell me what you have discovered is demonic in Calvinist theology, Bogdan.


I think it's a bit of a stretch to say corporal punishment and other social institutions are inherently wrong by their own right because they happen to come from Calvinist cultures anecdotally.
"Theoretically" I agree. But now that I think of it, please tell me a wonderful social institution whose main source is Calvinism? Board-whipping of adult criminals, teenagers, and toddlers is a horrible practice.

Greven's book Spare the Child is very deep with many anecdotes about Calvinism, and a deep anecdotal insight into its theology. My life experience with Calvinism is an anecdote. I urge you to read it. Bogdan, how can I tell you what a difference it me in bringing me to the Orthodox faith?

Quote
As an aside, thanks for posting that image of The Banner. My, my...the memories come flooding back. Not all bad ones.
They are never all bad.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 09:05:43 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 12, 2010, 09:07:52 PM »

I was baptized Presbyterian ag age 15; the parish was mainline Protestant, and the stricter version of five-point Calvinism (TULIP) was not taught.  The church was, however, liturgical sterile; I wandered into Lutheranism, sojourned a bit with liberal Baptist, and latterly spent 20 years as an Episcopalian before becoming Orthodox; by that time, I had rejected anything that smacked of theological determinism.

Yes Cymbyz, this is my experience. I do not even remember learning Calvin's TULIP in Confirmation. What shall my faith be? The propositions of an executioner of heretics, himself a heretic from the supposed Catholic faith? Or shall my faith be that of the early church?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 09:08:02 PM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2010, 09:23:36 PM »

Come on, I went to school where virtually everyone was Orthodox, teachers and students, yet we were beaten for an even greater variety of reasons than the two you mentioned.

This is awful. Where was this? If in America, it is the proof that Orthodox have assimilated and accepted the Calvinist ways pervasive in America. This is the danger for American Orthodox- the common idea that "it is all the same." The association that what the Calvinists AKA Baptists say is right because that is what everyone accepts. The Old Testament says to kill heretics like Calvin did and whip poor little kids, so that is Christianity.    Wrong!


Now as for Orthodox whipping children in schools is that what the orthodox Church recommends? No!

Russia abolished Corporal Punishment for citizens in 1860 when it was still officially Orthodox, and I read this applied to schools.

Among many other sources suggesting the ban related to schools is, Boris Mironov's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404100306.html

And Russia definitely did not have school beatings after 1917.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2010, 09:26:26 PM »

I agree with Bogdan and Augustin717. Violence and abuse is hardly 'Calvinist' by design or in nature. At the Orthodox church I usually go to there is a Russian style icon of two lives, one with and one without God. Among other things the sinner beats his wife and kids. It is interesting to note that this icon showed this guy being given Orthodox Christian instruction. So as has been said, abuse is not perfectly synonymous with Calvin or any other individual.

SPRTSLVR,

Where have you seen this icon? Note that you said you saw the beating portrayed AFTER he received instruction, not during the instruction. It sounds like the Orthodox Church is portraying him as disobeying the instruction! Hypocrisy! Yet this is what calvinism teaches- to ignore the teachings of the Orthodox Church and to harm the sinners like the demons do, "forgetting all humanity!"

Spare not the child? "Spare not the heretics' blood" and "forget all humanity?" Calvinism is demonic!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 09:33:13 PM by rakovsky » Logged
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2010, 10:30:28 PM »

Come on, I went to school where virtually everyone was Orthodox, teachers and students, yet we were beaten for an even greater variety of reasons than the two you mentioned.

This is awful. Where was this? If in America, it is the proof that Orthodox have assimilated and accepted the Calvinist ways pervasive in America. This is the danger for American Orthodox- the common idea that "it is all the same." The association that what the Calvinists AKA Baptists say is right because that is what everyone accepts. The Old Testament says to kill heretics like Calvin did and whip poor little kids, so that is Christianity.    Wrong!


Now as for Orthodox whipping children in schools is that what the orthodox Church recommends? No!

Russia abolished Corporal Punishment for citizens in 1860 when it was still officially Orthodox, and I read this applied to schools.

Among many other sources suggesting the ban related to schools is, Boris Mironov's ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RUSSIAN HISTORY
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404100306.html

And Russia definitely did not have school beatings after 1917.
It was in Romania, although the school wasn't church sponsored (only seminaries are), most of us were,of course, of the dominant religion of the country.
Corporal punishment (being hit with a long stick, being slapped on the face etc) was common place. I has only recently been outlawed , to bring the system in line with the European standards.
Violence is as common in Orthodox societies, as it is in any other societies.
Grandfather would tell us how, before Communism, they used to have religion classes taught by the priest; he would beat himself the kids that didn't know the creed etc. He also used to beat a kid whose parents were not Orthodox, I think, and wouldn't make the sign of the Cross.
I have many more anecdotes like these.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2010, 10:31:42 PM »

Having given you my belief that Calvinism teaches vicious punishments for the unsaved, I should show you why the Orthodox Church teaches Otherwise!

Quote
Apply thine heart unto instruction, and thine ears to the words of knowledge.
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23)

Can you not see that this is a prefigurement of Christ? Whose words of knowledge save us? Whose son was beaten with the rod based on Old Testament instructions about blasphemers? Whose son did not die but was delivered from hell? Who fulfilled this scripture?Huh

Quote
he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (Isaiah 53)

Who must I follow? Must I follow the executioner John Calvin or must I follow the forgiving Messiah who has borne our chastisement for us?

What is Jesus' good news? What is the instruction that gives me joy?

Quote
Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. Colossians 3:21

It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. Luke 17:2

What does it mean to offend or anger a child?
Quote
The babe that weeps the rod beneath.
Writes Revenge! in realms of death.
--Auguries of Innocence by William Blake
(Have you noticed that Protestants often quote eachother's interpretations as authority, they just don't call it that?)

The practice in Calvinist-dominated Southern communities is to beat children and teenagers with thick wooden boards. Bruises like those on this child protection site that opposes school beatings are common, and the Calvinist states pass "techer protection laws" so parents can never sue for any bruising beatings, even if the parents told the school they do not want their own children beaten!
http://www.nospank.net/whacked3.htm

Now the burden is on loyal, compassionate Calvinists to explain why the large communities dedicated to Calvinism legally abuse children on a large scale today.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2010, 10:57:41 PM »

Augustin,

I am very sorry to hear about the abuse in Stalin-style Romania.

At least the "Communist Party" of Romania recognized that school beatings were wrong and outlawed them in principle, so the beatings must have been a holdover from the pre-Communist monarchist/Nazi-allied "education" ingrained in them.

Quote
Corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited since 1948. This is confirmed in the Education Law (article 157) and the Internal Regulations governing schools and care institutions (articles 5 and 9). The Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of the Child also applies (http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/romania.html).

On the opposite end, Calvinism actually encourages "beaitng the devil out of them" and using the rod (caning) frequently so as not to "spare it" and all the other anger-filled demon-style attitudes that accompany it. The church teaches that anger is one of the deadly sins. Vicious beatings are often given in anger. But Calvinism doesn't care about that. What is important is "forgetting humanity" when you enforce God's Old Testament laws against heretics.


heading: "In total it has been claimed that 60 people were burnt alive at the stake, in Calvin's theocratic city of God"
Quote
"I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail" (Letters of John Calvin, pg. 82; 4, pg. 174.)

 On 27 October 1903, some European and American Calvinists came together to erect a monument, in remembrance of Michael Servetus:
"Reverent and grateful sons of Calvin, our great Reformer, but condemning an error which was of his age"

Whose son are you? The son of Calvin following the Old Testament "instructions" to beat children and execute heretics?

Or are you God's child? Jesus, our "big brother" has taken the chastisements and stripes of the law upon himself. He has given us knowledge and instructions not to offend or anger children and the church teaches us to avoid anger ourselves. Please follow the New Testament instructions of love and forgiveness.
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2010, 11:05:54 PM »

Quote
"O my God! What miseries and mockeries did I then experience when it was impressed on me that obedience to my teachers was proper to my boyhood estate if I was to flourish in this world and distinguish myself in those tricks of speech which would gain honor for me among men, and deceitful riches! To this end I was sent to school to get learning, the value of which I knew not--wretch that I was. Yet if I was slow to learn, I was flogged. For this was deemed praiseworthy by our forefathers and many had passed before us in the same course, and thus had built up the precedent for the sorrowful road on which we too were compelled to travel, multiplying labor and sorrow upon the sons of Adam. About this time, O Lord, I observed men praying to thee, and I learned from them to conceive thee--after my capacity for understanding as it was then--to be some great Being, who, though not visible to our senses, was able to hear and help us. Thus as a boy I began to pray to thee, my Help and my Refuge, and, in calling on thee, broke the bands of my tongue. Small as I was, I prayed with no slight earnestness that I might not be beaten at school. And when thou didst not heed me--for that would have been giving me over to my folly--my elders and even my parents too, who wished me no ill, treated my stripes as a joke, though they were then a great and grievous ill to me."

"Is there anyone, O Lord, with a spirit so great, who cleaves to thee with such steadfast affection (or is there even a kind of obtuseness that has the same effect)--is there any man who, by cleaving devoutly to thee, is endowed with so great a courage that he can regard indifferently those racks and hooks and other torture weapons from which men throughout the world pray so fervently to be spared; and can they scorn those who so greatly fear these torments, just as my parents were amused at the torments with which our teachers punished us boys? For we were no less afraid of our pains, nor did we beseech thee less to escape them. Yet, even so, we were sinning by writing or reading or studying less than our assigned lessons."

"For I did not, O Lord, lack memory or capacity, for, by thy will, I possessed enough for my age. However, my mind was absorbed only in play, and I was punished for this by those who were doing the same things themselves. But the idling of our elders is called business; the idling of boys, though quite like it, is punished by those same elders, and no one pities either the boys or the men. For will any common sense observer agree that I was rightly punished as a boy for playing ball--just because this hindered me from learning more quickly those lessons by means of which, as a man, I could play at more shameful games? And did he by whom I was beaten do anything different? When he was worsted in some small controversy with a fellow teacher, he was more tormented by anger and envy than I was when beaten by a playmate in the ball game."

St. Augustine reflects on boyhood punishments and the punishers

Excerpt from Confessions, Chapter IX, Book One (A.D. 398)

States with official abolition of corporal punishment in home and schools include:
Republic of Moldova (2008)
Greece (2006)
Ukraine (2004)
Romania (2004)
Bulgaria (2000)
Cyprus (1994)
Finland (1983)

States with official abolition of institutional corporal punishment include:
Russia and Russian Alaska (1860 - applied to schools)


Full list of Western industrial countries with corporal punishment in home AND schools
USA (20 states where Calvinism is predominant)

Full list of Western Industrial countries with frequent capital punishment:
USA (strongest in the most Calvinist states)

Calvinism is the doctrine urging much suffering in America.

Why do you say Calvinism is demonic, Bogdan?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2010, 11:27:23 PM by rakovsky » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2010, 01:23:15 AM »

Thank you for your interest. I believe you seek the truth in rejecting Calvinisting ways for Orthodox ones.

Look at the practices of Calvinist communities- the Puritans and the South today, with its frequent executions and vicious school beatings.

Now compare it to the practices of traditional Christian countries today and the spiritual Orthodox communities. Experience and a sense of compassion brought me from Calvinist Churches to Orthodoxy.

I cannot argue with your personal experience, but I suppose I have simply never seen as much of a difference. The Calvinist/Christian private school I went to growing up had light corporal punishment, but the teachers would also give the skin off their backs for their students if they could. People were very kind, loving, and generous—but firm. Mouth off to your parents, or your teacher, or your friend's parents, and punishment will come swiftly thereafter. But it all struck me as rather idyllic, and it still does, so I'm afraid I can't relate from that standpoint. Of course, it was the same with the few Catholics I knew, so this parenting style does not strike me as peculiar to Calvinism.

Beating kids unto bruises is extreme, but "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is something I personally agree. Maybe it's my own Calvinist upbringing.

You are right that beating children to bruises is extreme. But if you agree with fiercely beating children and teenagers with rods then you are right it is from your Calvinist upbringing. And I say this not looking down on you. It is clear how to accept the main Orthodox doctrines and become part of the church, but not having grown up in an Orthodox region it is hard to take on the customs that we would have in an Orthodox community.

But I don't understand how this is peculiar to Calvinism. I consider corporal punishment more peculiar to conservative regions, which may be more likely to be Calvinist, but I don't know which factor drives the other. Catholics also have a reputation for corporal punishment, and surely they're not Calvinist. Maybe it has to do with Western Christianity, but then it becomes such a broad factor that I'm not sure how much it counts.

(And, I don't recall anyone ever being told they were going to hell because they acted badly. It's all predestined anyway, so why worry about such things?

Why indeed. This was a central concern of the Puritan communities in meeting out their hell-style "justice." At the Evangelical school I went to we were taught that the Holy Spirit would prevent us from committing serious sins, it acted like a huge pressure against it. For the Puritan theocracy, the person's sins showed that they were unsaved. Flogging and overnight pillory swiftly followed. This is the legacy of Puritanism.

Interesting. I suppose I was taught these kinds of things implicitly, but not explicitly. I mean, good order and hard work I consider Christian values, not just Calvinist ones. Perhaps I'm such a product of my culture I can't see it. It would be interesting to see how cradle Orthodox parent their children. What alternative is there, a hands-off approach with positive reinforcement? That seems so much like a dereliction of parental duty to me. I confess I've never really sought to observe that aspect of Orthodox life. Maybe I should.


While I now agree with you that Calvinism is demonic for his theology,

Please tell me what you have discovered is demonic in Calvinist theology, Bogdan.

It's more about the way he views God. The implication that God is the creator of evil, because he is SO sovereign that absolutely everything is under his control. The implication that God creates some people for damnation. That kind of thing. I never thought to apply these concepts to family life. Maybe we're not as purist as I thought.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say corporal punishment and other social institutions are inherently wrong by their own right because they happen to come from Calvinist cultures anecdotally.
"Theoretically" I agree. But now that I think of it, please tell me a wonderful social institution whose main source is Calvinism? Board-whipping of adult criminals, teenagers, and toddlers is a horrible practice.

Greven's book Spare the Child is very deep with many anecdotes about Calvinism, and a deep anecdotal insight into its theology. My life experience with Calvinism is an anecdote. I urge you to read it. Bogdan, how can I tell you what a difference it me in bringing me to the Orthodox faith?

Most Calvinists who I have cornered on these subjects are quick to condemn that kind of treatment—board-whipping and such. I don't know anyone who is so purist that they gloss over gross abuse.

I think there has to be a happy medium. No, kids should not live in abject fear of their parents (and if that's what some Calvinists suggest, I condemn that wholeheartedly), but neither should parents act like many do today: following their kids around begging them to do the right thing but doing nothing to compel them when necessary (that is my image of non-corporal-punishment child-rearing, and maybe that's wrong too). Children should have a healthy respect for authority, and that requires the authority to wisely assert itself at times if kids don't give them respect by virtue of their inherent authority. I admit I don't know where the precise boundary is.

I hope that helps clarify a bit. Bottom line: parents and teachers should not be cruel, but they should not be doormats either.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2010, 02:05:06 AM »

Hard-core Calvinism with Mark Driscoll. Shocked

That is the church our family attended for a decade before we converted. Driscoll didn't used to be that hardcore, he used to be more like a 4.5 point Calvinist. We left at a very good time. Cheesy
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 13, 2010, 05:28:00 AM »

Regarding Catholic schools: Before Vatican II they were more abusive than public schools, which also used corporal punishment. There is much ancedotal evidence showing this. Today ALL Catholic Diocese schools in America have abolished corporal punishment.

Calvinist communities in the South have school beatings on a large scale. about 7% of Mississippi students are beaten every year, not counting re-beatings.

Quote
The implication that God is the creator of evil, because he is SO sovereign that absolutely everything is under his control.

Wow.


Quote
Most Calvinists who I have cornered on these subjects are quick to condemn that kind of treatment—board-whipping and such.

You cornered them about this? Awesome.

Quote
I don't know anyone who is so purist that they gloss over gross abuse.
We in the North are not familiar with life in the strict Calvinist communities in the South or what goes on in the teenage "boot-camp" desert compounds where they send their kids who act up. About 200,000 students of all ages (though a high percent are black) are beaten with thick boards every year in schools, regularly leaving bruises. In Texas, a prisoner is executed each week.

Quote
Children should have a healthy respect for authority, and that requires the authority to wisely assert itself at times if kids don't give them respect by virtue of their inherent authority. I admit I don't know where the precise boundary is.

Sure. You have to be firm. You have to be firm when training your dog, but you aren't supposed to hit them. I want to treat my child with more respect than a dog or a prisoner, or an orphan. Russian orphanages are not supposed to hit children. The US uses a foster care system instead of orphanages and the foster parents in the South are allowed to whip children.

I know tough parents and respectful kids who do not have corporal punishment in their relationship, at least this is what they say. I would say about half of Orthodox use corporal punishment, guessing from the polls on this site and my conversations. That doesn't make it right or wrong. But it contradicts the Calvinist doctrine on family rearing where "spare the the rod and spoil the child" is so ingrained they think it is a Bible verse.

A tough army sergeant has a site parenting Without Punishing www.nopunish.net , uses no punishment, and some good anecdotes. His students did not believe that kids would be respectful if they were never punished. He brought his young kids to class and the students were very impressed. Anecdotes.

I believe that hitting children is wrong, since we extend the courtesy of nonviolence to prisoners, orphans and dogs. But one doesn't have to share my extreme compassionate view to see the problem with Calvinism's emphasis on punishment, "forgetting all humanity," from school beatings to executing heretics.




« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 06:01:38 AM by rakovsky » Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 13, 2010, 06:20:32 AM »

Sprtslvr1973,

I have also seen this icon at ROCOR's Cathedral in Jordanville, criticizing the angry person who is hitting his crying child and a jar is broken. Also in Russia I saw an icon-style painting of the life of Alexander II, showing a man breaking sicks, captioned "abolition of corporal punishment."

At a winter youth retreat at an OCA monastery, a friend told me that a saint once slapped a heretic. I heard that some desert fathers did this. I believe that slapping heretics is wrong. But this is a far cry from holding little kids down on a desk and beating them repeatedly, which happens every day in southern schools.

Also at the retreat a Matushka told me strongly that she hit her kids. One of the other youngsters told me not to worry about her- her daughter had rebelled and was now a dancer. I am not talking about square dancing.

Sure, some kids can have a well-whipped upbringing and turn out well because their parents love them. But whippings harden others and they don't realize what it did because it is ingrained in them.

More anecdotes. But this is my experience about Orthodoxy.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: June 13, 2010, 09:55:23 AM »

To Calvin's credit he did intend to correct a corrupt religious organisation but in the process he created some of the most unusual doctrines humanity has ever encountered.

Also to Calvin's credit - he openly admits in his Institutes that he was himself at first quite repelled by the God which he discerned in the Scriptures and that he cannot blame other men for being repelled also.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: June 13, 2010, 10:05:14 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?

Is it possible that the differences in theology (our conceptualisation of God, the salvation of the elect irrespective of their sins, the damnation of the non-elect, again irrespective of their personal goodness or their sins) and also in anthropology(total depravity, etc.) are so disparate that something utterly new was introduced by Calvin? Can traditional Christianity and Calvinism be reconciled?

Hilaire Belloc, in a fascinating essay, answers in the negative - he says that the God of Calvin is not the Christian God.  I will just reproduce Belloc's more insightful paragraphs:


"......What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest and
most perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it,
and he made it supreme, by fitting it with the kneading of a powerful
mind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated
with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.

"........ God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind.
That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it
was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the
Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare.
Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with
the old pagan horror of compulsion: "Ananke." He reintroduced the Inexorable.

"....... Yes, [Calvin teaches that] God had become Man and had died
to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as he
had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits
of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation
is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing.
The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship
of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind;
the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form.
He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good
and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One
Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary
and eternal suffering."



Belloc's essay on Calvin is here and the whole thing is well worth the read:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eba91950c3.htm

If Belloc is right, then Calvin created a God which is not the Biblical
one, but a return to an older concept of divinity- the God of Fate, the
God of the Inexorable against whom there is no appeal. All is
predetermined, predestined. Fate rules again, as it did in most of the
belief systems of the pagan world.

Fr Ambrose
Logged
rakovsky
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 4,565



WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 13, 2010, 07:35:02 PM »

Irish Hermit, thanks for sharing.

This morning I went to church in a town where a few years ago a Calvinist had a prophecy in the shower where God told him to make paddles and give them freely. He started a website (now defunct) and with other Calvinists distributed them in a store parking lot on a major highway, attracting alot of FOX News coverage.

I told as many people at church about it I met and they all said "how awful." "There are alot of sick people in the world." The priest agreed with our assessment of Calvinism on this thread. He replied that Calvin's book "Institutes of the Christian Religion" explains that God directly controls everything in the world and concludes that God forces some people to be saved and the rest to be damned. He said that when he was very little he knew he wanted to be a priest and the gentleness of the old ladies in church who showed him what to read in the prayer books played a big role in his desire.

I should note the exception: A former Presbyterian joked "Some kids need beat." Afterwards I explained my story of reading Philip Grevens' book and how it brought me to Orthodoxy, and he accepted this. He was nice.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2010, 07:35:33 PM by rakovsky » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,425


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #47 on: July 07, 2010, 04:50:06 AM »

Irish Hermit,

The link in your last post is broken: "No such file (give_legacy_article)"

Calvin's first book, before he wrote the Institutes in his twenties, was on the Stoic doctrine of fortuna (fate); no doubt it as well as the Reformation as a part of the Renaissance (a *Greek* revival) contributed to his mindset.

In the early church a Calvin-like slant on predestination was held only by the Gnostics and vigorously opposed by the Apologists (cf. Pelikan, Jaraslov, The Christian Tradition, Volume 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition 100–600 (1973).

Calvinists used these verses to back up their claims about original sin. They say that being “dead in transgressions and sins” means we couldn’t have any free-will or choose in any way to believe in Christ. Dead men can’t choose or act in any way they say.

Calvinism in the sense of the full-blown TULIP system is still a minority trajectory rejected by a majority of Protestants (e.g. Lutherans, Methodists, most Charismatics, most Baptists, etc. repudiate the full blown system) albeit it continues to have enthusiastic defenders.

Original sin is not specific to Calvinism and is a predominant position within Protestantism. That the "T" of Calvinism leads inexorably to the other four points of Classical Calvinism is denied by most Protestants. Historically the awareness of the doctrine of Original Sin in the sense it was understood by Calvin originated with Augustine (see Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), ch 6 for an excellent description of the emergence of the doctrine in the fifth century AD).

It was never accepted in Eastern Christianity in the sense of transmission of original guilt (Ezek 18:20 is often cited by those regarding the Augustinian version as unbiblical), but strongly influenced Western/Latin Catholic Christianity and is held by most Protestants (Luther, Calvin, and Wesley), with notable exceptions e.g. among some Restorationist groups like the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ and others.

Here is an example of how Eastern Christianity differs from Western Christianity in its understanding of Ancestral vs. Original Sin (note: Orthodox prefer to speak of Ancestral Sin, but do not object to the *phrase* Original Sin per se though they reject the Western understanding of it as transmission of original guilt):

Quote
The Approach of the Orthodox Fathers

As pervasive as the term original sin has become, it may come as a surprise to some that it was unknown in both the Eastern and Western Church until Augustine (c. 354-430). The concept may have arisen in the writings of Tertullian, but the expression seems to have appeared first in Augustine’s works. Prior to this the theologians of the early church used different terminology indicating a contrasting way of thinking about the fall, its effects and God’s response to it. The phrase the Greek Fathers used to describe the tragedy in the Garden was ancestral sin.

Ancestral sin has a specific meaning. The Greek word for sin in this case, amartema, refers to an individual act indicating that the Eastern Fathers assigned full responsibility for the sin in the Garden to Adam and Eve alone. The word amartia, the more familiar term for sin which literally means “missing the mark”, is used to refer to the condition common to all humanity (Romanides, 2002). The Eastern Church, unlike its Western counterpart, never speaks of guilt being passed from Adam and Eve to their progeny, as did Augustine. Instead, it is posited that each person bears the guilt of his or her own sin. The question becomes, “What then is the inheritance of humanity from Adam and Eve if it is not guilt?” The Orthodox Fathers answer as one: death. (I Corinthians 15:21) “Man is born with the parasitic power of death within him,” writes Fr. Romanides (2002, p. 161). Our nature, teaches Cyril of Alexandria, became “diseased…through the sin of one” (Migne, 1857-1866a).  It is not guilt that is passed on, for the Orthodox fathers; it is a condition, a disease.

In Orthodox thought Adam and Eve were created with a vocation: to become one with God gradually increasing in their capacity to share in His divine life—deification[2] (Romanides, 2002, p. 76-77). “They needed to mature, to grow to awareness by willing detachment and faith, a loving trust in a personal God” (Clement, 1993, p. 84). Theophilus of Antioch (2nd Century) posits that Adam and Eve were created neither immortal nor mortal. They were created with the potential to become either through obedience or disobedience (Romanides, 2002).

The freedom to obey or disobey belonged to our first parents, “For God made man free and sovereign” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32).  To embrace their God-given vocation would bring life, to reject it would bring death, but not at God’s hands. Theophilus continues, “…should he keep the commandment of God he would be rewarded with immortality…if, however, he should turn to things of death by disobeying God, he would be the cause of death to himself” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32)

Adam and Eve failed to obey the commandment not to eat from the forbidden tree thus rejecting God and their vocation to manifest the fullness of human existence (Yannaras, 1984).  Death and corruption began to reign over the creation. “Sin reigned through death.” (Romans 5:21) In this view death and corruption do not originate with God; he neither created nor intended them. God cannot be the Author of evil. Death is the natural result of turning aside from God.

Adam and Eve were overcome with the same temptation that afflicts all humanity: to be autonomous, to go their own way, to realize the fullness of human existence without God. According to the Orthodox fathers sin is not a violation of an impersonal law or code of behavior, but a rejection of the life offered by God (Yannaras, 1984). This is the mark, to which the word amartia refers. Fallen human life is above all else the failure to realize the God-given potential of human existence, which is, as St. Peter writes, to “become partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4).  St. Basil writes: “Humanity is an animal who has received the vocation to become God” (Clement, 1993, p. 76).

In Orthodox thought God did not threaten Adam and Eve with punishment nor was He angered or offended by their sin; He was moved to compassion.[3] The expulsion from the Garden and from the Tree of Life was an act of love and not vengeance so that humanity would not “become immortal in sin” (Romanides, 2002, p. 32). Thus began the preparation for the Incarnation of the Son of God and the solution that alone could rectify the situation: the destruction of the enemies of humanity and God, death (I Corinthians 15:26, 56), sin, corruption and the devil (Romanides, 2002).    

It is important to note that salvation as deification is not pantheism because the Orthodox Fathers insist on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (Athanasius, 1981).  Human beings, along with all created things, have come into being from nothing.  Created beings will always remain created and God will always remain Uncreated. The Son of God in the Incarnation crossed the unbridgeable chasm between them. Orthodox hymnography frequently speaks of the paradox of the Uncreated and created uniting without mixture or confusion in the wondrous hypostatic union. The Nativity of Christ, for example, is interpreted as “a secret re-creation, by which human nature was assumed and restored to its original state” (Clement, 1993, p. 41). God and human nature, separated by the Fall, are reunited in the Person of the Incarnate Christ and redeemed through His victory on the Cross and in the Resurrection by which death is destroyed (I Corinthians 15:54-55). In this way the Second Adam fulfills the original vocation and reverses the tragedy of the fallen First Adam opening the way of salvation for all.

The Fall could not destroy the image of God; the great gift given to humanity remained intact [Gen 9:6], but damaged (Romanides, 2002). Origen speaks of the image buried as in a well choked with debris (Clement, 1993).  While the work of salvation was accomplished by God through Jesus Christ the removal of the debris that hides the image  in us calls for free and voluntary cooperation. St. Paul uses the word synergy, or “co-workers”, (I Corinthians 3:9) to describe the cooperation between Divine Grace and human freedom. For the Orthodox Fathers this means asceticism (prayer, fasting, charity and keeping vigil) relating to St. Paul’s image of the spiritual athlete (I Corinthians 9:24-27). This is the working out of salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). Salvation is a process involving faith, freedom and personal effort to fulfill the commandment of Christ to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39).

The great Orthodox hymn of Holy Pascha (Easter) captures in a few words the essence of the Orthodox understanding of the Atonement: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, And upon those in the tombs bestowing life” (The Liturgikon, Paschal services, 1989).  Because of the victory of Christ on the Cross and in the Tomb humanity has been set free, the curse of the law has been broken, death is slain, life has dawned for all. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580 – 662) writes that “Christ’s death on the Cross is the judgment of judgment” (Clement, 1993, p. 49) and because of this we can rejoice in the conclusion stated so beautifully by Olivier Clement: “In the crucified Christ forgiveness is offered and life is given. For humanity it is no longer a matter of fearing judgment or of meriting salvation, but of welcoming love in trust and humility” (Clement, 1993, p. 49).

Augustine’s Legacy

The piety and devotion of Augustine is largely unquestioned by Orthodox theologians, but his conclusions on the Atonement are (Romanides, 2002). Augustine, by his own admission, did not properly learn to read Greek and this was a liability for him. He seems to have relied mostly on Latin translations of Greek texts (Augustine, 1956a,

p. 9). His misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve’s sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates.

Augustine famously debated Pelagius (c. 354-418) over the place the human will could play in salvation. Augustine took the position against him that only grace is able to save, sola gratis (Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, 7)[4]. From this a doctrine of predestination developed (God gives grace to whom He will) which hardened in the 16th and 17th centuries into the doctrine of two-fold predestination (God in His sovereignty saves some and condemns others). The position of the Church of the first two centuries concerning the image and human freedom was abandoned.

The Roman idea of justice found prominence in Augustinian and later Western theology. The idea that Adam and Eve offended God’s infinite justice and honor made of death God’s method of retribution (Romanides, 2002). But this idea of justice deviates from Biblical thought. Kalomiris (1980) explains the meaning of justice in the original Greek of the New Testament:

    The Greek word diakosuni ‘justice’, is a translation of the Hebrew word tsedaka. The word means ‘the divine energy which accomplishes man’s salvation.’ It is parallel and almost synonymous with the word hesed which means ‘mercy’, ‘compassion’, ‘love’, and to the word emeth which means ‘fidelity’, ‘truth’. This is entirely different from the juridical understanding of ‘justice’. (p. 31)

The juridical view of justice generates two problems for Augustine. One: how can one say that the attitude of the immutable God’s toward His creation changes from love to wrath? Two: how can God, who is good, be the author of such an evil as death (Romanides, 1992)? The only way to answer this is to say, as Augustine did to the young Bishop, Julian of Eclanum (d. 454), that God’s justice is inscrutable (Cahill, 1995, p. 65). Logically, then, justice provides proof of inherited guilt for Augustine, because since all humanity suffers the punishment of death and since God who is just cannot punish the innocent, then all must be guilty in Adam. Also, by similar reasoning, justice appears as a standard to which even God must adhere (Kalomiris, 1980). Can God change or be subject to any kind of standard or necessity? By contrast the Orthodox father, Basil the Great, attributes the change in attitude to humanity rather than to God (Migne, 1857-1866b). Because of the theological foundation laid by Augustine and taken up by his heirs, the conclusion seems unavoidable that a significant change occurs in the West making the wrath of God and not death the problem facing humanity (Romanides, 1992, p. 155-156).

How then could God’s anger be assuaged? The position of the ancient Church had no answer because its proponents did not see wrath as the problem. The Satisfaction Theory proposed by Anselm of Canterbury (c. 1033-1109) in his work Why the God-Man? provides the most predominant answer in the West[5]. The sin of Adam offended and angered God making the punishment of death upon all guilty humanity justified. The antidote to this situation is the crucifixion of the Incarnate Son of God because only the suffering and death of an equally eternal being could ever satisfy the infinite offense of the infinitely dishonored God and assuage His wrath (Williams, 2002; Yannaras, 1984,

p. 152). God sacrifices His Son to restore His honor and pronounces the sacrifice sufficient. The idea of imputed righteousness rises from this. The Orthodox understanding that “the resurrection...through Christ, opens for humanity the way of love that is stronger than death” (Clement, 1993, p. 87) is replaced by a juridical theory of courtrooms and verdicts.

The image of an angry, vengeful God haunts the West where a basic insecurity and guilt seem to exist. Many appear to hold that sickness, suffering and death are God’s will. Why? I suspect one reason is that down deep the belief persists that God is still angry and must be appeased. Yes, sickness, suffering and death come and when they do God’s grace is able to transform them into life-bearing trials, but are they God’s will? Does God punish us when the mood strikes, when our behavior displeases Him or for no reason at all? Are the ills that afflict creation on account of God? For example, could the loving Father really be said to enjoy the sufferings of His Son or of the damned in hell (Yannaras, 1984)? Freud rebelled against these ideas calling the God inherent in them the sadistic Father (Yannaras, 1984, p. 153). Could it be as Yannaras, Clement and Kalomiris propose that modern atheism is a healthy rebellion against a terrorist deity (Clement, 2000)?  Kalomiris (1980) writes that there are no atheists, just people who hate the God in whom they have been taught to believe.

Orthodoxy agrees that grace is a gift, but one that is given to all not to a chosen few. For Grace is an uncreated energy of God sustaining all creation apart from which nothing can exist (Psalm 104:29). What is more, though grace sustains humanity, salvation cannot be forced upon us (or withheld) by divine decree. Clement points out that the “Greek fathers (and some of the Latin Fathers), according to whom the creation of humanity entailed a real risk on God’s part, laid the emphasis on salvation through love: ‘God can do anything except force a man to love him’. The gift of grace saves, but only in an encounter of love” (Clement, 1993, p. 81). Orthodox theology holds that divine grace must be joined with human volition.

Pastoral Practice East and West

In simple terms, we can say that the Eastern Church tends towards a therapeutic model which sees sin as illness, while the Western Church tends towards a juridical model seeing sin as moral failure. For the former the Church is the hospital of souls, the arena of salvation where, through the grace of God, the faithful ascend from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18) into union with God in a joining together of grace and human volition. The choice offered to Adam and Eve remains our choice: to ascend to life or descend into corruption. For the latter, whether the Church is viewed as essential, important or arbitrary, the model of sin as moral failing rests on divine election and adherence to moral, ethical codes as both the cure for sin and guarantor of fidelity. Whether ecclesial authority or individual conscience imposes the code the result is the same.

Admittedly, the idea of salvation as process is not absent in the West. (One can call to mind the Western mystics and the Wesleyan movement as examples.) However, the underlying theological foundations of Eastern Church and Western Church in regard to ancestral or original sin are dramatically opposed. The difference is apparent when looking at the understanding of ethics itself. For the Western Church ethics often seems to imply exclusively adherence to an external code; for the Eastern Church ethics implies “the restoration of life to the fullness of freedom and love” (Yannaras, 1984, p. 143).

Modern psychology has encouraged most Christian caregivers to view sin as illness so that, in practice, the juridical approach is often mitigated. The willingness to refer to mental health providers when necessary implies an expansion of the definition of sin from moral infraction to human condition. This is a happy development.  Recognizing sin as disease helps us to understand that the problem of the human condition operates on many levels and may even have a genetic component.

It is interesting that Christians from a broad spectrum have rediscovered the psychology of spiritual writers of the ancient Church. I discovered this in an Oral Roberts University Seminary classroom twenty-five years ago through a reading of “The Life of St. Pelagia the Harlot.” My journey into Orthodoxy and the priesthood began at that point. These pastors and teachers of the ancient Church were inspired by the Orthodox perspective enunciated in this paper: death as the problem, sin as disease, salvation as process and Christ as Victor.

Sin as missing the mark or, put another way, as the failure to realize the full potential of the gift of human life, calls for a gradual approach to pastoral care. The goal is nothing less than an existential transformation from within through growth in communion with God. Daily sins are more than moral infractions; they are revelations of the brokenness of human life and evidence of personal struggle. “Repentance means rejecting death and uniting ourselves to life” (Yannaras, 1984, 147-148).

In Orthodoxy we tend to dwell on the process and the goal more than the sin. A wise Serbian Orthodox priest once commented that God is more concerned about the direction of our lives than He is about the specifics. Indeed, the Scriptures point to the wondrous truth that, “If thou, O God, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand, but with Thee there is forgiveness” (Psalm 130:3-4). The way is open for all who desire to take it. A young monk was once asked, “What do you do all day in the monastery?” He replied, “We fall and rise, fall and rise.”

The sacramental approach in the Eastern Church is an integral part of pastoral care. The therapeutic view frees the sacrament of Confession in the Orthodox Church from the tendency to take on a juridical character resulting in proscribed, impersonal penances. In Orthodoxy sacraments are seen as a means of revealing the truth about humanity and also about God (Yannaras, 1984, p. 143). After Holy Baptism we often fail in our work of fulfilling the vocation to unbury the image within. Seventy times seven we return to the sacrament not as an easy way out (confess today, sin tomorrow), but because humility is a hard lesson to learn, real transformation is not instantaneous and we are in need of God’s help. Healing takes time. Sacraments are far from magical or automatic rituals (Yannaras, 1984, p. 144). They are personal, grace-filled events in which our free response to God’s grace is acknowledged and sanctified. Even in evangelical circles where Confession as sacrament is rejected the altar call often plays a similar role. It is telling that the Orthodox Sacrament of Confession always takes place face to face and never in the kind of confessional that appeared in the West. Sin is personal and healing must be equally personal. Therefore nothing in authentic pastoral care can be impersonal, automatic or pre-planned. In Orthodoxy the prescription is tailored for the patient as he or she is, not as he or she ought to be.

The juridical approach that has predominated in the West can make pastoral practice seem cold and automatic. Neither a focus on good works nor faith alone are sufficient to transform the human heart. Do positive, external criteria signify inner transformation in all cases? Some branches of Christian counseling too often rely on the application of seemingly relevant verses of Scripture to effect changes in behavior as if convincing one of the truth of Holy Scripture is enough. Belief in Scripture may be a beginning, but real transformation is not just a matter of thinking. First and foremost it is a matter of an existential transformation. It is a matter of a shift in the very mode of life itself: from autonomy to communion. Allow me to explain.

Death has caused a change in the way we relate to God, to one another and to the world. Our lives are dominated by the struggle to survive. Yannaras writes that we see ourselves not as persons sharing a common nature and purpose, but as autonomous individuals who live to survive in competition with one another. Thus, set adrift by death, we are alienated from God, from others and also from our true selves (Yannaras, 1984).  The Lord Jesus speaks to this saying, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew16:26). Salvation is a transformation from the tragic state of alienation and autonomy that ends in death into a state of communion with God and one another that ends in eternal life. So, in the Orthodox view, a transformation in this mode of existence must occur. If the chosen are saved by decree and not by choice such an emphasis is irrelevant. The courtroom seems insufficient as an arena for healing or transformation.

Great flexibility needs to exist in pastoral care if it is to promote authentic transformation. We need to take people as they are and not as they ought to be. Moral and ethical codes are references, certainly, but not ends in themselves. As a pastor entrusted with personal knowledge of people’s lives, I know that moving people from point A to Z is impossible. If, by the grace of God, step B can be discovered, then real progress can often be made. Every step is a real step. If we can be faithful in small things the Lord will grant us bigger ones later (Matthew 25:21). There need be no rush in this intimate process of real transformation that has no end.  As a priest and confessor I tell those who come to me, “I do not know exactly what is ahead on this spiritual adventure. That is between you and God, but if you will allow me, we will take the road together.”

A Romanian priest found himself overhearing the confession of a hardened criminal to an old priest-monk in a crowded Communist prison cell. As he listened he noticed the priest-monk begin to cry. He did not say a word through his tears until the man had finished at which time he replied, “My son, try to do better next time.” Yannaras writes that the message of the Church for humanity wounded and degraded by the ‘terrorist God of juridical ethics’ is precisely this: “what God really asks of man is neither individual feats nor works of merit, but a cry of trust and love from the depths” (Yannaras, 1984, p. 47). The cry comes from the depth of our need to the unfathomable depth of God’s love; the Prodigal Son crying out, “I want to go home” to the Father who, seeing his advance from a distance, runs to meet him. (Luke 15:11-32)

What this divine/human relationship will produce God knows, but we place ourselves in His loving hands and not without some trepidation because “God is a loving fire… for all: good or bad.” (Kalomiris, 1980, p. 19) The knowledge that salvation is a process makes our failures understandable. The illness that afflicts us demands access to the grace of God often and repeatedly. We offer to Him the only things that we have, our weakened condition and will. Joined with God’s love and grace it is the fuel that breathed upon by the Spirit of God, breaks the soul into flame.

Abba Lot went to see Abba Joseph and said: Abba, as much as I am able I practice a small rule, a little fasting, some prayer and meditation, and remain quiet, and as much as possible keep my thoughts clean. What else should I do? Then the old man stood up and stretched out his hands toward heaven, and his fingers became like ten torches of flame. And he said: If you wish you can become all flame. (Nomura, 2001, p. 92)

As we have seen, for the early Church Fathers and the Orthodox Church the Atonement is much more than a divine exercise in jurisprudence; it is the event of the life, death and resurrection of the Son of God that sets us free from the Ancestral Sin and its effects. Our slavery to death, sin, corruption and the devil are destroyed through the Cross and Resurrection and our hopeless adventure in autonomy is revealed to be what it is: a dead end. Salvation is much more than a verdict from above; it is an endless process of transformation from autonomy to communion, a gradual ascent from glory to glory as we take up once again our original vocation now fulfilled in Christ. The way to the Tree of Life at long last revealed to be the Cross is reopened and its fruit, the Body and Blood of God, offered to all.  The goal is far greater than a change in behavior; we are meant to become divine.

1 Editor’s Note: Some within modern evangelicalism (Oden 2003, Packer and Oden 2004) have begun to examine the writings of the Patristics in an attempt to inspire unity within the Christian church. While somewhat controversial, the present article was invited in hope of beginning dialogue among the tributaries of Christian spirituality on a topic of great importance to a spiritually sensitive psychotherapy—sin.

2 A reference to movement toward union with God.

3 Orthodox theology recognizes that all human language, concepts and analogies fail to describe God in His essence. True knowledge of God demands that we proceed apophatically, that is, with the stripping away of human concepts, for God is infinitely beyond them all.

4 Pelagius is regarded as a heretic in the East (as is the case in the West). He elevated the human will and the expense of divine grace. In fairness, however, the Orthodox position is expressed best by John Cassian—who is often regarded as “semi-Pelagian” in the West. The problem—to the Orthodox perspective—is that both Pelagius and Augustine set the categories in the extreme—freedom of the will with nothing left for God versus complete sovereignty of God, with nothing left to human will.  The Fathers argued instead for “synergy,” a mystery of God’s grace being given with the cooperation of the human heart.

5 It would perhaps be more precise to say the Latin West.  The most prominent Reformed view seems to be a modification of Anselm’s emphasis on vicarious satisfaction, in which more emphasis is placed on penal substitution.

References

Athanasius (1981). On the incarnation: The treatise de incarnatione verbi dei. (P. Lawson, Trans.). Crestwood: NY: St. Validimir’s Seminary Press.

Augustine (1956a). Nicene and post nicene fathers: Four anti-pelagian writings, vol. 1, Grand Rapids , Michigan: Eerdmans.

Augustine (1956b). Nicene and post nicene fathers: Four anti-pelagian writings, vol. 5,Grand Rapids , Michigan: Eerdmans.

Cahill, T. (1995). How the irish saved civilization. New York: Doubleday.

Clement, O. (1993). The roots of Christian mysticism. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press.

Clement, O. (2000). On human being. New York: New City Press.

Kalomiris, A. (1980). The river of fire. Retrieved April, 20, 2004, http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm.

Migne, J. P. (Ed.). (1857-1866a). The patrologiae curus completes, seris graeca. (Vols. 1-161), 74, 788-789. Paris: Parisorium.

Migne, J. P. (Ed.). (1857-1866b). The patrologiae curus completes, seris graeca. (Vols. 1-161), 31, 345. Paris: Parisorium.

Meyendorff, J. (1979). Byzantine theology. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Nomura, Yushi, trans. (2001). Desert wisdom: Sayings from the desert fathers, Marynoll, New York: Orbis Books.

Oden, T. C. (2003). The rebirth of orthodoxy: Signs of new life in Christianity. New York: Harper Collins.

Packer, J. I. & Oden, T. C. (2004). One faith: The evangelical consensus. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.

Romanides, J. (1992). The ancestral sin. Ridgewood, NJ: Zephyr Publishing.

The liturgikon: The book of divine services for the priest and deacon (1989). New York: Athens Printing Co.

Williams, T. “Saint Anselm”, Retrieved April 21, 2004. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2002 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL= http://plato.Stanford.edu/archives/spr.2002/entires/anselm/.

Yannaras, C. (1984). The freedom of morality. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Author Bio:

Antony Hughes, M.Div., is the rector of St. Mary’s Orthodox Church in Cambridge, MA, which is associated with the Autonomous Antiochian Orthodox Church of North America.  He has served as the Orthodox Chaplain at Harvard University.  Requests for reprints should be sent to: Rev. Antony Hughes, St. Mary’s Antiochian Orthodox Church, 8 Inman Street, Cambridge, MA 02139.
-V. Rev. Antony Hughes, M.Div, Ancestral Versus Original Sin: An Overview with Implications for Psychotherapy (St. Mary Antiochian Orthodox Church, Cambridge, Massachusetts).


__________________________________
They say
that to believe that man has free-will to accept God’s grace contradicts these scriptures and if one thinks so then one denies salvation by grace alone and adds works. In other words, God doesn't do all in salvation (semi-Pelagianism) if man has free-will.
   What is the Orthodox response to this? I have read several things by Orthodox writers about orginal sin, but I haven’t seen anyone deal with these specific verses or Calvinists beliefs on them. Does anyone know what the Orthodox Church teaches and responds to
Calvinism on this regard? Any former Calvinists here have an answer?
“The synergist view of salvation is not the opposite of the monergist view.... The opposite of Christian monergism would be Pelagianism –a heresy rejected by all Christian churches. Synergism is not the belief that humans save themselves; it is the belief that salvation is by grace alone but requires free reception and not resistance by human persons” –Olson

Certainly one must admit "synergism" (it's Greek equivalent) is a biblical term (cf. sunergeo “working together” -from which the word “synergism” (syn: “together” + ergos: “energy”/”work”) derives- is found in scripture, e.g. “As God's fellow workers (sunerguntes) we urge you not to receive God's grace in vain” (2 Cor 6:1 NIV); “work out your own salvation… for it is God who works in you (Philip 2:12-13); “stir up love and good works” (Heb 10:24); "Draw near (Gk eggisate, aorist imperative active; active = action by the subject; imperative = a command) to God and He will draw near to you…" (James 4:Cool; “the Lord worked with them (sunergountos), and confirmed the word by the signs” (Mk 16:20, note: this is from the later addition to Mark’s Gospel). This is in no way a denial that any good we do is in accordance with grace given us. The Orthodox Study Bible affirms “synergism,” yet affirms: “Paul teaches living works are an outgrowth of our salvation when he writes ‘for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them’ (Eph 2:10)” (OSB p. 1601).

Thus does Orthodoxy avoid the paradox of double election whereby God is supposed to have created some men with the very aim and purpose to hate them and burn them for his glory. Calvinists maintain that God leaves some men alone, whether positively damning them (“double election” of some to heaven and some to hell) or by “passing some by”; Scripture by contrast held God passes no man by. His grace which brings salvation appears to all:

Titus 2:11: “For the grace of God which brings salvation has appeared to all men…”

John 1:9: "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man."

The same position was held by C. S. Lewis who affirmed that in the end of days there are only two kinds of people: those who say to God “thy will be done” and those to whom God says “thy will be done.”

The Calvinistic alternative entails God, whether through active damnation or passing some by effectively determines the damnation of souls. In the Calvinist system God is more like the Levite who passed someone by who he could have helped than the Good Samaritan helping someone who could not help himself, and whose virtue our Lord praised. Except for but one breath of the Holy Spirit multitudes suffer eternal agony. This glorifies God according to Calvinists, but no one is sure quite how. It is all a big “paradox.” For C. S. Lewis there is no such paradox -except for the enduring minority which continues to imbibe the entirety of the TULIP system.

If anyone is saved, this is due to God alone. If anyone is damned, this is due to man alone.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 05:19:05 AM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: July 07, 2010, 05:36:07 AM »


The link in your last post is broken: "No such file (give_legacy_article)"

Apologies.

Here is a link through The WayBack Machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20070615044339/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eba91950c3.htm
Logged
David Lanier
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South - OCA
Posts: 49



WWW
« Reply #49 on: April 12, 2011, 08:43:51 PM »

I've searched through the Internet to try and find a concise, 5 point response to the 5 points of Calvinism and so far have come up rather short handed. There is a LOT of information available, and lots of people that say that you have to study this and that and read this and that and so on and so forth to be able to formulate a proper response to TULIP, but it seems that nobody has offered such a concise response (at least not that I can find) themselves. I think engaging in such a study is definitely worthwhile, but to go into a long lecture on how St. Augustine influenced Calvin, and how the Church Fathers viewed Adam and the original sin, and Christ's purpose for taking on our human nature in light of the theology of people like St. Gregory Palamas, Fr. John Romanides, and the like in such a casual conversation probably wouldn't work (unless of course the person was truly engaged and open to debating the various points of TULIP).

So I would like to ask if anyone could offer a concise retort to TULIP in the same basic brevity with which it is described on the Wikipedia page?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #50 on: April 12, 2011, 11:55:48 PM »

TULIP stands on the T, its first presupposition: T is Total Depravity, which posits that man has no ability to turn toward God, because his sin and death prevent him.

Total Depravity thus denies the redemptive work of Christ; A key purpose of the Incarnation, Cross, and Resurrection was to make it possible for Man to respond to God's Grace.

All other Calvinist teachings fail after Total Depravity is done away with. Total Depravity also rests on Sola Fide, namely that works do not relate to salvation, which Orthodox Christians believe is false.

There was actually an Orthodox Council that ruled on this issue, though it often employed a Latin ethos to do so. Here follows:

Quote
Decree III of The Holy Synod of Jerusalem, in 1672, declared in the Confession of Dosithos:

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. For that were contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth; (1 Timothy 2:4) 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. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing 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; which, co-operating with us, and enabling us, and making us perseverant 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 answering hereto — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, had in no wise regard to 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 therewith, 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 calumny can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? For that God is not tempted with evils, (James 1:13) and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him, we do know; and that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is, as is just, decreed condemnation, we do confess. 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, thus to believe, or to think; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

And elsewhere in the same Confession:
Quote
But the novelties which the Calvinists have blasphemously introduced concerning God and divine things, perverting, mutilating, and abusing the Divine Scriptures, are sophistries and inventions of the devil.


« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 11:58:22 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.
David Lanier
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South - OCA
Posts: 49



WWW
« Reply #51 on: April 13, 2011, 12:24:52 AM »

Thanks Nicholas. That is helpful but still not the 5 point counterpoints that are concise and brief just as the 5 points of TULIP are on the wikipedia page for Calvinism.

I might be able to make it work though, so thanks again.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2011, 12:45:23 AM »

Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.

Unconditional Election: Denies that God gives salvation because of people's faith and works, because Man cannot have true faith unless God forces him to through a process called regeneration, and works do not save. This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary. It also teaches the heretical doctrine of Individual Salvation, that is, that the predestined promises of the Elect are promised to predestined individuals and not the New Israel itself; this is clearly contradicted in the Holy Scriptures, through Christ's teaching on the True Vine.

Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. This doctrine relies on the erroneously-founded previous two doctrines.

Irresistible Grace: God forces, or engineers, certain people to be saved. They have no choice in the matter. This doctrine blasphemes against the doctrine of Imagio Dei, that humans are made in the Image and Likeness of God with the ability to choose or reject union with Him. The Book of Sirach 15:15-17 reads, "If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live; he has set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are Life and Death, whichever he chooses shall be given to him." In Genesis 4, God tells Cain "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." God is telling Cain that he can choose to follow righteousness if he chooses; Cain demonstrates his ability to resist the God's commandments after God tells him he has the power to obey them.

Perseverance of the Saints: Asserts what later evolved into the protestant "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, namely that if God chooses to save you, you can never reject this salvation in the future. This doctrine also denies free will and the Imagio Dei, as the previous doctrines do. It likewise denies that those who appeared to be "saved" but fell away were ever truly saved at all, thus setting up a Divine No True Scotsman fallacy.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 12:50:18 AM 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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2011, 01:01:44 AM »

An interesting anecdote:

I once spoke to a OSAS man who told me that it is wrong and insulting to ask God for forgiveness after your conversion, because God automatically forgives everything that someone who is "truly saved" does. I guess the Lord's Prayer is only for us unsaved sinners. laugh
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 01:02:17 AM 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.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2011, 06:40:37 AM »

Why do you believe Total Depravity denies Christ's Grace? It is my understanding that it completely related to Grace
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2011, 08:21:31 AM »

Nick,
Please see my responses in bold blue.
In Christ,
Ian
\

Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.
Response: The criticism of Faith and Works that many Protestants (Arminian and Calvinist) have is that they believe that we are "adding to Christ's finished work. That is that if Jesus gives infinity, we try to give our selves 'infinity plus 1, 5, 70', etc. via good works. Based on their misunderstanding of what we really mean, they criticize rightly. Salvation is not a meritorious action, and certainly not one which we have earned by being good.

Unconditional Election: Denies that God gives salvation because of people's faith and works, because Man cannot have true faith unless God forces him to through a process called regeneration, and works do not save. This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary. It also teaches the heretical doctrine of Individual Salvation, that is, that the predestined promises of the Elect are promised to predestined individuals and not the New Israel itself; this is clearly contradicted in the Holy Scriptures, through Christ's teaching on the True Vine.
Response: Read Matthew 13's account of the net. There are saved and lost individuals in any church.


Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. This doctrine relies on the erroneously-founded previous two doctrines.
Response: This does not seem as harsh as some make it out to be. It appears from this understanding that at least some Calvinists acknowledge different people's profession of faith (though I realize not all do). Likewise The Orthodox church definitely believes in Predestination as God's acceptance of people's faith. By not forcing the unrepentant to choose Him, He is in a sense predestining them to Hell.

Irresistible Grace: God forces, or engineers, certain people to be saved. They have no choice in the matter. This doctrine blasphemes against the doctrine of Imagio Dei, that humans are made in the Image and Likeness of God with the ability to choose or reject union with Him. The Book of Sirach 15:15-17 reads, "If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live; he has set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are Life and Death, whichever he chooses shall be given to him." In Genesis 4, God tells Cain "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." God is telling Cain that he can choose to follow righteousness if he chooses; Cain demonstrates his ability to resist the God's commandments after God tells him he has the power to obey them.
Response: The basic concept of Irresistible Grace id found within God drawing people to Himself (John 6:44,65) chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14) among other passages


Perseverance of the Saints: Asserts what later evolved into the protestant "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, namely that if God chooses to save you, you can never reject this salvation in the future. This doctrine also denies free will and the Imagio Dei, as the previous doctrines do. It likewise denies that those who appeared to be "saved" but fell away were ever truly saved at all, thus setting up a Divine No True Scotsman fallacy.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,365



« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2011, 09:44:06 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?
I really wonder, sometimes. I used to struggle with hating God when I was mired hip-deep in Calvinism.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #57 on: April 13, 2011, 09:48:59 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?
I really wonder, sometimes. I used to struggle with hating God when I was mired hip-deep in Calvinism.
Yes. Like it or not we share the same Christ, just like you and your siblings share the same parents. You may different opinions of them, (one kid thinks their parent is too strict, another thinks they are too lenient) but the same parents none the less. Same with God.

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 2,365



« Reply #58 on: April 13, 2011, 09:56:20 AM »

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
I have prsonally known a couple - other than myself -- who doubted they were among the elect. Famously, Johnathan Edwards' uncle committed suicide because of his doubts about his own election.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED ORTHODOX CHURCH
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #59 on: April 13, 2011, 10:03:05 AM »

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
I have prsonally known a couple - other than myself -- who doubted they were among the elect. Famously, Johnathan Edwards' uncle committed suicide because of his doubts about his own election.
I was not aware of that, and very sad indeed. For me the Calvinist I most respect is the one who doubts himself, at least a little, if he doubts everyone else. It has been my experience on Youtube, that the most well known Calvinist advocates tend to be very self assured. Maybe it's my own pride, but seeing people so convinced of their own elected status while denying other people's seemed a bit high minded and smug. 
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2011, 10:25:38 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?
Since it is an idol he constructed out of the debris of pagan stoicism, no.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,919


« Reply #61 on: April 13, 2011, 10:26:23 AM »

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
I have prsonally known a couple - other than myself -- who doubted they were among the elect. Famously, Johnathan Edwards' uncle committed suicide because of his doubts about his own election.
I was not aware of that, and very sad indeed. For me the Calvinist I most respect is the one who doubts himself, at least a little, if he doubts everyone else. It has been my experience on Youtube, that the most well known Calvinist advocates tend to be very self assured. Maybe it's my own pride, but seeing people so convinced of their own elected status while denying other people's seemed a bit high minded and smug. 
I think their tendency is a dangerous presumption by mortals as to define where God's love & sovereignty extends. I do not see how they can get around Romans 9:14-18 in which God determines who he will have mercy on beyond our rationalized understanding. We know our call to faith in Christ but cannot presume to limit His love and sovereignty towards anyone either.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #62 on: April 13, 2011, 10:38:35 AM »

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
I have prsonally known a couple - other than myself -- who doubted they were among the elect. Famously, Johnathan Edwards' uncle committed suicide because of his doubts about his own election.
I was not aware of that, and very sad indeed. For me the Calvinist I most respect is the one who doubts himself, at least a little, if he doubts everyone else. It has been my experience on Youtube, that the most well known Calvinist advocates tend to be very self assured. Maybe it's my own pride, but seeing people so convinced of their own elected status while denying other people's seemed a bit high minded and smug. 
I think their tendency is a dangerous presumption by mortals as to define where God's love & sovereignty extends. I do not see how they can get around Romans 9:14-18 in which God determines who he will have mercy on beyond our rationalized understanding. We know our call to faith in Christ but cannot presume to limit His love and sovereignty towards anyone either.

To be fair, from what I understand their logic states that Faith is proof of Election. Though they probably would not put it this way, it seems to me a little like a profession of faith is almost a symbol (a lifelong Baptism if you will) of God's predestining them to Salvation.
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #63 on: April 13, 2011, 10:39:29 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?
Since it is an idol he constructed out of the debris of pagan stoicism, no.
Can you please elaborate and explain this one? A bit harsh. I dare say a bit "Calvinist"Smiley
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #64 on: April 13, 2011, 11:30:49 AM »

Why do you believe Total Depravity denies Christ's Grace? It is my understanding that it completely related to Grace
Un-Orthodox concepts in Total Depravity:

Monergism: The notion that man does not have to co-operate with God's gift of Grace and salvation. Compare with the Orthodox understanding of Synergism.

Sola Fide: Denial of the scriptures; the creator of this doctrine, Martin Luther, tried to remove Scriptures that contradicted it (Epistle of St. James).

Why it denies Grace:

God's preceding gift of Grace may be responded to with living faith (faith/works un-separated), or it may be rejected. Even after the Fall of Man, mankind's spiritual capacity was damaged, but not destroyed as the Calvinists assert. After the redeeming work of Christ, the gap between God and Man was bridged and man's nature was healed. Because of Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, we can choose to respond to God's Grace again.

Total Depravity declares that Christ's work did not break the bonds of sin and death, and mankind is still unable to turn towards God. Because man does not have the power to respond to God's gift of Grace, God has to force individual men to respond to Him. The rest of the Calvinist doctrines (those after "t" in "TULIP") must logically follow.

Nick,
Please see my responses in bold blue.
In Christ,
Ian
\

Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.
Response: The criticism of Faith and Works that many Protestants (Arminian and Calvinist) have is that they believe that we are "adding to Christ's finished work. That is that if Jesus gives infinity, we try to give our selves 'infinity plus 1, 5, 70', etc. via good works. Based on their misunderstanding of what we really mean, they criticize rightly. Salvation is not a meritorious action, and certainly not one which we have earned by being good.

Unconditional Election: Denies that God gives salvation because of people's faith and works, because Man cannot have true faith unless God forces him to through a process called regeneration, and works do not save. This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary. It also teaches the heretical doctrine of Individual Salvation, that is, that the predestined promises of the Elect are promised to predestined individuals and not the New Israel itself; this is clearly contradicted in the Holy Scriptures, through Christ's teaching on the True Vine.
Response: Read Matthew 13's account of the net. There are saved and lost individuals in any church.


Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. This doctrine relies on the erroneously-founded previous two doctrines.
Response: This does not seem as harsh as some make it out to be. It appears from this understanding that at least some Calvinists acknowledge different people's profession of faith (though I realize not all do). Likewise The Orthodox church definitely believes in Predestination as God's acceptance of people's faith. By not forcing the unrepentant to choose Him, He is in a sense predestining them to Hell.

Irresistible Grace: God forces, or engineers, certain people to be saved. They have no choice in the matter. This doctrine blasphemes against the doctrine of Imagio Dei, that humans are made in the Image and Likeness of God with the ability to choose or reject union with Him. The Book of Sirach 15:15-17 reads, "If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live; he has set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are Life and Death, whichever he chooses shall be given to him." In Genesis 4, God tells Cain "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." God is telling Cain that he can choose to follow righteousness if he chooses; Cain demonstrates his ability to resist the God's commandments after God tells him he has the power to obey them.
Response: The basic concept of Irresistible Grace id found within God drawing people to Himself (John 6:44,65) chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14) among other passages


Perseverance of the Saints: Asserts what later evolved into the protestant "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, namely that if God chooses to save you, you can never reject this salvation in the future. This doctrine also denies free will and the Imagio Dei, as the previous doctrines do. It likewise denies that those who appeared to be "saved" but fell away were ever truly saved at all, thus setting up a Divine No True Scotsman fallacy.

1. Orthodoxy does not believe in Faith without Works. I understand the protestant criticism of the Vatican's merit theology, but such a criticism does not logically lead into Sola Fide. Faith and works are inseparable, because a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works.

2. Lost individuals who appear part of the visible church are not actually grafted onto the New Israel; there are some who may be grafted on who are not part of the visible church in a way that we can comprehend. This does not mean that we are saved alone or that the elect is individuals and not the Body itself.

3. Limited atonement has to do with ARBITRARY assignment of salvation. I am not condemning the notion of predestination as understood by the ancient Christian church, as stated in the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem I posted above in this thread.

4. I understand where they get the concept. John 6:44 and 65 only imply arbitrary predestination if you're reading it back into the text. This has to do with the will of the Father, the unity of the Godhead and Christ's granted authority, and nothing to do with the goddess Tyche. 2 Thess. 2:13-14 has nothing to do with ARBITRARY predestination, but rather predestination according to the foreknown free will of man and the promises given to the Elect, the new Israel, to whom anyone may be grafted on.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Orthodox position on such things. Calvinism and Orthodoxy are different Gospels. Their God is a vengeful God who arbitrarily tortures some and arbitrarily rewards others just to glorify himself, wheras the God of Orthodoxy is the Lover of All Mankind who remains humble and selfless unto all ages.

And prooftexting is un-Christian.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 11:43:26 AM 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.
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #65 on: April 13, 2011, 11:32:32 AM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?
Since it is an idol he constructed out of the debris of pagan stoicism, no.
Can you please elaborate and explain this one? A bit harsh. I dare say a bit "Calvinist"Smiley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyche
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.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #66 on: April 13, 2011, 12:00:09 PM »

One difference I've noticed is the starting point. The starting point for Orthodox anthropology is that man is created in the image and likeness of God, and total depravity describes not just the corruption from the fall, but being in a state of seeking to follow the corruption inherited from the fall as the starting point for defining what it means to be human. This could be a misunderstanding on my part and I apologize if it is, but a possible observation that I've personally made.

Also it denies man's ability to respond to God's grace. I've read a book by an Orthodox nun on the image and likeness of God where the first chapter is dedicated to freewill being the image of God's sovereignty (which is a big part of Calvinism) made manifest in men created in His image and likeness. From this perspective, total depravity denies the image and likeness of God in mankind and changes what it means to be human, and changing human nature changes the nature of how we relate to Christ in the incarination.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,919


« Reply #67 on: April 13, 2011, 12:33:53 PM »

One question though: Do any Calvinists you know ever doubt their own salvation while doubting others, or do they seem convinced that they are undoubtedly among the Elect?
I have prsonally known a couple - other than myself -- who doubted they were among the elect. Famously, Johnathan Edwards' uncle committed suicide because of his doubts about his own election.
I was not aware of that, and very sad indeed. For me the Calvinist I most respect is the one who doubts himself, at least a little, if he doubts everyone else. It has been my experience on Youtube, that the most well known Calvinist advocates tend to be very self assured. Maybe it's my own pride, but seeing people so convinced of their own elected status while denying other people's seemed a bit high minded and smug. 
I think their tendency is a dangerous presumption by mortals as to define where God's love & sovereignty extends. I do not see how they can get around Romans 9:14-18 in which God determines who he will have mercy on beyond our rationalized understanding. We know our call to faith in Christ but cannot presume to limit His love and sovereignty towards anyone either.

To be fair, from what I understand their logic states that Faith is proof of Election. Though they probably would not put it this way, it seems to me a little like a profession of faith is almost a symbol (a lifelong Baptism if you will) of God's predestining them to Salvation.

I think I would like to add that I am not intending to present a necessary negative impression of a "Calvinist" per se. I have known  people who will emphasize how we are not saved by works. Next, they are doing those very works (showing mercy, charity etc.) and saying that we must be "doers of the word" (per James 1:22) & I'm thinking to myself (yeah, you're right about that so what was your previous point?)
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Cymbyz
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 496



« Reply #68 on: April 13, 2011, 01:17:23 PM »

The previous point, about not being saved "by works" is lacking in some important words.  St. Paul says that "by works of the Law" shall no man be saved, and what he meant by that was keeping the whole of the Law as given in Torah and expounded by various commentators.  The Law, in addition to certain ethical universals, also contains a good deal of what we call "ritual purity law," also the various twists that commentators have put on both the ethical universals and the ritual purity regulations; and it is specifically the keeping of these that will not save us.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 01:19:23 PM by Cymbyz » Logged

The end of the world
is as near as the day of your death;
watch and pray.
 
 Yahoo! & WLM ID: Owen
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #69 on: April 13, 2011, 08:35:38 PM »

Why do you believe Total Depravity denies Christ's Grace? It is my understanding that it completely related to Grace
Un-Orthodox concepts in Total Depravity:

Monergism: The notion that man does not have to co-operate with God's gift of Grace and salvation. Compare with the Orthodox understanding of Synergism.

Sola Fide: Denial of the scriptures; the creator of this doctrine, Martin Luther, tried to remove Scriptures that contradicted it (Epistle of St. James).

Why it denies Grace:

God's preceding gift of Grace may be responded to with living faith (faith/works un-separated), or it may be rejected. Even after the Fall of Man, mankind's spiritual capacity was damaged, but not destroyed as the Calvinists assert. After the redeeming work of Christ, the gap between God and Man was bridged and man's nature was healed. Because of Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, we can choose to respond to God's Grace again.

Total Depravity declares that Christ's work did not break the bonds of sin and death, and mankind is still unable to turn towards God. Because man does not have the power to respond to God's gift of Grace, God has to force individual men to respond to Him. The rest of the Calvinist doctrines (those after "t" in "TULIP") must logically follow.

Nick,
Please see my responses in bold blue.
In Christ,
Ian
\

Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.
Response: The criticism of Faith and Works that many Protestants (Arminian and Calvinist) have is that they believe that we are "adding to Christ's finished work. That is that if Jesus gives infinity, we try to give our selves 'infinity plus 1, 5, 70', etc. via good works. Based on their misunderstanding of what we really mean, they criticize rightly. Salvation is not a meritorious action, and certainly not one which we have earned by being good.

Unconditional Election: Denies that God gives salvation because of people's faith and works, because Man cannot have true faith unless God forces him to through a process called regeneration, and works do not save. This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary. It also teaches the heretical doctrine of Individual Salvation, that is, that the predestined promises of the Elect are promised to predestined individuals and not the New Israel itself; this is clearly contradicted in the Holy Scriptures, through Christ's teaching on the True Vine.
Response: Read Matthew 13's account of the net. There are saved and lost individuals in any church.


Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. This doctrine relies on the erroneously-founded previous two doctrines.
Response: This does not seem as harsh as some make it out to be. It appears from this understanding that at least some Calvinists acknowledge different people's profession of faith (though I realize not all do). Likewise The Orthodox church definitely believes in Predestination as God's acceptance of people's faith. By not forcing the unrepentant to choose Him, He is in a sense predestining them to Hell.

Irresistible Grace: God forces, or engineers, certain people to be saved. They have no choice in the matter. This doctrine blasphemes against the doctrine of Imagio Dei, that humans are made in the Image and Likeness of God with the ability to choose or reject union with Him. The Book of Sirach 15:15-17 reads, "If you choose you can keep the commandments, they will save you; if you trust in God, you too shall live; he has set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are Life and Death, whichever he chooses shall be given to him." In Genesis 4, God tells Cain "If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it." God is telling Cain that he can choose to follow righteousness if he chooses; Cain demonstrates his ability to resist the God's commandments after God tells him he has the power to obey them.
Response: The basic concept of Irresistible Grace id found within God drawing people to Himself (John 6:44,65) chooses us for salvation (2 Thess. 2:13-14) among other passages


Perseverance of the Saints: Asserts what later evolved into the protestant "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) doctrine, namely that if God chooses to save you, you can never reject this salvation in the future. This doctrine also denies free will and the Imagio Dei, as the previous doctrines do. It likewise denies that those who appeared to be "saved" but fell away were ever truly saved at all, thus setting up a Divine No True Scotsman fallacy.

1. Orthodoxy does not believe in Faith without Works. I understand the protestant criticism of the Vatican's merit theology, but such a criticism does not logically lead into Sola Fide. Faith and works are inseparable, because a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works.

2. Lost individuals who appear part of the visible church are not actually grafted onto the New Israel; there are some who may be grafted on who are not part of the visible church in a way that we can comprehend. This does not mean that we are saved alone or that the elect is individuals and not the Body itself.

3. Limited atonement has to do with ARBITRARY assignment of salvation. I am not condemning the notion of predestination as understood by the ancient Christian church, as stated in the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem I posted above in this thread.

4. I understand where they get the concept. John 6:44 and 65 only imply arbitrary predestination if you're reading it back into the text. This has to do with the will of the Father, the unity of the Godhead and Christ's granted authority, and nothing to do with the goddess Tyche. 2 Thess. 2:13-14 has nothing to do with ARBITRARY predestination, but rather predestination according to the foreknown free will of man and the promises given to the Elect, the new Israel, to whom anyone may be grafted on.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Orthodox position on such things. Calvinism and Orthodoxy are different Gospels. Their God is a vengeful God who arbitrarily tortures some and arbitrarily rewards others just to glorify himself, wheras the God of Orthodoxy is the Lover of All Mankind who remains humble and selfless unto all ages.

And prooftexting is un-Christian.

1) "...a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works." That one has to admit is a pretty standard Protestant belief.

2) I still don' see the connection between Calvinism and the Greek Goddess lady...

3) How would describe the difference between "proof-texting" and refering to Scripture?
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #70 on: April 13, 2011, 11:20:24 PM »


1) "...a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works." That one has to admit is a pretty standard Protestant belief.

2) I still don' see the connection between Calvinism and the Greek Goddess lady...

3) How would describe the difference between "proof-texting" and refering to Scripture?

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them.

2. Tyche was the goddess of Stoic Fate, who governed the world according to an arbitrary, chaotic and incomprehensible will; similar to the Calvinist interpretation of Pre-Destiny. I suggest listening to this short segment from a video clip discussing true Calvinistic predestination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Yw1BYjFYs#t=3m19s

3. Proof-texting usually involves the assumption that all Scripture is equal, and that any verse of scripture can and ought to stand on its own, out of context. Proof-texting often involves taking a small snippet of text out of a larger context or narrative, thus allowing the text to be manipulated outside of its appropriate context.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 11:20:48 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.
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #71 on: April 14, 2011, 07:23:48 AM »


1) "...a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works." That one has to admit is a pretty standard Protestant belief.

2) I still don' see the connection between Calvinism and the Greek Goddess lady...

3) How would describe the difference between "proof-texting" and refering to Scripture?

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them.

2. Tyche was the goddess of Stoic Fate, who governed the world according to an arbitrary, chaotic and incomprehensible will; similar to the Calvinist interpretation of Pre-Destiny. I suggest listening to this short segment from a video clip discussing true Calvinistic predestination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Yw1BYjFYs#t=3m19s

3. Proof-texting usually involves the assumption that all Scripture is equal, and that any verse of scripture can and ought to stand on its own, out of context. Proof-texting often involves taking a small snippet of text out of a larger context or narrative, thus allowing the text to be manipulated outside of its appropriate context.

1) Is it not possible this is just a matter of semantics by both parties? It seems to me that hardliners on both sides will talk past each other semi-intentionally for purposes of vindication. As someone on OC.net once responded to this same statement, we are all sinners, so it's possible.

2) I love David's videos, and have watched many. He makes some interesting points here. I guess I would ask waht you define as the Elect.

3) I realize that proof-texting is often defined by how say, but in that case everyone does it. I have yet to see anyone, regardless of opinion, quote the entire Bible, or even a single chapter
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #72 on: April 14, 2011, 11:22:49 AM »


1) "...a living faith produces works; God's Grace precedes both faith and works." That one has to admit is a pretty standard Protestant belief.

2) I still don' see the connection between Calvinism and the Greek Goddess lady...

3) How would describe the difference between "proof-texting" and refering to Scripture?

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them.

2. Tyche was the goddess of Stoic Fate, who governed the world according to an arbitrary, chaotic and incomprehensible will; similar to the Calvinist interpretation of Pre-Destiny. I suggest listening to this short segment from a video clip discussing true Calvinistic predestination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1Yw1BYjFYs#t=3m19s

3. Proof-texting usually involves the assumption that all Scripture is equal, and that any verse of scripture can and ought to stand on its own, out of context. Proof-texting often involves taking a small snippet of text out of a larger context or narrative, thus allowing the text to be manipulated outside of its appropriate context.

1) Is it not possible this is just a matter of semantics by both parties? It seems to me that hardliners on both sides will talk past each other semi-intentionally for purposes of vindication. As someone on OC.net once responded to this same statement, we are all sinners, so it's possible.

2) I love David's videos, and have watched many. He makes some interesting points here. I guess I would ask waht you define as the Elect.

3) I realize that proof-texting is often defined by how say, but in that case everyone does it. I have yet to see anyone, regardless of opinion, quote the entire Bible, or even a single chapter
1. Well, it can be semantics. But when you have, for example, Once Saved Always Saved people, it's not semantics; works are actually irrelevant to salvation. There is a distinction between Monergism (God does absolutely everything) and Synergism (we actively respond to God's Grace).

2. I would define the Elect as those who graft themselves onto the True Vine, not individuals who are arbitrarily predestined to salvation without regard for future freely-chosen faith and works.

3. Paragraphs, multiple sentences or even a framing explanation help combat prooftexting.


« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 11:24:18 AM 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.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #73 on: April 14, 2011, 05:16:03 PM »

As a traditional Anglican (who is certainly NOT a Calvinist), I thought I'd add a few observations...

(1) I think one can hold to a form of 'Total Depravity' without necessitating belief in absolute monergism.  Arminius and Wesley had very strong view about the helplessness of man apart from divine grace, but neither would be monergists strictly speaking.  The key is the belief in prevenient grace--God's gracious initiative and enabling power which must precede any man's response of faith and regeneration (ie man can't conjur up faith unaided).  Scriptural support would be found in places such as John 6:44   and Acts 16:14 (for example) .  Such prevenient grace was affirmed at the Second Synod of Orange in AD 529.  However, in none of the canons of Orange that I have read is there any affirmation of irresistable grace, limited atonement, unconditional election or unconditional perserverance of the saints (aka 'OSAS').  As such, Second Orange is often described as expressing the 'Semi-Augustinian' consensus of the West at the time (and I don't see anything in the canons that Eastern Christians would necessarily object to).  The 39 Articles, strictly speaking (in their literal and grammatical sense) fall into this category (though no doubt Calvinists have tried to read more into them than is actually there).

However, Calvinism, being a form of strict monergism, goes beyond this and states God must regenerate a man before he can have faith.  This regenerative grace is irresistable and the four other point of TULIP flow from this alleged necessity of monergistic regeneration (preceding inevitable faith) to overcome 'Total Depravity'.

(2) On the question of 'faith' and 'works', 'Sola fide' CAN be understood in an orthodox manner...depending on how one defines 'faith' and in what sense 'works' are used.  I could go into more detail, but I have to go in a minute, but simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #74 on: April 14, 2011, 08:06:12 PM »

As a traditional Anglican (who is certainly NOT a Calvinist), I thought I'd add a few observations...

(1) I think one can hold to a form of 'Total Depravity' without necessitating belief in absolute monergism.  Arminius and Wesley had very strong view about the helplessness of man apart from divine grace, but neither would be monergists strictly speaking.  The key is the belief in prevenient grace--God's gracious initiative and enabling power which must precede any man's response of faith and regeneration (ie man can't conjur up faith unaided).  Scriptural support would be found in places such as John 6:44   and Acts 16:14 (for example) .  Such prevenient grace was affirmed at the Second Synod of Orange in AD 529.  However, in none of the canons of Orange that I have read is there any affirmation of irresistable grace, limited atonement, unconditional election or unconditional perserverance of the saints (aka 'OSAS').  As such, Second Orange is often described as expressing the 'Semi-Augustinian' consensus of the West at the time (and I don't see anything in the canons that Eastern Christians would necessarily object to).  The 39 Articles, strictly speaking (in their literal and grammatical sense) fall into this category (though no doubt Calvinists have tried to read more into them than is actually there).

However, Calvinism, being a form of strict monergism, goes beyond this and states God must regenerate a man before he can have faith.  This regenerative grace is irresistable and the four other point of TULIP flow from this alleged necessity of monergistic regeneration (preceding inevitable faith) to overcome 'Total Depravity'.

(2) On the question of 'faith' and 'works', 'Sola fide' CAN be understood in an orthodox manner...depending on how one defines 'faith' and in what sense 'works' are used.  I could go into more detail, but I have to go in a minute, but simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
This was well said.

The Calvinists also seem to imply by their total depravity doctrine that nothing about us really changed after Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection; man still can't turn towards God, God "still" has to force people to choose him. I think this is because for Calvinists, Christ's work did not have any effect on the inner life of humanity, but rather made it possible to lift externally-assigned curses.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 08:07:43 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.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,266


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #75 on: April 14, 2011, 09:36:50 PM »

As a traditional Anglican (who is certainly NOT a Calvinist), I thought I'd add a few observations...

(1) I think one can hold to a form of 'Total Depravity' without necessitating belief in absolute monergism.  Arminius and Wesley had very strong view about the helplessness of man apart from divine grace, but neither would be monergists strictly speaking.  The key is the belief in prevenient grace--God's gracious initiative and enabling power which must precede any man's response of faith and regeneration (ie man can't conjur up faith unaided).  Scriptural support would be found in places such as John 6:44   and Acts 16:14 (for example) .  Such prevenient grace was affirmed at the Second Synod of Orange in AD 529.  However, in none of the canons of Orange that I have read is there any affirmation of irresistable grace, limited atonement, unconditional election or unconditional perserverance of the saints (aka 'OSAS').  As such, Second Orange is often described as expressing the 'Semi-Augustinian' consensus of the West at the time (and I don't see anything in the canons that Eastern Christians would necessarily object to).  The 39 Articles, strictly speaking (in their literal and grammatical sense) fall into this category (though no doubt Calvinists have tried to read more into them than is actually there).

However, Calvinism, being a form of strict monergism, goes beyond this and states God must regenerate a man before he can have faith.  This regenerative grace is irresistable and the four other point of TULIP flow from this alleged necessity of monergistic regeneration (preceding inevitable faith) to overcome 'Total Depravity'.

(2) On the question of 'faith' and 'works', 'Sola fide' CAN be understood in an orthodox manner...depending on how one defines 'faith' and in what sense 'works' are used.  I could go into more detail, but I have to go in a minute, but simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
This was well said.

The Calvinists also seem to imply by their total depravity doctrine that nothing about us really changed after Christ's Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection; man still can't turn towards God, God "still" has to force people to choose him. I think this is because for Calvinists, Christ's work did not have any effect on the inner life of humanity, but rather made it possible to lift externally-assigned curses.
If that is true of them, then they come dangerously close to denying the reaity of the Incarnation.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #76 on: April 14, 2011, 11:37:32 PM »

Doubting Thomas,

You need to stick around, rather than posting and then lurking (or taking a vacation from the forum) for months at a time! I appreciate your input(s) Smiley
« Last Edit: April 14, 2011, 11:37:56 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #77 on: April 14, 2011, 11:46:54 PM »

simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
I have heard this espoused by Orthodox faithful as well. Part of the reason I brought up semantics earlier. Thanks
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #78 on: April 15, 2011, 12:49:23 AM »

simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
I have heard this espoused by Orthodox faithful as well. Part of the reason I brought up semantics earlier. Thanks
Often true. Sola Fide was designed to eliminate excesses produced by Merit Theology, and didn't start off quite so nuts as it later became in certain Reformed circles.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 12:51:26 AM 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.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #79 on: April 15, 2011, 05:51:31 AM »

simply put, one is not saved by works, but one will not be saved without them either.
I have heard this espoused by Orthodox faithful as well. Part of the reason I brought up semantics earlier. Thanks

My priest always says, "Faith and faithfulness go hand in hand." Smiley
Logged

Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #80 on: April 15, 2011, 11:09:59 AM »

Doubting Thomas,

You need to stick around, rather than posting and then lurking (or taking a vacation from the forum) for months at a time! I appreciate your input(s) Smiley

Thanks.  Smiley
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #81 on: May 07, 2011, 11:00:44 AM »

God's preceding gift of Grace may be responded to with living faith (faith/works un-separated), or it may be rejected. Even after the Fall of Man, mankind's spiritual capacity was damaged, but not destroyed as the Calvinists assert.

 Firstly, Calvinism and the Reformed faith is not so metaphysical.  As one Calvinist put it to me, Calvinist theology is not the theology of the "natural man" or the "old Adam".   
  Calvinists do believe in free will.  The Westminster Confession of Faith confirms this.

Quote
Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.   

    Nobody who is educated seriously in the Lutheran or Reformed theology would reduce salvation to only justification like that.    For the Reformers, one could have assurance they were justified before God by faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of what works they had done.  This does not mean that works would not follow from this faith, merely that salvation cannot be reduced to some kind of legalism or merit-making.

Quote
This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary.

  Do the Scriptures really teach this?  What "works" did the good thief do on the cross to prove he was saved?  Certainly he did not saying 10 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers.  The only "work" he did was repentence (and we cannot even be sure how deep that was), and yet he is justified in Christ's sight and saved.  Reformers don't see repentence as a work one does to please God, rather they see it as something God does to us.

Quote
Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. 

  If Christ's redemption has changed the whole universe, why is there still sin and death in the world?  It would seem this new creation through Christ is being applied to some and not others, wouldn't it?

Quote
3. Limited atonement has to do with ARBITRARY assignment of salvation. I am not condemning the notion of predestination as understood by the ancient Christian church, as stated in the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem I posted above in this thread.

   I have a Calvinist friend who definitely would disagree with the idea that God's assignment is ever arbitrary.  God's decrees are perfect, not arbitrary, because of who God is.   Again, Calvinism is not a theology of the Old Adam.

Quote
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Orthodox position on such things. Calvinism and Orthodoxy are different Gospels. Their God is a vengeful God who arbitrarily tortures some and arbitrarily rewards others just to glorify himself, wheras the God of Orthodoxy is the Lover of All Mankind who remains humble and selfless unto all ages. 

  And they would argue that the Orthodox view of God too often is not strong enough to save anyone and depends too much on human effort, they might argue how is this even a Gospel- Good News, at all?   The  Thomist  ideas about how salvation works are "good advice" but hardly "Good News".  Advice is not always helpful to somebody who is lost in sin, and thus the Reformations doctrines do not merely reflect philosophical speculation more importantly they reflect on human experience.

  I do not necessarily agree with everything about Calvinism but too often it is not understood on its own terms, nor is the appreciation always there for the Reformed faith as a living tradition with theological development.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #82 on: May 07, 2011, 12:05:38 PM »

Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.   

    Nobody who is educated seriously in the Lutheran or Reformed theology would reduce salvation to only justification like that.    For the Reformers, one could have assurance they were justified before God by faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of what works they had done.  This does not mean that works would not follow from this faith, merely that salvation cannot be reduced to some kind of legalism or merit-making.

This is true. From what I've seen, God does everything and we do nothing, God is all powerful and we are incapable of doing anything good, there is nothing good that dwells within us. At the slightest hint that we have to do something, and yes we are responsible for how we react to God's grace, it gets twisted into works-righteousness and a denial of God's sovereignty and omnipotence. If they were combating the excesses of "merit" theology and indulgences, then they just replaced one lie with another.

Quote
Quote
This runs contrary to Holy Scripture, which clearly teaches that a Living Faith, that is, faith lived out in works, is necessary.

  Do the Scriptures really teach this?  What "works" did the good thief do on the cross to prove he was saved?  Certainly he did not saying 10 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers.  The only "work" he did was repentence (and we cannot even be sure how deep that was), and yet he is justified in Christ's sight and saved.
 

He did everything that he was capable of doing at the time with what short life he had left. He's an example of the laborer hired at the eleventh hour.

Quote
Reformers don't see repentence as a work one does to please God, rather they see it as something God does to us.

It's both.

Quote
Quote
Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him. 

  If Christ's redemption has changed the whole universe, why is there still sin and death in the world?  It would seem this new creation through Christ is being applied to some and not others, wouldn't it?

But everyone has access to that salvation. Sin and death are still in the world because this world has not fully passed away. All of creation groans in travail awaiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of the body.

Quote
Quote
3. Limited atonement has to do with ARBITRARY assignment of salvation. I am not condemning the notion of predestination as understood by the ancient Christian church, as stated in the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem I posted above in this thread.

   I have a Calvinist friend who definitely would disagree with the idea that God's assignment is ever arbitrary.  God's decrees are perfect, not arbitrary, because of who God is.   Again, Calvinism is not a theology of the Old Adam.

God doesn't see things the way we see them. He knows the beginning from the end. Being outside of time and the creator of time, he knows what we will do before we do it. This does not change our free will. Saying that God knows the end and knows who will answer His call is different than saying "God picked person A and not person B and that's just how it is".

Quote
Quote
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the Orthodox position on such things. Calvinism and Orthodoxy are different Gospels. Their God is a vengeful God who arbitrarily tortures some and arbitrarily rewards others just to glorify himself, wheras the God of Orthodoxy is the Lover of All Mankind who remains humble and selfless unto all ages. 

  And they would argue that the Orthodox view of God too often is not strong enough to save anyone and depends too much on human effort, they might argue how is this even a Gospel- Good News, at all?   The  Thomist  ideas about how salvation works are "good advice" but hardly "Good News".  Advice is not always helpful to somebody who is lost in sin, and thus the Reformations doctrines do not merely reflect philosophical speculation more importantly they reflect on human experience.

And they are wrong.

Quote
I do not necessarily agree with everything about Calvinism but too often it is not understood on its own terms, nor is the appreciation always there for the Reformed faith as a living tradition with theological development.

Orthodoxy and Calvinism are not two different ways of saying the same thing. There are some similarities in that God is the Almighty, but not in a way that denies our free will or the potential for the repentence of every human being eveer created by Him. The language used can be quite different, and in some instances it might be a case of using different language to say the same thing, but overall it is a case of using different language to express a different belief.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #83 on: May 07, 2011, 02:58:02 PM »

This is true. From what I've seen, God does everything and we do nothing, God is all powerful and we are incapable of doing anything good, there is nothing good that dwells within us. At the slightest hint that we have to do something, and yes we are responsible for how we react to God's grace, it gets twisted into works-righteousness and a denial of God's sovereignty and omnipotence.  

   Please note for Anglicans and Lutherans that definitely is not the case, even though I agree for the Reformed faith there is more of that tone overall.    I think a Lutheran or Anglican would say one goes to church and participates in sacraments and a prayer life to increase and preserve ones faith.

  Keep in mind Jesus Christ talks about people who do "good works" in his name and yet he rejects them at the Last Judgement because they were not done faithfully in love.  Merely doing things out of a sense of duty, pride, fear, or religiosity is not pleasing to God and earns us nothing.

Quote
He did everything that he was capable of doing at the time with what short life he had left. He's an example of the laborer hired at the eleventh hour.  


  Fair enough, I just have trouble seeing this as a "work".   I believe this is truely a case of Orthodox and Protestant Christians having different terminology.  It really is down to Orthodox having a less juridical understanding of salvation, I suppose.  OTOH, sometimes I think the Orthodox clergy and teaching can obfuscate the nature of salvation, that is cannot be merited through propitiating God and comes through a Person, not "religiosity".  And all the talk of "healing" in Orthodox convert and apologist rhetoric obscures the reality that Orthodox piety has juridical language at times, such as "punishment" and so forth.

Quote
But everyone has access to that salvation. Sin and death are still in the world because this world has not fully passed away. All of creation groans in travail awaiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of the body.

  "Everyone"?  Well, we have no way of knowing absolutely, that a pagan living off in a desert island has access to salvation, short of something miraculous, the normal means of salvation is through the Church, even many Protestants agree with that.

Quote
God doesn't see things the way we see them. He knows the beginning from the end. Being outside of time and the creator of time, he knows what we will do before we do it. This does not change our free will. Saying that God knows the end and knows who will answer His call is different than saying "God picked person A and not person B and that's just how it is".

 If God creates everybody, and he knows beforehand who will go to heaven and hell, in what sense is it not true that God causes people to go to heaven or hell?  I see only two possibilities, God creates some predestined to heaven or hell due to his choice, or there is no God that creates.  Or a third possibility, , everybody goes to heaven, or everybody goes to hell, or heaven and hell are incorrect concepts for the afterlife.

« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 03:01:59 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #84 on: May 07, 2011, 03:00:55 PM »

Calvinists do believe in free will.  The Westminster Confession of Faith confirms this.

Not all Calvinists profess or hold the Westminster Confession of Faith as a major part of their dogma.

The Canons of Dort, and to a lesser extent the Belgic Confession, are explicitly clear that man is incapable of choosing God, and have no free will to do so.

In Orthodoxy we believe in Synergy between Man and God. God provided the means to salvation, but we have to carry it out with his help. Calvinism teaches that Man has essentially no role in our salvation, and God carries out our salvation on our behalf, and we have no real role in the matter. (After all, to say otherwise would deny God's sovereignty.)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 03:08:27 PM by bogdan » Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #85 on: May 07, 2011, 04:42:46 PM »

This is true. From what I've seen, God does everything and we do nothing, God is all powerful and we are incapable of doing anything good, there is nothing good that dwells within us. At the slightest hint that we have to do something, and yes we are responsible for how we react to God's grace, it gets twisted into works-righteousness and a denial of God's sovereignty and omnipotence.  

   Please note for Anglicans and Lutherans that definitely is not the case, even though I agree for the Reformed faith there is more of that tone overall.    I think a Lutheran or Anglican would say one goes to church and participates in sacraments and a prayer life to increase and preserve ones faith.

  Keep in mind Jesus Christ talks about people who do "good works" in his name and yet he rejects them at the Last Judgement because they were not done faithfully in love.  Merely doing things out of a sense of duty, pride, fear, or religiosity is not pleasing to God and earns us nothing.

Two points. First, we still have to do good works, we just have to do them for the right reasons and with love. Second, Christ doesn't say "good works" but "mighty works" which is literally the greek "dynamis" speaking more of power than goodness.

Quote
Quote
He did everything that he was capable of doing at the time with what short life he had left. He's an example of the laborer hired at the eleventh hour.  


  Fair enough, I just have trouble seeing this as a "work".   I believe this is truely a case of Orthodox and Protestant Christians having different terminology.  It really is down to Orthodox having a less juridical understanding of salvation, I suppose.  OTOH, sometimes I think the Orthodox clergy and teaching can obfuscate the nature of salvation, that is cannot be merited through propitiating God and comes through a Person, not "religiosity".  And all the talk of "healing" in Orthodox convert and apologist rhetoric obscures the reality that Orthodox piety has juridical language at times, such as "punishment" and so forth.

Salvation has many aspects to it because sin has many aspects to it. As far as "works" go, we don't do good works so that God "owes" us anything in return, we do them because that is what we are supposed to do and a refusal to do them is a refusal to follow Christ.

Quote
Quote
But everyone has access to that salvation. Sin and death are still in the world because this world has not fully passed away. All of creation groans in travail awaiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of the body.

  "Everyone"?  Well, we have no way of knowing absolutely, that a pagan living off in a desert island has access to salvation, short of something miraculous, the normal means of salvation is through the Church, even many Protestants agree with that.

Yes. The normal means of salvation is within the Church, even though we probably define that differently, but that does not mean that a pagan who never heard the name of Jesus Christ doesn't have that natural law written in their heart by which they will be held responsible for following. In the parable of the talents, the men weren't judged by what they were given, but by what they did with what they were given.

Quote
Quote
God doesn't see things the way we see them. He knows the beginning from the end. Being outside of time and the creator of time, he knows what we will do before we do it. This does not change our free will. Saying that God knows the end and knows who will answer His call is different than saying "God picked person A and not person B and that's just how it is".

 If God creates everybody, and he knows beforehand who will go to heaven and hell, in what sense is it not true that God causes people to go to heaven or hell?  I see only two possibilities, God creates some predestined to heaven or hell due to his choice, or there is no God that creates.  Or a third possibility, , everybody goes to heaven, or everybody goes to hell, or heaven and hell are incorrect concepts for the afterlife.

Hell exists because we were created with free will to choose to follow or reject God. In Him we live and move and have our being. To reject Him is to reject life itself. The God who wills for all to be saved didn't create people for the express purpose of tormenting them eternally. God didn't create us for the purpose of destroying all of us. If God just "sent" everyone to heaven, it would deny our freedom in loving God.

If man is made in the image and likeness of God, then how is God's sovereignty made manifest in us?
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #86 on: May 07, 2011, 06:58:28 PM »


The link in your last post is broken: "No such file (give_legacy_article)"

Apologies.

Here is a link through The WayBack Machine

http://web.archive.org/web/20070615044339/http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eba91950c3.htm

That link is no longer working. Which of his essays is this from?
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #87 on: May 09, 2011, 12:36:26 AM »

Quote
Total Depravity: Denies the redemptive work of Christ in his Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, because it asserts that man is still unable to respond to God's Grace. Total Depravity is also based off of the heretical doctrine of Sola Fide, which asserts that salvation is by faith alone without works playing any role.  

    Nobody who is educated seriously in the Lutheran or Reformed theology would reduce salvation to only justification like that.    For the Reformers, one could have assurance they were justified before God by faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of what works they had done.  This does not mean that works would not follow from this faith, merely that salvation cannot be reduced to some kind of legalism or merit-making.

I'm speaking of this doctrine as understood by 5 point Calvinists, not Lutherans or moderate Presbyterians.

[1.]Do the Scriptures really teach this?  [2.]What "works" did the good thief do on the cross to prove he was saved?  Certainly he did not saying 10 Hail Mary's and 5 Our Fathers.  [3.]The only "work" he did was repentence (and we cannot even be sure how deep that was), and yet he is justified in Christ's sight and saved.  Reformers don't see repentence as a work one does to please God, rather they see it as something God does to us.
1. Yes. Read the Law, Psalms, Prophets, Gospels, St. James and ALL of Paul.
2. He didn't have to prove he was saved to anyone.
3. Orthodox don't see repentance as a work one does to please God, rather they see it as something God works (energizes) in us, through Synergy, with our response to God's Grace.

Quote
Limited Atonement: The satanic notion that Christ's redemption was only effective upon individuals arbitrarily predestined to salvation. Christ's redemption changed the whole universe, and it may be accessed by anyone who chooses Him.  

If Christ's redemption has changed the whole universe, why is there still sin and death in the world?  It would seem this new creation through Christ is being applied to some and not others, wouldn't it?

According to St. Athanasius, demonic attacks and presence were put to flight compared to B.C. following the Resurrection, and even in his day this persisted. He observed a before/after. I trust him.

St. Ephrem the Syrian writes,

"The Cross abolished idolatrous adulation, enlightened the whole universe, gathered all the nations into one Church and united them with love... By this holy armor of the Cross Christ the Lord has terminated the all-consuming bowels of Hades and blocked the many snares in the mouth of the devil. Having seen the Cross, death trembled and released everyone whom she possessed with the first creature... By the Cross the Almighty One bestowed unspeakable blessings on humanity!"

Quote
3. Limited atonement has to do with ARBITRARY assignment of salvation. I am not condemning the notion of predestination as understood by the ancient Christian church, as stated in the Confession of the Council of Jerusalem I posted above in this thread.
I have a Calvinist friend who definitely would disagree with the idea that God's assignment is ever arbitrary.  God's decrees are perfect, not arbitrary, because of who God is. Again, Calvinism is not a theology of the Old Adam.
Then your friend needs to read some John Calvin.

If God decrees something abritrarily, and that thing ceases to be arbitrary only because God does it and everything God does has to be perfect, you've reached a cause/effect absurdity. By that logic, God could slay all the righteous people on the earth, leaving only the evil, and it would be perfectly in accord with who God is because everything he does is perfect. The problem with that logic is that GOD REVEALED HIMSELF TO US IN JESUS CHRIST. And that revelation is not a lie, it is our salvation. If God merely pretended to reveal himself in Christ, being a completely different being behind the scenes, then our salvation is a lie. Perhaps Calvinists get around this by unofficially, unconciously separating the wills of the Father and the Son, which is obviously heresy.

Orthodoxy is the faith founded by the New Adam, so you don't have to tell me about the Old Adam being out of style.

And they would argue that the Orthodox view of God too often is not strong enough to save anyone and depends too much on human effort
Yes, they would argue that. And they would be wrong. They're the ones offering aspirin to people in need of heart transplants.
The  Thomist  ideas about how salvation works are "good advice" but hardly "Good News".  Advice is not always helpful to somebody who is lost in sin, and thus the Reformations doctrines do not merely reflect philosophical speculation more importantly they reflect on human experience.
If John Calvin wanted to avoid philosophical speculation, he shouldn't have written the Institutes.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2011, 12:51:03 AM 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.
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #88 on: May 09, 2011, 01:34:06 AM »

Nice stuff Daedelus and Melodist. Good to see some real discussion rather than polemics.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Carefree T
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 43


« Reply #89 on: May 09, 2011, 10:06:01 PM »

Not to make a side-note, but is Calvinism as hugely apparent in America as posts on this board seem to suggest? I've never truly met a Calvinist in all my life, (I honestly haven" living all of it in Denver, Colorado - though I admit I'm young! My only, one, actual encounter with a Calvinist was when my World Religions teacher in high school invited a Calvinist to speak in our class; he came in to class with his black garments and collar, like an actual priest, walked up to the podium, pointed to the entire class with his finger in a half-circular, sweeping motion from left to right, and said "All of you are going to Hell" and promptly, as if it was part of his spiel, pulled out a cigarette and lit it, leaning forward on the podium. Our teacher very quickly and forcefully "asked" him to leave, needless to say. But my question truly is, is this theology so prevalent in our country? I've never encountered it in an organic way - i.e. in any kind of religious group considering their own doctrine - ever. I've "encountered" protestant Christian groups?! I know what they're all about (Lord have mercy upon their beautiful intentions!), and they all "hate" (not truly "hate," but "REGRET-") Calvinist theology. They've all told me they "hate" ("regret," as they correct themselves), Calvinists, purposely making themselves distinct from it because of its somewhat-gross implications. But, then again, this is just in the locations local to me. Which is the problem - how widespread is this ideology? B/c I have never found it but once in my own enclosed, Orthodox, society - fighting against it. Which is fine (I have the Orthodox interpretation!)
Logged
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,919


« Reply #90 on: May 10, 2011, 08:25:32 AM »

Not to make a side-note, but is Calvinism as hugely apparent in America as posts on this board seem to suggest? I've never truly met a Calvinist in all my life, (I honestly haven" living all of it in Denver, Colorado - though I admit I'm young! My only, one, actual encounter with a Calvinist was when my World Religions teacher in high school invited a Calvinist to speak in our class; he came in to class with his black garments and collar, like an actual priest, walked up to the podium, pointed to the entire class with his finger in a half-circular, sweeping motion from left to right, and said "All of you are going to Hell" and promptly, as if it was part of his spiel, pulled out a cigarette and lit it, leaning forward on the podium. Our teacher very quickly and forcefully "asked" him to leave, needless to say. But my question truly is, is this theology so prevalent in our country? I've never encountered it in an organic way - i.e. in any kind of religious group considering their own doctrine - ever. I've "encountered" protestant Christian groups?! I know what they're all about (Lord have mercy upon their beautiful intentions!), and they all "hate" (not truly "hate," but "REGRET-") Calvinist theology. They've all told me they "hate" ("regret," as they correct themselves), Calvinists, purposely making themselves distinct from it because of its somewhat-gross implications. But, then again, this is just in the locations local to me. Which is the problem - how widespread is this ideology? B/c I have never found it but once in my own enclosed, Orthodox, society - fighting against it. Which is fine (I have the Orthodox interpretation!)
It is prevalent as a mindset that has put the intellect as the interpretor of God's revelation instead of cooperating with the Holy Spirit in understanding the Gospel and elevating the intellectual conclusion as to what constitute's justification in salvation. The breakdown of theology has resulted in anything from fundamentalism, to universalism, to worldly ecumenism etc.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #91 on: May 14, 2011, 03:10:28 PM »

1) Most protestants do indeed reject hard-line Sola Fide, because they know it is a logically untenable position. They still often separate faith and works, however, whereas the Orthodox do not separate them. 

  Please distinguish between justification by faith and salvation by faith.  Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?"  Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31).    Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification.   But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin.  Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation.  These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.

  I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #92 on: May 14, 2011, 04:05:57 PM »

I think Protestant monergist theology is sort of cludgy, on the other hand its wrong to misrepresent it.

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #93 on: May 14, 2011, 04:18:49 PM »

Please distinguish between justification by faith and salvation by faith.
No. In the story of the pharisee and the publican, do you believe that the publican never returned to repent of his sins again? Of course he would have.

Justification by faith answers the question "How do we know we have peace with God?"  Even Scriptures answers this, "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". (Acts 16:31).    Sanctification, on the other hand, is required for salvation as much as justification.   But one cannot be sanctified without first being justified becaus without justification there's none of the theological virtues, there's no hope because the alienation from God that exists due to sin.  Invariably one will be buy God off with good works rather than accepting oneself as a sinner who has done nothing to merit salvation.  These good works done out of pride, fear, or a desire to manipulate God do not contribute to ones salvation.
I have no idea what you're attempting to argue for or against here.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 04:25:44 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.
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #94 on: May 14, 2011, 08:41:15 PM »

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

 Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will).   As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion.   Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism).   What are your thoughts?  I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #95 on: May 14, 2011, 09:20:39 PM »

Monergism and synergism are mutually exclusive and only one can be true. This deals with how we come to and relate to God and our responsibility to serve Him out of love and obedience. Also, seeing how it relates to the role the human will plays, and Christ had a human nature, it becomes a Christological problem too as how you define what it means to be human affects what it means for us for Christ to be truly human. I once read in a Protestant history book, of some reformed tradition I believe, that the great Christological controversies ended in the year 451. This denies the teaching of the last three councils, includiong the sixth that defined Christ's two wills as being fully human and fully divine.

 Well, it could be argued that the free will some of the Fathers defended is not an adequate paradigm to describe human behavior, open to philosophical critique (I myself deny the validity of libertarian free will).

Jesus dieing on the cross and being raised on the third day was up for philosophical critique when Paul preached in Athens.


Quote
As far as philosophies go, Stoicism is not dependent on free will for instance, rather than looking for blame, it focuses on insight and compassion.

 Huh

Quote
Plus Jesus tells us not to judge, or we will be judged... so why buy into a philosophy that's all about assigning blame (libertarianism).   What are your thoughts?  I think alot of harm we do throwing around judgements like "good" and "bad" without being honest and admitting a great deal of our moral judegments are emotivist and anthropocentric.

I'm not persdonally assigning blame to anyone. We will be held accountable for everything we say and do, but that is God's place to judge us, not ours. Just because God is our judge, doesn't mean that we aren't responsible for our actions. It also doesn't change the fact that we have a responsibility to respond to God out of love.

This is not my personal opinion. This is what the Church teaches as it has received from Christ and preserved.

For we will not admit one natural operation in God and in the creature, as we will not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited to the creature.

We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists, as Cyril admirably says.  Preserving therefore the inconfusedness and indivisibility, we make briefly this whole confession, believing our Lord Jesus Christ to be one of the Trinity and after the incarnation our true God, we say that his two natures shone forth in his one subsistence in which he both performed the miracles and endured the sufferings through the whole of his economic conversation (δἰ ὅλης αὐτοῦ τῆς οἰκονομκῆς ἀναστροφῆς), and that not in appearance only but in very deed, and this by reason of the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together yet each nature wills and does the things proper to it and that indivisibly and inconfusedly.  Wherefore we confess two wills and two operations, concurring most fitly in him for the salvation of the human race.

DECREE IV.
We believe the tri-personal God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be the maker of all things visible and invisible; and the invisible are the angelic Powers, rational souls, and demons, — though God made not the demons what they afterwards became by their own choice, — but the visible are heaven and what is under heaven. And because the Maker is good by nature, He made all things very good {cf. Genesis 1:31} whatsoever He hath made, nor can He ever be the maker of evil. But if there be aught evil, that is to say, sin, come about contrarily to the Divine Will, in man or in demon, — for that evil is simply in nature, we do not acknowledge, — it is either of man, or of the devil. For it is a true and infallible rule, that God is in no wise the author of evil, nor can it at all by just reasoning be attributed to God.

DECREE V.
We believe all things that are, whether visible or invisible, to be governed by the providence of God; but although God foreknoweth evils, and permitteth them, yet in that they are evils, He is neither their contriver nor their author. But when such are come about, they may be over-ruled by the Supreme Goodness for something beneficial, not indeed as being their author, but as engrafting thereon something for the better. And we ought to adore, but not curiously pry into, Divine Providence in its ineffable and only partially revealed judgments. {cf. Romans 11:33} Albeit what is revealed to us in Divine Scripture concerning it as being conducive to eternal life, we ought honestly to search out, and then unhesitatingly to interpret the same agreeably to primary notions of God.
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Daedelus1138
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 315


« Reply #96 on: May 20, 2011, 05:53:58 PM »

   If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?  Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.  

  I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective.  Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings?  Does this make sense?  Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil?    Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).
« Last Edit: May 20, 2011, 05:55:13 PM by Daedelus1138 » Logged
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2011, 03:50:50 AM »

Calvinists used these verses to back up their claims about original sin. They say that being “dead in transgressions and sins” means we couldn’t have any free-will or choose in any way to believe in Christ. Dead men can’t choose or act in any way they say. They say
that to believe that man has free-will to accept God’s grace contradicts these scriptures and if one thinks so then one denies salvation by grace alone and adds works.
In other words, God doesn't do all in salvation (semi-Pelagianism) if man has free-will.

I was watching these youtube clips last week. the lecturer is Dr. Phillip Cary
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/professors/professor_detail.aspx?pid=93

Mostly in regards to the Augustinian view, but it begins with the general Patristic view and then moves on to the Augustinian one.
http://youtu.be/dq-fVwWjByw (Lecture 12: doctrine of Grace)

http://youtu.be/GNJmDhT_Q6s (Lecture 20: Calvin and Reformed Theology)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgWE9XQS0S0&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (Lecture 21: Protestants on Predestination)

as well as:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltcEdVIxHc&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL (Lecture 22: Protestant Disagreements)

This isn't from an Orthodox perspective, but it is very informative from an academic perspective.


  
Quote
What is the Orthodox response to this?

I don't know if we have one that focuses solely on the 5 points of Calvinism. I am writing a book about the issue, but there is no telling when I'll be done with that. On the issue of original sin you can buy a number of books.



As well as:






 
Quote
I have read several things by Orthodox writers about orginal sin, but I haven’t seen anyone deal with these specific verses or Calvinists beliefs on them. Does anyone know what the Orthodox Church teaches and responds to
Calvinism on this regard?

I am writing a book at the moment, and so I won't be of much help until I'm done.



 
Quote
Any former Calvinists here have an answer?

P.S.

I was a former Arminian protestant, but I was never a Calvinist protestant.

« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 03:52:17 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2011, 06:38:45 AM »

Dr. Phillip Cary
http://youtu.be/yVuI7ka49J0 (Lecture 14: Eastern Orthodox Theology)
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #99 on: May 24, 2011, 08:46:55 AM »

This would probably be helpful: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/reconsidering-tulip/14269986
Logged
bogdan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,615



« Reply #100 on: May 24, 2011, 09:06:46 AM »

   If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?  Keep in mind that Calvinists say God has two wills, a provisional will and a perfect will.   

God is all-powerful because he holds all things in existence. Nothing exists without his continued will that it be so. But God is love by nature, and free-will is a necessary aspect of love. He cannot force people to do his will because it would go against his nature.

I was a Calvinist my whole life before I converted, and I don't remember anything about God having two wills. Can you point me to one of the Calvinist confessions or catechisms that explain this?

  I still have problems throwing around "good" and "evil" as if they must mean something in an omniscient perspective.  Is a hurricane or earthquake in itself an evil, or is it merely evil relative to the choices and preferences of human beings?  Does this make sense?  Why must we be constrained to an anthropomorphic vision of good and evil?    Thinking moralisticly about the world like this keeps us away from a detached perspective which can lead to insight (think of what a scientist does, for instance).

An earthquake itself is morally neutral.

We need not go to the extreme of saying that every "act of God" is a deliberate action on God's part—ie, God is angry at Japan so he sends a tsunami at them (though I think this can happen, but I don't think it is the normative explanation for natural disasters). Neither do we need to go to the other extreme—ie, God set the universe into motion and sits back to watch like the god of deism. A lot of things in Orthodoxy require more nuance than these broad strokes.

A more nuanced, and I think correct, approach would be to say that sin has caused a breakdown in the natural realm. Natural disasters happen because of mankind's rebellion against God, and in some fundamental way that affects nature itself (because we are both noetic and material creatures, and each aspect affects the other). Our sin causes more stress upon nature, more pent-up energy, and as the world drifts further away from God's intent for it, it breaks down into chaos. While at Creation God created order from chaos, sin is changing it back into chaos.

It's like a bridge. When it is in its perfect and new condition, it is very strong and sturdy. But if pieces start to fall off, it gets rusty and cracked, soon it will collapse. This is because it went from the state of order (the creator's intent) to a state of chaos. That is what we see in mankind as well.

That is why, for instance, the holiest of saints can command wild animals and do other supernatural things. In their direct sphere of influence, the Fall is reversed and we get a tiny picture of Paradise once again.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2011, 09:15:24 AM by bogdan » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,974


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #101 on: May 26, 2011, 12:01:53 AM »

  If things that are evil are against God's will, and they happen, how is this not thwarting his will and making God less than omnipotent?
Nothing happens without God's permission, but God permits humans to make mistakes in freedom. He withdraws the use of His omnipotence while maintaining His omnipotence.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2011, 12:02:30 AM 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.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2014, 05:04:01 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 05:05:53 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,383



« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2014, 05:26:18 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


He's America's famous Calvinist? What about the Westboro Baptist Church? Would they be considered infamous and not famous? Perhaps you meant Pastor Mark was the most favoured Calvinist, not the most famous?
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2014, 11:04:19 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


Its short, flippant statement's like his, and those of his critics, that I don't mess around with Twitter. Forum trolls have no interest in anything but their own voice
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #105 on: January 16, 2014, 09:09:41 PM »

Somewhere deep in the visceral part of me, I know that I can never love the God of  Calvin. In fact I have a strong aversion to him.

So what do you think?  DO we have the same God as Calvin?

Is it possible that the differences in theology (our conceptualisation of God, the salvation of the elect irrespective of their sins, the damnation of the non-elect, again irrespective of their personal goodness or their sins) and also in anthropology(total depravity, etc.) are so disparate that something utterly new was introduced by Calvin? Can traditional Christianity and Calvinism be reconciled?

Hilaire Belloc, in a fascinating essay, answers in the negative - he says that the God of Calvin is not the Christian God.  I will just reproduce Belloc's more insightful paragraphs:


"......What Calvin did was this. He took what is one of the oldest and
most perilous directives of mankind, the sense of Fate. He isolated it,
and he made it supreme, by fitting it with the kneading of a powerful
mind, into the scheme which Christian men still traditionally associated
with the holiness and authority of their ancestral religion.

"........ God had become Man, and God had become Man to redeem mankind.
That was no part of the old idea of Inevitable Fate. On the contrary, it
was a relief from that pagan nightmare. We of the Faith say that the
Incarnation was intended to release us from such a pagan nightmare.
Well, Calvin accepted the Incarnation, but he forced it to fit in with
the old pagan horror of compulsion: "Ananke." He reintroduced the Inexorable.

"....... Yes, [Calvin teaches that] God had become Man and had died
to save mankind; but only mankind in such numbers and persons as he
had chosen to act for. The idea of the Inexorable remained. The merits
of Christ were imputed, and no more. God was Causation, and Causation
is one immutable whole. A man was damned or saved; and it was not of his doing.
The recognition of evil as equal with good, which rapidly becomes the worship
of evil (the great Manichean heresy, which has roots as old as mankind;
the permanent motive of Fear) was put forward by Calvin in a strange new form.
He did not indeed oppose, as had the Manichean, two equal principles of Good
and of Evil. He put forward only one principle, God. But to that One
Principle he ascribed all our suffering, and, for most of us, necessary
and eternal suffering."



Belloc's essay on Calvin is here and the whole thing is well worth the read:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39eba91950c3.htm

If Belloc is right, then Calvin created a God which is not the Biblical
one, but a return to an older concept of divinity- the God of Fate, the
God of the Inexorable against whom there is no appeal. All is
predetermined, predestined. Fate rules again, as it did in most of the
belief systems of the pagan world.

Fr Ambrose


One of the major problems with Calvinism is that Calvin was a Nestorian. He denied the deification of the human nature of Christ, the communication of attributes, and so emphasized the differences between the human and divine natures of Christ that he fell into Nestorianism. That is why his sacramental theology is so weak and why salvation according to him is all God's doing.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #106 on: January 16, 2014, 09:21:41 PM »

Linus7 and others,

  Good answer! Thanks for your response! I think you are absolutely correct that Calvinism runs contrary to common sense and the "plain meaning of Scripture". Ironically it is the Calvinism who say that doctrine should be formulated from "the plain meaning of Scripture."

P.S.

There is another very important why Orthodox reject the Calvinist doctrine of original sin. It is based on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:2. Calvin took the doctrine  from Blessed Augustine. Augustine could not read Greek. He developed his doctrine of original sin from an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the Greek Romans 5:12 reads, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --"  However, the Latin translation reads, "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." From this Augustine developed the idea that we are all born guilty of Adam's sin. From there it is only a short leap to Calvin's doctrine of total depravity. 

Fr. John W. Morris

« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 09:22:55 PM by frjohnmorris » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #107 on: January 16, 2014, 10:37:54 PM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


ROFL! He is great.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #108 on: January 17, 2014, 01:07:50 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #109 on: January 17, 2014, 01:12:07 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.

Really, I think Mark is unsatireable. He is the punchline to a joke which no one told. He cracks me up. Sorry you have to live so close, but I laugh mighty heartily from afar.

Really, I feel terrible for his wife. That fiasco was beyond belief.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #110 on: January 17, 2014, 01:16:23 AM »

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days/weeks of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. I watched as she frantically cleaned the house before leaving. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just ticks me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.



Profanity replaced with something more appropriate for the Public Forum  -PtA
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 06:03:32 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #111 on: January 17, 2014, 01:20:34 AM »

His wife was a sweet woman, and a loving mother when I knew her. We babysat their kids within a couple days of the birth of their second child. She had a C-section, then went out on a date with Mark not long after. We babysat their eldest A. for the evening and brought them dinner. Grace was literally pregnant our breastfeeding for almost a solid decade. All the kids are about 2 years or less apart. And she had a classical incision C-section with every single one. So all Mark's whining about being sexually unfulfilled just pisses me off. Grace was one of those women that looked like she had never had a baby almost immediately after. I get the impression that anything less wouldn't have been OK.

So you are not aware of his prophetic vision sent from God of her "infidelity" that he structured a book around? Maybe you can be my proxy. I would love to . . . I guess we are getting off topic and this is public where I don't discuss my less than peaceful desires toward others.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #112 on: January 17, 2014, 01:26:28 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 01:27:13 AM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #113 on: January 17, 2014, 01:28:09 AM »

Do a google search for Wenatchee the Hatchet if you want to learn more about the saga. I know Wenatchee well.
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #114 on: January 17, 2014, 01:52:20 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?



Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #115 on: January 17, 2014, 07:22:38 AM »

America's most famous Calvinist tweets. I notice he didn't mention double predestination.


This one is more interesting: https://twitter.com/NotDriscoll


There is quite the hullabaloo about his plagiarism.

Smart@$$es are rarely if ever funny
Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
sprtslvr1973
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA; Jurisdiaction of Dallas and the South
Posts: 680


"Behold I stand at the Door and Knock" Rev. 3:20


« Reply #116 on: January 17, 2014, 07:25:53 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking
« Last Edit: January 17, 2014, 07:26:24 AM by sprtslvr1973 » Logged

"Into thy hands I commend my spirit"- Luke 23:46
“Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” - Mark 9:24
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #117 on: January 17, 2014, 08:41:52 AM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #118 on: January 17, 2014, 09:13:07 AM »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
LBK
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,181


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: January 17, 2014, 09:40:00 AM »



I bet it has nothing but blank pages inside.  Wink
Logged
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 8,354

"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 17, 2014, 04:15:37 PM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.


Selam
Logged

"Beauty is truth, and Orthodoxy is beautiful." +GMK+
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #121 on: January 17, 2014, 04:25:36 PM »

Imagine how "uncharitable" my feelings are, I knew them relatively well. In the end I will say this; Grace doesn't deserve to be blamed for all Mark's problems. And that is precisely what Mark has done every few years. He would make a big announcement about how hard his life was, and that it is better now. Then a few years later say it all over again. I feel very sorry for Grace.


How long will it be before Mark Driscoll comes to see the error of "Grace alone"?
Selam


Umm, I thought 'Grace Alone' is at its core very Orthodox in thinking

I do believe Gebre is making a joke at Driscoll's expense. I barked at it at least.

You are correct sir. My feeble attempt at humor.


Selam

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #122 on: January 17, 2014, 05:08:01 PM »

He claims that his dad used to wake him up by slugging him. According to Driscoll, that stopped when he slugged his dad back. But he is known for overemphasizing his "manliness" so I would take that claim with a shaker of salt.
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,741


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #123 on: January 17, 2014, 06:00:42 PM »

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

You're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #124 on: January 18, 2014, 12:23:40 AM »

I thought it funny, but really Driscoll is odious. His book on marriage went beyond all human decency. And I have found myself explaining to some of his detractors why he is often correct. He is no dummy. He is short, pathetic, plagued by sexual insecurity, egotistical, opportunistic, and other things which aren't so bad as being short.

What is really laughable is his recent reinvention of himself as an "elder" / professor type. He is a small man who needed to have sex earlier in life and get knocked around more in a sport or by a brother or uncle.

Mark Driscoll shows one of the major flaws of Protestantism. Instead of looking to the Holy Tradition which is the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers, the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the worship of the Church and, finally, what the Church has taught for 2,000 years, Protestants tend to look to one great preacher for guidance on how to understand the Gospel. Because the emphasis is on preaching rather than the presence of God through the Eucharist, Protestants tend to built personality cults around great preachers. It does not matter what they say, but rather how well they say it. I do not know about Mark Driscoll's preaching, but look at Joel Osteen, who is treated like rock star by the media. Here is a man with  no theological education, not ordained by any recognized denomination, who has built a mega church by telling people what they want to hear. His church is like an Oklahoma river after a thunderstorm,  mile wide and an inch deep. Yet he is treated like a great theologian by the media, partially because he does not represent a threat to the secular culture, but is instead part of the secular culture which has dumbed down Christianity. For example, I read today that he believes that homosexuality is sinful, but chooses not to preach on it. In other words, he keeps his mouth shut on anything that might challenge his audience to real repentance. Men like him are more dangerous than the most militant atheists, because they lull people into a false sense that they are really Christian, without the need for real repentance or the necessity of real struggle to life a Christian life.

Fr. John W. Morris
You're never better than when you're right and using words like "odious." He is odious. There really isn't a more fitting word.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #125 on: January 18, 2014, 01:44:46 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

http://theresurgence.com/books/porn_again_christian
Logged
frjohnmorris
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,177


« Reply #126 on: January 18, 2014, 01:57:47 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently. He also speaks out against anything he think is too "girly" for men to do. He is very much the grunting caveman that thinks women should be barefoot, pregnant, and always sexually available. He even goes so far to say, oddly enough, that if a man masturbates that he is practicing borderline homosexuality.

http://theresurgence.com/books/porn_again_christian

Orthodoxy also teaches that masturbation is a sin. However, his view of women is hardly respectful. A wife is a helpmeet, not a slave, especially a sexual slave to her husband.

Fr. John W. Morris
Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #127 on: January 18, 2014, 03:51:38 AM »

just as a matter of interest, I wonder what bearing the responses ##109 ff
have to do with Orthodoxy and Calvinism? Have I missed something here?
Logged

kyril
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #128 on: January 18, 2014, 04:06:19 AM »

just as a matter of interest, I wonder what bearing the responses ##109 ff
have to do with Orthodoxy and Calvinism? Have I missed something here?

It has just slightly more bearing on the subject than your post asking if it has bearing on the subject. Threads derail all the time.

It has bearing insomuch as many people have incorrect views of Mark Driscoll. For example, the post saying he doesn't teach against homosexuality is incorrect. I heard more about homosexuality in the just one year of decade I attended MH than I have in the last 6 years being Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2014, 04:07:57 AM by Quinault » Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #129 on: January 18, 2014, 04:08:56 AM »

He doesn't tell anyone what they want to hear, unless you are self loathing. His favorite quotes are about how much God hates you.
Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #130 on: January 18, 2014, 04:57:45 AM »

I see. (I think.)
So Holy Scripture is in error.
God did - not - so love the world that He gave His only begotten Son...
well, I'm sure you recognize the true quote from St. John.
I also think that with very little effort one can use the New Testament to
refute TULIP; but not now, it's 1:15 am and I'm about to hit the sack.
Good night and
God bless
Kyril.
Logged

kyril
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 18, 2014, 08:55:41 AM »

No, Driscoll does speak out against homosexuality frequently.
Fr. Morris was referring to Joel Osteen.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Hinterlander
Site Supporter
High Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 516


« Reply #132 on: January 18, 2014, 09:34:42 AM »

Here is a good starting place for a refutation of TULIP:

http://orthodoxbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Plucking-the-TULIP4.pdf

A decent blog to for those interested.
Logged
Tags: Calvinism Gnosticism 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   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 0.529 seconds with 160 queries.