Orthodoxy and Calvinism

[recent convert]

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.

[Daedelus1138]

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.

[Melodist]

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.

[NicholasMyra]

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.

[Daedelus1138]

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.

[Melodist]

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.

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.

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.

[Daedelus1138]

   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).

[jnorm888]

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.


  

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:






 

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.



 

Any former Calvinists here have an answer?

P.S.

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

[jnorm888]

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

[bogdan]

This would probably be helpful: http://www.lulu.com/product/file-download/reconsidering-tulip/14269986

[bogdan]

   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.

[NicholasMyra]

  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.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Protestant Discussion (Moderator: PeterTheAleut) > Topic: Orthodoxy and Calvinism