What is Orthodoxy's view on predestination and why is it correct?
- Thread starter vraph
- Start date
There is no view on this. The reaction to the idea of "predestination" from an Orthodox point of view would be to call to remembrance that God has saved human beings from the last enemy, death. That is, He has created a path to resurrection into life with Him, as evidenced by the love and work of Jesus Christ. In that sense, and I have liked this term instead, he has pre-designated (fore-ordained) humans to participate in His life. Can they reject Him? Yes, because God does not force or coerce anyone to do anything, because these are His attributes. Predestination implies that free will ultimately does not exist, and in that sense a portion of people are in the same type of unreasonable situation as put forward by universalists, another heretical position.
As far as I understand it - and I don’t believe there’s an Orthodox dogma on this - we have free will to choose whether to cooperate with God, and God knows ahead of time what we’re going to choose. His foreknowledge of our salvation does not negate our free will. But in the Calvinist doctrine we are all just robots with no say in the matter, which ironically makes their preaching pointless since they can’t change our preordained destiny anyway. The biggest danger of Calvinism is that, as you’ll notice, every single one you ever meet will be very convinced they’re “one of the Elect.” You’ll never meet a Calvinist who believes in predestination and also believes that they, themselves, are predestined to damnation. In short, it inflames pride and a feeling of “being special” that becomes very apparent the more you talk with them.
I don't see what benefit there is to reading or preaching Calvinistic predestination. Telling people they were chosen before they were born for Heaven or Hell doesn't lead anyone to repent, most will just shrug and say "hope it's the former!" It's always struck me as a way to flatter the overly scholastic-minded and make certain people feel special. If someone can convince themselves they were predestined among the elect, that's dangerous as even if they continue going to church, their pride may be inflated.
The concept of predestination makes Jesus Christ's death and resurrection look like the biggest prank ever committed. So IMHO, predestination implies that Jesus was a deceiver. I don't know what Calvin'S thoughts on Satan are but I know that Satan is the deceiver. Jesus said take your cross and follow Me, He said don't be like the Pharisees, love your enemies and so on. Why bother teaching all these things if the damned won't stop sinning and the "elect" are saved anyway?
Predestination seems like arrogance and even a form of divination regarding God's will.
Look at me God chose me!
It doesn't take into account any choice at all.
It's like saying that you can live your life an infinite amount of times and always get the same result.
Look at me God chose me!
It doesn't take into account any choice at all.
It's like saying that you can live your life an infinite amount of times and always get the same result.
I think the bigger point, in addition, is that as sovereign over all, God knew when he created the world in the conditions that he set forth (which are according to his attributes) - that at the end of the story there would remain those who are His and know His voice, and others who rebel and don't want to be with Him. So the usage of the word and the idea of predestination or ordaining those whom He has called, is just stating what we already know from the scriptures: in the end, some are sheep, and some are goats. It's actually not even controversial, like most of these supposedly hot topics, when you actually consider it fully and in the larger context.
Now you know partly why many Protestants don't consider the Wisdom of Sirach canonical. They removed books that were part of canon for over 1000 years seemingly because they didn't fit with their new philosophy, such as that and 2 Maccabees which includes prayer for the dead and explains the basis for it.
Yes Wisdom of Sirach has wonderful passages that Protestants have been deprived of
29 A man may be known by his look, and one that hath understanding by his countenance, when thou meetest him. 30 A man’s attire, and excessive laughter, and gait, shew what he is.
Sorry to hi jack thread
An Eastern Orthodox View of Predestination
The Synod of Jerusalem (different than the biblical “Council of Jerusalem”) was an Eastern Orthodox council which was convened in 1672 to deal with the influences of Reformed theology (…
credohouse.org
The argument is not over whether predestination exists, the Bible says that it does. The argument is on what basis does God predestine? His Will or man's will? The Bible gives us the answer to that too.
The classic Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic position is that God predestined based on foreknowledge that someone would accept the Gospel (Conditional Election).
Last edited:
Most of the Elders in my church have done missionary work in foreign countries. The reason being is that God commanded us to evangelize. In no way does that negate God's decree on predestination. God has means to carry out His Will, namely the Church, but He does not rely only on His means to fulfill His Will as He can work without mediation.
In some circles, you see what is called Hyper-Calvinism (Frozen Chosen) where they neglect the command to evangelize because it's all predestined anway.
Interesting, I didn't know that. It did cross my mind what the Protestant interpretation would be whilst I was reading the text.
I'm going to bow out of this thread because it's not targeted at me but I would like to mention that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ were predestined, perhaps the first and foremost things that were predestined.
I would encourage you to read the Book of Acts, chapter 4 specifically but I'll cite it here for posterity's sake:
Acts 4:27-28
English Standard Version
27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.I would then cite more Scripture: Revelation which states that 'Christ was slain before the foundation of the world' and more from Acts.
My intention is not to cause more strife but I find it needless to speculate on maybes where the Bible has already elucidated so clearly for us.
If you would like to follow up on the natural questions and discuss them in a fair, open and honest way then we can talk more on the Protestantism vs Orthodoxy thread.
In addition to what's already been brought up, an important distinction that I think tends to get overlooked in these conversations is that of individual vs. collective predestination.
As individualist westerners we have the tendency to read the Bible (and especially St. Paul's epistles) as though they were written to us, as individuals sitting at home reading our Bibles, rather than to the Church at a given city. Most of the time (such as in Romans 8), St. Paul is offering encouragement to congregations beset by Judaizer influence, counteracting the propaganda they've heard and reassuring them that just because they are Gentiles their inclusion in Christ's Kingdom is not happenstance, nor are they second-class citizens, but the salvation of Gentiles is what God has always intended to accomplish by His plan of salvation. With this in mind, much, if not all, of the tension surrounding this subject which emerged in the theology of early-ish modern Western Europe melts away.
This could also explain why this debate never emerged in Orthodox lands, which have always inclined toward a more collectivist social orientation (along with most of the world, in general) compared to the historically anomalous individualism of Western Europe.
As individualist westerners we have the tendency to read the Bible (and especially St. Paul's epistles) as though they were written to us, as individuals sitting at home reading our Bibles, rather than to the Church at a given city. Most of the time (such as in Romans 8), St. Paul is offering encouragement to congregations beset by Judaizer influence, counteracting the propaganda they've heard and reassuring them that just because they are Gentiles their inclusion in Christ's Kingdom is not happenstance, nor are they second-class citizens, but the salvation of Gentiles is what God has always intended to accomplish by His plan of salvation. With this in mind, much, if not all, of the tension surrounding this subject which emerged in the theology of early-ish modern Western Europe melts away.
This could also explain why this debate never emerged in Orthodox lands, which have always inclined toward a more collectivist social orientation (along with most of the world, in general) compared to the historically anomalous individualism of Western Europe.
There was a puritan spiritualist, Anne Hutchinson who caused a comical schism in the colonies during the late 1630s. Her opinion on predestination is one that stuck with me. She said something to the effect of, "What's the point of living a holy life if you're path to heaven or hell is already predestined?"
In effect, you really don't have to do anything because you'll either end up in heaven or hell. Not arguing for this. The concept of predestination seems off to me and reeks of old fashioned Greek fatalism.
I'm a Calvinist. Many of the objections here are often addressed by one of the foremost modern Calvinists, James White. For example, we would also deny Greek fatalism, or the quasi antinomianism of Anne Hutchinson. Sola Scriptura doesn't mean we can believe whatever we want about "what scripture means to me" or whatever nonsense. Not accusations, but most of the arguments against Calvinism that I encounter are bashing strawmen from Geneva.
Considering that James White won't engage with Orthodox thinking at all and prone to making excuses about how it's supposedly impossible for westerners to understand, his opinion is worth very little to me.
He would be a source when it comes to understanding Calvinism.
And I know what you're talking about when it comes to his engagement with Orthodoxy; I assure you it's a bit more nuanced than that.
Regardless, my point is that many have knocked down strawmen rather than engage Reformed theology.
That is not the Roman Catholic position per se. There are two major schools of thought in Catholicism. What you’ve described is basically just the Molinist position. The Molinist view is that God predestines those whom He knows will respond to His grace. Those whom He knows will not respond to His grace He does not predestine to heaven. Obviously, the difference here is that Predestination is dependent upon the individual's actions, and not upon God's sovereign will.
Opposite to this is the Thomistic view. There is not one Thomistic school of thought. But in general, Thomists believe that God predestines the elect to heaven. He does not predestine the reprobates to heaven, but neither does He predestine them to hell. They have damned themselves, or, more accurately, we all deserve hell because of original sin. God simply does not save the reprobates from humanity's self-inflicted damnation.
- Whom does He save? Those whom He chooses.
- Why does He choose them? Because He loves them more.
- Why does He love them more? Who are we to question Him?
- Why do they believe this? Simply put, because God is sovereign. We do not change Him. He changes us.
The Catholic view: Both schools of thought are permitted. The Church does not say why God chooses to predestine some and not others. But here are some basic Catholic teachings on predestination, most of which were declared at the Council of Trent in response to Protestant beliefs:
First, we cannot be assured in this life that we are among those who have been predestined, apart from some special revelation from God. This kind of language presumes predestination—that there exist some who are predestined. Here all that is condemned is the notion that we can know we are among the ones chosen, or predestined.
The council also condemned the false teaching that some are predestined to evil. Significantly, however, in this condemnation it also implicitly upheld single (or, what I call positive) predestination, the idea that we are chosen for life. Here’s the full text of this important canon:
You should check out Garrigou-Lagrange's work, Predestination. It is very thorough. It's a difficult read, but it's well worth the effort. On a personal note, I view myself as more of a Thomist.
Last edited: