So the Catholic Church universally believes in predestination of some sort?
What is Orthodoxy's view on predestination and why is it correct?
- Thread starter vraph
- Start date
So the Catholic Church universally believes in predestination of some sort?
The more I get an image of protestant theology (if you could even speak about a protestant theology of course, instead of 1000s), I realize the dangers in just starting to interpret Scripture by yourself, without paying heed to tradition before you. You can really get in some weird alleyways, or at least imperfect and hence destructive or damaging understandings.
My own impression is that the issue of predestination and free will often conjures strong feelings on both sides and that we sometimes tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater when we take "predestination" to mean Calvinism's "double predestination", i.e. God having predestined the elect to heaven and the reprobate to eternal damnation. This concept of "Unconditional Election" is intimately connected to the notion of "Irresistible Grace", i.e. man supposedly being unable to resist God's grace.
There was great controversy over these issues with the so-called Arminians who accepted free will and were seen as having a near-Catholic soteriology by their Calvinist opponents. Methodists are basically Arminian in their theology, as I understand it. However, a lot of churches coming from the Reformed/Calvinist tradition today aren't fully Calvinist anymore and don't necessarily hold "five point Calvinism": Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints ("TULIP").
Basically it seems Calvin took St. Augustine's views to the extreme and eliminated any notion of free will by claiming that we are "totally depraved". The other extreme would be to go full Pelagian by entirely denying any sort of predestination and insisting on untainted free will. Myself I'd put it this way: our free will is damaged as a result of the Fall but we aren't so fully deprived of reason as to be utterly unable to come to some understanding of God, good/evil and natural law. Yet we still need God's grace in order to actually have our nature or God's image restored in us and conform our will to His. I don't think predestination, properly understood, conflicts with that. However, as human beings our perception is too limited to fully fathom how it works.
EDIT:
Just wanted to point out that Pelagianism was condemned at the local Council of Carthage in 418 AD and later confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the local Council of Orange in 529 AD (in Gaul, so basically in the Western Church). From what I recall, the latter council is often used by Calvinists in their favor even though it condemned some aspects of Augustinianism as well and could be labeled "semi-Augustinian". I'd definitely be interested to know if there's anything on this particular council (or semi-Pelagianism in general) from the Eastern churches at that time or what the OC stance on this council is. It seems like the controversy was more of a Western thing geographically. For the Arminian/Calvinist controversy I mentioned, see here.
There was great controversy over these issues with the so-called Arminians who accepted free will and were seen as having a near-Catholic soteriology by their Calvinist opponents. Methodists are basically Arminian in their theology, as I understand it. However, a lot of churches coming from the Reformed/Calvinist tradition today aren't fully Calvinist anymore and don't necessarily hold "five point Calvinism": Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints ("TULIP").
Basically it seems Calvin took St. Augustine's views to the extreme and eliminated any notion of free will by claiming that we are "totally depraved". The other extreme would be to go full Pelagian by entirely denying any sort of predestination and insisting on untainted free will. Myself I'd put it this way: our free will is damaged as a result of the Fall but we aren't so fully deprived of reason as to be utterly unable to come to some understanding of God, good/evil and natural law. Yet we still need God's grace in order to actually have our nature or God's image restored in us and conform our will to His. I don't think predestination, properly understood, conflicts with that. However, as human beings our perception is too limited to fully fathom how it works.
EDIT:
Just wanted to point out that Pelagianism was condemned at the local Council of Carthage in 418 AD and later confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the local Council of Orange in 529 AD (in Gaul, so basically in the Western Church). From what I recall, the latter council is often used by Calvinists in their favor even though it condemned some aspects of Augustinianism as well and could be labeled "semi-Augustinian". I'd definitely be interested to know if there's anything on this particular council (or semi-Pelagianism in general) from the Eastern churches at that time or what the OC stance on this council is. It seems like the controversy was more of a Western thing geographically. For the Arminian/Calvinist controversy I mentioned, see here.
Last edited:
Been doing some research. These canons from the Second Council of Orange against semi-pelagianism (the idea that we come to God through free will and God then enables us to grow in faith through His grace) are interesting:
And:
Source is here.
An Orthodox article on double predestination:
Plucking the TULIP (2) – An Eastern Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
The author insists that Orthodoxy's "synergism" rejects double predestination yet is anti-Pelagian. That would seem congruent with the canons of the Council of Orange to me, though it's still a bit unclear to me what he makes of "free will". Orange was still Augustinian in its overall outlook. It's regrettable he didn't address "predestination" as such though to be fair the article is aimed at Reformed folks. The way many Orthodox position themselves on free will and predestination still sounds somewhat semi-Pelagian to my ears. I'll have to dig some more.
Addendum from New Advent's (Catholic source) entry on this council:
Apparently all this was approved by Pope Boniface II in 531 AD. This makes it ecumenical/magisterial to Catholics though from an Orthodox perspective, since this is from pre-Schism times, I would assume it would basically mean this position is at least acceptable today?
That East/West divide sure is a pain in the butt, isn't it? If anyone knows of any Western rite Orthodox who've looked into this in some depth, I'd be happy to hear about it. On with the quest.
This basically means that free will most definitely is weakened, although not annihilated.
And:
Source is here.
An Orthodox article on double predestination:
Plucking the TULIP (2) – An Eastern Orthodox Critique of the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination
The author insists that Orthodoxy's "synergism" rejects double predestination yet is anti-Pelagian. That would seem congruent with the canons of the Council of Orange to me, though it's still a bit unclear to me what he makes of "free will". Orange was still Augustinian in its overall outlook. It's regrettable he didn't address "predestination" as such though to be fair the article is aimed at Reformed folks. The way many Orthodox position themselves on free will and predestination still sounds somewhat semi-Pelagian to my ears. I'll have to dig some more.
Addendum from New Advent's (Catholic source) entry on this council:
Apparently all this was approved by Pope Boniface II in 531 AD. This makes it ecumenical/magisterial to Catholics though from an Orthodox perspective, since this is from pre-Schism times, I would assume it would basically mean this position is at least acceptable today?
That East/West divide sure is a pain in the butt, isn't it? If anyone knows of any Western rite Orthodox who've looked into this in some depth, I'd be happy to hear about it. On with the quest.
Last edited:
I've consulted my humble personal library and I didn't find anything explicitly mentioning predestination from an Orthodox perspective. However, since predestination is seen in contrast to free will, the concept ultimately is closely tied to the dogma of original sin (or "ancestral" sin as some Orthodox would call it to distinguish it from "inherited guilt" as it is commonly understood in the West), as you may have deduced from my musings in this thread.
For that reason, I think it's more appropriate to see it in the context of the debate with Pelagius and later versions of his doctrine which essentially denied original sin (whether in its Latin or Greek interpretation). Geographically, it seems this debate occurred mostly in the West with St. Augustine being vocally opposed to Pelagianism and the local Second Council of Orange condemning semi-Pelagianism though without affirming double predestination. Essentially, the West had some understanding of predestination or election but not in a Calvinist sense. Also, it did not rule out "free will" entirely, as I understand it, but rather that our freedom of will is diminished as a consequence of the Fall. This implies that salvation is ultimately always from God.
The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (geographically in the East) condemned Pelagianism so this is normative for Orthodoxy whereas the local canons of Orange aren't per se. St. John Cassian appears to have been regarded as semi-Pelagian by some yet he's a saint for both Catholics and Orthodox. At any rate, I've seen Orthodox writers speak of the "elect" (as the Bible does) in the sense of those members of the Church that keep the faith and work out their salvation but predestination seems to have been more developed in the West under St. Augustine's influence and as a response to Pelagius (who was British).
For some historical background on the controversy, you could check out Owen Chadwick's "The Early Church", chapter 15, which is titled "The development of Latin Christian thought", specifically pages 225 to 235 under the heading "The City of God and the Pelagian controversy".
For an Orthodox dogmatic definition of original sin that mentions both Pelagianism and St. Augustine, see Fr. Pomazansky's "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology", chapter 5, which is titled "Concerning Evil and Sin", specifically page 164. The author condemns Pelagianism but there is no mention of "predestination" in this book.
I assume Fr. Seraphim Rose's book "The place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church" should provide some more information on predestination from an Orthodox perspective though since I don't own a copy I can't tell for sure.
I'm still learning myself but I hope this is useful.
That is an excerpt from Berkhof's Systematic theology:
Predestination does not form an important subject of discussion in history until the time of Augustine. Earlier Church Fathers allude to it, but do not as yet seem to have a very clear conception of it. On the whole they regard it as the prescience of God with reference to human deeds, on the basis of which He determines their future destiny. Hence it was possible for Pelagius to appeal to some of those early Fathers.
Augustine’s view found a great deal of opposition, particularly in France, where the semi-Pelagians, while admitting the need of divine grace unto salvation, reasserted the doctrine of a predestination based on foreknowledge. And they who took up the defense of Augustine felt constrained to yield on some important points. They failed to do justice to the doctrine of a double predestination. Only Gottschalk and a few of his friends maintained this, but his voice was soon silenced, and Semi-Pelagianism gained the upper hand at least among the leaders of the Church. Toward the end of the Middle Ages it became quite apparent that the Roman Catholic Church would allow a great deal of latitude in the doctrine of predestination. As long as its teachers maintained that God willed the salvation of all men, and not merely of the elect, they could with Thomas Aquinas move in the direction of Augustinianism in the doctrine of predestination, or with Molina follow the course of Semi Pelagianism, as they thought best. This means that even in the case of those who, like Thomas Aquinas, believed in an absolute and double predestination, this doctrine could not be carried through consistently, and could not be made determinative of the rest of their theology. The Reformers of the sixteenth century all advocated the strictest doctrine of predestination.
The discussion about it should rather take place in another thread.
Last edited:
Some additional information which may be of interest to you or others exploring this topic:
Orthodoxy’s Official Response to Calvinism — The Confession of Dositheus (1673)
Source: Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
The Longer Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow (1830)
Source: Pravoslavieto.com
For comparison's sake, the Council of Trent's [Roman Catholic] decrees in its Sixth Session (see here) seem similar to the above, e.g. the following canons regarding free will and double predestination:
Last edited:
Apart from the points others have brought up here and the Second Council of Orange which I referred to, you may also be interested in learning about the 17th century Jansenist controversy (which affected France and the Spanish Netherlands) for a fuller picture. This position was similar to Calvinism and was condemned by Rome on several occasions, starting with "Cum occasione":
Source: New Advent.
Nailed it.
Here is another resource I just came across from an Orthodox perspective containing various quotes from both Western and Eastern Church Fathers:
Source: Ancient Insights.
On a sidenote, does anyone know whether Fr. Josiah Trenham has addressed this topic in his book Rock & Sand? I haven't read it. He used to be Reformed prior to his conversion to Orthodoxy.
Last edited:
It's a pity he hasn't. I hope to read his book some day because it does look thorough.
Last edited:
This is quite a subversive statement because it implies that the Orthodox Church is split on the issue and that there is both substantial support and and substantial opposition for what Protestants mean by the word. All of the quotes given in the link Pathos provided show a consistent position quite different to how Protestants typically define the term. Also all the references are councils or Saints, not mere scholars. Orthodoxy does not have a tradition of academic theology. Here is a longer exposition by St John of Damascus:
I'd remind you that the Inquirers and catechumens sub-forum is not there for non-Orthodox to attempt to bend Orthodoxy to their own interpretations.
Last edited:
He does address it. Predestination as defined by Calvinists is rejected by Holy Orthodoxy.
The problem with Calvin's soteriology is its Christological implications. Calvin's view of nature is Nestorian-lite, nature is fully encapsulated and cannot both act at the same time. Ergo, if a human does something, God can't be doing it and vice versa. This is why traditional strict Calvinism see faith as a worthless virtue that doesn't have a role in salvation, otherwise a human activity, the activity of mental belief, would play a role in deciding human salvation, and God doesn't since He can't act where a human does. Strict Calvinists condemn Lutherans for holding such faith as a prerequisite for salvation.
This view of human and divine nature lead Calvin to conclude on a monergist Christology, for if Christ had an acting human will, then He isn't acting with a Divine will.
Calvin's soteriology was never considered in the Orthodox world naturally because Orthodoxy worships the real Christ Who is both fully human and fully God with a human and divine will that work in lockstep together synergistically.
Orthodox concept described by predestination is not the monergist concept of Calvin. This was Calvin's error: starting with soteriology then altering Christology and Theology to make it work, instead of following the Orthodox Ordo Theologae, where the starting point is Theology, specifically with the Person of the Father. All else the Fathers' worked out from the Person of the Father as the starting point.
This view of human and divine nature lead Calvin to conclude on a monergist Christology, for if Christ had an acting human will, then He isn't acting with a Divine will.
Calvin's soteriology was never considered in the Orthodox world naturally because Orthodoxy worships the real Christ Who is both fully human and fully God with a human and divine will that work in lockstep together synergistically.
Orthodox concept described by predestination is not the monergist concept of Calvin. This was Calvin's error: starting with soteriology then altering Christology and Theology to make it work, instead of following the Orthodox Ordo Theologae, where the starting point is Theology, specifically with the Person of the Father. All else the Fathers' worked out from the Person of the Father as the starting point.
I thought @vraph meant that Fr. Trenham didn't address the issue specifically in his book. At any rate, I certainly agree with you in saying that the Calvinist take on predestination is rejected by Orthodoxy.
How did I manage to miss that one... Thanks for the link!
Respectfully, as a Reformed person, and a brother in Christ, I believe it's appropriate to say something here. I am very open to Orthodoxy, if it is the correct view. I want to be convinced, but your post here makes it clear you are arguing against something we Reformed don't believe. You have some of the terms correct, but are off on the theology. For example, to say we think faith is worthless... brother, Sola Fide is one of our top beliefs! We also affirm the Hypostatic Union.
This statement isn't a defense of Reformed theology, as that would be against forum rules, but rather a constructive criticism to have a better conversation about the OP. Again, respectfully, I suggest if you want to convince the non-Eastern Orthodox the superiority of your position on predestination over theirs, and you venture to criticize their position, at least get their position right.
Perhaps a Reformed thread in the other forum space is warranted, as an attempt to convince you of the superiority of our position, for one, and at least help you argue with us better by getting our theology correct, if you choose to criticize it.