Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Orthodox Christianity
Inquirers and catechumens
What is Orthodoxy's view on predestination and why is it correct?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pathos" data-source="post: 1553570" data-attributes="member: 24295"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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").</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>EDIT:</strong></p><p></p><p>Just wanted to point out that Pelagianism was condemned at the local <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Council_of_418" target="_blank">Council of Carthage</a> in 418 AD and later confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Pelagianism" target="_blank">Semi-Pelagianism</a> was condemned at the local <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Orange_(529)" target="_blank">Council of Orange</a> 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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate" target="_blank">here</a>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pathos, post: 1553570, member: 24295"] 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. [B]EDIT:[/B] Just wanted to point out that Pelagianism was condemned at the local [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Council_of_418']Council of Carthage[/URL] in 418 AD and later confirmed by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Pelagianism']Semi-Pelagianism[/URL] was condemned at the local [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Orange_(529)']Council of Orange[/URL] 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 [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate']here[/URL]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Orthodox Christianity
Inquirers and catechumens
What is Orthodoxy's view on predestination and why is it correct?
Top
