Since I started the thread let me join in the little Calvinist vs Non-calvinist debate.
Since some people are so well read in theology, moreso than me, perhaps you can tell me what the other positions there are besides Calvinism and Arminianism. I don't subscribe to either.
Any position that predates the 16th Century, most all of which still exist.
I spent about 7 years in the Calvinist world, where arguments against Arminianism tend to occupy people's minds much of the time (this current thread is a good example). I have found that Arminians and Calvinists tend to regard themselves as being each other's opposites, when in reality they share 99.999% of their DNA. Their major difference really only has meaning in the context of Protestantism, which itself makes full sense only when considered against the backdrop of the Roman Catholic Church that it rejected, and continues to reject.
I would suggest taking the time to read some more ancient sources. Read Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, and Ignatius of Antioch's 7 epistles to various churches (all early 2nd Century). Read the epistle of Polycarp (2nd Century). Read "On the Incarnation" by Athanasius of Alexandria (4th Century) and "Catechetical Lectures" by Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century). These are all pretty accessible and don't go down deep rabbit trails of philosophy like some other early sources (e.g. much of Irenaeus' 2nd Century writing is directed at the Greek philosophies of his day, and can be very hard to decipher if you aren't well versed in those particular philosophies).
You will see that the kinds of issues that Calvinists and Arminians have fought over for centuries weren't even on the radar screens of these people. The church existed just fine, and still does, without Calvinism and Arminianism defining it.
Also remember that Augustine's theology, in various forms and degrees, really is what forms the basis for Roman Catholic theology, and then later of the many various Protestant schools of thought. In some way, the split between Rome and the Protestants could be classified as a battle between one part of Augustine's theology and another. Luther and Calvin took much of their thinking on predestination from Augustine.
Thing is...Augustine's theology of predestination doesn't exist in a vacuum and never did. It was part and parcel of a fairly grand philosophical system that he expressed over his lifetime. It's inseparable from his doctrine of the Trinity, the relationships among the persons, etc. It's inseparable from his ecclesiology and his understanding of sacraments.
In many of these areas, his theology (and that of his later followers) departs from (or at least, it takes in new directions) the theology that preceded it, and his theology never had much impact in the Eastern Christian world. This is why it often sounds like Orthodox Christians are speaking in some weird language when we interact with Protestants.
Who turns from darkness to light, in repentance?
Who performs the remission of sins?
Who cleanses from sin and guilt
Who gives new life?
Who Justifies?
Who sanctifies?
Who works out their salvation in fear and trembling?
[/I]
To some extent this depends on exactly how you define words like "justify" and "sanctify." They were never treated as separate and distinct concepts in much of Christian history. But let's consider a few points.
Basically, in each of these questions, aren't you really asking "What does God do, and what does man do?" Surely many will be quick to jump in and say "God gives new life!" And yes, God does give new life!
But can't we more specifically say that
Jesus Christ gives new life? Didn't
Jesus Christ grant remission of sins to those in the Gospel who came to him for healing?
So when Jesus forgave the sins of the paralyzed man, who forgave sins? God or man? The answer is "yes."
Jesus is the God-Man. That's why early Christian theology is so important. Jesus was BOTH God AND man, TWO natures, existing in ONE person. Natures don't *do* stuff. It was Jesus Christ, the one person, who forgave sins. Therefore it was
both God and man who forgave sins.
Likewise, even now, it is both God and man who give new life, both God and man who forgive sins. And both God and man will raise all people up on the last day, some to everlasting joy, and others to everlasting misery.
This central mystery of the Incarnation--the "becoming flesh" of the Son of God--the inseparable union of God and man--that is the basis for all we can say about salvation. When we are "saved," we enter into saving union with God through Christ. He is human, as we are human. He is God, as we are not. But "in Christ" we too become partakers of divinity.
So please be careful about adopting the prevalent point of view that says, basically, if man participates in his own salvation, then somehow God is not doing it. If anyone starts talking about percentages (e.g. God does 99% and man does 1%, or God does 100% and man does 0%) just turn around and run away screaming. That isn't the way the Fathers spoke of it. It's both-and. Christ's work was 100% the work of God, and 100% the work of man. So, too, our salvation is 100% the work of God, and 100% the work of man.
It's worth at least looking at Orthodoxy. At least you will see Christianity as it exists without all the trappings that came to define it in the West (purgatory, indulgences, forensic imputation of righteousness, etc.)
