The Five Articles of Remonstrance

[SeventhValley]

How would the Orthodox view the The Five Articles of Remonstrance? Which ones would you agree or not agree with?


Conditional election

Unlimited atonement

total depravity

Prevenient grace

Conditional preservation

 

[RobNJ]

On the whole, we avoid those newfangled disagreements, between Arminus & Calvin. Orthodoxy was around long before them. So the question would actually be: Do any of those agree with Orthodoxy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

absolutely not to total depravity I would say. yes we are depraved, but totally depraved.

 

[AV1]

How would the Orthodox view the The Five Articles of Remonstrance? Which ones would you agree or not agree with?


Conditional election

Unlimited atonement

total depravity

Prevenient grace

Conditional preservation

RobNJ all ready gave the best answer, which begs the question...why is any of it important? Coming from a Protestant, legalistic background, I understand the need to ask.

Basically, all of these ideas involve a flawed sense of the definition of God, the definition of the whole man, and the relationship between the two. When those things are clear, the rest of this is exposed as a solution looking for a problem.

For instance, neither conditional nor unconditional election make sense when you understand that God chooses all people, but not all people choose God.

That right there eliminates the entire conversation of at least two of the remaining items from your list.

 

[Loriella]

Generally speaking, it's going to be hard to get the type of specific answer you would like out of Orthodox Christians. The Articles of Remonstrance came out of the Cavinist/Arminian debate which tried to delve into the relationship of predestination and free-will.

Most Orthodox simply believe that that relationship is a mystery and leave it at that. It is far more important to spend time worrying about what we should do and how we should live, than to struggle to understand mysteries, that, in the end, do not actually affect how we live. Predestination/freewill debates are interesting mental exercises, but I'm not sure that they are much more than that.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great point!

Generally speaking, it's going to be hard to get the type of specific answer you would like out of Orthodox Christians. The Articles of Remonstrance came out of the Cavinist/Arminian debate which tried to delve into the relationship of predestination and free-will.

Most Orthodox simply believe that that relationship is a mystery and leave it at that. It is far more important to spend time worrying about what we should do and how we should live, than to struggle to understand mysteries, that, in the end, do not actually affect how we live. Predestination/freewill debates are interesting mental exercises, but I'm not sure that they are much more than that.

 

[Knee V]

How would the Orthodox view the The Five Articles of Remonstrance? Which ones would you agree or not agree with?


Conditional election

Unlimited atonement

total depravity

Prevenient grace

Conditional preservation

On the whole, Arminianism more closely approximates Orthodoxy than Calvinism does. That said, we cannot fully agree with these points, as they are in a general context that is foreign to Orthodoxy. So even if it seems that we agree with one or more of them, that can be a little deceiving.

One that we definitely disagree with is "Total Depravity", and not because we believe in "partial depravity" or some other "opposite" doctrine. Rather, we simply don't speak in those terms at all to begin with. Mankind sinned, and we continue to sin. But who and what mankind is did not fundamentally change. It is much like cracking a clay mug. When the mug is whole it is able to hold liquids and do what it is designed to do. But when it is cracked and liquid is able to leak out, it is not able to do what it is designed to do. It is still fundamentally "clay", and that has never changed; the clay itself is the exact same clay and has all the properties and capabilities of fired clay. It's just "broken". We are much the same. We are broken and we are unable on our own to do what we were created for. But our human nature is not fundamentally different after sin from what it was before sin. We are still able to repent; we are still able to cling to God's healing and salvation that He provides for us. But since we are broken, instead of trying to spend our lives coming to a place where we can be made whole again, we try to live our lives according to our brokenness as if that brokenness were our normal and natural state.

With "unlimited atonement", while it can appear that we mostly agree, we would probably fundamentally disagree, since the baggage behind the word "atonement" is going to be different between the Arminians and the Orthodox. In fact, this is one place where the Arminians and the Calvinists fundamentally agree; the disagreement is only in degree, not type. The Arminian notion of atonement is still that of dealing with a God who is eternally angry toward mankind and wants to eternally punish mankind with eternal excruciating agony to appease His wrath, but at the same time wants to show love to mankind. Thus, in that model, God finds a way to deal with that wrath and meet out that punishment, providing man a way out of that punishment. Where the Arminians and Calvinists disagree is about to exactly whom that applies: a specificly limited number of people, or potentially all people. The Orthodox do not see "atonement" in terms of diverting God's wrath. So while we may agree with the Arminians about the word "unlimited", we would still fundamentally disagree with them on the word "atonement".

When it comes to prevenient grace, I can't speak too well on exactly what the Arminians mean by that (I can, however, explain what the Calvinists mean by that, but that is not the discussion here). The Orthodox would essentially affirm "prevenient grace", but for us that is somewhat redundant/superfluous. We do not differentiate between different "types" of graces. While God does different things at different times in different ways with His grace, the grace itself is the same grace. All creation relies on God's grace for its existence and sustenance. If God's grace were not actively present in creation, it would cease to exist. It is as Paul says, "In Him we live and move and have our being." To say that grace is not "prevenient" is to say that creation can exist in and of itself without God sustaining it. And when it comes to our salvation it is no different. All aspects of our lives depend on God's grace from the very beginning. Just as we don't breathe without God's grace, we also don't repent without God's grace; we don't believe without God's grace. But that is not a special dispensation of grace; that is just the very nature of grace.

I cannot speak to the rest.

 

[Cavaradossi]

How would the Orthodox view the The Five Articles of Remonstrance? Which ones would you agree or not agree with?


Conditional election

Unlimited atonement

total depravity

Prevenient grace

Conditional preservation

I would say that the entire debate between Roman Catholics, Calvinists, and Arminians on these issues stems from all three lacking a good sense of the tension between tropos (manner) and nature (and I must freely admit here that I am shamelessly stealing this from Joseph P. Farrell who is an excellent patristics scholar, despite his love of alternative history, aliens, and other weird things).

Following St. Maximus' threefold scheme of being, well-being, and ever-being, we understand that man acquired being at the creation, and that he will acquire ever-being from the resurrection. Those two pertain to human nature in general, but the other, well-being (and the deprivation of well-being, ill-being), pertains only to the individual.

All of the faculties of human nature (the will being the most important among them) are employed by each individual in a certain manner (tropos). This manner can either be in accordance with nature or against nature. It is natural for humans to be good and virtuous, but since not all humans exercise their faculties equally, we see that individual are unequal according to goodness and virtue. He who exercises his natural faculties in accordance with nature acquires well-being, while he who exercises his natural faculties against nature acquires instead ill-being. The former shall be blessed, and the latter shall be damned.

So where does this leave the five articles of remonstrance?

Conditional election we would probably disagree with in one sense, and maybe agree with in another. God has given grace unconditionally to the whole world through His death and resurrection. All will be raised from the dead on the last day, and all will experience God's power and might on that day. But the damned suffer from their exposure to God's power, because they shall be eternally sustained in a state of ill-being, while the blessed shall rejoice in seeing the face of God, for they eternally shall exist in a state of well-being. Since, however, one's acquiring well-being is contingent upon his own virtues, I suppose one could say that we think that the blessed are elected conditionally. By nature, we are all unconditionally predestined for eternal-being, by hypostasis, however, we are only predestined for well-being according to our use of will.

Unlimited Atonement: We certainly would agree with the idea that the incarnation, sacrifice upon the cross, and resurrection were performed for the sake of all mankind.

Total depravity: We do not agree with this one. For us, humans after the fall have become shattered in some sense, but not to the point of total depravity. The natural faculties which we had received at creation and which were meant to be directed towards the end of human nature, union with God, are now instead directed towards our own survival (a consequence of mortality), and as such, sometimes we apply our faculties against nature, but sometimes we also use them in accordance with nature. It is not so much that humans after the fall are incapable of doing good, or doing something in service of God, but that they are incapable of acquiring well-being or ever-being without a Savior, which then necessitates the coming of our Savior, as foretold by the prophets.

Prevenient Grace: on this, I'm not sure. We certainly need the regeneration of baptism to free our will, allowing us to exercise our faculties in accordance with nature, for the acquisition of well-being. But then Prevenient Grace is inseparably tied up with the concept of Total Depravity, which we do not accept.

Conditional preservation: Probably. We certainly believe that it is possible for one who has been regenerated by baptism to apostatize and fall away.

 

[AV1]

Ok, I guess I will try and explain what I have found in my recent paradigm shift from a Protestant background.

1. Conditional or unconditional election is a debate we don't "compute". God desires all people in His love, and chooses all of them. However, many people do not reciprocate that love. The relationship between God and Man is a free exchange. God freely gives, and Man (individually) freely chooses to meet Him on His terms, or he doesn't.

2. Unlimited atonement. Christ died once for all, the application of His sacrifice is unlimited in the ability to heal, but again Man must choose to be healed...see item 1.

3. Total Depravity. No...we are broken not destroyed. First among His creation is now last? This does not line up with the nature of God, Jesus' sacrifice, or the realm of the Holy Spirit's work. Our relationship is damaged to the extent that we need Christ to heal it, the Church to instruct it, the Holy Spirit to guide the process, and the Mercy of God's love to attain it in the end. Choosing Christ begins the mystery of "salvation".

4.Prevenient Grace. Grace is a gift, but Orthodoxy is an active practice, not passive. It is there to be accepted, but it isn't free...you must participate and work with God. This relates to items 1-3.

Conditional preservation. You can freely choose anything at any moment. You do have some power over your propensity to sin after you are reborn in the Church, through the lifting of the veil of blindness. Again, active not passive. Gifts can be refused.