Calvinism and Orthodoxy

[seebs]

It occurs to me that, if I want a complete picture of historical beliefs, I need to ask you guys too.

What is the position of Orthodox Christianity on Calvinism? True? False? If it's false, what are your positions on the prooftexts normally offered in support of it?

 

[Philip]

It occurs to me that, if I want a complete picture of historical beliefs, I need to ask you guys too.

What is the position of Orthodox Christianity on Calvinism? True? False? If it's false, what are your positions on the prooftexts normally offered in support of it?

False.

We dispute all five points of Calvinism as well as the worldview behind them. In some ways, I think that Calvinism is a (the?) natural conclusion of the Western view of justification.

I don't have time at to go into detail. I can this evening, if you like.

[mod]
Everyone please keep in mind that this forum is not for debate. Feel free to answer the OP's question on Orthodoxy's view on Calvinism, but do not debate.
[/mod]

 

[seebs]

Yes, I'd appreciate more details on it. And thanks very much!

 

[Philip]

Sorry for the delay.

I will give a brief overview of our objections to Calvinism. I will be happy to discuss any of the points more deeply. I have taken my summary of Calvinism from an essay by R.L. Dabney.

1. Total depravity (Original Sin)
What Presbyterians really mean by terms such as "Original Sin," "Total Depravity," and "Inability of the Will" is defined by our Confession of Faith, Chapter 10, Section 3: "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation; so as a natural man being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto."

We simply don't see this as being true or supported by Scripture or Tradition. The are countless accounts in both the Old and New Testaments of people seeking God. I am not claiming that they were able to affect their salvation, but it is clear that they did desire and seek it. Calvinist may argue that these people were already regenerated, but that seems to be assuming the consequent. It is certain that to have any success we must accept the new heart given to us by God, but it is not clear that we can not ask God for this heart.

2. Unconditional election (God's Election)
In our Confession, Chapter 3, Sections 3, 4, and 7, we have this description of it: "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death". "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished" .
"The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice".

We find this belief incompatible with the Scriptural description of God's love. While we affirm His sovereign rule over all of creation and do not deny that He could predestine people as Dabney describe, we do not believe that He chose to do this. There are countless passages describing God's love for the world and His desire that all come to Him.

3. Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)
Did Christ die for the elect only, or for all men?" The answer has been much prejudiced by ambiguous terms, such as "particular atonement," "limited atonement," or "general atonement," "unlimited atonement," "indefinite atonement." What do they mean by atonement? The word (at-one-ment) is used but once in the New Testament (Rom. 5:11), and there it means expressly and exactly reconciliation. This is proved thus: the same Greek word in the next verse, carrying the very same meaning, is translated reconciliation. Now, people continually mix two ideas when they say atonement: One is, that of the expiation for guilt provided in Christ's sacrifice. The other is, the individual reconciliation of a believer with his God, grounded on that sacrifice made by Christ once for all, but actually effectuated only when the sinner believes and by faith. The last is the true meaning of atonement, and in that sense every, atonement (at-one-ment), reconciliation, must be individual, particular, and limited to this sinner who now believes. There have already been just as many atonements as there are true believers in heaven and earth, each one individual.

Here is where the difference in our understandings of Christ's death truly come through. We do not believe that Christ's death was a punishment for our sins. While our sins made His death necessary, we can not fathom an angry God who demands the death of His children. Christ died so that He could enter Hades and lead the righteous out of bondage.

It seems that this point of Calvinism is necessitated by the first two. Since we do not accept those two, we have no need of this one. We believe that Christ's death and resurrection made it possible for all to come to Christ. Sadly, some choose not to do so.

4. Irresistible grace (Effectual Calling)
What is the nature and agency of the moral revolution usually called effectual calling or regeneration?
This change must be more than an outer reformation of conduct; it is an inward revolution of first principles which regulate conduct. It must go deeper than a change of purpose as to sin and godliness; it must be a reversal of the original dispositions which hitherto prompted the soul to choose sin and reject godliness. Nothing less grounds a true conversion. As the gluttonous child maybe persuaded by the selfish fear of pain and death to forego the dainties he loves, and to swallow the nauseous drugs which his palate loathes, so the ungodly man may be induced by his self-righteousness and selfish fear of hell to forbear the sins he still loves and submit to the religious duties which his secret soul still detests. But as the one practice is no real cure of the vice of gluttony in the child, so the other is no real conversion to godliness in the sinner. The child must not only forsake, but really dislike his unhealthy dainties; not only submit to swallow, but really love, the medicines naturally nauseous to him. Selfish fear can do the former; nothing but a physiological change of constitution can do the latter. The natural man must not only submit from selfish fear to the godliness which he detested, he must love it for its own sake, and hate the sins naturally sweet to him. No change can be permanent which does not go thus deep; nothing less is true conversion.

On the surface, this is the point that I can accept the most. Certainly, if we truly are a new creation, then we will desire to do good. However, it seems to me to state that if one is truly regenerated, then it is not possible for them to desire to sin ever again. I simply can not accept this, nor do I think it is in keeping with the warnings of Christ and the Apostles for us to avoid temptation.

5. Perseverance of the Saints
Our Confession, in Chapter 17, Sections 1 and 2, states this doctrine thus: "They whom God hath accepted in his beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end., and be eternally saved". "This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ; the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them; and the nature of the covenant of grace, from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof."

I have never really understood this one. It seems to be a tautology. If a "saved" person falls away, then they weren't truly saved in the first place. If a "saved" person does not fall away, then they must have been truly saved.

 

[Maximus]

Philip's post was excellent.

I would like to add a couple of comments as a former Calvinist.

Calvinism carries Augustinism to extremes. It makes of the loving God of Christianity an arbitrary, pawn-playing monster who, before creating the universe, consigned the greater part of humanity to eternal torment, simply because He could.

Strict Calvinists will tell you that God does NOT love all of mankind or desire the salvation of all people. They will tell you that Christ did NOT die for all of mankind, but only for a limited number - the Elect.

Calvinists believe that mankind has been so corrupted by the Fall that God must coerce men into faith and salvation.

I thank God with tears of gratitude that He has delivered me from Calvinism.

Calvinism should be regarded as the terrible error that it is. I don't think there have been any worse, but that's my opinion.

 

[Photini]

Here is where the difference in our understandings of Christ's death truly come through. We do not believe that Christ's death was a punishment for our sins. While our sins made His death necessary, we can not fathom an angry God who demands the death of His children. Christ died so that He could enter Hades and lead the righteous out of bondage.

It seems that this point of Calvinism is necessitated by the first two. Since we do not accept those two, we have no need of this one. We believe that Christ's death and resurrection made it possible for all to come to Christ. Sadly, some choose not to do so.
.

Though I don't have the exact quotes in front of me, I recall reading that there is more than one understanding of what salvation is. Off the top of my head, I remember reading of this in On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius and also in Life After Death by Met. Hierotheos Vlachos. On the one hand is the deliverance from eternal torment. On the other hand is the salvation from non-existance. To be human is to have body and soul...had Christ not been risen from the dead, we would be eternally seperated from our bodies, thus not truly human. By His Resurrection, Christ has given the gift of the general resurrection and eternal being to ALL people, regardless. For some this will be eternal well-being, others will be eternal ill-being.

 

[MariaRegina]

Great posts Maximus and Philip.

 

[MariaRegina]

I think there is also a difference in the Augustinian-Catholic position on Justification versus the Orthodox position. The Augustinian position just took on a more extreme tone with the Reformation. Could we discuss that using the book "Common Ground" on another thread?

 

[Maximus]

Augustinism in the Catholic Church was greatly tempered and modified through the work of men like Sts. John Cassian, Vincent of Lerins, and Faustus of Riez. It was never allowed to go to the extremes to which Luther and Calvin carried it. Certainly St. Augustine himself never took it so far. The errors were implicit in some of what he wrote.

I think the difference in the doctrine of justification of which you speak, Chanter, comes not from Augustine but from Anselm.

 

[MariaRegina]

I think the difference in the doctrine of justification of which you speak, Chanter, comes not from Augustine but from Anselm.

Would you be willing to discuss these differences here or in a new thread? I was having a discussion with geocajun and I think he may be confused with justification as he is a recent convert to Catholicism. He seems to have a problem with good works. Anyway that is a topic which I have avoided because I'm also confused.

My dad was a jansenist -- and they bordered on Calvinistic teachings.

 

[Reformed Baptist]

Jansenist
[font=Veranda, sans-serif](n.) A follower of Cornelius Jansen, a Roman Catholic bishop of Ypres, in Flanders, in the 17th century, who taught certain doctrines denying free will and the possibility of resisting divine grace.
[/font]

[font=Veranda, sans-serif]I didn't know what a Jansenist was....
[/font]

 

[MariaRegina]

Jansenist
[font=Veranda, sans-serif](n.) A follower of Cornelius Jansen, a Roman Catholic bishop of Ypres, in Flanders, in the 17th century, who taught certain doctrines denying free will and the possibility of resisting divine grace.
[/font]

[font=Veranda, sans-serif]I didn't know what a Jansenist was....
[/font]

Re: JANSENISM

I'm search of the truth here. So please read this entire post before responding.

From what I was taught in my Catholic theology classes at both Dominican University in Marin County and Holy Names College in Oakland, California, the Jansenists were tainted with Calvinistic teachings and were also very scrupulous. They would not receive Holy Communion, because they felt so unworthy. In fact, they thought that God would strike them dead if they did receive Holy Communion. Was this the origination of the problem of scrupulosity?

My dad, who is almost 90 and ill with senility, would only go to communion during the Easter Season, if then. Yet he faithfully sang in the choir and was there every Sunday. I sang with him as a member of the children's choir. He also loved the Eucharistic Adoration which followed the choir Mass (10:00AM) every Sunday. My mom may also be infected with it too as she left the Catholic Church over its teachings on Confession. Please pray for her.

Is Jansenism the reason why the Catholic Church instituted mandatory reception of Holy Communion during the Easter Season? Isn't the Eucharistic Adoration also a result of Jansenism because the people didn't receive Holy Communion very often?

I was told that some Jesuits were influential in spreading Jansenism, as my dad went to the Jesuit high school in Atlanta, Georgia, and learned it from an old priest there. The Jesuits also spread this "heresy" to Russia and to other Orthodox lands with devastating results. Now this is what I've been told by Orthodox Priests and from Catholic Dominican priests in my theology classes, especially when I studied the Theology of Grace. So I'm not quoting from a reference book, lest I be accused of bashing Catholics. I'm trying to air this out and find the truth and perhaps help my mom.

Edit: I really wish that Erwin would have a special forum that is to be used for discussions affecting the Orthodox and the Catholics, like the problem of Jansenism which affected both Churches adversely. If we bring them to the IDD then the protestants perhaps unintentionally wreck them and lead these discussions way off track, because they don't really understand our theology.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Since this is a forum related to Catholic issues and Augustine has been mentioned, you may want to take a look at a quote I posted from the Asbury Theological Seminary Journal, written by a Catholic scholar. I posted it under the Calvinism vs. Arminianism thread, and you can view it (with reference) by clicking here:


http://www.christianforums.com/t58122&page=7 >>>Go to post #63


Ciao for now...

 

[Maximus]

Thanks, folk rocker 4jc. You make some excellent points in that post on the other thread.

For those who are interested in how the Church threaded her way between the extremes implicit in Augustinism and explicit in Pelagianism, check out Chapter 6 of Volume 1 of Jaroslav Pelikan's 5-volume The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Volume 1 is entitled, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chapter 6 is entitled, "Nature and Grace."

All of Pelikan's The Christian Tradition is worth reading, but for this particular topic, Chapter 6 of Volume 1 is hard to beat.

 

[Patristic]

I am currently researching this topic myself and plan on writing a paper about this subject because it fascinates me so much. The Gnostic heretics that plagued the Church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries had soteriological beliefs very similar to those taught by Calvinism. They believed in election and reprobation, salvation based on natures given sovereingly by God to whomever He wills, they believed those saved were perfected and could not fall from grace. In response, the orthodox fathers argued for free-will and God's love for all mankind, and they absolutely rejected the beliefs of the gnostics. This is why I have a hard time believing Augustine would teach the kinds of doctrines that Calvinist's say he does. Sure, I think those ideas can be identified in his writings and if you only read certain treatises you could argue for such positions, but Augustine himself belonged to a gnostic sect, the Manicheans, for a time in his life and I have a hard time believing he would argue for the same positions held by the gnostics that he rejected as false.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Excellent...how long will this take you to write and when can I get a copy? ;-)

 

[Patristic]

Excellent...how long will this take you to write and when can I get a copy? ;-)

Right now, I am continuing to do my research, reading through the writings of the early Church Fathers and also examining gnostic literature. Once I finish researching it should take me about a week to write. This is definitely at the top of my list, so hopefully within the next month or so I should be done. I will keep you posted on progress!

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

I'll look forward to it. One caution I would like to give you, is that be sure and accurately represent the Calvinist postition or they'll get you for it. They don't teach that we are "perefected" and can't fall...they teach God keeps us from falling in spite of our imperfections. I think the book of Calvin's that speaks to that, and shows how he used Augustine is called "The Bondage & Liberation of the Will". It would be good if more was done to demonstrate that he misrepresented Augustine tho.

 

[Patristic]

Thanks for the warning! I do intend to be fair to the Reformed position. Many of my close friends are Reformed and the people who discipled me during college were Reformed. I plan on quoting from prominent Reformed apologist's, but I don't want to misrepresent them in any way. I want to be truthful to their teaching so that I can contrast and compare them with gnostic teaching. The whole argument about gnostics saying they were perfected was in no way intended to point to modern Reformed teaching, only to show that both believed that a fall from grace of one who was elected is impossible.

 

[folk_rocker_4jc]

Right on, brother...just out of curiosity, what made you decide on the Greek Orthodox church? My own looking into Church history has led me to the Anabaptists. This has to do with seeing evidence by scholars who have demonstrated that the early church fathers (Irenaeus, Justin, Tertullian, etc) were almost uniformly pacifist in their doctrine. To me Augustine got us off the track when he justified Christian participation in war. And of course, the Reformation didn't exactly get us back to the Sermon on the Mount ...unless you mean the "Radical Reformation." ;-)