Differences Between Reformed and Orthodox?

[countrymousenc]

I just looked up Molinism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which contrasts it with Thomism. It seems that Molinism comes at the question from freedom of will, whereas Thomism approaches from efficacious grace.

My best guess, based on what little I know, is that the Orthodox view would be something like "Stop trying to reduce great mysteries to simple logic!" Far as I can tell, Orthodoxy does not deny election, yet does not agree with the Calvinist development of it.

Is that anywhere close?

 

[Patristic]

I just looked up Molinism in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which contrasts it with Thomism. It seems that Molinism comes at the question from freedom of will, whereas Thomism approaches from efficacious grace.

My best guess, based on what little I know, is that the Orthodox view would be something like "Stop trying to reduce great mysteries to simple logic!" Far as I can tell, Orthodoxy does not deny election, yet does not agree with the Calvinist development of it.

Is that anywhere close?

Somewhere earlier I stated that the Orthodox would probably agree more with the Molinist understanding of everything, but would tell the theologians and scholars to stop attempting to scholastize everything and understand this great mystery logically. Yes, Orthodoxy definitely does not agree with the Calvinist developments concerning election and foreknowledge, that much is certain.

 

[Lotar]

but would tell the theologians and scholars to stop attempting to scholastize everything and understand this great mystery logically

So that's how you guys get so much time to argue about which calendar to use

But seriously, is there any doctrine on the subject other than it's a divine mystery?

 

[Oblio]

So that's how you guys get so much time to argue about which calendar to use

yep, we worry about the 'portint stuff

 

[Benedicta00]

Patristic,

May I ask a question?

What is your interest in comparing Catholic theory to Orthodox in this area? Are you trying to settle on a theory that you can feel comfortable with? I would assume you have already rejected Reformed views.

What exactly is the EO view on all this?

 

[Patristic]

Patristic,

May I ask a question?

What is your interest in comparing Catholic theory to Orthodox in this area? Are you trying to settle on a theory that you can feel comfortable with? I would assume you have already rejected Reformed views.

What exactly is the EO view on all this?

I have read several things that have said that Catholics and Orthodox have much in common on these issues, and you yourself said the same. I am basically trying to compare and contrast the two Churches teachings on the subject. I don't think the Orthodox would agree with the Thomist's, so I am just assuming they would be more inclined to agree with the Molinist's.

 

[Benedicta00]

I have read several things that have said that Catholics and Orthodox have much in common on these issues, and you yourself said the same. I am basically trying to compare and contrast the two Churches teachings on the subject. I don't think the Orthodox would agree with the Thomist's, so I am just assuming they would be more inclined to agree with the Molinist's.

But the teaching of the Church does not bind itself to either, or.

This is the teching of the Catholic Church and it is similar to the EO as far as I can tell.

I. THE LIFE OF MAN - TO KNOW AND LOVE GOD

1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5

3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6

What I am trying to say is that we are like the EO in the sense that this is all we really need to believe. The other views who try to pin point this down a little further is fine as long as it does not contradict the apostolic faith, the constant teaching of the Church but they are not as far as I know the official position of the Church so I am having trouble understanding why you would be comparing either one to EO rather than what the Church does say we are required to believe?


Both views as far as I am concerned are okay because neither one denies man’s free will nor God’s prevenient grace. If you are a Calvinist coming into the Church it may be difficult for you, so understanding the freedom you are allowed to have pertaining to certain opinions with out contradicting the Church I guess is beneficial but for me, it just isn’t necessary. What the early Church believed is good enough for me because I don’t have a problem with man being given a free will from God.

 

[Patristic]

Is that quote from the CCC by any chance? I'm assuming that it is because of the format and content. The Orthodox Church doesn't have any specific teaching document like the Catechism to pinpoint exact dogmatic assertions. As far as I can tell, the Eastern Churches would most likely agree with that statement, but it is very vague. So when someone wants to approach the issue on a deeper level, I think that is when comparing and contrasting theoretical theological frameworks becomes beneficial.

 

[Benedicta00]

Is that quote from the CCC by any chance? I'm assuming that it is because of the format and content. The Orthodox Church doesn't have any specific teaching document like the Catechism to pinpoint exact dogmatic assertions. As far as I can tell, the Eastern Churches would most likely agree with that statement, but it is very vague. So when someone wants to approach the issue on a deeper level, I think that is when comparing and contrasting theoretical theological frameworks becomes beneficial.

Beneficial but not necessary. I think this is where we agree with the EO. Some thing’s are just a mystery and should remain as such. This is definitely one of them IMO. The CCC does have further explanations but I didn’t want to over do it posting the quotes.

Your not an ex Calvinist by any chance are you?

 

[Photini]

Here's a little out of a Hymn by St Symeon the New Theologian:

"For who could theologize aout God
that He was both One and Three,
or who could refute heresies without becoming a "theologian"
or who received the title of saint without having participated in
the Holy Spirit?
No one absolutely!
In the same way also the intelligible light comes natural
in a conscious awareness to those who receive it.
Those who say that they receive it with no conscious awareness
are really calling themselves unconscious persons,
but we call them dead men, without any life,
even if they seem to be still living.
O error! O what folly!
But, O Light, shine on them, shine so that, in seeing You,
they may truly be persuaded that You are the true light!
And that those with whom You unite Yourself as a light,
You would make them like to You.
'I shine always and just as before the face of blind men,
but they do not wish to see, rather they close their eyes,
and do not wish to look upon Me, O child!
Even more they turn their eyes away to the other side
and I turn Myself around to stand directly in front of them,
but again they turn their eye away
and do not contemplate at all the light of My countenance.
Among them some on the one hand cover their eyes with a veil
while others even flee far away in their very great hatred towards Me,
What then should I do for them?
I really do not know.
To save them against their free will by violence?
This indeed would seem a torture for those not wishing to be saved,
For wanting the good will really then be a good,
If the good is not freely desired, then it is not a good.
And for this reason, I see those who wish it,
and I am seen by them
and I make them co-heirs of My Kingdom.
But those not wishing it, I allow them their free will in the world,
because, while I was shining, the unapproachable Light,
they alone brought darkness to themselves
in so far as they did not want to see the light
and hence remained in darkness.'"

~Hymns of Divine Love, Hymn 34