Differences Between Reformed and Orthodox?

[Patristic]

Well, when I saw that Gabriel had deleted what he had written, I found that in another window I still had the thread loaded from before he had deleted it, so I saved what he deleted to my computer. I'm resourceful like that.

The meat of the post (oh, sorry, I shouldn't say the m-word during Lent, it's making me hungry for that chicken in the freezer!) was basically one looooooong listing of the scriptural citations that Calvinists use to prove their theology and soteriology. But the way it was all written was very, well, debate-y. Not meant for this forum.

Very true! No intense and heated debates wanted here.

 

[Benedicta00]

From what I have read of the Thomist tradition, it seems to hold many things in common with Calvinism. Nevertheless, there is still considerable debate over whether or not the Thomistic position is the same as that of Thomas Aquinas. My understanding of Thomist position is taken from Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange's book, Predestination. From what I have been able to gather, the Thomistic reading of Aquinas shares many similar thoughts with Calvinism while the Jesuit reading lead to the other dominant school of thought Molinism. I know that Father William Most has been arguing for a third alternative between the two, but as far as I am able to gather the two dominant schools of thought are Thomist and Molinist.

I know what you are referring to and I could provide a link on the differences in the two but the bottom line for Catholics is we don’t have to adhere to one or the other because they are only opinions and thoughts. The official teaching is what I posted basically and this is all we are required to believe.

I suppose it’s good to be able to even understand the Jesuits, Aquinas and even Augustine because for those who are Calvinists they need to have what they learned as Calvinist reconciled and those theories are a way to do it, I guess. I mean you can still hang on to some of what you believed in it’s proper understanding of free will but I personally believe Predestination in it’s simplest form and that is God gives us grace and we respond to it freely.

My whole originally point was please do not lump in Catholics with what Protestants teach on this issue just because it’s the “west”. We neither hold the Lutheran view or the Calvin view in any of it’s various forms. The Church views them as heresy.

 

[St. Tikon]

Anyone know what are the differences between the Reformed Faith (Calvinism) and the Eastern Orthodox Faith?

It should answer your question:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/jeremiah.htm

 

[Patristic]

I know what you are referring to and I could provide a link on the differences in the two but the bottom line for Catholics is we don’t have to adhere to one or the other because they are only opinions and thoughts. The official teaching is what I posted basically and this is all we are required to believe.

I suppose it’s good to be able to even understand the Jesuits, Aquinas and even Augustine because for those who are Calvinists they need to have what they learned as Calvinist reconciled and those theories are a way to do it, I guess. I mean you can still hang on to some of what you believed in it’s proper understanding of free will but I personally believe Predestination in it’s simplest form and that is God gives us grace and we respond to it freely.

My whole originally point was please do not lump in Catholics with what Protestants teach on this issue just because it’s the “west”. We neither hold the Lutheran view or the Calvin view in any of it’s various forms. The Church views them as heresy.

Please, provide any link that you think would be helpful. Personally, I agree more with the Molinist understanding of salvation than the Thomistic one. I think the Molinist understanding of free will and grace makes more sense in light of the teaching of the early Church. Anyways, I would be glad to read anything you recommend on the subject. And sorry, if I in any way grouped Catholic teaching together with Protestant teaching as a product of Western thought. I know that there are many differences between the two and never meant to classify both as basically the same.

 

[Benedicta00]

Please, provide any link that you think would be helpful. Personally, I agree more with the Molinist understanding of salvation than the Thomistic one. I think the Molinist understanding of free will and grace makes more sense in light of the teaching of the early Church. Anyways, I would be glad to read anything you recommend on the subject. And sorry, if I in any way grouped Catholic teaching together with Protestant teaching as a product of Western thought. I know that there are many differences between the two and never meant to classify both as basically the same.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Here you go. It is a long read but I think it covers plenty.

 

[Lotar]

The article groups the Lutheran view in with the Reformed view, which is a common error by the RCC. In fact, Trent nor any of your other councils actually directly address it.

We do not at all deny man's free will, Luther's Bondage of Will was written to refute Erasmus' semi-pelagian ideas, not to deny that man has any will at all. The Calvinist view is that man only ever wishes to do evil, the LUtheran view is that man can do good but without faith it is profitless. We teach that God does want everyone to be saved, and that God will not force anyone to be saved against their will.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/17_freewill.html

 

[St. Tikon]

The article groups the Lutheran view in with the Reformed view, which is a common error by the RCC. In fact, Trent nor any of your other councils actually directly address it.

We do not at all deny man's free will, Luther's Bondage of Will was written to refute Erasmus' semi-pelagian ideas, not to deny that man has any will at all. The Calvinist view is that man only ever wishes to do evil, the LUtheran view is that man can do good but without faith it is profitless. We teach that God does want everyone to be saved, and that God will not force anyone to be saved against their will.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/17_freewill.html

Trent was a RC Council. it is not recognized as valid by the Orthodox Church.

 

[Oblio]

Trent was a RC Council. it is not recognized as valid by the Orthodox Church.

He didn't imply it, rather the opposite if you read his post in context as he was responding to Michelle, a RC, and uses the term RCC just prior. Those of us who have fellowshiped here for awhile know that Lotar is quite aware that Trent is not EO but RC

 

[Benedicta00]

The article groups the Lutheran view in with the Reformed view, which is a common error by the RCC. In fact, Trent nor any of your other councils actually directly address it.

We do not at all deny man's free will, Luther's Bondage of Will was written to refute Erasmus' semi-pelagian ideas, not to deny that man has any will at all. The Calvinist view is that man only ever wishes to do evil, the LUtheran view is that man can do good but without faith it is profitless. We teach that God does want everyone to be saved, and that God will not force anyone to be saved against their will.

http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgdefense/17_freewill.html

If my knowledge is correct, I believe Trent did condemn certain aspects of different reformed doctrines. Luther is Luther, Calvin is Calvin and their teachings are what ever they are. I am a Catholic, I subscribe to Catholic teaching. My point was/is, please, Orthodox members do not lump Catholics in with Protestants just because we are the 'west'. Out theology is closer to EO then Protestant. I don’t think this is the right forum to discuss Trent and Luther for it is not an EO issue. We couldn’t discuss anything fruitfully in the Protestant section with all the anti Catholics ruining threads with the harlot of Babylon nonsense, so I guess if you want a better response then post this in OBOB.

 

[Lotar]

Fine, but just as you do not want to be grouped with Calvinists, neither do we.

Either way, the West has generally always been more predestinarian than the East, from Augustine onwards.

 

[Benedicta00]

Fine, but just as you do not want to be grouped with Calvinists, neither do we.

Either way, the West has generally always been more predestinarian than the East, from Augustine onwards.

I can defiantly appreciate that Lotar but the article was requested that covered what was asked about. I did not intentionally post the link to lump Lutherans in with Calvins. Sorry if you were offended.

The Catholic Church does have a doctrine on Predestination but we are more in line with the EO on the free will issue.

 

[Patristic]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

Here you go. It is a long read but I think it covers plenty.

Thank you for the link, it was very informative. Has anyone else here read this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia? If so, what parts of Catholic teaching are similar to Orthodox teaching and what parts differ?

 

[Benedicta00]

Thank you for the link, it was very informative. Has anyone else here read this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia? If so, what parts of Catholic teaching are similar to Orthodox teaching and what parts differ?

No, I have not read the entire site not by long shot, I have no idea. What teaching would you like to compare?

 

[Patristic]

No, I have not read the entire site not by long shot, I have no idea. What teaching would you like to compare?

I am just curious as to which of the two, the Thomist understanding or the Molinist understanding, which one is more akin to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Both Churches were united for the first 1,000 years so one approach must be closer than another. From what I can gather, I would say that the Molinist understanding of grace and free will is probably closer to Orthodox teaching, but I can't be sure about that. Anyways, that's the main thing I would like discuss.

 

[St. Tikon]

He didn't imply it, rather the opposite if you read his post in context as he was responding to Michelle, a RC, and uses the term RCC just prior. Those of us who have fellowshiped here for awhile know that Lotar is quite aware that Trent is not EO but RC

I stand corrected.

 

[Benedicta00]

I am just curious as to which of the two, the Thomist understanding or the Molinist understanding, which one is more akin to the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Both Churches were united for the first 1,000 years so one approach must be closer than another. From what I can gather, I would say that the Molinist understanding of grace and free will is probably closer to Orthodox teaching, but I can't be sure about that. Anyways, that's the main thing I would like discuss.

Okay well you will need a participant much smarter than I, but I’ll say it again, the teaching of the Church is what the doctrine of the Church is and this is what I am comparing to EO being similar.

 

[Patristic]

Okay well you will need a participant much smarter than I, but I’ll say it again, the teaching of the Church is what the doctrine of the Church is and this is what I am comparing to EO being similar.

Hopefully someone else around here will know enough to give an answer to this particular question.

 

[Lotar]

Molinism, also called middle-knowledge, is basically the idea that God's knowledge preceeds His decrees. So things come true not because He decreed it but because He foresaw it. The Thomists don't like it very much.

From what I've seen, most of the RCs here lean towards Molinism, mostly because they are afraid of sounding Calvinist. From what I hear, it's like Calvinism vs Arminianism among the the Anabaptists. Most of the lay people lean heavily towards the free will side, and most of those at the seminaries lean towards the predestination side.

Here's a link if you have a couple extra hours
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

 

[Patristic]

Molinism, also called middle-knowledge, is basically the idea that God's knowledge preceeds His decrees. So things come true not because He decreed it but because He foresaw it. The Thomists don't like it very much.

From what I've seen, most of the RCs here lean towards Molinism, mostly because they are afraid of sounding Calvinist. From what I hear, it's like Calvinism vs Arminianism among the the Anabaptists. Most of the lay people lean heavily towards the free will side, and most of those at the seminaries lean towards the predestination side.

Here's a link if you have a couple extra hours
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

Here is what I have gathered from reading Craig, Freddoso, and Molina. Yes, Molinism does believe the foreknowledge preceeds the decree, unlike the Thomists who believe the decree preceeds God's foreknowledge of an event. Nevertheless, Molinism and Thomism cannot be pigeon-holed into the same category as are the distinct differences between Calvinism and Arminianism because Molinism and Arminianism are very different. Most Arminians believe in God's basic foreknowledge of events, i.e. He simply knows the future as the future. Thus, knowledge is broken up into knowledge of possibilites and knowledge of all actual future events. This doesn't leave much room for creative activity on God's part since He knows simply what will happen. Besides those two forms of knowledge, the Molinist claims God possesses a third knowledge in between the two, but this knowledge preceedes any Divine Decree. So the Molinist says, even though God's middle knowledge preceedes His decree, this form of knowledge allows God to decree a certain order of events He foreknows and that He chooses according to His will.

 

[Benedicta00]

Molinism, also called middle-knowledge, is basically the idea that God's knowledge preceeds His decrees. So things come true not because He decreed it but because He foresaw it. The Thomists don't like it very much.

From what I've seen, most of the RCs here lean towards Molinism, mostly because they are afraid of sounding Calvinist. From what I hear, it's like Calvinism vs Arminianism among the the Anabaptists. Most of the lay people lean heavily towards the free will side, and most of those at the seminaries lean towards the predestination side.

Here's a link if you have a couple extra hours
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm

Lotar,

I did not read the link but I can tell you off the bat that you are not interpreting this correctly.

Catholics do have a doctrine, meaning a binding teaching on predestination. You can not say that there are two beliefs with in the Church. There is not. The Church’s doctrine is what the Church officially teaches, it is the Church’s position.

The two schools of thought are just that. One can go with whatever side there want as long as either does not contradict the Church’s doctrine. Neither side does. The Thomist side does not teach against free will. It says more or less that God knows, so in his foreknowledge he will pre-move a soul to where the soul has freely chosen to go.

This does not contradict the Church’s position on predestination nor does it say something different from the other opinion.

No Catholic is bound to either theory, all a Catholic is bound to is what the Church teaches and you can find that in the CCC.