Differences Between Reformed and Orthodox?

Lotar · Mar 9, 2004

I didn't mean to say that Molinism is the same as Aminianism, I was merely making the comparison of how one belief is popular with the lay people and the other is popular with the academics.

Go ahead and read the site if you think my explaination of Molinism is off, but it says that you are bound to not comprimise God's divine will, not predestination. From what I've read on a couple other sites as well is that many Thomists do believe that Molinism compromises this.

Patristic · Mar 9, 2004

Lotar said:
I didn't mean to say that Molinism is the same as Aminianism, I was merely making the comparison of how one belief is popular with the lay people and the other is popular with the academics.

Go ahead and read the site if you think my explaination of Molinism is off, but it says that you are bound to not comprimise God's divine will, not predestination. From what I've read on a couple other sites as well is that many Thomists do believe that Molinism compromises this.

I read the site you recommended, and I agree with your basic assertion that Molinism places foreknowledge before decree, and Thomism believes that relationship operates vice versa. My main contention is that Molinism adds a new component to the foreknowledge relationship that completely differentiates it from anything taught within Arminianism. Within Molinism God is sovereign over the state of affairs He actualizes based on His middle knowledge, and this is something the Arminian doesn't believe in or argue for. The Arminian simply says after God created this world He simply foreknew everything that happened or will happen and that these states of affairs are out of His control because God wished to create a world that operated under free will.

Benedicta00 · Mar 9, 2004

Lotar said:
I didn't mean to say that Molinism is the same as Aminianism, I was merely making the comparison of how one belief is popular with the lay people and the other is popular with the academics.

Go ahead and read the site if you think my explaination of Molinism is off, but it says that you are bound to not comprimise God's divine will, not predestination. From what I've read on a couple other sites as well is that many Thomists do believe that Molinism compromises this.

But do you get my point that in the greater scheme of things it does not matter, what matters is what the Church does teach?

Lay people like myself aren't really concerned with the finer points of the academic opinions because either view does not contradict the faith.

As I said elsewhere, learning these different thoughts can help a Calvin reconcile his beliefs with the Church but for those who have no real problems with free will learning them would not be neither here nor there. They are good to know because it can give you some freedom to piously believe in something more detailed but they do not make or break the Church's teaching.

Lotar · Mar 9, 2004

Patristic said:
I read the site you recommended, and I agree with your basic assertion that Molinism places foreknowledge before decree, and Thomism believes that relationship operates vice versa. My main contention is that Molinism adds a new component to the foreknowledge relationship that completely differentiates it from anything taught within Arminianism. Within Molinism God is sovereign over the state of affairs He actualizes based on His middle knowledge, and this is something the Arminian doesn't believe in or argue for. The Arminian simply says after God created this world He simply foreknew everything that happened or will happen and that these states of affairs are out of His control because God wished to create a world that operated under free will.

I wasn't trying to equivalate them, I was just showing the parrallel.

As far as I know, even Arminians believe that God has some control over events, but the belief was never very well thought out, as it was written by a noble man, not a theologen.

Shelb5 said:
But do you get my point that in the greater scheme of things it does not matter, what matters is what the Church does teach?

Lay people like myself aren't really concerned with the finer points of the academic opinions because either view does not contradict the faith.

As I said elsewhere, learning these different thoughts can help a Calvin reconcile his beliefs with the Church but for those who have no real problems with free will learning them would not be neither here nor there. They are good to know because it can give you some freedom to piously believe in something more detailed but they do not make or break the Church's teaching.

I was just making a comment, I could really care less what Rome teaches are the acceptable bounds. If you believe they are both okay beliefs, what ever floats your boat, I have not said anything about what my opinion of the belief is.

Patristic · Mar 9, 2004

As far as I know, even Arminians believe that God has some control over events, but the belief was never very well thought out, as it was written by a noble man, not a theologen.

I never discounted that there were similarities between the two, I was just trying to highlight the fact that there are also extreme differences as well. Yes, Arminians do hold that events are not completely out of God's control because they believe God can intervene in the course of history to turn the tide in a different way if He so chooses. In this regard, they are definitely not Deist. And I would disagree with the idea that the beliefs were not well thought out. The system as a whole is coherent, and as for Arminius, he most definitely was a theologian since he was one of Beza's premier students before he came to the conclusion that Beza's teachings were incorrect.

Lotar · Mar 9, 2004

Patristic said:
I never discounted that there were similarities between the two, I was just trying to highlight the fact that there are also extreme differences as well. Yes, Arminians do hold that events are not completely out of God's control because they believe God can intervene in the course of history to turn the tide in a different way if He so chooses. In this regard, they are definitely not Deist. And I would disagree with the idea that the beliefs were not well thought out. The system as a whole is coherent, and as for Arminius, he most definitely was a theologian since he was one of Beza's premier students before he came to the conclusion that Beza's teachings were incorrect.

Really? Then I stand corrected I didn't realize that he had formal training. Either way, he had no business formulating such a belief. Calvin's conclusions may be heretical, but at least they are well thought out.

Really, the only similarity I was trying to show was how the both give more wieght towards free will than their respective counterparts, and are therefor more accepted by the laity.

Patristic · Mar 9, 2004

Lotar said:
Really? Then I stand corrected I didn't realize that he had formal training. Either way, he had no business formulating such a belief. Calvin's conclusions may be heretical, but at least they are well thought out.

Really, the only similarity I was trying to show was how the both give more wieght towards free will than their respective counterparts, and are therefor more accepted by the laity.

I disagree with the assertion that Arminius' opinion's weren't well thought out. I haven't all of his writings by far, but from what I read, His Declaration of Sentiments, I thought he argued his case in a logical and coherent manner. Anyways, that's just my opinion.

You're right in that both approaches give a lot of creedence to free-will. Still, what I am concerned with is how the Catholic/Molinisit approach relates to the Eastern Churches. I haven't really read anyone from the East espouse a middle knowledge view, although that could be because it is perceived as a product of Western scholastic speculation.

Benedicta00 · Mar 9, 2004

Lotar said:
I wasn't trying to equivalate them, I was just showing the parrallel.

As far as I know, even Arminians believe that God has some control over events, but the belief was never very well thought out, as it was written by a noble man, not a theologen.

I was just making a comment, I could really care less what Rome teaches are the acceptable bounds. If you believe they are both okay beliefs, what ever floats your boat, I have not said anything about what my opinion of the belief is.

I did not say you did care Lotar. This is the EO forum and you are a protestant and patristic is an EO. The two of you are discussing Catholicism and its theologians and its theartics. I am only making sure no one reading this, no matter what faith affiliation they may be, will get any false impressions or any false information of what Catholics do or do not believe.

I am still wondering why a EO and a protestant are discussing a catholic issue in a non catholic forum, it seems to me that if a non catholic regardless of what kind of non catholic they are, would go to Catholics in their proper forum to find out what Catholics think, not to another non catholic, but oh well.

Oblio · Mar 9, 2004

I am only making sure no one reading this, no matter what faith affiliation they may be, will get any false impressions or any false information of what Catholics do or do not believe.

Fair enough, and a valuable input, I'm sure the same would be thought if the reverse was happening at OBOB. Not quite sure how this segued to the current discussion from what IIRC was a question of a subset of Protestant thought vs Orthodox theology.

I'm just glad we are discussing and not debating

Benedicta00 · Mar 9, 2004

Oblio said:
Fair enough, and a valuable input, I'm sure the same would be thought if the reverse was happening at OBOB. Not quite sure how this segued to the current discussion from what IIRC was a question of a subset of Protestant thought vs Orthodox theology.

I'm just glad we are discussing and not debating

The thread went off into another direction and patrasitic has an interesting query but, and not to be rude, but he is discussing this with someone who is not exactly qualified to answer his inquiry. I commend Lotar for being gamed to talk with him about but I do not understand why he is.

Oblio · Mar 9, 2004

We learn by doing

Benedicta00 · Mar 9, 2004

Oblio said:
We learn by doing

But if a misconception about the Catholic faith is a result of learning by doing it can do more harm than good. There is enough misconceptions going around already.

Oblio · Mar 9, 2004

A long as he is not doing it maliciously, I personally see no difference than if a Catholic made the error.

Case in point, I welcome input from Polycarp on Orthodox history and doctrine. Often times it is more accurate, and always written better than I can write it. If he errs, and it is pointed out to him, he is gracious to admit his error and is careful to ensure that he learns from his mistake.

IOW, being Catholic (or Orthodox) is neither necessary, nor sufficient to ensure error free commentary.

Benedicta00 · Mar 9, 2004

Oblio said:
A long as he is not doing it maliciously, I personally see no difference than if a Catholic made the error.

Case in point, I welcome input from Polycarp on Orthodox history and doctrine. Often times it is more accurate, and always written better than I can write it. If he errs, and it is pointed out to him, he is gracious to admit his error and is careful to ensure that he learns from his mistake.

IOW, being Catholic (or Orthodox) is neither necessary, nor sufficient to ensure error free commentary.

Oblio,

Were you aware that in cannon law it warns against a Catholic publicly making erroneous statements because it does do more harm than good? If we do not know what we are talking about with 100% accuracy we should just be quiet.

We have and EO should empathize that there is enough myths and misunderstanding circulating, why open the door for it?

Different insights are one thing but speaking on behalf of Catholics is way different. The very least that should be stated that this is a matter of opinion and not fact but I did not see that, I saw statements made that were speculative and misleading, for instant, that Catholics do not go with the Thomist view because they are sacred of sounding like Calvinists? This is a generalizing statement and it was not said that this is just the opinion of the person.

Oblio · Mar 9, 2004

Were you aware that in cannon law it warns against a Catholic publicly making erroneous statements because it does do more harm than good?

This doesn't surprise me

If we do not know what we are talking about with 100% accuracy we should just be quiet.

Don't know about OBOB, but I suspect that there wouldn't be many threads here (or there) if we all followed that rule.

saw statements made that were speculative and misleading, for instant, that Catholics do not go with the Thomist view because they are sacred of sounding like Calvinists?

Well, I hope you corrected him. I for one, would be glad for the opportunity to correct a false view, that you might never see, but would get repeated elsewhere before being corrected, but that is just me.

Knowledge is Good - Faber

countrymousenc · Mar 9, 2004

Back to the original question -

What is the Orthodox doctrine concerning election and foreknowledge?

Lotar · Mar 9, 2004

Yes, all us Protestants would like to know.

I swear I've asked like ten times myself and somehow they've always got off topic without me getting an answer.

I believe I've heard someone say that you don't believe in forensic justification.

countrymousenc · Mar 9, 2004

As an aside, here is a link to the articles of the Remonstrants (the original Arminians). The "DAISY" is not much more than a parody. Please note the differences, because real Arminianism is rarely ever represented correctly these days.

http://www.biblical-theology.com/calvinism/arminius.htm

Patristic · Mar 9, 2004

countrymousenc said:
Back to the original question -

What is the Orthodox doctrine concerning election and foreknowledge?

Thank you for returning this discussion to it's top priority. Anyways, from what I have read and understand it sounds like the Molinist framework has many elements in common with the Orthodox understanding of election and foreknowledge. It would be nice to point out areas where they agree, and areas, if at all, where they differ.

Oblio · Mar 9, 2004

What is the Orthodox doctrine concerning election and foreknowledge?

I'm not too up on this WRT Orthodox Theology. What I do know, is that we pray, if not unceasingly, quite frequently

Kyrie eleison
Gospodi pomilui
Lord have mercy

Differences Between Reformed and Orthodox?

Swift Eagle Justice

Koine addict

Well-Known Member

Swift Eagle Justice

Koine addict

Swift Eagle Justice

Koine addict

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Well-Known Member

Creed or Chaos

Dances With Mop

Swift Eagle Justice

Dances With Mop

Koine addict

Creed or Chaos

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency