Orthodoxy and Calvinism in Dialogue

[Gxg (G²)]

In my own blog, I made clear that synergism is the more correct term, but God is at all times the initiator and the perfecter of faith. So man cooperates, but he cooperates with a new will that he did not have before, a will blessed by the Spirit.

Furthermore, because salvation is by faith, good works do not justify a man. It should be noted that real faith does contain works and they are not separated. So, justification is by grace through faith, not by works so no one may boast. But those who are saved WILL do the good works that God has prepared for them before the foundations of the universe were set.

Indeed...and on the issue of what you noted, it is interesting when considering the ways that Augustine had different levels of thought as it concerns Synergism.

As said elsewhere (for excerpt) in Augustine and the Varieties of Monergism:

Synergism, for both Lutherans and Calvinists, means the teaching that grace does not simply cause us to have faith, but rather makes an offer of salvation which it is up to us to accept or reject. Both Lutherans and Calvinists reject this synergism, and thus can aptly be labeled monergists with respect to the gift of faith.

The question of whether Augustine is a monergist or a synergist is more complicated. For one thing, even at his most monergistic, Augustine does not deny that we are active in our own salvation. Augustine is a monergist with respect to the origin of faith, for instance, in that he sees it as resulting from prevenient or “operating grace” rather than “co-operating grace” (his terms). But for Augustine this does not take away the role of human free will, for what prevenient grace does is precisely to move our wills so that they freely will the good. Hence for Augustine grace never undermines or replaces free will. In that sense he is never a radical monergist, as if the human will had no active role to play. On the other hand, he is indeed a monergist in a less radical sense, because for him the gift of faith is wholly the work of God, since even our freely willing to accept God’s gift is a work of grace alone.

So in that sense, Augustine is clearly a monergist with respect to the gift of faith, unlike the Arminians. Ultimately it is up to God, not us, whether we freely choose to accept what God has to give us. However—and here is the real complication—this does not make Augustine a monergist with respect to salvation. The reason why is that Augustine does not have a Calvinist concept of saving faith. For he does not share Calvin’s distinctive new doctrine about the perseverance of the saints, according to which everyone with true (i.e., saving) faith is sure to persevere to the end and be eternally saved. For Augustine, you can have a perfectly genuine faith but not persevere in faith to the end of your life. There is no guarantee that believers will not lose their faith and thus ultimately be damned. Hence no matter how true your faith presently is, that does not mean you are sure to be saved in the end. Consequently, Augustine’s monergism about faith does not make him a monergist about salvation.

About salvation Augustine is a synergist, explicitly drawing a contrast between “operating grace” (i.e., the grace that works in us), which is monergistic in its granting the gift of faith, and co-operating grace (i.e., the grace that works with us), with which we are co-workers in the journey of faith, hope and love by which we come to eternal life in the end. In Calvinist terms, Augustine is a synergist about sanctification like most Protestants, but because he thinks sanctification is necessary for salvation unlike most Protestants, he ends up being also a synergist about salvation—despite being a monergist about faith.

A good illustration of Augustine’s distinction between operative and co-operative grace is the late treatise On Grace and Free Will, 33. Addressing the issue of how a person comes to love God (in Calvinist terms, the issue of sanctification rather than justification) he asks, “Who was it that had begun to give him his love, however small, but He who prepares the will and perfects by his co-operation [synergism!] what He initiates by his operation [monergism]? For in beginning [i.e. in the initial choice to have faith, from which charity springs] He works in us that we may have the will, and in perfecting works with us when we have the will.” In Augustinian terms: prior to any co-operation of our will, operative grace produces faith (i.e., a good will) in us, then from faith springs charity, which works together with the (co-operating) grace of God in the journey to eternal life. In Calvinist terms, again, this amounts to monergism about faith, but synergism about salvation.

However, as I mentioned above, there is a radical sense of the term monergism in which Augustine is not a monergist at all. This is the sense in which “grace alone” excludes any exercise of human free will, even one which is wholly a gift of prevenient grace. One reason often given for this radical monergism is a yet more fundamental monergism—call it “absolute monergism”—in which the answer to the question “monergism with respect to what?” is: “absolutely everything.” This amounts to a denial of the existence of what the Christian tradition calls second causes. It means that only God, the First Cause, has real power, and that neither human free will nor anything else in creatures is a real cause of anything that happens.

This absolute monergism could thus also be called “mono-causalism.” It is contrary not only to Augustine and the whole Catholic tradition, but also to the Westminster Confession, which teaches that the eternal decree of God by which he does “ordain whatsoever comes to pass” works in such a way that “neither is God the author of sin … nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established” (3.1; cf. also 5.2). The point of this teaching, which is couched in the language of Thomas Aquinas and agrees with his doctrine, is that God’s working in all things does not mean that creatures have no power to work, but rather that the creatures’ power, will and work derive from the work of God, and precisely for that reason are real, just like all God’s works. God’s primary causality therefore does not undermine or replace the secondary causality of creatures, including their free will. God has ambassadors, apostles and other servants with a will of their own and work to do, even while he is always indispensably at work in them. The two forms of causality are not incompatible or in competition with one another.

Mainstream Calvinism is thus at one with Catholicism in rejecting absolute monergism. The place to locate the difference between Catholicism and Calvinism concerning monergism is rather in the fact that the whole Roman Catholic tradition since Augustine is synergist about salvation. For Catholicism our works of love (made possible by operative grace in the beginning and aided by co-operative grace throughout) are necessary for salvation. That’s precisely the purport of Trent’s denial of the sola fide: faith alone is not enough for salvation without works of love (Decree on Justification, articles 10-11).

However, there is a division within Catholicism on the point about monergism with respect to faith. Whereas one important strand of Catholic theology, including Aquinas and the Dominican tradition, promotes an Augustinian monergism about faith, another strand, most powerfully represented by the 16th-century Jesuit Luis de Molina, defends a form of synergism about faith. Molinism is thus something like the Catholic form of Arminianism. In the De Auxiliis controversy around 1600, the Pope adjudicated between these two positions, decreeing that both were legitimate and neither side could accuse the other of heresy. This was of course not a relativist move: the two positions are probably irreconcilable, and if so then at least one of them is in error in some way. But the pope’s decree meant that such error is not heresy and does no harm to the faith, so the debate may continue but must do so in mutually respectful terms.

There is of course no one on earth to adjudicate between Catholics and Protestants. But perhaps it will help to be aware, at least, of the difference between absolute monergism and the more modest monergism about faith, justification and salvation which is the legacy of Luther and Calvin.​

 

[abacabb3]

I think the story there makes a picture of Calvinism that it denounces, but then even upholds the orthodoxy of the Westminister Confession!

My contention is that it is not monergists that generally have it wrong, because in reality even conservative monergists would be what the article defines as synergists. What I disagree with are "synergists" that make God incapable of affecting the will of a man, which by definition is not synergism. Also, I take issue with a generalized sort of grace that puts believers and unbelievers in the same boat, as I think this is synergism in semantics only.

The reason why is that Augustine does not have a Calvinist concept of saving faith. For he does not share Calvin’s distinctive new doctrine about the perseverance of the saints, according to which everyone with true (i.e., saving) faith is sure to persevere to the end and be eternally saved.

I did notice this in Augustine's Confessions (somewhere in chapter 11?, right before his whole discourse on Genesis) and his Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love. This refers to the doctrine of assurance. Even though I am thoroughly convinced of this doctrine because of John 6, and Phil 1-2, to me it not as an essential a doctrine as total depravity (which to reject, puts us on the course of synergism which isn't synergism at all.)

After all, someone can say they have faith, think they have faith, and say "Lord, Lord" but still be found as faithless. So, I believe in assurance, but the only one assured of the individual's personal assurance is God. I can be lying to myself, after all.

 

[hedrick]

I don't have time at the moment to deal with this in any detail. However I observe that, as always, a lot depends upon who you mean by “Calvinists.”

The largest Reformed body in the US, the PCUSA, does not conform to many of the descriptions in the OP. Nor do some historical Calvinists.

* I would argue that election is not the center of Calvin’s theology. Rather, the “mystical union with Christ” is. I also think his thoughts on the atonement are closer to Orthodoxy than you might think from later Calvinist writers.

* Calvinism has never been highly individualistic. It has always emphasized means of grace, including the Church. Covenant theology has put salvation into a community context.

But modern Reformed thought fits the OP’s stereotype even less. The most detailed recent doctrinal statement by the PCUSA seems to see election more as election to service than election to privilege. In general our thought is strongly influenced by modern scholarship on both Jesus and Paul, which tends to look through (as much as possible) a 1st Cent Jewish context rather than a 16th Cent Protestant one (or a 4th or 5th Cent Greek one).

 

[buzuxi02]

I wrote a reply and the site deleted it. Briefly put, the Council of Carthage in 418 preceded the 3rd ecunemical council, and the first canon of the latter council directly addresses the issue in the Council of Carthage. Then, no coincidentally, the second council of orange reiterates (in even stronger language) Augustinian soteriology.

So, either the 3rd ecunemical council occurred in a vacuum and the councils of carthage and orange are wrong, or there is something majorly missing or twisted in modern EO and RCC soteriology.

COncerning Pelagianism, please see the post above.

The doctrines of Caelestius were certainly heretical. As I said his views were more extreme than Pelagius, also that Caelestius had sympathetic bishops would certainly prompt a canon.

There is a few misconceptions though that I would like to clear up. First, disciplinary canons to rectify problems in a specific regional area would not be received nor observed by all the churches, these were more minor canons for a specific problem within a specific local church. I'm just saying this to read with caution on canons passed by regional councils having in mind their own specific customs and problems.

The canon (2) of Ephesus does not reflect the council of Orange. The eastern churches were simply unfamiliar with it. . The council Ephesus in 431 AD was presided over by the archbishop of Alexandria who because of its jurisdictional proximity to Carthage would indeed have in mind the Carthagian council.

This is verified by Canon 2 of Trullo held in 680 AD. The Quinisext council (Trullo) was an extension of the 6th Ecumenical council, and the custom at ecumenical councils was to reiterate the previous councils that were accepted. Canon 2 is an exhaustive list of all the councils recognized and received by the Church. The previous 5 ecumenical councils were of course reiterated at Trullo. The only regional councils affirmed by this ecumenical synod there is only one western council acknowledged and that is the council of Sardica. It does list the Carthage councils starting with those held under the presidency of Cyprian in 251AD, refered at one point as the 'African' councils but tend to be considered western.

Also the only 'western' council accepted by Trullo which enumerates a biblical canon is the Third Council of Carthage held in 397 ad. The other biblical lists affirmed by canon 2 of Trullo is the lists compiled at the council of Laodicea held in 363 AD, St Athanasius list recorded in his festal epistle, St Gregory Nazianzen's list, and St Amphilocius list. Im just adding this info just in case you were wondering why I refered to the book of Revelation as a 'deuterocanonical' book (which it indeed is in Orthodoxy). I noticed in some previous posts you touched upon the holy books and I thought this would clear up some things .

Now, the writings of Augustine were not known in the east. They simply were never translated into greek. The only thing the East knew of Augustine was that his mother Monica was a holy woman whom the simple pious laity venerated as a saint, and this piety spread her fame to the east. Her story was re-told in the east; how her prayers rescued her son from a life of debauchery and she was reassured of this by prophecy of St. Ambrose. To put it bluntly, in the east he was a minor figure riding the coattails of his mother.


Now I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you believe, I think somethings maybe semantics.

 

[Ignatius21]

I don't have time at the moment to deal with this in any detail. However I observe that, as always, a lot depends upon who you mean by “Calvinists.”

The largest Reformed body in the US, the PCUSA, does not conform to many of the descriptions in the OP. Nor do some historical Calvinists.

* I would argue that election is not the center of Calvin’s theology. Rather, the “mystical union with Christ” is. I also think his thoughts on the atonement are closer to Orthodoxy than you might think from later Calvinist writers.

* Calvinism has never been highly individualistic. It has always emphasized means of grace, including the Church. Covenant theology has put salvation into a community context.

But modern Reformed thought fits the OP’s stereotype even less. The most detailed recent doctrinal statement by the PCUSA seems to see election more as election to service than election to privilege. In general our thought is strongly influenced by modern scholarship on both Jesus and Paul, which tends to look through (as much as possible) a 1st Cent Jewish context rather than a 16th Cent Protestant one (or a 4th or 5th Cent Greek one).

Thanks for commenting, Hedrick!

I wasn't intending to stereotype anyone. But what you've posted here highlights one of the issues surrounding nearly any debate--a lack of unanimity among the Reformed, as to exactly what "Reformed theology" even is. (Which is not necessarily a fault, since this sort of variation exists among all traditions). However, your PCUSA's understanding of election, of Paul, etc. is absolute blasphemous heresy in the OPC (a very conservative denomination that broke from the PCUSA in the 1930's over the American "Fundamentalist vs. Modernist" debates in Princeton Seminary). The "New Perspective" and "modern scholarship on Paul" have been slammed down in the OPC, RPC, BPC and a few others besides. I believe the picture of "Calvinism" I'm presenting would in fact be accepted by those denominations, because it's where I learned it. An elder told me "N.T. Wright is leading us back to Rome in chains." With some suspicion that demonic activity could be involved.

Now, does that mean it actually IS Calvinism? Would Calvin have accepted it? Nobody can really say.

Now, could you perhaps clarify what you mean (and what you think Calvin meant) by "mystical union with Christ?" What is it to be united to Christ? Is this union something formal, that either is, or isn't? Does it grow and deepen? Is it like a legal verdict, or like a marriage, is it both objective and subjective? The very idea of what it means for a human to be "united to Christ" is somewhat different in Orthodoxy than it is, for instance, in Catholicism. This is where the differences in the understanding of Grace come into play. Some accuse Orthodoxy of overplaying this difference, and perhaps it does. I'm still learning, myself. But the more I read of it, the more I see its significance, and it goes waaaaaaaay back into history.

 

[abacabb3]

I thought union with Christ happened in its fullness during the marriage supper of the lamb. I really don't have a concise answer for this.

 

[Ignatius21]

In my own blog, I made clear that synergism is the more correct term, but God is at all times the initiator and the perfecter of faith. So man cooperates, but he cooperates with a new will that he did not have before, a will blessed by the Spirit.

Furthermore, because salvation is by faith, good works do not justify a man. It should be noted that real faith does contain works and they are not separated. So, justification is by grace through faith, not by works so no one may boast. But those who are saved WILL do the good works that God has prepared for them before the foundations of the universe were set.

And here is where your words reflect the very thing that the 5th blog in the Orthodox blogger series (that started this whole thing) labeled "Zero-sum" theology. And I reiterate, what you dismiss as "mumbojumbo" is actually essential to place our statements about God, grace, will and salvation into context. You have your own unspoken "mumbojumbo" at work here, you just aren't elaborating it. If you believe that any participation by man, in his own salvation or coming to Christ, necessarily equals a corresponding reduction of God's work in that same activity, then you are philosophically asserting a certain relationship between the two.

What the blogger rightly points out, is that the entire framework in which God and Man relate, for us is the Incarnation of Christ. We are united to God, in Christ. How can it be so? Because we share, with him, a common human nature (which is why formally we cannot say that human nature is sinful, or depraved, lest we not share the same nature, and therefore not be saved...sin is not of the essence of humanity). But natures cannot act, or choose, or believe or work. Only persons can. Thus, whatever Christ did personally, was both human and divine, in a way we clearly cannot ever understand. We cannot say how it "worked," but we can say how it did not "work." And that is, whatever was human about the work of Christ, did not negate what was divine. His humanity didn't rob glory from his divinity. Nor did his divinity have to change, override or jump-start his humanity. This is the essence of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Whatever else we say about the relationship of the human and the divine will, we can and must say that it is possible...inexplicably possible...for a human will to be both absolutely free, and absolutely within the sovereignty of God, at the same time. Were it not so, the Incarnation would have been a ruse, and salvation could not have happened.

 

[abacabb3]

There is a few misconceptions though that I would like to clear up. First, disciplinary canons to rectify problems in a specific regional area would not be received nor observed by all the churches, these were more minor canons for a specific problem within a specific local church. I'm just saying this to read with caution on canons passed by regional councils having in mind their own specific customs and problems.

This I understand. But just like Canon 113 of the COuncil of Carthage did not occur in a vacuum and it would have been in the minds of more than a few bishops during the third ecunemical council, much of the thinking in the Second Council of Orange likewise had broader traction, at least in Rome where its BIshop specifically approved it.

My contention is that my interpretation of Scripture has a very strong historical under current and it appears only to be specifically denounced in eastern though in the seventh or eight centuries. 700 years is a lot of time. 700 years ago, Dante didn't finish writing the Divine Comedy.

 

[abacabb3]

You have your own unspoken "mumbojumbo" at work here, you just aren't elaborating it.

Which is why I prefer sticking with the Scriptures, but my mumbo jumbo is much simpler and consistent!

If you believe that any participation by man, in his own salvation or coming to Christ, necessarily equals a corresponding reduction of God's work in that same activity, then you are philosophically asserting a certain relationship between the two.

This is a paradigm I never introduced, and you complicate the matter by inserting it. All I say is that God initiates saving faith and He works through the believer to will and to act, this is Biblical language.

What the blogger rightly points out, is that the entire framework in which God and Man relate, for us is the Incarnation of Christ.

When speaking of the will, this is a distinction Paul does not make so I cannot speculate.

Whatever else we say about the relationship of the human and the divine will, we can and must say that it is possible...inexplicably possible...for a human will to be both absolutely free, and absolutely within the sovereignty of God, at the same time.

This is my position, which I make clear in my blog and in the "total depravity" debate in the soteriology forum. I add one caveat. It is seen in Scripture where God can over power a will and give that will new desires. The Scripture also shows that "natural men", dead in their trespasses, can easily be deceived and tempted by Satan. But, the desire to sin originated from their own hearts.

What I am afraid of is a slippery slope where we get from "God gives a man a heart of flesh to believe, man responds freely in belief" to "man can believe freely with his heart of stone." The latter is totally untrue and even in the modern day, would not be accepted by the RCC.

 

[buzuxi02]

This I understand. But just like Canon 113 of the COuncil of Carthage did not occur in a vacuum and it would have been in the minds of more than a few bishops during the third ecunemical council, much of the thinking in the Second Council of Orange likewise had broader traction, at least in Rome where its BIshop specifically approved it.

My contention is that my interpretation of Scripture has a very strong historical under current and it appears only to be specifically denounced in eastern though in the seventh or eight centuries. 700 years is a lot of time. 700 years ago, Dante didn't finish writing the Divine Comedy.

Well, I'm still not sure what your implying. Are you saying something changed after 700 AD or there about? I'm having difficulty in grasping this entire thread. From what I see there is a lot of semantics about formulating an answer for the mechanism on how individuals are drawn to Christ and saved.

 

[Ignatius21]

I'm having difficulty in grasping this entire thread. From what I see there is a lot of semantics about formulating an answer for the mechanism on how individuals are drawn to Christ and saved.

Actually, the issue of "the mechanism on how individuals are drawn to Christ" pretty much IS the difference between Reformed and non-Reformed Protestants. From an Orthodox perspective, it seems rather arcane and frankly useless, because where you come down on that issue--which is already admitted to be a mystery anyway--has no bearing on how you live out your life in Christ.

This, in a nutshell, is the issue: how does a sinful human being first come to Christ? That is, choose to turn from sin and toward God? The Reformed/Augustinian contention is that a person is so depraved, so lost and bound to sin, that he cannot choose God. He hates God. He loves sin. His will is still free, in the sense that it's operational and free from compulsion, but since his desires are 100% evil, he is free only to choose from among an infinite number of ways to reject God. Therefore God, being loving toward his elect, and them only acts purely alone in "regenerating" the sinner, that is, raising him up from his spiritual death, and giving him a new heart that desires God. Then the person, although still sinful, will choose to love and follow God. So God doesn't actually force anyone to love him, or make anyone choose against his or her will. What he does is to replace their sinful desire with Godly desire, so that they freely choose God.

This regeneration--which is not tied to baptism in Reformed theology--is all the work of God, and it occurs on a direct, person-by-person basis. Where the fighting really starts, is that if someone suggests that a man is capable in any way of cooperating with this initial move toward God, then it makes God dependent upon that man, and therefore, not really God. God is said to have become subject to the will of man, now sitting helplessly in heaven wringing his fingers, hoping someone down here chooses to love him. NO! they say. God is sovereign! Thus he does as he pleases! Which, in their philosophy, must mean that man is passive. So, while in Orthodoxy such a subject may be a rather frivolous debate, for the Reformed and Arminians (the ones who hold televised debates, anyway) the matter is of utmost importance. For the Reformed, it makes the difference as to whether God is actually sovereign or not. For the Arminians, it makes the difference as to whether God is horrible monster or not.

(And with apologies to Hedrick, I'm representing this based on the viewpoints I was taught in my very conservative Presbyterian past, together with hundreds of hours of lectures from RC Sproul and John Piper, and very lengthy books by A.W. Pink and J. Gresham Machen. I cannot speak to how this relates to progressive Reformed belief, since my tutoring came specifically from those who had broken away from their liberal counterparts more than 70 years ago).

Now, I personally am interested in learning more about how some of these issues relate to the understanding of the two wills of Christ, as expressed by St. Maximos and later formulated into the 6th Ecumenical Council. There is no question that the will/heart/nous of a human person is corrupt and stricken by sin, nor that the will of a person is cleansed, healed and restored by its union with Christ. I know it was taught by Maximos that Christ's human will (at the level of nature) was fully divinized by its perfect union with his divine nature. And that as a result, Christ never had to deliberate from among different options ("gnomic will") because his human desires were always perfectly aligned with God's.

When speaking of free will, just as the Orthodox differentiate between "desire" and "choice" at the level of natural and personal/gnomic will--if I'm even understanding it all correctly--so too the Reformed differentiate between desire and choice. I think both would agree that a person cannot choose against his desires, and that "natural man" (that is, man in the flesh/sarx) cannot desire God apart from God's own grace. Perhaps the difference lies in this: the Orthodox understand the renewal of the will as a cleansing away of sin and filth from the heart of a person, so that his natural desire for God can "shine through" as it were, whereas the Reformed believe that man's nature itself is corrupt, and therefore has to be essentially replaced. Or, as abacabb3 said above, "overpowered."

A person cannot come to Christ apart from receiving the Gospel. And Christ himself is present in the proclamation of that Gospel. So it is impossible, I would say, for a person to hear the Gospel without God's grace being present together with it. This answers, for me, the question of whether God's grace is required for one to believe the Gospel. It is, but the grace is right there with it. We cannot ultimately explain why one person responds positively, while another scoffs and rejects it as nonsense.

Your thoughts?

 

[hedrick]

Thanks for commenting, Hedrick!

I wasn't intending to stereotype anyone. But what you've posted here highlights one of the issues surrounding nearly any debate--a lack of unanimity among the Reformed, as to exactly what "Reformed theology" even is. (Which is not necessarily a fault, since this sort of variation exists among all traditions). However, your PCUSA's understanding of election, of Paul, etc. is absolute blasphemous heresy in the OPC (a very conservative denomination that broke from the PCUSA in the 1930's over the American "Fundamentalist vs. Modernist" debates in Princeton Seminary). The "New Perspective" and "modern scholarship on Paul" have been slammed down in the OPC, RPC, BPC and a few others besides. I believe the picture of "Calvinism" I'm presenting would in fact be accepted by those denominations, because it's where I learned it. An elder told me "N.T. Wright is leading us back to Rome in chains." With some suspicion that demonic activity could be involved.

Now, does that mean it actually IS Calvinism? Would Calvin have accepted it? Nobody can really say.

Now, could you perhaps clarify what you mean (and what you think Calvin meant) by "mystical union with Christ?" What is it to be united to Christ? Is this union something formal, that either is, or isn't? Does it grow and deepen? Is it like a legal verdict, or like a marriage, is it both objective and subjective? The very idea of what it means for a human to be "united to Christ" is somewhat different in Orthodoxy than it is, for instance, in Catholicism. This is where the differences in the understanding of Grace come into play. Some accuse Orthodoxy of overplaying this difference, and perhaps it does. I'm still learning, myself. But the more I read of it, the more I see its significance, and it goes waaaaaaaay back into history.

I'm sorry for your experience with Presbyterians. But remember that the groups you mention broke away from the main body. It's a matter of conjecture how Calvin would react to debates of later centuries. I would only note that Calvin used the best Biblical scholarship of his time. I can't see him turning the 16th Cent confessions into a new inerrant tradition, and rejecting new understanding. I consider the essence of Reformed thought as being following wherever our best understanding of Scripture leads. Thus to me people like N T Wright are the real leaders of Reformed theology, and the OPC is the equivalent of 16th Cent Catholic thought, rejecting Biblical knowledge in the name of tradition.

Here is one of Calvin's comments on the mystical union:

Moreover, lest by his cavils he deceive the unwary, I acknowledge that we are devoid of this incomparable gift until Christ become ours. Therefore, to that union of the head and members, the residence of Christ in our hearts, in fine, the mystical union, we assign the highest rank, Christ when he becomes ours making us partners with him in the gifts with which he was endued. Hence we do not view him as at a distance and without us, but as we have put him on, and been ingrafted into his body, he deigns to make us one with himself, and, therefore, we glory in having a fellowship of righteousness with him.

Note that one Calvin's main explanations of the atonement is based on this "fellowship of righteousness". With Rom 6, he says that the atonement is based on Christ's obedience, not just on the cross, but in his whole life. This obedience becomes ours when we are united to him, dying with him to sin and rising with him to new life.

I believe he would say that the union is the work of the Holy Spirit, as Paul says of our being "in Christ."

He does use the Biblical analogy of marriage:

"The Lord very frequently addresses us in the character of a husband;20 199 the union by which he connects us with himself, when he receives us into the bosom of the Church, having some resemblance to that of holy wedlock, because founded on mutual faith. As he performs all the offices of a true and faithful husband, so he stipulates for love and conjugal chastity from us; that is, that we do not prostitute our souls to Satan, to be defiled with foul carnal lusts."

I believe that for Calvin there are both objective and subjective elements. Clearly God's acceptance of us is based entirely on grace, and not on anything in us. (You speak of the definition of grace. I've always heard that grace is an attribute of God. We don't accept the Catholic model, where grace is kind of like a fluid, coming from God, being dispensed by the Church, and residing in us as long as we don't commit a mortal sin. Grace is God's loving commitment to us, resulting in his desire to save us.) However God doesn't stop there. He unites us to himself, and through the union transforms us. Indeed that's the whole goal of salvation. God loves us and wants to restore us to himself.

 

[abacabb3]

I do take issue with this:

Now, I personally am interested in learning more about how some of these issues relate to the understanding of the two wills of Christ, as expressed by St. Maximos and later formulated into the 6th Ecumenical Council. There is no question that the will/heart/nous of a human person is corrupt and stricken by sin, nor that the will of a person is cleansed, healed and restored by its union with Christ. I know it was taught by Maximos that Christ's human will (at the level of nature) was fully divinized by its perfect union with his divine nature. And that as a result, Christ never had to deliberate from among different options ("gnomic will") because his human desires were always perfectly aligned with God's.

I don't think you understand this, but this is a whole paradigm that is not presented in Scripture, nor by the earlier church fathers.

I know you wonder how I, a misologist, adhere to a deeply philosophical system. In reality, I don't adhere to Calvinism. I am not a "Calvinist." I am a Christian which believes in doctrines which I view to be historical and Biblical.

All this stuff on our will being like Christ will and other jargon to me is stuff that was narrowly important to the culture of people in the Greek world hundreds of years ago, so people who follow the Greek tradition overvalue the importance of this stuff. But, the idea of "gnomic will" has nothing to do with how I'm saved or God's purposes in the world.

Doctrines of grace and salvation, however, have practical applications to believers.

My opinion is that the only reason Ignatius finds such stuff important is that as he learned about EO, he found out that this stuff was important and because of their claim to apostolic succession and holding the mantle of supposed church tradition, he read up on it until it became important to him. Because, this stuff is not interesting to me at all and I just don't see where it is talked about in the Bible, and reading my history, don't see it being a major concern for centuries. So, if centuries of church history viewed it of little importance, why would I?

Granted, you can throw the whole grace thing back at me and say, "the church didn't dwell on these things for centuries either." True. But at least the talked about it (whether it concerned Pelagians, Donatists, etc.) and the Bible gets in some detail about it. However, I just so the import of a lot of stuff about Christ's nature as long as I am not making incorrect claims about His divinity and making assertions about His nature that are untrue.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think the story there makes a picture of Calvinism that it denounces, but then even upholds the orthodoxy of the Westminister Confession!

My contention is that it is not monergists that generally have it wrong, because in reality even conservative monergists would be what the article defines as synergists. What I disagree with are "synergists" that make God incapable of affecting the will of a man, which by definition is not synergism. Also, I take issue with a generalized sort of grace that puts believers and unbelievers in the same boat, as I think this is synergism in semantics only.

So it seems it is an issue of misuse of terms

I did notice this in Augustine's Confessions (somewhere in chapter 11?, right before his whole discourse on Genesis) and his Handbook on Faith, Hope and Love. This refers to the doctrine of assurance. Even though I am thoroughly convinced of this doctrine because of John 6, and Phil 1-2, to me it not as an essential a doctrine as total depravity (which to reject, puts us on the course of synergism which isn't synergism at all.)

After all, someone can say they have faith, think they have faith, and say "Lord, Lord" but still be found as faithless. So, I believe in assurance, but the only one assured of the individual's personal assurance is God. I can be lying to myself, after all.

True..

 

[Ignatius21]

I don't think you understand this, but this is a whole paradigm that is not presented in Scripture, nor by the earlier church fathers.

No, I'm totally ignorant, could you please explain it to me? I'm lost, wallowing in my philosophy. Oh, if only I had a Bible!

Of course I know this isn't presented in Scripture. Nor in the early Church fathers. This matter arose over the centuries as the Church sought to clarify its position on what it came to understand were key, critical issues. Just like the Trinity isn't presented in Scripture or the early Church fathers. Many of the early Fathers made ambiguous statements that may well have been wrong by Nicean standards. The majority seem to have clearly believed Christ to have been divine, but it's entirely vague in many cases as to what they really thought of the Holy Spirit. Thus, over time, categories of essence and personhood came to the fore, when the Church came to reject not only Arianism (outright denial of his divinity) but also the more nebulous forms that either identified Christ with the Father (like modalism) or even bordered on polytheism. But per your standards here, it seems that those may well have been okey-dokey to believe in. Heck, as long as you don't deny that Christ was in fact divine, who needs all that junk about hypostasis, and consubstantiality? I mean, Scripture seems to show that Christ was separate from the Father...but he did say "I and the Father are one" and "Whoever has seen me, has seen the Father..." So maybe modalists weren't all that bad? Sadly, the Church felt compelled to cling to narrowly important stuff from the ancient Greek world, and probably went too far.

[/end sarcasm]

I know you wonder how I, a misologist, adhere to a deeply philosophical system. In reality, I don't adhere to Calvinism. I am not a "Calvinist." I am a Christian which believes in doctrines which I view to be historical and Biblical.

That's becoming much more apparent. You clearly do not adhere to Calvinism. You adhere to whatever makes sense to you at the moment. You are prepared to dismiss the thought of many who tried to wrestle with the deeper issues, even those who generally agreed with you.

All this stuff on our will being like Christ will and other jargon to me is stuff that was narrowly important to the culture of people in the Greek world hundreds of years ago, so people who follow the Greek tradition overvalue the importance of this stuff. But, the idea of "gnomic will" has nothing to do with how I'm saved or God's purposes in the world.

And so we come to the crux of the issue. I've enjoyed our discussions, but what has been revealed over the last week or so, is the truth about what actually is central to your beliefs. I've picked up on the consistent thread that runs through it. You read the Scriptures, accepting the historical canon insofar as it is acceptable to you. You settle on interpretations that seem reasonable to you. You scour the writings of the Fathers, pulling individual canons of individual councils out of context, proclaiming the ancient bishops to be right when they agree with you and wrong or lost or misdirected, when they disagree with you. You say such things as "Do you hold to monergism the way that Augustine and I define it?" Augustine has the privilege of sharing that position with you, except, I assume, on those matters in which he disagrees with you. You say you take apostolic succession "seriously," but you reject the possibility of it having actually persisted, given that all existing churches with ancient roots disagree with you. Clearly, no church that disagrees with you could actually be in line with the apostolic church. I see that you get to determine which issues are of importance to salvation, you decide when philosophy is useful or becomes "Mumbo-Jumbo," and you dismiss tens of centuries of Christian thought with a wave of your hand because they do not conform to the theological priorities that are central to you.

You say "Let's break out our Bibles and see who's right!" But the Bible is not at the center of your beliefs. You are at the center.

Forgive me, but I have to call it as I see it. I point all five fingers back at myself, because I used to inhabit the center of the sphere of my own religion, quietly judging my pastors' orthodoxy based on what I thought was what the Bible actually taught. So I understand it. Maybe I'll start a support and recovery group for people who are, in actuality, One-Man Denominations.

Doctrines of grace and salvation, however, have practical applications to believers.

As defined by you?

My opinion is that the only reason Ignatius finds such stuff important is that as he learned about EO, he found out that this stuff was important and because of their claim to apostolic succession and holding the mantle of supposed church tradition, he read up on it until it became important to him. Because, this stuff is not interesting to me at all and I just don't see where it is talked about in the Bible, and reading my history, don't see it being a major concern for centuries. So, if centuries of church history viewed it of little importance, why would I?

Granted, you can throw the whole grace thing back at me and say, "the church didn't dwell on these things for centuries either." True. But at least the talked about it (whether it concerned Pelagians, Donatists, etc.) and the Bible gets in some detail about it. However, I just so the import of a lot of stuff about Christ's nature as long as I am not making incorrect claims about His divinity and making assertions about His nature that are untrue.

You are correct in saying that I didn't find such things important before I found Orthodoxy. At a more basic level, I never found things like salvation or eternal life important until I started reading a Bible. When I realized their importance, then I took them seriously. Yes, I had to accept the reality of apostolic succession, and that without it, I was merly the First Church of Myself. Sure, I communed with a group of relatively like-minded people, but that was mainly because they agreed with me. Or, at least, enough to warrant my sticking around.

You may well be making making incorrect claims about his Divinity. Because saying "He's divine" isn't the end of the matter. "He's divine and human!" isn't the end, either. But who gets to decide what is, and is not, truly important to define? On the one side, are the first 11 centuries of a fairly unified Church. On the other side, is you. Oh dear, "gnomic will" wasn't important until the 6th and 7th Centuries? Thankfully, we can focus on things like nuanced definitions of forensic imputation of alien righteousness in justification...which wasn't apparently important until the 16th Century...maybe a few earlier if we're generous toward the scholastic speculations of some Catholic scholars. And no, pulling a quote or two out of Clement or Ignatius that happen to use the word "justify" and proclaiming that they actually agree with you is fairly a hard pill to swallow.

Yes, this was a rather combative response on my part. I apologize for causing offense, but your tone in responding has seemed increasingly haughty over the last several interactions. It seems to me that you are so certain of your understanding, and your ability to understand, that you can simply dismiss East, West and inbetween. If I'm wrong, forgive me, and then kindly show me where I'm wrong.

 

[Tzaousios]

I don't think you understand this, but this is a whole paradigm that is not presented in Scripture, nor by the earlier church fathers.

What do you mean he doesn't understand it? It appears to me that Ignatius21 has quite the grasp on the relevant theological concepts from both before and after the Reformation. Merely stating that it is not in Scripture does not make it so. Where do you think the Greek fathers got it then? You did not indicate this.

I know you wonder how I, a misologist, adhere to a deeply philosophical system. In reality, I don't adhere to Calvinism. I am not a "Calvinist." I am a Christian which believes in doctrines which I view to be historical and Biblical.

Everyone likes to say this, especially Protestants who do not care enough or have not taken the time to investigate church history or historical theology before the Reformation. "I am merely repeating what the Bible plainly says" just does not cut it, especially to those who have put in the time and effort to try to understand various theories and interpretations.

All this stuff on our will being like Christ will and other jargon to me is stuff that was narrowly important to the culture of people in the Greek world hundreds of years ago, so people who follow the Greek tradition overvalue the importance of this stuff. But, the idea of "gnomic will" has nothing to do with how I'm saved or God's purposes in the world.

You go from actually trying to discuss various patristic stances on the issues in the first page or so to this. Why the sudden change to hand-waving away interpretations that were not worked out lightly and even in some cases cost the lives of those who took the time to think prayerfully about what they were reading in Scripture.

Are you trying to say that the Greek fathers were pushing unbiblical Greek philosophy or are you willing to admit that they were honestly and prayerfully investigating Scripture using the language and concepts they were most familiar with? How do you know that these were not important or influential to the Reformation generation or even to Christians today outside the Orthodox tradition?

Doctrines of grace and salvation, however, have practical applications to believers.

So does union with Christ in theosis, the relationship between the human and divine wills, and the exchange of natures between Christ and believers.

My opinion is that the only reason Ignatius finds such stuff important is that as he learned about EO, he found out that this stuff was important and because of their claim to apostolic succession and holding the mantle of supposed church tradition, he read up on it until it became important to him.

This is very unfair to Ignatius21. How can you confidently makes such a sweeping generalization and judgment? In the end it comes across as an expression of your dislike of a certain tradition or set of traditions different from your own rather than an honest assessment of what he believes and how he came to believe it.

Because, this stuff is not interesting to me at all and I just don't see where it is talked about in the Bible, and reading my history, don't see it being a major concern for centuries. So, if centuries of church history viewed it of little importance, why would I?

Good grief. This begs the question of why you even hung around to this point if you were just going to conclude with the parting shot that you do not give a fig about any of it.

 

[abacabb3]

Ignatius, there is a deal to truth of what you say, I don't take offense and appreciate your honesty. But there is one thing I do quibble with. I may be wrong, but I am not a one man denomination any more than anyone here. Everyone ultimately internalizes stuff and justifies with themselves whether they are going to go ahead with it.

Now, I can be totally arrogant (possible) or the Spirit is putting a certain conviction within me, or perhaps both are occurring and my spirit is battling with my flesh. I don't know.

But, by your own admission, "your" (it belongs to all Christians) own tradition greatly emphasizes ideas and teachings that both the Bible and centuries of the church are almost entirely silent about. Aren't you a little uneasy with this? I have a background in history (only a masters) but historically speaking, this seems to me obvious that we have one group of people in the present that think they are the same as the group of another people in the past, when they are clearly not.

I know you know what I am talking about. We had that whole America 2.0 discussion.

I ask that you give serious thought about this, as I will seriously thinking about what you said. You may not understand this, but I have a burning hunger to submit to a historical church, but I cannot shake the obvious conclusion that their authority is not actually grounded int he Apostles. While, the Bible (actually written by the Apostles) is. So, I feel compelled, if not forced by my conviction, to reading all things based upon the emphasis I see in the Bible, and otherwise use what I study in church history to inform the Scripture. So, I guess, I really don't see the Holy Tradition and the Bible as one unified tradition, but I see large aspects of the Holy Tradition as likely false. I mean no offense, but it divides you and me.

Again, there is no compelling logic to this. There is nothing so overtly great about the Bible where it is in a literary sense any better than the writings that make up the Holy Tradition, the Magesterium, or anything else. But, being that the Bible is agreed by all sourced directly to God, I will cling to my Scripture and in some ways, totally confused that we can waste all these words and still not be quoting out of the Bible.

 

[abacabb3]

This is very unfair to Ignatius21. How can you confidently makes such a sweeping generalization and judgment?

I was guessing and I guessed right, for what it is worth. I didn't think there were any negative connotations to what I said.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ignatius, there is a deal to truth of what you say, I don't take offense and appreciate your honesty. But there is one thing I do quibble with. I may be wrong, but I am not a one man denomination any more than anyone here. Everyone ultimately internalizes stuff and justifies with themselves whether they are going to go ahead with it.

There is a degree of truth to this, also. I believe the difference is, though, that if one is actually in submission to a Church, and that body teaches something that the individual does not fully comprehend, then the individual submits that the teaching is indeed correct. Not that this is an easy process. Key teachers within the Church have taught heresy. Nobody denies that. There is no mechanical formula for determining exactly who is right, and about what. But at least in Orthodoxy, the passage of time among the universal Church counts for a lot. So, just for instance, the doctrines of prayers to the dead are a done deal. It's been practiced for centuries, East and West, is part of the oldest known liturgies, and continues down to the present. To say that God has allowed his Church to fall away into heretical practice--all of it, clergy and laity, for at least 18 centuries--is to essentially be a deist with respect to the Church. God, the watchmaker, wound up the Church, the watch, and then just kind of let things run haywire, to the point that it could only be reformed by stepping outside its bounds and starting again--in which case, it is not a reformation but a replacement.

Now, I can be totally arrogant (possible) or the Spirit is putting a certain conviction within me, or perhaps both are occurring and my spirit is battling with my flesh. I don't know.

One never knows.

But, by your own admission, "your" (it belongs to all Christians) own tradition greatly emphasizes ideas and teachings that both the Bible and centuries of the church are almost entirely silent about. Aren't you a little uneasy with this? I have a background in history (only a masters) but historically speaking, this seems to me obvious that we have one group of people in the present that think they are the same as the group of another people in the past, when they are clearly not.

I know you know what I am talking about. We had that whole America 2.0 discussion.

Yes, and I think you misunderstood my point in that discussion. My point, in summary, was that if a group of patriots grabbed a copy of the Constitution, then erected their own government based upon their understanding of what they think it means, and upon their understanding of what the early founders intended, then--while they may actually in some ways be closer to the priorities and thinking of those earliest men--they could not legitimately claim to be the United States. Nor a part of the United States. Nor part of some incorporeal, "invisible America." They would be a different country, plain and simple.

Thus, in stepping outside the bounds of the visible, historic Church, the Protestant Reformers actually began new Churches. They wanted to be the original, they didn't intend to step outside, and they came up with all manner of explanations as to why they were actually the real heirs to the early Church--but in the end, they set up churches that ran parallel. If the Church failed to the extent that it had to be broken away from, and started anew under any and all manner of government--then the Church failed, plain and simple. "Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it...I hope..."

I ask that you give serious thought about this, as I will seriously thinking about what you said. You may not understand this, but I have a burning hunger to submit to a historical church, but I cannot shake the obvious conclusion that their authority is not actually grounded int he Apostles. While, the Bible (actually written by the Apostles) is. So, I feel compelled, if not forced by my conviction, to reading all things based upon the emphasis I see in the Bible, and otherwise use what I study in church history to inform the Scripture. So, I guess, I really don't see the Holy Tradition and the Bible as one unified tradition, but I see large aspects of the Holy Tradition as likely false. I mean no offense, but it divides you and me.

Again, there is no compelling logic to this. There is nothing so overtly great about the Bible where it is in a literary sense any better than the writings that make up the Holy Tradition, the Magesterium, or anything else. But, being that the Bible is agreed by all sourced directly to God, I will cling to my Scripture and in some ways, totally confused that we can waste all these words and still not be quoting out of the Bible.

I do understand that you seek to find the ancient Church. I just posit, to you, that in actuality you are asking that Church to submit to your reasoning, rather than seeking to submit to it. Essentially saying "I will submit to the historic Church, just as soon as I find the one that agrees with me."

Are you not?

 

[abacabb3]

Thus, in stepping outside the bounds of the visible, historic Church, the Protestant Reformers actually began new Churches.

That's only true if "the Church" is necessarily the formal assembly of people on Earth and not an informal group of true believers. Now, as an EO, I am sure you don't adhere to speculations about the "visible church" and "invisible church." But, the Protestants have addressed this issue. This would have permitted the continued existence of God's curch as He promised, even if the visible institution has decayed. But, to be fair, the Church had major problems during Christ's own time (people were already preaching Christ that were not numbered among the disciples) and during the Apostolic era, where with great pains the unity of the church was held together (between divisions from gentile believers and Judaizers, which at one point held major sway in Jerusalem and had the ear of St. James.)

So, the institutional uniformity of the church is extremely important. The fact that Peter and James eventually saw the light and went with Paul seems almost miraculous (it probably was.) But I am not sure if it is essential. If it were, then there would be no argument and we would all be arguing over whether certain Protestant groups can lay some sort of claim to Apostolic Succession.

One question I have is (as a matter of vain speculation) is that if the Catholic Church allowed Donatists ad such back into communion and for 1,000 years dealt with significant theological differences between East and West, why do both institutions seem less tolerant of theological diversity? Why can't an Orthodox Priest believe in doctrines of graces, but adhere to Orthodox Christology? Clearly, much of Augustine's theology would appear outright wrong to Eastern thinkers, yet he was not considered a heretic within the Church Catholic.

It seems to me, even still, we are yet to even talk about these doctrines. Apart from adhering to one line of tradition which adheres to a geographical and cultural bias and divorces itself from the west, with its own geographical and western bias, to you there is no conversation. But again, I don't think a full view of tradition allows this (where, in half the church Augustine's thinking was held in huge esteem and fully accepted). Yet, we are yet to really talk about what he even did.

So, I cannot help but see there is a rather large and obvious chunk missing here: not only from the conversation, but from what you call tradition. And, I think there is a very real danger that this chunk has been filled with other stuff that is far less profitable, if not detrimental.

Are you not?

Yes and no. I have submitted all my reasoning to Scripture, which to me, other from my faith in it would make no sense. So, I am not trying to submit true religion to my own reasoning. In some way, I am afraid that man made institutions seek to submit true religion to man-made reasoning.


Lastly, concerning prayers for the dead: having read Augustine's Confessions three times (or more accurately, probably almost 3 times) when I read Augustine's prayer for his dead mother (last paragraph in the 9th chapter), there is nothing that would reflect his mother being in purgatory (or the EO equivalent), or that praying for her avails her in any specific way and more than us praying for someone else takes the reins off God and gives it to us to control that person's destiny. It's a rather beautiful expression of a longing heart and a prayer that others may emulate her.

A Protestant wouldn't read this and find anything wrong with it. And, if a Protestant reads Augustine saying, "It is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of purgatorial fire" (Enchiridion, 69), that same Protestant would say, "Augustine wasn't sure for good reason, because he knew he could't prove for sure there's a purgatory."

Yet, a RCC or EO reads these same things and sees proof of purgatory/sees the necessity for prayers for the dead to avail the dead believer in such a state, and believes that is was widely accepted and taken for granted. If one of us here was a Muslim or Atheist, and read this same stuff, it would seem obvious to him that clearly whatever Augustine was praying about it didn't involve purgatory, and whatever Augustine was saying about purgatory it obviously reflects a lack of universal acceptance. (For what is is worth, Augustine also relates a story about Ambrose correcting Monica about her prayers for dead African saints, thinking the practice to be incorrect and borderline paganism. So while "praying for the dead" had traction in North Africa and Syria, it wasn't the norm in the northern half of the Christian world for centuries.)

So, I don't bring this up to quibble more about EO doctrines, because again this whole conversation has become about EO doctrines instead of debating Calvinist doctrines (which was the initial point). But, I cannot help but feel that some of us are ignoring the patently obvious here. There is stuff in accepted EO tradition now, that was not accepted for hundreds of years, or to put it more diplomatically, was a competing with another totally legitimate tradition in the west. In fact, what makes up EO Holy Tradition now is a subset of doctrines that at one time, most had legitimate competion with opposing doctrines that also garnered wide acceptance from orthodox believers.

This is why I feel forced to, again, return to the Scripture and make sure everything I believe is consistent with Scripture. Competing traditions require discernment in deciding which one to accept and it as at this point whoever chooses which side to take essentially becomes a denomination of one, whether he is aware of it or not. Because I think it is unfair to be accused of being a shopping mall Christian, picking up what I like from Polycarp, Clement, Augustine and etc. when I think the Orthdox are doing the same. For example, the Orthodox version of "purgatory" teaches that people don't go straight to heaven (besides Mary perhaps) but in the Book of Revelation, CHristian martyrs are already in heaven and Polycarp wrote that men he knew were already in heaven with the Lord (chapter 9). So I see the same exact thing going on. I think the difference is that I personally don't have a geographic or personal claim to Apostolic Succession.