Orthodoxy and Calvinism in Dialogue

[abacabb3]

well, it seems we do. but that is not predestination.

True, that's a different conversation, I can wait to see if everyone is on the same page. But, being that John of Cassian specifically is against limited atonement, while Augustine explicitly is, and the position has never been weighed on one way or the other by a council, this is a doctrine I think that cannot be convincingly argued from tradition one way or the other.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Orthodoxy acknowledges God's divine providence and his foreordained plans, that include the salvation of men. It also acknowledges with him, that this plan is to call every man to the salvation announced in the Gospel. Salvation is an accomplished fact. Humanity is set free, satan is overthrown, death is swallowed up in victory, all things are being set right again, Christ reigns even now as sovereign over all creation, the Law is abolished, God's "Divine Dilemma" (as defined by St. Athanasius) is resolved, and all is right. Now, the messengers are to spread that good news far and wide, and tell all the liberated men and women that they no longer have to live in darkness, sin and fear of death.

Thus God's sovereign activity precedes all of this. And when the preaching of the Gospel is understood as sacramental, we understand that Christ is actually present even in the preaching of his Word! When one tells the gospel to another, it isn't just Bob preaching to Sue. It's Christ in Bob preaching to Sue. And when that small spark begins to glow, it is Christ in Sue responding in faith. This is synergism. Not "God does this much, and I finish it off with the rest." God does all, and we are active in that. Care to explain that? I don't. I stand in awe of it. .

What you note here would go along well with the dynamic that God is involved personally in all acts of Human Good Will - the dynamic of Panentheism in practice..

 

[abacabb3]

I'm not sure what panentheism is (I know what pantheism is), but God is not directly involved in every single act of the will. After all, when Pharaoh wasn't having his heart hardened by God, he did it himself.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm not sure what panentheism is (I know what pantheism is), but God is not directly involved in every single act of the will. .

Panetheism deals with the fact that every single act of will is only able to happen because God himself sustains it.

To be clear, there are other places conversation has occurred if interested - if going here:

GG

God's love, anger, wrath, mercy, temperance, jealousy, they are real Divine Energies of God. Is that not the faith of the Holy Fifth Council of Constantinople?

If man is created in the image of God, are not emotions an analogy or image of something in God, or the way God acts?

So no, the Father and Holy Spirit do not have chemical emotions, because they are supraphysical. But if we call our human fathers "Father" in virtue of God, what do we call human emotions, emotions, in virtue of?

One could say that impassibility means that God is not acted upon or provoked against his will, from without. But we also believe that God is eternally humble, and in many times and many ways, has humbled himself to interact with us. So your question might be re-phrased, "can God react?" Well, I think the Scriptures are clear that he has at least providentially reacted, although he facilitated the ability to act on the part of creatures in the first place. And God certainly acts in authentically diverse ways, with zeal, with love, mercy, wrath, forbearance, beneficence, etc. And human emotions are analogous to these energies.

When the Logos became incarnate, he became passable through his humanity. And I would think that his Divine Zeal and Divine Mercy shone forth through his humanity and human emotional faculties, because the image and its prototype are not opposed.

If God is infinite and the universe is finite, then the universe must be "within" God. Michio Kaku (ironically, an atheist) wrote a book called Hyperspace that, quite unintentionally, described God's "physical" relationship with the universe from a purely scientific POV.

Personally, when I consider the sheer vastness of the universe and how big it truly is, what amazes me even more is the entire concept of multiple heavens.....that there are levels and the Lord is truly outside of it all.

If you remember the film "Men in Black", there was a famous scene that really brought things into perspective on the issue of things would look like in the eyes of a creator:

Final Clip of Men In Black​

Of course, I don't think the Lord looks like how the alien being looked like in 'Men in Black" . But on a serious level, I do think that there's something to be said on how the classical model of how we see the universe isn't enough...for the Lord sustains it and is OUTSIDE of it entirely. The entire view behind what's known as Panentheism. Although I tend to favor other views, Panentheism has always seemed to be the most reasonable way of seeing things since the Lord is distinct from creation--sustaining it---and yet He is outside of it. Panentheism deals with how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one’s not to worship an animal or a tree since it’s not the creator–but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it—just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs (more shared here in #1, #91 and #92 ).



Its by His Grace that all men have rain....for in his Providential Grace, He shows grace/care for all his creatures...allowing others to survive by sending rain on the JUST and the Unjust (Matthew 5:45)....and Christ in the scriptures is portrayed as the INSTRUMENT of creation, "sustaining all things by His powerful word", (Colosians 1:16-7, John 1:3, Hebrews 1:3)---and whom by immanence is fully present in even the smallest atom....with all things connected to Him

http://rivieraucc.wordpress.com/tag/pantheism/​

Panentheism is the idea that the entire universe is part of God, But God is greater that the universe. God is omnipresent and transcendent – that is, God contains the entire cosmos but the entire cosmos does not and cannot contain God. He is omnipresent because his uncreated energies permeate all Creation, generating and sustaining it. And He is transcendent because his uncreated essence is inaccessible to us – it is wholly beyond Creation.

Kinda like my cells and molecules and blood and other things in my body are part of myself, but I am much greater than those…and I cannot be seen in them….yet I am omnipresent through them, as I created them at my conception and sustain them throughout my life. God transcends creation as I transcend my body. Intelligence is everywhere.

I personally see no issue with supporting Biblical Panentheism and the concept of God being outside of the world and yet connected deeply to it/all within

Panentheism does not begin soteriologically with God’s special presence to some but with the universal presence to all, moving from thence toward the theories of special presence. It seeks to give the right perspective & focus in the face of evil. For instead of pulling away from those things that do not now manifest the nature of God fully, panentheism suggests the picture of transforming and healing them, as a healthy body might heal itself from an injury.

In this line of thought, the rapist still is being sustained by the Lord’s power even though God may not approve of His actions/decide to dwell with him…with God’s heart being to see the rapists REDEEMED and trusting in Him since even the Rapists was made in the image of God/given as aspect of the Divine….and the message of repentence/forgiveness and grace is where that process of healing can begin for the rapist, the murderer or any other aspect where decline has begun.


Even though in some ways He chooses to be disconnected from it, he is still connected to it intimately. The same goes for what was noted earlier when it comes to decline in the natural world, especially in cases where the natural world has been raped. Panentheism would suggest that God desires for healing to occur rather than the world to be abandoned altogether/demolished….and thus, He keeps it all going so that the chance for healing/redeemption may occur.


Panentheism ALSO deals with how all there is not only emanates from God..but is experienced by Him as well. Its the idea that one’s not to worship an animal or a tree since it’s not the creator–but on the same token, as Chasidism ascribes to, the animal being abused is felt deeply by the Lord. He hurts with it as much as it does since that creation is directly connected to Him (As its being sustained by Him) and consequently He can feel it—just as he does with all suffering and pain in the world whenever injustice occurs.


Christ said that even the sparrows do not fall outside of God’s care—as well as why He made clear that even the Ravens look to God for food ( Psalm 104:18-22, Psalm 147:8-10, Matthew 6:25-27, Luke 12:23-25 etc )

This is why many Panentheist have noted that Paul made a point in Romans to discuss how its not just humankind that’s redeemed…but all of creation as well, described as “groaning” and “suffering” rather than being indifferent to it all. The Eastern Fathers and some medievals have written profoundly on the cosmic dimensions of the Incarnation and Redemption (as did St. Paul).

Classical theism views sin and the Fall as distinct from the basic structure of the world and the culmination of the kingdom of God as a gracious undertaking that is not a mere outcome of a natural process. Panentheism, however, typically views creation and the Fall as part of the cosmic process as are redemption and consummation.

Christian panentheists view the earthly existence of Jesus Christ as either the central cause of the outcome of the process or a primary symbol or example of the process. Each approach is at odds with classical theism. With Biblical Panentheism I tend to lean more so toward what’s known as weak panentheism or soteriological panentheism. That is more similar to the position found in Eastern Orthodox Christianity (As well as Eastern Christianity in general). For in that view, God is manifest in redeemed nature and panentheistic metaphors are used in an eschatological sense, a future expectation when all redeemed nature is reconciled with God (1 Cor 15:28).

Ultimate salvation is viewed in a Johannine fashion, as participating in the Divine community of the Trinity (John 14:20) and abiding in Gods love as God himself is love in that He is the eternal community between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (1 John 4:16). If remembering the Eastern Orthodox concept known as Theosis, it helps things make more sense..

When understanding the theological framework of Panentheism as God being the system of systems, all creation and processes being within God, things can come together. You & all of creation exist within God. As for evil, that probably falls in under panentheism’s understanding & of the whole creation and the sustaining of it as an act of Kenosis (self-emptying for those unfamiliar with the term, famous from Philippians 2:7 where Christ is described taking the form of a servant by emptying himself) for God. For all of creation/ its sustaining is understood as a continuous act of suffering love, where God takes the suffering of this world upon Himself.

Noticeably, this goes counter to the more traditional understanding of the impassibility of God the Father and inability to hurt Him. The panentheistic model seems to be the more biblical of all options since God certainly is portrayed as one who is affected by the state of his creation in the scripture….and in my view, it increases the GLORY of God’s redeemption since in Christ (Colossians 1-2), that redeemption has begun to occur over all creation and the suffering the Lord has had to endure will eventually come to a Glorious end.

Saint Gregory Palamas , and many others held all things are sustained by the energies of God . By the act of creation ( the energy ) of God the cosmos , humans , ect , are sustained by His energy .

Panentheists make a qualitative, not quantitative distinction between God and the universe. Their position is very much like the idea of Divine Personalism, espoused as far back as the Book of the Wisdom of Solomon. In order to have a full view, there are different models you have to use simultaneously to capture what panentheists are talking about. One is a mother/womb analogy and another is a mind/body analogy. God’s character is perfectly good, and that character conditions the universe but doesn’t determine it. We can distinguish between the mind and the body without thinking them completely separate. A womb is within a mother, but we can make a distinction between a mother and the womb she contains. (What happens to the baby doesn’t necessarily ‘happen’ to the mother, though it affects the mother).

By the logic of many against Panentheism, if a person has cancer that cancer somehow becomes reflective of that person’s character, or implies that a person doesn’t have control over who they are as a person. IMHO, God’s mind and Spirit remain the ground of all that is good, and beautiful and ordered for that matter, even if it is true that the physical universe fails to perfectly reflect that goodness, or beauty, or order. God and the universe, for the panentheist do not form an UNDIFFERENTIATED unity.

In some ways, one could also see some descriptions of panentheism to be a description of "occasionalism", which posits that Theos is the sustaining cause of each and every moment of the cosmos' existence, as if the Theos were in fact creating the cosmos at each, smallest unit of time.

After reading this thread, I can't get the song "He's got the whole world in His hands ..." out of my head

One of the most powerful songs in existence....and so glad I was taught it when I was younger . Amazed seeing the amount of people truly impacted by that song, as I was taught it when I was younger and attending Catholic Elementary school:

• He's got the whole world...African Children's Choir

 

[ArmyMatt]

True, that's a different conversation, I can wait to see if everyone is on the same page. But, being that John of Cassian specifically is against limited atonement, while Augustine explicitly is, and the position has never been weighed on one way or the other by a council, this is a doctrine I think that cannot be convincingly argued from tradition one way or the other.

that is why we look to the consensus of the Fathers. I know St John Chrysostom somewhere said that the idea that man is fated against is will is a demonic teaching, and I know he is one of many that wrote against the idea of what Calvin termed predestination. and St Augstine wrote a lot of retractions as well.

 

[abacabb3]

that is why we look to the consensus of the Fathers. I know St John Chrysostom somewhere said that the idea that man is fated against is will is a demonic teaching, and I know he is one of many that wrote against the idea of what Calvin termed predestination. and St Augstine wrote a lot of retractions as well.

I don't believe Augustine wrote any "retractions," as his strongest monergist works were in the last decade of his life, with his student Prosper of Aquitaine picking up the torch and doing the same into his own lifetime as well.

Further, no one is arguing that anyone is "fated against his will." Everyone who refuses Christ does so from his own free will. Calvinists assert this as well.

Is everyone on the same page so far?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't believe Augustine wrote any "retractions,"

he did, there is a book called What the Church Fathers Say About (3 volumes), and chunk of St Augustine's stuff is on there from his retractions.

Further, no one is arguing that anyone is "fated against his will." Everyone who refuses Christ does so from his own free will. Calvinists assert this as well.

that depends on the Calvinist. the Westboro baptist nutjobs consider themselves Calvinist, and a roommate of mine in college, who both disagree.

 

[abacabb3]

he did, there is a book called What the Church Fathers Say About (3 volumes), and chunk of St Augustine's stuff is on there from his retractions.

I'm nto sure about that, Augustine wrote "De Praedestinatione" and "De Dono Perseverantiae" in the last year or so of his life, so perhaps you are mistaken. (Both works reiterated predestination and perseverance of the saints.

that depends on the Calvinist.

A lot of things depend on individuals. It appears that everyone here agrees with Cassian (and Propser, Augustine, and etc.) that God begins the work in faith in men, without violating their free will. So, then we must all be in agreement that predestination is not a passive act of God acknowledging those who he foreknown would decide faith, but rather, a process where God begins the saving work in unbelievers, the end result being turning them into believers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm nto sure about that, Augustine wrote "De Praedestinatione" and "De Dono Perseverantiae" in the last year or so of his life, so perhaps you are mistaken. (Both works reiterated predestination and perseverance of the saints.

you can order it on Amazon

A lot of things depend on individuals.

when it's an individual and a Bible, yes it does. far too much.

It appears that everyone here agrees with Cassian (and Propser, Augustine, and etc.) that God begins the work in faith in men, without violating their free will. So, then we must all be in agreement that predestination is not a passive act of God acknowledging those who he foreknown would decide faith, but rather, a process where God begins the saving work in unbelievers, the end result being turning them into believers.

well, the thing is that I don't think that's what Calvin taught. because that sounds very Orthodox (although we would not use the term predestination usually in that sense).

 

[abacabb3]

you can order it on Amazon

All of Augustine's works are free and available on New Advent. If you can point me to his retractions, I can post them here and we can see if theya re saying what they say, Just write a few words. THanks to google, it is easy enough to find which of Augustine's works they come from.

well, the thing is that I don't think that's what Calvin taught. because that sounds very Orthodox (although we would not use the term predestination usually in that sense).

While I think we may draw different implications from this truth. I just want to see if others weigh in in agreement or not.

 

[abacabb3]

I did a little more research and found that Augustine wrote a work called "Reconsiderations" but it is not a retraction of any position, but he critiques his own works, usually adding things to his argument which he didn't in the previous writing (there was no "edit" button back then!)

I also read up on the heresy that Catholics call "Predestinarianism." Ironically, they didn't consider its main teachers (such as Gottschalk sp? in the 9th century) as heretics, necessarily, but within the pale of Catholicism.

What the Catholics take issue with is the idea of "Double Predestination" and the idea that God makes all men into puppets. It seems funny to me that much of these things are called by Calvinists "hyper-calvinism" and are considered incorrect, because it turns all men into puppets that do good and bad outside their own desire to do so. For example, this is what Calvin taught on "double predestination:"

On Romans 1.24:

...As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate, (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be true, “Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.”
(Hosea 13:9)

Augustine writes:

It is, therefore, in the power of the wicked to sin; but that in sinning they should do this or that by that wickedness is not in their power, but in God's, who divides the darkness and regulates it; so that hence even what they do contrary to God's will is not fulfilled except it be God's will...(Chapter 33, On Predestination of the Saints)

This is what Joseph meant when he said, "What you meant for evil, God meant for good." God works in all things to bring about His desired result.


I have so much more I want to get into! We have Prosper of Aquitaine (who opposed John of Cassian and took a more Augustinian stance). I think it was ArmyMatt that has said that what the preponderance of the fathers taught is taken more seriously than a given view of one of them on their own. I do agree with this. I also feel that it is important to look back historically what earlier fathers taught and ultimately, what the Scripture teaches.

 

[ArmyMatt]

All of Augustine's works are free and available on New Advent. If you can point me to his retractions, I can post them here and we can see if theya re saying what they say, Just write a few words. THanks to google, it is easy enough to find which of Augustine's works they come from.

google St Augustine's retractions and the one from Amazon is one of the first that pops up

While I think we may draw different implications from this truth.

well, I think you are correct here, but you sound (at least from when we have been talking) more Orthodox than Calvinist.

I just want to see if others weigh in in agreement or not.

fair enough

 

[abacabb3]

google St Augustine's retractions and the one from Amazon is one of the first that pops up

I understand, but can you actually quote what Augustine said instead of referring me to a whole book?

well, I think you are correct here, but you sound (at least from when we have been talking) more Orthodox than Calvinist.

Well, I know I am not Orthodox and I'll take that as a compliment, but I think Calvinist theology is very misunderstood, by Calvinists and anti-calvinists alike. Because, in my mind, if we work on the assumption that God begins the work of salvation and that then man responds and then God responds to the man, the logical conclusion is monergistically directed predestination. Of course, the man has free will in this process, but God is so powerful and omniscient that He can direct the will in a mysterious way:

"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov 21:1)

Now, to put on my Calvinist hat, it is easy to say why a Calvinist, when he avoids all the particulars will say, "God saves a man, regardless of his deserts, and makes him righteous." Because, this would be true. God takes unrighteous people, opens their hearts and begins a process in which they become righteous in Christ.

Now, I can also see this from another perspective: God opens a man's heart, the man believes, God propels the man to doing good, the man responds and does good works and grows wiser, God blesses the man for his good works and propels him farther. This is the process that "semi-pelagian" (as defined by the RCC) John of Cassian speaks of. And while some Calvinists hate that John of Cassian in a church father, I don't view the man as wrong and his views can be reconciled with a non-extreme Augustinianism (much like Augustine's views can be reconciled with John of Cassian's). Neither were heretics so there is much truth to what they both say.

Now, there are other Calvinistic doctrines that I think are logical extensions of monergistically initiated faith and predesination, such as perseverance of the saints. While there is a very good biblical basis, church tradition generally doesn't support this view, and for all intents and purposes, I find the doctrine very unimportant, if not damaging. Do i believe it to be absolutely correct? Yes. Would I go about preaching it? Not as much, as it is more technically true than practically true.

For example, I feel that while believers are assured salvation (the same God that began the work in man will complete it), we also know there are false believers. So, true believer sare assured salvation, but no one really knows if they are one of them are not. only God knows, hence, the need to work out or salvation in fear and trembling.

Perhaps I am a weak Calvinist. As Ignatius has rightly accused me of, I am not really a Calvinist, as I openly base my interpretations on my best knowledge of Scripture and tradition. I have read a lot more of the church fathers than I have ever read any modern theological works. However, I think this to be a good thing.

 

[abacabb3]

To answer ignatius, what is salvation?

Salvation is to be spared damnation, that is justly deserved, and to be given eternal life as a reward for belief in Christ:

f you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (Rom 10:9-10)

 

[ArmyMatt]

I understand, but can you actually quote what Augustine said instead of referring me to a whole book?

haha I wish I could, I lent that book about Church Father quotes to my Godfather before I deployed, and I have yet to go back and get it, otherwise I totally would.

Well, I know I am not Orthodox and I'll take that as a compliment, but I think Calvinist theology is very misunderstood, by Calvinists and anti-calvinists alike. Because, in my mind, if we work on the assumption that God begins the work of salvation and that then man responds and then God responds to the man, the logical conclusion is monergistically directed predestination. Of course, the man has free will in this process, but God is so powerful and omniscient that He can direct the will in a mysterious way:

while I understand that's how you see it, and I personally don't see any issue, from what I remember reading I don't think that's how Calvin understood it, or even more modern the pastors of America's Great Awakening.

 

[abacabb3]

I have not read enough Calvin to answer that, but such thinking would be accepted in my reformed baptist church.

 

[Ignatius21]

Abacabb3, you're coming dangerously close to sounding reasonable

This will probably get you kicked off of CF.

I understand, but can you actually quote what Augustine said instead of referring me to a whole book?

Ha! This kind of reminds me of the latter stages of my departure from my Presbyterian church, when the pastors were getting tired of my questions, so when I'd ask about this or that point, they'd hand me an 800 page volume of theology from the library shelf and say "This should answer your question."

Well, I know I am not Orthodox and I'll take that as a compliment, but I think Calvinist theology is very misunderstood, by Calvinists and anti-calvinists alike.

Amen. The preponderance of writing I've found against "Calvinism" by almost everyone, including Orthodox, is actually written against the charicature of "God makes us robots" or "God is a horrible, puppy-eating egotistical monster who sends nice people to hell while pulling murderers into heaven against their wills."

Because, in my mind, if we work on the assumption that God begins the work of salvation and that then man responds and then God responds to the man, the logical conclusion is monergistically directed predestination.

We may be quibbling about semantics at this point. Some Calvinists may well pounce on your statement above, asking why you've qualified "monergistic" with "directed." I think it's valid to ask, though, whether God wills or directs anything monergistically. "Monergism" means literally "one working" or "one energy." God is of one nature, but a nature cannot act or will anything. Only persons can, and God is three. Did God create everything monergistically? It's probably more proper to say creation was an act of synergism, since Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved.

So what about redemption of creation? And within that, redemption of specific individual humans? Christ himself was the chosen of the Father. He was "slain from before the foundation of the world." He, himself, was predestined. But did God the Father predestine God the Son monergistically? I don't know whether we can even answer such a question, or whether it makes sense to ask it.

This is why I keep coming back to the philosophical issues of the early church and the Councils, the very thing you still seek to avoid engaging me on. The only blog post (of the Orthodox guy who started this whole engagement, the 5th in his series) that actually made a coherent point, made this very point. Namely, our understanding of how the divine will relates to the human will in Christ must dictate our understanding of how God (as Trinity) relates to our own individual human wills in salvation. We were predestined unto salvation as Christ was predestined unto Incarnation. In him, the two are inseparably joined as a single person, and we are united to God in and through him.

I cannot think of any term that can describe the relationship among the Persons of the Trinity better than "synergistic," therefore I think it's the best term to use to describe God's relationship to creation and to mankind, including his work of predestination.

Of course, the man has free will in this process, but God is so powerful and omniscient that He can direct the will in a mysterious way:

"The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov 21:1)

Now you know why the Orthodox like the word "mystery" so much God's knowledge is too wonderful for us.

So long as we affirm that (a) man's will is free in the process, and (b) man's will in no way detracts from God's glory or sovereignty, then I think we're mainly agreed in principle, if not in terminology. Synergism is NOT "God does 99% and we do 1%". It doesn't add up like that. This is my issue with so much of the way Protestant notions of synergism are often presented. God does 100%, and man is actively participating 100%.

Now, to put on my Calvinist hat, it is easy to say why a Calvinist, when he avoids all the particulars will say, "God saves a man, regardless of his deserts, and makes him righteous." Because, this would be true. God takes unrighteous people, opens their hearts and begins a process in which they become righteous in Christ.

Yes.

Now, I can also see this from another perspective: God opens a man's heart, the man believes, God propels the man to doing good, the man responds and does good works and grows wiser, God blesses the man for his good works and propels him farther. This is the process that "semi-pelagian" (as defined by the RCC) John of Cassian speaks of. And while some Calvinists hate that John of Cassian in a church father, I don't view the man as wrong and his views can be reconciled with a non-extreme Augustinianism (much like Augustine's views can be reconciled with John of Cassian's). Neither were heretics so there is much truth to what they both say.

I'm glad to hear you say this. Just as there are Calvinists who declare "Cassian, together with Arminius later, were the arch-heretics of the Christian church" (I believe I read that somewhere on monergism.com once), there are modern Orthodox who call Augustine "the fountainhead of all heresy" and think he's quite possibly the reason there are so many atheists today confused. If we can keep the zealots out on the fringes, we can have a more productive discussion. Augustinian thinking was present together with "Cassian thinking" for many centuries before there was a split between East and West. The East didn't reject Augustine or the 2nd Council of Orange in the 11th-14th centuries, it rejected (I believe) the 800 years of what came to be built upon his thought. Could the two coexist again today? I'm really not sure. There are huge differences between them, the matter of the Trinity (our very understanding of God himself). I guess that's all above my pay grade.

Now, there are other Calvinistic doctrines that I think are logical extensions of monergistically initiated faith and predesination, such as perseverance of the saints. While there is a very good biblical basis, church tradition generally doesn't support this view, and for all intents and purposes, I find the doctrine very unimportant, if not damaging. Do i believe it to be absolutely correct? Yes. Would I go about preaching it? Not as much, as it is more technically true than practically true.

Again I agree entirely.

For example, I feel that while believers are assured salvation (the same God that began the work in man will complete it), we also know there are false believers. So, true believer sare assured salvation, but no one really knows if they are one of them are not. only God knows, hence, the need to work out or salvation in fear and trembling.

Perhaps I am a weak Calvinist. As Ignatius has rightly accused me of, I am not really a Calvinist, as I openly base my interpretations on my best knowledge of Scripture and tradition. I have read a lot more of the church fathers than I have ever read any modern theological works. However, I think this to be a good thing.

Sounds like you're also a weak Orthodox

Come smell the incense, baby. The doors are open

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Intensive...

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have not read enough Calvin to answer that, but such thinking would be accepted in my reformed baptist church.

and what thinking were you talking about?

 

[abacabb3]

and what thinking were you talking about?

" Because, in my mind, if we work on the assumption that God begins the work of salvation and that then man responds and then God responds to the man, the logical conclusion is monergistically directed predestination. Of course, the man has free will in this process, but God is so powerful and omniscient that He can direct the will in a mysterious way:"