theosis and deification

[ArmyMatt]

Do Orthodox not believe in predestination? Last time I checked, that concept is Scriptural.

The point for us is that if you are baptized, it is because God chose you. This is part of our spirituality, in fact, expressed in some of our hymns.

We admit some mystery here, because we do not believe God chooses some people for reprobation, as some Calvinists do. But we know if people are baptized, justification is due to God's choice.

of course we believe in predestination. God sees our choices before we make them, and He predestines us according to that perfect knowledge by His Will. predestination does not contradict man's free will.

 

[FireDragon76]

Something I was wondering while reading through this thread - what do you mean by "social justice work"? The biggest thing that jumps to mind is Liberal Social Justice Warriors fighting for same sex marriage, abortion rights, transgender rights, etc. So I'm guessing that's not what you mean

I think he means Orthodox Peace Fellowship, that sort of thing. Orthodox tend to have similar social justice teachings as pre-Vatican II Catholics.

One thing conservative evangelicals don't often appreciate about Orthodoxy is that it's not necessarily wedded to the kind of one issue politics of evangelicalism. Like Catholics in the US, they are all over the political spectrum traditionally, though many leaned Democrat, like other non-Protestant immigrant groups.

 

[FireDragon76]

of course we believe in predestination. God sees our choices before we make them, and He predestines us according to that perfect knowledge by His Will. predestination does not contradict man's free will.

We deny that human beings are free coram Deo, we tend to reject Arminian-style decisional theology (we'ld agree more with Jonathan Edwards, we bring nothing to our salvation except our sins, our "free will choice" doesn't count for anything). We acknowledge we are enslaved to sin and we need God to save us, that regeneration is a supernatural act.

I admit it sounds strange, coming from a very philosophical Eastern perspective. And for some time I struggled with it myself, until I realized our theology is not oriented towards philosophy but proclamation.

 

[FireDragon76]

of course we believe in predestination. God sees our choices before we make them, and He predestines us according to that perfect knowledge by His Will. predestination does not contradict man's free will.

There was a dispute in the early 20th century in the US, and some synods came down more on a Calvinist side, some Arminian, on the question of how predestination relates to faith. The precusors to the ELCA came down more on the Arminian side, and the LCMS was more Calvinistic in tone. So the ELCA will tend to sound more Methodist/Wesleyan, whereas the LCMS will sound more Calvinist in dealing with predestination.

Both of us tend to speak of God choosing us, not us choosing God. The New Testament makes it clear the initiative in salvation starts with God, and our theology reflects this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We deny that human beings are free coram Deo, we tend to reject Arminian-style decisional theology (we'ld agree more with Jonathan Edwards, we bring nothing to our salvation except our sins, our "free will choice" doesn't count for anything). We acknowledge we are enslaved to sin and we need God to save us, that regeneration is a supernatural act.

I admit it sounds strange, coming from a very philosophical Eastern perspective. And for some time I struggled with it myself, until I realized our theology is not oriented towards philosophy but proclamation.

and for us, our free will choice accounts for nothing either, salvation only comes by Christ Who does ask us our free choice, which in itself is a grace given by Him.

philosophy has nothing to do with it, but a real encounter with the Living Christ. ours actually opposes philosophy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

There was a dispute in the early 20th century in the US, and some synods came down more on a Calvinist side, some Arminian, on the question of how predestination relates to faith. The precusors to the ELCA came down more on the Arminian side, and the LCMS was more Calvinistic in tone. So the ELCA will tend to sound more Methodist/Wesleyan, whereas the LCMS will sound more Calvinist in dealing with predestination.

Both of us tend to speak of God choosing us, not us choosing God. The New Testament makes it clear the initiative in salvation starts with God, and our theology reflects this.

we agree. even the freedom to choose is only after God's call and by His grace.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We deny that human beings are free coram Deo, we tend to reject Arminian-style decisional theology (we'ld agree more with Jonathan Edwards, we bring nothing to our salvation except our sins, our "free will choice" doesn't count for anything). We acknowledge we are enslaved to sin and we need God to save us, that regeneration is a supernatural act.

I admit it sounds strange, coming from a very philosophical Eastern perspective. And for some time I struggled with it myself, until I realized our theology is not oriented towards philosophy but proclamation.

So if according to your belief, no one chooses, what does that mean regarding people who seem to have no interest in salvation whatsoever? Do you believe God simply didn't choose them, and created them with condemnation in mind? (We would vehemently reject such a suggestion, btw, but I'm just curious.)

 

[FireDragon76]

How would freedom to remain lost actually be freedom? We follow Augustine on this point, "service to God is perfect freedom". Luther implied either God owns us, or the devil owns us, there's no middle ground.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How would freedom to remain lost actually be freedom? We follow Augustine on this point, "service to God is perfect freedom".

freedom to remain lost is the freedom to choose Pharoah instead of Moses

 

[FireDragon76]

So if according to your belief, no one chooses, what does that mean regarding people who seem to have no interest in salvation whatsoever? Do you believe God simply didn't choose them, and created them with condemnation in mind? (We would vehemently reject such a suggestion, btw, but I'm just curious.)

No. We follow the Bible. God desires all to be saved. He does not desire the death of a sinner, etc. That is what we preach.

 

[FireDragon76]

freedom to remain lost is the freedom to choose Pharoah instead of Moses

That's nonsensical from our standpoint, as we see no value in choosing slavery to evil that will only end in destruction.

We locate freedom more in how we respond to the Gospel. Of course we don't advocate abusing that freedom but we aren't overly ascetical. We don't have to work our way to up God. The Good News is that God has already come to us, to serve us. Jesus is our Servant Lord.

 

[~Anastasia~]

No. We follow the Bible. God desires all to be saved. He does not desire the death of a sinner, etc. That is what we preach.

Ok.

So I want to be sure I understand what you're saying? (And I think I do, I've run into this before.)

You believe that people have no ability to choose to cooperate with God. It's all God's doing. But God desires all to be saved and predestined none to condemnation. So He draws all? Some do not resist, and those receive His grace and are "saved". But while we have no ability to choose to cooperate with the grace of God, we CAN choose to resist it, and these are the ones who remain lost.

Is that right, or did I misunderstand or get some part wrong?

 

[FireDragon76]

Ok.

So I want to be sure I understand what you're saying? (And I think I do, I've run into this before.)

You believe that people have no ability to choose to cooperate with God. It's all God's doing. But God desires all to be saved and predestined none to condemnation. So He draws all? Some do not resist, and those receive His grace and are "saved". But while we have no ability to choose to cooperate with the grace of God, we CAN choose to resist it, and these are the ones who remain lost.

Is that right, or did I misunderstand or get some part wrong?

We emphasize God working through the ordinary means of grace, the Word and the Sacraments.

I think in the ELCA we'ld say the fate of those outside the Church is something we have a right to hope for, that they would be saved, but we can't know for sure. Our theology is developing on this point, but it's not our main concern. Mostly it would develop through actual dialogue, and not speculation.

LCMS is probably going to give answers more like general American Evangelicalism, but I am not sure. It's just most I've encountered seem to fall more along those lines. One LCMS blogger I encountered made a case for universalism, but I think his perspective wasn't so common.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's nonsensical from our standpoint, as we see no value in choosing slavery to evil.

We locate freedom more in how we respond to the Gospel. Of course we don't advocate abusing that freedom but we aren't overly ascetical. We don't have to work our way to up God. The Good News is that God has already come to us, to serve us. Jesus is our Servant Lord.

it doesn't matter if it's nonsensical. that's exactly how the Israelites were as they were leaving Egypt. it's the same with Adam and Eve in the Garden, Peter denying Christ even after experiencing the Transfiguration. Scripture is full of human history choosing slavery to sin over freedom in Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

it doesn't matter if it's nonsensical. that's exactly how the Israelites were as they were leaving Egypt. it's the same with Adam and Eve in the Garden, Peter denying Christ even after experiencing the Transfiguration. Scripture is full of human history choosing slavery to sin over freedom in Christ.

People are certainly free to reject the grace of God, we don't deny that.

Adam and Eve were created free. We all inherit Adam's corruption, however. We are not free like Adam was. We are all born slaves to sin.

I don't see Peter denying Christ as necessarily him rejecting Christ. I don't think that's a fair comparison. People can be coerced into doing things they don't want to do. We would see that as tragic and sad, but not necessarily something that denies faith itself.

Luther used similar logic to defend his preference to bury people who committed suicide on holy ground (contra the Roman practice at the time). He believed somebody that committed suicide was like somebody who had been attacked by bandits, and not responsible for their actions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

People are certainly free to reject the grace of God, we don't deny that.

Adam and Eve were created free. We all inherit Adam's corruption, however. We are not free like Adam was. We are all born slaves to sin.

I don't see Peter denying Christ as necessarily him rejecting Christ. I don't think that's a fair comparison. People can be coerced into doing things they don't want to do. We would see that as tragic and sad, but not necessarily something that denies faith itself.

Luther used similar logic to defend his preference to bury people who committed suicide on holy ground (contra the Roman practice at the time). He believed somebody that committed suicide was like somebody who had been attacked by bandits, and not responsible for their actions.

well, for us, Peter did choose sin. after seeing all the miracles and promising to follow Christ to the death, he denies. after the Resurrection he was restored by Christ. either way, it clearly shows that this is human history, and not nonsensical in that sense.

 

[FireDragon76]

well, for us, Peter did choose sin. after seeing all the miracles and promising to follow Christ to the death, he denies. after the Resurrection he was restored by Christ. either way, it clearly shows that this is human history, and not nonsensical in that sense.

We are Augustinian and we see sin behind everything. But we also emphasize that because we are all hopeless sinners, we should be alot more compassionate. Our ethics are shaped less by moral purity and "sin-management", and that can be traced to Augustine.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We are Augustinian and we see sin behind everything. But we also emphasize that because we are all hopeless sinners, we should be alot more compassionate.

so, man constantly choosing sin is not nonsensical. and we also agree with St Augustine in many ways.

 

[AMM]

Ok.

So I want to be sure I understand what you're saying? (And I think I do, I've run into this before.)

You believe that people have no ability to choose to cooperate with God. It's all God's doing. But God desires all to be saved and predestined none to condemnation. So He draws all? Some do not resist, and those receive His grace and are "saved". But while we have no ability to choose to cooperate with the grace of God, we CAN choose to resist it, and these are the ones who remain lost.

Is that right, or did I misunderstand or get some part wrong?

This is correct to me from an LCMS and Confessional point of view.

it doesn't matter if it's nonsensical. that's exactly how the Israelites were as they were leaving Egypt. it's the same with Adam and Eve in the Garden, Peter denying Christ even after experiencing the Transfiguration. Scripture is full of human history choosing slavery to sin over freedom in Christ.

I'll be honest, I no longer understand what FireDragon is arguing. This is very much a Lutheran teaching. If we sin or reject Christ, that is equivalent to denying him.

well, for us, Peter did choose sin. after seeing all the miracles and promising to follow Christ to the death, he denies. after the Resurrection he was restored by Christ. either way, it clearly shows that this is human history, and not nonsensical in that sense.

Yeah. I agree with your assessment. I think the key here (and this is where I think that a lot of this is based on linguistic difference and semantics) is what you said: "after the Resurrection he was restored by Christ". Lutherans would point to this and say, "yes, exactly! Christ restored him, but it is not the case that he restored himself"

 

[~Anastasia~]

This is correct to me from an LCMS and Confessional point of view.

Thank you. It took me a while to work through what seemed like inconsistencies to me, but that's how I understood confessional Lutheranism. Thank you again.