Not trying to nitpick but it almost sounds like you're saying a man can't even desire to be converted and saved until he is converted and saved.
Last edited:
Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread
- Thread starter Lawrence87
- Start date
Not trying to nitpick but it almost sounds like you're saying a man can't even desire to be converted and saved until he is converted and saved.
How do the Orthodox interpret the numerous verses that make reference to God's predestination of the elect? Because you can't just handwave those verses away or give them some transparently inaccurate interpretation. They're very clear in their language and meaning, and the theme is touched upon repeatedly in both the Gospels and the Epistles. Of course we can argue and speculate as to the nature of predestination/determinism vs. free will and how both concepts seem to exist simultaneously in scripture (I believe this is one of the topics that Paul refers to about us seeing through a glass darkly - such things are essentially impossible for us to understand from our human perspective and can only be reconciled in the omniscient mind of God which exists outside of space and time entirely).
But the Bible is very clear in saying that God has predestined certain individuals to salvation. Our exact understanding of how that works will assuredly remain imperfect on this side of heaven, but paradoxically, a complete understanding and internalizing of this doctrine leads one to behave in much the opposite fashion as one might expect (it instills an overwhelming degree of humility and desire to please God, rather than being a "license to sin" as some would characterize it).
Most of all, I think it should be emphasized that no Reformed/Calvinist Christian believes in predestination simply because they prefer that doctrine or because they're looking for some kind of easy road to salvation. They believe it because it's very plainly what the Bible says. In other words, the interpretation of scripture does not follow the pre-existing doctrine, rather the doctrine is itself entirely derived from the clear teaching of scripture. Predestination did not spring out of Calvin's head sui generis. Augustine wrote about it, and it's a doctrine/theme referenced repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments. So portraying it as some kind of wacky Protestant heresy pulled out of thin air is simply absurd.
But the Bible is very clear in saying that God has predestined certain individuals to salvation. Our exact understanding of how that works will assuredly remain imperfect on this side of heaven, but paradoxically, a complete understanding and internalizing of this doctrine leads one to behave in much the opposite fashion as one might expect (it instills an overwhelming degree of humility and desire to please God, rather than being a "license to sin" as some would characterize it).
Most of all, I think it should be emphasized that no Reformed/Calvinist Christian believes in predestination simply because they prefer that doctrine or because they're looking for some kind of easy road to salvation. They believe it because it's very plainly what the Bible says. In other words, the interpretation of scripture does not follow the pre-existing doctrine, rather the doctrine is itself entirely derived from the clear teaching of scripture. Predestination did not spring out of Calvin's head sui generis. Augustine wrote about it, and it's a doctrine/theme referenced repeatedly in both the Old and New Testaments. So portraying it as some kind of wacky Protestant heresy pulled out of thin air is simply absurd.
The desiring of faith is a sign of faith itself. The truths of God are foolishness to the unbeliever, he is not desiring to be converted and saved.
The Bible also very clearly says that God wills all men to be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. Yet we know that not all men will be saved. So in the case of salvation, what God wills, does not come to pass? What's the missing link? Can it be our ability to accept Christ or reject Him?
Predestination and free will/synergism are only incompatible inside of time, and God is outside of time. He has known everything that would ever happen since before He fashioned Creation, He already knows how all this will play out, and He is the ultimate cause of all, so you can say that everyone who will be saved (from our vantage point in time), were always the people who were going to be saved, because ultimately there is one age & one history taking place, not some kind of multiverse. While also acknowledging that this is the result of God's providence but also the result of His gift to men, that we may freely choose God & life, or sin & death.
This is a very interesting question and something we can't fully understand, as the answer ultimately lies within the mind of God himself. But this is the Calvinist interpretation of the meaning of that verse.
All we can say for sure is that God is sovereign, omniscient and omnipotent, so that whatever His ultimate will and design entails will assuredly come to pass. But the exact mechanisms by which God's will is accomplished, through a combination of his predestination and human free will in regards to salvation, are extremely murky from the human point of view.
Because God already knows how we will use our free will. God knows which of us will choose him. God has predestined it so that we will all choose in a way towards or away from Him.
But only God is capable of knowing such things. From our perspective, we 100% have a choice, even though God already knows how we will choose. The point of predestination is within the larger context of Paul's letter to the Romans 8: That our sufferring would not be in vain.
The entire point to describing predestination is listed in the two sentences Romans 8:18-19:
The entire point of listing predestination afterwards is to stress these first two points: That that reason the entire universe was created, was that so that the sons of God may inherit His glory. Paul is stressing the paradise to come. And to stress this point, he focuses on the grand plan of God, how everything that happens always happens according to the Will and Knowledge of God, which is standard OT teaching.
Thus, saying the elect are predestined does not mean that anyone who has accepted Christ is among those who are guaranteed saved, because they have already been chosen to be saved; it simply means that those who do save themselves, are ultimately saving themselves according to the Will of God, and it was always predestined this way.
That does not mean it was predetermined. Destiny does not mean determined. Predestination is according to the mystery of God who exists outside of time and space, whereas predetermination leaves no room for free will and only exists within a mechanical universe. I believe Prots get destiny and determination confused with each other, because this is a very difficult concept to understand.
God knows how we will use our free will, but this does not mean we do not have a free will. We are freely capable of choosing or rejecting Him. Just because God knows our destiny in how we shall use our wills, does not mean that how we use our will is outside of His Will.
His Will has always been to create a paradise for His sons, who will come to know Him through His Son, and it has already happened according to His Will. We are simply watching it play out in real time, according to our limited human senses and knowledge, but we have absolutely no way of knowing what the future will bring because we only exist in time and space (temporal).
That is why using predestination as a practical concept is dangerous; we cannot know our destiny because we cannot know the Will of God. We can only know what God has revealed to us through His Son, that we must choose Him and we must act with force towards Him to stay on the narrow path and not fall into the wayside (Mt. 7:14).
Christ spoke to us in terms of choices; will you choose the narrow or wide gate? God already knows which one we will choose, but, it is still our choice to make.
Agreed with your second paragraph. I appreciate you sharing that link in good faith, as you might expect I don't give much credence to that interpretation but I think it lays bare one of the underlying tensions in this discussion, which is the necessity of Holy Tradition to properly interpret Scripture. Not saying this is you, but many Reformed-type folk will be incredibly literal autists when it comes to the interpretation of certain verses, but with other verses demand tons of "reading into the context." All the while maintaining that Scripture speaks plainly for itself. In some cases it does... but in other cases the teachings are very hard, superficially contradictory or even meaning something rather different than they might initially appear to on the surface.
As the Ethiopian Eunuch, we must seek teachers in the interpretation of Scripture and choose them wisely indeed.
I just started listening. It should be a good discussion with Fr. John Whiteford.
I don't know the Protestant guys, they said they are from Method ministries: Lucas Curcio and Wesley Todd.
So, for those interested, a nearly 3hr discussion on Justification:
I don't know the Protestant guys, they said they are from Method ministries: Lucas Curcio and Wesley Todd.
So, for those interested, a nearly 3hr discussion on Justification:
It's a stimulating discussion/debate with much Biblical exegesis. One of Fr. Whiteford's main points is that faith is a work, as Jesus says in John 6, but it has no merit.
I just got to that part about 19 minutes in. Yes, so it seems the Orthodox view is not extremely systematic. And they stick to that because scripture isn't systematic in the way it presents itself. Another way to say it is that Orthodox don't really do slogans. An example of a slogan could be "Saved by faith alone".
I sense that once you dig into the meaning of the slogan it seems unnecessary and sometimes inaccurate. Why say faith alone when there are subtleties that are understood within the actual meaning of it? We have a working definition that is closer to the meaning of faith alone in scripture itself like "faith working through love" in Galatians 5:6. There are lots of others too that are simply scripture.
Last edited:
Well autism is certainly one of the defining characteristics of our modern culture.
Lord have mercy on us autists.
There are many "Protestants" who also avoid systematic theology because they feel the same way about the Bible. This is why they, along with the Orthodox, emphasize the subjective experience over the objective truth.
There are many genres in the Bible, but it should not be mistaken that Paul does give a systematic in the longer epistles. This is why the Reformed have historically clung to Romans as much as they have.
I believe in systematic theology because 1) the Bible is consistent with itself, 2) the Bible is objectively true.
Without it, the Bible becomes more like a fortune cookie, where it's true, so long as it's adding up to my personal experience.
Last edited:
Because of Romans 4.
I'm going to listen to the video. Whiteford is not a bad guy, I respect his willingness to engage. In the comments, he seems to understand "Faith working through love" as "Faith + works."
In Galatians 5, the contrast is between those who are working to be saved (Judaizers) and those who are in Christ Jesus.
It's pretty difficult to get away from the "so long as it's adding up to my personal experience" part and treating the Bible like a fortune cookie. I think all of us here are trying to avoid doing that. I'm just saying that it's difficult to actually do that.
One could say using systematic theology (of which there are more than several competing versions) is based on personal experience/"what I want to see" as well. It is how a certain time period and culture thought of things - it's a lens, or mindset used to interpret the Bible.
I also think that 1.) the Bible is consistent with itself, and 2) the Bible is objectively true, but I don't think that necessarily means therefore a particular systematic theology is true. I think systematic theology can be helpful but it's an approximation. I have a similar criticism with Catholics interpreting with their scholastic lens.
We aren't ultimately knowing a system we are knowing a person. We don't get to know people by systematizing them. The objective truth is a person, not just an abstract truth or system.
Last edited:
None of us will be able to achieve this perfectly, it does not mean we ought not strive for it. Nominalism is something that exists within us all and we must wage war with it.
If both of those propositions are true, then the Bible is intrinsically systematic. When the Bible says something, it actually means something. I have been told in this thread that we don't or can't know the Will of God. Everytime I hear that, I can't help but wonder 'then what do you think the Bible is?' To paraphrase James, we ought not think the Scriptures speak to no purpose.
This is why groups like the Orthodox supplement the Bible with subjective experience, speculations, mysticism, traditions, etc, because they have a low view of the Scriptures.
We know Jesus through His Word. He reveals Himself to us. We don't systematize Him through an abstract system, He tells us what we need to know about Him and how to know Him personally in the Bible.
Last edited:
A extremely small part of God's Will. A drop in the ocean. Just enough for us to act on, but it is impossible for God to reveal Himself fully to us without destroying us utterly.
Reading the Book of Acts now. I find it hard to see how anyone can read this and come away with a Protestant interpretation. Clearly a single Church was founded by our Lord, the Orthodox Church.
2:46-47
46So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
6:3
3Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;
11:25-26
25Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
14:27
27Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles
15:2-4
2Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
15:16
16After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
2:46-47
46So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.
6:3
3Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business;
11:25-26
25Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. 26And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
14:27
27Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles
15:2-4
2Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question. 3So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. 4And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
15:16
16After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;
Is there anything in Acts that teaches us to pray to icons or that there was such as thing as a priesthood in the Apostle's church government? Because the Church in Acts didn't do those things.
I dont deny these protestant Christians were great guyd Iv read many of their biographies and books in the past, Smith Wigglesworth, Spurgen, John G Lake etc they were great as individuals but the church is a body not an individual.
I think John Wessley he was ok with the icons,Martin Luther was also ok with the icons, he venerated the virgin Mary, he believed in confession, he believed in the Eucharist, John Calvin on the other hand did not.
There is a very well know America Christian evalgelist who recently died he even believed in the toll houses and he often met with the Orthodox church leaders and he agreed with them on the toll houses,I think we all know him, Billy Gram. But compare the protestant world of the past with today and see how much things have changed and evolved because they dont hold onto the church traditions and self interpret the scriptures and whatever culture is at the time will influence them and it can also influence the Orthodox church but we have Bishops and church councils and excommunications etc that keep the church in check, in order,there is accountability, there is tradition that we stick too
What do you mean when you say Calvin didn't believe in the Eucharist? Have you read the Institutes? He was known for having a higher sacramentology than Zwingli, not that Zwingli was wrong as he used the least amount of non-Biblical language in describing the Eucharist.
If you are equivocating the Eucharist with transubstantiation, than none of the big three Reformers, not even Luther, believed in it because it is simply not a Biblical doctrine.
The concept of transubstantiation relies on the concept of a priest, and as has been mentioned above, the Apostolic Church knew nothing of a priesthood other than the Melchizedek priesthood of Jesus Christ alone, and the priesthood of all believers.