Hymn To The Pope

[Apotheoun]

As I indicated in an earlier post, Calvinism is nothing more than a form of the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies. It destroys the true nature of the incarnation of God and the deification of man.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 06:38 PM'] Can you substantiate this? I do not even understand the accusation. Are you saying that Calvinism holds that man has one will and nature, and that this is heretical? [/quote]
The Calvinist denial of true human freedom destroys the dyoenergetic nature of man's deification by grace. The fact that Calvinism denies that man in the natural order has any free will, while also denying that man can act rightly, even without the infusion of grace, leads to a Monothelite anthropology in relation to the man justified by grace. Justification involves both God and man, God as primary and man as secondary, but man is not passive in the process of his theosis.

Deified man is one created person in two natures, for he naturally possesses the human nature he received through creation, while also possessing the divine nature through his participation in the uncreated energies of God. Thus, the Calvinist doctrine, which denies human free will, destroys the true nature of justification and salvation, positing in its place a monoenergetic model contrary to the teaching of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

[Apotheoun]

Since I approach the doctrine of salvation from an Eastern Catholic perspective, the arguments of the Reformers, which don't take into account the Eastern Catholic tradition and theology, fall flat.

God bless,
Todd

[peach_cube]

[Brother Adam]

I'm just trying to keep up. lol.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun']Showing the Islamic influence in Protestantism is not drawing conclusions from a foreign paradigm; instead, it is simply the recognition that both Islam and Calvinism deny the freedom of the will in the natural order and in the process both systems fall into the error of fatalism.  Calvinist compatibilism and Islamic acquisitionalism are two sides of the same coin.[/quote]
1. I am sorry, I was unclear. The comparison of Calvinism and acquisition of acts theory was not what I meant by your conclusion (indeed, it does not appear to be a conclusion in your original post, at all.) The conclusion I referred was "they make man a puppet subject to divine interventions which only appear to be true choices." That is only true from a worldview that rejects the calvinistic system.

2. Calvinism does not deny the freedom of the will. It explicitly affirms it.

3. Will you please substantiate this?

[quote name='Apotheoun']The Calvinist denial of free will has repercussions throughout theology, for it leads to various Christological heresies, including Monophysitism and Monothelitism, both of which destroyed the true humanity of Christ.[/quote]
How is this the case at all? For one, you work from the false supposition that it is Calvinist to deny free will. Anyone how denies the freedom of the will denies an element of Calvinism.

What exactly in the Definition of Chalcedon is precluded by Calvinism? I am open to being shown your claims. So forth, I have not seen any argumentation for points like this.

[quote name='Apotheoun']It is a theological truth that the man justified by grace mirrors iconically the incarnate Logos, who had both a divine and a human nature, a divine will and a human will, and divine energies and human energies.  The same holds for the man justified by grace, for his actions are truly [i]theandric[/i], and the process of salvation is something that transforms him from within; in other words, it is not merely extrinsic to his being. [/quote]
I'm afraid I did not fully understand what you just said. I do not understand what bearing Calvinism has on this, as it affirms the dual natures and wills of Christ, and I do not understand how theandricity could apply to humans, my understanding was that the term was relevant only to Christ.

[quote name='Apotheoun']I doubt you have given much thought to any of this, because most Protestants fail to recognize the awesome power of the incarnation, and tend to fall into a form of gnostocism, which ultimately denies the goodness of the material world.  The purpose of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God is the deification of man.[/quote]
I am insulted. I came here, started to engage you in what I thought was meaningful, respectful discussion, and you come back with this kind of rhetoric. I have made no assumption that you are like "most Roman Catholics." If anything, I would assume quite the opposite if forced. You dismiss my past philo-theological pursuits that may or may not have occurred, then throw me in a category and apply stereotypes you have developed about it to me. I certainly hope I have not shows such respect for any of my opponents here.

Edited October 3, 2004 by notthe9

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 07:09 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun']I doubt you have given much thought to any of this, because most Protestants fail to recognize the awesome power of the incarnation, and tend to fall into a form of gnosticism, which ultimately denies the goodness of the material world.  The purpose of the incarnation of the eternal Son of God is the deification of man.[/quote]
I am insulted. I came here, started to engage you in what I thought was meaningful, respectful discussion, and you come back with this kind of rhetoric. I have made no assumption that you are like "most Roman Catholics." If anything, I would assume quite the opposite if forced. You dismiss my past philo-theological persuits that may or may not have occurred, thenthrow me in a category and apply stereotypes you have developed about it to me. I certainly hope I have not shows such respect for any of my opponents here.[/quote]
I'm sorry you feel insulted, because no insult was intended by the comment; instead, it was simply a statement of fact. Besides, feelings ebb and flow, so don't fret over such things. Now, I was a Protestant so I say this from experience, most Protestants have no understanding of the true nature of the incarnation or the effects flowing from it. But perhaps I have misjudged you, so enlighten me by explaining Calvin's doctrine of [i]theosis[/i].

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 07:09 PM'] How is this the case at all? For one, you work from the false supposition that it is Calvinist to deny free will. Anyone how denies the freedom of the will denies an element of Calvinism.
[/quote]
I suggest that you read the earlier statement about compatibilism made by your fellow Calvinist, ICTHUS. Then reread my comments.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='notthe9' date='Oct 2 2004, 07:09 PM'] What exactly in the Definition of Chalcedon is precluded by Calvinism?  I am open to being shown your claims.  So forth, I have not seen any argumentation for points like this.

I'm afraid I did not fully understand what you just said.  I do not understand what bearing Calvinism has on this, as it affirms the dual natures and wills of Christ, and I do not understand how theandricity could apply to humans, my understanding was that the term was relevant only to Christ.
[/quote]
As I indicated before the problems inherent in the Calvinist and Lutheran views on justification center on the decrees of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, not Chalcedon, although the tendency to deny the dyoenergetic nature of the process of theosis would also involve the definition of Chalcedon, at least secondarily. The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III taught that there are two wills and natural energies in Christ, the God-man; and this dyoenergetic reality holds as well for all who are incorporated into His body by grace. Man's actions must be free or salvation is not possible, for his will, like the Lord's human will, must concur under the power of grace in his own salvation for the incarnation to be effective.

As I said earlier the justified man is an icon of the incarnate Logos, and so, just as the incarnate Logos was one divine person in two natures, divine and human; so too, the man justified by grace is one created person in two natures, the human nature, which he possesses naturally by his creation, and the divine nature, which he possesses through his participation in the uncreated energies of God. Just as Christ's human will had to cooperate with the divine will in a perfect communion of energy, so too, the human will of the man justified by grace must cooperate with the divine energies he has received in order to be perfectly configured to the eternal Son of God. Only by the cooperation of man's created will, perfected by God's uncreated energies, can he be elevated into the uncreated life of the Triune God.

To understand this better you might want to read the writings of St. Maximos the Confessor, in particular his "Ambigua," and also the writings of St. Gregory Palamas, in particular his "Triads," and his "150 Chapters."

God bless,
Todd

[notthe9]

I'm sorry I took so long to post these replys. Here they are.

[quote name='Apotheoun']No matter how often you say that it is not, the Calvinist system is a determinist system. [/quote]
Calvinism is a soft deterministic (or “compatibilistic”) system; it affirms that man is free to choose whatever he wants.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Now if you admit contingency in human affairs, that is something altogether different, but your friend ICTHUS has indicated that that is not what he means by compatibilism. [/quote]
The word contingency has broad usage and meaning. If you mean contingency in the sense that something may occur other than the event that actually does, absolutely not. Of course, someone affirming simple foreknowledge could no more hold this than I, for that would mean that events would be perfectly predictable, and thusly definite.

If you mean things can be dependant on the choices of man, this I certainly affirm. If ICTHUS has denied this, I am concerned.

[quote name='Apotheoun']I have no problem accepting divine foreknowledge of the acts of man, but if by this you mean that the acts are predestined to happen, then you are falling into fatalism. [/quote]
The doctrine that predestination occurs is most certainly explicitly Biblical.


Acts 4:27-28
[color=blue]For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. [/color]

Rom 8:28-29
[color=blue]For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. [/color]

1 Cor 2:7
[color=blue]We speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory.[/color]

Eph 1:3-6,10b-12
[color=blue]Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.[/color]


[quote name='Apotheoun']The problem with Calvinism is that it does the same thing as Al-Ashari in order to try and come up with a theory of human responsibility, which means that it actually holds that our "free" acts are predetermined by God, but if they are predetermined by God and not simly foreseen by Him, it follows that they are not free acts but are acts done under compulsion, and this leads to a form of Manichaean dualism, where God becomes the source and origin of sin and evil. [/quote]
You make this claim that “if they are predetermined by God and not simly foreseen by Him, it follows that they are not free.” This is not a refutation of the Calvinist/Compatibilist view, but rather just an assertion of the opposite.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Al-Ashari, like Calvin, held that human acts are "free," although he then went on to say that they are foreknown and predestined by God, but in saying this he was indicating two things that cannot exist simultaneously. [/quote]
Unfortunately for your argumentation, the Bible explicitly teaches foreknowledge and predestination.

[quote name='Apotheoun']For if God predestines the acts of man, including sin, it follows that man is not the cause of his own acts, and as a consequence, that he is not responsible for them either. [/quote]
How does this follow? If indeed Calvinism is correct, we are predestined to freely choose, becoming the direct cause of, the things we choose. You are again evaluation my worldview by foreign presuppositions.

Further, I do not know that we can necessarily see freeness of choice as the criterion for moral responsibility. It would see that since God owes us nothing, His judgement not be contingent on something like this. I am not confident in this, though, it might very well be the criterion. If so, it is certainly internally met in Calvinism.

[quote name='Apotheoun']This means that God is the cause of both good and evil human actions and that He has from all eternity willed these good and evil deeds and the consequences flowing from them. [/quote]
You seem to be drawing this as a conclusion, which I do not see.

Nonetheless, it is an accurate representation of my view to affirm that God is the first cause of all events.

[quote name='Apotheoun']That is why both Al-Ashari and Calvin hold that the eternal destiny of each man is predetermined by a decree of God, and that He creates some men for glory, while He also positively wills and creates other men for damnation. This view of predestination and free will is contrary to teaching of the Church Fathers and scripture, for God never positively wills evil or damnation. [/quote]

Proverbs 16:4
[color=blue]The LORD has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of evil. [/color]

Eph 1:4b-5
[color=blue]In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will[/color]

Rom 9:21-24
[color=blue]Does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. [/color]

Paul, Solomon, and Jude would seem to disagree, among others.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Speaking of the arbitrary will of God, Calvin's doctrine of salvation is clearly arbitrary for as he himself put it, "By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which He determined with Himself whatever He wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death." [John Calvin, [u]Institutes[/u], Book 3, Chapter 21, no. 5][/quote]

What about that possibly suggests an arbitrary, rather than systematic, system?

Edited October 6, 2004 by notthe9

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 2 2004, 08:51 PM'] As I indicated in an earlier post, Calvinism is nothing more than a form of the Monophysite and Monothelite heresies. It destroys the true nature of the incarnation of God and the deification of man. [/quote]
When I asked for clarification and provided some level of critique to that post, you provided neither clarification nor response as of this point.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 2 2004, 09:00 PM'] Since I approach the doctrine of salvation from an Eastern Catholic perspective, the arguments of the Reformers, which don't take into account the Eastern Catholic tradition and theology, fall flat. [/quote]
It is nice to be informed before hand that arguments which I might use fall flat, and without substantiation at that.

And I'm guessing you aren't a Copt or Syrian. (Don't they affirm monophysitism?)

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun'] The Calvinist denial of true human freedom[/quote]
Repeated assertion is insufficient to establish this as fact.

[quote name='Apotheoun']destroys the dyoenergetic nature of man's deification by grace. [/quote]
As far as I can tell dyoenergetic is not a word. I am guessing you might mean a synergistic use of energy of man and God… I am not totally clear here.

[quote name='Apotheoun']The fact that Calvinism denies that man in the natural order has any free will[/quote]
Perhaps you would be willing to substantiate this for me.

[quote name='Apotheoun']while also denying that man can act rightly, even without the infusion of grace[/quote]
We certainly affirm [color=blue]whatever is not from faith is sin.[/color] (Romans 14:23b)

[quote name='Apotheoun']leads to a Monothelite anthropology in relation to the man justified by grace.  Justification involves both God and man, God as primary and man as secondary, but man is not passive in the process of his theosis. [/quote]
I have no idea what your synergism has to do with Christology about the two wills of Christ. Do I have an incomplete understanding of the Monothelite heresy?

[quote name='Apotheoun']Deified man is one created person in two natures, for he naturally possesses the human nature he received through creation, while also possessing the divine nature through his participation in the uncreated energies of God.  Thus, the Calvinist doctrine, which denies human free will, destroys the true nature of justification and salvation, positing in its place a monoenergetic model contrary to the teaching of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.[/quote]
You are, after repetitive correction, basing things off the incorrect assertion that Calvinism denies human free will. I have asked you to support yourself, and all I get told is that Calvinism is the Al-Ashari view. I have contrasted them, but even if the views did affirm the same thing, I do not see how this would necessarily be a problem. I could use the Guilt By Association Fallacy with Islam’s Theism or belief in a historical Abraham, and have just as strong a case.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun']I'm sorry you feel insulted, because no insult was intended by the comment; instead, it was simply a statement of fact.  Besides, feelings ebb and flow, so don't fret over such things.[/quote]
You might very well have made a statement of fact. However, you also made a non-factual judgment of me “I doubt you have given much thought to any of this,” and then stereotyped me. Rather than promoting your view or attacking mine, you assume that I have never considered your argument before (which even were it true, would be irrelevant) and attack a group I associate with.

[quote name='Apotheoun']Now, I was a Protestant so I say this from experience, most Protestants have no understanding of the true nature of the incarnation or the effects flowing from it.[/quote]
I could say the same thing of Catholics, and my ad hominem argument would be just as irrelevant.

[quote name='Apotheoun']But perhaps I have misjudged you, so enlighten me by explaining Calvin's doctrine of [i]theosis[/i].[/quote]
I do not know what Calvin taught on the issue, and I could really care less. There are a lot of things I disagree with Calvin on, I just happen to affirm the Bible’s soteriology, often associate with his name.

I deny the doctrine of theosis in the Eastern sense, as I understand it.

[notthe9]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Oct 2 2004, 09:17 PM'] I suggest that you read the earlier statement about compatibilism made by your fellow Calvinist, ICTHUS. Then reread my comments. [/quote]
I am not quite sure which of Ryan's statements I am supposed to be reading. He has not said much on the issue in this thread.