Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
First of all, Edwards' treatise seems to me to have more to do with John Locke, than it
does with the view of the will found in the Bible. John Locke was a great thinker, but
was essentially a theistic empiricist. His views on human psychology seek to apply the
principles of physics to psychology — a move that is certainly open to question. For
example, Locke said that ideas are either complex or simple. Complex ideas are formed
from simple ideas — so for example, our idea of "Apple" is based on the linking of the
simple ideas of sphere, red, sweet, etc. Thus a complex idea is like a compound formed
from several more basic elements. The problem is, it is far more likely that we first have
the idea of apple, and only later begin to note its particulars as we ponder them — we
note the apple is round, we note that it is sweet, we note that it is red.
Here is the most basic assumption of Edwards' treatise:
With respect to the grand inquiry, "what determines the will?" ...It is sufficient to my present
purpose to say, it is that motive which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that
determines the will. (Part 1, section 2)
The problem with this is it makes the will little more than a "motive thermometer," —
but not a power of choice. Edwards' view makes the will a passive weather vane that
will point in whatever direction the wind blows.
Furthermore, if the will works this way, it would be no less true in the case of Adam
prior to the fall — thus Adam's fall is the result of him having greater motivations
presented to him to sin, than to not sin. Thus, God having set the stage, obviously set
him up to fall. But Adam was not a bad tree — until he chose to bear bad fruit. Edwards
does not address the question of how Adam's choice to sin was made, given that he had
no bent towards evil:
Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man to be upright; but they have sought out
many inventions. (Eccl 7:29)
How could Adam's will be free if it was simply determined by the strongest motivation
presented to him? In his case, one cannot say that he had any bent towards evil. Either
he was the victim of being presented with stronger motives for evil than for good — or
else he evaluated the motives present and chose to place greater value on the evil than
the good.
Also, when the Bible says that no temptation will come upon us that God will not
provide the means of escape — God knowing how our will functions would have to
provide the strongest motives for us to not fall into temptations, for this to have
meaning. And yet, believers do at times fall into temptations — and the reason cannot
be simply because God did not provide the means of escape.
Did God promise David that he would always provide him the means to escape
counting the people when tempted to do so? Did God promise unbelievers that they
would not be deluded by the beast in the last days? No. But he did promise believers
that he would always provide them the means to escape sin — and yet they manifestly
do not always escape sin. Thus either God has simply failed to provide the strongest
motives for good, or the will does not work the way Edwards and Calvinists suggest that
it does.
Furthermore, if this is how "will" functions, in what way is this not also applicable to
God's will? Man, is after all created in the image of God, and though he is
circumscribed, he nonetheless has attributes that in a limited way reflect God's. Most
notably, man is a moral agent. Also man has creative abilities, though obviously of a
limited nature. Man also has the power to will, though not an unlimited power to will.
Man can evaluate, choose to value some things, and devalue others. Man can open his
heart to something, man can also harden his heart — "today, if you will hear His voice,
harden not your hearts..."
Edwards presents two alternatives — either man's will is wholly the product of motives,
or man's will is wholly "uncaused." He does not deal with the mediating possibility that
man can evaluate motives, and ascribe value to some of them, and less value to others.
The problem is, why is it that people who are presented with identical circumstances do
not respond in identical ways? Why do some pagans manage to not kill their babies
when presented with an "unwanted" pregnancy, and others do kill them? The answer is
that some value the lives of their children more than their personal convenience, and
others do not. The will determines — it is not determined by — the strongest
motivation. We evaluate. We place value on some things and devalue other things.
Thus, some kill their babies in a pinch, and some do not under the similar
circumstances.
Reading the logic of Edwards' argumentation, reminded me of a problem we discussed
in my philosophy class posed by Greek philosophers. How can a spear reach its target?
Before it can reach its target, it must first travel half that distance, but before it can
reach half way, it must first travel half of that distance — and so on, ad infinitum. And
so, since there is no limit to half way points, the argument suggests that the Spear
cannot reach its target. The problem here is that this way of looking at the problem
leaves out important factors to consider (such as speed, and time, rather than simply
distance alone). But even if an ignorant man was posed with this problem, and did not
know how to answer it — he would already know that it was fallacious, because in
reality, we all know that you’d better get out of the way of flying spears.
Whether one could put their finger on Edwards' error or not, we all are instinctively
aware of our power to evaluate, and value or devalue motives. We know that we can
choose to listen to something, or not to listen. We know that we had better choose to
obey God too — just like we know to get out of the way of flying spears. Why can we not
say that we evaluate motivations, and therefore choose to value some motivations more
than others? Some people would kill Flipper for a tuna fish sandwich. Some people
would rather die than eat a tuna fish sandwich. These people each choose to place
greater value on opposite motivations.
I maintain that we cannot explain the will in any precise way — because God alone
knows the human heart. I am not attempting to define how the will works precisely,
only to argue what it is not. It is not a weather vane, blown about by quantifiable
motives. If it were, than man is not responsible — only one who causes such motives or
designed the weather vane could be responsible.
Man is also not free from external influences, nor is he necessarily free in his fallen
state from a bent towards sin. But the will as God created it in Adam was free enough to
have chosen either to sin or not to have sin — and was not determined by the sum total
of the strongest motives present.
In the final analysis, I don't think that we are capable of so clearly defining the
operations of the will as Edwards would have us think. Only God truly understands the
mind and heart of man. Whether we can explain it or not, we know that the view
Edwards presents is certainly not the Tradition of the Church, nor is it found in the
Scriptures. If anyone would dispute that, I would like to see the will defined from
Scripture remotely in the way that Edwards defines it.
On Predestination
From the Writings of Bishop Elias Minatios
The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto
him, Follow me. (John 1:43)
There is nothing as proud or as curious as the human mind. Though sin has severely
weakened it, though faith demands of it blind obedience, it nonetheless still spreads
one hundred wings in order to fly up to the highest height; it opens one hundred eyes to
investigate the greatest secrets. Yet, all would be well, if it strained so in order to
investigate the wondrous works of nature on earth, for this is the innate inclination of
man through which he is led to the understanding of all that exists. But, the mind
attempts to penetrate the very intangible depths of divine judgements, as if to check
that the most high providence of God directs everything wisely and deals properly in
regard to the affairs of humans. This is obscene arrogance! Divine predestination is one
of the most inaccessible mysteries, locked in the abyss of divine reason and wisdom.
The human mind, short on comprehension and limited in its ability to grasp concepts,
will never be able to understand this mystery even if it studies and investigates it
endlessly. Oh, you learned theologians, I know how you deliberate on divine
predestination. You say: "predestination is the foreknowledge and preparation of God's
good things by which those who are saved are unalterably saved; that it is the ascension
of rational creatures to eternal life, and is the process of being chosen to grace and
glory." Yet you do not understand that God foresees from the beginning all that people
do within time, that this divine foreknowledge is stable, but the works of humans
within time are free. How can we reconcile the unchangeability of God's providence
with the free self-determination of intelligent creatures? How is it that the immutability
of divine decisions does not lead to inevitability? Why is it beyond question and not
subject to chance? We must remove ourselves as far away as possible from these
questions and quandaries of the scholars. These questions do not edify, but only
confuse the mind. These quandaries do not enlighten, but only darken the intellect.
Brothers and sisters, in this realm which defies comprehension, we understand only
one thing: Predestination is the combination of divine grace and human will of the
grace of God which calls, and the will of man which follows this calling.
Once on His way to Galilee, Jesus finds Philip, and saith unto him, ‘Follow Me’. Philip
believed and followed Him. We have found Him, of whom Moses in the law, and the
prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, declares Philip to his
comrade Nathanael. In this way Philip is predestined to the honor of the apostleship
and to the glory of the heavenly kingdom. This then, is what I will discuss today. I will
attempt to prove two positions: first, that God desires to save each and every human,
and second, that each human possesses all the freedom necessary to achieve salvation
with the help of the grace of God. God desires, and if man desires also, then he or she is
already predestined.
The teaching on predestination is a dogma of faith, based on the Sacred Scriptures. No
Orthodox Christian has any doubt in this. For whom he did foreknow, Paul clearly
states, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might
be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom He did predestinate, them He
also called: and whom He called, them He also justified: and whom He justified, them
He also glorified (Romans 8:29,30). The book of divine foreknowledge is
incomprehensible to us. In this book, those whom God loves, He inscribed to life, and
those whom He despises—to death. Jacob have I love, but Esau have I hated, (Romans
9:13) says God Himself. Just as a potter can make a worthy vessel or an unworthy one
from the very same clay, likewise almighty God glorifies as valuable certain of His
creatures, while rejecting others as unnecessary. Therefore hath He mercy on whom
He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth (Romans 9:18). God acts
according to His own will. Who can contradict Him? Yet, is there then some sort of
falsity in God? No, there is not! In our effort to understand this point, take as an
example the teachings of St. Paul. His teachings are deep and exalted. The more we
delve into them, the less we understand. But what of this? In the question of
predestination, all is incomprehensible: everything which Holy Scripture says on this
subject is unfathomable. The writings of the holy fathers on this point are difficult. The
opinions of the learned theologians on this are murky. This is because our intellect,
weak and blind, cannot reach such heights or seek the invisible. This question was not
even understood by Paul himself, who had ascended to the third heaven. At this height
of divine revelation he saw only indiscernible depths of divine wisdom surpassing all
understanding. This is why, filled with wonder he cried out: O the depth of the riches
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and
His ways past finding out! (Romans 11:33). St. John Chrysostom continues this
thought by saying, "Even if it were possible to figure out this question (of
predestination), it would nonetheless be unlawful to desire to do so." For us it is
sufficient to know these two clear, understandable, basic precepts: first, God desires
that we be saved, for He loves mankind. Second, we can be saved, for we are free. Thus,
the will of God and the desire of man make up predestination. God desires, and if man
desires also, then he or she is already predestined.
Yes, God, the Lover of mankind, desires that we all be saved. This is confirmed by His
three non-contradictory attributes: divine justice, divine mercy, and divine providence.
Justice
God granted the law to all people indiscriminately. He desires that all choose to fulfill it.
No one is exempt from God's law. Greek or barbarian, the impious or right-believing,
Jew or Christian, the law is required of all. What reward awaits those who fulfill the
divine law? Salvation and the kingdom of heaven. By the mouth of Isaiah God
promises: If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land (Isaiah 1: 19).
Would it not be the utmost injustice if God desired that all people conform to His law
on the one hand, while on the other He did not desire salvation universally for all?
Would He then predestine one portion for salvation and presentence the other to
torment? Does He demand that all serve Him equally, yet does not desire to give all
equal recompense? No! God is just, He is Justice itself. In giving the law to all, He wills
all men to be saved (I Tim. 2:4), as says the Apostle. St. Ambrose explains, "that having
granted the law to all, He excludes no one from His kingdom."
Mercy
What then, compelled God to come down to earth from the heavens and become man?
It was His extreme mercy. St. John the Theologian testifies that God so loved the
world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). During His thirty-three years here on
earth, how much did the God-man toil, how much did He suffer, and how did He die?
The fathers of the Church tell us that as a result of the hypostatic union in Christ of
humanity and divinity, each action of Christ is worthy of endless honor and praise.
Even the slightest suffering of Christ had potential to expiate the universal sin. One
drop of His most pure blood could extinguish all the flames of eternal torment. His
death alone, had it been natural, without sickness, could have saved the entire human
race. Yet when He suffered, He suffered as no one has. When He shed His blood to the
last drop, when He died on the cross, enduring such torment and shame, can we
possibly think that He did all this to save only part of the human race, leaving the
remainder to be damned? He could so easily have saved everyone. Yet, after such an
effort, would He desire to save only a few? Did He expend such a priceless treasure in
paying for such a small purchase, did He pour forth all the wealth of His divine mercy
just to be benevolent to a numbered few? NO! The Divine gift is for all! The wounds of
Jesus Christ are healing for all. The blood of Jesus Christ is the miraculous ladder by
which we all can ascend to paradise. For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself as ransom for all, says Paul (I
Tim. 2:5). One died for all (2 Cor. 5:14). If He died for all, then He wants all to be saved.
"The Sun of Righteousness," we are told by St. Gregory the Theologian, "shone forth for
all, lived for all and died and is risen for all."
Providence
In addition to all of this, it is an indisputable and immutable truth, that the most high
providence of God assuredly applies to all creation. "God foresees and provides for
everything," says St. Basil the Great. Providence applies particularly to the human race.
This is that divine fatherly concern in which the blessed Apostle Peter commands us to
place our trust: Casting all your care upon him; for He careth for you (I Peter 5:7). It
is by the command of God that the sun rises as much for believers as for the unjust.
God has established a haven in the seas for both the righteous and the unrighteous. He
grants health, success, wealth, distinction to those nations that worship Him and to
those who know Him not. If God desires to divide among all His creatures those things
for which we were not created, the earthly and temporal, then all the more He desires
to give to all, that for which we were created, the heavenly and eternal. If our heavenly
Father providentially concerns Himself with all, then He also desires that all be saved.
This is why He commands the sun to arise upon the evil and the good, and the rain to
fall upon sinners and the righteous.
Thus, God, because of His justice, mercy and providence for all, desires salvation for all.
Inasmuch as it depends on Him, He does not desire the ruin of anything, even the most
minute. This is declared by the Son of God Himself in His holy Gospel: Even so it is not
the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should
perish (Matt. 18:14). He calls all to Himself. This is why David says, the Lord, hath
spoken, and called the earth (Psalm 49:1).
From on high, first by the mouths of the prophets, and in the latter days through His
Son, the incarnate Word, God called the whole world to salvation. This is why the
heavenly Jerusalem, as seen by John in the Apocalypse, had twelve gates. These gates,
grouped in threes, face all the ends of the earth so that we would know that God opened
paradise for the entire universe. The mighty God, even the Lord, hath spoken, and
called the earth, for He wants all to be saved.
Yet in actuality, this is only a desire which St. John Damascene (in harmony with the
entire choir of theologians) calls preliminary. This desire of God, in and of itself, is not
sufficient for the salvation of man. It is only like the pillar of fire which showed the way
for the Jews in the desert. It shows the way, but does not force one along the way to
salvation. God calls. Yet it is necessary that man listen. The will of God is only one wing.
A second wing is necessary for flight to the heavens. This is our will. The will of God
and the will of man join to form predestination. God desires; if man desires also, then
he is already on the road to salvation.
From the beginning God created man totally free. The Holy Spirit by the lips of the
most wise son of Sirach tells us: He Himself made man from the beginning and left
him in the hand of his (man's own) will (Ecclesiastes 15:14). God leaves man to live
according to his own will and places no constraint upon his freedom. He left him in the
hand of his will. God is omnipotent in His authority. Man is omnipotent in his freedom.
The entire difference lies in that God does all that He desires, and no power can impede
Him in this, while man does nothing that he desires not to, and no power can force him.
It is impossible that God not do what He desires. It is also impossible that man do what
he does not desire. Thus, just as man cannot be saved without the grace of God,
likewise God cannot save man without the free will of man.
"Grace," says the divine Chrysostom (St. John), "though it is grace, yet it saves only
those who desire." "Salvation," according to the words of the Theologian (St. Gregory),
"must be our work and God's." Rain falls on the ground. Yet the earth does not produce
fruit if the husbandman does not labor. The sun shines everywhere. Yet, one who
desires to accept its light must open his eyes. This means that God grants all the grace
and help, yet the will of man must cooperate with this grace. God desired to save Noah
during the flood in which the entire world perished, but He required that he build the
ark with his own hands. God wanted to cleanse Nehemiah from leprosy, but He
required that Nehemiah himself go and wash in the Jordan. He wants to open the eyes
of the one born blind. Yet here again He requires that the blind one wash himself in the
pool of Siloam. God desires salvation for all people, but requires that each cooperate in
his or her salvation. Man is free and must choose between water and fire, life and
death. Man is rational, he is directed by his mind. He can discern good from evil, light
from darkness. Written on the heart of each person is the natural law, showing the true
way to salvation. Therefore, what is necessary for predestination, if not the freely
granted grace of God and the free will of man? God desires; if man desires also, then he
is already on the way to salvation.
Yet I know what sort of misunderstanding the question of predestination can evoke in
people. They will tell me that it is evident from Sacred Scriptures that even at the time
when they were unable to do good or evil, not having yet been born, God loved Jacob
and despised Esau. He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will
He hardeneth. From the very same clay God created two vessels, one for honor the
other for dishonor. This means God generously grants grace to one, while not the other.
Here God is completely free to do as He wants. For who, says Paul, hath resisted his
will? (Romans 9:19). How can it be that God wants salvation for all, if He pours all His
love on one side, and all His wrath upon the other? If God despised me before birth as
He did Esau, if He hardened my heart like Pharaoh's, if He created me a vessel for
dishonor with a corrupt disposition—after all this, where is my freedom to do good, or
conduct my salvation? I must admit, dear Christians, that the portion of the Sacred
Scriptures, referred to above, can give birth to such perplexity, such bewilderment. Yet
it has a different meaning. The mystical blessing given by the Patriarch Isaac to his
children did occur according to divine arrangement. If we look at it strictly along lines
of human understanding we come to erroneous conclusions. Esau and Jacob are the
children of Isaac. Esau is the elder, Jacob the younger. Naturally Esau should have been
the first to receive the blessing of his father. But, as it happened, Jacob received it first.
Three factors, three great mistakes contribute to this. And it came to pass, that when
Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see... (Genesis 27: 1) Thus,
because of blindness, not having checked with whom he is dealing, he gave his blessing
to the one who pretended to be the firstborn. This was the first mistake. Next, in order
to grant his blessing, Isaac first requested a gift He desired to eat of meat hunted by his
son. Go out to the field, and take me some venison; And make me savory meat, such as
I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat (Genesis 27:3,4). Thus he sold his blessing,
whereas he should have given it freely. This was the second mistake. Further, Isaac was
tricked by his wife Rebecca. Loving Jacob more, she dresses him in the clothes of Esau.
Thus Isaac blessed Jacob, taking him to be the firstborn Esau. Later, when he found
out, Isaac was astounded And Isaac trembled very exceedingly (Genesis 27:33). In this
matter of utmost importance, the patriarch is so easily tricked by his wife. This was the
third mistake. Thus being blind, it was for food and through the slyness of another that
Isaac gave Jacob the blessing which belonged to Esau. Yet who is Isaac? He is an
ordinary man. Yet a man quite often gives a blessing, grants an honor or makes a
choice, all the while being blinded by ignorance, or overcome by avarice, or tricked
because of innate simplicity. But divine decisions do not resemble decisions of
humans. For my thoughts are not your thoughts (Is.55,20). As far as the earth is from
the heavens, so differ the judgements of men from God's judgement. God predestines
differently, God gives His grace differently, grants His glory differently, chooses
differently. God beholds everything. He sees the smallest detail, knows the hidden. God
is just and judges each according to his or her worthiness. He regardeth not persons,
nor taketh reward (Deut.10:17). God is all-wise and is not deceived by craftiness, is not
overcome by passions, does not betray because of weakness. Thus, the all-wise, all-just,
omniscient God loved Jacob, for He foresaw the God-pleasing disposition of his heart.
He hated Esau (saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau [Malachi 1:2,3]
Trans.) for He foreknew his evil disposition. He is merciful to whomever He wishes, for
He foreknows that the person will be good and of an obedient will. He hardens whom
He wishes, for He foresees that he will be a person of an evil and unrepentant
disposition. On the one hand, God makes a vessel of blessing, such as Paul. On the
other, He makes a vessel of dishonor, such as Pharaoh, for He foresees that he in
actuality is a vessel of wrath, doomed to perdition. This is how we must understand the
blessing of Jacob. This is how it is interpreted by the Holy Fathers, especially St. John
Chrysostom in his sixteenth homily on the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans.
Therefore, the mentioned text does not prove that God supposedly does not have a full
desire to save you, nor that you lack the full freedom to be saved. The man-loving God
always calls you. Freely desire as well, and you will be predestined. We profess that God
does what He pleases for He is omnipotent Yet we also know that God does only what is
appropriate, for He is just. And even if we do not know the judgements of the Lord, for
this is a deep abyss, we nonetheless believe that in God there is no partiality.
When Jesus Christ approaches Jerusalem, James and John the sons of Zebedee come
to Him with their mother Salome. They bow down before Him and ask: Grant that one
may sit on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom (Math. 20:21). To
this strange request Christ answers: Ye know not what ye ask... This is not mine to
give. How is this? Is He not almighty God Who can do what He pleases? Who can
contradict Him? Who hath resistedhis will? (Romans 9:19). James and John were
actual apostles, as were the others. But of all the apostles they had the additional gift of
being related to Christ. Granted. But in God there is no partiality. God does not regard
solicitation, nor relation. Rebecca could trick Isaac with a lie into performing an
injustice. He was a man. But Salome could not convince Christ to be partial. Ye know
not what ye ask.. But it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared (Mark
10:38,40). It is as if He says: "On My part just as I do not deny anyone My glory,
likewise I do not single out anyone." The one found most worthy will receive
preference. The words for "whom it is prepared" explains the Theologian, mean," it will
be offered to the truly worthy one, which not only received these attributes from (God)
the Father, but also have developed them in themselves." And so, God is not partial. He
calls all to enter into His Kingdom. He singles out no one, and prefers only those who
are worthy. Be found to be worthy and you will be predestined.
Now you will tell me: "Me, be found worthy? How is this? God knows ahead of time if I
am predestined for paradise or doomed to torment. If I am predestined for paradise, to
attain it there is need for no further toil. If I am sentenced to torment, it is completely
futile for me to try to escape it. Neither in the first case, nor in the second am I free. The
foreknowledge of God is exact; that which God foresees most definitely must happen. If
I am free to do that which God does not foresee, then God is mistaken, which is not
possible." What are you saying, oh man? You say, "If I am free, then God is mistaken?"
But I will argue that if I am not free, then God deceives me. If I am not free then He
leads me astray, for by the mouths of the prophets and apostles, even by His very own
lips, He calls me to repentance, though He knows very well that I most definitely lack
the freedom to repent. If I am not free, He deceives me, for He calls me to take up the
cross and follow Him. Yet He has bound up my will. He deceives me, for He orders me
to adhere to His commandments; yet with His predestination He deprives me of power.
And so, if I am not free, then is not our faith a mistake? Is not the Gospel a joke? No!
God does not err, for He is Wisdom Itself. He does not deceive others for he is Truth
Itself. You do not understand what divine foreknowledge is and what it accomplishes.
So listen. This is definitely a stumbling block upon which many have tripped and fallen.
Yet, one who thinks as you do is sorely mistaken and very far from the truth. If you are
ill, does not God know whether you will recover or die? But just because of this is it true
that you should not call a physician, refuse any medicines, and sit with your hands
folded and await either health or death? In such a case you would be very unwise, even
foolish. It is one thing that God foresees your healing or death (and this is certainly
true). It is completely another thing to assume that God's foreknowledge grants you
health or death (and this is certainly false). If you take care of yourself, you will be
healed, and in the opposite case you will die. God foresees both cases, yet neither is
brought into existence by God's foreknowledge. You will either get better or die. Only
one of these two is true, but not determined definitively. Try to understand this more
fully. God definitely foresees whether you will be in paradise or in hell. In a mirror we
are reflected just as we are in reality. The beautiful are beautiful and the reverse.
Likewise in God's pure foreknowledge we appear as we are in actuality, either written in
bright letters in the book of life or inscribed in the eternal book of death. If we are
righteous, then we are among the ranks of the righteous who are saved. If we are
sinners, then we are on the list of condemned sinners. A mirror reflects our appearance.
God's foreknowledge reflects our will. This is the view of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "The
righteous judgement of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us
according to our inner feelings." A mirror, which reflects both the beautiful and the
horrid, does not make them so. Likewise the foreknowledge of God, in which one is
predestined for paradise, and another is condemned to torment, in actuality does not
force one to salvation and the other to condemnation. "Foreknowledge of God, the
Theologian tells us, is intuitive and not active." This means that you are saved or
condemned, not because God foresees your salvation or condemnation, but that either
by your good works you cooperated with God's grace and God foresees your salvation,
or that by your evil deeds you avoid the grace of God and will suffer for it, and God
foresees your torment. Thus Judas betrayed Christ not because Christ foresaw his
betrayal, but rather Christ foresaw the betrayal of Judas because he intended to betray
Christ. Ibis is how the wise Justin, philosopher and martyr speaks about this: "The
cause of future events is not foreknowledge, but foreknowledge is the result of future
events. The future does not flow forth from foreknowledge, but foreknowledge from the
future. It is not Christ who is the cause of the betrayal of Judas. But the betrayal is the
cause of the Lord's foreknowledge." If you live in a way which is pleasing to God, you
will be saved. If you lead a corrupt life you will perish. God foresees both the first and
the second. But neither the first nor the second predetermine God's foreknowledge. You
will either be saved or perish. One of these is definitely true, yet not determined
beforehand.
Well, and what if I were to tell you that it was already predestined, that it was already
decided that you were either saved or would perish? Is it then possible that because of
this you no longer need to go to church, or you no longer need to turn to your spiritual
father for help, or that you will no longer try to fulfill Christian duties, no longer repent,
do nothing on your own and simply wait for either salvation or condemnation? In such
a case you would be the most foolish person. Take another look in the mirror, would
you please. Today you are healthy and the mirror shows your fine appearance.
Tomorrow you may be ill, then it will show your sickly appearance. When you are well
again, it will again show the first. Just as your face changes its appearance, so the
mirror changes your image. Now then, when you live a God-pleasing life, God foresees
you in paradise. Tomorrow if you sin, God will foreordain you for torment. You again
repent again you are foreordained for salvation. As you change your life, so God
changes His decision. God's judgement conforms to our will and conforms to our
disposition.
I will finish with two illustrations from Divine Scripture. The blessed Paul, while
bound, sailed to Italy on a certain Alexandrian ship in order to stand before the
Emperor. Suddenly in the middle of the deep night, a great storm arises. The wind
blows strongly, the sea is turbulent. There is great mortal danger, no hope for salvation.
Yet God, desiring to preserve His servant, sends him His angel with the message: Fear
not, Paul... God hath given thee all them that sail with thee (Acts 27:24). Hearing this
divine promise, the sailors were somewhat heartened that they would be saved and
intended to leave the vessel and reach shore by boat. No, says Paul, except these abide
in the ship, ye cannot be saved (Acts 27:3 1). What are you saying Paul? Did not God
ordain to save all? Does it not matter, if they stay on the ship or not? No, God
determined to save them, but requires that they cooperate in this. If everyone does not
stay on board and do their job, they perish. Will those perish whom God has destined to
be saved? Does God's destination change? Yes, it can be no other way. Except these
abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved.
Here's another example: The King Hezekiah became ill. God destines him to die and
sends the prophet Isaiah to say: Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou
shalt die, and not live (II Kings 20: 1). The unfortunate Hezekiah turns his face to the
wall, sighs, cries, pleads. What are you doing, oh hapless king?! Has not God appointed
you to death? Is it not in vain that you cry and plead? Can one whom God has ordained
to die, live? Does God's decision change? Yes, brothers and sisters, this determination
also changed! God had pity on the tears of Hezekiah and determined that he live. He
even granted him fifteen years of life. Thus saith the Lord. I will add unto thy days
fifteen years (II Kings 20:5,6).
I desire, brothers and sisters, that there be a determination concerning your salvation.
But I must add, that if you do not concern yourselves with this, and do not live a God-
pleasing life to the very end, firm in the grace and love of God, despite all decisions
about salvation, you will die. And even if your demise has been decided, I tell you that if
you will turn back and repent you will be saved despite the determination of your
torment. Just as your win goes from good to bad and the reverse. Likewise God's
decisions go from salvation to retribution and the reverse. The righteous judgement of
God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to our inner
condition. Thus God's foreknowledge and His determinations are not an obstacle to
God's desire to save you, nor for you in your freedom to be saved.
Yet (as I stated in the very beginning), it is best for you not to understand anything in
this elevated question concerning predestination. In order not to be swayed by some
sort of misunderstanding, remember well the following points: God always wants your
salvation, for He is the Lover of mankind; and you can always be saved, for you are free.
God's grace and your will form predestination. God desires (your salvation): desire
(salvation) also, and you will be predestined.
In order to emphasize all that I have said thus far, I ask you to listen to what God says
to Jeremiah the prophet: Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will
cause thee to hear My words (18:2). The prophet went to the house and found the
potter making vessels. A certain pot fell from his hands and became deformed. But, he
picked it up and returned it to the form which he desired. Then God spoke to
Jeremiah: Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine
hand (18:6). Just as the vessel being made fell was ruined, then being ruined, it was
again corrected by the skill of the potter, likewise you, oh man, fall into sin; then,
having repented, you are corrected by the grace of God. If you are a vessel of honor,
nonetheless, you can become a vessel of dishonor. Likewise, from a vessel of dishonor
you can turn back into an honorable vessel. But God continues even further and tells
you through the prophet: If (a nation) do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice,
then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them (18:10). If that
nation, against whom I have pronounced (to pull down, and to destroy it), turn from
their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them (18:8). See how God
changes His decision according to how man changes his disposition? God has decided
to save the righteous and grant retribution to the sinful. Are you righteous? Watch out
that you do not fall, for the determination about your salvation will change into
determination about your retribution. If you are sinful, try to repent, and the decision
concerning punishment will turn into a decision for your salvation. The righteous
judgement of God takes into consideration our disposition. He grants to us according to
our inner feelings. Because of this, it does not concern you what God has decided about
you, or what God foresees; this is neither helpful nor harmful. You want to know what
predestination is? It is the grace of God and the will of man together. God desires, for
He is the Lover of mankind: if a man desires also, for he is free, then that man is
predestined.
But, oh my soul, what is prepared for me? Are you meant for paradise or hell? Who can
tell me this and convince me of it? Brothers and sisters, we are all wanderers in this life
of sorrow; therefore none can know what will take place in the future. That will be
revealed in the end. According to whether we are found righteous or sinners, we will
receive from the Righteous Judge the crown of glory or the sentence of torment: And
(all) shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation (John 5:29). However there is
something I can tell you in order to finish my sermon with a story which is very
appropriate concerning the question at hand.
Once an evil man came to Apollo of Delphi with a sparrow in his hands, covered with a
piece of clothing. He requested them to tell him whether the sparrow was living or
dead. This man was sly. If the oracle said that it was lifeless, he intended to show the
living sparrow. If he was told that it was living, he intended to suffocate it and show
that it was dead. Thus, he wanted to trick the oracle. But his trickery was discovered
and he received the following answer: It depends on you to decide, to show what you
hold as living or dead. You too, oh Christian, ask whether eternal life or eternal death is
in store for your soul. It depends on you to decide. Your predestination depends on the
will of God and your will. The will of God is always ready. This means that things are
determined only by your will. God desires (your salvation); if you desire this also, then
you are predestined for eternal life.
From Orthodox Life, Vol. 40, No. 6 (Nov.-Dec., 1990), pp. 27-36. Translated by Priest Gregory Naumenko.
Originally from Orthodox Life (in Russian) May 1987. For other articles on the various concepts presented herein
see the page set up to address the Protestant Reformed faith.
The Myth of the "Calvinist Patriarch"
by Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna
Webmaster's Note: The Orthodox Christian Information Center asked Archbishop Chrysostomos, the
Academic Director for the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, to review the comments made
by a Protestant publication called Credenda Agenda in their articles "Confessio Fidei" and "The
Reformation that Failed" (by Chris Schlect; see Vol. 6, No. 5). His Eminence graciously replied and
made a number of comments about the issues at hand, excerpts from which are presented in a
condensed and selected form below. This is the first of numerous forthcoming installments
responding to the articles in Credenda Agenda.
Just as today one must see the Orthodox world in its greater historical context, so in
Patriarch Kyrillos’ day, too, Orthodoxy existed in a world of political reality that must
be carefully studied, in order to see what implications rise above his specific witness
and faithfully address Orthodoxy at a general level. To this end, let me just say, as a
general observation, that with the fall of Constantinople the Orthodox East fell under
Latin domination and the Turkish Yoke. Its survival threatened, its spiritual and
intellectual primacy relinquished to the West, Orthodoxy in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries took on an historical character that cannot be applied universally
to the Church’s experience and ethos, and especially, again, without careful
examination and precision.
Too much scholarship today comes from secondary and from encyclopedic sources,
offered up by inadequate scholars who ignore primary sources and who, in the field of
Orthodox studies, fail to capture the thinking of the Fathers. For example, the political
intrigue surrounding the reign of Patriarch Kyrillos is very complex. It involves
theological and political issues dating back to the time of his mentor and (most
probably) relative, Patriarch Meletis (Pegas) of Alexandria, and to Loukaris’ strong
opposition to the Latin Church and the Unia, an opposition that brought him into
conflict with certain circles (both in Alexandria and in Constantinople) which had
primarily political reasons for their sympathy with Rome. To reduce these complicated
factors to some supposed opposition within the Orthodox Church to Patriarch Kyrill’s
so-called Protestantism is absurd. Such a faulty reduction also creates a myth about the
Patriarch that is to a great extent a fabrication of Western scholarship and of those
Orthodox captured by the West. It also ignores the standard historiographical
assumptions of Orthodox Greek writers, who have a far more expansive knowledge of
Orthodoxy in the age in question than their Western counterparts. In this vein, it is
rather amazing that one of these articles in Credenda tries to make something of the
fact that the Patriarch’s "Confessio fidei..." was published in Geneva. Could we imagine
it being published in post-Byzantine Constantinople? Anyone with even an elementary
knowledge of intellectual life of the Greeks at this time would readily understand why
men of Greek letters published throughout the West, and especially in Italy and France.
It is astonishingly naive for anyone to attach to the publication of Loukaris’ confession
in Geneva any special significance at all. The notion that these particular writings were
"composed" by Loukaris in Latin is another troubling statement. It needs careful
scrutiny and actually says nothing to support the thesis that Loukaris had, by
implication, a keen appreciation and knowledge of Western (Reformed) theology. It
leads us, rather, in another direction, as we shall see.
While he knew Latin, it is clear from his many letters and writings, as well as from
biographical data from contemporaries of his, that Patriarch Kyrillos could not have
produced a polished text such as that of the original Latin "Confession." Indeed, many
Greek scholars even dispute the claim that the Greek text, which appeared together
with the Latin text four years later, was the work of Loukaris. Rather, it is argued by
most Greek scholars that the text was essentially the work of Calvinist scholars with
whom Cyril communicated on a regular basis and who condensed many of his letters
and exchanges into a conveniently Calvinistic confession that ignored the Patriarch’s
Orthodox understanding and grasp of reformed theology. For a brilliant textual
analysis in support of these assumptions, see Professor Ioannis Karmiris, Orthodoxia
kai Protestantismos (Athens, 1937). (Cf. Chrysostomos Papadopoulos, Kyrillos
Loukaris[Athens, 1938].)
It is only by ignoring his many sober theological works and writings, wholly in concord
with traditional Orthodox theological concepts, and his synodal confessions and
justifications, that one can argue that Patriarch Kyrillos was a supporter of Calvinism.
The whole idea of a "Protestant" Patriarch who was forced to betray his Protestant
leanings is a bit of Western fancy that the Reformers used to slap at Rome (beset as it
was by the "problem" of the Eastern Church only a few centuries after having, however
fruitlessly, "united" with it, a "problem" which the Lutheran Reformers had also
exploited at the Diet of Worms). This fanciful idea was also one that the Latins used in
their struggles against Loukaris, on account of his many years of opposition to the Unia
and the Jesuits in Eastern Europe, characterizing him as a betrayer of his own Faith.
(Remember that the Latins had a deep hatred for this Patriarch. Through the
machinations of the Jesuits and other anti-Orthodox agents in Constantinople, the
Papists were finally able, through the Austrian Embassy, to bribe the Turks to condemn
and kill Patriarch Kyrillos in 1638, and thus to silence him. His body was, indeed,
unceremoniously thrown into the Bosporos.)
Let us also say that the Orthodox Church, which in Her mind constitutes the successor
of the very Church established by Christ, has a theology and spiritual life quite foreign
to those of the West, whether Latin or Reformed. Soteriology, the sacraments (or, more
properly, the Mysteries), and Christian anthropology and cosmology, however
misunderstood and misrepresented by the West (we think, here, of the gross stupidity
of Western scholars who imagine our theological traditions to be neo-Platonic—an
accusation which shows an ignorance both of Orthodoxy and of Neo-Platonism), are
concepts that we discuss in a context and with nomenclature foreign to the Papists and
Protestants. When addressing Roman Catholics, our Church has, however, spoken
about seven sacraments and about various administrative structures in Western
language (though, in fact, our Mysteries are without number and order always yields to
prophecy in Orthodoxy); speaking with Protestants, we have spoken of the interaction
of Faith and good works and of Divine Providence and Grace in ways that they
understand (when, in fact, the first distinction is unknown to us and the apophatic and
Hesychastic traditions of Orthodox theology approach the second issue in a way largely
mystifying to Western theologians). Admittedly, less-gifted Orthodox thinkers today
also seek to form a "systematic theology" in response to the West (notwithstanding the
fact that it is in the realm of spiritual practice, not confessional theology, that any
notion of the systematic properly applies in Orthodoxy). But all of this does not mean
that we are speaking the language of the heterodox in our hearts, let alone that we share
their theological precepts.
When we address Westerners on their own terms, we are reaching out to them in the
limited language that they grasp. Setting aside the issue of the authenticity of his
confession, when Loukaris reached out to the Protestants, then, whatever his motives
and whatever his language, his writings, his witness, and his Orthodoxy were in no way
compromised by these actions. Nor did he become that which he addressed. I leave it to
others to judge the wisdom of his actions. But to characterize them in any way than that
which I have is to argue, once more, against all that one can glean from studying his life
and reading his writings as a whole. If the modernist Orthodox can make "Popes" of
their Patriarchs and create a melange of Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and Papism that
they pass off as "official" and "canonical" Orthodoxy, Protestants sectarians can make
of Patriarch Cyril a Protestant. But these creations do not change the truth. Both in the
case of modern Orthodoxy (which has created its own religion from the language of
mission by which Orthodoxy has been preached in the West) and a phantom
"Protestant" Patriarch, we are dealing with false creations of theological nomenclature
that are separated from true experience.
Despite Western references to Patriarch Kyrillos’ wide contacts with the Reformers, he
is in fact most famous in the Orthodox world for his anti-Papist stand against the
Uniate menace and for his opposition to Jesuit missions in Eastern Europe. His
contacts in Eastern Europe, where he studied, served, and traveled, were extensive. His
opposition to Uniate Catholicism after the Brzeesc-Litewski Treaty of 1596 was so
strong and widespread, that his so-called "Confession," whatever its true source, is a
mere footnote to his struggle against Papism. It was THIS anti-Latin Loukaris who
supported Protestant opposition to Papism, who perhaps allowed his views to be
restated and published by his Calvinist contacts in Geneva, and who earned the
enduring hatred of the Papacy, which has played an essential role—if one reads the
intellectual history surrounding this issue—in perpetuating the idea that the
"Confessio" was the direct work of Kyrillos and that he was a Protestant in his thinking.
If one ignores almost all of his scholarship and accepts the "Confessio," and if one
ignores almost all of his activities and accomplishments in Eastern Europe and in
resisting Uniatism, then it might be argued that Loukaris was the author of an
Orthodox "reform" that almost was. But this fantasy, so favored by Protestants and so
boldly bequeathed to them by Latin polemicists, is much like modernist Orthodoxy in
America. It has the press. It has attention. It can dismiss arguments against it as those
of fringe elements and cultists. But just as a thorough study of those who hold forth as
Orthodoxy’s "official" spokesmen today show these people to be something other than
what they are, so with a careful study of the facts surrounding the "Confessio fidei" of
Kyrillos Loukaris the myth of a "Protestant" Patriarch goes the way of Pope Joan.