Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 11/22/2007 3:32 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PLEASE compare/contrast these two. It's important.
 

Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

Chapter XVI -- That It Is Inconsistent With the Free Agency And Moral Responsibility of Man

 

2.   www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/fasts_feasts/hierotheos_vlachos_annunciation.htm

. . .

The Virgin Mary had the fullness of God's Grace, in comparison to (other) people. Of course, Christ, as the Word of God, has the whole fullness of Graces, but the Virgin Mary received the fullness of Grace from the fullness of Graces of her Son. For this reason, in relation to Christ she is lower, since - Christ had the Grace by nature, whereas the Virgin Mary had it through participation. In relation to people, however, she is higher.

. . .

When we apply these things to the case of the Virgin Mary we can understand her relationship with the original sin and her being freed from it. The Virgin Mary was born with the original sin; she had all the consequences of corruption and death in her body. With her entrance into the holy of holies, she reached theosis. This theosis though was not enough to deliver her from its consequences, which are corruption and death, precisely because the divine nature had not yet united with the human nature in the hypostasis of the Word. Thus, at the moment when, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the divine nature was united with human nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Virgin Mary first tasted her freedom from the so-called original sin and its consequences. Furthermore, at that moment that which Adam and Eve failed to do with their free personal struggle, occurred. For this reason, the Virgin Mary at the moment of the Annunciation reached a greater state than that in which Adam and Eve were prior to the fall. She was granted to taste the end of the goal of creation, as we will see in other analyses.

For this reason for the Virgin Mary Pentecost did not have to happen, it was not necessary for her to be baptised. That which the Apostles experienced on the day of Pentecost, when they became members of Christ's Body through the Holy Spirit, and that which happened to all of us during the mystery of Baptism, occurred for the Virgin Mary on the day of Annunciation. Then she was delivered from the original sin, not in the sense that she was delivered from the guilt, but that she obtained the theosis in her soul and body, due to her union with Christ.

In these frameworks Saint John of Damascus' saying that on the day of the Annunciation the Virgin Mary received the Holy Spirit, which cleansed her and gave her power receptive of the Word's divinity, simultaneously a birth-giving power, should be interpreted. That is the Virgin Mary received from the Holy Spirit a cleansing grace, but also a grace receptive and able to give birth to the Word of God as a man.

The response of the Virgin Mary to the information of the archangel that she would be granted to give birth to Christ was expressive: "Behold the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be to me according to thy word" (Luke 1:38). Here the obedience of the Virgin Mary to the saying of the archangel shows, but also her obedience to God, for an event that was odd and strange for human logic. Thus her logic is submitted to God's will.

Some maintain that during that moment all the righteous people of the Old Testament, but also all of humanity awaited with anxiousness to hear the Virgin Mary's response, fearing that she might refuse and not obey God's will. They maintain that because every time when man is in such a dilemma, precisely because he has freedom, he can say the yes or no, as furthermore occurred in the case of Adam and Eve, the same thing could occur with the Virgin Mary. However it was not possible for the Virgin Mary to refuse, not because she didn't have freedom, but because she had real freedom.

Saint John Damascus makes a distinction between a natural and an opinionated will. One has an opinionated will when he is distinguished by the ignorance of a thing, by the doubt and in the end the incapability of selection. This refers to a wavering as to what to do. One has a natural will when he is lead in a natural manner, without wavering, without ignorance, to the realisation of the truth.

So it seems, that the natural will is associated with "wanting", whereas the opinionated will with the "how to want", and furthermore when it is done with doubts and wavering. Consequently the natural will comprises the perfection of nature, whereas the opinionated will comprises the imperfection of nature, since it presupposes a person who does not have knowledge of the truth, is not certain about what he must decide.

So even though Christ had two wills, due to the two natures, the human and divine nature, nevertheless he had a natural will, from the viewpoint we are studying here and of course, He did not have an opinionated will. As God He always knew the will of God the Father and there was no doubt and no wavering in Him. The Saints experience this by grace also, especially by the Virgin Mary. Because the Virgin Mary had reached theosis, for this reason it was impossible for her to reject God's will and not yield to the incarnation. She had perfect freedom, and for this her freedom always acted naturally and not unnaturally. We because we have not reached theosis have an imperfect freedom, the so-called opinionated will, for this reason we waver as to what to do. Her question "how shall this be to me, because I know no man" (Luke 1:34), shows humility, the weakness of the human nature, but also the strangeness of the matter, because there were miraculous conceptions in the Old Testament, however not seedless ones.

On the day of Annunciation we have a direct conception of Christ with the power and energy of the All-holy Spirit. In one theotokion we chant: "At Gabriel announcing to you the rejoice O virgin, with the voice the Master all was incarnated". This means that several hours and days for the conception to occur did not intervene, but it occurred precisely at that moment.

The archangel Gabriel told Joseph, the betrothed of the Most Holy Theotokos. "Do not fear to take Mariam your wife. For that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit" (Math. 1:20). The Virgin Mary gave birth to Christ as a human, but the conception was of the Holy Spirit.

Basil the Great interpreting this phrase, and mainly the "is born of the Holy Spirit", says that every thing which comes from something else, id denoted by three words. The one is "by creation", just as the whole of creation was created by God with His energy. The other one is "by birth", as the Son was born before all ages of the Father. The third is "naturally", just as energy comes out of every nature, that is brilliance from the sun, and more generally the action from the one doing the action. As regards the conception of Christ in the Holy Spirit the true expression is that Christ was conceived with the energy of the Holy Spirit "by creation", and not by birth or naturally.

Saint John of Damascus teaches that the Son and Word of God conjoined for Himself, with the pure and most clean bloods of the Theotokos, flesh which is alive with a logical and noetic soul, not by seed, but created by the Holy Spirit.


(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 11/22/2007 8:20:59 PM (GMT-6)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 11/23/2007 8:38 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I'm serious. I need help here.
 
My kids attend a Christian school, and debates happen in class pertaining to predestination and free will. The school meets in a Presbyterian church.
 
Com'on people!


(o)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 11/23/2007 9:22 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
How can we help, Bruce? I don't understand...


"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.'  But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.

"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God.  The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, 'Abba,  Father.' The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."

 

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 11/23/2007 9:24 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Seriously, I am NOT planning to make a thread where I can talk to myself. (Unlike several summers ago when I very much needed to use a thread to accumulate discussions on "suffered impassibly" turn ) I really, really want input.

But I also plan to do some carpentery work taking apart and putting together all and anything that can be found in these two articles -- each from what looks like very different backgrounds. It would be interesting to discover points of commonality -- whatever those might be.

Table of Contents:

Introduction

Statement of The Doctrine

God Has A Plan

The Sovereignty of God

The Providence of God

The Foreknowledge of God

Outline of Systems

The Scriptures are The Final Authority By Which Systems are to be Judged

A Warning Against Undue Speculation

The Five Points of Calvinism

Chart: "Calvinism v Arminianism"

Total Inability

Unconditional Election

Limited Atonement

Efficacious Grace

The Perseverance Of The Saints

That It Is Fatalism

That It Is Inconsistent With the Free Agency And Moral Responsibility of Man

That It Makes God the Author of Sin

That It Discourages All Motives To Exertion

That It Represents God As A Respecter of Persons, Or As Unjustly Partial

That It Is Unfavorable To Good Morality

That It Precludes A Sincere Offer of The Gospel To The Non-Elect

That It Contradicts The Universalistic Scripture Passages

Salvation By Grace

Personal Assurance That One Is Among The Elect

Predestination In The Physical World

A Comparison With The Mohammedan Doctrine of Predestination

The Practical Importance of The Doctrine

Calvinism in History



(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 11/23/2007 9:28 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Both articles would say that nothing is possible without God's grace. And both would say that God has to accomplish something before other things can happen.

It might be intersting to put these points side-by-side.


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 11/23/2007 9:42 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

I'm not certain whether this paragraph made it into the Vlathos quotes above; but here it is:

Thus, the Virgin Mary had reached theosis even before she received the visitation of the Archangel. Toward this goal, she used a special method of knowing God and communing with God, as Saint Gregory Palamas interprets in a wonderful and divinely inspired manner. This refers to stillness, the hesychastic way. The Virgin Mary realised that no one can reach God with reasoning, with the senses, with imagination or human glory, but rather only through the intellect. Thus she deadened all the powers of the soul that came from the senses, and through noetic prayer she activated the intellect. In this manner she reached illumination and theosis. And for this reason she was granted to become the Mother of Christ, to give her flesh to Christ. She didn't have simply virtues, but the god-making Grace of God.

I get caught offguard by the statement that "only through the "intellect" can one reach God; not by reasoning or the senses. What does this "intellect" mean? I think for me to understand it I have to look at what Vlathos provides in contrast, which is the account of Christ and how he did not have "deliberative will" --or called "opinionated will" -- which is different from the "natural will." The natural will is what Reformed would call "creational." And rational thinking, Vlathos shows us, does not purify, but becomes survant of opinion/deliberation; while "intellect" uses created facilities in the way God made them to.
 
MORE is said here, going well beyond anything Reformed say -- in my experience. But it might be interesting to see what kinds of fenses Reformed construct to intuitively -- it is possible -- preserve what they feel must.
 
We'll see. burger


(o)

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:43 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads