Off the top of my head....

Predestination often defines parameters.  For instance, we were predestined to exercise our free will, yet because our will is free, the choices we make are not exhaustively predetermined.  God has predestined some people mentioned in 1Cor 6, Gal 5 and Rev 21 to eternal torment, yet he has not predestined who will practice such sins, nor has he predestined their continuation in them.  He has a predetermined response to unrepentant sinners, yet He provides salvation to those who will repent and follow Jesus into the presence of God.  To those who repent and follow Christ, He has predestined a new Heaven and new earth which will be inhabited by only those who have chosen to willingly submit to His authority. God, by His own free will, has predestined or established the parameters by which creation exists and will be judged. The will of man is only free to the extent of operating within the parameters that God has established.  In other words, man is free to exercise his ability and will be held accountable for his response to his God given ability (response + (to) ability = responsibility). In the case of God predestining a chosen people, He defines the parameters by which the people exist, and by the exercising of their free will they either become the people of God or they won’t. The qualifications are determined by God and require the proper response to the God given ability to meet those qualifications. Salvation requires both predestination (God determining to redeem a people to Himself) and free will (people who choose to meet the conditions of redemption established by God).

Grace and Peace, Joe      

The Kingdom of God Is Not A Choice We Make

http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/the-kingdom-of-god-is-not-a-choice-we-make/

 

The Kingdom of God Is Not A Choice We Make

Part of the spiritual landscape of American religion is the sizable role played by choice in a culture shaped in the free market - with freedom as a mythic symbol. It is not unusual to hear American politicians describing solutions to social problems as a matter of “trusting Americans as consumers.” It is as though we could “shop” our way out of life’s difficulties.

And thus it is that Calvinism, as a Protestant option, has never quite captured the mind of the American religious “consumer.” Our culture has long been driven by its own sense of freedom and the inherent right of every individual to make his or her own choice. Thus Christian teachings which do not give heavy weight to the importance of free-will (such as classical Calvinism) have never come to the place of dominance in American life. For Americans, religion is about a choice.

This is not all wrong - human beings do have freedom and it plays an important role within the life of salvation - even in Orthodox understanding. However, Orthodoxy sees our freedom as something flawed - we do not always choose as we should - nor do we always know what the good is to be chosen. Freedom has a role to play in the life of salvation - but is not itself what constitutes salvation. Indeed, our freedom is itself in need of salvation.

This brings me to the title of this short piece: the Kingdom of God is not a choice we make. There are many ways to describe the Kingdom - a variety of metaphors employed in the New Testament - but in every case the Kingdom is God’s Kingdom - not our response to God.

I occasionally state in sermons that “the Kingdom of God is coming whether you like it or not.” In this sense, particularly, it is not a choice we make - it is a gift that is given from God. In Christ, particularly in the fullness of His death and resurrection - the Kingdom of God has come. Though we still pray, “Thy Kingdom come,” we are not devoid of its presence now. “Thy Kingdom come” is a prayer for its fullness - but not for its inauguration.

The Kingdom of God is a reality already among us - though we frequently are oblivious to its presence. The heart of secularism is its assurance that the Kingdom of God is not here now, not yet, and perhaps only refers to something somewhere else or even nothing more than a utopian vision of the future. Of course, secularism and its infection of Christian thought is commonplace in modern culture. The world is not seen as sacramental, capable of bearing the Divine, but at best as a neutral playing field in which human beings choose sides in the religious contest of Christianity (or other religions or none of the above).

But the fullness of Christian truth and revelation is that the Kingdom of God has already broken forth among us, and the Christ who brought it forth promised that it would remain. Thus we eat and drink His Body and His Blood - not reminders of a historical event - but a foretaste of the fullness of the Kingdom. It is the Bread of Heaven - food, though not of the world yet in the world.

The whole of the sacramental life has this character of the Kingdom. And the sacramental life extends far beyond the Seven Sacraments that are traditionally described. The Kingdom has a quality that breaks into all of life unable to be restrained or hindered by man. We are not in charge of its arrival nor are we the masters of its growth. We may participate in its life and serve as its witnesses - even as citizens - but it is not our creation or something we offer to God. It comes from God and bears God.

I reflected on the song shared in the last post, written by St. Nikolai Velimirovich. There it seems clear - “Christ is risen, joy has been given.” Everything is made bright with the resurrection of Christ. It is not a choice other than for us to say: “Indeed He is risen!”

I don’t think I could disagree more.

I think the Kingdom IS a choice we make. In fact, I think the Kingdom just is whenever and wherever the will of God is sought out and obeyed—freely. It’s all about choice. No choice, no Kingdom. Not even for the inauguration of the Kingdom with Christ. He embodies the Kingdom, yes, and he brings the Kingdom and an offer of grace, and he does so apart from our choice, true. But the presence of the Kingdom IN Christ, AS Christ, is as far as the Kingdom ever gets on its own—apart from the choices people make.

I’ll agree that the eschaton is something God brings, a grace God gives, not something we consummate, as it were. But the ‘Kingdom’ doesn’t embrace people apart from their choosing it, even in the eschaton. No choice, no Kingdom. Yes, it’s God’s Kingdom, i.e., the reign or rule of God’s way of loving/living. But God’s the only one who lives in and enjoys that way of living unless we ‘choose’ to embrace it and make it our own.

Stephen criticizes the idea that ‘freedom constitutes salvation’. I agree of course that freedom per se doesn’t constitute salvation. But I’ve never heard of anyone ever thinking it does. ‘Freedom’ itself is salvation? Who has ever believed that? Who is F. Stephen even referring to here?

I especially disagree with the idea that ‘freedom is flawed’. That’s a core EO notion? I hope not. To defend the idea that freedom is flawed, F. Stephen notes that “we don’t always choose as we should.” But this is no reflection on ‘freedom’ per se. Even if there is a final, glorified form of freedom that is itself free from the possibility of evil, that’s not to say that the freedom we presently exercise (which we MUST exercise) is ‘flawed’. It is no flaw to be finite and to grow with the necessary freedom over time, even if the goal is to leave this state behind. Such freedom is itself a grace. To call it flawed is a mistake.

If it were my son, I’d only share F. Stephen’s thoughts to point out the bad reasoning.  

My two, well, maybe less than two, cents.

T

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/30/2008 5:31:20 PM (GMT-5)

...human beings do have freedom and it plays an important role within the life of salvation - even in Orthodox understanding. However, Orthodoxy sees our freedom as something flawed - we do not always choose as we should - nor do we always know what the good is to be chosen. Freedom has a role to play in the life of salvation - but is not itself what constitutes salvation. Indeed, our freedom is itself in need of salvation.

B: about THIS?

...human beings do have freedom and it plays an important role within the life of salvation - even in Orthodox understanding. However, Orthodoxy sees our freedom as something flawed - we do not always choose as we should - nor do we always know what the good is to be chosen. Freedom has a role to play in the life of salvation - but is not itself what constitutes salvation. Indeed, our freedom is itself in need of salvation.

Tom: Like I said, I don’t disagree that ‘freedom is not itself what constitutes salvation’. But nobody has ever believed THAT. So to argue against it is a waste of time. And of course I agree that we do have freedom and that it’s important.

What I’m disagreeing with is his approach to freedom and choice (that the Kingdom is not a choice we make) and his overall attitude about freedom as something ‘flawed’.

B: Or about the Communion 'bunny trail?'

Tom: I never gave his comments on Communion a second glance.

T

Though we still pray, "Thy Kingdom come," we are not devoid of its presence now. "Thy Kingdom come" is a prayer for its fullness - but not for its inauguration.

How can it be a choice I make when it pre-dates me.

and:

We are not in charge of its arrival nor are we the masters of its growth. We may participate in its life and serve as its witnesses - even as citizens - but it is not our creation or something we offer to God. It comes from God and bears God.

In the Lord's prayer three equal things are said, for emphasis, and perhaps to be Trinitarian: Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven so to on the earth. Same thing. I don't mistake heaven to be my creation. Nor should I think that my will can exist intact (unboken) unless it has God's will as its entire mooring and orientation point.

IN our weaknesses and inabilities we are at out strongest! (So says Fr. Stephen in his podcast: http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/freeman )

B: I have to break that in two pieces. First..."that the Kingdom is not a choice we make." have to agree with that.

Tom: Give me an example of YOUR experiencing the Kingdom, embracing it, entering it, living it…which does NOT include your choosing it.

B: I quickly identified with the illustrations he gave, that: Though we still pray, "Thy Kingdom come," we are not devoid of its presence now.

Tom: Describe your experience of its presence, your embracing that presence, entering it, living it…which does NOT include your choosing it.

B: "Thy Kingdom come" is a prayer for its fullness - but not for its inauguration. How can it be a choice I make when it pre-dates me?

Tom: Like I said, Christ is the Kingdom embodied—that is, the reign and rule and establishment of God’s way of living and loving. Yes. THAT predates us. But it NEVER gets beyond Jesus to embracing others in its redeeming scope apart from the CHOICES of other people. So the Kingdom predates you, yes, ultimately inasmuch as God’s own triune life predates you (because the Kingdom essentially is God’s own triune way of living offered to us) and penultimately inasmuch as the choices of others to give themselves to God predate you. The former is definitive of God, the latter definitive of divine-human relationality.

"No choice, no Kingdom" means "no freedom ON YOUR PART, no Kingdom FOR YOU or IN YOU." Apart from our choice, the Kingdom remains God’s own experience of God’s own self. That’s my point. And I can’t believe that a core value of the EO is to deny this.

B: We are not in charge of…

Tom: That’s not what freedom is about.

B: …nor are we the masters of…

Tom: Who’s suggesting that to exercise free choice is to ‘master’ something? I’m talking about free choice/agency, not mastering something.

B: We are not in charge of its arrival nor are we the masters of its growth.

Tom: We are responsible for OUR part of its arrival IN US. And we ARE responsible for OUR part of its growth IN US.

B: We may participate in its life and serve as its witnesses - even as citizens - but it is not our creation…

Tom: That’s easy to say and doesn’t require the claim that the freedom God in grace gives us to become what he desires is itself ‘flawed’. If the Kingdom just is God’s own way of living and loving, then OF COURSE we don’t have anything to do with defining THAT. We don’t determine God’s triune existence in love. There, said it. Done.

But we DO have everything to do with OUR part of that way of life, that Kingdom, embracing us and defining us. If you think not, then you believe God can fulfill the Kingdom IN US, have it be born IN US, have us enter and live it…apart from any free choice on our part. Do you want to say that B? Does the EO want to say that? If you don’t want to say THAT, then your (and F. Stephen’s) description of God’s own gracious gift of free choice as “something flawed” is a huge mistake and out of place.

B: In the Lord's prayer three equal things are said, for emphasis, and perhaps to be Trinitarian: Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven so to on the earth. Same thing. I don't mistake heaven to be my creation.

Tom: That’s not the point. If that’s all F. Stephen wants to say then he doesn’t need to malign God’s grace-gift of free choice as something “flawed,” which is what he does. It can easily be said that we do not determine God’s own way of living as triune, nor do we determine God’s decision to offer us his way of living in Christ (viz., the Kingdom). No freedom we possess or choice we make defines either of THOSE. But B, it is no FLAW or FAULT of human freedom or choice per se that we do not determine these. And that’s where F. Stephen is mistaken. He thinks he has to talk DOWN human freedom in order talk UP God as the source of his own triune life offered us in Christ.

If I wanted to press it, I could argue that there’s no incarnation—no embodiment of the Kingdom and no offer of it in Christ—apart from human choice (Mary’s), and thus, no Kingdom on earth, EVER, apart from human choice. The Kingdom has its source and definition exclusively in God, yes. But that's all you can say about the Kingdom without having to mention human choice.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 5/1/2008 12:50:23 AM (GMT-5)

When Bruce says "choice", he is refering to a broad category; you have to look at the context closely before guessing which connonation he has in mind.  When Tom says "choice", he is speaking of a precise concept.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 5/1/2008 12:50:13 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 5/1/2008 6:31:21 AM (GMT-5)

Synergy has two parts.

One part--the part that is "us"--can be described with the concepts of "structure" and "direction." (Reformed, alla Free University of Amsterdam). Choice as a creational reality is created "Good." But creation has "norms." Those norms can be "directionally" thetical or anti-thetical. The sin--or not--is in the direction, not the created structure.

The other part--the part that is God and is also God-with-us--is all about Grace, and all about Faith.

Mary was creationally ("structurally") good, and also 'directionally' good (as defined above). She was also ALL about Grace and ALL about faith. ('All' meaning that there was nothing about her that was not about Grace or Faith. It does not mean that Grace replaces faithful direction.)

Tom, I fully take your word that you were not emotional. So I won't try to prove something that I've no reason to think true. OK? Good.

The thing is I was in a very great hurry this morning, and had parent-teacher meetings this afternoon, and the kids were running 15 min. late--and I'm car pool. SO...I had "better" things to do than to explain myself. But I did try to post something...........and I did the best I could under the circumstances. My wife is shopping with the older son for Prom stuff and the younger is doing homework...so I think I can slice out some time. (I don't have as much time for this as I used to have.)

SEE BELOW FOR MORE.

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 5/1/2008 4:59:36 PM (GMT-5)

2.  Zach's comments are helpful.

3.  Tom's post from Today 1:53 AM (GMT -5) has a top third of comments and ideas I'd agree with (but can't copy because of #1 above); a middle third where he says that I wrote what Fr. S. did -- but for which he makes good observations and says things that I like; and a last part where he blew off my own observation.

WELL, PLEASE NOTICE, TOM, THAT YOU SAY MUCH THAT I LIKE.

Family's home. Gotta go.

Post Edited (plato's_playdough) : 5/1/2008 5:48:09 PM (GMT-5)

So far this is what I have to help my son with:

Synergy has two parts.

One part--the part that is "us"--can be described with the concepts of "structure" and "direction." (Reformed, alla Free University of Amsterdam). Choice as a creational reality is created "Good." But creation has "norms." Those norms can be "directionally" thetical or anti-thetical. The sin--or not--is in the direction, not the created structure.

The other part--the part that is God and is also God-with-us--is all about Grace, and all about Faith.

Mary was creationally ("structurally") good, and also 'directionally' good (as defined above). She was also ALL about Grace and ALL about faith. ('All' meaning that there was nothing about her that was not about Grace or Faith. It does not mean that Grace replaces faithful direction.)

 

Choice matters because of the JUDGEMENT, which will be based on our "works" (not in any sort of "merit" concept such as RC has).

Yikes!  I'm wanting. Lord have mercy.

L h m

L h m

L h m

L h m    L h m     L h m     L h m    L h m     L h m