Can we go slowly @Johann
U cite Acts 7:51, where Stephen accuses the Sanhedrin of resisting the Holy Spirit, to argue that divine grace is universally resistible. This interpretation, however, misconstrues the text. The resistance described is not a universal principle of human autonomy, but a specific indictment of hardened disobedience akin to Israel’s historical rebellion. Orthodox theology doesn’t deny that humans can resist divine promptings; rather, it asserts that such resistance, rooted in the gnomic will, is overcome through the transformative energy of God. St. Maximus the Confessor clarifies that gnomic will, distorted by the Fall, is not the essence of human freedom, but a deviation that divine grace restores toward the natural will, oriented to God.
Johann, u claim that Arminianism’s prevenient grace aligns with John 6:44 and Titus 2:11 is superficially compelling but shallow. John 6:44 underscores divine initiative as not merely an invitation but an efficacious drawing, which in Johannine theology, culminates in eschatological certainty (John 6:37, 39)
Titus 2:11 refers to the universal offer of salvation, NOT ITS UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE, did u note that, as the context of training implies a process of divine-human cooperation, not a libertarian choice independent of divine enablement. Arminianism’s resistible grace, prioritises human volition, risks reducing drawing to a mere suggestion.
@Johann ur appeal to Romans 8:29, i read it. But did u see that the Greek proegno (forknow) does not imply a passive divine observation of human choice but an active relational knowledge rooted in God’s eternal counsel. In Pauline theology, predestined is not contingent upon foreseen human faith, but is an expression of divine purpose..supporting Romans 8:28 and Eph 1:11 @Corlove13, ur right here. St. John of Damascus in On the Orthodox Faith explains that divien foreknowledge is not a reaction to creaturely acts but an eternal act within the divine essence, encompassing all possibilities without being determined by them Arminianism’s relaince on foreknowledge as a condition for predestination does A HUGE ERROR, it introduces sequential causality foreign to the eternal simultaneity of God’s eternal principles.
@Johann, ur charge that Orthodox theology imposes a speculative metaphysical framework on divine simplicity misses the mark. Divine simplicity as upheld by St. Gregory of Nyssa and the Cappadocians ensures that God’s attributes- foreknowledge, predestination and will- are not fragmented but unified in His essence.
Arminianism’s conditional predestination, by contrast, risks dividing God’s eternal act into temporal dependencies, doesn’t it ring a bell @Johann, this aligns more with Molinist Middle knowledge.
I don’t know why u dismissed the Cappadocian Fathers and conciliar tradition as “ecclesial speculation” divorced from apostolic doctrines, its a big error
ur emphasis on the Cross as the sole soteriological locus ignores the broader patristic framework of theosis. St. Athanasius’s maxim, “God became man so that man might become god” encapsulates the transformative purpose of the Incarnation and Crucifixion, which Arminianism’s transactional view of salvation fails to grasp. The Orthodox doctrine of uncreated energies, as taught by St. Gregory Palamas, is not speculative but rooted in the biblical revelation of God’s active presence as in 2 Cor 4:6 and 2 Peter 1:4.
U can follow Jacobus Arminius without questioning? Isnt it wrong? How can u say that his teachings are grounded in scripture?
A Flawed Anthropology
Ur answer, that Arminianism exlats God’s justice and love, citing Rev 22:17 and John 3:16, oversimplifies the biblical narrative. The “whosoever will-finding” of Rev 22:17 and the universal scope of John 3:16 (“whoever believes”) affirm God’s love but do not negate divine initiative. The Orthodox view holds that divine energies enables belief, as seen in Lydia’s conversion in Acts 16:14. Arminianism’s libertarian autexousion elevates human choice to a degree that risks eclipsing divine sovereignty, portraying God as a passive suitor rather than the source of salvation. isnt this foreign to the scriptures?
Orthodox theology affirms God’s universal salvific will, while maintaining the inviolability of human autexousion within the framework of synergeia. The blood of Christ, shed for all, invites all, but does not guarantee universal acceptance, as human freedom, though real, is not autonomous but healed by divine grace toward theosis/ Arminianism’s overemphasis on human volition undermines this synergy, presenting a soteriology that is biblically deficient and theologically inadequate.