Predestination vs. Free Will- Are we chosen by God, or do we choose God?

Theology
82

Hi, How can I read anymore when you make statements like " you claim" …I asked a question?
The glance over, I see you misrepresent my words.

I have not been schooled in Catholicism nor “Orthodoxy” what ever that means.

Anyway I’ll take a time out after that one.
I only can speak of the knowledge I have and look for one to explain. So maybe I must have came accross a certain way for you to say, " you claim" when I have asked a question. Just couldn’t read no more after the first line…I’ll just stick on the side of my protestant brothers and sisters for now.
Peace and blessings.

:scream:

83

Yes, because i wrote it because the questions seems to have misconceptions of catholic/orthodox theology so if we are writing a question, it would be better if we have the main question as the topic, then u can give background because i had to make assumptions of what you think then frame the answer, so i had to write “claim” because i dont know for sure what you think about certain aspects which has multiple interpretations.
Do you lean on reformed theology, @Corlove13 ?
That info would help me a lot to understand ur questions. I had a doubt abt it, but i wasnt fully sure.

84

Yes but you also add things I’ve never said. Instead of this suggestion: Are you saying that …

85

Ok suggestion taken, i will write like that.

1 Like
86

As for the reformed- that would be another one I have to look up. I can say that many of my ideals about my views on God are always reforming when new knowledge or revelation enters the pic.

I have never been a Catholic, under your authorized teachers or traditions.

I can’t tell you what all who came before us believed.

I don’t believe that The rock Jesus was building His church upon was the Pope, or whoever the Catholic
leaders are. By the way, I say Catholic in terms of religious beliefs.

Some of my views on the teachings of man have yet to be explored. So I state where I am and try to keep an open mind. For after all there are many possibilities with God.

If I go to a church where the people take communion but I don’t experience his presence then a couple of things can be true. Our beliefs are not in accord with scripture, and if our beliefs are not then in ignorance, maybe our lives are not either.

Example: if someone says communion is a place where we commune with God and you asked people what happen in communion and they reply- we ate bread and wine..then wouldnt you reassess communion and asked why?

God is real. He shouldn’t be something we have to guess about in words of others. However though, his word should be experienced. In knowing the truth the truth should set one free. Jesus said these words I speak to you are Spirit and life. Rather the other interpretation means full of Spirit and full of life- God should be present and one should know it, not think it to be true.

87

@Corlove13
To introduce myself, im an Eastern Orthodox person. We and Catholics have many similar concepts, I just want to clarify that in Orthodoxy, we don’t share the Catholic view of papal authority.
To answer you question
The Ontological Reality of Transformation of Substance
The Orthodox Church, rooted in the mindset of the apostolic tradition, confesses the Eucharist as the true Body and Blood of Christ, effected through the invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Divine Liturgy. This sacrament is no mere sign, as often posited in Reformed theology following Zwingli or Calvin’s pneumatic presence, but a real, ontological transformation of the elements’ substance into Christ’s deified flesh and blood, while their accidents persist. St. John of Damascus (a theologian) in De Fide Orthodoxa teaches that “The bread and wine are not a figure of the Body and Blood of Christ, God forbid, but the very Body of the Lord, hypostatically united to His divinity”. This transformation of substance is grounded in the hypostatic union, whereby the Eucharist becomes a participation in the divine energies of God.
If u look into the Reformed part, it often limits the Eucharist to a memorialist remembrance, the Orthodox Church affirm that Christ’s words-
“This is My Body” in Matt 26:26, speaks loud and clear
Scriptural and Patristic foundation
Scripture, as the God-breathed testimony of the Spirit, undergirds the Orthodox confession of the real presence.
In John 6:53-56 Christ declares that
“Unless you east the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you…My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink.”
These words, far from parabolic, are fulfilled in the mystical supper, where Christ identifies the bread and wine as His Body and Blood in Luke 22:19-20/ The apostolic Church, as evidenced in Acts 2:24 and 1 Cor 10:16 understood the participation in the Eucharist as a real communion with Christ’s body and blood. St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Mystagogical Catechesis, exhorts “Do not regard the bread and wine are mere elements, for they are, by the Lord’s activity, the Body and Blood of Christ”.
If we look at the Reformed reliance on sola scriptura, which may reduce the Eucharist to a cognitive act, the Orthodox integrate Scripture with the patristic consensus, ensuring fidelity to the fullness of divine revelation.
Experience
Your concern that a lack of experienced divine presence in communion may reflect a misalignment with Scripture or personal ignorance

resonates with the Orthodox call for repentance and contemplative vision.
St. Paul’s admonition in 1 Cor 11:27-29 that partaking without discering the soma (body) incurs judgement, presupposes the Eucharist’s objective reality, independent of subjective preception. The Orthodox doctrin of ex opere operato (from the work performed) affirms that the sacrament’s efficacy stems from God’s cooperation with the Church’s liturgical act, not the recipient’s faith alone, as emphasized in the Reformed theology (in the Reformed theology, what u said aligns with ex opere operantis)
So here i give u the two views.
The One i talked about what the Orthodox’s view of ex opere operato, which i again emphasize that, sacrament’s efficacy stems from God’s cooperation with the Church’s liturgical act, not the recipient’s faith alone.
If, as you note, some experience only @bread and wine@ this may indicate a deficiency in spiritual disciple or catechetical formation, but it does not negate the real being of Christ’s presence. St. Gregory Palamas (a theologian) teaches in his Triads, the Eucharist is a medicine of immortality, conveying divine grace through participation in Christ’s deified humanity.
Reformed Symbolic Interpretation
While the Reformed tradition honors God’s sovereignty and role of Faith, its symbolic or spiritualizing interpretation risks attenuating the incarnational realism central to the Gospel.
Calvin’s view of a “spiritual presence” received through faith, or Zwingli’s memorialist framework, diverges from the patrsitic affirmation of the Eucharist as a theophany (divine manifestation). St. Ignatius of Antioch, in Epistle to the Smyrnaeans condemns those who deny the Eucharist as Christ’s flesh, linking such views to docetic heresies that undermine the divine economy of the Incarnation. The Orthodox, by contrast, uphold the Eucharist as the eschatological fulfilment of Christ’s promise to abide with His Church in Matt 28:20 realised in the liturgical assembly.
If you want help u can @ and i can help you in understanding certain parts or concepts. I like teaching.

88

Here, i will make a key to help you understand what i have written in a better way, in that way u can learn a lot abt theology (Orthodox and Reformed as well)
Ontological Reality: The true, actual existence or being of something, not just a symbol.
Transformation of Substance: The belief that the bread and wine acutally becomes the real Body and Blood of Christ.
Hypostatic union: Jesus Christ is one Person, with two nature i.e. fully God and fully human.
Divine energies: In Orthodox Theology, the active presence and power of God in the world, different from God’s essence but truly God presence.
Memorialist remebrance: The view that communion is mainly a sybolic act to remember Jesus.
Ex opere operantis: The latin for “from the work of the doer” meaning the effectiveness of a sacrament depends on the faith or disposition of the person receiving it.
Ex opere operato: Latin for “from the work performed”, the idea that sacraments are effective because of God’s action through the Church ritual, not dependent on the person receiving it.
Catechetical formation: Religious teaching and education about the faith.
Theophany: means a visible, tangible manifestation of God to humans.
Docetic heresy: An ancient false teaching that Jesus only seemed to have a physical body, buy was actually purely spiritual.
Eschatological fulfillment: the idea that something (like the Eucharist) is a glimpse or realization of the final, ultimate reality promised by God at the end of time.

89

As God begins to draw us, @Soul, he also works in our hearts to influence us to more favorable to him. It’s not coercion; it’s transformation through Jesus’ death and resurrection, in which we cooperate by the Spirit’s power.

90

John 6

My thought is the answer is right in the passage:
Let’s look at it in John 6

QUESTION? DO YOU BELIEVE FORGIVESNESS IS ONLY APPLIED IN THE TAKING OF THE Eucharist?

91

Yes @Corlove13 let’s look into John 6
John 6
Your reference to John 6 rightly directs us to the heart of the Eucharistic mystery, where Christ declares “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you..My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink”. The Orthodox Church interprets this saying, not as metaphorical but as a divine-human promise of the Eucharist’s real presence, fulfilled in the Last supper. The verb trogon (to eat, literally “to chew”) in John 6:54 underscores the corporeal reality of partaking Christ’s Body, contra Reformed interpretation that often spiritualizes or symbolises this act. As St. Cyril of Alexandria (a theologian) teaches in his Commentary on John, “The flesh of Christ is life-giving (why? its crucial to note the next part), for it is united to the Word, and when we partake of it, we receive the life of God.” This transformation of substance in the Eucharist, effected through the invocation of the Holy Spirit, manifests Christ’s Body and Blood as a participation in His hypostatic union.
Your Question
To your question, in Orthodox, the response is nuanced, rooted in the divine economy of salvation. The Eucharist is a central sacrament, described by St. Ignatius of Antioch as the medicine of immortality, through which we partake of Christ’s deified humanity, effecting communion with God and the remission of sins. In the Divine Liturgy, the priest prays, “May the partaking of Your holy mysteries, O Lord, be…for the remission of sins and life everlasting.” However forgiveness is not exclusively confined to Eucharist within Orthodox soteriology.
the cooperation of divine grace and human response operates through multiple sacraments such as repentance and confession (John 20:23) and chrismation (anoiting), as well as personal prayer and almsgiving (Acts 8:22, Daniel 4:27). St. John Chrysostom (a theologian) in Homily on John affirms that Eucharist cleanses sins when received with a contrite heart, but he also teaches that God’s loving-kindness extends forgiveness through repentance outside the Eucharist assembly.
What does Reformed theology say here?
Since ur learning about Reformed theology, and if u compare this with Orthodox (not Catholic) theology u will find many differences. I will help you on this matter. Here I will tell about what reformed theology says about John 6. The Reformed tradition, often emphasizing sola scriptura and a symbolic or spiritual interpretation of John 6 like Calvin view of pneumatic presence received by faith, risks attenuating the real being of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. If we read John 6, the Orthodox contend that the passage’s stumbling block as evident in the disciples’ reaction in John 6:60-66 points to literal not figurative reality, you can clearly see how the disciples reacted to Jesus’ command, why would they react like that if Jesus meant metaphorically?
The early Church as seen in 1 Cor 10:16 and Acts 2:42 understood the koinonia of the “breaking of bread” as a participation in Christ’s acutal Body and Blood. St. Justin Martyr (a theologian) in the First Apology writes “This food we call Eucharist…is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.” Contra the Reformed tendency to prioritize subjective faith (as i told in the prev post, and also in the key, its called ex opere operantis), the Orthodoxy uphold the Eucharist’s objective efficacy (also told in the prev post as ex opere operato), grounded in God’s divine energies, which convey forgiveness and deification irrespective of the recipient’s full comprehension, though requiring repentance for fruitful reception.
Experiential knowledge and Eucharistic discernment
As you told in the prev post, i wanted to emphasize on one part.
St. Paul’s warning in 1 Cor 11:29, that partaking without discerning the Body brings judgement, presupposes an objective presence, demanding spiritual preparation through discipline and repentance, which Reformed theology misses. If one experiences only bread and wine, the Orthodox might diagnose a deficieny in catechesis or faith, but affirm that Christ’s presence remains, as its rooted in His promise. Regarding forgivness, the Eucharist is a preeminent means of grace, but the Orthodox fullness of salvation encompasses a broader synergistic framework, where repentance, prayer and other sacraments mediate God’s mercy. As St. Gregory Palamas (a theologian) notes in Triads, the sacrament are “channels of divine energies (grace and presence) flow to us, but God’s plan for salvation is not limited to one mode” (it means that God’s plan for salvation is not restricted to just the sacraments. He can work beyond them too.)

92

I hope I have answered your question @Corlove13, any doubts, u can ask me, I love teaching and learning.

93

Stick to the topic under discussion, not the Eucharist.

J.

94

Yes sir it comes under this topic
We were discussing

95

@Corlove13, if ur looking in what Arminian theology says, I can help you, since your looking into various aspects of this topic, we talked abt Reformed, Orthodox and now lets talk abt Arminian theology.
@Johann
The Arminian Error
The Arminian perspective, derived for Jacobus Arminius, champions a synergistic soteriology that elevates human free will as a decisive factor in salvation. It asserts that divine grace is resistible and human autexousion operates with libertarian independence, capable of accepting or rejecting God’s salvific offer. This view, however, treads close to Pelagian anthropology, where human free will functions autonomously, untethered from divine energy. Such a framework diminishes the primacy of of God’s will, relegating divine economy to a passive enabler of human choice. This anthropocentric skew undermines the ontological dependence of creation on God’s uncreated energies, as articulated by the Cappadocian Fathers and the patrisitc consensus.
Arminianism further stumbles by grounding divine predestination in foreknowledge, suggesting that God’s eternal decree hinges on His foresight of human decisions. This introduces a temporal dependency into the divine counsel, compromising God’s self-existence and simplicity. In contrast, Orthodox theology, rooted in conciliar tradition holds that divien foreknowledge and predestination are eternally unified within the divine essence. God’s eternal principles govern creation without being conditioned by creaturely actions, this preserves the transcendence of divine sovereignty, which ariminian theology fails.
@Johann
Orthodox Anthropology
Orthodox theology offers a robust corrective through its doctrine of synergeia (cooperation), which harmonises divine predestination and human autexousion. St. Maximus the Confessor (a theologian) in his Disputation with Pyrrhus, distinguishes between natural will and gnomic will.
Ok, so lets take it step by step.
The former is the innate human capacity oriented toward God.
The latter is the deliberative discursive will prone to sin due to the Fall.
What Arminianism does is that, it conflates these, treating gnomic will as fully autonomous whereas Orthodoxy teaches that true freedom is realized only through participation in divine grace. Human autexousion is not libertarian faculty but a created potential that finds fulfilment in alignment with God’s energies.
In orthodox view, divinization is the telos of human existence, achieved through the synergistic interplay of divine grace and human response. This synergy does not imply equality of contribution, as Arminianism risks suggesting, but rather the primacy of divine initiative. St. Gregory Palamas (a theologian), emphasizes that God’s uncreated energies enable human participation in the divine life, without negating human responsibility. The Arminian notion of resistible grace falters here, as it fails to account for the transformative power of divine energies, which, while never coercive, is ultimately efficacious in drawing the human will toward God.
The Eschatological Horizon
The Orthodox theology situates predestination within the eternal purposes of God, the preexistent principles by which creation is ordered toward its eschatological fulfilment. What I meant by this is that Orthodix theology sees predestination not as God arbitarily choosing who goes to heaven or hell, but as every person and thing having a divine purpose (logoi) inside God’s eternal plan. These purposes were conceived in Christ beefore time, and creation is ordered and guided by them toward its final goal and that is union with God.
Unlike Arminianism’s reactive predestination, the Orthodox view holds that God’s counsel is an eternal act, not contingent upon human choices. St. John of Damascus (a theologian) in On the Orthodox Faith, affirms that divine predestination encompasses both the general call to salvation and the particular vocation of each person, yet it respects human autexousion without being determined by it. The Arminian framework, by contrast, risks fragmenting this unity by subordinating divine will to human volition.
The eschatological orientation of Orthodoxy further exposes the Arminianism’s inadequacy. The restoriation anticipated in Orthodox soteriology is not a universalist guarantee, but a hopeful expectation rooted in God’s desire for all to be saved. However, this divine will doesnt override human freedom as Arminianism might imply through its emphasis on human choice.
Instead, Orthodoxy maintains a paradoxical tension, God’s predestination is sovereign, yet human autexousion reamins inviolate, salvation is a cooperative journey towards divinization, not unilateral human decision.

96

@Samuel_23

The critique is ornate, but it collapses under exegetical scrutiny. Scripture never portrays grace as irresistible in every case, nor does it deny that humans can resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51, ἀντιπίπτω τῷ πνεύματι). The charge of Pelagianism is misapplied; Arminian soteriology affirms total depravity and the necessity of prevenient grace—divine initiative is not bypassed, but biblically restored (John 6:44, Titus 2:11). Autexousion (self-determination) is not autonomous; it is enabled by grace, not independent of it.

God’s sovereignty is not compromised by foreknowledge; Romans 8:29 explicitly states ὃυς προέγνω, καὶ προώρισεν—“those He foreknew, He also predestined.” This is not temporal subordination but divine omniscience operating eternally. The assertion that divine simplicity is threatened by foreknowledge presumes a philosophical framework not derived from Scripture but from speculative metaphysics.

Moreover, grounding theology in the “Cappadocian Fathers” or “conciliar tradition” apart from biblical exposition elevates ecclesial speculation above apostolic doctrine. Christ didn’t commend Nicene formulas; He preached repentance and faith (Mark 1:15). The apostles didn’t frame salvation in terms of “uncreated energies” but in the cross of Christ and the call to believe (1 Cor 1:18, Rom 1:16).

Arminian theology doesn’t dethrone God—it exalts His justice, His invitation, and His self-giving love, shown climactically at Golgotha, where the blood of Christ was shed for whosoever will (Rev 22:17, John 3:16).

J.

99

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.

100

Let’s cut through the Byzantine fog and face the Scriptures. The Orthodox defense here is not a rebuttal of Arminianism, it’s a hymn to philosophical mysticism cloaked in theological jargon, and it collapses under the weight of biblical clarity. The appeal to gnomic will, uncreated energies, and theosis sounds profound, but it’s nowhere taught by Christ, Paul, or the Apostles. These are late philosophical developments, not apostolic doctrine. The gospel is not a metaphysical therapy for redirecting human faculties, it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes (Rom 1:16).

  1. Acts 7:51 – A Clear Rebuttal of Irresistible Grace
    You claim Acts 7:51 refers only to “hardened disobedience,” not a principle of resistibility. But Stephen is indicting the religious elite for resisting the same Spirit that gave them the Law, just as their fathers did. ἀντιπίπτετε τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ (“you always resist the Holy Spirit”) is an active, habitual resistance, not an accident of fallen gnomic tendencies but an open, persistent rejection. To say grace cannot be resisted ignores the entire biblical narrative of God being rejected, grieved, and disobeyed (Isa 63:10, Heb 10:29, Luke 13:34).

  2. John 6:44 – Drawing ≠ Dragging
    You treat John 6:44 as if ἑλκύσῃ means irresistible compulsion. But the same verb is used in John 12:32: “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to Myself.” Are all saved? No. Therefore, drawing does not guarantee final salvation, it invites, it woos, it illumines. It is divine initiative, yes, but not divine coercion. Jesus grieved over those unwilling to come (Matt 23:37), showing clearly that divine love does not override human will. That’s not libertarianism, it’s biblical responsibility.

  3. Romans 8:29 – Foreknowledge Is Not Empty
    You assert that προέγνω implies not observation, but relational choosing. But this creates theological redundancy: if “foreknew” means “foreloved,” then Paul is saying, “those He loved, He predestined,” which adds nothing. The plain reading is that God’s foreknowledge, His omniscient awareness of genuine future decisions, is the basis for predestination. That aligns with 1 Peter 1:2, which grounds election κατὰ πρόγνωσιν Θεοῦ (“according to the foreknowledge of God”), not according to an eternal blueprint abstracted from human history. You’re trying to collapse God’s foreknowledge into His decree, but Scripture keeps them distinct.

  4. Titus 2:11 – Grace Teaches, It Doesn’t Automate
    You rightly note that grace trains us, but training presupposes response. παιδεύουσα (training) implies the possibility of refusal. If divine grace trains all, yet not all are saved, then resistibility is plainly inferred. It is not Arminianism that reduces grace to suggestion, it is Orthodoxy that reduces human response to inevitable synergy.

  5. Divine Simplicity vs. Scriptural Clarity
    You accuse Arminianism of fragmenting God’s will with “temporal dependencies.” But what you call “temporal” the Bible calls historical. The cross happened in time. Christ was slain before the foundation (Rev 13:8) in purpose, but in history at Calvary. God’s plan does not float in timeless abstraction; it enters real time, confronts real people, and demands real decisions. The issue isn’t metaphysical fragmentation, it’s biblical sequence. God foreknows, invites, convicts, and judges, not in philosophical simultaneity, but in a salvation drama that unfolds in history.

  6. Theosis Is Not the Gospel
    You claim Arminianism’s focus on the Cross neglects theosis. No, it magnifies what Scripture magnifies. “Christ and Him crucified” is not a partial gospel, it is Paul’s only boast (Gal 6:14). You cite 2 Peter 1:4, claiming that partaking in the divine nature supports the Orthodox view, but the text says we become partakers having escaped the corruption of the world through God’s promises, not through metaphysical participation in uncreated energies. That is moral transformation, not ontological fusion.

  7. Lydia and Grace
    Yes, God opened Lydia’s heart (Acts 16:14), but note the result: προσέχειν (“to pay attention”)-not forced conversion, but awakened interest. That is prevenient grace at work, enabling, not enslaving.

  8. Rev 22:17 – The Final Word of Invitation
    This is where your entire theology falters. The last call of Scripture is not to ascend divine logoi, but to come. Ὁ θέλων, “whoever wills”-let him take the water of life freely. The Cross makes that possible. That’s not transactional minimalism, it’s the beauty of divine generosity. The blood of Christ truly was shed for all (1 John 2:2), and salvation is not mystical absorption, but a covenant relationship grounded in grace and activated by Spirit-enabled faith.

In short:
Orthodoxy mystifies what Scripture makes clear.
It swaps gospel proclamation for metaphysical speculation.
It replaces the cross-centered message of Christ crucified with an ontology of energies.
But Scripture exalts the Lamb, not theosis.
Faith is not inevitable, it’s enabled. Grace is not automatic, it is offered.
And salvation is not a metaphysical trajectory, it’s a divine rescue, accomplished by the blood of Christ, applied through faith, and secured by perseverance.
That’s not Arminianism, that’s the New Testament.

J.

1 Like
101

Actually u have written 3 posts in a row, its too much, so I cannot respond to all of them but I can respond to this one part.
Can we use Arminius’ own words.
In his Declaration of Sentiments, Arminius articulates his view of predestination particularly in the fourth decree.
“To these succeeds the fourth decree, by which God decreed to save and damn certain particular persons. This decree has its foundation in the foreknowledge of God, by which he knew from all eternity those individuals who would, through his preventing grace, believe, and, through his subsequent grace would persevere, according to the before described administration of those means which are suitable and proper for conversion and faith; and, by which foreknowledge, he likewise knew those who would not believe and persevere"
Arimius explicitly grounds predestination in divine foreknowledge asserting that God’s eternal decree to save or damn is based on His prior knowledge of who will believe or persist in unbelief. While u claim that this foreknowledge is eternal, thus non-reactive but Ariminus’ framework reveals a logical dependecy:
God’s predetination is contiengent upon forseen human responses, @Corlove13, see its very imp u note this.
This is clarified by Arminius’ statement.
“God foreknows everything future as certain… but that knowledge per se, even though it is foreknowledge, has no more causal effect on the facts than our knowledge of certain past facts has on them.”
Here, Arminius attempts to safeguard divine sovereignty by arguing that foreknowledge is non-causation, but did u see the problem @Johann and @Corlove13
if God’s predestination is based on foreknowing human faith, the divine decree becomes logically subordinate to human volition, even if eternally known.
This undermines the Orthodox view that divine counsel is an eternal, unconditioned act of the divine essence, not a response to foreseen creaturely choices.
@Johann u insist that Arminian foreknowledge is not temporally reactive but eternal. Arminius’ own articulation betrays a reactive structure, not in a temporal sense but in a logical one. By making predestination contingent on foreseen faith, Arminianism implies that God’s eternal decree adjusts to human choices, even if those choices are eternally known. This is what the Second Decree says:
“The second precise and absolute decree of God, is that in which he decreed to receive into favour those who repent and believe, and, in Christ, for his sake and through Him, to effect the salvation of such penitents and believers as persevered to the end; but to leave in sin, and under wrath, all impenitent persons and unbelievers, and to damn them as aliens from Christ.”
This decree presupposes human faith as the condition for salvation, with God’s predestination following as a response to this foreseen faith. Orthodox theology, by contrast holds that divine predestination is not conditioned by human response but is an eternal act of God’s eternal principles, which orient towards theosis, through the transformative energies of grace.
Johann, what u said, that Arminian foreknowledge magnifies God’s omniscience justice falls into a trap of its own making.
If God’s predestination is based on foreknowing who will believe, as Arminius asserts, then divine justice is not magnified but constrained by human volition.
Arminius writes:
“It harmonizes with the nature of grace, by ascribing to it all those things which agree with it, and by reconciling it most completely to the righteousness of God and to the nature and liberty of the human will.”
This attempt to reconcile divine grace with human liberty presupposes that human freedom operates independently enough to condition God’s decree, which Arminius himself admits its “according to the foreknowledge of God”. This creates a theological inconsistency:
If God’s omniscience eternally knows human choices, and His predestination is based on those choices, then human autexousion effectively dictates the shape of divine predestination. This undermines divine sovereignty, as God’s eternal will becomes dependent on creaturely decisions, even if foreknown.
Orthodoxy avoids this huge blunder of Arimius by affirming that divine predestination is an eternal act of the logoi, not contingent upon human response, as St. Gregory Palamas teaches that God’s uncreated energies enable human participation in divine life without coercion, preserving autexousion within the framework of divine initiative. The Arminian view, fails to maintain this balance, it subordinates divine action to foreseen human faith, rendering predestination logically reaction despite claims of eternality.

103

We will discuss in private chat otherwise this thread will be flooded @johann I gave the ans

104

Ok @Corlove13 keeping aside Arminian theology shall we discuss what Calvin said I’m on an arc to help u so shall we start, the prev posts like

And

Are irrelevant to ur question, u can refer to
My actual ans at