In an earlier posting I critiqued the individual components of TULIP, an acronym used by Calvinists to explain and defend double predestination: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Preservation of the Saints. In this posting I will be critiquing TULIP as an overall theological system first by discussing how TULIP developed from Augustine’s theology. Then, I will discuss how TULIP’s denial of human free will is consequential for Christology and our understanding of the Trinity. I will also show how the Orthodox approach to the Trinity provides an understanding of salvation that allows for free will and genuine love.
Calvinism’s Western Roots
Calvin’s double predestination represents an outcome of the theological evolution in Western Christianity. Unlike Eastern Orthodoxy which draws on a wide range of Church Fathers, Western Christianity in both its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms depends heavily on Augustine of Hippo. Calvin was well aware that he was breaking with the patristic consensus and even then persisted in constructing his theology upon the Augustinian paradigm (Institutes 2.2.4, Calvin 1960:259). He cited Augustine more often than all the Greek and Latin Fathers combined (Schaff 1910:589).
While double predestination is closely associated with Calvin, it is not unique to him. It was also held by some medieval theologians. Gregory of Rimini (d. 1358) taught: “Just as God has predestinated from eternity those whom he willed to, not on account of any future merits, so also he has condemned from eternity those whom he will to, not on account of their future demerits” (in Pelikan 1984:31). Calvin stands out with respect to the clarity and rigor with which he described and applied the doctrine of double predestination (Pelikan 1984:222).
Likewise, the Calvinist vs. Arminian conflict that led to TULIP is not new. Similar tensions can be found in medieval theology. Medieval theologians like Thomas Bradwardine and Gregory of Rimini accepted the doctrine of absolute predestination, whereas Duns Scotus and William of Occam rejected it (Pelikan 1984:28-35; Oberman 1963:187; Barth 1922:52). What makes TULIP Protestant is the fact that it arises from the monergism underlying sola fide (justification by faith alone).
Monergism vs. Synergism
The driving force for Reformed theology is the passion to uphold God’s sovereignty. Reformed Christians glory in God’s sovereignty over all creation and especially with respect to our salvation. The Canons of Dort stresses that God “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (Third and Fourth Head: Article 14; see also Article 10). They believe that any tempering of the divine sovereignty would detract from the glory of God. The German Reformed theologian, Philip Schaff notes:
Augustin and Calvin were intensely religious, controlled by a sense of absolute dependence on God, and wholly absorbed in the contemplation of his majesty and glory. To them God was everything; man a mere shadow (1910:539).
What we see here is what Robin Phillips calls a zero-sum theology. The term comes from game theory. In a zero-sum game there is a fixed amount of points which means that one player’s gain can only come from the other player’s loss. Similarly, in a zero-sum theology for any human to possess the capacity to freely love and have faith steals glory from God.
A zero-sum mentality towards grace assumes that God can only be properly honored at the expense of the creation, and where this orientation is operational it feels compelled to limit or deny altogether the important role of instrumental causation in the outworking of Providence. The zero-sum mentality is thus highly uncomfortable acknowledging that God’s decrees are outworked through secondary means, and prefers to emphasize the type of “immediate dependence” upon God that bypasses as much human instrumentality as possible.
This belief can be seen in the Canons of Dort’s rejection of errors in the Fifth Head Paragraph 2: “…which it would make men free, it make them robbers of God’s honor.” In this approach God’s grace occupies a preeminent role in our salvation and our response a negligible role. Man becomes more an instrument of an omnipotent deity than a free agent cooperating with divine grace. Free will exists, but only for mundane matters, not in relation to spiritual matters (Institutes 2.5.19).
This makes Reformed theology fundamentally monergistic in its soteriology. Monergism is the belief that there is only one (monos) efficient cause (ergos) in our salvation: God and God alone. The alternative approach is synergism, the belief that salvation is the result of human will cooperating or working with divine grace (syn = with, ergos = energy, effort, cause). Thus, where Orthodoxy’s synergism allows for human free will or choice in salvation, Calvinism’s monergism excludes it.
Synergism
In contrast to the either-or approach of Western monergism is the both-and approach of the Eastern doctrine of synergism. Synergism is based on our cooperation with God’s grace, that is, a response on our part to God’s initiative. The Apostle James wrote:
Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. (James 2:21-22, NIV; emphasis added)
An anonymous monk described aptly how the Orthodox understanding of synergism maintains the sovereignty of God.
The incorporation of humans into Christ and our union with God requires the co-operation of two unequal, but equally necessary forces: divine grace and human will (in Ware The Orthodox Church pp. 221-222).
Addressing the Western and especially the Calvinist concern that Orthodox synergism may attribute too much to human free will and too little to God, Ware wrote:
Yet in reality the Orthodox teaching is very straightforward. ‘Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in’ (Revelation iii, 20). God knocks, but waits for us to open the door – He does not break it down. The grace of God invites all but compels none. (The Orthodox Church p. 222)
The Orthodox understanding upholds God’s sovereignty in our salvation. Not only does God take the initative in the salvation of Man and all Creation, He does the biggest and greatest part, the part man cannnot do. This critical and absolutely necessary action of God, however, in no way precludes man’s response. Note how far the Orthodox position on synergy is removed from the Pelagian heresy.
Robert Arakaki
Coming soon — the implications of TULIP for Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.
Why is Calvinism becoming so popular among American Evangelicals? Even continuing Anglicans have fallen victim to the Calvinist movement. It certainly is not an appealing view of God, for it makes God a sadistic monster who creates someone and gives them no chance of salvation.
Fr. John W. Morris
Father,
I am now Orthodox, but I came out of Calvinism. Prior to that, I was an evangelical for twenty years. The collapse of evangelical theology and the dumbing down of everything including God, gives many evangelicals the impulse to search for a much loftier view of God. A God who is not just our buddy. Calvinism presents a lofty view of God in that He answers to no one and controls every molecule with power and authority which nothing can thwart. And the intellectual vacuum left in much of evangelicalism leaves them starving for something more. So they look back to their history and find the Reformers intricate theological systems. Lutheranism is often seen as too much like Rome while Calvinism is aggressively promoted by it’s adherents. Calvinists like MacArthur, Piper, Sproul and Horton have interacted widely with evangelicals and the Anglican J.I. Packer is ubiquitous in his promotion of Calvinism everywhere among Protestants.
Their high view of scripture is admirable, but apart from the Tradition of the church they have pushed the meaning of certain verses outside of the scope of orthodox theology and Christology.
Fr. John,
I want to say that Canadian gave a very good answer. You might want to read the excellent article “Young, Restless, and Reformed” by Collin Hansen. If you meet those who hold to Reformed theology please keep in mind that they are on a spiritual journey that is often motivated by a desire for truth and a high view of God. While there may be aspects of Reformed theology that you might repulsive, there are elements of Reformed Christianity that can be affirmed by Orthodoxy, e.g., their high view of Scripture, their desire for right doctrine, and their sober approach to worship. Let us look for common ground with them before we criticize their theology.
The popularity of Calvinism among Evangelicals can be viewed as an evangelistic opportunity for Orthodoxy. Let us pray for open doors that will bring many of these hungry Calvinists into the fullness of Orthodoxy!
Robert
Without getting into debate on this issue, and having seen a lot of this in college (I was there when the s0-called “restless reformed” thing got going):
In most American communities there are really only two options: Catholicism and Baptist. Calvinism, especially the paedo-variety, offers a rigorously systematic alternative to both (and as I keep telling Orthodox apologists, most of the time there is *NO* viable Orthodox witness in the community, or one that cares about “Western” folk).
The guys Canadian listed, especially Piper, are skilled communicators who appeal to youth.
It’s unfortunate that you engage in name-calling like “sadistic monster” (strange that Robert didn’t moderate that comment). I could return in kind, but I won’t. At the end of the day, I can’t read Romans 9:22 and say, “Well, it can’t mean *that*).
Perhaps the phrase is too much…or perhaps not. I’m not sure what else I might call a deity who gives one no choice of being born into a world were one is damned from the foundation of the world because the deity chooses it to be so arbitrarily and then says that we are somehow responsible for our actions within a context where we could never under our own power stop sinning or save ourselves (he certainly is not going to) so that we can suffer being tortured for eternity.
If that doesn’t qualify as a monster than what does?
Romans 9 is not about personal election to salvation and damnation at all. It is about the freedom of God to fulfill his purposes through whom and however he pleases while not violating Covenantal obligations. Look up the OT references that this chapter cites: Gen 25:23 “Two nations are in your womb and the older shall serve the younger.”
Exodus 4 “Israel is my firstborn” is a play on Jacob (Israel) and not Esau as God’s firstborn…..to fulfill God’s covenantal promises, not to speak about personal salvation.
Malachi 1: Jacob and Esau are nations.
Exodus 33 Moses pleads for God’s favor for Israel, God affirms it but adds “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” God has the freedom to extend mercy to the gentiles.
God raises up hardened Pharoah not to the election of damnation, but as a vessel of wrath to push the Jewish vessels of mercy into the promised land. The Jews themselves will become vessels of wrath so the gentiles can become vessels of mercy. And in Romans 11 there is a grafting, breaking off and re-grafting of branches depending on their heart attitude and disposition, hence the attendant warning, and your Romans 9 election paradigm breaks down.
Romans 9 is not a discussion of God’s freedom in the election to salvation and damnation, but in fulfilling his purposes in Christ.
Canadian made a good point here which makes sense in light of Romans 1:16-17:
(see also Romans 2:9-10)
The entirety of Romans began to make sense to me when I read it as Paul’s response to the fact that many Jews were opposed to his preaching while many Gentiles were responding to his preaching. Romans 9 is Paul’s attempt to explain the Jews’ resistance to the Good News and what it meant for the Jews’ covenant standing than an attempt to explain God predestinating individuals.
As someone who has never liked Reformed or Calvinist theology, I think that many adopt such theology for two reasons: 1) it seems biblical and 2) its logic seems unimpeachable.
Robert,
Per your comments on syngergism: Reformed folk do not see the ordo terminating at regeneration.
Why is there no “printer freindly” version of plucking the tulip?
Roy,
I’m in the process of consolidating the Plucking the TULIP posting into one PDF file. I hope that will address your concerns.
Robert
This article fairly clears-up the Monergism Contra Synergism issue, also! http://www.examiner.com/article/synergism-an-eastern-church-and-western-church-comparison
Gabriel,
Thanks for the link!
Robert
P.S. Guard your eyes from the sinful ads on the right.