Does anyone know the orthodox's church position regarding arminian?

[DaMorgan]

I am seeking to find out what the constantine orthodox's church view is regarding arminian? Perhaps note the 5 points that church holds. I agree with the arminian view I found here - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com (http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com/)

[DaMorgan]

Doesn't anyone know the answer to this question?

[eddy67]

I'm sure the eastern orthodox forum can give you an accurate answer :)
http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html

That link you gave doesn't work for me.

I think you should read this article. It provides a rather interesting view on the matter.

http://www.withchrist.org/unholy.htm

It's rather long, but definately worth a read.

[DaMorgan]

Immediately I looked at that link and I saw Miles Stanford's name who is a calvinist. He confuses pelagianism with arminian with no basis in order to maintain the pride of believing he was made for salvation, plus he is a historicalist thinking this time now is the millennial peace of hitler as well he confuses man's being, the soul and the spirit. All of this is unholy. There is no concern that man is made in God's image that God longs to see the man make a choice for Christ through that grace to receive the grace of eternal life. We all have free-will to be under God or Satan. When one says they were made by God this is an example of the will choosing an untruth and an inaccurate salvation through their own ideology and pride that they were not made for hell. Such is a humanism concept to think one is made for heaven and that others would be made for hell. We need to realize the very unethicalness of men who try to marry the false teachings of pelagian (or semi) with arminian for there is no connection, but there certainly is a connection with pride and calvinism. It is as though they have no faith to believe God can make man in His image so they introduce a robot teaching. Luther himself was confused in his life because he accepted resistible grace but also held to total depravity. He ended up giving up unable to resolve these two. Indeed, they are unresolvable if you hold them both. All Arminius did was solve all these problems Luther could not resolve and calvinism was plagued with. Arminian simply agrees with God's original. With one distinction today most who hold to arminian also hold to preservation of the saints.

So the calvinists present their various false sins of bearing false witness such as "It is important to understand that, in Arminian usage, grace is simply the restoration of man's natural ability to act for himself; it never actually saves him, but only enables him to save himself...if he will". But this is not true. There is the grace of being made in God's image, no doubt a glorious thing, but there is also God's grace of salvation if the man comes to the cross.

And so Miles Stanford, always wrong, says "Their God determines nothing, gives nothing except so-called common grace which removes the inability to choose Him, and He secures nothing." Miles Stanford denies the grace of man made in God's image, and only accepts grace of salvation which requires an unholiness producing a robot. This is a dead teaching. The rest of Miles unregenerated ideas stem from this error of his, not knowing God's will according to salvation. God longs to see the believer make the choice to walk with His Own.

The article goes on to try to combine unsuccessfully enlightenment, deism/unitarianism, transcendantalism, modern liberalism, postmodern humanism, pentecostalism, charismatic movement, Third Wave Movement, new age Christianity, new world order and new world church. But, he fails. Why? Because not only can he not make the connection, we are still always and forever made in God's image with a free-will to choose the redemptive design to receive Christ or not by His graceful allowance and the giving of His uncreated life when we come to the cross as a helpless sinner.

It is even a gnostic teaching to think you are made for salvation while you think others are made for hell. This is evil. Note that the pentecostal movement is really the montanism movement of the 2nd century, quite unrelated. Notice Wesley was wrong about OSAS. Notice the RCC was wrong about OSAS. Notice that many share a common error of historicalism and denying the church in locality preferring non-Biblical denominationally. The sardis false revivals typify the false reformation of pridefully believing they were made for salvation, which even confused Luther.

The solution of course has been arminain osas - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com

[DaMorgan]

In summary does your answer, mean that easther orthodox are calvinists? or do they believe man is made in God's image?

[eddy67]

Immediately I looked at that link and I saw Miles Stanford's name who is a calvinist. He confuses pelagianism with arminian with no basis in order to maintain the pride of believing he was made for salvation, plus he is a historicalist thinking this time now is the millennial peace of hitler as well he confuses man's being, the soul and the spirit. All of this is unholy. There is no concern that man is made in God's image that God longs to see the man make a choice for Christ through that grace to receive the grace of eternal life. We all have free-will to be under God or Satan. When one says they were made by God this is an example of the will choosing an untruth and an inaccurate salvation through their own ideology and pride that they were not made for hell. Such is a humanism concept to think one is made for heaven and that others would be made for hell. We need to realize the very unethicalness of men who try to marry the false teachings of pelagian (or semi) with arminian for there is no connection, but there certainly is a connection with pride and calvinism. It is as though they have no faith to believe God can make man in His image so they introduce a robot teaching. Luther himself was confused in his life because he accepted resistible grace but also held to total depravity. He ended up giving up unable to resolve these two. Indeed, they are unresolvable if you hold them both. All Arminius did was solve all these problems Luther could not resolve and calvinism was plagued with. Arminian simply agrees with God's original. With one distinction today most who hold to arminian also hold to preservation of the saints.

So the calvinists present their various false sins of bearing false witness such as "It is important to understand that, in Arminian usage, grace is simply the restoration of man's natural ability to act for himself; it never actually saves him, but only enables him to save himself...if he will". But this is not true. There is the grace of being made in God's image, no doubt a glorious thing, but there is also God's grace of salvation if the man comes to the cross.

And so Miles Stanford, always wrong, says "Their God determines nothing, gives nothing except so-called common grace which removes the inability to choose Him, and He secures nothing." Miles Stanford denies the grace of man made in God's image, and only accepts grace of salvation which requires an unholiness producing a robot. This is a dead teaching. The rest of Miles unregenerated ideas stem from this error of his, not knowing God's will according to salvation. God longs to see the believer make the choice to walk with His Own.

The article goes on to try to combine unsuccessfully enlightenment, deism/unitarianism, transcendantalism, modern liberalism, postmodern humanism, pentecostalism, charismatic movement, Third Wave Movement, new age Christianity, new world order and new world church. But, he fails. Why? Because not only can he not make the connection, we are still always and forever made in God's image with a free-will to choose the redemptive design to receive Christ or not by His graceful allowance and the giving of His uncreated life when we come to the cross as a helpless sinner.

It is even a gnostic teaching to think you are made for salvation while you think others are made for hell. This is evil. Note that the pentecostal movement is really the montanism movement of the 2nd century, quite unrelated. Notice Wesley was wrong about OSAS. Notice the RCC was wrong about OSAS. Notice that many share a common error of historicalism and denying the church in locality preferring non-Biblical denominationally. The sardis false revivals typify the false reformation of pridefully believing they were made for salvation, which even confused Luther.

The solution of course has been arminain osas - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com


Forgive me, I'm afraid I'm way out of my league here. I'm just trying to find my way. Your reply was edifying, thank you.

[Thursday]

In summary does your answer, mean that easther orthodox are calvinists? or do they believe man is made in God's image?I think the Eastern Orthodox are far from Calvinist.

[DaMorgan]

How far? Do orthodoxy believe in once-saved-always-saved? If so, that is good, especially if osas arminian.

[Thursday]

They do not believe in OSAS. Your best bet is to ask them in "The Ancient Way" forum.
http://www.christianforums.com/f145-the-ancient-way-eastern-orthodox.html

[Llauralin]

I think Orthodox have their own terms, and do not like to be trapped into having to use Protestant terms to define their doctrines, for fear of conversations where everyone is using the same terms, with compleatly different meanings.

Also, it would be good to ask about specific points, rather than for a comparison of the entirety of Armanien's thought with the entirity of Orthodox thought, because otherwise it's a pretty daunting task.

I saw your thread over there, and would advise using such terms as "marrying the world and the Church" if you could help it.

[Llauralin]

I am seeking to find out what the constantine orthodox's church view is regarding arminian? Perhaps note the 5 points that church holds. I agree with the arminian view I found here - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com
I don't actually see a description of Arminian beliefs there...all I saw was a couple of links...:scratch:

[DaMorgan]

That is the arminian belief there. You don't even have to click on any links either. Here it is again - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com

[DaMorgan]

Forgive me, I'm afraid I'm way out of my league here. I'm just trying to find my way. Your reply was edifying, thank you.
I think your humility is beautiful!

[Llauralin]

That is the arminian belief there. You don't even have to click on any links either. Here it is again - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com
I see a short overview

We are all, by grace, made in the image of God, but only some, through that grace (not the will of the flesh), come to the cross as helpless sinners to receive Jesus as Lord and Savior. God, then, savingly graces the believer with His life. Mentally, we do not need to believe pridefully we were pre-made for salvation, as taught by calvinists (the tares), which is a false salvation, since predestination is by foreknowledge, not by pre-making. Out of His glory, God longs to see us make the choice for Him.

But am assuming there's something I'm missing, or you would have just quoted it? :confused:

[DaMorgan]

It is true and it is not a lie, covering all the points of arminian - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com

[Llauralin]

Eh? :confused:

Did anyone else find these points? Am I just blind or something? Do you have to make secret hand motions over the moniter?

[Thursday]

Mine came up with errors all over the page and a possible virus alert!

[DaMorgan]

http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com (http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com/) Of course there is no virus, that is silly Thursday, storyteller. Maybe you are blind, as a possibility you suggest, and that is why you can't see the points of arminian here. Have you considered going to your doctor Llauralin?

[eddy67]

Eh? :confused:

Did anyone else find these points? Am I just blind or something? Do you have to make secret hand motions over the moniter?

If you click on the first link 'Unsaved Calvinism' I believe it takes you to the information he was talking about.



Hey Thursday, are you into the band 'Thursday'? They're awesome :thumbsup:

[Llauralin]

If you click on the first link 'Unsaved Calvinism' I believe it takes you to the information he was talking about.
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/calvinists2.htm
That one?

[eddy67]

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/calvinists2.htm
That one?

Yep that one right there ;)

[Llauralin]

Alrighty then. Thanks. :)

[DaMorgan]

I trust, then, you agree with this arminian view as Biblical given here - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com

I wonder if anyone knows the answer to the question of this thread, which is, what is the view of the orthodox church with respect to the 5 points of arminian?

[Llauralin]

Well, the Orthodox would probably really do a better job representing themselves...

[DaMorgan]

Hopefully someone from there will give a reply if they come across this thread.

[Llauralin]

Perhaps so, but as this is the non-demoninational forum, it would probably be better just to bring it up again on your thread over there. I'm an Orthodox enquirer, but am not really competent to figure what all they would agree and disagree with on that site.

[DaMorgan]

It is best to keep the question here so as not to appear as arguing over there.

The question remains, does the orthodox position agree with the 5 points of arminian? summarized here - http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com (http://top100osasarminian.itopsites.com/)

[Llauralin]

You're planning on argueing?

You know, the problem is, I don't think there actually is an official Orthodox position on Armanian. They only define doctrine on things directly effecting their church, pertaining to salvation.

However, as another has said, they do not believe in OSAS.

[Llauralin]

This (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/freewill.aspx) one (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/freewill.aspx) might be helpful. It's an Orthodox answer to Calvenism, but deals with similar issues to Arminians.

River (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) of (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) Fire (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) is somewhat relevent, with regaurd to the meaning of salvation, but on the downside is rather long and puts everything in the strangest possible way, more so than most Orthodox writers.

It might be elpful fo ryou to know that in Orthodoxy salvation is thought of somewhat differently than in most Western confessions, and that they do belief that faith, works, and perserverience are all interrelated and necessary for salvation.

[Kripost]

This (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/freewill.aspx) one (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/freewill.aspx) might be helpful. It's an Orthodox answer to Calvenism, but deals with similar issues to Arminians.

River (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) of (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) Fire (http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm) is somewhat relevent, with regaurd to the meaning of salvation, but on the downside is rather long and puts everything in the strangest possible way, more so than most Orthodox writers.

It might be elpful fo ryou to know that in Orthodoxy salvation is thought of somewhat differently than in most Western confessions, and that they do belief that faith, works, and perserverience are all interrelated and necessary for salvation.

To add on:

The problem about both arminianism and calvinism with respect to Eastern Orthodox theology has more to do with actual transformation of humanity as opposed to a jurudicial pronouncement. The other difference is that, in Eastern Orthodox theology, heaven and hell is the same event experienced differently by two types of people. That is basically what the article above 'River of Fire' is about.

[DaMorgan]

Well that is a heresy thinking hell and heaven is the same event.

Notice that arminian is not so much a jurudicial announcement but it is God's saving way of transformation of humanity, both the saved and the unsaved.

http://top100osasarminian.itopsties.com

[DaMorgan]

You're planning on argueing?

You know, the problem is, I don't think there actually is an official Orthodox position on Armanian. They only define doctrine on things directly effecting their church, pertaining to salvation.

However, as another has said, they do not believe in OSAS.

You seem like you are arguing with your words already. Were you going to continue doing this?

Do be aware of your contradiction when you said "they do not believe in OSAS" and then you said they do believe in "perserverience", which is OSAS. These are direct quotes of yours with their mispellings.

Since arminian centrally defined doctrine on things directly effecting the church pertaining salvation, there can not be this other kind of salvation for your particular denomination without the power to save etenerally at new birth.

[Llauralin]

You seem like you are arguing with your words already. Were you going to continue doing this?

Do be aware of your contradiction when you said "they do not believe in OSAS" and then you said they do believe in "perserverience", which is OSAS. These are direct quotes of yours with their mispellings.

Since arminian centrally defined doctrine on things directly effecting the church pertaining salvation, there can not be this other kind of salvation for your particular denomination without the power to save etenerally at new birth.
First, Kripost is right about there being a subtle difference in meaning of the term "salvation" often enough between protestants and Orhtodox.

Second, it is not right that you bring a question about another church's teachings to a forum they rarely visit, and then denounce it as "heresy" in a forum where they cannot defend themselves (no debating between non-denominational and other denominations here).

I do not necessarily speak for the Orthodox Church on this, for my understanding is limited, but byperseverance I meant that we must "finish the race" as it were in order to be saved. That we cannot merely give up half way through our lives, deny Christ, and still be saved because we were saved absolutly at the point of conversion. Basically, that while we yet live on this earth, we are given freedom to choose to accept or reject the salvation offered by God, not once and for all, but every day, by choosing to follow and obey God's commands, or to ignore or rebell against Him.

Please refrain from posting that website again. It is quite noticable enough.

Here's a thread on assurence of salvation on TAW, feel free to ask there: http://www.christianforums.com/t1895532-question-on-assurance-of-salvation.html