Greetings, I am a Catholic who is interested in investigating Orthodoxy. For several years now, I have found the Coptic Orthodox Church to be intriguing. I love reading the writings of H.H. Pope Shenouda and have deeply enjoyed my experiences at Coptic liturgies. I am considering meeting with a priest at my local Orthodox church but before I did that I have a question.
Although I love my Catholic faith, one thing that I have always struggled with is the Western Augustinian and Thomistic views on God and salvation. As much as I have tried, I have not been able to separate Augustine from Calvinism. I also have struggled with the Western conception of original sin.
So my question is as follows: How does Orthodoxy view the question of free will and salvation? Does the Coptic Church seek to systematically define the terms of predestination? This is where I have been struggling with my spiritual life in my Church. I know Catholicism teaches free will, but it strikes me as not truly free. How does the Coptic Church view predestination? I know all the Apostolic communions believe that God knows all and he knows where we will end up, but what is his and our own roles attaining salvation?
Thank you.
Comments
basically we believe that our free will and God's knowledge of what we will do next are both very important.
we don't believe anyone is set up to fail, rather that God hardens people's hearts because of their evil ways.
other people may be able to write better and longer answers.
may God guide u; never loose sight of the goal to know God more, experience more of His love and join with Jesus Christ, taking part in suffering as He did, in order to know more of His glory.
i think as the Coptic orthodox church we don't believe in predestination from our baptist time on till death we are in completely caring of God Jesus Christ accept if we ignore his holy spirit till the end of our life what is happen to us along of our life journey.....?it depend on ...!how far we are from our God (worship) and act all his commandment
The fundamental difference between Eastern Christianity & Western Christianity is in their soteriological perspective. I say Western Christianity, because the difference between Protestants and Catholics is insignificant when it comes to soteriology. Since the topic is very broad allow me to reply in outline format. Here is the chronological order in which Western Christianity developed its soteriology.
1) St. Augustin misinterpreted Romans 5:12 in a way that “we are all guilty through Adam, because of the sin Adam committed - Original Sin”. The Orthodox believe that we share the consequence of Adam’s sin which is death, but we are not personally responsible or guilty for what Adam did - Ancestral Sin.
2) The Western Roman empire crumbled creating a power vacuum which the church filled in someway by taking active role in public & political life of the day. In contrast the Orthodox Church was banished from public arena as Islam continued to spread in the East.
3) Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109) based on St. Augustin’s interpretation of Roman 5:12 & the daily reality of a Church that is active in the feudal system, came us with an allegory that portrays God as the ultimate monarch. In our current day any crime committed ,is committed against the State & it will be presented in court as “the defendant against the State”. In a feudal system a crime is always against the person of the monarch. Hence, Anselm by taking this parallel stated that Adam’s sin was personally insulting to God & God has to be appeased.
4) When the Protestant separated from the Catholic Church they maintained this view of salivation as they maintained other Catholic teaching such as the filioque.
5) Teachings that developed later on such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, Limbo, etc only make sense with a monarch God in mind & have strong roots in the view of a monarch God.
The Orthodox Church also views God as the Ultimate Judge (not a monarch) but balances this view by emphasizing that He is our Physician. The Church is not a Ruling Body but a Hospital. Christ is our physician. When we do “penance” it is not repay our sins but to cure them - like taking a bitter medicine.
P.S. I don’t know much about the role of St. Thomas of Aquinas. If someone can explain it, it is much appreciated.
Here is a great article: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/2004-hughes-sin.php
In Christ
Theophilus
:)
In Christ
Theophilus
Thank you all for your replies. I met with the priest I had been emailing with tonight. I'm looking forward to beginning this journey.
Come and see, Cassian,
I am compelled to tell every new comer to not miss the most important part of my growth closer to the Coptic Church. In my earliest acquaintance, Saturday night was the most important part of my Coptic familiarity. You can spend any part of approximately 7PM to 10-12 PM. My priest had Vesper liturgy, followed by Bible Study, followed by Midnight Praises. The Bible study was in Arabic, because most who attended were most comfortable with Arabic and Abouna didn't feel confident enough in English to Bible study or preach in English. Someone would usually translate for me. I was filled by just the crumbs. The Praises were alternated Arabic, Coptic, English. After a few weeks, I could accompany the English. After a long while I could follow a little of the Coptic Greek alphabet. The Arabic is still only a time to listen without understanding, and rest. There should usually be Service Books with side by side Arabic, Coptic. English. Just like the old English-Latin missals that I started with. Saturday evening service is much less attended, so easier to be comfortable with. Most of the Saturday night people are more serious (but more private), time to get acquainted, time to ask questions, etc. I didn't attend many Coptic Sunday Liturgies for a few years of growing closer. Saturday night is the best time to start to learn the Agpeya prayers. The book store may also be open to browse, etc. It also helped me break my old Saturday night bad habits.
I don't know many of the details, but it seems that St. Cassian probably received much of his ascetic foundation from living with Coptic monks. I believe that other, maybe descendant, Coptic monks taught St. Patrick and the Irish fathers the same basics at and around the monestary at Lerins. To me this explains how close traditional Irish spiritual life (not current) was to, even current, general Coptic spiritual life.
God will bless you, pray for me.
Greetings, I am a Catholic who is interested in investigating Orthodoxy. For several years now, I have found the Coptic Orthodox Church to be intriguing. I love reading the writings of H.H. Pope Shenouda and have deeply enjoyed my experiences at Coptic liturgies. I am considering meeting with a priest at my local Orthodox church but before I did that I have a question.
Although I love my Catholic faith, one thing that I have always struggled with is the Western Augustinian and Thomistic views on God and salvation. As much as I have tried, I have not been able to separate Augustine from Calvinism. I also have struggled with the Western conception of original sin.
So my question is as follows: How does Orthodoxy view the question of free will and salvation? Does the Coptic Church seek to systematically define the terms of predestination? This is where I have been struggling with my spiritual life in my Church. I know Catholicism teaches free will, but it strikes me as not truly free. How does the Coptic Church view predestination? I know all the Apostolic communions believe that God knows all and he knows where we will end up, but what is his and our own roles attaining salvation?
Thank you.
Dear Cassian
Welcome to Tasbeha.org.
I have a small question for you 1st of all: Have you heard the tasbeha in the Coptic Church? or listened to hymns during any major feast? What were your thoughts on hearing our songs and chants?
Whilst you were trying to know more about our Church, I was in parallel, trying to understand more about your Church, and the reasons why Martin Luther - who was himself a Catholic Priest, ended up leaving his Church - causing a major issue for the Catholics: Protestantism. How could this happen? How could it have been possible even been due to someone Catholic?
It turns out that the main, if not ONLY motivation, behind Martin Luther's 95 Thesis in which he attacked the Catholic Church, was due to the Catholic Church's Indulgence Certificates. The Roman Catholic Church issued certificates (signed by the Pope) allowing anyone, who paid for them, to have his sins forgiven. They came up with the notion of purgatory to acquire more revenue: i.e. that even though a person is dead, they could still be suffering due to some sin they hadn't paid for; hence family members could buy these certificates on behalf their deceased loved ones, in the hope of ensuring that their loved ones went straight to heaven. The Church even taught, at that time, that through such certificates, one could even change the direction of someone's destiny: if they were going to hell, then a "Pardon" from the Vicar of God Himself, from the Authority of God, could change everything.
As we know today, we hear protestants argue one thing against all Apostolic Churches: Works Salvation. They start going on and on and on about how deeds do not save you. The first person to argue this was Martin Luther, and it was in DIRECT RESPONSE to Indulgences Certificates: i.e. that money cannot buy you Salvation - it was given to you; you just had to repent & believe.
I cannot blame protestants for thinking this. However, I blame Catholics or the Catholic Church for this.
Please ask yourself, how can a Pope, even a lineage of Popes in the RC, issue such certificates? How could the person who is meant to be INFALLIBLE on doctrine be part of something as wicked as this?
I think these are the questions one has to ask himself as to why they prefer to be Orthodox - especially Coptic. Out of all the Churches, the Coptic Church has ran away from power, from politics, from riches and stuck not only to the true apostolic faith, but also, MORE IMPORTANTLY, to the Spirit of the Church, to the Christian way of life that it lives by.
Welcome to the forums. I will preface this by saying that, by and large, it is difficult to find good quality information in most internet forums; this will, undoubtedly, include my own post here. I am not sure what your fluency is with reading on the matters that you have raised in books and such, but there are a few that address the issues that you have raised. I will attempt, though feebly at best, to address some of the questions that you have.
The Orthodox Church does not adhere to the theology of Augustine. The unfortunate result of many of his writings has been a skewing of the very issues that you have mentioned: original sin, free will, and the issue of salvation as pertains to predestination.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes the following: The quote is incredibly instructional on several points. Namely, St. Cyril states that free will has been given to us of God as a gift, part of the image of God that man has been accorded in the soul. He also states that man is not born with sin. This is of great importance to us; the so-called inherited original sin has no basis in proper Orthodox theology. I'm sure that others will attempt to refute this, and an ensuing discussion will result in which both sides will present proof-texted quotes from the Fathers claiming it one way or the other. To this, I say that it is imperative for you, if you truly seek the answer, to become so well versed with the writings of the Fathers on the matter that you will see the Truth for yourself. The Church, being of One Mind, that of the Mind of Christ, as He is the Head, is singular in its Truth. God is One, and the Truth is One, for He is the Truth. Finding a consensus of thought, therefore, amongst the Fathers becomes more important than finding a quote here and there that may support a particular argument. This seems counter to what I have done myself above, but I chose the quote so that I may demonstrate one of a multitude of quotes that I know exist concerning the topic in which other Fathers share the same mindset, having been illumined to the Truth in their hearts.
Predestination is a rather large discussion, but I will sum up with the mind of the Fathers has to say on the matter. There is no doubt that the term appears in Ephesians, and so there is no refuting that this word exists Biblically. The matter then becomes what the true meaning of the word is, that is, what St. Paul's intent was in using it. This is most clearly understand by examining the corpus of works in the Orthodox Church.
Man was made in the image and likeness of God. St. John of Damascus writes the following: The assimilation to virtue is what is known in the Orthodox Church properly as theosis. This is a term that is used to denote the process by which "man becomes god"; note that a little g is used and that this is intended. St. Athanasius the Apostolic writes "God became man so that man might become god." This process of "becoming god" is theosis; that is to say, the process by which man participates in the works of God, by grace, having accepted this by means of his free will and shown this in his works, and through which man comes closer to God, not in God's essence but in His works, having his heart enlarged by the grace of the Holy Spirit to have God dwell in man, is theosis (simply). This is what man was created for, such that he could participate more and more in the loving energy of God.
It is a skewing of this, in fact, with which Adam and Eve are tempted with; namely, to become gods without God. This is known as ancestral sin. The son is not responsible for the sins of his father, nor does he inherit that sin. After Adam fell, man inherits a corrupt nature, known biblically and patristically as the flesh (that which is subject to the passions, as St. John Cassian writes very clearly about, corruptibility, and death). This flesh is inclined towards sin, but is, in itself not sin (as the heretical Manicheans would claim). This is also the flesh that Christ took when He was incarnated (literally, took flesh). It is this flesh that is transfigured and restored, and taken to such a degree that Christ, in the flesh, sits at the right hand of God.
Man was "predestined" for this; not for the Fall, nor for any other such sin. This predestination was what God desired for man. Man chose against this, as is his ability as he is endowed with free will. Christ restored man once again by His Death, Resurrection and Ascension, and allows for us to choose this path again if we do desire, that is, to be not only restored to the former greatness of man before the Fall, but to progress to the heights for eternity that Adam was created for, that is to say, to continue to realize the likeness of God continually.
Our role, therefore, is to allow God's grace to operate within us. My own actions cannot allow me to attain salvation; if this was the case, the Law would have been sufficient. God is the giver of salvation, and He offers this to all who desire it. This desire is not simply a feeling, nor a willful act on one particular day in which a man says "I believe" and is somehow therefore saved. Man's road to Christ is a struggle, as he is fettered by the fallen nature. It is by faith and works that man opens his heart to Christ, and to which Christ answers the opening by dwelling in man by the grace of the Holy Spirit for the glorification of the Father. Our will, then, is quite significant. We are not to love God by force, for this is not love at all. Love must be offered and accepted freely and willingly. God has offered us His love, as He offered Himself, and He is Love in the truest sense of the word, beyond that which we comprehend. It is our choice to accept this Love, that is, to accept Him, to strive to fulfill His commandments, not out of some sort of fear or force, but freely, out of our own love, strengthened by Love Himself.
I ask that you remember me in your prayers. Please feel free to ask any further questions.
I also entreat all others to please keep this topic within the confines of what it was intended for.
In Christ,
childoforthodoxy
You may also want to inquire: Do the Oriental Churches accept the concept of Theosis and Deification as spelled out by St. Athanasius and St. Basil and St. Gregory Palamas.
Yes, as explained by Athanasius, and Basil. As for Palamas, we do not use palamitic terms, finding them (at times) to be more trouble than they are worth. There are, however, those who accept those terms. But we Orthodox Christians much prefer to live theosis than to stumble on the words for the sake of making a distinction between us and the west (like the Paris school of theology did).
[quote author=Aelwyn82 link=topic=14021.msg166425#msg166425 date=1383350470]
Do the Non-Chalcedonians acknowledge the distinction, as St. Basil did, Between God's acts of Power (His energies) and his Essence (What he is in himself, in se)?
Yes we do.
ReturnOrthodoxy
"In the early 2000′s, Pope Shenouda published an 8-part series of booklets against the concept of theosis, in which he characterized the notion in Islamic terms, as being “shirk” (associating the creature with the Creator). In these booklets, he put forward a variety of opinions that, from an Orthodox Christian perspective are wildly heretical– such as that we do not partake of divinity in the Eucharist and that there cannot be any kind of real, ontological communion between God and man."
http://www.monomakhos.com/pope-shenouda-iii-rip/
Pope Shenouda said:
"They also say that we share the divine nature through the Eucharist Sacrament. Through which we eat and drink divinity!! And when we opposed them in this they accused us in our faith!"
Eucharistic Nestorianism? Sounds like it.
It may sound like Eutychian Nestroianism. Some (like Fr. Peter have defended the statement), and others have said that this is a clear incoherence. I have also weighed in in the past on this discussion, but will not weigh in again for the following reason.
This whole post of yours is speaking about the words and opinions of one man, H.H. Pope Shenouda. It does so without looking at the actual words of our church. I recommend a little more depth of thought. I am interested in discussing the teaching of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria through Christ until now. Not the opinions of a man (however holy he might have been).
Start with the suggested reading above.
Ray
I am happy to be corrected on this issue though. :) Thank you.
We also have to look at Pope Shenouda's "8-part series of booklets". What did he say exactly and what did he mean? As we have shown before, Pope Shenouda's writings are easily misunderstood (including his writing on one will and one energy). I believe a similar situation is going on here. I assume, Pope Shenouda was writing against those who claim we simply eat divinity in the Eucharist, becoming divine by nature. In other words, by eating the eucharist, the divinity of Christ swallows our individual humanity (which is Eutychianism).
I would like to add that in the world of Chalcedonian vs non-Chalcedonian polemics - which that blog clearly embodies an anti-Non-Chalcedonian attitude - it is easy to spin anyone's words for polemic gain. For example, the end of that very same blog entry you quoted reads "The Council in Trullo is very explicit that they only need to confess Orthodox faith (i.e., accept of the 7 councils) in order to be accepted into communion." I can spin the poster's words and say the EO believe that the only requirement that defines Orthodoxy is legal allegiance to 7 councils, a sort of "sola councilaria". That is not Orthodoxy. I can easily attack and spin this message but I know that was not the intention of the poster's message. But many sincere truthful shepherds and leaders, like Pope Shenouda, do not receive the benefit of the doubt. Only premature judgement.
RO is correct that we do believe in theosis but the Coptic Church has never felt an enormous need to prioritize it like the EO does. Our hymns simply declare our faith in theosis. If EO prefer to judge us by their interpretation of an "8 part series of booklets" instead of our hymnology, our adherence to the patristic fathers, our development in medieval Arabic writings and our actions, the problem is with them (as the blog shows).
I would like to add to RO's comments. This particular blog is a rollercoaster of polemic attacks starting with a question about praying for Pope Shenouda in an EO service (when he passed away in 2012) to 4th century saints to anti-Roman Catholic arguments to EO view of the 5th Ecumenical council back to Pope Shenouda and somewhere in there is a polemic of theosis. It's like reading an ADHD manual on how to argue without actually having an argument.
We also have to look at Pope Shenouda's "8-part series of booklets". What did he say exactly and what did he mean? As we have shown before, Pope Shenouda's writings are easily misunderstood (including his writing on one will and one energy). I believe a similar situation is going on here. I assume, Pope Shenouda was writing against those who claim we simply eat divinity in the Eucharist, becoming divine by nature. In other words, by eating the eucharist, the divinity of Christ swallows our individual humanity (which is Eutychianism).
I would like to add that in the world of Chalcedonian vs non-Chalcedonian polemics - which that blog clearly embodies an anti-Non-Chalcedonian attitude - it is easy to spin anyone's words for polemic gain. For example, the end of that very same blog entry you quoted reads "The Council in Trullo is very explicit that they only need to confess Orthodox faith (i.e., accept of the 7 councils) in order to be accepted into communion." I can spin the poster's words and say the EO believe that the only requirement that defines Orthodoxy is legal allegiance to 7 councils, a sort of "sola councilaria". That is not Orthodoxy. I can easily attack and spin this message but I know that was not the intention of the poster's message. But many sincere truthful shepherds and leaders, like Pope Shenouda, do not receive the benefit of the doubt. Only premature judgement.
RO is correct that we do believe in theosis but the Coptic Church has never felt an enormous need to prioritize it like the EO does. Our hymns simply declare our faith in theosis. If EO prefer to judge us by their interpretation of an "8 part series of booklets" instead of our hymnology, our adherence to the patristic fathers, our development in medieval Arabic writings and our actions, the problem is with them (as the blog shows).
+1
I admire both RO and Rem's replies but tbh i feel that is simply an act of sweeping under the rug. Yes our holy fathers both believed in and lived out deification (Divinization, theosis, theopoeisis, etc, however you wish to express it). But it would appear (particularly to an outsider) that some modern day hierarchs deny this dogma nonetheless. George Bebawi was excommunicated (wrongly) largely on the basis of deification and his adherence to it. H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy has an article on his website denying deification and it was important enough for Fr. Athanasius to respond to it. While we as a church have always and will always continue to believe in it, I think the point that Aelwyn82 is entirely relevant. One cannot simply just dismiss the fact that this was and is an issue of controversy today (unfortunately) within the Coptic Church. One cant dismiss this entirely on the fact that the fathers taught it.
In any case, I am not looking to argue, both responses by RO and by Rem were beautiful and entirely orthodox and i admire both of them and learn from them both. But i do believe there is a point. The Coptic Church needs to address this discrepancy today between what the fathers taught and what some hierarchs have taught.
Pray for me my brothers and sisters
I think that with some clerics, there needs to be a more direct approach. I hope that soon, the Synod will try both Dr. George and his accusers. But I don't much feel like this will help Daniel here. That is why I kept my response away from the polemics of it, and merely asserted that the Coptic church believes in Theosis. Period at the end. But again, so as not to derail the thread, we can open up another thread, and have other brothers and sisters weigh in on the topic. I think that that will allow a more focused discussion that will open up doors for our understandings.
I miss you , brother. If you have been texting me, and I haven't been responding, I'm studying in the US, so you should take my US number. PM me!
Ray