The idea of ​​predestination and psychology. Predestination and free will

The doctrine of predestination in the works of St. Theophan the Recluse

How can we understand the words of the Apostle Paul: “Those whom He predestined, He also called, and those He called, He also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30)? Where were Calvin, Luther and even St. Augustine mistaken when speaking about predestination to hell and heaven? Saint Theophan the Recluse wrote about this in his writings.

For whom He foreknew
and predestined to be like that
the image of His Son.

(Rom. 8:29)

The grace of God and the will of man

2015 marked the 200th anniversary of the birth of the great teacher of the Russian Church, a remarkable ascetic, one of the most brilliant and influential spiritual writers of the 19th century, St. Theophan the Recluse. The saint was not a theologian in the narrow sense of the word, not a theoretician of armchair scholarship, but spoke in an open language accessible to everyone, without lowering the dogmatic accuracy and truth of the teaching he expounded. The theological commission of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy noted that he was a theologian who found “such exact formulas as Russian Orthodox dogmatics had never had before.”

The saint’s works acquire particular significance in the 21st century, during the period of the revival of the Russian Church, Orthodox culture and Christian life in Russia. In his works, Saint Theophan also touches on issues that we have to face today when catechesising people with already established religious views under the influence of para-church or non-Orthodox teachings. One of these difficult topics is the question of God’s predestination, which “is a combination together of Divine grace and human will, the grace of God that calls, and the human will that follows the call,” extending to all humanity, “the existence of which is testified by the Holy Scriptures, misunderstanding of which leads many into the disastrous abyss of error.”

Today, people who were previously fond of the Protestant faith are also turning to Orthodoxy, while “For many, the concept of “Calvinist” is almost identical to the definition of “a person who pays great attention to the doctrine of predestination””.

Without correctly resolving for themselves the question of the relationship between grace and freedom, such people (unexpectedly for others) express extremely incorrect thoughts about predestination. That is why during catechesis this topic must be given special attention. At the same time, it is important to understand the reasons and essence of the misconception being overcome. Hieromartyr Irenaeus of Lyon, pointing out the importance of preparedness and competence to refute false knowledge, writes: “My predecessors, and much better than me, could not, however, satisfactorily refute the followers of Valentinus, because they did not know their teaching.” At the same time, in the process of catechesis, it is important to consistently and correctly reveal the positive teaching of the faith in accordance with the mind of the Holy Orthodox Church. Therefore, overcoming the erroneous views of people who deviate from the truth, according to Saint Theophan, consists “in an objective, impartial study of their errors and, most importantly, in a firm knowledge of the Orthodox faith.”

If you succeed in the world, will you be saved?

Let us consider the reasons and essence of the mentioned misconception. Indeed, the Swiss theologian of the late Reformation period, Jean Calvin, who acquired such significant authority in Europe that he began to be called the “Pope of Geneva,” characterizes predestination How " God's eternal command by which He determines what He wants to do with every person. For He does not create everyone in the same conditions, but He ordains eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.”(The founder of the Reformation, Martin Luther, and another figure of the Swiss Reformation, Ulrich Zwingli, also taught about the unconditional pre-established determination of life and, therefore, the salvation or destruction of a person.)

Calvin believed that God “ordains eternal life to some and eternal damnation to others.”

Moreover, within the framework of Calvinism, a person could indirectly judge his predestination for salvation by worldly prosperity: the Lord blesses those elected to heavenly salvation with prosperity in their earthly life, and the achievement of material well-being has come to be considered a very important sign of a person’s proximity to salvation.

In developing his doctrine of predestination, Calvin, considering biblical history, argues that even the fall of Adam occurred not as a result of God's permission, but by His absolute predestination, and since then a huge number of people, including children, have been sent by God to hell. Calvin himself called this point of his teaching “ a terrifying establishment", insisting that God not only allows, but wills and commands, that all the wicked who are not predestined to salvation should perish. In his compendium of faith, Instructions for the Christian Life, the Genevan Reformer states:

“Some speak here of the difference between “will” and “permission,” arguing that the wicked will perish because God allows it, but not because He wills. But why does He allow it, if not because He wishes? The statement that God only allowed, but did not command, that man should perish is in itself implausible: as if He did not determine in what state He would like to see His highest and noblest creation... The first man fell because God decreed it necessary.” ; “When they ask why God did this, they must answer: because He wanted it.”

Obviously, according to this point of view on predestination, “man himself... remains only a passive spectator of his own salvation or condemnation,” his spiritual and moral responsibility for his actions disappears, since the most important attribute of responsibility is human freedom. “If all human actions are necessary and inevitable as predetermined by God Himself,” Prof. rightly notes. T. Butkevich, how can you put responsibility for them on people. If all actions, both good and evil, are necessary; if some people are predestined by God to salvation, and others to eternal damnation, then it is obvious that the culprit of the evil that dominates the world is only God.” If God Himself predetermined the fall of man by virtue of His desire, why did He bring His Only Begotten Son as a propitiation sacrifice? The famous Orthodox exegete prof. N. Glubokovsky, explaining this issue, emphasizes: “The evangelist does not at all attribute the fate of those who are perishing to Divine predestination and rather emphasizes their personal guilt.”

In fact, freedom is a property of man’s Godlikeness, and “the question of the relationship of grace to human nature and freedom is a question of the very essence of the Church” (E. Trubetskoy). It is interesting to note that Calvin's theological views are traced by scholars of the history of the Reformation to St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Thus, H. Henry Meeter, professor of biblical studies at Calvin College, in his work “Basic Ideas of Calvinism” notes: “The theological views of Calvin and other figures of the Reformation are considered a revival of Augustinianism ... But it was Calvin in modern times who systematized such views and justified their practical application ". John Calvin himself, discussing predestination, directly writes in his confession: “I, without any doubt, with Saint Augustine I confess that the will of God is necessary for all things and that everything that God has decreed and willed inevitably happens.”

In this regard, it is necessary to touch upon some provisions of the teaching of St. Augustine, to whom the Genevan reformer refers and who, of course, had a great influence on the development of theological thought in the West.

Augustine: Man is incapable of loving God

In his work “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church » Saint Philaret of Chernigov, considering the teaching of Blessed Augustine, notes: “Relying on his own experience of difficult rebirth by grace, breathing a feeling of reverence for grace, he was carried away by a feeling beyond what was proper. Thus, as the accuser of Pelagius, Augustine is, without a doubt, a great teacher of the Church, but, while defending the Truth, he himself was not entirely and not always faithful to the Truth.”

In his statement of doctrine, the Bishop of Ipponia proceeds from the fact that humanity is called to replenish the angels who have fallen from God (perhaps even in greater numbers):

“It was the will of the Creator and Provider of the universe that the lost part of the angels (since not all of their multitude perished, leaving God) would remain in eternal destruction, while those who at that very time were invariably with God would rejoice in their most certain, always known bliss . Another rational creation, humanity, which perished in sins and disasters, both hereditary and personal, had to, as it was restored to its previous state, make up for the loss in the host of angels that had formed since the time of the devil’s destruction. For the resurrected saints are promised that they will be equal to the angels of God (Luke 20:36). Thus, the heavenly Jerusalem, our mother, the city of God, will not lose any of its many citizens, or perhaps will own even more.”

However, according to the views of Blessed Augustine, after the Fall, man is not able to free himself from the shackles of evil, sin and vice and does not even have the free will to love God. Thus, in one of his letters, Blessed Augustine points out: “Through the severity of the first sin, we lost our free will to love God.” Original sin is the cause of man's complete inability to do good. The direct desire for good in a person is possible only through the omnipotent action of God’s grace, “but grace is a consequence of predestination itself,” which directs the will of man, due to its superiority over it:

“When God wants something to happen that cannot happen otherwise than by human desire, then the hearts of people are inclined to desire it (1 Sam. 10:26; 1 Chron. 12:18). Moreover, He inclines them, Who miraculously produces both desire and accomplishment.”

Augustine believes that human free will does not play a significant role in the matter of salvation, and projects his personal experience onto all of humanity

A strict ascetic and zealous Christian, Blessed Augustine, after an era of stormy youth, having experienced the full brunt of the struggle with overwhelming passions, was convinced from the experience of his life that “neither pagan philosophy, nor even Christian teaching, without the special internally active power of God, can lead him to salvation ". In developing these thoughts, he comes to the conclusion that human free will does not play any significant role in the matter of salvation, while the Latin thinker projects his personal experience onto all of humanity. The most important thing in the teaching of Blessed Augustine is the position that with the general damage to human nature, salvation is achieved solely by the irresistible action of God's grace.

Considering the apostolic words about God, “Who wants all people to be saved” (1 Tim. 2: 4), Blessed Augustine rejects their literal understanding, arguing that God wants to save only the predestined, for if he wanted to save everyone, then all would find salvation. He's writing:

“The Apostle very rightly remarked about God: “Who wants all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4). But since a much larger proportion of people are not saved, it seems that God’s desire is not fulfilled and that it is the human will that limits the will of God. After all, when they ask why not everyone is saved, they usually answer: “Because they themselves do not want it.” Of course, this cannot be said about children: it is not in their nature to desire or not to desire. For, although at baptism they sometimes resist, yet we say that they are saved, even without wanting to. But in the Gospel, the Lord, denouncing the wicked city, speaks more clearly: “How often have I wanted to gather your children together, as a bird gathers its chicks under its wings, and you did not want to!” (Matthew 13: 37), as if the will of God was exceeded by the will of man and, due to the resistance of the weakest, the Strongest was unable to do what he wanted. And where is that omnipotence with which He did everything He wanted in heaven and on earth, if He wanted to gather the children of Jerusalem and did not? Don’t you believe that Jerusalem did not want her children to be gathered by Him, but even with her unwillingness, He gathered those of her children whom He wanted, because “in heaven and on earth” He did not want and do one thing, but another wanted and did not do it, but “does whatever he wants” (Ps. 113:11).”

Thus, Blessed Augustine elevates the salvation of people to the desire and determination of God Himself regarding the elect, completely denying the desire of the Creator to save all people. “Worse than that,” notes Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), “the logical consistency in his thought leads St. Augustine to the point that he even teaches (albeit in a few places) about “negative” predestination - predestination to eternal damnation, which is completely alien to Scripture. He clearly speaks of “the category of people who are predestined to destruction,” thus professing the extreme doctrine of double predestination. According to this, God created those whose destruction He foresaw then “to show His wrath and demonstrate His power. Human history serves as an arena for this in which “two communities of people” are predestined: one to reign eternally with God, and the other to suffer eternally with the devil. But double predestination applies not only to the city of God and the city of earth, but also to individual people. Some are predestined to eternal life, others to eternal death, and among the latter are infants who died without Baptism. Therefore, “the doctrine of double predestination to heaven and hell has ... the last word in Augustine’s theology.” This is an inevitable consequence of his view of God the Creator as the autocratic God of grace."

At the same time, paradoxically, God does not determine the commission of evil, He does not want the angels to sin or the first people in Paradise to break the commandment given to them, but, in accordance with the teachings of St. Augustine, they themselves wished for this: “when the angels and people sinned, that is, they committed not what He wanted, but what they themselves wanted.” Man was originally created by God able not to sin and not to die, although not incapable of sinning and dying. Adam “lived in Paradise as he wanted as long as he wanted what God commanded. He lived without any lack, having in his power to live like this always,” and, as St. Augustine asserts: “it is not sin that belongs to God, but judgment.”

From the writings of the Latin theologian it is clear that “he created a theory about how Divine action achieves its goal without the consent of man... that is, the theory of autocratic grace,” and bases predestination not on the foreknowledge of God, but, according to the remark of St. Philaret of Chernigov, “so that to be true to his thoughts about human nature, he had to admit unconditional predestination.” Thus, predestination in the teaching of St. Augustine is unconditional, that is, it is not based on God’s foreknowledge of future destinies, as he himself explains:

“Foreknowledge without predestination can exist. After all, God, by predestination, foreknows what He Himself is going to do. Therefore it is said: “He who created the future” (Isaiah 45; Sept.). However, He can also foreknow what He Himself does not do, such as, for example, any sins... Therefore, the predestination of God, relating to good, is, as I said, the preparation of grace, while grace is a consequence of predestination itself... He does not say: to foretell; He does not say: to foreknow - for He can also predict and foreknow the deeds of others - but said: “he is able to do it”, which means not the deeds of others, but His own.”

According to the views of the largest representative of Western patristics, the predestined, due to the omnipotent Divine desire, can no longer lose salvation: “in the system of St. Augustine... those predestined to salvation can go astray and lead a bad life, but grace can always direct them to the path of salvation. They cannot perish: sooner or later, grace will lead them to salvation."

God not only wants us to be saved, but also saves us

Many outstanding thinkers of Christian times devoted their works to the topic of God’s predestination; Saint Theophan (Gorov) also touches on this topic, setting out the essence of the subject according to the teachings of the Eastern Church. The reason for the fall of angels and primordial people was not the pre-eternal predestination that deprived them of freedom, but the abuse of the will with which these creatures were endowed. Nevertheless, both angels and people after the fall are left in existence and are not removed from the chain of creation according to the action of grace determined from eternity, explains the Vyshensky Recluse:

“This grace has entered into the plans of the world. The angels fell and were left in their fall due to their extreme persistence in evil and resistance to God. If they all fell, this link would fall out of the chain of creation and the system of the world would be upset. But since not all fell, but a part, a link of them remained and the harmony of the world remained indestructible. Man was created alone with his wife in order to give birth to the entire number of persons who could form a human link in the system of the world. When he fell, this link fell out and the world lost its order. As this link is necessary in the order of the world, it was necessary, either by putting to death, as defined, the fallen, to create new ancestors, or thereby provide a reliable way of restoration to the first rank. Since the fall occurred not due to, let’s say, the failure of the first creation, but because created freedom, especially the freedom of the spirit physically united with the body, combined within itself the possibility of a fall, then, having begun to repeat creation, it would perhaps be necessary to repeat it without end. Therefore, the wisdom of God, guided by boundless goodness, decided to arrange a different way for the fallen to revolt.”

Revealing the Orthodox faith, Saint Theophan pays special attention to the truth that God does not want the fall and destruction of anyone and for humanity who has fallen from the truth he has established a single path to salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ, thus desiring and giving salvation to everyone.

“God is our “Savior” not only because he desires salvation, but because he created the image of salvation and saves all those who are saved in this way, actively helping them to use it. Desiring salvation for everyone, God wants everyone to come to the knowledge of the truth about salvation, namely, that it is only in the Lord Jesus Christ. This is an urgent condition for salvation."

In Vyshensky’s explanation of the Holy Scriptures, “where necessary, interpretation is carried out together with an apology against the understanding of them by heterodox faiths.” In a commentary on the well-known words of the Apostolic Epistle, he repeats that God desires salvation for those who are not chosen only and determined by this chosenness, which is why the apostle calls it Savior of all. Having opened for everyone the blessed path to achieving salvation and providing the necessary gracious means to follow this path, the Lord calls on everyone to take advantage of this priceless gift:

“God not only wants everyone to be saved, but also created a wondrous image of salvation, open to everyone and powerful to save everyone.”

“God is the Savior of all men,” because “he wants to be saved by all men and to come into the understanding of truth” (1 Tim. 2:4) - and not only wants to be saved by everyone, but also created a wondrous image of salvation, open to everyone and always strong to save anyone who wants to use it."

Revealing the essence of Orthodox teaching, Saint Theophan explains that, desiring and giving salvation to everyone, God leaves everyone the freedom to voluntarily choose the good part, without acting forcibly against the desire of the person himself:

“God the Savior wants everyone to be saved. Why is it that not everyone is saved and not everyone is being saved? “Because God, who wants everyone to be saved, does not bring about their salvation by His omnipotent power, but, having arranged and offered everyone a wondrous and unique way of salvation, wants everyone to be saved, willingly approaching this way of salvation and using it wisely”; “This whole path is the path of free, rational will, which is accompanied by grace, confirming its movements.”

The Lord calls everyone, but not everyone responds to this call, as the Savior Himself says about this: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Luke 14:24). The all-merciful God does not want to deprive anyone of salvation, but those who perish, rejecting grace, doom themselves to spiritual death. The kingdom is acquired by the faithful, who have accepted the grace-given means given by God and who live by the law of spirit and faith.

“Not everyone is saved, because not everyone heeds the word of truth, not everyone is inclined to it, not everyone follows it - in a word, not everyone wants to” ; “God’s saving will, God’s saving power and God’s saving dispensation (the economy of salvation) extend to everyone and are sufficient for the salvation of everyone; but in fact, only the faithful are saved or made partakers of these salvations, that is, only those who believe in the gospel and, after receiving grace, live in the spirit of faith. So God, who is always willing and always strong to save everyone, is in reality the Savior only of the faithful.”

According to Orthodox soteriology, God saves a person, but not without the person himself, for he does not violate the will of people. However, if in the matter of salvation everything depended solely on God, explains Saint Theophan, then, of course, there would be no perishing and everyone would find salvation:

“God does not force anyone to be saved, but offers a choice and saves only the one who chooses salvation. If our will were not required, God would have made everyone saved in an instant, for He wants everyone to be saved. And then there would be no people dying at all”; “If everything depended on God, then in an instant everyone would become holy. One moment of God - and everyone would change. But such is the law that a person must desire and seek for it himself - and then grace will no longer abandon him, as long as he remains faithful to it.” .

The gospel has been revealed to the whole world, but not all people follow God’s calling, and even those who followed, that is, those who were called, notes Saint Theophan, “not all make good use of freedom on the “narrow path” to salvation, not all remain faithful, while those chosen to the end remain faithful:

“Everyone is called; but from called not everyone will follow the calling - not everyone becomes called. Called one should be named who has already accepted the Gospel and believed. But even this number is not all favorites, not all are predestined to be conformed to the Son in right and glory. For many do not remain faithful to the calling and either sin in faith, or in life “they are both blasphemers” (1 Kings 18:21). But those chosen and appointed remain faithful to the end.”

Not everyone, having heard the gracious call, embarks on the path of salvation, and not everyone who comes here to the Church of God achieves the blessed goal, but, according to the Word of God, only the faithful unto death (Rev. 2:10), why, given that the Lord is called Savior of all, for he calls everyone to salvation, only a few gain the Kingdom - this chosenness is determined not only by grace, but also by the desire of the person himself:

“Some of them are predestined to salvation and glory, while others are not predestined. And if this needs to be distinguished, it is necessary to make a distinction between vocation and vocation. Those chosen and appointed in a special way undergo the act of calling, although the word of calling announces the same to everyone. Having begun here, this distinction of the chosen ones continues later and in all subsequent acts on the path of salvation, or approach to God, and brings them to the blessed end. What exactly this difference is cannot be determined; but not in the grace alone that accompanies the word of calling, but also in the mood and acceptability of those called, which is a matter of their will.”

Of course, the economy of our salvation is a great mystery, but this salvation is directly related to our desire and decision, and is not accomplished mechanically against the will of people:

“Nothing happens mechanically, but everything is done with the participation of the morally free determination of the person himself”; “In a state of grace it is given to him (the sinner. – Auth.) to taste the sweetness of good, then it begins to attract him to itself as something already known, known and felt. The scales are equal, in the hands of a person there is complete freedom of action."

In the Orthodox teaching on salvation, therefore, special attention is paid to the need for intentional volitional effort on the part of the believer: “The Kingdom of Heaven is taken by force,” says the Savior, “and those who use force take it” (Matthew 11:12), - in this work from The one who is being saved requires the highest effort of strength. It is impossible to acquire the Kingdom without the complete conscious aspiration of man himself, since, according to the patristic word, where there is no will, there is no virtue. “In freedom, a certain independence is given to a person,” explains the Vyshensky Recluse, “but not so that he is self-willed, but so that he freely submits himself to the will of God. Voluntary submission of freedom to the will of God is the only true and only blessed use of freedom.” Success on the path to salvation is the fruit of free effort throughout the life of a Christian who has entered this field. Revealing in detail the essence of the beginning of spiritual life, Saint Theophan points out what is expected of each person for his grace-filled rebirth:

“What exactly is expected of us. We are expected to 1) recognize the presence of the gift of grace within ourselves; 2) we understood its preciousness for us, so great that it is more precious than life, so that without it life is not life; 3) they desired with all their desire to assimilate this grace to themselves, and themselves to it, or, what is the same, to be imbued with it in their entire nature, to be enlightened and sanctified; 4) they decided to achieve this by deed and then 5) they brought this determination into fulfillment, leaving everything or detaching their heart from everything and betraying it all to the all-effects of God’s grace. When these five acts are completed in us, then the beginning of our internal rebirth begins, after which, if we relentlessly continue to act in the same spirit, internal rebirth and insight will increase - quickly or slowly, judging by our work, and most importantly - by self-forgetfulness and selflessness" .

Become one of the predestined

The teaching of the Eastern Church affirms the need for co-operation (synergy) of Divine grace and human freedom, since only in the unity of human consent with the will of God and voluntary following along the path of salvation is the acquisition of the Kingdom achieved by those who “seek grace and freely submit to it.” A person is not able to achieve perfection and salvation on his own, since he does not have the forces necessary for this, and only with the assistance of God does this become possible and feasible. The actual renewal of man, thus, takes place in inextricable interaction with the grace of God. At the same time, both the enlightening and saving action of grace does not deprive the meaning of human freedom and the need for self-determination:

“The truly Christian life is arranged mutually - by grace and by one’s desire and freedom, so that grace, without the free inclination of the will, will not do anything to us, nor can one’s desire, without strengthening it by grace, succeed in anything. Both of them agree on one matter of organizing Christian life; and what in every deed belongs to grace and what to one’s desire is difficult to discern in subtlety, and there is no need. Know that grace never forces free will and never leaves it alone, without its help, when it is worthy of it, has a need and asks for it.”

The building of spiritual life is created on the basis of the regenerating action of grace and the active determination of the believer, “the tension of a person’s strength is a condition for their grace-filled strengthening of the joint action of grace with him, but the condition is again only, so to speak, logical, and not temporarily preceding. This can be seen from the words of Bishop Theophan, which categorically affirm the joint and inseparable nature of the action of freedom and grace.” The relationship of predestination to Divine foreknowledge is indicated in the apostolic letter with the following words: “Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son... And whom He predestined, them He also called, and whom He called, them He also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29–30). Commenting on this message of the Apostle Paul, the incorrect understanding of which was the basis for the false doctrine of predestination, Saint Theophan explains that the Orthodox understanding of the omniscience of God, including His foreknowledge of the destinies of people, never rejects the free will of man and his conscious participation in his salvation. Predestination is the incomprehensible action of the beginningless God, and it is determined by the harmony of the eternal Divine properties and perfections. The omniscient God foreknows and predetermines accordingly. Possessing knowledge of all things, God knows the past, present, and future as a single whole, and as He knows, He determines how it will be. Because of this, the cause of predestination is the free actions of man, not limited by the foreknowledge of God, since man himself realizes his personal choice. God, foreseeing the result of this choice and subsequent actions, determines according to this, that is, predestination itself is a logical consequence of the free actions of man, and not vice versa:

"He (God. – Auth.) knows the beginning, the continuation, and the end of everything that exists and happens - he also knows his final determination of the fate of everyone, as well as the entire human race; He knows who will be touched by His last “come” and who will be touched by “depart.” And as he knows, so he determines it to be. But just as, knowing in advance, He foretells, so, determining in advance, He predetermines. And since the knowledge or foreknowledge of God is by no means true and true, His definition is unchangeable. But, touching free creatures, it does not restrict their freedom and does not make them involuntary executors of its definitions. God foresees free actions as free, sees the entire course of a free person and the general result of all his actions. And, seeing it, he determines as if it had already happened. For he does not simply predetermine, but predetermines by foreknowing. We determine whether a person is good or bad by seeing the deeds he has done before us. And God predetermines according to deeds - but to deeds foreseen, as if they had already been done. It is not the actions of free persons that are the consequence of predestination, but predestination itself is the consequence of free deeds.”

God, explains Saint Theophan, by virtue of this foreknowledge, predetermines the chosen ones to be such and, accordingly, to receive a part in eternity. “God’s predestination embraces both the temporal and the eternal. The Apostle indicates what those who were foreordained were predestined to do, namely, that they should “be conformed to the image of His Son.”

These two converging actions—foreknowledge and predestination—exhaust God’s eternal destiny for the people being saved. Everything said above applies to everyone. Salvation, according to Orthodox teaching, notes Saint Theophan, is a free moral action, although it is possible only with the help of God’s grace. Everyone is called by God, and everyone who wishes can be among the predestined:

“God foresaw what we would desire and what we would strive for, and accordingly he made a decree about us. Therefore, it's all about our mood. Maintain a good mood - and you will find yourself among the chosen ones... Strain your efforts and jealousy - and you will win your election. However, this means that you are one of the chosen ones, for the non-elected one will not be jealous.”

Thus, for rebirth, a person himself must relentlessly strive for the Source of salvation, and in case of a fall, hasten to rise through repentance, so as not to lose his calling, for grace is not a self-acting force that alienatedly forces people to virtue.

“Be faithful and bless God, who called you to be conformed to His Son apart from you. If you remain like this until the end, then have no doubt that God’s boundless mercy will meet you there too. If you fall, do not fall into despair, but hasten through repentance to return to the rank from which you fell, like Peter. Even if you fall many times, get up, believing that, having stood up, you will again enter the host of those called according to providence. Only unrepentant sinners and hardened unbelievers can be excluded from this host, but even then not decisively. The thief, already on the cross, in the last minutes of his life, was captured and taken by the Son of God to paradise.”

According to the summing up and precise statement of Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky), later Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus', “it is very instructive, we say, to get acquainted with the disclosure of this side in the writings ... of the Right Reverend Theophan, so deeply imbued with paternal teaching ... According to the presentation of the Right Reverend Theophan, the inner essence of the mysterious man's renewal constitutes his voluntary and final determination of himself to please God. “This decision,” says Bishop Theophan, “is the main point in the matter of conversion.” As we see, the Right Reverend Theophan, in this description of the true content of dogmatic concepts concerning the question of salvation, completely correctly expresses the teaching of the holy fathers of the Church,” in contrast to heterodox scholasticism, which teaches about “self-propelled righteousness, which is established in a person and begins to act in him in addition to and even almost contrary to his consciousness and will."

Wealth does not indicate predestination to salvation, just as tribulation does not indicate the opposite.

It is also important to note that, according to the Vyshensky Recluse, external success and wealth, of course, do not indicate a person’s predestination to salvation, just as sorrows do not indicate the opposite determination.

“Everything that happens to them (to the faithful. – Auth.), even the most regrettable, (God. – Auth.) turns them to their benefit, writes Saint Theophan, “... patience already requires support, because it does not quickly turn out what you want - the most luminous and blessed; but the need for such support is greatly increased by the fact that the external situation of those waiting is extremely deplorable... God, seeing how they completely surrender themselves to Him and thereby testify to their great love for Him, arranges their lives in such a way that everything that happens to them turns out to be for their good , spiritual good, that is, in the purification of the heart, in the strengthening of good character, in the case of self-sacrifice for the Lord's sake, highly valued by the truth of God and preparing an invaluable reward. How natural is the conclusion from here: therefore, do not be embarrassed when you encounter sorrow, and do not weaken your hopeful mood! .

At the same time, Vyshinsky the Recluse points out that the success and comforts of this world can lead away from God even more than sorrow and oppression: “Aren’t the charms of the world strong? Don’t they even take away more from God and loyalty to Him?” .

This is the doctrine of God’s predestination, the deep knowledge of which, in full agreement with the teaching of the Orthodox Church, was shown in his works by Saint Theophan the Recluse, which became a stumbling block for supporters of the false idea of ​​predestination as an unconditional predestination in the life of every person.

Predestination(lat. praedestinatio, from prae - before, before and destinare – define, assign) – predestination.

Calvin J. Instruction in the Christian Faith. P. 409.

Right there. P. 410.

Right there. P. 404.

No branch of modern Calvinism has officially rejected this doctrine. Cm.: Vasechko V.N. Comparative theology. P. 50.

Hilarion (Alfeev), bishop. Orthodoxy. T. I. Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2008. P. 535.

Butkevich T., archpriest. Evil, its essence and origin: In 2 volumes. T. 2. Kyiv, 2007. P. 49.

Glubokovsky N.N. The teaching of the Holy Apostle Paul on predestination in comparison with the views of the book of the Wisdom of Solomon // Christian Reading. St. Petersburg, 1904. No. 7. P. 30.

Trubetskoy E.N. The religious and social ideal of Western Christianity in the 5th century. Part 1. Worldview of St. Augustine. M., 1892. P. 162.

Within the Calvinists, a division soon occurred into infralapsarians and supralapsarians, the first of whom assumed that God decided to select the worthy only from the time of the Fall he foresaw; supralapsarians considered the Fall to be concluded in the predetermination of God. “Supralapsarians and infralapsarians are two directions in Calvinism that differ in their interpretation of the doctrine of predestination. According to the infralapsarians, God made the decision to save one part of humanity without any merit on the part of these people and to condemn the other without any guilt only after the fall of Adam (infra lapsum). The supralapsarians believed that the divine decision to condemn some and save others existed from eternity, so that God foresaw (supra lapsum) and predetermined the very fall of Adam.” - Leibniz G.V. Description and deep analysis of your life and conversion of the blessed one. Augustine gives in the first nine chapters of the Confessions.

“Augustine is imbued with the conviction that from the first days of infancy until the moment when grace touched him, all his actions were an expression of his sinfulness... Thus, Augustine’s entire past life seems to be one continuous insult to God, a time of darkness, sin, ignorance and lust, when the very attempts to resist sin were in vain and did not lead to anything, because, trying to get up, he invariably fell and sank deeper into the sucking mud of vice.” - Popov I.V. Proceedings on patrolology. T. 2. The personality and teaching of St. Augustine. Publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2005. pp. 183–184.

Sergius (Stragorodsky), archimandrite. The teaching of St. Augustine on predestination in connection with the circumstances of his life and work // Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1887. No. 2. Part 1. P. 447.

“But although human nature is distorted and corrupted, it is not completely damaged. God, says the blessed one. Augustine did not completely withdraw His graces, otherwise we would simply cease to exist.” - Armstrong Arthur H. The Origins of Christian Theology: An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy. St. Petersburg, 2006. P. 236.

The formation of the doctrine of the relationship between grace and freedom, up to the approval of the theory of the autocratic action of grace, occurs in the views of the blessed. Augustine step by step. Cm.: Fokin A.R. A brief outline of the teachings of Blessed Augustine on the relationship between free human action and Divine grace in salvation (based on the works of 386–397) // Augustine, blissful. Treatises on various issues. M., 2005. pp. 8–40.

Augustine, blissful. Creations: In 4 volumes. T. 2: Theological treatises. St. Petersburg; Kyiv, 2000. P. 58.

Seraphim (Rose), hierom. The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1983. P. 18.

Pelican Ya. Christian tradition. History of the development of religious doctrine. T. 1: The emergence of the Catholic tradition. M., 2007. P. 284.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Interpretations of the messages of St. Apostle Paul. Epistle to the Romans. M., 1996. P. 535.

Right there. P. 536.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Interpretation of the first eight chapters of the Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans. Quote From: Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1980. No. 3. P. 67.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. The path to salvation. Quote By: Khondzinsky Pavel, archpriest. The teaching of St. Theophan about grace and “pure love” in the context of the ideas of Blessed Augustine // Bulletin of PSTGU: Theology. Philosophy. 2012. Issue. 6 (44). P. 26.

“God does not force us, He gave us the power to choose good and bad, so that we could be good freely. The soul, as a queen over itself and free in its actions, does not always submit to God, and He does not want to forcefully and against the will to make the soul virtuous and holy. For where there is no will, there is no virtue. It is necessary to convince the soul so that it will become good of its own free will.” - John Chrysostom, saint. Conversation on the words: “And we saw His glory...” (John 1: 14) // Christian reading. 1835. Part 2. P. 33.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Outline of Christian moral teaching. M., 2002. P. 52.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it. S. 125.

Message of the patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox faith // Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 17th–19th centuries on the Orthodox faith. Publication of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1995. P. 149.

Feofan, saint. Letters on the Christian Life. M., 2007. pp. 190–191.

Zarin S.M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1907. P. 12.

“Avoiding any polemics with Western interpretations of the negative direction, the saint offers only a complete doctrine of faith and moral teaching in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul. On the positive side, he explains the text according to the wisdom of the Holy Orthodox Church, and pays great attention to the edification of readers.” - Krutikov I.A. Saint Theophan, Recluse and Ascetic of the Vyshensk Hermitage. M., 1905. P. 145.

Rev. John of Damascus in his “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” writes: “God foresees everything, but does not predetermine everything. Thus, He foresees what is in our power, but does not predetermine it; for He does not want vice to appear, but He does not force us to virtue.” – TIPV. 2.30.

St. Gregory Palamas about the predestination of God: “Predestination and Divine will and foreknowledge coexist from eternity with the essence of God, and are beginningless and uncreated. But none of this is the essence of God, as stated above. And all this is so far removed from being the essence of God that the great Basil in the Antirritiki calls God’s foreknowledge of something to have no beginning, but [to have] an end when what is foreknown reaches [its fulfillment].” (Against Eunomius, 4 // PG. 29. 680 B). - Gregory Palamas, saint. Treatises (Patristics: texts and studies). Krasnodar, 2007. P. 47.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Interpretations of the messages of St. Apostle Paul. Epistle to the Romans. pp. 531–532.

Right there. P. 532.

Right there. pp. 537–538.

Right there. P. 537.

Sergius (Stragorodsky), archbishop. Orthodox teaching on salvation. M., 1991. P. 184.

Right there. P. 197.

In the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith” from 1723, against the false understanding of predestination, it is said: “We believe that the All-Good God predestined to glory those whom He chose from eternity, and whom He rejected, condemned, not because He did not want to justify some in this way, and leave others and condemn without reason, for this is not characteristic of God, the common and impartial Father, “Who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2: 4), but since He foresaw that some would use their free will well, and others poorly, therefore He predestined some to glory, and condemned others... But what the blasphemous heretics say, that God predestines or condemns, without regard in the least to the deeds of those who are predestined or condemned, is we consider it madness and wickedness... We never dare to believe, teach and think in this way... and we anathematize those who say and think like this forever and recognize them as the worst of all infidels.” – Message of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox faith // Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 17th–19th centuries on the Orthodox faith. pp. 148–151.

Feofan the Recluse, saint. Interpretations of the messages of St. Apostle Paul. Epistle to the Romans. pp. 526–527.

Predestination

An example of predestination and fate can be found in the story of King Cyrus the Great (his future was seen in a dream by his grandfather Cyrus I). At the same time, the idea of ​​predestination was combined among the Greeks and Romans with the idea that a person’s conscious activity could still have meaning. Thus, Polybius in his “General History” constantly emphasizes the role of fate, but it is still possible to break the circle, especially if an outstanding person comes to power. Cornelius Tacitus in one of his books reflects on the problem of “whether human affairs are determined by fate and inexorable necessity or by chance,” citing various opinions on this matter, one of which says that the gods do not care in the slightest about mortals, the other that life circumstances are predetermined by fate , but not due to the movement of stars, but due to the reasons and interconnection of natural causes. But most mortals believe that their future is predetermined from birth. Thus, the worldview of the Greeks and Romans was characterized by duality, rather than complete providentialism.

Predestination in Christianity

Predestination is one of the most difficult points of religious philosophy, associated with the question of divine properties, the nature and origin of evil and the relationship of grace to freedom (see Religion, Free Will, Christianity, Ethics).

Morally free beings can consciously prefer evil to good; and indeed, the stubborn and unrepentant persistence of many in evil is an undoubted fact. But since everything that exists, from the point of view of monotheistic religion, ultimately depends on the omnipotent will of the omniscient Deity, it means that persistence in evil and the resulting death of these beings is a product of the same divine will, predetermining some to good and salvation, others - to evil and destruction.

To resolve these disputes, the Orthodox teaching was more precisely defined at several local councils, the essence of which boils down to the following: God wants everyone to be saved, and therefore absolute predestination or predestination to moral evil does not exist; but true and final salvation cannot be violent and external, and therefore the action of the goodness and wisdom of God for the salvation of man uses all means for this purpose, with the exception of those that would abolish moral freedom; therefore, rational beings who consciously reject all help from grace for their salvation cannot be saved and, according to the omniscience of God, are predestined to exclusion from the kingdom of God, or to destruction. Predestination, therefore, refers only to the necessary consequences of evil, and not to evil itself, which is only the resistance of free will to the action of saving grace.

The question here is resolved, therefore, dogmatically.

Predestination in the Bible

One of the first Russian ships, Goto Predestination (1711), was named in honor of this concept.

see also

Notes

Literature

• Timothy George The Theology of the Reformers, Nashville, Tenn., 1988.
• Friehoff C. Die Pradestintionslehre bei Thomas von Aquino und Calvin. Freiburg, 1926,
• Farrelly J, Predestination, Grace, and Free Will, Westminster, 1964.
• I. Manannikov “Predestination”, Catholic Encyclopedia. Volume 3, Franciscan Publishing House 2007
• Alistair McGrath, Theological Thought of the Reformation, Odessa, 1994.
• The Divine Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, on the predestination of the saints, the first book to Prosper and Hilary, M.: Put, 2000.
• Calvin J. “Instructions in the Christian Faith”, St. Petersburg, 1997.

Links

• Foresight and predestination Orthodox encyclopedia “ABC of Faith”
• Predestination and free will in Islam (kalam) Russian translation of Chapter VIII from the book Wolfson H. A. The Philosophy of the Kalam. Harvard University Press, 1976. 810 p.

Peace to you, March!

This topic is very interesting.

Predestination (Latin praedestinatio) is a theological category that expresses the religious idea of ​​the determination of a person’s moral behavior coming from the will of God and, accordingly, his salvation or condemnation after earthly life. (Latin praedeterminatio, sometimes praedestinatio) - a religious idea of ​​the predetermined events of history and human life coming from the will of God. The preliminary determination of a person’s life, his salvation or condemnation in eternity by the will of God. The idea of ​​predestination is of particular importance in monotheistic religions, since from the point of view of monotheism, everything that exists is determined by the will of God (including evil), therefore the problem of predestination is related to the problem of Theodicy. Related concepts: foreknowledge, providence, fate, providence - on the one hand; self-determination, spontaneity of will, human freedom - on the other hand. Predestination is one of the main religious concepts, which includes the opposition between the absolute will of God and human freedom.

Holy Scripture speaks of predestination in different contexts. First, about predestination in the world of nature and history. Predestination is the design or plan of the Creator, according to which all events take place in the world. Secondly, about predestination in the spiritual world - the fate of the fallen angels. Thirdly, the fate of each person and all humanity as a whole is predetermined. “Thy eyes have seen my embryo; in Your book are written all the days appointed for me, when not one of them was yet” (.16). Fourthly, about Christ: “From eternity He was predestined to sacrifice Himself” ().Greek. the verb προορίζω (to predetermine) appears only in the New Testament: once in Acts. (4:28), five times in Paul ( ; ; ); in the Russian translation it is conveyed twice by the verb “intend” - (.7; .11). The noun “predestination” is not used anywhere, but the following terms are found: “plan”, “will” (πρόθησις, βουλή), foreknowledge (πρόγνωσις), for example: “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father” (.1); election (έхλογή) - “God from the beginning... chose” (.13). There is no developed doctrine of predestination in the Bible. However, for St. Paul this action of God is an important element of his understanding of the Creator’s plan. Ap. Paul writes: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (.12). This antinomic verse indicates the direction in which the theological concept of predestination will develop in history.

The idea of ​​predestination is closely related to the doctrine of salvation, i.e. with the question of how a person participates in his salvation - with the help of his will (good deeds) or only by accepting Divine grace. The idea of ​​absolute predestination first appears in Blessed. Augustine as a reaction against Pelagianism, which gave human freedom such a broad meaning that there was no room not only for action, but also foresight on the part of the Divine. Augustine himself accompanied his doctrine of predestination with various mitigating clauses. Augustine's main text on predestination is On the Predestination of the Saints. Blessed Augustine believed that original sin radically distorted the spiritual powers of man, that evil was insurmountable for him without the help of God. Augustine came to the conviction that in the matter of salvation, human free will does not play a significant or even any role at all. In the strict sense, free will does not exist in man after the Fall. Salvation is achieved exclusively by the omnipotent action of divine grace. Augustine refuted the main thesis of the semi-Pelagians that a person gains faith in cooperation with God. This understanding of faith for Augustine meant that a person appropriates to himself what belongs to God. Anyone who wants to act as a “co-worker with God” belittles the grace of God, wanting to deserve it. Faith is a gift of God. And if a person is not able to believe himself, then God Himself must choose who to give faith and whom to save. This means that election is not conditioned by anything that God could foresee in man, by anything other than the will of God. From Augustine’s point of view, election does not consist in the fact that God foresaw who would respond to the gospel call and predestined them to salvation, but in the fact that God predestined sinners unable to believe in order to give them faith and thereby save them.

The Pelagian heresy is named after its founder, the monk Pelagius, originally from Britain. It arose at the end of the 4th century. Struck by the debauchery of morals, Pelagius wrote a number of essays in which he argued that invincible sin does not exist. The Pelagians preached freedom of will and choice, thereby downplaying the role of Divine grace, that is, they actually rejected the participation of God in the moral improvement of man. They denied divine predestination. It was believed that original sin cannot be of fundamental importance for the human race, since it is the personal matter of Adam himself, therefore the Fall did not completely distort the positive qualities of man and, thus, human nature is not initially sinful. Pelagianism caused in the 5th century. big controversy in the West.

At the Council of Carthage in 418, 8 rules were adopted “against the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius” (rules 123-130 in the “Book of the Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, and Holy Fathers”), and Pelagianism was finally recognized as a heresy. However, debates about the relationship between human will and grace have not ceased. In the 20s of the 5th century. in Southern Gaul, in Marseille, the so-called Semi-Pelagianism appeared - a doctrine of grace and freedom, adjoining not Pelagius, but rather the teachers of the church before Augustine, and approaching the Orthodox. Semi-Pelagianism was especially widespread among monks, for whom the issue of acquiring grace through personal asceticism was more than urgent. Representatives of this teaching were Rev. Vincent of Lerins and John Cassian, who taught that the Divine predestination of some to salvation and others to destruction is based not on the unconditional will of God, but on Divine foreknowledge of whether people will accept grace or not, i.e. God elects people to salvation on the basis of foreknown faith. Thus, John Cassian attempted to take a position between Augustine and Pelagius. The Semi-Pelagians argued that grace was not necessary for the initial act of faith. Original sin worsened the original nature of man, but not so much that he could not desire and could not be able to do good after the fall. At the same time, the Semi-Pelgians did not allow that a person could be saved without grace. Grace is communicated to a person only when he makes maximum efforts to become worthy of it. This teaching gave monasticism a special status, especially in terms of its ascetic practice.

In essence, this teaching is the Orthodox teaching on synergy, the 13th interview with Rev. Cassian is considered its classic expression. In the last decades of the 5th century, semi-Pelagianism was represented by the most prominent teacher of southern Gaul, Faustus of Riez, who rebelled equally against both Pelagius and the dangerous errors of Augustine's doctrine of predestination. Faustus in his teaching is even less dependent on Augustine than Cassian. He taught that faith as knowledge and the desire of the will for self-improvement contains merit due to primary grace; saving grace is imparted to it, and its joint activity with the will creates true merit. Faith as the primary merit. Semi-Pelagianism was recognized as correct at the Council of Arles in 475, but at the Council of Orange in 529, simultaneously with the approval of Augustine's teachings, Semi-Pelagianism was defined as a material heresy, i.e. unintentional error in important matters of faith. The approval of Pope Boniface II increased the authority of the decisions of the Council of Orange, which the Council of Trent also took into account. The points put forward there are consistent with the teaching of Augustine, but there is no clear doctrine of predestination (predestination to sin is rejected and anathematized), nor is enough space given to the internal process accomplished by grace, which Augustine emphasized most.

While the Lutheran Church arose from a concern with the doctrine of justification, the Reformed Church was born out of a desire to reestablish the evangelical model of the apostolic Church, which we will look at in more detail in Chapter 9. We will now turn our attention to one of the leading ideas of Reformed theology, which has great significance for its political and social theories - on the concept of divine sovereignty. Reformed theologians considered Luther's interest in personal experience to be too subjective and too individual-centered; They were concerned, first of all, with the establishment of objective criteria on the basis of which it was possible to reform society and the Church. And they found such criteria in Scripture. They had little time to devote to scholastic theology, which never posed a serious threat to the Swiss Reformation.

The doctrine of predestination is often seen as a core feature of Reformed theology. For many, the concept of “Calvinist” is almost identical to the definition of “a person who pays great attention to the doctrine of predestination.” How then did the concept of mercy, which for Luther meant the justification of the sinner, come to be related to the sovereignty of God, especially as expressed in the doctrine of predestination? And how did this evolution take place? In this chapter we will consider the understanding of the doctrine of mercy as presented by the Reformed Church.

Zwingli on Divine Sovereignty

Zwingli began his pastorate in Zurich on January 1, 1519. This ministry almost ended in August of the same year, when Zurich was hit by a plague epidemic. That such epidemics were common in the early sixteenth century should not detract from its drama: at least one in four, and perhaps one in two, inhabitants of Zurich died between August 1519 and February 1520. Zwingli's pastorate included consoling the dying, which naturally required contact with the sick. Being near the dying, Zwingli fully realized that his life was completely in the hands of God. We have a poetic fragment, generally known as the "Pestlied" ("Plague Song"), which is dated in the autumn of 1519. In it we find Zwingli's reflections on his fate. There are no appeals to saints or assumptions about the intercession of the Church. Instead, we find a firm determination to accept whatever God sends to man. Zwingli is ready to accept everything that God puts into his lot:

Do according to Your will, For I lack nothing. I am Your vessel, Ready to be saved or destroyed.

Reading these lines, one cannot help but feel Zwingli’s complete submission to the Divine will. Zwingli's disease was not fatal. Probably from this experience grew his conviction that he was an instrument in the hands of God, completely obedient to His purpose.

We noted earlier that Luther's difficulties with the "righteousness of God" were as much existential as they were theological. Clearly, Zwingli's emphasis on Divine Providence also has a strong existential side. For Zwingli, the question of God's omnipotence was not purely academic, but had direct significance for his existence. While Luther's theology, at least initially, was largely shaped by his personal experience of vindication as a sinner, Zwingli's theology was shaped almost entirely by his sense of the absolute sovereignty of God and the complete dependence of humanity on His will. The idea of ​​the absolute sovereignty of God was developed by Zwingli in his doctrine of Providence and especially in his famous sermon “De providentia” (“On Providence”). Many of Zwingli's more critical readers noted similarities between his ideas and Seneca's fatalism and suggested that Zwingli only revived Senecan fatalism and gave it a self-critical meaning. Some weight was given to this assumption by Zwingli's interest in Seneca and references to him in De providentia. The salvation or damnation of an individual depends entirely on God, who judges freely from the perspective of eternity. However, it appears that Zwingli's emphasis on divine omnipotence and human impotence was ultimately drawn from the writings of Paul, reinforced by his reading of Seneca, and imbued with the existential significance of his subsequent close encounter with death in August 1519.

It is very instructive to compare the attitudes of Luther and Zwingli to Scripture, which reflect their different approaches to the grace of God. For Luther, the main meaning of Scripture is the gracious promises of God, which culminate in the promise of justification of the sinner by faith. For Zwingli, Scripture is first and foremost the Law of God, a code of conduct containing the demands made by a sovereign God on His people. Luther makes a sharp distinction between law and Scripture, while for Zwingli they are essentially the same thing.

It was Zwingli's growing interest in the sovereignty of God that led to his break with humanism. It is difficult to say exactly when Zwingli ceased to be a humanist and became a reformer: there are good reasons to assume that Zwingli remained a humanist throughout his life. As we saw above (pp. 59-63), Kristeller's definition of humanism concerns its methods, not its doctrines: if this definition of humanism is applied to Zwingli, then we can conclude that he remained a humanist throughout his ministry. Similar remarks apply to Calvin. One may, however, object: how can these people be considered humanists if they developed such an inexorable doctrine of predestination? Of course, one cannot call Zwingli or Calvin a humanist, if we use this term in the meaning that is given to this concept in the twentieth century. However, this does not apply to the sixteenth century. If we remember that numerous writers of antiquity - such as Seneca and Lucretius - developed a fatalistic philosophy, then it becomes clear that there is every reason to consider both reformers as humanists. Nevertheless, it appears that it was at this point in his ministry that Zwingli changed his mind on one of the central issues shared by his contemporary Swiss humanists. If Zwingli was still a humanist after this, he was expressive of a particular form of humanism that might be regarded by his colleagues as slightly eccentric.

The reform program begun by Zwingli in Zurich in 1519 was essentially humanist. The character of his use of Scripture is deeply Erasmian, as is his preaching style, although his political views are tinged with the Swiss nationalism that Erasmus rejected. More important for our consideration is that the Reformation was seen as an educational process, reflecting the views of both Erasmus and the Swiss humanist fraternities. In a letter to his colleague Myconius, dated December 31, 1519, Zwingli, summing up the first year of his stay in Zurich, announced that his result was that “more than two thousand more or less educated people appeared in Zurich.” However, the letter of July 24, 1520 paints an image of Zwingli admitting the failure of the humanistic concept of the Reformation: the success of the Reformation required more than the educational views of Quintilian. The fate of humanity in general, and the Reformation in particular, was determined by Divine Providence. God, not humanity, is the main actor in the Reformation process. The educational technique of the humanists was a half-measure that did not address the root of the problem.

This skepticism about the viability of the humanist reform program was made public in March 1515, when Zwingli published his Commentary on True and False Religion. Zwingli attacked two ideas that were central to the Erasmian reform program - the idea of ​​"free will" (libemm arbitrium), which Erasmus had persistently defended in 1524, and the proposal that educational methods could reform a depraved and sinful humanity. According to Zwingli, providential Divine intervention was required, without which true Reformation was impossible. It is also well known that in 1525 Luther’s militantly anti-Erasmus work “De servo arbitrio” (“On the Slavery of the Will”) was published, in which Erasmus’s doctrine of free will was criticized. Luther's work is imbued with the spirit of the complete sovereignty of God, associated with a doctrine of predestination similar to that of Zwingli. Many humanists found this emphasis on human sinfulness and divine omnipotence unacceptable, which led to a certain estrangement between Zwingli and many of his former supporters.

Calvin on Predestination

In popular perception, Calvin's religious thought appears to be a strictly logical system centering on the doctrine of predestination. No matter how widespread this image is, it has little to do with reality; Whatever the importance of the doctrine of predestination to later Calvinism (see pp. 162-166), it does not reflect Calvin's views on the matter. Calvin's successors later in the sixteenth century, faced with the need to apply a method of systematization to his teachings, found that his theology was eminently suitable for transformation into the more rigorous logical structures defined by the Aristotelian methodology so beloved of the late Italian Renaissance (p. 62) . This led to the simple conclusion that Calvin's thought itself had the systematic structure and logical rigor of later Reformed orthodoxy, and allowed orthodoxy's interest in the doctrine of predestination to be traced back to the Institutes of the Christian Faith of 1559. As will be pointed out below (pp. 162-166), there is some difference on this point between Calvin and Calvinism that marks and reflects a significant turning point in intellectual history in general. Calvin's followers developed his ideas in accordance with the new spirit of the times, which regarded systematization and interest in method as not only respectable, but also highly desirable.

Calvin's theological thought also reflected a concern with human sinfulness and divine omnipotence and found its fullest expression in his doctrine of predestination. In the early period of his life, Calvin held soft humanistic views on the Reformation, which were perhaps similar to the views of Lefebvre d'Etaples (Stapulensis). By 1533, however, he took a more radical position. On November 2, 1533, rector of the University of Paris Nicola Cope gave a speech to mark the start of the new school year, in which he hinted at several important themes associated with the Lutheran Reformation.Although these hints were very careful and alternated with lamentations of traditional Catholic theology, the speech caused a scandal. The rector and Calvin, who probably took part in composing the speech, were forced to flee Paris.Where and how did the young humanist become a reformer?

The question of the date and nature of Calvin's conversion has preoccupied many generations of scholars of his legacy, although these studies have yielded incredibly little concrete results. It is generally accepted that Calvin moved from mild humanistic views of the Reformation to a more radical platform in late 1533 or early 1534, but we know why. Calvin describes his conversion in two places in his later works, but we do not have Luther's wealth of autobiographical detail. However, it is clear that Calvin attributes his conversion to Divine Providence. He claims that he was deeply devoted to "popish superstitions", and only the action of God could free him. He claims that God "humbled his heart and brought him into submission." Once again we encounter the same emphasis characteristic of the Reformation: the powerlessness of humanity and the omnipotence of God. It is these ideas that are associated and developed in Calvin's doctrine of predestination.

Although some scholars have argued that predestination was central to Calvin's theological thought, it is now clear that this is not the case. It is only one aspect of his doctrine of salvation. Calvin's main contribution to the development of the doctrine of grace is the strict logic of his approach. This is best seen by comparing the views of Augustine and Calvin on this doctrine.

For Augustine, humanity after the Fall is corrupt and powerless, requiring the grace of God for salvation. This grace is not given to everyone. Augustine uses the term “predestination” to mean the escheat of the bestowal of Divine grace. It refers to the special divine decision and action by which God bestows His grace on those who will be saved. However, the question arises as to what happens to the rest. God passes them by. He does not specifically decide to condemn them, He just does not save them. According to Augustine, predestination refers only to the Divine decision of redemption, not to the abandonment of the remainder of fallen humanity.

For Calvin, strict logic requires that God actively decide whether to redeem or condemn. God cannot be assumed to do things by default: He is active and sovereign in His actions. Therefore, God actively desires the salvation of those who will be saved and the damnation of those who will not be saved. Predestination is therefore “the eternal command of God, by which He determines what He wills for each individual person. He does not create equal conditions for everyone, but he prepares eternal life for some and eternal damnation for others.” One of the central functions of this doctrine is to emphasize the mercy of God. For Luther, God's mercy is expressed in the fact that He justifies sinners, people who are unworthy of such a privilege. For Calvin, God's mercy is manifested in His decision to redeem individuals, regardless of their merit: the decision to redeem a person is made regardless of how worthy the person is. For Luther, Divine mercy is manifested in the fact that He saves sinners despite their vices; for Calvin, mercy is manifested in God saving individuals regardless of their merits. Although Luther and Calvin defended God's mercy from slightly different points of view, they affirmed the same principle in their views on justification and predestination.

Although the doctrine of predestination was not central to Calvin's theology, it became the core of later Reformed theology through the influence of authors such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and Theodore Beza. From approx. 1570 the theme of “chosenness” began to dominate Reformed theology and allowed Reformed communities to be identified with the people of Israel. Just as God had once chosen Israel, He now chose the Reformed congregations to be His people. From this moment on, the doctrine of predestination begins to perform a leading social and political function, which it did not possess under Calvin.

Calvin sets forth his doctrine of predestination in the third book of the Institutes of the Christian Faith, 1559 edition, as one aspect of the doctrine of the atonement through Christ. The earliest edition of this work (1536) treats it as one aspect of the doctrine of providence. Since the 1539 edition it has been treated as an equal topic.

Calvin's consideration of “the manner in which the grace of Christ is received, the advantages it brings with it, and the results to which it produces” suggests that there is the possibility of redemption through what Christ achieved by His death on the cross. Having discussed how this death can become the basis for human redemption (see pp. 114–115), Calvin moves on to discuss how man can benefit from the advantages that result from it. Thus the discussion moves from the grounds of the atonement to the means of its implementation.

The order of consideration that follows is a mystery to many generations of Calvin scholars. Calvin addresses a number of issues in the following order: faith, regeneration, Christian life, justification, predestination. Based on Calvin's definition of the relationship between these entities, one would expect this order to be somewhat different: predestination would precede justification, and regeneration would follow it. Calvin's order appears to reflect educational considerations rather than theological precision.

Calvin attaches emphatically little importance to the doctrine of predestination, devoting only four chapters to it (chapters 21-24 of the third book in the following III. XXI-XXIV). Predestination is defined as “the eternal command of God by which He determines what He wants to do to each person. For He does not create everyone in the same conditions, but ordains eternal life for some, and eternal damnation for others” (HI. xxi. 5). Predestination should fill us with a sense of awe. "Dectum horribile" (Ill. xxiii. 7) is not a "terrible command", as a literal translation, insensitive to the nuances of the Latin language, might betray; on the contrary, it is an “awe-inspiring” or “terrifying” command.

The very location of Calvin's discussion of predestination in the Institutes of 1559 is significant. It follows his exposition of the doctrine of grace. It is only after discussing the great themes of this doctrine, such as justification by faith, that Calvin turns to consider the mysterious and puzzling category of "predestination." From a logical point of view, predestination would have to precede this analysis; after all, predestination sets the stage for man's election and, consequently, his subsequent justification and sanctification. And yet Calvin refuses to submit to the canons of such logic. Why?

For Calvin, predestination must be seen in its proper context. It is not a product of human reflection, but a mystery of Divine revelation (I. ii. 2; III. xxi. 12). However, it was discovered in a specific context and in a specific way. This method is associated with Jesus Christ himself, who is “the mirror in which we can see the fact of our election” (III. xxiv. 5). Context relates to the strength of the gospel call. Why is it that some people respond to the Christian gospel and others do not? Should this be attributed to a certain impotence inherent in the inadequacy of this Gospel? Or is there another reason for these differences in response?

Far from dry, abstract theological speculation, Calvin's analysis of predestination begins with observable facts. Some believe the Gospel and some don't. The primary function of the doctrine of predestination is to explain why the gospel resonates with some but not with others. It is an ex post facto explanation of the uniqueness of human responses to grace. Calvin's Predestinarianism must be regarded as an a posteriori reflection of the data of human experience interpreted in the light of Scripture, and not as something deduced a priori from a preconceived idea of ​​Divine omnipotence. Belief in predestination is not in itself a part of faith, but the final result of scriptural reflection on the influence of grace on people in the light of the mysteries of human experience.

Experience shows that God does not influence every human heart (III. xxiv. l5). Why is this happening? Is this due to some deficiency on God's part? Or is there something stopping the Gospel from converting every person? In the light of Scripture, Calvin feels able to deny the possibility of any weakness or inadequacy on the part of God or the Gospel; the observed paradigm of human responses to the gospel reflects the mystery by which some are predestined to accept the promises of God and others to reject them. “For some are destined for eternal life, and for others eternal damnation” (III. xxi. 5).

Doctrine of Predestination

It should be emphasized that this is not a theological innovation. Calvin does not introduce a previously unknown concept into the realm of Christian theology. As we have already seen, the “modern Augustinian school” (schola Augustiniana moderna), represented by such representatives as Gregory of Rimini, also taught the doctrine of absolute double predestination: God destined for some eternal life, and for others eternal damnation, regardless of their personal merits or shortcomings. Their fate depends entirely on the will of God, and not on their individuality. Indeed, it is quite possible that Calvin consciously adopted this aspect of late medieval Augustinianism, which bears an extraordinary similarity to his own teaching.

Thus, salvation is beyond the power of people who are powerless to change the existing situation. Calvin emphasizes that this selectivity is not limited to the question of salvation. In all areas of life, he argues, we are forced to confront an incomprehensible mystery. Why are some people more successful in life than others? Why does one person have intellectual gifts that are denied to others? Even from the moment of birth, two babies, without any fault of their own, may find themselves in completely different circumstances: one may be brought to a breast full of milk and thus be nourished, while the other may suffer from malnutrition, forced to suckle almost dry. breast. For Calvin, predestination was just another manifestation of the common mystery of human existence, in which some receive material and intellectual gifts that are denied to others. It does not cause any additional difficulties that are not present in other areas of human existence.

Does the idea of ​​predestination imply that God is freed from traditional categories of goodness, justice, or rationality? Although Calvin particularly rejects the concept of God as an Absolute and Arbitrary Power, from his consideration of predestination emerges the image of a God whose relationship with creation is whimsical and capricious, and whose authority is not bound by any law or order. Here Calvin clearly places himself in line with the late medieval understanding of this controversial issue, and especially with the "via moderna" and "schola Augustiniana moderna" in the question of the relationship between God and the established moral order. God is in no sense subject to law, for this would place the law above God, an aspect of creation, and even something outside of God before creation above the Creator. God is outside the law in the sense that His will is the basis of existing concepts of morality (III. xxiii. 2). These brief statements represent one of Calvin's clearest points of contact with the late medieval voluntarist tradition.

Finally, Calvin argues that predestination must be recognized as based on the incomprehensible judgments of God (III. xxi. 1). It is not given to us to know why He chooses some and condemns others. Some scholars argue that this position may reflect the influence of late medieval discussions of the "absolute power of God (potentia Dei absolute)", according to which the Capricious or Voluntarily Acting God is free to do whatever He wishes without having to justify His actions. This assumption, however, is based on a misunderstanding of the role of the dialectical relationship between the two powers of God - absolute and predetermined - in late medieval theological thought. God is free to choose whomever He wishes, otherwise His freedom will become subject to external considerations and the Creator will be subject to His creation. Nevertheless. Divine decisions reflect His wisdom and justice, which are supported by predestination, and do not conflict with it (III. xxii. 4 III. xxiii. 2).

Far from being the central aspect of Calvin's theological system (if that word can be used at all), predestination is therefore an auxiliary doctrine that explains the mysterious aspect of the consequences of the proclamation of the gospel of grace. However, as Calvin's followers sought to develop and reshape his thought in the light of new intellectual directions, it was inevitable (if this potentially predestinarian style could be justified) that changes were bound to occur in his proposed structure of Christian theology.

Predestination in Late Calvinism

As stated above, it is not entirely true to speak of Calvin as developing a “system” in the strict sense of the term. Calvin's religious ideas, as presented in the Institutes of 1559, are systematized on the basis of pedagogical considerations, rather than a leading speculative principle. Calvin considered biblical exposition and systematic theology to be essentially identical and refused to make the distinction between them that became common after his death.

During this period, a new interest in the method of systematization, that is, the systematic organization and sequential conclusion of ideas, received impetus. Reformed theologians were faced with the need to defend their ideas against both Lutheran and Roman Catholic opponents. Aristotelianism, which Calvin himself had viewed with some suspicion, was now seen as an ally. It became extremely important to demonstrate the internal consistency and consistency of Calvinism. Consequently, many Calvinist authors turned to Aristotle in the hope of finding in his writings on method hints on how to give their theology a firmer rational basis.

Four characteristics of this new approach to theology can be pointed out:

1. Human reason has a primary role in the exploration and defense of Christian theology.

2. Christian theology was presented in the form of a logically consistent, rationally defensible system, derived from syllogistic conclusions based on known axioms. In other words, theology began with first principles from which its doctrines were derived.

3. It was believed that theology should be based on Aristotelian philosophy, in particular on his views on the nature of method; Late Reformed authors are better called philosophical, rather than biblical, theologians.

4. It was believed that theology should deal with metaphysical and speculative questions, especially those related to the nature of God, His will for humanity and creation, and, above all, the doctrine of predestination.

Thus, the starting point of theology was general principles, not a specific historical event. The contrast with Calvina is quite obvious. For him, theology focused on Jesus Christ and came from His appearance as evidenced in Scripture. It is the new interest in establishing a logical starting point for theology that allows us to understand the attention that began to be given to the doctrine of predestination. Calvin focused on the specific historical phenomenon of Jesus Christ and then proceeded to explore its meaning (that is, in appropriate terms, his method was analytical and inductive). In contrast, Beza began with general principles and then moved on to explore their implications for Christian theology (i.e., his method was deductive and synthetic).

What general principles did Beza use as starting points for his theological systematization? The answer to this question is that he based his system on the Divine commands of election, that is, on the Divine decision to choose some people for salvation and others for damnation. Beza views everything else as consequences of these decisions. Thus, the doctrine of predestination received the status of a governing principle.

One important consequence of this principle can be pointed out: the doctrine of "limited reconciliation" or "particular atonement" (the term "reconciliation" is often used in reference to the benefits resulting from the death of Christ). Let's consider the following question. For whom did Christ die? The traditional answer to this question is that Christ died for everyone. However, although His death can redeem all, it has a real effect only on those whom it can have this effect on by the will of God.

This question was raised very sharply during the great predestinary controversy of the ninth century, during which the Benedictine monk Godescalcus of Orbais (also known as Gottschok) developed a doctrine of double predestination, similar to the later constructions of Calvin and his followers. With merciless logic, examining the consequences of his assertion that God has predestined eternal damnation for some people, Godeskalk pointed out that in this regard it is incorrect to say that Christ died for such people, for if this is so, then His death was in vain, for it did not have any effect. influence on their fate.

Hesitating over the consequences of his statements, Godeskalk expressed the idea that Christ died only for the elect. The scope of His atoning works is limited to those who are destined to benefit from His death. Most ninth-century authors viewed this claim with disbelief. However, he was destined to be reborn in late Calvinism.

Related to this new emphasis on predestination was an interest in the idea of ​​election. As we explored the characteristic ideas of the via moderna (pp. 99-102), we noted the idea of ​​a covenant between God and believers, similar to the covenant made between God and Israel in the Old Testament. This idea began to gain increasing importance in the rapidly growing Reformed Church. Reformed congregations saw themselves as the new Israel, the new people of God who were in a new covenant relationship with God.

The “Covenant of Grace” declared the duties of God towards His people and the duties of the people (religious, social and political) towards Him. It defined the framework within which society and individuals functioned. The form which this theology took in England, Puritanism, is of particular interest. The feeling of being “God’s chosen people” intensified as God’s new people entered the new “promised land” of America. Although this process is beyond the scope of this work, it is important to understand that the social, political, and religious views that characterized the settlers of New England were drawn from the European Reformation of the sixteenth century. The international Reformed social worldview is based on the concept of God's chosenness and the “covenant of grace.”

In contrast, later Lutheranism abandoned Luther's 1525 views on divine predestination and preferred to develop within the framework of free human response to God rather than sovereign divine election of specific individuals. For late sixteenth-century Lutheranism, "election" meant a human decision to love God, not a divine decision to choose certain people. Indeed, disagreement over the doctrine of predestination was one of the two major points of contention that occupied polemical writers during subsequent centuries (the other being the sacraments). Lutherans never had that sense of “God’s chosenness” and, accordingly, were more modest in their attempts to expand their sphere of influence. The remarkable success of "international Calvinism" reminds us of the power with which an idea can transform individuals and whole groups of people - the Reformed doctrine of election and predestination was undoubtedly the leading force in the great expansion of the Reformed Church in the seventeenth century.

The Doctrine of Grace and the Reformation

“The Reformation, when viewed internally, was but the final victory of the Augustinian doctrine of grace over the Augustinian doctrine of the Church.” This famous remark by Benjamin B. Warfield perfectly sums up the importance of the doctrine of grace to the development of the Reformation. The Reformers believed that they had freed the Augustinian doctrine of grace from the distortions and false interpretations of the medieval Church. For Luther, the Augustinian doctrine of grace, as expressed in the doctrine of justification by faith alone, was "articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae" ("the article on which the Church stands or falls"). If there were minor and not so minor differences between Augustine and the Reformers regarding the doctrine of grace, the latter explained them by more superior textual and philological methods, which, unfortunately, Augustine did not have at his disposal. For the Reformers, and especially for Luther, the doctrine of grace constituted the Christian Church - any compromise or deviation on this issue made by a church group led to the loss of that group's status as a Christian Church. The medieval Church lost its “Christian” status, which justified the reformers’ break with it, carried out in order to reaffirm the Gospel.

Augustine, however, developed an ecclesiology, or doctrine of the Church, which denied any such action. In the early fifth century, during the Donatist controversy, Augustine emphasized the unity of the Church, arguing heatedly against the temptation to form schismatic groups when the main line of the Church seemed erroneous. On this issue the reformers felt justified in disregarding Augustine's opinion, believing that his views on grace were much more important than his views on the Church. The Church, they argued, was a product of God's grace - and therefore the latter was of primary importance. Opponents of the Reformation did not agree with this, arguing that the Church itself was the guarantor of the Christian faith. Thus the ground was prepared for the controversy about the nature of the church, to which we will return in ch. 9. We now turn our attention to the second great theme of Reformation thought: the need for a return to Scripture.

For further reading

On the Doctrine of Predestination in General, cm.:

Timothy George, The Theology of the Reformers (Nashville, Tenn., 1988), pp. 73-79; 231-234.

Excellent overviews of Tsingvli's life and work, cm.:

G. R-Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge, 1976).

W. P. Stephans, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986).

Doctrinal development in later Reformed thought, cm.:

Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree: Christology and Predestination from Calvin to Perkins (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1988)

Excellent overviews of Calvin's life and work, cm.:

William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait (Oxford, 1989).

Alistair E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford, 1990).

T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin (London, 1976).

Richard Stauffer, "Calvin," in International Calvinism 1541-1715, ed. M. Prestwich (Oxford, 1985), pp. 15-38.

Francois Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of his Religious Thought (New York, 1963).

Notes:

Id="note_06_001">

Id="note_06_002">

Id="note_06_003">

Id="note_06_004">

Id="note_06_005">

Id="note_06_006">

Id="note_06_007">

>

Chapter 7. Return to Scripture

Id="note_07_001">

1. See the master's collection of studies in Cambridge History of the Bible, eds P. R. Ackroyd et al. (3 vols: Cambridge, 1963-69)

Id="note_07_002">

2. See Alistair E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (Oxford, 1987), pp. 140-51. Two major studies of this topic should be noted: Paul de Vooght, “Les sources de la doctrine chretienne d"apres las Theologiens du XIVsiecle et du debut du XV” (Paris, 1954); Hermann Schuessler, (Herman Schuessler) “Der Primaet der Heiligen Schrift als theologisches und kanonistisches Problem im Spaetmittelalter” (Wiesbaden, 1977).

Id="note_07_003">

3. Heiko A. Oberman (Heiko Oberman), “Quo vadis, Petre! Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis" ("Who are you coming, Peter? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis"), in "The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought" (Edinburgh, 1986). pp. 269-96.

Id="note_07_004">

4.CM. George H. Tavard, “Holy Writ or Holy Church? The Crisis of the Protestant Reformation (Holy Scripture or Holy Church? Crisis of the Protestant Reformation) (London, 1959)

Id="note_07_005">

5. See J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: Life, Writings and Controversies (London, 1975) Strictly speaking, the term "Vulgate" describes Jerome's translation of the Old Testament (except the Psalter, taken from the Gallican Psalter); the Apocryphal Books (except the Books of the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Baruch, taken from the Old Latin Version) and the entire New Testament.

Id="note_07_006">

6. See Raphael Loewe, “The Medieval History of the Latin Vulgate,” in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, pp. 102-54

Id="note_07_007">

7. See McGrath, “Intellectual origins,” pp. 124-5 and references therein.

Id="note_07_008">

8. Henry Hargreaves, “The Wycliffite Versions,” in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2, pp. 387-415.

Id="note_07_009">

9. See Basil Hall, “Biblical Scholarship: Editions and Commentaries,” in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, pp. 38-93.

Id="note_07_010">

10. See Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York, 1969), pp. 168-71.

Id="note_07_011">

11. Roland H. Bainton, “The Bible in the Reformation” in Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 3, pp. 1 - 37; especially pp. 6-9

Id="note_07_012">

12. For further discussion of the problem of the New Testament canon, see Roger H. Beckwith, The Old Nestament Canon of the New Testament Church (London, 1985).

Id="note_07_013">

13. See Pierre Fraenkel, Testimonia Patrum: The Function of the Patristuic Argumant in the Theology of Philip Melanchton (Geneva, 1961); Alistair E. McGrath, "The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation", pp. 175-90.

Id="note_07_014">

Id="note_07_015">

15. G. R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 74-96.

Id="note_07_016">

16. See Heiko A. Oberman, Masters of the Reformation: The Emergence of a New Intellectual Climate in Europe (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 187-209.

>

Id="note_08_001">

1. This passage uses a number of biblical texts, most notably Matt. 2b: 26-8; OK. 22: 19-20; 1 Cor. 11: 24. For details, see: Basil Hall, “Hoc est corpus theit: The Centrality of the Real Presence for Luther,” in “Luther: Theologian for Catholics and Protestants,” ed. George Yule (Edinburgh, 1985), pp. 112-44.

Id="note_08_002">

2. For an analysis of the reasons underlying Luther's rejection of Aristotle on this issue, see Alistair McGrath, Luther's Theology of the Cross: Martin Luther's Theological Breakthrough. Martin Luther") (Oxford, 1985), pp. 136-41.

Id="note_08_003">

3. Other important texts used by Luther include 1 Cor. 10: 16-33; 11:26-34. See David C. Steinmetz, “Scripture and the Lord's Supper in Luther's Theology” in Luther in Context (Bloomington, Ind., 1986 ), pp. 72-84.

Id="note_08_004">

4. See W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986), pp. 18093.

Id="note_08_005">

5.CM. Timothy George, "The Presuppositions of Zwingli's Baptismal Theology", in "Prophet, Pastor, Protestant: The Work of Huldrych Zwingli after Five Hundred Years", eds E. J. Furcha and H Wayne Pipkin (Allison Park, PA, 1984), pp. 71-87, especially pp. 79-82.

Id="note_08_006">

6. On this issue and its political and institutional importance, see Robert C. Walton, “The Institutionalization of the Reformation at Zurich,” Zwingliana 13 (1972), pp. . 297-515.

Id="note_08_007">

7. Pope Clement VII made peace in Barcelona on June 29; The King of France reached an agreement with Charles V on August 3. The Marburg Dispute took place on October 1-5.

Id="note_08_008">

8. For an account of the Marburg Dispute, see G. R. Potter, Zwingli (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 316-42.

>

Id="note_09_001">

1. B. B. Warfield, “Calvin and Augustine” (Philadelphia, 1956), p. 322.

Id="note_09_002">

2. See Scott H. Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia, 1981).

Id="note_09_003">

3. Also known as "Ratisbon". For details see: Peter Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford, 1972); Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in Tredentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge, 1972).

Id="note_09_004">

4. For a full discussion, see F. H. Littel, Anabaptist View of the Church (Boston, 2nd edn, 1958).

Id="note_09_005">

5. See Geoffrey G. Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy (London, 1950); Gerald Bonner, St Augustine of Hippo: Life and controversies (Norwich, 2nd edn, 1986), pp. 237-311.

Id="note_09_006">

6. Earnst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches (2 vols: London, 1931), vol. 1, p. 331, for variations on this analysis see Howard Becker, Systematic Sociology (Gary, Ind., 1950, pp. 624-42; Joachim Wach, Types of Religious Experience: Christian and Non-Christian (Chicago, 1951), pp. 190-6.

>

Chapter 10. Political thought of the Reformation

Id="note_10_001">

1. This is illustrated by the fate of Thomas Munzer: see Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (London, 1969), pp. 157-353. More generally, the development of radical reformation in the Netherlands should be pointed out: W. E. Keeney, Dutch Anabaptist Thought and Practice, 1539-1564 (Nieuwkoop, 1968).

Id="note_10_002">

2. See W. Ullmann, Medieval Papalism: Political Theories of the Medieval Canonists (London, 1949). M. J. Wilks, The Problem of Sovereignty: The Papal Monarchy with Augustus Triumph us and the Publicists (Cambridge, 1963)

Id="note_10_003">

3. There is a considerable degree of ambiguity in Luther's use of the terms "kingdom" and "government": CM. W.D-J. Cargill Thompson (W. D. J. Cargill Thompson) “The Two Kingdoms” and the “Two Regimants”: Some Problems of Luther’s Zwei - Reiche - Lehre” (“Two Kingdoms” or “Two Reigns”: some problems of the doctrine Luther's Two Kingdoms), in Studies in the Reformation: Luther to Hooker (London, 1908), pp. 42-59.

Id="note_10_004">

4. For a complete analysis of this issue, see F. Edward Cranz, “An Essay on the development of Luther’s Thought on Justice, Law and Society.” society") (Cambridge, Mass., 1959)

Id="note_10_005">

5. See David C. Steinmetz, “Luther and the Two Kingdoms,” in Luther in Context (Bloomington, Ind., 1986), pp. 112-25.

Id="note_10_006">

6. See Karl Barth's famous letter (1939), in which he states that "the German people are suffering... because of Martin Luther's error in the relationship between law and gospel, temporal and spiritual order and government": cited in Helmut Thielicke, Theological Ethics (3 vols: Grand Rapids, 1979), vol. 1, p. 368.

Id="note_10_007">

7. See Steinmetz, Luther and the Two Kingdoms, p. 114.

Id="note_10_008">

8. See useful study by W. D. J. Cargill Thompson, “Luther and the Right of Resistance to the Emperor,” in Studies in the Reformation, pp. 3-41.

Id="note_10_009">

9. CM.: R. N. C. Hunt, “ZwingU's Theory of Church and State,” Church Quarterly Review 112 (1931), pp. 20 - 36 ; Robert C. Walton (Robert S. Walton), “Zwibgli's Theocracy” (“Zwingli’s Theocracy”) (Toronto, 1967); W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldiych ZwingU (Oxford, 1986), pp. 282 - 310.

Id="note_10_010">

10.CM. W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldiych Zwingi (Oxford, 1986), pp. 303, no. 87

Id="note_10_011">

11. W. P. Stephans, The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Martin Bucer (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 167 - 72. On Booker's political theology in general, see T. R. Togtapse (T. F. Torrance), Kingdom an Church: A Study in the Theology of the Reformation. ") (Edinburgh, 1956), pp. 73-89.

Id="note_10_012">

12. For a thorough study, see Harro Hoepfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 152-206. For more information, see Gillian Lewis, “Calvinism in Geneva in the Time of Calvin and Beza,” in International Calvinism 1541-1715, ed. Menna Prestwich (Oxford, 1985), pp. 39-70.

Id="note_10_013">

13. K. R. Davis, “Wo Discipline, no Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition,” Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982) , pp. 45-9.

Id="note_10_014">

14. It should be mentioned that Calvin was also in the habit of dedicating his works to European monarchs, hoping to gain their support in the cause of the Reformation. Among those to whom Calvin dedicated his works were Edward VI and Elizabeth I of England and Christopher III of Denmark.

>

Chapter 11. The influence of reformation thought on history

Id="note_11_001">

1. Robert M. Kingdom (Robert M. Kingdom) “The Deacons of the Reformed Church in Calvin's Geneva” (“Deacons of the Reformed Church in Calvin’s Geneva”), in Melanges d’histoire du XVIe siecle (Geneva, 1970), pp. 81-9.

Id="note_11_002">

2. Franziska Conrad, “Reformation in - der baeuerlichen Gesellschaft: Zur Rezeption reformatorischer Theologie im Elsass” (Stuttgart, 1984), p. 14

Id="note_06_001">

1. W. P. Stephans, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford, 1986), pp. 86-106.

2. On this work, see Harry J. McSorley, Luther - Right by Wrong (Minneapolis, 1969).

3. Although Calvin's role in composing Nicholas Cope's All Saints' Day speech has been questioned, new manuscript evidence points to his participation. See Jean Rott, “Documents strasbourgeois concemant Calvin. Un manuscrit autographe: la harangue du recteur Nicolas Cop,” in “Regards contemporains sur Jean Calvin” (Paris, 1966), pp. 28-43.

4. See, for example, Naggo Hoepfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (Cambridge, 1982), pp. 219-26. Alistair E. McGrath, A Life of John Calvin (Oxford/Cambridge, Mass., 1990), pp. 69-78.

5. For details of this important change and an analysis of its consequences, see McGrath, Life of John Calvin, pp. 69-78.

6. On Calvinism in England and America during this period, see Patrick Collinson, “England and International Calvinism, 1558-1640,” in International Calvinism . 1541-1715". ed. Menna Prestwich (Oxford, 1985), pp. 197-223; W. A. ​​Speck and L-Billington, “Calvinism in Colonial North America,” in International Calvinism, ed. Prestwich, pp. 257-83.

7. B. B. Warfield, “Calvin and Augustine” (Philadelphia, 1956), p. 322.

in religion systems of thinking, ethical determinism emanating from the will of the deity. a person’s behavior and hence his “salvation” or “condemnation” in eternity (Greek ??????????, Lat. praedestinatio or praedeterminatio). Because from the point of view. sequential monotheism, everything that exists is ultimately determined by the will of God, every monotheistic. theology must necessarily take into account the idea of ​​P. (cf. the religious fatalism of Islam, the image of the Old Testament “Book of Life” with the names of Yahweh’s chosen ones, Ex. XXXII, Ps. XIX, 29; Dan. XII, 1, etc.). At the same time, the concept of P. comes into conflict with the doctrine of free will and human responsibility for his guilt, without which religion is impossible. ethics. In the history of Christianity, the controversy surrounding P. was determined not so much by the need to eliminate logical. contradictions of doctrine, as much as the struggle of two competing types of religions. psychology: on the one hand, individualistic. and irrationalistic. experiences of hopeless guilt and unaccountable devotion to God, on the other - dogmatic. rationalism of the church, which bases its promises of salvation on legal principles. concepts of “merit”, which a believer acquires through obedience to the church, and “rewards”, which she can guarantee him. P.'s motive in the Gospels is predominant. optimistic character and expresses the confidence of the adherents of the new religion in their chosenness and calling (see, for example, Matt. XX, 23, John X, 29). Relig. the aristocracy of the Gnostics demanded a sharp division into “those who are by nature akin to heaven” and “those who are by nature akin to flesh” (see G. Quispel, An unknown fragment of the Acts of Andrew, in the book: Vigiliae Christianae, t 10, 1956, p.129–48).The Epistles of Paul give a speculative development of the idea of ​​P. (Rom. VIII, 28–30; Eph. 3–14 and, especially Tim. II, 1,9), connecting it with a new concept of grace (?????) and shifting the emphasis to the illusory nature of self. morals human efforts (“What have you that you would not receive?” – Corinth. I, 4, 7). It is this emphasis that dominates in Augustine, who draws conclusions from pessimism. assessments of the normal state of a person To the necessity of grace, which leads him out of identity with himself and thereby “saves” him; this grace cannot be deserved and is determined only by the free will of the deity. Augustine’s formula “give what you command, and command what you wish” (da, quod iubes et iube quod vis) (“Confessions”, X, 31) provoked a protest from Pelagius, who contrasted it with the principle of free will. Although in reality Pelagianism could only appeal to the practice of monastic “asceticism,” it restored certain features of antiquity. heroism (man, by independent effort, ascends to the deity). Despite repeated condemnations of Pelagianism by the Church. authorities, the controversy did not stop in the 5th–6th centuries. (Augustinism was defended by Prosper of Aquitaine, Fulgentius and Caesarius of Arles, Pelagianism by Faust of Riez). The resolution of the Council of Orange (529) confirmed the authority of Augustine, but could not achieve the real assimilation of P.’s ideas by the church. Problems of individualism. religious experiences, vitally important for Augustine, loses all meaning for a while: the religiosity of the early Middle Ages is exclusively ecclesiastical. It is characteristic that the Paulinist-Augustinian concept of grace in the 6th century. is radically rethought: from a personal experience it becomes an effect of the church. "sacraments". The Church sought to conceptualize itself as a universal institution. “salvation”, within the framework of which any believer, through submission to it, can earn an otherworldly reward; if, in the name of her claims, she encroached on the important thesis for Christianity about the eternity of retribution after the grave (the doctrine of purgatory, legends about the deliverance of souls from hell by the church), then in earthly life there was obviously no place left for the immutable P. East The church, over which Augustine’s authority did not weigh heavily, was especially consistent: already John Chrysostom replaced the concept of “P.” the concept of “foresight” (?????????) of God and thereby nullifies the tendency of ethical. irrationalism. Behind him comes the greatest authority of Orthodox scholasticism, who also influenced the Middle Ages. West, - John of Damascus: “God foresees everything, but does not predetermine everything.” The Orthodox Church restores, as dogma, Origen’s teaching about God’s intention to save everyone (but rather than the logical conclusion that everyone will really be saved, as Origen taught). In the West, Gottschalk's attempt (c. 805 - c. 865) to update the doctrine of P. in the form of the doctrine of “double” P. (gemina praedestinatio - not only to salvation, but also to condemnation) is recognized as heretical. In the system of John Scotus Eriugena, the doctrine of “simple” P. (simplex praedestinatio - only to salvation) was justified by the denial (in the Neoplatonic spirit) of the essential reality of evil; this solution to the problem led to pantheism. optimism and was also unacceptable for the church. Mature scholasticism treats the problem of P. with great caution and without deep interest. Bonaventure prefers to give formulations about the “primordial love” (praedilectio) of God as the true cause of human moral achievements. Thomas Aquinas also teaches about the love of God as the true source of moral goodness, while at the same time emphasizing the free cooperation of mankind. will from the deities. by grace. Scholasticism avoids the problem of P. to condemnation. Relig. The individualism of the Reformation led to increased interest in the problem of predestination Luther revives the Paulinist-Augustinian style of religion. psychologism, evaluating Catholic. the concept of "merit" as blasphemous mercenary and putting forward against it the theories of unfree will and salvation by faith. Calvin goes even further, clearly expressing the bourgeoisie. content of the Reformation: he brings the doctrine of the “double” P. to the thesis, according to which Christ sacrificed himself not for all people, but only for the elect. Engels pointed out the connection between Calvin’s doctrine and the reality of the era of “primitive accumulation”: “His doctrine of predestination was a religious expression of the fact that in the world of trade and competition, success or bankruptcy does not depend on the activity or skill of individuals, but on circumstances, not on them.” dependent" (Engels F., Marx K. and Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 22, p. 308). A cruel disregard for the doomed, contrasting with tradition. pity for the repentant sinner characterizes the repression of feudalism. patriarchy in relations between people is dry bourgeois. businesslike. Calvin's doctrine met resistance from the Goll adherents. reformer J. Arminius (1560–1609), but was officially adopted at the Synod of Dort in 1618–19 and at the Westminster Assembly in 1643. Orthodoxy reacted to the Protestant doctrines of P., demonstrating at the Jerusalem Council of 1672 fidelity to its old views about the will of God for the salvation of all ; The Orthodox Church still adheres to these views. Catholic the Counter-Reformation followed the line of repulsion from the Augustinian tradition (in the 17th century there was a case of publishing Augustine’s works with excerpts of passages about P.); The Jesuits were especially consistent in this, contrasting the extreme moral optimism with the severity of the Protestants. The Jesuit L. Molina (1535–1600) decided to completely replace P.’s idea with the doctrine of the “conditional knowledge” of God (scientia condicionata) about the readiness of the righteous to freely cooperate with him; This knowledge gives the deity the opportunity to reward the worthy “in advance.” Thus, the concepts of merit and reward were universalized, which answered mechanically. spirit of counter-reformation religiosity. Modern Catholic theologians (eg, R. Garrigou-Lagrange) defend free will and are optimistic. P.’s understanding: many among them insist that a person can achieve salvation without being predestined to it. At the same time, within the framework of modern neo-scholasticism continues the debate between the Orthodox Thomistic and Jesuit understanding of P. The attitude of liberal Protestantism at the end of the 19th century - beginning. 20th centuries P.'s problem was ambivalent: idealizing the Augustinian religion. psychologism, he was critical of the “narcotic” (A. Harnack’s expression) elements of the latter, i.e. first of all to the pessimistic. P.'s concept is more consistent in its restoration of archaic. the severity of early Protestantism of modern times. “neo-orthodoxy” in its German-Swiss (K. Barth, E. Brunner, R. Bultmann) and Anglo-Saxon (R. Niebuhr) variants. Insisting on abs. irrationality and, moreover, individual uniqueness of the “existential” relationship between God and man (in the words of K. Barth, “the relationship of this particular person to this particular God is for me at once both the theme of the Bible and the sum of philosophy”), “neo-orthodoxy” with logical. necessarily gravitates towards the Calvinist understanding of P. Being specific. product of religion. worldview, the concept of "P." served in the history of logical philosophy. a model for setting such important general philosophies. problems, such as the question of free will, the reconciliation of determinism and moral responsibility, etc. Lit.: K. Marx and F. Engels on religion, M., 1955, p. 114–115; Friehoff S., Die Destinationslehre bei Thomas von Aquino und Calvin, Freiburg (Schweiz), 1926; Garrigou-Lagrange, La destination des saints et la grèce, P., 1936; Hygren G., Das Pr?destinationsproblem in der Theologie Augustins, G?tt., 1956; Rabeneck J., Grundz?ge der Pr?destinationslehre Molinas, "Scholastik", 1956, 31. Juli, S. 351–69. S. Averintsev. Moscow.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓