A person commented the following on my post yesterday:
You know, the more I read and learn concerning Orthodox theology, the more I see an acceptance of paradox that even exceeds my native Lutheranism.
My reply is that it has more to do with the idea of mystery, but rather than try to explain it theologically, watch the video below. It was originally posted in November of 2010 on YouTube. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will enjoy the video.
Again let me repeat that I have some issues with some of my Orthodox brethren. One of them is that in order to defend free will, there is sometimes a tendency to speak as though God has so limited his sovereignty in our lives that he would never impugn our free will. I fear that there are all too many Scriptures in which God shows himself quite willing to use his sovereignty to neatly override objections. You might wish to read again how he ensured that Joseph, the Old Testament Patriarch would be in a commanding position in order to save his family from the famine. You might also wish to read again how God overrode Moses’ objections that he was not a good public speaker by not only providing his brother Aaron, but also by finally simply telling him to DO IT.
In fact, we often become so theological and philosophical in our exploration of the relationship of free will and God’s sovereignty that we forget that God is personal (in fact, Three Persons in one substantial Trinity) and we speak of him as though he were this idea that we are discussing. But, that is not how God worked and works with us. I am reminded of two humorous things. One is a very old Bill Cosby comedy routine about Noah and the Ark. In that routine, amidst Noah’s many objections, there finally comes a moment when God asks Noah, “how long can you tread water?” On Facebook, one of our daughters was recently reminiscing and missing the days when because, “Mama said,” was explanation enough. When we discuss free will and sovereignty as purely non-personal philosophical discussion, we miss the fact that our God is not an impersonal principle, but a personal community of unity and love.
But, more than that there is a mystery that goes significantly deeper than the idea of paradox. Paradox is a way to state something that is essentially unstateable. What does paradox mean?
A paradox is a true statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which defies intuition. The term is also used for an apparent contradiction that actually expresses a non-dual truth (cf. kúan, Catuskoti). Typically, the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true or cannot all be true together.
OK, do not get carried away by the definition, because for the Orthodox mystery is not paradox, though it may appear similar. Mystery is the point where our finiteness encounters the God who is not finite. Saint Gregory Palamas said some rather good things about that encounter! But, I like to phrase it in a much more colloquial way. Mystery is the point where our brain short-circuits and is no longer able to put together coherent thoughts that explain what we are encountering. I find myself thinking of when Elijah is hiding in the cave. Courtesy of God, he has some brain short-circuits before he figures out that all his ideas of God are not even close to accurate. Mystery is when we begin to babble like fools, unless we are wise. If we are wise, we keep our mouths shut, take off our shoes and acknowledge that we are on holy ground.
We Orthodox clearly need to acknowledge in no uncertain way that God is sovereign. He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He shall reign forever and ever. Hallelujah! And then, as we look at free will and God’s sovereignty, we need to try to not babble as our minds splinter. In the Book of Daniel, chapter 2, there is the following prophecy about the coming King:
While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.
Frankly, there is more than once when I contemplate God that I find that the same rock crushes all too many of my thoughts and leaves them, “like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer.” We need to fully acknowledge, as does the Confession of Dositheus that he predestines and elects based on a foreknowledge that does not force free will, while at the same time clearly declaring that God’s plans will all come to fruition at the right time, just as he planned. Anything short of that will tend to make us the opposite of Calvinists, and not necessarily Catholic Christians. Now I need to leave for the day, because my mind just splintered again. I think I need to take off my shoes and pray Compline.
===MORE TO COME===
Why the Orthodox reaction that you describe? In large part, I think, because the Augustinian-Calvinist account not only limits human free will in a problemmatic way vis-a-vis the sovereignty of God, but then, it also impugnes the goodness of God in that, on the basis of that very sovereignty, it limits salvation to the elect, those who are chosen to be saved by for no apparent reason while, OTOH, and arguably worse, the non-elect are NOT saved, again for no apparent reason. As you point out with Dositheus (and St. Paul!), there is no Divine predestination (or perhaps better, “predesignation”) without Divine foreknowledge. Augustinianism, and especially Calvinism, stumbles badly here.
Regarding mystery/paradox: I liken them to Buddhist koans: “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” and the like. Beyond what you, Father, have written so well, two points should be made.
The first is that the encounter with the tri-personal God directly impinges upon the question of Divine Essence vs. Divine Energies. There is an analogy that can be drawn here in terms of our experience of other human persons. I can “know” another human from the “outside” in terms of what they say and what they do, but I cannot directly experience them from the inside. Only they can experience themselves in this way and, even then, our experience of ourselves interiorly is limited.
The other point has to with intellect vs. experience/love. We do not encounter God primarily by means of our intellect, but only by means of the heart, and that entails love. Mystery brings us to the end of our intellect and throw us upon, throws us into, the abyss of Divine Love.
A most blessed celebration of the Nativity of the Lord to all of you.
“We do not encounter God primarily by means of our intellect, but only by means of the heart, and that entails love.”
Then what place, may I ask, does intellect have in the life of a believer? Since God has given us intellect, surely it is a means of relating to Him.
To expand upon what Rick said below, I think the best analogy is to consider one’s relationships with one’s family members, especially one’s spouse.
Beyond that, obviously the intellect points the way to God by means of information concerning God that we receive through the Church. However, the basic point remains: God is ultimately unknowable, but God may be experienced, and that experience is a matter of love in that God IS love and humans are created to love and to be loved by God.
“the intellect points the way to God by means of information concerning God that we receive through the Church”
But can we not learn something about God from nature (Romans 1)?
“God is ultimately unknowable”
Would it not be better to say that we cannot know God completely, but we can know Him sufficiently?
See my post for the 23rd of December. GRIN.
What Fr. Ernesto said. 😉
The distinction that we’re talking about is sometimes expressed in terms of knowing ABOUT God vs. knowing God. For the latter, I prefer to speak of “experiencing God”. Of course, for Christians, the focal point of both is Jesus Christ, God-become-human, as manifested in, with, and through the Church (including the Saints, especially the Theotokos, who are now in the immediate presence of the Tri-personal God) by the working of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, I saw that after I had written that.
Let me try that again so it makes more sense: I saw what Fr. Ernesto had written after I had made my comment.
It clearly does play a role, but not apart from other aspects.
John Wesley strongly upheld this. As Wesley scholar Randy Maddox noted about Wesley:
“…he became convinced over time that 1) reason alone was unable to effect human action, our acts flow instead from more holistic affections; and 2) these affections are not self-initiating, they are enlivened and inclined toward specific actions in response to external stimuli. To put this in terms of Wesley’s mature
conception of faith: 1) faith involves more than rational assent, it is a holistic affection of trust; and 2) this trust is not generated by human initiative, it is made possible responsively when the Spirit addresses our affections assuring us of God’s love.”