The Lord of Spirits is a podcast hosted by Orthodox priest Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen De Young. They discuss various topics from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. A recent podcast from November 15th, 2024 discussed the doctrine of election. There are many things to take issue with in this podcast but this article will deal with only two of them.
The first issue to be dealt with is Fr. De Young's claim that Calvinists ultimately define God's will as being arbitrary.
20:16 So, Israel, right, in the Old Testament as God's chosen people. That's maybe where your your brain first goes, right? And, and that is obviously right. The adjective is used to describe Israel a lot.
And, and, and people people from that, they get this idea of like saying, that you know, Israel is picked by God, you know from all the other nations, you know like who do they think some people even say, you know, well, who do they think they are? You know, that sort of thing, setting aside of course the big problem of what is Israel. But, but yeah there's this idea of, of, you know, God looked at all the nations and said, ah, I like this one the best. Yes, I'm going to pick this one and I'm going to, I love them more than all the other ones and they're special yeah, right? And just because I chose right, right.
Um, this is an side note to Calvinists as we get going. See, I was about to say chose arbitrarily. If you say, if you say to Calvinists that God makes this choice arbitrarily in their system they get really mad. But I mean that's what, and they say it's not arbitrarily it's according to his good pleasure it's according to his will. Guys, the word arbitrio in Latin means will. What? Arbitrary means chosen with reference to nothing but one's will. Okay arbitrary is exactly what you say it is like definitionally arbitrary derived from the Latin arbitrio means just exactly what you say. So, in the Calvinist system God chooses arbitrarily, chooses according with reference to nothing but his will. Just will and picked Israel, right? Well, there's a problem with that.
What we have here is the logical fallacy of equivocation. Calvinists do say God chooses according to his will and good pleasure or the good pleasure of his will. Fr. De Young says that means the choice is with reference to nothing but God's will thus it is arbitrary because will in Latin is arbitrio and the English word arbitrary is derived from that Latin word.
This is wrong. Arbitrio is latin for "free will." Arbitrary is derived from a different Latin word, arbiter.
Arbitrary comes from Latin arbiter, which means "judge" and is the source of the English arbiter. In English, arbitrary first meant "depending upon choice or discretion" and was specifically used to indicate the sort of decision (as for punishment) left up to the expert determination of a judge rather than defined by law. Today, it can also be used for anything determined by or as if by a personal choice or whim
So, he has not even got the etymology correct.
The fasle equivocation is claiming the English words will and arbitrary mean the same thing as the Latin word arbitrio. They do not. It should be obvious that two of those words are English while the other is Latin. Let's see how this plays out in the scriptures.
Ephesians 1:11 reads:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
The Latin Vulgate reads:
in quo etiam sorte vocati sumus praedestinati secundum propositum eius qui omnia operatur secundum consilium voluntatis suae
Ephesians 1:5 reads:
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
The Latin reads:
qui praedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum per Iesum Christum in ipsum secundum propositum voluntatis suae
The word translated will is translated voluntatis in the Latin Vulgate, not arbitrio. Voluntatis means will. Arbitrio means free will or to decide freely. They are not the same word or concept. The word arbitrio shows up in only
two places in the Latin Vulgate, Numbers 30:13 (14 in the Vulgate and 2 Kings 12:4. Neither of those verses have anything to do with the will of God.
Numbers 30:13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.
2 Kings 12:4 And Jehoash said to the priests, All the money of the dedicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account, the money that every man is set at, and all the money that cometh into any man's heart to bring into the house of the Lord,
Those verses are about free will offerings and oaths made by men.
Thus, claiming Calvinists ultimately consider God's will to be arbitrary because the English words will and arbitrary are both derived from the Latin word arbitrio is not only a false equivalency but also theologically and grammatically incorrect. It is an ignorant dig at Calvinism and a total ignoring of the text of the Scriptures which say in many places God does everything according to his will and good pleasure. Is Fr. De Young really going to call the works of God arbitrary? Will he become a voluntarist? To be consistent he must. The only other solution is to recognize God has a revealed will and a secret will meaning God tells us what to do but he is not accountable to us to explain his purpose.
Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.
The second issue to be dealt with is Fr. De Young's ludicrous claim the Westminster Standards plagiarize the Summa Theologica.
54:26 Calvin gets his view of predestinarianism from the Dominicans. Okay. He is not really an innovator on that particular front. Now when you get to some of the secondary doctrines related to election and reprobation, like limited atonement and stuff, then Calvin goes in a different direction, okay. But predestination and reprobation itself he's getting from the Dominican tradition within Roman Catholicism, okay. Um, to the point that if you go and read and and I do not recommend doing this, you know I give to the Presbyterians and now I take away. I don't recommend going and trying to read the Westminster standards. It is so boring. Um, it is like it is English scholasticism. It is like the most boring possible form of document, right? Like everything tedious and dry about scholasticism mixed with everything tedious and dry about English philosophy. Like in one place. But if for some reason for a class or something you have to read the Westminster standards or if you just go and look up the statement in the Westminster standards about reprobation, about people being chosen for Eternal damnation, it is straight plagiarized from the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. Like you would get kicked out of school if you turned in the Westminster standards. Uh, they'd say you you cheated off of uh old, old Thomas's, uh, paper
First of all it should be noted that Fr. De Young is admitting the Reformed doctrines of predestination and reprobation are not new. That ought to give any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox pause because the Reformers are constantly accused of innovation. Again and again opponents of Protestantism will claim Protestantism is "my and bible and me" with no reference to the Church which is a malicious caricature. Anyone who wants to debate Protestants needs to familiarize themselves with Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics where that nonsense is thoroughly put to bed.
Oh, but it's boring reading long tomes. It's boring putting in the work to understand Protestantism. Them's the breaks.
That brings me to the second thing which is Fr. De Young's claim the Westminster Standards plagiarizes the Summa Theologica. It is not clear if he means the Westminster Confession alone or also the Larger and Shorter Catechism. Here is the BRIEF section in the Westminster Confession concerning reprobation.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy as He pleaseth, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/westminster-confession-faith
I say brief because Thomas Aquinas is never brief and there is not enough in this section that could possibly called plagiarism. However here the Summa's entire section on reprobation which for Aquinas is quite brief.
Article 3. Whether God reprobates any man?
Objection 1. It seems that God reprobates no man. For nobody reprobates what he loves. But God loves every man, according to (Wisdom 11:25): "Thou lovest all things that are, and Thou hatest none of the things Thou hast made." Therefore God reprobates no man.
Objection 2. Further, if God reprobates any man, it would be necessary for reprobation to have the same relation to the reprobates as predestination has to the predestined. But predestination is the cause of the salvation of the predestined. Therefore reprobation will likewise be the cause of the loss of the reprobate. But this false. For it is said (Hosea 13:9): "Destruction is thy own, O Israel; Thy help is only in Me." God does not, then, reprobate any man.
Objection 3. Further, to no one ought anything be imputed which he cannot avoid. But if God reprobates anyone, that one must perish. For it is said (Ecclesiastes 7:14): "Consider the works of God, that no man can correct whom He hath despised." Therefore it could not be imputed to any man, were he to perish. But this is false. Therefore God does not reprobate anyone.
On the contrary, It is said (Malachi 1:2-3): "I have loved Jacob, but have hated Esau."
I answer that, God does reprobate some. For it was said above (Article 1) that predestination is a part of providence. To providence, however, it belongs to permit certain defects in those things which are subject to providence, as was said above (I:22:2). Thus, as men are ordained to eternal life through the providence of God, it likewise is part of that providence to permit some to fall away from that end; this is called reprobation. Thus, as predestination is a part of providence, in regard to those ordained to eternal salvation, so reprobation is a part of providence in regard to those who turn aside from that end. Hence reprobation implies not only foreknowledge, but also something more, as does providence, as was said above (I:22:1). Therefore, as predestination includes the will to confer grace and glory; so also reprobation includes the will to permit a person to fall into sin, and to impose the punishment of damnation on account of that sin.
Reply to Objection 1. God loves all men and all creatures, inasmuch as He wishes them all some good; but He does not wish every good to them all. So far, therefore, as He does not wish this particular good—namely, eternal life—He is said to hate or reprobated them.
Reply to Objection 2. Reprobation differs in its causality from predestination. This latter is the cause both of what is expected in the future life by the predestined—namely, glory—and of what is received in this life—namely, grace. Reprobation, however, is not the cause of what is in the present—namely, sin; but it is the cause of abandonment by God. It is the cause, however, of what is assigned in the future—namely, eternal punishment. But guilt proceeds from the free-will of the person who is reprobated and deserted by grace. In this way, the word of the prophet is true—namely, "Destruction is thy own, O Israel."
Reply to Objection 3. Reprobation by God does not take anything away from the power of the person reprobated. Hence, when it is said that the reprobated cannot obtain grace, this must not be understood as implying absolute impossibility: but only conditional impossibility: as was said above (I:19:3), that the predestined must necessarily be saved; yet a conditional necessity, which does not do away with the liberty of choice. Whence, although anyone reprobated by God cannot acquire grace, nevertheless that he falls into this or that particular sin comes from the use of his free-will. Hence it is rightly imputed to him as guilt.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1023.htm#article3
Again I ask, where is the plagiarism? It is not in the words. Is it in the idea? If so then it is plagiarism for both Aquinas and the authors of the WCF to confess the same doctrine which is total nonsense. Billions of Christians around the globe for 2,000 years have believed, taught, and written about the same doctrines. Fr. De Young has already noted that Calvin and Aquinas, or the Dominicans, agree on predestination. There is a whole book devoted to showing how Luther and Aquinas agree substantially. It is called Luther: Right or Wrong by Harry McSorely.
Not to mention the Westminster Standards were written in English while the Summa was written in Latin. Did Fr. De Young forget about that? Funny that he tells his listeners to not read the Westminster Standards. because it is boring. Does he tell them not read the Bible because the Confession of Dositheus forbids all laity from reading the Bible?
Those are the two issues I wanted to discuss about this particular podcast. The first one is a logical fallacy and the second one is flat-out ridiculous.
