Grand Inquisitor and free will

[filthymcnasty]

I read the Grand Inquisitor this past week.   Ivan presents a tale premised on the notion that men have free will to affect their own salvation--that is, they can make a choice for or against faith in Christ, and the result of that choice will determine their salvation.

Within those boundries Ivan presents a challenging case, no question about it.  And yet, read from the eyes of the Reformed Church as Luther saw it, and even read from a Roman Catholic viewpoint (which I can't claim to grasp as well), it isn't so much of a challenge.

My question is, is it Russian Orthodox theology that informs Doestoevsky here, and if so how does it handle the question of free will?  How does it differ from the Protestant church under Luther?  And if the RO church is not the proper guide, what does inform Ivan's theology?

Now, just a bit of background as to where I'm coming from.  There is a misconception that Luther's theology is simply salvation through faith not works.  That's true as far as it goes, but the misconception is that Luther (and God as Luther reads him) is saying it is an act of our own free will to have faith in Christ.  He didn't say that.  He said the opposite.  He said that man is powerless to create his faith in God.  It is the Holy Spirit acting in his life that creates this faith.  Now, Luther said that man has free will to cast the Holy Spirit out and therefore he can damn himself, but he can't save himself.  Even Erasmus, when he battled for the Catholic church against Luther, conceded that man could not do anything to save himself, nor could he simply say for the sake of salvation "I believe," independent from the Holy Spirit.  Very quick and dirty explanation.

It is easy to see how this upsets Ivan's whole Grand Inquisitor apple cart, which is about the problem of free will and man's ability to choose faith by his own accord.  The Holy Spirit doesn't get a mention in Ivan's construction, but his challenge withers once the Holy Spirit is taken into account.  So, with this in mind, perhaps someone can help me out with my question two paragraphs above.

Best regards,

Douglas

[littlefermat]

"My question is, is it Russian Orthodox theology that informs Doestoevsky here, and if so how does it handle the question of free will?  How does it differ from the Protestant church under Luther?  "

Yes, D.'s views of freedom and happiness are very much influenced by Orthodox Christianity.  I could explain why, but in all honesty, I would probably be summarzing this guy's thoughts completely:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0212/articles/wood.html

Another view, slightly different, is from the Charles Guignon essay too.  It's in the Grand Inquisitor stand alone book.

[underworld men]

Well the challenge of freewill I believe is very different
for Orthdoxy and Protestantism.

The reason why is- that the God shares with man the mind of prophecy.

The mind is developed over time by people who learn to notice not so much patterns in things but the heart, essence or truth behind things' motivations.

Freewill in the west and freewill in the East are very different basically because in the west freewill is based on asserting ones desires as an individual.

In the east freewill is to willing submit to the God.

[filthymcnasty]

Littlefermat,

Wow, what a fantastic article!  It's been read, highlighted, commented upon, and filed in a place where I won't lose it.

As for First Things, would you say this is a theologically conservative publication?  This one article has made me consider subscribing.

Thanks,

Doug

[littlefermat]

Hey, I'm glad you liked the essay.  Another good essay is Charles b. Guignon's essay in The Grand Inquisitor stand alone book.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0872201937/sr=8-2/qid=1139711263/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-7136759-3452105?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Guignon's essay focuses more on the psychological issues surrounding Ivan's atheism --so it's worth a look too.

As for First Things, I've only read a couple of essays from the journal so I can't offer too much of an opinion on it.  However, they usually have some interesting pieces in each issue.

[hithesh]

I think the answer depends on your interpretation of “The Grand Inquisitor”.

My own understanding, of Dostoevsky most fascinating chapter:

Ivan says, that since man does not see miracles, he can never be sure if there is a God, and in essence has to question if there is one or not, beyond religious wonders.

Ivan says that Jesus, had the benefit of 1.) being god, and 2.)seeing the devil when he was tempted. So Jesus, unlike us knows beyond certainty the existence of god, so he has no free will to question his existence.

Second Ivan talks of Apocalypse, and how those living during the time of rapture are also blessed with seeing miracles, though punishing ones. Those living in that period can see that there is a God, because of his miraculous reckoning.

From a personal perspective, and also as someone raised in the Evangelical church, I say to myself that I deeply want to believe in god, but I don’t feel him or see him.

The Holy Ghost is also a miracle, and while some may say they feel him, others like me who have sought to feel the dove, have never been afforded that grace.

The question is: If I sought to feel him, but I never felt him, does that mean that he doesn’t exist?

Beyond miracles, and mystery is there a God to you?
This is the heart of the question in  “The Grand Inquisitor”, or at least my question.

[underworld men]

I think the answer depends on your interpretation of “The Grand Inquisitor”.

My own understanding, of Dostoevsky most fascinating chapter:

Ivan says, that since man does not see miracles, he can never be sure if there is a God, and in essence has to question if there is one or not, beyond religious wonders.

Ivan says that Jesus, had the benefit of 1.) being god, and 2.)seeing the devil when he was tempted. So Jesus, unlike us knows beyond certainty the existence of god, so he has no free will to question his existence.

Second Ivan talks of Apocalypse, and how those living during the time of rapture are also blessed with seeing miracles, though punishing ones. Those living in that period can see that there is a God, because of his miraculous reckoning.

From a personal perspective, and also as someone raised in the Evangelical church, I say to myself that I deeply want to believe in god, but I don’t feel him or see him.

The Holy Ghost is also a miracle, and while some may say they feel him, others like me who have sought to feel the dove, have never been afforded that grace.

The question is: If I sought to feel him, but I never felt him, does that mean that he doesn’t exist?

Beyond miracles, and mystery is there a God to you?
That’s the heart of the question in “Inquisitor”, or at least my question.

Heads UP YA'LL

THIS IS A GOOD POST!

I don't know who you are but.

This is what Dostoevsky is all about baby!

Awe YA!

PM me and I will address these

[Rimbaud]

I was in more of the impression that the Grand Inquisitor was questioning the futility of human nature and the willingness to servitude.

Jesus in the rejection of 'miracles' , 'bread' and 'authority' condemned man to be free. And man would rather be enslaved with 'bread', 'miracles' and authority than the suffering of being an individual (with or without jesus.) and because of this, the grand inquisitor and who he represents [church] have been able to corrupt the word of jesus and give them what jesus could not. And the grand inquisitor is justifying his reasons for doing so.

There's an incredible quote on human nature ' Soon they will not be saying that there is crime or sin, but only hungry men.'

And jesus was refusing the what the world had to offer and it's collectivity ' But you said no to the 'loaves' (bread.)
And the Grand Inquisior says' that the 'anthill' and 'collectivity' or 'unison' is what weak men want and strive for because it provides all that mankind want's and need's, even if it destroys individuality. Leading man to death and destruction but they will be at peace and happy on the way.

And the chapter is so prophetic, is because it is what we see in the current western civilization - mass conformity, cultural debasement, bowing to the state.

[Mogwai]

There's an incredible quote on human nature ' Soon they will not be saying that there is crime or sin, but only hungry men.'

And jesus was refusing the what the world had to offer and it's collectivity ' But you said no to the 'loaves' (bread.)
And the Grand Inquisior says' that the 'anthill' and 'collectivity' or 'unison' is what weak men want and strive for because it provides all that mankind want's and need's, even if it destroys individuality. Leading man to death and destruction but they will be at peace and happy on the way.

And the chapter is so prophetic, is because it is what we see in the current western civilization - mass conformity, cultural debasement, bowing to the state.

Excellent, excellent points.  I couldn't agree more.  It's amazing how prophetic Dostoevsky was on so many different fronts.