The Bible vs Eastern Orthodoxy
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (53)
sorted by:
Fair enough, Winston, I have never remembered exactly what position you take. Ultimately though, Protestants and Catholics in considered theology come to the same place with different definitions; the subgroups that don't are just being standoffish about distinctives. For instance, Protestants who believe OSAS generally believe if you don't stay present-saved you were never past-saved; those who don't ("frozen chosen") are regarded as legalist and hyper-Calvinist. Those who believe sola fide lately add "but not by a faith that is alone": that is, works always accompany faith. Meanwhile, Catholics agree with those Protestants that works are a "requirement" but, in the fine print, admit our works do not contribute to the grace by which we were infused with righteousness as shown in baptism (a real OSAS if there ever was one); merit always follows grace. Catholics recognize the three tenses of salvation (2 Cor. 1:10) and that they are still "saved" from sin nature (baptized) even when they need again to be "saved" from a recurrent sin (confessed). So I did some work reconciling the two and found these things out.
Protestant churches "expect" Christians to act grateful for their justification by faith; only the frozen chosen do not, which is clearly against Romans 3. And we could argue about which expectation, P or C, is better at stopping the stupid weekend sins you describe. But I don't think it's a result of the system, and if you want to say hyper-Calvinism is more endemic than I think it is then there's pretty good evidence that mortifying legalism is more endemic in Catholicism than appreciated as well.
I'm Eastern Orthodox.
This is contradictory and renders Sola fide meaningless. Protestants should either double down on Sola fide and that their faith alone is salvific, regardless of anything else, or that it's not just faith alone, because true faith is always proven in deed (which has always been the teaching of the Church). It's an either-or.
The Orthodox teaching is that grace is uncreated and given through participation in the divine energies (Church life and sacraments) with the ultimate purpose of theosis (deification), which is being united with God. God became man so that man can become god (St. Athanasius).
Protestants inherit the mistakes of the Catholics because they share the same basic presuppositions about grace while disagreeing on how it is given/achieved. This is because Western Christianity lacks the essence-energies distinction as taught by Gregory Palamas which makes participation in God impossible. Protestants reject synergism (cooperation of man with God required for salvation) and believe salvation is only in the hands of God.
In this case the world "saved" points to different concepts. Being in the Church is the path to salvation. But if you're not dressed appropriately (living a virtuous life) you will be kicked out of the wedding. So it's not single things leading to salvation but the whole package. Protestants who claim to be saved lack humility and make judgments that only God can make.
Justification by faith is legalistic. By definition, it's a legal declaration of righteousness through faith alone, with transformation and good works following as proof. The problem of Sola fide is it treats faith as a formal abstraction and not as a personal relationship with the living God (which is ironic, considering protestant worship looks much more personal and informal on the outside).
It's easy to see how the Reformation has demystificated the faith and tried to make it of this world - abstracted, transactional and legalistic. Faith is not lived but professed. Salvation is not participation in divine energies but legally declared by God. Christ didn't become incarnate to lift up and restore our pre-fall nature, His resurrection being cosmological in scope, opening our path to eternal life, but He was a necessary victim to pay our debt incurred by Adam in order to satisfy God as the plaintiff. It's only logical that this theology leads to secularism, materialism and cold-heartedness in society and this is exactly what has transpired in all Protestant states. It's funny because this is not unlike how the Talmud views God...
Great! So is a fellow mod account at c/Christianity. As a covenant Christian, I sympathize; previously I had trouble being sure of your foundation. Will factor in. You might like a long excursus attempting to have the Five Points interact with Orthodoxy.
Background: No sola is wholly "alone". The Orthodox use the big picture, and it ought to encompass two aspects, the realm where faith operates "alone" (as Catholic Bibles said before Luther), and the realm where faith and works operate together. All five solas have this duality.
... over the operation of a whole life. (Granted, Dismas's works were scanty, Catholics credit him "desire of the laver".)
... in the past-salvation event of regeneration. Two different applications. Better than doubling down is taking both sides of an apparent paradox.
Because Orthodox see the big picture of three tenses of salvation, it's easy to neglect that Protestants often use the word salvation to refer only to regeneration, a past event. You acknowledge the big picture in very good language; then you add "Protestants who claim to be saved lack humility", but more accurate would be that they lack consideration for the C & O use of the word "saved", as many don't intend to offend sanctification or glorification. They do claim to have assurance given directly by God, and I'm not aware of a Church teaching that assurance is impossible, only that it's so rare that Protestant broad proclamation of assurance is irresponsible. But when the Lord says "Thy faith hath saved thee" (Luke 7:50, 18:42) I don't think he was limiting that to the past, but speaking of the big picture.
Yup, present-tense grace manifested in sanctification aka present-tense salvation. Protestants pretty much limit their energy intake to a crumb and a thimble (Swift called them Aeolians for airiness), but I think God still counts enough of them.
[I try to be careful with quotes, and, since Athanasius didn't contend with Shirley MacLaine but we do, I note that he said, "Autos gar enenthropesen, hina hemeis theopoiethomen" (Incarnation 54.3). Nowadays I might translate that "be defied" rather than "become god", in the sense the Bible calls "partake of divine nature". Otherwise Americans get bad ideas about theosis.]
I don't think people who haven't found need for Palamas are necessarily prevented from "participation in God". If it means filling up in our flesh the afflictions (and greater works) of Christ, we've got it. We're members of his body, like hands and feet. We don't reject synergism except in the act of regeneration, which is logically only God's because the dead do nothing. However, I realized the Reformed teach simultaneous monergy and synergy: in one sense only God revives, but in another sense God gives and we receive (passively). Reformed are busy fighting neo-Pelagians so they play down that synergy, but it's there.
"Legalism" is defined as justification by works, not faith. You're saying justification by faith is "legalistic" because it's a "declaration" (imputation) of righteousness. Transformation (infusion) does indeed follow. We say, we are deemed, and truly are, righteous. Under "soteriology", OrthodoxWiki says theosis "rejects that salvation is a positive result to a legalistic dilemma", preferring healing metaphor; that sounds unnecessarily casuistic and semantic. But at "theosis" it admits past tense "we have become ... partakers of divine nature." So is there something wrong with declaring this past event more rigorously?
That's not sola fide, it's false assurance; yes it's a real risk. Modern Protestant evangelism presses hard to emphasize faith is not just knowledge and the pressure of assent, but also personal trust; and trust is a transforming (and, by grace, permanent) relationship. None can snatch from the Lord's hand; he may remove his candlesticks (lights of organization in community), but I don't believe he removes those people he has once laid hold of. If someone doesn't show grace in the present, he doesn't show he really had trust in the past. I absolutely agree that some tent-raisers became obsessed with collecting signed cards and doing little to build relationships among the signers; that did some good and some harm and their view of the balance probably differs from mine. I absolutely agree that some 501(c)(3) orgs are selling good feels in exchange for showing up for an hour once a month and doing nothing (or, for paying cash). But this is an error that Protestants are tempted to, just as C & O are tempted to their own errors; it's not the Protestant theology that's at fault.
Your last paragraph is thus a criticism of those who take one side and fail the other, but not of mainstream Protestants. I'll leave you with Hannah Smith's observation that people get very confused over this theology until they realize there are really two sides, one in which God does everything, and one in which we and God do everything. When you really get to participation and the loss of your own life, you see why these two both operate without any contradiction, and since I trust you on that I won't elaborate.
In the scriptural examples it is God in person who informs people that they are saved. Of course God has foreknowledge and He can make that pronunciation. It is completely unjustified for Protestants to believe they have assurance given directly by God. Did they talk to Him personally? What they have is Scripture which they quote-mine and misinterpret disregarding the living tradition (the Church) which produced and kept it.
Yes, many people fall for word-concept fallacies and could think the word "god" always refers to God the Father/Trinity. Theosis is deification by participation in the divine energies. We can't participate in the divine essence which is unknowable. We don't become God or one with God's essence (like hindus believe), we become godlike (by becoming saints and restoring our likeness that was lost after the fall).
You make good points and I can't address them all rn. Jay Dyer explains the Orthodox position really well. Look up his videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2O58rX0K5o (on salvation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXQQSA9U3xs (on faith alone justification being based on nominalism)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XS9xp7kiI (sola fide critique)
Good, we can leave it there for now. As my own link of Robert Arakaki shows, I'm not convinced the Orthodox and Protestant opinions are opposed (call me ecumenical), but I am bookmarking Jay Dyer for the Orthodox and will continue looking into it.