An Orthodox view of Salvation

Posted on September 18, 2009 by me

My friend Duncan posted the following video on Facebook this evening.  It’s worth watching, whatever your theological background; it’s especially worth watching if you’ve no familiarity with Eastern Orthodoxy.

I have a very deep respect and appreciation for Eastern Orthodoxy, although I do have some disagreements with various points. (Of course, to the Eastern Orthodox, my issues don’t matter.) I have just finished reading Three Views of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, in which a number of theologians discuss various differences in approach.  I have perhaps more disagreements with evangelicalism than I do with Eastern Orthodoxy; as I’ve remarked before, I tend often to side with Luther, who tends to be somewhere in the middle of these two camps.  This is not because I was raised Lutheran (I don’t think, anyway), but because Luther just seems to echo what Paul appears to say.

So, while I do agree with much that is said in the video, the Orthodox position on cooperative salvation – our work being added to the work of Christ – is something I have an issue with.  I do agree that we were saved 2,000 years ago, that I am currently being saved (Luther seemed to agree with the Orthodox understanding of theosis or deification), and that at the final judgment I will be saved.  Again, this is simply an echo of Paul.

My problem with the Orthodox view comes from 2 main sources: Paul, and Jesus.  And yes, these are pretty good sources.  The Orthodox view of cooperative salvation seems to beg Paul’s rhetorical question in Galatians 3:3: “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?”  Paul seems to be clearly saying in this letter that to add any human effort to the work of Christ is to lose the Gospel completely.

To this, add the words of Jesus in John 10:27-29:

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.

I do believe that we are to continue in good works; that is the work of the Spirit in us. I just don’t believe that this contributes at all to our salvation, and in fact, can be as dangerous as Peter’s reverting to kosher food.  That’s not me, that’s Paul.  I’m guessing that there is an Orthodox interpretation of Galatians, and I would be very interested in seeing it.

Without further commentary, here’s the video.  Again, I do agree with most of it, and very much appreciate the spirit in which this is presented:

Posted in Theological Musings | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Satire and Irony

Posted on September 15, 2009 by me

Satire and Irony are one or two of my favorite literary devices (depending upon your definitions).  Most people don’t really understand either, and don’t expect me to help in that regard. (I just needed some type of introduction to tie the following two links together.)

First, you just have to go here to understand.  It’s just plain funny, whether it’s meant as satire or not.  I’m choosing to believe it is.

Next, a post from Debunking Christianity, to which my reaction was simply, “how ironic.”  I don’t think I have to explain.  If you don’t get it, just read a few other posts, then come back to this one.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Humor and/or Sarcasm | 2 Comments

Tradition!

Posted on September 14, 2009 by me

No, I’m not trying out for Fiddler on the Roof.  I’ve been thinking a bit lately about the concept of Tradition (and tradition) in church theology.  Yeah, I know, I tend to think about some obscure things.  First, a little background:

Tradition, with a capital “T”, is also known in the Eastern Orthodox churches as Holy Tradition.  OrthodoxWiki.com defines Holy Tradition as “the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.”  Holy Tradition is not given equal status with Scripture, however it is seen as authoritative as far as the interpretation of Scripture goes.  It does not change or grow with understanding or time.  While in the Roman Catholic Church the Pope can “amend” church doctrines, there is no one in the Orthodox Church with that authority.  Again, Tradition doesn’t change, it just is.

This, of course, is debated by all other churches.  The RCC has, as I have pointed out, a different approach to church authority, giving preference to the Pope.  This is really what the Reformation was all about.  One of the main doctrines emphasized by Luther and the other reformers is sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone” as the church’s source of authority.

Protestants: Sola Scriptura

While by and large the protestant churches all affirm this, there are many different approaches, which in part explains why there are so many different churches and traditions (with a small “t”).  One problem is that many evangelical churches have no respect whatsoever for the earlier church teachings, instead preferring their own unique twists of interpretation.  Personally, I find this quite dangerous, allowing for much bizarre error to creep in, and allowing for bizarre creeps to mislead many people.

What I find really interesting, however, is that so many churches say “sola Scriptura” but in practice have their own form of tradition that controls them as much as the Eastern Orthodox is guided by their Tradition.

Lutherans

I’ll pick on the Lutherans because I was one, and still hold to a lot of Lutheran approaches to things.  Luther, of course, rejected the Pope’s authority in favor of Scripture alone.  However, over the years, the Lutherans developed a number of documents that defined the “Lutheran” faith, including the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luthers’ Catechism and the Formula of Concord. These are all published in one rather large volume known as The Book of Concord.  Some Lutherans, especially in the Missouri Synod, will quote this as much if not more than the Bible itself.  It is interesting to me that the church that first developed Sola Scriptura holds so strongly to a 2nd book.

Calvinists

For Calvinists, there is also a slough of documents that guide their interpretation of Scripture. There is the Westminster Confession, Calvin’s Institutes, the TULIP, and so on.  Calvinists, even more so than Lutherans, will default to Calvinist Tradition rather than go back to Scripture.

All the rest

To look at the rest would take far too much time; nearly everyone has some kind of tradition guiding them, even if it is to be “blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine.”  Some, of course, are less dogmatic than others. The ELCA (Lutheran) and the Episcopal Church have all but left the faith, setting aside even Scripture as authoritative.  Then you have those who follow whatever “prophetic word” floats by.  Fundamentalists are dognatic, but in violation of the clear meaning of Scripture as well as any other source of authority or interpretation.

Emergents

There are many in the “emerging” movements which have chosen to be “blown to and fro” with concepts such as “open-source theology” or even becoming somewht “interfaith.”

My own thoughts

My personal belief is that Scripture – while being open to each individually – is not necessarily open to all individual interpretation.  I think it is important to look to the Church Fathers (2nd-4th Centuries) for guidance, as well as look at the wise men through the ages.  However, I am not convinced that the early Church Fathers had everything perfect.  I think Luther recovered some major truths, but not all.  (I can’t say the same for Calvin, however.)

For example, there are some people with new thoughts about Biblical interpretation, such as NT Wright, who are coming under attack by Calvinists, Lutherans, and others as he dares question traditional interpretations of core doctrines such as Justification.  Now, I tend to think Luther’s thinking follows Paul as closely as possible; however, Wright has some interesting thoughts. Should he be dismissed simply because he doesn’t follow the TULIP or Concord?  Not necessarily.  I don’t even mind if he disputes Chrysostom or Polycarp; I don’t think they saw in the mirror any clearer than Paul did.

Bottom line, I think we need to be open-minded, but with a very healthy dose of respect for historical interpretations of the Bible.  If your own thoughts don’t fit in any existing tradition, then it’s time to rethink.  You may have a valid point, but it’s more probable that you’re simply wrong.


Posted in Church, Theological Musings | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obamacare: A Lose-Lose Scenario

Posted on September 9, 2009 by me

I try not to post much about politics, for a number of reasons. For one thing, there are way too many out there already.  I prefer to stick more to philosophical and theological issues – issues that are around for the long haul, so to speak.

But, I am finding the dynamics surrounding the current healthcare debate quite interesting (for one slant that I won’t go into here, read my post at my other blog).  Consider that a year ago, Obama was seemingly unstoppable, generating the kind of manic following we haven’t seen since the Beatles landed in 1964.  Within days of being sworn in, he began swinging his liberal axe, beheading as much of Bush’s legacy as he could.  The House and Senate Dems were lockstep behind him, and he seemed even more unstoppable.

Today, of course, the story has changed.  His fiscal policies have, for the most part, failed. The deficit is several times higher than ever before (and he can’t blame Bush for that).  His poll numbers are dropping steadily according to every poll; today, 52% disapprove of his handling of healthcare.  Over 50% disapprove! Yet, he keeps trying to steamroll his program through.  Even long-term Democrats have turned against him.

Why?  What doesn’t he understand about “we don’t want it?”

It’s even more interesting for those in Congress:  Poll numbers show that a very large % of voters would vote the whole lot of them out if they could.  According to a poll taken last week, voters will act in November based upon how their elected officials vote on healthcare.

With Obama’s numbers continuing to drop, he’s fast becoming a liability.  Why side with the President when it could cost you your career?  And what’s to be gained by gaining favor with a President who could very well be a lame duck in his first year in office?

Besides, what about representing those you swore to represent?

I am truly astounded that it is Obama’s hope this evening to “gain momentum” for a plan the majority of voters are against.  For that matter, just who the hell does he think he is?  Is he a servant of the people, or does he see himself as a modern-day Caesar?

Perhaps tonight he should simply play the fiddle.

Posted in Politics/Current Events | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments