Western vs. Eastern Soteriology

[ntchristian]

I want to start this by comparing and contrasting a few theological positions held in the West and East:

Western:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/guilt
total depravity
crime/lawbreaking

Eastern:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/no guilt
no total depravity
sickness/disease

Western:
God:
judge in a courtroom

Eastern:
God:
physician in a hospital

Western:
Atonement:
penal/satisfaction

Eastern:
Atonement:
ransom/classic, or Christus Victor /recapitulation

Which side do your views fall on -- Western or Eastern?

Does anyone know of any Protestant denominations which have the Eastern soteriology?

Here are a couple of good articles I found on sin:

Christian views on sin - Wikipedia

Original sin - Wikipedia

 

[JonC]

I want to start this by comparing and contrasting a few theological positions held in the West and East:

Western:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/guilt
total depravity
crime/lawbreaking

Eastern:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/no guilt
no total depravity
sickness/disease

Western:
God:
judge in a courtroom

Eastern:
God:
physician in a hospital

Western:
Atonement:
penal/satisfaction

Eastern:
Atonement:
ransom/classic, or Christus Victor /recapitulation

Which side do your views fall on -- Western or Eastern?

Does anyone know of any Protestant denominations which have the Eastern soteriology?

Here are a couple of good articles I found on sin:

Christian views on sin - Wikipedia

Original sin - Wikipedia

It would be the exception as Protestants came from the western view point. The only Protestant theology I can think of that held the "Classic" rather than "Latin" Atonement is Anabaotist (they were a part of the Protestant movement but not from the RCC).

I have seen Baptists and Anglicans who view the Atonement in more of the "Classic" way. Quite a few Baptists. There is even a movement within Reformed churches to reform the Reformed by moving from the "Latin" Atonement to what they see is a more biblical approach.

The only denominations I can think of that hold the classic atonement is Mennonite.

 

[Revmitchell]

I want to start this by comparing and contrasting a few theological positions held in the West and East:

Western:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/guilt
total depravity
crime/lawbreaking

Eastern:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/no guilt
no total depravity
sickness/disease

Western:
God:
judge in a courtroom

Eastern:
God:
physician in a hospital

Western:
Atonement:
penal/satisfaction

Eastern:
Atonement:
ransom/classic, or Christus Victor /recapitulation

Which side do your views fall on -- Western or Eastern?

Does anyone know of any Protestant denominations which have the Eastern soteriology?

Here are a couple of good articles I found on sin:

Christian views on sin - Wikipedia

Original sin - Wikipedia

Well....these two groups are all monolithic....right?

 

[AustinC]

This thread seems so odd. East, West, neither are of any concern.
What does God tell us? The Bible is enough. No need to strain a gnat.

 

[JonC]

This thread seems so odd. East, West, neither are of any concern.
What does God tell us? The Bible is enough. No need to strain a gnat.

The context or worldview each applies has an effect on the theological conclusions.

Most raised in a western Christian tradition view sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. within a distinctly western (or "Latin") framework which assumes the work of Christ was to meet the demands or requirement of an aspect ontological to God (honor, holiness, justice, ect.). Satisfaction theory and Penal Substitution Theory are examples.

The Eastern or "classic" position assumes a different framework where sin and death are consequences that form a law enslaving mankind and the work of Christ was to overcome these principles freeing man from its grasp. Christus Victor, Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory are examples.

The difference is akin to a mountain rather than a gnat because how we view sin determines how we view redemption from the law of sin and death. Where you begin determines where you end.

 

[Yeshua1]

I want to start this by comparing and contrasting a few theological positions held in the West and East:

Western:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/guilt
total depravity
crime/lawbreaking

Eastern:
Sin:
inherited -- fallen nature/no guilt
no total depravity
sickness/disease

Western:
God:
judge in a courtroom

Eastern:
God:
physician in a hospital

Western:
Atonement:
penal/satisfaction

Eastern:
Atonement:
ransom/classic, or Christus Victor /recapitulation

Which side do your views fall on -- Western or Eastern?

Does anyone know of any Protestant denominations which have the Eastern soteriology?

Here are a couple of good articles I found on sin:

Christian views on sin - Wikipedia

Original sin - Wikipedia

Western, as that view best describes and explains the scripture views!

 

[Yeshua1]

It would be the exception as Protestants came from the western view point. The only Protestant theology I can think of that held the "Classic" rather than "Latin" Atonement is Anabaotist (they were a part of the Protestant movement but not from the RCC).

I have seen Baptists and Anglicans who view the Atonement in more of the "Classic" way. Quite a few Baptists. There is even a movement within Reformed churches to reform the Reformed by moving from the "Latin" Atonement to what they see is a more biblical approach.

The only denominations I can think of that hold the classic atonement is Mennonite.

There is also Anglican, as expressed by NT Wright and those in the NPP!

 

[Yeshua1]

The context or worldview each applies has an effect on the theological conclusions.

Most raised in a western Christian tradition view sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. within a distinctly western (or "Latin") framework which assumes the work of Christ was to meet the demands or requirement of an aspect ontological to God (honor, holiness, justice, ect.). Satisfaction theory and Penal Substitution Theory are examples.

The Eastern or "classic" position assumes a different framework where sin and death are consequences that form a law enslaving mankind and the work of Christ was to overcome these principles freeing man from its grasp. Christus Victor, Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory are examples.

The difference is akin to a mountain rather than a gnat because how we view sin determines how we view redemption from the law of sin and death. Where you begin determines where you end.

The big problem is that the eastern Church, much like the Church of Rome, seems to be denying the Pauline view on Justification!

 

[JonC]

Western, as that view best describes and explains the scripture views!

Neither. We cannot assume a Western viewpoint because Scripture was not a Western product .

Plus there are no cowboys and native-Americans (native people formerly called Indians....feather, not dot....by insensitive white people who took their land and killed the buffalo....tatanka).

We cannot assume an Eastern viewpoint either. While it is the culture that produced Scripture we need to make sure we are not assuming a viewpoint foreign to Scripture itself (worldviews change, we need to look at a first-century Eastern concepts).

 

[Yeshua1]

Neither. We cannot assume a Western viewpoint because Scripture was not a Western product .

Plus there are no cowboys and native-Americans (native people formerly called Indians....feather, not dot....by insensitive white people who took their land and killed the buffalo....tatanka).

We cannot assume an Eastern viewpoint either. While it is the culture that produced Scripture we need to make sure we are not assuming a viewpoint foreign to Scripture itself (worldviews change, we need to look at a first-century Eastern concepts).

The so called western viewpoint reflects the Hebrew OT mindset that became developed and expanded on in the NT!

 

[JonC]

The so called western viewpoint reflects the Hebrew OT mindset that became developed and expanded on in the NT!

Why do you believe that Scripture adopted Western ideologies and Western viewpoints properly reflect the Hebrew Old Testament mindset?

Why do you believe that the New Testament expanded on the Western worldview?

In what ways do you believe that the Western worldview was interpreted by the first century Jews?

What is your evidence that the Western worldview is superior to the Eastern worldview when applied to Scripture?

 

[Yeshua1]

Why do you believe that Scripture adopted Western ideologies and Western viewpoints properly reflect the Hebrew Old Testament mindset?

Why do you believe that the New Testament expanded on the Western worldview?

In what ways do you believe that the Western worldview was interpreted by the first century Jews?

What is your evidence that the Western worldview is superior to the Eastern worldview when applied to Scripture?

Contrast how salvation is accomplished in each system, as in the Reformed/Baptist models, saved by Pauline Justification, but the eastern church, along with Rome, denies that!

 

[JonC]

Contrast how salvation is accomplished in each system, as in the Reformed/Baptist models, saved by Pauline Justification, but the eastern church, along with Rome, denies that!

The Roman Catholic Church does not deny the "Latin" view. It holds a different take (the Reformed view moves the crux from merit to justice) but the worldview is the same. You are right that the Eastern Church is different. But you stated that you believed Scripture was written via Western ideologies so that does not matter.

What you call "Pauline Justification" is really Calvinistic Justification (or the Reformed view of Paul).

I have no interest in contrasting it either way. The information is out there. Look and decide.

If you believe that Jesus held a Western worldview then of course a Western worldview is in order. If you believe Jesus held an Eastern worldview then go with that. It makes for good discussion.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Roman Catholic Church does not deny the "Latin" view. It holds a different take (the Reformed view moves the crux from merit to justice) but the worldview is the same. You are right that the Eastern Church is different. But you stated that you believed Scripture was written via Western ideologies so that does not matter.

What you call "Pauline Justification" is really Calvinistic Justification (or the Reformed view of Paul).

I have no interest in contrasting it either way. The information is out there. Look and decide.

If you believe that Jesus held a Western worldview then of course a Western worldview is in order. If you believe Jesus held an Eastern worldview then go with that. It makes for good discussion.

Jesus had a Hebrew worldview and mindset, which I believe was correctly framed by Paul in his Justification theology as containing what later on became known as the Pst...

 

[JonC]

Jesus had a Hebrew worldview and mindset, which I believe was correctly framed by Paul in his Justification theology as containing what later on became known as the Pst...

How do you know that Jesus' worldview was a Hebrew worldview and how do you know that the Hebrew worldview was the Western worldview?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you know that Jesus' worldview was a Hebrew worldview and how do you know that the Hebrew worldview was the Western worldview?

Jesus was a Jew born under the Law, and was raised in the temple, so his mindset would have been Hebrew!

 

[JonC]

Jesus was a Jew born under the Law, and was raised in the temple, so his mindset would have been Hebrew!

Do you believe that a first century Jewish mindset is the same as a "Western mindset"?

 

[AustinC]

The context or worldview each applies has an effect on the theological conclusions.

Most raised in a western Christian tradition view sin, atonement, righteousness, etc. within a distinctly western (or "Latin") framework which assumes the work of Christ was to meet the demands or requirement of an aspect ontological to God (honor, holiness, justice, ect.). Satisfaction theory and Penal Substitution Theory are examples.

The Eastern or "classic" position assumes a different framework where sin and death are consequences that form a law enslaving mankind and the work of Christ was to overcome these principles freeing man from its grasp. Christus Victor, Ransom Theory and Moral Influence Theory are examples.

The difference is akin to a mountain rather than a gnat because how we view sin determines how we view redemption from the law of sin and death. Where you begin determines where you end.

Waste of a good mind to strain a gnat.

 

[JonC]

Waste of a good mind to strain a gnat.

A good mind would not view these differences so minor an issue.

 

[AustinC]

A good mind would not view these differences so minor an issue.

A good mind would....

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God. If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
~ Colossians 2:8-23