Featured Western vs. Eastern Soteriology

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.

 

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.

 

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).

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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