Featured Western vs. Eastern Soteriology

I think that you are mixing up Israel and Greece. Greece was occidental; Israel was oriental.

 

I agree in the ancients it was different. The cultures of the Iraq, Iran, Jordon areas were far more in agreement with the cultural aspects of Israel than those of the Western.

That is also partially accountable in the internal modern Israeli struggles in this day.

VTheologians, though they may and do hold to either a philosophical Western or Eastern view, should also be able to understand and navigate through the other view.

For example, the theme of redemption as it relates to family is significantly different in Eastern and Western considerations, even to this day.

The social aspects of the protection while being a guest in a home is reflective of the need for Lot to shelter the guests and willing to “sacrifice” his own daughters.

There are so many nuances of meaningful understanding missed by locking into a single frame of reference.

The Eastern miss some of Paul’s meaningful work just as Westerner folks.

 

Well, since you mentioned Paul, the Greeks thought that the Cross was foolishness so that illustrates the occidental mind to this day. You are saying that the near east was not the near east in ancient times, but that is not true because the occident was barbarian and the orient was civilized and ornate with a different way of thinking. Paul was headed into the orient because it was familiar when he got the call to go to Macedonia and the barbarian occident. Our civilization is nothing like the orient. We do not teach in parables. We do not generally engage in the living style of Solomon. We do not dress our clergy like Jewish priests. What you dismiss as Iran was Persia.

 

No, just was trying to say that the western church view on the Atonement fits that Jewish/Hebrew view better!

 

You are basically restating my thinking.

To the Greek/Roman mindset the cross was foolish.

Mark used the coronation account of the Roman empower to the status of a god in the account of the crucifixion. The Roman concept of one proclaimed as a god who was conquered and crucified was foolishness.

The Greeks well understood the concept of human/god but it was foolish to consider anyone worthy who was not intellectual, rich, physically powerful. Therefore, thinking of the attributes the Christ taught and especially the crucifixion was foolish.

I find it thought provoking that God selected Saul (later Paul) who was so schooled in both the Jewish and Greek philosophy to care the Gospel. He regularly and skillfully defended the gospel in public confrontation with the Jews, Greeks, and Romans.

Would you agree that Paul being able to navigate in the familiar waters of the people was significant to planting the early churches?

 

Do you hold to Pauline justification, or to Sacramental gracing salvation?

 

Show the exact scripture you are using please.

 

Human's interpret based upon what is said in scripture. They are then biased by church traditions.
Many/most will compliantly follow and obey church tradition because they are too lazy to observe, question, interpret and apply for themselves.
I find your position to be a lazy way out.

 

I totally disagree with his point though that scripture is not the final and only authority!

 

I think the EASt?WEST choice offers a false dichotomy.

Lets look at the content of scripture:

Sin - our thoughts and actions that miss the mark of God's will for our choices.
Sin nature - because of Adam's sin, all mankind was "made sinners." Romans 5:19 We are not guilty of Adam's sin, but we are in a sinful unholy state as a consequence of Adam's sin.

Total Depravity - undefined in the OP. But if the term is used Calvinistically, it is not biblical, fallen people can understand and respond affirmatively to the milk of the Gospel, 1 Cor. 3:1-3

God - God will judge and punish all mankind for their own individual sins, but will show mercy toward those "in Christ" and heal them by removing their sin burden (what God holds against them).

Atonement - undefined in the OP. But if the term is used Calvinistically, it is not biblical, God provides justification to life to all mankind through the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, but only those God transfers into Christ are reconciled.

 

Really Van????

Do you honestly think that any mention of sin, total depravity, God, or atonement is up for you to present a distraction to the thread?

Try addressing the impact of Eastern and Western views upon the topic of the thread.

 

Perhaps it is the other way.

Perhaps humans interpret based upon emotions, traditions, culture and then bring these into the Scriptures to conform the Scriptures to their own designs.

I agree that most will follow and obey church traditions.

I not certain that the position taken was the lazy way out.

One of the first awareness that helps to develop higher thinking skills is self-awareness.

For the poster to admit they may be too much of something is just as good as Western thinkers admitting that perhaps they, too, are in need of adjusting their own views.

That is certainly not an easy way out, but an acknowledgment that few attain.

 

This is not an exclusive Calvinistic problem. It is the problem of most biased Western and Eastern thinking. Exclusivity hinders appreciation when it comes to learning and understanding.

For example:
When reading how Abraham took the family to hunt down those who took Lot, from a Western view it may come across far differently than that of the Eastern, especially when the spoils were tithed to Melchizedek, and how Abram responded to the king of Sodom.

I am in no manner a master of the Eastern culture of that day, but the events take upon themselves a richness when polished with that cloth.

 

Ray Vander Laan does a really good job in giving a bit more on this video concerning redemption.

It shows in a more striking way the eastern thinking and when compared to the western mindset can show how western thinking is limited in scope and depth.



I recommend for those small group bible study folks, that if you haven't used Vandeer Laan's stuff that you highly consider it.

 

I'm an independent, King James Bible believing man from Lebanon, whose background is Syriac and Byzantine, whose hometown is in Druze territory, raised almost equally in the East and West.
The distinctions you listed, assuming they are correct and clear-cut, are a little useful for missionaries seeking to evangelize cultures different than their own. Such understanding may help give you an "angle" and avoid misunderstandings, yea, teaching such distinctions can be helpful because too often American missionaries, for example, sought to Americanize the people and hit a wall.
But they are nothing solid enough to build your worldview on. I remind you that the Bible is an Oriental book which expounds at length of guilt, depravity, judgment, and penal satisfaction.

 

Good post.

Having little contact with the eastern folks, my children (who are world travelers) have greater depth to their conversations and interactions in the ministry and with the Scriptures.

Lest someone reading the post get confused, the use of the word "oriental" does not refer to the far east, but the near east. That is the land we typically consider as "middle east." It includes the lands that touch the east, southeast, and northeast side of the Mediterranean sea and the connecting lands to them (Jordan, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan...)

George, when you indicate you are in the "Druze territory," is that a segment of Eygpt, Israel, Jordan, or in some other area?

 

Humans who refuse to spend time observing, observing, observing before interpreting and going with what others taught them...yes. Humans who practice inductive Bible study, no.
Most people are ignorant of inductive Bible study and lean hard upon their church traditions.

An example of this is the argument that there is an "age of reason" for children. There is no biblical support for such a thing, but churches teach it anyway.

So much of the nuanced arguments of ivory tower thinkers are just unuseful attempts to pridefully make a useless point.

 

I think this is confusing to Protestants because Protestantism represents something completely novel and foreign to Christianity, whether practiced in the East or the West.

There is a reason the progenitors of Protestantism sought to de-Hellenize the Christian faith. They rejected metaphysics as a means to understanding who and what God is in favor of their sola Scriptura doctrine. However, to de-hellenize the Christian faith is to remove it from its historical narrative.

It is not a coincidence the New Testament was written in Greek. The Hebrew and Hellenistic worlds converged with the Incarnation of the Son of God, expressed most beautifully by St. John's description of the Son as the Logos. It is a fact of history that Christianity, from its very beginning, synthesized Hellenism with revelation in light of the coming of Christ. It is not a coincidence that the faith of the Church came into contact and was born in the Hellenistic world.

From the beginning, the Church used Hellenistic philosophy in order to apply terminology to the study of theology. More specifically, metaphysics became the thread which links philosophy with theology. Thus we find St. Paul, the first Christian philosopher, using the thoughts and words of Aristotle, Seneca, Aratus, Plato, Menander and Socrates to describe and explain the mysteries of the Christian faith. These understandings shape and form the basis for understanding the Christian faith, whether practiced in the Eastern Church or the Western Church.

Because this has been jettisoned by the progenitors of Protestantism, most of their progeny look at the faith of the East and West as something completely unrecognizable to their own faith traditions, which are quite novel and absent from historic Christianity.