Featured Western vs. Eastern Soteriology

I do agree with the "age of reason thinking" for the matter of salvation is not of work but belief. In order for one to be a believer, there must be certain cognitive development and awareness made of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

So, Just as Christ said, the kingdom of heaven is made up of the people who come to him as little children without some agenda, I have no problem with those who have no concept nor ability of understanding being in such a condition as Christ accepting them.

Now, at what level of maturation and cognitive development is necessary, I don't put any restriction. For it is the work of the Holy Spirit to convict of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

I have no business considering some "work" needing to be involved.

What the OT taught was that after 8 days there should be some temple pronouncement. But, imo, such was not a matter of salvation but of dedication.


I have no water to carry for those in the need of baby baptism thinking that some salvation is granted, but neither do I consider that those not knowing they have been born are condemned.

 

In the same way someone like Dr Grudem does in his ST....

 

Perhaps, but rather I think that Paul was using that which the places he traveled were familiar.

I don't speak for @John of Japan, but I do know missionaries and they more often do use the illustrations and stories of the culture in which they are involved to bring understanding to the listeners.

Paul, in writing to Titus, spoke of the folks of Crete. He quoted from one of their own, Imo) so as not to bear false witness nor to appear as slanderous.

However, when one reads outside of the letters and looks upon the works written primarily to the Hebrew people, you will find a completely different set of illustrations in which the intended audience would be familiar.

I don't see this "Hellenizing" today any more than I did decades ago when my profs attempted to bluster about such.

I successfully withstood them then and others sense.

It all comes down to a matter of who your audience is, and what tools you are going to engage in which that audience will find understanding.

 

I disagree. I don't think St. Paul employed Hellenistic philosophy simply as a form of cultural appropriation so as to not offend them. To the contrary, he studied philosophy under Gamaliel, and his hometown of Tarsus was home to an important school of philosophy. Hence the Apostle used Hellenistic philosophy to make and explain theological distinctions about the Person of Christ. One such example can be found in Phil 2:6-7, where he uses the teaching of Aristotle (de Anima, 2:1,2) to explain who the essence of Christ is.

 

First Gamaliel’s school was in Jerusalem. Gamaliel was president of the Sanhedrin.

Second, Paul was certainly trained in Tarsus in the culturally folks would. Being from a wealthy family, a Roman citizen by birth, he would have aspired to excel in physical ability, wealth, and intellect. These three were the status symbols of the day, and Paul would have been successful in order to place him at such a young age as a recognized Pharisee, young ruler of others, and zealous to imprison those he considered contrary and lessers.

Thirdly, Paul quoted the other philosophers and writers because his audience would recognize the credibility of the statements. This s is done by any good preacher/missionary and even Carnegie.

Often when responding on the BB a poster quotes from other sources to support the presentation they offer. Why would not Paul.

Assuming Paul wrote both Romans and Hebrews (which doesn’t matter), in comparison to the letters, one can easily see how the quotes are set aside.

I trust that this post will give you pause to place less Hellenism as influential to Scripture, for just as the Lord used stories consistent with the audience cognitive understanding, so do all quality speakers and writers.

 

The Romans basically copied Greek thinking and were like Greeks in many respects. Greek thinking is pagan thinking and many of their ideas of evolution and deep time came from the orient, specifically India and the Hindu religion, so once again we see that the orient was advanced enough in paganism that more primitive pagans such as the Greeks borrowed from Indian thinking.

Paul was an intellectual and well-educated as you have noted but he reached the common people more than the intellectuals but that is the nature of Christianity in that it is the religion of the poor and down and out. The Greeks on Mars Hill essentially said some other day. Liberals call Paul a failure at Mars Hill but the failure was the Greek intellectual rejection of Salvation. Paul told them. Paul was sent to Macedonia because they were willing to accept the gospel and the Jews rejected the gospel and it is likely that the other oriental peoples would have also. Many others were working in the field also. Paul was sent to be poured out as a drink offering, as you know, when his head was chopped off due to his Roman citizenship.

 

In your statement God's blood is wasted on many and it ignores that all whom the Father gives him will be saved as Jesus so clearly declares.

 

Show me your observation, questions, interpretation and application. I will gladly discuss any passage.

 

This entire thread is just a vain attempt at philosophy with zero scripture. Have fun with this. I'm out.

 

God's blood was not wasted. That is a false charge.
It does not ignore that every single individual "given" to Christ is saved forever, so yet another false charge.
Why not actually address the position presented?

 

All Calvinists do is use logical fallacies, like disparaging those holding differing view, rather than address the positions presented. Pay no attention to these efforts at deflection.

 

Colossians 2

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

 

Would help me a great deal brother if you can provide the inductive method to show the bible teaches SOLA SCRIPTURA.

That way we are not charged with TRADITION AND PHILOSOPHY as for scripture being the Final authority.

 

Yes, exactly, and he was noted for encouraging his students to study "Greek wisdom", that is, Hellenistic philosophy. (cf. Mishnah, Sotah 49b)

Quite certainly.

Again, St. Paul used Greek philosophy to make and explain distinctions about the Person of Christ. Philosophy, at its basic level, is the understanding of distinctions. Thus, philosophy is necessary in order to apply terminology to the study of theology.

It wasn't only St. Paul who relied on Greek philosophy to explain who the essence of Christ is. The great Apostle St. John introduces Christ in his Gospel as the Logos, a Hellenistic philosophical word which would form the basis for the Christian understanding of the Trinity.

Read this. The book of Hebrews is full of Hellenistic philosophy ---> https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/478958


As for the epistle to the Romans, it opens with a Hellenistic discourse on natural theology, clearly using Aristotelian metaphysics to explain how we can know certain truths about God apart from revelation. (cf. Romans 1:19-20)