Western vs. Eastern Soteriology

[agedman]

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 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.

 

[ntchristian]

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, like many others, observe, question, interpret, and apply -- and come to different conclusions. That's the reason for the different denominations. So, see, you have not correctly discerned my position.

 

[ntchristian]

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

How do you understand "Pauline justification"?

 

[Yeshua1]

How do you understand "Pauline justification"?

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

 

[agedman]

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.

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

It is by no means an exclusive Calvinistic problem - I absolutely agree.

I just used Calvinism/ Arminianism because it was the easiest to see how these influences shape understanding.

And we all do it. When we read Scripture there is a tendency to question what characters may have understood but not how they understand. We never consider that their understanding itself was different.

 

[Walpole]

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.

 

[agedman]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

This sounds good to an extent. The only opposing argument I can think of is the influence Hellenistic philosophy had on Judaism during the Maccabean period. On all sides of Jewish sects there was a Hellenstic influence with one sect willingly adopting their customs (for example, Antiochus is not the most Hebrew name I could think of ).

 

[church mouse guy]

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?

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.

 

[AustinC]

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.

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.

 

[AustinC]

I, like many others, observe, question, interpret, and apply -- and come to different conclusions. That's the reason for the different denominations. So, see, you have not correctly discerned my position.

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

 

[AustinC]

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

 

[Van]

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.

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?

 

[Van]

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.

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.

 

[utilyan]

Show the exact scripture you are using please.

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.

 

[utilyan]

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

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.

 

[ntchristian]

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

Good, since you have contributed nothing helpful. I bet all your views are Western-influenced, and I bet you either don't realize it, or admit it, or even understand why that is. Everybody claims the Bible as their source, so don't you wonder why virtually everybody in the West has a certain interpretation of scripture, and the East has a different one? If you believe in penal substitution, for example, do you claim you got that from the Bible? But how could that be since no one held the view before the Protestant Reformation? The Catholics had a similar view, Satisfaction, but it was only about 500 years older than PSA. If you really believed that doctrine should be gotten solely from the Bible, you would be more interested in what the first century and early second century Christians believed. They certainly did not have a Western soteriology.

 

[ntchristian]

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.

Every Protestant supposedly believes Sola Scriptura, even though that belief has produced many different denominations. And yet with all those denominations, they all still hold to a Western soteriology, along with the RCC. Amazing, huh?

 

[Walpole]

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

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

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.

Quite certainly.

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.

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.

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.

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)