I am sorry but that is just cynical. It rests n he baser aspects of humanity and is addressed by Paul in Romans. We do not have a “licence to sin”. Or as Paul puts it, Increasing the sin increases the blessing.
In general Christinainty does the opposite and claim that forgivenss is not a free gift but must be accepted or somehow validated. forgivenss is a gift from God and gifts do not need validation or even acceptance.
And that is your jaundiced view of Christianity.
In truth it ccould be the case, but for the majority of Christians the whole business of forgivenss is humbling rather than entitlement.
There is a difference between saying Catholicism is corrupted now and saying it was corrupted before the reformation. The reformation also brought the counter-reformation where many of the protestant complaints were addressed and changed within Catholicism.
And that is your routine whitewashing of Christianity.
It is part and parcel of your rather general refusal to face reality on many fronts, insisting to live in a fantasy world instead.
There is much truth in what you wrote, although the eastern orthodox and the western evangelical thinking about salvation are so different that there will be misunderstandings.
There is much good in the eastern orthodox thinking but as a child of the evangelical teaching, I think that the eastern orthodox interpretation hides the difference between salvation and sanctification and practically omits the concept of justification - in evangelical teaching these can be distinguished, in eastern orthodox teaching apparently not (or at least the differences are obscure). The eastern orthodox thinking that the process of theosis (‘deification’) is the process of salvation and that the process continues even after death leads to a different interpretation about what happens after death. In the eastern orthodox interpretation, ‘purgatory’ is a natural continuation of the process of ‘salvation-sanctification’ (theosis; becoming Christ-like), in the evangelical interpretation ‘purgatory’ is usually abandoned as unnecessary.
I am intrigued by your comment, especially '… the difference between salvation and sanctification and practically omits the concept of justification…". I did a quick copilot search and got this:
In summary, salvation is the overarching term that includes both justification and sanctification. Justification is the initial act of being declared righteous, and sanctification is the ongoing process of becoming more like Christ.
Justification is the act of God declaring a sinner to be righteous because of their faith in Jesus Christ.
The notion of purgatory differs from what I have read, although I do not remember it being unnecessary. It is, as you say, a sort of continuation, although I prefer the notion of the outcome of repentance as after death, we are enabled to further understand our sins and to be ‘purged’ from these through a deeper comprehension of the sacred.
It seems as if we are using various words to say the same thing. Would you elaborate?
Thanks for checking, My comment about purgatory was wrong. Eastern orthodox do not believe in ‘purgatory’ as the RCC does “though it does believe in an intermediate state between heaven and hell where the souls experience a foretaste of the bliss or the punishment which will eternally be theirs”.answers by St George (orthodox church)
The comment about the difference in the teaching about salvation was mainly based on an article by Donald Fairbairn [Salvation as Theosis].
It looks at the matter from an evangelical viewpoint but the basic idea of salvation being a process (the process of Theosis) seems to be what eastern orthodox teach. Orthodox catechism project tells:
“What is salvation? It is theosis, participation in the Divine and uncreated energy of God, real communion and union with Christ; a journey of dynamic growth, a journey of potentials that are reached and then surpassed. Salvation is growth; it is a movement from glory to even greater glory.”
The same source also tells:
“Salvation is something that is dynamic. Salvation is a relationship and intimacy with our Creator. Salvation is something internal; it is not something that “happens” to human beings. Salvation is not something that was simply “done” for man. It is not external to man. You don’t “get” saved.”
[Orthodox Catechism project: Salvation]
The way to look at and speak about salvation is different and that may easily lead to misunderstandings. Even after reading some texts about the subject, I am not fully certain how much about the apparent difference in the teaching is just speaking in different language and how much is truly different, as the article by Donald Fairbairn claims. I assume that Fairbairn has studied the teachings of orthodox churches and the claims are therefore valid.
I have enjoyed that particular book by Lewis (The Great Divorce) more than once. On occasion in life, I have encountered people who (for better or worse) resemble one or another of the personalities in Lewis’ work.
I am aware that the matter of purgatory is debated —and is also debatable. According to the Dictionary of Christianity in America, the doctrime of purgatory “relies chiefly on church tradition for its authority and content” --though they note that speculation about it began early one…and that some have used apocryphal and biblical texts (Matthew 5:26 and 12:32 and 1 Cor 3:11-15) to give the doctrine some level of support. It’s an interesting speculation. But then there are statements like “once to die and then the judgment” as well as others. Lewis’ work is a great teaching tool, great literature, and filled with interesting details and conversation topics (such as “does all hell fit into a crack in the sidewalk of heaven”?).
It works as great literature and as a point of discussion on many levels. But there are also statements in the biblical text like “once to die and then the judgment” and that harrowing story of the man who calls out from hell asking for someone/anyone (please!) to go to earth and warn his brothers not to end up here. The issue of purgatory and of maybe moving from one level to another on one’s own— does not fit in with the imagery of Jesus’ parable., Yes of course, Jesus likely was not describing something that happened (though I have read at least one commentator who supposed the account is really true). It is just possible that Jesus told that story to convey a larger truth about death and life after. Maybe Lewis’ work could also be looked at in that way.
In short, the biblical text is not terribly specific on the details of the afterlife — remarks like a place “where their worm dieth not” notwithstanding —beyond assuring us that life after death includes some harrowing locales that go on for eternity— and you don’t want to end up there.
Both of those can be found in Orthodox theologians’ works, as was noted by the Lutherans in the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues.
An interesting comparison: justification is like when they finish the surgery and saying you’ll be fine; sanctification and purgatory are like physical therapy where you strive to get that repaired body back into good shape.
Yes. The East speaks of purgation and restoration but not of a location where this happens. Recent Orthodox understanding would be closer to Polkinghorne’s view.
The Eastern view becomes more evident in Paul if πίστις (PISS-tiss) is primarily rendered “allegiance”.
I note from the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues that representatives from both groups agreed that Paul is not systematic in his use of terms such as “justification” and “salvation”, which doesn’t help the situation.
This is interesting as it can mean trust in Christ… and (summary) “πίστις” translates to “faith” in English. It is a significant term in Christian theology, often referring to trust, belief, and confidence in God and His promises. In the New Testament, “πίστις” is frequently used to describe the faith that believers have in Jesus Christ; it also envisions acts of trust and confidence.
That has been the most common rendition in the West, but “trust”, “faithfulness”, “trustworthiness”, and “allegiance” are equally valid. A lot of the time the meaning depends on the relationship between the parties; a child’s πίστις toward a parent is “trust”, but a soldier’s πίστις towards a commander is “allegiance” while a king’s πίστις toward his subjects is “faithfulness”.
I would argue that forgiveness is a promise when we confess our sins.
Thats different from a free gift righteousness, grace and salvation, these come after the altar of sacrifice in the Old Testament Sanctuary… the israelites had to confess their sins outside the tabernacle before the offering was made.
The reason why is because unless sins are confessed, atonement overlooks them and their unconfessed sins are not forgiven. Unless sins are forgiven, there is no righteousness, no righteousness means no grace, no grace means no salvation.
Despite the general belief that righteousness by faith requires no works, it does require a conscious effort to seek forgiveness both to our neighbour and to God. The neighbour part is the part often overlooked. If we have not made an effort to ask for forgiveness of our neighbours, God cannot forgive us for those sins…they do not receive atonement in the Old Testament Sanctuary service (which is symbolic of the exact process of Christs atonement for sin)
This makes salvation a matter of works righteousness and is contrary to the scriptures. Paul writes:
He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Committing a sin dos not remove us from “the kingdom of His beloved Son”, and as long as we are in that kingdom “we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”.
Peter tells us:
To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.
So long as our trust is in Christ, Peter’s words tells us that we “receive forgiveness of sins through [Christ’s] name”.
Requiring confession of every sin demands that we be as omniscient as God so that we know every sin. That requires us to know our hearts perfectly, which we can’t do.
John shows in his first epistle that it is the sins that trouble our hearts that we must confess; we are told that if our hearts condemn us we can trust that God is greater than our hearts and will forgive. This indicates that if we are worried about sins we aren’t even aware of that God still forgives; it doesn’t mean we have to confess very sin.
Demanding that we confess every sin says that the work of Christ was insufficient, that we have to add the work of knowing every sin and then confessing every sin – and as Martin Luther discovered, to examine myself and find every sin and then confess it would end up taking most of every day!
You are demanding a specific view of the atonement. There are several that wotk.
When Paul opened up Christianity to the Gentikes the did not expect them to follow or even know Judaism. His comments in Romans 114 demonstrate that he is no expcting the obsrance of the Sabbath to be universal. Therefore it is not necesary to fall back on jewish understanding of sacrifice to understand Jesus’ sacrifice.
So instead of over complicating things and trying to justify separating nonbeleivers from the forgiveness.
Everything boils down to the consequences of the sacrifice. Is the purpose to gain action to Heaven? Or is it to reassure that God does not hold sins against us and wishes us to live this life with that assurance.
And that is the crucnch. Forgiveness is as much for our peace of mnd as it is to “appease” God. For your view to work God becomes a stern and demading “judge” who will only accept a certain action to prevent His anger and punishment. That is not the Christian view of God. God is Love not justice or anger.
Something interesting I learned in a church history class (from a Lutheran priest with a PhD in liturgy, another in church history, and a M.A. in biblical languages) was that as late as the fourteenth century in the Roman Catholic church priests were expected to assign ‘penance’ designed to provide peace of mind to the penintent. Except among the Augustinian and the Fransiscan Orders this had pretty much vanished by the fifteenth century, being replaced by the concept of earning merits to pay for sins.
18As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, He saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 19“Come, follow Me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” 20And at once they left their nets and followed Him.
21Going on from there, He saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. Jesus called them, 22and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed Him.
There is a big difference between the intrinsically motivated notion of righteousness/salvation by works and being called and making the decision to follow.
Confessing your sins and following Christs call is not salvation by works.
Your effort there is to try to find a way of maintain the claim that the Old Testament Sanctuary was a salvation by works model. That is simply wrong…it was never that. It was a ritual used to educate the Israelites about how the model of salvation works. The reason why they were required to do it is no different than the disciples following christ whilst he preached the gospel…he taught, they followed him every where he went. Moses gave the israelites God model there in order to lead them to righteousness…that’s the whole point of it.
We know in the New Testament that the blood of sheep and goats never saved anyone (Hebrews 10:4). This statement in Hebrews is made retrospectively…its saying that the original intention was never salvation by works…it was always by faith just as it was for Abraham in Genesis 15:6, Galations 3:6, Romans 4:3,22.
The New Testament makes that extremely clear. Obviously the reason the apostle stated this was because the Jewish nation had come to believe over the centuries since Moses that it was the sacrifice of sheep and goats itself that saved them. The priests and leaders were promoting the idea simply to increase their power and wealth. Christ very clearly called them out on this error.
Demanding that everything be confessed makes it works.
No, my effort is to uphold the Gospel, which has nothing to do with the sanctuary – the sanctuary was an illustration, and very bit of it was fulfilled on the Cross.
And the demand that every sin be confessed is a priestly ploy to hold power over people. Not even Rome embraces that heresy.