![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 5th, 2004 02:57 pm[I've been working on this entry all week, but have not gotten it to the point that I am yet completely satisfied with it. It's kind of raw, but maybe it's ready at least for some discussion and consideration.]
There are two competing notions of salvation in Christian doctrine. The first is that salvation is a reward of eternal afterlife in heaven that is granted to the believer. The second, more reflective perhaps of the original Greek meaning of soteria (or "health") is that salvation is an on-going course of self-betterment upon which one embarks.
As it has been pointed out (by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
badsede and others) these two notions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They are, however, dissonant. It is not easy to see them both as reflections of the same religious teaching, especially since they tend to encourage different styles of belief and practice. They are rooted in divergent assumptions about God and reality, and their logical implications tend to lead in different directions. There is also some dissonance between these notions because of the history of the early church.
The first view focuses on salvation through knowledge of correct doctrine, with rewards being granted in the afterlife to those with correct belief. It is often called "salvation by faith," but in reality it depends on correct knowledge. In this view, salvation is a binary "either-or" state -- you either have it or you don't. As some express the idea, a single ethical or moral failing, or improper doctrine, is enough to undo one's salvation.
The second view focuses on salvation through living in accord with ethical principles. Ethical or moral failings are seen as missteps in an ongoing process of self-improvement.
The first view tends to encourage adherents to see people as either "saved" or "unsaved." If one holds this view, elitism is inevitable, along with the conviction that others have beliefs which are necessarily in some way "gravely deficient." This divides people instead of bringing them together; and not just Christians from non-Christians. It is inevitable under this view that Christians will divide from one another and debate amongst themselves about which doctrine is necessary for salvation.
The second view can also lead to a kind of elitism -- between "do-gooders" and, well, "do-badders." However, there is strong emphasis in the teachings of Jesus, by his words and by the example that he set, of ensuring that one reaches out with compassion to all people equally. Thus we are encouraged to see people as falling on a spectrum, not inherently divided into two classes, but rather, involved in the same struggle to be better and live better lives.
The first view offers a kind of complacency; if one is guaranteed salvation by one's beliefs, then there is much less need to watch one's behavior. From this view there is some confusion about the importance of right action in one's salvation; but most Christians who hold the first view tend to de-emphasize the importance of right action quite strongly.
In the history of the early church, there was a struggle between two factions over whether or not Christians should follow the Laws of Moses. Paul led the faction against doing so (being strongly convinced of salvation by faith/knowledge alone), while James led the faction in favor. Paul depicted the view of James as being that of salvation by ritual (praxis), even though the epistle of James demonstrates that he had concern not just for adherence to the Mosaic Law, but also for the importance of compassion and ethical action. Since Paul and his followers won the debate within the church, the church has been drawn to a course that favors salvation by faith/knowledge while also mistrusting the view that stresses compassion.
There are two competing notions of salvation in Christian doctrine. The first is that salvation is a reward of eternal afterlife in heaven that is granted to the believer. The second, more reflective perhaps of the original Greek meaning of soteria (or "health") is that salvation is an on-going course of self-betterment upon which one embarks.
As it has been pointed out (by
badsede and others) these two notions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. They are, however, dissonant. It is not easy to see them both as reflections of the same religious teaching, especially since they tend to encourage different styles of belief and practice. They are rooted in divergent assumptions about God and reality, and their logical implications tend to lead in different directions. There is also some dissonance between these notions because of the history of the early church.The first view focuses on salvation through knowledge of correct doctrine, with rewards being granted in the afterlife to those with correct belief. It is often called "salvation by faith," but in reality it depends on correct knowledge. In this view, salvation is a binary "either-or" state -- you either have it or you don't. As some express the idea, a single ethical or moral failing, or improper doctrine, is enough to undo one's salvation.
The second view focuses on salvation through living in accord with ethical principles. Ethical or moral failings are seen as missteps in an ongoing process of self-improvement.
The first view tends to encourage adherents to see people as either "saved" or "unsaved." If one holds this view, elitism is inevitable, along with the conviction that others have beliefs which are necessarily in some way "gravely deficient." This divides people instead of bringing them together; and not just Christians from non-Christians. It is inevitable under this view that Christians will divide from one another and debate amongst themselves about which doctrine is necessary for salvation.
The second view can also lead to a kind of elitism -- between "do-gooders" and, well, "do-badders." However, there is strong emphasis in the teachings of Jesus, by his words and by the example that he set, of ensuring that one reaches out with compassion to all people equally. Thus we are encouraged to see people as falling on a spectrum, not inherently divided into two classes, but rather, involved in the same struggle to be better and live better lives.
The first view offers a kind of complacency; if one is guaranteed salvation by one's beliefs, then there is much less need to watch one's behavior. From this view there is some confusion about the importance of right action in one's salvation; but most Christians who hold the first view tend to de-emphasize the importance of right action quite strongly.
In the history of the early church, there was a struggle between two factions over whether or not Christians should follow the Laws of Moses. Paul led the faction against doing so (being strongly convinced of salvation by faith/knowledge alone), while James led the faction in favor. Paul depicted the view of James as being that of salvation by ritual (praxis), even though the epistle of James demonstrates that he had concern not just for adherence to the Mosaic Law, but also for the importance of compassion and ethical action. Since Paul and his followers won the debate within the church, the church has been drawn to a course that favors salvation by faith/knowledge while also mistrusting the view that stresses compassion.
