(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

[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 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.

Comments

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

Ah, I was raised with the first view - the view that if one believes correctly at the moment of death, one is assured an eternal afterlife, even if one was a raping, torturing, murderous psycho for their entire life up until five minutes before, and that conversely, a person who believed incorrectly would be damned to eternal torment, even if they lived a life filled with charitable deeds, never killed or stole or tormented anyone, and tried to make up any hurts they did to other people.

"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."

THis is a fairly good depiction of the church I grew up in.

The second view is less clear cut and therefore less palatable to the common American black-vs-white way of thinking. It seems pretty obvious to me through my readings of the New Testament that one is supposed to believe in Jesus, yet ones works are a natural outgrowth of that belief. For instance, it becomes hard to swallow the idea that a rich, greedy politician who sleeps with his interns, runs slanderous campaigns about his opponents, and has some shady funding deals going on the side is a good Christian, no matter how much conspicuous church appearances he may make.
Then, of course there is always Jesus' speech about "I never knew ye", where he explicity states the only people going to heavan are those who are generous and compassionate towards the less fortunate, no matter who they call God.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

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.

I don't think so. Read Galatians 2:7.

Oh, and...

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

At some point one just must quit editing and publish already, right? :)

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

I want to point out to all concerned here that we know very well at this point that there was a tremendous dispute between James--the putative (but likely)"brother of Jesus"--and certain elements of the early Church, regarding what was the "true" message of the Messiah. If you doubt it, there's a HUGE scholarly book on sale, entitled James, the Brother of Jesus, for you to look at. We need to know much more about that dispute before we can judge whether Paul changed Jesus's doctrine. And, though it's hard to tell what all the dispute was over, it's plain to see that it raged, and that it involved debate over "fulfilling the Torah," etc.
Now, the Roman Catholic Church has NEVER endorsed "salvation by faith alone," and it has, in fact, condemned this interpretation of Christian soteriology over and over again--using, often, precisely this text of James to "balance" what seems, occasionally to be Paul's version of soteriology. Luther actually thought he was accurately reflecting Paul's take on Christian soteriology, when he urged his followers to "Have faith, and SIN with confidence." This is a version of that "salvation by correct belief" that assumes that ALL that a human CAN have is "correct belief," and it contributed MIGHTILY to the notion that the only way to properly organize a society was on the chaos or "dog eat dog" capitalist model which presumed that any attempt to erect the "City of God" on earth was blaphemous because it presumed that human nature was anything other than hopeless, sinful and weak. This is NOT SOMETHING that Catholic spiritual practice and theological thinking has EVER conceded to Protestantism, and it's partially why there is not and NEVER WILL BE a purely "laissez-faire" economy on the continent of Europe, where a world-view that is at least vaguely still imbued spiritually with Roman Catholic values is still in place.

1 Corinthians 11:27

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Do these modern scholars try to understand Paul's message from a rabbinic viewpoint, considering that Paul was a rabbi trained by Gamaliel (Acts 22:3)?

[badsede.livejournal.com]

One of the most difficult questions for American Catholics to answer is one the most commonly voiced in American Christianity: have you been saved?

I think that your characterizations of Paul and James don't quite hit the mark. The theological exercises of the early Chruch, I think, reveal why. I don't think Paul was a salvation by faith only or salvation by correct belief advocate, nor that James was a salvation by the Law or salvation by works advocate. I think that rather, Paul was an *opponent* of the salvation by works/Law alone position and James was an *opponent* of the salvation by correct belief/faith alone position. I think that they actually were *proponents* of the same position, one of salvation through Christ. This is a fully integrated position, one must have faith in Christ in order to be saved, but if one does not act, one does not have faith. Paul rejects the notion that we can "earn" salvation and James the notion that the unrighteous "professor" can be saved.

And it is when you look at their rhetoric that the context of early Chruch history comes into play. In the early Church, far more than beliefs professed we see beliefs rejected and admonishments of heresy and heterodoxy. When beliefs were professed, they were typically professed in reaction to heresy and heterodoxy. Just look at the Nicene Creed. It is dominated by rejections of Arianism. When amplified at Constantinople, the additions all addressed contemporary Holy Spirit controversies. Much of Eastern Orthodox theology continues this theology of negation .. and in this way is very different from Western theology. Paul and James were expressing negations of positions.

When I look at the whole issue, I do not see the dichotomy you see - well actually, I see the two positions and I see them as both being a combination of false and incomplete. Such a dichotomy was never even really acknowledged in my tradition until responding to the idea in Protestantism. There simply is not salvation by works/salvation by faith dichotomy, even if people have created one in their minds and theologies. It is a fallacy of the false dilemma. For starters, faith and belief are not the same thing. Believing the right things is not the same as faith. The devil believes the truth about God and Christ, that does not mean that he will be saved. Faith is more closely tied to grace than some intellectual exercise of belief. Faith is a function of the soul, belief of the mind.

In this way, belief is a manifestation of faith and likewise works are a manifestation of faith. And, they both create feeback loops. Orthodoxy - right belief - engenders faith through the conscious engagement of truth. In turn, faith spurs belief. Likewise, works are a manifestation of faith. Good works come of faith, bad works (sin) of a deficiency of faith. In turn, good works engender greater faith. A feedback loop. The inturn inform each other. Correct belief informs the works and puts then in context. Works test the belief by putting them into action.

Jesus did not just preach orthodoxy, did not just teach right belief, he taugh orthopraxis, he taught right action. The Jews knew lots about orthodoxy and orthopraxis, so Jesus re-emphsized the fundamental priniciples, the faith behind both.

I said LUTHER though Paul was a "salvation by faith alone" man.--Nietzsche did, too.

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

There simply is not salvation by works/salvation by faith dichotomy, even if people have created one in their minds and theologies. It is a fallacy of the false dilemma. For starters, faith and belief are not the same thing. Believing the right things is not the same as faith. The devil believes the truth about God and Christ, that does not mean that he will be saved. Faith is more closely tied to grace than some intellectual exercise of belief. Faith is a function of the soul, belief of the mind.

I believe that this is correct. I also believe that Protestantism can best be understood as part of the Western Enlightenment's revolt against what the body and the heart know, as opposed to what is apparent to pure reason. They thought of it as a "liberation" against "supersition" and "mysticism," whereas it can more properly be understood as a diminishment, a fracturing of human nature. Blake recognized it as such, and, although he wasn't a Catholic, his Catholic-friendly attitude, in 19th century Britain, probably represents this recognition.
I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with you...

Re: I said LUTHER though Paul was a "salvation by faith alone" man.--Nietzsche did, too.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

That is a very good point about the freeing from mysticism, especially as western Western Christianity - if that makes sense - seems to be largely devoid of mysticism and to have really lost touch with the sacred - just look at our churches and our liturgies. sophiaserpentia have actually discussed this before, but I think that the over-emphasis on our rational nature is actually a dehumanizing trend.

And you shouldn't be so surprized ... ;)

[sylverspring.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree more. I've been Wiccan since 1995, however, lately I've just opened myself up to further searching again. I feel drawn to the Catholic Church because of its belief and reverence for Mary, however, I still find it difficult to embrace the church as a whole. Mainly because of the rift that you are speaking of here. Modern Christianity resembles so little the teachings of Jesus, and so much more the teachings of Paul. If Christianity were about following Jesus' teachings, I doubt I could find fault with it. But as it stands, the teachings of Paul are far more prevalent..and I find it completely cuts out the messages of compassion.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

What I'm trying to do here is account for the way that Christian doctrine has developed over the centuries in response to, and sometimes in spite of, what is written in the New Testament.

My opinion -- which overlaps with yours actually in several ways -- is that historical "accidents" (by which I mean circumstances of various sorts) have caused Christian doctrine to be at odds with scripture in certain ways. This process began with debates between Gentile-Christians and Jewish-Christians.

I think that the church was taken in a direction different from where it was originally headed, and while I'm not sure yet when that started, I'm convinced it was completed with the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. By that point, the Christian teaching had been changed into something it was not originally, into something in fact which was opposite the original egalitarian radicalism of the early Christians.

I'm just now trying to to understand the hows and whys of this transformation. My idea of all this is very rough at this point.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem I'm facing with this whole issue, and it's the reason why I went out of my way to label this entry a rough draft of an incomplete thought, is uncertainty regarding the ways people in the early church may or may not have read scripture differently from us today. Many of the nuances have been lost forever and we are only now starting to understand what it is that has been lost.

So, we know that things are missing which generally relate to the way early Christians as Jews would have read scripture and would have written it themselves. What those are can only be speculated on. But it also creates a danger of mis-reading the historical record of the dispute.

As you say, we know there was a dispute between two flanks of the church, represented by Paul and James; and that a third flank of the church, represented by Peter, perhaps the main "moderate" body of the church itself, was used as a ping-pong ball. The way it was reflected in scripture, it was over adherence to Mosaic Law and the "vehicle" of salvation.

But it was clearly more than just a debate over ritual; at the very least it involved the identity of the Christian movement as being Jewish or cosmopolitan. Jewish-Christianity would have been a part of, and perhaps even an instigator of, a whirlwind of peasant unrest in that area and in that time. Gentile-Christianity would have sought to remove itself from political dissention with more focus on activity as a religious or philosophical movement.

Some of this debate is reflected in the modern literature as "Jesus movements" versus "Christ cults." It is an aspect of the matter that was not reflected in scripture because at the time it did not have to be.

The historical record goes as follows. Shortly after *that* matter was resolved by the Romans (brutally), a dispute arose over the elements of gnosticism and apocalypticism within Christianity. Some were kept, some were discarded. And at the point *that* matter was largely settled, Constantine I came along and transformed the church drastically by plugging it into the Roman imperial power structure. If Christianity started out as a philosophical and political radicalism, as I believe, it must have been drastically transformed by the Fourth Century. It was a sea change; even the underlying attitudes towards life and human nature that were the basis of Christian teaching must have changed. How and why? is what I want to know. And so this entry is an attempt to start to flesh out the ways underlying and unspoken attitudes were shaped.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

THis is a fairly good depiction of the church I grew up in.

Yep. And my intent was and is to demonstrate that modern American conservative Protestantism is guilty of the very same things of which the heresiologists accused the Gnostics -- "salvation through knowledge" (IOW believe the right things and you are saved) and elitism.


Then, of course there is always Jesus' speech about "I never knew ye", where he explicity states the only people going to heavan are those who are generous and compassionate towards the less fortunate, no matter who they call God.

Somehow that never comes up when discussion about salvation tends to focus on things like, "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (Romans 10:9).

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

I have long been confused by people who, when trying to come up with arguments for their version of the criteria for salvation, take Paul's words and argue about what they mean vs. Timothy's words or James' words, rather than looking directly at what Jesus said. Are they Christians (followers of Christ) or Paulians (followers of Paul)?

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Well, I do think that Paul would have thought utterly ridiculous the idea that whatever one believes at the moment of death is the sole determinant of one's eternal fate. But I think though that Paul did believe that it was impossible to act morally if one did not believe correctly.

That there was a dispute between James and Paul (or two flanks of the church represented by them) is beyond question; but what I am trying to figure out is what brought about that dispute, and how was it ultimately resolved?

For one thing, I am finally coming to understand the dynamics in play with the reasons the NT canon was developed as it is. Including the synoptic, Johannine, and Pauline literature was a stand in favor of attempting to integrate these different positions, of finding a way to unify different elements of the Christian community and read into their beliefs a unified stand that demonstrates what salvation through Christ means.

But I think that this stand is taken retroactively, meaning IMO that the tendency since the formulation of the canon has been to gloss over fundamental differences between groups of early Christians over what "salvation" actually meant and what differing attitudes about human nature these differing beliefs reflected. IOW, this is not merely a debate over whether good works reflect right belief (as in Paul) or whether good works reinforce right belief (as in James) -- but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.

However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience. When the church becomes a worldly body, by which I mean a socially authoritative structure, I think that of necessity it takes on a pragmatism not reflected in "naive" mysticism. Authority always tends to mistrust mysticism, witness for example the trial of Meister Eckhart for heresy, unfounded but intended for political reasons to harass him.

In the early church this dissonance was reflected in the tensions groups like the Valentinians and the Montanists, and later the Donatists, experienced in their dealings with the central church in Rome. The more authoritative the church became, the more heated these struggles became, until they erupted into violence.

My phrasing of the dilemma I perceive is awkward and reflects an issue largely formulated by Christianity post-Protestantism. But the dilemma I'm trying to understand is a perennial problem, one not unique to Christianity and one not unique to modern theology. What I am attempting to do is to learn to what extent the dilemma existed at the time the NT was written.

Since the historical record appears to show Jerusalem as the center of Christian power at the time of Paul, we might see Paul as a radical within the church struggling against the central authority of James. Acts 21, for example, appears to show Paul being coerced into compromise with James ("Do what we tell you"). Paul's letter to the Galatians demonstrates Paul's differences with James' focus on matters like circumcision and eating only kosher meat. Paul's writings appear to be as much a radical response to the authority of James as they are a statement of theological position. But to what extent that is true, I do not yet know.

Re: I said LUTHER though Paul was a "salvation by faith alone" man.--Nietzsche did, too.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Yep... we both agree that there has been a strong dehumanizing trend in modern history, and that it is reflected strongly in most Protestant doctrine. I think our only disagreement on this has been whether Humanism is a reflection or a catalyst in that trend. This is kind of a new topic for me, so I do appreciate the time you have taken to share your views on it.

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

I've come to the conclusion that while Paul didn't contradict Jesus, he added some things and de-emphasized others. But the reason the letters are in scripture besides the gospels is because the interpretations of Paul and James and others of what happened ultimately shaped Christian doctrine more than what Jesus actually did or said.

[azaz-al.livejournal.com]

"the interpretations of Paul and James and others of what happened ultimately shaped Christian doctrine more than what Jesus actually did or said"

That's why I (when I have the energy) put "Christians" in quotes a lot when referring to the modern followers... they quote Paul and the other later preachers much more than they ever quote Jesus.

Thank you; you should be on a faculty of theology!

[publius-aelius.livejournal.com]

Madam, you're brilliant; you say it so much better than most others do. I suscribe to everything you've written here.

[yahvah.livejournal.com]

Well yeah. The "Jewish-Christians" expected the "Gentile-Christians" to worship God according to the standard of the Torah. Not something they'd start making up by incorporating pagan bullshit into their form of worship.

Ironically, Catholicism has turned out to be -- as much as, if not more Pharisaic -- than the Pharisees of the first century with all its traditions of men. :-D

Re: I said LUTHER though Paul was a "salvation by faith alone" man.--Nietzsche did, too.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

I think our only disagreement on this has been whether Humanism is a reflection or a catalyst in that trend.

I have come to feel that Humanism is both a reflection and a catalyst. It was the result of an existing trend, but its formulation and the momentum and direction it generated became itself a catalyst, taking the existing trend and intensifying and directing it.

[badsede.livejournal.com]

That there was a dispute between James and Paul (or two flanks of the church represented by them) is beyond question; but what I am trying to figure out is what brought about that dispute, and how was it ultimately resolved?

I think there was controversy, but not even between camps represented by James and Paul. I don't think that it was a situation of dualistic camps holding different soteriologies. Rather, I think the situation was more of a spectrum. I think that James and Paul both represented basically the middle of the spectrum - although probably tending a little more toward either side. Looking at it this way, I think that James and Paul were speaking out against the extreme ends of the spectrum .. of course, the end opposite to the one which each tended. So I think that both spoke from a position where salvation was linked to an interplay of faith and righteousness (works) - although each put greater focus on one or the other in their writings - and rejected a position of exclusively one or the other.

but also a debate over whether the transformation is immediate ("in the blink of an eye" as in Paul) or progressive and ongoing (as is reflected for example in the Gospel of Matthew), and also a debate over what that transformation reflects and brings about.

This too I see as simply being different facets of a whole. It is not a matter of transformation being either immediate or gradual, but rather that it could be immediate or graduate or a combination of the two.

However I do not think that I am perceiving a false dilemma. I think that there is a real and obvious tension between the maintenance of the church as a worldly body, and individual mystical or spiritual experience.

I would agree, but this is not the false dilemma that I was speaking of. I was speaking of the faith/works in opposition dilemma.

I find Christian theology, devotion and mysticism to be very rich. However, that richness is both a strength and a weakness. It allows Christianity to engage many different people, but it carries it with it the pitfall that some would focus so exclusively on one facet that they not only neglect but reject the others. Sometimes, this is taken even further, the one facet ceasing to make sufficient sense out of context, so they in turn give it a new one. I think this is why I think the saying that most heresies are truth to the exclusion of truth is so apt. James opposed the truth that we are saved by faith but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth of importance of making that faith manifest in righteousness. Paul in turn opposed the truth about the necessity of right action but only when taken to the exclusion of the truth that it is the faith that inspires that action that saves.