(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.

[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.

[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.