Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Orthodox Soteriology vs Protestant Soteriology
Hi,
I was reading Bishop Kallistos Ware book on comparative theology (I'll get u the exact title later), but he responds to evangelical Christians in it.
Its a very good book, IMHO.
What i find bewildering is that the Orthodox Soteriology is based on Baptism. I mean, you cannot be saved unless you are baptised. Christ came to correct our nature, and we unite with Christ, and wear Him IN Baptism.
So, im just curious, but this is EXTREMELY different than protestant soteriology. Isn't it?
I mean, their model of salvation makes absolute NO sense. Would you agree? Or have i missed something???
The thief on the cross was baptised - he died and rose with Christ.
Sometimes in these forums I hear people say that the protestants have partial truths, but it seems that despite any partial truth that they may have, their whole reason for salvation is different than ours, so even if we think they have partial truth in believing that Christ is God, and died for us, what is the point of that if they do not benefit from his salvation??
We are saved by Grace, but this is clearly administered through the sacraments, and notably Baptism is the 1st sacrament that opens the door to the other sacraments. How then can they talk about salvation?
I was reading Bishop Kallistos Ware book on comparative theology (I'll get u the exact title later), but he responds to evangelical Christians in it.
Its a very good book, IMHO.
What i find bewildering is that the Orthodox Soteriology is based on Baptism. I mean, you cannot be saved unless you are baptised. Christ came to correct our nature, and we unite with Christ, and wear Him IN Baptism.
So, im just curious, but this is EXTREMELY different than protestant soteriology. Isn't it?
I mean, their model of salvation makes absolute NO sense. Would you agree? Or have i missed something???
The thief on the cross was baptised - he died and rose with Christ.
Sometimes in these forums I hear people say that the protestants have partial truths, but it seems that despite any partial truth that they may have, their whole reason for salvation is different than ours, so even if we think they have partial truth in believing that Christ is God, and died for us, what is the point of that if they do not benefit from his salvation??
We are saved by Grace, but this is clearly administered through the sacraments, and notably Baptism is the 1st sacrament that opens the door to the other sacraments. How then can they talk about salvation?
Comments
Protestants do not generally believe that baptism is the means of salvation. Therefore, if faith is the means of salvation then their system makes complete sense. You have faith in Christ as Saviour, you ask Him to save you, and he grants you new life in Christ.
This is not so different in form from the Orthodox teaching but as you say it is very different in objective. We believe that baptism is generally necessary to receive the grace of salvation. We certainly should not say that only baptism is necessary. This would be as wrong as saying that baptism is not necessary. What is generally needed is faith and baptism.
St Cyril of Jerusalem is very clear that baptism is not magic. If we are baptised but do not live a life of grace by the gift of God then we are not Christians, we are ex-Christians who have thrown away the grace of God as if it meant nothing.
Sometimes it looks like protestant soteriology makes no sense. I believe that it is wrong in many regards, but I can't say it doesn't make sense within the various protestant systems. The main weakness is that faith in Christ tends to lead to a decision to become a Christian, but the grace of God is not properly fulfilled because baptism is not generally understood as a new birth and as a sacrament, and therefore a person is rather stuck in a sort of state of a catechumen, never quite moving into a state of grace. But most protestants are baptised by immersion in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. It is not clear to me that God does not bless even what is offered rather defectively even if he does not bless it fully.
The main error, it seems to me, is that the aim of protestant soteriology generally is to place the believer in a position of being the recipient of Christ's righteousness in a juridical sense. There is little sense that the aim of the Christian life is to acquire the Holy Spirit and be transformed by grace into the image and likeness of Christ. Protestants do not generally think in terms of having been saved, being saved, and yet to be saved. They tend to think only in terms of having been saved once and for all - and then they are generally, and in my own experience, rather unsure what the Christian life is for. I was taught that many practices of the Christian life were to be conducted as a means of giving thanks to God for something that had already been achieved by faith alone. They were not taught as MEANS of recieving saving grace.
What do we mean that Protestants do not benefit from salvation? I am not sure that I would agree with that, as I know many protestants who are clearly grace-filled people. But I do agree that outside of the normal working of God's will many protestants are rather half-starved spiritually speaking, and tend to rely on mental and emotional nourishment rather than truly spiritual. If I say that Protestantism has half-truths it is because I do not want to be found to deny the activity of the Holy Spirit among those who do love God. But protestantism is NO SUBSTITUTE for Orthodoxy. No Orthodox Christian should be attending Protestant churches as a matter of course.
If protestantism is half-truth then this is a positive thing when thinking in terms of the mission of the Church. It means we have points of contact to reach protestants with. But for an Orthodox Christian looking at the attractions of protestant thinking and worship it is half-error, and to be attracted to protestantism is to fall away from our true faith and our true life.
Orthodox soteriology is rooted in baptism, but we should not think that we believe in magic. We are people of faith. Baptism is a moment of faith. Without faith there are no sacraments. They do not operate where there is no faith. But they are a means of focusing our faith so that we might receive grace in a particular way and at particular moments. But grace and faith is the key to our soteriology. I think it is this which marks our soteriology out from that of most protestants.
I read one criticism of Orthodox thinking by a protestant writer which said that we had everything the wrong way round. We say sanctification then union with God, but the protestant says union with God then sanctification. There is some truth in this. And this is one reason why protestant soteriology is error. We cannot be completely united with God without a lifetime of grace filled ascesis, while for the protestant, imagining that a simple prayer achieves everything possible in the Christian life leads to confusion, frustration, disappointment and despair when it does not.
Others have properly said that protestantism leads people to the foot of the cross but cannot lead them further. There is something in this also.
My hope is that God who is at work in the hearts of many protestants, not all, will lead many more to the fulness of faith in our Orthodox community. They have much to gain, even the fulness of their hopes and dreams for the Christian life. This is my experience. But I hope that none of our own faithful will turn to protestantism as if it has something better to offer. It does not - and this is not a criticism of any protestant people - but the theology is flawed, the spirituality is flawed or deficient, the very aims of the Christian life within protestantism are different. For an Orthodox to turn towards protestantism, however much I might often insist that there are partial truths there, is a real falling away from life in Christ. I would not be happy with my own parishioners attending protestant services as a matter of course.
Father Peter
and while i'm feeling brave, can someone tell me what is the ecconomy of salvation?
i realise it is not that salvation is cheaper in wall mart than in harrod's, but what is it?
Soteriology is the study of the doctrines of salvation.
The economy of salvation is sort of the plan of salvation. It means the working out of salvation rather than having anything to do with money. Economy has the original meaning of 'management of the household', and so in theological terms it has to do with the way God manages his dealings with men, and especially in the way he works out our salvation.
So we say that the Word became man 'in the economy of our salvation', meaning that he became man 'in the working out of our salvation'.
Hope this helps
Father Peter
;)
This breath of life we take again in the baptistery. That is why St Paul calls baptism regeneration in his epistle to Titus.
Without baptism there is no breath of life and thus no eternal life.
I wonder, is there a relationship between Christ breathing on the Apostles and God breathing on Adam in the garden?
Not at all.
The breath of Christ was for the priesthood. The breath in the Garden was the breath of life.
The breath in the garden was given only once to Adam and passed on to Mankind through begetting children.
The breath of Christ is an individual call to priesthood.
We were all created in Adam when he was created; we have his blueprint. This blueprint had the breath of God. Once Adam disobeyed, the blueprint got confused and was in need of restoration. Thus, the second Adam came with an even better blueprint and restored our blueprint.
However, no longer mankind is subject to the function of the flesh . To get Second Adam's blueprint is voluntary and is up to the individual to either accept it, through baptism, or rejected it.
This is not so different in form from the Orthodox teaching but as you say it is very different in objective. We believe that baptism is generally necessary to receive the grace of salvation. We certainly should not say that only baptism is necessary. This would be as wrong as saying that baptism is not necessary. What is generally needed is faith and baptism.
St Cyril of Jerusalem is very clear that baptism is not magic. If we are baptised but do not live a life of grace by the gift of God then we are not Christians, we are ex-Christians who have thrown away the grace of God as if it meant nothing.
Grace and Peace,
It has been several months since my last post to this community (and I am relatively new here as well). Within the last four or five years I have become very interested in the Coptic Orthodox Church. My family background is very eclectic. For instance, my mother is a protestant, my father an agnostic, my maternal grandmother was Roman Catholic and my paternal grandmother was Jewish (though she was completely secular and raised her family that way, which most likely contributed to my father's agnosticism).
Shortly after I was born (when I was three months old) my mother had me baptized in a local Methodist church.Since I have been contemplating conversion to (Coptic) Orthodoxy, this raises a question that perhaps some here in the Tasbeha community with a strong background in the Coptic Church may be able to help me with. In short, would I need to be baptised again if I was to convert or would my existing baptism be deemed sufficient? Also, does the Coptic Church perform baptism and chrismation together? I never pursued further affiliation with the United Methodist Church, so never received anything beyond my infant baptism there.
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9251.msg114593#msg114593 date=1274393436]
This is not so different in form from the Orthodox teaching but as you say it is very different in objective. We believe that baptism is generally necessary to receive the grace of salvation. We certainly should not say that only baptism is necessary. This would be as wrong as saying that baptism is not necessary. What is generally needed is faith and baptism.
St Cyril of Jerusalem is very clear that baptism is not magic. If we are baptised but do not live a life of grace by the gift of God then we are not Christians, we are ex-Christians who have thrown away the grace of God as if it meant nothing.
Grace and Peace,
It has been several months since my last post to this community (and I am relatively new here as well). Within the last four or five years I have become very interested in the Coptic Orthodox Church. My family background is very eclectic. For instance, my mother is a protestant, my father an agnostic, my maternal grandmother was Roman Catholic and my paternal grandmother was Jewish (though she was completely secular and raised her family that way, which most likely contributed to my father's agnosticism).
Shortly after I was born (when I was three months old) my mother had me baptized in a local Methodist church.Since I have been contemplating conversion to (Coptic) Orthodoxy, this raises a question that perhaps some here in the Tasbeha community with a strong background in the Coptic Church may be able to help me with. In short, would I need to be baptised again if I was to convert or would my existing baptism be deemed sufficient? Also, does the Coptic Church perform baptism and chrismation together? I never pursued further affiliation with the United Methodist Church, so never received anything beyond my infant baptism there.
You would need to be baptized again. And yes, the Coptic orthodox church performs baptism and chrismation together.
Thank you for your response.
[quote author=Antonious link=topic=9251.msg150932#msg150932 date=1327276642]
[quote author=Father Peter link=topic=9251.msg114593#msg114593 date=1274393436]
This is not so different in form from the Orthodox teaching but as you say it is very different in objective. We believe that baptism is generally necessary to receive the grace of salvation. We certainly should not say that only baptism is necessary. This would be as wrong as saying that baptism is not necessary. What is generally needed is faith and baptism.
St Cyril of Jerusalem is very clear that baptism is not magic. If we are baptised but do not live a life of grace by the gift of God then we are not Christians, we are ex-Christians who have thrown away the grace of God as if it meant nothing.
Grace and Peace,
It has been several months since my last post to this community (and I am relatively new here as well). Within the last four or five years I have become very interested in the Coptic Orthodox Church. My family background is very eclectic. For instance, my mother is a protestant, my father an agnostic, my maternal grandmother was Roman Catholic and my paternal grandmother was Jewish (though she was completely secular and raised her family that way, which most likely contributed to my father's agnosticism).
Shortly after I was born (when I was three months old) my mother had me baptized in a local Methodist church.Since I have been contemplating conversion to (Coptic) Orthodoxy, this raises a question that perhaps some here in the Tasbeha community with a strong background in the Coptic Church may be able to help me with. In short, would I need to be baptised again if I was to convert or would my existing baptism be deemed sufficient? Also, does the Coptic Church perform baptism and chrismation together? I never pursued further affiliation with the United Methodist Church, so never received anything beyond my infant baptism there.
You would need to be baptized again. And yes, the Coptic orthodox church performs baptism and chrismation together.
Can someone explain to me why we rebaptize in the Coptic Orthodox church? I know that in the Eastern Orthodox church (and I'm not sure about other Oriental Orthodox) if the person was baptized previously in the name of the Trinity, then they will only chrismate the individual. Doesn't this make sense since we "believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins"? Is it because the other churches do not accept this as a mystery/sacrament and also it just isn't a sacrament because there is no valid sacraments at all (especially in the protestant communities)? So therefore the new birth and the Holy Spirit wasn't given in the first place?
In my own experience the sacramental of baptism was absolutely rejected, and the washing which took place was as a means of testimony and not for salvation and remission of sins.
If the people conducting such a practice, and the one receiving it, absolutely reject the true Orthodox nature of baptism then it cannot in any sense be a baptism. It is a religious washing. It may well have value as a means of testimony. It may be blessed by God in some manner as an expression of a persons faith in Christ. But it is not a baptism.
The danger facing the Church, the Orthodox Church, is not Protestantism in general, but modern Pentecostal Evangelicalism in particular, and such forms of heterodoxy are not even accepted as being orthodox within the Protestant paradigm by those who take their faith seriously.
I was reading the testimony of a leader of one of the Hillsong groups and he said that he used to feel bad when he sinned. But after receiving teaching from Hillsong he now knew that Jesus had taken all his sin and he was set free from feeling bad about sin.
Is it Christian to be set free from feeling guilt and shame about sin? or is it a necessary part of the Christian life? If we do not feel sorrow and do not repent over our sins then surely this is not a Christian spirituality. Even other Protestants are criticising such groups because they appear to lack a sense of repentance.
Thank you for your comments. I was unclear as to the official stance of the Coptic Church in regards to converts who have received (a form of) baptism before conversion. Your feedback has clarified this for me. My initial concern was that if my infant baptism was authentic (in the sense of actually receiving the sacrament), then I would find it problematic to receive baptism a second time. To my understanding, baptism is to be performed once. However, based on what you have pointed out (i.e. that "baptism" as offered in the Methodist church is not truly the sacrament of baptism), it makes sense to me why I would be required to receive baptism if I were to convert to the COC. Part of my confusion was that a Roman Catholic friend of mine told me that converts coming to the RCC who had previously been baptised (even in a few of the Protestant churches - Methodist being one he specifically named) would not be required to receive baptism a second time. Apparently, as Timothym mentioned, this is also the case with the Eastern Orthodox churches. My friend gave a similar description, stating that if the matter and form were adhered to (in this case, if the Trinitarian form of "I baptise thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" was used and if the matter used was water), then a "rebaptism" would not be necessary. Yet I see your point. When I read my baptism certificate (which includes the text of the ceremony) I do not see one mention of "remission of sins". It does mention "salvation", as well as being admitted into the church, but from my studies I understand salvation has a whole different meaning in reformed theology (i.e. "Faith alone") then it does in Orthodox theology (especially in regards to teachings about the mysteries/sacraments).
Thanks again Father. Please remember me in your prayers.
It seems to me that there is a pastoral and a theological issue. On the one hand the person coming to the Church must be received in such a way that there is no doubt that they have been integrated into the Church, on the other hand, their background may or may not allow a degree of flexibility in how that is managed. We may say that a Protestant baptism is not a sacrament, but this does not always mean that the religous rite performed in Protestantism may not sometimes be taken up and fulfilled in some completing rite in Orthodoxy.
Certainly, it has been the case that the baptism of some heretics was accepted as being able to be fulfilled through reception into Orthodoxy. But in my personal experience and understanding, I would say that the fact that most Protestants positively reject the sacramental nature of baptism means that what they were participating in was not baptism at all.
But Orthodoxy has always been rather fluid and flexible to a degree about these things. It is probably best, in my opinion, that some form of baptism be applied to converts from Protestantism.
Thank you for your further clarification. I can see that it is not always a hard and fast rule, but rather depends on the specific circumstances in question, as well as the particular parish, priest and convert. This makes sense to me. In my case, since I was baptised at a young age, but then never followed up with regular church services or further sacraments, I could see how it would be appropriate to receive baptism now if I was to fully embrace conversion to Orthodoxy.