This
is the
second article
in the
series of
articles
scrutinising the
Protestant
beliefs from
the point
of view
of an
Orthodox
Christian. I
have already
mentioned that
my goal
is not
to “defeat
and scatter
enemies of
the only
true faith”
but to
find loving
and thoughtful
friends among
those of
my readers
who are
non-Orthodox and
to share
our views
on the
most serious
and complicated
issues of
Christian faith
and practice.
Every
civilisation in
the human
history has
its unique
features and
achievements: the
Greeks, for
instance, are
known worldwide
for their
love of
philosophy and
sophisticated
logics, whereas
Africans have
introduced the
concept of
ubuntu and
harambeei.
If someone
asks where
the uniqueness
of Rome
is, the
answer will
definitely be
Law and
Order.
“Dura lex,
sed lex”
- this
proverb could
not appear
anywhere except
Rome. The
Roman love
of law
and order
spread its
influence even
onto the
religious life
of the
Christian West.
Whereas the
Desert Fathers
of ancient
Egypt abstained
from setting
universal rules
of life
for all
of their
disciples but
preferred to
let love
guide them
on their
way to
Christian
perfection, the
Western monks
were mainly
interested in
transplanting the
outward forms
and the
rigorous norms
of Eastern
asceticism onto
the Western
soil and
– which is
even more
important – to
make them
a general
rule for
their
communities.
While the
Eastern Orthodox
Churches have
only one
type of
monasticism,
although there
naturally are
various monastic
lifestyles, the
Catholic Church
adopted a
system of
countless
monastic orders
and societies
of Apostolic
life, each
of which
has different
regulations
regarding both
their relations
with the
world and
discipline within
the monastic
communities –
and monks
or nuns
from different
monastic orders
even wear
different uniform
that makes
it look
different than
monks or
nuns from
other orders.
This trend
is even
better
illustrated by
continuous
attempts by
Western mediæval
theologians to
explore the
inexplorable,
which is
in stark
contrast with
the Eastern
theology, the
latter giving
more room
for some
mystery –
everything
related to
the meeting
of God
and man
is an
inexplicable
mystery, in
fact.
With
regard to
salvation, this
approach leads
to specifying
terms and
conditions on
which an
individual may
be saved
– which is
nothing but
blatant intrusion
into God's
judgement, if
you come
to think
of it.
Hence, Catholic
theories of
the Treasury
of Merit
and the
purgatory
alongside with
the practice
of giving
indulgences, etc.
Needless to
say that
such theories
steal the
Lord's exclusive
right of
judgement and
are rooted
in an
assertion that
humans can
do good
on their
own, without
God's grace.
Naturally,
such theories
met serious
opposition from
the Reformers.
Unfortunately,
themselves
staying within
the frameworks
of the
Western “legal”
paradigm, the
alternative they
suggested wasn't
a better
one. They
said that
yes, God
used to
be angry
with us
but, instead
of doing
good works
– which we
are unable
to do
without God's
help, as
the Reformers
rightfully
acknowledged –
we should
rely on
the “Treasury
of Merit”
of Jesus
Christ (well,
they didn't
put it
that way,
it's just
me doing
an extrapolation)
whose sacrifice
was able
to satisfy
God's wrath
so that
we needn't
worry any
moreii.
So,
instead of
trying to
'earn' salvation,
the Protestants
declared that
one could
simply 'claim'
his rights
to be
saved because
Jesus had
'bought'
salvation for
himiii.
Naturally, once
salvation is
'bought', it
becomes the
property of
that individual
and cannot
be alienated,
lost or
stolen.
Basically, such
way of
thinking does
not escape
the bondage
of the
'legal' approach
to salvation
– it just
emphasises the
irrational
component of
the same
old methodiv.
The Catholic
and Protestant
teaching on
salvation
reflects the
general approach
to Christian
life and
practice, and
– let me
put it
this way
– to the
experience of
God that
is prevalent
in the
Western
Christianity
today
(Disclaimer: This
is not
to say
that the
East doesn't
have problems.
The East
does have
very serious
problems but
none of
them are
in the
focus of
the present
article).
While
the legal
approach implies
that God
was angry
at man
because the
latter trespassed
His commandments
and laws
but then
He satisfied
His wrath,
either thanks
to our
good actions
(and merits
of saints)
– according to
the Catholic
theology; or
because Jesus
paid a
fine for our
sins –
according to
the Protestant
theology, the
problem (and
it is
not the
only problem,
as we've
pointed out
already) with
both of
these theories
of salvation
is that
they fail
to take
into account
the obvious
fact that
God is
never angry.
Whenever the
Bible speaks
about God's
anger, it
uses such
plain human
language simply
because otherwise
man wouldn't
understand
anything. Thus,
if we
say 'God
is angry
at someone',
it means
that that
individual chose
to move
back from
God and
therefore,
naturally, does
not find
as much
kindness and
warmth of
God's grace
as he
used to.
God says,
“For my
thoughts are
not your
thoughts: nor
your ways
my ways,
saith the
Lord. For
as the
heavens are
exalted above
the earth,
so are
my ways
exalted above
your ways,
and my
thoughts above
your thoughts.”
In my
previous article
(What's
Wrong
With
Sola
Scriptura?)
I dwelt
on the
problem of
ultimate
impossibility of
language to
describe the
Indescribable
God. Words
are mere
reflection of
notions and
concepts that
we have
in our
minds, and
even if
we had
a clear
picture of
what we
wanted to
say, we
would sometimes
be at
a loss
for words
to express
it clearly.
With God,
we face
a much
bigger problem:
we can
never have
a full
and comprehensive
concept of
God because
He is
greater than
anything we
can imagine.
So when
the Bible
says something
about God's
wrath, it
has very
little in
common with
the ordinary
human emotion.
But
– is there
a different
approach? In
other words,
what do
I suggest
instead? Yes,
there is
a different
approach, and
it is
this “organic”
approach to
experiencing God
in general
and the
teaching on
salvation in
particular that
the second
part of
our article
deals with.
The Organic Approach to Salvation
Most,
if not
all, problems
that arise
from the
“legal”
approach may
be resolved
by using
a different
approach to
salvation. The
“organic”
approach means,
first, that
sin is
not an
offence against
the law,
not a
“crime”,
but a
deeply rooted
and a
difficult-to-cure
disease, a
wound, or
rather, a
painful
distortion of
the image
of God
that man
was created
into; therefore,
salvation,
instead of
being a
once-in-a-lifetime
event or
a fine for
wrong-doing, is
a lifelong
process of
restoring the
distorted and
spoiled image
of the
Lord, and
the result
of such
restoration is
called holiness.
There are
numerous
Scriptural proofs
to this
understanding,
e.g., 1
Corinthians 1:18:
"The message
of the
cross is
foolishness to
those who
are perishing,
but to
us who
are
being
saved
it is
the power
of God."
What
strikes me
as strange
(and, perhaps,
even immoral,
if you
let me
put it
that way)
about the
legal approach
to salvation
and Christian
life is
that it
seems to
be preoccupied
only with
avoidance of
punishment,
rather than
healing of
the soul.
On
the
one
hand,
when
a
criminal
avoids
punishment,
it
doesn't
make
him
any
better,
it
just
makes
him
arrogant
and
self-indulgent.
On
the
other
hand,
sometimes
punishment
may
seem
like
a
better
option
because
once
an
individual
is
punished,
he
is
free
and
can
go
on
doing
what
he
wants,
whereas
without
punishment,
he
has
to
face
overwhelming
emptiness
of
his
life
and
realise
his
complete
inability
to
be
with
God,
to
fulfil
what
they
were
made
for.
This
emptiness
is
caused
by
the
sores
of
sin
(I
don't
say
'stains
of
sin'
here
because
stains
can
be
washed
away
and
wounds
can
only
be
healed).
If
we look
at the
problem of
salvation in
the organic
way, we
will hopefully
be able
to resolve
the burning
question of
the reason
for human
suffering. Jesus
Christ suffered
on the
cross as
a human
being, whereas
as God,
He remained
impassive (i.e.,
no created
beings able
to inflict
pain, suffering
or distress
on Him).
Human beings
suffer because
they lost
integrity,
desecrated and
ruined the
resemblance of
God that
they were
created into,
and suffering
is the
pain of
one's wounded
soul. Thus,
the common
phrase that
Jesus suffered
for our
sins means,
basically, that
He died
in order
to restore
the broken
integrity of
human nature,
to cleanse
the defiled
image of
God and
bring it
to its
original state
of resemblance
to the
Creator. This
could only
be possible
with Him
being the
God-man. Thus,
everyone who
partakes of
His Flesh
and Blood
receives a
kind of
a 'blood
transfusion',
which gives
them strength
to collaborate
with the
Lord in
restoration of
the broken
image and
to be
united with
their brothers
and sisters
in Christ
in a
very literal
sense. But...
this will
be dealt
with in
detail in
my next
article.
Comments
are welcome,
as usual.
iiThere
is
an
interesting
collision
that
arises
from
such
doctrine.
Who
did
Jesus
offer
sacrifice
to?
God
the
Father?
Well,
is
our
God
so
merciless
and
bloodthirsty
that
He
was
pleased
to
see
His
only
begotten
Son
suffer
on
the
cross?
Also,
wasn't
it
possible
for
the
Almighty
God
to
simply
forgive
man,
without
having
to
resort
to
such
brutal
vengeance?
Isn't
it
Him
who
teaches
us
to
forgive,
after
all?
Then,
maybe,
Jesus
offered
His
sacrifice
to
the
devil?
Actually,
we
only
have
to
pay
robbers
who
stole
something
from
us
if
those
robbers
are
stronger
than
us.
It
seems
to
me
that
God
the
Creator
is
incomparably
stronger
than
the
devil
who
was
created
as
one
of
His
Angels,
right?
All
He
needed
to
do
was
go
and
tear
man
out
of
the
thief's
hands.
In
fact,
this
collision
cannot
be
satisfactorily
resolved
within
the
frameworks
of
the
“legal”
approach.
iiiIt
must
be
mentioned,
though,
that
Martin
Luther
wrote
in
his
95
theses,
“Our
Lord
and
Master
Jesus
Christ,
when
He
said
Poenitentiam
agite,
willed
that
the
whole
life
of
believers
should
be
repentance.
This
word
cannot
be
understood
to
mean
sacramental
penance,
i.e.,
confession
and
satisfaction,
which
is
administered
by
the
priests.
Yet
it
means
not
inward
repentance
only;
nay,
there
is
no
inward
repentance
which
does
not
outwardly
work
divers
mortifications
of
the
flesh.”
ivThat
is,
while
the
Catholic
approach
to
salvation
by
doing
good
emphasises
the
rational
side
of
it
– good
actions
can
be
measured
and
weighed
somehow,
the
Protestant
approach
claims
to
invisibly
liberate
an
individual
from
invisible
guilt
and
sin
by
performing
an
invisible
action
of
calling
upon
the
invisible
liberating
power
of
the
Invisible
God,
the
result
being
also
invisible
(with
emotional
responses
having
a
purely
psychological
explanation).
No comments:
Post a Comment