For Eastern Orthodox: Heterodox Salvation?

[JonLanceBarker]

Best arguments, eh?

Among the arguments of those who hold to a more...erm...embracing ecclesiology, I have to admit that the argument against denying the title "Body of Christ" to those outside the Eastern Orthodox communion often seems to hit me the hardest.

As my dad has put it sometimes: "It doesn't make sense to argue that one can be saved (or currently being saved) and not in the Church."

The hardest part (aside from arguing with my dad :sigh2: ) is the fact that many Eastern Orthodox do not seem to agree on how exactly the heterodox "Christ-fearers" stand in relation to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

It's the part of moving towards Orthodoxy that gives me the most pause. Obviously, I would love to know exactly how my family stands in relation to the Church.

I may not like the answer, but I'd love to know for certain so that I know what to do.

I posted this in the "What Are Some of the Best Arguments?" thread recently, and decided I'd start my own thread with this thought.

Orthodox peeps...how do the heterodox stand with the Church, in terms of salvation?

Short of conversion to Orthodoxy, that is.

Is it a "We know where the Church is, but don't always know where it isn't" kind of deal?

Or is it some other explanation?

(Protestants/Catholics, feel free to post here after the first few Orthodox answers.)

[candlesandfish]

I'd be interested to read this thread, but I'll add something with my subscription - here's a quote which was posted in a discussion on this a while back on another forum:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved… Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins." - St Theophan the Recluse

That said, it's something I wonder about.

[Jezz]

I posted this in the "What Are Some of the Best Arguments?" thread recently, and decided I'd start my own thread with this thought.

Orthodox peeps...how do the heterodox stand with the Church, in terms of salvation?

Short of conversion to Orthodoxy, that is.

Is it a "We know where the Church is, but don't always know where it isn't" kind of deal?

Or is it some other explanation?

(Protestants/Catholics, feel free to post here after the first few Orthodox answers.)

I don't have time for a full-fledged answer, so for now I will point you in the direction that I found most helpful:

The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church

The summary of the view - which the above explains in great detail - is that affirming that a person is not a member of the Church now, in this life (and perhaps never was even until their death), this does not mean that they won't be after the Final Judgement.

[Shazard]

I don't have time for a full-fledged answer, so for now I will point you in the direction that I found most helpful:

The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church

The summary of the view - which the above explains in great detail - is that affirming that a person is not a member of the Church now, in this life (and perhaps never was even until their death), this does not mean that they won't be after the Final Judgement.

How that possible?

[JonLanceBarker]

How that possible?

It's between them and God, Shaz.

[Maxentius]

John Lance Barker,

It's between them and God, Shaz.

When I was on the Orthodox-Lutheran discussion list, this very issue came up regarding the non-Christians, and Jezz's answer was the one given by some there. However, one will look in vain for this in the Scriptures--a postmortem grafting in. As Shazard said "How is that possible"? Where is the promise of God working on people after death?

It seems that the Orthodox don't really know what to do with the heterodox, given Orthodox ecclesiology. A "hard core" Orthodox may simply say they are outside the Church and that is that. But if he wants to say they may be saved he has to create all sorts of scenarios where this is possible within an Orthodox framework, and that is very hard to do. Basically, they throw their hands up. Some heterodox are rebaptized, some are not, sometimes RC's are chrismated, sometimes they are not. There seems to be no set norm for the reception of the heterodox into Orthodoxy, which has implications for ecclesiology. Based on the liturgical rule I see here on TWeb, that definitely implies dome doctrinal obscurity. Re-baptism would probably be the "cleanest" and the most congruent with a hard Orthodox ecclesiology--if you were not baptized in the EOC, you were not baptized, and you must be baptized. I think this was the norm historically too. The fact that this does not always occur would imply that a "hard" ecclesiology is not necessarily fully Orthodox. Also consider that missionaries were not sent into the West after the Great Schism--why is that if they are the same ecclesiologically as pagans and Muslims, i.e. outside the True Church (tm)? Rome seems to have a much more consistent approach to this--were you baptized in the Name of the Trinity? Was that the intent? Then you are baptized. Else, no you weren't. Lutherans have the same approach.

FWIW, we Lutherans don't play the "You're not the real church" game like the EO/RCs do, so for us it is a matter if one believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ or not. Where the Gospel is, there Christ is, and if one believes in Christ one has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, faith, new life etc. because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Being a Christian means one is in the True Church (TM). He who believes and is baptized will be saved, for so Christ himself promised. He certainly did not say "He who believes through a sacerdotally valid priest and is baptized can have greater confidence of being saved".

[JonLanceBarker]

However, one will look in vain for this in the Scriptures--a postmortem grafting in. As Shazard said "How is that possible"? Where is the promise of God working on people after death?

Well, I wasn't expecting to find that particular doctrine in Scripture. But (for example) what do you think of Lewis's Great Divorce or The Last Battle?

[Maxentius]

JLB,

Well, I wasn't expecting to find that particular doctrine in Scripture. But (for example) what do you think of Lewis's Great Divorce or The Last Battle?

Are you adding to the canon?

I think CS Lewis is just fine, but I don't agree with everything he says. I would also add that the notion of someone being grafted into the Church after death is purely hypothetical, and in any case is unnecessary if we have a better understanding of how God saves everyone--even the heterodox.

Lutherans believe that God may save the heterodox before death, because the heterodox have the Gospel even if in an obscured form. (After about 500 years, the RCC finally saw the truth!) It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation. The postmortem grafting in is only necessary if one assumes that the Gospel is only to be found in the EOC. I understand that yo ubelieve this, but I hope yo usee that this "hard" ecclesiology leads to other problems. In my opinion, it is much cleaner--i.e. a lot less speculative, to say that the heterodox have access to Christ, and can be saved through that instead of saying that we are guessing if e.g. the Lutherans, RCC, Baptists etc. probably don't have access to Christ because they are not EO. Focusing on where the Gospel is and then Who is present when the Gospel is presented as a sacrament or as preaching pretty much eliminates this issue.

[Jezz]

John Lance Barker,



When I was on the Orthodox-Lutheran discussion list, this very issue came up regarding the non-Christians, and Jezz's answer was the one given by some there. However, one will look in vain for this in the Scriptures--a postmortem grafting in. As Shazard said "How is that possible"? Where is the promise of God working on people after death?

You should know, given that you quoted the passage to me a couple of threads ago (or at least, the last verse of the passage):

Matthew 25:31-33

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

God is "working on" these people - separating them into two groups - after their deaths. No? Do you not think it fair to assume that one of these groups (the one on His right) ends up being the Church, and the one on His left being the group of people who are not in the Church?

It seems that the Orthodox don't really know what to do with the heterodox, given Orthodox ecclesiology. A "hard core" Orthodox may simply say they are outside the Church and that is that. But if he wants to say they may be saved he has to create all sorts of scenarios where this is possible within an Orthodox framework, and that is very hard to do. Basically, they throw their hands up.

No, we don't have to create any scenarios. It is sufficient to note that they may be saved and that's that. It is the people who keep asking "how?" that demand we create scenarios. I for one don't know why they can't be content with "they may be saved".

Some heterodox are rebaptized, some are not, sometimes RC's are chrismated, sometimes they are not. There seems to be no set norm for the reception of the heterodox into Orthodoxy, which has implications for ecclesiology. Based on the liturgical rule I see here on TWeb, that definitely implies dome doctrinal obscurity.

No, it doesn't. It implies a difference the the amount of economy used in their reception.

Re-baptism would probably be the "cleanest" and the most congruent with a hard Orthodox ecclesiology--if you were not baptized in the EOC, you were not baptized, and you must be baptized. I think this was the norm historically too.

It depends. Historically the same "inconsistencies" that you are pointing out have always existed - different local Churches had different rules for accepting different heretics at different times. Arians, for example, were often accepted by Chrismation.

There is also a difference between those who were baptised Orthodox, left the Church, and then came back again. In such cases, it is not permitted to receive them by baptism.

The fact that this does not always occur would imply that a "hard" ecclesiology is not necessarily fully Orthodox.

Or it would imply that the Orthodox practice economy.

Also consider that missionaries were not sent into the West after the Great Schism--why is that if they are the same ecclesiologically as pagans and Muslims, i.e. outside the True Church ™?

Missionaries were not sent into the Muslim world either at that time, so I don't think you've really made an observation that is all that startling.

Rome seems to have a much more consistent approach to this--were you baptized in the Name of the Trinity? Was that the intent? Then you are baptized. Else, no you weren't. Lutherans have the same approach.

FWIW, we Lutherans don't play the "You're not the real church" game like the EO/RCs do, so for us it is a matter if one believes in the person and work of Jesus Christ or not. Where the Gospel is, there Christ is, and if one believes in Christ one has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, faith, new life etc. because the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Being a Christian means one is in the True Church ™.He who believes and is baptized will be saved, for so Christ himself promised. He certainly did not say "He who believes through a sacerdotally valid priest and is baptized can have greater confidence of being saved".

Max, this is not Lutheran teaching at all, and you're simply wrong to say that Lutherans don't play the "You're not the real church" game.

Article VII of the Augsburg Confession gives the definitive Lutheran statement on ecclesiology:

AC VII, Kolb & Wengert

It is also taught that at all times there must be and remain one holy, Christian church. It is the assembly of all believers among whom the gospel is purely preached and the holy sacraments are administered according to the gospel.

For this is enough for the true unity of the Christian church that there the gospel is preached harmoniously according to a pure understanding and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the divine Word. It is not necessary for the true unity of the Christian church that uniform ceremonies, instituted by human beings, be observed everywhere. As Paul says in Ephesians 4[:4–5*]: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

© source where applicable

I emboldened the two key ingredients that are missing from your watered-down explanation of Lutheran ecclesiology.

The first statement that I emboldened rules out the Roman Catholic Church - because according to Lutheran understanding, the RCC does not preach the Gospel according to a pure understanding (if it did, then there would not have been cause for a Reformation in the first place). It is important to realise that, in the minds of those who wrote and subscribed to and defended the Augsburg Confession, the "pure understanding of the Gospel" was precisely that understanding enshrined in the AC itself. In other words, if you did not subscribe to the AC, then (according to the AC) you are not preaching the Gospel in accordance with a "pure understanding".

The second statement that I emboldened rules out those whom the Lutheran reformers would have termed "enthusiasts" or "sacramentalists" - those like Zwingli and Bucer who denied the Real Presence. It is clear that the Lutherans did not believe that those churches administered the sacraments in accordance with the divine word, and hence Article VII excludes them from the "One True Church".

It is clear, then, that according to the Augsburg Confession itself, a church is not part of the One True Church unless it adheres to the Augsburg Confession and administers sacraments in the manner that they administered them. In other words, a church must be Lutheran.

Many of the great Lutheran theologians of the 20th century - including Herman Sasse and Henry Hamaan - preached exactly this, and defended traditional Lutheran ecclesiology against the liberal, modern ecumenists - in much the same way that "traditionalist" Orthodox theologians have and are doing. The reason that you aren't aware of this battle in Lutheran ecclesiological circles is probably because the battle with ecumenism has long been all but lost in the Lutheran church - with "love" and "ecumenical fellowship" displacing fidelity to confessional teaching. In the Orthodox Church the battle continues... but the traditional view will win out (as it always does in our Church...).

[Adam]

It is clear, then, that according to the Augsburg Confession itself, a church is not part of the One True Church unless it adheres to the Augsburg Confession and administers sacraments in the manner that they administered them. In other words, a church must be Lutheran.

Many of the great Lutheran theologians of the 20th century - including Herman Sasse and Henry Hamaan - preached exactly this, and defended traditional Lutheran ecclesiology against the liberal, modern ecumenists - in much the same way that "traditionalist" Orthodox theologians have and are doing. The reason that you aren't aware of this battle in Lutheran ecclesiological circles is probably because the battle with ecumenism has long been all but lost in the Lutheran church - with "love" and "ecumenical fellowship" displacing fidelity to confessional teaching. In the Orthodox Church the battle continues... but the traditional view will win out (as it always does in our Church...).

Once again, Jezz,
You seem to prefer the most ridiculous interpretations.
You take up the cause of 20th Century Lutheran theologians who were the most narrow-minded, and apparently you have left the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod because it is not as narrow-minded as it used to be. So you have crossed the fence to where the grass is even more frayed and bitter, converting to EO. I see you as implicitly rejecting the better EO theologians of the 20th Century, Lossky and Schmemann, as you have refrained from commenting on them in the thread I opened for you and your groupies. So in addition to limiting the Christian Church to just EO, you further exclude from Christianity the most notable proto-priest and EO theologian of the 20th Century, Schmemann and Lossky?
Adam

[JonLanceBarker]

[Maxentius]

Jezz,

You should know, given that you quoted the passage to me a couple of threads ago (or at least, the last verse of the passage):

Matthew 25:31-33

³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

God is "working on" these people - separating them into two groups - after their deaths. No? Do you not think it fair to assume that one of these groups (the one on His right) ends up being the Church, and the one on His left being the group of people who are not in the Church?

By "working on", I meant the Gospel, by which we are saved. Obviously, God is always working in some way at any given time.

No, we don't have to create any scenarios. It is sufficient to note that they may be saved and that's that. It is the people who keep asking "how?" that demand we create scenarios. I for one don't know why they can't be content with "they may be saved".

If it is sufficient, I fail to see why one needs a scenario where people are plugged into the Church after death. That is a scenario which you put forth. So, if scenarios are unnecessary, why didn't you just say that they may be saved in stead of putting forth a scenario?

Missionaries were not sent into the Muslim world either at that time, so I don't think you've really made an observation that is all that startling.

OK, fair enough.

Max, this is not Lutheran teaching at all, and you're simply wrong to say that Lutherans don't play the "You're not the real church" game.

The second statement that I emboldened rules out those whom the Lutheran reformers would have termed "enthusiasts" or "sacramentalists" - those like Zwingli and Bucer who denied the Real Presence. It is clear that the Lutherans did not believe that those churches administered the sacraments in accordance with the divine word, and hence Article VII excludes them from the "One True Church".

You are quite simply, gob-smackingly wrong. Lutherans do not say the RCC does not have the Gospel which woild make it a non-church, we do say that everything the RCC teaches is true so in that sense they are not a "true" church because they obscure the Gospel. In fact, we believe their sacraments are valid. And where sacraments are valid, we find the Church.

It is clear, then, that according to the Augsburg Confession itself, a church is not part of the One True Church unless it adheres to the Augsburg Confession and administers sacraments in the manner that they administered them. In other words, a church must be Lutheran.

And you are importing the EOC notion of "true Church" as being "the Church". That is simply not Lutheran Ecclesiology. It is certainly possible for a "true" Church to have false doctrine.

Are you going to maintain the Lutherans believe that the Church disappeared some time during the Middle Ages? If so, please supply documentation from the Confessions. If not, then this conclusively shows your point here is wrong.

Many of the great Lutheran theologians of the 20th century - including Herman Sasse and Henry Hamaan - preached exactly this,

They may have used your words, but they certainly didn't say that e.g. the RCC is not part of the Church--which is the distinction I, and the Confessions, use. If you want to show that I am wrong, you will have to show that Lutherans say there is no salvation in the RCC, because for us that means there is no Gospel--and where there is no Gospel there is no Church.

The reason that you aren't aware of this battle in Lutheran ecclesiological circles is probably because the battle with ecumenism has long been all but lost in the Lutheran church - with "love" and "ecumenical fellowship" displacing fidelity to confessional teaching. In the Orthodox Church the battle continues... but the traditional view will win out (as it always does in our Church...).

There are "liberal" Lutheran groups to be sure, but there are also groups which are not "liberal". Your declarations of what has been lost is simply wrong.

It depends. Historically the same "inconsistencies" that you are pointing out have always existed - different local Churches had different rules for accepting different heretics at different times. Arians, for example, were often accepted by Chrismation.

There is also a difference between those who were baptised Orthodox, left the Church, and then came back again. In such cases, it is not permitted to receive them by baptism.

And this differentiation in praxis shows doctrinal confusion--for if the doctrine was clear the praxis would be more consistent.

[historic salve]

Once again, Jezz,
You seem to prefer the most ridiculous interpretations.
You take up the cause of 20th Century Lutheran theologians who were the most narrow-minded, and apparently you have left the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod because it is not as narrow-minded as it used to be. So you have crossed the fence to where the grass is even more frayed and bitter, converting to EO. I see you as implicitly rejecting the better EO theologians of the 20th Century, Lossky and Schmemann, as you have refrained from commenting on them in the thread I opened for you and your groupies. So in addition to limiting the Christian Church to just EO, you further exclude from Christianity the most notable proto-priest and EO theologian of the 20th Century, Schmemann and Lossky?

I know there are some hardline Orthodox, but in my experience, I haven't seen any of those. I do see grace, forgiveness, and humility everywhere. The Lord's Prayer is the most important Orthodox prayer, while it's been neglected or even forgotten among other Christians. The Orthodox posters on this site have all said that non-Orthodox may be saved. The Orthodox Church teaches that we don't deserve forgiveness -- I've heard it put variously that our sin as individuals (my sin) actually, really corrupts the whole world. I've also heard it put, with hyperbole of course, that we don't even deserve to breath, lest we contaminate the air with our sin. Where else can you find this almost DANGEROUS level of humility?

But I'll have to put aside humility for the moment.

While the Orthodox Church preaches grace, forgiveness, and humility, you on the other hand are a very bitter Protestant to insult people who don't deserve it (you're excessively rude not only to Jezz but to other Orthodox you don't even know). For all your feigned piety about how unimportant heterodox doctrine (as you define it) is, you're all too willing to attempt to eviscerate people because they believe there's only One True Church. When you defend heretics and reject those who you supposedly have "so much in common" with (apparently that standard only applies when it's convenient for you, you two-faced liar), like belief in the Trinity, the resurrection, an intermediate state, a rejection of papal supremacy, we know that you're not our brother, but a fool and a rotten fruit.

[Maxentius]

"Lutherans do not say the RCC does not have the Gospel which would make it a non-church, we do say that everything the RCC teaches is true so in that sense they are not a "true" church because they obscure the Gospel."

I should have written that NOT everything the RCC teaches is true.

[Adam]

You amen that rubbish, JonLanceBarker?
Don't expect me to pay any attention to you anymore. Go EO if you want, good riddance. And I was going to vote for Jawa Man, but forget that now as well.
Did you at least report his post for calling me a liar? I won't bother, I've totally written him off, and most other EO and wannabes as well.
Adam