For Eastern Orthodox: Heterodox Salvation?

[Shazard]

It's between them and God, Shaz.

So there is salvation outside The Church?

[JonLanceBarker]

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

Congratulations for proving HS right, Adam.

[JonLanceBarker]

So there is salvation outside The Church?

Not exactly. In this scenario, it seems they are saved by being grafted into The Church at Judgment.

[Maxentius]

Not exactly. In this scenario, it seems they are saved by being grafted into The Church at Judgment.

Why should such a scenario even be entertained?

Is it even in the Fathers? Where is the support for it, especially when weighed against the massive support for salvation through belief in the Gospel before we die?

[Jezz]

Why should such a scenario even be entertained?

Because those such as yourself who continually ask the question "what happens to the heterodox?" don't seem to be content with the answer "we leave that up to God".

Is it even in the Fathers? Where is the support for it,

Of course there is support for it. Support for it comes in the traditions concerning Christ's descent into Hades (where he preached the Gospel to those who had not heard it during their earthly life) and in prayers for the dead. But then, you've already read Bishop Hilarion's article on this, so you should already know this. Just forgetful, I suppose. Here it is again for a refresher.

...especially when weighed against the massive support for salvation through belief in the Gospel before we die?

John 3:16-17 PRV

¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in the Gospel before they die should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through belief in the Gospel might be saved.

(PRV = Protestant Revised Version. This is the version of the bible which reads how it ought to read, in order to support certain beliefs of certain Protestants.)

[Maxentius]

Welcome back Jezz!

Because those such as yourself who continually ask the question "what happens to the heterodox?" don't seem to be content with the answer "we leave that up to God".

The answer provided does not leave it up to God. It is a scenario to explain how someone manifestly not in the Church by EO lights can none the less be saved. A "We don't know, it is in God's hands" sans theories is leaving it to God,not speculations about what God might do.

Of course there is support for it. Support for it comes in the traditions concerning Christ's descent into Hades (where he preached the Gospel to those who had not heard it during their earthly life) and in prayers for the dead. But then, you've already read Bishop Hilarion's article on this, so you should already know this. Just forgetful, I suppose. Here it is again for a refresher.

How about the real Apostolic writings:

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:9-11)

Adulterers etc. don't inherit the kingdom of God. The Apostolic writings will trump theological speculators every time. That, and the fact that aionion means eternal in the very passage you disputed in context is enough to refute this theory. Or will you maintain that Jesus used the same word and "may" have meant two totally different things in the same sentence given the overall context?

You are quite simply wrong, and substituting speculation for real faith and exegesis, I suppose because great saints of the Church held to certain beliefs. I seem to recall that the EOC believes Fathers can be wrong. Perhaps in this case it is better to simply say that.

[Jezz]

Welcome back Jezz!

Thanks, but it will be short-lived. Having a break from the mountain of other stuff that I should be doing.

The answer provided does not leave it up to God.

Yes, it does.

This conversation to me seems to be somewhat analogous to the following:

A: Fred told me he won't have a car on Monday. I suppose he will not coming to work on Monday.

B: Fred could still come to work on Monday.

A: How will Fred get to work on Monday?

B: I don't know. That's up to Fred - if he even decides to come. All I know is there's no reason why I shouldn't assume it's possible.

A: But how will Fred get to work on Monday?

B: Look, I'm not Fred. I don't know the answer to your question - he hasn't told me. All I know is that it is possible.

A: But how is it even possible for Fred to get to work on Monday?

B: Well, he could, for example, catch a bus. Or someone might give him a lift. But this is speculation - I don't actually know how he will get to work on Monday, or even if he will get to work on Monday. All I know is that it is possible he will.

A: What makes you think he's going to catch a bus? Did he tell you he's going to catch a bus?

B: I didn't say I thought he is going to catch a bus - I said that he could catch a bus. It raised the possibility, that's all - what he does is up to him.

A: Why are you so sure that he's going to come to work on Monday?

B: I never said that he would definitely come to work on Monday. I said that he could come to work on Monday. It's just that, from what I know of Fred's character, I know that he absolutely does not want to miss work, so if he can find a way he will be here.

A: But if he didn't tell you he would catch a bus, then why did you say that he would catch a bus? Why are you substituting speculation for cold, hard facts? Isn't it up to Fred whether or not he wants to catch a bus?

B: I DIDN'T say that he would catch a bus, and I DIDN'T deny that it is up to Fred whether or not he catches a bus. Look, A, you seem to have a problem in understanding modal logic. Whenever I say "could", you read "would". There is a difference, and until you learn the difference between "can" and "will", between "could" and "would", and between "possibility" and "actuality", and stop equivocating between them, I'm never going to be able to get my point through to you.

A: But how is it possible for Fred to get to work on Monday?

B: *sigh*...

It is a scenario to explain how someone manifestly not in the Church by EO lights can none the less be saved.

Correct. Emphasis being on the "can", as opposed to "will".

A "We don't know, it is in God's hands" sans theories is leaving it to God,not speculations about what God might do.

The two are not mutually exclusive, as my above example shows. B speculated as to ways in which Fred might come to work even though he didn't have his car, but didn't stipulate the means by which Fred must come to work. He left that in Fred's hands.

Precisely because we are talking about what God could do, we are indicating the fact that we don't know what He will do. What He will do is up to Him.

How about the real Apostolic writings:

You asked: "Is it even in the Fathers?" The answer to this is yes, and that's why I cited what I did.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:9-11)

Adulterers etc. don't inherit the kingdom of God. The Apostolic writings will trump theological speculators every time.

That's nice, but I never claimed that adulterers, etc. could be saved - I claimed that it is possible for people outside the Church to be saved. Unless I believed that everyone outside the Church is an adulterer or a swindler, etc (which I don't), then your passage doesn't "trump" any claim that I've made.

In fact, the clear implication here is that not everyone outside the Church is an adulterer/swindler/drunkard. St Paul says "such were some of you", not "such were all of you" - the clear implication being that some of those outside the Church weren't adulterers or drunkards or swindlers, etc, and thus not subject to the threat of this passage.

That, and the fact that aionion means eternal in the very passage you disputed in context is enough to refute this theory. Or will you maintain that Jesus used the same word and "may" have meant two totally different things in the same sentence given the overall context?

No, quite simply: 1. it is possible to read it as both not being eternal (just because the age ends doesn't mean that the life must end - it can continue into the next age). 2. even if it is read as "eternal", there are numerous precedents throughout the Scripture wherein God did not carry out such threats if His saints intercede on behalf of the condemned'; it is possible that the same may happen here.

Personally, I'm leaning towards 2 because I agree with your argument that the context of the parable argues against the "agelong" as being something less that eternal (though I do not believe that it is as conclusive as you would have us believe).

You are quite simply wrong, and substituting speculation for real faith and exegesis,

It was because the Righteous Abraham had faith in God that he interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah and won the salvation of Lot and his family, despite God threatening to destroy them. Likewise, it was because the Prophet Moses had faith in God that he interceded for the people of Israel and prevented God from carrying out His threat to destroy them. It was because of their faith in God that they speculated He may not carry out His threat if they interceded.

It is precisely because the Church has this same faith in God that we intercede for those who have fallen asleep - speculating that He may not carry out His threat if we ask and implore on their behalf.

I suppose because great saints of the Church held to certain beliefs. I seem to recall that the EOC believes Fathers can be wrong. Perhaps in this case it is better to simply say that.

We believe that isolated, individual Fathers can be wrong on individual topics. We do not believe that all (or most) of them could be wrong about the same topic.

[George Blaisdell]

So there is salvation outside The Church?

You keep asking this question, like a mantra...

The Church is the Body of Christ...

Salvation is in God...

There is salvation wherever God wills there to be salvation...

It is always in God...

The Church is the Body of Christ-God...

There is salvation in Christ...

The Church is the Body of Christ...

Can God the Father or God the Holy Spirit bestow salvation outside of Christ?

Do you think thgere is an answer for this?

I don't know one...

The Holy Spirit bestows salvation on earth IN Christ...

I can't speak for what He can or cannot do outside Christ...

Can you??

We only know that salvation is to be found WITHIN the Body of Christ...

Were the Old Testament prophets "saved"???

Is there salvation in the Old Testament?

Is there a Body of Christ in the Old Testament?

Arsenios

[Shazard]

You keep asking this question, like a mantra...
Can God the Father or God the Holy Spirit bestow salvation outside of Christ?

Nope!

Do you think thgere is an answer for this?

Yes. And the answer is - No... unless God lies!

I don't know one...

Too bad, how about reading what God reveals in his Word and take it for answer?

The Holy Spirit bestows salvation on earth IN Christ...

I can't speak for what He can or cannot do outside Christ...

But you can read what he Himself is revealing in His Word, Believe it, and take it as answer!

Can you??

Yes I can when two criteria are met
1) I learn how to read
2) If I accept that God does not lie in His Word!

We only know that salvation is to be found WITHIN the Body of Christ...

Yes!

Were the Old Testament prophets "saved"???

Yes

Is there salvation in the Old Testament?

Yes, coz there is Christ in OT and there is faith in Christ in OT, so there is the very Salvation!

Is there a Body of Christ in the Old Testament?

Yes on each page of OT!

[Maxentius]

Too bad, how about reading what God reveals in his Word and take it for answer?

But you can read what he Himself is revealing in His Word, Believe it, and take it as answer!

I would like to know what George beleives the following passage means:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

The reason I ask is this:

If there is salvation outside of Christ, how is it possible for someone to come to the Father through him and not be in him?

If the Church is the spiritual body of Christ, how can one be saved outside the Church if one has to come to the Father through Christ?

FWIW, Lutherans believe that outside the Church there is no salvation--it is as if Noah's Ark was only one path to being saved from dying in the flood. However, God may create the Church where he wills with his word, and those who gather around Christ where he has promised to be are in the Church.

But it appears from George's post that not only may there be salvation outside of the Church, but outside of Christ. I think this is necessary given EO ecclesiology put forth here--that the true Church is the EOC and all others are "church". Thus it becomes neccessary to postulate salvation outside the Church, universalism, or the damnation of everyone not EO. For a variety of reasons, it appears that the first option is chosen while some choose universalism as an option. However, it seems to me the solutions--salvation outside the Church and universalism--raise a lot more questions than they answer.

[Shazard]

I would like to know what George beleives the following passage means:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

My question text would be Acts 4:12 So two scriptures for George to explain in the light of his own questions!

[Adam]

My question text would be Acts 4:12 So two scriptures for George to explain in the light of his own questions!

And Maxentius had already asked:

I would like to know what George beleives the following passage means:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6)

I'm Lutheran too, and by choice and not infant baptism.
Frankly, I wouldn't believe in Lutheranism, nor Christianity, nor even in Jesus, if to do so meant to blaspheme God that He purposely created most people in order to damn them to torture in eternal Hell.
Fortunately, elementary Christian theology gets us free from this conundrum. Supposedly we believe that Jesus is not merely a prophet (the gospels prove that) nor just the Son of God--the Church Councils and the Nicene Creed we recite each week tell us that Jesus is God the Son. Ever hear of the Trinity? Whatever is in the Father is in the Son. More broadly, whatever is, is in God and therefore in God the Son. How can any of us become moral, become spiritual, much less become a faithful Christian, if God has not willed it and brought it to be? Thus every human being has the capacity to respond to God (and God the Son) regardless whether he or she has ever heard of Jesus. Careful reading of Bible texts would indicate that only becoming rightly aware of the Jesus of the Bible and yet rejecting Him, would call upon us any condemnation for unbelief.
Regarding the specific texts cited against me, God the Son is obviously the way to the Father--the ontological reality between God and Man is the point here, not merely reciting a name.
As for Acts 4:12, it's merely the words of Peter, but in any case to cling to and in power claim the Name of Jesus would be expected to have some saving power as well. The "Name" in Biblical terms is more like Plato's Idealist philosophy, the essence behind something, not mere nominalism.
Adam

[Maxentius]

Adam,

And Maxentius had already asked:

I'm Lutheran too, and by choice and not infant baptism.
Frankly, I wouldn't believe in Lutheranism, nor Christianity, nor even in Jesus, if to do so meant to blaspheme God that He purposely created most people in order to damn them to torture in eternal Hell.

First, that is a Calvinist notion. TLutherans believe the damned are damned because they want damnation. Actually, Lutherans believe there may be a means of saving those who e.g. never heard the Gospel, but we have no idea what that means is. Better to follow our orders and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and leave things God has not revealed to us in his own hands.

In any case, my point with George is that what he wrote here implies not only that salvation is outside the Church, but outside of Christ. It is idle to speak of salvation being in "God" apart from Christ and in "God". "God" apart from Christ leads to confusion and also likely to idolatry. If, as George said, salvation is in "God" why did he need to become flesh, live, die and rise again? I don't want to insult George, and my questions are sincere. But what he describes sounds a lot like Medieval scholastic theologians, who likewise had theories of what "God" could accept as sufficient effort on the part of the one saved. One unacknowledged "feature" of this type of scholastic theology is that Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection become logically unnecessary. So if, as George states, one can be saved outside the Church and outside of Christ in "God", it is a mere hop and skip to the Medieval via moderna scholastic theology where "God" accepts this or that so we can stand in his sight--to which the Reformation reacted to place Christ once again at the center.

Most Christian universalists I know at least say that everyone is saved through Christ. Maybe George did not mean to imply Christ and the Church are not the only means for salvation, but it would seem that to do so is to cast aside large parts of the Tradition. In other words, I wasn't addressing universalism.

[Jezz]

Actually, Lutherans believe there may be a means of saving those who e.g. never heard the Gospel, but we have no idea what that means is. Better to follow our orders and teach all the nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit and leave things God has not revealed to us in his own hands.

Why should such a scenario even be entertained?

Is it even in the Fathers? Where is the support for it, especially when weighed against the massive support for salvation through belief in the Gospel before we die?

(A hint for those who may have joined this conversation late: check out this post, you'll see that the above is a parody.)

[Maxentius]

Jezz,

Why should such a scenario even be entertained?

It need not be entertained.

This is not a doctrine of the Lutheran Church FWIW, though I have heard Lutherans say it. Please see the whole quote of mine--we are to follow our orders and leave the things of God to God. There is a significant difference there

There is no scenario I put forth--I don't say he grafts people in after death, I don't sat he does this or that outside of what he already says he does in his Church. That is because it is not a fit topic for speculation--we don't know because it has not been revealed to u. That is the critical difference between yours and my statements. And my beef with the scenario you put forth (and you did say it is hypothetical) is that it is a mere fantasy, so why even say it?

Is it even in the Fathers? Where is the support for it, especially when weighed against the massive support for salvation through belief in the Gospel before we die?

There is little no support for it, it is a mere hope.

The difference is you systematized it, while I did not. I also pointed back to what theologians should be doing--focusing on preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and not on idle theories.