Justification by faith alone is the least legalistic soteriology that you could believe in. Unless Eastern Orthodoxy has started believing in Paul's soteriology, I'm not buying this statement.
Protestantism: Critique and Debate Thread
- Thread starter GodfatherPartTwo
- Start date
Really? I'm coming from a Lutheran background and I'd say it's less legalistic than Reformed/Calvinistic but Lutheranism is still legalistic in it's framing (no one was able to break that frame from Rome). The whole justification/imputation/approbation is all legalistic wording and assumes a legalistic mindset. Orthodoxy (as far as I can tell) is based on communion and theosis which is much more organic.
By legalistic, I am referring to the idea that you must earn your way into God's standing. In that regard, justification by faith alone is not legalistic at all. I do not need an Orthodox priest, Orthodox sacraments, Orthodox toll houses to be justified in God's sight. God's grace is not limited to the Orthodox church. Just as the Christians in Paul's day did not need the Jewish temple and Jewish sacraments to be justified.
Rather, God justifies the believer on the basis of His own grace and mercy.
If you're neglecting justification and only emphasizing communion, then Orthodoxy is not legal enough. Or at least not as legal as Paul. There is no koinonia without justification.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
@GodfatherPartTwo, depending on the exact form of Protestantism, it is perhaps the most legalistic of the 3 main branches of Christianity (Orthodoxy, RCism, and Protestantism).
Most non-Orthodox cannot really understand this, but Orthodoxy is asking a completely different question than RCism and Protestantism. RCism and Protestantism focus on how a person can achieve some legalistic category of being "saved". Orthodoxy, on the other hand, focuses on how a person can truly repent, can truly accept God's grace deep inside of our being, and can truly convert our hearts in order to achieve union with God. It is impossible for the Orthodox to conceive of some category of "saved" without a transformation (a Transfiguration) of life--since this transformation of life (and the unity with God that it entails) is salvation.
In Protestantism, for example, you might have a Lutheran man who "had faith", was a part of his local Lutheran church, but who was addicted to porn, who never forgave family members and held a grudge until the day he died, who helped his daughter get an abortion so it wouldn't "ruin her life", etc. And this Lutheran Church will hold a funeral for him after he dies where they will declare that "He is in Heaven", "He had faith and so was saved", and that "We will all see him again in Heaven." How on earth could they make such a bold claim? Because for Protestants being saved is about nominally changing a category, not about a deep transformation of life.
Yes, we Orthodox have sacraments. But these sacraments are not there to legalistically put someone into some category of "saved" vs "damned". These sacraments are instead instituted by Christ to help heal the soul and allow the person to receive more transformative grace into his or her life. "Having faith" in Protestantism is entirely nominal and doesn't involve an ontological change in the person. "Having faith", for protestants, just means that you make some intellectual assent about some historical fact (eg, I make an intellectual assent to the historical event that God became man through Christ and is my Savior).
A good illustration (or many) of Protestant legalism could come in the form of discussing what happens to infants who die before they can "have faith". Most of the founders of Protestantism would agree that all of these infants go to Hell because it was impossible for them to "have faith", and this intellectual assent known as "faith" is the only thing that could have saved them.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has always left far more to mystery than what evolved in the West where almost everything was intellectualized and placed into some category. When Orthodox view the thief on the Cross, for example, we don't claim to know exactly how he was saved (eg, he made an alter call and if we copy it we too will be saved) and assign that category to everyone who says his same words. Instead, we can realize that this thief on the Cross most likely had a true conversion of heart and lived out all of the Beatitudes in his last moments, and Christ could see this in a way that no one else could. This must be the case, because in the Book of Matthew Christ teaches:
"21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" --Matthew 7:21-23
Notice the emphasis on "evil-DOERS", since walking the walk is the real thing, not just talking the talk.
With Protestantism's emphasis on merely talking the talk, this makes God look like a Talmudic bean counter who, when someone dies, just wants to know "Did you make the alter call"? If the answer is yes-->bam person gets comfortable afterlife. If the answer is "no" (even if this person was an infant, or often even if this person was a Christian had the "wrong understanding" of faith that included "works") then -->bam person goes to eternal fire, pain, and punishment. Calvin's predestinationism even more greatly adds to this Talmudic bean counter image for God, which we Orthodox would find not only heretical, but blasphemous.
Most non-Orthodox cannot really understand this, but Orthodoxy is asking a completely different question than RCism and Protestantism. RCism and Protestantism focus on how a person can achieve some legalistic category of being "saved". Orthodoxy, on the other hand, focuses on how a person can truly repent, can truly accept God's grace deep inside of our being, and can truly convert our hearts in order to achieve union with God. It is impossible for the Orthodox to conceive of some category of "saved" without a transformation (a Transfiguration) of life--since this transformation of life (and the unity with God that it entails) is salvation.
In Protestantism, for example, you might have a Lutheran man who "had faith", was a part of his local Lutheran church, but who was addicted to porn, who never forgave family members and held a grudge until the day he died, who helped his daughter get an abortion so it wouldn't "ruin her life", etc. And this Lutheran Church will hold a funeral for him after he dies where they will declare that "He is in Heaven", "He had faith and so was saved", and that "We will all see him again in Heaven." How on earth could they make such a bold claim? Because for Protestants being saved is about nominally changing a category, not about a deep transformation of life.
Yes, we Orthodox have sacraments. But these sacraments are not there to legalistically put someone into some category of "saved" vs "damned". These sacraments are instead instituted by Christ to help heal the soul and allow the person to receive more transformative grace into his or her life. "Having faith" in Protestantism is entirely nominal and doesn't involve an ontological change in the person. "Having faith", for protestants, just means that you make some intellectual assent about some historical fact (eg, I make an intellectual assent to the historical event that God became man through Christ and is my Savior).
A good illustration (or many) of Protestant legalism could come in the form of discussing what happens to infants who die before they can "have faith". Most of the founders of Protestantism would agree that all of these infants go to Hell because it was impossible for them to "have faith", and this intellectual assent known as "faith" is the only thing that could have saved them.
Orthodoxy, on the other hand, has always left far more to mystery than what evolved in the West where almost everything was intellectualized and placed into some category. When Orthodox view the thief on the Cross, for example, we don't claim to know exactly how he was saved (eg, he made an alter call and if we copy it we too will be saved) and assign that category to everyone who says his same words. Instead, we can realize that this thief on the Cross most likely had a true conversion of heart and lived out all of the Beatitudes in his last moments, and Christ could see this in a way that no one else could. This must be the case, because in the Book of Matthew Christ teaches:
"21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" --Matthew 7:21-23
Notice the emphasis on "evil-DOERS", since walking the walk is the real thing, not just talking the talk.
With Protestantism's emphasis on merely talking the talk, this makes God look like a Talmudic bean counter who, when someone dies, just wants to know "Did you make the alter call"? If the answer is yes-->bam person gets comfortable afterlife. If the answer is "no" (even if this person was an infant, or often even if this person was a Christian had the "wrong understanding" of faith that included "works") then -->bam person goes to eternal fire, pain, and punishment. Calvin's predestinationism even more greatly adds to this Talmudic bean counter image for God, which we Orthodox would find not only heretical, but blasphemous.
The question of how a person is saved is fundamental. Grace, predestination, faith, repentance, all have their part to play. But at the end of the day, if you are not righteous in God's sight, you do not have eternal life and will not be living in His presence. You are not legal where the Bible speaks of this in legal terms, but you are legal where the Bible speaks of this in terms of grace. But I think you are representing your side well. You are presenting salvation as a list of legal requirements that it is up to the individual to accomplish in order to be saved (we really have to repent, we really have to convert our hearts, we really have to accept grace). You do not see it as the work of God that He has already accomplished according to His own grace and mercy.
I recommend you read up on what Protestants believe about Sanctification before you make a statement like this. No Protestant believes salvation is "nominally changing a category." God's act of justification plays out in our sanctification.
Can a person receive God's saving grace without the Orthodox sacraments? If not, then they are a legalistic requirement of salvation. The way you are defining them makes them sound more pliable than how the Orthodox actually understand them (God's grace is locked in the sacraments).
So if someone makes the intellectual assent, he believes that God became man in Christ and is his Savior, he is still not saved? What else must he do to earn salvation?
We had a good thread that touched on this. Are you advocating for Infant Universalism or are you saying we don't know? Because I agree that we don't know. Believing that every person deserves to go to hell is not the same thing as believing that every infant goes to hell. Generally, the trend in the Reformed camp is to believe that every infant goes to heaven, without compromising the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin.
Isn't it interesting that the people whom Christ never knew are those who were trusting in their works?
Paul anathematizes anyone who would add works to their justification in Galatians. He is much harder on this issue than even most Protestants.
Calvin didn't invent predestination. It's a reoccurring theme throughout the New Testament, especially in Paul's letters.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Again, we aren't asking the same question. You are asking how to have the right category when you die so that you can enjoy comforts in Heaven. We start with the Fall of Adam and Eve. Instead of asking "How can I be saved?", we are asking "How can I be reconciled with God?". God created us for communion, not to put us into arbitrary categories that lead to either eternal comfort or eternal pain.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Maybe some protestant groups give lip service to this, but on a practical level all protestant groups believe in nominalism. Again, this is why at a protestant's funeral, the pastor declares the person "saved" and "in Heaven", and everyone without hesitation believes/assumes this. I know, since I'm descended from protestants, including ones who had zero forgiveness for people who were perceived as "unworthy", ones with porn addictions, and ones with history of aiding/getting abortion. The examples I gave above are not pure hypotheticals, but exact instances that I've seen play out in real life. These family members that I'm mentioning showed absolutely zero signs of repentance, and their pastors didn't even really know about any of these issues, since Protestantism is highly individualized and not very communal.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Absolutely the Orthodox believe that God's grace exists outside of the sacraments. When Christ teaches in John 3:5 that unless a man is reborn of water and the Spirit (referencing baptism), then he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, he is speaking truly, but not absolutely. We know this because the thief on the Cross did not receive baptism before his death.
As another example, I might say something like "If you're going to sky dive from an airplane, you need to wear a parachute if you want to survive." This is 100% a true statement, and I would be speaking truthfully and sincerely. There are, however, certain rare, documented cases of people falling from airplanes and surviving without a functioning parachute. So, while it's technically possible without one, all of us could agree without any question that you need a parachute to survive a skydive.
When Western Christians try to hyper-define and hyper-categorize everything, however, they tend to get themselves into trouble with highly rationalistic and absolutist language that doesn't leave much room for mystery and exception, and also doesn't leave much room for the Spirit next to all the letter.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
I think you might want to go back and re-read that passage. Christ was in fact condemning those who claimed to have faith (by calling him Lord) but who did not have good works. Or, to re-iterate the Book of James in many places, "faith without works is dead faith."
We Orthodox do not at all trust in our works. I would highly recommend that you read a spiritual book by any of our saints (eg, St. Paisios the Athonite's Spiritual Counsels) and you will see this completely clearly. Even better, feel free to pick up an Orthodox prayer book like this one: https://stmpress.com/products/orthodox-christian-prayers
In fact, a fundamental of Orthodox spirituality is humility, and this humility would not be possible if we believed we could rely on or boast of our works. In many ways, we could say that Orthodoxy is even more against placing trust in our works than Protestantism (while not talking in the absolutes of the protestants, as if works have no place in our spiritual life and growth towards God). A good/quick example is St. Paisios's teaching about fasting here:
Just because we cannot put our trust in our fasting (as St. Paisios shows), we cannot then also say, like most/all protestants, that fasting is therefore unimportant. Christ and the Holy Apostles all fasted and all taught the importance of fasting in the Sacred Scriptures.
We can agree to at least one of Protestantism's 3 sola's. Sola Gratia. Sola Scriptura. Sola Fide. The first one we agree with--we can only achieve reconciliation through God's grace. This grace, however, must be accepted and acted on by us. For example, Christ teaches that if you do not forgive, neither will you be forgiven. Forgiving someone is an action. Sola Scriptura is both self-defeating and ahistorical. And Sola Fide we could perhaps agree to, but not in the way that protestants have come to understand on a practical day to day level the word "faith". It's too narrow to encompass the full Orthodox understanding.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
He must repent and, with the help of God's grace, transform his life so that he can grow in unity with God.
Nothing unclean will enter into Heaven (Revelations 21:27).
Martin Luther's analogy of snow covering dung is what faith does for the protestant. Inside he remains dung, but outside he's clean as snow. This is legalistic nominalism. For the Orthodox, that internal dung must indeed transform into snow, it cannot remain there and still enter into unity with God. The internal is even more important than the external.
Last edited:
Distinction without a difference. Being reconciled to God = being saved.
In other words, you don't need Baptism to be saved. So either your interpretation of John 3 is wrong or Jesus was.
Again, there is no reason to read a works-based salvation into Matthew 7. Doing the will of the Father = believing in the one whom He has sent. Not trusting in your works. Faith without works is dead, but there are no good works without faith.
I have read your material. Based on everything you're telling me here, you are trusting in your works, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing.
Your entire post is bashing on Protestants and talking up the Orthodox Church, you guys don't come across as very humble to me. You are free to say Orthodoxy is better in every way. But I am also free to point out that it is worse (less Biblical) in every way.
There's Five Solas. Again, you are throwing a lot of heat while demonstrating unfamiliarity with Reformed Theology. Solus Christus (Christ Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God alone.) You can't agree with any of the Solas because they were specifically designed to get around any notion of the man-made tradition of the Sacerdotal Priesthood and Sacramental forgiveness. Even your understanding of Sola Gratia is still man-centered.
Two threads on here that prove this is false. There was no Orthodox tradition to appeal to in the days of the Apostles. There was only what the Apostles taught orally (which we do not possess) and what they wrote (the Scriptures). The Orthodox tradition, starting from Palamas onwards, is an add-on and non-essential to the Biblical faith. Worse, the deeper you dive into Orthodoxy, the more you are going astray from what the Apostles taught.
Have you stopped sinning or do you still sin?
Wrong.
Protestants are not simply concerned to call themselves saved and that's it. You have fallen for dishonest propaganda.
Protestants preach the need to surrender their lives to Christ, to walk in the spirit and bear the fruits of the spirit, to be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of their minds. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away.
Jesus said "I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing*.
6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
Life in Christ is what Protestants teach, and practice.
Last edited:
"Interpreting Scripture through the light of the Church" is code for interpreting Scripture through the light of my tradition. Catholics says the same thing and yet you arrive at different conclusions. How about interpreting Scripture according to it's original context instead?
This canard is very tiring because it can be equally applied to Orthodoxy and it's concept of Apostolicity. 'People claim to be interpreting Scripture through the light of the Church, but they come to different conclusions, so you just have to let them do what they want.'
As if there aren't progressive Orthodox churches?
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Sorry, I should have better clarified before. In Matthew 7 Christ throws out those calling him "Lord" for being "evil doers" or, in your translation, "workers of lawlessness." So the problem was not that these Christians didn't have any good works, the problem was that these Christians had unrepented evil works while still feeling entitled to God giving them a free pass for their faith. It sounds to me like they were modern protestants--the same protestants who are declared to be certainly in Heaven during their funerals.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
I have not completely stopped sinning, unfortunately. That being said, I've made tremendous progress and have experienced tremendous spiritual healing over the last several years of living an Orthodox life. I used to commit much bigger sins more regularly, and now I commit small sins, like occasionally saying something negative about someone else, or occasionally feeling prideful. Even these things, however, are unacceptable and must be repented of, and I do not presume that God will give me a free pass for them. I continue to go to confession, to attend Liturgy, to receive communion, and I hope for God's forgiveness and eventual healing. The Bible does make a distinction between mortal and non-mortal sins, although we're not told which is which, but I hope that most of my sins no longer fall into the mortal category (1 John 5:16-17).
From our Orthodox perspective, it is great arrogance and dangerous presumption to say you know for sure you are going to Heaven. We cannot know this simply based on our membership to some church. Christ makes it very clear in the Gospels that salvation depends on much more than just our intellectual assent to a given proposition about history, and He furthermore teaches that we must be humble, and to approach any question of God's Kingdom with great humility. As St. Paul called it, "Fear and Trembling", the type of feelings that are not present in Protestantism's empty and dangerous guarantees.
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
If you're going to claim that Orthodox tradition began with Palamas, then I don't think I can consider you a good-faith interlocutor. I'm most likely going to just stop engaging with the discussion here.
Genealogist
Catholic
Christ has the right to dictate the conditions of salvation and He distinctly commanded Baptism as a condition of salvation. As for St. Dismas ('the good thief'), that was still under the old covenant. We live under the New Testament covenant, and therefore all are bound to receive the sacrament of Baptism (or at least have baptism of desire). You can read more on this topic in Summa: https://t.co/3fw4X9oics
Luther reduced faith to a kind of blind trust or confidence in one’s salvation (faith as hope). What Protestants call 'faith' is in actuality 'trust to be saved'. This is why faith/works arguments with them don’t go very far. They misuse the term 'faith', and it causes a plethora of misunderstandings. Faith is a supernatural assent of our intellects to truths revealed by God, and proposed by the Catholic Church, and believing these truths based solely on the authority of God revealing them, who can neither deceived nor be deceived. It is a free gift of God, since the power to believe can only be obtained through the grace of God. Without faith there is no salvation - but 'faith alone' is not sufficient for salvation. It must be a living faith, that us, we must add to it good works pleasing to God and must be ready to confess it openly.
You're not kidding!
So in Orthodoxy, you don't know if you're saved. And everything that bespeaks God's promise of salvation, that is His grace, His predestination, His justification, His taking our sins onto Himself, His dying for us, anything that guarantees our salvation is to be denied because salvation is not guaranteed. And people should believe in this, why? The telltale sign of a man-centered, works-based soteriology: there is no doctrine of perseverance, no assurance of salvation.
I will leave you with this.
Unfortunately, it is hard to avoid the Mexican standoff in this thread. Catholicism lies somewhere in between Reformed theology and Eastern Orthodoxy. So when you shoot at Catholicism, some of the shots go through and the other side takes collateral damage.
Dismas was not justified by the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. In order to be saved in the Mosaic Covenant, you had to keep the Law perfectly. Something Dismas clearly didn't do as he was being crucified for theft. That's why no one is saved by the Law because only Jesus ever kept the Law perfectly. Dismas was saved just like everyone else who ever was saved: on the basis of God's grace given through Christ in the New Covenant. Water baptism is not necessary (for salvation), as is clearly seen in the case of Dismas.
Faith is a gift given according to God's grace. If that's what you're saying, then we have no disagreement. So it is not merely intellectual assent, it is the gift of God so that no one may boast. Good works will necessarily result from faith, but they are not the grounds for our justification.
Last edited:
Cornelius V.E.
Orthodox
Christ condemns protestant soteriology, assurance of salvation, and salvation by "faith alone" throughout the Gospels. Perhaps most clearly in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31-46):
--------------------------
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All 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. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
--------------------------
Read that again and tell me that works don't matter, and that works play no role in our salvation.
The only reason I reply here is to dispel any confusion for those who might be new to these debates. Any 3rd party to this discussion should be able to see very clearly which position shines with the truth of Christ. Faith, Hope, and Love remain. And the greatest of these is Love (not Faith).
Protestantism is heresy and doesn't correspond at all to Christ's clear teachings in the Sacred Scriptures. Protestantism merely cherry picks Bible verses and then interprets them in a very narrow, modern fashion without taking into account the greater whole Biblical teaching.