Thoughts on evident Catholic and Eastern views of justification.......
CATHOLIC.
As I have noted before, it view it IMPOSSIBLE to know what the official denominational stance is on this. Virtually every possible position has been stated at some time, some where. And often, in practice, it is a MESS - an entangled, confused, blended, watered-down, often terrifying MESS.
Good and right things..... thrown into a blender with an ocean of water.... run on high for centuries.... and poured out often with the goal not of comforting but of threatening and motivating. IMO, there is one issue on which Christians should be most clear, but MY experience in Catholicism is that this is the least clear teaching in the whole denomination. Here's what I was taught: "God helps those who help themselves" "Jesus opened the Gate to Heaven but you have to get yourself through it by what you do." "Jesus technically saves no one but rather made it possible for everyone to save themselves." "No one has the innate ability to save themselves but God empowers them with His grace and gifts, thus they have more than sufficient power, and if they adequately employ that - they (eventually) have salvation." None of those of course is compatible with "Jesus is the Savior". We should remember, too, that Luther taught that in narrow or initial justification, it is ALL God's grace, mercy and gifts through Christ, that Jesus (alone) is the (all-sufficient) SAVIOR (not helper or door opening or inspiration) - and we all know what the RCC back then did about that (and it's never officially retracted anything or ever officially endorsed the Lutheran position as its own).
HOWEVER, this does not mean the biblical Gospel is missing! It's all over the lectionary, the liturgy and the songs (hymns and otherwise) And one of THE most LUTHERAN sermons I've ever heard on this topic was from a Catholic priest at a memorial mass f0r a life-long Catholic. AND I've had more than one conversation with learned Catholics who have told me Catholics now (and perhaps always) hold to the Lutheran position. One put it this way to me: "Luther taught grace in initial justification whereas today Catholicism officially teaches initial grace in justification - the IDENTICAL position worded differently by Catholics to avoid technically violating Trent." More than one Catholic has conveyed that essential point to me. Both point a lot to Baptism.... and stress the child wills nothing, has done nothing... such is original sin (Lutherans would add "total depravity")... but GOD GIVES to that child a new relationship (what Luther called Justification), spiritual life, faith, the Holy Spirit (again what Luther stressed is what is given in justification). Luther simply called this "grace" or "mercy" the "free gift of God, not because of the works of fallen man but because of the free gift of God, lest any have cause to boast or credit self at all." This apologist stressed to ME that "much miscommunication happens" because since Vatican II, Catholics now speak of "initial grace in justification" and think they are saying something diffrerent than Luther's stance of "grace in initial justification." Maybe.....
But then you listen to modern Catholics (such as my Catholic teachers, my former Deacon and Pastor in my Catholic days) ..., you read Catholics on the 'net.... and that's not AT ALL what you get. You get what I did in my Catholic years. State (as Luther did) "Jesus is the one who saves us" - and.... well..... you all know, we ALL know what happens.
EASTERN ORTHODOX
I know far less about the East's 'take' on all this... and of course, it was not at all involved in the debate of the Reformation on this. The East has always embraced Pelagianism to some extent, seen the "Fall" less seriously, and (perhaps most important) has simply been less defining, less dogmatic about this (and many other things).
When I was an undergrad, I met at college a Greek Orthodox girl (VERY Greek everything!) and this lead to some years of conversations. I've often referenced her here. While I've not forwarded Arsenios's posts to her, I am 100% certain she would be horrified. Partly by all he has had to say (she stressed to me this is not at all a defined issue in Orthodox theology) and how dogmatically he has put it (something she rebukes the WEST for). But interestingly, what she does point to is Baptism. In baptism, the baby comes WITHOUT will or works... often sleeps through the whole thing.... often with only two interests: the next meal and diaper change. And God GIVES to this child..... much! My point: She stressed that GOD is the cause, GOD gives.... that it's NOT the will of the baby... not the works of the baby.... but God GIVING His life and spirit. It was her who reminding me of the Creed: ".... we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of life." Not self. And it's not that the Holy Spirit OFFERS anything, He GIVES us because the receiver doesn't will it and can't take it. I can't say for sure, but I think she would be rebuking what our Orthodox friend is posting here. But she'd also stress this: This is a miracle -and it's best not to try to comprehend how God does it - just rejoice that God does. And that's my point, too. As a Lutheran, we reject any attempt to remove God from that and to insert fallen man. We don't cause ourselves to be born the first time (physical) and we don't the second time (spiritual) - God works His miracle. Soli Deo Gloria. There is mystery in how the Holy Spirit does this (Jesus' point to Nicodemus in John 3) but it is the Holy Spirit who does it - NOT dead, fallen man, NOT self - not 100%, not 50%, not 1%. NOT the will or deeds of fallen man - lest ANY have reason to boast. Jesus is the Savior. JESUS (not self)... is THE (one and only, all-sufficient)... SAVIOR (not helper, not possibility maker). That's a good thing - not something Christians should be horrified by, debate, argue.
- Josiah
.
