- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
So, religions tend to be classified into three categories by academia in terms of how the religion relates with other religions: Pluralistic, Inclusivist, and Exclusivist.
Of course, it's not the case that it's always one of the three; they can sometimes be in between, but for the sake of simplification, we will have these three categories.
Pluralism: All the religions tend to express the same thing but in different ways, and we are all walking the same path with each other.
Inclusivism: Our religion is right, the others are wrong, but there are good things within other religions which parallel ours that can be helpful.
Exclusivism. Our religion is right, the others are wrong, and because they are wrong, bad things will happen to those people.
I know I'm being scholastic here, but I can't help but notice that I seem to receive mixed signals from different people - it seems like most Orthodox people whom I talk to view Orthodoxy as an Inclusivist religion, where there's certainly good things in other religions that can be helpful to one's Salvation, even to be saved; and I've come across things like Saint Nephon of Constantia, where he explicitly says, in a Vision of the Last Judgment, that based on what they were given, there will indeed be Pagans who are saved due to them not knowing Christ but doing their best to follow God.
On the other hand, from more Traditional Orthodox members, especially monks either from Athos or elsewhere, Orthodoxy is viewed as Exclusive: Extra Ecclasiam Nulla Salus - there is NO SALVATION outside the Church, and that's FINAL; There's no Sacraments Outside the Church, no Saints outside the Church, PERIOD. And they'll quote the likes of Saint Augustine or Saint Bede, who will say that just like everybody outside the Ark wasn't saved, so is everybody outside the Church.
So, which one is - if not right, more correct? Is Orthodoxy Exclusivist or Inclusivist?
And what about religions which - if not Orthodox, are so incredibly close to Orthodoxy but not in communion - either non-canonical schismatics (Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Orthodox Church of France), Old Calendarists / Genuine Orthodox, Old Believers, Oriental Orthodox, etc.?
Me personally, I tend to be an Inclusivist to a certain extent - because I think that you really have a problem of God's Omnibenevolence in terms of Him creating people stuck in Native, isolated cultures, who don't know Christ, just to sentence them to eternal fire.
More than that, you have to answer why there are Saintly figures outside of Orthodoxy like Padre Pio, Sharbel, or Gregory of Narek, and miracles as well.
But maybe we are just incapable of knowing God.
Thoughts?
Of course, it's not the case that it's always one of the three; they can sometimes be in between, but for the sake of simplification, we will have these three categories.
Pluralism: All the religions tend to express the same thing but in different ways, and we are all walking the same path with each other.
Inclusivism: Our religion is right, the others are wrong, but there are good things within other religions which parallel ours that can be helpful.
Exclusivism. Our religion is right, the others are wrong, and because they are wrong, bad things will happen to those people.
I know I'm being scholastic here, but I can't help but notice that I seem to receive mixed signals from different people - it seems like most Orthodox people whom I talk to view Orthodoxy as an Inclusivist religion, where there's certainly good things in other religions that can be helpful to one's Salvation, even to be saved; and I've come across things like Saint Nephon of Constantia, where he explicitly says, in a Vision of the Last Judgment, that based on what they were given, there will indeed be Pagans who are saved due to them not knowing Christ but doing their best to follow God.
On the other hand, from more Traditional Orthodox members, especially monks either from Athos or elsewhere, Orthodoxy is viewed as Exclusive: Extra Ecclasiam Nulla Salus - there is NO SALVATION outside the Church, and that's FINAL; There's no Sacraments Outside the Church, no Saints outside the Church, PERIOD. And they'll quote the likes of Saint Augustine or Saint Bede, who will say that just like everybody outside the Ark wasn't saved, so is everybody outside the Church.
So, which one is - if not right, more correct? Is Orthodoxy Exclusivist or Inclusivist?
And what about religions which - if not Orthodox, are so incredibly close to Orthodoxy but not in communion - either non-canonical schismatics (Macedonian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Orthodox Church of France), Old Calendarists / Genuine Orthodox, Old Believers, Oriental Orthodox, etc.?
Me personally, I tend to be an Inclusivist to a certain extent - because I think that you really have a problem of God's Omnibenevolence in terms of Him creating people stuck in Native, isolated cultures, who don't know Christ, just to sentence them to eternal fire.
More than that, you have to answer why there are Saintly figures outside of Orthodoxy like Padre Pio, Sharbel, or Gregory of Narek, and miracles as well.
But maybe we are just incapable of knowing God.
Thoughts?
Last edited: