Is Orthodoxy an Exclusivist or Inclusivist religion?

[archer75]

HE Kallistos (Ware)

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."

 

[Lukaris]

The Lord says those who have done good will be saved & those who did not will be condemned ( John 5:22-30). It is His Church, it is His kingdom etc. He calls us to love God & neighbor. I believe His way shows us the good & evil are within & without the ranks of His earthly church.

Will I ever embrace the filioque? No, will I think I can point a finger at Mother Theresa because she did? I think not.

 

[ArmyMatt]

as Fr Hopko once rightly said, "There will be a lot of surprises on Judgment Day."

 

[FireDragon76]

Orthodoxy has no official position on that question. You will find Orthodox with different opinions.

Overall, Orthodox have not as deeply considered some things that western Christians have spent more time considering, focusing on other aspects of religion instead. Categories like inclusivism and exclusivism are less meaningful in Orthodox Christianity, as a result. For one thing, if you do not have a religion that has conceptual categories of "faith vs. works", it re-frames the issue altogether. And Orthodox themselves generally are less interested in answering intellectual challenges than engaging in the experience of religion itself- that is the main "hook" of Orthodoxy, it is decidedly premodern in that aspect.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Orthodoxy has no official position on that question. You will find Orthodox with different opinions.

Overall, Orthodox have not as deeply considered some things that western Christians have spent more time considering, focusing on other aspects of religion instead. Categories like inclusivism and exclusivism are less meaningful in Orthodox Christianity, as a result. For one thing, if you do not have a religion that has conceptual categories of "faith vs. works", it re-frames the issue altogether. And Orthodox themselves generally are less interested in answering intellectual challenges than engaging in the experience of religion itself- that is the main "hook" of Orthodoxy, it is decidedly premodern in that aspect.

aside from your last sentence, this is absolutely not true. read how St Athanasius delt with the Origenists and homoiousians in the aftermath of Nicaea.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and just to clarify. the homoiousians and the Origenists in the aftermath of Nicaea were trying to defend the same experience, but were butting heads with each other (and St Athanasius) because they were articulating that experience differently. St Athanasius showed they were all saying the same thing.

and that was in the 300s.

 

[FireDragon76]

and that was in the 300s.

Which just proves the point I was making about Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, there is no possibility of consideration that there might be people today, 1700 centuries later, who have intellectually superior answers to religious questions. Therefore, Orthodoxy discounts the possibility of doctrinal development.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which just proves the point I was making about Orthodoxy. In Orthodoxy, there is no possibility of consideration that there might be people today, 1700 centuries later, who have intellectually superior answers to religious questions. Therefore, Orthodoxy discounts the possibility of doctrinal development.

well, no. as new heresy arises, Orthodoxy gets new answers. as Orthodoxy engages in things which are outside of her experience, but not necessarily wrong, she gains new answers. the era of Byzantine humanism lasted for a few centuries, and was a reaffirmation of classical Greco-Roman learning happened before the Renaissance in the West. we absolutely affirm that there can be religiously better answers today than before. clearer articulation is built on what came before, that is why it's a clearer and better articulation.

now doctrinal development, as if we can know more about God than the Apostles, is refuted by Christ Himself in the Gospel.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and, I picked St Athanasius to show that using reason and discourse IS a part of our tradition going back very early.

however, if you want a later example, guys like St Cyril Lukaris and Peter Moghila used Latin arguments to refute both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. both of which had better arguments than a guy like St Photius the Great, because they were able to build on his apologetic work, as well as later Roman counters to St Photius.

 

[TheLostCoin]

well, no. as new heresy arises, Orthodoxy gets new answers. as Orthodoxy engages in things which are outside of her experience, but not necessarily wrong, she gains new answers. the era of Byzantine humanism lasted for a few centuries, and was a reaffirmation of classical Greco-Roman learning happened before the Renaissance in the West. we absolutely affirm that there can be religiously better answers today than before. clearer articulation is built on what came before, that is why it's a clearer and better articulation.

now doctrinal development, as if we can know more about God than the Apostles, is refuted by Christ Himself in the Gospel.

It really seem to me that in light of Vatican I and II, there's a lot of confusion on what exactly "doctrinal development" means in Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy tends to reject the caricature of "doctrinal development" rather than doctrinal development as properly understood.

When Roman Catholicism argues for "doctrinal development," they reject the notion that something new or innovative is added in terms of dogma that can't already be believed in. They believe, according to the Catechism, that public revelation of truth has been permanently closed since the death of Saint John, who revealed the last public revelation of theology in the Book of Revelation.

They believe that the dogma itself has been is unchangeable, but dogmas can be clarified, detailed, and explained upon, and said explained upon dogma made binding and requiring permanent assent.

So, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church will argue that Papal Infallibility is a dogma from the 19th century, but they will argue that from the very beginning, Saint Peter was the first Pope of Rome, had universal jurisdiction, and had the ability to make binding decisions on the whole Church, regardless if Saint Peter called himself the Vicar of Christ or if Saint Peter said he was the infallible leader of Christendom - that there was an implicit understanding of Papal Infallibility from the beginning.

The real question is whether or not they really hold to a consistent and legitimate development of doctrine - which I came to the conclusion they don't.

I don't think anybody in Orthodoxy can deny that there's doctrinal development insofar as there are dogmatic definitions which are clarified through Ecumenical Councils, which require permanent assent, that didn't exist before. None of the Apostles used the term "the Trinity" or "the Theotokos" or "Uncreated Energies" or "Iconophilic" in their theology, but they all held to an implicit understanding of these things, according to Orthodoxy, and since then, as they were permanently defined and made binding by the Church, a rejection of these terms is heresy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It really seem to me that in light of Vatican I and II, there's a lot of confusion on what exactly "doctrinal development" means in Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy tends to reject the caricature of "doctrinal development" rather than doctrinal development as properly understood.

When Roman Catholicism argues for "doctrinal development," they reject the notion that something new or innovative is added in terms of dogma that can't already be believed in. They believe, according to the Catechism, that public revelation of truth has been permanently closed since the death of Saint John, who revealed the last public revelation in the Book of Revelation.

They believe that the dogma itself has been permanently fixed and is unchangeable, but dogmas can be clarified, detailed, and explained upon, said explained upon dogma made binding and requiring assent

So, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church will argue that Papal Infallibility is a dogma from the 19th century, but they will argue that from the very beginning, Saint Peter was the first Pope of Rome, had universal jurisdiction, and had the ability to make binding decisions on the whole Church, regardless if Saint Peter called himself the Vicar of Christ or if Saint Peter said he was the infallible leader of Christendom.

The real question is whether or not they really hold to a consistent and legitimate development of doctrine - which I came to the conclusion they don't.

I don't think anybody in Orthodoxy can deny that there's doctrinal development insofar as the Faith remains unchanged and there's definitions which are clarified which require assent. None of the Apostles used the term "the Trinity" or "the Theotokos" or "Uncreated Energies" in their theology, but they all held to an implicit understanding of these things, according to Orthodoxy, and since then, as they were defined by the Church, a rejection of these terms is heresy.

I have heard Roman Catholics defend both understandings of doctrinal development. the problem is Rome is inconsistent with a lot of what they doctrinally say. probably even with doctrinal development.

and yes, no one denies the Faith gets more clarified afterwards.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I have heard Roman Catholics defend both understandings of doctrinal development. the problem is Rome is inconsistent with a lot of what they doctrinally say. probably even with doctrinal development.

and yes, no one denies the Faith gets more clarified afterwards.

As I said,

The real question is whether or not they really hold to a consistent and legitimate development of doctrine - which I came to the conclusion they don't.

 

[archer75]

@TheLostCoin, it sounds to me like you are combining your historical / ecclesiological studies with a very Jack Chickish attitude towards things - "if I don't track down every jot and tittle and use that information to 'guess right,' then I'll be in the LAKE OF FIRE." I don't think you will ever untie this knot. These two attitudes can never be productive.

You will always keep looking, investigating, reading (not that these are bad things in themselves)...and the information that you absorb will never, ever be complete. And even if it were, you could never be sure you had interpreted it "correctly."

And when you combine that with this "guessed wrong? lake of FIRE!!!!" business - which is completely wrongheaded, you will always end up in this state.

God has given us a great gift. God is not playing games with us. If we bicker and can't keep a handle on our own understanding of the Church, well, guess what, another human mistake. Another bit of pride, politics, whatever. But that doesn't take away God's gift to us.

"But HOW do I KNOW..." - turn that off. You do what you can and you leave the rest to God.

You know, ROCOR's status was "irregular" (at best) for decades, the OCA's, too. People were born into (well, more or less) and died in those jurisdictions. Well? Were they "tricked"? Are they being poached in a lake of fire? No, we don't have any better idea about their "status" in eternity than we do about this or that whoever.

Relax. Stop taking old arguments on paper so seriously and start taking Romans 8:38-39 a little more seriously.

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As I said,

right, and as I said, you have to make sure you include their understanding of development of doctrine, as one of their doctrines which have developed.

 

[TheLostCoin]

And while there may be moral and dogmatic Catholic relativists, where morality and dogma don't exist and can change based on what society demands, who use the term "Development of Doctrine" to defend their disgusting view on life, the term "Development of Doctrine" as coined and used by Henry Newman and, later, Soloviev, isn't used in the way they use it.

Soloviev used the famous Acorn analogy, where an Acorn becomes an Acorn Tree, not changing in the very essence of what that Acorn is, but becoming much more elaborate and detailed such that it looks very different.

 

[TheLostCoin]

right, and as I said, you have to make sure you include their understanding of development of doctrine, as one of their doctrines which have developed.

My point is that "their understanding" isn't always a complete moral and dogmatic relativism, even if many agree that it is, as their Catechism says otherwise.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My point is that "their understanding" isn't always a complete moral and dogmatic relativism, even if many agree that it is, as their Catechism says otherwise.

no, not a complete one. I don't think anyone ever said there was a complete moral and doctrinal development or relativism.

 

[TheLostCoin]

no, not a complete one. I don't think anyone ever said there was a complete moral and doctrinal development or relativism.

I argue that even believing some doctrines that are subjective, said subjective doctrine which requires full dogmatic assent for salvation, logically implies there isn't any objective doctrine to begin with. Why should I believe in something if it isn't true, or can be changed to be false? And what's your authority even based on if your authority is something that is subjective? Why should I venerate Saint Cyril of Alexandria when his 12 Anathemas aren't fixed in stone, and he could be a heretic based on time and circumstance?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I argue that even believing some doctrines that are subjective, which requires full dogmatic assent, indicates there isn't any objective doctrine; why should I believe in something if it isn't true, or can be changed to be false; and what's your authority even based on if your authority is something that could be subjective? Why should I venerate Saint Cyril of Alexandria when his 12 Anathemas aren't fixed in stone, and he could be a heretic based on time and circumstance?

well, you are correct that there is no such thing as subjective doctrine.

but St Cyril's 12 anathemas are set in stone.

 

[TheLostCoin]

well, you are correct that there is no such thing as subjective doctrine.

but St Cyril's 12 anathemas are set in stone.

The relativistic argument of development of doctrine requires a belief that some doctrine is subjective, for doctrine couldn't change if it was fixed and objective.

And my point is that, therefore, if we believe in a relativistic development of doctrine, such that any doctrine can be changed based on some authority, there can't therefore be objective and fixed doctrine to begin with.