← Worldview Legacy | The Think Institute
Worldview Legacy | The Think Institute
#221 Debate: Protestant vs. Eastern Orthodox Who Says Salvation Is Synergistic (Here’s the Problem)
00:25:13
Loading summary
Transcript67 lines
- [00:00]
A
Boom. All right, our first guest of the evening is Carter. Carter, welcome to the stage. How you doing tonight?
- [00:08]
B
What's up, guys? How's it going?
- [00:10]
C
Hey, good, Carter. What's your worldview?
- [00:12]
B
I'm Eastern. I'm Eastern Orthodox, but I'm not. I'm not an ortho, bro.
- [00:16]
C
Okay, all right, all right, cool. So why are you Eastern Orthodox?
- [00:22]
B
Long story. I was kind of what you were, I think, like a Calvinist, Baptist, even. I don't. Even though I don't think those things can go together anymore. But I was a Calvinist, Baptist. Then I looked into Anglicanism and Lutheran a little bit, and then I became Orthodox. Just to put it short, I think it has more historical continuity just with the Bible, early church, and up to what it is today. And also just a spiritual aspect. I think the spirituality is a lot more consistent and has more continuity as well with the early church. But that's a long. I think the spirituality one is a little longer as opposed to, like, Calvinistic or Armenian or all those other theologies. But I still respect a lot of Protestantism. Like, I like Anglicanism and things Catholicism and things like that. So I still respect a lot of the Reformation and, like, admire some of what they did. But that's the two main reasons why I. I became Eastern Orthodox.
- [01:21]
C
Okay, so what would you like to debate tonight?
- [01:24]
B
Yeah, to be honest, it's a. You kind of give, like, a big explanation. I know it's kind of a long one. With your world view, you kind of give your. Yeah. Your worldview. So I don't know where to start out. I mean, we could start out with, like, Sola Scriptura.
- [01:39]
C
Sure.
- [01:39]
B
I mean, I don't really have an issue with, like, maybe we forget the details, but the other three, I don't really have kind of an issue. You said, to be honest, why don't
- [01:49]
C
you hold the soul of scriptura?
- [01:51]
B
So. Yeah, basically. So I was going to ask you. So I'll answer. And I'll ask you too, because I. I need to know your definition of souls. Fratera. Just because when I talk to Protestants, it can mean different things. But basically, to put it short is I don't think the Bible teaches that the same way you might see it. And I don't think the early church practiced it the same way. To put it short, looking through early church, they just didn't have the Bible right for. For a while. Not saying that it holds it to a high authority, but they also saw the church and the bishops and the priests as an authority, as well, so they could see as equal or a little bit on the same plane almost. But I don't think it was the only authority that, that they went off of again. So that's, that's why I ask kind of what is your view? I know the historical view is like the. It's a soul infallible rule of faith and practice and worship. I know a lot of Protestants don't just only social scriptura. Right. Some hold to other traditions. But that's why I kind of wanted to get your idea as well. What you mean by that too.
- [02:58]
C
Okay, sure. You know, you really nailed it the way you almost said it word for word, how I would describe it. Sola scriptura means that scripture is, is the sole or only infallible God breathed inerrant rule of faith and practice for the people of God. It does not mean that sola scriptura was. Well, it doesn't mean the scripture is the only authority, just that it trumps all the others. It's the final arbiter for any kind of religious dispute. If you and I disagree about something that we're supposed to believe, especially when it comes to salvation, what pleases God, Scripture has to be our final arbiter of that. And so, so that's kind of sola scriptura in a nutshell. It doesn't mean the scripture is the only authority, just that it's the one that trumps all others because it has attributes that no other document or authority or council or organization has. And the way I like to think of it, it's acts, it has authority because it's from God the author, it has clarity or perspicuity, meaning it's sufficiently clear for us to be able to interpret it is true infallibly and inherently so. And it is sufficient meaning that if you have the Bible and you don't have the church councils, if you have the Bible and you don't have the creeds, you have what is sufficient for faith and practice. You, you can know how to be saved. You can know what pleases God, you can know how to live for God. So that's my definition. Do you agree with that or disagree with that?
- [04:34]
B
Yeah, yes and no. So like, yeah, I do believe the Bible does have. So I think with, with my view, I wanted to agree with that 100 maybe the way, again, I don't want to like assume what you believe. I'm just going off by like my Calvinism, what I was. So correct me if I'm wrong when I say these things. So when you say Sufficient to be saved, believe in all these things. In a way, I would disagree to agree. Not a screen. So basically, yes, I do believe that the Bible is inerrant, it has salvation and all the things you said. However, to me, I see the early church and they didn't even have the Bible right for a long time. So to me, I see the church and you could say for hundreds of years, a lot of them didn't. They couldn't do solskater. Right. They had the Old Testament, but they didn't have the New Testament. Right. So to me, it's like when you say that, it's like there's a lot of Christians that from your own definition, didn't have the opportunity even know what these things were based off of your definition of solskatura, however, when it came up, you could say that, but based off again, how the early church was working and acting with the councils, the bishops, the priests, with the oral tradition and written tradition, I believe Christians were being saved without the New Testament. Right. So I would say by the definition, I don't, I don't, I wouldn't, I couldn't agree to that just because historically, yeah. A lot of Christians didn't even have the New Testament to know the things you said. They had leaders and oral tradition. Right.
- [06:05]
C
Well, so I, I hear that, but I'm interested in that word you used, saved. How is a person saved? How, how were they saved in the early church years before the, let's say before the, you know, every church had a, A Bible with all the New Testament books, all 27 books of the New Testament. How, how is a man, a sinner, saved?
- [06:28]
B
Yeah. So if you look at the New Testament, even though it wasn't around, but later on we can see in the Book of Acts, you can see churches already being established. Right. So from kind of top, bottom, looking down, I would say they would believe more in that Orthodox, Catholic, Oriental kind of view of salvation, where basically a believer was in the church. Right. We, again, I'm sure you've heard this before, but we can't say who's saved. All we can say is we can see who's visibly elect. Right. Meaning who's inside the church. So I would say they were saved through the process of theosis. So that includes, right, everything from what you kind of believe in a way, but then also the sacraments, confession, and just living out the Christian life through theosis. And that's what I mean again, when being inside the church through liturgy and all these things, that's how they Would know and. And be instructed on what salvation is. And. And I would agree, like. Well, sorry. I would say the New Testament letters were part of that liturgy, you know, but they weren't as it wasn't like, you know, I'm sure, you know, someone trying to sick. You don't. But it wasn't like they couldn't go to the Bible and say, okay, let's do sol spatura. It was. What did the authority of the church, which are the teachers in the oral tradition, what did they say about salvific matters? I think that's what I would say. So it's a long answer, but I think in the salvation aspect is a process, but included all those things.
- [07:53]
C
Okay, so would you. I heard you say theosis, which is obviously a good Greek Orthodox word,
- [08:03]
B
and
- [08:04]
C
living out the sacraments. Do you believe that we are saved? Do you. Do you believe that we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone? Or is there something that we do to add to our salvation or to contribute to the process of our theosis or of our salvation, our justification before God?
- [08:27]
B
No. Yeah. So I think we have different language here. Like, we have different terms. So I would say we are saved by grace and faith, but not alone. Right. I mean, James 2 says the opposite of that. Even though I understand the Calvinistic interpretation of that, which is fair. I see where that's coming from. So I would say yes to that. Like, we can't work for anything. Like us doing prayers or doing enough prostrations or whatever. None of that's going to earn us salvation. However, we have to cooperate with. With God. Right. For in our salvation. So I would say, yeah, grace saves. Like, we're not Pelagian. Like, you know, people say Pelagian is. We're not that. Like, we don't. We don't. I don't think we can earn your salvation any works. It's only by the grace of God that we can be saved. However, like the New Testament says all over, we have to do good works and toil and struggle in our salvation. Right. And that can mean a lot of different things. But, yeah, I would never say we. We put anything on top of our salvation, but we. We do it to work in our salvation.
- [09:36]
C
Okay, so who gets the credit for your salvation? God or God? And you?
- [09:41]
B
God gets all the credit for our salvation.
- [09:43]
C
Okay, so God, would you say that God does all the work for our salvation then?
- [09:47]
B
Yeah, He. He completes. He's a finisher of our salvation. But we are also participating in our salvation. Right. It's a synergistic approach.
- [09:57]
C
Okay, so now you say salvation is synergistic, meaning you cooperate with God for salvation. I say salvation is completely and totally a free gift from God. How are we going to determine who's right?
- [10:10]
B
Well, we go again, so that, again, that's where we look at scripture and the early church. Right. If you're talking about sola scriptura, which again, I disagree with your interpretation based on what I said, let's at least look. Okay, let's say the Bible was complete in the year 300, 200.
- [10:30]
C
Sorry, when you say it's complete when, you don't mean when it was written. Right? I mean the, all the books, the New Testament were all written within the first century. Correct.
- [10:38]
B
I'm just saying, like, it probably has enough access. It probably is available to have people have access to it to a certain point. Right. Because like, only certain people had access to it by that time frame. It's not like every believer could pop out and have a Bible or, you know, have something like that and say, I want to look up what Scripture says.
- [10:59]
C
That's. Yes. No, you're correct about that. You're right. But there are still places today, of course, that don't have access to the Bible or the whole Bible. There are language groups where the Bible is still actively being translated into those languages. So clearly you and I are not in that situation here. We are. We're Anglophones. We're speaking English. We have English Bibles. You know, I've got mine right here. My, my question is. My, my question is not, did everybody have access to all of scripture within a particular time frame? Because that's not even true today. My question is more along the lines of, how are you and I going to adjudicate between your view and my view today?
- [11:51]
B
Yeah.
- [11:52]
C
What's going to be that final arbiter?
- [11:54]
B
Yeah. So basically I would say. Again, it's a mix. I would say it's scripture in the church. So the reason why.
- [11:59]
C
Contradict the church.
- [12:01]
B
No, no. So, so real quick, this is what I would say because I feel like. So I would. You would say the church contradicts scripture, but I would say your Calvinistic views contradict scripture. Right. So like. And one way to settle it. Yeah, so one way to settle.
- [12:14]
C
Sorry.
- [12:14]
B
Oh, no, you're good. Oh, I was gonna ask you a question.
- [12:18]
A
Sorry, just about five minutes left for this.
- [12:21]
B
Oh, yeah, sorry. Make it real quick. I'll make it my answer shorter. So basically, yeah, so I would say, who gets the right interpretation? Because I could Pull out scripture versus you can too is let's see how the early church interpreted scripture. So if you look at the early church and how they interpreted scripture because they're the ones that were passing it down, they're the one closest to the apostles. They knew the original language better than me and you would. Any scholar would. I guess we look into the early church and see how they interpret scripture. And what I see when I read these guys, I don't see a Calvinistic viewpoint. I don't see like the way Calvinism believes, soul feeding, all these things. Yeah, it does look at that more synergistic approach. But we need more five minutes, right, to kind of go through all those things. But yeah, I hear you.
- [13:06]
C
I totally hear it. If I'm cutting you off, it's not to be rude. It's just the conversation moving because I appreciate this conversation very much. The early church. There were segments within the early church that said that circumcision was necessary to please God and that you couldn't be justified apart from circumcision and living in an old covenant Jewish lifestyle, even as a gentile. The reason I bring that up is because that's a great example. And you can read Galatians 1:3 about this. Actually, the whole book of Galatians is excellent for this. The early church clearly got some things wrong. There were oral traditions within the early church that were anti gospel, anti biblical. And Paul calls those traditions anathema. So to your point that the church, even the early church, couldn't contradict scripture. That idea itself is contradicted by the book of Galatians. The early church absolutely could contradict scripture. And thank God we have scripture that that shows examples of that and shows what the answer is. So Paul in Galatians says, if you're adding one work, one work to your salvation or to your justification, you are anathema, meaning eternally cursed. And I know Greek Orthodox are big on singing the anathemas in their worship services, but there's a real conundrum here because for, for 2,000 years we've had, let's say for, you know, 19, 30 years, whatever it's been, we've had a completed New Testament. Not everyone has had equal access to it. That's not what solo scriptura teaches. I know you know that, but clearly if we're going to look at what God says is necessary for salvation, if we go to the early church, we're going to get a mixed bag. We're going to get some early church fathers who taught Sola fide sola gratia. Not under those terms, because those are reformation terms perhaps, but we're going to get some who get it right and some will get it wrong. But the question is, how do we know if they get it right? And how do they. How do we know if they get it wrong? Sorry, one second. The reason why, that's why I bring this up, is because for the Apostle Peter, for Paul, so Second Peter and then second Timothy three are both going to point us to the prophetic word and the word of scripture as being more surely confirmed even than the oral tradition passed down by eyewitnesses. So now you com. Compound that, that doctrine that tenet out and you say, well, now we're not just talking about within the lifetime of believers and the eyewitnesses, but now we're looking at the first 300 years. Could there have been accretions in the first 300 years? Well, we know that there were. We absolutely know that there were. We know that there were. I mean, you don't even have to go out that far out before you get to Arianism, Gnosticism, Judaizing, Pelagianism follows within the first, I think, 500 years. So the early church cannot be the infallible God breathed standard, because there are many instances within the early church of conflicting beliefs. In fact, you've heard of Athanasius, correct?
- [16:26]
B
Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
- [16:28]
C
Athanasius. Athanasius coined the term Athanasius contramundum, meaning Athanasius against the world. And that's because Athanasius even disagreed with the pope at the time, the bishop of Rome. It was Athanasian. Athanasius. And a very small. No, no, I get this. But. Sorry, but this is. But this is before the 10:54 split between east and West.
- [16:51]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [16:52]
C
You see what I'm saying? So that's. At that point, that's your church and my church. You see, before the split, we're all part of the same church. So Athanasius was really backed into a corner. It was Athanasius contra mundum, Athanasius against the world, meaning the. The whole early church. Almost. Almost universal. I mean, maybe that's an exaggeration, but for Athanasius, the standard was scripture. And I have quotes from Athanasius I could pull up.
- [17:18]
B
Well, he. Sorry, because there's a lot of points you made there.
- [17:22]
C
Yeah, go ahead, go ahead.
- [17:24]
B
A lot of these guys, when people quote, like as Anatius, Irenus and Basil and all these guys, they believed in stuff that wasn't in scripture. Like I understand Athanasius has a lot of quotes that say, yeah, it's in Scripture, but he, he submitted to councils. Right. Like, he submitted to things outside of scripture too. So, like, one thing I would say real quick is. Yeah, so there's a lot of errors in the early Church. There was a lot of errors with the apostles too, in their times. That doesn't mean it's therefore all wrong, right?
- [17:52]
C
No, no, and that's my point.
- [17:53]
B
Yeah, yeah, I understand.
- [17:55]
C
What's the standard, though?
- [17:57]
B
Yeah, exactly. That's what I'm saying is it's a church. Like, it has to be the church because the Scripture is a part of tradition. Right. The church is what is a normative authority to decide what is correct and wrong. And so if you see an early church. Yeah, they filter out. It's like filtering, Right. The reason why Arianism is wrong, it is in the Bible. But when you get to other heresies, it's kind of hard to even see that in the Bible as a heresy so much. But because of the councils are deemed as authority. Right. Like, like, it's funny because a lot of the bishops didn't even want to add homo use. Right. The essence part, because it's not a scripture. So, like, the thing that defeated Arianism, the concept is in Scripture, but the Word was in Scripture. And if you're really consistent.
- [18:42]
C
Right.
- [18:42]
B
If you're really consistent, the bishops were like, they were even fighting about the first council isea and disagreeing what it meant, because they were so, like, it's not a scripture, but that the church decided we don't need it to be in Scripture. Right. So I understand there was those debates.
- [18:57]
C
I, I. But that I can't follow you there.
- [19:00]
B
So you don't believe in homo usios?
- [19:02]
C
Of course.
- [19:02]
B
Yeah.
- [19:03]
C
Homo usias is, is a biblical doctrine. And actually, respectfully, you just contradicted yourself because you said that the concept is in Scripture, but then you said that they decided it doesn't need to be in Scripture. There's a difference between a term not being used in scripture and the contrary. Except not being in scripture. Trinity, of course, is the classic example.
- [19:23]
B
I'm sorry, my main point, My main point was this. That was like a side tangent thing. I'm, I don't really care about that because it, it can be also taken a different way. But basically. No, but, but this is my bigger point. Let me get to that one too. That either way, it's gonna fall back on the church. But basically is. Sorry, I'm saying basically, as a nation, always Guys, they believe stuff outside of the scripture, so therefore the argument falls in that way. But the biggest thing, how do we know we're right? Even let's say like Calvinism. Right. You would say it's in scripture. You would say that's clear in Scripture. But just because something in the scripture doesn't mean it's going to be true to, to in your interpretation. Right. So when you, when you say things like the Church got things wrong, then that means Calvinism wasn't even around. You can say Augustine, but even believe in Calvinism like that. But you can, we can say Calvinism was even around and to you it's the most correct view of the gospel. So with the first 400 years, did they not have Calvinism? Was the Church lost? No. You know what I'm saying? You can get into that as well.
- [20:31]
C
Okay, listen, I, I hear what you're saying, but the, the whole point of the Reformation is ad Fontes. It was a, it was a renaissance and a Reformation principle. Meaning go back to the source.
- [20:40]
B
The sources. Yeah.
- [20:41]
C
Right, Exactly. Yeah. And the ultimate source, of course, being Scripture. And this is why Calvin and Luther are constantly quoting from the church fathers to show this is not an innovation. Calvinism is in a lot of ways it's an unfortunate title because it's really a, it's a shorthand description of something that came out, yes, the Reformation and in the years after. But you know, the Council of Dort, the five points of Calvinism come out of the Council of Dort. The very idea that we're even talking about John Calvin is because the church, Christ reformed his church in the 1500s and, and continues to do so today. But these are. The reformational doctrines are biblical. That's the argument. So if we were to adopt your line of thinking, which is that we've got this dual standard or a broader standard than just scripture, where it's not just scripture. We need the authoritative interpretation of the councils. Paul himself says that the early church got things wrong and he corrects them. And so we need to be like Bereans and we need to be like Paul. We need to go back to the apostolic teaching, the true apostolic teaching, which today is codified and revealed in. It's been inscripturated, it's in Scripture. And so you say synergism. Paul says grace alone through faith alone. So you can say, oh, you've got your verses, I've got my verses. Okay, sure. But that's an assertion. We need to actually go back and read what it says. This is why perspicuity is very important. This is why the authority of scripture is very important. Because if you can't trust God Almighty God, the best communicator ever in all of reality to reveal what is the most important thing in all of human life, which is how do, how does a sinner get saved, then you really don't have elect to stand on. You really don't have a foundation at all. Because I don't accept your church's authority insofar as it contradicts scripture. So we have to be able to go back to scripture. Otherwise you're going to say I appeal to church authority. Well, the Roman Catholic's going to do that. And let me get really bizarre with you, the Mormons are going to do the exact same thing. And so you're going to go, yeah, that's a false tradition. But a Mormon doesn't think that it's false. And that'd be like me appealing to village Bible church. Well listen, you know Pastor Tim, he says this, who cares? I love Pastor Tim, but if Pastor Tim teaches me something that's not in the Bible, I'm gonna point back to the Bible. And with the Think Institute, if I teach something that's not in the Bible and you want to show that it's wrong, you're going to have to go back to Scripture. And simply appealing to, you know, a 4th or 5th century church father is not going to cut it because they themselves would not say, Athanasius would not say believe this because Athanasius says it. You know, he's going to be appealing to authorities outside of himself, first and foremost scripture. But then there's a reason why those church fathers would appeal to councils. There's a reason why they would appeal to creeds. It's because those creeds were understood to have been hammered out using biblical categories and biblical teachings. The same is true for the Trinity. The same is true for God's plan of salvation. So the councils and the creeds only derive, they have a derivative authority. Whereas Scripture is self attesting. Scripture has its authority within itself. Church authorities. Their authority is derivative. It's derived from scripture. So I would really challenge your, your paradigm here and I'd really encourage you to adopt Biblicism and, and sola scriptura. I mean it's it. If God can't be trusted to reveal his word, then the church is meaningless, your salvation is in question and you can't trust your own interpretation of even the church fathers. So we got to go advantage, we got to go back.
- [24:32]
B
I know my time is up. I think so yeah, we'll definitely, we can talk about it more later for sure. And I enjoy this conversation a lot and no, I love what you're doing. I read a little bit about your story so that's really awesome. You kind of went through that and still moving through. So super encouraging, super good, good things to look up to. So thanks. Carter. Yeah, I love your background. So total respect for me and yeah, I'll definitely look into things you said. Of course. And yeah, hopefully we'll talk later in the future.
- [25:01]
C
Really, really enjoyed our conversation. Thanks so much, Carter.
- [25:03]
B
Me as well. All right, take care.
- [25:04]
A
Pleasure to meet you, Carter. Have a good night.
- [25:05]
B
Of course. God bless.
- [25:07]
C
Well, what do you know? He really wasn't an ortho bro. That was good.