We seem to varying degrees of non-reformed folks on here. I was hoping to get some insight on what these different views are, and why proponents think the others are wrong. The only real commonality I see is that most non-reformed folk think that particular redemption (limited atonement) is wrong. But I also sense some differences on their views of the atonement.
So please, feel free to give your insights.
Thanks.
Having observed a lot of debates and been on several sides of several fences, I've come to believe that Protestant synergists have much more in common with Protestant monergists, than they have in common with either Catholic or Orthodox synergists (the latter being a redundant term, as Orthodoxy is synergistic in its core). This is to say, that although I consider myself a "synergist" for purposes of forum interactions, and often end up on the same side of a debate as other synergists, at the root I think Protestant monergists and synergists are actually very close to each other, no matter how bitterly they argue. In fact that may be why they argue so bitterly
In the months I've been participating in this forum, I've seen a near total lack of concern over how the Incarnation as a doctrine--a truth--in its own right, actually impacts any other aspect of salvation. These limited/unlimited atonement fights all swirl around which individuals had their debt paid. Did Jesus pay what was owed only by those he chose to save, or did he pay everyone's debt (as though that amount could be any different, since all agree the debt is infinite for even one person) and then leave it on the table for whether individuals freely choose to cash in on this deal. I bring the Incarnation up continually, as do other posters (Orthodox as well as others), and get a few puzzled, furrowed brows from people, who then pardon the interruption and resume their same-old-same-old debates over the same 7 or 8 verses of Scripture.
I read a pretty decent book some years ago by Roger E. Olson, a very good scholar and self-identified "traditional Arminian," one with a good knowledge of the Church Fathers. And in that book, he briefly mentioned Orthodoxy (yay!) and said in a rather vague way, "For the Eastern Orthodox, the incarnation itself is believed to be in some way salvific." Seemingly, as a died-in-the-wool synergist, he doesn't see exactly why it's significant to the Orthodox.
So let me lay this out again, probably only to be overlooked, again. Anyone who wants to broaden their knowledge owes it to himself to read
On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius. Seriously. It's an awesome book. And in it he covers pretty well the entire scope of Christ's work of salvation...crucifixion, death, resurrection, assumption. For him, the Incarnation is all of those things. Or you could say that all of those things were parts of the Incarnation, or the outworking of it. But the answer to the question "Who do you say that I am?" consumed the entire Church for the first millennium.
And one major difference between this, and what I've heard from any Protestant source, is that the emphasis is not on Christ uniting himself to and saving
certain individuals, nor saving
all individuals, but rather saving
humanity, or
mankind. When he assumed human nature, he assumed that which is held in common by all human beings. He became not just "a man" but he became
man. He became
humanity. He fulfilled and completed, justified and glorified
humanity.
Why this distinction? Because he came to overthrow death, and Satan, who wielded death to keep humanity enslaved. He didn't defeat death only for a handful of elect, nor did he defeat it for all who freely willed to choose him. He defeated death for
humanity, and restored
all of creation. It's all saved. All of it. Humanity is saved. You're saved, I'm saved, the guy in the jungle who's never met a missionary is saved, etc. In that broad sense, all are saved because all will be raised.
Where it becomes specific is on the other side of that resurrection. All will be raised again to stand in the presence of the glory of God. God's presence itself is the judgment. Those who love him will find unending joy in his presence, while all who reject him will find unending torment.
Since for the Orthodox (and I believe Catholics also, and probably the non-Chalcedonians also) the Incarnation includes within itself all of Christ's work, then what he did, he did for humanity. Thus there is no sense in which atonement can be considered "limited." The question doesn't even make sense. To suggest that the atonement is "limited" to the elect, would suggest that Christ took on a nature that was shared only by some humans and not others. This is not the teaching of Scripture nor of the Councils who interpreted it.
Now, individual salvation is understood not as a debt paid for Joe but not for Steve, but rather as a lived reality that begins immediately upon regeneration (at baptism, see all my other posts lately on that topic) and continues to all eternity. Eastern exegetes and teachers have always understood synergy to be at the heart of this, because my individual salvation is a participation and sharing in the humanity of Christ himself. In my person, I'm becoming by grace, what he already is by nature. But since he shares my human nature, I am in fact becoming by grace what
I already am by nature. In short, I'm becoming
a fully realized human person. My humanity is "divinized" (saved) by union with Christ, in whom humanity is divinized by direct union with the divine in his own person.
I posted somewhere else recently (and don't think it ever went everywhere) my thoughts on Romans 5 and 6, how Christ is at once both the savior of all people, and the savior only of those who have been baptized into him. The patristic answer, that he is the savior of all people in his
nature, but is the particular savior only of those
persons who believe, makes perfect sense of this (as far as anything like this even can make sense!).
I don't see anything like this in any form of Protestantism, save a small handful of very patristically-minded Anglicans and Lutherans, none of whom generally like the label "protestant" much anyway. For the record, I really believe C.S. Lewis absolutely got it. Absolutely. It's astonishing how much patristic theology lurks beneath the surface of a series of children's books!
So, Orthodoxy is synergy. It is not pelagian--that posits man's autonomy from God. It isn't monergistic, obviously. It isn't "semi-pelagian" if one even accepts the validity of such a vaguely defined term. It certainly isn't Arminian or Calvinist. I think the core of what separates Orthodoxy from all forms of Protestant synergism, is our understanding of, and focus on, the Incarnation as the center of our theology. Our understanding of who Christ is, defines our understanding of what Christ does, and how that is realized in the lives of believers.
You may now resume your one-liners and snappy back 'n forth.
