Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[addictedkoala]

The Patriarchs and Bishops have been discussing unity with various traditions for the past 50 years. Every time anything regarding unity is mentioned I see many Catholics here jumping up and down as though full unity is expected to commence next Tuesday, possibly after the evening news. I’m curious if you have any links that show this forthcoming unity that the Greek and Russian Patriarchs have apparently announced?

I agree, but regardless of the status of unity it would be nice to get a general summary of what the upper hierarchy of EO thinks of the RCC…

You’re saying the Filioque was there in the original Creed and the East took it out?

He didn’t say that at all, he said that the Creed is more correct with the filioque than without. I personally don’t care, when I was a nondenominational protestant I did a report on the events of 1054 and I couldn’t help but laugh at how both sides make incredible semantic arguments with little theological substance toward each other.

No, Catholic doctrine says that Purgatory is a place where people are purged of their sins in fire. While Orthodox are welcome to accept this, it is not doctrine, nor is it accepted by the majority of Orthodox.

Let me quote Jimmy Akin on this one:

*"When I began looking at the issues separating Catholics and Orthodox, it turned out that a lot of them were more semantic than substantive. If I became Orthodox, I would have to accept more Catholic things than I at first thought: purgatory, for example. Orthodox don’t traditionally use the word purgatory for the purification that happens after death, but they acknowledge that such a purification happens. They pray for the souls of the departed, which makes sense only if those prayers can help the departed in some way.

Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory."*

While EO opinions on what happens to souls seem to vary wildly in my opinion, they have the same exact implications: prayer for the dead.

 

[Monica4316]

*Note for this thread just in case someone cares, RCC and EO will be used to denote each Church. Even if the terms aren’t technically correct they are unambiguous

As I was perusing the internet I became curious as to Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and their view of history. I will not state what some of my problems are because I do not want to discuss issues outside of my question. Anyways, throughout my reading I’ve noticed the different views on doctrinal development in the two churches, and this is the issue that if I could be convinced of the RC way of thinking would really help clear some of the doubt up. At the moment I do not take any view as I’m not educated enough on the defense of either. What I’m looking for is reasons why I should accept the Roman Catholic view on doctrinal development vs. the EO view. I would also like EO members to post their views/retorts so I can make sure there’s no strawmen going on.

My next problem is the EO and RCC view of each other. While the RCC views EO sacraments as valid and that they have apostolic succession, my understanding is that orthodox EO people do not reciprocate those feelings. I was looking for an EO forum online to express some of these questions to, and I noticed a very hostile attitude toward Catholicism and use of derogatory words in contrast with the EO here who seem to be much more cordial. This got me thinking, seeing the huge similarity of our history pre-1054, choosing between these two Churches is quite an undertaking. From my point of view both were founded by Jesus, and if I could have any wish in the world it would be unification. However, objectively speaking, I seem to have statistically the best chance for salvation through the EO Church. Since both churches recognize EO sacraments but EO do not recognize the RCC. While this is not reason to convert, it has scared the pants off me as a Roman Catholic and I’m starting to struggle with living my faith as well as possible from the stress.

Thank you to everyone in advance. And once again I implore you not to give me off-topic arguments

Hi, I used to be EO and then became Catholic… when you look at Church history, it does seem that the early Church believed in the Papacy. It’s also in Scripture… for example, look up Isaiah 22. Scott Hahn has an interesting argument about that: catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

the EO have arguments for example about the Filioque, - but what no one will tell you is that in the Latin, the filioque is not heretical, but in the Greek, it might be. So the Eastern Church had some some issues- and not even all the Eastern Church, but some of the hierarchy. But to the West, there were no issues, the filioque was merely a clarification to fight a heresy - because in Latin, the filioque isn’t heretical at all, and could mean “from the Father and through the Son”. (a lot like the EO understanding).

concerning development of doctrine, - there can be several points…

1. the Catholic Church does not teach that development of doctrine means any NEW doctrines… simply new ways of phrasing what we’ve all received from the Apostles. (if you look at EO websites, you’ll find many of them trying to accuse the Catholic Church of creating new doctrines, that is not true and not the Catholic understanding.
2. dogmas are made when an idea that’s already believed by the faithful is being challenged… it’s not a creation of a new idea. The EO would say that original sin, purgatory, etc, - are inventions, however we CAN see them in the early Church Fathers… just today, I found a whole bunch of quotes by the ECFs supporting original sin: forums.canadiancontent.net/christian-discussion/62101-doctrine-original-sin-church-fathers.html )
3. the early Church had “development of doctrine”! when we look at the Church today, the Catholic Church continues having ecumenical councils, etc, whereas the Orthodox Church does not… why? because it’s the Pope who is the source of unity… the Church is infallible when it’s in union with the successor of St Peter. catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Many people simplify the Schism but it was very complex and there were A LOT of politics involved.

Also, the EO have some doctrinal disagreement… in the Russian Church, toll houses are practically a doctrine, whereas in other EO churches it’s considered incorrect or symbolic… sometimes contraception is allowed, depending on the priest… and divorce…

Here’s a bit of advice from a person who’s been on this journey
don’t make a decision out of fear, or what is “statistically” better. Pray a lot and ask God to guide you, and be open to Him. Remember He guides us very gently, and ask Him for understanding… try to trust Him! and do some research, that helps a lot too:thumbsup:

God bless!

 

[Monica4316]

I understand where the OP is coming from. I have been having major doubts about the Catholic Church since I converted. Doctrinal development, marian dogmas, transubstantiation, etc. have been troubling my conscience. I perhaps might go back to my old non-denominational church for a while until I sort things out.

try to research there’s support for all these things in the Bible and in Church Tradition!

Exactly. I agree with everything you just said. I did not come back to Christianity out of fear of hell, and I did not revert to Catholicism from fear. This is the first time I’ve really felt this way, and unfortunately this whole thing has become a rather emotional issue for me.

now do you think God will use fear to lead you to the truth? I was told by so many people, including priests, (including the Orthodox!) that God does not do this.

There are many quotes from the early Church Fathers supporting the Papacy I’ll try to find a good list… here’s one: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Is Peter the Rock?
davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

and there’s even a prophesy by Our Lady about Pope Pius IX declaring infallibility of the Pope as dogma (and the Immaculate Conception)
I know that’s private revelation, but it’s interesting.
catholic-sacredart.com/ologs.htm

try to pray to God with trust… don’t be afraid! He doesn’t use fear to lead us to Himself, or to His Church! I just went through a lot of fear regarding my conversion, and tonight God has given me peace about it… try to trust Him and He will lead you, just ask Him for guidance and understanding. Pray the Rosary.

God bless

 

[Hesychios]

Let me quote Jimmy Akin on this one:

*"When I began looking at the issues separating Catholics and Orthodox, it turned out that a lot of them were more semantic than substantive. If I became Orthodox, I would have to accept more Catholic things than I at first thought: purgatory, for example. Orthodox don’t traditionally use the word purgatory for the purification that happens after death, but they acknowledge that such a purification happens. They pray for the souls of the departed, which makes sense only if those prayers can help the departed in some way.

Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory.*"

While EO opinions on what happens to souls seem to vary wildly in my opinion, they have the same exact implications: prayer for the dead.

Jimmy Akin is being disingenuous here.

He confuses MAY with MUST as if they are equivalent. They are not.

God can do anything He wants with us. But to assume that it mandates a punishment, or that the only reason to pray for someone is to relieve their punishments is very narrow. It quite nearly completely ignores the concept of Theosis as the means of salvation and I think he may be assuming things here from a Protestant background.

• Can God punish us? Well, yes He can.
• Is that the one way one becomes holier in the afterlife? Well, that’s a good question.

Orthodox have never taken this position. One can certainly cheer on a striving athlete in his race, one can also cry out for mercy from a just punishment, the idea here is to pray for the good of someone either way.

Mr. Akin ought to be ashamed of himself for comparing a not very commonly held regional folk myth (which may even have pagan origins) with a dogma of his church as though the one serves as an endorsement of the other. One sees this ‘toll house’ stuff repeatedly brought up on Catholic websites and most cradle Orthodox are not even are aware of it until they read of it from Catholics.

It is not doctrine. I was never taught anything of it during my conversion process and my pastor never preached on it. As a folk legend it has the same level of doctrinal authority as believing in vampires.

Jimmy Akin’s rationalizations quoted here make him look rather weaker and smaller than I had ever thought of him before.

 

[Monica4316]

One sees this ‘toll house’ stuff repeatedly brought up on Catholic websites and most cradle Orthodox are not even are aware of it until they read of it from Catholics.

I’ve talked to many Orthodox who believe in toll houses. Usually it’s the Russian Orthodox who do. So did Fr Seraphim Rose, I think! (and several Saints). Many other Orthodox don’t believe them… maybe it’s one of those things we just don’t know…

 

[addictedkoala]

snip
Here’s a bit of advice from a person who’s been on this journey
don’t make a decision out of fear, or what is “statistically” better. Pray a lot and ask God to guide you, and be open to Him. Remember He guides us very gently, and ask Him for understanding… try to trust Him! and do some research, that helps a lot too:thumbsup:

God bless!

now do you think God will use fear to lead you to the truth? I was told by so many people, including priests, (including the Orthodox!) that God does not do this.

There are many quotes from the early Church Fathers supporting the Papacy I’ll try to find a good list… here’s one: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

and there’s even a prophesy by Our Lady about Pope Pius IX declaring infallibility of the Pope as dogma (and the Immaculate Conception)
I know that’s private revelation, but it’s interesting.
catholic-sacredart.com/ologs.htm

try to pray to God with trust… don’t be afraid! He doesn’t use fear to lead us to Himself, or to His Church! I just went through a lot of fear regarding my conversion, and tonight God has given me peace about it… try to trust Him and He will lead you, just ask Him for guidance and understanding. Pray the Rosary.

God bless

Thank you for the information and your perspective. Don’t worry, I’m not about to convert to EO, but the fear is just bothering me. Mainly, thanks for the kind words about God not leading us through fear, that really helped actually because I wasn’t thinking of that. I’m starting to calm down I think.

 

[addictedkoala]

So by all that are you saying prayers for the dead are useless? Because my understanding (and the point I’m trying to make) is that both our Churches do it, so either way prayers have to be doing something for someone. Whether or not it’s alleviation of punishment is a whole other argument and Jimmy Akin isn’t the topic, I was just using his explanation of semantical arguments.

Jimmy Akin is being disingenuous here.

He confuses MAY with MUST as if they are equivalent. They are not.

God can do anything He wants with us. But to assume that it mandates a punishment, or that the only reason to pray for someone is to relieve their punishments is very narrow. It quite nearly completely ignores the concept of Theosis as the means of salvation and I think he may be assuming things here from a Protestant background.

• Can God punish us? Well, yes He can.
• Is that the one way one becomes holier in the afterlife? Well, that’s a good question.

Orthodox have never taken this position. One can certainly cheer on a striving athlete in his race, one can also cry out for mercy from a just punishment, the idea here is to pray for the good of someone either way.

Mr. Akin ought to be ashamed of himself for comparing a not very commonly held regional folk myth (which may even have pagan origins) with a dogma of his church as though the one serves as an endorsement of the other. One sees this ‘toll house’ stuff repeatedly brought up on Catholic websites and most cradle Orthodox are not even are aware of it until they read of it from Catholics.

It is not doctrine. I was never taught anything of it during my conversion process and my pastor never preached on it. As a folk legend it has the same level of doctrinal authority as believing in vampires.

Jimmy Akin’s rationalizations quoted here make him look rather weaker and smaller than I had ever thought of him before.

 

[Hesychios]

So by all that are you saying prayers for the dead are useless?

No not at all!

I don’t know how you could possible get that from what I write here.

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree, but regardless of the status of unity it would be nice to get a general summary of what the upper hierarchy of EO thinks of the RCC…

But that is a whole different point than what was brought up. As to what the hierarchy thinks, I have no doubt the hierarchy believes that Roman Catholics are as pious as Orthodox Christians, since we don’t have the same concepts of validity as Roman Catholics, trying to impose a Catholic impression of Catholics on Orthodox perceptions seems rather doomed to fail.

He didn’t say that at all, he said that the Creed is more correct with the filioque than without. I personally don’t care, when I was a nondenominational protestant I did a report on the events of 1054 and I couldn’t help but laugh at how both sides make incredible semantic arguments with little theological substance toward each other.

Much of theology is semantics, however it is important to not dismiss something because it is semantic. That said the filioque is not an issue that concerns me, its someone proclaiming that history shows it “more correct” which concerns me, that seems like Charlemagnes argument when he forced it on the Western Church, or Cardinal Humbert when he tried to force it on the Orthodox (in what the present popes now call heretical, although they won’t declare Cardinal Humbert a heretic for some reason).

Let me quote Jimmy Akin on this one:

*"When I began looking at the issues separating Catholics and Orthodox, it turned out that a lot of them were more semantic than substantive. If I became Orthodox, I would have to accept more Catholic things than I at first thought: purgatory, for example. Orthodox don’t traditionally use the word purgatory for the purification that happens after death, but they acknowledge that such a purification happens. They pray for the souls of the departed, which makes sense only if those prayers can help the departed in some way.

Rather than using the image of fire for the purification (cf. 1 Cor. 3:10–15), Orthodox often picture the soul passing through a series of “toll houses” on its road to heavenly glory. It’s a different image, but it points to the fundamental reality that the saved soul may have to undergo some form of ordeal before it is admitted to full heavenly glory.*"

While EO opinions on what happens to souls seem to vary wildly in my opinion, they have the same exact implications: prayer for the dead.

Again that misses the point. The Catholic doctrine holds that purgatory is purification in fire. Doctrine being what one must believe. The Orthodox disagree that this is necessary belief. Orthodox also hold up a number of alternate possibilities. While most of those possibilities are purgatory like, and quite possibly an actual belief in purgatory, they are not an enforced belief in purgatory. So when Orthodox say they don’t believe in purgatory, it doesn’t mean we don’t believe in something similar, or that individuals don’t believe it, it means that as a body we don’t believe it can be said to be correct to a degree that we can hold it up as revealed truth, like the Catholic Church does.

So remember, Catholic who believes in purging not by fire = heretic
Orthodox who believes in purging by fire = non-heretic
Orthodox who believes in purging not by fire = non-heretic

 

[addictedkoala]

No not at all!

I don’t know how you could possible get that from what I write here.

It’s not that I got that, it’s more that I’m trying to make sure that I get my own point across concerning prayers. While Jimmy may have done all of what you said, I was just trying to point out the the differences that seem to be very semantical. No matter if you are EO or RC, you end up praying for the dead. I’m trying to be very general right now, the specifics aren’t gripping my conscience

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not that I got that, it’s more that I’m trying to make sure that I get my own point across concerning prayers. While Jimmy may have done all of what you said, I was just trying to point out the the differences that seem to be very semantical. No matter if you are EO or RC, you end up praying for the dead.

You do, but we don’t accept the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, even if we believe in something like purgatory. It is the Catholic Church which has made it unacceptable to believe in anything that is not purgatory in its canons.

 

[addictedkoala]

You do, but we don’t accept the Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory, even if we believe in something like purgatory. It is the Catholic Church which has made it unacceptable to believe in anything that is not purgatory in its canons.

Right, but that is not something that concerns me very much at the moment. I’m at a very “big picture” point of view right now because this is a lot for someone to take in all at once whilst I go through this process of investigation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yep, people on all sides will make ridiculous accusations against the other side without thinking it through, or possibly make generalizations which are only meant to be such which get interpreted as ridiculous accusations or whatever, I’m sure I’ve done it. Either way that doesn’t excuse going back and trying to do it to the other side. I notice in your language you say “if a Catholic” and then you say “you” as if I’m somehow putting a pony in this race. I’m truly not. I’m just analyzing the situation and giving credit where credit is due trying to be intellectually honest. And that gets me in trouble on both sides. That’s ok; I’m used to it. …

Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople stood up to Emperor Leo III against iconoclasm and even condemned the bishops that supported the emperor’s iconoclastic rulings. It wasn’t a pope-alone unilateral solution to the problem. Pope Gregory supported Germanus with a letter of congratulations and backing. But Germanus resigned and bailed out, right? He was replaced with Anastasius as Patriarch of Constantinople, a man who was a hardcore supporter of both the emperor and iconoclasm. It was Pope St. Gregory II who refused to recognize this new Patriarch in Constantinople. But Pope St. Gregory II died not long after his staunch opposition to iconoclasm. In came Pope Gregory III as his successor. Gregory III held a synod of 93 bishops to explore the matter. At that synod, thanks to the leadership and stubbornness of both popes, the iconoclasts were excommunicated and they refused to accept the laws of Leo and Anastasius. Leo in turn in 723 tried to send a fleet to Italy to punish the pope and subjugate the pope and his synod to the Patriarch of Constantinople. It was the pope’s leadership that put the wheels in motion, the pope’s synod, the pope’s standing up to the emperor. The heresy grew in the East, flourished in the East, was supported by an Eastern Emperor, and supported by an Eastern Patriarch, squashed by a Western Pope. Contribution----leadership…semantics…

**It’s not that interesting …no slip of the lip intended. A contribution in a conciliar age and leadership are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A president of the United States can contribute ideas to a bill as he leads and ultimately signs a bill. You’re nit picking a bit with semantics. No hidden meaning intended. **
Interestingly enough your language became much less strong here, you went from saying the Pope solved it to just making a huge contribution, which is probably the answer to your question. If a Catholic is going to make an over-eager claim to have “solved” our problems, the implication being that we can’t solve our own problems and need others to solve them for us, the people who hear that are probably going to retort with the opposite extreme, that we solved them without your help.
The Papacy certainly played a part in solving the Iconoclasm Controversy, however the Papacy did not solve it singularly, and was in fact as powerless as any Eastern Patriarch against Leo.

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not that interesting …no slip of the lip intended. A contribution in a conciliar age and leadership are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A president of the United States can contribute ideas to a bill as he leads and ultimately signs a bill. You’re nit picking a bit with semantics. No hidden meaning intended.

To draw a line in distinguishing between giving someone sole credit and giving someone credit along with others is certainly not nitpicking or semantics. Additionally I’m only explaining why you get the extreme responses that the Pope did nothing… its because Catholics claim he did everything, it is human nature to try to respond to one extreme with another, which is also why heresies usually appear on pairs.

 

[Nine_Two]

Right, but that is not something that concerns me very much at the moment. I’m at a very “big picture” point of view right now because this is a lot for someone to take in all at once whilst I go through this process of investigation.

Just answering the post.

That specific example goes for pretty much every case where Orthodox disagree with Catholic doctrine yet seem to have almost identical beliefs… we don’t necessarily disagree with the doctrine, we disagree with it being doctrine.

 

[addictedkoala]

Just answering the post.

That specific example goes for pretty much every case where Orthodox disagree with Catholic doctrine yet seem to have almost identical beliefs… we don’t necessarily disagree with the doctrine, we disagree with it being doctrine.

The lack of definitions (and ecumenical councils beyond the 7th) in EO is one of my least favourite things about EO. It all feels much too relaxed and free. I know these are often times good traits, but to me it feels like our faith is one of the most important things to know definitively about especially with the world like it is now. While I can see the argument for why another infallible council has not been needed, my perspective is that they couldn’t hold another one (very difficult without someone in authority) and the arguments being brought out now developed over time to explain the predicament. It’s just how I’m seeing the situation I feel my choice is between Catholic development and stagnation of doctrine

 

[Nine_Two]

I disagree, no point in defining what hasn’t been revealed, additionally it is far from stagnate. Certainly we don’t have new doctrines popping up, but if that is your definition of stagnation you’re stuck with the choice you outlined in everything. Pan-Orthodox synods have been organized in the past, and in fact one is being organized right now, the Patriarchs do certainly have the authority to call one, and such a council, if it deals with doctrine could certainly be made ecumenical, but I expect Catholics will acknowledge it as ecumenical as little as we recognize her last 15 councils as ecumenical.

It’s all a matter of perspective at this point.

 

[addictedkoala]

I disagree, no point in defining what hasn’t been revealed, additionally it is far from stagnate. Certainly we don’t have new doctrines popping up, but if that is your definition of stagnation you’re stuck with the choice you outlined in everything. Pan-Orthodox synods have been organized in the past, and in fact one is being organized right now, the Patriarchs do certainly have the authority to call one, and such a council, if it deals with doctrine could certainly be made ecumenical, but I expect Catholics will acknowledge it as ecumenical as little as we recognize her last 15 councils as ecumenical.

It’s all a matter of perspective at this point.

yahtzee. There is the heart of all of my thoughts. My issues are not doctrinal, they are not whether or not the Pope is infallible, they are not semantical. I think the entire crux of the matter is that I’m stuck in subjective perspective (on both sides) and unlike my reversion from non-denom protestant to RC, I do not see enough proof to bring myself to back either side.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

What you are calling “sole credit” I call the leadership over the councils and synods that made the success against heresies happen. My original post in the beginning of this thread said “But on the other hand, it was the popes that struck down many of the Orthodox heresies like Arianism, Iconoclasm, etc.” Where am I incorrect? I detailed the goings-on around the Iconoclastic nonsense of Byzantine Emperor Leo and how a couple of diligent, stubborn, godly popes stood up to said emperor, galvanized the other bishops and priests against him as well as his pick for the Patriarch of Constantinople, and refused to adhere to the idiocy of Iconoclasm period. It was the pope all the way through leading the way. The pope did strike it down.

You are using semantics, absolutely. If I say Franklin Roosevelt brought us the New Deal or President Reagan won us the Cold War or Bill Clinton got us a balanced budget, or George Bush fought the War on Terror, do I truly need each time to say “with the help of the American people, the House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the approval of the Supreme Court, etc. etc.??” Of course no pope goes it 100% alone. I’ve yet to hear a reasonable Catholic in here make that ludicrous a claim. Leadership, primacy, even infallibility or supremacy we hear but never 100% unilateral defeats of heresy. But things have to start somewhere, leadership, drive, and commitment to stopping a heresy had to be there. So I give the popes credit. They were huge in striking down Arianism, Donatism, Docetism, Pelagianism, etc. But would I be crazy enough to omit Augustine when speaking of anti-Pelagianism? No way. Or Athanasius’ contribution versus Arianism? Nope.

If Catholics in CAF are guilty of giving popes too much credit, my observation is that Orthodox are often all-too-guilty of not giving them enough…intentionally and with a grudge at times.

To draw a line in distinguishing between giving someone sole credit and giving someone credit along with others is certainly not nitpicking or semantics. Additionally I’m only explaining why you get the extreme responses that the Pope did nothing… its because Catholics claim he did everything, it is human nature to try to respond to one extreme with another, which is also why heresies usually appear on pairs.

 

[Nine_Two]

yahtzee. There is the heart of all of my thoughts. My issues are not doctrinal, they are not whether or not the Pope is infallible, they are not semantical. I think the entire crux of the matter is that I’m stuck in subjective perspective (on both sides) and unlike my reversion from non-denom protestant to RC, I do not see enough proof to bring myself to back either side.

The problem is of course that they are so similar. I remember that this was an issue that slowed my own acceptance of Orthodoxy. I looked at Catholicism and I looked at Orthodoxy, and while I identified more with Orthodoxy I couldn’t decide between them. I just wished they were united as one so my decision would be made for me.
Strangely enough the thing which finally made me take the leap of faith was reading a heretical document, when I saw the necessity of having grounded theology, something that within Christianity only the Orthodox and Catholic Churches truly offer, and something which I didn’t have as long as I was in that middle state.
I went with the Orthodox Church because I do believe everything it teaches, however I don’t believe Catholics are damned because they believe certain things that we do not hold to be required belief.

I believe it was The Pilgrim’s Tale which stated it best, But one should not base ones salvation on a desire to get into heaven, nor a fear of damnation, but rather out of a simple desire to get close to God.