Author Topic: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...  (Read 155395 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #180 on: April 11, 2007, 07:16:28 PM »
Hesychasm, however, is an integral part of Western theology - and has been since the beginnings (I know I find it in medieval Welsh writings, and earlier Irish writings.)
I don't know how many times I have to say this. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism.

That - and we don't 'make leaven bread look like unleaven bread'.
From the website of St. Paul Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox Church:
Quote
The Host which is leavened bread baked into a thin round wafer is given first, followed by the wine. http://www.stpaulsorthodox.org/westernrite.html


Your Bishop thinks otherwise.  ;)
You mean, the guy who signed the Balamand Agreement? That guy? ;)
I stated that the PC thugs included Bishops for a reason.
Fortunately I'm not Roman Catholic, infallibility of Bishops is not an issue (despite the fact that Archbishop Sylianos argues that there is such a thing as infallibility in Orthodoxy).
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 07:20:50 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #181 on: April 11, 2007, 10:59:08 PM »
The therepeutic aspect of salvation is indeed important and not to be overlooked, and given its greater appeal to the average mind is probably the aspect to be emphasised first and foremost, but it certainly cannot replace the juridical aspect of redemption.

"Formerly the world, as guilty, was under judgment from the Law; but now the Word has taken on Himself the judgment, and having suffered in the body for all, has bestowed salvation to all". (St. Athanasius, Contra Arianos I.41,60)

"How, were the Word a mere creature, could He have the power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin?" (St. Athanasius, Orations ii. s. 67)

I think that's a misrepresentation of how St. Athanasius viewed salvation.  People may quote many Church Fathers to prove that the legalities in the crucifixion exist, but they fail to realize that the Church Fathers have always stressed the importance of the resurrection.  In the case of St. Athanasius, a simple examination of his work "On the Incarnation" reveals that the therepeutic aspect is given much more emphasis over the juridical.  And even in the few times wherein St. Athanasius speaks of the juridical aspect, the therapeutic aspect is not left out, for instance:

He accepted and bore upon the cross a death inflicted by others, and those others His special enemies, a death which to them was supremely terrible and by no means to be faced; and He did this in order that, by destroying even this death {i.e. resurrection}, He might Himself be believed to be the Life, and the power of death be recognized as finally annulled.

In the book, I've done a simple search of the following words and their results:

For Anselm:
Crucifixion = 1
Crucify = 0
God's Satisfaction = 0
Justice = 0
Guilt = 0
Guilty = 0
Penalty = 2
Law = 26

Against Anselm:
Resurrection = 40
Corruption = 55
Corruptible = 6
Incorruptible = 9
Hades = 4
Sacrifice = 11**

** Sacrifice is always associated with the resurrection, for example:
Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

For St. Athanasius, the resurrection is the key, and it shows in his works.

Quote
You simply cannot separate the work of the Resurrection and the Crucifixion;

When did I ever separate the resurrection and the crucifixion?  I was actually the one who kept on stressing that the crucifixion is useless without the resurrection!

Quote
that's highly un-Orthodox.

That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.  In effect, the resurrection becomes a secondary event that can be discarded as opposed to a primary event that is vital. 

Quote
Our hymns, icons, and soteriology in general, testify quite strongly to the fact that they constitute a single unified event.

Correct.  And contrary to the satisfaction theory, the crucifixion is NOT THE ONLY event that saved us.  This makes Anselm's concepts--which focus almost exclusively on the crucifixion--untenable. 

Quote
He also clearly states (in the very same epistle, I believe), that we should not know anything but Jesus Christ and Him Crucified.

See above.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #182 on: April 11, 2007, 11:08:36 PM »
I think people should reread EA's quotes from St. Athanasius.

That's not a good idea.  Quotes mislead people.  Your best bet is to read St. Athanasius' De Incarnatione Verb Dei.

It's available online.  And it IS a good read.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #183 on: April 11, 2007, 11:19:20 PM »
Dear Theognosis,

The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.

I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.

Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"

Quote
(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

This also proves that an Eastern Father did not merely say that Christ died "with all," but on behalf of all.  To play that "Koine Greek" game simply puts St. Athanasius in the wrong.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 11:22:06 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #184 on: April 11, 2007, 11:25:20 PM »
Fortunately I'm not Roman Catholic, infallibility of Bishops is not an issue (despite the fact that Archbishop Sylianos argues that there is such a thing as infallibility in Orthodoxy).

Unfortunately, you are not only not Roman Catholic, you don't seem to know what Roman Catholicism believes about bishops.

Offline dantxny

  • OC.net Mineshaft gap
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 769
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #185 on: April 11, 2007, 11:34:31 PM »
Unfortunately, you are not only not Roman Catholic, you don't seem to know what Roman Catholicism believes about bishops.
I think you're reading far too much into him.  Rather, there are some bishops who suggest a greater deal of infallibilty exists with some ordinaries than most Christians are used to.  As Orthodox are a local based church this would not be in some eastern pope.  If I'm putting false ideas into your mouth George, please correct me, but I think that you, lubeltri, are speaking past him  and past the issue.
"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #186 on: April 11, 2007, 11:36:17 PM »
That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.  In effect, the resurrection becomes a secondary event that can be discarded as opposed to a primary event that is vital. 


Offline EkhristosAnesti

  • 'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,743
  • Pope St Kyrillos VI
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #187 on: April 11, 2007, 11:39:35 PM »
Quote
I think that's a misrepresentation of how St. Athanasius viewed salvation.


I'm having some trouble understanding how quoting St. Athanasius can be deemed misrepresenting St. Athanasius.

Quote
People may quote many Church Fathers to prove that the legalities in the crucifixion exist, but they fail to realize that the Church Fathers have always stressed the importance of the resurrection.

No one here is saying that the Resurrection is not important, or that its importance is not to be stressed. We are simply saying that its importance should not be stressed in exclusion to the Crucifxion, and in neglect of the judical aspect of Christ's redemptive work on the Cross.

Quote
In the case of St. Athanasius, a simple examination of his work "On the Incarnation" reveals that the therepeutic aspect is given much more emphasis over the juridical.

Ofcourse it is, but have you ever stopped to wonder why? It's certainly not because he thought there to be no judical aspect of salvation (and the quotes I brought forth concretely demonstrate this), nor because he thought an emphasis on the judical aspect of redemption per se was "unOrthodox".

Quote
And even in the few times wherein St. Athanasius speaks of the juridical aspect, the therapeutic aspect is not left out

But no one is arguing that such an aspect is absent in his soteriology, we are simply showing that it is not exclusive in his soteriology.

Quote
When did I ever separate the resurrection and the crucifixion?


That's the impression I received when you stated, that we are "actually saved by the Resurrection". We are *actually* saved by the entire work of the Incarnate Word--His Life, His Teachings, His Resurrection, His Ascension, His Sending of the Spirit, and no less, His Crucifixion.

Quote
That's why Anselm's theory is un-Orthodox.  He has made the legalities of the crucifixion, if any, as the be-all and end-all of salvation.


I choose not to comment on a figure whose works I have not read in their entirety. Much has been made of him in recent EO polemical publications, and I am not inclined to take those readings at face value.

As for reducing the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to the judical aspect of the Crucifixion, that is surely not Orthodox. But the very point that many of us are making here is that to reduce the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to any model, be it therapeutic, or judical, is surely not Orthodox.

Would you agree with this? If so, then I think we can agree that despite our surface disagreement, we're essentially on the same page.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2007, 11:46:01 PM by EkhristosAnesti »
No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #188 on: April 11, 2007, 11:44:33 PM »
I think you're reading far too much into him.  Rather, there are some bishops who suggest a greater deal of infallibilty exists with some ordinaries than most Christians are used to.  As Orthodox are a local based church this would not be in some eastern pope.  If I'm putting false ideas into your mouth George, please correct me, but I think that you, lubeltri, are speaking past him  and past the issue.

The Pope himself could sign that Balamand Agreement, and we are completely free to believe that he was completely wrong to do it. Certainly some Catholics like to practice Pope worship, but it isn't Catholic teaching and has never been so. Sure, it's easy to worship John Paul II, but how about Alexander VI?

Forgive me if I do not have much patience for infallibility cracks.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #189 on: April 12, 2007, 12:00:50 AM »
The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.

People can redefine the "juridical view" all they want, but it is the juridical view of Anselm in particular that is heretical.  It leads to immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc.

Quote
I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.

It is misleading because it can be used to support Anselm's totally different interpretation of the crucifixion.

Quote
Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"

Again, that's the danger of presenting quotes.  St. Athanasius actually goes on to explain why it was necessary for Christ to die on the cross.  Nothing was said about satisfying God.  Nothing was said about divine justice.  Acording to St. Athanasius, "the supreme object of His {Lord Jesus'} coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body."

There are some further considerations which enable one to understand why the Lord's body had such an end. The supreme object of His coming was to bring about the resurrection of the body. This was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt; and it was in token of that and as a pledge of the future resurrection that He kept His body incorrupt. But there again, if His body had fallen sick and the Word had left it in that condition, how unfitting it would have been! Should He Who healed the bodies of others neglect to keep His own in health? How would His miracles of healing be believed, if this were so? Surely people would either laugh at Him as unable to dispel disease or else consider Him lacking in proper human feeling because He could do so, but did not. (23) Then, again, suppose without any illness He had just concealed His body somewhere, and then suddenly reappeared and said that He had risen from the dead. He would have been regarded merely as a teller of tales, and because there was no witness of His death, nobody would believe His resurrection. Death had to precede resurrection, for there could be no resurrection without it. A secret and unwitnessed death would have left the resurrection without any proof or evidence to support it. Again, why should He die a secret death, when He proclaimed the fact of His rising openly? Why should He drive out evil spirits and heal the man blind from birth and change water into wine, all publicly, in order to convince men that He was the Word, and not also declare publicly that incorruptibility of His mortal body, so that He might Himself be believed to be the Life?
...
For it was not the Word Himself Who needed an opening of the gates, He being Lord of all, nor was any of His works closed to their Maker. No, it was we who needed it, we whom He Himself upbore in His own body

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #190 on: April 12, 2007, 12:28:18 AM »
Dear Theognosis,

Can you explain what things in Anselm do you find heretical other than his exclusion of the Resurrection?  I've never got the feeling from looking at his writings that he excluded the Resurrection from salvation, although I do disagree with the concept of "infinite sin" and "robbing God's glory."  That's pretty much what I find disagreeable.  And also, can you show how this logically can lead to "immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc?"

And like EA said, we can't say that only the Resurrection was the sole cause of our salvation.  Yes, it is that great "monument" that shows proof He has defeated death, but not in exclusion to other things He did, like crucifixion.  And certainly because he talks little about the juridicial view doesn't mean he opposes it.

God bless.

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #191 on: April 12, 2007, 12:48:01 AM »
As for reducing the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to the judical aspect of the Crucifixion, that is surely not Orthodox. But the very point that many of us are making here is that to reduce the redemptive work of Christ exclusively to any model, be it therapeutic, or judical, is surely not Orthodox.

Would you agree with this? If so, then I think we can agree that despite our surface disagreement, we're essentially on the same page.

Yes, I think we're on the same page.


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #192 on: April 12, 2007, 01:59:00 AM »
People can redefine the "juridical view" all they want, but it is the juridical view of Anselm in particular that is heretical.  It leads to immaculate conception, infant damnation before baptism, etc.
Okay, of all the strawmen, or red herrings, or just plain silly statements I've seen on this thread, this is by far the silliest!  Just how does Anselm's juridical view of atonement lead to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  ???
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #193 on: April 12, 2007, 02:16:19 AM »
Regarding anti-Western Bias
I recognize that the RC church has introduced some teachings and practices that I, as an Orthodox Christian, must reject as heresies:
  • Universal papal sovereignty, with its eventual development into the dogma of papal infallibility
  • Unauthorized introduction of Filioque into the Nicene Creed

But I also recognize how nearsighted and wrong it is for me to reject many RC teachings as heretical merely because they're not Eastern.  The Orthodox Church remains the safeguard of true doctrine by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but, even though the Orthodox Church is predominantly Eastern in its theology due to its stronger geographical ties to Eastern culture, this does not mean the Orthodox Church can or even should be confined to her Eastern roots.  The Orthodox Church is the Church for all persons and can embrace and sanctify all cultures as valid means of communicating her Gospel of salvation in Christ Jesus.  Is this not part of what Christ meant when He told His disciples to "go and make disciples of all the nations"?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #194 on: April 12, 2007, 03:16:43 AM »
Okay, of all the strawmen, or red herrings, or just plain silly statements I've seen on this thread, this is by far the silliest!  Just how does Anselm's juridical view of atonement lead to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception?  ???

Silliest?  Take it from Anselm.   ;)

CHAPTER SIXTEEN
How God assumed from the sinful mass a sinless
human nature. The salvation of Adam and of Eve.

B. Therefore, just as you have disclosed the rationale of the
points which have been stated above, so I ask you to disclose the
rationale of the points about which I am still going to ask. First
of all, how did God assume from the sinful mass--i.e., from the
human race, which was completely contaminated with sin--a sinless
human nature (as something unleavened from something leavened)?
For although the conception of this man was clean and was
free from the sin of carnal delight, nevertheless the virgin from
whom He was assumed was conceived in iniquities, and her mother
conceived her in sins; and this virgin was born with original sin,
since she sinned in Adam, in whom all have sinned.1

A. Now that it has been established that that man is God and
is the Reconciler of sinners, there is no doubt that He is completely
sinless. However, this sinlessness is not possible unless He
was assumed sinless from the sinful mass. But if we cannot comprehend
in what way the wisdom of God accomplished this sinless
assumption, we ought not to be astonished; rather, we ought
reverently to tolerate the fact that within the mystery of so deep
a matter there is something which we cannot know. Indeed, God
has restored human nature in a more miraculous manner than He
created it; for it is just as easy for Him to do the one as the other.
Now, it is not the case that before human nature existed it sinned
and, as a result, ought not to have been created.

...

Hence, we must not doubt that Adam and Eve shared in
that redemption, even though DivineAuthority does not openly state this.

A. Moreover, since God created them and immutably planned
to create from them all other men, whom He was going to take
into the Heavenly City, it also seems incredible that He would exclude
these two from His plan.

B. Indeed, we ought to believe that He created them especially
for the following purpose: viz., that they would be in the company
of those for whose sake they were created.

A. You are thinking correctly. Nevertheless, no soul was able to
enter the heavenly paradise before the death of Christ, just as I
stated above about the palace of the king.

B. We hold this belief.

A. But the virgin from whom that man (of whom we are speaking)
was taken belonged to the class of those who through Him
were cleansed from their sins before His birth; and He was taken
from her in her purity
.

B. What you say would please me greatly except for the fact
that, although He ought to have His purity from sin from Himself,
He would seem to have it from His mother and to be pure
through her rather than through Himself.


By the way, this was taken straight from Cur Deus Homo.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 04:27:42 AM by Theognosis »

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #195 on: April 12, 2007, 03:23:18 AM »
Can you explain what things in Anselm do you find heretical other than his exclusion of the Resurrection? 

From the same source, said Anselm:

But if you will carefully consider human reconciliation, then
you will understand that the reconciliation of the Devil (about
which you asked) is impossible.


You can also check my previous post as to how Anselm's idea of the salvation of Adam and Eve differs from what we Orthodox are taught.


« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 03:46:59 AM by Theognosis »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #196 on: April 12, 2007, 08:56:11 AM »


The point being made is that the juridicial view is not neglected.  Many Orthodox consider the juridicial view heretical.  Even though he may have written more about ontology, he did not let alone the juridicial side of salvation.

I don't think these were misleading quotes.  If they were misleading, you would prove to us how these quotes are not juridicial.

Even a small part on St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" writes about some sort of "debt:"

This also proves that an Eastern Father did not merely say that Christ died "with all," but on behalf of all.  To play that "Koine Greek" game simply puts St. Athanasius in the wrong.

God bless.

Mina

(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

I think St. Athanasius is being misrepresented by some here. The only debt that was paid was to that of death, so Christ could give to mortals, immortality. Primal transgression is the state that humanity fell into after the fall. We took on flesh. This is the consequences of original sin. To reverse this Christ was put to death as the only sinless one.
 I really don't see any juridicial view in any of his writings unless there read out of context.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #197 on: April 12, 2007, 10:04:19 AM »
Regarding anti-Western Bias
I recognize that the RC church has introduced some teachings and practices that I, as an Orthodox Christian, must reject as heresies: ...

But I also recognize how nearsighted and wrong it is for me to reject many RC teachings as heretical merely because they're not Eastern

Bingo!

ozgeorge:
Quote
I don't know how many times I have to say this. No one is arguing that the western Church was not Orthodox before the schism.

Which wasn't my point either - there are things correctly Orthodox, theology and praxis, which continued in the West until the present. The West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic. If it was, there woudn't have been all the Western converts. The argument many are making is that "West" is inherently corrupt. Its a convenient dualistic (and simplistic) demonisation, but it doesn't help the case when discussing with Westerners ... unless the goal is to keep them all away. The point is - much in the West *post-schism* is not heretical (either being unchanged from before, or while being new - not contrary to Orthodoxy.)

Quote
From the website of St. Paul Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox Church:

What they do is no business of ours. Again, I'm Russian Western Rite Orthodox - we've been around much longer. Our hosts are leavened bread, which can actually be of any form as long as they meet the canonical specifications. Most often they are small prosfora similar to the Russian (but not stacked).

Part of the issue here, I think, is trying to treat the writings of Church Fathers and others (like Anselm) as if they were all trying to write dogmatic assertions. Theolougmena, people. Many of our sainted Church Fathers wrote things that if held as dogma would qualify one as a heretic.

The issue with Anselm - the OP is an article attacking - who? Who is asserting that Anselm is the correct belief? More importantly, who would agree that the article accurately reflects Anselm's thought? Which is why we Orthodox have to do better than that. If we're going to argue apologetics, we have to argue with the theology and praxis people actually have - not against non-current historical positions, or against parodies of positions. And, as I've tried to make the point - arguing against 'West' isn't apologetics, it is race hatred.
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #198 on: April 12, 2007, 04:46:08 PM »
(20) We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

I think St. Athanasius is being misrepresented by some here. The only debt that was paid was to that of death, so Christ could give to mortals, immortality. Primal transgression is the state that humanity fell into after the fall. We took on flesh. This is the consequences of original sin. To reverse this Christ was put to death as the only sinless one.
 I really don't see any juridicial view in any of his writings unless there read out of context.

Dear Demetrious,

The reason you are giving is an ontological reason.  It would make no sense if the "second reason" St. Athanasius talks about was the first reason you are giving.  That's like saying:

1.  The first reason was to end our corruptions and mortalities.
2.  The second reason was paying a debt to death, ending our corruptions and mortalities.

To me, that would misrepresent St. Athanasius as someone who just doesn't know how to give different reasons.

Dear Theognosis,

Can you explain that quote more?  I don't understand how that's heretical.

God bless.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #199 on: April 12, 2007, 05:41:14 PM »
The West is not monolithic, the West is not monolithic,.......... And, as I've tried to make the point - arguing against 'West' isn't apologetics, it is race hatred.
The west is not monolithic, yet anyone who argues against them is racist......
So basically, what you're saying is rather than rejecting bad theology, the "truth" is that I hate: Italians, Celts, Anglo-Saxons, the French Germans, Fins, the Dutch.... Or do you think the "West" is a race? But hang on, I must also hate Greeks, because I reject the theology of Barlaam the Calabrian...::)
Gimme a break!
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #200 on: April 12, 2007, 05:54:27 PM »
What I'm saying is: by all means reject bad theology, but quit confusing us (the West) with that bad theology. The West is not a particular theology - it is a region, interrelated peoples, and their civilization in its multiplicity of cultures - which us of the West *love*. Rejection of the West is not rejection of 'bad theology' but is rejection of what the West actually is: people.

So - say you reject Anselm's theology. I say I reject Anselm's theology. But, if you're going to reject 'the West' - remember you are rejecting all those who disagree with Anselm who are the West (me, many other Orthodox, St. Hilary, St. John Cassian, St. Ambrose, St. Vincent, St. Irenaeus, St. Hippolytus, St. Gregory the Great/Dialogist, St. Gregory of Tours, etc.)

Don't confuse Anselm, systems based on misunderstanding St. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas as 'the West' either. Aquinas himself wasn't a Thomist. And Aristotlean Scholasticism never gained such absolute power in the West that there weren't Western Hesychasts or Hesychastic theologians (there were, in fact - just not as a 'school'. They didn't need one.)

Barlaam, though, was Italian - there are Italian hesychasts though.

The West is not Anselmian.
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #201 on: April 12, 2007, 06:05:33 PM »
Dear Demetrious,

The reason you are giving is an ontological reason.  It would make no sense if the "second reason" St. Athanasius talks about was the first reason you are giving.  That's like saying:

1.  The first reason was to end our corruptions and mortalities.
2.  The second reason was paying a debt to death, ending our corruptions and mortalities.

To me, that would misrepresent St. Athanasius as someone who just doesn't know how to give different reasons.

Dear Theognosis,

Can you explain that quote more?  I don't understand how that's heretical.

God bless.

The first reason is stated here.

that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #202 on: April 12, 2007, 06:15:10 PM »
Aristibule,
This may come as a shock to you, but I live in the West, and was born in the West.
When, as Christians, we speak of "East" and "West", we are referring to the two sides of the Great Schism, not to races.
Quote
Don't confuse Anselm, systems based on misunderstanding St. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas as 'the West' either.
So what you want me to believe is that none of these have had any influence on the theology of the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches which split off from her in the reformation.....
Quote
Barlaam, though, was Italian - there are Italian hesychasts though.
Barlaam was Calabrian. Ethnically he was Greek, and ecclesiastically was originally Greek Orthodox. He only converted to Roman Catholicism after losing the battle with St. Gregory Palamas. His cacodoxy was, in my opinion, a direct result of the Western Captivity of the Orthodox Church in Calabria.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 06:32:31 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #203 on: April 12, 2007, 06:41:13 PM »
This may come as a shock to you, but I live in the West, and was born in the West.
When, as Christians, we speak of "East" and "West", we are referring to the two sides of the Great Schism, not to races.So what you want me to believe is that none of these have had any influence on the theology of the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches which split off from her in the reformation.....

No shock - I just don't find that you undestand the West very well.

There were two sides in the Great Schism, but not everyone in the East was on one side, and not everyone in the West on the other. And yes, what I am affirming is that Anselm's notions have not (and were not) universally received by everyone in the West. Of course, the 'Roman Catholic Church' did not exist at that time - there were many Catholic churches in the West, generally (but not universally) looking to Rome as first amongst bishops in the West. (The term Roman Catholic is actually quite late, post-Reformation, and was originally a derogatory English term.) The West was still having internal disagreements over theology at that time, as it would continue to. The point is that it was a complicated situation, and that for all that did follow Anselm - not everyone did (just as there were some in the West who proposed what Barlaam would not assent to, or those who did not assent to the Thomistic school of thought.) For every canon in Roman Catholic history, there have always continued to be dissenters (more often quiet about their dissent whenever Rome cared to seek them out.)

So, the argument is still that both the ideas and the terminology are *wrong* - call it Anselmian, or Western in the sense that it is one of many ideas arising in the West, but it is not the theology of *the* West (and never was.)
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #204 on: April 12, 2007, 06:58:47 PM »
So, the argument is still that both the ideas and the terminology are *wrong* - call it Anselmian, or Western in the sense that it is one of many ideas arising in the West, but it is not the theology of *the* West (and never was.)
You seem to think that my problem with Western theology is Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas (intersting, I only just noticed they all start with "A", so I wonder if thats the problem :D).
My issue isn't simply these philosophers & theologians, my issue is with what happened to the Church in the West and what it became leading up to and after the split. From the Orthodox perspective, the Church in the West fell into heresy, and is still in it.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Aristibule

  • Masspreost
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 515
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR - WRITE
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #205 on: April 12, 2007, 07:01:54 PM »
Well, in this instance - it is Anselm. If discussing other theologies, or sectarian splits - name them. But they aren't the West. From an Orthodox perspective, the West is Orthodox - you've got us Westerners (Byzantine rite and Western rite), and except for a few self-haters, they aren't the East. Apparently, your problem is that you don't believe the West can leave heresy or schism ... even when we are right here already in the Church.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 07:46:35 PM by ozgeorge »
"We must begin at once to "build again the tabernacle which is fallen down, and to build again the ruins thereof, and to set it up;" for HE WHO GAVE THE THOUGHT IN OUR HEART HE LAID ALSO THE RESPONSIBILITY ON US THAT THIS THOUGHT SHOULD NOT REMAIN BARREN." - J.J. Overbeck, 1866

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #206 on: April 12, 2007, 07:43:52 PM »
From an Orthodox perspective, the West is Orthodox - you've got us Westerners (Byzantine rite and Western rite), and except for a few self-haters, they aren't the East. Apparently, your problem is that you don't believe the West can leave heresy or schism ... even when we are right here already in the Church.
No, my problem is that the Church in the West is still in the Western Captivity, hence the farces we've seen in the WCC in the past which have only started to be resolved in the recent years (begining with the Thessaloniki Communique). The West is no longer Orthodox, and the Eastern Orthodox in the West easily slip into the same errors. I have no doubt that the West could recover it's Orthodoxy, but unlike yourself, I don't believe it has done so yet. The West has 1200 years to fix (from the start of the filioque).
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 07:46:14 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #207 on: April 12, 2007, 08:55:07 PM »
And the Orthodox have 1,200 years to recover their Catholicity.  :)

The filioque and the three A's are and have always been, in my opinion, just cover for ambitious Constantinople's rejection of papal primacy. 
« Last Edit: April 12, 2007, 08:57:52 PM by lubeltri »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #208 on: April 12, 2007, 09:18:32 PM »
And the Orthodox have 1,200 years to recover their Catholicity.  :)

The filioque and the three A's are and have always been, in my opinion, just cover for ambitious Constantinople's rejection of papal primacy. 

I know that's your opinion. I wouldn't expect anything else from you. :)
But this thread is dealing with a theological issue in the Orthodox Church (hence it is in the Faith Issues Forum). If you wish to discuss who's right and who's wrong between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, perhaps you'd like to start (yet another) thread about it in the Catholic-Orthodox Discussion Forum.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #209 on: April 12, 2007, 09:29:21 PM »
No thanks. We both know how that would turn out :)

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #210 on: April 12, 2007, 09:32:31 PM »
No thanks. We both know how that would turn out :)
I do. So let's not start it here. ;)
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #211 on: April 12, 2007, 09:51:54 PM »
I'm not sure your understanding yet minasoliman. I'll try and clear it up a bit. Death was dealt with in two different areas by our savior.  It had to be dealt with the father and the devil. That is why it's stated two times. St Gregory also deals with it twice by calling it a ransom and a reconciliation. The ransom is paid to the devil and so the devil is bound by having killed a sinless man. The reconciliation is to the father so as Christ the head and the body (us) can be reconciled.
The reason most don't understand this is because they think that god the father is linked to his creation. He isn't. We have to be in communion with Christ to have access to the father.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #212 on: April 13, 2007, 12:20:50 AM »
Theognosis and Demetrios,

You both seem rather cocksure and dogmatic in how you present your reasoning.  How do you know with such certainty that what you present is indeed THE definitive Orthodox position?  Has the Church really defined a consensual dogmatic position on this theological issue?  Does she even need to?  Or do you two just need to prove yourselves correct to assuage your pride?

I like the quote some other poster here drew from C.S. Lewis: "I believe Christ's death and resurrection redeems me from sin--just don't ask me how."
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline lubeltri

  • Latin Catholic layman
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,794
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #213 on: April 13, 2007, 01:16:46 AM »
Whoever put the "anti-Easternism" tag on the bottom of this thread must have a sense of humor. Nobody here has denied the validity of the Eastern perspective. I guess it's considered anti-Eastern these days to insist that dogmatizing one exclusive Atonement view is misguided.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #214 on: April 13, 2007, 02:08:40 AM »
I'm not sure your understanding yet minasoliman. I'll try and clear it up a bit. Death was dealt with in two different areas by our savior.  It had to be dealt with the father and the devil. That is why it's stated two times. St Gregory also deals with it twice by calling it a ransom and a reconciliation. The ransom is paid to the devil and so the devil is bound by having killed a sinless man. The reconciliation is to the father so as Christ the head and the body (us) can be reconciled.
The reason most don't understand this is because they think that god the father is linked to his creation. He isn't. We have to be in communion with Christ to have access to the father.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Well, okay.  I understand that no one can come to the Father except through Christ.  To be in communion with God was already happening way before the Incarnation, before the Fall.  What was Adam doing "walking with God?"  I suppose this isn't some sort side-by-side literal walking, with arm distance so as not to be in communion "yet" until the Son is Incarnate.

But does God like to be in communion with those who have fallen into corruption, as well as those who are born into it?  No!  Why?  Well, according to St. Athanasius, this was considered a punishment to us, separating ourselves from God.  If it was a mere sin that had no corrupt consequences, sure, we would repent, and be in communion with the Father through the Son once more.  But if corruption occured, not only does Christ has to reconcile us with God in repentance of our sins, but also take away that corruption that ails us all.  These are the two reasons, to renew our creation by the same Image that created us, and to take away the debt that exists between us and the Father.

Quote
It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die; but it was equally monstrous that beings which once had shared the nature of the Word should perish and turn back again into non-existence through corruption.

Notice here, God cannot go back on His word, to be consistent.  While, men brought death upon himself, St. Athanasius is saying that God does have the power to bring them out of death, but He promised them that they will "surely die."  At the same time, because God loved them, He could not just let them perish.  So to satisfy both Divine Consistency and Divine Love, where "mercy and justice have kissed," the Word of God had to be Incarnate.  Again, St. Athanasius asks:

Quote
Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue. Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning.

Therefore, it's not just corruption that is the issue, but also God's consistency that needs to be guarded.  Therefore the solution:

Quote
What--or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? Who, save the Word of God Himself, Who also in the beginning had made all things out of nothing? His part it was, and His alone, both to bring again the corruptible to incorruption and to maintain for the Father His consistency of character with all. For He alone, being Word of the Father and above all, was in consequence both able to recreate all, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be an ambassador for all with the Father.

Notice, I bolded and underlined "and" to show that there are two reasons, not just one, for the Incarnation.

He repeats that same language later using the word "debt."  He already gives the first reason, which is puting the corruptible into incorruption:

Quote
We have dealt as far as circumstances and our own understanding permit with the reason for His bodily manifestation. We have seen that to change the corruptible to incorruption was proper to none other than the Savior Himself, Who in the beginning made all things out of nothing; that only the Image of the Father could re-create the likeness of the Image in men, that none save our Lord Jesus Christ could give to mortals immortality, and that only the Word Who orders all things and is alone the Father's true and sole-begotten Son could teach men about Him and abolish the worship of idols

And the second reason was to pay a certain debt, different from the above reason:

Quote
But beyond all this, there was a debt owing which must needs be paid; for, as I said before, all men were due to die. Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, He might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man's account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.

And this is to keep the consistency of the Father while preserving His love and goodness.  I guess many other Holy fathers, whether it be East or West, have replaced the word "consistency" with the word "wrath."  But in any instance, St. Athanasius is very clear in his famous thesis, "On the Incarnation."  So I don't understand how you came up with that "first reason," i.e. being closer to the Father and abolishing the worship of idols.  This is only part, albeit a large part, of getting them to become in incorruption.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 02:11:15 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #215 on: April 13, 2007, 03:56:06 AM »
Don't confuse Anselm, systems based on misunderstanding St. Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas as 'the West' either.

If Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas do not represent the theology of 'the West', then who does?  Mother Theresa?


Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,500
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #216 on: April 13, 2007, 10:17:27 AM »
Well, okay.  I understand that no one can come to the Father except through Christ.  To be in communion with God was already happening way before the Incarnation, before the Fall.  What was Adam doing "walking with God?"  I suppose this isn't some sort side-by-side literal walking, with arm distance so as not to be in communion "yet" until the Son is Incarnate.



But does God like to be in communion with those who have fallen into corruption, as well as those who are born into it?  No!  Why?  Well, according to St. Athanasius, this was considered a punishment to us, separating ourselves from God.  If it was a mere sin that had no corrupt consequences, sure, we would repent, and be in communion with the Father through the Son once more.  But if corruption occured, not only does Christ has to reconcile us with God in repentance of our sins, but also take away that corruption that ails us all.  These are the two reasons, to renew our creation by the same Image that created us, and to take away the debt that exists between us and the Father.

Notice here, God cannot go back on His word, to be consistent.  While, men brought death upon himself, St. Athanasius is saying that God does have the power to bring them out of death, but He promised them that they will "surely die."  At the same time, because God loved them, He could not just let them perish.  So to satisfy both Divine Consistency and Divine Love, where "mercy and justice have kissed," the Word of God had to be Incarnate.  Again, St. Athanasius asks:


You making a big mistake. We don't owe any thing to the father. We are the ones that seperated our selves from him. When we ate from the tree of knowlege we did so to become our own gods out of pride. The consequenses of this is death. Because created is finite. It has to be in communion with the uncreated to be imortal.

For example St Athanasius writes that:


Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ; and of all these His earthly creatures He reserved especial mercy for the race of men. Upon them, therefore upon men who as animals, were essentially impermanent, He bestowed a grace which other creatures lacked- namely the impress of His own Image, a share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself, so that, reflecting Him and and themselves becoming reasonable and expressing the Mind of God even as He does, though in a limited degree, they might continue for ever in the blessed and only true life of the saints in paradise. (3) 

In chap 4 St Athansius continues:

For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence & love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone Who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. 


What your missing is the role of the Holy spirit in uniting created and uncreated. The Church is located within this Triadic plan, where the Father favors, the Son is the One Who offers Himself so that Creation can become incorporated and be able to have a relationship with the Father, and the Holy Spirit is the One Who liberates Creation from its limitations, from the restrictions of being created.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #217 on: April 13, 2007, 11:18:10 AM »
Quote
Whoever put the "anti-Easternism" tag on the bottom of this thread must have a sense of humor.

I had a good laugh when I saw that.

Quote
Nobody here has denied the validity of the Eastern perspective.

Least of all you I would suspect, since the Catholic Church declares the Eastern and Western views to be complementary.

Quote
I guess it's considered anti-Eastern these days to insist that dogmatizing one exclusive Atonement view is misguided.

Whether it's "anti" anything is actually just irrelevant.  There is no dogmatic statement beyond the creed, and what in the past have been considered authoritative sources for understanding what Orthodoxy teaches are now clearly rejected or ignored; probably because they don't fit many of the views or agendas currently being presented as the Orthodox understanding.

The thread title then is really a misnomer, because there is really no basis for saying what the thread title implies, because there is no dogma beyond the creed.  Any number of viewpoints could be theoretically valid.  What we have is a boondoggle to show somehow that the West has not moved beyond the Medieval period, and is stuck in some particular understanding of the Atonement.  Actually reading the essay again, I noticed this

Quote
Only now, are both Roman Catholic and Protestants taking a serious and critical look at this particular theory of atonement.

which now stands out to me as the most ridiculous statement of all.  Most of the serious and critical work about the Atonement has been done by Catholics and Protestants, such as the works of Aulen or Girard. The Catholic church is obviously not stuck in any one view - be it St. Augustine, St. Anselm or St. Thomas Aquinas.  It isn't even stuck in the Western paradigm as attested by the various liturgical and theological traditions that make up the Catholic Church.  It can also point to an authoritative and current catechism to express what it's understanding of the redemptive acts of Christ mean.

Our authority I guess is the liturgical texts (a dangerous idea in its own right) and the court of private opinion and interpretation (be it books, essays, or posts such as these).

This is a rather disconcerting thread, because all of the above when taken together is rather suggestive of the fact that the Orthodox view may be totally subjective and transitory in regards to the Atonement (and thus who knows what else).
« Last Edit: April 13, 2007, 11:21:02 AM by welkodox »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #218 on: April 13, 2007, 01:14:01 PM »
Dear Demetrios,

I fail to see or find anything in your post that outright proves I'm wrong or misinterpreting anything.  I never denied it was our fault, and I never excluded (or included for that matter) the Holy Spirit's role in our salvation.  I don't see how any of what you have cited or written negates the fact that Divine Consistency had to be preserved, and that is the "debt" that St. Athanasius was alluding to.

See, all this time, Orthodox has been trying to prove that there is one reason why the Word was incarnate, to unite the created and the uncreated.  But I have never found a contemporary "anti-Western" Orthodox mention anything about the Athanasian (HEY, there's someone that begin's with an "A"  ;D ) idea of also preserving the Divine Consistency.

God bless.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #219 on: April 13, 2007, 02:19:09 PM »

Our authority I guess is the liturgical texts (a dangerous idea in its own right) and the court of private opinion and interpretation (be it books, essays, or posts such as these).

How else would you have illiterate masses learn the theology of the church through the centuries? It seemed to keep the faith whole and kept most of the Orthodox world on the same page over the centuries. You must have thought so yourself because you were willing to convert in the 20th century. I think the Holy Fathers were brilliant to put our Creed, hymns, and the Holy Scripture into our services. Memorizing through hymn and prayer is an excellent teaching tool to help with memorization.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,457
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #220 on: April 13, 2007, 02:57:04 PM »
How else would you have illiterate masses learn the theology of the church through the centuries? It seemed to keep the faith whole and kept most of the Orthodox world on the same page over the centuries. You must have thought so yourself because you were willing to convert in the 20th century. I think the Holy Fathers were brilliant to put our Creed, hymns, and the Holy Scripture into our services. Memorizing through hymn and prayer is an excellent teaching tool to help with memorization. 

{aside}
Well - hymns and prayers weren't the only way: sermons were a big deal, and some were even like political speeches (especially during contentious times, like the Arian Controversy, when the masses were swayed to one camp or another largely by rhetoric used in the sermons and speeches).  {/aside}
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #221 on: April 13, 2007, 02:59:37 PM »
{aside}
Well - hymns and prayers weren't the only way: sermons were a big deal, and some were even like political speeches (especially during contentious times, like the Arian Controversy, when the masses were swayed to one camp or another largely by rhetoric used in the sermons and speeches).  {/aside}
If only they'd listened to the hymns instead. ;)
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,457
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #222 on: April 13, 2007, 03:01:29 PM »
If only they'd listened to the hymns instead. ;)

Where would the fun be??? :D
How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #223 on: April 13, 2007, 03:16:15 PM »
Quote
How else would you have illiterate masses learn the theology of the church through the centuries?

Primarily through the liturgical services, sermons and the art that adorns our churches.  I'm not questioning the idea of lex orandi, lex credendi at all.  We are a liturgical church, and it is in the liturgy that our faith is best put in to a tangible and communal form.  Yet I would still say our liturgical texts, hymns etc. in and of themselves cannot be considered the deposit of faith or the ultimate authority in the church.  The Old Believer's for instance believed that by changing the form of the liturgy, that the Russian Church by instituting the Nikonian reforms was actually altering the faith itself.  As sympathetic as I am to the plight of the Old Rite, and as horrendous as I think their persecution was, I don't think they were actually correct (though of course neither was Nikon in his assumptions, but that's another story).

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #224 on: April 13, 2007, 03:19:48 PM »
The Old Believer's for instance believed that by changing the form of the liturgy, that the Russian Church by instituting the Nikonian reforms was actually altering the faith itself.
And they were right. Russian Priests now think they have the power to forgive sins. ;)
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.