Author Topic: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...  (Read 155279 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests 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 #270 on: April 14, 2007, 10:03:23 PM »
St. Athanasius is right and my I add, a pillar of Orthodoxy.
St. Athanasios is right...Minasoliman's interpretation of him is not.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2007, 10:03:42 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 #271 on: April 14, 2007, 10:21:05 PM »
Having read the excerpt of Anselm that you provided, I have to say that this appears to me to be primarily a discourse on Mary's purity within the framework of that doctrine of Original Sin posited by St. Augustine, with very little said about any particular view of atonement.

I am pleased that you have spared some time to read it.  Anyway, the "discourse" presents an assumption which attempts to defend a glaring weakness in Anselm's view of atonement.  Without this assumption, Anselm's theory fails for Jesus would have been conceived guilty of "original sin"; in effect, he would have been incapable of redeeming us in the context of the juridical view. 

Quote
My question to you, then, is this: Do you object to Anselm's actual doctrine of atonement,

I have read Anselm's work in its entirety and I reject his assumptions and conclusions without reservation.

Quote
or do you object to what you mistakenly interpret to be Anselm's doctrine of atonement because of the preconceived notions you read into his texts?

Anselm states his ideas in a very straightforward manner.  One does not need to have preconceived notions in order to understand him.


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 #272 on: April 14, 2007, 11:38:22 PM »
Dear George,

I have read St. Athanasius over and over again.  You seem to ignore a vital part of what St. Athanasius is trying to convey.  Let me break down the quotes you've given me:

Quote
The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting.

There's no question about that.  Man's fall is a monstrous thing.  God cannot just let that happen....BUT...

Quote
It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die

It's equally monstrous and "unthinkable" (did you think about it...shame on you  :P) that God should just simply get rid of the death and corruption that ailed man.  God said man will surely die, and He CANNOT go back on His word.  Notice also, it's interesting because while we concentrate so much on the fact that it's our own fault, we forget that it's also God's commandment that this should happen if this happened.  If it's merely just a "my own fault, God didn't create death" type of arguement, it wouldn't have been necessary for St. Athanasius to be so insistent on Goid not going back "on His word."

And he repeats that it's just as monstrous as losing His consistency that He would just let man die in corruption.

The other quote also proves my point.  You're ignoring his "consistency" reasoning:

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.

He starts by saying that man might simply think it's "worthy of God" and "argue further that" (which means there were those who thought that repentance kept worthiness to God AND got rid of corruption at the same time) it can also get rid of corruption, as if the consequences of repentance is eternal life and consequences of sin is death.  But man's logic, although sounds true, has its flaws.

I repeat, St. Athanasius is about to refute what people believed repentance did:
1.  Made God look worthy
2.  Got rid of corruption

His answer:

Quote
But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue.

He refutes the "worthy" part by showing that Repentance would make God look untrue.  HIS WORD MUST BE HELD or God will be inconsistent, which is not something God is.

Then, he also talks about the ontological part:

Quote
Nor

That word means that there was a reason before.  Just in case you missed it, go back and read it again.

Quote
Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature ; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning.

Self-explanatory.  This is the ontological side of things.  Previously, he was arguing, believe it or not, the jurisdictional side of things.  Here, he's arguing the ontology.  Moving right along...

Quote
Had it been a case of a trespass only, and not of a subsequent corruption, repentance would have been well enough;

Assuming of course that God did not say "You will surely die."  His word is just as important as the actions that occured.

Quote
but when once transgression had Begun men came under the power of the corruption proper to their nature and were bereft of the grace which belonged to them as creatures in the Image of God.

pure ontology, complementing only his jurisdictional part of "Divine Consistency"

Quote
No, repentance could not meet the case. What-or rather Who was it that was needed for such grace and such recall as we required? "

The answer:  Have God the Word Himself who created man become incarnate to take death and corruption upon Himself and then destroy it, fixing the situation, solving both the Divine Consistency and the Divine Mercy, solving that "Divine Dilemma" of "mercy and justice."

Quote
One can repent of murdering someone, and God will forgive them

Unless God said that if you murder, you will surely die.  If the person repents, shouldn't forgiveness entail the removing of death? 

"George, if you murder Jack, you will surely die."
(George kills Jack) "I'm sorry, I'm sorry."
"I'd forgive you, but I can't go back on my word"
"Noooooooooooooo, but you're merciful."
"Yes, but I also have to stay true to my word.  Don't worry, don't lose hope...there is a way to solve all of this."

See, you're concentrating so much on the ontological aspect, on the disease, and you're forgetting the aspect St. Athanasius places equal importance on ("equally monstrous" he says, which basically means, God's word must stay true), the aspect that God cannot change His word.

Yes, forgiveness did happen, but it obviously wasn't enough.  The sacrifices and the Law were all temporary solutions, and at the same time lacking a substance that "needed fulfillment" (while miraculously filled with "allegorical prophecies").  So, the lambs getting killed forgave the sins of man, but the lambs did not rise from the Dead.  A totally "fair" forgiveness had to be followed by a healing of what the sin has caused.  The Lamb of God, the Word Incarnate Himself provided a means to be both the forgiveness of sins and the root of eternal life, ensuring to keep the Divine Consistency and Divine Mercy.

[sweating and wiping off forehead]God bless.[/sweating and wiping off forehead]
« Last Edit: April 14, 2007, 11:43:02 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 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 #273 on: April 14, 2007, 11:39:13 PM »
St. Athanasius is right and my I add, a pillar of Orthodoxy.

I agree.  He will always be a vital pillar of Orthodoxy.
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 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 #274 on: April 14, 2007, 11:51:18 PM »
Double post.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2007, 11:58:16 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 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 #275 on: April 14, 2007, 11:54:58 PM »
Mina,

Honestly you're wasting your time running around in circles with these people. They're too captivated and entrenched in their position to admit its dishonesty.

You will keep requoting St. Athanasius, they will keep ignoring the relevant statements and clauses and in turn highlight the parts of the passage that emphasise the model of redemption they're obsessed with. You will then remind them that you already accept those aspects of St. Athanasius' soteriology, and emphasise that your point is not that such aspects are absent from St. Athanasius' soteriology, but rather that other aspects are to be found also. Because they presume such concepts to be mutually exclusive, they will twist and turn the true intention of St. Athanasius until they have imputed their false logic into a work produced in an era where such a false dichotomy between justice and love did not exist. They will then attack justice as being unfitting to attribute to God by virtue of the idea that it reflects our human notion of justice; they will appeal to their oversimplified and immature understanding of apophatic theology as validation of such an argument, and they will then proceed to unwittingly contradict themselves by appealing to a notion of love which is no less reflective of the human experience (i.e. a love that is blind to justice) and in turn impute that notion onto God nevertheless. Circle repeats ad infinitum.

St. Athanasius' words speak for themselves; they don't need to be tirelessly repeated and defended. You should have quit 5 pages ago. I did.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:01:14 AM 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 Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #276 on: April 15, 2007, 12:05:45 AM »
I agree.  He will always be a vital pillar of Orthodoxy.
Minasoliman: Do you still believe all will resurrect?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:06:36 AM by Demetrios G. »

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 #277 on: April 15, 2007, 12:33:14 AM »
Quote
The law of death, which followed from the Transgression, prevailed upon us, and from it there was no escape. The thing that was happening was in truth both monstrous and unfitting.I
t's equally monstrous and "unthinkable" (did you think about it...shame on you  Tongue) that God should just simply get rid of the death and corruption that ailed man.  God said man will surely die, and He CANNOT go back on His word.  Notice also, it's interesting because while we concentrate so much on the fact that it's our own fault, we forget that it's also God's commandment that this should happen if this happened.  If it's merely just a "my own fault, God didn't create death" type of arguement, it wouldn't have been necessary for St. Athanasius to be so insistent on Goid not going back "on His word."

No Mina! Stop and think! You are saying that what St. Athanasios calls "the law of death" was created by God, and that He cannot break His own law. But "God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good", and "the dead do not praise the Lord, neither they that go down into the silence", and "The Lord is the God of the living and not of the dead." Just as sin is evil and can have no part with God, Death is also evil and can have no part with God. Death is the absence of Life, and the only Source of Life is God.
When God says in Genesis that on the day Adam disobeys His commandment "you will surely die", He is stating a fact; namely that sin by definition cuts us off from the Source of Life. This is the "law of death" St. Athanasios is talking about. What is impure and evil cannot have anything to do with what is Pure and Good, and evil cannot have any part of God. The concept is ontological not judicial. Don't be confused by the term "law". When we talk about the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are not talking about judicial laws. And note that St. Athanasios calls it "the law of death", not the "law of God".

It would, of course, have been unthinkable that God should go back upon His word and that man, having transgressed, should not die.
Quote
Nor does repentance recall men from what is according to their nature ; all that it does is to make them cease from sinning.
Self-explanatory.  This is the ontological side of things.
No, Mina. It is exactly the same as what St. Athanasios said before, just a different way of saying it. In both cases, St. Athanasios is saying the same thing and is speaking ontologically.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 01:00:33 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #278 on: April 15, 2007, 12:46:34 AM »
You will keep requoting St. Athanasius, they will keep ignoring the relevant statements and clauses and in turn highlight the parts of the passage that emphasise the model of redemption they're obsessed with.....Circle repeats ad infinitum....You should have quit 5 pages ago. I did.
Rubbish.
The very quotes you guys want to use to make St. Athanasios sound judicial are the very ones that are being addressed. You quit because your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny, not because we're going in circles.
There is no point in quoting "statements and clauses" from the Fathers if one doesn't understand them. Perhaps together we can find what the Fathers are actually saying, rather than trying to find "statements and clauses" that back up our positions.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Fr. David

  • The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,833
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #279 on: April 15, 2007, 01:26:51 AM »
If I could...

I don't remember if I've even commented in this thread--I can't do a search, and time prevents me from going back through all of this--but I'm thinking about the two articles I wrote (here and here) in the context of the immediate discussion...

OVERALL STATEMENT: Would it not be fair to say that the juridical aspect of God's justice is, really, a ruling on our ontological deficiency?

I mean...God demands a perfect humanity for union with Himself and will take no less, for to do so would 1) go against the reality of holiness' incompatibility with iniquity and 2) damn us all as a natural consequence...and His love for us could not bear the latter, nor would His holiness allow for the former to pass unchallenged and unconquered.

So...Christ comes, satisfies the economy of the Father, Who judges all this to be good...for that is what it truly is, not merely what it is declared to be.

Forgive me if I seem self-promoting; I simply see the two sides as complementing each other...
Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)

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 #280 on: April 15, 2007, 01:43:28 AM »
George,

Just trying to wade through what I read you and Mina both arguing here, so no attempt from me to debate either of you...  Just thinking...  :-\

Even though Mina speaks of consistency as a juridical concept, I'm not sure she even knows what that means.  How does one define juridical?  Could you both be arguing from different understandings of the term juridical, so that you end up speaking past each other?  I think of the Divine consistency Mina keeps preaching as more of an ontological concept myself, a concept speaking of the very nature of God.

Divine consistency appears to walk hand-in-hand with the concept of Divine immutability.  By His very immutable nature, God cannot change.  God told man, "If you eat of the forbidden fruit, you will surely die."  He could not rescind this law by fiat and be consistent with Himself--His very unchanging nature required that He allow man to taste the ontological consequence of his sin.  Just like if I, being so dense as to not be aware of the law of gravity, was to walk off a cliff; nature would not show its necessary consistency if it were to allow me to avoid the consequences of my stupidity by allowing me to walk on air (just like in the cartoons).


Another thought:

Believing that God created us to live only in Him and that separation from Him due to sin leads only to death, thus making the "law of death" intrinsic to our nature as bearers of God's image, is it not possible to say that God created this "law of death"?  Is it inherently wrong to speak of this ontological "law of death" as a Divine law that must be satisfied?  Is the term satisfied even a good word for this context because of the juridical connotations we attach to it?  Is it possible to see satisfaction as something other than a juridical idea?  Much of the problem I see here is that we're arguing over what various words communicate, often following too closely the definitions we attach to certain words until we reach the point of absurdity.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 01:45:39 AM by PeterTheAleut »
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 #281 on: April 15, 2007, 01:59:59 AM »
Another way of understanding the word satisfaction (please forgive me for the condescendingly absurd simplicity of this statement):
I'm hungry, so I satisfy my hunger by eating.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #282 on: April 15, 2007, 02:07:55 AM »
Quote
It's equally monstrous and "unthinkable" (did you think about it...shame on you) that God should just simply get rid of the death and corruption that ailed man.

Unthinkable?  Death is an aberration in God's creation!  Only the devil would ever say that it would be monstrous to eliminate the aberration.

Quote
God said man will surely die, and He CANNOT go back on His word.

Wrong.  God did not say that man will remain dead forever.  Restoring the world to its original glory was always part of God's plan!


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 #283 on: April 15, 2007, 02:10:05 AM »
David,
I have read your articles, and I liked them, but I don't think we can draw the conclusion that the "judicial" and "ontological" views complement each other, and I'm not sure how you are trying to make this connection when you say:
I mean...God demands a perfect humanity for union with Himself and will take no less, for to do so would 1) go against the reality of holiness' incompatibility with iniquity and 2) damn us all as a natural consequence...and His love for us could not bear the latter, nor would His holiness allow for the former to pass unchallenged and unconquered.
(1) above, is ontological- evil and good, impurity and purity cannot mix, because that would mean that God is no longer Pure, and therefore, no longer God., and in (2), it is not God Who is damns us, and He acts, not with "Justice" but with Mercy to solve an ontological problem:
our impurity and consequential seperation from Him Who is the All Pure Source of Life vs. His desire that we be united with Him

Peter the Aleut,
I think it is wrong to think of God as the Creator of death. The Source of Life cannot create Death. Just as darkness is the result of being cut off from a source of light, Death is the result of being cut off from the Source of Life. Thus, "the law of death" is not a "Divine Law", it's the natural consequence of being cut off from the Divine. Deification is not "one option among many", it is the only option if we are to attain Eternal Life, and it is intrinsic to our true Human Nature. We made it impossible to attain by leaving the Source of Life, and Christ made it possible again by Sanctifying Human Nature at the Incarnation, and delivering the souls of those in Hades by His own Death. God took back from Death what was His. To say that He put them there in the first place makes God the sadistic being that modern Atheists accuse us of making Him into.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #284 on: April 15, 2007, 02:16:51 AM »
Wrong.  God did not say that man will remain dead forever.  Restoring the world to its original glory was always part of God's plan!
However, would you not agree that there's a BIG difference between dying once and remaining dead forever?
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 #285 on: April 15, 2007, 02:29:54 AM »
Peter the Aleut,
I think it is wrong to think of God as the Creator of death. The Source of Life cannot create Death. Just as darkness is the result of being cut off from a source of light, Death is the result of being cut off from the Source of Life. Thus, "the law of death" is not a "Divine Law", it's the natural consequence of being cut off from the Divine. Deification is not "one option among many", it is the only option if we are to attain Eternal Life, and it is intrinsic to our true Human Nature. We made it impossible to attain by leaving the Source of Life, and Christ made it possible again by Sanctifying Human Nature at the Incarnation, and delivering the souls of those in Hades by His own Death. God took back from Death what was His. To say that He put them there in the first place makes God the sadistic being that modern Atheists accuse us of making Him into.
I agree with everything you say in your statements above.  However, the law of death is not the same as death itself.  God, the very life of all, cannot create death; to say otherwise implies that death is a thing in and of itself that can even be created.  Death is NOT a self-existent thing that stands opposed to life; death is merely the absence of life.  The law of death, though, is a law of nature.  God created nature, so one can say that God created the law of death as a law to govern His creation, much as one can say the same about the law of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).  (Of course, I suppose one can also say, as you do, that the law of death is just part of how God created us and is therefore not some thing per se that God created.  Maybe the law of death is merely a semantic concept constructed by man to describe our ontological dependence on God.)  IMO, to say that God created the law of death is NOT the same thing as saying that God created death itself.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 02:45:03 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #286 on: April 15, 2007, 02:50:20 AM »
But if you say that God created "the law of death" you are saying that God could have chosen not to let sin lead to death. Our redemption, therefore, is a farce which never needed to happen in the first place. God places us in Hades then gets us out again....some Redeemer that would be! It would be like a firefighter who starts forest fires then plays the hero.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 02:54:33 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #287 on: April 15, 2007, 03:17:59 AM »
But if you say that God created "the law of death" you are saying that God could have chosen not to let sin lead to death.
I am in fact saying this!  :o  All jest aside, for God to have chosen "not to let sin lead to death" would have been inconsistent with His incorruptible nature.  God cannot by His very nature allow Himself to be corrupted by uniting Himself to the corruption caused by sin.  Sin, therefore, MUST separate man from God.

(In this way, maybe one can say that God did not create the "law of death" as an act of His will, but that the "law of death" emanates naturally from the incorruptibility of His very Divine nature.)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 03:33:57 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #288 on: April 15, 2007, 03:44:32 AM »
I am in fact saying this!  :o  All jest aside, for God to have chosen "not to let sin lead to death" would have been inconsistent with His incorruptible nature.  God cannot by His very nature allow Himself to be corrupted by uniting Himself to the corruption caused by sin.  Sin, therefore, MUST separate man from God.
That's correct. Which is what I've been saying all along. God could not have included anything in the Laws of Nature which would prevent sin leading to death, so, contrary to the Laws of Nature, a Virgin gave birth to a Human Being Who is God....We were redeemed because God suspended and contradicted the Laws of Nature. And when, as True Man, God died on the Cross, He himself entered the realm of Death, and even the Dead were no longer seperated from Him, and He raised them up and granted them Life again.
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #289 on: April 15, 2007, 09:17:39 AM »
I am in fact saying this!  :o  All jest aside, for God to have chosen "not to let sin lead to death" would have been inconsistent with His incorruptible nature.  God cannot by His very nature allow Himself to be corrupted by uniting Himself to the corruption caused by sin.  Sin, therefore, MUST separate man from God.

(In this way, maybe one can say that God did not create the "law of death" as an act of His will, but that the "law of death" emanates naturally from the incorruptibility of His very Divine nature.)

Not exactly. We were created to be able to die. We were never eternal from the start. The only thing that keeps us alive is the very communion with being, witch is god. By separating ourselves from the life giving fountain. We lost the holy spirit witch kept us eternal. The incarnation of Christ was exactly this. The repair of the fallen state we fell into. The giving back of the holy spirit to man witch kept him eternal in Paradise. Notice how Christ was raised.
Romans 8:11
And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 10:31:50 AM by Demetrios G. »

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 #290 on: April 15, 2007, 10:59:52 AM »
Quote
The very quotes you guys want to use to make St. Athanasios sound judicial are the very ones that are being addressed.


If St. Athanasius explicates that our redemption was achieved by (inter alia) the lifting of "God's sentence", and yet you persist in essentially denying that God could be responsible in any way for any sentence, then I am inclined to believe that you are not really addressing St. Athanasius on his own terms.

Quote
Perhaps together we can find what the Fathers are actually saying, rather than trying to find "statements and clauses" that back up our positions.

The relevant statements and clauses are an essential part of the overall context and significantly qualify St. Athanasius' overall soteriological outlook; they cannot be ignored, overlooked, or downplayed.

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 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 #291 on: April 15, 2007, 11:16:59 AM »
If St. Athanasius explicates that our redemption was achieved by (inter alia) the lifting of "God's sentence", and yet you persist in essentially denying that God could be responsible in any way for any sentence, then I am inclined to believe that you are not really addressing St. Athanasius on his own terms.

EA,
Again, you misquote St. Athanasios and take his words out of context.
In answer to the Arians, Saint Athanasios is talking about the remission of sin and the fact that Christ had the authority to forgive sins on Earth, which proves that He was not a creature, but God Himself. Here is what St. Athanasios actually says:
Quote
And how, were the Word a creature, had He power to undo God's sentence, and to remit sin, whereas it is written in the Prophets, that this is God's doing? For 'who is a God like unto You, that pardons iniquity, and passes by transgression Micah 7:18 ?' For whereas God has said, 'Dust you are, and unto dust shall you return Genesis 3:19 ,' men have become mortal; how then could things originate undo sin?

Therefore, since the Saint is saying that Christ had the authority to "undo God's sentence" by forgiving sins on Earth, the attempt to use this as "proof" that the Saint is saying that our redemption through the Cross and Resurrection was judicial in nature is ludicrous. In answer to the Arians, St. Athanasios is showing that Christ is God by referring to the fact that in the Gospel, Christ had the authority to "undo God's sentence"  by forgiving sins....and He was doing this in the Gospel before His Death and Resurrection. If we take the judicial view of Redemption, wouldn't it be impossible for Christ to remit sins before the "debt" was paid by Him?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 11:57:18 AM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #292 on: April 15, 2007, 12:31:20 PM »
Please delete.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:38:55 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 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 #293 on: April 15, 2007, 12:33:03 PM »
Please delete.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:38:41 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 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 #294 on: April 15, 2007, 12:36:41 PM »
Please delete.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:38:26 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 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 #295 on: April 15, 2007, 12:38:06 PM »
Quote
Again, you misquote St. Athanasios and take his words out of context.
In answer to the Arians, Saint Athanasios is talking about the remission of sin and the fact that Christ had the authority to forgive sins on Earth, which proves that He was not a creature, but God Himself.

First of all, I haven't misquoted St. Athanasius; the exact phrase "God's sentence"--the only phrase of him quoted in my last post--is genuinely his.

Second of all, I haven't taken St. Athanasius out of context for nowhere have I implied or suggested that St. Athanasius is NOT "talking about the remission of sin and the fact that Christ had the authority to forgive sins on Earth, which proves that He was not a creature, but God Himself."

Ultimately, you have made these false presumptions because you are missing the entire point which relates to the telling indication of the general relationship between sin, death, and God's sentence, found in the quote in question, rather than the specific circumstances to which it pertains.

St. Athanasius indicates that in order for sin to be remitted, Christ had to "undo God's sentence". If remitting sin necessitates the undoing of "God's sentence", then this very sentence for which God is in some way responsible, is in some way related to the very condition which accounts for sin. According to St. Paul, this condition is none other than the condition of death itself (1 Cor. 15:56), ergo, the condition of death relates in some way to a sentence for which God is responsible.

As to understanding the nature of the Lord Christ's pre-death forgiveness of sins given that His death was consistently taught to be for the very remission of sins, that is an issue that is no way related to the question at hand, and one that bears no unique implications for the so-called juridical model of redemption.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 12:42:56 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 Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #296 on: April 15, 2007, 04:23:45 PM »
There was never a punishment from god. Death isn't a punishment from him. Someone that is eternal can never die to begin with. That's what eternal means. If we were eternal from the begining we couldn't die then or now. Punished or not. We seperated from god just as the devil seperated from him. It was out of pride. Now because we were kept immortal by the HS once we lost the HS we die. We fall into our natural condition witch is animal like and because we are created we are finite. Meaning what ever has it's foundation in created can die. If there is a begining there is an end.

St Athansius

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.

So I'll ask you how can God sentence someone to death if he is already capable of dieing?


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 #297 on: April 15, 2007, 04:57:52 PM »
Therefore, since the Saint is saying that Christ had the authority to "undo God's sentence" by forgiving sins on Earth, the attempt to use this as "proof" that the Saint is saying that our redemption through the Cross and Resurrection was judicial in nature is ludicrous. In answer to the Arians, St. Athanasios is showing that Christ is God by referring to the fact that in the Gospel, Christ had the authority to "undo God's sentence"  by forgiving sins....and He was doing this in the Gospel before His Death and Resurrection. If we take the judicial view of Redemption, wouldn't it be impossible for Christ to remit sins before the "debt" was paid by Him?
Not necessarily impossible... if one understands that Christ's passion and resurrection, while remaining events in time, also occurred in eternity, where before and after do not exist as we understand them.

I don't see that anyone here is trying to prove that Athanasius's view of salvation was juridical based on those passages of his writing that speak of a more juridical viewpoint.  What I see is people trying to show you how Athanasius didn't speak ENTIRELY of the ontological nature of redemption as you want to believe, that the Saint did write at times in words that seem to express a more juridical view of the Cross and Resurrection.  Contrary to what you would like to believe, the theology of St. Athanasius is not as simplistic as you make it, nor is the juridical view of salvation ENTIRELY ABSENT from the thought of the Eastern Fathers.  For instance, I offer the following quote from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

2. And wonder not that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who died on its behalf. Moreover one man's sin, even Adam's, had power to bring death to the world; but if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign by the righteousness of the One? And if because of the tree of food they were then east out of paradise, shall not believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the Tree of Jesus? If the first man formed out of the earth brought in universal death, shall not He who formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, being Himself the Life? If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?
From St. Cyril's 13th Catechetical Lecture, which can be read in full here:
http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/495/Jerusalem_Catecheses_12_24_Cyril_of_Jerusalem.html.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 05:02:25 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

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 #298 on: April 15, 2007, 07:59:22 PM »
Peter,
it isn't the use of words like "ransom" and "wrath" which are the problem, but trather, it is when they are taken literally. If I take what St. Cyril is saying literally, then I must believe that the immutable God changed from being wrathful to merciful. Even Scripture says that God was "grieved" that He had that He had created the world (Genesis 6:7) but is this really possible? Could God really have felt that He'd made a mistake in creating the Earth and changed His mind? Are we meant to take this literally?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

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 #299 on: April 15, 2007, 08:37:27 PM »
Peter,
it isn't the use of words like "ransom" and "wrath" which are the problem, but trather, it is when they are taken literally. If I take what St. Cyril is saying literally, then I must believe that the immutable God changed from being wrathful to merciful. Even Scripture says that God was "grieved" that He had that He had created the world (Genesis 6:7) but is this really possible? Could God really have felt that He'd made a mistake in creating the Earth and changed His mind? Are we meant to take this literally?
Yeah, I see what you mean.  When we speak theology, such as the Fathers did, we seek to express in manmade words God Who is utterly beyond human comprehension.  Even the most erudite words can therefore be little more than feeble attempts to describe the indescribable.  Words can and should be used to communicate what God has revealed to us of His nature, but they are nothing but manmade constructs.  When we follow too closely the literal meaning of our words, we risk remaking God in our image rather than allowing God to remake us in His image.  We should thus not attach ourselves too strongly to the definitions of our words--very often what we should do is merely fall down in complete silence before the Divine majesty of God and recognize that we "see now but through a glass, darkly".
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 08:38:01 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #300 on: April 15, 2007, 10:32:12 PM »
Words can and should be used to communicate what God has revealed to us of His nature, but they are nothing but manmade constructs.  When we follow too closely the literal meaning of our words, we risk remaking God in our image rather than allowing God to remake us in His image.  We should thus not attach ourselves too strongly to the definitions of our words--very often what we should do is merely fall down in complete silence before the Divine majesty of God and recognize that we "see now but through a glass, darkly".

Very true.  And as far as the so-called "juridical" view of atonement is concerned, not one theologian in recent memory--as far as I know--has provided us with a concise and definitive exposition of the matter.  Many in the West, like Anselm, have presented their theories; unfortunately, I find them all untenable from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.  St. Paul gives us a clue as to how a juridical view could be formulated:

Hebrews 9
11  But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13  For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


In verse 15, the purpose of the Crucifixion appears to be twofold:

(1) To inaugurate a New Covenant with Jesus as the high priest for the salvation of all people, i.e. the Church and its Sacraments.

(2) To enter the holy place and redeem the transgressors of the Old Covenent in its own terms, i.e. the Hebrews and the Torah (verse 15).

In opinion, any juridical concept of the atonement remains invalid unless these two things are given emphasis.  And of course, the resurrection should be part and parcel of it.

But then this is me looking through a glass, darkly. :)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 10:40:56 PM by Theognosis »

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 #301 on: April 15, 2007, 10:50:30 PM »
Very true.  And as far as the so-called "juridical" view of atonement is concerned, not one theologian in recent memory--as far as I know--has provided us with a concise and definitive exposition of the matter.  Many in the West, like Anselm, have presented their theories; unfortunately, I find them all untenable from the Eastern Orthodox perspective.  St. Paul gives us a clue as to how a juridical view could be formulated:

Hebrews 9
11  But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12  Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13  For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14  How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15  And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
17  For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.


In verse 15, the purpose of the Crucifixion appears to be twofold:

(1) To inaugurate a New Covenant with Jesus as the high priest for the salvation of all people, i.e. the Church and its Sacraments.

(2) To enter the holy place and redeem the transgressors of the Old Covenent in its own terms, i.e. the Hebrews and the Torah (verse 15).

In opinion, any juridical concept of the atonement remains invalid unless these two things are given emphasis.  And of course, the resurrection should be part and parcel of it.

But then this is me looking through a glass, darkly. :)

One thing that comes to mind when I read this excerpt from the Epistle to the Hebrews is that its author was trying to communicate Christ's work of redemption using Old Testament concepts his intended Jewish audience would understand.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Theognosis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 248
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #302 on: April 15, 2007, 10:58:29 PM »
One thing that comes to mind when I read this excerpt from the Epistle to the Hebrews is that its author was trying to communicate Christ's work of redemption using Old Testament concepts his intended Jewish audience would understand.

Exactly my thoughts as well.  Could it be that the juridical view of salvation is applicable for the Jewish mindset only? 

Since the Church Fathers in the East were more concerned about the ontological and therapeutic nature of our Lord's death and resurrection, I would suppose so.

« Last Edit: April 15, 2007, 11:05:25 PM by Theognosis »

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #303 on: April 16, 2007, 08:52:45 PM »
Just wanted to throw in some St John Chrysostom to explain the reason for an Orthodox baptism.



As thus: after the enunciation of those mystical and fearful words, and the awful rules of the doctrines which have come down from heaven, this also we add at the end when we are about to baptize, bidding them say. "I believe in the resurrection of the dead", and upon this faith we are baptized. For after we have confessed this together with the rest, then at last are we let down into the fountain of those sacred streams. This therefore Paul recalling to their minds said, "if there be no resurrection, why art thou then baptized for the dead?" i.e., the dead bodies. For in fact with a view to this art thou baptized, the resurrection of thy dead body, believing that it no longer remains dead. And thou indeed in the words makest mention of a resurrection of the dead; but the priest, as in a kind of image, signifies to thee by very deed the things which thou hast believed and confessed in words. When without a sign thou believest, then he gives thee the sign also; when thou hast done thine own part, then also doth God fully assure thee. How and in what manner? By the water. For the being baptized and immersed and then emerging, is a symbol of the descent into Hades and return thence. Wherefore also Paul calls baptism a burial, saying, "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death." (Rom. vi. 4.) By this he makes that also which is to come credible, I mean, the resurrection of our bodies.

You can read the whole homily here  http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xli.html
« Last Edit: April 16, 2007, 09:28:41 PM by Demetrios G. »

Offline BrotherAidan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,568
  • OC.net
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #304 on: April 16, 2007, 11:51:34 PM »
Here is definitive proof that "western Christians" do not have a singular understanding of the atonement stuck in substitution and blood sacrifice. This was the "Unison confession of faith" (recited by the congregation) in the bulletin of my sister's Presbyterian church for their worship service this past Sunday:

"God's reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice a lamb, a shepherd's life given for His sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil.
These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God's love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God's reconciling work. The risen Christ is the savior for all mankind. Those joined to him by faith are set right with God and commissioned to serve as his reconciling community. Christ is the head of this community, the church, which began with the apostles and continues through all generations." - from the Presbyterian Confession of 1967.

In fact, I think this statement shatters a number of stereotypes that some Orthodox have regarding protestants.


Offline BrotherAidan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,568
  • OC.net
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #305 on: April 16, 2007, 11:53:17 PM »
One thing we converts have had to do is examine our former beliefs, learn about and begin to understand Orthodoxy, and many of us also considered the claims of Roman Catholicism and perhaps other liturgical traditions during our journey into Orhtodoxy. We can at least speak to some subjects based on experience and breadth of research.

I would encourage some Orthodox to not "ghetto-ize" themselves (whether cradles or hyperdox converts wishing demonize everything from their past). Talk to some Christians from other faith communities to learn what real people (not paper tigers) believe. Read a little bit (just for information sake). Maybe attend a service (for purely informational reasons - I'm not asking anyone to pray with heterodox). If only for purely evangelistic purposes at the least and because we live in a pluralistic society and the majority of your neighbors do no believe exactly as you do. In fact, more of them probably have no faith rather than being of another faith tradition. So you have way more in common with your "western" Christian neighbors than you do with non-religious, secular pagans. Maybe try to understand them, rather than stereotype them.

Offline AMM

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,076
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #306 on: April 17, 2007, 11:44:19 AM »
BrotherAidan, you actually put your finger on what my real thoughts are on all of this.  It seems to me the real problems here are:

- Orthodox polemicists will make statements that the past teaching of the church doesn't contain certain things.  On closer inspection it can be seen that these things were indeed present.  That's irrespective of what current validity anyone might ascribe to these things.

- Orthodox polemicists will engage in attacking one sided constructions of "western theology" that may have no bearing or likeness to past or current teaching.

There is just something fundamentally disingenuous about this, which is why it bothers me; along with what I assume the reason is for all of this - not the mutual edification of everyone, but simply to proselytize from other Christian confessions.

I'm not a proponent of any one particular view of the Atonement myself.  I find it very hard to explain.  Nor do I see an "Eastern" view or a "Western" view.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2007, 11:44:41 AM by welkodox »

Offline aserb

  • asinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,188
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #307 on: April 17, 2007, 12:06:32 PM »
[quoteI would encourage some Orthodox to not "ghetto-ize" themselves (whether cradles or hyperdox converts wishing demonize everything from their past). Talk to some Christians from other faith communities to learn what real people (not paper tigers) believe. Read a little bit (just for information sake). Maybe attend a service (for purely informational reasons - I'm not asking anyone to pray with heterodox). If only for purely evangelistic purposes at the least and because we live in a pluralistic society and the majority of your neighbors do no believe exactly as you do. In fact, more of them probably have no faith rather than being of another faith tradition. So you have way more in common with your "western" Christian neighbors than you do with non-religious, secular pagans. Maybe try to understand them, rather than stereotype them.]   [/quote]

Hear hear and amen.

It is interesting that many hyperconverts criticize cradles for being in an ehtnic ghetto when they in turn are creating a theological ghetto, which, I might add is prevalent among Evangelical Christians who believe that their way is the only right way of salvation. Many covnerts I dare say carry this over from their evangelical past and in turn infect pious cradles.

However, to be fair - I think that ghettoization is a human trait be it theological, ethnic or even economic as is the case of some churches whose members are in the upper income brackets.

The reason I like Brother Aidans response so much is that in reality I believe that the average Joe or Jane believer (regardless of Orthodox or non-Orthodox, cradle or convert) is not concerned with soteriology on a day to day basis.

The luxury of debating soteriology is for in most cases the petty bourgeoisie and to some extent the intelligensia but not the prolitereat.
Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

Offline Tamara

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,208
  • +Pray for Orthodox Unity+
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #308 on: April 17, 2007, 12:31:47 PM »
Here is definitive proof that "western Christians" do not have a singular understanding of the atonement stuck in substitution and blood sacrifice. This was the "Unison confession of faith" (recited by the congregation) in the bulletin of my sister's Presbyterian church for their worship service this past Sunday:

"God's reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice a lamb, a shepherd's life given for His sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil.
These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God's love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God's reconciling work. The risen Christ is the savior for all mankind. Those joined to him by faith are set right with God and commissioned to serve as his reconciling community. Christ is the head of this community, the church, which began with the apostles and continues through all generations." - from the Presbyterian Confession of 1967.

In fact, I think this statement shatters a number of stereotypes that some Orthodox have regarding protestants.



I never believed that western Christians had only one view of salvation. The disagreement was Orthodox do not have a view which includes Divine satisfaction.

And I have met enough Orthodox priests and bishops from the middle east and Greece to know there is definitely an eastern view of Christianity. They have challenged my assumptions of how I view my faith. I think part of the eastern view is lost in translation (our English Bible was originally translated by Latin theologians at the command of King James). Whenever I have attended Bible studies given by Greek priests, I have discovered that  the true meaning of the scriptures have been lost in translation. My own Syrian grandfather used his Arabic bible (which was translated from the original Greek and Hebrew by Orthodox translators) when he conducted Bible studies because he said it was more precise and correct. Maybe one day, God willing, we will have an English translation of the Bible taken from the original Greek and Hebrew translated by Orthodox translators.

There is a reason I chose a Syrian-born priest to be my father-confessor. He brings with him the living Antiochian Orthodox tradition from the middle east. This living tradition cannot be easily defined or categorized (something we westerners love to do). It can only be lived and so I am trying to follow not only his counsel but also his example.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,771
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #309 on: April 17, 2007, 12:34:16 PM »


The luxury of debating soteriology is for in most cases the petty bourgeoisie and to some extent the intelligensia but not the prolitereat.
But that is not a good thing. We should all be educating ourselves with regard to our respective faiths. It is important to study and debate. How can we love God if we do not know him?
Many Blessings in Christ,
Chris
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline aserb

  • asinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,188
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #310 on: April 17, 2007, 06:15:29 PM »
Tamara:

I think that you hit the nail on the head in western society we tend to like thinks neat and categorized and that is not always the case in Orthodoxy. Upon my return to Orthodoxy a wise priest told me that Orthodoxy is something to be lived not just read about.
Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

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 #311 on: April 17, 2007, 10:56:14 PM »
Hi,

Just came back from rough plane situations in the East Coast.

Wow...okay...maybe, we're getting somewhere.

I was reading some of the things that Fr. John Romanides and Vladimir Moss wrote on this very subject.  I haven't read all, but look through the Fr. Romanides' paper, I felt that he was being quite polemical and one-sided, and frankly some stuff he wrote was not showing the full truth.  At the same time, someone here mentioned St. Paul's letter to the Hebrews, and Fr. Romanides' seemed to have failed and hardly sighted anything from that crucial letter in the Bible.

Vladimir Moss, already at the first two or three chapters takes such a realistic stand.  In fact, he voices the same concern as I voice:

Quote
So there would appear to be three reasons for the rejection of the juridical theory by the HOCNA bishops: (1) a vaguely expressed emotional distaste for the emotional connotations of certain words such as "satisfied" and "appeased",  (2) the supposed division it creates in the simplicity of the Divinity, and (3) its attribution to God of a certain pagan concept of necessity.

     (1), though an emotional rather than a strictly intellectual accusation, actually represents, in our opinion, the real motivation for the opposition to the so-called juridical theory, and will consequently be discussed at some length below. (2) presumably refers (although it is not clearly stated in this passage) to the supposed contradiction between love and "wrath" as attributes of God, and will also be discussed at length. (3) is simply a misunderstanding, in our view, and will therefore be briefly discussed now before going on to the more serious accusations.

And he begins to explain it here:

Quote
At the heart of the controversy surrounding the juridical model of redemption, and closely related to the point just made about its metaphorical nature, lies the question of the emotional connotations of the language used in it - and of the emotional reaction to those connotations on the part of some of its critics. Metropolitan Anthony chooses to see in the language of the juridical model - even in the very sober form in which is presented by Metropolitan Philaret - the expression of fallen human emotions "unworthy" of God and the great mystery of God's salvation of mankind. Words such as "curse", "vengeance", "wrath", "ransom" all have the wrong connotations for him, even disgust him; he would like to replace them by more "positive" words such as "love" and "compassion". What he apparently fails to realize is that all words used to explain the mystery, including "love" and "compassion", are more or less tainted by their association with fallen human emotions and have to be purified in our understanding when applied to God.

Then, later, he actually uses the idea that "love" and "wrath" are two sides of the same coin, which I don't think we are opposed to at all.

The problem with many Orthodox, imo, is that when hearing the "juridical concept," they will attack back with the usual:  "So you're saying that a bloodthirsty God in His divine wrath lead us to be punished to death and cannot be satisfied unless by having His Own Son killed to appease His Divine Wrath.  What a pagan concept of bloodthirsty gods!!!"

And yet, already, Orthodox are assuming that those who uphold this concept make God look like man, and exaggerate the view further than what was being taught, even in the Eastern Fathers.

Anyway, I think Peter the Aleut has explained my view better during my absence that I can do so myself.

Dear Demetrios,

Yes, I believe and have never believed otherwise that all people, righteous or not, will rise from the dead on "Judgment Day".

God bless.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2007, 11:03:53 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 Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #312 on: April 18, 2007, 08:50:38 AM »
In the Great Euchologion (Venice, 1862), a fundamental liturgical book of the Church, we read:

"O God, the great and most high, Thou Who alone hast immortality"
[7th prayer of Vespers, p. 15]
"Thou Who alone art life-giving by nature... O only immortal"
[Ode 5, Funeral Canon for Laymen, p. 410]
"Thou art the only immortal" [p.  410]
"The only One Who is immortal because of His godly nature"

[Ode 1, Funeral Canon for Laymen, p. 471]

Saint Irenaeus puts it: "The teaching that the human soul is naturally immortal is from the devil" (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, III, 20. 1). We find the same warning in Saint Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 6. 1-2), in Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus 2. 97), in Tatian (To the Greeks 13), etc.

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 #313 on: April 18, 2007, 11:24:39 PM »
In the Great Euchologion (Venice, 1862), a fundamental liturgical book of the Church, we read:

"O God, the great and most high, Thou Who alone hast immortality"
[7th prayer of Vespers, p. 15]
"Thou Who alone art life-giving by nature... O only immortal"
[Ode 5, Funeral Canon for Laymen, p. 410]
"Thou art the only immortal" [p.  410]
"The only One Who is immortal because of His godly nature"

[Ode 1, Funeral Canon for Laymen, p. 471]

Saint Irenaeus puts it: "The teaching that the human soul is naturally immortal is from the devil" (Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, III, 20. 1). We find the same warning in Saint Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 6. 1-2), in Theophilus of Antioch (To Autolycus 2. 97), in Tatian (To the Greeks 13), etc.
Please see my reply to this post here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11373.msg155981.html#msg155981
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,497
  • Jurisdiction: GOA
Re: Why Orthodox do not believe in the penal satifaction theory...
« Reply #314 on: April 20, 2007, 01:43:52 PM »
Please see my reply to this post here:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,11373.msg155981.html#msg155981

I hope were clear now. Those in hell will not resurrect. Evil will cease to exist, it is temporary.