Author Topic: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53  (Read 999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #45 on: March 22, 2015, 07:49:25 PM »
Really I think we have to avoid a crypto papal model where one must be in communion with the EP or the MP or someone in communion with them, or the Pentarchy, in order to be Orthodox.

That's not the Papal model.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #46 on: March 22, 2015, 07:50:56 PM »
Here's my two cents: I'm convinced that Baptists are faithful followers of Christ, even though they don't have the fullness of God's truth, which I'm now (almost) 100% convinced is shown in the Orthodox Church.

I do actually agree with that.  I,would simply argue they're further from us than the Anglo Catholics, which is why they do offensive things like deny the Christianity of the recent martyrs, protest at funerals and so on.  And yes, it's a tiny Minority of Calvinist Baptists who do those things.  But there does seem to be a recurring link between Calvinist Baptists and egregious fundamentalism.  I have not had any problems with the Arminian Baptists, who it seems are slowly losing control of the SBC.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline byhisgrace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • Faith: Evangelodox
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #47 on: March 22, 2015, 07:53:32 PM »
ROCOR was, for temporal reasons, out of communion with most of the other EO churches for most of the 20th century, but produced at least one and probably three or more saints during that time (St. John Maximovitch for starters).  And the Anglo Catholics who were trying to push their church into communion with the Orthodox were doing Gods work.  They failed, but it was worth the effort, and I regard for my part the so called "Ultra-Bothnians" as being fully Orthodox.  But bear in mind I am one of the members of this forum who rejects the notion that there is anything more than an administrative and liturgical distinction between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox.  I entirely reject the idea that Orthodoxy is a factor of who you're in communion with; I do believe there's a visible church, but I also believe if you align your beliefs and praxis with that of the visible church, which many of the Anglo Catholics did, and seek admission or even receive Holy Orders from bishops of the visible church (which many Anglo Catholics did after they came to believe Anglican orders were invalid, in the late 19th century), this attaches you to the visible church. 

Really I think we have to avoid a crypto papal model where one must be in communion with the EP or the MP or someone in communion with them, or the Pentarchy, in order to be Orthodox.  Otherwise we just erect huge barriers to healing the schisms in the Ukraine, in Macedonia and with the Old Calendarists, and between the two feuding factions of the Syriac Orthodox in India.  Not to,mention my own desired outcome: complete reconciliatiom of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, with the Assyrians, and remnants of the liturgical Protestants and Old Catholics and other Roman Catholic traditionalist breakaway groups, so there's one Orthodox communion, worldwide, comprising members from all of the different Patriarchates of the Great Church before the Great Schism, or the Nestorian and Chalcedonian schism for that matter.  However I am not a proponent of compromising on doctrine to do this (with the OO and EO, I simply don't believe the doctrine actually differs, merely the terminology).

But this is admittedly a controversial view.  However, I hold it, so therefore I,will aggressively defend those who appear to be functionally Orthodox or semi-Orthodox and theologically argue against those who appear to be anti-Orthodox.

I'm guessing that EP stands for Ecumenical Patriarch. What does MP stand for?

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #48 on: March 22, 2015, 08:01:04 PM »
Really I think we have to avoid a crypto papal model where one must be in communion with the EP or the MP or someone in communion with them, or the Pentarchy, in order to be Orthodox.

That's not the Papal model.

Indeed not.  It's crypto-Papal, a sort of diet Papalism where instead of your Orthodoxy being determined by being in communion with Rome, you get a menu of bishops to be in communion with.  And you don't have to be in communion with all of them, but the more the better (or else Antioch and Jerusalem, who have severed communion over a jurisdictional boundary dispute, would be out). 

But I don't thimk this is a good model, because among other things it would require us to say that ROCOR was not Orthodox during the time of St. John Maximovitch or Fr. Seraphim Rose.

So I feel the only alternative is to posit that occasional fractures can exist in the visible church, but the healing of these fractures is what matters, and whatever facilitates,this healing without compromising dogma is good, and whatever causes fragmentation or compromises dogma is bad.  Because otherwise Imfear a sort of ecclesiological fundamentalism that can't account for among other things numerous temporary schisms in the early Church that were recovered from in full.  In fact, here's a fun fact: the majority of schisms in the Orthodox Church over the centuries were repaired.  Almost every Orthodox Church at one time or another has temporarily been out of communion with Constantinople or another Orthodox Church. So we have to be able to understand how it is that the body of Christ maintains its visible unity when these ruptures, which are usually temporary, occur.  And at the same time, a workable ecclesiological model that is nuanced and accommodates transient schisms will also I believe, definitionally, include a sense of functional Orthodoxy, so those who aim to be Orthodox and those who align with our practices with a view to some form of reconciliation are accounted as having served God by working towards the benefit of Catholicity, whereas those who seek to alienate themselves from us in praxis, polity or doctrine, have sinned against catholicity and orthodoxy.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #49 on: March 22, 2015, 08:02:21 PM »
MP stands for the Moscow Patriarchate.

Also Military Police, which is good to know if you plan on smuggling controlled substances into military bases, which I advise against most adamantly.  They usually look something like: :police:
« Last Edit: March 22, 2015, 08:03:03 PM by wgw »
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #50 on: March 22, 2015, 08:07:04 PM »
Here's my two cents: I'm convinced that Baptists are faithful followers of Christ, even though they don't have the fullness of God's truth, which I'm now (almost) 100% convinced is shown in the Orthodox Church.

I do actually agree with that.  I,would simply argue they're further from us than the Anglo Catholics, which is why they do offensive things like deny the Christianity of the recent martyrs, protest at funerals and so on.  And yes, it's a tiny Minority of Calvinist Baptists who do those things.  But there does seem to be a recurring link between Calvinist Baptists and egregious fundamentalism.  I have not had any problems with the Arminian Baptists, who it seems are slowly losing control of the SBC.

I still don't see how you can argue the closeness or farthness of "cut off."
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #51 on: March 22, 2015, 08:25:09 PM »
Imagine a spacecraft in orbit, and a space station.  The space station is representative of the Orthodox Church.  The two pilots of the space craft are wrestling for control.  One is trying to fire the retro rockets and cause the ship to return to the planet below, thinking he can land safely, but the other knows they'll burn up in the atmosphere, and is trying instead to rotate the spacecraft on its axis to point it on an intersect course with the space station, which he succeeds in doing.  The two pilots are then both killed due to an explosion in the command module.  Of the other crew members however, when the spacecraft passes extremely close to the space station, though it can no longer dock due to the command module having been destroyed, these astronauts can escape through the emergency airlock and be rescued by the crew of the space station.  Or they can remain onboard and hope to survive re-entry.  Some of them chose to escape through the airlock and are rescued, and others eventually parish when the spacecraft burns up in the atmosphere.

That's basically how I see the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Anglicans.  The Anglicans were the other spacecraft, the Anglo Catholics were the pilot fighting to point the ship at the space station, the Evangelical Low Churchmen, fighting the other direction, and ultimately, the liberal broad church movement, the cause of the explosion in the command module.  Those Anglicans who have joined and continue to join the Orthodox Church are those astronauts escaping through the emergency airlock, whereas those opting to remain onboard are the contended Anglicans and I fear, those intending to go the Ordinariate route.  So that's how I see the Anglican-Orthodox relationship, presented in a science fiction similitude.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2015, 08:25:37 PM by wgw »
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #52 on: March 22, 2015, 08:36:17 PM »
The likelihood of one's approaching conversion does not strike me as the same thing at all as one's being or not being in the Church. Besides, based on some of the details you've illustrated for us above, one could almost begin to think: The Invisible Church, a complex organism that takes its shape from to what extent it bruises or salves WGW's sensibilities.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #53 on: March 22, 2015, 09:03:46 PM »
I don't believe in the invisible church.  But I believe the church has to be viewed as a four dimensional structure factoring in time, motion and orientation.  This is not branch ecclesiology; that which diverges from the Church destroys itself.  But that which orients itself towards the church on a re convergent trajectory eventually if undisturbed reunites with the church.  Also, ripples generated by demonic forces cause parts of the church to be separated from each other temporarily, like the schism between the Bulgarians and Constantinople in the 19th century or between ROCOR and everyone else in the 20th century, but viewed four dimensionally, these ruptures disappear as the schism heals.

Now someone might reply "that sounds like the branch theory to me!" But I think they're wrong.  The branch theorynpresupposes different branches of the church represent divergent traditions that are equally valid and these branches remain united on account of their common origin, in the past.

My theory takes into account the past, the present and the future to explain how a temporary rupture can occur without a loss of Orthodoxy, such as what happened to ROCOR, by viewing the church as a complex four dimensional structure that begins and ends in the Lord, and contains a visible, central and identifiable core element throughout; those who separate through schismatic heresy disappear from this model, whereas those who return from schismatic heresy reappear, if you view it three dimensionally.   But there are no branches, only a solid trunk, that occasionally gets damaged or reduced in size or temporarily severed in places by the devil but ehich always reconverges, and always remains visible, identifiable and integral.

To try to understand this model, try to visualize what your own body looks like if you factor in time.  Some people use the "long pink tube" model.  Then factor in the separation of the soul after death, the General resurrection and the reunion of the soul and the end of time.   Then reread what I wrote above.  Which is just an idea; if it's heresy and my confessor or a bishop says so, then forget it.  But it is not the branch theory, but something almost infinitely more complex.   Also when analyzing mentally the re convergence avoid anything that may lead towards attempted contemplation of the essence of God, which can lead to madness.  I should know, I used to do that in my youth before I became Orthodox and read Gregory of Nazianzus's warning not to.  Which may be why I am able to produce such bizarre ecclesiological theories as cannot be modeled using just three physical dimensions; it's probable that lying in bed in terror when I was 7-12 years old trying to figure out the origin of God, the meaning of eternity and other attributes of the divine essence warped my mind a tad.   :P
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,886
  • 2012, at the Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #54 on: March 23, 2015, 04:16:55 AM »
What is described there is similar to ... occurrences that happen at Pentecostal ... churches.

The Primitive Methodists are perceived as forerunners of the early Pentecostals.

Quote
Baptists are free to accuse the Orthodox of worshipping pictures.

That's not quite what I said. I said that some Orthodox, rightly or wrongly, give the impression of praying to icons.

Quote
I really find the Baptist-Calvinist sect to be infuriating ... I do find your sect to be utterly repulsive 

Isn't this part of the problem? Is you reaction to Calvinists generally, and to Particular Baptists in particular (no pun intended!), to some extent emotional rather than cerebral?

Quote
the proponents of casual communion

I would be horrified to be considered such. We may have a different theology of the Communion, but God forbid we should ever take it casually!
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,590
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #55 on: March 23, 2015, 08:16:48 AM »
ISTM that one is either in - or out - of the Church. Not "sorta-kinda." God can certainly do whatever He wants wherever He wants, and I make no judgment on who is a RealChristian (tm) but you are either part of the Church or not. No amount of theological tap-dancing can obscure this simple fact.
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,886
  • 2012, at the Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #56 on: March 23, 2015, 08:26:31 AM »
No amount of theological tap-dancing ....

On the head of a pin, perhaps?  ;)
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline juliogb

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #57 on: March 23, 2015, 10:52:05 AM »
What bugs me the most about penal attonement is that seems to me that God demands from us actions He is not capable to do, He asks us to forgive our enemies and pray for them, but He can't forgive us without smashing a inocent, so, there is not forgiveness at all, just a transfer of guilt of the mankind to the Christ.

Offline katherineofdixie

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,590
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #58 on: March 23, 2015, 11:27:27 AM »
No amount of theological tap-dancing ....

On the head of a pin, perhaps?  ;)

Exactamundo, my dear David!  ;D
"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #59 on: March 23, 2015, 12:27:13 PM »
Now yes, it is true that the Church of England did a lousy job when it came to pastoral care for the working class ...

The Church of England was born at the same time and of the same man that brought forth abuses of the people unknown in the Isles till then and to be unknown on the Continent for a century. Henry ruled over deportations and depradations that eliminated an entire class and lifestyle from England almost overnight: probably 80% of the population was affected and removed from a living. In more ways than the popular obsession of the King's bed, the Church of England was altogether born in sins.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #60 on: March 23, 2015, 02:14:09 PM »
What is described there is similar to ... occurrences that happen at Pentecostal ... churches.

The Primitive Methodists are perceived as forerunners of the early Pentecostals.

Quote
Baptists are free to accuse the Orthodox of worshipping pictures.

That's not quite what I said. I said that some Orthodox, rightly or wrongly, give the impression of praying to icons.

Quote
I really find the Baptist-Calvinist sect to be infuriating ... I do find your sect to be utterly repulsive 

Isn't this part of the problem? Is you reaction to Calvinists generally, and to Particular Baptists in particular (no pun intended!), to some extent emotional rather than cerebral?

Quote
the proponents of casual communion

I would be horrified to be considered such. We may have a different theology of the Communion, but God forbid we should ever take it casually!

My visceral reaction to Calvinist Baptists in general is based on their combination of three epic heresies: Calvinism, the rejection of infant baptism, and Zwinglianism.  You literally could not remove yourself more from the ancient church without denying the Trinity, but even the Nicene Creed is regarded with suspicion by Calvinist Baptists so whether or not they're actually as dogmatically orthodox as they claim,  which is to say, not much, cannot be clearly ascertained.   But what is clear is that Calvinist baptists reject the praxis of the ancient church, and are aggressive in said rejection.  And they keep doing on an individual basis deeply offensive things that damage the unity and prestige of Christianity as a religious movement; the abuses of the Westboro Baptist Church, the cultic institutions being promulgated by Capitol Hill Baptist Church and Mark Dever through 9Marks, and most recently Pen and Pulpit daring to question the Christianity and the worthiness of the martyrdom of the 21 a Coptic martyrs.  All of these events have Calvinist Baptism in common.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline David Young

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,886
  • 2012, at the Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr
    • Some of my sermons preached at Bradley Road
  • Faith: Baptist
  • Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #61 on: March 23, 2015, 02:18:34 PM »
...the Westboro Baptist Church, ... Capitol Hill Baptist Church and Mark Dever through 9Marks, ... Pen and Pulpit

Never heard of any of them!
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 02:19:15 PM by David Young »
"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #62 on: March 23, 2015, 02:23:41 PM »
That's because they barely exist outside internet scandalmongering. Might as well be "infuriated" by Orthodoxy because a blog runs a story about the Skoptsky.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Cyrillic

  • Arbiter Elegantiarum
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,671
  • Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #63 on: March 23, 2015, 02:34:01 PM »
The Church of England was born at the same time and of the same man that brought forth abuses of the people unknown in the Isles till then and to be unknown on the Continent for a century. Henry ruled over deportations and depradations that eliminated an entire class and lifestyle from England almost overnight: probably 80% of the population was affected and removed from a living. In more ways than the popular obsession of the King's bed, the Church of England was altogether born in sins.

Enclosure preceded Henry VIII and continued after he was gone.

What he can be blamed for is that he seized the monasteries and gave it to his cronies. The monasteries were the only institutions which kept the poorest alive, and after they were gone an epidemic of vagabonds and beggars followed.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 02:36:05 PM by Cyrillic »
"Who wants to be consistent? The dullard and the doctrinaire, the tedious people who carry out their principles to the bitter end of action, to the reductio ad absurdum of practice. Not I."
-Oscar Wilde, The Decay of Lying

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #64 on: March 23, 2015, 02:34:43 PM »
So did the Church of England.
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Eruvande

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Anglican
  • Jurisdiction: Worcestershire
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #65 on: March 23, 2015, 02:53:44 PM »
What bugs me the most about penal attonement is that seems to me that God demands from us actions He is not capable to do, He asks us to forgive our enemies and pray for them, but He can't forgive us without smashing a inocent, so, there is not forgiveness at all, just a transfer of guilt of the mankind to the Christ.

well put.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #66 on: March 23, 2015, 03:03:44 PM »
The origins of the Church of England were diabolical.  I've argued on other forums that Henry VIII dissolving the monasteries was a crime against humanity.  Some Protestants ridiculously attempted to defend the outrage on the grounds of the monasteries being a potential "subversive influence."  But providentially, the Established Church managed to align itself towards Orthodoxy and remained in that alignment for an extended duration.  In the late 19th century there were new Anglican Benedictine monasteries like the Order of the Holy Cross which resumed carrying for the desparately poor in London.  Percy Dearmer for his part created guilds of artisans producing liturgical implements which created jobs and provided a living for people in severe need.  He was also a socialist, and there he and I part ways, but he clearly was a man deeply troubled by the suffering of the poor.  At the same time I see a distinct lack of Particular Baptist monasteries, or for that matter, anything like the Salvation Army which had apparently Methodist origins.  From what I understand some Particular Baptists were opposed to missionary activity or charitable works in general, but I could be mistaken on this point.  But I think it is fair to say the Anglo Catholics historically cared more and did more, as a group.  Anglo Catholicism is not just about listening to Herbert Howells, having impressive liturgical processions and wearing a chasuble during the Eucharist.

So you shouldn't look at the origins of the Church of England, but rather, the period of maximal Anglo Catholic influence in which the lomg running evacuation of the faithful from that sinking ship into the Ark of Salvation which is the Orthodox Church began.  But I don't see any Particular Baptists, or very many Calvinist Baptists in the US, headed in the same direction.  Their faith teaches them to be allergic to the liturgical and sacramental underpinnings of Orthodoxy, so the mere internal appearance of our temples scandalized some of them.   

What I do have no use for are the low church Anglicans of the Holy Trinity Brompton variety.  They're almost as bad, if not worse, than Calvinist Baptists.  If it were not for a Minority of them colluding with dissenting Protestants in the Commons, the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, which was much closer to Orthodoxy than the 1662 Book which still remains "official", would have been adopted, and in all probability the broad church liberal "reconciling" faction would not have been able to seize control and torpedo reunion with the Orthodox.  Which did come very close to happening.  One of the contributors to Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, it may have been Fr. Andrew, mentioned for a brief time ROCOR even accepted the validity of Anglican orders and was prepared to receive, and presumably did receive, their clergy, by vesting.   But now that's inconceivable, given what inevitably happened to the Church of England.  But we're still rescuing survivors from them, whereas the lifeboats of Calvinist Baptists are also in the water, and the ship they hail from is most definitely not the Ark of Salvation, but rather more likely to be under the command of the Flying Dutchman. 
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 03:09:49 PM by wgw »
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • Erst Amish Appalachian
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,937
  • Faith should; hope could; love would
    • Facebook page
  • Faith: GOAA
  • Jurisdiction: Catechumen
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #67 on: March 23, 2015, 03:04:45 PM »
What he can be blamed for is that he seized the monasteries and gave it to his cronies. The monasteries were the only institutions which kept the poorest alive, and after they were gone an epidemic of vagabonds and beggars followed.

Oh he can be blamed for much more than that. He was a megalomaniac and unscrupulous ruler of the worst order.

The epidemic of vagabonds (by which term you're almost minimizing it: the numbers of the plague would be little compared to the numbers of the suddenly vagabonded) had the loss of the monasteries as the least of its causes.

"It began before him and continued after him" -- you of all people I'd expect not to deny "Le roi est l'etat."
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 03:05:40 PM by Porter ODoran »
In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus

Offline Eruvande

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Anglican
  • Jurisdiction: Worcestershire
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #68 on: March 23, 2015, 03:10:01 PM »
low church Holy Trinity Brompton Anglican here, at least by current church attendance, and I completely agree with what you say, wgw.

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #69 on: March 23, 2015, 03:25:13 PM »
You know you're not far from like 90 better churches, Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox, indeed the Brompton Oratory, which is Catholic, but very good liturgically, is literally right on your way into the HTB complex.

But if you're not ready to become Orthodox, you would really do better to go to St. Martin in the Fields, or for that matter the Sunday services at Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's.   I am rather fond of the Savoy Chapel but the vicar is a little strange.  I'm somewhat knowledgeable about Anglican parishes in London, as well as a Catholic and Orthodox, having led my fiancée from atheism to Christianity, and I used to live in Greenwich.  So if you would like some suggestions from a layman on churches to visit, send me a PM.  By the way if you work in the City, that is to say the Square Mile, many of the Anglican churches therein have nice short and elegant midweek services which are greatly edifying.  Forget St. Paul's, you can go to St. Stephen Walbrook or St. Mary le Bow or St. Sepulchre and get straight in.  Also the illustrious Kings Weighouse Chapel, where my favorite congregationalist minister Rev. John Hunter presided, and wrote Devotional Services, a beautiful, exquisite revision of the Anglican liturgy that represents the high point of Dissenting Protestant worship in the UK, and that featues one of the most lovely invitations to the Eucharist to be found anywhere ("Come not because you must, but because you may, not because you are strong, but because you are weak"), which I would very much like to see adopted for Western Rite Orthodox use, is now a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

London is a veritable paradise when it comes to having tons of churches in a small area.  I have to drive ten minutes to an hour in LA depending on which Orthodox Church I want to go to, and if I want choral evensong in an Anglican parish on Sunday Evening my luck has entierely run out.  But London provides easy access to all denominations; whatever you need is just a tube ride away.  Or a bus ride, if you like the new Routemasters.  My fiancée loves riding upstairs and feels frightened in the Tube; I myself am more of a tube guy because the buses are slow, except in the summer when it gets frightfully hot down there.  Especially on the Bakerloo Line, which is otherwise my favorite.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline biro

  • Excelsior
  • Site Supporter
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,864
  • Leave me alone, I was only singing
    • Alaska Volcanoes
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #70 on: March 23, 2015, 03:38:21 PM »
...the Westboro Baptist Church, ... Capitol Hill Baptist Church and Mark Dever through 9Marks, ... Pen and Pulpit

Never heard of any of them!

Reverend, you are lucky. :)
He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will have no end.

--

And if I seem a little strange, well, that's because I am

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #71 on: March 23, 2015, 03:38:54 PM »
You know, I may have jumped the gun.  Do you actually go to HTB or are you in Worcestershire?  If the latter is true, fear not, my dear, as there are Orthodox churches popping up all over the UK, and in the country one can occasionally find a high church relic of the glorious past of aanglo Catholicism, parishes like the one where CS Lewis went to the early morning said Eucharist at 7:15 every Sunday with his brother.  But like in a CS Lewis fairy tale such parishes are dying off.  But they do exist.

Now an enterprising Angliochian built the smallest dedicated Orthodox Church in the UK. Possibly the world, in his house, and it is beautiful and richly furnished, like a miniature St. Basils.  The chapels or shrines on the beeches of Greece are smaller but to my knowledge do not have regular services or priests assigned to them.  Although you could do a liturgy there in theory using the antimension or portable altar cloth, but it would be a bit awkward as your communicants would in many cases literally be standing outside.  Whereas I think you can cram about 20 people into this little Angliochian church.

But there are a lot of options even in the countryside.  So regardless of whether you want to remain Anglican for the moment or convert to Orthodoxy do feel free to send me a PM and I can help you if you want to find a better parish.  Also, the Prayer Book Society provides a good directory of a Anglican parishes still using the Book of Common Prayer rather than a Common Worship, and IMO such parishes are usually a cut above the others.  Although the formal marriage service from a Common Worship, taken from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and in Series 1 of the trial use liturgies that led to the 1980 Alternative Service Book, is lovely, and was used in the wedding of Prince William and Kate.

But most of Common a Worship is a bit happy flappy in the style of the 1979 Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, and I don't reccommend it.  The Holy Grail for me in Anglican parishes in the UK would be if you could find a vicar somewhere using the 1928 Deposited Book with the ceremonial recommended in Percy Dearmer's Parson's Handbook, Ritual Notes on the order of Divine Services, and in the Directorum Anglicanorum and certain other 19th century Anglo Catholic liturgical guides.  These books are much like the typikon of the Orthodox Church in that they prescribe in detail beautiful and edifying services for use throughout the liturgical year, and doubtless helped many Anglo Catholics prepare for Orthodoxy.  Also I believe the Western Rite Orthodox in their services incorporated many of those rubrics to produce a sort of Anglo-Orthodox typikon.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2015, 03:41:09 PM by wgw »
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline Eruvande

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
  • Faith: Anglican
  • Jurisdiction: Worcestershire
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #72 on: March 23, 2015, 06:20:18 PM »
wgw, my fault for not being clearer in my post, do forgive me. I am indeed in Worcestershire and currently attend a HTB style church with my family. I'll drop you a line about alternatives, that would be a great blessing for me. I am pining to experience a service! Been interested in Orthodoxy for about 15 years and never actually visited an Orthodox church!

Offline wgw

  • Amateur Liturgical Enthusiast
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 839
  • The above Syriac icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: I presently commune at a Coptic parish
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #73 on: March 23, 2015, 06:27:05 PM »
Ok.  If you can, please include your postcode so I can search for what is in your immediate vicinity.
I am Oriental Orthodox but love the Eastern Orthodox, and the Byzantine liturgy.  I also love the Western liturgy.  I hope for the reconciliation of our churches.

Please forgive any offense my posts cause; none is intended. No statements I make should be regarded as authoritative, regardless of tone. Let us bless the Lord ar all times.

Offline JamesR

  • Virginal Chicano Blood
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,384
  • St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!
  • Faith: Misotheistic Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #74 on: March 23, 2015, 10:33:19 PM »
Isaiah 53:4-6:
Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.

Here's how supporters of Penal-Substitution exegete the verse: God punished the Son on the cross to pay for our sins in the forensic case, for it seems to say that our iniquities are literally "bore on Him." Furthermore, critics of the Christus-Victor/Recapitulation model argue that if the purpose of the atonement was solely to save mankind from the power of sin and death, then why did Jesus have to go through all the torture and pain (you know, before and during his crucifixion)? Why didn't He die by a simpler and less painful method? The answer, they propose, is that Christ had to go through the torture and pain to be punished by God, so that our sins would be paid in the forensic sense.

Can someone refute this form of exegesis?

Thanks.

It's merely a case of confirmation-bias. There is nothing in that verse which explicitly supports Penal Atonement, but rather it could just as easily be interpreted (and is) in an Orthodox fashion.

The key term here, which I find odd that Protestants miss given their notorious hairsplitting of Scriptures, is:

Quote
"Yet we..."

"Yet we," due to the "yet," implies that "we" were mistaken. That what we esteemed to be true isn't actually what really happened. We were wrong. And that is precisely what this verse continues onto:

Quote
But...

The "But..." acts as a correction, explaining what truly happened opposed to what we erroneously thought happened. And we see from this that what really happened was that Christ took on this suffering, sin, and grief NOT because His Father was punishing Him, but in order to save us. From what? Death.

Bearing the sins, griefs, and sorrows of humanity doesn't translate into Penal Atonement. In the Orthodox Church we DO believe that God bore the full brunt of our iniquities and sorrows on His back. We just don't believe that it was to satisfy His Father's wrath. Rather, we believe it was to destroy Death--the consequence of sin. Christ bore our sins by dying--even though He personally knew no sin--for us in our place so that through His own death He could put death itself to death by the Resurrection, which we will all partake of one day.
...Or it's just possible he's a mouthy young man on an internet forum.
In the infinite wisdom of God, James can be all three.

Offline byhisgrace

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 228
  • Faith: Evangelodox
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #75 on: March 24, 2015, 10:09:56 PM »
Isaiah 53:4-6:
Surely he has borne our griefs
    and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
    smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
    and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
    we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
    the iniquity of us all.

Here's how supporters of Penal-Substitution exegete the verse: God punished the Son on the cross to pay for our sins in the forensic case, for it seems to say that our iniquities are literally "bore on Him." Furthermore, critics of the Christus-Victor/Recapitulation model argue that if the purpose of the atonement was solely to save mankind from the power of sin and death, then why did Jesus have to go through all the torture and pain (you know, before and during his crucifixion)? Why didn't He die by a simpler and less painful method? The answer, they propose, is that Christ had to go through the torture and pain to be punished by God, so that our sins would be paid in the forensic sense.

Can someone refute this form of exegesis?

Thanks.

It's merely a case of confirmation-bias. There is nothing in that verse which explicitly supports Penal Atonement, but rather it could just as easily be interpreted (and is) in an Orthodox fashion.

The key term here, which I find odd that Protestants miss given their notorious hairsplitting of Scriptures, is:

Quote
"Yet we..."

"Yet we," due to the "yet," implies that "we" were mistaken. That what we esteemed to be true isn't actually what really happened. We were wrong. And that is precisely what this verse continues onto:

Quote
But...

The "But..." acts as a correction, explaining what truly happened opposed to what we erroneously thought happened. And we see from this that what really happened was that Christ took on this suffering, sin, and grief NOT because His Father was punishing Him, but in order to save us. From what? Death.

Bearing the sins, griefs, and sorrows of humanity doesn't translate into Penal Atonement. In the Orthodox Church we DO believe that God bore the full brunt of our iniquities and sorrows on His back. We just don't believe that it was to satisfy His Father's wrath. Rather, we believe it was to destroy Death--the consequence of sin. Christ bore our sins by dying--even though He personally knew no sin--for us in our place so that through His own death He could put death itself to death by the Resurrection, which we will all partake of one day.

Great post, James! Thank you.

Offline Volnutt

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,284
  • Lunacy loves company
  • Faith: Might become Orthodox
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #76 on: March 28, 2015, 10:37:50 PM »
I don't know if he was specifically addressing this thread, but Fr. Stephen Freeman really knocked this question out of the park in his blog today.

Yes, Penal Substitution has some use in understanding Scripture, but it's a very small use (emphasis mine).


Quote
If we think about this story, its driving force is the justice of God. It is God who must be satisfied. As a controlling metaphor it is very inadequate (it is also less than 1000 years old in the history of Christian interpretation – a “johnny-come-lately” in Biblical terms). It only addresses the notion of a blood atonement. It says nothing about the nature of the Holy Life, prayer, the sacraments, etc. It is a back-story that requires yet other stories to support the Christian life, and, as such, is inadequate.

One inevitable effect of its inadequacy is the shrinking of the gospel in order to make it fit. Historically, this story was a well-intentioned attempt to make sense of the gospel in the cultural demands of the Western Middle Ages (thank you, Anselm). Today it is used to meet the demands of contemporary culture. But its diminished version of the gospel has produced a diminished version of Christianity. That same Christianity finds its own cultural expression in the secular consumerism of the modern world. The gospel should not be diminished.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,184
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #77 on: March 29, 2015, 12:23:15 AM »
A Jesus who had to redress some kind of cosmic balance book, as Lewis portrays, is more workable and closer to the truth.

As most know, I like to point out Lewis' literary failures are only only surpassed by his theological ones.

But to your comment. I don't know if that is closer to the truth but it sure is closer to paganism.
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Volnutt

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,284
  • Lunacy loves company
  • Faith: Might become Orthodox
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #78 on: March 29, 2015, 12:28:07 AM »
I agree that it's not a good understanding of the Atonement, I just think it's better than Jesus satisfying the Father's desire to fry us all.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis actually advocates Recapitulation. It's too bad he didn't work it into Narnia. It might have had a good influence on two generations of Westerners.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline orthonorm

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,184
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #79 on: March 29, 2015, 12:58:40 AM »
I agree that it's not a good understanding of the Atonement, I just think it's better than Jesus satisfying the Father's desire to fry us all.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis actually advocates Recapitulation. It's too bad he didn't work it into Narnia. It might have had a good influence on two generations of Westerners.

I just don't think creation was ever in balance. From what seems moment one, nothing goes well. And if we are to consider the traditional understanding of the Abrhamic religions of God, he authored creation knowing full well its imbalanced state.

So I cant believe that God died in order to bring back into balance what never was. And in case you didn't see the news ever, check it out. In the wake of God's  death I don't see anyone claiming, outside the most narcissistic of newage and buddhist circles,  that there is some balance in the world.

I think balance is just a bad notion to bring into any understanding of God's relationship with creation.

God is the author and origin of all. Even after this age passes, will the countless persons suffering eternal damnation be an entry in the cosmic journal to maintain balance?
Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.

Offline Volnutt

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,284
  • Lunacy loves company
  • Faith: Might become Orthodox
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #80 on: March 29, 2015, 02:08:13 AM »
I agree that it's not a good understanding of the Atonement, I just think it's better than Jesus satisfying the Father's desire to fry us all.

In Mere Christianity, Lewis actually advocates Recapitulation. It's too bad he didn't work it into Narnia. It might have had a good influence on two generations of Westerners.

I just don't think creation was ever in balance. From what seems moment one, nothing goes well. And if we are to consider the traditional understanding of the Abrhamic religions of God, he authored creation knowing full well its imbalanced state.

So I cant believe that God died in order to bring back into balance what never was. And in case you didn't see the news ever, check it out. In the wake of God's  death I don't see anyone claiming, outside the most narcissistic of newage and buddhist circles,  that there is some balance in the world.

I think balance is just a bad notion to bring into any understanding of God's relationship with creation.

God is the author and origin of all. Even after this age passes, will the countless persons suffering eternal damnation be an entry in the cosmic journal to maintain balance?

I suppose it's ultimately impossible for us to know if things would be worse if Christ had never Incarnated. I think it's reasonable to surmise though that if evil never existed, we wouldn't appreciate what He went through as much. Obviously your mileage may vary as to whether or not that makes it all worth it.

I'm also still not sure if the beauty of this universe could have existed without most forms of natural evil. But that may not be a good enough reason either. I hope to God that in my thinking on this I've not become hard hearted and complacent.

If everyone will ultimately be in the presence of God with hellfire only existing in the eye of the beholder, then I suppose that really is technically a form of balance. What it also implies to me though is that a person who did the best with the light they had and truly loved their neighbor will not suffer much at all, and certainly far less than the robber barons and bishops of this world.
Every day we should hear at least one little song, read one good poem, see one exquisite picture, and, if possible, speak a few sensible words. -Goethe

I once heard a monk say, “The person of prayer does not need to go any further than his own heart to find the source of all violence in the world.” -Fr. Stephen Freeman

Offline Sleeper

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,279
  • On hiatus for the foreseeable future.
Re: Please Refute this Exegesis of Isaiah 53
« Reply #81 on: March 29, 2015, 09:49:58 AM »
Fr. Stephen Freeman addressed this topic in a refreshing manner, just yesterday:

http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2015/03/28/a-lesser-atonement/