OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 27, 2014, 01:41:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hopko's list of points  (Read 8588 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,811


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #90 on: January 13, 2012, 10:55:34 AM »

I just want to say a few words in defense of Fr. Thomas. He has done more for the Orthodox Faith and making it accessible to people of all faiths, and lack of faith, than any number of internet forums or bulletin boards could ever hope to accomplish. He is a kind, decent and humble priest. While he may have strong opinions with which some may take issue, he is always willing to engage in a civil and polite discourse of those areas of disagreement. Good luck complaining about his writings to his Bishops. Sad Keep us posted.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #91 on: January 13, 2012, 12:32:02 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
Why would one continue to recite what he is required to condemn?  Does the loss of two syllables put off some operatic rendering of the Creed?

What else?  Receive priestesses until they die out?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #92 on: January 13, 2012, 12:47:20 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

That's the part that makes his proposal unacceptable to Catholics.
Au contraire.  It's rejection is what the Catholic Faith demands.  But it is nice for you to forthrightly state the Vatican's heresy plainly, instead of explaining it away, or rather burying it, with "clarifications."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #93 on: January 13, 2012, 01:08:44 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only an offering of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway. Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death. So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man. The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion
without the Father first willing it.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 01:18:30 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #94 on: January 13, 2012, 01:09:29 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Btw, note that Fr. Hopko says "should some churches be allowed," i.e. if that is in the realm of possibility then they must.....  He is not saying "some churches should be allowed," i.e. he is advocating that they be allowed.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #95 on: January 13, 2012, 01:16:34 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."
Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.
So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal.  Got it.
The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #96 on: January 13, 2012, 01:19:35 PM »

I just want to say a few words in defense of Fr. Thomas. He has done more for the Orthodox Faith and making it accessible to people of all faiths, and lack of faith, than any number of internet forums or bulletin boards could ever hope to accomplish. He is a kind, decent and humble priest. While he may have strong opinions with which some may take issue, he is always willing to engage in a civil and polite discourse of those areas of disagreement. Good luck complaining about his writings to his Bishops. Sad Keep us posted.
Btw, when the first priest at our Church was hospitalized and his wife died, Fr. Hopko came interstate to perform the funeral rite in the priest-husband's hospital room as they performed it at the graveside burying his wife.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #97 on: January 13, 2012, 01:32:23 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.

If you are quoting Fr Thomas accurately, then he is indeed putting his own interpretation on the filioque - in other words, expressing a theologoumenon. And one that will not wash with any Orthodox hierarch or synod that comes to mind. Given some of his other recent pronouncements on various areas of Orthodox doctrine and theology, there'd be a few bishops who I bet would want a word with him.
What is wrong with saying that the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, but that filioque, correctly understood means the sending of the Spirit by the Son? That is exactly what St. Photios thought. His musings on whether the filioque might be retained in some churches as a pastoral issue has nothing to do with theology but rather with discipline. His theology on this issue is Orthodox.

The filioque has become so tainted given its crucial role in the Schism that nothing short of its complete rejection would be satisfactory. What next - a pastoral accommodation for the likes of the immaculate conception?
Oh come on, where did Fr. Thomas Hopko say anything remotely like that? Let's look at what he wrote again:
Quote
[The Pope] would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Son" only in relation to God's saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not "from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.)

It's clear that what he believes to be the ideal scenario would be one where Pope confirms the original text and defends its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. He then goes on to say that if for some reason some churches are allowed for pastoral reasons to keep the filioque in the creed, then the pope should make it clear that it can only be understood as the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit. When you read that line in context, it doesn't seem anywhere nearly as distasteful as you are making it out to be.
Btw, note that Fr. Hopko says "should some churches be allowed," i.e. if that is in the realm of possibility then they must.....  He is not saying "some churches should be allowed," i.e. he is advocating that they be allowed.
That's what I understood it to mean too.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #98 on: January 13, 2012, 01:34:18 PM »

Quote
it's really intriguing that Fr. Hopko admits the possibility that "some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed".

The more I come across Fr Thomas' recent pronouncements, the greater disdain I have for his authority. He's done considerable damage of late with his dissident views on aspects of the status of the Mother of God; the above pronouncement does not fill me with delight. We are not Anglicans with an adherence to "comprehensiveness", in the name of being nice to the non-Orthodox.  Angry


I think that he means that in such a way that the goal would be to phase the filioque out after several generations, since the teaching of an eternal procession from the Son would be condemned. There's no reason to be up in arms over him suggesting the possibility of such a pastoral decision.

Since when has the filioque been a theologoumenon? It was one of the cornerstones of the Great Schism.

But Fr. Thomas doesn't say it's a theologoumenon, he says that the teaching of an eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son would be rejected, but that the word filioque, understood to mean the economic sending of the Son, could be kept in some parishes as part of a pastoral decision.

Try passing that one past the majority of Orthodox hierarchs. Wink

Perhaps so, but I don't see what's so scandalous about that. He only mused that it might be permitted out of economy, after the condemnation of the incorrect meaning of filioque, for some to keep it in the creed. I don't see how that would be unreasonable.
Why would one continue to recite what he is required to condemn?  Does the loss of two syllables put off some operatic rendering of the Creed?

What else?  Receive priestesses until they die out?

I think all he's saying is that because there is an Orthodox interpretation of and the Son, when referring to the manifestation of the Spirit in time, there might be an agreement that they keep the old phrase, but condemn the incorrect understanding of it. As you pointed out above, this is highly hypothetical, and probably not the solution which Fr. Thomas Hopko actually thinks is ideal.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #99 on: January 13, 2012, 01:51:20 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice. He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

Quote
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

Quote
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

Quote
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 01:55:52 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #100 on: January 13, 2012, 02:07:31 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice. He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

Quote
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

Quote
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

Quote
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.


Nonsense, Jesus did not die in order to abate the wrath of the Father. He died to destroy death. Penal substitution was unknown to the Fathers.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #101 on: January 13, 2012, 02:15:46 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #102 on: January 13, 2012, 02:22:17 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.
Agreed.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #103 on: January 13, 2012, 02:24:21 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice.
Sorry, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the idol made from the philosophical construct of the your scholastics.
He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?
Jesus doesn't need your scholastics' blood atonement for a reason to die.

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.
So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.
No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.

The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save, so He is not bound by Aristotle's categories, no matter how much your scholastics entangle themselves in it.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.
So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.
No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.

So killing the innocent to let the guilty off is just.  Got it.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.
And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.
The Son willed what the Father willed.
so your point?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 02:51:30 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #104 on: January 13, 2012, 02:52:22 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #105 on: January 13, 2012, 10:36:05 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2012, 10:59:09 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2012, 11:16:11 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.

Dear Witega and Asteriktos,

I think you will love these quotes from Saint Isaac the Syrian

message 146
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30785.msg486645.html#msg486645
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2012, 11:18:07 PM »

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


Beware!   You are about to be slaughtered by the Orthodox!   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #108 on: January 14, 2012, 05:54:11 AM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #109 on: January 14, 2012, 09:57:46 AM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

Quality stuff Asteriktos--this is why the board benefits when you are able to join.

Dear Witega and Asteriktos,

I think you will love these quotes from Saint Isaac the Syrian

message 146
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30785.msg486645.html#msg486645

Indeed, thanks for posting them and linking! Smiley
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #110 on: January 14, 2012, 01:41:07 PM »

I think that God is just, but that his justice is of the kind that (for example) allows someone to blow their inheritance living in sin, go crawling back to their parents, and get taken back in as a son again rather than a servant. If this is so, God's justice is not just balanced by love, forgiveness and mercy, but rather these things are at it's root, in it's working out, and that which is there at the end.

The parable of the prodigal son is not about God's justice per se,but his gratuitous mercy upon sinners. His justice in regard to sin is rooted in his truth and his commandments. Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due. Humans could not pay the debt for sin they owed to God,so he sent his Son in the flesh to atone for them with his flesh. So Christ's sacrifice was done to fulfill both the Father's demand of justice and his gratuitous mercy. Although God forgives sins,he also demands atonement and penance for them,not because he needs it,but because it is right and just in his sight.


I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #111 on: January 14, 2012, 04:42:11 PM »

Justice means giving to each person what is due,and demanding from each person what is due.

That is a fairly common human definition of justice, and therefore it is not surprising that Anselm read it into the Scriptures. What you are missing is that, following the Orthodox Fathers, we do not believe that 'God's justice' is the same thing as 'man's justice'.

Quote
I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

Not to disagree with you but just to point out the degree to which the Western understanding has permeated the language--it's not just that 'justification' in Greek means something different from 'atonement', but 'atonement' itself means something entirely different in Modern English than it did originally. When 'atonement' first entered the language, it was a neologism for 'to make at one'. That is, it was about bridging the gap between fallen Humanity and God, to make us 'at one' with Him. In modern English one can speak of 'atoning for one's crimes' completely separate from any religious reference as it's become a juridicial term. But it was not originally.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 04:42:39 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #112 on: January 14, 2012, 05:29:18 PM »

^ I did recognize that but was too lazy to word it. Nicely done, finishing my work. Thanks.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #113 on: January 16, 2012, 02:47:29 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 02:48:23 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #114 on: January 16, 2012, 04:04:08 PM »

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 04:30:41 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #115 on: January 16, 2012, 04:21:42 PM »

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself.

Or in other words, that may be what it says but it doesn't mean what it says. Why? Because you say so?

Quote
Augustine was capable of reading Greek.

By his own admission, St. Augustine was never comfortable in Greek. So can you find someone who *was* fluent in Koine Greek who agrees with your interpreation?
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #116 on: January 16, 2012, 05:28:23 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.



Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generallly one of revulsion.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #117 on: January 16, 2012, 05:34:54 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.



Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generallly one of revulsion.

"Revulsion"?  Really??  Wow!!  Fascinating!
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 05:39:19 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #118 on: January 16, 2012, 05:39:21 PM »

"Revulsion"?  Really??

I'll say that this word might describe how I felt about certain concepts before... not justice/atonement so much as justice/hell, but still...
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #119 on: January 16, 2012, 05:44:06 PM »

"Revulsion"?  Really??

I'll say that this word might describe how I felt about certain concepts before... not justice/atonement so much as justice/hell, but still...

from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revulsion
re·vul·sion  (r-vlshn)
n.
1. A sudden strong change or reaction in feeling, especially a feeling of violent disgust or loathing.
2. A withdrawing or turning away from something.


More like definition #1 or more like definition #2?  But then, if one is violently disgusted by something, I guess they would want to withdraw from it.

Can you say more about your revulsion?

Certainly wasn't my reaction, but that's just me.  Wink
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #120 on: January 16, 2012, 05:53:48 PM »


There is an interesting essay "Salvation By Christ: A Response to Credenda /
Agenda on Orthodoxy's Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
,"
by Carmen Fragapane.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

Carmen Fragapane writes:

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their published
explanations of salvation.
 

[For example it is absent from Metrpolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in one
particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The seven
ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]
alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvation
includes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying
thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually
incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to
the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no
logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While
insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, the
Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement.
The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models
are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation" ..."

Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #121 on: January 16, 2012, 05:56:30 PM »

Both definitions, really. I've bounced back and forth between agnosticism and Christianity, and the idea of eternal punishment was one issue I grappled with (even the Orthodox versions, which at times try to soften things). Ok, so I never literally became sick to the stomach... but I have become disgusted intellectually and turned away from Christianity before. Perhaps it was just part of the process of learning to accept things, which I had to go through and learn from, I don't know. I wouldn't say the word describes my views of anything at this point, though I certainly still struggle with certain ideas.
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,235


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #122 on: January 16, 2012, 05:58:11 PM »


There is an interesting essay "Salvation By Christ: A Response to Credenda /
Agenda on Orthodoxy's Teaching of Theosis and the Doctrine of Salvation
,"
by Carmen Fragapane.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frag_salv.aspx

Carmen Fragapane writes:

"...In EH Jones writes that in Orthodoxy "discussions of substitutionary
atonement and propitiation are virtually absent from their published
explanations of salvation.
 

[For example it is absent from Metrpolitan Kallistos Ware's The Orthodox Church]

"... the notion that redemption should be rigidly interpreted in one
particular way is itself foreign to early Christian thought: "The seven
ecumenical councils avoided defining salvation through any [one model]
alone. No universal Christian consensus demands that one view of salvation
includes or excludes all others" .

J.N.D. Kelly further explains:

"Scholars have often despaired of discovering any single unifying
thought in the Patristic teaching about the redemption. These various theories,
however, despite appearances, should not be regarded as in fact mutually
incompatible. They were all of them attempts to elucidate the same great
truth from different angles; their superficial divergences are often due to
the different Biblical images from which they started, and there is no
logical reason why, carefully stated, they should not be regarded as
complimentary".

And this is precisely what we find in Orthodoxy: "While
insisting in this way upon the unity of Christ's saving economy, the
Orthodox Church has never formally endorsed any particular theory of
atonement.
The Greek Fathers, following the New Testament, employ a rich
variety of images to describe what the Savior has done for us. These models
are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, each needs to be balanced by
the others. Five models stand out in particular: teacher, sacrifice, ransom,
victory and participation" ..."

I believe the last quote is from the book How Are We Saved? by Met. Kallistos, a very nice little book that introduces Orthodox thought on the matter.

EDIT--Nevermind, yeah it is from there, I checked the footnote at the article you linked to. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 05:59:03 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,238


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #123 on: January 16, 2012, 06:05:17 PM »

Both definitions, really. I've bounced back and forth between agnosticism and Christianity, and the idea of eternal punishment was one issue I grappled with (even the Orthodox versions, which at times try to soften things). Ok, so I never literally became sick to the stomach... but I have become disgusted intellectually and turned away from Christianity before. Perhaps it was just part of the process of learning to accept things, which I had to go through and learn from, I don't know. I wouldn't say the word describes my views of anything at this point, though I certainly still struggle with certain ideas.

Thanks for that.  Yes, there certainly are in Christianity some difficult concepts and hard sayings.  It can be much "easier" and more "comfortable" sometimes to just turn away from them.  Which is precisely what Satan loves!
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 06:06:43 PM by J Michael » Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #124 on: January 16, 2012, 09:31:15 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generally one of revulsion.

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus himself said about the death of Christ? Do they accept that God the Father willed that his Son suffer and be crucified on account of mankind's sins?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 09:49:23 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #125 on: January 16, 2012, 09:40:56 PM »


Do Orthodox theologians know about the Jewish Feast of Atonement,when the high priest would sacrifice victims in expiation of the sins of the people?

What do you make of those thousands of Jewish sacrifices of atonement of sin?  Is it not Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #126 on: January 16, 2012, 09:46:40 PM »

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus himself said about the death of Christ? Do they accept that God the Father willed that his Son suffer and be crucified on account of mankind's sins?

Dear Anthony,

Click on atonement in the tags at the page bottom and it will lead to many threads on atonement.
Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #127 on: January 16, 2012, 10:07:19 PM »


Do Orthodox theologians know about the Jewish Feast of Atonement,when the high priest would sacrifice victims in expiation of the sins of the people?

What do you make of those thousands of Jewish sacrifices of atonement of sin?  Is it not Roman Catholic teaching that even the least serious of sins is an offence against the infinite majesty and justice of God and therefore no finite human being has the power to make any atonement acceptable to Him?


The Church does not teach that we cannot offer anything to God in atonement for our sins. Penance is acceptable to God,because it is an act of humility and pious fear and devotion. What we cannot do is make sacrifices that will take away the stain of original sin and merit eternal life.

God prescribed sacrifices for sin in the Mosaic Law,and he accepted them if they were done with sincere repentance.

Hebrews 9,

11

But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, 10 passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,

12

he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.

13

For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's ashes 11 can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,

14

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit 12 offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.

15

13 For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

16

14 Now where there is a will, the death of the testator must be established.

17

For a will takes effect only at death; it has no force while the testator is alive.

18

Thus not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.

19

15 When every commandment had been proclaimed by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves (and goats), together with water and crimson wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

20

saying, "This is 'the blood of the covenant which God has enjoined upon you.'"

21

In the same way, he sprinkled also the tabernacle 16 and all the vessels of worship with blood.

22

17 According to the law almost everything is purified by blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

23

18 Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified by these rites, but the heavenly things themselves by better sacrifices than these.

24

For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf.

25

Not that he might offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters each year into the sanctuary with blood that is not his own;

26

if that were so, he would have had to suffer repeatedly from the foundation of the world. But now once for all he has appeared at the end of the ages 19 to take away sin by his sacrifice.

27

Just as it is appointed that human beings die once, and after this the judgment,

28

so also Christ, offered once to take away the sins of many, 20 will appear a second time, not to take away sin but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 10:14:49 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #128 on: January 16, 2012, 11:22:47 PM »

In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; he demands atonement; restitution must be made.

That is also the view we find in the Old Testament books and Paul's letter to the Hebrews. Hence the bloody sacrifices and sin offerings and penances prescribed in the Jewish Law,which was given by God through Moses.

Quote
But this is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable deserves serious thought in connection with this discussion.

God the Father does freely forgive us,but on account of the sacrifice of his Son,which was done for that purpose. God's forgiveness does not abolish the need for us to do penance for our sins,because the damage to our souls caused by our sins still cling to us until we are purged. Nothing impure will enter into heaven. In the parable,the son has already suffered humiliation for his sins and he repents to his father in humility,and the father gives a fine robe to his son and orders a calf to be killed for him.

Dear Anthony, the teaching of the Atonement is virtually unknown in Orthodoxy.  When people first encounter it, in its Catholic or Protestant forms, the first reaction is generally one of revulsion.

Do the Orthodox accept what the prophets and St. Paul and Jesus Himself said about the death of Christ?
Yes. Unfortunately the Vatican followed Anselm in rejecting their words.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: January 17, 2012, 01:56:36 AM »

"A proper Orthodox answer [on the doctrine of atonement] is probably not to “come out fighting,” but to reassure that Orthodoxy has never wavered on the atoning death of Christ, nor questioned that His blood was shed for us, nor that He is the only way to the Father. The language of Orthodoxy has been shaped in the crucible of the great doctrinal debates surrounding the Trinity and the Doctrine of Christ – as well as within the spiritual world of apophatic theology, in which great care is taken not to assert of God what cannot be asserted. This language and this world have preserved a spiritual Tradition that has not wandered from the Truth nor lost its mooring in the reality of God. Conservative Protestants can be understood in their anxieties, but their anxieties cannot be justified in the face of Orthodox faithfulness.
 
"Orthodox questions about Substitionary Atonement language and imagery are a worthy discussion for Protestants. It is the voice of Christian Tradition, rooted in the Fathers that calls for carefulness when speaking of God and circumspection when asserting something as dogma. Orthodoxy is no stranger to dogma and holds it in the highest regard (you can’t imagine), but just so, it questions a dogma when it cannot find it within its own two-thousand year history of councils and canons. Those questions should give pause to any Christian of good will."

"What’s At Stake in the Atonement"
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/whats-at-stake-in-the-atonement/
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,437


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2012, 10:10:54 PM »

I would take issue with this (and probably get into trouble as I usually do when I allow myself free range of my opinions), but this interpretation seems to stem from St Augustine's misinterpretation of "justification". He could not speak/read Greek and it shows. This error of his seeded the later errors in the west even to the point of the reformation.
Justification in Greek means to be made righteous - a different meaning entirely from atonement. Asteriktos' response is on the right path.

That may be the literal definition of justification in Greek,but it does not convey what Christ's suffering and death was in itself. Christ's sacrifice does not by itself make us righteous in the sense of being obedient to God. That much is obvious. We still have an inclination to evil and we still commit sins,and many believers will not enter into heaven because of their sins. Perhaps the Greek definition of justification had a legal meaning as well as a moral meaning,because only in the sense of having paid a debt did Christ's sacrifice make us righteous. So the Orthodox idea of justification is as "legalistic" as the idea of atonement by sacrifice,only it looks away from the reality of the sacrifice. But the word atonement better conveys what Christ's sacrifice was in itself.

Augustine was capable of reading Greek. But he read scripture from Latin translations,whether or not he also read it in Greek. So he is not responsible for misinterpreting the Greek word for justification. It would not have made much of a difference if he had taken into consideration the meaning of the Greek word,because he would still would have saw Christ's suffering and death as a payment of the debt for sins that humankind owed to God. That is the only interpretation of the sacrifice that makes. It we see no payment of a debt for sins,then we miss the point of why Jesus had to suffer and die in the first place,and we make void the cross.
The "cash register" notion of Christ's death a means to change the father's attitude or to solve his need to balance his own books was unknown for over a thousand years in the Undivided Church (before the Great Schism).

Further, though many within fundamentalist Protestant trajectories have striven vigorously to retain and communicate such emphases there has been a massive abandonment of this paradigm among major contemporary academic investigators during the last century (see links below) to the point that the joint agreement between Roman Catholics and Lutherans borders on appearing as yet another instance of hitching theological horses to a burning wagon.

The fact of massive academic repudiation of central aspects shared by the classic Roman Catholic/Lutheran trajectories if nothing else very strongly suggests that any supposition that such notions approach something either self-evident or hermenutically or logically necessary from the Bible and/or reason is absolute nonsense. From an Orthodox point of view their absence from first millennium Christian tradition also raises interesting questions.

http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/did-luther-get-it-wrong-most-major-contemporary-pauline-scholars-say-yes/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/dikaiosyne-theou-the-righteousness-of-god-in-contemporary-biblical-scholarship/
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/06/22/propitiation-or-expiation-did-christ-change-gods-attitude/
« Last Edit: January 17, 2012, 10:28:41 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #131 on: January 20, 2012, 01:19:38 PM »

Quote
•The pope would also make it clear that Christ's crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ's self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.
From what I can tell, this is what Catholics already believe. We already condemn the Protestant doctrine of the atonement.  Any other Catholics care to chime in?

The idea that Christ's sacrifice was a payment of debt that we owed to the Father is a traditional Catholic teaching,and it is found in scripture. It is not mutually exclusive of the fact that Christ's sacrifice was an act of redemptive love. If we think it was only a payment of redemptive love and not justice,it would not make sense anyway.
"God was so pissed off at the world that He had His only begotten Son tortured to death as horribly as possible, and since then the Father feels so much better."

God is certainly angered by our sins,and he demands justice.

Sorry, the Living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the idol made from the philosophical construct of the your scholastics.

This isn't about scholastic theology. It is a fact known from scripture that God demands atonement for sins,and in the Law of Moses this required the shedding of blood.

He sent his Son out of love for mankind to suffer and be killed for our salvation,and the Son was willing,out of love for the Father and for man. Do you think that God is not offended by our sins and that Jesus willed on his own to suffer and be killed unnecessarily?

Quote
Jesus doesn't need your scholastics' blood atonement for a reason to die.

He needed to suffer and be killed for our sins because the Father willed it,to fulfill his demand of justice.

Romans 3,
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, though testified to by the law and the prophets,n 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23all have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. 24They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed,r 26through the forbearance of God—to prove his righteousness in the present time, that he might be righteous and justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

Jesus offered his body as a sacrifice to the Father in atonement of our sins (not just our lack of perfect love and obedience) and as a ransom for our slavery to sin and death.

So God the Father=sin and death.  Got it.

No,the Father is just and he demands justice for our sins.


Quote
The Lord's hand is not shortened that He cannot save, so He is not bound by Aristotle's categories, no matter how much your scholastics entangle themselves in it.

The doctrine of the atonement is not bound by Aristotle's categories,and it does not make God in need of atonement to save us. It is his will that atonement be made so that his justice will be served. If God did not demand atonement for sins,he would not be perfectly just in his expectations from us.

So it is a matter of God's justice as well as Jesus' love for God and man.

So Yaweh isn't that much different from Baal. Got it.

No,the God of Abraham is the true God and he wills what is just,and Baal was a false god and he willed what was unjust.


Quote
So killing the innocent to let the guilty off is just.  Got it.

No,God willed that Jesus submit to an unjust death on the cross so that his death would be a sacrifice to redeem mankind. That was God's plan,and Jesus assented to the will of his Father.

The Father did,after all,send Jesus to be killed for our salvation. It is not as if Jesus decided on his own to submit to crucifixion without the Father first willing it.

And the will of the Son?  Read Phillippians on that.

The Son willed what the Father willed.

Quote
so your point?

I answered your question.

I saw on your profile that you live in Chicago. I live in Oak Park. Maybe we should meet up and argue about theology. Wouldn't that be fun?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 01:30:27 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
anthony022071
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 47


« Reply #132 on: January 20, 2012, 01:32:46 PM »

deleted
« Last Edit: January 20, 2012, 01:34:06 PM by anthony022071 » Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #133 on: January 20, 2012, 01:36:54 PM »

Anthony, I'm not sure justice is what God is after.  You keep going on about it, but then you admit that Christ's crucifixion was unjust.   How is scapegoating ever just?  How did an unjust act fulfill God's demand for justice? 
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #134 on: January 20, 2012, 01:52:57 PM »

I just came across this:
The Gospel in Chairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnj52gaauBs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

Thanks T J Gilday
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: atonement 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.215 seconds with 72 queries.