Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us?

[thethinker]

Suffering isn't the issue.  "For us" isn't the issue.

Penal suffering is the problem. We believe Christ suffered for us.  We do not believe Christ was punished for us. 

I concur! A just God CANNOT punish an innocent man. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. This means that He turned God's wrath away. But if He was punished, then He did not turn God's wrath away.

[Jason.Wike]

Can this thread be closed since I didn't even actually create it? If a mod wanted to start a thread on this they should've started one with their own name.

[PeterTheAleut]

Can this thread be closed since I didn't even actually create it? If a mod wanted to start a thread on this they should've started one with their own name.

Why is it such a big deal that your name, and not someone else's, is on the OP?

Also, do be careful how much freedom you give yourself to criticize a moderator's actions publicly, since that's one of the best ways to get yourself into trouble on this forum.

[Jason.Wike]

Can this thread be closed since I didn't even actually create it? If a mod wanted to start a thread on this they should've started one with their own name.

Why is it such a big deal that your name, and not someone else's, is on the OP?

Also, do be careful how much freedom you give yourself to criticize a moderator's actions publicly, since that's one of the best ways to get yourself into trouble on this forum.

Because I did not create this thread and it is falsely ascribed to me. Falsely attributing people is rude and dishonest. Anything someone puts under my name I have every right to say anything against.

[thethinker]

I would like to see the thread stay open because I think penal substitution is a gross misconception of the atonement. I come from the Reformed tradition which teaches penal substitution. I came to question it about two years ago and am now fully persuaded it is error. It hinges upon the mis-translation of one lone statement in Isaiah 53.

[Pericles]

I would like to see the thread stay open because I think penal substitution is a gross misconception of the atonement. I come from the Reformed tradition which teaches penal substitution. I came to question it about two years ago and am now fully persuaded it is error. It hinges upon the mis-translation of one lone statement in Isaiah 53.

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

[orthonorm]

I would like to see the thread stay open because I think penal substitution is a gross misconception of the atonement. I come from the Reformed tradition which teaches penal substitution. I came to question it about two years ago and am now fully persuaded it is error. It hinges upon the mis-translation of one lone statement in Isaiah 53.

Oh, that the world were so simple!

[orthonorm]

I would like to see the thread stay open because I think penal substitution is a gross misconception of the atonement. I come from the Reformed tradition which teaches penal substitution. I came to question it about two years ago and am now fully persuaded it is error. It hinges upon the mis-translation of one lone statement in Isaiah 53.

Perhaps we should start a new thread?

It will be one for the ages, I am sure.

[PeterTheAleut]

Can this thread be closed since I didn't even actually create it? If a mod wanted to start a thread on this they should've started one with their own name.

Why is it such a big deal that your name, and not someone else's, is on the OP?

Also, do be careful how much freedom you give yourself to criticize a moderator's actions publicly, since that's one of the best ways to get yourself into trouble on this forum.

Because I did not create this thread and it is falsely ascribed to me. Falsely attributing people is rude and dishonest.

Chill out, guy. A lot of people on this forum know that when a thread gets split, the first post in the tangent split off becomes the OP of the new thread. There's nothing rude or dishonest about that. In a way, then, by veering off topic on another thread, you did start this thread.

Anything someone puts under my name I have every right to say anything against.

Once you start a thread or submit a post on this forum, it becomes the property of the forum, and you really can't control where it and the following discussion will go.

Besides, you will find that I fixed your OP for you so others will see more clearly where the thread started.

[orthonorm]

Can this thread be closed since I didn't even actually create it? If a mod wanted to start a thread on this they should've started one with their own name.

Why is it such a big deal that your name, and not someone else's, is on the OP?

Also, do be careful how much freedom you give yourself to criticize a moderator's actions publicly, since that's one of the best ways to get yourself into trouble on this forum.

Because I did not create this thread and it is falsely ascribed to me. Falsely attributing people is rude and dishonest.

Chill out, guy. A lot of people on this forum know that when a thread gets split, the first post in the tangent split off becomes the OP of the new thread. There's nothing rude or dishonest about that. In a way, then, by veering off topic on another thread, you did start this thread.

Anything someone puts under my name I have every right to say anything against.

Once you start a thread or submit a post on this forum, it becomes the property of the forum, and you really can't control where it and the following discussion will go.

Besides, you will find that I fixed your OP for you so others will see more clearly where the thread started.

PtA, no matter what everyone else says, including myself, you are a real mensch.

Srsly, being a mod has gotta be a drag. Can the board decide on a mod appreciation day, where we don't act like fools and children and pretend we appreciate what you all do?

[Melodist]

Can the board decide on a mod appreciation day, where we don't act like fools and children and pretend we appreciate what you all do?

We do that every year on clean monday.

[Doubting Thomas]

Penal substitution was largely a Latin idea originating with St Anselm. It harks back to Jewish temple sacrifices.

And Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of those temple sacrifices, yes?

[orthonorm]

Penal substitution was largely a Latin idea originating with St Anselm. It harks back to Jewish temple sacrifices.

And Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of those temple sacrifices, yes?

I dunno about that at least not strictly speaking.

[Achronos]

There was some discovery done a few years ago that found out Jews were crucifying lambs about 30-100 years before Christ.

I though that bit was interesting.

[Pericles]

Penal substitution was largely a Latin idea originating with St Anselm. It harks back to Jewish temple sacrifices.

And Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of those temple sacrifices, yes?

According to the substitution theory, yes. Although one of my professors taught me that as far as Jewish theology was concerned it didn't require any fulfilment.

[Sinful Hypocrite]

Suffering isn't the issue.  "For us" isn't the issue.

Penal suffering is the problem. We believe Christ suffered for us.  We do not believe Christ was punished for us.  

I concur! A just God CANNOT punish an innocent man. Christ is the propitiation for our sins. This means that He turned God's wrath away. But if He was punished, then He did not turn God's wrath away.

There are no innocent men.

[Doubting Thomas]

Penal substitution was largely a Latin idea originating with St Anselm. It harks back to Jewish temple sacrifices.

And Christ's sacrifice was the fulfillment of those temple sacrifices, yes?

According to the substitution theory, yes. Although one of my professors taught me that as far as Jewish theology was concerned it didn't require any fulfilment.

What about the theology of the one who penned Hebrews? Chapter 9 in particular. He certainly seemed to believe the Jewish sacrifices in the Old Covenant were in need of fulfilment--they were types of the true sacrifice of the ONE who was to come and 'bear the sins of many' (HEB 9:28).  HIS was the blood of the New Covenant; theirs was the blood of the Old (Heb 9:19-22).

[Melodist]

That only speaks to the necessity of Christs death for the remission of sins, nothing about it being punitive in nature.

[Alveus Lacuna]

This topic is so confused.

All that we teach against is that Jesus died to save us from God the Father.

That's it. Ignore the rest.

[biro]

This topic is so confused.

All that we teach against is that Jesus died to save us from God the Father.

That's it. Ignore the rest.

I wish you wrote textbooks. You could have saved me a lot of head-scratching years ago. 

[BrotherAidan]

Suffering isn't the issue.  "For us" isn't the issue.

Penal suffering is the problem. We believe Christ suffered for us.  We do not believe Christ was punished for us. 

I have thought about this question quite a bit lately. Whether penal retribution or liberal theology's example of love it is pretty disgusting to our modern (or post modern) mindset to sacrifice your son as an example of love to all humankind OR to satisfy your own wrath.
A. We think differently than the ancients. We might be the ancient Church's inheritors and we may follow the ancient Church's liturgy and Tradition but we do not THINK like them. What communicated a theological reality to them may be lost on us. Just like committing genocide against the Canaanites (which never actually happened even according to the actual testimony of the old testament / there were a few pitched brutal battles then assimilation on Israel's part and capitulation on Canaanites part). But some ancient editor of the Pentateuch and Joshua thought it an effective communication technique to posit YHWH as a bigger badder God than theirs who commands us to wipe them out
B. We CAN relate to Jesus of his own volition choosing to suffer for us and by whose voluntary stripes we are healed.
C. We have ABSOLUTELY NO understanding of the inner workings and unity/ communion of the Holy Trinity to know how the will of one is the will of the other Persons so it really is a mystery how/why the son suffered.
D. The ransom theory is slightly less problematic than satisfying wrath or giving a pretty expensive and precious ( to say the least) "example" of love because the ONE actually rescues the many and if you look at the Aslan analogy ala CS Lewis (a deeper magic mandated the ultimate rescue of the ONE through resurrrection and tricked the witch/devil; however it still doesn't address the suffering of the ONE) you still have the dilemma of how can God "owe" a debt to the devil? Or the ethicality of the " trick" of a deeper magic.
E. Rescuing from sin and death is the one reality we can best relate to and is most readily grasped by our modern/postmodern minds.
 This makes me more readily appreciate the true mystery of the cross and Orthodoxy's non dogmatic embrace of all the paradigms for approximatetely describing (but not explaining) a mystery as well as Orthodoxy's leaning toward ransom and especially rescuing from sin and death.

[BrotherAidan]

Sorry for the run-on paragraph in the above post. It was done at a bistro on a Kindle Fire. It looked better on the screen before I submitted it, than it does now and the time to modify has run out!

[BrotherAidan]

Not at all! A denial of penal substitution theology does not equal a denial of Christ's suffering.

What's the Orthodox theory instead of this, then?

The Orthodox "theory" is that it works because it works, and if one kind of language helps you draw closer to it, then more power to you.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis a bit (and it was he who helped me to see that one can deny "penal substitutionary atonement" as an absolute reality and still affirm that Christ suffered and died for us), we have to be careful that we do not confuse the "thing" with the "explanation of the thing". He gives an example of eating supper: long before we developed our modern understanding of acids and proteins and minerals and such, people still ate their supper and benefited from it. Whether they understood how it worked or not, they still ate, and they still knew that it was good to eat. And it could be that our understanding of nutrition is flawed, and perhaps some day in the future we'll have a different explanation as to why eating supper is good for us. But that won't make our experience of eating supper any less significant, or any less real, or any less good.

It's the same with Christ. There are different ways of explaining why He did what He did, and why it benefits mankind. But whether we have the exact understanding or not, it doesn't change our experience with that reality and make it any less good for us.

Another issue is that Who Christ is and what He has accomplished for us is something that is beyond the ability of human language to fully express. Although we speak and communicate ideas with speech, there are things, especially pertaining to God, that our language simply cannot fully express. Christ and our salvation are the same way. We can use human experiences and examples as means of describing what Christ did, but all those examples and models ultimately fall short. In other words, the best that we can do with human language is to make analogies of this, but we will never be able to make a tautology.

We find this all over the New Testament, especially in the Gospels (Christ makes use of a wide range of "atonement theories", so to speak). Christ uses the analogy of being lost and then being found; of being judged for a crime; of being sick and then being made well; of being on the wrong path and then finding the true path; etc. Paul and the other Apostles make use of a variety of analogies as well: being dead and being made alive; being in darkness and then coming into the light; being objects of wrath and then being made objects of mercy; etc. All of these analogies are different, and none of them are the actual reality of our salvation.

So there really is not problem with the use of substitutionary language. That only becomes a problem when people try to make substitutionary language to be "the thing", as if it were the totality of the reality of our salvation. And because of all the baggage associated with that language and the layers of theology that are built upon it in many Protestant circles, we tend just to avoid the language altogether lest people think that we agree with all the "baggage" that is most often associated with that language.

This is an outstanding post. I actually saved it for future reference. Thank you!

[akimel]

In the most commonsense way, Jesus suffered both for God and for humanity.  He suffered for God, because God had given him a mission to proclaim the coming Kingdom and fidelity to this mission inevitably resulted in conflict both with Jewish authorities and with Rome.  He suffered for us because his mission was a mission for the good of Israel and ultimately the good of all mankind.  And again, fidelity to this mission ultimately left him with the choice either to abandon his mission (God forbid!) or to embrace the cup of suffering.  Everything else is theory and theological interpretation.  And as Brother Aidan has noted, we are not saved by theory; we are saved by the reality of Christ's death and resurrection.     

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Yet so many modern Orthodox deny Christ suffered for us?