Orthodox opinion of Our Lord and Atonement of Sins

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joe,

]
Of course He suffered for our sins but not because the Father required it before necessity would allow Him to forgive us. He suffered for our sins in the same way a firefighter suffers to save those in a burning building. I issue you a challenge. Show me a single verse that states we owed a legal debt to God and that He could not forgive us until that debt was paid. This from St Gregory the Theologian.

It is not right that one should focus on one facet of the early Church’s soteriological doctrine to the exclusion of all else. You have derived from St. Gregory’s excerpt a teaching that denies the Justice of God (in your words, that the debt to God had to be paid before forgiveness occurred). If you read just a little further, you would have noticed that St. Gregory wrote, “So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say shall be reverenced with silence.” There is obviously much more to St. Gregory’s teaching on the matter than the snippet you have proposed and misinterpreted.

The most obvious thing from the excerpt that determines that St. Gregory is not denying the doctrine of Divine Justice is his admission that the Blood of Jesus is in fact a ransom. In another place, he affirms this, “Let us give all, offer all, to Him Who gave Himself a Ransom and a Reconciliation for us” (In Defense of His Flight to Pontus). And again, “He is called Redemption, because He sets us free, who were held captive under sin, giving Himself a Ransom for us, the Sacrifice to make expiation for the world” (Fourth Theological Oration).

St. Gregory rhetorically asks, “But if [the ransom is paid] to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed.” You interpret this to mean that the Father ransom is not paid to the Father. But that is wrong, for later on, he states, “Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him?” Obviously, God is the ransomer, for He accepts the ransom. The point St. Gregory is making is simply that God is not ransomer as oppressor, but as a just judge. “I do not dwell on the judgments to come, to which indulgence in this world delivers us, as it is better to be punished and cleansed now than to be transmitted to the torment to come, when it is the time of chastisement, not cleansing…Far be it from me that I should ever, among other chastisements, be thus reproached by Him Who is good, but walks contrary to me in fury because of my own contrariness” (On His Father’s Silence).

St. Gregory continues, “On what principle did the Blood of His Only Begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac.” You interpret this to mean that God did not view His Son’s Sacrifice as a ransom, but, again, in fact St. Gregory affirms that God accepted the ransom. The point St. Gregory is making is simply that God did not delight in the death of His Son. One need not attach more to the statement than what it exactly states.

St. Gregory also states of the Sacrifice that God “neither asked for Him nor demanded Him.” You interpret this to mean that there is no concept of divine debt being satisfied in the economy of salvation. Again, that is wrong, and this on two counts:

1. The point St. Gregory is making is simply that Christ’s Sacrifice was done willingly by Him. A few sentences later, he explains that Jesus “arranged this to the honour of the Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys all things.”
2. Though the Sacrifice was neither asked nor demanded of Christ, the sacrifices are indeed asked and demanded of us. The purpose of the Holy Sacrifice was a payment in order to purchase our souls for God. This purchase transforms us by faith, and causes our works to be acceptable sacrifices to God.

What I have written above can be said of all the Cappadocians – in fact, all the Fathers, when they speak of salvation. None of the early Fathers neglected to teach about the Justice of God. True enough, santification/theosis is part of this teaching, but it is only part of a greater context. Our sharing in the divine life is not an end in and of itself, as you present it, but rather so that we will be enabled to satisfy the Justice of God; to be able to give back to God that which we continually owe him – our very life. That, my brother, is the very essence of worship. God demands that of us – that is His Justice – and we offer ourselves as living sacrifices not haltingly or out of obligation, but in love and thankfulness.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Btw, a biblical verse which stands out in my mind teaching that forgiveness depends on a debt being paid is Hebrews 9:22 – “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul’s explanation that Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice replaces the OT animal sacrifices for the true forgiveness of sins – “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.”

I’ll leave you with two other excerpts from St. Gregory, to contemplate the fact that God is a God of Love and Justice, not just one, nor just the other.

“We both believe in and hear of the dregs of the anger of God, the residuum of His dealings with those who deserve it: For the Lord is a God of vengeance. For although He is disposed by His kindness to gentleness rather than severity, yet He does not absolutely pardon sinners, lest they should be made worse by His goodness.”
(On the Death of His Father)

“And Reason – what else can you think it than that which is either silent within ourselves, or eles outpoured? If you conceive of Wisdom, what is it but the habit of mind which you know as such, and which is concerned with contemplations divine or human? And Justice and Love, are thy not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other opposed to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaces, now taking possession of us, now leaving us a long, and, in a word, making us what we are, and changing us as colours to bodies…What then is this subtle thing, which is of these, and yet is not these, or how can that Unity which is in its Nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them perfectly?
(Second Theological Oration)

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.

Indeed, but never forget that Christ came not to abolish the Law, but to perfect it. The Justice of God is evident in the OT. It was met through the blood of goats and bulls in the OT, but in the New Covenant, it is the Blood of Christ which meets the Justice of God - not for His sake Who knew no sin, but for ours.

Blessings

 

[Ghosty]

Just for fun, since St. Athanasius was brought up in support of the Orthodox argument:

As we have already noted, it was unthinkable that God, the Father of Truth, should go back upon His word regarding death in order to ensure our continued existence. He could not falsify Himself; what, then, was God to do? Was He to demand repentance from men for their transgression? You might say that that was worthy of God, and argue further that, as through the Transgression they became subject to corruption, so through repentance they might return to incorruption again. But repentance would not guard the Divine consistency, for, if death did not hold dominion over men, God would still remain untrue.

…

Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death,** He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father**. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men.

…

For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all,** might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all**, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required.

As Mardukm said, St. Athanasius is really the ultimate purveyor “substitutionary atonement”. I’m not saying that this is the only way to look at Christ’s death, nor is it my personal preference, but merely pointing out that it is not peculiar to the Latins or to St. Augustine. I just find it amusing that Eastern Orthodox always bring up St. Athanasius in these discussions, when he blatantly supports the Latin theological view.

Peace and God bless!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

It is pretty dang rare when I can say this but here goes: I agree with you, Mardukm

CONTINUED

Btw, a biblical verse which stands out in my mind teaching that forgiveness depends on a debt being paid is Hebrews 9:22 – “…without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.” The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is St. Paul’s explanation that Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice replaces the OT animal sacrifices for the true forgiveness of sins – “For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.”

I’ll leave you with two other excerpts from St. Gregory, to contemplate the fact that God is a God of Love and Justice, not just one, nor just the other.

“We both believe in and hear of the dregs of the anger of God, the residuum of His dealings with those who deserve it: For the Lord is a God of vengeance. For although He is disposed by His kindness to gentleness rather than severity, yet He does not absolutely pardon sinners, lest they should be made worse by His goodness.”
(On the Death of His Father)

“And Reason – what else can you think it than that which is either silent within ourselves, or eles outpoured? If you conceive of Wisdom, what is it but the habit of mind which you know as such, and which is concerned with contemplations divine or human? And Justice and Love, are thy not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other opposed to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaces, now taking possession of us, now leaving us a long, and, in a word, making us what we are, and changing us as colours to bodies…What then is this subtle thing, which is of these, and yet is not these, or how can that Unity which is in its Nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them perfectly?
(Second Theological Oration)

Blessings,
Marduk