Orthodox opinion of Our Lord and Atonement of Sins

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Peace,

Let’s take what you’re saying all the way. You agree that Jesus made the sacrifice for us because we can’t make it ourselves. I agree with you. But if God doesn’t see things in terms of satisfaction of justice, law, and consistency with offering sacrifice for sins, why bother as God the Father allowing your Son to die on the Cross? God could’ve easily just snapped His divine fingers and made things right between man and God. We all know that. But obviously He decided otherwise, to allow His Beloved Son to die a wretched death. Not only a death on the Cross but the flogging, the whipping, the exhaustion, the crown of thorns, all of it. We can agree that God knowingly allowed this to happen. It was providential, God knew it, God planned it, God allowed it. So, why did He allow all this to happen? Why didn’t He just send Christ and Christ hold out his hands and snap his fingers and we’re all reconciled? I think you’re ignoring the divine justice aspect of this. Wrath is a common theme of the Old Testament. Wrath is what WE deserve for being children of the Fall. Wrath is what WE deserve, by divine justice. God is consistent. He sets rules and plays them out. There is a divine law in the universe and it is that sin requires atonement and sacrifice. It’s not so much satisfying God’s sick blood lust but satisfying sacrifice and atonement for sin. God set the rules and had to be consistent with them as he is God.

You’re making a critical mistake in reading my view and that is this–somehow you assume I am saying God enjoys, basks in, and takes pleasure in Jesus’s suffering. He smiles and loves it. NO. That is NOT what I am saying even remotely. I am saying that God has set out rules of engagement for sin. It is judicial. Orthodox don’t like that because they’re on their mystical, conquering death medicinal trip that has little basis in Scripture. I am saying that divine justice was set forth by God. The atonement and sacrificial language and actions and priesthood are all painfully clear in the OT and prefigure the Atonement of the NT. God did not enjoy watching His Son die, but He had to be true to the salvation path set forward from the Garden all the way through Abraham to the Mosaic days of the sacrificial priesthood of the Levites through the NT.

I fail to see why your John 3:16 reference negates Atonement language? For God so loved the world that He sent Jesus to die for our sins. To take our place. To satisfy the divine justice that we could not satisfy. To die, not for God’s PLEASURE but for the destruction of the Law’s legal claims against us.

I never said God needs Jesus to suffer so he can be “happy.” That is an overdramatized edition of Atonement that bears no basis in Scripture or reason. It’s about satisfying the destruction of the Law by an Atonement in which Christ, the victim who doesn’t deserve the “justice” of the Law overcoming the Law by taking our places. Nobody was “happy” or enjoying the Cross, least of all Satan! He would’ve loved Jesus to run from the Cross.

The sadism, child abuse, Spongian talk never makes sense.

I have no idea who Bishop Spong is, and I’m sure I not would agree with his teaching, nor would I call it child abuse. I can understand why you would completely reject my argument just because it sounds like Spong’s (and I’m sure I would generally agree with your anti-Spong approach to life), but try to weigh it logically.

Jesus did take our place on the cross. And yes, He suffered because we couldn’t make that sacrifice. The only thing we disagree on is that “Only a perfect sacrifice could appease divine justice”. God is loving, He doesn’t need us to suffer, or his Son to suffer, so that He can be happy. Don’t you see how sadistic and evil that makes God. God does not need anything from us, He doesn’t need us. He created so that He could share His love, and Christ’s sacrifice is a symbol of that love.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

We needed Christ so that we could be saved, God did not need His Son’s blood in order to tolerate His creation.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think not actually. I think Spong is an atheist who used the machinery of TEC to rise to a high level of power. I personally think Spong is a tool of the Devil and a sickening man who needs prayer, deeply. The Atonement didn’t breed Spong, secular and diabolical influences did!

One could argue that Spong-ism is a direct result of an over-emphasis on this view of the Atonement.

What do you think Gurney?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Joe,

Respectfully, you should get a clue then. Men like Spong are dangerous and hurtful to all of Christendom. You should care. The schizophrenic maniac comment is just plain absurd and you know it. Silly. I fail to see why the Prodigal Son negates Atonement language. And if you cannot see that God’s wrath was a deserved thing upon the human race for the Fall, then I can’t help you. Only Scripture can and more study of it.

See my previous post, 21 I believe. That details the truth against your sadism schizophrenia position.

Let me ask you something. When Jesus died, if He wasn’t taking our place on the Cross, are you saying that we didn’t deserve death for our Sin in the Garden? Are you saying that as concupiscent, sinful beings who cannot save ourselves that we didn’t deserve the death given to us by God’s wrath? Are you saying God doesn’t have wrath that humanity deserves? Because Scripture is rife with references to said wrath both temporal and eternal. You know that. Jesus died to overcome death. True. But how? How does His death warrant life? Why didn’t Jesus just snap his fingers and restore us that way? Why a death on the Cross? Are you somehow saying God didn’t want Jesus to die on the Cross?
Very thin position. It’s easy to hurl out accusations of sadism and nonsense like that when you don’t return a position because you’re at work.

Don’t have a clue who Spong is and quite frankly I don’t care. The idea of God you put forward is one of a schizophrenic maniac. Do you really believe that God (the Father), killed God (the Son), in order to save humanity from Himself? I don’t have time right now as I am off to work, but there are other analogies used in Scripture do describe our salvation besides the ones you are emphasizing. The Prodigal Son is the first one that comes to mind.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hi Joe,

Respectfully, you should get a clue then. Men like Spong are dangerous and hurtful to all of Christendom. You should care.

This man has nothing to do with Orthodoxy my brother. Is he Catholic or Anglican? Either way he’s not ours to deal with.

The schizophrenic maniac comment is just plain absurd and you know it. Silly.

But as PeaceSerenity said if we were to meet a human who behaved exactly the same way what would we say of him? How is punishing an innocent party for the crimes of another considered just and good? In fact that is the very definition of injustice. How a person could ascribe such an aberration of justice to God I don’t understand.

I fail to see why the Prodigal Son negates Atonement language.

That is the whole problem of your approach. You’ve taken one illustrative metaphor among many and made it to be the very nature of salvation itself. You have a number of these in Scripture to describe our salvation; the Prodigal Son, the lost coin, the lost sheep and the workers in the vineyard. All of these parables were told by God’s Son Himself and they don’t say anything about paying a penalty for our sins or anything of the like. In fact, if we were to follow your logic the father in the prodigal son should have turned and slaughtered his innocent son before he could allow his sinful son back into his good graces. Of course we all know that didn’t happen.

And if you cannot see that God’s wrath was a deserved thing upon the human race for the Fall, then I can’t help you. Only Scripture can and more study of it.

Only if you approach Scripture with your neo-pagan presuppositions my brother.

Let me ask you something. When Jesus died, if He wasn’t taking our place on the Cross, are you saying that we didn’t deserve death for our Sin in the Garden? Are you saying that as concupiscent, sinful beings who cannot save ourselves that we didn’t deserve the death given to us by God’s wrath? Are you saying God doesn’t have wrath that humanity deserves?

That’s precisely what I’m saying. Show me where in Scripture it says we deserve death for our sins? My brother you are operating on the characteristically pagan presumption that God is somehow bound by some necessity to punish us, a necessity that He has no power or control over. As St Gregory the Theologian says we understand God according to the fishermen, not according to the (Greek) philosophers. God doesn’t condemn us to eternal torment because we violate one of His pet fetishes. That thinking makes God mankind’s great enemy and oppressor and the devil nothing more than God’s minster of vengeance.

Who could love such a God? If anything you just do everything you can to placate Him and hope He spares you. That is not love my brother, it’s living in terror.

Why didn’t Jesus just snap his fingers and restore us that way? Why a death on the Cross?

You think He couldn’t?

I’ll give you a hint…it has to do with God’s genuine love for us and our God given free will.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Correct. He’s not Orthodox. But he thinks like you do…the cheesy “abusive father” and sadism metaphors that are inaccurate and silly. He’s a heretical bishop in the Anglican circles who has lost all common sense, belief in Christ, and has dragged countless people into heresy and heterodox thinking like himself. If you read his opinions on the Atonement, they closely resemble yours. It’s worth noting. Not good company to keep opinion-wise IMO.
QUOTE=josephdaniel29;7148333]This man has nothing to do with Orthodoxy my brother. Is he Catholic or Anglican? Either way he’s not ours to deal with.
So now you’re saying that human beings behave like God and you’re trying to bring him down to our level? Didn’t God in the Old Testament tell the Israelites to SLAUGHTER the Canaanites? The Amalekites? The Amorites? The Philistines? I’m really really really anxious to hear your reaction to that, brother joseph. God told Saul to slaughter the enemy and not allow man, woman, child or king alive. When Saul did, he was greatly punished. God also killed the first born baby of David, remember? God also allowed the waves to fall down upon the Egyptians and drown them all. Remember that? Or how about the first born males to all die in Egypt! Remember that? So, from your point of view, bringing God to our level, he’d be a sadistic, insane, out of control mass-murderer the likes of which no one has ever seen! Problem is, HE’S GOD. He creates us, he can take us back. His ways are not our ways. It is a fundamental mistake you’re making trying to bring him to our level and compare and contrast him, putting the Lord in a box. I’m anxious to hear your reply to these “sadistic” acts that God perpetrated upon the enemies of Israel. Sadistic? Evil? I bet if you met this guy, you’d say he’s insane and a killer, right? But as PeaceSerenity said if we were to meet a human who behaved exactly the same way what would we say of him? How is punishing an innocent party for the crimes of another considered just and good? In fact that is the very definition of injustice. How a person could ascribe such an aberration of justice to God I don’t understand.

That is the whole problem of your approach. You’ve taken one illustrative metaphor among many and made it to be the very nature of salvation itself. You have a number of these in Scripture to describe our salvation; the Prodigal Son, the lost coin, the lost sheep and the workers in the vineyard. All of these parables were told by God’s Son Himself and they don’t say anything about paying a penalty for our sins or anything of the like. In fact, if we were to follow your logic the father in the prodigal son should have turned and slaughtered his innocent son before he could allow his sinful son back into his good graces. Of course we all know that didn’t happen.

My neo-pagan presuppositions? I’d love to hear you explain and elaborate on this insulting and nasty barb.
Only if you approach Scripture with your neo-pagan presuppositions my brother.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’d be delighted! How about Isaiah 53, the entire chapter! I’d be interested to hear your commentary on this verse o n 53:10! "But the Lord was please to crush him in infirmity." And I’m also interested to hear your thoughts on this verse: “But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins…But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all…” Ephesians 2:16 and Colossians 2:14, Lev 16:29-34, Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22,
And if you’d like some examples of God’s wrath, which you seem to be denying and implying any human, were he to have this wrath, would be a sadistic madman, look no further than John 3:36, Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, and look at what Acts 2:23 says!

God NEVER takes pleasure in the blood of anyone. And he definitely did NOT take pleasure or joy from watching His Beloved Son die on the Cross miserably. You know I’m not saying that. I’ve been quite clear. But God the Father knew His Son would have to die to satisfy the justice that His own law required that the human race couldn’t possibly follow on their own. Thanks to the Garden and the Fall we must die. God in his love sent His Son who, of his own volition, was willing to die for our sins. This isn’t neo pagan, it’s Scripture, period. God didn’t enjoy it at all. See Ezekiel 18:32 which says For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye God didn’t enjoy it. But he endured it for our sakes. God is consistent. He set forth a mode and system of sacrifice and atonement for sins. From day one sacrifices were sent to God through the patriarchs, Abraham, etc. And when Israel comes out of Egypt the Yom Kippur and atonement models are established straight from God. He lays out a prophecy that the suffering servant will come and fullfill this atonement in its fullness. God created the system and means for salvation to be consistent all the way through, pleasure not playing a part. So the unfair and irrelevent charges of neo-paganism and sadism and evil views of God are not only ludicrous, they don’t jive with Scripture.

That’s precisely what I’m saying. Show me where in Scripture it says we deserve death for our sins? My brother you are operating on the characteristically pagan presumption that God is somehow bound by some necessity to punish us, a necessity that He has no power or control over. As St Gregory the Theologian says we understand God according to the fishermen, not according to the (Greek) philosophers. God doesn’t condemn us to eternal torment because we violate one of His pet fetishes. That thinking makes God mankind’s great enemy and oppressor and the devil nothing more than God’s minster of vengeance.
**I do. And so do millions of other Catholics and Protestants. More combined love this God than your Orthodox brethren. I don’t try to paint God the way I would want Mr. Rogers to behave. I read Scripture, look at tradition, what the Church says, great men like Augustine (whom you no doubt don’t value at all being Eastern) and common sense. I love the God of the Bible and don’t expect him to conform to my insecurities.
Who could love such a God? If anything you just do everything you can to placate Him and hope He spares you. That is not love my brother, it’s living in terror.**Free will has nothing to do with this. You think He couldn’t?

**I don’t need hints, brother. I have Scripture and the Fathers and common sense. Hints not needed at this locale! **I’ll give you a hint…it has to do with God’s genuine love for us and our God given free will.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Correct. He’s not Orthodox. But he thinks like you do…the cheesy “abusive father” and sadism metaphors that are inaccurate and silly. He’s a heretical bishop in the Anglican circles who has lost all common sense, belief in Christ, and has dragged countless people into heresy and heterodox thinking like himself.

There are lots of heretical Anglican bishops so that doesn’t distinguish him that much. Anyway, why are we even discussing him?

If you read his opinions on the Atonement, they closely resemble yours. It’s worth noting. Not good company to keep opinion-wise IMO.

Totally irrelevant. Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church believes Jesus is the Son of God. Do you have a problem keeping company with him?

So now you’re saying that human beings behave like God and you’re trying to bring him down to our level? Didn’t God in the Old Testament tell the Israelites to SLAUGHTER the Canaanites? The Amalekites? The Amorites? The Philistines? I’m really really really anxious to hear your reaction to that, brother joseph. God told Saul to slaughter the enemy and not allow man, woman, child or king alive. When Saul did, he was greatly punished. God also killed the first born baby of David, remember? God also allowed the waves to fall down upon the Egyptians and drown them all. Remember that? Or how about the first born males to all die in Egypt! Remember that? So, from your point of view, bringing God to our level, he’d be a sadistic, insane, out of control mass-murderer the likes of which no one has ever seen! Problem is, HE’S GOD.

Anything God does brings about the greater good. This life is fleeting my brother and those accounts say nothing about the eternal state of those involved. In fact I believe it’s St Theophan the Recluse who said something to the effect that God, knowing that some of us will irrevocably separate ourselves from Him, takes some of us from this life early in order to save us from ourselves.

He creates us, he can take us back.

And He does take us back, just like the Prodigal Son.

His ways are not our ways. It is a fundamental mistake you’re making trying to bring him to our level and compare and contrast him, putting the Lord in a box. I’m anxious to hear your reply to these “sadistic” acts that God perpetrated upon the enemies of Israel. Sadistic? Evil? I bet if you met this guy, you’d say he’s insane and a killer, right?

My brother I’m not the one who is saying God is bound by necessity to punish us. So, who is putting Him in a box?

My neo-pagan presuppositions? I’d love to hear you explain and elaborate on this insulting and nasty barb.

Come on Gurney, I know you are upset about our beloved Braves beating your team at home but you don’t have to take things so personally.

Seriously, I don’t mean anything I am saying in an insulting manner and I apologize if you took it that way. What do I mean by “neo-pagan presuppositions”? I mean that you are binding God with a necessity to punish sin, a necessity He has no power or control over. That is the way the pagan Greeks viewed their gods, as being subservient to necessity.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You did not respond to any of my biblical references, which is very, very telling… It’s hard to argue with the Word of God.

“Our beloved Braves?” Aren’t you from Florida? Hello, Marlins? Rays? Florida? LOL…

And as far as the Braves go, I’m an intellectually honest guy as you’ve probably deduced from my posts by now. The Braves totally deserved that win. For one thing, Posey, in my opinion, as tagged OUT on the first game, which gave an unfair advantage to my G-Men over the Braves. Then in game two it was very obvious, IMO, that Huff’s foot was NOT on the bag when he supposedly tagged the Braves guy out at first receiving that awesome throw from Uribe. Cox should not have been thrown out of that game. It was unfair across the board and the Giants should’ve have received the benefits of a lousy call. Our relievers Romo and Wilson totally blew it and Atlanta capitalized on it. So nowhere have I indicated we were robbed, sour grapes, or being a baby about that game. Atlanta showed a lot of heart and capitalized on our having a bad night. More power to the Braves. Good for them.

I happen to think we are a better team, period, however. Our pitching is superior to yours, our relief is superior, our management is about on a par as is our offense. I think injury in large part is why you guys haven’t done better than you could have this year. Chipper, etc.

I think it will go to five games and the Giants will eliminate the Braves. We will move on to play Philadelphia and then, my friend, then we’ll be in heaps of trouble. All I can say is:
H20. Nuff said.

There are lots of heretical Anglican bishops so that doesn’t distinguish him that much. Anyway, why are we even discussing him?

Totally irrelevant. Fred Phelps, the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church believes Jesus is the Son of God. Do you have a problem keeping company with him?

Anything God does brings about the greater good. This life is fleeting my brother and those accounts say nothing about the eternal state of those involved. In fact I believe it’s St Theophan the Recluse who said something to the effect that God, knowing that some of us will irrevocably separate ourselves from Him, takes some of us from this life early in order to save us from ourselves.

And He does take us back, just like the Prodigal Son.

My brother I’m not the one who is saying God is bound by necessity to punish us. So, who is putting Him in a box?

Come on Gurney, I know you are upset about our beloved Braves beating your team at home but you don’t have to take things so personally.

Seriously, I don’t mean anything I am saying in an insulting manner and I apologize if you took it that way. What do I mean by “neo-pagan presuppositions”? I mean that you are binding God with a necessity to punish sin, a necessity He has no power or control over. That is the way the pagan Greeks viewed their gods, as being subservient to necessity.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

You did not respond to any of my biblical references, which is very, very telling… It’s hard to argue with the Word of God.

Quite frankly Gurney it was almost 1am when I responded to your post and I was pretty tired. Alas, I work in retail and I’m off to work again. I will address your passages when I get home tonight.

“Our beloved Braves?” Aren’t you from Florida? Hello, Marlins? Rays? Florida? LOL…

Born and raised in GA about 60 miles from Atlanta. Not one for changing loyalties because I move.

And as far as the Braves go, I’m an intellectually honest guy as you’ve probably deduced from my posts by now. The Braves totally deserved that win. For one thing, Posey, in my opinion, as tagged OUT on the first game, which gave an unfair advantage to my G-Men over the Braves. Then in game two it was very obvious, IMO, that Huff’s foot was NOT on the bag when he supposedly tagged the Braves guy out at first receiving that awesome throw from Uribe. Cox should not have been thrown out of that game. It was unfair across the board and the Giants should’ve have received the benefits of a lousy call. Our relievers Romo and Wilson totally blew it and Atlanta capitalized on it. So nowhere have I indicated we were robbed, sour grapes, or being a baby about that game. Atlanta showed a lot of heart and capitalized on our having a bad night. More power to the Braves. Good for them.

I happen to think we are a better team, period, however. Our pitching is superior to yours, our relief is superior, our management is about on a par as is our offense. I think injury in large part is why you guys haven’t done better than you could have this year. Chipper, etc.

I think it will go to five games and the Giants will eliminate the Braves. We will move on to play Philadelphia and then, my friend, then we’ll be in heaps of trouble. All I can say is:
H20. Nuff said.

Well that’s the thing with a five game series. Anybody can have a couple of bad nights and then you’re really in a hole. I wouldn’t underestimate the emotinal aspect of this being Bobby Cox’s last season.

In Christ
Joe

 

[mardukm]

Just wanted to pop in to say that I’m on your side, brother Gurney. Christ came to satisfy God’s justice.

It’s interesting that brother John appealed to Pope St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione, which is practically a treatise on how the Lord satisfied the Divine Justice. True enough, Pope St. Athanasius also speaks of overcoming death and transforming our nature in theosis, but that is only part of the whole picture.

The Orientals and Latins have it right on this point.

Blessings

 

[josephdaniel29]

I’d be delighted! How about Isaiah 53, the entire chapter! I’d be interested to hear your commentary on this verse o n 53:10! “But the Lord was please to crush him in infirmity.” And I’m also interested to hear your thoughts on this verse: “But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins…But the Lord laid upon him the guilt of us all…”

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.

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

Ephesians 2:16 and Colossians 2:14, Lev 16:29-34, Leviticus 17:11, Hebrews 9:22,

Not one of those verses say a word about paying a legal penalty for our sins. I wonder; how can you call God just when you believe He punished an inncocent Person for the crimes of another?

And if you’d like some examples of God’s wrath, which you seem to be denying and implying any human, were he to have this wrath, would be a sadistic madman, look no further than John 3:36, Romans 1:18, Ephesians 5:6, and look at what Acts 2:23 says!

God’s wrath is nothing but God’s love experienced as wrath by those who reject Him. Scripture clearly states that God is love. It never states He is wrath. As St Isaac the Syrian said, “Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense… those who have a mind understand this”

God NEVER takes pleasure in the blood of anyone. And he definitely did NOT take pleasure or joy from watching His Beloved Son die on the Cross miserably. You know I’m not saying that. I’ve been quite clear.

Did I say you said that?

But God the Father knew His Son would have to die to satisfy the justice that His own law required that the human race couldn’t possibly follow on their own. Thanks to the Garden and the Fall we must die. God in his love sent His Son who, of his own volition, was willing to die for our sins. This isn’t neo pagan, it’s Scripture, period.

If it is “Scripture, period”, then show me a single verse that says we deserve death for our sins or that God issued a death penalty against us.

I read Scripture, look at tradition, what the Church says, great men like Augustine (whom you no doubt don’t value at all being Eastern) and common sense. I love the God of the Bible and don’t expect him to conform to my insecurities.

My brother I fear you’ve been reading too much Augustine and perhaps his spiritual children the Calvinist. I invite you to come East and read some of our Fathers such as Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. You will develop a much more balanced view if you do.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, mardukm. I agree of course. The Orthodox views on the Atonement, IMO, are untenable. Not having Augustine and Anselm and the gang as a significant part of their theological lexicon is their loss, sadly.

Just wanted to pop in to say that I’m on your side, brother Gurney. Christ came to satisfy God’s justice.

It’s interesting that brother John appealed to Pope St. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione, which is practically a treatise on how the Lord satisfied the Divine Justice. True enough, Pope St. Athanasius also speaks of overcoming death and transforming our nature in theosis, but that is only part of the whole picture.

The Orientals and Latins have it right on this point.

Blessings

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I about cracked up today with the “thank God I’m a country boy” song at that Braves game. Hilarious! LOL…I always love the Braves chant and the tamahawks, very cool. We almost lost that game thanks to Bochey’s idiotic move of putting Romo in. Thank God we pulled it off. Jonathan Sanchez just killed you guys today. 11 strikeouts. Hopefully Lincecum can come in and give Lowe a run. Boche might go with Bumgarner instead of Lincecum. If he does, then I’ll concede the next game to the Braves because Lowe is just too good for Bumgarner, our rookie.

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.

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

Not one of those verses say a word about paying a legal penalty for our sins. I wonder; how can you call God just when you believe He punished an inncocent Person for the crimes of another?

God’s wrath is nothing but God’s love experienced as wrath by those who reject Him. Scripture clearly states that God is love. It never states He is wrath. As St Isaac the Syrian said, “Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense… those who have a mind understand this”

Did I say you said that?

If it is “Scripture, period”, then show me a single verse that says we deserve death for our sins or that God issued a death penalty against us.

My brother I fear you’ve been reading too much Augustine and perhaps his spiritual children the Calvinist. I invite you to come East and read some of our Fathers such as Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. You will develop a much more balanced view if you do.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

I about cracked up today with the “thank God I’m a country boy” song at that Braves game. Hilarious! LOL…I always love the Braves chant and the tamahawks, very cool. We almost lost that game thanks to Bochey’s idiotic move of putting Romo in. Thank God we pulled it off. Jonathan Sanchez just killed you guys today. 11 strikeouts. Hopefully Lincecum can come in and give Lowe a run. Boche might go with Bumgarner instead of Lincecum. If he does, then I’ll concede the next game to the Braves because Lowe is just too good for Bumgarner, our rookie.

We’ll see what happens. As Crash Davis says; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometimes it rains.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I will come to Orthodoxy when there’s peace in the Middle East, Elton John goes heterosexual, the Cubs win consecutive World Series, and Obama gets us out of debt.
I have to go read to my kids now, go for my nightly 3-mile walk, then I’ll see about replying to this post that, as usual, I TOTALLY disagree with and can’t for the life of me fathom you believing!

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.

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

Not one of those verses say a word about paying a legal penalty for our sins. I wonder; how can you call God just when you believe He punished an inncocent Person for the crimes of another?

God’s wrath is nothing but God’s love experienced as wrath by those who reject Him. Scripture clearly states that God is love. It never states He is wrath. As St Isaac the Syrian said, “Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense… those who have a mind understand this”

Did I say you said that?

If it is “Scripture, period”, then show me a single verse that says we deserve death for our sins or that God issued a death penalty against us.

My brother I fear you’ve been reading too much Augustine and perhaps his spiritual children the Calvinist. I invite you to come East and read some of our Fathers such as Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. You will develop a much more balanced view if you do.

In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

There’s just something about being a Southerner from Georgia and being Eastern Orthodox that’s just wrong… What a combo!

We’ll see what happens. As Crash Davis says; sometimes you win, sometimes you lose and sometimes it rains.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Before I go for a while, please, please elaborate on this. I’d like a full explanation and elaboration…makes no sense to me.

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.
In Christ
Joe

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

After reading your St. Gregory the Theologian references, would it be fair to say you accept this summary of the Atonement summarized by Robin Collins?

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil’s clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ’s death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.

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.

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

Not one of those verses say a word about paying a legal penalty for our sins. I wonder; how can you call God just when you believe He punished an inncocent Person for the crimes of another?

God’s wrath is nothing but God’s love experienced as wrath by those who reject Him. Scripture clearly states that God is love. It never states He is wrath. As St Isaac the Syrian said, “Very often many things are said by the Holy Scriptures and in it many names are used not in a literal sense… those who have a mind understand this”

Did I say you said that?

If it is “Scripture, period”, then show me a single verse that says we deserve death for our sins or that God issued a death penalty against us.

My brother I fear you’ve been reading too much Augustine and perhaps his spiritual children the Calvinist. I invite you to come East and read some of our Fathers such as Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian. You will develop a much more balanced view if you do.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

After reading your St. Gregory the Theologian references, would it be fair to say you accept this summary of the Atonement summarized by Robin Collins?

Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that grace pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil’s clutches. God, however, tricked the Devil into accepting Christ’s death as a ransom, for the Devil did not realize that Christ could not be held in the bonds of death. Once the Devil accepted Christ’s death as a ransom, this theory concluded, justice was satisfied and God was able to free us from Satan’s grip.

No I don’t accept that. Take a look at what St Gregory said again.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Before I go for a while, please, please elaborate on this. I’d like a full explanation and elaboration…makes no sense to me.

Elaborate in what way? Christ’s suffering and death destroyed the power of both forever.

St Ireneus (a Catholic favorite) said.

But inasmuch as God is invincible and long-suffering, He did indeed show Himself to be long-suffering in the matter of the correction of man and the probation of all, as I have already observed; and by means of the second man did He bind the strong man, and spoiled his goods, and abolished death, vivifying that man who had been in a state of death. For at the first Adam became a vessel in his (Satan’s) possession, whom he did also hold under his power, that is, by bringing sin on him iniquitously, and under color of immortality entailing death upon him. For, while promising that they should be as gods, which was in no way possible for him to be, he wrought death in them: wherefore he who had led man captive, was justly captured in his turn by God; but man, who had been led captive, was loosed from the bonds of condemnation. - Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 23

St John Chrysostom.

What bond? He means either that which they said to Moses, namely, “All that God hath said will we do, and be obedient” (Ex. xxiv. 3), or, if not that, this, that we owe to God obedience; or if not this, he means that the devil held possession of it, the bond which God made for Adam, saying, “In the day thou eatest of the tree, thou shalt die.” (Gen. ii. 17.) This bond then the devil held in his possession. And Christ did not give it to us, but Himself tore it in two, the action of one who remits joyfully. - Homily on Colossians