And since you’ve been grilling me you still haven’t answered two of my questions.
What do you think the Fall was all about? Life? Death was the direct result of the Original Sin. Are you suggesting that we weren’t punished with death because of our sins? We became concupiscent thanks to our sins and the punishment of being sinful is death. That’s Christianity 101. Are you suggesting to me that God didn’t punish us with death for our sins? If so, then Christ’s death was unecessary and we didn’t need a saviour; in which case I must label your view quasi-Pelagian because you actually believe we can become sinless in this life.This is a very Narnia-esqe description, isn’t it? I thought that was where Gregory was going at the beginning of the quote, but he then says that isn’t what he means at all - God didn’t pay the Devil, and he didn’t pay himself.
Which questions have I not answered?Grilling you? LOL…boy, you wouldn’t do well in the military if you consider this a grilling! I’m actually asking you to do something for me: explain the atonement IN YOUR OWN WORDS without just cherry picking some Eastern fathers’ statements in a hodge-podge. I’d like to hear YOU tell me a short succinct description of this ransom theory of yours…please. That’s not grilling at all. It’s a perfectly fair question. I asked you questions in my posts that never got answered so I’m starting no precedent here.
Not one of those verses say a word about a legal debt owed to God or death being a punishment inflicted on us by God. To be honest I thought the idea that God killed us because we violated one of His laws was a bit of a caricature of Catholic belief. Apparently I was wrong. I would appreciate it if some other Catholics would verify this is the teaching of their Church.Hey, I try to be kind!
Through His suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear–Isaiah 53:11 as well as
And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses–Isaiah 53:12
I’m wondering why you don’t consider bearing another’s guilt and winning pardon for offenses to NOT be legal? If I win pardon for a client, I get him off the hook. Legal term. If someone else serves a sentence for another, that is a legal favor.
The wages of sin is death—doesn’t that show you that our sinful actions warrant death against us? That’s pretty much a no-brainer Paul is laying out there
For if those who adhere to the law are the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law produces wrath; but where there is not law, neither is there violation–Romans 4:14-15. Whose Law are we talking about? GOD’S. God created the Law. What does the law produce? WRATH. Yet you have claimed God does not permit wrath and negativity and suffering and punishment toward us. You consider this an abusive daddy complex. The Law is of God. Sin is of man. We cannot obey the Law perfectly so Christ came to conquer the Law and its legal claims against us through perfectly living the Law and dying on our behalf. If he didn’t die for us, the Cross is a sham.
And the Orthodox view of the Original Sin which goes along with the flawed view of the Atonement is called to question with Romans 5:12-14
Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned (!!!)—for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, whose is the type of the one who was to come.
Either way, the reality is we exist in two ontologically different worlds. I don’t see any value in continuing this discussion.
You guys are ontologically different! Cool! Weird!
Patriarch Bartholomew addressing Georgetown University.
The Old Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Gospels, not the other way around.
Ah, the famous “Friends, Romans, Heretics” speech
My goodness. I can’t imagine what the audience thought of that!
I am just really not getting the problem. It’s the same with he whole original sin thing: all these ideas have a presence well before the schism. All have some kind of Biblical justification, or make sense in light of local conditions, or are particularly useful for elucidating a particular point; all can be twisted by taking them too far, or imagining that they somehow are really identical to God himself.
Bluegoat,I am just really not getting the problem. It’s the same with he whole original sin thing: all these ideas have a presence well before the schism. All have some kind of Biblical justification, or make sense in light of local conditions, or are particularly useful for elucidating a particular point; all can be twisted by taking them too far, or imagining that they somehow are really identical to God himself.
Yes, the East and West thought about things differently because they were divided by geography and language. Well, if God was really thinking that would be a totally bad thing, maybe he should have thought more about how he arranged the geography of the early Christian world! That’s facetious of course, but sometimes it seems like that is what people are railing on about.
) that doesn’t negate the ransom approach either? Christ, we are told, died as a ransom for our sins, according to Paul. Paul, Isaiah, the Gospels, and the rest of Scripture make it clear that he was a divine sacrifice, an Atonement to satisfy the repurcussions of Original Sin. Those two views don’t contradict. Both occur. And the wellsprings of grace opened at said atonement. The atonement did accomplish the ransom, the opening of grace, is part of the prodigal son tale, and it restores our ability to please God through grace. I view the Atonement of Anselm, Augustine, and Aquinas as the primary correct understanding BUT the Orthodox views are the outcomes, IMO.I don’t find it facetious at all; in fact I found it personally very conducive of cognitive dissonance to learn that the theological and philosophical differences between Eastern and Western Christianity actually predate the conversion of the Greco-Roman world to Christianity. What is one to make of these two parallel but clashing systems? What was God thinking indeed?
Gurney,Hi Anna,
Really when I think of it, the views aren’t necessarily totally in opposition to each other. If Christ died in our place (He did, incidentally!
I don’t really think so.