Regarding Atonement for Eastern Catholics/Orthodox

[alepine3]

So I’m wondering what theory of atonement Eastern Catholics/Orthodox generally hold. In general the Eastern Churches weren’t affected by the more legalistic approaches of the East (thank God), though I’m wondering whether some have actually adopted it.

I’m also wondering whether René Girard’s reworking of the atonement theory is compatible with the Eastern tradition (of particular importance is his insistence on the nonviolence of Jesus and the nonviolent character of God and the reign of God, and his consequent argument that the crucifixion of Jesus cannot be interpreted as a divinely sanctioned or divinely willed sacrifice. Therefore violence originates with humans and not with God.)

It is perhaps the most compelling and astounding reworking of the atonement theory by any scholar in the modern age.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

It is perhaps the most compelling and astounding reworking of the atonement theory by any scholar in the modern age.

It doesn’t sound that groundbreaking to me. It just sounds like the Jesus Movement of the 70’s; hippie theology.

Why do we need to break ground anyway? Aren’t Orthodox Christians supposed to preserve the faith once delivered to the saints?

 

[Formosus]

It does sound like “hippie” theology and not really eastern at all. The idea that God is entirely nonviolent completely contradicts the Scriptures. Even the NT, Our Lord does things like killing the fig tree and flipping tables over in the Temple. Not particularly the most peaceful acts.

 

[Vico]

So I’m wondering what theory of atonement Eastern Catholics/Orthodox generally hold. In general the Eastern Churches weren’t affected by the more legalistic approaches of the East (thank God), though I’m wondering whether some have actually adopted it.

…

The same, based upon the Symbol of Faith, and Matt 20:28, etc.:

1. Symbol of Faith
   “Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man; And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;”
   antiochian.org/674
2. Bible
   Crucified for us – Mark 15:25; I Corinthians 15:3, also Matt 20:28 below:

a. Rheims-Challoner
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for many.

Haydock Commentary Ver. 28. A redemption for many; i.e. for all, as it is sometimes the style of the Scriptures. See St. Paul, 1 Timothy ii. 6. (Witham)
…

b. KJV
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

c. NAB
Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom 11 for many."

11 [28] Ransom: this noun, which occurs in the New Testament only here and in the Marcan parallel (Matthew 10:45), does not necessarily express the idea of liberation by payment of some price. The cognate verb is used frequently in the LXX of God’s liberating Israel from Egypt or from Babylonia after the Exile; see Exodus 6:6; 15:13; Psalm 77:16 (76 LXX); Isaiah 43:1; 44:22. The liberation brought by Jesus’ death will be for many; cf Isaiah 53:12. Many does not mean that some are excluded, but is a Semitism designating the collectivity who benefit from the service of the one, and is equivalent to “all.” While there are few verbal contacts between this saying and the fourth Servant Song (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), the ideas of that passage are reflected here.

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures" 601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401
scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a4p2.htm

 

[alepine3]

I’m not an expert theologian so I can’t go in-depth on this topic. I do have several things I want to point out, however:

1.) The idea of God being so vengeful and full of wrath over humanity’s fallen nature that he required His own Son to be killed is completely perverse. God doesn’t desire anyone to die, much less His own Son.

2.) Several prominent RC theologians have attacked Substitutionary Atonement as being based on flawed logic, and there hasn’t been any response from the Vatican. If it was heresy there would have been some kind of response (possibly excommunication?) on their part, especially given that these were very prominent scholars (Raymond Schwager, Girard, etc.)

3.) From an Eastern perspective Atonement is not held as doctrine by any Orthodox church. The OC sees Christ’s Passion as an extension of His life, i.e. that he had to fully immerse Himself in our fallen state (death) before revealing that sin and death is conquered through Him.

 

[Vico]

I’m not an expert theologian so I can’t go in-depth on this topic. I do have several things I want to point out, however:

1.) The idea of God being so vengeful and full of wrath over humanity’s fallen nature that he required His own Son to be killed is completely perverse. God doesn’t desire anyone to die, much less His own Son.

2.) Several prominent RC theologians have attacked Substitutionary Atonement as being based on flawed logic, and there hasn’t been any response from the Vatican. If it was heresy there would have been some kind of response (possibly excommunication?) on their part, especially given that these were very prominent scholars (Raymond Schwager, Girard, etc.)

3.) From an Eastern perspective Atonement is not held as doctrine by any Orthodox church. The OC sees Christ’s Passion as an extension of His life, i.e. that he had to fully immerse Himself in our fallen state (death) before revealing that sin and death is conquered through Him.

Ransom: a consideration paid or demanded for the release of someone or something from captivity

Isa 53:11; cf. 53:12; Jn 8:34-36; Acts 3:14.

From OCA:
“It is the doctrine of the atonement – for we are made to be “at one” with God. It is the doctrine of redemption – for we are redeemed, i.e., “bought with a price,” the great price of the blood of God (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:20).”

oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=20

 

[Formosus]

Yes we were ransomed by Christ’s death, but I think what the OP is talking about is the view (mostly a protestant/Calvinist one now a days) that Christ was dying in order to fulfill some sort of blood debt with God. That God was so vengeful He required a massive sacrifice to quell His anger at us, and so Christ died to fulfill that. That is , of course, not an Eastern view and really shouldn’t even be considered a Latin catholic view either.

 

[Vico]

Yes we were ransomed by Christ’s death, but I think what the OP is talking about is the view (mostly a protestant/Calvinist one now a days) that Christ was dying in order to fulfill some sort of blood debt with God. That God was so vengeful He required a massive sacrifice to quell His anger at us, and so Christ died to fulfill that. That is , of course, not an Eastern view and really shouldn’t even be considered a Latin catholic view either.

Exactly.

St. Augustine rejected the idea that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of the satisfaction of paying the debt due to Divine Justice, rather, God’s merciful love is the cause of that satisfaction.

Luther and Calvin taught that Christ’s passion was a legal payment for sin (“penal substitution”); that Christ by divine design, actually became the essence of sin, but Luther repudiated the idea of propitiation by a sin laden victim. It hinges on a particular interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21 that Christ became sin itself. But Romans 8:3 shows the Catholic teaching that Christ became a sin offering, not sin itself. Christ is sin free and the Passion of Christ is not vicarious punishment, a.k.a. penal substution. The Council of Trent Session 22, Chapter 2, describes propitiation and appeasement rather than forensic atonement of Luther and Calvin:
In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. Therefore, the holy Council teaches that this sacrifice is truly propitiatory, so that, if we draw near to God with an upright heart and true faith, with fear and reverence, with sorrow and repentance, through it ‘we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.’ For the Lord, appeased by this oblation, grants grace and the gift of repentance, and he pardons wrong-doings and sins, even grave ones.

 

[gtrenewed]

Yes we were ransomed by Christ’s death, but I think what the OP is talking about is the view (mostly a protestant/Calvinist one now a days) that Christ was dying in order to fulfill some sort of blood debt with God. That God was so vengeful He required a massive sacrifice to quell His anger at us, and so Christ died to fulfill that. That is , of course, not an Eastern view and really shouldn’t even be considered a Latin catholic view either.

I am curently studying the Orthodox faith for I find a number of teachings more scriptural like purgatory for instance. However, my question would be: if you agree there was a ransom, what were we ransomed from?

Scripture says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin but why do we need to paint God as a seething vengeful tyrant? God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son by providing a ram for the sacrifice and in doing so God promised He would provide Himself for the sacrifice.

I see it that in condemning sin in the flesh of Jesus and that Jesus covers everyone’s sins who have faith in Him, that all other defense is put to an end unless one is covered by Jesus?

Could you explain the Orthodox view for me please?

 

[alepine3]

The Eastern perspective (regardless of what the Orthodox contributors of this forum may claim) does not attach any sacrificial dimension to Christ’s Passion. Instead, it focuses on Christ’s defeat and triumph over death through His Resurrection. Therefore it sees Christ’s death as necessary only for His Resurrection.

The Protestant notion that “Jesus covers everyone’s sins who has faith in Him,” which is part and parcel of the Penal Substituion theory, is rejected strongly by Orthodoxy.

 

[Vico]

The Eastern perspective (regardless of what the Orthodox contributors of this forum may claim) does not attach any sacrificial dimension to Christ’s Passion. Instead, it focuses on Christ’s defeat and triumph over death through His Resurrection. Therefore it sees Christ’s death as necessary only for His Resurrection.

The Protestant notion that “Jesus covers everyone’s sins who has faith in Him,” which is part and parcel of the Penal Substituion theory, is rejected strongly by Orthodoxy.

Quotes demonstrating what you are saying:

St. John Damascene, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

**BOOK III CHAPTER XXIX **Concerning the Descent to Hades.

The soul when it was deified descended into Hades, in order that, just as the Sun of Righteousness rose for those upon the earth, so likewise He might bring light to those who sit under the earth in darkness and shadow of death…
**BOOK IV CHAPTER IV Why it was the Son of God, and not the Father or the Spirit, that became man: and what having became man He achieved. **

…and having been shut out from life we became subject to the corruption of death: yea, since He gave us to share in the better part, and we did not keep it secure, He shares in the inferior part, I mean our own nature, in order that through Himself and in Himself He might renew that which was made after His image and likeness, and might teach us, too, the conduct of a virtuous life, making through Himself the way thither easy for us, and might by the communication of life deliver us from corruption, becoming Himself the firstfruits of our resurrection, and might renovate the useless and worn vessel calling us to the knowledge of God that He might redeem us from the tyranny of the devil, and might strengthen and teach us how to overthrow the tyrant through patience and humility.

stmaryofegypt.org/library/st_john_damascene/exact_exposition.htm

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

The Eastern perspective (regardless of what the Orthodox contributors of this forum may claim) does not attach any sacrificial dimension to Christ’s Passion.

Well since you are not even Orthodox, but rather an Eastern Catholic who fancies himself as Orthodox, I’m not going to take you as an authority.

There is no sacrificial dimension to Christ’s passion? Are you serious?

The Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice, plain and simple. The language is all over the liturgy. “A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise.”

The Oriental “Miaphysite” churches often refer to the liturgy itself as a sacrifice, the Holy Qurbana.

“Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.”

The previous statement can be seen as a reference to Jesus’ sacrifice for our sin being offered to the Father. It is also interpreted in other ways, such as the gifts being set forth being given to God, even though they are already His. Even Jesus’ death is in some way offered to the Father, we must understand that this would not be to appease God or to heal Him. God is complete and without flaw. So you are right to reject a bloodthirsty sadistic God who needs the blood of his son to calm down, but you are ridiculous to characterize this as a view of the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church.

However, there certainly is a difference in emphasis between the Orthodox Catholic and the Roman Catholic Churches. For example, the crucifix is not as prominent a theme in our churches. The Latins have crucifixes above their altars. The emphasis in Orthodoxy tend to be more on the risen Lord and the sharing in His divinity through the Eucharist, rather than an emphasis on sacrifice and remission of guilt through the Eucharist. I’m panting with broad brush strokes, but I hope everyone gets my meaning.

 

[Cecilianus]

Repeating this in order to express strong agreement.

There is no sacrificial dimension to Christ’s passion? Are you serious?

The Divine Liturgy is a sacrifice, plain and simple. The language is all over the liturgy. “A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise.”

The Oriental “Miaphysite” churches often refer to the liturgy itself as a sacrifice, the Holy Qurbana.

“Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all.”

The previous statement can be seen as a reference to Jesus’ sacrifice for our sin being offered to the Father. It is also interpreted in other ways, such as the gifts being set forth being given to God, even though they are already His. Even Jesus’ death is in some way offered to the Father, we must understand that this would not be to appease God or to heal Him. God is complete and without flaw. So you are right to reject a bloodthirsty sadistic God who needs the blood of his son to calm down, but you are ridiculous to characterize this as a view of the Latin Rite Roman Catholic Church.

However, there certainly is a difference in emphasis between the Orthodox Catholic and the Roman Catholic Churches. For example, the crucifix is not as prominent a theme in our churches. The Latins have crucifixes above their altars. The emphasis in Orthodoxy tend to be more on the risen Lord and the sharing in His divinity through the Eucharist, rather than an emphasis on sacrifice and remission of guilt through the Eucharist. I’m panting with broad brush strokes, but I hope everyone gets my meaning.