The Greatest Heresy - Substitutionary Atonement...

[Sphinx777]

This thread would benefit from an Orthodox perspective...

The Greatest Heresy

 

[Sphinx777]

This one too, actually...

Does infant baptism count?

 

[Ignatius21]

Perhaps you could provide said Orthodox perspective? "Substitutionary Atonement" carries a whole spectrum of meaning across and within Christian communions, so I predict that thread will go nowhere since everyone will assume they mean the same thing, but actually won't. Some will think "penal" and some will think "ransom" and some won't know what to think.

I know the Orthodox do not stress (or perhaps even acknowledge) the penal aspects, while many in the West (esp. Roman Catholic and Lutheran/Reformed) are almost obsessed with it. Your thoughts?

 

[Christos Anesti]

I know the Orthodox do not stress (or perhaps even acknowledge) the penal aspects, while many in the West (esp. Roman Catholic and Lutheran/Reformed

From what I understand it's not stressed in our theology but it does have its place as one metaphor (among others) describing the mystery of our salvation. The problem comes when people take the metaphor in an overly literal manner and stress it to the exclusion of the other methods of describing it. Maybe someone else can correct me if I am wrong here?

 

[Knee V]

From what I understand it's not stressed in our theology but it does have its place as one metaphor (among others) describing the mystery of our salvation. The problem comes when people take the metaphor in an overly literal manner and stress it to the exclusion of the other methods of describing it. Maybe someone else can correct me if I am wrong here?

From my understanding, there is nothing there to correct. There is one mystery of our salvation, and many valid and useful, yet incomplete, ways of describing it.

 

[Protoevangel]

From what I understand it's not stressed in our theology but it does have its place as one metaphor (among others) describing the mystery of our salvation. The problem comes when people take the metaphor in an overly literal manner and stress it to the exclusion of the other methods of describing it. Maybe someone else can correct me if I am wrong here?

As knee-v said, your post is exactly true. The penal/forensic understanding of Salvation was spoken of not only by Paul, but a number of Saints. But it is only one analogy of a reality that is greater than any analogy we could possibly come up with.

 

[Ignatius21]

As knee-v said, your post is exactly true. The penal/forensic understanding of Salvation was spoken of not only by Paul, but a number of Saints. But it is only one analogy of a reality that is greater than any analogy we could possibly come up with.

Well said. I'm accustomed to thinking almost entirely in penal terms because that's how I first heard it explained (from a Reformed perpective). I have come to realize that it was never THE only position in Christianity, not by a long shot, although it became codified in later confessions. "Atonement" became synonymous with "propitiate" or "satisfy," which is odd because it's more properly a synonymn of "reconcile" (at-one-ment)--make peace between to parties...the word does not say HOW that peace was made. I think the Roman emphasis on merit and punishment, esp. in the middle ages with purgatory and "temporal punishments," certainly polarized Luther and his sole focus became escaping the wrath and punishment of God. Rather than questioning that notion of punishment, the solution to the problem of purgatory was to have Christ be the one who received 100% of the punishment.

I have read a few Orthodox views that flat-out deny that punishment/wrath/etc. has any place in any view of atonement--I can't buy that any more than a view that says it is the ONLY valid view of atonement. Your responses here seem balanced and reasonable.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah the problem I think came when Anselm of Canterbury took it too literally.

 

[Knee V]

I have read a few Orthodox views that flat-out deny that punishment/wrath/etc. has any place in any view of atonement

That is true to a certain extent. It is true in that ALL explanations are fundamentally wrong. But we're human beings who speak human languages using human words, and we need SOMETHING. They all have no place. But since ALL of them have no place, they all equally have a place.

...if that makes any sense...

I think that, just as there is an "anti-Roman" sentiment in many protestant circles causing them to reject anything that looks or smells Roman, there is an "anti-Western" sentiment in many Orthodox circles, causing them to revolt against any kind of terminology that is used in "Western" theological circles.

A word is only as powerful as the definition that we give it. So long as words are properly understood, there is no harm in using them.

 

[Ignatius21]

I think that, just as there is an "anti-Roman" sentiment in many protestant circles causing them to reject anything that looks or smells Roman, there is an "anti-Western" sentiment in many Orthodox circles, causing them to revolt against any kind of terminology that is used in "Western" theological circles.

I appreciate your saying this. I've noticed a certain amount of phobia in all corners, where we like to define ourselves in opposition to something else and react against whatever sounds too much like "them." Rome-a-phobia is rampant among some Protestants (can't light candles in church, you know, 'cause that's Catholic, and that means it's idolatry...) and it seems West-a-phobia may happen on the Orthodox side.

Neither is productive toward mutual understanding or productive conversation.