Which Protestant Body...

CelticRebel said:

The following will probably get me into trouble, as it has elsewhere:

I reject the notion that a blood sacrifice was necessary for God to forgive our sins. I believe that animal sacrifice in the OT was never required by God but was an influence from pagan culture. The OT prophets declared that God required mercy and not sacrifice.

Click to expand...

You don't need to postulate pagan culture to say that sacrifice is unnecessary. I agree that it's not. The prophets were clear that repentance was enough. However I'd argue that the sacrificial system was effectively sacramental, a way to help underline the seriousness of repentance and of the penitent's commitment to it. After all, a grain sacrifice could be used in some situations, and grain doesn't have blood, and sacrifices were also used for the establishment of a covenant. That's another situation where a cultic action helped underline the seriousness of a commitment.

hedrick said:

Do Orthodox deny all substitutionary implications of the atonement? Do you not apply Is 53 to Christ’s death? That is certainly substitutionary in the same broad sense.

Click to expand...

No, we actually read from Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 54:1 in the Great Vespers service for Holy Friday (the overall service is the point in which the body of the Lord is taken from the cross). This reading is immediately followed by a reading from 1st Corinthians 1:18-2:2 in which St. Paul emphasizes the power of the cross in the seeming paradox of the weakness & foolishness of God that are actually greater than any strength or wisdom of man.

"For" does not equal "instead of".

CelticRebel said:

Yes, it's true what you said about grain sacrifices, but when I pointed that out and stated my views about blood atonement on a fundamentalist forum, along with my views on hell, I got banned.

I should mention that I have also had trouble on liberal forums due to my traditionalist views on morality -- abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Click to expand...

Sure. Penal atonement and hell are two of the "fundamentals." The absolute core fundamentals are that we deserve to suffer in hell and that someone had to take that punishment in order for God to remain just. Penal substitution is the key to that. Lots of the trappings of Catholicism are missing, but the core commitment to a legal approach is still there. Mainline / liberal Protestants are about the only Protestants who have concerns about the Augustinian vision, except maybe the Anabaptists.

CF is not the right place to talk about sexual ethics, but part of reconsidering the legal view of Christianity is reconsidering the role of Paul's letters as law. So the two tend to be coupled among Protestants.

So Anabaptists are the closer to Orthodoxy?

A side comment - Part of the issue we have with many other viewpoints on soteriology is that they are incomplete. Salvation has many aspects to it, and many focus on just one. That said, penal substitution is out altogether. The Orthodox view on salvation is a fairly holistic view. We can't pick and choose!

Wryetui said:

So Anabaptists are the closer to Orthodoxy?

Click to expand...

In some areas on belief they are close, but in others (especially sacramentally) they are very different.

One big change between the Mennonite view of salvation and early Anabaptist views is the assurance of salvation. I'll post some articles later today, but that is one of the most apparent differences between the Amish and Mennonites. The Mennonites believe that after we are saved, that we will follow the law written on our hearts...otherwise our rebirth is 'stillborn'. The Amish believe that we can hope for salvation and need to continue working out our salvation in hopes that God will save us in the end.

The assurance of Salvation certainly is not something Orthodox at all. The neo-protestant groups often put the big deal on the "born again" beliefs, but we are born again christians and born again believers too, right? We born again through baptism, I was baptised as a child, 2 months after I was born, am I a born again believer too? And actually, I'm born again everytime after I do Confession so...

ArmyMatt said:

conservative Anglicans are really close

Click to expand...

That would be my understanding as well. Fwiw.

CelticRebel said:

Except conservative Anglicans range from High Church to Low Church, from Calvinist to Arminian to Lutheran-leaning, to charismatic.

Anglicanism, whether conservative or liberal, contains probably the most diverse doctrines in Christendom.

Click to expand...

News to me. : )

Perhaps because your definition of 'conservative' is rather too broad to be meaningful to anyone at all.

One big change between the Mennonite view of salvation and early Anabaptist views is the assurance of salvation. I'll post some articles later today, but that is one of the most apparent differences between the Amish and Mennonites. The Mennonites believe that after we are saved, that we will follow the law written on our hearts...otherwise our rebirth is 'stillborn'. The Amish believe that we can hope for salvation and need to continue working out our salvation in hopes that God will save us in the end.

Click to expand...

Wryetui said:

The assurance of Salvation certainly is not something Orthodox at all. The neo-protestant groups often put the big deal on the "born again" beliefs, but we are born again christians and born again believers too, right? We born again through baptism, I was baptised as a child, 2 months after I was born, am I a born again believer too? And actually, I'm born again everytime after I do Confession so...

Click to expand...

CR - are you familiar with which version the early Anabaptists followed?

Is it possible that the language they are using when talking about assurance of salvation is meaning a different thing than the interpretation of some other Protestants? It's interesting to hear someone say assurance of salvation yet also deny OSAS.

But aren't they the same? I thought they were the same theories...

OSAS and assurance of salvation? I thought so as well - hence my confusion on their denial of OSAS yet the affirmation of assurance of salvation.

Wryetui said:

But aren't they the same? I thought they were the same theories...

Click to expand...

Perhaps it is similar to my old church's beliefs...assurance of salvation = "as long as you are trying to follow God, you can be assured of salvation...however it is possible to turn your back on God and lose your salvation." Whereas "eternal security"= OSAS (impossible to lose salvation once you are born again)

So I am born again already right? I have been baptised when I was a baby in the Church so I am a born again believer too, and every Orthodox and Catholic and everything else who is baptised are born again believers right? OSAS seems ilogical, what if someday I become a satanist (may God forgive me for this joke), am I saved too?

Wryetui said:

So I am born again already right? I have been baptised when I was a baby in the Church so I am a born again believer too, and every Orthodox and Catholic and everything else who is baptised are born again believers right? OSAS seems ilogical, what if someday I become a satanist (may God forgive me for this joke), am I saved too?

Click to expand...

Yes, we believe that we are born again upon our baptism. Most Protestants would not consider themselves to be born again based on baptism; baptism would follow their born again experience. OSAS would say that you never were truly born again if you became a Satanist and turned away from Christ (or that you are in a time of backsliding but will be coming back). Doesn't really make sense to me either...but I never have believed OSAS..even before I became Orthodox.

OSAS isn't true at all, I don't really know why some people follow it, perhaps because of its false message of confidence...

Sixty posts later, and the answer given in the first three posts is still the best answer.