Atonement views

[~Anastasia~]

It's basically Obamacare for your soul. Copays are way too high, though, and often times St. Peter at the Gates won't accept it and has to take a loss.

LOL!

From Wiki's description, which I only read in brief, it sounds like the standard underpinnings necessitating PSA.

But I like your description.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I do not think it is safe to make these kinds of sweeping generalizations.

Modern Orthodox thinking on this theory (and others favored by the Protestant Reformers) has been guided largely by reactionary and pejorative sentiments.

True, PSA is not the preferred theory of the Greek fathers, but this is not to say that similar concepts and language does not appear at times in their discussions of atonement.

no, PSA holds that God has a need for justice. God has no needs being God. we disagree totally. legal wording can be used, but PSA is incorrect.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's basically Obamacare for your soul. Copays are way too high, though, and often times St. Peter at the Gates won't accept it and has to take a loss.

hahaha, then no. I think we would take issue with that. thanks gurney!

 

[CelticRebel]

no, PSA holds that God has a need for justice. God has no needs being God. we disagree totally. legal wording can be used, but PSA is incorrect.

Can you expound on that? That is, how can legal wording be used without legal meaning?

 

[Wryetui]

Hi there. The Orthodox view of atonement is almost unknown to all the people, but I will try to explain it here with some descriptions that I found on a page on the internet.

The Western view of atonement (Both Catholic and Protestant) is this: Substitutionary Atonement focuses on Christ’s suffering and death as the price for man’s sin. In many ways, the model for Substitutionary Atonement is a courtroom. Due to his sin, man needed to be made right with a perfect and just God. Therefore, Christ came to suffer and pay the price in our place, i.e., He substituted Himself for us. Now, in the courtroom of God, those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior are judged innocent. They have a forensic righteousness imputed upon them.

The Eastern view of atonement (Eastern Orthodox) is this: The Recapitulation Theory agrees that God needed to deal with man’s sin. Man was separated from God as a result of the fall and, left to his own devices, was incapable of returning to God. However, Recapitulation sees the model through which God dealt with man’s sin as a hospital rather than a courtroom. Instead of viewing the atonement as Christ paying the price for sin in order to satisfy a wrathful God, Recapitulation teaches that Christ became human to heal mankind by perfectly uniting the human nature to the Divine Nature in His person. Through the Incarnation, Christ took on human nature, becoming the Second Adam, and entered into every stage of humanity, from infancy to adulthood, uniting it to God. He then suffered death to enter Hades and destroy it. After three days, He resurrected and completed His task by destroying death.

To me, both sides make sense, but I find the EO view to be a lot more deeper and beautiful.

 

[GregConstantine]

It is not reactionary, the teachings of the Church expressed through the councils, her hymnography, the Scriptures, and the fathers are a harmonious whole and can be seen unbroken and without alteration from be beginning to today.

The only people I hear say it's "reactionary" are those who wish not to admit that there are fundamental differences between the East and West, perhaps because of emotional reasons or a desire to see "union" but at a compromise.

I think we can dispense with that silly notion and go back to discussing the sublime teachings of salvation as correctly and fully expressed within the Body of Christ, The Orthodox Church.

 

[Cappadocious]

True, PSA is not the preferred theory of the Greek fathers, but this is not to say that similar concepts and language does not appear at times in their discussions of atonement.

The question is, how much credence do we give to minority or occasional views?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Hi there. The Orthodox view of atonement is almost unknown to all the people, but I will try to explain it here with some descriptions that I found on a page on the internet.

The Western view of atonement (Both Catholic and Protestant) is this: Substitutionary Atonement focuses on Christ’s suffering and death as the price for man’s sin. In many ways, the model for Substitutionary Atonement is a courtroom. Due to his sin, man needed to be made right with a perfect and just God. Therefore, Christ came to suffer and pay the price in our place, i.e., He substituted Himself for us. Now, in the courtroom of God, those who accept Christ as their Lord and Savior are judged innocent. They have a forensic righteousness imputed upon them.

The Eastern view of atonement (Eastern Orthodox) is this: The Recapitulation Theory agrees that God needed to deal with man’s sin. Man was separated from God as a result of the fall and, left to his own devices, was incapable of returning to God. However, Recapitulation sees the model through which God dealt with man’s sin as a hospital rather than a courtroom. Instead of viewing the atonement as Christ paying the price for sin in order to satisfy a wrathful God, Recapitulation teaches that Christ became human to heal mankind by perfectly uniting the human nature to the Divine Nature in His person. Through the Incarnation, Christ took on human nature, becoming the Second Adam, and entered into every stage of humanity, from infancy to adulthood, uniting it to God. He then suffered death to enter Hades and destroy it. After three days, He resurrected and completed His task by destroying death.

To me, both sides make sense, but I find the EO view to be a lot more deeper and beautiful.

I would only add that the EO view is actually deeper and more all-encompassing than just recapitulation. We sing, "Christ is Risen from the dead - by death trampling down death - and to those in the tombs, bestowing life!" Christ's death accomplished more, and one main thing we focus on is Christ's victory over death - Christus Victor theory of atonement.

Fr. Thomas Hopko (Memory Eternal!) said quite succinctly "some Orthodox believe that we don't have any juridical language at all" but he says "We'd better! It's in the Bible!"

We do reject Penal Substitution though, because it makes God not only deficient, but also a monster.

You are certainly right that the EO view is both more meaningful and more beautiful!

 

[Wryetui]

I would only add that the EO view is actually deeper and more all-encompassing than just recapitulation. We sing, "Christ is Risen from the dead - by death trampling down death - and to those in the tombs, bestowing life!" Christ's death accomplished more, and one main thing we focus on is Christ's victory over death - Christus Victor theory of atonement.

Fr. Thomas Hopko (Memory Eternal!) said quite succinctly "some Orthodox believe that we don't have any juridical language at all" but he says "We'd better! It's in the Bible!"

We do reject Penal Substitution though, because it makes God not only deficient, but also a monster.

You are certainly right that the EO view is both more meaningful and more beautiful!

Yes, indeed! That is why I appreciate our sacred and blessed faith, the deep feelings and the love we make out of every word or act of God!

I find it quite beautiful how I see familiar phrases like: "Christ is Risen from the dead - by death trampling down death - and to those in the tombs, bestowing life!, I have grown with phrases like this one, always hearing it all througout my life in romanian: " Hristos a înviat din morți, Cu moartea pre moarte călcând, Și celor din morminte, Viață dăruindu-le! "And the fact that I hear all of you saying it in english makes me thing how beautiful and universal is our Church, how we share the same feeling of the resurrection together no matter how distant we are from each other, and everyone in our maternal lenguage!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, indeed! That is why I appreciate our sacred and blessed faith, the deep feelings and the love we make out of every word or act of God!

I find it quite beautiful how I see familiar phrases like: "Christ is Risen from the dead - by death trampling down death - and to those in the tombs, bestowing life!, I have grown with phrases like this one, always hearing it all througout my life in romanian: " Hristos a înviat din morți, Cu moartea pre moarte călcând, Și celor din morminte, Viață dăruindu-le! "And the fact that I hear all of you saying it in english makes me thing how beautiful and universal is our Church, how we share the same feeling of the resurrection together no matter how distant we are from each other, and everyone in our maternal lenguage!

Fwiw, I usually hear it in Greek and I like that better, lol, since I know quite well what it means. But my keyboard won't type Greek.

I know what you mean though. I love Christ is Risen! in so many languages!

Father has begun letting others in the parish pray the Our Father in as many languages as we have present during many liturgies.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can you expound on that? That is, how can legal wording be used without legal meaning?

think of it like a doctor telling someone to take medicine. now the person doesn't take it, gets worse, and when the doc looks at him again and sees he did not do what the doc suggested, the doc will reprimand him. not so much because he broke the rule (although he did), but because the doc knows what will lead him to healing. the hell of being sick for the patient is self imposed, and the "wrath" from the irked doc is because this person is refusing what will make him well.

make sense?

 

[CelticRebel]

think of it like a doctor telling someone to take medicine. now the person doesn't take it, gets worse, and when the doc looks at him again and sees he did not do what the doc suggested, the doc will reprimand him. not so much because he broke the rule (although he did), but because the doc knows what will lead him to healing. the hell of being sick for the patient is self imposed, and the "wrath" from the irked doc is because this person is refusing what will make him well.

make sense?

Yes, I think so.

 

[~Anastasia~]

think of it like a doctor telling someone to take medicine. now the person doesn't take it, gets worse, and when the doc looks at him again and sees he did not do what the doc suggested, the doc will reprimand him. not so much because he broke the rule (although he did), but because the doc knows what will lead him to healing. the hell of being sick for the patient is self imposed, and the "wrath" from the irked doc is because this person is refusing what will make him well.

make sense?

This does make a lot of sense.

The parental understanding is helpful too ... since God is our Father. If your beloved child does things that are going to make him grievously ill, or risks serious injury, as a parent you can easily become angry at his carelessness at endangering himself. But not in the sense that you now want to see him "punished" in more pain, in order to assuage your wrath.

 

[CelticRebel]

I know Orthodoxy does not hold to penal substitution, but is there any place in Orthodoxy for any kind of substitutionary atonement, other than the penal substitutionary variant?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I know Orthodoxy does not hold to penal substitution, but is there any place in Orthodoxy for any kind of substitutionary atonement, other than the penal substitutionary variant?

I'm not sure if he would describe it in so many words, but I've been listening to Fr. Thomas Hopko of blessed memory, who spoke of having a place for both juridical language and substitution (particularly he spoke about OT sacrifices and Christ's role as our great High Priest, regarding substitution).

More and more I think that's why it's misguided to try to whittle down atonement to anything too simple, as Scripture speaks of it in so many terms, and all are correct.

Orthodoxy has more yes/and answers than either/or ones.

I'm looking for a series Fr. Thomas directed listeners to on this subject, but I have not found it yet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know Orthodoxy does not hold to penal substitution, but is there any place in Orthodoxy for any kind of substitutionary atonement, other than the penal substitutionary variant?

off the top of my head I dunno, but I imagine there is a way it could fit. provided you check the penal substitution (as you rightly pointed out) and God somehow needing His justice to be satisfied, etc at the door.

 

[CelticRebel]

I must say that although I find penal substitution particularly abhorrent, I have problems with any kind of substitution, and that includes substitution as related to OT sacrifices.

 

[Cappadocious]

I have problems with any kind of substitution, and that includes substitution as related to OT sacrifices.

I would contend that the OT sacrifices are not about substitution.

 

[CelticRebel]

I would contend that the OT sacrifices are not about substitution.

What would you say they were about?

 

[Cappadocious]

What would you say they were about?

Pouring life into lifelessness, value into void. The sacrifices were offerings of life. To fill up the gap of unrighteousness, although they only prefigured this.

There is nothing substitutionary about these sacrifices as far as I can tell. It's something we tend to read back into the text.