more calvinist or arminian

[Coralie]

Goodness, I just can't imagine you as a fire-breathing Protestant!

It was UGLY, let me just tell you that

 

[Crissy1967]

gosh I wish I could navigate the forum properly I usually miss peoples posts cause I can't seem to find them ? lol then they are there, then gone lol

 

[choirfiend]

I've been trying to understand the Orthodox perspective for a couple years. I just can't get my head around it. I stick around, hoping to "get it" eventually... but it is very difficult.

Anyway, someone made a comment about the westboro baptists. They take Calvinism to its logical conclusion.

It takes coming to church, Gwen

And which perspective on which part don't you understand?

 

[Gwendolyn]

It takes coming to church, Gwen

And which perspective on which part don't you understand?

I'm stuck in a legal paradigm and I can't understand why Christ died if it wasn't a sacrifice to atone for sin. From the posts I read here, Orthodoxy seems to focus on Christ dying to conquer death... not to atone for sin. I don't hold a protestant perspective in that I do not think Christ died to appease the wrath of God, but I don't know how to understand Christ's sacrifice without atonement.

 

[Dorothea]

Oh noes, they got you! lol jk

The Holy Spirit tends to do that to those sincerely seeking with open and humble hearts.

 

[Dorothea]

Did ya find that link?

Oops, forgot! lol Here's where I read a bit about it:

Calvinism As Heresy « Glory to God for All Things

 

[Dorothea]

I'm stuck in a legal paradigm and I can't understand why Christ died if it wasn't a sacrifice to atone for sin. From the posts I read here, Orthodoxy seems to focus on Christ dying to conquer death... not to atone for sin. I don't hold a protestant perspective in that I do not think Christ died to appease the wrath of God, but I don't know how to understand Christ's sacrifice without atonement.

Hi, Gwen. In the sticky area on this forum, there is a thread called "What We Believe." Read the first couple pages of that thread (it's from an excellent lecture on what the Orthodox Church believes, and is very detailed on the Redemption part). Here's the link.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7539676/

 

[Lukaris]

The thing is with Orthodoxy one feels that it is important to conform to Christ as we live (martyrs like St. Dismas a.k.a. the thief on the cross having salvation undergoing the greatest tribulation are conformed instantly) according to the 2 great commands, the golden rule etc. We are great sinners seeing our brokenness but having faith we must keep to our death, keeping heaven & hell before us, seeing hope for potentially anyone, the Beatitudes attest to this, we do not compromise faith, we do not underestimate God's mercy or justice (since He calls us to do justly, love mercy, walk humbly..Micah 6:8). This is much of our duty to live by as we are saved by grace through faith. Hoping that I do not sound like I am exalting myself cause I got real issues and know the Lord knows His children better than I should even try to imagine.

 

[MKJ]

I'm stuck in a legal paradigm and I can't understand why Christ died if it wasn't a sacrifice to atone for sin. From the posts I read here, Orthodoxy seems to focus on Christ dying to conquer death... not to atone for sin. I don't hold a protestant perspective in that I do not think Christ died to appease the wrath of God, but I don't know how to understand Christ's sacrifice without atonement.

The way I think of it, which I think is similar to the Orthodox view, is that Christ came primarily to unite us to God. Death is the logical conclusion of being human without God, and is what we became subject to after the Fall. In becoming human, God united himself to us fully, even our limits, our subjectivity, our corruption, and death. That is why even now, when we sin, we can be, and in a way, still are united to God. Because he brought all of these things into the God-head and into relationship with him. And in doing so, actually destroyed them. Death is not death - separation from God - if you are in God when you are in death. And if God has united himself with our physicality, then we do not have to lose our bodies, part of our nature, in death either. When God can take nothingness into himself, it ceases to be nothingness.

I don't know that it is an Orthodox position, but I don't think one has to leave behind a sacrificial or atonement view entirely - not in so much as they are Biblical images anyway. The problem is when we think that these images are real, that somehow we can extend what is really a kind of metaphor. So you end up with ideas like indulgences, that only make sense when you try to take the metaphor too literally and extend beyond what we are given.

 

[Mary of Bethany]

The way I think of it, which I think is similar to the Orthodox view, is that Christ came primarily to unite us to God. Death is the logical conclusion of being human without God, and is what we became subject to after the Fall. In becoming human, God united himself to us fully, even our limits, our subjectivity, our corruption, and death. That is why even now, when we sin, we can be, and in a way, still are united to God. Because he brought all of these things into the God-head and into relationship with him. And in doing so, actually destroyed them. Death is not death - separation from God - if you are in God when you are in death. And if God has united himself with our physicality, then we do not have to lose our bodies, part of our nature, in death either. When God can take nothingness into himself, it ceases to be nothingness.

I don't know that it is an Orthodox position, but I don't think one has to leave behind a sacrificial or atonement view entirely - not in so much as they are Biblical images anyway. The problem is when we think that these images are real, that somehow we can extend what is really a kind of metaphor. So you end up with ideas like indulgences, that only make sense when you try to take the metaphor too literally and extend beyond what we are given.

I think you said it well. We don't completely deny the sacrificial or atoning death - if only because *only* Christ could have accomplished this for us.

Mary

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Gwen, I sympathise entirely. The thing that's helped me most was a debate/discussion between Macarius (and I think wturri?) a while ago on the subject. Macarius might remember the thread, it helped explain some things that my priest couldn't (never having approached salvation from a western perspective)

 

[Ignatius21]

Gwen, I sympathise entirely. The thing that's helped me most was a debate/discussion between Macarius (and I think wturri?) a while ago on the subject. Macarius might remember the thread, it helped explain some things that my priest couldn't (never having approached salvation from a western perspective)

Huh, what? I don't know nuthin' from nuthin'! I never had that debate. I have an alibi!

It may have been the long discussion about Romans, going back over a year now...I think we got into Chapter 2 by the end of the first year...

Referencing an earlier thing...I think Westboro Church takes Calvinism to its logical end, only if clinic bombers take pro-life to its logical end.

Which is to say, their beliefs and actions are so absurd and appaling, there's nothing logical about it.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

It was way before Romans, it would have been about 18 months to two years ago now. I know it was a LONG time ago, but it helped, and I think it was you? I know it was Macarius, I'd know his writing style anywhere.

It was on the Atonement and how that functions in Orthodoxy I think. What made it work was that you (or whoever the non-Orthodox party was) asked all the logical questions from a Western perspective (which were the questions I either didn't know how ask or had asked my priest (who is Greek and while seminary trained (and well) has never had to think about this stuff from a Western viewpoint) and got answers, which rocked. I'd like to find that thread again to be honest, it was a good one!

 

[MrJim]

...I was listening to a podcast of Met. Kallistos Ware~he said he was Arminian

Of course, as an Orthodox I allow for the fact that there are many variations within Evangelicalism—notably, the difference between Arminians and Calvinists. I am firmly an Arminian. Also, the difference between Charismatics and non-Charismatics. I would put myself in the Charismatic class.

Lectures By Metropolitan Kallistos Ware - Ancient Faith Radio

If you click on What Can Evangelicals and Orthodox Learn From One Another it has the transcript.


<<I didn't go through all the posts so apologies if this was already posted>>

 

[Macarius]

It was way before Romans, it would have been about 18 months to two years ago now. I know it was a LONG time ago, but it helped, and I think it was you? I know it was Macarius, I'd know his writing style anywhere.

It was on the Atonement and how that functions in Orthodoxy I think. What made it work was that you (or whoever the non-Orthodox party was) asked all the logical questions from a Western perspective (which were the questions I either didn't know how ask or had asked my priest (who is Greek and while seminary trained (and well) has never had to think about this stuff from a Western viewpoint) and got answers, which rocked. I'd like to find that thread again to be honest, it was a good one!

Is it this one? http://www.christianforums.com/t7363692/

If it is, I recently "condensed" my responses from that thread into a post on my blog... it isn't at all concise (and it doesn't have the Q & A format), but you could use that for reference as well if you like.

 

[Dorothea]

...I was listening to a podcast of Met. Kallistos Ware~he said he was Arminian



Lectures By Metropolitan Kallistos Ware - Ancient Faith Radio

If you click on What Can Evangelicals and Orthodox Learn From One Another it has the transcript.


<<I didn't go through all the posts so apologies if this was already posted>>

Oh! I listened to that podcast a few weeks ago! It was great!

 

[Knee V]

I have an alibi!

You

Gee

Ell

Why

You ain't got no alibi!

 

[Knee V]

Gwen,

Having come to Orthodoxy largely from a Calvinist perspective, it took a long time for me to be able to see things from any view other than a western legal view of atonement. What actually helped me a lot to see things from the Orthodox perspective was C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity". He has a section on "atonement theories" and what he thinks about them. That was more helpful to me than anything that anyone else said.

 

[-Kyriaki-]

Macarius - yes, that one! Thanks

 

[mark46]

A fine source (recommended to me from someone here) regarding the Arminian-Wesleyan position (as against Calvin) is Oden's book on John Wesley's Scriptural Christainity. There is much discussion on this and related subjects (the book is essentially a systematic theology of John Wesley).

Amazon.com: John Wesley&#39;s scriptural Christianity (9780310753216): Thomas C. Oden: Books

...I was listening to a podcast of Met. Kallistos Ware~he said he was Arminian



Lectures By Metropolitan Kallistos Ware - Ancient Faith Radio

If you click on What Can Evangelicals and Orthodox Learn From One Another it has the transcript.


<<I didn't go through all the posts so apologies if this was already posted>>