Atonement views

[CelticRebel]

Here is one area where i think we'll have much agreement. I'd still like to read the views of all of you, though.

My views are a combination of Christus Victor/Ransom/Recapitulation. I am strongly opposed to all Western views, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant -- Anselm's Satisfaction view, and especially Penal Substitution, which I find abhorrent.

 

[ArmyMatt]

we believe that the atonement was not just God forgiving man, but Him deifying human nature to heal it, and return it to its original state of blessedness before the Fall. this destroyed the power that death, sin, and the devil had over man, so man could once again come into union with God (which is eternal).

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have come to decide that God accomplished a lot more in Christ's death and resurrection than any one view of the Atonement covers.

I do find Christus Victor to be the "most important" ...

And the especial features of Penal Substitution such as God and Christ at odds with one another, God being unable to forgive even if He wanted to, and God needing to have His desire for suffering to be fulfilled - to be completely in error and I fully reject those aspects.

And I agree with what Army Matt said.

 

[Nik0s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8
one of my favorite illustrations on the Orthodox view of salvation.

 

[Knee V]

I would say that some of the Western language is not bad in and of itself. Rather, the language that they use has become twisted and now carries baggage that it once didn't carry. "Legal" language (well, some of it) is fine, but because of all the baggage now associated with it I won't use it lest there be unnecessary confusion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8
one of my favorite illustrations on the Orthodox view of salvation.

This makes even more sense to me now than it did the first time I saw it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would say that some of the Western language is not bad in and of itself. Rather, the language that they use has become twisted and now carries baggage that it once didn't carry. "Legal" language (well, some of it) is fine, but because of all the baggage now associated with it I won't use it lest there be unnecessary confusion.

indeed, there are many terms that deal with salvation and the atonement that could be okay in an Orthodox understanding (original sin, transubstantiation, predestination, depravity, baptism of the Spirit, etc) but carry a ton of weight so tis better just not to use them right away.

 

[CelticRebel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8
one of my favorite illustrations on the Orthodox view of salvation.

Yes, I've seen that, and I like it, too.

 

[CelticRebel]

Are all of you saying, or do you think, that there is room in Orthodoxy for Western views of the atonement such as Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, Governmental view?

 

[Cappadocious]

Are all of you saying, or do you think, that there is room in Orthodoxy for Western views of the atonement such as Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, Governmental view?

No, not according to the popular meanings of those words.

For example, Christ did satisfy something: He filled up (satisfied) the gulf of righteousness between God and man. This was the debt that man incurred: The debt is the gulf between corruption and righteousness, righteousness being communion with God. Christ filled up this debt of righteousness by entering into it and being in perfect communion with God. So it is not a debt of punishment or suffering, but a debt of righteousness that is fulfilled.

Nevertheless, when people commonly say "satisfaction" or "debt atonement," they are referring to a debt of suffering or punishment that must be satisfied; this is not our belief. Penal substitution and honor satisfaction theories are not our belief.

 

[CelticRebel]

No, not according to the popular meanings of those words.

For example, Christ did satisfy something: He filled up (satisfied) the gulf of righteousness between God and man. This was the debt that man incurred: The debt is the gulf between corruption and righteousness, righteousness being communion with God. Christ filled up this debt of righteousness by entering into it and being in perfect communion with God. So it is not a debt of punishment or suffering, but a debt of righteousness that is fulfilled.

Nevertheless, when people commonly say "satisfaction" or "debt atonement," they are referring to a debt of suffering or punishment that must be satisfied; this is not our belief. Penal substitution and honor satisfaction theories are not our belief.

Thank you. They are not my belief, either.

 

[~Anastasia~]

indeed, there are many terms that deal with salvation and the atonement that could be okay in an Orthodox understanding (original sin, transubstantiation, predestination, depravity, baptism of the Spirit, etc) but carry a ton of weight so tis better just not to use them right away.

A few months ago I probably would have strongly resisted such a statement, as I would have had a particular understanding of those words. I had to listen several times to Fr. Thomas Hopko (Memory Eternal!) talking about legal terms and how they MUST apply ... but I'm starting to get that.

You're right though that newcomers won't understand - I still don't fully - and those kinds of terms can cause confusion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Are all of you saying, or do you think, that there is room in Orthodoxy for Western views of the atonement such as Satisfaction, Penal Substitution, Governmental view?

Satisfaction? the word with an Orthodox understanding.
Penal Substitution? no, not at all.
Governmental view? dunno what this is, care to elaborate?

 

[CelticRebel]

Satisfaction? the word with an Orthodox understanding.
Penal Substitution? no, not at all.
Governmental view? dunno what this is, care to elaborate?

Governmental view, formulated by Hugo Grotius and held mainly by Arminians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_theory_of_atonement

 

[~Anastasia~]

Good ole Wikipedia ... Governmental wasn't linked from theories of Atonement page back when I last read it.

Reformed theologian J. I. Packer, for example, although he maintains that 'penal substitution is the mainstream, historic view of the church and the essential meaning of the Atonement... Yet with penal substitution at the center', he also maintains that 'Christus Victor and other Scriptural views of atonement can work together to present a fully orbed picture of Christ's work'.

I'd be careful with accepting "history" from Wikipedia. This wasn't there the last time I read it either.

I'm quite familiar with the language of the governmental theory though. God's hands are tied ... He CAN'T forgive us since it goes against justice.

Did anyone ever stop to ask whether it was "just" to "punish" Christ for our sins?

 

[CelticRebel]

Good ole Wikipedia ... Governmental wasn't linked from theories of Atonement page back when I last read it.


I'd be careful with accepting "history" from Wikipedia. This wasn't there the last time I read it either.

I'm quite familiar with the language of the governmental theory though. God's hands are tied ... He CAN'T forgive us since it goes against justice.

Did anyone ever stop to ask whether it was "just" to "punish" Christ for our sins?

Even though the article is on Wikipedia, it is accurate in its contents.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Even though the article is on Wikipedia, it is accurate in its contents.

Well, I didn't read it all. Army Matt is better able to answer you. I was only curious, since I delved pretty deeply into Atonement Theories about a year, year and a half ago, and "governmental" wasn't linked then. I used Wikipedia heavily in order to get definitions straight, and it was useful for that.

And it may be factual in the point that it quotes Packer. But Packer himself is very misinformed, unless by "historical church" he means the one that started around the 16th century.

 

[Tzaousios]

Penal Substitution? no, not at all.

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

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.

Governmental view? dunno what this is, care to elaborate?

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

Hey, Tzaousios! LONG time no see! How have you been, dear brother!

I think Matt did make a distinction (thought it was this thread) that there is a place in Orthodox thinking for many things, but they are so easily misunderstood. I would have been one of those confused by it, not long ago.

But anyway - it's great to see you. I hope you've been doing well!