Athanasius & Recapitulation

[JM]

I get it, the Recapitulation Theory is old, but I just can't see how it jives with scripture.

Athanasius On the Incarnation:

“And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, bring to nought [sic] Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” (para. 20, 5-6).

“y his death has salvation come to all, and all creation been ransomed. He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all….” (para.37, 7)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WosgwLekgn8

 

[abacabb3]

I honestly don't see why an issue such of this is debated and separates people. We know Christ died, for the Scripture is clear and we know, in a sense He never disexisted as He is GOd eternally, so in a sense He did not die or He would cease being God.

This is what really turns me of about Eastern Christianity, as it seems to create schisms over Greek philosophical categories which I do not think are binding upon the conscience of the Christian in the Scripture. So, I do not think Athanasisu said anything wrong, but I would not demand that others affirm it.

 

[hedrick]

Huh? The quote in the OP is simply substitution, possibly even a type of penal substitution.

 

[abacabb3]

Huh? The quote in the OP is simply substitution, possibly even a type of penal substitution.

To EO, there is a subtle philosophical category that it shoehorns into that we shoehorn somewhere else, and the sky falls if you take it the way we say it

 

[Cappadocious]

This is what really turns me off about Reformed Christianity, as it seems to create schisms over nominalist philosophical categories which I do not think are binding upon the conscience of the Christian in the Scripture.

 

[abacabb3]

Wrong forum for that comment, you can take that to the debate part if you like. Please show respect, it is not as if I posted that right on the EO board.

 

[JM]

The East has had to make do without Augustine and Anselm, they haven't done too bad, but it seems like lot of Eastern navel gazing. Try to imagine Western theology without Augustine. Extremely difficult to do.

Thank God for Augustine!

 

[abacabb3]

The East has had to make do without Augustine and Anselm, they haven't done too bad, but it seems like lot of Eastern navel gazing. Try to imagine Western theology without Augustine. Extremely difficult to do.

Thank God for Augustine!

Well, they developed in a total different direction and it is often why we speak past each other. There are things that find important which I literally cannot find in the Scripture anywhere, tempest in a teapot sort of stuff. But, it is an old, traditional mindset so it makes sense that they stick to it, even if in the end some of these issues shouldn't be something that separate Christians.

 

[JM]

The East never understood or even tried to understand Augustine. They claim the West never understood Greek, well...Augustine wrote in Latin and it's my impression that they ignored him for that reason.

 

[abacabb3]

As good a reason as any I suppose

 

[Cappadocious]

Wrong forum for that comment, you can take that to the debate part if you like. Please show respect, it is not as if I posted that right on the EO board.

Respect shown to human beings is in inverse proportion to respect shown to CF rules.