Blood Sacrifice, Atonement and the Expiation of sins

[Christina C]

I know that there is another thread in this forum on this topic, but there are only two comments and my question is slightly different - basically asking for the thoughts of Orthodox Christians on two articles written by Orthodox Christians on the subject, which seem to present slightly different views. They are:
Orthodox Inquirer/Convert - Blood Sacrifices and Forgiveness

and

Fr. John Whiteford. Do Orthodox Christians Believe in the Atonement? / OrthoChristian.Com

I also found this blog, with following comments, which I have read through but would need to go back over a few times before grasping all the ideas put forward.

The Death of Jesus as Sacrifice: An Orthodox reading of Isaiah 53 and Romans 3:25 – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Thanks.

 

[Cappadocious]

That is a heavy request! Could we start with a particular point?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would agree with Capp and ask what exactly you are asking? often times because certain terminology comes with a particular weight, stuff might seem conflicting when it isn't.

as an example one person might endorse the word predestination as Orthodox (using as God's call to man in His foreknowledge of our choices that He sees in eternity), whereas someone else would condemn it as heretical (using it in a strict Calvinistic sense since that is how most folks understand predestination).

 

[Christina C]

Thank you for your reply and apologies for the delay in responding - I have been unwell.

The first article I pointed to did not hold any surprises for me in terms of what I believed to by orthodox thought. The second article, however, surprised me a little in that it did not totally reject the "legal" terms commonly used in Western Christianity when discussing atonement (see paragraph 5 of the second article). Would you say that what is written in that paragraph is orthodox?

I will re-read both articles to refresh myself with the contents and ask about other points.

Thank you.

 

[Christina C]

I would agree with Capp and ask what exactly you are asking? often times because certain terminology comes with a particular weight, stuff might seem conflicting when it isn't.

as an example one person might endorse the word predestination as Orthodox (using as God's call to man in His foreknowledge of our choices that He sees in eternity), whereas someone else would condemn it as heretical (using it in a strict Calvinistic sense since that is how most folks understand predestination).

Thanks Matt. Do you see the first two articles as giving different conflicting views? Or are they complementary? One says that the orthodox do not hold to a juridical view of atonement because the undelying premise is unscriptural. The other suggest that orthodox Christians should not wholly deny/reject legal imagery as it is biblical.

 

[ArmyMatt]

One says that the orthodox do not hold to a juridical view of atonement because the undelying premise is unscriptural. The other suggest that orthodox Christians should not wholly deny/reject legal imagery as it is biblical.

I would point out that there is a difference between the legalist view of the atonement, and using legal imagery in Scripture. the legal imagery is only one image of many used in Scripture, so we should take it into account because it is there, but that is not the lens that we should use to read every passage of the atonement.

 

[Cappadocious]

A question would be,

Whose law are you talking about?

Under Jewish law, did doves, pigeons and lambs vicariously pay a debt of punishment? A debt of pain?

 

[Christina C]

A question would be,

Whose law are you talking about?

Under Jewish law, did doves, pigeons and lambs vicariously pay a debt of punishment? A debt of pain?

To answer your second question no, that it not what I believe.
My question was, and perhaps it is too complex to answer, does the second article I pointed to contain Orthodox teaching?

 

[Cappadocious]

It depends what he means by "penalty" and "in our place." If he means suffer instead of us, that is not totally Orthodox because Christ suffered so we could suffer and die in him, not to do it instead of us.

If by penalty a debt of agony is meant, then I is likewise unorthodox

Where did the author attend seminary?

 

[Christina C]

It depends what he means by "penalty" and "in our place." If he means suffer instead of us, that is not totally Orthodox because Christ suffered so we could suffer and die in him, not to do it instead of us.

If by penalty a debt of agony is meant, then I is likewise unorthodox

Where did the author attend seminary?

I don't know where he attended seminary. He is Priest at St Jonah Orthodox Church in Spring, Texas (ROCOR)and contributes to ancient faith.com
What exactly do you mean by. "Christ suffered so we could suffer"?

 

[Cappadocious]

What exactly do you mean by. "Christ suffered so we could suffer"?

It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.