Discuss the Atonement

[Polycarp1]

Hi, Orthodox folks.

I confess to not being altogether comfortable with the Western understandings of the Atonement, though I certainly believe that Christ died for me.

Could I persuade you to speak of how the Orthodox understand the Atonement? For whom do you say that Christ died? This may sound funny, but how did it work? As in, the traditional Western metaphor is one of justice, Christ taking on Himself the penalty we deserved in judgment for our sins. I'm fairly sure that that's not the predominant Eastern approach -- but explain to me how you see it.

Thanks for whatever you're willing to provide me on this.

 

[Rilian]

Atonement is reconciliation with God. Orthodoxy I would say principally views this as being achieved in the resurrection. Christ's death is in essence an act of self-sacrifice, or kenosis, the complete pouring out of ones self. Suffering all and for all. The risen Christ releases the dead from the bondage of death and makes our new life with God possible. Generally speaking, this "theory" of the atonement is known as Christus Victor.

It was in the West in the middle ages that Anselm developed his view of the atonement as satisfaction, as payment for the debt of sin. Roughly speaking a debt is owed to God for sin, but man cannot pay, so God's punishment is rained down upon the son to satisfy his wrath. This view was further refined by Aquinas and became the standard view of the West, Catholic and Protestant alike. In evangelical circles it is often referred to as penal substitutionary atonement. I think if you look at medieval imagery you can get a feeling for how this view took shape. Look at the Christ in the Isenheim Altarpiece for instance and I think you can see the visceral emotions it can stir up.

Needless to say, it's not a view shared by the East. It casts God as a blood thirsty and malicious. It is also difficult to understand the idea of God punishing Christ when they are of the same essence. It also places nearly all of the emphasis of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross, and not on his resurrection.

 

[Rilian]

double posted by accident.

 

[Philip]

double posted by accident.

Is outrage. Otherwise, well said. (Your first post, not the second.)

I would add that we see Christ's death as a ransom for our lives, not a payment of a debt. Our debts are forgiven, not passed on to another. He suffered death and rose again so that we would not have to suffer death.

 

[nikephoros_spatharios]

My understanding is roughly the following:

- When Adam sinned, death entered into the human race, which is the estrangement from God
- Death had dominion over all of us, because we all share Adam's nature, because we are his descendants [However, we don't share his guilt, since a man is responsible for his own actions, not those of another]
- So, at this point you may picture mankind in a rather pitiful state, away from God, trying to reach for him, but failing because of our weakness
- Question: So, how can the gap between God and man be bridged?
- Answer: Since we can't reach God, God must reach us
- This is the meaning of the saying of St. Athanasius (see my signature): God became man so that man may become God. God became man to pull man from his fallen state. This is the meaning of the beautiful icon of the Resurrection. Christ is really pulling Adam from the dominion of death:

- Christ's death and resurrection signifies the beginning of the reconciliation with God, not because we payed our "debt" to him, but because he loved us so, that he sent his only-begotten Son to us.
- In short Christians are the ones who realize that "something new entered into the world", that Christ's sacrifice and resurrection has changed the world. What is the change? It's Jesus' helping hand, ready to elevate us to God if only we grasp on it. That is his New Covenant with mankind: Jesus Christ is the Resurrection and the Life.

 

[Polycarp1]

This has been very helpful to me, what I've read so far. And I look forward to seeing others' thoughts if they share them.

I just noticed something very moving to me in this icon. Christ is of course supporting the three-barred cross of Orthodoxy, though His hands are outstretched to Adam rather than carrying it. But the cross has only two bars -- the upper symbolizing Pilate's INRI and the main crossbar. The footbar, slanted and invested with so much meaning by Orthodox, is missing.

Or is it? Actually, it is represented -- by the outstretched hands of Adam (the "old man" fallen through sin) and Christ (the Firstfruits of the new).

 

[Lotar]

Not to argue or anything, I'll delete this if it breaks rules, but I think it's a little off to say that the western view originates with Anselm. If anything, he might have been one of the first to systematize it.

For example, the Epistle of Barnabas states, "This is why the Lord allowed his flesh to be given over to corruption, that we might be made holy through the forgiveness of sins, which comes through the sprinkling of his blood... And so it says, 'He was wounded for our lawless acts and weakened because of our sins. By his bruising we were healed. He was led like a sheep going to slaughter; and like a lamb, silent before the one who shears it.'"

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

.

 

[Orthosdoxa]

Not to argue or anything, I'll delete this if it breaks rules, but I think it's a little off to say that the western view originates with Anselm. If anything, he might have been one of the first to systematize it.

For example, the Epistle of Barnabas states, "This is why the Lord allowed his flesh to be given over to corruption, that we might be made holy through the forgiveness of sins, which comes through the sprinkling of his blood... And so it says, 'He was wounded for our lawless acts and weakened because of our sins. By his bruising we were healed. He was led like a sheep going to slaughter; and like a lamb, silent before the one who shears it.'"

Umm.. I actually don't see that as particularly western, or in line with the Anselmian notion that we reject. It does not contradict the notion of Christ having loosed the bonds of death by death, of freeing us by His sacrifice, in contrast to paying a debt to an angry God.

 

[countrymousenc]

Not to argue or anything, I'll delete this if it breaks rules, but I think it's a little off to say that the western view originates with Anselm. If anything, he might have been one of the first to systematize it.

For example, the Epistle of Barnabas states, "This is why the Lord allowed his flesh to be given over to corruption, that we might be made holy through the forgiveness of sins, which comes through the sprinkling of his blood... And so it says, 'He was wounded for our lawless acts and weakened because of our sins. By his bruising we were healed. He was led like a sheep going to slaughter; and like a lamb, silent before the one who shears it.'"

I'll second Anonykat; there's nothing here that the OC doesn't agree with or teach about the atonement.

What the OC rejects is the notion that we inherit Adam's guilt, and that God was owed a debt and demanded to collect it. We know we inherited Adam's sinful nature, and that, in Christ, God reached out to us to reconcile us to Himself, because we were unable to reconcile ourselves. The Scripture says "There is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood." The OC does not deny it. Why it must be that way is beyond my understanding, but I accept it. Perhaps it has something to do with showing us how serious sin is, since the result of sin is death.

 

[Reader Nilus]

One of the books on my journey to Orthodoxy was Christus Victor by Gustav Aulen a Swedish Lutheran Bishop. It is a classic book on the theories of atonement. The classic Christian one is Christ defeated death, which is the Orthodox view, and Anslem's view is highly legalistic and really has no power IMHO.
Jeff the Finn