Eastern Orthodoxy

[Alchemist]

Hi wnwall ,

Or another way to ask the question: What did we need to be rescued from if not the wrath of God and how did Christ's death accomplish it?

It's not a perfect analogy, you are right. But basically, it comes back to what God said to Adam and Eve about the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden - "the day you eat of it, you will die". As you already believe (as far as I know), when Adam and Eve sinned, it was not just a mistake that could be corrected by asking for forgiveness. When Eve bore Abel and Cain, she is quoted in Scripture as being thankful the birth her children, and acknowledging God for her motherhood; the question is, why couldn't God just say, "well, you are sorry, so I forgive you; just don't do it again"?

The answer is, of course, our human nature. When Adam and Eve sinned, it had more than just pragmatic consequences; it changed our very nature, and the nature of entire creation - no longer were men free from sin, but enslaved by it, and even if they lived holy lives whilst on Earth, they could expect little else than to spend eternity in Hades, an eternal, boring afterlife where nothing happened. It had nothing to do with God not forgiving us of our sins; it was because even if He did, our nature being in its very essence corrupted would mean that we would be destroyed in His presence.

But though the devil had deceived us, and we had fallen victim to his advances, God is above that. He sent Christ, who like all men after death went to Hades, but unlike every other man who went before, was not only man, but God. As such, though Hades could hold us, with our corrupted, nature, it could not hold Christ who was God himself, and hence our prison was smashed open, allowing those who before were trapped in darkness to escape by putting on Christ and going with Him to where we belong, in the presence of the Lord.

It has nothing to do with God needing a perfect sacrifice to forgive us our sins. The father did not demand a sacrifice from the prodigal son, despite everything he had done to disrespect him; he threw a huge party and welcomed him with open arms, leaving his jealous brother who thought that he should have to pay for everything he had done completely shell-shocked and angry - and his father rebuked him for it. Indeed, if you know anything about Jewish theology you will know that the Passover lamb to which Christ is compared in Scripture had nothing whatsoever to do with forgiveness of sins, but putting trust in God to deliver us from evil.

And that is why we needed Christ. Adam and Eve were forgiven the day they fell, but the effects of their sin remained, for our nature was corrupted. But being both God and man, Christ could change that; He was the only one who could. That is why Christ needed to come. It was not about God needing anything, and even the Old Testament with all its rules and regulations makes it explicit. It was not because justice needs be served; God is not bound by some scholastic moral code that must be sastified or He isn't being "just"- He is God, He is justice!

"Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?" (Ps 50:13), God asks. No, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart" (Ps 51:17); that is all he desires of us, for that is all we can give. So are we to be the jealous brother, who demands retribution for everything, and demands God - demands God! - do the same? Or are we to be as the prodigal son who, realising that we can do nothing of ourself, graciously accepts the beautiful and awesome gift of life that our Lord Jesus Christ has given us through taking on our sinful human nature and dying a horrible death on the Cross just so that we can be with God in Heaven for all eternity, and He forgives us, forgive others for the sins they do against us?

That is the decision we all must face. Let us pray that God in all his mercy will help us make the right choice .

God bless,
Nick

 

[Rick Otto]

Haha it's OK, Rick, I'm not here to eat you

Well, that's a relief!

But I "got a problem" with your no-atonement theory.
Not only did the Jews have an annual atonement sacrifice, but you state Adam changed our very nature.
In order for us to get into heaven without being annihilated by holiness, wouldn't our nature have to be changed?
Our fallen nature is obviated by death, so I describe it as "spiritualy dead", requiring being "born again"(in spirit) to even be able to discern & desire spiritual things.

I don't mean to reduce everything to science of law procedure at all. I recognize the poignant altruism, the passion & suffering involved. Law without compassion, "the letter of the law" is death. Poeticaly that evokes emotive details... mechanisticaly it provokes justice - a price / consequence. I don't see God as angry, but definitely having personality.
I see God as administering "poetic justice".

 

[cajunhillbilly]

why can't the atonement of Christ be so "big" that it includes all that the Calvininist says and the Orthodox says and even more. I don't think any one view of Christ's death adequately explains all that our Lord accomplished on the Cross, may He be praised forever.

 

[Rick Otto]

why can't the atonement of Christ be so "big" that it includes all that the Calvininist says and the Orthodox says and even more. I don't think any one view of Christ's death adequately explains all that our Lord accomplished on the Cross, may He be praised forever.

Speakin' for myself,... it can't because scriptures indicate that not all are elect, and that it is all the elect that have been given to, and nothing can take them away from, JC. Like the rest of Creation, it has been determined before Creation, in God's determinate counsel. Jesus reminded Pilate of this when He told him that he only has what power God allows him.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I agree that not all are elect. Only God knows those who are.

 

[wnwall]

I'm not sure where you're getting those ideas from that analogy at all. The point is that getting burned is something they willingly suffer when they accomplish the greater goal of rescuing someone - there's no deal going on behind the scenes where the fireman is following through on some ransom that demands he get burned while saving the child. It doesn't work in the sense of a deal, like the idea of Jesus dying in order to appease his angry Father on our behalf.

So what did we need to be rescued from if not the wrath of God? The problem here isn't an angry God who needs to be appeased, it's sin (and by extension, death) and its effects - on our lives and relationship with God. The Western understanding of the purpose of the incarnation and resurrection really limits itself by using an idea with this angry God on the one hand and Jesus on the other, who came to earth solely to appease his Father who requires some sort of payment.

I think everyone agrees that sin creates separation between us and God, since the perfect relationship we were originally meant to have with him has been ruined by our infection with sin. Is sin just breaking a law or behavioral code, though? I suppose on some level it is...but even more so, isn't it really a rejection of God's love and the life he offers us? Sin is a disease we all have - and diseases don't require payment, they require healing. Through Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection, he gave us a way that that relationship could be healed and we could be partakers of the divine nature - it's not a matter of appeasement.

You still haven't explained what Christ's death has to do with anything. If Christ just came to heal, why did he have to die? Doctors heal people; they don't have to die to do it. You're able to talk all around the fact that Christ died without offering any sort of explanation for what Christ's death did.

But scripture tells us exactly what Christ's death did:

We esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:4-6).

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" (Galatians 3:13).

God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).

​

http://youtube.com/watch?v=httdJ4I20Tw
​

 

[bradfordl]

It's not a perfect analogy, you are right....That is the decision we all must face. Let us pray that God in all his mercy will help us make the right choice .

That whole post is a pefect explanation of why EO is not Christianity. Thank you.

We were not in need of justification, we just needed a ticket out of hades? Heretical in its idolatry, soteriology and ecclesiology. What more do you need ?

 

[jckstraw72]

where did you get that we dont need justification?!

wnwall -- Christ died in order to DEFEAT death by rising again. He broke its hold on humanity and through Him we can also be victorious over death. and in the verses you quote -- none of them say the Father punished the Son to receive an appeasing payment. He was smitten by God bc WE needed it, not bc the Father needed it to cool His hot temper.

 

[wnwall]

He was smitten by God bc WE needed it, not bc the Father needed it to cool His hot temper.

Why did we need it? How does the death of God's Son and my king help me?

 

[Kvikklunsj]

You still haven't explained what Christ's death has to do with anything. If Christ just came to heal, why did he have to die? Doctors heal people; they don't have to die to do it. You're able to talk all around the fact that Christ died without offering any sort of explanation for what Christ's death did.

But scripture tells us exactly what Christ's death did:

We esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:4-6).

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" (Galatians 3:13).

God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).

Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).

​

http://youtube.com/watch?v=httdJ4I20Tw
​

I thought it was obvious - he died to defeat Satan and the curse of evil on us, which I assume you agree with - but it was done as a way to heal our relationship with God and offer us life in him, not as a means to placate the Father.

 

[wnwall]

I thought it was obvious - he died to defeat Satan and the curse of evil on us, which I assume you agree with - but it was done as a way to heal our relationship with God and offer us life in him, not as a means to placate the Father.

What does Romans 8:3 mean when it says God condemned sin in the flesh?

 

[jckstraw72]

it means He defeated the power of sin by never sinning. He sanctified humanity by His perfect life. His life defeated sin, and His death and resurrection defeated death.

 

[wnwall]

it means He defeated the power of sin by never sinning. He sanctified humanity by His perfect life. His life defeated sin, and His death and resurrection defeated death.

Let's do this one step at a time because I feel like I'm having a hard time getting a straight answer. Maybe it's some paradigm barrier.

What does condemn mean?

 

[Alchemist]

Brad,

That whole post is a pefect explanation of why EO is not Christianity.

I thought that us (according to you) being heretical, idolatrous, spiritually dead pagans who pray to saints, bow down to graven images and worship a "pantheon of gods" would make us unchristian enough without taking into consideration our soteriology, but anyway! Still waiting for an answer to my post by the way .

We were not in need of justification

If by justification you mean that God needed to kill someone to "forgive us", a concept not found anywhere in scripture nor Christianity pre-1500's Protestantism, then no, we weren't.

we just needed a ticket out of hades?

No, we "just" needed our nature sanctified by being joined to Christ, to repent of our sins and accept God's forgiveness so that we could live in His light for all eternity.

Heretical in its idolatry, soteriology and ecclesiology. What more do you need ?

Ah, "idolatry"! I haven't heard that word since you baselessly accused me of that a couple of pages ago for venerating icons, a Biblical practice explictly commanded by God in the Old Testament, and practiced by every orthodox Christian on the planet before the 15th... mm, do I detect a pattern here?

Hi Rick,

But I "got a problem" with your no-atonement theory. Not only did the Jews have an annual atonement sacrifice...

You are right, Rick, they did . But did the sacrifice actually atone for their sins, or was it a symbol of the redemptive death of Christ on the Cross, through which the effect of sin is destroyed and we can once again come to God? If you already believe that Christ's death was an atonement sacrifice then of course you will affirm the first option, but if you don't, you will find no scriptural support for this position at all.

Will you find scriptural support that Christ died for our sins? Certainly. That Christ's death was a sacrifice? Yes; for any man to offer His life to God in martyrdom is a sacrifice, and in Christ living a perfect life he undoubtedly fulfilled that criteria. That His blood covers our sins? Yes, for through (and only through) his death can our nature be restored and we can face God. But is there any scriptural basis that His death was an atonement sacrifice, or indeed, that atonement rituals in Judaic worship had any intrinsic, spiritual consequences and were anything other than a foreshadowing of Christ's death? Not one iota!

but you state Adam changed our very nature.

Do not Calvinists believe the same?

In order for us to get into heaven without being annihilated by holiness, wouldn't our nature have to be changed? Our fallen nature is obviated by death, so I describe it as "spiritualy dead", requiring being "born again"(in spirit) to even be able to discern & desire spiritual things.

We do not think that the Fall completely took away our desire for God, but indeed, you are right again; we must be "born again" by joining ourselves to Christ to be saved .

I don't mean to reduce everything to science of law procedure at all. I recognize the poignant altruism, the passion & suffering involved. Law without compassion, "the letter of the law" is death. Poeticaly that evokes emotive details... mechanisticaly it provokes justice - a price / consequence. I don't see God as angry, but definitely having personality. I see God as administering "poetic justice".

Certainly, one can see the altruism in it, and even in rejection of substitutionary atonement soteriology I can see the mercy of God in actually dying for us instead of just letting us die. But nonetheless, do you not believe that unless a "payment" is paid, God will not forgive us of our sins? That is not just a poetic consideration; substitutionary atonement is a realis fact in Reformed theology.

And that's what it comes down to. Either God demands blood before he forgives anything (in my opinion, well-and-truly incompatible with Scripture in light of the parable of the Prodigal Son, unless Christ is a complete hypocrite) or He simply forgives us if we repent but something more is needed before we can enter into His presence - namely, the cleansing of our sinful nature so we are fit to be with him. Certainly, if you have already convinced yourself that God needs "justice" (in other words, blood payment) to forgive us you will be able to pull up some verse in Scripture which seems to confirm your beliefs.

But if you truly are sola scriptura, and don't just presume substitutionary atonement to be correct cause that's what your pastor / parents / Sunday school teacher / Calvin (RIP) told you the Bible said, you will find those same verses you would quote in defence of substitutionary atonement really give you absolutely no reason to accept substitutionary atonement is true at all, unless you ignore other parts of the Bible. It is great that you recognise the altruism; Christ gave much for us that we did not deserve! But that God wants or needs blood payment for sins is not the poetry of Scripture. Your work is better than many, indeed, but I think re-examining the Master's might help you out

Peace,
Nick

 

[Rick Otto]

The yearly atonement foreshadowed Christ's final atonement. Blood was the requirement since day one(Cain & Abel).
The atonement was for a specific group(Isreal), as was Christ's(the elect/believers).

But did the sacrifice actually atone for their sins, or was it a symbol of the redemptive death of Christ on the Cross, through which the effect of sin is destroyed and we can once again come to God? If you already believe that Christ's death was an atonement sacrifice then of course you will affirm the first option, but if you don't, you will find no scriptural support for this position at all.

The yearly sacrifice was a symbolic foreshadowing, but symbols are not impotent & acts of obedience aren't worthless or meaningless.
Destroying sin cost a price only Jesus could pay.

But is there any scriptural basis that His death was an atonement sacrifice, or indeed, that atonement rituals in Judaic worship had any intrinsic, spiritual consequences and were anything other than a foreshadowing of Christ's death? Not one iota!

His sacrificial death atoned for man's sin.
1obsolete : reconcile2: to supply satisfaction for : expiateintransitive verb: to make amends <atone for sins>
Without His sacrificial death, amends & satisfaction would not have been achieved, so yes, His death was an atonement, even if atonement sacrifices of Levitical priests were only foreshadows. Both the real thing & the foreshadows were about atonement regardless of their relative effectiveness.
Iotas don't get any bigger than that.

 

[jckstraw72]

wnwall -- i dont understand how my answer didnt suffice ....
Jesus condemned sin by breaking its power over us by never sinning.

 

[wnwall]

wnwall -- i dont understand how my answer didnt suffice ....
Jesus condemned sin by breaking its power over us by never sinning.

Ok, I see what you're saying now, but that's not at all what the verse says.

First let's get a definition of condemn. The first two definitions from dictionary.com are,

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment
​

So to condemn is to judge, to sentence to punishment. It doesn't mean to defeat.

We can see this very clearly in the immediate context of the verse in question,

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)
​

Here condemn means judgment against because of sin. We are no longer under condemnation. That means when God sees us he will no longer say, "guilty" and sentence us to punishment. We don't have to die although the law demands the death of those who sin. Now verse 3,

God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.
​

The first sentence says God has done something. The second sentence tells us what God did. (1) God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus took on human flesh. (2) God condemned sin in the flesh. Whose flesh? Jesus' flesh. This verse does not say Jesus defeated sin. Jesus did defeat sin, but that's not what this verse says. This verse says God condemned Jesus for sin. God looked at Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and said "guilty" and sentenced him to punishment. That's what condemn means.

Putting it all together, there is no condemnation for those in Jesus -- why? Because God condemned Jesus instead of condemning us. He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.

 

[jckstraw72]

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus ... i dont understand how you got that out of that verse.

 

[wnwall]

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus ... i dont understand how you got that out of that verse.

Are you being honest? If you take a serious look at that verse, you really can't see how it says God condemned Jesus in his flesh for the sin of those who are in Jesus? What does "sin was condemned" even mean? It's meaningless the way you're trying to interpret it. To condemn is to punish for wrongdoing. You can't punish sin. You punish for sin. Who was punished? Jesus. For whose sin? Ours. Who sentenced him to that punishment? God. That's why I asked for a definition of condemnation. You punish people for the things they do; you don't punish the things people do.

Please take a long, hard, prayerful look at this verse and don't react to it rashly. These are the words of God that he gave us in order to teach us. This verse isn't meaningless. It's communication from God.

Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (NASB).
​

You can talk around truth all you want. You can cover it up and act like it doesn't say what it does. But be aware it is God's eternal truth you're concealing. Not only that but it's one of the most beautiful, Christ-exalting, God-glorifying, heaven-opening truths there is. This isn't just an academic game. The stakes are high, the importance is immeasurable. This is life and death.

 

[jckstraw72]

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus. Sin takes us all further from God and brings us death. God condemned it for this and defeated it by Christ.

Jesus did nothing to be punished for. and why would punishing Jesus, which would be the ultimate injustice, please our just God?

St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Romans 8:3:

Again, he seems indeed to be disparaging the Law. But if any one attends strictly, he even highly praises it, by showing that it harmonizes with Christ, and gives preference to the same things. For he does not speak of the badness of the Law, but of "what it could not do;" and so again, "in that it was weak," not, "in that it was mischievous, or designing." And even weakness he does not ascribe to it, but to the flesh, as he says, "in that it was weak through the flesh," using the word "flesh" here again not for the essence and subsistency itself, but giving its name to the more carnal sort of mind. In which way he acquits both the body and the Law of any accusation. Yet not in this way only, but by what comes next also. For supposing the Law to be of the contrary part, how was it Christ came to its assistance, and fulfilled its requisitions, and lent it a helping hand by condemning sin in the flesh? For this was what was lacking, since in the soul the Lord had condemned it long ago. What then? is it the greater thing that the Law accomplished, but the less that the Only-Begotten did? Surely not. For it was God that was the principal doer of that also, in that He gave us the law of nature, and added the written one to it. Again, there were no use of the greater, if the lesser had not been supplied. For what good is it to know what things ought to be done, if a man does not follow it out? None, for it were but a greater condemnation. And so He that hath saved the soul it is, Who hath made the flesh also easy to bridle. For to teach is easy, but to show besides a way in which these things were easily done, this is the marvel. Now it was for this that the Only-Begotten came, and did not depart before He had set us free from this difficulty. But what is greater, is the method of the victory; for He took none other flesh, but this very one which was beset with troubles. So it is as if any one were to see in the street a vile woman of the baser sort being beaten, and were to say he was her son, when he was the king's, and so to get her free from those who ill treated her. And this He really did, in that He confessed that He was the Son of Man, and stood by it (i.e. the flesh), and condemned the sin. However, He did not endure to smite it besides; or rather, He smote it with the blow of His death, but in this very act it was not the smitten flesh which was condemned and perished, but the sin which had been smiting. And this is the greatest possible marvel. For if it were not in the flesh that the victory took place, it would not be so astonishing, since this the Law also wrought. But the wonder is, that it was with the flesh (meta sarkoj) that His trophy was raised, and that what had been overthrown numberless times by sin, did itself get a glorious victory over it. For behold what strange things there were that took place! One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it too. For it is not the same thing not to get conquered, and to conquer that which was continually overthrowing us. A third is, that it not only conquered it, but even chastised it. For by not sinning it kept from being conquered, but by dying also, He overcame and condemned it, having made the flesh, that before was so readily made a mock of by it, a plain object of fear to it. In this way then, He at once unnerved its power, and abolished the death by it introduced. For so long as it took hold of sinners, it with justice kept pressing to its end. But after finding a sinless body, when it had given it up to death, it was condemned as having acted unjustly. Do you observe, how many proofs of victory there are? The flesh not being conquered by sin, Its even conquering and condemning it, Its not condemning it barely, but condemning it as having sinned. For after having convicted it of injustice, he proceeds to condemn it, and that not by power and might barely, but even by the rules of justice. For this is what he means by saying, "for sin condemned sin in the flesh." As if he had said that he had convicted it of great sin, and then condemned it. So you see it is sin that getteth condemned everywhere, and not the flesh, for this is even crowned with honor, and has to give sentence against the other. But if he does say that it was "in the likeness" of flesh that he sent the Son, do not therefore suppose that His flesh was of a different kind. For as he called it "sinful," this was why he put the word "likeness."16 For sinful flesh it was not that Christ had, but like indeed to our sinful flesh, yet sinless, and in nature the same with us. And so even from this it is plain that by nature the flesh was not evil. For it was not by taking a different one instead of the former, nor by changing this same one in substance, that Christ caused it to regain the victory: but He let it abide in its own nature, and yet made it bind on the crown of victory over sin, and then after the victory raised it up, and made it immortal. What then, it may be said, is this to me, whether it was this flesh that these things happened in? Nay, it concerns thee very much.