Orthodox view of justification

[LuxPerpetua]

Hello, my favorite Orthodox friends!

Stemming from some discussion in PRE, can someone here please help me to understand the Orthodox view of original sin and justification?

Thanks!

 

[Philip]

I will be happy to this evening.

 

[Photini]

Uh, the more I try, the less I think I understand what Protestants and Catholics mean by "justification." I am a former Protestant (non-denom), but was not very indoctrinated...
As far as I can tell (on what little I know), there isn't an exact equivalent to "justification" in Orthodoxy as in the churches of the West.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Philip says.

 

[Philip]

As far as I can tell (on what little I know), there isn't an exact equivalent to "justification" in Orthodoxy as in the churches of the West.

That may be the best introduction to the Orthodox view of justification I have ever heard.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Philip says.

I hope I do not disappoint.

LuxPerpetua and Photini,
Please remember that what I say may be wrong. What I write is my understanding of what I have read in the writings of the Fathers, especially St John Chrysostom, and what I have discussed with my priest.

First a definition -- I am using the word "justification" to mean "the process by which a sinner becomes acceptable to God/in the eyes of God". I think this is usually what is meant by justification in the West. If you have something else in mind, please let me know.

A little history (Feel free to skip to the next paragraph.) -- The Western idea of justification, both Catholic and Protestant, is dependent on the St Augustine and his condemnation of Pelagians. (If you don't know what a Pelagian is, don't worry -- it's not important at the moment.) This idea was further developed by Aquinas and Anselm. From there, many different paths follow, depending on which denomination you are. The East feels that Augustine went a little too far (or, others have stretched his ideas too far). We balance Augustine's writings with those of John Chrysostom and St John Cassian.

Most of the Western view of justification is based on a particular interpretation of St Paul's Epistle to the Romans, with the other Epistles mentioned as needed. When I quote Scripture, it will be from the New English Translation (NET Bible) (Thanks for bringing this version to my attention, Jeff). Of the various English translations, this one is closest to the Eastern view -- at least for the book of Romans.

 

[Philip]

Matthew 18:23-27
“For this reason, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. As he began settling his accounts, a man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to him. Because he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made. Then the slave threw himself to the ground before him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you everything.’ The lord had compassion on that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt.​

To me, this parable (along with the Prodigal Son) captures the Easten view of justification best. The king has mercy on the servent and forgives him. There is no exchange of debts -- the slave's debts are not passed on to another for repayment. The debts are simply forgiven. The king, upon hearing that the slave desires to repay him, offers the servant a chance to improve. (Unfortunately, the servant does not use this chance well, but we can deal with that latter.) In essence, God says, "I know you are weak but desire to be better. I will help you be better." He is a loving Father who wants His children to return to Him.

Contrast this with the Western view of justification and atonement: We often hear that Christ paid our debt to God. We are told that He had to suffer and die to appease God. Because Christ did this, God transfers our debt to Christ. In essence, God says, "I know you are weak and can do nothing. I will punish someone else and forget about what you did." We are left with an image of a vengeful God, something that is hard to reconcile with Christ's parables of a loving, forgiving Father.

There is much more to come, but I want to pause to let anyone still reading this catch up.

 

[Kripost]

Matthew 18:23-27
“For this reason, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. As he began settling his accounts, a man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to him. Because he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made. Then the slave threw himself to the ground before him, saying, ‘Be patient with me, and I will repay you everything.’ The lord had compassion on that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt.​

To me, this parable (along with the Prodigal Son) captures the Easten view of justification best. The king has mercy on the servent and forgives him. There is no exchange of debts -- the slave's debts are not passed on to another for repayment. The debts are simply forgiven. The king, upon hearing that the slave desires to repay him, offers the servant a chance to improve. (Unfortunately, the servant does not use this chance well, but we can deal with that latter.) In essence, God says, "I know you are weak but desire to be better. I will help you be better." He is a loving Father who wants His children to return to Him.

Contrast this with the Western view of justification and atonement: We often hear that Christ paid our debt to God. We are told that He had to suffer and die to appease God. Because Christ did this, God transfers our debt to Christ. In essence, God says, "I know you are weak and can do nothing. I will punish someone else and forget about what you did." We are left with an image of a vengeful God, something that is hard to reconcile with Christ's parables of a loving, forgiving Father.

There is much more to come, but I want to pause to let anyone still reading this catch up.

What I have read was that the western view is heavily dependant on a juridical view, and the idea of debt and satisfaction came into prominence during Anselm. Whereas for the eastern view, there is less emphasis on the juridical view, but more as a healing process, so that we would not flee from God's, but are able to stand in his presence.

Is the above statement an accurate way to represent views of justification? Please correct me if I made a mistake somewhere.

 

[Philip]

What I have read was that the western view is heavily dependant on a juridical view, and the idea of debt and satisfaction came into prominence during Anselm. Whereas for the eastern view, there is less emphasis on the juridical view, but more as a healing process, so that we would not flee from God's, but are able to stand in his presence.

I would agree that this is the basic idea.

 

[Photini]

Here's a passage from one of my favorite little books. It may or may not be relevant to the topic.

"Spiritual life and theology in the Church, in the Body of the revealed and incarnate Truth, form an ontological and dynamic manifestation of the Kingdom. The former is not an arbitrary human initiative, a simulation of holiness, nor does the latter consist of intellectual constructions and outlines of more or less accurate hypotheses and statements. It is a characteristic and fundamental truth about spiritual life that St. Symeon the New Theologian expresses when he tells us: 'God requires nothing from us men save only that we do not sin; and this is not a work of law but an inviolable safeguard of the image [of God in man] and of the dignity we have from on high.'

What we are concerned with here is not an optional effort of secondary importance, subject to no control but depending solely on our own mentalities, but a deep knowledge of our being, fashioned as it is by God, and a reverence for the image of God and the unique potentialities concealed within us. In sinning, we are not contravening a law but torturing and destroying ourselves: 'Those who sin against Me (says God) injure themselves; all who hate Me love death' (Prov. 8:36).

In order to be initiated into theology, our first task is to free our souls from the passions which are part of corruption, not to find our way by hook or by crook into the bridal chamber of knowledge and contemplation. For, as St. Gregory of Nyssa tells us, when our feet are bound it is impossible to run towards the height where the light of truth can be seen; this is possible only when our souls have divested themselves entirely of the dead and earthly garment of skin which enwrapped our nature when through disobedience we were stripped by divine will. 'When this comes about in us, knowledge of truth will follow, making itself manifest. For the clear knowledge of that which is, serves as a purification of notions about that which has no real existence.'

There is something with its own motive force in spiritual life and in knowledge of truth. And at the same time there is a partnership between these two, because 'what is known, is known only through participation in it.' Once the ascetic cleansing has taken place, 'the truth makes itself manifest' and sets man free.

In spiritual life, the aim of all the struggle and ascetic practice is to lead man to humility, to free him from the ego that torments him, so that he can receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. All this struggle is necessary, not for us to ascend spiritually, but for us to descend, to be humbled: 'by descending into the water we ascend to God' (Verses at Lauds, Epiphany).

No one who consciously or unconsciously boasts of his virtues has enjoyed the fruits of virtue and the freedom to which it leads. The virtues are a crossing, a passage, something that has to be surpassed in order for the souls longing to be laid to rest in the 'blessed and most holy bed' of God (St. Maximos the Confessor). According to St Maximos, the soul can attain to the secrecy which is in God, where the mystery of unity beyond understanding and speech is celebrated, only 'when it has gone not only beyond categories of vice and ignorance and of falsehood and wickedness--the vices which are opposite of virtue and knowledge and truth and goodness--but even, if one may say this, beyond the categories of virtue itself and of knowledge and truth and goodness as they are known to us.' In the Kingdom of the Spirit of God, which lies beyond our senses and intellectual concepts and virtues, everything exists in a different way. It exists truly."

~Hymn of Entry, Archimandrite Vasileios

 

[Patristic]

What has been the traditional Orthodox understanding of the term propitiation(ilasthrion)? It's usual meaning is usually in the sense of a sacrifice that appeases the person or deity to which it is offered.

 

[Rilian]

My understanding of justification was that it was something that fit into the wider framework of redemption. The short synopsis is man because of original sin is completely fallen and essentially helpless to come to God or do anything worthy in his sight (roughly what Luther described in his Bondage of the Will). Christ is sacrificed as a propitiation for sin in our place a la Anselm and we are only justified through faith in this worthy sacrifice. This payment for the debt of sin is often seen as a legal or juridicial transaction which is why it's known as forensic justification.

I think the difference goes back to sin. The east as I understand it never saw sin in the terms Augustine did. It sees what happened at the fall not as a complete removal of the image of God from man, but as a consequence of man receiving free will. Sin is present in death, but the part of us once joined to God is present as well. The understanding of the Atonement is also different. Unlike the idea of a substitutionary death with Christ as the victim of God's wrath, Orthodoxy sees Christ's atoning death as a victory. This is exemplified by the Harrowing of Hell. Two 20th century Lutheran theologians, Jurgen Moltmann and Gustaf Aulen, actually came to a view of the Atonement very close to the one held by Orthodoxy.

Broadly speaking I think in Protestantism it would be said that it is faith in the grace extended to us by God that justifies or saves (some parts of Protestantism say it's our choice and some say even faith is imputed in us). I think in Orthodoxy this act of faith is viewed more as a first step and not an end in and of itself. St. Theophan the Recluse describes it as waking up from the sleep of sin to a life of pursuing God.

This whole area of our relationship with God was really one of the first cracks that appeared in my beliefs and has led me out of being a Protestant.

 

[Philip]

. Christ is sacrificed as a propitiation for sin in our place a la Anselm and we are only justified through faith in this worthy sacrifice. This payment for the debt of sin is often seen as a legal or juridicial transaction which is why it's known as forensic justification.

This is something we can not agree with. This is not forgiveness of our debts, but a transfer of them.

The understanding of the Atonement is also different. Unlike the idea of a substitutionary death with Christ as the victim of God's wrath, Orthodoxy sees Christ's atoning death as a victory.

I am concerned about the word "atonement". If it means "make right", then it is fine. If it means "make up for", then I have some issues.

This is exemplified by the Harrowing of Hell. Two 20th century Lutheran theologians, Jurgen Moltmann and Gustaf Aulen, actually came to a view of the Atonement very close to the one held by Orthodoxy.

Perhaps we should be seeking unification with the Lutheran Church.

I think in Orthodoxy this act of faith is viewed more as a first step and not an end in and of itself. St. Theophan the Recluse describes it as waking up from the sleep of sin to a life of pursuing God.

Well said.

 

[Rilian]

Philip, the idea forgiveness of debt was a real problem for me, it kind of reduced our relationship with God to a financial transaction. Like I said it was one of the things that really began to trouble me.

Regarding unification, well who knows. In this country to complicate things there is more than one Lutheran church; from the LCMS which has stayed strongly confessional and still appears to have a coherent sacramental basis from what I can tell, to the ELCA which is probably sinking into the same morass as the other mainline Protestant denominations. One thing that is interesting to note is that Jaroslav Pelikan, who is probably still considered one of the foremost authorities on Luther and Lutheranism converted to Orthodoxy a few years back.

 

[LuxPerpetua]

Philip, the idea forgiveness of debt was a real problem for me, it kind of reduced our relationship with God to a financial transaction. Like I said it was one of the things that really began to trouble me.

Regarding unification, well who knows. In this country to complicate things there is more than one Lutheran church; from the LCMS which has stayed strongly confessional and still appears to have a coherent sacramental basis from what I can tell, to the ELCA which is probably sinking into the same morass as the other mainline Protestant denominations. One thing that is interesting to note is that Jaroslav Pelikan, who is probably still considered one of the foremost authorities on Luther and Lutheranism converted to Orthodoxy a few years back.

On a side note, this is very interesting. Perhaps now I understand why I am so drawn to both Lutheranism and Orthodoxy--because they have some similarities. It really is quite intriguing to me because right now these are my top 2 choices for our next church (we've been church shopping for a while).

 

[Kripost]

Philip, the idea forgiveness of debt was a real problem for me, it kind of reduced our relationship with God to a financial transaction. Like I said it was one of the things that really began to trouble me.

I also had a problem with the idea of appeasement, where God the Father's justice must be satisfied, by requiring a perfect sacrifice, before forgiveness can be given. Thus it seems that mercy and justice are 2 opposing forces. The idea of God the Father have a need to have God the Son killed so that God the Father is satsfied just does not seem correct somehow.

 

[prodromos]

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!

Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.

There is no exchange of debts in a ransom.

John.

 

[Patristic]

I think I remember reading this in Frederica Matthewes-Green's book At The Corner of East Now where she talks about Western vs. Eastern views of the atonement. She talks about how their bishop couldn't rap his mind around the necessity of God the Father needing to kill His son to appease Himself. It's like God is some sort of sadist. Yet, she also says the West didn't develop this idea totally removed from Scripture since passages like Romans 3:25 and 1 Jn 2:1-2 employ the words propitiation to describe Christ's sacrifice.

 

[Patristic]

On a side note, this is very interesting. Perhaps now I understand why I am so drawn to both Lutheranism and Orthodoxy--because they have some similarities. It really is quite intriguing to me because right now these are my top 2 choices for our next church (we've been church shopping for a while).

I went through and in some way am still feeling the same attractions to both.

 

[Philip]

Yet, she also says the West didn't develop this idea totally removed from Scripture since passages like Romans 3:25 and 1 Jn 1:1-2 employ the words propitiation to describe Christ's sacrifice.

I like the NET translation of Romans 3:25 where 'propitiation' is replaced by 'mercy seat':

Romans 3:25-26
God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.​

The following translation note is included:

33tn The word iJlasthvrion (Jilasthrion) may carry the general sense “place of satisfaction,” referring to the place where God’s wrath toward sin is satisfied. More likely, though, it refers specifically to the “mercy seat,” i.e., the covering of the ark where the blood was sprinkled in the OT ritual on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). This term is used only one other time in the NT: Heb 9:5, where it is rendered “mercy seat.” There it describes the altar in the most holy place (holy of holies). Thus Paul is saying that God displayed Jesus as the “mercy seat,” the place where propitiation was accomplished. See N. S. L. Fryer, “The Meaning and Translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25,” EvQ 59 (1987): 99-116, who concludes the term is a neuter accusative substantive best translated “mercy seat” or “propitiatory covering,” and D. P. Bailey, “Jesus As the Mercy Seat: The Semantics and Theology of Paul’s Use of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25” (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 1999), who argues that this is a direct reference to the mercy seat which covered the ark of the covenant.
34tn The prepositional phrase diaV pivstew" (dia pistew") here modifies the noun iJlasthvrion (Jilasthrion). As such it forms a complete noun phrase and could be written as “mercy-seat-accessible-through-faith” to emphasize the singular idea. See Rom 1:4 for a similar construction. The word “accessible” is not in the Greek text but has been supplied to clarify the idea expressed by the prepositional phrase (cf. NRSV: “effective through faith”).​

 

[Rilian]

I don't think there has to be exactly one way of looking at the Atonement, I think several views can be supported such as victory, ransom, sacrifice and so on. The problem I think is in saying the Atonement means one thing and one thing only, which to me is what happens a lot when people talk about the Atonement as being penal or substitutionary in nature. It seems one sided because it places all the emphasis on the crucifixion as being what released us from sin, where to me the emphasis should be on the Resurrection. That was the most important part of what happened on the cross to me, not that Christ suffered for us, but that he defeated the power of suffering and death itself.

LuxPerpetua, good luck on your search. I think if I had stayed a Protestant one of the few places I would have felt comfortable would have been in a traditional Lutheran church, although those may be getting ever more difficult to find. I do know that two of the people in my catechumen class were Lutherans and the priest of the mother parish of my mission was a minister in a very high Lutheran church.

Luther is obviously not without his faults, and I think much of what happened in Lutheranism, and perhaps by extentension Protestantism itself was that those movements took on large parts of their founders personalities. I think one of the important lessons that can be drawn from Luther is the weight of his spiritual struggle and the gravity he placed on sin and salvation, whether or not you agree with his conclusions. There was an interesting article I saw not too long ago quoting German Roman Catholic Cardinal Walter Kasper talking about the current spiritual malaise and rise of secularism in Western Europe. He said

“Our experience today is no longer the crushing burden of sin, but the absence of any experience of sin. We have all become more or less Deists, no longer asking: ‘How can I do what God expects?’ but ‘How can I do justice to myself and to my own life?’”

Sadly I think this could also apply to much of what passes for religion in this country, where worship of God can get pushed aside in favor or self-fulfillment or the pursuit of money.

Anyhow, overall it was the view of sin and our relationship with God that really brought me into Orthodoxy.

 

[Lotar]

Not wanting to debate here, but if secularism in western Europe was Luther's fault, you wouldn't see the same problems in France, Austria, Southern Germany, etc.