Reparations for sin and insults to God

[Light of the East]

I did a search and didn't find exactly the answer I was looking for (the thread I found kind of wandered off the subject) so here is my question
From a Roman Catholic site, analyse this please:

According to Thomas Slater, reparation is a theological concept closely connected with those of atonement and satisfaction, and is considered a sacred mystery in Roman Catholicism. It is the teaching of that faith that man is a creature who has fallen from an original state of grace in which he was created, and that through the incarnation, Passion, and death of Jesus Christ, he has been redeemed and restored again in a certain degree to the original condition. Although God might have condoned men's offences gratuitously if He had chosen to do so, yet in divine providence He did not do this; He judged it better to demand satisfaction for the injuries which man had done Him. It is better for man's education that wrongdoing on his part should entail the necessity of making satisfaction. This satisfaction was made adequately to God by the suffering, passion, and death of Jesus Christ, made Man for us. By voluntary submission to His passion and death on the cross, Jesus Christ atoned for man's disobedience and sin. He thus made reparation to the offended majesty of God for the outrages which the Creator so constantly suffers at the hands of His creatures.

That part in red is what is bothering/puzzling me. Does the Roman Church somehow think that the meritorious offering of Christ is devoid of complete merit for the sins of all mankind?

And is God offended so that His wounded pride demands satisfaction. This REEKS of Medieval Scholastic Penal Substitution to me. Do you think I am right in this?

And the part in blue seems to contradict the part in red.

Comments?

 

[Tolworth John]

God's Holy, Rightous, Justice requires that mans rebellion and rejection of God be paid for.
God required a penalty to be paid and God paid it in the vform of God the Son.
Yes this is penal substution.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Yes, Catholicism is a bit confused, they see things like penance as form of punishment to placate God's anger. The idea that the Crucifixion should cover everything is partly what started the Reformation, especially in response to indulgences.

The Orthodox see Christ's Passion and Resurrection done to reconcile man to God, not the other way around.

 

[Lukaris]

From what I understand of our faith is that we see the entire incarnation, death on the cross, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord as our salvation to eternal life.

While we undoubtedly believe the Lord shed His blood for remission of our sins, I think what the Gospel of John 3:16-21 more clearly expresses our overall faith.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yes, this kinda stuff is the Middle Ages legalism that Rome never lost. I would only add that God makes no demands because He is love, and love never demands anything.

 

[Light of the East]

God's Holy, Rightous, Justice requires that mans rebellion and rejection of God be paid for.
God required a penalty to be paid and God paid it in the vform of God the Son.
Yes this is penal substution.

Which is, of course, not how the Orthodox view man's dealings with God at all.

 

[Light of the East]

yes, this kinda stuff is the Middle Ages legalism that Rome never lost. I would only add that God makes no demands because He is love, and love never demands anything.

Would it be correct to say that the Father is not "insulted" because I have read on Orthodox sites that He is passionless. For Him to have passions would infer that He is changeable rather than immutable.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Would it be correct to say that the Father is not "insulted" because I have read on Orthodox sites that He is passionless. For Him to have passions would infer that He is changeable rather than immutable.

Yes, the impassibility of God is dogmatic in Orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Would it be correct to say that the Father is not "insulted" because I have read on Orthodox sites that He is passionless. For Him to have passions would infer that He is changeable rather than immutable.

yes, God is not insulted because He is perfectly dispassionate. it also makes no sense for Him to be insulted since He knew man would Fall before creation.

 

[Light of the East]

yes, God is not insulted because He is perfectly dispassionate. it also makes no sense for Him to be insulted since He knew man would Fall before creation.

So, all this stuff the "seers" supposedly "see" when they have their "visions" of Jesus and Mary, who are barely able to hold back God's anger is just so much .......... nonsense.

Which is how I have been increasingly feeling as I see these things.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, all this stuff the "seers" supposedly "see" when they have their "visions" of Jesus and Mary, who are barely able to hold back God's anger is just so much .......... nonsense.

Which is how I have been increasingly feeling as I see these things.

plus Christ's wrath is the wrath of the Father. and wrath is simply love in the face of the unrepentant sinner.

 

[Light of the East]

plus Christ's wrath is the wrath of the Father. and wrath is simply love in the face of the unrepentant sinner.

This is the one I am still having a bit of trouble getting my head around. I guess I see wrath as anger devoid of any love and desiring only to punish. Do you have a good explanation for me that will help me "get it," so to speak?

BTW - Are you saying that if God does have wrath, it can only be expressed through the God/Man Jesus the Christ, since the Father is immutable?

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is the one I am still having a bit of trouble getting my head around. I guess I see wrath as anger devoid of any love and desiring only to punish. Do you have a good explanation for me that will help me "get it," so to speak?

BTW - Are you saying that if God does have wrath, it can only be expressed through the God/Man Jesus the Christ, since the Father is immutable?

wrath is very real, it is anger when confronted with sin which is always out of love. a parent who gets angry at a child, the parent punishes for correction out of love for the child. what you are thinking of is sinful wrath or rage.

and the Father's wrath is the same as the Son's and has been for eternity. so when we come before the loving God as sinful and unrepentant, His love is experienced as wrath since He does not want us sinful and unrepentant. once we repent, that same love that was experienced as wrath is now God's peace and paradise. He does not change, we do.

 

[Light of the East]

wrath is very real, it is anger when confronted with sin which is always out of love. a parent who gets angry at a child, the parent punishes for correction out of love for the child. what you are thinking of is sinful wrath or rage.

and the Father's wrath is the same as the Son's and has been for eternity. so when we come before the loving God as sinful and unrepentant, His love is experienced as wrath since He does not want us sinful and unrepentant. once we repent, that same love that was experienced as wrath is now God's peace and paradise. He does not change, we do.

So let's see if I got this - based on the analogy of earthly fathers and sons. The father's anger is not towards the son's being or person, but rather the actions which distort the son from what he should be?

Yet it is the son who feels and experiences the wrath and not the actions, which are of no real being. Or would you say the actions do have being (existence) as long as they exist in the heart of the son? In other words, if the son remains unrepentant, then he is, in a sense those actions. He gives life to them by being still willing to engage those actions if another opportunity comes up.

So what you are saying (it seems) is that the anger is not against the person, but only those actions which distort the being of the person. The desired end is not the destruction of the son, but rather his perfection.

Did I get it?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So let's see if I got this - based on the analogy of earthly fathers and sons. The father's anger is not towards the son's being or person, but rather the actions which distort the son from what he should be?

Yet it is the son who feels and experiences the wrath and not the actions, which are of no real being. Or would you say the actions do have being (existence) as long as they exist in the heart of the son? In other words, if the son remains unrepentant, then he is, in a sense those actions. He gives life to them by being still willing to engage those actions if another opportunity comes up.

So what you are saying (it seems) is that the anger is not against the person, but only those actions which distort the being of the person. The desired end is not the destruction of the son, but rather his perfection.

Did I get it?

pretty much. if I eternally refuse to repent, God's wrath is eternally upon me because of my hard heart.

 

[AMM]

The epistle pericope for today was from Romans 5. Specifically I want to get your opinion on this passage, particularly the bolded section:

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

So you'd say that we are saved by God's wrath not because God's wrath changes or ceases. In other words, God simply is. He's an all-consuming holy fire, I believe it says in Hebrews 12. So the difference between wrath and salvation is whether or not Christ's blood has been applied to us?

The western (or at least lutheran) understanding would be as follows: Jesus takes our punishment on the cross to pay our debts, as well as entirely fulfilling the Law. So we are clothed with Christ in our baptism and when the Father looks upon us, he sees us covered in Christ's righteousness and does not punish us, even though we are deserving of punishment for our sins.

Would you understand it like this: Jesus is God and thus is holy. Holiness is like a fire, so it can either burn us (Heb 12:18-24, Exodus 19) or purify us (1 Cor 3:10-15). God knows that his holiness will torment us if we are not "protected" so he sacrifices himself and clothes us with his blood (Gen 3:21, Gal 3:28), so that when we are exposed to the holiness of God we are already holy by virtue of Christ's blood?

In other words, we are saved from God's wrath and justified by Christ's blood by changing our response/disposition/preparation before God, not by turning away his wrath into love/mercy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The epistle pericope for today was from Romans 5. Specifically I want to get your opinion on this passage, particularly the bolded section:


So you'd say that we are saved by God's wrath not because God's wrath changes or ceases. In other words, God simply is. He's an all-consuming holy fire, I believe it says in Hebrews 12. So the difference between wrath and salvation is whether or not Christ's blood has been applied to us?

The western (or at least lutheran) understanding would be as follows: Jesus takes our punishment on the cross to pay our debts, as well as entirely fulfilling the Law. So we are clothed with Christ in our baptism and when the Father looks upon us, he sees us covered in Christ's righteousness and does not punish us, even though we are deserving of punishment for our sins.

Would you understand it like this: Jesus is God and thus is holy. Holiness is like a fire, so it can either burn us (Heb 12:18-24, Exodus 19) or purify us (1 Cor 3:10-15). God knows that his holiness will torment us if we are not "protected" so he sacrifices himself and clothes us with his blood (Gen 3:21, Gal 3:28), so that when we are exposed to the holiness of God we are already holy by virtue of Christ's blood?

In other words, we are saved from God's wrath and justified by Christ's blood by changing our response/disposition/preparation before God, not by turning away his wrath into love/mercy?

I think you got it pretty much. the reason we reject the belief of imputed righteousness, is because God changes how He sees us where we remain our sinful self. in our view God is constant, and He changes us to the image of His Perfect Son over eternity

 

[Light of the East]

The epistle pericope for today was from Romans 5. Specifically I want to get your opinion on this passage, particularly the bolded section:


So you'd say that we are saved by God's wrath not because God's wrath changes or ceases. In other words, God simply is. He's an all-consuming holy fire, I believe it says in Hebrews 12. So the difference between wrath and salvation is whether or not Christ's blood has been applied to us?

The western (or at least lutheran) understanding would be as follows: Jesus takes our punishment on the cross to pay our debts, as well as entirely fulfilling the Law. So we are clothed with Christ in our baptism and when the Father looks upon us, he sees us covered in Christ's righteousness and does not punish us, even though we are deserving of punishment for our sins.

Would you understand it like this: Jesus is God and thus is holy. Holiness is like a fire, so it can either burn us (Heb 12:18-24, Exodus 19) or purify us (1 Cor 3:10-15). God knows that his holiness will torment us if we are not "protected" so he sacrifices himself and clothes us with his blood (Gen 3:21, Gal 3:28), so that when we are exposed to the holiness of God we are already holy by virtue of Christ's blood?

In other words, we are saved from God's wrath and justified by Christ's blood by changing our response/disposition/preparation before God, not by turning away his wrath into love/mercy?


NOPE! Not at all. You just posted Lutheran Forensic Imputed Justification with a twist to it to make it sound more Orthodox.

Any idea of hiding in Jesus is Luther's idea, which was rejected by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople when the German emissaries came to seek audience with him.

This is also a utter violation of covenant principles. In a covenant, which is a relationship and not a contract!!!! (I can't begin to tell you how many people speak of the Covenant of God as a contract), you deal directly with the person and not through third-party agency. God exists in covenant, that is, the Blessed Trinity is a covenant of love between the three Persons of the Trinity. When Adam was created, he was created into that covenant in the same manner that a child is born into the already existing covenant relationship of love between his parents. We know this because A.) Adam is called "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and B.) because there was no covenant-making ritual between Adam and God in Eden which is similar to that which is seen in Genesis 15-17 with Abraham and God.

When Adam fell, the same love that Adam would feel as love from God would now be torment. The relationship is severed, not from any desire for vengeance on God's part, but from the torment of guilt upon Adam. (Orthodox authors I have read have said that the torment of hell is the guilt of our sins which makes God's love feel like burning fire rather than refreshing love.)

So what is the problem if all that has to be done is for God to forgive and Adam to accept? It is that our natures have been corrupted. This is why the Incarnation was essential. If it was just a matter of God saying "Okay. You apologized. I forgive." It would have been over in a heartbeat. But something much deeper happened that Western legal soteriology has lost track of - the broken nature of man.

As covenant head, Adam brought into man's very nature a disease called sin. It was therefore absolutely essential for Christ Jesus to be perfect man, to assume our nature, and to heal it by perfect obedience, for that which is not assumed is not healed (St. Athanasius, I believe). At the Fall, in Adam, we have been ontologically changed, and that for the worse.

Jesus Christ as the Covenant Head of the New Covenant does not offer us a "shield" or "covering" for our sins. He offers a New Covenant by means of which we enter into a new relationship with God, one that is mankind restored to union with God. When we enter into that covenant by baptism, we are united to Christ (Romans 6:3) and our nature begins to be healed, being joined to His nature. This is why the Fathers call the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality," because that healing of union with Him takes place at every Eucharist. This is hardly the same as ducking for cover under the shield of Christ's righteousness against a supposed anger that the impassable Father simply does not have. God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and therefore is impassable. He is passionless. The use of the word "wrath" is tinged with human understanding which is trying to understand a consequence of our ontological state rather than an emotion of God, which He does not have.

I think you meant Galatians 3:27, because 3:28 makes no sense to this discussion. To "put on" Christ simply means that we are in union with Him as the Covenant Head. Let us go back to the analogy of marriage. When a woman unites to a man in marriage, she "puts on" his name and all that is particular to him in his existence. All that is of good and blessing which is his becomes hers. Likewise, she better hope he is not drunkard or given to physical abuse. His good name and reputation are joined to her (These are absolute alien concepts in today's world!)

Our natural state in birth is to have Adam as our covenant head. Baptism makes Christ our Covenant Head in the New Covenant. We become the Bride of Christ.

When we come into the presence of He Who is Truth, all that we are ontologically will be exposed, no matter how well we have tried to hide it. Scripture says that the sins done in darkness will be shouted from the rooftops. There will be no place to hide. Those who have cooperated with God by repentance and ascesis, turning from sin to Christ, and have taken the medicine of immortality, will find that they are like Christ and the fire of His love will be a refreshing stream of love which will burn away any remaining dross of sin.

Those who, such as certain Catholic politicians who will not listen to the rebuke of the Church and continue to support abortion, will see their rebellion in full force. The guilt will be overwhelming, for they will know the truth of who they are essentially and what they have done. And that guilt, along with the reality of that which they are, will burn them because the fiery love of God destroys anything that is not like itself. That is hell. It is being changed into the image and likeness of Christ - theosis or deification - over eternity, as Matt said.

It is not being shielded by the Blood of Christ that protects us. What will "protect" us (if I can use your language for a second here) is that we have been changed by the Medicine of Immortality. Faith produces changed ontology, not shields!

I hope this is helpful and I do thank you for your question.

BTW - in every Orthodox parish, over the door leading out to the narthex, is this icon. It is the Icon of the Last Judgment. It is there to remind us, as we go out into the world that hates us and will tempt us to wrong, that the Judgment will take place one day.

Look at it closely. Christ is the Judge, and flowing from Him is the stream of His love, a bright stream of light to those on His right (our left as we view) and a stream of purgative and painful fire to those on His left, the wicked.

But it is the same stream of love!!!!

 

[AMM]

NOPE! Not at all. You just posted Lutheran Forensic Imputed Justification with a twist to it to make it sound more Orthodox.

Oops lol.

Any idea of hiding in Jesus is Luther's idea, which was rejected by the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople when the German emissaries came to seek audience with him.

So what is the Orthodox understanding of verses like Galatians 3:27 or Romans 13:14? Because they explicitly use the wording of "clothing" ourselves with Christ. Additionally, there's the parable of the wedding feast and the guest who did not have his wedding garment - does this not refer to baptism? I'm curious how the EO interpret these passages.
Similarly, Revelation 7:14 seems to support that we are washed with Christ's blood.

This is also a utter violation of covenant principles. In a covenant, which is a relationship and not a contract!!!! (I can't begin to tell you how many people speak of the Covenant of God as a contract), you deal directly with the person and not through third-party agency. God exists in covenant, that is, the Blessed Trinity is a covenant of love between the three Persons of the Trinity. When Adam was created, he was created into that covenant in the same manner that a child is born into the already existing covenant relationship of love between his parents. We know this because A.) Adam is called "son of God" (Luke 3:38) and B.) because there was no covenant-making ritual between Adam and God in Eden which is similar to that which is seen in Genesis 15-17 with Abraham and God.

I'm not sure I understand your point...

When Adam fell, the same love that Adam would feel as love from God would now be torment. The relationship is severed, not from any desire for vengeance on God's part, but from the torment of guilt upon Adam. (Orthodox authors I have read have said that the torment of hell is the guilt of our sins which makes God's love feel like burning fire rather than refreshing love.)

So Adam is afraid in the Garden because he is guilty, and so he hides and tries to cover himself with fig leaves. So why is he afraid of God, in your view?
Additionally, when God finds Adam and Eve, he clothes them himself, by shedding blood (I tend to think it was a lamb to keep the type-and-shadow with the new covenant) and clothing them.

So what is the problem if all that has to be done is for God to forgive and Adam to accept? It is that our natures have been corrupted. This is why the Incarnation was essential. If it was just a matter of God saying "Okay. You apologized. I forgive." It would have been over in a heartbeat. But something much deeper happened that Western legal soteriology has lost track of - the broken nature of man.

I disagree that Western soteriology lost this - or at least not the Lutherans. I can't speak for Rome. But the utter corruption from the disease of sin is something that is certainly emphasized.

As covenant head, Adam brought into man's very nature a disease called sin. It was therefore absolutely essential for Christ Jesus to be perfect man, to assume our nature, and to heal it by perfect obedience, for that which is not assumed is not healed (St. Athanasius, I believe). At the Fall, in Adam, we have been ontologically changed, and that for the worse.

Gregory of Nazianzus, actually. But yeah. I agree.

Jesus Christ as the Covenant Head of the New Covenant does not offer us a "shield" or "covering" for our sins. He offers a New Covenant by means of which we enter into a new relationship with God, one that is mankind restored to union with God. When we enter into that covenant by baptism, we are united to Christ (Romans 6:3) and our nature begins to be healed, being joined to His nature. This is why the Fathers call the Eucharist "the medicine of immortality," because that healing of union with Him takes place at every Eucharist. This is hardly the same as ducking for cover under the shield of Christ's righteousness against a supposed anger that the impassable Father simply does not have. God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and therefore is impassable. He is passionless. The use of the word "wrath" is tinged with human understanding which is trying to understand a consequence of our ontological state rather than an emotion of God, which He does not have.

Are these necessarily exclusive though? Psalm 32:1 refers to "covering" of sins. Certainly at other points the ontological union with Christ is referenced in Scripture (particularly in regards to the chief Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist), I'm not denying that.

I think you meant Galatians 3:27, because 3:28 makes no sense to this discussion. To "put on" Christ simply means that we are in union with Him as the Covenant Head. Let us go back to the analogy of marriage. When a woman unites to a man in marriage, she "puts on" his name and all that is particular to him in his existence. All that is of good and blessing which is his becomes hers. Likewise, she better hope he is not drunkard or given to physical abuse. His good name and reputation are joined to her (These are absolute alien concepts in today's world!)

Our natural state in birth is to have Adam as our covenant head. Baptism makes Christ our Covenant Head in the New Covenant. We become the Bride of Christ.

Okay, that's an interesting interpretation, and makes sense in light of Ephesians 5. But there are other passages that still refer to the "covering" of sins and "clothing" with Christ, like I mentioned above.

When we come into the presence of He Who is Truth, all that we are ontologically will be exposed, no matter how well we have tried to hide it. Scripture says that the sins done in darkness will be shouted from the rooftops. There will be no place to hide. Those who have cooperated with God by repentance and ascesis, turning from sin to Christ, and have taken the medicine of immortality, will find that they are like Christ and the fire of His love will be a refreshing stream of love which will burn away any remaining dross of sin.

So is it correct, in a sense, to say that only Christ is in heaven? Everyone else who "makes it" is only given that blessing because of they are joined into the one body of Christ?

Those who, such as certain Catholic politicians who will not listen to the rebuke of the Church and continue to support abortion, will see their rebellion in full force. The guilt will be overwhelming, for they will know the truth of who they are essentially and what they have done. And that guilt, along with the reality of that which they are, will burn them because the fiery love of God destroys anything that is not like itself. That is hell. It is being changed into the image and likeness of Christ - theosis or deification - over eternity, as Matt said.

This is starting to sound like a mix of apocatastasis and purgatory. Was universal reconciliation not condemned at the 5th ecumenical council?

It is not being shielded by the Blood of Christ that protects us. What will "protect" us (if I can use your language for a second here) is that we have been changed by the Medicine of Immortality. Faith produces changed ontology, not shields!

Again, why not both? Can't faith both declare us righteous and truly make us righteous?

I hope this is helpful and I do thank you for your question.

Quite helpful; thanks for taking the time to provide such a detailed response.

BTW - in every Orthodox parish, over the door leading out to the narthex, is this icon. It is the Icon of the Last Judgment. It is there to remind us, as we go out into the world that hates us and will tempt us to wrong, that the Judgment will take place one day.

Look at it closely. Christ is the Judge, and flowing from Him is the stream of His love, a bright stream of light to those on His right (our left as we view) and a stream of purgative and painful fire to those on His left, the wicked.

But it is the same stream of love!!!!

Beautiful icon, but it makes me wonder -- in Revelation, there is a "lake of fire" that is described. What you are describing seems to say that we are all cast into the same lake of fire. And for some people it'll feel nice, loving, soothing, etc. (like a hot tub or something idk), but for some it will be torture.
The sheep are told to "Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" - the New Jerusalem, the new heavens and earth are prepared for the sheep, and they will rest there.
The goats, on the other hand, are told to "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels". This, especially the depart wording implies that it is a separate location, so to speak, and not the kingdom that was prepared for the sheep.

 

[Light of the East]

So what is the Orthodox understanding of verses like Galatians 3:27 or Romans 13:14? Because they explicitly use the wording of "clothing" ourselves with Christ. Additionally, there's the parable of the wedding feast and the guest who did not have his wedding garment - does this not refer to baptism? I'm curious how the EO interpret these passages.

I'm still learning the Orthodox faith and have a long way to go. i would say that the best answer on this question might be a priest or one of the other posters here. My thought however is that as long as it doesn't imply forensic justification (i.e., legal forgiveness) there is nothing wrong with using this metaphor. The problem comes in when you have people who don't see that there needs to be an inner change and who simply regard salvation as a debt to be paid rather than a change to be made in us.

I'm not sure I understand your point...

My point was the imputed righteousness, or forensic justification, violates covenant principles of a relationship. It treats our relationship with God more as a contract. "You do this, (repent) I do that (save your miserable hide) and it's a done deal." That's not a relationship - it's a contract.

A relationship grows. It is never finished. When I entered the Eastern Catholic Church, my godparents told me that eternity is where we will ever be learning of God, deepening our relationship and love, yet never exhausting it.

So Adam is afraid in the Garden because he is guilty, and so he hides and tries to cover himself with fig leaves. So why is he afraid of God, in your view?

He has eaten something poisonous to him at this stage of his development. He has a knowledge he cannot handle, probably to do with his being vs God's being and the fact that he has disobeyed. I would say also that perhaps the evil one was there making him fear God, for that is what the evil one continues to do throughout history. Look at the picture of God that is painted into the minds of the pagans - fierce, angry, demanding even human sacrifice. Someone to be totally feared, and certainly not forgiving love.

Additionally, when God finds Adam and Eve, he clothes them himself, by shedding blood (I tend to think it was a lamb to keep the type-and-shadow with the new covenant) and clothing them.

Remember what blood stand for in the Bible - life. A life is given for a life. Scott Hahn has an interesting take on what transpired in the Garden. He postulates that Adam was right there during the temptation, and instead of facing down the serpent, being even willing to die for his bride, he knuckled under in fear.

What makes this a possibility in my mind is that what Adam failed to do - die for his bride - Christ did do. And perhaps since Adam (this is just speculation now) was not willing to die, then God accepts a substitute death. Take that where you will, I just thought of it and it is interesting to me.

I disagree that Western soteriology lost this - or at least not the Lutherans. I can't speak for Rome. But the utter corruption from the disease of sin is something that is certainly emphasized.

Not being Lutheran, I will not debate this point, but my understanding is that Luther's "faith alone" is the whole basis of forensic justification.

Are these necessarily exclusive though? Psalm 32:1 refers to "covering" of sins. Certainly at other points the ontological union with Christ is referenced in Scripture (particularly in regards to the chief Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist), I'm not denying that.

As you work with this, you will come to see how different an approach it is to deal with ontology and relationship vs legal justification and contract.

So is it correct, in a sense, to say that only Christ is in heaven? Everyone else who "makes it" is only given that blessing because of they are joined into the one body of Christ?

I'm kind of working on this myself, inasmuch as you point out in the end that the language of Scripture seems to indicate that there are "places" in the next life, yet the Psalmist declares "if I make my bed in hell, thou art there..." Where is that place that God is not?

This is starting to sound like a mix of apocatastasis and purgatory. Was universal reconciliation not condemned at the 5th ecumenical council?

No. It wasn't. What was condemned was some of Origen's odd ideas on the pre-existence of the soul, some of which thinking bled over into apocatastasis. And there are some serious questions regarding the authenticity of the second set of canons and Justinian I messing around with them to get what he wanted

Again, why not both? Can't faith both declare us righteous and truly make us righteous?

No. Look up the Greek word "logizomai" and the definition. This is the word which is translated "imputed" in Romans and upon which the Calvinists hang the entire doctrine of "forensic justification." And that is NOT what it means. Logizomai is an accounting term and it is used to describe what is really there. What I am saying is that God doesn't deal in fabrication - He deals in truth, and if you are righteous, you are righteous.

This is what confuses most Protestants because whether they realize it or not, they are deeply influenced by Augustine's declaration of "massa damnata" and the false idea of total depravity which has come from that. We are not totally depraved, and Scripture speaks of many souls, such as Abel, who were righteous. It calls Abel "righteous Abel" in Hebrews and not "depraved Abel."

Beautiful icon, but it makes me wonder -- in Revelation, there is a "lake of fire" that is described. What you are describing seems to say that we are all cast into the same lake of fire. And for some people it'll feel nice, loving, soothing, etc. (like a hot tub or something idk), but for some it will be torture.

This requires more study of me. Is the Lake of Fire a separate place where God is not? How is that to be? Where can there be that God is not, for nothing at all can exist without Him. Therefore, I have to think that the Lake of Fire is God's passionate love which acts exactly as you have described.

Remember, the Egyptians saw a pillar of darkness while the Israelites saw a pillar of light.

Nice talking with you.

Blessings!