Understanding Salvation Help

[Markie Boy]

So I'm learning to think Eastern - or trying to. So tell me if I'm getting close.

In the West, there is the atonement, where "Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay". From there seems to develop this idea of debt and payment, that morphs into merit and stains of sin, or inherited guilt.

Did Jesus come to pay a debt? And if so to whom?

Be patient, I'm going to take as swing at this, trying to think Eastern. John 3:16 tells us "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, so whomever believes in Him will never die, but have eternal life."

He's not saying He gave His son to pay a debt, but so that we might believe in Him. He died so we could see Him resurrected - so we would have faith in Him. That faith that would cause us to believe all He taught, and spend our lives trying to live what He taught.

Not - Jesus makes the payment, then we slip and are in debt again, but we borrow on merit of someone who did better, etc., or I hear talk of doing things to get "graces".

Is this anywhere in the ballpark?

 

[SingularityOne]

We are made in the Image and after the Likeness of God. The fall distorted our likeness and clouded the image in doing so. Christ-crucified is the image of God in us. Christ-crucified assumed all that we are and if we follow Him in The Way of Shame, then we restore our likeness to His likeness through grace and our Image (Christ-crucified) within us is manifested in our love for God and the love for the other (as we see the Image of God in the other the more that we grow closer to Christ-crucified).

God became man, so that man could become like God.

Read this: THE HYPOSTATIC PRINCIPLE by Tina Cooper

 

[HTacianas]

So I'm learning to think Eastern - or trying to. So tell me if I'm getting close.

In the West, there is the atonement, where "Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay". From there seems to develop this idea of debt and payment, that morphs into merit and stains of sin, or inherited guilt.

Did Jesus come to pay a debt? And if so to whom?

Be patient, I'm going to take as swing at this, trying to think Eastern. John 3:16 tells us "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, so whomever believes in Him will never die, but have eternal life."

He's not saying He gave His son to pay a debt, but so that we might believe in Him. He died so we could see Him resurrected - so we would have faith in Him. That faith that would cause us to believe all He taught, and spend our lives trying to live what He taught.

Not - Jesus makes the payment, then we slip and are in debt again, but we borrow on merit of someone who did better, etc., or I hear talk of doing things to get "graces".

Is this anywhere in the ballpark?

Dang near a home run.

You're up against basically three different perspectives. The first is the protestant notion found among many groups that Jesus did in fact "pay the debt" for all sins past, present, and future. That perspective stems from the Western "legal" view of salvation, which has it that sin is a violation of the law deserving punishment.

The second perspective is the view of the Roman Church, which also has it that sin is a violation of the law requiring punishment, but that Jesus paid the price for previous sins. Present or future sins must be atoned for through repentance and penance. Note that my explanation is grossly simplified, so I will accept the chastisement of my Catholic cousins for leaving out a lot of details.

The Eastern view of sin encompasses the legal view of atonement for previous sins, punishment and repentance, but also views sin as illness. Jesus is not only judge and advocate, but also the physician we turn to for healing of the harm we have done to ourselves through sin. We are commanded, as you seem to understand, to not only accept the payment for the debt of sin, but also turn from it for healing, and conform ourselves to the example of Christ.

 

[Not David]

Dang near a home run.

You're up against basically three different perspectives. The first is the protestant notion found among many groups that Jesus did in fact "pay the debt" for all sins past, present, and future. That perspective stems from the Western "legal" view of salvation, which has it that sin is a violation of the law deserving punishment.

The second perspective is the view of the Roman Church, which also has it that sin is a violation of the law requiring punishment, but that Jesus paid the price for previous sins. Present or future sins must be atoned for through repentance and penance. Note that my explanation is grossly simplified, so I will accept the chastisement of my Catholic cousins for leaving out a lot of details.

The Eastern view of sin encompasses the legal view of atonement for previous sins, punishment and repentance, but also views sin as illness. Jesus is not only judge and advocate, but also the physician we turn to for healing of the harm we have done to ourselves through sin. We are commanded, as you seem to understand, to not only accept the payment for the debt of sin, but also turn from it for healing, and conform ourselves to the example of Christ.

How is a legal view of the atonement in the Orthodox Church different from the Catholic and Protestant?

 

[ArmyMatt]

you can say Christ paid the debt to death, and because He is Life death is destroyed.

 

[HTacianas]

How is a legal view of the atonement in the Orthodox Church different from the Catholic and Protestant?

As to the atonement itself, that being the moment of the crucifixion, there isn't much difference at all. It is more or less the Christian life in light of the atonement that differs.

This is a short article discussing the "medicinal view" found in the East:

Confession - Hospital or Courtroom - Holy Cross Orthodox Church

 

[Markie Boy]

Dang near a home run.

You're up against basically three different perspectives. The first is the protestant notion found among many groups that Jesus did in fact "pay the debt" for all sins past, present, and future. That perspective stems from the Western "legal" view of salvation, which has it that sin is a violation of the law deserving punishment.

The second perspective is the view of the Roman Church, which also has it that sin is a violation of the law requiring punishment, but that Jesus paid the price for previous sins. Present or future sins must be atoned for through repentance and penance. Note that my explanation is grossly simplified, so I will accept the chastisement of my Catholic cousins for leaving out a lot of details.

The Eastern view of sin encompasses the legal view of atonement for previous sins, punishment and repentance, but also views sin as illness. Jesus is not only judge and advocate, but also the physician we turn to for healing of the harm we have done to ourselves through sin. We are commanded, as you seem to understand, to not only accept the payment for the debt of sin, but also turn from it for healing, and conform ourselves to the example of Christ.

Thanks for the encouragement! I LOVE Ancient Faith Radio!!! You know odd as it may sound, AFR even helps me understand Catholicism better than Catholic teaching does.

And I am loving the Eastern way of seeing things.

God Bless!

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think you will see MUCH more emphasis on Christ's death being victory over death, defeating death.

Pretty much what Fr Matt said but just saying it again.

Looking forward the the Paschal Hymn coming up in a couple of months.

 

[All4Christ]

Check out Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption if you want an excellent explanation on the subject.

 

[Markie Boy]

Check out Reclaiming the Atonement: An Orthodox Theology of Redemption if you want an excellent explanation on the subject.

Thank you!!!

 

[truefiction1]

So I'm learning to think Eastern - or trying to. So tell me if I'm getting close.

In the West, there is the atonement, where "Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay". From there seems to develop this idea of debt and payment, that morphs into merit and stains of sin, or inherited guilt.

Did Jesus come to pay a debt? And if so to whom?

Be patient, I'm going to take as swing at this, trying to think Eastern. John 3:16 tells us "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, so whomever believes in Him will never die, but have eternal life."

He's not saying He gave His son to pay a debt, but so that we might believe in Him. He died so we could see Him resurrected - so we would have faith in Him. That faith that would cause us to believe all He taught, and spend our lives trying to live what He taught.

Not - Jesus makes the payment, then we slip and are in debt again, but we borrow on merit of someone who did better, etc., or I hear talk of doing things to get "graces".

Is this anywhere in the ballpark?

Yes. The Love of God, revealed in the Self-sacrifice of God on the cross (Father, Word, Spirit) overcomes our own sense of guilt (we have it because of our falleness) and fear of God's condemnation and death, if we believe in Jesus Christ (i.e. if we confess with our mouth that Jesus is the Lord and believe in our heart that He is risen -- Romans 10:9-10)

 

[PlatinumTrophies]

I find the Orthodox view of salvation to be so much more sophisticated and compassionate than the view I was raised with. I love how the Orthodox view involves a life-long process to continually get better instead of crossing the finish line in this life.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In the West the Crucifixion is the centerpiece of salvation at the expense of the Resurrection. For me, the Resurrection is the nucleus of it all....the defeat of death, the tomb broken wide open....all things made new, Spring after a dark grey winter.

But frankly, ALL of the Lord’s moments matter. His healing of the paralytic, the raising of Lazarus, his tears, multiplying the loaves, restoring sight to a blind man, preaching the Beatitudes, forgiving a woman caught in adultery....on and on. We receive all these moments in our baptism. The Lord blessed our tears through His tears, and His agony in the Garden is united to our pain. His baptism is our baptism.

It all matters greatly. The Lord came to reboot us all completely. His life matters, not just the Cross or the tomb or the Resurrection even....

 

[prodromos]

In the West the Crucifixion is the centerpiece of salvation at the expense of the Resurrection. For me, the Resurrection is the nucleus of it all....the defeat of death, the tomb broken wide open....all things made new, Spring after a dark grey winter.

But frankly, ALL of the Lord’s moments matter. His healing of the paralytic, the raising of Lazarus, his tears, multiplying the loaves, restoring sight to a blind man, preaching the Beatitudes, forgiving a woman caught in adultery....on and on. We receive all these moments in our baptism. The Lord blessed our tears through His tears, and His agony in the Garden is united to our pain. His baptism is our baptism.

It all matters greatly. The Lord came to reboot us all completely. His life matters, not just the Cross or the tomb or the Resurrection even....

Amen!

 

[Ignatius21]

It's been a while since I've read it (or anything, really -- kids!) but On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius lays out a very compelling vision of atonement as a very holistic concept. In fact, in describing "the incarnation" he basically describes the whole of salvation. I think that's generally true of Orthodox understandings of many topics -- the language is not so precisely nuanced as it came to be in the western churches -- for instance, the in some ways the entire Reformation could be seen as a disagreement over the precise legal meaning of "justification."

Atonement -- or as some will explain it, At-One-Ment -- is not just about one instant when Jesus was nailed to a cross, or the instant he died, or a certain period during which he suffered, although that is often what's depicted in most protestant treatments of the topic. As someone above said, in many Western traditions the resurrection almost seems to become just a reason we celebrate Easter but it not really given all that much weight relative to ***PUNISHMENT*** and ***SUFFERING*** on the cross. And the incarnation itself -- the union of two natures in one person, which united humanity and divinity -- is often treated (if at all) as a legal technicality so that God could infinitely punish the right person. Whereas, the Orthodox see the incarnation itself as saving. And back to Athanasius -- when he spoke of the Incarnation, he really spoke of the whole of salvation -- his overarching imagery is of a king who has returned to free his people from his enemy.

As long as I'm rambling aimlessly I'll add that I do think there is merit (pardon the pun) in the "covenantal theology" way of seeing debt. In the OT and many ancient cultures -- some today, too, I believe -- if someone incurred a debt that he couldn't pay, his entire family for generations could enter into a sort of indentured servitude until that debt could be paid. There was a sort of collective guilt that came upon the whole family when the head of the family committed some crime or offense. That understanding of debt/guilt -- humanity by way of Adam's sin -- is, I believe, compatible also with the view of sin as disease -- a disease passed down to us through Adam but healed in Christ. That's different from saying each and every individual human is guilty of the original sin of Adam and must therefore be punished. Death itself is the consequence of sin and none can escape -- hence the reason for the incarnation/atonement/resurrection/justification/sanctification -- save Christ, who fulfills the law, pays the debt, heals the sickness, overcomes death, defeats the Enemy, frees the slaves, and leads them all in "triumphal procession" into the new kingdom.

So, basically -- yeah, read Athanasius and burn a lot of incense and it'll all make sense!

 

[Silverback]

So I'm learning to think Eastern - or trying to. So tell me if I'm getting close.

In the West, there is the atonement, where "Jesus paid a debt He did not owe, because we owed a debt we could not pay". From there seems to develop this idea of debt and payment, that morphs into merit and stains of sin, or inherited guilt.

Did Jesus come to pay a debt? And if so to whom?

Be patient, I'm going to take as swing at this, trying to think Eastern. John 3:16 tells us "For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son, so whomever believes in Him will never die, but have eternal life."

He's not saying He gave His son to pay a debt, but so that we might believe in Him. He died so we could see Him resurrected - so we would have faith in Him. That faith that would cause us to believe all He taught, and spend our lives trying to live what He taught.

Not - Jesus makes the payment, then we slip and are in debt again, but we borrow on merit of someone who did better, etc., or I hear talk of doing things to get "graces".

Is this anywhere in the ballpark?

All of what you have said is true, however, The big thing Christ death accomplished was defeating death, so we could have forgiveness of sin, and life everlasting life.