[quote author=Meena_Ameen link=topic=6719.msg90461#msg90461 date=1213257394] I really like that answer iqbal posted quoting one of st athanasius' lectures. Makes perfect sense... But might I just add, nothing big, kind of off topic, but guys, try not to use sarcasm towards one another. Im not saying im perfect and never do so, but remember that sarcasm can be insulting. And insults do not belong in the same forum we use to talk about our Lord. You see a lot of insults going on in muslim/christian forums, which i tend to stay away from now only because Ive noticed that in trying to help others, i was hurting myself. Even though my intentions were good, the devil would push and push until I would get so upset with a certain person that I couldnt even sleep at night, and I would hold grudges for weeks......Lets try to remember why were ALL here, we all just want to learn more about God. Thats all this website is about. And remember, that the closer you try to get to the Lord, the harder satan is going to work.....Just a thought, GB
Excellent points Meena_Ameen. I for one will try :)
[quote author=minagir link=topic=6719.msg90456#msg90456 date=1213255228]Iqbal, would you be able to lock this thread please since the original matter of it was answered, as you know and as you have the power to do so
It's not necessary at this stage. People may have something constructive to add, others may pose or raise some genuine and legitimate questions and issues, respectively, that have yet to be addressed. I will continue to delete posts, however, which only serve to distract the issues, as forum policy permits me to do so.
"But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God."
The quote from Athanasius is very clear, however it could be interpretated in different ways depending on the meaning of JUSTICE. If you take justice to have the meaning of God wanting to restore us (see my previous posts), then truly repentance wasn't enough. Our whole human nature was distorted, it was necessary for Christ to come and save us to fulfill this just claim!
Again, i'm not saying this is per se right, i guess i'm just searching for answers. But I don't think it's right to take a quote from St Athanasius and ascribe a whole juridic theory to him, especially because the word justice doesn't necessarily mean justice in our earthly sense (again, see the previous quotes from St Gregory, St Isaac and the parables that Christ told).
Perhaps Christ did pay the price for our sins in order to fulfill justice, but the question is whether God NEEDED this to forgive us, I just find this hard to believe.
The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy (St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Second Oration on Holy Pascha" (Oration 45:22))
This view is from the middle ages (this is not something i studied per se, but someone explained it to me). Back then if you would hit a farmer, you could simply pay him with a bag of onions or potatoes (cheese onion chips if u'd prefer that :P), and the case would be settled. However if you'd do the same to a rich man, you'd be sent to prison. If you'd dare to do that to the king for instance, or some other royal person, u'd be killed.
Now, the medival church fathers may have used this system to explain the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, to the people of that time. This is something they would understand, just like Christ thaught the people trough stories about coins and sheep etc. I wouldn't know if this is true or not. It depends on whether this doctrine was thaught before, or if it was introduced only in medival times.
Again, i'm no expert on the bible or patrology, so if I'm wrong feel free to discuss and correct. We all have the same goal in the end, which is to understand the deep love of God to us, in order to love him back and be saved from our own corrupt selfs.
The quote from Athanasius is very clear, however it could be interpretated in different ways depending on the meaning of JUSTICE. If you take justice to have the meaning of God wanting to restore us (see my previous posts), then truly repentance wasn't enough. Our whole human nature was distorted, it was necessary for Christ to come and save us to fulfill this just claim!
First of all, the Hebrew term for justice does not have the meaning you attribute to it. Your source for this definition of justice was a speech delivered by a Russian Orthodox layman. He himself gives no source for this strange take on the Hebrew term for justice. I have checked a number of Hebrew lexicons--none of them give this understanding of justice.
Second of all, this interpretation clearly undermines the context of the quote. In explaining why repentence would not suffice, St Athanasius gives two reasons. Besides the one in question, he already accounts for the idea that repentance would not restore the nature of man. Clearly than the other reason accounting for the insufficiency of repentance is not the same as the one he has already explicitly accounted for.
Third of all, such an interpretation does not sit well within the wider context of his entire work. The other quoted excerpts clearly demonstrate that St Athanasius was posing a legal model i.e. the idea that death had a legal hold of us, and that it was hence, by virtue of that legal hold, impossible for us to evade the law. He doesn't use the term justice, but anyone with common sense can clearly see that that's a basic description of what justice entails: that one who breaks a law is not permitted to evade the sentence associated with it.
the question is whether God NEEDED this to forgive us, I just find this hard to believe.
The justice that St Athanasius and St Jerusalem suggest God needed to fulfill is not some exterior principle or power to which God is subject. It is an aspect of His being. God needs to be Just because God is God and God is Just. God needs to be just as much as He needs to be loving. If God were not loving, He would not be God and if He were not just He would similarly not be God. These two principles--Love and Justice--seem opposed given the way they are abused in terms of human understanding and practice. That is why there is a tendency to see a dichotomy, and in feeling compelled to opt one over the other we are naturally inclined to favour love. St Cyril of Jerusalem tells us to get that kind of thinking out of our head, the meeting of Justice and Love is not a contradiction, it is "the wisdom of God."
Listen, for those of you who are FOR "Divine Justice" - have some good news -
H.E Anba Bishoy, whom i admire by the way, was one person to at least find a way of explaining this interpretation that I personally loved.
That was (and I'm saying it in my own words, so this may not be 100% accurate):
As far as God is Love, He is also Holy. And, as such, He cannot stand sin. It offends Him. If there was no divine justice, it would TRIVIALISE sin. It would mean that if Christ did NOT die to repay the Divine Justice, then it would have trivialsed sin itself.
That's brilliant. I love that. I love what he said. It makes sense.
Now, I'm not sure whether he contemplates this or not, but I loved what he said simply because for me, sin hurts us. And God being love, does not want us to be hurt. He wants to show us how far that these things we do ACTUALLY hurt us.
But then the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian just come back and haunt me:
The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy (St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Second Oration on Holy Pascha" (Oration 45:22))
Now i'm stuck between Anba Bishoy (who's a good family friend, i think even a member of my family) and St Gregory the Theologian...
I love them both.. but there appears to be some inconsistencies here.
But now, back to my question
Who said or came up with the notion that "The Punishment is proportional to the STATUS of the person offended".
First of all, the Hebrew term for justice does not have the meaning you attribute to it. Your source for this definition of justice was a speech delivered by a Russian Orthodox layman. He himself gives no source for this strange take on the Hebrew term for justice. I have checked a number of Hebrew lexicons--none of them give this understanding of justice.
This is the same definition that I read/heard from another source that uses a lexicon of theology by Kittle to explain the term justice. I can PM you the source if you'd like.
Nyhow, it seems that there's different opinions on this subject, and i've had enough of this endless discussion. I have peace knowing that God saved us, and quite frankly the details won't matter for my personal salvation. Just one final thing, the theory that sin offends God and not only us seems to contradict the previous verse from the book of Job (but i'm sure i took that verse out of context too, so we go around in circles all over). But if God is perfect in His being and timeless and unchanging, then how could sin effect Him? Isn't sin commited within time and space, and God is outside both of these?
I still think the theory that is summarized by the quote from St Gregory makes more sense. But i'm no scholar so feel free to disagree.
The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy (St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Second Oration on Holy Pascha" (Oration 45:22))
I still think the theory that is summarized by the quote from St Gregory makes more sense. But i'm no scholar so feel free to disagree.
The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy (St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Second Oration on Holy Pascha" (Oration 45:22))
Matt,
I totally agree with you. And here's a lesson i've learnt, and YOU MUST apply it also:
A basic principle of interpretation is that the clearest and plainest meaning of a statement is to be taken unless there is compelling factors which suggest otherwise.
I do believe that St Gregory the Theologian's response is precisely that: Clear and plain. Whereas trying to deduce from St. AThanasious's words that God NEEDED someone to satisfy the Divine Justice, otherwise, He cannot forgive us, is not so obvious.
This is the same definition that I read/heard from another source that uses a lexicon of theology by Kittle to explain the term justice. I can PM you the source if you'd like.
You can post that definition here for all to see, because I am quite confident that I have done enough research on the matter to know that the Hebrew word for justice does not mean:
"the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation"
The Hebrew word for divine justice may in a sense be correlated with the notion of “peace” insofar as the ultimate end with which it is concerned. The only “restoration” the term hints at is the reconciliation between God and man which can only be achieved once justice is met out. Another unique peculiarity of the term is that it sees reconciliation as being two-way. Not only is the “offended party” appeased, but so too is the “guilty party.” Even the Jews have always seen it this way and this is how most Biblical scholars understand the Jewish legal system.
In any event, whatever the connotations associated with the Hebrew notion of justice, the fact remains that St Athanasius did not speak Hebrew and that the immediate and wider context do not allow for us to interpret the statements in question as being concerned with the restoration of human nature. This is a separate issue.
What St Athanasius meant is plain and clear to all who are not on a mission to twist or turn a blind eye to the obvious just because it contradicts their already made presumptions.
But if God is perfect in His being and timeless and unchanging, then how could sin effect Him?
It doesn’t “affect” Him. The Scriptures also depict God as being wrathful towards our sins; angered and jealous. At times He is depcited as one who loves one when one is righteous and hates one when one is wicked. These terms and descriptions would also indicate that sin somehow affects God. The fact is that all these terms and descriptions are relative. In the end, we still use them. The Prophets of old used them, the Apostles used them, and the Fathers used them. Our sins are an offence to God. This is a legitimate, albeit relative and limited, manner of describing the nature of sin.
I still think the theory that is summarized by the quote from St Gregory makes more sense.
I personally don’t see any contradiction. God did not demand a sacrifice. He was simply compelled to allow the sentence of death to be passed per se. It was His Love that determined that accepting the Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son would be an expedient way to fulfill that sentence and at the same time redeem man.
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=6719.msg90553#msg90553 date=1213305030] I personally don’t see any contradiction. God did not demand a sacrifice. He was simply compelled to allow the sentence of death to be passed oer se. It was His Love that determined that accepting the Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son would be an expedient way to fulfill that sentence and at the same time redeem man.
Perhaps we are not singing from the same songbook.
The CoC literature on Divine Justice, as far as I can see, seems to base the reason for Christ's death on the fact that God, the offended party had to be appeased.
St Gregory is saying "No.. He did not have to be appeased".
So.. i feel there is contradiction here. What am I not seeing?? Please tell me??
-----------------------------------
But - that's between you and Matt,
I need ONE SMALL question answered:
WHich Coptic Church Father mentioned that the "Punishment was proportional to the STATUs of the offended party" - that's ALL i wish to know.
Its in the SUS Coptic Site. I gave the link. Page 2/4. Its a Coptic site. Its not a Greek site, nor affiliated wth the Greek Church. In fact, its either owned by Bishop Youssef or Bishop Serapion.
Which Orthodox Father first formulated this idea? WHat did he/she base it on?? Where in the Nice/Post-Nicene Fathers can I find this phrase that says :"Punishment is a proportional to the status of the offended party" . who said that?
The CoC literature on Divine Justice, as far as I can see, seems to base the reason for Christ's death on the fact that God, the offended party had to be appeased.
Well then you do not know what you are reading, for two reasons:
1. I can find you a number of documents by our Bishops who emphasise the fact Christ’s death had the purpose of transforming death into life. You can start with HG Bishop Serapion’s 2008 festal letter: http://www.lacopts.org/index.php?/site/entry/2660/
Clearly then, the atonement model in question is not conceived by the Church as the reason for Christ’s death, but one of many models in light of which we can come to understand this mystery.
2. Nowhere in the document in question does it say that God demanded the Lord Christ’s Sacrifice. All it suggests is a model for understanding the Lord Christ’s Sacrifice.
St Gregory is saying "No.. He did not have to be appeased".
What St Gregory says is that the Father merely accepted the Sacrifice, rather than demand it. There is nothing within the understanding of Divine Justice as presented by the Church that entails that God demands any sacrifice, rather it explains why it was acceptable to Him. In this vein it makes perfect sense of why the Father accepted it in the first place; it makes sense of the Father’s role in the economy, whereas a rejection of the Church’s doctrine leaves no room for the Father at all and cannot make sense of St Gregory’s affirmation of the fact that God even accepted Christ’s sacrifice for the sake of our salvation in the first place. Why would God need to accept any sacrifice; why couldn't He just be pleased with it as an observer; why was He a grantee so to speak? Why couldn’t Christ just undergo the sacrifice without it being accepted by anyone, and just for the sake of dying and defeating death?
WHich Coptic Church Father mentioned that the "Punishment was proportional to the STATUs of the offended party" - that's ALL i wish to know.
The Church has the prerogative and authority to find new ways to express herself and the truths she has held all along. I cringe whenever I hear anyone approach an issue by asking questions like, "show me where in the Bible/Fathers they say X." It only reminds me of the harassing Muslim request that we find places in the Bible where Jesus says outright, "I am God."
The dictum in question is nothing but a common sense expression of the Orthodox experience of the nature and affect of sin from the perspective of man, not the perspective of God.
From the perspective of man, if you sin against a brother by committing some sort of civil tort for example, then you are liable to paying a sum of compensation. When you sin against a higher power, the Sovereign State, by murdering one of her citizens, you may be liable to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. This is the human experience and understanding of sin and trespass. The idea that our sins are of an infinite offence is language and imagery that expresses our humble recognition of the magnitude of God’s honour and hence the magnitude of our sins which, as we consistently declare in our penitential prayers and hymns, are committed, not just per se, but against Him, which is why we are constantly asking Him not only to heal us of our sins, but also to forgive and pardon us of our sins; to overlook them, and not rebuke us in anger nor chasten us in hot displeasure, as the Psalmist wrote.
Justice, then is fulfilled on two levels; on the first level, God’s sentence is fulfilled in Christ’s death, and is not revoked in contravention of His Word, as St Athanasius explains. On the second level, we find that the sentence is fulfilled in a manner that meets the dictates of justice as we understand it--not because God demanded it to be that way, but simply because that happened to be the righteous effect of what God happened to permit out of His loving-kindness. On these two accounts the Father accepted the Sacrifice, and it was pleasing to Him.
I believe that Athanasios has been mis-quoted. Totally. I am happy to send u the proofs of these.
I'm waiting for you to prove that when St Athanasius said that death had a legal hold of us, he didn't actually mean that death had a legal hold over us, and that when He spoke of God's just claim, He didn't actually mean that God had a just claim. We all want to see you prove that black is white, and that white is black. You couldn't do more damage to yourself and your position than to expose yourself as a fool in your attempt to twist the clear and obvious to mean something it clearly and obviously is not just for the sake of fulfilling your own ignorance-driven agenda.
I've read this entire topic, and I feel it has some merit.
To discuss atonement, the ransom that was paid on the cross as solely being directed to repay the Divine Justice is totally wrong. Also, to suggest that God's Divine Justice was offended is wrong also. This is not right. Its not at all Orthodox.
Furthermore, to use Anselm's words to describe atonement is beyond comprehension. This is no metaphor or analogy being used. This is the real-deal for many Catholics: That Christ's death was required to repay an "insulted" God. This is not right.
Christ's death on the Cross, and His punishment was a ransom paid for our sins, yes. But it was a ransom that was given to give us life, not to appease an insulted God.
The Divine Justice is repaid through Christ's death on the cross, but to use this as the sole basis as explaining the reason for Christ's coming is totally incorrect.
If corruption entered man through Adam, and we all inherited a corrupt nature, then an eternal sacrifice is required to correct an eternal error. Not because "God is eternal" therefore His status is one that requires an "Eternal Sacrifice".
Not at all.
Bravo for raising this issue. It is a concern as many servants in the CoC are using explanations from Medievil sources to explain Orthodox Spirituality, and we lose the richness of our faith by using contemplations, or spirituality from theologians who are not part of the Orthodox Faith.
It looks like a great and informative rich article. I will read all of it. This is an explanation that satisfies me
God infinitely hates sin but loves the sinner but will not save them until they repent because their sin is not taken away in their choice to love it. If He didn't believe we could change He would consume us immediately because we are not sin yet. God is slow to anger for He remembers our frame that we are dust that is we can not save ourselves we we're created less than Him even as dust and knows our future will be eternal separation from Him.
People could change if they are given minutes more but I think God deems if He gave it it wouldn't be their true decision so it wouldn't be a fair chance. God wants us first to seek Him for love but I suppose within our chance being saved through a little fear is accepted even though little or much fear may turn into love. Maybe much fear will not turn into love
I agree that I didn't find anything in the fathers about God pouring His wrath on Christ, or Christ bringing satisfaction to the infinite or unlimited God because of infinite or unlimited sin.
At the same time, I agree there is some juridical language. Ransom language is also there, sometimes as a "mousetrap" theory.
I think this attests to the fact that soteriology is quite all-encompassing. Some of the characteristics of soteriology can be summarized into two parts:
1. Fixing what is broken 2. Enhancing what is fixed
Humanity is broken, diseased, marred, overshadowed, cursed, indebted, under penalty, shackled, imprisoned, etc. by sin, corruption, and death. So using all this terminology, "fixing" humanity will give the opposite: heal, repair, enlighten, bless, pay for, exonerate, ransom, free.
Enhancement comes by giving us something beyond our own selves. This is where the famous "God became man so that man might become God." It's the famous formula of exchange and deification. So we are by nature liable to mortality and corruption. By grace, we are given Christ's very own divine immortality and incorruption, shared eternally with the Father and the Spirit by nature. The language of this enhancement comes in so many ways. We are made kings, priests, co-heirs, Sons, higher than the angels, gods, eternal, co-judges, partakers of the divine nature, exalted and magnified, intercessors, oneness and fellowship with the Trinity, etc.
Enhancement by exchange is also a recapitulation of former error and nature into latter glory. A few examples:
Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed. Adam lost against the serpent in the garden, Christ won against the devil in the desert.
In Adam we die, in Christ we live. In Adam we are made his son, in Christ we are made sons of the Father.
Christ thirsted that we may drink from the Spirit; Christ feared and agonized that we may have divine courage and comfort.
So terms of justice, the exchange formula makes that much more sense:
Christ took on the penalty that we may exonerated. Christ took on the curse of the Cross that we may be blessed. Christ fulfilled divine justice that we may partake of the mercy of peace. Christ fulfilled the law that we may transcend the law and be fulfilled in the Spirit. Christ fulfilled the sacrifices of the law that we may partake of the sacrifice of praise.
His incarnation is the crux of the soteriological basis of all of this exchange:
Christ took on flesh that we may partake of divinity. Christ was born of the Virgin Mary without a human father, that we may also be born of the Virgin Church with our origins from the Good Father. Christ grew as a regular child, even in wisdom and stature, that He may bless this stage of humanity.
God does not haphazardly save us. He could save us in any other way. But He chose to do it by first giving us His law and His consistency in the law of various kinds (the mosaic law, the law of the heart, the law of death in creation), and His prophecies. He also chose to go through in exactly the way He did, from Virgin birth to toddler to childhood to adolescent to young adult to full adult. He chose that temptation, ministries and sermons of various kinds, His specific miracles, His choice of apostles and disciples, His facing death on a painful and long and public manner. All of these are all equally part of the plan of the economy of salvation.
Therefore, rather than systematizing in a scholastic way the definition of salvation, we should recognize the poetry of salvation. It cannot be explained simply. But the how, all of this, including fixing and enhancing, can be explained by one pivotal action:
United the human with the divine in Christ Himself. The divine fixes and enhances humanity, so that when we find our humanity mingling with the humanity of Christ (this is the essence of "substitution" or better phrased "in our stead" LITERALLY because we put Him on), we are found fixed, cleaned, justified, exonerated, freed, enhanced, loved, highly exalted, illuminated, deified!
I think that's a good way I would approach it based on how the fathers have described it.
I am making this post because I probably confused with saying our sin is infinitely evil it is but I didn't mean it deserves infinite punishment The problem about some who believe substitutionary atonement is how they understand our sin deserving infinite or God wrath. It is infinite only in that mortal man can not make for God goodness. It is not given as a punishment but simply as justice that man continues to suffer for because he can't heal himself and pay it back A mortal man must die if he endures God wrath but God is immortal and will not die. I got that from the article perhaps He chose death and He can come back from death. Our sin is infinitely evil because it is comparing our goodness to God which is infinite in comparison. God infinite goodness can overcome evil
Comments
I really like that answer iqbal posted quoting one of st athanasius' lectures. Makes perfect sense... But might I just add, nothing big, kind of off topic, but guys, try not to use sarcasm towards one another. Im not saying im perfect and never do so, but remember that sarcasm can be insulting. And insults do not belong in the same forum we use to talk about our Lord. You see a lot of insults going on in muslim/christian forums, which i tend to stay away from now only because Ive noticed that in trying to help others, i was hurting myself. Even though my intentions were good, the devil would push and push until I would get so upset with a certain person that I couldnt even sleep at night, and I would hold grudges for weeks......Lets try to remember why were ALL here, we all just want to learn more about God. Thats all this website is about. And remember, that the closer you try to get to the Lord, the harder satan is going to work.....Just a thought, GB
Excellent points Meena_Ameen. I for one will try :)
pray for me
joe
It's not necessary at this stage. People may have something constructive to add, others may pose or raise some genuine and legitimate questions and issues, respectively, that have yet to be addressed. I will continue to delete posts, however, which only serve to distract the issues, as forum policy permits me to do so.
Again, i'm not saying this is per se right, i guess i'm just searching for answers. But I don't think it's right to take a quote from St Athanasius and ascribe a whole juridic theory to him, especially because the word justice doesn't necessarily mean justice in our earthly sense (again, see the previous quotes from St Gregory, St Isaac and the parables that Christ told).
Perhaps Christ did pay the price for our sins in order to fulfill justice, but the question is whether God NEEDED this to forgive us, I just find this hard to believe.
The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy (St. Gregory the Theologian, "The Second Oration on Holy Pascha" (Oration 45:22))
However if you'd do the same to a rich man, you'd be sent to prison.
If you'd dare to do that to the king for instance, or some other royal person, u'd be killed.
Now, the medival church fathers may have used this system to explain the necessity of the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf, to the people of that time. This is something they would understand, just like Christ thaught the people trough stories about coins and sheep etc. I wouldn't know if this is true or not. It depends on whether this doctrine was thaught before, or if it was introduced only in medival times.
Again, i'm no expert on the bible or patrology, so if I'm wrong feel free to discuss and correct. We all have the same goal in the end, which is to understand the deep love of God to us, in order to love him back and be saved from our own corrupt selfs.
Second of all, this interpretation clearly undermines the context of the quote. In explaining why repentence would not suffice, St Athanasius gives two reasons. Besides the one in question, he already accounts for the idea that repentance would not restore the nature of man. Clearly than the other reason accounting for the insufficiency of repentance is not the same as the one he has already explicitly accounted for.
Third of all, such an interpretation does not sit well within the wider context of his entire work. The other quoted excerpts clearly demonstrate that St Athanasius was posing a legal model i.e. the idea that death had a legal hold of us, and that it was hence, by virtue of that legal hold, impossible for us to evade the law. He doesn't use the term justice, but anyone with common sense can clearly see that that's a basic description of what justice entails: that one who breaks a law is not permitted to evade the sentence associated with it. The justice that St Athanasius and St Jerusalem suggest God needed to fulfill is not some exterior principle or power to which God is subject. It is an aspect of His being. God needs to be Just because God is God and God is Just. God needs to be just as much as He needs to be loving. If God were not loving, He would not be God and if He were not just He would similarly not be God. These two principles--Love and Justice--seem opposed given the way they are abused in terms of human understanding and practice. That is why there is a tendency to see a dichotomy, and in feeling compelled to opt one over the other we are naturally inclined to favour love. St Cyril of Jerusalem tells us to get that kind of thinking out of our head, the meeting of Justice and Love is not a contradiction, it is "the wisdom of God."
H.E Anba Bishoy, whom i admire by the way, was one person to at least find a way of explaining this interpretation that I personally loved.
That was (and I'm saying it in my own words, so this may not be 100% accurate):
As far as God is Love, He is also Holy. And, as such, He cannot stand sin. It offends Him. If there was no divine justice, it would TRIVIALISE sin. It would mean that if Christ did NOT die to repay the Divine Justice, then it would have trivialsed sin itself.
That's brilliant. I love that. I love what he said. It makes sense.
Now, I'm not sure whether he contemplates this or not, but I loved what he said simply because for me, sin hurts us. And God being love, does not want us to be hurt. He wants to show us how far that these things we do ACTUALLY hurt us.
But then the words of Saint Gregory the Theologian just come back and haunt me: Now i'm stuck between Anba Bishoy (who's a good family friend, i think even a member of my family) and St Gregory the Theologian...
I love them both.. but there appears to be some inconsistencies here.
But now, back to my question
Who said or came up with the notion that "The Punishment is proportional to the STATUS of the person offended".
PLEASE.
Nyhow, it seems that there's different opinions on this subject, and i've had enough of this endless discussion. I have peace knowing that God saved us, and quite frankly the details won't matter for my personal salvation.
Just one final thing, the theory that sin offends God and not only us seems to contradict the previous verse from the book of Job (but i'm sure i took that verse out of context too, so we go around in circles all over). But if God is perfect in His being and timeless and unchanging, then how could sin effect Him? Isn't sin commited within time and space, and God is outside both of these?
I still think the theory that is summarized by the quote from St Gregory makes more sense. But i'm no scholar so feel free to disagree.
I still think the theory that is summarized by the quote from St Gregory makes more sense. But i'm no scholar so feel free to disagree.
Matt,
I totally agree with you. And here's a lesson i've learnt, and YOU MUST apply it also: I do believe that St Gregory the Theologian's response is precisely that: Clear and plain.
Whereas trying to deduce from St. AThanasious's words that God NEEDED someone to satisfy the Divine Justice, otherwise, He cannot forgive us, is not so obvious.
lol... Mina, I bet u see why I'm lauging now.
"the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation"
The Hebrew word for divine justice may in a sense be correlated with the notion of “peace” insofar as the ultimate end with which it is concerned. The only “restoration” the term hints at is the reconciliation between God and man which can only be achieved once justice is met out. Another unique peculiarity of the term is that it sees reconciliation as being two-way. Not only is the “offended party” appeased, but so too is the “guilty party.” Even the Jews have always seen it this way and this is how most Biblical scholars understand the Jewish legal system.
In any event, whatever the connotations associated with the Hebrew notion of justice, the fact remains that St Athanasius did not speak Hebrew and that the immediate and wider context do not allow for us to interpret the statements in question as being concerned with the restoration of human nature. This is a separate issue.
What St Athanasius meant is plain and clear to all who are not on a mission to twist or turn a blind eye to the obvious just because it contradicts their already made presumptions. It doesn’t “affect” Him. The Scriptures also depict God as being wrathful towards our sins; angered and jealous. At times He is depcited as one who loves one when one is righteous and hates one when one is wicked. These terms and descriptions would also indicate that sin somehow affects God. The fact is that all these terms and descriptions are relative. In the end, we still use them. The Prophets of old used them, the Apostles used them, and the Fathers used them. Our sins are an offence to God. This is a legitimate, albeit relative and limited, manner of describing the nature of sin. I personally don’t see any contradiction. God did not demand a sacrifice. He was simply compelled to allow the sentence of death to be passed per se. It was His Love that determined that accepting the Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son would be an expedient way to fulfill that sentence and at the same time redeem man.
I personally don’t see any contradiction. God did not demand a sacrifice. He was simply compelled to allow the sentence of death to be passed oer se. It was His Love that determined that accepting the Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son would be an expedient way to fulfill that sentence and at the same time redeem man.
Perhaps we are not singing from the same songbook.
The CoC literature on Divine Justice, as far as I can see, seems to base the reason for Christ's death on the fact that God, the offended party had to be appeased.
St Gregory is saying "No.. He did not have to be appeased".
So.. i feel there is contradiction here. What am I not seeing?? Please tell me??
-----------------------------------
But - that's between you and Matt,
I need ONE SMALL question answered:
WHich Coptic Church Father mentioned that the "Punishment was proportional to the STATUs of the offended party" - that's ALL i wish to know.
Its in the SUS Coptic Site. I gave the link. Page 2/4. Its a Coptic site. Its not a Greek site, nor affiliated wth the Greek Church. In fact, its either owned by Bishop Youssef or Bishop Serapion.
Which Orthodox Father first formulated this idea? WHat did he/she base it on?? Where in the Nice/Post-Nicene Fathers can I find this phrase that says :"Punishment is a proportional to the status of the offended party" . who said that?
1. I can find you a number of documents by our Bishops who emphasise the fact Christ’s death had the purpose of transforming death into life. You can start with HG Bishop Serapion’s 2008 festal letter: http://www.lacopts.org/index.php?/site/entry/2660/
Clearly then, the atonement model in question is not conceived by the Church as the reason for Christ’s death, but one of many models in light of which we can come to understand this mystery.
2. Nowhere in the document in question does it say that God demanded the Lord Christ’s Sacrifice. All it suggests is a model for understanding the Lord Christ’s Sacrifice. What St Gregory says is that the Father merely accepted the Sacrifice, rather than demand it. There is nothing within the understanding of Divine Justice as presented by the Church that entails that God demands any sacrifice, rather it explains why it was acceptable to Him. In this vein it makes perfect sense of why the Father accepted it in the first place; it makes sense of the Father’s role in the economy, whereas a rejection of the Church’s doctrine leaves no room for the Father at all and cannot make sense of St Gregory’s affirmation of the fact that God even accepted Christ’s sacrifice for the sake of our salvation in the first place. Why would God need to accept any sacrifice; why couldn't He just be pleased with it as an observer; why was He a grantee so to speak? Why couldn’t Christ just undergo the sacrifice without it being accepted by anyone, and just for the sake of dying and defeating death? The Church has the prerogative and authority to find new ways to express herself and the truths she has held all along. I cringe whenever I hear anyone approach an issue by asking questions like, "show me where in the Bible/Fathers they say X." It only reminds me of the harassing Muslim request that we find places in the Bible where Jesus says outright, "I am God."
The dictum in question is nothing but a common sense expression of the Orthodox experience of the nature and affect of sin from the perspective of man, not the perspective of God.
From the perspective of man, if you sin against a brother by committing some sort of civil tort for example, then you are liable to paying a sum of compensation. When you sin against a higher power, the Sovereign State, by murdering one of her citizens, you may be liable to life imprisonment or even the death penalty. This is the human experience and understanding of sin and trespass. The idea that our sins are of an infinite offence is language and imagery that expresses our humble recognition of the magnitude of God’s honour and hence the magnitude of our sins which, as we consistently declare in our penitential prayers and hymns, are committed, not just per se, but against Him, which is why we are constantly asking Him not only to heal us of our sins, but also to forgive and pardon us of our sins; to overlook them, and not rebuke us in anger nor chasten us in hot displeasure, as the Psalmist wrote.
Justice, then is fulfilled on two levels; on the first level, God’s sentence is fulfilled in Christ’s death, and is not revoked in contravention of His Word, as St Athanasius explains. On the second level, we find that the sentence is fulfilled in a manner that meets the dictates of justice as we understand it--not because God demanded it to be that way, but simply because that happened to be the righteous effect of what God happened to permit out of His loving-kindness. On these two accounts the Father accepted the Sacrifice, and it was pleasing to Him.
I've read this entire topic, and I feel it has some merit.
To discuss atonement, the ransom that was paid on the cross as solely being directed to repay the Divine Justice is totally wrong. Also, to suggest that God's Divine Justice was offended is wrong also. This is not right. Its not at all Orthodox.
Furthermore, to use Anselm's words to describe atonement is beyond comprehension. This is no metaphor or analogy being used. This is the real-deal for many Catholics: That Christ's death was required to repay an "insulted" God. This is not right.
Christ's death on the Cross, and His punishment was a ransom paid for our sins, yes. But it was a ransom that was given to give us life, not to appease an insulted God.
The Divine Justice is repaid through Christ's death on the cross, but to use this as the sole basis as explaining the reason for Christ's coming is totally incorrect.
If corruption entered man through Adam, and we all inherited a corrupt nature, then an eternal sacrifice is required to correct an eternal error. Not because "God is eternal" therefore His status is one that requires an "Eternal Sacrifice".
Not at all.
Bravo for raising this issue. It is a concern as many servants in the CoC are using explanations from Medievil sources to explain Orthodox Spirituality, and we lose the richness of our faith by using contemplations, or spirituality from theologians who are not part of the Orthodox Faith.
God infinitely hates sin but loves the sinner but will not save them until they repent because their sin is not taken away in their choice to love it. If He didn't believe we could change He would consume us immediately because we are not sin yet. God is slow to anger for He remembers our frame that we are dust that is we can not save ourselves we we're created less than Him even as dust and knows our future will be eternal separation from Him.
People could change if they are given minutes more but I think God deems if He gave it it wouldn't be their true decision so it wouldn't be a fair chance. God wants us first to seek Him for love but I suppose within our chance being saved through a little fear is accepted even though little or much fear may turn into love. Maybe much fear will not turn into love
At the same time, I agree there is some juridical language. Ransom language is also there, sometimes as a "mousetrap" theory.
I think this attests to the fact that soteriology is quite all-encompassing. Some of the characteristics of soteriology can be summarized into two parts:
1. Fixing what is broken
2. Enhancing what is fixed
Humanity is broken, diseased, marred, overshadowed, cursed, indebted, under penalty, shackled, imprisoned, etc. by sin, corruption, and death. So using all this terminology, "fixing" humanity will give the opposite: heal, repair, enlighten, bless, pay for, exonerate, ransom, free.
Enhancement comes by giving us something beyond our own selves. This is where the famous "God became man so that man might become God." It's the famous formula of exchange and deification. So we are by nature liable to mortality and corruption. By grace, we are given Christ's very own divine immortality and incorruption, shared eternally with the Father and the Spirit by nature. The language of this enhancement comes in so many ways. We are made kings, priests, co-heirs, Sons, higher than the angels, gods, eternal, co-judges, partakers of the divine nature, exalted and magnified, intercessors, oneness and fellowship with the Trinity, etc.
Enhancement by exchange is also a recapitulation of former error and nature into latter glory. A few examples:
Adam disobeyed, Christ obeyed. Adam lost against the serpent in the garden, Christ won against the devil in the desert.
In Adam we die, in Christ we live. In Adam we are made his son, in Christ we are made sons of the Father.
Christ thirsted that we may drink from the Spirit; Christ feared and agonized that we may have divine courage and comfort.
So terms of justice, the exchange formula makes that much more sense:
Christ took on the penalty that we may exonerated. Christ took on the curse of the Cross that we may be blessed. Christ fulfilled divine justice that we may partake of the mercy of peace. Christ fulfilled the law that we may transcend the law and be fulfilled in the Spirit. Christ fulfilled the sacrifices of the law that we may partake of the sacrifice of praise.
His incarnation is the crux of the soteriological basis of all of this exchange:
Christ took on flesh that we may partake of divinity.
Christ was born of the Virgin Mary without a human father, that we may also be born of the Virgin Church with our origins from the Good Father.
Christ grew as a regular child, even in wisdom and stature, that He may bless this stage of humanity.
God does not haphazardly save us. He could save us in any other way. But He chose to do it by first giving us His law and His consistency in the law of various kinds (the mosaic law, the law of the heart, the law of death in creation), and His prophecies. He also chose to go through in exactly the way He did, from Virgin birth to toddler to childhood to adolescent to young adult to full adult. He chose that temptation, ministries and sermons of various kinds, His specific miracles, His choice of apostles and disciples, His facing death on a painful and long and public manner. All of these are all equally part of the plan of the economy of salvation.
Therefore, rather than systematizing in a scholastic way the definition of salvation, we should recognize the poetry of salvation. It cannot be explained simply. But the how, all of this, including fixing and enhancing, can be explained by one pivotal action:
United the human with the divine in Christ Himself. The divine fixes and enhances humanity, so that when we find our humanity mingling with the humanity of Christ (this is the essence of "substitution" or better phrased "in our stead" LITERALLY because we put Him on), we are found fixed, cleaned, justified, exonerated, freed, enhanced, loved, highly exalted, illuminated, deified!
I think that's a good way I would approach it based on how the fathers have described it.
The problem about some who believe substitutionary atonement is how they understand our sin deserving infinite or God wrath. It is infinite only in that mortal man can not make for God goodness. It is not given as a punishment but simply as justice that man continues to suffer for because he can't heal himself and pay it back
A mortal man must die if he endures God wrath but God is immortal and will not die. I got that from the article perhaps
He chose death and He can come back from death. Our sin is infinitely evil because it is comparing our goodness to God which is infinite in comparison. God infinite goodness can overcome evil