Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Oriental Orthodox view of salvation contrasted to Evangelical Protestant view
In my reading about the Eastern Orthodox Church, I came to understand that their view of salvation is that it is a process, and that saving 'faith' requires repentance and reception of the Holy Mysteries. Fr Andrew Stephen Damick said that the Greek word for 'faith' (πίστις), like most Greek nouns that end in -ις, refers to an on-going process, rather than a one time event like Protestants believe when they say "I was saved on May 24, 2003 at 8:32pm".
Is the Oriental Orthodox view similar to that of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Also, does anyone know a good resource for articles on Oriental Orthodoxy, specifically those intended for Protestants or Roman Catholics interested in the Orthodox faith? The Eastern Orthodox have OrthodoxInfo, Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries and other sites.
Would most of the articles on those two sites be considered kosher from an OO perspective, or do they have some theological errors?
Is the Oriental Orthodox view similar to that of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Also, does anyone know a good resource for articles on Oriental Orthodoxy, specifically those intended for Protestants or Roman Catholics interested in the Orthodox faith? The Eastern Orthodox have OrthodoxInfo, Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries and other sites.
Would most of the articles on those two sites be considered kosher from an OO perspective, or do they have some theological errors?
Comments
Is the Oriental Orthodox view similar to that of Eastern Orthodoxy?
Yes.
Or I at least hope that everyone here agrees with me. I am EO, though, so we'll let others reply who are OO.
What you really need is the Patristic view of salvation. Read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" for some info on how we were/are saved.
One note is that the site; "orthodoxinfo" while perhaps having some valuable articles often deals with us OO in a harsh, unchristian, and polemical manner without even being fair to true OO theology (particularly soteriology), and this mars what i would call an otherwise very nice resource.
I would say also that the EO is not immune to outside influences, whether it be Roman Catholic/Jesuit stuff sneaking into some Russian thought, or Protestant stuff seeping into some Greek thought and practice. But when you look at the history of things, you'll see that it is near impossible for some of those elements NOT to interact with one another. For instance, when many Russians fled to France during their persecution from the Soviets: France is very Catholic. Or when Greece got military help from Britain a while ago and even got a King who was protestant: Britain has been historically Anglican and Reformed. Or in Egypt, where many Protestant missionaries have come into the country spreading around books by John Bunyan and other Puritan authors. I see that it's the same with whichever Orthodox country you look at: Egypt, India, Greece, Syria, etc.
I know there are a handful of good articles on tasbeha. Here are some others that might help you out:
http://lacopts.org/resources/articles/spiritual-growth/
On the Incarnation is the best piece of writing EVER, ever ever. I dont have very much time (hence why I have neglected replying all the other threads) but i would like to say that both the EO and OO have the same soteriology and the same view of our synergy with God in terms of our salvation. Numerous errors have crept into OO circles (particularly the penal substitution heresy) but it is not authentic PATRISTIC OO soteriology. We are one with the EO in this matter, and in my opinion in all matters of faith :).
One note is that the site; "orthodoxinfo" while perhaps having some valuable articles often deals with us OO in a harsh, unchristian, and polemical manner without even being fair to true OO theology (particularly soteriology), and this mars what i would call an otherwise very nice resource.
Why do you call the penal substitution theory a heresy? St Peter writes concerning Christ "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24). I was actually happy to hear Bishop Suriel in his podcasts talk about salvation in a manner approaching the penal substitution theory. The thing that appeals to me about it is that it makes sense. If God is infinitely holy then our sins infinitely offend Him, so there is an infinite reparation that needs to be made. Jesus was fully man, so He could take our place, and fully God, so that He could pay the infinite price of our reparation. I could put forward this viewpoint in a dialogue with a non-Christian, but the EO viewpoint of Christ coming to heal us and destroy death seems much harder to explain.
And yes, I know that OrthodoxInfo has quite nasty articles attacking the Oriental Orthodox. They insist on calling OO Monophysites even though people have emailed them and told them that it isn't the right position.
The problem I have with the penal substitution theory that I can't reconcile lies in the view of sin and punishment. While God is infinitely holy, sin is not infinite. In requiring an infinite reparation for finite problem like sin elevates sin and evil to a divine status. Evil and sin is not the infinite opposite of God and holiness. Evil and sin [i[is[/i] opposite to God and His holiness but they are not infinite entities. (In fact many patristic fathers say evil isn't an entity at all, just like darkness is merely the absence of light)
As a matter of fact, St Paul makes the point that sin is not infinite because sin has no power in death. (Romans 7:1). The solution of sin is death. Sin, therefore, cannot be elevated to an infinite divine status. Even death which defeated sin cannot be elevated to a infinite divine status. In 1 Cor 15:55 St Paul, quoting Hosea's prophecy in Hos 13:14, tells us that death has no infinite status or power.
Therefore, I find it hard to believe that an omnipotent, infinitely loving and merciful God is so angry with humanity that He makes a finite problem infinitely difficult to solve. I haven't been able to find good patristic support for the penal substitution theory, even though there is some evidence in liturgical services.
I will at least concede that the penal substitution theory does not amount to heresy if it is understood properly. However, we don't have any good writings to give us guidance about this theory.
Not to mention that the fathers see sin and death as the privation of virtue of life. As one draws from God they draw themselves unto death.
From On the Incarnation,
“ But men, having turned from the contemplation of God to evil of their own devising, had come inevitably under the law of death. Instead of remaining in the state in which God had created them, they were in the process of becoming corrupted entirely, and death had them completely under its dominion. For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning through corruption, to non-existence again. The presence and love of the Word had called them into being; inevitably, therefore when they lost the knowledge of God, they lost existence with it; for it is God alone who exists, evil is non-being, the negation and antithesis of good. “
And also take St. Basil the Great,
“For to the extent that he [Adam] withdrew from life, he likewise drew near to death. For God is life, and the privation of life is death. Therefore Adam prepared death for himself through his withdrawal from God, in accord with what is written, ‘Behold those who remove themselves from you are destroyed’ (Ps 72.27). Thus God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves by a wicked intention.” St. Basil the Great Homily that God is not the cause of Evil. Popular patristics series
Please read On the Incarnation, it is a wonderfully small but rich source of life. Fr. George Dragas the patristics expert and specialist on St. Athanasius has himself said that On The Incarnation is like the Gospels in that he is renewed and takes more from it every time he reads it.
I want to say SO MUCH MORE but i really shouldnt be posting right now I just got carried away :P. However even doing a cursory wiki search will reveal that its accepted that the early church never taught penal substitution and rightly states that is likely began with Augustine although perhaps one could make a case that Tertullian's teaching would have logically extended to that realm. Either way, the infinite sin garbage is shoddy and illogical at best and not patristic and even non-biblical at worst. The way the penal substitution theory portrays God is why I have termed it heresy, I believe it severely does God injustice. None of our own parents would want to punish us in proportion to their dignity (whatever that means), nor does God. And if you notice in the liturgical hymns (which exist originally in their coptic) for Good friday and Easter there is no mention of justice, substitution, punishment, etc. Christ trampled down by death, death was the real enemy, not God.
One last quote from St. Gregory the Theologian where this heresy is almost prophesied against,
“To whom was that blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High priest and sacrifice. We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now since, a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by him that we were being oppressed; and next, on what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim? Isnt it clear that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him?” St. Gregory the Theologian Second Oration on Easter. This can be accessed here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxvii.html
Being simple doesnt make it right, lets not be cheap in our theology and look for simple answers. But let us search the fathers for the depths of spiritual reflection and beauty.
Pray for me
They say: "It is thus a specific understanding of substitutionary atonement, where the substitutionary nature of Jesus' death is understood in the sense of a substitutionary punishment."
Is there more to it?
On the Incarnation is the best piece of writing EVER, ever ever.
Not quite... *cough* Holy Scripture *cough*
;)
I know that the penal substitution theory being simple doesn't make it right.
How would you go about explaining the Gospel to a Muslim who walked into your church and wanted to know about Christianity?
Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring a satisfaction for it. Penal Substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin. [Wikipedia]
Adam was dead along with his descendants not because sin is infinite. But because sin was directed to the infinite Who punished him with an eternal death. This eternal death required God, the infinite, to abolish.
Thus, when the Son died on the cross, He, being infinite, satisfied the punishment in place of Adam and thus was able to restore him back.
This idea of one dying in place of another to bestow life was taught by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden when He made garments of skin. Later, God instituted the sacrificial system to teach mankind the idea of redemption. Finally, He appeared in the last days as the ultimate sacrifice.
So if God punished sin with an eternal death, how come this is seemingly contradicted by St. Basil the Great and St. Athanasius the Apostolic in the quotes i mentioned above? I will post in reply to MichaelNZ later but i am not able to right now!
God did not punish sin. God punished man. Sin is the symptom of man's disobedience to God.
Wiki (source Fr. Thomas Hopko)
I personally always understood it as Fr. Thomas Hopko seems to explain it and as imikhail explained above. I am not sure where the heresy lies. There certainly is many reasons for His death on the cross, this may not be the only one, but I have always understood it as such. What is the point of all the offerings? And the following verses:Mark 10:45, Timothy 2:5-6, Romans 3:23. There are many verses that support atonement. Would be nice to have some clarification.
So if God punished sin with an eternal death, how come this is seemingly contradicted by St. Basil the Great and St. Athanasius the Apostolic in the quotes i mentioned above? I will post in reply to MichaelNZ later but i am not able to right now!
I don't understand the emphasis on eternal death.
I don't think there is much to it. "Sin brings forth death" - James 1:15.
Regardless, I do not have the time to delve into this at this moment but penal substitution is not patristic, doesnt appear and take full form until after anselm and I believe would have been rejected by the fathers. Nice word play with me Imikhail, I know you said God 'punishes man', but what about the quotes i have put to you? What about the way those two prolific fathers saw sin and the estrangement from God as opposed to penalty and punishment?
I will post more in due time,
Pray for me
Imikhail said eternal death, not me. I think Imikhail is wrong on numerous bases anyways.
What are these mistakes in your understanding? When you have sometime, explain to us why God became man and why did He die on the cross? I do not think the quotes you have put have anything to do with penal substitution. It has to do with Origen's idea that Jesus died to pay the debt to the devil. This is not penal substitution. No one suggested that God punishes sin but you. Sin does not have a being of itself. It is the result of man's disobedience and God punishes man who commits the sin.
Please pray for me
I didnt suggest it, you said God punishes sinners with an eternal death. Anyways, when i have more time we will discuss
Please pray for me
What is wrong with eternal death? Do you think that death is temporary? Was Adam's punishment temporary and somehow he would have risen to the resurrection of life without our Lord's death?