If not penal substitution, then how do we understand the Cross?

[Jacob]

Friends,
I come from a strict Calvinist background (though I no longer hold to many of the tenets of Calvinism). I went to Calvinist seminary and we had it drilled in our heads that Christ died as a substitute for me on the cross. In fact, I had memorized Galatians and much of the book of Romans strictly along those categories.

So now, as I find myself more open to Orthodoxy, I still can't help but think of salvation in strictly penal categories. How do the Orthodox understand the cross?

Thank you. I have really benefitted from y'all answering my questions.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Often the difference is not black & white. In a way we also very much believe that Christ died for us.

But this is because as weak creatures we cannot destroy the power of death as Christ did out of love for us.

From this point though we also strongly believe that we need to turn to Christ Who destroys the power of death. Through this we participate in His trampling down of death so that we also participate in His victory over death.

The practical way in which we do this however is through that daily struggle against sin & passion achieved through Christ.

In other words so that Christ's sacrifice is grafted into our own lives we must actively participate in it through our own struggle against sin.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

The Cross is Christ's ultimate act of self-giving. The Cross therefore shows us not only how much God loves us but also that God is love, which is to say, that divinity means self-giving. To be like God, we must also give completely of ourselves for others. We must also be willing to die for what is good and true for all, and not try to save ourselves at the expense of others. We must take up our cross and do as Christ did, choosing to suffer to save others rather than sin to save only ourselves.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Cyprian (Humphrey)]

I don't know if this will help or not, but I often think that Christ's entire ministry, life (including His pre-incarnational appearances), death, resurrection and second coming are all salvific. In a sense, it isn't just the Cross that enables our salvation, but everything that Christ has done, is doing, and will do for us. Basically put, we wouldn't have Pascha without Christmas. Also, Christ's death would've been meaningless (to us at least) without His ministry. His entire incarnation would not have made sense without His revelation of the Law and dealing with the nation of Israel to "set the stage". His Ascension, which again, wouldn't have happened without Christmas, is meaningless without the knowledge that He will return.

I just feel that the more-or-less western tendency to "dissect" the life and ministry of Christ does damage to something that is an intrinsic whole, is entirely linked and intricately woven together.

For example: if God was so terribly angry at our sin that He just had to punish someone, and didn't want to punish us, so He punished Himself/His Son instead - that God would have some serious psychological anger and impulse control issues.

Another example: if God just had to have someone to punish for our sins because it's a rule of some sort, then that God is not really in control of the universe, if He's subject to external rules.

Both of those models have imperfect God's.

Substitutionary atonement has always made me feel uneasy, specifically for these reasons. Basically they imply that God is not the kind of God that I'd really want to worship. He's either not really God because He has some higher power that He has to answer to, or that He's not quite sane.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Christ didn't die for us - He most certainly did! It's just thinking about it in juridicial and penal terms is taking the analogy too far IMHO.

It makes more sense - to me at least - to think that Christ died for us so that He would "destroy death by death" in a way that we could perceive. Certainly God could've just declared our sins forgiven and death and hell destroyed, much like the doctrine of Islam, but would that've gotten our collective attention the same way? I don't think so.

I grew up on a farm, and as a child I often watched my mother make sausages. We had an old hand crank meat grinder. If you don't know anything about these, you may have to google it. Nonetheless, it occured to me, that if you were to drop a sizable diamond into the meat grinder, what would happen? Presuming you had a strong enough force turning the crank, the diamond, the hardest substance known to man, would destroy the meat grinder from the inside out. It may be able to continue to grind for a while, even after the diamond has broken the internal mechanism, but it'd only be a matter of time - the grinder would be done for even if it didn't immediately seem like it.

So, when Christ died for us, and went to Hades, He was kinda like that diamond that fell into a meat grinder. A being that, was by definition immortal, died, and in the process thereof destroyed death from the inside out. It was the very impossibility of God dying that doomed death. (Oooh! I made an alliteration!)

And doing it in such a way that, as an incarnate human, interacting with other humans, we become witnesses to the destruction of "death by death" giving it so much more of a powerful impact on human hearts than just God telling a "prophet" that this has been invisibly done.

I'm not entirely sure this had addressed your question. If it hasn't please forgive me. These are just my thoughts off the top of my head.

For all I know, I might be accidentally heretical. If I am, I'd appreciate correction from the seminary educated members of this forum. :)

[Paul Cowan]

Because of the Fall, man has evil in his heart night and day. God cannot stand sin. And this will eternally keep us from Him. Knowing that His creation is sinful and therefore cannot ever return to Him, He took it upon Himself to pave the way for us to return to Him.

First, He came here as one of us to open our eyes to Himself and to show us how far from the Truth we had gone.
Second, He ministered to us to ensure we knew He was God in the working of all His miracles. Most of which had never been done before.
Third, He knew the only way to remove the barriers for our return was to destroy the author of sin; satan.
Fourth, He voluntarily allowed His creation to kill Him.
Fifth, He destroyed the gates of hell and rose of His own accord on the third day.
Sixth, He and all the dead in the graves came out of the graves and spoke with the people proving the resurrection of the dead.
Seventh, He ascended to God the Father.
Eight, God sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to help show us the Way until the Second coming of Christ.

He did all this out of love for us. Sure we are all still sinners. But until Jesus did the above, man had no Way to be reconciled with God. God did not demand the death of Jesus. MAN demanded the death of Jesus. Just because He knew ahead of time what was going to happen does not change the fact WE are the ones who yelled for Him to be crucified. And we continually do each time we sin.

God sent His only begotten Son (and the rest of that verse) so we could be reconciled to Him. To say God sent His Son to die for us; technically is true, but is not at the heart of WHY He did it. He did it because He loved us and wanted to be reunited with us. If you remember Jesus (who IS God) told Peter He could ask for 10 legions of angels to help Him. At any point He could have stopped Pilot and the mob or even come down from the cross. Why didn't He? Remember Pilot was surprised He died so quickly and sent soldiers to confirm this. He gave up His spirit voluntarily. He was not being forced to do so when He said “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’"


i John 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. 10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

I am not a linguist so I would like to ask our Greek researchers here to see what word was translated to come up with propitiation please. The definition of that word is out of place for the rest of the scripture. The english bible is a poor resource for proper reading of itself.


Propitiation: This means the turning away of wrath by an offering.

This is the face of an evil god not a loving God.

Paul

[Brian Patrick Mitchell]

Amen to Fr. Cyprian's point about not viewing the Cross in isolation. When we say that Christ "destroyed death by death," we are really speaking of Christ's death and Resurrection, for it is the Resurrection that makes sense of the death. If Christ did not rise from the dead, His self-giving would not make rational sense. Only the Resurrection proves to us that there is a God who loves us and will judge us in the next life according to our imitation of His love in this life.

In Christ, Dn. Patrick

[Herman Blaydoe]

Atonement is one of the MANY words used to describe what Christ did for us, but it is only ONE aspect, and NOT the whole picture. The reformers threw out waaaay too much when they "reformed".

Herman the unreformed Pooh

[Anna Stickles]

Jacob,

There was a really interesting discussion on this topic some time ago on a thread called Why Did Jesus Have to Die. (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?1591-Why-did-Jesus-have-to-die)This might be a good place to start.

As someone who also came from a reformed backround, I would say that one thing to keep in mind is that the the biggest differences aren't primarily in the aspect of penal vs not, but even more fundamental is substitutionary vs participatory.

This has to do with differences in the view of human nature and the nature of our relationship with God.

Orthodoxy primarily sees this relationship in terms of regaining an intimate union with God in Christ and Calvinism sees that relationship more in terms of something very external - something God does to or for us.

[Michael Stickles]

I am not a linguist so I would like to ask our Greek researchers here to see what word was translated to come up with propitiation please. The definition of that word is out of place for the rest of the scripture. The english bible is a poor resource for proper reading of itself.

The Greek word is hilasmos, which means (according to my Liddell and Scott abridged lexicon) "a means of appeasing; a propitiation, sacrifice". The verb form is hilaskomai, meaning "(I) to appease, propitiate, reconcile to oneself, of gods - but also to conciliate a man. (II) to expiate, atone for."

So, to say that Christ was sent to be the hilasmos for our sins, says to me that our sins have separated us from God and that Christ is the offering which brings about our reconciliation with Him. I'd imagine the word normally implied "turning aside wrath" because it was often used with reference to the Greek gods (who could get a bit peeved at times).

In the Schaff version of St. John Chrysostom's homilies on Hebrews, he translates hilaskomai in 2:18 not as "to make propitiation" but rather "to make reconciliation". St. John describes things in this way:


For He saw us, cast on the ground, perishing, tyrannized over by Death, and He had compassion on us. “To make reconciliation,” he says, “for the sins of the people. That He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest.”

What is “faithful”? True, able. For the Son is a faithful High Priest, able to deliver from their sins those whose High Priest He is. In order then that He might offer a sacrifice able to purify us, for this cause He has become man.

In Christ,
Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

In Rom. 3:25 and Heb.9:5 (A.V., "mercy-seat") the Greek word _hilasterion_ is used. It is the word employed by the LXX. translators in Ex. 25:17 and elsewhere as the equivalent for the Hebrew _kapporeth_, which means "covering," and is used for the lid of the ark of the covenant (Ex. 25:21; 30:6). This Greek word (hilasterion) came to denote not only the mercy-seat or lid of the ark, but also propitation or reconciliation by blood. On the great day of atonement the high priest carried the blood of the sacrifice he offered for all the people within the veil and sprinkled with it the "mercy-seat," and so made reconciliation. In 1 John 2:2;4:10, Christ is called the "propitiation for our sins." Here a different Greek word is used (hilasmos). Christ is "the propitiation," because by his becoming our substitute and assuming our obligations He reconciles us to God. (Comp. Heb. 2:17, where the expression "make reconciliation" of the A.V. is more correctly in the R.V. "make propitiation.")

A "better" English equivalent might be "expiation". Guilt is said to be expiated when it is visited with punishment falling on a substitute. Expiation is made for our sins when they are punished not in ourselves but in another who consents to stand in our room. It is that by which reconciliation is effected. Sin is thus said to be "covered". The cover or lid of the ark is termed in the LXX. hilasterion, that which covered or shut out the claims and demands of the LAW against the sins of God's people, whereby he became "propitious" to them. The idea of expiation runs through the whole Old Testament system of sacrifices. It is not God who is being "satisfied" but the LAW. n short, both words can be used to describe Christ's sacrifice. Both words are ways that Christ's sacrifice "covers" our sins.

But again, this is only one of the many words used by the Apostles to describe what Christ did for us, it is only one piece of the whole story, one that receives an over-emphasis by "reformed" Christians to the expense of the other aspects.

Herman the expiated Pooh

[Anna Stickles]

To give an idea of the context within which St Paul and St John who were both Jewish used this word, I think it helps to realize that in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX), the Greek term "hilastērion" was used several times to translate the Hebrew term "kapporet," which specified the lid of the Ark of the Covenant and that hilasmos is the word translated "atonement" in the Day of Atonement.

So although the Greeks and the Greek speaking Jews were using the same word, what they meant, the whole religious phronema that came with that word when used in a Greek vs a Jewish religious context, is very different.

One of the reasons that I prefer the English translations which translate this word 'atonement' instead of 'propitiation', is it helps keep this historical context better. Obviously the word took on new meaning in Christ, but its much easier to get to the Christian meaning from the original Jewish context then from the Greek context of appeasing jealous, passionate deities.

[Eric Peterson]

Might I suggest a look at the Church's hymnography? You will find a lot there.

[Darren W.]

Greetings,

This is my first post to these boards which I reached through Googling: atonement, penal and high priest, bringing me to this thread.

I too have struggled for many years to understand the nature of the atonement – I remember my professor at university saying that it was a doctrine that was never formalised in the church councils, and that meant that technically it was open to interpretation. At the time I was in the Reformed tradition, so I studied the penal substitutionary theory in depth. I am currently of Evangelical charismatic persuasion.

I would very much like to discuss this issue with you.

To start I would like to take up on a couple of comments made so far.

Herman writes:


It is not God who is being "satisfied" but the LAW.

My question is: how do we distinguish God from the Law? Are we using the word ‘Law’ to refer to some kind of formalism where a sacrifice of some kind was required under certain conditions? Or are we talking about the moral law of God, which proceeds from his very nature? It seems to me that God is portrayed as being satisfied with the sacrifices brought: they are sometimes described as a pleasant aroma to him. But the central issue that arises here is that these kinds of sacrifices are not what God ultimately desires. The sacrifice ‘covers’ for non-fulfilment of the law, but doesn’t fulfil the Law.

God is well pleased with Jesus, and with his dying. This much is clear. What Jesus offers is a better sacrifice, one that is able to accomplish what the previous sacrifices could not.

I like a lot of what Fr Cyprian says concerning the atonement, however, I am not persuaded by the suggestion that Christ destroyed death from the inside out by the power of his immortal life: this, it seems to me, answers the question without really answering it. What is death? How can Christ enter into it (as an immortal) and destroy it?

Could God really just have declared our sins forgiven apart from the atonement? If so, why didn’t he just do that for Adam and Eve and set the whole thing right at the beginning? Can God confirm a created being in holiness by an act of power? Can God create a being that does not have the ability to fall into sin?

Anna comments:


Orthodoxy primarily sees this relationship in terms of regaining an intimate union with God in Christ and Calvinism sees that relationship more in terms of something very external - something God does to or for us.

I agree that the primary purpose of God in the atonement is that we should come into intimate relationship with him. The question remains: how does the atonement bring us into that relationship? Calvinism would say that there are barriers on God’s side of the relationship, and that the atonement deals primarily with these barriers allowing a holy God to have communion with creatures that are not in themselves holy. The atonement deals with the wrath of God. The wrath of God is his burning anger against that which is unholy.

I would suggest that this opposition to sin, to wickedness, to that which is ungodly necessarily proceeds from the nature of God – ultimately God cannot accept or be reconciled to that which contradicts his very nature. The atonement has to address this issue in some way.

I note Fr Raphael’s point about participation in Christ as being particularly relevant. My view is that the visible demonstration of the godly life of Jesus, even to death, is actually the power of God towards us. This combines, of course, with the fact of the resurrection, which demonstrates that for the godly physical death is not the end. The question of our daily struggle against sin and passion is a big issue. Did Christ struggle daily against sin and passion? I think not, at least not in the way that we often do. He was a man, tempted as we are, yet without sin. Christ shows us how to live in a way that is always pleasing to God the Father. He gives us the moral example, but more than that, he opens up to us the fundamental principle of communion. Godliness can only proceed from communion with God. Jesus enjoyed that communion completely, the fullness of God dwelling in him. But we tend to live our lives from other sources. What I mean is, I believe that Jesus was sustained in holiness by the joy he had in communion with the Father and that passion for other pleasures would have come upon him rarely (in fact the Scriptures note when this occurred) but for many of us almost the inverse is true.

Paul Cowan comments:


Sure we are still sinners.

I recall an old Orthodox prayer something to the effect: Jesus, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner (someone could fill me in here). My question about this is the focus of the prayer, and the comment. Does the New Testament focus on our sinfulness? Again, I think not: it focuses on the sinfulness of the non-believer, but the believers are regularly referred to as saints. How can a person be a holy sinner? I believe that the study of the letter to the Hebrews is absolutely key to a proper understanding of the atonement, and I see something there about the cleansing of our consciences from sin. This is one of the major things the atonement should accomplish in the believer. Old Testament sacrifices didn’t cleanse, once for all, and had to be repeated, the blood of Christ is meant to cleanse us once for all. I think God has already had mercy on us – that the work of Christ is complete and that the main thing lacking on our part is confidence or faith in the Word that tells us this is so.

Best regards to all,

Darren

[Herman Blaydoe]

I recall an old Orthodox prayer something to the effect: Jesus, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner (someone could fill me in here).

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner" is called the Jesus Prayer or Prayer of Jesus. Google that and you will find more than a wealth of information on this "simple" prayer.


My question about this is the focus of the prayer, and the comment. Does the New Testament focus on our sinfulness? Again, I think not: it focuses on the sinfulness of the non-believer, but the believers are regularly referred to as saints.
Um you might want to read through it again, I think you missed a few verses, like say Romans 3:9-12?

How can a person be a holy sinner?

Before Holy Communion the priest elevates the Gifts and sings "Holy things are for the holy". We respond: "Only one is Holy, only one is the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, Amen!"

How about a sinner called to holiness? Have we achieved saintliness? Are we indeed "holy"? Perhaps you are already there, I still have a long way to go.


I believe that the study of the letter to the Hebrews is absolutely key to a proper understanding of the atonement, and I see something there about the cleansing of our consciences from sin. This is one of the major things the atonement should accomplish in the believer. Old Testament sacrifices didn’t cleanse, once for all, and had to be repeated, the blood of Christ is meant to cleanse us once for all. I think God has already had mercy on us – that the work of Christ is complete and that the main thing lacking on our part is confidence or faith in the Word that tells us this is so.

Um, well, yeah? Has anyone here said different?

[Antonios]

I like a lot of what Fr Cyprian says concerning the atonement, however, I am not persuaded by the suggestion that Christ destroyed death from the inside out by the power of his immortal life: this, it seems to me, answers the question without really answering it. What is death? How can Christ enter into it (as an immortal) and destroy it?

Welcome Darren!

In regards to your questions above, I highly urge you to read 'Christ the Conqueror of Hell (http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Conqueror-Hell-Orthodox-Perspective/dp/0881410616)'.

[Darren W.]

Hi Herman,

Thanks for the direction on the prayer; I shall look into it.

As I read it, the verses you refer to in Romans refer to the role of the law in the life of the unbeliever - that none can stand before God and say 'I am without sin'.

Romans 3:21, 22 reads:


But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

So perhaps I can rephrase: how can a person be a righteous sinner?

In Protestantism there is a doctrine of 2 natures that allows for this; or some will say righteousness is imputed to us, but we remain sinners. Does Orthodoxy say the same thing?


Before Holy Communion the priest elevates the Gifts and sings "Holy things are for the holy". We respond: "Only one is Holy, only one is the Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, Amen!"

Fair enough - but you still all participate in Communion, don't you? Do you do so as holy or unholy people?

You use the phrase "called to be..." but I think this underplays the strength of the New Testament witness to the fact that we are saints, God's holy people. We are that because by faith we participate in Christ:

2 Cor 1:30


It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

1 Pet 1:2

But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession


Have we achieved saintliness?

I think many people think about sanctification in the same way as you, Herman, but tell me, how can a person 'achieve' holiness? It is a gift of God already given in the gift of his Son. My argument is that when we think of ourselves as sinners, we are thinking of ourselves outside of Christ. The Scriptures repeatedly call us to a different mindset - to have the mind of the Spirit.


Um, well, yeah? Has anyone here said different?

It seems to me that the prayer:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner

does say something different: what further mercy do we need from God? He has given us his Son; given us wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption in his Son. We are free to approach the throne of Grace to receive help in time of need.

But don't get me wrong. I am not saying that I do not sin; I still sin, but the seed of God that is in me does not sin: I do not identify myself as a sinner, as a rebel - my identity is in Christ, and I am a saint. I live out of the deposit that God has placed in me, and try to put down every high thought that would exalt itself against that knowledge.

Be blessed,

Darren

[Michael Stickles]

I am not persuaded by the suggestion that Christ destroyed death from the inside out by the power of his immortal life: this, it seems to me, answers the question without really answering it. What is death? How can Christ enter into it (as an immortal) and destroy it?

Let's start with "what is death?" It is, according to the Fathers, the separation of the soul from the body. St. Augustine titled one section of his City of God "Of the Evil of Death in General, Considered as the Separation of Soul and Body." Likewise in the Stromata of St. Clement of Alexandria we read "death is the separation of the soul from the body;" and other examples could be given.

Hand-in-hand with death goes corruption. St. Athanasius the Great, in his treatise On the Incarnation (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm), says:


For God had made man thus (that is, as an embodied spirit), and had willed that he should remain in incorruption. 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 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. By nature, of course, man is mortal, since he was made from nothing; but he bears also the Likeness of Him Who is, and if he preserves that Likeness through constant contemplation, then his nature is deprived of its power and he remains incorrupt. So is it affirmed in Wisdom: "The keeping of His laws is the assurance of incorruption."

... This, then, was the plight of men. God had not only made them out of nothing, but had also graciously bestowed on them His own life by the grace of the Word. Then, turning from eternal things to things corruptible, by counsel of the devil, they had become the cause of their own corruption in death; for, as I said before, though they were by nature subject to corruption, the grace of their union with the Word made them capable of escaping from the natural law, provided that they retained the beauty of innocence with which they were created.

That is the state we need to be saved from. Now in the above is the answer to your question "How can Christ enter into it (as an immortal)" - by taking flesh, and being born as a man, he assumed a body which was "by nature subject to corruption." Athanasius describes what was done by this:


The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.

While there is more to say, I'll leave it there for the moment, as this post is already getting rather long.

In Christ,
Michael

[Darren W.]

Thanks for the welcome Antonios.

I have checked out the book and it is £30 in the UK, slightly above my current budget, but I will keep an eye on it.

Regards,

Darren

Thank you, Michael, that was something like the answer I was hoping for. I'll reflect on these passages before responding.

Darren

[Michael Stickles]

I think many people think about sanctification in the same way as you, Herman, but tell me, how can a person 'achieve' holiness? It is a gift of God already given in the gift of his Son. My argument is that when we think of ourselves as sinners, we are thinking of ourselves outside of Christ.

Perhaps we need to take a look at a sampling of some verses regarding holiness (emphasis added in all cases):


... we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:10)
For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Heb. 10:14)
Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. (Heb. 12:14)
But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." (1 Pet 1:15-16)
So, let's see - Christ has already made us holy; yet, we are currently being made holy; yet, we are urged to make every effort to be holy.

Contradictory? No. This fits in quite well with the Orthodox understanding, where that which was completed in Christ must still be worked out in each of us with our participation, else it is not "ours". As Paul wrote to the Phillippians (3:10-14):


I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

In Christ,
Michael

[Nick Katich]

I would commend for reading the following article by Fr. Pat Reardon. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/ReardonExpatiation.php

[Sacha]

Darren wrote:

In Protestantism there is a doctrine of 2 natures that allows for this; or some will say righteousness is imputed to us, but we remain sinners. Does Orthodoxy say the same thing?



I don't think 'protestantism' is the monolith implied by this statement. Look no further than the formidable anglican yet self described evangelical scholar NT Wright, who categorically opposes the idea of imputation of righteousness, much to the chagrin of people like John Piper.

[Darren W.]

Hi Michael,

On holiness: I agree completely with what you say.

We are holy, and we are being made holy. What concerns me is how, in practice, we relate these two dimensions. As I see it, we are united with Christ through our faith. Faith takes hold of that which is not yet seen. It is confident in what the Word declares. Faith substantiates the Word in our lives.

When we focus on our sin, on our weakness, what are we doing? We are not focusing on the completed work of Christ, we are not looking towards what God has provided. We are thinking about ourselves, what we did, what we did wrong, why we did it, and that thinking - introspection and retrospection only serves to give sin a sway over us that it should no longer have. The source of our life, the source of our sanctification is Christ and that is where our focus should be.

Every Christian knows that when we draw near to God, he draws near to us, and we know that in his presence we cannot sin. But what we perhaps don't see is that we can constantly experience that presence - that is holiness is actually available to us. What we see instead is people not enjoying communion with God, but at the same time trying to be 'holy', or become 'holier'.

To bring this back to the atonement: it is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his ascension, and the pouring out of the Spirit that make it possible for us to enjoy communion with God. The truths which should inform our understanding, which leads to correct practice are all there.

When I look at the Church Fathers their voice speaks to me: I know that they were experiencing the same life in Christ that I myself am experiencing. I may not agree with everything they say, and in many ways they do not agree with each other, but I think there is a reason for this: under the new covenant it is not possible for one man to instruct another and say 'behold God'. We use words to convey as best we can an existential awareness that we have and point to something that each person can only discover for themselves.

My thanks for your time,

Every blessing,

Darren

[Darren W.]

Yes, Sacha, you are probably correct, but I don't really want to take half a paragraph to pinpoint the exact branch of Protestantism each of my comments applies to: I'm going to have to use some generalisations. These two views, or one if it can be seen that way, are/is quite widely spread within Protestantism (Calvinistic, Evangelical and Pentecostal).

[Sacha]

When we focus on our sin, on our weakness, what are we doing? We are not focusing on the completed work of Christ, we are not looking towards what God has provided. We are thinking about ourselves, what we did, what we did wrong, why we did it, and that thinking - introspection and retrospection only serves to give sin a sway over us that it should no longer have. The source of our life, the source of our sanctification is Christ and that is where our focus should be.

Every Christian knows that when we draw near to God, he draws near to us, and we know that in his presence we cannot sin. But what we perhaps don't see is that we can constantly experience that presence - that is holiness is actually available to us. What we see instead is people not enjoying communion with God, but at the same time trying to be 'holy', or become 'holier'.

Darren

Darren,

What do you understand by this Beatitude: "Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted"?

The doctrine of imputed righteousness creates, in my view, a divide between Paul and Jesus, where in fact, there is none.

It is precisely because we mourn our sins, (one way to do this is through the Jesus Prayer), that we cling more tightly to the grace of God. This involves effort. As has been pointed out, the author of Hebrews says "Make every effort...to be holy, for without holiness, no one will see the Lord." If imputed righteousness was like a gas that is transferred to the guilty from the Judge across the courtroom (as NT Wright describes the doctrine, which he disagrees with), then why would Scripture command us to make the effort?

The effort is not one done in the flesh, if anything, the latter will get us back even quicker to mourning our sins. It is an effort of faith which inevitably finds expression in all we do. When Abraham scaled the mount with Isaac, was it not an effort of faith, fueling effort of the body in carrying out what he had to carry out? Imputed righteousness is heavily influenced by medieval theology and a juridical view of salvation and doesn't have precedent in the early church. (as far as I'm concerned, early church to me means first century). A great example of the mindset of the earliest christians can be found in the letters of Clement. Well worth the read.

[Darren W.]

Hi Sacha,

Yes, I too am not convinced by the doctrine of imputation - my own understanding is to do with a dynamic. I believe that sanctification proceeds from encounter with God, or better, from constant communion with him, by the Spirit.

I think the effort goes into living a disciplined life so as to enjoy a more constant relationship with God - I am not sure that any effort of mine can make me a better person, or more acceptable to God.

I came to this board as I was investigating the role of Christ as High Priest. As High Priest I believe he opens the way for us to enter into God's throne room - I don't believe that one has to be confirmed in holiness to enter, but rather that in entering we become more sanctified.

But these are complex issues.

Unfortunately, due to a change in my plans I am not going to be able to continue the discussion on this thread - but I do very much appreciate the brief dialogue I have had with you all. Thanks also for pointing me towards the Church Fathers. I did read through Clement today and Michael has quickened my interest in Athanasius. If any one would like to indicate other works that I might look at in the future I would be very grateful. I shall retain my membership and hope to return.

My very best regards,

and God's blessing,

Darren

[Herman Blaydoe]

It seems to me that the prayer:

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner

does say something different: what further mercy do we need from God? He has given us his Son; given us wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption in his Son. We are free to approach the throne of Grace to receive help in time of need.

So what do you think St. Paul is saying when he writes: ""This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

He does not say of whom I WAS chief, but I AM chief. And how is this different from the Jesus Prayer?

And also the example given by Christ Himself of the publican, who could only beat his chest and pray "God, be merciful to me a sinner!" Put them together and you have the Jesus Prayer.