Atonement

[dairygirl4u2c]

ive come to a certain conclusion, made a certain peace, with the concept of Jesus' death. 'jesus conquered death, and all who die with him, will rise with him too' it strikes to the essence of the 'good news in so many ways', and makes his death make sense. see ive always had issues with the middle age concept of 'legal atonement'. (anslem formed this concept around 1000. most agree that before that, it's at best up for grabs, and probaly more like the eastern orthodox's ideas about atonement)

even if one to accept legal atonment, or whether one accepts another theory, we start to see a problem, in why jesus didn't engage in self defense. we say that the church allows for self defense. was he just not doing what he was entitled to, but allowing himself to die, to accomplish something? if it were legal atonement, i could see saying his death was more purposeful. with my theory generally about jesus dying and conquering death generally (christus victor, in eastern terminology), it's also a question of why he didn't self defend, and has less purposeful reasons for why he'd let himself die. we have to assume he was just not wanting to give wrong impressions to people, self defending etc.
but if we take pacifist Jesus idea, like those from Louiseville, there's no problem of Jesus not defending himself. and, we don't have to wonder if he had to die at the hands of people to get legal atonement. (you also have the idea, of why would a sacrafice be at the hands of those who were not sacraficing as is typically done. we'd have to accept that jesus sacraficed himself, and that that passive way of letting others do the killing, was acceptable) but as a passivist ideal... if he were to die for passivist reasons, and evil killed him.... it's very easy to understand that he had to let that happen, and he was still able to conquer death with his resurrection.
id say anslem's theory, while it gives a certain definition to what has always plaqued theologians, doesn't do justice to Jesus' death and resurrection, espeically if we accept those very plausible theory of pasifist Jesus.
(props to Louiseville for stickin to his guns. his stance is actually what is helping me deal with Jesus' death

[CatherineM]

I have had people argue with me that since Jesus had the ability to prevent his death, he basically committed suicide. That will make your brain hurt.

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not fundamentally opposed to the legal atonement ideas. if im wrong, so be it. at least reputable insitituions like the catholic church say that it's not a required doctrine to be believed.

part of the idea, maybe, the way i see it now. jesus came, and communed with people. he was the shepard too. God wouldnt let him die. he conquered death, even at the hands of evil. and, if you live with him, you will die with him, and you will rise with him too. you can be shepards for jesus, and do his good work, and lead them to the greater shepard. help him get the straying sheep, so to speak. and the good news will be a never ending cycle of good news as it spreads over the world. when jesus communed with us, when we commune with him, and we do his good work,we become part of his body. God wouldnt let Jesus die, and he wouldnt let his brothers die, the body of Christ.
ive always had a hard time using the word 'christ' even, cause of all the mainstream western christianity notions attached to it. but now that i have a better understanding and relationship, i like using the word 'christ'. just a little psycholgoical thing i have. ive always liked the word 'jesus'.

[dairygirl4u2c]

and it's not like 'legal atonment' is without its problems.
if we say something like 'christus victor' as making sense, then we can just poke holes at legal atonement. so he died at the hands of others, does that really count? why would he not engage in self defense (if you followed the legal atonement theory, even)? if he didn't need others to kill him to make the sacrifice legally ie he just was someoe who conquered death, then talking about sacrificing legally doesn't make much sense, it's just fluff. if we assumme passiivist, then the 'purpose' of his death no longer makes as much sense, we can't just brush it off as a legal atonement sacrifice, cause that's not need- we just say he was killed at the hands of evil, and he conqured it anyway.
i do agree with kat though, this subject can make your brain hurt.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this shows the people who killed jesus knew the wickedness of their deed, at least partially.

"The money that was cast into the temple was used by the chief priests to buy a potter’s field for the burial of strangers. That they would use the money for a charitable purpose indicates that they understood to a degree the evil nature of their deeds. The expression “potter’s field” indicates that the field had been used by potters to obtain their clay. Perhaps the good clay was exhausted and the land was put on the market by the owner or owners. This field became known by the people of Jerusalem as Hakeldama—“the field of blood” because it was purchased with blood money. Providentially its name stood as a testimony against the wicked deeds of Judas and the Sanhedrin. Some scholars believe that Acts 1:18 implies that the field derived its name because Judas committed suicide there with its bloody result. If this is the case then the expression “field of blood” would have a gruesome double meaning."

sometimes i 'feel' for the jews who had something against jesus, cause they'd say things like he was claiming to be God, which was a violation of the law, if he wasn't, which they'd say he wasn't. and, he wouldnt deny that he wasn't God. he even claimed to be a king in another kingdom not of this world, or at least to be part of that kingdom, when asked if he was the king of the jews or something.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]What do you mean, "If Orthodoxy is not true"?

So you found out that Orthodoxy really does teach that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3).

Heck, that's Christianity 101. The Lord died in our place.

The myth is that all Western Christians believe that God is "angry" and "bloodthirsty" because He found the way to satisfy both the requirements of justice and of love by the gift of His Son to us.

That perception is born of a misunderstanding of the essential unity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The mystery of the Cross, of God the Suffering Servant crucified for us, was and is the will of God, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It was not as if God the Father got mad and then God the Son jumped up and said, "It's okay, Dad, relax! I'll go and die in their places!"

Let's face it: we really do not fully understand how the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ secured our salvation.

We know that He died for us, that He was our substitute, our sacrificial lamb, our ransom. We know also that He
recapitulated the righteous obedience to the will of the Father that Adam, our first universal exemplar, should have lived.[/quote]

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

good discussion on atonement per eastern, and traditional chrisitanity
http://www.christianforums.com/t2400331-6/

[dairygirl4u2c]

awesome post
[quote]
[quote]Originally Posted by Maximus

Good questions indeed, if that was what we were saying.

But it's not.

We were not talking about "an appeasement of Godly wrath," we were talking about a multifaceted act of love springing from the communion of love among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an act that at once satisifes the requirements of God's eternal and immutable justice and His mercy.
Blessed Maximus,[/quote]

[b]The above is just semantics on your part. So the question is still valid. [/b]

Let's consider a couple of things here. First off the scripture quotes and various patristic sources. I'll use St. Paul for my example. We could quote Romans 3:25 and leave it at that, as many tend to do. But we then neglect Romans 6. [b]Paul talks about theosis here and later when he wars within himself. He also talks extensively about being grafted on, and uses the allegory of the body of Christ, etc. [/b]It is one thing to take an instance that has no explanation in scripture, and another to come up with a theory.

[b]The only form of substitutionary atonement that was embraced by some early Christians was that the debt paid was to the devil. It was not until the 11th century that penal atonement, or satisfaction theories began to emerge.[/b] That something had to have payment. Either God himself, honor, or some moral order.
[b]I am sorry, but these theories make many of Christ's parables irrelevant. Most parables deal with virtue, and others deal with forgiveness or the consequence of sin. The parable of the prodigal son makes no sense with any subsitutionary interpretation. The Father could not forgive the son unless someone, maybe his brother paid the debt to immutable justice. [/b]

[b]I stand by my suggestion that the atonement is the condescending of God towards man. That salvation is God sanctifying the flesh in all aspects, even death. That by participating in Christ's life and death, we have "salvation".[/b]

This participation is the root of sacramental theology, from baptism (Romans 6,) to communion. Concerning communion, the obvious question is why would one have to commune so intimately with the Lord in a substitutionary model. Most modern denominations now practice the obvious answer.

It is the incarnation and partaking of the life and death of Christ that saves. The sacraments, but also the death to one's self or will, the practice of humility. That by virtue and grace, we partake ultimately in the love of God, which is his being, according to St. John, and is the makeup of Christ, the author of faith.

The old testament for shadowing of sacrafice also alludes to this. The person would lay his hands on the animal to be sacrificed, in order to identify with the animal, as we identify with Christ. I understand that this can go both ways here, but the forshadoing was of the humility of Christ, his work. [b]His living life as man was intended, even though he suffered being in a sinful world, He through His faith, turned suffering into victory.[/b] That is the figure. The ransom. Likewise, the blood on the door was identification with God, a mark. Not a sacrafice in place of, but a mark of faith. Leviticus says, the life is in the blood. This is prophetic.

The atonement is the incarnation, the transforming or being the 1st born of many brethren. The purchase or ransom is His life, lived as a son of man, a sacrafice as I might sacrafice for my wife and children. A life united to God, a life of virtue, if anything given to the people. The cross is best summed up in the icon and the expression, extreme humility.

If you want I can dig up patristics, but this was passed to me directly. Plus, in the works of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil and many others, I have seen only confirmation of this teaching I have received. St. John does not bat an eye at Romans 3:25. Neither does the blessed Theophylact in similar instances. It is the perspective that determines one's understanding of these verses.[/quote]

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i also like how they are talking about "God's immutable justice" and then the other poster responding "is God bound by his own laws?". In romans 3, where Paul talks about satisfying God's justice,and other 'juridicial' 'wetern-y' sounding verses, even Paul says that God had been letting the sins of people, before Jesus, go unenforced- God is not bound by his own laws, when mercy is involved.

and the only justice God is exercising, is not the justice to 'kill in substitution for soemone else', but as Paul says, to justify those who live with Jesus, "he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. "

-------

could it be said, if one does not believe in the "God's justice and love are vindicated by a substitutionary placement of Jesus" that they would then need to go to another substitutionary theory, such as posted by that fellow Maximus, ie 'substitution that Jesus had to die in our place, so that we could live"?
it could easily be callled semantics arguing about how all substitutionary forms are really just 'justice', or it could be called not, depending on the view point. that later substitujtionary view, though, emphasizes that Jesus had to die to satisfy a justice for sin *to satisfy God's need for death of man* (even if it wasn't *to satisfy God's need for blood in that western legal juridictial sense*). perhaps, we should take Romans 3's indication, that Jesus wasn't meant to be a substitution at all (God was 'lettin it all slide' so there was no technical need for substittution, arguably)- that the only justice that was satisfied, as mentioned, is the justice of eternal life for those who theosis and rightly in communion with Jesus, as even st paul himself says.
(ya might call that a third form of substitution, but it starts getting stretching it, really hard to justify calling "Jesus conquering death and us eing saved by living with him" as being subsituttinary

(i still admit i dont know how sacrificing animals plays into it, if that was more man's acts to appease God, or something God actually erquired, or what -- we know the bible often talks about how God didn't really like those acts of sacrifice. my guess is the only extent to which he did, was because of the good faith and sincerity of the people who did it, if they had it. that's why Jesus said "go learn what it means when i say how i value right living way above burnt offerings etc'

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

could the emphasis be changed, from "God's need for the death of man" to "God's need for the life of man"? (especially given how even Paul says God had just been letting people off due to his mercy- and it's easy to show how Jesus conquered death, enabling everlasting life to his brothers
it harmonizes a whole lot more with how free will solidifies the relationship of God and man, when proactively chosen, and more strongly emphasises the interaction of God in the trinity, just as man is made in God's image.

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Th[quote]e fact that Christ died for our sins is not something that "plays a small role in justification." It is of central importance.[/quote]
When you quoted the Church Fathers it really seemed like you did so very selectively. Of the ones I have read, you pulled out certain passages, but these passages were not "central" to what the whole of the work was even saying. [b]Here I am thinking particularly of your quote of St. Athanasius. His whole work On the Incarnation of the Word is about Christ's victory over death, and theosis.[/b] [b][i]The passage you quoted did talk about Christ taking our place, but that was a necessary step in destroying the power of death[/i] and uniting Divine nature to human nature. It was an aspect of his scheme of salvation, but by no means is it the center of St. Athanasius' soteriology.[/b] It just seems like the way you are quoting the saints is heavily overemphasizing one aspect to the detriment of others.[/quote]

to the person who thinks Jesus died to appease God's jusice in a more juridicial sense of any substitionary view, "do you believe the debt to be to God (to His justice or His wrath) or to the grave?"
couldnt the debt be to the grave (and to the extent necessary, his 'justice' in this sense only), that we are mere creatures who of ourselves must die. God was letting people off, though, with his mercy. cold it be that to say "jesus died for our sins" meant only that he came to officially conquer death, properly, and start the beginning of a church of life?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

good attack on the legal saving-

[quote] St. Gregory is talking about God’s impassibility here, but he also says that God cannot come into conflict with himself, as the will of God can not be separated from His essence. Therefore there can’t existed any conflicting principles, such as justice (in the juridical sense) and mercy. The West typically defines justice as when someone “gets what they deserve.” God’s justice is a cosmic calculus which adds up sins and transgressions. This must be balanced by punishment. This is where Jesus comes in, He bore our punishment. He paid the debt, either to God himself (the classical Protestant view) or to God’s justice (which seems to be the RC view, although I know little about it).
Anyway, what I am trying to say is that Justice, in the punitive sense, cannot exist within God with mercy. For, as St Gregory points out, there can be no conflicting elements within God. Justice is when one gets what one deserves, mercy is when one does not get what one deserves. Mercy is a subversion of Justice.[/quote]
they also attack more catholic notions of justice, which is essentially what that fellow posting likes to talk about, maximum. not a legal juridicial sense, but a sense of justice to God's desire for man's death, and how the east doesn't like that too much, either.
when that emphasis changes, which is clearly present in teh CC, that changes the whole focus of a lot of things. and in my mind, gives a lot more optimism and hope to the gospel, especially when one thinks of it all in the traditional "Great news" undrestanding, that jesus conquered death.

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Here is why you really need to define your terms. Do me a huge favor, and if you respond to nothing else in my post, define what you mean by substitutionary atonement and God’s justice.

With substitutionary atonement, do you think of Jesus as taking God’s wrath, the punishments from God that would have otherwise been visited upon men? Did God kill Jesus because He would have otherwise been compelled to kill men (and not only kill them, but beaver dam them)? Was the price you referred to in I Corinthians paid to the Devil (or to Death) or to God? This makes all the difference.[/quote]

i like how the guy i root for more in that debate in that link, is going the same route i was going, "are we satisfying God's wrate that he must kill man or let him die forever?"

is our debt to God for not letting us die with infinite mercy ie immutable mercy (a better approach than 'immutable justice'), and that God formally and properly oblished death by conquering it?

Edited October 15, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

even tho the guy i rooted for in the debate left without a slam dunk finale of a rebuttal, i like how the one poster got the nail on the head pretty well at the end...

[quote](PS: if you think of Justice as "all humans should be with God" rather than "all sin must be punished or payed for" then it might be easier to distinguish Orthodox theology from Western. Compare the two meanings of Justice: "Christ died on the Cross to restore the Justice")[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

i like the distinctions, cause of what's going on....

'god must be just. god must be merciful. this is why jesus died, to reconcile both' this is trying to estabish that God has conflicting nature.
the other approach says simply 'God is bound to be merciful despite the wages of sin being death', and doesn't spin it off as a conflict needing a blood in a more substitutionary sense, to fix. there's no conflict-- God is meriful.