God does not need anything. This was something that was set by God. Do you not remember that God himself asked the people in the old testament to offer sacrifices on behalf of their sins? A sacrifice had to be offered--this was again what God asked.
Oh yes, this is a wonderfull question ;) I need to get back to class, but i'll get back to this later.
Ok, I'm back. Now let's look at the Old Testament sacrafice issue. At the first sight it might seem as if these sacrifices were a substitution, to die instead of the sinner. But when we look more closely, we'll find out that this is not quite so.
No sacrifices were accepted in atonement for sins meriting death (Numbers 15:30)[but only for unintentional sins, Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27] It makes no sense to believe that unintentional sins could be forgiven through a penal substitution, while the intentional sins could not, that would be inconsistency and injustice. The sinner offered a sacrifice in order to be purified from his sin, because sin is like a sickness that causes death and the life of the animal is in it's blood. By sprinkling the blood the sinner was purifieddddd from his sin.
Therefore all these sacrifices were a type of Christ, God's greatest gift to us. He offered himself to us by giving his life, so that we may be revived. It's not a sacrifice to please God's wrath of sin, but rather it's God giving us His life.
Sin is not something that affects the ego of God or something like that:
If thou sinnest, what doest thou against him? or if thy transgressions be multiplied, what doest thou unto him? If thou be righteous, what givest thou him? or what receiveth he of thine hand? Thy wickedness may hurt a man as thou art; and thy righteousness may profit the son of man. (Job 35:5-8)
Rather death is the fruit of sin:
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:13-17)
And because we all sinfull and in a fallen state, we are in need of a saviour, not to die instead of us, but to die for us and with us so that we may be resurrected and glorified with Him.
[quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=6719.msg90219#msg90219 date=1213185179] lol, no comment :-X I'm not saying someone is wrong or right, I simply state what I believe is true coming from the bible, the church fathers and logic.
OK - Matt... so therefore If I say "Christ died to satisfy the Divine Justice" would that be Orthodox ? Would that be biblically correct??
You'd have to ask that question to someone who is more learned than me ;) What I know is that nowhere in the divine liturgy or the psalmody or agpeya prayers (not even on great friday) we ever say that Christ died to satisfy Divine Justice. As for the bible and patristics, i'm by far not knowledgeable enough to answer: therefore I go with orthodox sources from people who do have this knowledge. But apperently not all agree on this specific subject.
So many people call their kids Iqbal?? Was he a saint or something in the CHurch?
OK Iqbal, Look - what's the idea behind Divine Justice? Apparently, its from Anslem and Anslem was a heretic. The Greek Orthodox do NOT recognise Divine Justice. Orthodox11 is not a happy camper with H.H's explanation as to why Christ died: "To satisfy the Divine Justice".
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg90234#msg90234 date=1213194377]You're all complaining about me wanting to sing a simple song in Church, and yet our bishops and senior bishops and head bishops are apparently teaching incorrect doctrine. Eh da!! That's not fair...
This is why I object to the idea of unrestricted Orthodox internet forums. They invite unbridled laity to a) reduce profound theological subjects to triviality as they are foolishly discussed light-heartedly and in the absence of any serious education, research, experience or spiritual preparation, and b) arrogantly assert themselves as authorities on Orthodoxy even to the point of rashly and carelessly condemning venerable heirarchs.
OK Iqbal, instead of cursing at the darkness, light a candle.
This subject started very profoundly, and we were just having a small chat between Joe and I. THat's all. Feel free Iqbal to enlighten us about this subject. Please
Now.. I didnt condemn anyone. I said if Anslem is a heretic in our Church for his teachings,then surely that would render those that preach his teachings as heretical?? I never condemned them? Is Anslem's view heretical in our CHurch? That's all we wish to know.
But the Greek Orthodox Church DO NOT subscribe to the dogma of "Divine Justice" as to why Christ came to die for us (i.e. to satisfy God's justice).
So, where do we stand? Is Anslem NOT a heretic? Have we misunderstood Divine Justice??
The comments between Joe and Myself should have been taken offline. I am sorry about that.
But, I just want to say that we all have a right to learn. If its not on here, then there would be other forums created where we could post our thoughts and ideas, and ASK questions to learn.
You are right, there IS seriousness in this subject. If u look closely, it was completely serious. I was ONLY joking with Joe simply because to make it light hearted BECAUSE it was getting TOO serious. We were literally shouting at each other. (just read the posts)
There is a need to address this issue as its fundamental Christian belief.
Divine Justice is apparently from Anslem who suggested that the weight of the punishment is proportional to the person being sinned against. This is the SAME wording as what our Bishops use to explain the reason for Christ's dying. To repay/satisfy the Divine Justice.
Now, this subject is serious, and we all wish to be put at ease. It would truly be an act of mercy from your side to just explain why the Coptic Church is using dogma from the Catholic Church to explain this, when the Greek Orthodox Church have absolutely NOTHING to do with "Divine Justice". They distance themselves from this.
Again, I am in no way condemning our Bishops, but be VERY careful here Iqbal... if we do not agree with them, we are the ones they condemn and ex-communicate. Never vice-versa.
I wish to hear the truth.
I PERSONALLY (my own agenda for asking that is) wish one SMALL thing: What WAS our doctrine before H.H Pope Shenouda talked about Divine Justice?? This topic of Divine Justice cannot be found anywhere in any of the patristic writings (as far as I can see, and I would LOVE to be corrected, and know that this is just a bad dream).
I definately resent the comment: (which is totally judgemental, and un-called for).
in the absence of any serious education, research, experience
(that's basically saying, we have NO right to read about a subject, and whatever we read, we are too stupid to learn from).
We know that Anslem is a heretic. We know what he talked about. We see that our bishops are preaching the SAME as them, so any simple minded layman would come to the conclusion that either our Church has adopted medievil Catholic dogmas, or our CHurch is still ORthodox, and those preaching Catholic Dogmas are in error. One or the other. Furthermore, what makes this subject all the more interesting is that the Greek Orthodox Church reject VEHMENTLY the dogma of Divine Justice. Therefore, trying to understand the truth is important.
God is for everyone to get to know - not just those who are priviledged enough to have studied theology. NO ONE (EVEN I) have drawn up ANY conclusions. We've just spoken of research in this subject. We've presented it. We are waiting for someone more experienced to either solidify our presumptions, or correct our research. Its that simple.
OK Iqbal, instead of cursing at the darkness, light a candle.
The problem is that it's as windy as it is dark.
I said if Anslem is a heretic in our Church for his teachings,then surely that would render those that preach his teachings as heretical??
This comment, as with similar comments made to the same effect, is quite telling. Since when has Anselm been given any particular attention by our Church, positive or negative? I’m sorry, but throughout my study of the history of the Orthodox Church I have not so much as have even read or heard of the name of Anselm being raised by any Synod, Pope, Bishop or Saint in any particular context. Anselm was a Roman Catholic theologian and Archbishop of the twelfth century. Our Church is not the Roman Catholic Church; it is the Orthodox Church, which had, by Anselm’s day, cut communion from the West for almost seven centuries.
Is Anslem's view heretical in our CHurch? That's all we wish to know.
The implication of my above comments should be clear: the Church does not have a view on him or his teachings because he is a “nobody” as far as the Church is concerned.
As far as the question of whether his views on redemption are compatible with the Faith of the Church is concerned, I cannot answer this because I would not presume to know what Anselm’s views were without first reading a substantial amount of his primary works and at least a few relevant and reputable scholarly commentaries and analyses. Given that life is short, I think I’d prefer to spend my time studying what the Orthodox view is on its own terms. Why should I expend any time studying a figure who has not earned any serious attention from the Church?
You obviously think you know quite a bit about Anselm, or at least enough to throw the heretic label at him. I'm presuming then that you've done some thorough research on the subject. Under whose direction did you study Anselm? Which of his primary works have you finished reading? What kind of scholarship have you engaged with?
But the Greek Orthodox Church DO NOT subscribe to the dogma of "Divine Justice" as to why Christ came to die for us (i.e. to satisfy God's justice).
Why the views of the Greek Church are relevant in any sense to the ascertainment of the Orthodox view on a Coptic forum is beyond me. In any event...I don’t think the Greek Church has dogmatised any particular understanding of Christ’s redemptive works and there are not less than a good few Greek Orthodox Christians, including clergy, who have positively upheld some model of "divine justice". Furthermore, most Eastern Orthodox proponents of an anti-Divine-Justice view seem to be motivated by a general reactionary anti-Western impulse which no doubt distorts their perception of things.
In any event, we are not Greek and your consistent invocation of what the Greeks do or do not believe makes no sense to me. Greeks also like to dance to the sounds of the bouzouki. So what? What's your point?
that's basically saying, we have NO right to read about a subject, and whatever we read, we are too stupid to learn from
It basically says what it says, and it basically does not say what it does not say. What it says is that your views are obviously not based on any serious education, research, or experience. It doesn’t say anything else.
God is for everyone to get to know - not just those who are priviledged enough to have studied theology.
1. Theology is not for everyone. Don’t like it? Take it up with none other than St Gregory the Theologian; his idea, not mine. 2. Theology is not a privilege. It’s a responsibility; a burden. 3. Nothing wrong with the pursuit to know (even in the loose, abstract sense, which has as its end knowledge in the more substantial, personal sense) God. There is something wrong with your approach and attitude to it. For one, you are evidently not at all well-read on the matters in question (which is a problem only because-->), yet you seem quite inclined to presume what is and what is not heretical and Orthodox and what the Church Fathers have and have not taught. In making such presumptions you seem easily swayed by polemics outside of the Church (and have some unhealthy and strange obsession with what the Greek Church does and does not teach), and seem easily inclined to undermine those who actually ARE Orthodox authorities as far as we are concerned.
I wish to hear the truth.
There was a nice song released in the 90’s called More Than Words.
I am not adverse to discussing this subject with the right people in the right context. You are not the right person, and this discussion forum is not the right context. Lest anyone think this is a cop-out let me just show you one example which speaks volumes as to the kind of silliness I just refuse to engage with. Here’s a short summary of your exchange with Joseph as to St Athanasius’ take on Divine Justice.
1. Joseph presents the authoritative summary of HG Bishop Moussa on St Athanasius. 2. Your response: "Sorry Joe, but this IS from Anslem!!"
[sarcasm]Hmm, yes this certainly sounds like an honest inquirer of the truth.[/sarcasm]
Ok, let's keep going, it gets worse:
3. Joseph reinforces the fact that HG Moussa’s view was based on St Athanasius. 4. Your response: “Wait a sec. Get ANY Greek ORthodox priest/bishop here and let them read the quote from ANba Moussa.”
Huh? Are you serious? Let's continue:
5. Joseph gets tired of your cop-outs and finally quotes St Athanasius AT LENGTH: 6. Your response: “Look, nothing you mentioned or quoted from Saint Athanasious talks about Divine Justice. OK? Get a grips man! Lol”
Ummm…Okay….Did you just happen to skip the following parts (which were bolded, mind you) of the quoted excerpts from St Athanasius’ work or do you need a Greek bishop to read for you what our Coptic patriarch said?
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Hey, Vass, what's that thing that tells us that we cannot evade the law? Is it...is it...Justice? JUSTICE? Could it be?!
And:
10. It was…out of the question to leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly, and unworthy of God's goodness. But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death… 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God. For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the grasp of death.
What's that Vass? Is St Athanasius saying that God couldn't just forgive man for his sin because that would be opposed to His just claim? His JUST claim?! As in a claim that is Just?
And:
2. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all.
It's necessary for the debt to be paid, Vass? Why? You mean because justice demands that debts be paid? Because if there is a debt and it goes unpaid that would be contrary to justice, Vass?
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90166#msg90166 date=1213149726] So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=6719.msg90291#msg90291 date=1213213429] [quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90166#msg90166 date=1213149726] So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
I have a view on this: death is indeed a punishment instituted by God, why??? because it's just that when man breaks the law that he gets punished. God did not force this punishment upon man, it was man who sinned and thus chose the punishment. So when Jesus died on the cross, he payed the debt, he carried our punishment, not saving us from Himself, but rather saving us from ourselves, for it was our choice which caused this punishment to be upon us. So God didn't save us from Himself, but rather He saved us from the just punishment we deserve for our sins..
when i read the text from st Athanasious, I used a Greek Orthodox commentary. Everything you said, you interpreted it to mean that there was a debt and justice HAD TO BE PAID TO GOD. THe commentary I was reading from didn't take that point of view. It did undertand that we were in debt, but this was metaphorically speaking.
I was reading a few articles from Fr. Kallistos Ware - his interpretation of what you just interpreted is quite different.
I agree St Anselm is a nobody, but why then does our Church follow his ideology and not that of say.. the Greeks that are closer??
I think Iqbal, with all due respect, and I mean this: I think really I should give u the links I found that explains all this. I admit, my reading is from Greek Orthodox sites (That's true), but it really does question the idea of Divine Justice and in fact it literally attacks it USING the same verses you have used to defend it, except that they interpret it differently.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=6719.msg90291#msg90291 date=1213213429] [quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90166#msg90166 date=1213149726] So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
God didn't really permit death, but He permitted man to have free will, the choice was between God and the absence of God, the absence of life, death. Man chose death by choosing to go against God, the punishment of being away from God is being dead, since you're far from the Life.
Orthodox11, do you agree with the reference I've given from His Holiness Pope SHenouda? That Christ's sacrifice was paid to the Divine Justice??? Do u agree with that??
Now, I know Anselm etc added words like "To appease God's wrath etc" and I admit, we do not really say that.. (just to be fair), but we do say it was to pay off our debts (as Copts).
Does your Church agree with any of this.
Its just.. the more I read about this (from commentaries) - the more I see that this idea of Divine Justice is new in our Church, and was mis-interpreted.
Secondly (to iqbal): ------------------- Each one of us has a duty to "Preach God's Death & resurrection and Ascension" We all have to say the Creed "I truly believe in One God.." Surely we should have a good level knowledge about what we will preach, and what we believe in, otherwise it will just be parrots. You don't want us to be like parrots Iqbal - do u?
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=6719.msg90291#msg90291 date=1213213429] When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits...
False dichotomy.
salvation essentially becomes salvation from God.God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand
There's a specific term describing the fallacy committed here which I can't quite recall...in any event, it's not at all difficult to express the problem with your logic. God passed the sentence of death, yes, but that sentence would never have been passed had man not sinned. The sentence is not the problem then, it is simply the consequence of the problem. We were not being saved from the sentence, we were being saved from the problem that gave rise to it. St Athanasius explains that God nevertheless had to somehow fulfill the sentence He passed for the sake of His Justice and Truth.
"Behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness." - St Cyril of Jerusalem
This is what QT wrote: So, God paid Himself back with a reward/compensation to satisfy His own Divine Justice? Yes?? He wanted compensation for our sins??"
I think you do not fully understand the situation. God is not appeasing himself when He sent Christ to save us. He did it because He loved us and wanted to show his love to us by sending His Only-Begotten Son. It was not for God's sake but for OUR sake. Second, you need to get your facts straight buddy...find out WHY he was excommunicated before stating claims...
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg90293#msg90293 date=1213214181]when i read the text from st Athanasious, I used a Greek Orthodox commentary.
Do you like to use Olive Oil alot and break plates as you celebrate, as well?
What was the name of this commentary, Vass? I'd like to read it.
I was reading a few articles from Fr. Kallistos Ware - his interpretation of what you just interpreted is quite different.
I didn't know Bishop Kallistos Ware was demoted. Where are these articles from Fr. Kallistos--please show me.
Really Vass, open your eyes, you have common sense don't you? You can read for yourself, can't you? Maybe all those verses we pasted were too much for you. Let's go one at a time shall we. We'll start with this one:
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
A. God? B. God? or C. God?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
A. Legal B. Legal or C. Legal
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law:
[sarcasm] well, its great to have u back Iqbal. You've haven't changed a bit. The same old polite and charming young man[/sarcasm]
Yes, I didn't take time off nor spend much money on studying theology like yourself Iqbal.. I didnt have that luxury. I just come from a simple family that taught me that God loves me, and I should obey His commandments.
I guess, I have to depend on sunday school teachers and abouna for assistance on developing my understanding. THere was a teacher that taught us that Christ's death was paid to the Devil. Then this was repeated AGAIN in France - by another guy...
Why did I start to read Greek Orthodox literature? Its the most freely available on the web, and its the closest we have to our own doctrine. So, I trust it more. I'm sure you're a smart guy Iqbal, and U can see how that's just common sense to make the most of what we have... yes??
Iqbal, I'm glad u are here to add to the discussion. Its great, as you and Orthodox11 are the only 2 I know here that studied theology at great lengths.
I'm glad to be corrected if that is the case, but I'm EAGER to see Orthodox11's response as I know that from reading articles by the Greek Orthodox Church that they really attack the notion of Divine Justice.
Like I said, I couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I'm just interested in the truth. (and not your particular brand of the truth). I think I have to be open minded. You know what I mean Iqbal??
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=6719.msg90304#msg90304 date=1213215436] [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg90293#msg90293 date=1213214181]when i read the text from st Athanasious, I used a Greek Orthodox commentary.
Do you like to use Olive Oil alot and break plates as you celebrate, as well?
What was the name of this commentary, Vass? I'd like to read it.
I was reading a few articles from Fr. Kallistos Ware - his interpretation of what you just interpreted is quite different.
I didn't know Bishop Kallistos Ware was demoted. Where are these articles from Fr. Kallistos--please show me.
Really Vass, open your eyes, you have common sense don't you? You can read for yourself, can't you? Maybe all those verses we pasted were too much for you. Let's go one at a time shall we. We'll start with this one:
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
A. God? B. God? or C. God?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
A. Legal B. Legal or C. Legal
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law:
A. Justice B. The fairies in our head. C. Justice
^I gave you some wiggle room on this one.
You can read also Iqbal.. that's your interpretation. Its like the Arians coming to the conclusion that if Christ is the Son of God, He must have been born AFTER God.
Like I said to Joe: that's YOUR interpretation of it. I know what the words say, but you should honestly read around this. Apparently, our Eastern Orthodox Brothers do NOT share the view that Christ had to die to satisfy the Divine Justice. That's just not on.
I tired long ago from this discussion. So all sarcasm and jokes aside, I have one question:
Is the atonement theory we follow the satisfaction, substitution, ransom, penal, substitutionary, governmental or moral influenced based? Or is it a conglomerate mixture?
And when thats answered we can just finish this topic there.
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90320#msg90320 date=1213218521] Honestly, it does not matter whether he thinks its heretical or not because this is what the church teaches and this is what we believe!
God bless Tony
Im with you Tony, and to add to is: Orthodox11 is free to write whatever he wants. All I'm after is the COC view on the matter of Divine Justice and Atonement. If Iqbal could find some time, I would be most grateful in ending this long topic and reach an adequate answer.
I just come from a simple family that taught me that God loves me, and I should obey His commandments.
That’s nice, really. But I only made a point of your lack of research and education on the matter to emphasise that you have no credibility to judge anyone, let alone the God-appointed bishops of the Orthodox Church, in terms of heresy vs. Orthodoxy.
Why did I start to read Greek Orthodox literature? Its the most freely available on the web, and its the closest we have to our own doctrine.
You know what’s even closer to our own doctrine? Believe it or not, but it’s: our own doctrine. You can begin with H.G. Bishop Moussa, whose works are abundantly available both online and offline.
I'm just interested in the truth
If that were truly the case you wouldn’t even need to say it, it would be obvious from your conduct.
You can read also Iqbal.. that's your interpretation. Its like the Arians coming to the conclusion that if Christ is the Son of God, He must have been born AFTER God.
Are you for real? Honestly....This is one of the lamest forms of a cop-out I have ever seen in my life. You know what Vass, if you really sought the truth you would address the very simple and plain reading that has been given to you THREE times now. Yes, when I read St Athanasius saying “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God” I take that to mean “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God”. Why should I depart from HIS OWN terms and twist them to mean anything else?
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. If you truly sought the truth then you would accept that in the absence of any compelling factors to suggest otherwise, St Athanasius, our honorable Coptic Pope, means what he actually says and that our Coptic Bishops are hence right on the mark. Instead, you insist on being recalcitrant and you attempt to disguise that recalcitrance under rubbish arguments like the one above.
Arians are wrong about their interpretation of what Christ meant when He referred to Himself as the Son of God because there are compelling factors to suggest that Christ also believed Himself to be eternal and hence could not possibly have meant "Son" in the Arian sense.
What compelling factors do you have to offer to suggest that St Athanasius did not mean what he said when he said that “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God.”?
Apparently, our Eastern Orthodox Brothers do NOT share the view that Christ had to die to satisfy the Divine Justice.
Apparently, we are not Eastern Orthodox Christians. Apparently, St Athanasius believed that Christ had to die to satisfy Divine Justice, and apparently the Church has chosen to follow St Athanasius. Again, I ask you:
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law?
[quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=6719.msg90328#msg90328 date=1213219429] Iqbal is yet to state our COC's beliefs on this subject Vas - how then can you ask if he has made a satisfying response?
As far as i'm concerned, our beliefs on this are perfectly summed up by St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, and we need not go further than this. St Cyril of Jerusalem shares the same viewpoint as St Athanasius on this matter and sums up nicely when he says in his Catechetical Lectures:
"For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness."
The Coptic Church's view is thus balanced. Christ came to remit sin, fulfill divine justice, transform and heal human nature, etc. etc. We do not narrow ourselves to one model and reject another. There is no contradiction between God's Love and His fulfillment of His sentence--it is not a contradiction, but rather, in the words of the great St Cyril, it is "the wisdom of God."
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=6719.msg90346#msg90346 date=1213220921] That’s nice, really. But I only made a point of your lack of research and education on the matter to emphasise that you have no credibility to judge anyone, let alone the God-appointed bishops of the Orthodox Church, in terms of heresy vs. Orthodoxy.
There's always going to be a lack - the more I read, the more I find myself lacking. I did NOT expect to read stuff that contradicts with what our Bishops are saying (especially using quotes and sources from the Orthodox Fathers).
You know what’s even closer to our own doctrine? Believe it or not, but it’s: our own doctrine. You can begin with H.G. Bishop Moussa, whose works are abundantly available both online and offline.
That's the point Iqbal.. what is OURS? and what has been put into our doctrine is what I'm interested in. Unfortunately, there are teachers in our Church that are not "OK" with Divine Justice... OK?? I sent u an email trying to bring that to your attention. You didnt answer. Nevermind. After reading around the subject myself in the hope of trying to answer them, I couldnt help but see that not only did they have a point, but I discovered at THAT moment that even the Greeks were against the notion of Divine Justice.
If that were truly the case you wouldn’t even need to say it, it would be obvious from your conduct.
I don't know what to say. On the one hand, yes.. on the other, i admit, if I took the sarcasm out of my comments when I started you'd have seen that I was interested in history of all this. I don't have access to that information. I'm sorry... i just don't. I was interested in knowing at what point did we start talking about Divine Justice in our Church. Its not ONCE mentioned in any of the homalies in the passion week, nor in the kholagy, NOR in the tasbeha...
Are you for real? Honestly....This is one of the lamest forms of a cop-out I have ever seen in my life. You know what Vass, if you really sought the truth you would address the very simple and plain reading that has been given to you THREE times now. Yes, when I read St Athanasius saying “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God” I take that to mean “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God”. Why should I depart from HIS OWN terms and twist them to mean anything else?
Wait a sec. I'm not defending nor attacking Divine Justice. I'm presenting the fact that others in the EO (well..the entire EO) is against Divine Justice.. why don't I just give u the links to this literature??? I mean, its EVERYWHERE... they attack the dogma of Divine Justice just as we attack heretical views such as those from Arious and Nestorian.
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.
Thanks. That was very interesting, really. But then why don't u apply that to St. Athanasious? Where does he use the term "Divine Justice". Where?? Are we in debt to God? Yes Was there enmity between us and God ? yes. Does this mean that Christ's death was to satisfy the Divine Justice??
If you truly sought the truth then you would accept that in the absence of any compelling factors to suggest otherwise,
Well.. now I do agree. But as I said, if i give you the links on this literature, would u understand where I was coming from? Like I said Iqbal.. I ended up reading this - NOT BECAUSE i enjoy it (although it did turn out to be interesting) but it was to answer someone who was deeply against Divine Justice. Whilst trying to answer him, I couldnt help but come to the conclusion that he's right. lol - now.. it doesnt bother me either way.. U see how I am interested in the truth?? I am... believe it or not.
Look - Iqbal.. you're a smart fellow. I don't have access to such books that I need.. I wouldnt know where to start. Please - do me ONE SMALL FAVOUR and I'll close this topic:
* Tell me when did the CoC start talking about Divine Justice??
St Athanasius, our honorable Coptic Pope, means what he actually says and that our Coptic Bishops are hence right on the mark. Instead, you insist on being recalcitrant and you attempt to disguise that recalcitrance under rubbish arguments like the one above.
Iqbal.. ok.. look, can we just focus on the problem than me? If u are educated and learned why not just explain. Why waste your energy in attacking me for? Don't judge me Iqbal.
Arians are wrong about their interpretation of what Christ meant when He referred to Himself as the Son of God because there are compelling factors to suggest that Christ also believed Himself to be eternal and hence could not possibly have meant "Son" in the Arian sense.
Well.. that was just an example.
What compelling factors do you have to offer to suggest that St Athanasius did not mean what he said when he said that “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God.”?
Now, that's SMART! That's a good thing to say. Its constructive, its intelligent, and it focuses on the issue. .... lol.. i'll send u the links??
Iqbal.. please do not tell me u didn't know the entire Greek Orthodox Church are against Divine Justice being used as a reason for Christ's death?? OK.. u are right... I'll send u a few links. But to make my experience on tasbeha.org meaningful, please do be careful when u attack me, its very hurtful. Im SURE u don't mean to be, but... i don't know if u realise but u seem to kill me 1st and then ask questions later.
Apparently, we are not Eastern Orthodox Christians. Apparently, St Athanasius believed that Christ had to die to satisfy Divine Justice, and apparently the Church has chosen to follow St Athanasius.
That's how it looks to you. I wish that was the case. Its just... i cannot help feel that there could be a mis-interpretation into what St Athanasious has said. Now, I've posted the argument of St Issac the Syrian, who does not agree with Divine Justice (as far as I can see) - I quoted him.
How is it ONE CoC father can give the impression that Divine Justice is the reason and another just be against it??
OK.. look. We'll end up attacking each other unless I post the links. I don't want this to be an argument between u and me, but rather put the information on the table and just throw what's not right away.
You are testing my patience the more you miss the point and continue to go on and on without a clue of what you are talking about. Let's get a few things straight:
1) Eastern Orthodoxy and "Divine Justice."
From my very first response I have given you a very clear message on this matter: the Oriental Orthodox Church is not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do not confuse the two. Please get the hint already. What the Greeks, or the Russians, or anyone other non-OO Church says on any matter of doctrine, is of no relevance to us; got it? If they disagree, good for them. It is their problem. I do not mean to shock or surprise you when I say: the views of the OO Church are not affected by the views of non-OO Churches.
So, I don't want to hear you ramble on about what this or that Church believes, OKAY? Your representations of the Greek Church are not even accurate to begin with. I didn't want to dwell on that point because defining the Orthodox view of redemption should not, for us, take any consideration of anything outside of our Church and beyond our authorities. But just so you are aware of your own ignorance I am going to make some brief comments on the matter. As I suggested in my first response, the EO communion has not taken any sort of dogmatic position on redemption. When you ask:
Iqbal.. please do not tell me u didn't know the entire Greek Orthodox Church are against Divine Justice being used as a reason for Christ's death??
I have to respond with: rubbish. "The entire Greek Orthodox Church"? What is the basis of this assertion? The results of a google search? Hate to break it to you Vass, but I studied theology under the direction of the Greek Archbishop of Australia, Archbishop Stylianos, and in his course notes he explicitly mentions Anselm and he criticises solely on the basis that his 'Why God became Man?' only covers one part of the truth. In other words, the Archbishop was quite happy with his Divine Justice theory, he simply felt that his work was deficient in that it did not account for other important models of redemption as well.
Furthermore, Bishop (not Fr.) Kallistos Ware who you referred to earlier never rejected the model of redemption in question, but in fact, quite conversely argued that no one model of redemption was superior to any other and that they all complement each other.
There are not a few Eastern Orthodox writers who have attempted to defend the concept of Divine Justice against the rising movement against it. One such author is Vladimir Moss who wrote a 100 page treatise which, inter alia, defends the idea of Divine Justice. It can be read here: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf
Thanks. That was very interesting, really. But then why don't u apply that to St. Athanasious? Where does he use the term "Divine Justice". Where??
Where does Jesus say, "I am God"? Where??
One does not need to be explicit to be clear, plain, and obvious. It is PLAIN and CLEAR what St Athanasius meant. Unless you can raise factors for consideration which suggest that something other than the plain and clear meaning of his words was intended, the plain and clear meaning stands REGARDLESS OF WHO DISAGREES.
If you want to be so simplistic so as to look for explicit indications of "justice" well we have already shown you a text where St Athanasius refers to the JUST claim of God:
"But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God."
Here St Athanasius is explaining why God couldn't just forgive us by accepting our repentance: because repentence, without fulfillment of the sentence incurred by the sin, would fail to guard the JUST CLAIM of God. Do you know the word JUST Vass? It's the adjective form of the noun JUSTICE.
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=6719.msg90350#msg90350 date=1213222338] [quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=6719.msg90328#msg90328 date=1213219429] Iqbal is yet to state our COC's beliefs on this subject Vas - how then can you ask if he has made a satisfying response?
As far as i'm concerned, our beliefs on this are perfectly summed up by St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, and we need not go further than this. St Cyril of Jerusalem shares the same viewpoint as St Athanasius on this matter and sums up nicely when he says in his Catechetical Lectures:
"For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness."
The Coptic Church's view is thus balanced. Christ came to remit sin, fulfill divine justice, transform and heal human nature, etc. etc. We do not narrow ourselves to one model and reject another. There is no contradiction between God's Love and His fulfillment of His sentence--it is not a contradiction, but rather, in the words of the great St Cyril, it is "the wisdom of God."
Thanks Iqbal, so it seems that the answer to the question was summed up pretty much by St. Athanaius' "On the Incarnation". I posted it because I thought logically it would have to provide some answers to the discussion, but as I only went through about half of it, I was unsure at the conclusions I had drawn for myself. Thanks for the clarity (and the St. Cyril quote to consolidate it).
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
Comments
I need to get back to class, but i'll get back to this later.
Ok, I'm back. Now let's look at the Old Testament sacrafice issue.
At the first sight it might seem as if these sacrifices were a substitution, to die instead of the sinner. But when we look more closely, we'll find out that this is not quite so.
No sacrifices were accepted in atonement for sins meriting death (Numbers 15:30)[but only for unintentional sins, Lev 4:2, 13, 22, 27]
It makes no sense to believe that unintentional sins could be forgiven through a penal substitution, while the intentional sins could not, that would be inconsistency and injustice. The sinner offered a sacrifice in order to be purified from his sin, because sin is like a sickness that causes death and the life of the animal is in it's blood. By sprinkling the blood the sinner was purifieddddd from his sin.
Therefore all these sacrifices were a type of Christ, God's greatest gift to us. He offered himself to us by giving his life, so that we may be revived. It's not a sacrifice to please God's wrath of sin, but rather it's God giving us His life.
Sin is not something that affects the ego of God or something like that: Rather death is the fruit of sin: And because we all sinfull and in a fallen state, we are in need of a saviour, not to die instead of us, but to die for us and with us so that we may be resurrected and glorified with Him.
lol, no comment :-X
I'm not saying someone is wrong or right, I simply state what I believe is true coming from the bible, the church fathers and logic.
OK - Matt... so therefore If I say "Christ died to satisfy the Divine Justice" would that be Orthodox ? Would that be biblically correct??
What I know is that nowhere in the divine liturgy or the psalmody or agpeya prayers (not even on great friday) we ever say that Christ died to satisfy Divine Justice. As for the bible and patristics, i'm by far not knowledgeable enough to answer: therefore I go with orthodox sources from people who do have this knowledge. But apperently not all agree on this specific subject.
OK Iqbal, Look - what's the idea behind Divine Justice? Apparently, its from Anslem and Anslem was a heretic. The Greek Orthodox do NOT recognise Divine Justice. Orthodox11 is not a happy camper with H.H's explanation as to why Christ died: "To satisfy the Divine Justice".
Where do we stand with this?
This is why I object to the idea of unrestricted Orthodox internet forums. They invite unbridled laity to a) reduce profound theological subjects to triviality as they are foolishly discussed light-heartedly and in the absence of any serious education, research, experience or spiritual preparation, and b) arrogantly assert themselves as authorities on Orthodoxy even to the point of rashly and carelessly condemning venerable heirarchs.
It's shameful.
This subject started very profoundly, and we were just having a small chat between Joe and I. THat's all. Feel free Iqbal to enlighten us about this subject. Please
Now.. I didnt condemn anyone. I said if Anslem is a heretic in our Church for his teachings,then surely that would render those that preach his teachings as heretical?? I never condemned them? Is Anslem's view heretical in our CHurch? That's all we wish to know.
But the Greek Orthodox Church DO NOT subscribe to the dogma of "Divine Justice" as to why Christ came to die for us (i.e. to satisfy God's justice).
So, where do we stand? Is Anslem NOT a heretic?
Have we misunderstood Divine Justice??
The comments between Joe and Myself should have been taken offline. I am sorry about that.
But, I just want to say that we all have a right to learn. If its not on here, then there would be other forums created where we could post our thoughts and ideas, and ASK questions to learn.
You are right, there IS seriousness in this subject. If u look closely, it was completely serious. I was ONLY joking with Joe simply because to make it light hearted BECAUSE it was getting TOO serious. We were literally shouting at each other. (just read the posts)
There is a need to address this issue as its fundamental Christian belief.
Divine Justice is apparently from Anslem who suggested that the weight of the punishment is proportional to the person being sinned against. This is the SAME wording as what our Bishops use to explain the reason for Christ's dying. To repay/satisfy the Divine Justice.
Now, this subject is serious, and we all wish to be put at ease. It would truly be an act of mercy from your side to just explain why the Coptic Church is using dogma from the Catholic Church to explain this, when the Greek Orthodox Church have absolutely NOTHING to do with "Divine Justice". They distance themselves from this.
Again, I am in no way condemning our Bishops, but be VERY careful here Iqbal... if we do not agree with them, we are the ones they condemn and ex-communicate. Never vice-versa.
I wish to hear the truth.
I PERSONALLY (my own agenda for asking that is) wish one SMALL thing: What WAS our doctrine before H.H Pope Shenouda talked about Divine Justice?? This topic of Divine Justice cannot be found anywhere in any of the patristic writings (as far as I can see, and I would LOVE to be corrected, and know that this is just a bad dream).
I definately resent the comment: (which is totally judgemental, and un-called for). (that's basically saying, we have NO right to read about a subject, and whatever we read, we are too stupid to learn from).
We know that Anslem is a heretic. We know what he talked about. We see that our bishops are preaching the SAME as them, so any simple minded layman would come to the conclusion that either our Church has adopted medievil Catholic dogmas, or our CHurch is still ORthodox, and those preaching Catholic Dogmas are in error. One or the other. Furthermore, what makes this subject all the more interesting is that the Greek Orthodox Church reject VEHMENTLY the dogma of Divine Justice. Therefore, trying to understand the truth is important.
God is for everyone to get to know - not just those who are priviledged enough to have studied theology. NO ONE (EVEN I) have drawn up ANY conclusions. We've just spoken of research in this subject. We've presented it. We are waiting for someone more experienced to either solidify our presumptions, or correct our research. Its that simple.
As far as the question of whether his views on redemption are compatible with the Faith of the Church is concerned, I cannot answer this because I would not presume to know what Anselm’s views were without first reading a substantial amount of his primary works and at least a few relevant and reputable scholarly commentaries and analyses. Given that life is short, I think I’d prefer to spend my time studying what the Orthodox view is on its own terms. Why should I expend any time studying a figure who has not earned any serious attention from the Church?
You obviously think you know quite a bit about Anselm, or at least enough to throw the heretic label at him. I'm presuming then that you've done some thorough research on the subject. Under whose direction did you study Anselm? Which of his primary works have you finished reading? What kind of scholarship have you engaged with? Why the views of the Greek Church are relevant in any sense to the ascertainment of the Orthodox view on a Coptic forum is beyond me. In any event...I don’t think the Greek Church has dogmatised any particular understanding of Christ’s redemptive works and there are not less than a good few Greek Orthodox Christians, including clergy, who have positively upheld some model of "divine justice". Furthermore, most Eastern Orthodox proponents of an anti-Divine-Justice view seem to be motivated by a general reactionary anti-Western impulse which no doubt distorts their perception of things.
In any event, we are not Greek and your consistent invocation of what the Greeks do or do not believe makes no sense to me. Greeks also like to dance to the sounds of the bouzouki. So what? What's your point? It basically says what it says, and it basically does not say what it does not say. What it says is that your views are obviously not based on any serious education, research, or experience. It doesn’t say anything else. 1. Theology is not for everyone. Don’t like it? Take it up with none other than St Gregory the Theologian; his idea, not mine.
2. Theology is not a privilege. It’s a responsibility; a burden.
3. Nothing wrong with the pursuit to know (even in the loose, abstract sense, which has as its end knowledge in the more substantial, personal sense) God. There is something wrong with your approach and attitude to it. For one, you are evidently not at all well-read on the matters in question (which is a problem only because-->), yet you seem quite inclined to presume what is and what is not heretical and Orthodox and what the Church Fathers have and have not taught. In making such presumptions you seem easily swayed by polemics outside of the Church (and have some unhealthy and strange obsession with what the Greek Church does and does not teach), and seem easily inclined to undermine those who actually ARE Orthodox authorities as far as we are concerned. There was a nice song released in the 90’s called More Than Words.
I am not adverse to discussing this subject with the right people in the right context. You are not the right person, and this discussion forum is not the right context. Lest anyone think this is a cop-out let me just show you one example which speaks volumes as to the kind of silliness I just refuse to engage with. Here’s a short summary of your exchange with Joseph as to St Athanasius’ take on Divine Justice.
1. Joseph presents the authoritative summary of HG Bishop Moussa on St Athanasius.
2. Your response: "Sorry Joe, but this IS from Anslem!!"
[sarcasm]Hmm, yes this certainly sounds like an honest inquirer of the truth.[/sarcasm]
Ok, let's keep going, it gets worse:
3. Joseph reinforces the fact that HG Moussa’s view was based on St Athanasius.
4. Your response: “Wait a sec. Get ANY Greek ORthodox priest/bishop here and let them read the quote from ANba Moussa.”
Huh? Are you serious? Let's continue:
5. Joseph gets tired of your cop-outs and finally quotes St Athanasius AT LENGTH:
6. Your response: “Look, nothing you mentioned or quoted from Saint Athanasious talks about Divine Justice. OK? Get a grips man! Lol”
Ummm…Okay….Did you just happen to skip the following parts (which were bolded, mind you) of the quoted excerpts from St Athanasius’ work or do you need a Greek bishop to read for you what our Coptic patriarch said?
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Hey, Vass, what's that thing that tells us that we cannot evade the law? Is it...is it...Justice? JUSTICE? Could it be?!
And:
10. It was…out of the question to leave men to the current of corruption; because this would be unseemly, and unworthy of God's goodness. But just as this consequence must needs hold, so, too, on the other side the just claims of God lie against it: that God should appear true to the law He had laid down concerning death… 2. So here, once more, what possible course was God to take? To demand repentance of men for their transgression? For this one might pronounce worthy of God; as though, just as from transgression men have become set towards corruption, so from repentance they may once more be set in the way of incorruption. 3. But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God. For He would still be none the more true, if men did not remain in the grasp of death.
What's that Vass? Is St Athanasius saying that God couldn't just forgive man for his sin because that would be opposed to His just claim? His JUST claim?! As in a claim that is Just?
And:
2. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all.
It's necessary for the debt to be paid, Vass? Why? You mean because justice demands that debts be paid? Because if there is a debt and it goes unpaid that would be contrary to justice, Vass?
I'm done, here.
So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90166#msg90166 date=1213149726]
So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
I have a view on this: death is indeed a punishment instituted by God, why??? because it's just that when man breaks the law that he gets punished. God did not force this punishment upon man, it was man who sinned and thus chose the punishment. So when Jesus died on the cross, he payed the debt, he carried our punishment, not saving us from Himself, but rather saving us from ourselves, for it was our choice which caused this punishment to be upon us. So God didn't save us from Himself, but rather He saved us from the just punishment we deserve for our sins..
Please correct me if I'm wrong..
God Bless
THe commentary I was reading from didn't take that point of view. It did undertand that we were in debt, but this was metaphorically speaking.
I was reading a few articles from Fr. Kallistos Ware - his interpretation of what you just interpreted is quite different.
I agree St Anselm is a nobody, but why then does our Church follow his ideology and not that of say.. the Greeks that are closer??
I think Iqbal, with all due respect, and I mean this: I think really I should give u the links I found that explains all this. I admit, my reading is from Greek Orthodox sites (That's true), but it really does question the idea of Divine Justice and in fact it literally attacks it USING the same verses you have used to defend it, except that they interpret it differently.
[quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90166#msg90166 date=1213149726]
So, after reading this, you deny the fact that God asked for sacrifices in the old testament? Because that is what happened and that was what the people did back then in order for their sins to be forgiven.
Since Hos Erof beat me to it, I won't repeat what he said.
However, I would like to add that the problem I have is not with sacrifice - Christ was indeed a sacrifice - but with the notion that salvation rests upon an appeasements of God's wrath. Christ saves us from death, saves us from sin, saves us from corruption. When one regards death as a punishment from God, rather than something He permits, salvation essentially becomes salvation from God. God saves us from Himself - this is what I don't understand.
So it's not a question of whether or not Christ was a sacrifice for our sins - which is often how debates on this issue come across, especially when sweeping generalisations are used (which I'm often guilty of) - but rather of what actually is meant by such a sacrifice.
God didn't really permit death, but He permitted man to have free will, the choice was between God and the absence of God, the absence of life, death. Man chose death by choosing to go against God, the punishment of being away from God is being dead, since you're far from the Life.
Orthodox11, do you agree with the reference I've given from His Holiness Pope SHenouda? That Christ's sacrifice was paid to the Divine Justice??? Do u agree with that??
Now, I know Anselm etc added words like "To appease God's wrath etc" and I admit, we do not really say that.. (just to be fair), but we do say it was to pay off our debts (as Copts).
Does your Church agree with any of this.
Its just.. the more I read about this (from commentaries) - the more I see that this idea of Divine Justice is new in our Church, and was mis-interpreted.
Secondly (to iqbal):
-------------------
Each one of us has a duty to "Preach God's Death & resurrection and Ascension"
We all have to say the Creed "I truly believe in One God.." Surely we should have a good level knowledge about what we will preach, and what we believe in, otherwise it will just be parrots.
You don't want us to be like parrots Iqbal - do u?
False dichotomy. There's a specific term describing the fallacy committed here which I can't quite recall...in any event, it's not at all difficult to express the problem with your logic. God passed the sentence of death, yes, but that sentence would never have been passed had man not sinned. The sentence is not the problem then, it is simply the consequence of the problem. We were not being saved from the sentence, we were being saved from the problem that gave rise to it. St Athanasius explains that God nevertheless had to somehow fulfill the sentence He passed for the sake of His Justice and Truth.
"Behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness." - St Cyril of Jerusalem
So, God paid Himself back with a reward/compensation to satisfy His own Divine Justice? Yes?? He wanted compensation for our sins??"
I think you do not fully understand the situation. God is not appeasing himself when He sent Christ to save us. He did it because He loved us and wanted to show his love to us by sending His Only-Begotten Son. It was not for God's sake but for OUR sake. Second, you need to get your facts straight buddy...find out WHY he was excommunicated before stating claims...
God Bless
Tony
Do you like to use Olive Oil alot and break plates as you celebrate, as well?
What was the name of this commentary, Vass? I'd like to read it. I didn't know Bishop Kallistos Ware was demoted. Where are these articles from Fr. Kallistos--please show me.
Really Vass, open your eyes, you have common sense don't you? You can read for yourself, can't you? Maybe all those verses we pasted were too much for you. Let's go one at a time shall we. We'll start with this one:
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
A. God?
B. God?
or
C. God?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
A. Legal
B. Legal
or
C. Legal
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law:
A. Justice
B. The fairies in our head.
C. Justice
^I gave you some wiggle room on this one.
Yes, I didn't take time off nor spend much money on studying theology like yourself Iqbal.. I didnt have that luxury. I just come from a simple family that taught me that God loves me, and I should obey His commandments.
I guess, I have to depend on sunday school teachers and abouna for assistance on developing my understanding. THere was a teacher that taught us that Christ's death was paid to the Devil. Then this was repeated AGAIN in France - by another guy...
Why did I start to read Greek Orthodox literature? Its the most freely available on the web, and its the closest we have to our own doctrine. So, I trust it more. I'm sure you're a smart guy Iqbal, and U can see how that's just common sense to make the most of what we have... yes??
Iqbal, I'm glad u are here to add to the discussion. Its great, as you and Orthodox11 are the only 2 I know here that studied theology at great lengths.
I'm glad to be corrected if that is the case, but I'm EAGER to see Orthodox11's response as I know that from reading articles by the Greek Orthodox Church that they really attack the notion of Divine Justice.
Like I said, I couldn't care less who is right or wrong, but I'm just interested in the truth. (and not your particular brand of the truth). I think I have to be open minded. You know what I mean Iqbal??
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg90293#msg90293 date=1213214181]when i read the text from st Athanasious, I used a Greek Orthodox commentary.
Do you like to use Olive Oil alot and break plates as you celebrate, as well?
What was the name of this commentary, Vass? I'd like to read it. I didn't know Bishop Kallistos Ware was demoted. Where are these articles from Fr. Kallistos--please show me.
Really Vass, open your eyes, you have common sense don't you? You can read for yourself, can't you? Maybe all those verses we pasted were too much for you. Let's go one at a time shall we. We'll start with this one:
For death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God because of the transgression, and the result was in truth at once monstrous and unseemly.
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
A. God?
B. God?
or
C. God?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
A. Legal
B. Legal
or
C. Legal
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law:
A. Justice
B. The fairies in our head.
C. Justice
^I gave you some wiggle room on this one.
You can read also Iqbal.. that's your interpretation. Its like the Arians coming to the conclusion that if Christ is the Son of God, He must have been born AFTER God.
Like I said to Joe: that's YOUR interpretation of it. I know what the words say, but you should honestly read around this. Apparently, our Eastern Orthodox Brothers do NOT share the view that Christ had to die to satisfy the Divine Justice. That's just not on.
Is the atonement theory we follow the satisfaction, substitution, ransom, penal, substitutionary, governmental or moral influenced based? Or is it a conglomerate mixture?
And when thats answered we can just finish this topic there.
pray for me
joe
Honestly, it does not matter whether he thinks its heretical or not because this is what the church teaches and this is what we believe!
God bless
Tony
Im with you Tony, and to add to is: Orthodox11 is free to write whatever he wants. All I'm after is the COC view on the matter of Divine Justice and Atonement. If Iqbal could find some time, I would be most grateful in ending this long topic and reach an adequate answer.
pray for me
joe
pray for me
joe
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. If you truly sought the truth then you would accept that in the absence of any compelling factors to suggest otherwise, St Athanasius, our honorable Coptic Pope, means what he actually says and that our Coptic Bishops are hence right on the mark. Instead, you insist on being recalcitrant and you attempt to disguise that recalcitrance under rubbish arguments like the one above.
Arians are wrong about their interpretation of what Christ meant when He referred to Himself as the Son of God because there are compelling factors to suggest that Christ also believed Himself to be eternal and hence could not possibly have meant "Son" in the Arian sense.
What compelling factors do you have to offer to suggest that St Athanasius did not mean what he said when he said that “death...gained...a legal hold over us, and it was impossible to evade the law, since it had been laid down by God.”? Apparently, we are not Eastern Orthodox Christians. Apparently, St Athanasius believed that Christ had to die to satisfy Divine Justice, and apparently the Church has chosen to follow St Athanasius. Again, I ask you:
Question 1: When St Athanasius says the law had been laid down by God, Who does he mean to say that the law was laid down by?
Question 2: When St Athanasius says that death gained a legal hold over us, what kind of hold did he mean death had over us?
Question 3: What is that thing which tells us that if one breaks a law, he cannot evade the law?
Iqbal is yet to state our COC's beliefs on this subject Vas - how then can you ask if he has made a satisfying response?
As far as i'm concerned, our beliefs on this are perfectly summed up by St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, and we need not go further than this. St Cyril of Jerusalem shares the same viewpoint as St Athanasius on this matter and sums up nicely when he says in his Catechetical Lectures:
"For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness."
The Coptic Church's view is thus balanced. Christ came to remit sin, fulfill divine justice, transform and heal human nature, etc. etc. We do not narrow ourselves to one model and reject another. There is no contradiction between God's Love and His fulfillment of His sentence--it is not a contradiction, but rather, in the words of the great St Cyril, it is "the wisdom of God."
That’s nice, really. But I only made a point of your lack of research and education on the matter to emphasise that you have no credibility to judge anyone, let alone the God-appointed bishops of the Orthodox Church, in terms of heresy vs. Orthodoxy.
There's always going to be a lack - the more I read, the more I find myself lacking. I did NOT expect to read stuff that contradicts with what our Bishops are saying (especially using quotes and sources from the Orthodox Fathers). That's the point Iqbal.. what is OURS? and what has been put into our doctrine is what I'm interested in. Unfortunately, there are teachers in our Church that are not "OK" with Divine Justice... OK?? I sent u an email trying to bring that to your attention. You didnt answer. Nevermind. After reading around the subject myself in the hope of trying to answer them, I couldnt help but see that not only did they have a point, but I discovered at THAT moment that even the Greeks were against the notion of Divine Justice. I don't know what to say. On the one hand, yes.. on the other, i admit, if I took the sarcasm out of my comments when I started you'd have seen that I was interested in history of all this. I don't have access to that information. I'm sorry... i just don't. I was interested in knowing at what point did we start talking about Divine Justice in our Church. Its not ONCE mentioned in any of the homalies in the passion week, nor in the kholagy, NOR in the tasbeha... Wait a sec. I'm not defending nor attacking Divine Justice. I'm presenting the fact that others in the EO (well..the entire EO) is against Divine Justice.. why don't I just give u the links to this literature???
I mean, its EVERYWHERE... they attack the dogma of Divine Justice just as we attack heretical views such as those from Arious and Nestorian. Thanks. That was very interesting, really.
But then why don't u apply that to St. Athanasious? Where does he use the term "Divine Justice". Where??
Are we in debt to God? Yes
Was there enmity between us and God ? yes.
Does this mean that Christ's death was to satisfy the Divine Justice?? Well.. now I do agree. But as I said, if i give you the links on this literature, would u understand where I was coming from? Like I said Iqbal.. I ended up reading this - NOT BECAUSE i enjoy it (although it did turn out to be interesting) but it was to answer someone who was deeply against Divine Justice. Whilst trying to answer him, I couldnt help but come to the conclusion that he's right. lol - now.. it doesnt bother me either way..
U see how I am interested in the truth?? I am... believe it or not.
Look - Iqbal.. you're a smart fellow. I don't have access to such books that I need.. I wouldnt know where to start. Please - do me ONE SMALL FAVOUR and I'll close this topic:
* Tell me when did the CoC start talking about Divine Justice?? Iqbal.. ok.. look, can we just focus on the problem than me? If u are educated and learned why not just explain. Why waste your energy in attacking me for? Don't judge me Iqbal. Well.. that was just an example. Now, that's SMART! That's a good thing to say. Its constructive, its intelligent, and it focuses on the issue.
.... lol.. i'll send u the links??
Iqbal.. please do not tell me u didn't know the entire Greek Orthodox Church are against Divine Justice being used as a reason for Christ's death?? OK.. u are right... I'll send u a few links. But to make my experience on tasbeha.org meaningful, please do be careful when u attack me, its very hurtful. Im SURE u don't mean to be, but... i don't know if u realise but u seem to kill me 1st and then ask questions later. That's how it looks to you. I wish that was the case. Its just... i cannot help feel that there could be a mis-interpretation into what St Athanasious has said. Now, I've posted the argument of St Issac the Syrian, who does not agree with Divine Justice (as far as I can see) - I quoted him.
How is it ONE CoC father can give the impression that Divine Justice is the reason and another just be against it??
OK.. look. We'll end up attacking each other unless I post the links. I don't want this to be an argument between u and me, but rather put the information on the table and just throw what's not right away.
You are testing my patience the more you miss the point and continue to go on and on without a clue of what you are talking about. Let's get a few things straight:
1) Eastern Orthodoxy and "Divine Justice."
From my very first response I have given you a very clear message on this matter: the Oriental Orthodox Church is not the Eastern Orthodox Church. Do not confuse the two. Please get the hint already. What the Greeks, or the Russians, or anyone other non-OO Church says on any matter of doctrine, is of no relevance to us; got it? If they disagree, good for them. It is their problem. I do not mean to shock or surprise you when I say: the views of the OO Church are not affected by the views of non-OO Churches.
So, I don't want to hear you ramble on about what this or that Church believes, OKAY? Your representations of the Greek Church are not even accurate to begin with. I didn't want to dwell on that point because defining the Orthodox view of redemption should not, for us, take any consideration of anything outside of our Church and beyond our authorities. But just so you are aware of your own ignorance I am going to make some brief comments on the matter. As I suggested in my first response, the EO communion has not taken any sort of dogmatic position on redemption. When you ask: I have to respond with: rubbish. "The entire Greek Orthodox Church"? What is the basis of this assertion? The results of a google search? Hate to break it to you Vass, but I studied theology under the direction of the Greek Archbishop of Australia, Archbishop Stylianos, and in his course notes he explicitly mentions Anselm and he criticises solely on the basis that his 'Why God became Man?' only covers one part of the truth. In other words, the Archbishop was quite happy with his Divine Justice theory, he simply felt that his work was deficient in that it did not account for other important models of redemption as well.
Furthermore, Bishop (not Fr.) Kallistos Ware who you referred to earlier never rejected the model of redemption in question, but in fact, quite conversely argued that no one model of redemption was superior to any other and that they all complement each other.
There are not a few Eastern Orthodox writers who have attempted to defend the concept of Divine Justice against the rising movement against it. One such author is Vladimir Moss who wrote a 100 page treatise which, inter alia, defends the idea of Divine Justice. It can be read here: http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/downloads/1_THE_MYSTERY_OF_REDEMPTION.pdf Where does Jesus say, "I am God"? Where??
One does not need to be explicit to be clear, plain, and obvious. It is PLAIN and CLEAR what St Athanasius meant. Unless you can raise factors for consideration which suggest that something other than the plain and clear meaning of his words was intended, the plain and clear meaning stands REGARDLESS OF WHO DISAGREES.
If you want to be so simplistic so as to look for explicit indications of "justice" well we have already shown you a text where St Athanasius refers to the JUST claim of God:
"But repentance would, firstly, fail to guard the just claim of God."
Here St Athanasius is explaining why God couldn't just forgive us by accepting our repentance: because repentence, without fulfillment of the sentence incurred by the sin, would fail to guard the JUST CLAIM of God. Do you know the word JUST Vass? It's the adjective form of the noun JUSTICE.
that's a brilliant answer. Thanks.
So, its only the Greek Orthodox in Australia that is OK with this?
But I'd still like to hear Orthodox11's response. He's much more politer than u when he talks. Is that OK with u?
Why are u aggresive. Why dont u just answer people's questions?
OK.. look.. I don't care what u think. u are too rude for me to even bother with.
Please go away. learn some manners, and then talk to me.
[quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=6719.msg90328#msg90328 date=1213219429]
Iqbal is yet to state our COC's beliefs on this subject Vas - how then can you ask if he has made a satisfying response?
As far as i'm concerned, our beliefs on this are perfectly summed up by St Athanasius' On the Incarnation, and we need not go further than this. St Cyril of Jerusalem shares the same viewpoint as St Athanasius on this matter and sums up nicely when he says in his Catechetical Lectures:
"For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness."
The Coptic Church's view is thus balanced. Christ came to remit sin, fulfill divine justice, transform and heal human nature, etc. etc. We do not narrow ourselves to one model and reject another. There is no contradiction between God's Love and His fulfillment of His sentence--it is not a contradiction, but rather, in the words of the great St Cyril, it is "the wisdom of God."
Thanks Iqbal, so it seems that the answer to the question was summed up pretty much by St. Athanaius' "On the Incarnation". I posted it because I thought logically it would have to provide some answers to the discussion, but as I only went through about half of it, I was unsure at the conclusions I had drawn for myself. Thanks for the clarity (and the St. Cyril quote to consolidate it).
Many thanks
pray for me
joe