Atonement - Please explain!!!!!

Hello,

I was reading the suscopts site (http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture1.pdf), and came across this:

Consequently, any sin requires unlimited atonement.
This atonement should be provided by a person who is:
1. Unlimited :To be able to provide this unlimited atonement the Savior has to be unlimited.
2. Sinless :The Savior has to be free from sin to be able to redeem others, or else he would need
salvation himself.
3. Human: Since human beings committed the sin, therefore, a human being should pay the price.
4. Mortal : Since the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), therefore, the savior has to be mortal.
Our Lord Jesus Christ is:
1. Unlimited : He said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. Who is and Who
was and Who is to come, the Almighty” (Rev 1 : 8 ).
2. Sinless : Archangel Gabriel said to the Virgin, “That Holy One who is to be born will be called the
Son of God” (Lk 1:35). Our lord said, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (Jn 8:46).
3. Human : Our Lord was called the Son of Man several times, also, the Bible documents that on
several occasions He was thirsty, hungry, tired, sleeping, etc…
4. Mortal : Even though our Lord is immortal due to His divinity, he assumed a human nature that
was liable to die.
Now, I have a few questions. This idea came from Anslem. That the penal substitution was Christ. i.e. the sacrific/ransom had to be equal to the magnitude of the person being offended. Yet our Church considers Anslem a heretic and his dogma of "Penal Substitution". So, why then is this being introduced in our church? Please PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something... I'm not sure.

Thanks
«13

Comments

  • Please explain this dogma by Anslem : Penal Substitution...

    Thanks
  • [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=6719.msg89811#msg89811 date=1212966819]
    Please explain this dogma by Anslem : Penal Substitution...

    Thanks


    OK.. i'm sorry, it was actually Aquinas who came out with it, but they are considered as one in terms of their theories.

    Basically, what is penal substitution??

    In a nutshell, its this:

    God said: "if u eat of the tree you shall surely die". Now, God didn't want us to die, but the wages of sin is death... so, someone has to die... Someone who fits the description below has to die.. thus, Christ was substituted for our us. He paid the price for our sins. But basically, the Divine Justice of God had to be appeased. There had to be some kind of sacrifice to appease Him.

    You get the point?

  • yes, I get it, but whatever our church thinks of this person, if he happened to get this dogma right (right=accorging to coptic orthodox teaching) then I guess there's no problem in using his words

    Because the quote you gave from suscopts is really what I've always been taught about salvation and incarnation

    I mean I don't see anything wrong with this particular dogma
  • Well the question is whether penal substitution was taught to us by our early church fathers in the east, not whether we learn this in sunday school nowadays :-X

    Oh btw, penal substitution focusses also on the "unlimitedness" (is that a word? lol) of sin. Sin being a crime against God that must be punished because God is just. And since God is unlimited, then an unlimited sacrifice is required to "pay for the price". And then this teaching says that this price was payed to Divine Justice, by Jesus Christ who was full human, without limits, and innocent. (sorry QT if i repeated something what u said before)
  • I have some idea, but I will leave it to a better theologian - I don't want to confuse anybody, and hope to expand my knowledge...
  • [quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=6719.msg89816#msg89816 date=1212968354]
    Well the question is whether penal substitution was taught to us by our early church fathers in the east, not whether we learn this in sunday school nowadays :-X

    Oh btw, penal substitution focusses also on the "unlimitedness" (is that a word? lol) of sin. Sin being a crime against God that must be punished because God is just. And since God is unlimited, then an unlimited sacrifice is required to "pay for the price". And then this teaching says that this price was payed to Divine Justice, by Jesus Christ who was full human, without limits, and innocent. (sorry QT if i repeated something what u said before)


    The appeasement of God through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ is Penal Substitution. Christ was substituted for us. These people (or heretics) talk about God being appeased (satisfied) - or needing to be satisfied with a sacrifice.

    Look.. this is from Aquinas and Anslem. They are BOTH heretics in our Church. Why then do we have this in our church!??? what is our Church therefore telling us!???

    What do I believe (personally):
    ------------------------------

    I DO believe that Christ was substituted for our sins. That Aquinas and Anslem were not SO wrong.
    But I do believe that this substitution is a ransom for us. But a ransom to who??

    The Pope says it was a ransom to God, the Father. But.. this is on the same lines as Anslem and Aquinas. It paints a picture of a God whose ego was hurt by sin, and he needed blood to appease Him? Doesn't it???

    Where is the confusion??
    --------------------

    I believe the wages of sin is death. We died. We inherited death from Adam & Eve. Our Nature is sinful. We are currently in a "fallen state". Since the day they ate of that fruit, everything went pear-shaped. Bush being elected as President shows that we are sinful. So, Christ came to give us Life. His Life. His Life-Giving body and blood. If we are dead from sin, then surely this is the remedy? That he brings us back to Life? He let's us taste of His Life giving Nature to revive us from sin.

    Was there a Price to Pay? Yes. We were fallen. We were executed from God's Grace. We disobeyed, and by our OWN WILL we qualified ourselves unto death. Therefore THERE IS a price to pay to bring us back to Life. Can we bring ourselves back to Life? Christ came to give us that life. Also, if the wages of sin is death, did not christ die for us to bring us back to life?? Is this not a ransom?? In THIS sense, I believe that there is a ransom. This is also in-line with the NT.

    THe Bible says that God, the Father, smelt the aroma of the sacrifice and was pleased. You agree? So, there is satisfaction then in the appeasement of God through the punishment of Christ on the Cross..

    I'm confused at this point, because we are then agreeing with Aquianas and Anslem. Perhaps Anslem wasn't so wrong??

    Tell me what you think. Guys, I'm sorry, but this is really now theological. Its no longer plain biblical.

    If we are against Anslem and Aquinas and their medieval idealogies, why are we talking about them in the suscopts site in our Soteriological sections???
  • Some words of enlightment from:
    http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/christcross.aspx

    Many of the Holy Fathers wrote on this theme of Christ as sacrifice. Origen (who is not a Holy Father) and, following him, St. Gregory of Nyssa, posited that the sacrifice was offered to the devil. But St. Gregory the Theologian and all the Fathers after him rejected this idea. They often spoke of the sacrifice as being offered to God the Father, and sometimes they spoke of it as being offered to the Holy Trinity, since the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are One God. St. Symeon the New Theologian writes: "God, Who is incomparably higher than the visible and invisible creation, accepted human nature, which is higher than the whole visible creation, and offered it as a sacrifice to His God and Father. Honoring the sacrifice, the Father could not leave it in the hands of death. Therefore, He annihilated His sentence. [18]

    Why did the Son have to offer Himself in sacrifice to the Father? Why did God sacrifice Himself to God? Here we get at the crux of the mystery of Redemption. St. Gregory the Theologian urges us not to try to conform this mystery to human logic, not apply to it human conceptions that are unworthy of God. He says: "The Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or felt any need of it, but on account of economy," [19] that is, to fulfill the Divine plan of our salvation in accordance with the Divine ordering of creation.

    St. Gregory Palamas sheds more light on this question. He says that God could have found other ways of saving man from sin, mortality and servitude to the devil. But He saved man in the way He did—by coming to earth, dying and resurrecting—because this was according to justice and righteousness. [20] As the Psalmist says: God is righteous and loveth righteousness and there is no unrighteousness in Him (Ps. 11:7, 92:15). Death was the just penalty for sin, and Christ paid that penalty. But because He was sinless, His death was unjust. Therefore, He justly destroyed death. This was God's economy, completely in accordance with His righteousness.

    The devil thought He could destroy Christ by inciting people to put Him to death. But Christ's death proved to be the devil's undoing because, unlike every other person who had ever lived, Christ did not deserve death. St. John Chrysostom offers us a vivid image to highlight this teaching: "It is as if, at a session of a court of justice, the devil should be addressed as follows: Granted that you destroyed all men because you found them guilty of sin; but why did you destroy Christ? Is it not very evident that you did so unjustly? Well then, through Him the whole world will be vindicated." [21]

    Christ saved us in the way He did not only to manifest His justice and righteousness, but also to manifest His love. St. Isaac the Syrian writes: "God the Lord surrendered His own Son to death on the Cross for the fervent love of creation. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son to death for our sake (cf. John 3:16). This was not, however, because He could not have redeemed us in another way, but so that His surpassing love, manifested hereby, might be a teacher unto us. And by the death of His only begotten Son He made us near to Himself. Yea, if He had had anything more precious, He would have given it to us, so that by it our race might be His own." [22]...........
    As St. Nicholas Cabasilas says, Christ broke down the three barriers that separated man from God: the barrier of nature by His incarnation, the barrier of sin by His death, and the barrier of death by His Resurrection. [13]

    I recommend reading the entire article, it's highly informative!!!!
  • Hi Matt,
    Thanks a million for this response.

    Do u realise how many Coptic Christians believe that the Divine Sacrifice was offered to the devil? THe Pope says otherwise: that it was a  sacrifice offered to God the Father.

    Amazing. Even I heard this being taught in a sunday school class in a Canadian CoC.

    We do not follow Origen.

    Do we have G. Palamas as a saint in our church?? I do not think so.

    I believe we are different to the Western Orthodox Churches (Greek etc) on this point. They believe that the Divine Justice is us receiving Christ's blood through communion. (the Eucharist). That's it. There was no need for a penal substitution.

    Then things get really pear-shaped because we were all taught that Christ came to die for our sins. He suffered instead of us etc... whereas, this is not what the article you wrote is suggesting. Is it?
  • [quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=6719.msg89816#msg89816 date=1212968354]
    Well the question is whether penal substitution was taught to us by our early church fathers in the east, not whether we learn this in sunday school nowadays :-X


    Great point!



    The problem with penal substitution is that it limits God's power, His love, His mercy, and binds Him to a human concept of justice.

    What we learn from the Scripture, and from the Fathers of the Church, is that God is a God who forgives, He is a God of love. Penal substitution reduces God to an angry debt collector who never forgives man, but simply finds another way of repayment. And since the sacrifice God demands to appease Himself is Himself, you end up with a blood thirsty absurdity at best.

    A God who requires sacrifice for appeasement is an angry God, a proud God. We see in Jesus Christ not anger, but love, not pride, but humility.

    [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg89883#msg89883 date=1213003140]
    I believe we are different to the Western Orthodox Churches (Greek etc) on this point. They believe that the Divine Justice is us receiving Christ's blood through communion. (the Eucharist). That's it.


    I'm not quite sure where you got this idea from (and btw, it's Eastern Orthodox).

    This is how I understand it:
    When man sinned, he separated Himself from God, the source of life. As such he became subject to a state of sin, corruption and death. We, being descendants of Adam are also born into this state of separation, and therefore inherit it's consequences - sin, corruption and death - which is what is often referred to as 'original sin.'

    In order to save us from sin and death, God becomes a man, uniting humanity with divinity in order to restore us to Himself. When the God-man (theanthropos) dies on the Cross, He descends into Hades. Because He is God, death cannot hold Him, death cannot defeat Him, and so He rises on the third day "by death destroying death." Because He is man, of one essence with us, He destroys death's power over the whole of mankind, opening the way to resurrection and eternal life for all of us.

    Christ died for our sins, for by His death we are freed from sin and death, but not as an atoning sacrifice to make an angry god happy.

    It is in this sense that certain Fathers say that the 'ransom' is paid to the grave (but figuratively speaking - the Fathers were fond of symbolism and anthropomorphisms).

    It is correct to say Christ offered Himself to the Father, for by His death He was doing the Father's will, saving mankind in an act of love. But He did not offer Himself as an eternal payment for an eternal offence so that God could finally bring Himself to 'forgive' man (like I said, this would not be forgiveness at all).
  • So, is it correct to say this???

    The punishment for breaking God's commandments is death (as stated in Genesis)
    After sinning humans became 'slaves' to death, sin and destruction. God never goes back on His words since He's just, meaning the punishment has to be done, yet He is also merciful. So instead of having us die (physically and spiritually) and be eternally away from God, he had a plan. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, who by His own accord, came down on earth in humility, uniting His divine nature with a human nature, being fully human and fully divine without mingling, confusion, etc. in one hypostathis (miaphysis), carried the punishment which was meant for humans and thus dying for them, this way He reconciled the Father with the human beings. Divine justice was met since a human died on the cross, but at the same time, this had to be the true sinless God also, for Him to be a worthy sacrifice.
    But at the same time, God showed his eternal mercy, by sending His own Son to die instead of us, not because He hungered for blood or anything like that, simply because it's justice that there's a punishment for sin..

    When Jesus died for us, He opened up the possibility of repentance and salvation ..

    Please correct me if I'm wrong
    God Bless
  • Orthodox11,

    THe Pope said that the sacrifice on the cross was the Divine Justice. I.e. Payment to the father. Please see the link
    Do you agree or disagree. What then does our Holy Father mean by this (!!???)
  • [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=6719.msg89910#msg89910 date=1213031507]
    So, is it correct to say this???

    The punishment for breaking God's commandments is death (as stated in Genesis)


    This is precisely where it all goes wrong. Death was not a punishment from God for breaking a commandment. Death was the natural consequence of man separating himself from God, the source of life.

    God said "You shall not eat of it [the tree] nor shall you even touch it, lest you die." (Gen 3:3) He did not say "You shall not eat of it nor shall you even touch it, lest I kill you."

    There's a big difference between the two. If a mother tells her child "Don't touch the stove, or you'll get burned" does that mean "if you touch the stove, I'll burn you"? Obviously not. The first is a loving warning, the second is a threat. God was giving man a loving warning, a statement of fact, not a threat of punishment.

    [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg89911#msg89911 date=1213031717]
    THe Pope said that the sacrifice on the cross was the Divine Justice. I.e. Payment to the father. Please see the link
    Do you agree or disagree.


    I would disagree with that. However, I haven't looked at H.H. Shenouda's writings in detail, so I can't claim to know the details of his opinion.
  • [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg89916#msg89916 date=1213032521]
    What now do u think??


    Based on my understanding of what they've written, I would disagree with it.

    [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=6719.msg89918#msg89918 date=1213032691]
    But why did he have to die? Why not just teach us the right way, so that we could start following God's commandments and thus having life again?


    We, having been born into a state of corruption, could not bring about our own restoration. This is why the Law of Moses was not enough to save the Jewish people. Even the Old Testament Prophets were not saved until Christ descended into Hades and destroyed the power of death.


    I think it was St. Gregory of Nyssa that said "that which is not assumed is not healed." God assumes every part of our nature, except for sin, in order to heal us, to restore us to Himself. He takes into Himself not only human life by the Incarnation, but also human death by the crucifixion, the power of which is destroyed by His resurrection from the dead.
  • [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=6719.msg89920#msg89920 date=1213033189]
    [quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6719.msg89916#msg89916 date=1213032521]
    What now do u think??


    Based on my understanding of what they've written, I would disagree with it.

    [quote author=godislove260 link=topic=6719.msg89918#msg89918 date=1213032691]
    But why did he have to die? Why not just teach us the right way, so that we could start following God's commandments and thus having life again?


    We, having been born into a state of corruption, could not bring about our own restoration. This is why the Law of Moses was not enough to save the Jewish people. Even the Old Testament Prophets were not saved until Christ descended into Hades and destroyed the power of death.


    I think it was St. Gregory of Nyssa that said "that which is not assumed is not healed." God assumes every part of our nature, except for sin, in order to heal us, to restore us to Himself. He takes into Himself not only human life by the Incarnation, but also human death by the crucifixion, the power of which is destroyed by His resurrection from the dead.


    So, it means that we differ in this also?? As Churches? You know your faith very well Orthodox. What then is going on!? Why are we different in this.

  • So then what's the official COC view on this?

    God Bless
  • I cannot believe that we now differ in terms of the fundamental basics of Christianity with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.

    Oh la la.. Qu'est-ce qu'il arrive la!

    Can someone explain to us or clarify to us the view of the CoC concerning Atonement, and why it differs from that of the Church Fathers?? Why has the CoC adopted views given to us by Anslem and Aquinas who are considered heretics by the Church fathers??

  • orthodox11, thanks so much for sharing your wisdom with us ;)

    On top of everything that was said, I think it's not logic to think that Christ died instead of us simply because we still die. If he really died INSTEAD of us...then what is the point of us dying and suffering right now.
    It makes more sense to say that Christ defeated death and sin by sharing with us our nature, and sharing in the pains of fallen humanity, and by doing that he joined us and helps us through tribulation and death in order to be raised with HIM. So it's not a way out of the post-fallen-mess-ness (yes i know that is not a real word:P), but it's a way to get through it and conquer it, so that we may be renewed to be in the likeness of God, which is after all what we were created for.
    Conclusion: Christ died FOR us, on our behalf, not INSTEAD of us. St Paul tells us that we die with Christ and share in his sufferings (which he suffered to share with our suffering humanity), so that we may be glorified with Him.

    I think this is really an interesting discussion, so keep it up. Hope to read many more reactions and if I said something wrong, I'm open for discussion and correcting.
  • [quote author=Hos Erof link=topic=6719.msg90007#msg90007 date=1213105065]
    orthodox11, thanks so much for sharing your wisdom with us ;)

    On top of everything that was said, I think it's not logic to think that Christ died instead of us simply because we still die. If he really died INSTEAD of us...then what is the point of us dying and suffering right now.
    It makes more sense to say that Christ defeated death and sin by sharing with us our nature, and sharing in the pains of fallen humanity, and by doing that he joined us and helps us through tribulation and death in order to be raised with HIM. So it's not a way out of the post-fallen-mess-ness (yes i know that is not a real word:P), but it's a way to get through it and conquer it, so that we may be renewed to be in the likeness of God, which is after all what we were created for.
    Conclusion: Christ died FOR us, on our behalf, not INSTEAD of us. St Paul tells us that we die with Christ and share in his sufferings (which he suffered to share with our suffering humanity), so that we may be glorified with Him.

    I think this is really an interesting discussion, so keep it up. Hope to read many more reactions and if I said something wrong, I'm open for discussion and correcting.


    We still die a PHYSICAL death, but I think when we say Christ died instead of us then what's meant is that He, by carrying the punishment for our sin, gave us the chance to have EVERLASTING LIFE after we die the PHYSICAL death. For there's the first physical death which everyone dies and then there's the second death which basically means ending up in hell. For when you're in hell, you're far from God, and since God is life (I am the way, the truth and the life John 14:6) then being far away from Him is death, that's the SPIRITUAL death. We were all doomed to die the spiritual death, until Christ died instead of us and descended to Hades. And when He arrose again, He opened up the oppotunity for us to arrise with Him.

    I think that proof for the fact that Christ died instead of us is that it says in the bible that as a lamb he was lead to be slaughtered. This is what people did in the Old Testament : kill an innocent (Christ was innocent) lamb as a sacrifice.

    This is what I was taught and it seems pretty logical to me, but I stay corrected and if anyone knows the official COC view please share.

    God Bless
  • Simply without any real theologival disputes, Christ came here to die for me on the cross, to take the sentence of death from me and the whole world, as:"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). That is all that is sufficient. If you want deeper, then: all of the sins of the world mean that every sinner must die. The sin is comitted against God who is infinite. So the punishment is infinite. So someone Infinite must pay the price and die. That person must be God to be Infinite, and human also because it is the sins of the world and humans. Who can fullfil that criteria. Our God was Incarnate, the Word became flesh and he bought me with his Blood. Thats as far as i know.

    pray for me

    joe
  • Dude Anselm is different!!!!!  Nowhere did Bishop Moussa mention it was because of a vindicative God. NOWHERE. We dont believe in it being against God's Wrath, we are saying its because God loved us that the Incarnation and suffering of Christ occured. ITS DIFFERENT
  • [quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=6719.msg90067#msg90067 date=1213131442]
    Dude Anselm is different!!!!!  Nowhere did Bishop Moussa mention it was because of a vindicative God. NOWHERE. We dont believe in it being against God's Wrath, we are saying its because God loved us that the Incarnation and suffering of Christ occured. ITS DIFFERENT


    Joe!! Anslem did not mention God was vindicative!!! Its the IMAGE that his theory gives.

    Its the image that ANba Moussa's comments give. That somehow God required a sacrifice, otherwise he can't forgive us. See!!!
  • Joe,

    Orthodox11 is dead against such comments from Anba Moussa. The Greek Orthodox Church does not agree. Entirely. Its against this notion that Christ died instead of us.

    To them, they believe that Christ died to give us Life. You have him here as a victim. That he died for our sins. He is the victim. Whereas, most Orthodox Churches do not see this. They see him as the Vainquer, that defeated death - THROUGH His death.

    Saying :God required a sacrifice that was eternal is heresy. Its ANSLEM! His theory PAINTS a picture of a vengeful God that requires His kilo of flesh otherwise He's not happy.

    That's NOT Orthodox.

    OK. I've proved its from ANslem. THat quote from Anba Moussa is totally unacceptable in the Greek Orthodox church. Its TOTALLY Catholic. Its very anslem. OK? I've proven it.

    Why are they preaching Anslem's theory??? WHY??
  • Here is Anselm's theory of satisfactional atonement:

    "The satisfaction theory is similar to the earlier ransom theory, in that a type of ransom was given. However, it was paid to God rather than to Satan. Theologians in the Middle Ages believed that there was no way that the deaths of one or more humans could satisfy God's requirements. The theory suggests that God's honor would only be satisfied by a ritual sacrifice of a god-man -- his own son. Michael Martin writes: "Only the God-Man is able, by his divinity, to offer something that is worthy of God and, by his humanity, to represent mankind." 1  Thus the incarnation was necessary: God coming to earth in the form of a man."


    OK?? YOU GOT THAT?

    We dont believe it was paid to God or the devil. We dont believe that Christ's suffering was for God's wrath to be subdued. We have the same view as Anselm except those two points we believe that:

    As the mission of this redeemer is grave, he must have certain qualities:

    a) He must be a human being, for it was man who fell, and the redeemer would represent the human race in receiving punishment.

    b) He must die for "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and God's judgment upon Adam and Eve was death: "You shall die" (Gen 2:17)

    c) He must be infinite, so that he can repay our infinite debt. As sin was directed against the infinite God and all humanity had a share in this debt, it became magnificently huge.

    d) He must be without sin, how could he redeem us if he himself was a sinner, in need of redemption?

    e) He must be creator, for his role is not confined to forgiveness alone, but is extended to regenerating human nature by the Holy Spirit.

    BUT NOT THAT CHRIST WAS A PAYMENT TO SATAN, NOR THAT HE WAS TO SUBDUE GOD'S WRATH.

    We believe that God came down to earth and died for us "to regenerate our corrupted nature, living with us in incorruption. Thus: God's Incarnation gave us the opportunity for his dwelling in our bodies, His unity with our spirits and his sanctification of our hearts, making us holy temples for himself".

    pray for me

    joe
  • look Vas, im getting tired of this.

    WE DONT HAVE THE SAME VIEWS AS ANSELM.

    NOT ALL OF ANSELMS VIEWS ARE WRONG

    AS I HAVE SAID ST.ATHANASIUS (u gonna call him a heretic too?) TEACHINGS ON INCARNATION WERE IN ANBA MOUSSA BOOK...

    WHERE WE DIFFER FROM ANSELM IS THAT WE DONT BELIEVE THAT CHRIST DYING ON THE CROSS WAS TO PAY FOR GODS WRATH OR THE DEVILS!!!!

    WE BELIEVE THAT GOD DID IT OUT OF LOVE SO THAT WE CAN BE CLOSER TO HIM.

    HE COULDN'T BEAR TO SEE HIS CREATION SUFFER, SO HE SUFFERED FOR THEM.

    OK!?!?!?!?

    ILL REPEAT:

    WE DONT HAVE THE SAME VIEWS AS ANSELM.

    NOT ALL OF ANSELMS VIEWS ARE WRONG

    AS I HAVE SAID ST.ATHANASIUS (u gonna call him a heretic too?) TEACHINGS ON INCARNATION WERE IN ANBA MOUSSA BOOK...

    WHERE WE DIFFER FROM ANSELM IS THAT WE DONT BELIEVE THAT CHRIST DYING ON THE CROSS WAS TO PAY FOR GODS WRATH OR THE DEVILS!!!!

    WE BELIEVE THAT GOD DID IT OUT OF LOVE SO THAT WE CAN BE CLOSER TO HIM!!!

    got it Vas? We ahave different from Anselm's teachings. Jesus im gonna pop from frustration.
  • Can we all agree that only God himself can bear the weight of our sins? To satisfy the Divine Justice, there had to be a punishment for our sins, this is what the church believes. It also had to be a perfect (without sin) sacrifice, a sacrifice that was unlimited. So God sent His Only-Begotten Son to redeem us. This is what we believe.

    God Bless
    Tony
  • [quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90113#msg90113 date=1213136034]
    Can we all agree that only God himself can bear the weight of our sins? To satisfy the Divine Justice, there had to be a punishment for our sins, this is what the church believes. It also had to be a perfect (without sin) sacrifice, a sacrifice that was unlimited. So God sent His Only-Begotten Son to redeem us. This is what we believe.

    God Bless
    Tony


    This is exactly what we don't believe according to other orthodox churches.
    Why did there HAVE to be a punishment by God? To satisfy Divine Justice? Do you really really believe that God needed someone to die to satisfy His Divine Justice, and if you don't believe in the one who paid this for you, you have to pay it yourself by being sentenced to hell??
    Death was a RESULT of sin, not a PUNISHMENT from God, that God had to fulfill. Christ came to conquer death and sin and regenerate our nature, to lift us up with Him.
  • [quote author=Amoussa01 link=topic=6719.msg90141#msg90141 date=1213147085]
    so you deny that there is a divine justice?? Is that what i am hearing from you??


    The Justice of God is not the justice of men. It is not the petty, legalistic tit for tat notion that we associate with justice, and what is suggested by this doctrine you call Divine Justice.

    "Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves... Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul’. Thus one cannot speak at all of God’s justice, but rather of mercy that surpasses all justice: ‘As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy. As a handful of sand thrown into the great sea, so are the sins of the flesh in comparison with the mind of God. And just as a strongly flowing spring is not obscured by a handful of dust, so the mercy of the Creator is not stemmed by the vices of His creatures" - St. Isaac the Syrian
  • A long read, these are extracts from St. Athanasius' Incarnation of the Word. Try to read it all, it takes time but it clarifies a few things. This is only from the first 27 chapters. It continues to chapter 57. You can find it here: http://www.monachos.net/library/Athanasius_of_Alexandria%2C_On_the_Incarnation_of_the_Word. I have used bold to emphasise some important points to our topic.


    For in speaking of the appearance of the Saviour amongst us, we must needs speak also of the origin of men, that you may know that the reason of His coming down was because of us, and that our transgression called forth the loving-kindness of the Word, that the Lord should both make haste to help us and appear among men. 3. For of His becoming Incarnate we were the object, and for our salvation He dealt so lovingly as to appear and be born even in a human body. 4. Thus, then, God has made man, and willed that he should abide in incorruption; but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but were being corrupted according to their devices; and death had the mastery over them as king. For transgression of the commandment was turning them back to their natural state, so that just as they have had their being out of nothing, so also, as might be expected, they might look for corruption into nothing in the course of time.

    For this cause, then, death having gained upon men, and corruption abiding upon them, the race of man was perishing; the rational man made in God's image was disappearing, and the handiwork of God was in process of dissolution. 2. For death, as I said above, gained from that time forth 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. 3. For it were monstrous, firstly, that God, having spoken, should prove false-that, when once He had ordained that man, if he transgressed the commandment, should die the death, after the transgression man should not die, but God's word should be broken. For God would not be true, if, when He had said we should die, man died not. 4. Again, it were unseemly that creatures once made rational, and having partaken of the Word, should go to ruin, and turn again toward non-existence by the way of corruption. 5. For it were not worthy of God's goodness that the things He had made should waste away, because of the deceit practised on men by the devil. 6. Especially it was unseemly to the last degree that God's handicraft among men should be done away, either because of their own carelessness, or because of the deceitfulness of evil spirits.

    So, as the rational creatures were wasting and such works in course of ruin, what was God in His goodness to do? Suffer corruption to prevail against them and death to hold them fast? And where were the profit of their having been made, to begin with? For better were they not made, than once made, left to neglect and ruin. 8. For neglect reveals weakness, and not goodness on God's part-if, that is, He allows His own work to be ruined when once He had made it-more so than if He had never made man at all. 9. For if He had not made them, none could impute weakness; but once He had made them, and created them out of nothing, it were most monstrous for the work to be ruined, and that before the eyes of the Maker. 10. It was, then, 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. For it were monstrous for God, the Father of truth, to appear a liar for our profit and preservation. 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; nor, secondly, does repentance call men back from what is their nature-it merely stays them from acts of sin. 4. Now, if there were merely a misdemeanour in question, and not a consequent corruption, repentance were well enough. But if, when transgression had once gained a start, men became involved in that corruption which was their nature, and were deprived of the grace which they had, being in the image of God, what further step was needed? or what was required for such grace and such recall, but the Word of God, which had also at the beginning made everything out of nought?

    For His it was once more both to bring the corruptible to incorruption, and to maintain intact the just claim of the Father upon all. For being Word of the Father, and above all, He alone of natural fitness was both able to recreate everything, and worthy to suffer on behalf of all and to be ambassador for all with the Father.

    For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery-lest the creature should perish, and His Father's handiwork in men be spent for nought-He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father-doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire.

    For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. 2. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them. 3. And like as when a great king has entered into some large city and taken up his abode in one of the houses there, such city is at all events held worthy of high honour, nor does any enemy or bandit any longer descend upon it and subject it; but, on the contrary, it is thought entitled to all care, because of the king's having taken up his residence in a single house there: so, too, has it been with the Monarch of all. 4. For now that He has come to our realm, and taken up his abode in one body among His peers, henceforth the whole conspiracy of the enemy against mankind is checked, and the corruption of death which before was prevailing against them is done away. For the race of men had gone to ruin, had not the Lord and Saviour of all, the Son of God, come among us to meet the end of death.

    And of this one may be assured at the hands of the Saviour's own inspired writers, if one happen upon their writings, where they say: 'For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died, and He died for all that we should no longer live unto ourselves, but unto Him Who for our sakes died and rose again', our Lord Jesus Christ. And, again: 'But we behold Him, Who hath been made a little lower than the angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour, that by the grace of God He should taste of death for every man'. 3. Then He also points out the reason why it was necessary for none other than God the Word Himself to become incarnate; as follows: 'For it became Him, for Whom are all things, and through Whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suffering;' by which words He means, that it belonged to none other to bring man back from the corruption which had begun, than the Word of God, Who had also made them from the beginning. 4. And that it was in order to the sacrifice for bodies such as His own that the Word Himself also assumed a body, to this, also, they refer in these words: 'Forasmuch then as the children are the sharers in blood and flesh, He also Himself in like manner partook of the same, that through death He might bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage'. 5. For by the sacrifice of His own body, He both put an end to the law which was against us, and made a new beginning of life for us, by the hope of resurrection which He has given us. For since from man it was that death prevailed over men, for this cause conversely, by the Word of God being made man has come about the destruction of death and the resurrection of life; as the man which bore Christ saith: 'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive'; and so forth. For no longer now do we die as subject to condemnation; but as men who rise from the dead we await the general resurrection of all, 'which in its own times He shall show', even God, Who has also wrought it, and bestowed it upon us. 6. This then is the first cause of the Saviour's being made man. But one might see from the following reasons also, that His gracious coming amongst us was fitting to have taken place.

  • God, Who has the power over all things, when He was making the race of men through His own Word, seeing the weakness of their nature, that it was not sufficient of itself to know its Maker, nor to get any idea at all of God; because while He was uncreate, the creatures had been made of nought, and while He was incorporeal, men had been fashioned in a lower way in the body, and because in every way the things made fell far short of being able to comprehend and know their Maker-taking pity, I say, on the race of men, inasmuch as He is good, He did not leave them destitute of the knowledge of Himself, lest they should find no profit in existing at all.

    For what profit to the creatures if they knew not their Maker? or how could they be rational without knowing the Word (and Reason) of the Father, in Whom they received their very being? For there would be nothing to distinguish them even from brute creatures if they had knowledge of nothing but earthly things. Nay, why did God make them at all, as He did not wish to be known by them?

    For whereas the grace of the Divine Image was in itself sufficient to make known God the Word, and through Him the Father; still God, knowing the weakness of men, made provision even for their carelessness: so that if they cared not to know God of themselves, they might be enabled through the works of creation to avoid ignorance of the Maker. 2. But since men's carelessness, by little and little, descends to lower things, God made provision, once more, even for this weakness of theirs, by sending a law, and prophets, men such as they knew, so that even if they were not ready to look up to heaven and know their Creator, they might have their instruction from those near at hand. For men are able to learn from men more directly about higher things. 3. So it was open to them, by looking into the height of heaven, and perceiving the harmony of creation, to know its Ruler, the Word of the Father, Who, by His own providence over all things makes known the Father to all, and to this end moves all things, that through Him all may know God. 4. Or, if this were too much for them, it was possible for them to meet at least the holy men, and through them to learn of God, the Maker of all things, the Father of Christ; and that the worship of idols is godlessness, and full of all impiety. 5. Or it was open to them, by knowing the law even, to cease from all lawlessness and live a virtuous life. For neither was the law for the Jews alone, nor were the Prophets sent for them only, but, though sent to the Jews and persecuted by the Jews, they were for all the world a holy school of the knowledge of God and the conduct of the soul.

    God's goodness then and loving-kindness being so great-men nevertheless, overcome by the pleasures of the moment and by the illusions and deceits sent by demons, did not raise their heads toward the truth, but loaded themselves the more with evils and sins, so as no longer to seem rational, but from their ways to be reckoned void of reason.

    Or what profit to God Who has made them, or what glory to Him could it be, if men, made by Him, do not worship Him, but think that others are their makers? For God thus proves to have made these for others instead of for Himself. 5. Once again, a merely human king does not let the lands he has colonized pass to others to serve them, nor go over to other men; but he warns them by letters, and often sends to them by friends, or, if need be, he comes in person, to put them to rebuke in the last resort by his presence, only that they may not serve others and his own work be spent for naught. 6. Shall not God much more spare His own creatures, that they be not led astray from Him and serve things of nought? especially since such going astray proves the cause of their ruin and undoing, and since it was unfitting that they should perish which had once been partakers of God's image. 7. What then was God to do? or what was to be done save the renewing of that which was in God's image, so that by it men might once more be able to know Him? But how could this have come to pass save by the presence of the very Image of God, our Lord Jesus Christ? For by men's means it was impossible, since they are but made after an image ; nor by angels either, for not even they are (God's) images. Whence the Word of God came in His own person, that, as He was the Image of the Father, He might be able to create afresh the man after the image.

    But, again, it could not else have taken place had not death and corruption been done away. 9. Whence He took, in natural fitness, a mortal body, that while death might in it be once for all done away, men made after His Image might once more be renewed. None other then was sufficient for this need, save the Image of the Father.

    For as, when the likeness painted on a panel has been effaced by stains from without, he whose likeness it is must needs come once more to enable the portrait to be renewed on the same wood: for, for the sake of his picture, even the mere wood on which it is painted is not thrown away, but the outline is renewed upon it; 2. in the same way also the most holy Son of the Father, being the Image of the Father, came to our region to renew man once made in His likeness, and find him, as one lost, by the remission of sins; as He says Himself in the Gospels: 'I came  to find and to save the lost'. Whence He said to the Jews also: 'Except a man be born again', not meaning, as they thought, birth front woman, but speaking of the soul born and created anew in the likeness of God's image. 3. But since wild idolatry and godlessness occupied the world, and the knowledge of God was hid, whose part was it to teach the world concerning the Father? Man's, might one say? But it was not in man's power to penetrate everywhere beneath the sun; for neither had they the physical strength to run so far, nor would they be able to claim credence in this matter, nor were they sufficient by themselves to withstand the deceit and impositions of evil spirits. 4. For where all were smitten and confused in soul from demoniacal deceit, and the vanity of idols, how was it possible for them to win over man's soul and man's mind-whereas they cannot even see them? Or how can a man convert what he does not see? 5. But perhaps one might say creation was enough; but if creation were enough, these great evils would never have come to pass. For creation was there already, and all the same, men were grovelling in the same error concerning God. 6. Who, then, was needed. save the Word of God, that sees both soul and mind, and that gives movement to all things in creation, and by them makes known the Father? For He who by His own Providence and ordering of all things was teaching men concerning the Father, He it was that could renew this same teaching as well. 7. How, then, could this have been done? Perhaps one might say, that the same means were open as before, for Him to shew forth the truth about the Father once more by means of the work of creation. But this was no longer a sure means. Quite the contrary; for men missed seeing this before, and have turned their eyes no longer upward but downward. 8. Whence, naturally, willing to profit men, He sojourns here as man, taking to Himself a body like the others, and from things of earth, that is by the works of His body, so that they who would not know Him from His Providence and rule over all things, may even from the works done by His actual body know the Word of God which is in the body, and through Him the Father.

    For as a kind teacher who cares for His disciples, if some of them cannot profit by higher subjects, comes down to their level, and teaches them at any rate by simpler courses; so also did the Word of God. As Paul also says: 'For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the word preached to save them that believe'.  2. For seeing that men, having rejected the contemplation of God, and with their eyes downward, as though sunk in the deep, were seeking about for God in nature and in the world of sense, feigning gods for themselves of mortal men and demons; to this end the loving and general Saviour of all, the Word of God, takes to Himself a body, and as Man walks among men and meets the senses of all men half-way, to the end, I say, that they who think that God is corporeal may from what the Lord effects by His body perceive the truth, and through Him recognize the Father. 3. So, men as they were, and human in all their thoughts, on whatever objects they fixed their senses, there they saw themselves met half way, and taught the truth from every side.

    4. For if they looked with awe upon the Creation, yet they saw how she confessed Christ as Lord; or if their mind was swayed toward men, so as to think them gods, yet from the Saviour's works, supposing they compared them, the Saviour alone among men appeared Son of God; for there were no such works done among the rest as have been done by the Word of God. 5. Or if they were biassed toward evil spirits, even, yet seeing them cast out by the Word, they were to know that He alone, the Word of God, was God, and that the spirits were none. 6. Or if their mind had already sunk even to the dead, so as to worship heroes, and the gods spoken of in the poets, yet, seeing the Saviour's resurrection, they were to confess them to be false gods, and that the Lord alone is true, the Word of the Father, that was Lord even of death.

    7. For this cause He was both born and appeared as Man, and died, and rose again, dulling and casting into the shade the works of all former men by His own, that in whatever direction the bias of men might be, from thence He might recall them, and teach them of His own true Father, as He Himself says: 'I came to save and to find that which was lost'.

    We have, then, now stated in part, as far as it was possible, and as ourselves had been able to understand, the reason of His bodily appearing that it was in the power of none other to turn the corruptible to incorruption, except the Saviour Himself, that had at the beginning also made all things out of nought and that none other could create anew the likeness of God's image for men, save the Image of the Father; and that none other could render the mortal immortal, save our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life; and that none other could teach men of the Father, and destroy the worship of idols, save the Word, that orders all things and is alone the true Only-begotten Son of the Father. 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, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. 3. And do not be surprised if we frequently  repeat the same words on the same subject. For since we are speaking of the counsel of God, therefore we expound the same sense in more than one form, lest we should seem to be leaving anything out, and incur the charge of inadequate treatment: for it is better to submit to the blame of repetition than to leave out anything that ought to be set down. 4. The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it it was placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord's body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, 'Bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage'

    Now, see to it, I reply, whether such an objection be not merely human, whereas what the Saviour did is truly divine and for many reasons worthy of His Godhead. Firstly, be cause the death which befalls men comes to them agreeably to the weakness of their nature; for, unable to continue in one stay, they are dissolved with time. Hence, too, diseases befall them, and they fall sick and die. But the Lord is not weak, but is the Power of God and Word of God and Very Life. 5. If, then, He had laid aside His body somewhere in private, and upon a bed, after the manner of men, it would have been thought that He also did this agreeably to the weakness of His nature, and because there was nothing in him more than in other men. But since He was, firstly, the Life and the Word of God, and it was necessary, secondly, for the death on behalf of all to be accomplished, for this cause, on the one hand, because He was life and power, the body gained strength in Him; 6. while on the other, as death must needs come to pass, He did not Himself take, but received at others' hands; the occasion of perfecting His sacrifice. Since it was not fit, either, that the Lord should fall sick, who healed the diseases of others; nor again was it right for that body to lose its strength, in which He gives strength to the weaknesses of others also. 7. Why, then, did He not prevent death, as He did sickness? Because it was for this that He had the body, and it was unfitting to prevent it, lest the Resurrection also should be hindered, while yet it was equally unfitting for sickness to precede His death, lest it should be thought weakness on the part of Him that was in the body. Did He not then hunger? Yes; He hungered, agreeably to the properties of His body. But He did not perish of hunger, because of the Lord that wore it. Hence, even if He died to ransom all, yet He saw not corruption. For rose again in perfect soundness, since the body belonged to none other, but to the very Life.

    But it were better, one might say, to have hidden from the designs of the Jews, that He might guard His body altogether from death. Now let such an one be told that this too was unbefitting the Lord. For as it was not fitting for the Word of God, being the Life, to inflict death Himself on His own body, so neither was it suitable to fly from death offered by others, but rather to follow it up unto destruction, for which reason He naturally neither laid aside His body of His own accord, nor, again, fled from the Jews when they took counsel against Him. 2. But this did not shew weakness on the Word's part, but, on the contrary, shewed Him to be Saviour and Life; in that He both awaited death to destroy it, and hasted to accomplish the death offered Him for the salvation of all. 3. And besides, the Saviour came to accomplish not His own death, but the death of men; whence He did not lay aside His body by a death of His own  - for He was Life and had none- but received that death which came from men, in order perfectly to do away with this when it met Him in His own body. 4. Again, from the following also one might see the reasonableness of the Lord's body meeting this end. The Lord was especially concerned for the resurrection of the body which He was set to accomplish. For what He was to do was to manifest it as a monument of victory over death, and to assure all of His having effected the blotting out of corruption, and of the incorruption of their bodies from thenceforward; as a gage of which and a proof of the resurrection in store for all, He has preserved His own body incorrupt. 5. If, then, once more, His body had fallen sick, and the word had been sundered from it in the sight of all, it would have been unbecoming that He who healed the diseases of others should suffer His own instrument to waste in sickness. For how could His driving out the diseases of others have been believed in if His own temple fell sick in Him ? For either He had been mocked as unable to drive away diseases, or if He could, but did not, He would be thought insensible toward others also.

    And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for oursakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have 'become a curse', unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: 'Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree'. 3. Again, if the Lord's death is the ransom of all, and by His death 'the middle wall of partition' is broken down, and the calling of the nations is brought about, how would He have called us to Him, had He not been crucified? For it is only on the cross that a man dies with his hands spread out. Whence it was fitting for the Lord to bear this also and to spread out His hands, that with the one He might draw the ancient people, and with the other those from the Gentiles, and unite both in Himself. 4. For this is what He Himself has said, signifying by what manner of death He was to ransom all: 'I, when I am lifted up,' He saith, 'shall draw all men unto Me'. 5. And once more, if the devil, the enemy of our race, having fallen from heaven, wanders about our lower atmosphere, and there bearing rule over his fellow-spirits, as his peers in disobedience, not only works illusions by their means in them that are deceived, but tries to hinder them that are going up (and about this the Apostle says: 'According to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience'); while the Lord came to cast down the devil, and clear the air and prepare the way for us up into heaven, as said the Apostle: 'Through the veil, that is to say, His flesh' -and this must needs be by death-well, by what other kind of death could this have come to pass, than by one which took place in the air, I mean the cross? for only he that is perfected on the cross dies in the air. Whence it was quite fitting that the Lord suffered this death. 6. For thus being lifted up He cleared the air of the malignity both of the devil and of demons of all kinds, as He says: 'I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven'; and made a new opening of the way up into heaven as He says once more: 'Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors'. For it was not the Word Himself that needed an opening of the gates, being Lord of all; nor were any of His works closed to their Maker; but we it was that needed it whom He carried up by His own body. For as He offered it to death on behalf of all, so by it He once more made ready the way up into the heavens.
  • Perhaps you can give me the correct definition then...

    The word DIKAIWSUNH,"justice", is a translation of the Hebraic word tsedaka. This word means "the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation". It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, hesed which means "mercy", "compassion", "love", and to the word, emeth which means "fidelity", "truth".

    Let's look at the workers parable. God gave the EXACT same wage to those who worked all day and the ones that worked just the last hour. Is that fair or just in our human logic? No.
    Well, how is it fair with God then? The actual reward is being in the the Giver's presence, and those who worked only from the 11th hour were deprived of that. They weren't working for the stupid one dinar. The Giver is the reward, not the gift from the Giver.
    The same goes with the prodigal son! Was is fair that the prodigal son could spoil everything he received, and after coming back having not to pay anything? I'm sure I'd feel the same as the older brother, it's not FAIR, it's not JUST.
    Well, for God again it is just, because the older brother was with his father always and his company and his mercy and love were the best reward ever. The younger son surely felt the punishment, not because his father inflicted punishment, but because he was deprived of his father, this exactly is the wages of sin.
    Now, does God punish then? Yes, on earth he does as a means of restoration. If getting a small hit from God can cause me to return to him, then it's a just punishment because it will lead to my salvation, which is after all what God desires (so the Bible tells us: For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth [1Tim 2:3-4]).
Sign In or Register to comment.