|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Orthodoxy - a total ignoramus asks ;
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't think that Anselm can be completely exonerated.
Perhaps, but only in the sense that Paul cannot be completely exonerated for speaking in a way that later people could construe as meaning that God used Jesus to pay off the Devil.
But believe me, I'm no more a fan of penal substitution than you are.
FCB
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustinos
Apprentice
# 7716
|
Posted
Oh dear, my first post and I'm afraid it's going to be a controversial one!
The twentieth century has been witness (in the Orthodox world) to a phenomenon typically called the "Patristic revival." There was a sense (and to a degree, justifiably) that in recent centuries the fullness of the Orthodox tradition was obfuscated, in particular by the borrowing of western polemics coming out of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation to deal with the dual problems of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism from an Orthodox perspective.
However, there's been a downside to this movement; that being the typical throwing out of the baby with the bathwater. Thus, in the name of purging Orthopraxis and Orthodox academic theology of perceived "westernizations", what has happened in some cases is the rejection of ideas which are actually quite Orthodox.
IMHO, the greatest example of this has been in relation to the dogma of redemption. This "re-envisioning" began earlier in the twentieth century, with the famous/infamous essay of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky entitled "The Dogma of Redemption." The essential thrust of this document, was to remove from the Orthodox teaching on redemption any "judicial" or "satisfactory" ideas from the feat of salvation accomplished by the Lord Jesus Christ. This work, and those who think along it's lines even if not directly citing it (and there are many such people) essentially claims that anything smacking of "atonement" is a Latin/Anslemian importation into Orthodoxy, even indirectly claiming that such an idea of the redemption is basically heretical.
Unfortunatly, for all of the claims of being a "return to the Fathers", those who promote this particular view are all but ignoring them. The language of the Holy Scriptures clearly has a strong judicial thread in them - the redemption and purification of mankind from it's sins (justification) preceeds and then continually accompanies his sanctification; yet the revisionistic teaching on this subject (coined by many as "stavroclasm") denies this, and reduces the economy of salvation almost exclusively to sanctification/divinization.
It is true that God is love. Yet His love extends not only to His creatures (and particularly sinners), but also to justice and righteousness. God is merciful, but He is also just - and all at the same time, as the traditional affirmation of God's unfathomable simplicity. There is no greater embodiment of this truth, than the Holy Cross itself - for in It we see both in the extreme, accomplished in a single redemptive feat.
No one would accuse St.Gregory Palamas of being "latinized" - he was in fact one of the chief opponents of attempts to import the scholastic categories of Roman Catholic theology into the Orthodox world. Yet read what he has to say on the doctrine of the Redemption...
quote:
"A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified, sinless priest…. God overturned the devil through suffering and His Flesh which He offered as a sacrifice to God the Father, as a pure and altogether holy victim – how great is His gift! – and reconciled God to the human race…
"Since He gave His Blood, which was sinless and therefore guiltless, as a ransom for us who were liable to punishment because of our sins, He redeemed us from our guilt. He forgave us our sins, tore up the record of them on the Cross and delivered us from the devil’s tyranny. The devil was caught by the bait. It was as if he opened his mouth and hastened to pour out for himself our ransom, the Master’s Blood, which was not only guiltless but full of divine power. Then instead of being enriched by it he was strongly bound and made an example in the Cross of Christ. So we were rescued from his slavery and transformed into the kingdom of the Son of God. Before we had been vessels of wrath, but we were made vessels of mercy by Him Who bound the one who was strong compared to us, and seized his goods."
(St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 16, 21, 24, 31; in Christopher Veniamin (ed.), The Homilies of Saint Gregory Palamas, South Canaan, PA: Saint Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002, pp. 193, 195, 201.)
Now, if I listened to some people, I'd have to understand this to be "scholastic" or "Anslemian". Of course it is neither, so perhaps a critical gaze has to be directed not at the symbolic books of recent centuries, great catechisms (which are often accused of being "westernized"), but upon those who in the name of a "patristic revival" are actually trafficking in theological modernism.
Posts: 1 | From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Augustinos
I have no problem with your post at all. When I have posted on this topic here (on many threads!) I have always made it clear that juridical sacrificial language is in the New Testament, (see post on ilasterion), is in the Fathers, is in Tradition. It's just that Anselm identified this motif as the key soteriological idea.
As may be seen from your quotation of St. Gregory Palamas, this element is embedded in the classic exposition of the victory of Christ. However, Anselm did change the direction of western atonement thought toward this element and thereby eclipsed the so called "classic theory." The worst he can be accused of is selectivity (set in the context of feudalism this was understandable). However, his successors, particularly in the Reformed tradition moved this emphasis on from selectivity to outright error. There is nothing in Scripture or Tradition to uphold the further distortion of substitutionary atonement. By the time we get to this stage God really is constrained by some anterior principle of justice ... which is not Orthodox at all. I am only saying that you overstate your case for those of us who have (mild) issues with Anselm.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
Still not completely clear on the whole substitutionary atonement thing.
Let me try and express what I think you're saying FG:
quote:
Substitutionary atonement as taught in (e.g.) con evo circles is wrong because it portrays God as vindictive (in the bad sense) and as limited by human logic
I don't think that God's vindictive in the bad sense either. Neither do I think he is limited by human logic.
My issue with this is that I agree with pretty much everything you've said on the atonement, except that you say you disagree with "substitutionary atonement", and I say I agree with both it and you. I can't see how my position on this is inconsistent either.
This makes me think we mean slightly different things by the phrase and that actually you are disagreeing with a position that few hold.
For reference, AFAIK, I'm pretty much classic evangelical theologically on this.
I would, of course, be interested to know more...
[ 29. June 2004, 19:41: Message edited by: Custard123 ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Custard123
Let's start with the positive angle which I believe to be scripturally supported.
(1) I cannot save myself.
(2) I stand guilty.
(3) Christ is not guilty.
(4) He takes the penalty for my sin inducing death and transforms a curse into a blessing through the resurrection.
Having said all that it may seem incredible that I resist SubAt. So what do I believe SubAt to be?
Well, it may not be what many conservative evangelicals believe but this is what I refute:-
SubAt seems to say that instead of me being punished, Christ is punished to secure my forgiveness / reconciliation to the Father.
This "punished in my stead" is not required by the "absorbs the penalty of my sin" IF (and it's a big and crucial IF) death is not a punishment but a self inflicted consequence of my sin induced alienation from the Source of Life Himself, God.
The crucial difference here is the resistance to the idea that God is an active punisher us for our sin. It's the "rewards and punishments" idea of the Law. I am not saying that it is absent from the Bible. I am saying that the New Testament sense of Christ's sacrifice does not require it and is, indeed, better served by God's willing embrace of our alienation on the Cross, healing it by the resurrection ... an act of Love not Justice.
[ 29. June 2004, 19:54: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
* where does the OC's tradition of Jpseph being an elderly widower come from?
I think from the Protoevangelium of James.
quote:
* what is the "protoevangelium of James" & who wrote it? [James?]
I don't know who wrote it. Probably not James. It is an early writing that the early Christians felt was important and authoritative, but not Scripture.
A question of my own about the Protoevangelium of James. . . .
I searched for "Protoevangelium of James" on www.oca.org and www.goarch.org and didn't find much. What I found on www.oca.org was:
quote:
In it [the Protoevangelium of James] we read about Jesus' grandparents, the pious Joachim and Anna whom are remembered at the dismissal of every worship service in the Orthodox Church. Also in the Protoevangelium is an account of the Presentation of the Theotokos. It is significant to remember that although the Protoevangelium of James was not accepted as a canonical text, it contains enough truth and dogma for the Orthodox Church to accept and embrace what it offers in regards to all Theotokion Feasts.
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
- accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
- as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
- neither of the above
Which is it?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
Substitutionary atonement as stated by Father Gregory, seems to me rather like a guy who gets insulted bu his boss, so he goes home and kicks his cat / wife / or plays a game of squash pretending the ball is his boss's head. It is displacement of anger, not forgiveness.
Transforming our sin by conquering death (what Fr G believes) is like us absorbing or bearing the pain of whatever offence has been caused. The guy bears the insult, forgives his boss and doesn't take it out on anyone or anything else.
Forgiveness is free to the forgiven, but it costs the forgiver. If you forgive someone for robbing you of £100, for example, it costs you £100.
Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Substitutionary atonement (displacement) paints a horrible picture of a God who has to take His wrath out on someone.
Christina
I think that a substitutionary atonement model can only generate some horrible pictures if one neglects to give due weight to the incarnation and the trinity. John Stott himself picks up this point in his book "The Cross of Christ". He avoids the trap by presenting a theology of substitutionary atonement solidly grounded in incarnational and trinitarian theology.
For a competent presentation of evangelical thinking on the atonement, covering both Anselm and Aulen on the way, his book is highly recommended
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
... an act of Love not Justice.
This interpretation does leave you with some significant problem passages though. Not least "he did it to demonsrate his justice...". Which seems pretty unequivocal to me.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But there is nothing in the passage that Augustinos quotes that says Jesus died "INSTEAD OF ME" -- which is key and essential to the subsitutionary model.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
Of course God acts justly but it's the relationship between love and justice which is the issue here. God's justice is not fair in human terms. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." This is not a capricious acting out of sovereign will or a formalistic exchange but rather wholly an act of Love for the sake of all, (and the Cosmos).
You have to reckon with the fact that when it comes down to ontological descriptions it's the Johannine "God is love" that holds the key. His justice is revealed in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
He didn't say, "I really MUST punish someone SO THAT I can love and accept them." He said: "I will submit myself to their evil and only return good; that will save them."
[ 30. June 2004, 15:34: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
It seems to me, dear Father G, that while you say that I have to jump through ontological hoops to maintain the truth God is love on my interpretation of the Bible, you have to do the same with "demonstrating his justice", which, on your reckoning looks nothing like justice in the commonly held use of the word.
Perhpas we would do better to let God himself define what it means for him to be loving and just rather than playing them off against each other because his actions fit into our human conception of neither.
This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Leprechaun
God's justice is indeed nothing like our concept of justice because he doesn't HAVE TO punish sinners, (or require that Someone Else take the rap). He simply wants to reform them.
This next comment is not aimed at you ...
There seems to me to be a certain corollary between the rewards and punishments view of atonement (of which SubAt is a subset) and the view that penal policy should have a strong retributive rather than therapeutic element.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
It is hard to tell whether the Protoevangelium of James is
- accepted as non-canonical but basically true,
- as an "apocryphal" book (in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") that nonetheless manages to have enough truth to be useful, or
- neither of the above
Which is it?
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
B
James' translation
Thanks. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Is it me, or do the Orthodox have various apocryphal stories (again, in the common not the technical sense of "apocryphal") in the Tradition that they themselves take with a grain of salt?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Yes. Mileage varies as to how much salt. Some take no salt at all. It's not that important really. We like a good story ... some true, some suspect ... but still useful at a different level.
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
How can one tell how much "salt" the Orthodox apply to a particular story?
Listen to the hymns during Matins and Vespers. You'll hear the unsalted parts of the story there. If we don't sing the story in our worship, then we may love it, and tell it, and generally believe it, but it's probably well salted.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I may have missed this question before(long thread and my eyes are starting to glaze over), but what exactly is "Byzantine Catholic?" I used to know somebody who said he was one. Are they entirely independent of both Constantinople and Rome? Or what? Don't know if this is an appropriate place to ask.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Byzantine Rite Catholics are under the Pope of Rome but follow the Orthodox Church in most liturgical and pietical (if that's a word) practices.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
This "I have to punish before I can love" is also a caricature I hope you are aware, as it is in himself that God takes the punishment, and thus that itself is an act of love and acceptance.
I appreciate that this may be a tangent, but I don't think it's a caricature.
In saying that Jesus had to die to pay the price for our sins, is the above not admitted also?
Otherwise Jesus didn't have to die.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Dumb Acolyte:
Uhhhh, try pious. English is such a bitch.
But "pious practices" isn't what I mean -- I mean practical piety, more like. Things like fasting and the form of personal prayers and such.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Right. And it's rather close to pious opinion, which you don't mean. Lemme paw around a bit in the one decent dictionary at hand, Websters New International, 2nd ed.
Well the 17th century German Pietists seem to have commandeered all the likely words (pietist, pietistical, pietistically); sort of like the evangelicals--oops! Wrong thread. And you probably want something people will actually understand, so pietose (=pietical, rare) is out. No useful entries near pious, either--not even in the teeny boxed entries at the bottom of the page.
Ummm. The Orthodox priest I listen to frequently calls the entire effort (fasting, repentence, the prayers, service, the whole lot) the Ascetical Life. Does ascetical practices work?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Does ascetical practices work?
Only if they're pietistiffic TDA.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
DO ascetical practices work? ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) Sorry, it's the grammatical pedant in me.
No, they don't work at all. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) They are tools. You might as well ask whether or not a hammer works. It only works if it is used correctly.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Don't get huffy with me, dear. I'm just trying to help you out of your pietistiffic dictional corner.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
