quote:

---

Originally posted by borg

Well I can direct you to the Bible and the Effectual Atonement of Christ Jesus whereby His righteousness is imputed unto us sinners. Why do you need any other view?
SG,
Borg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lock

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

Lock, that does not say that it is "imputed," the way Anselm said. That says that we are made partakers of Christ's righteousness that he gained by HIS faith. If you meant it as an answer to JEE's question, its not.

---

Maybe I did not understand the question. Does not Paul go on in the beginning of Romans 4 to say that "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness and that David declared "blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"? Then, finally in 4:23-25, "Now it was not written for his (Abraham's) sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed. who are believing on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead"?

Lock

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lock

Maybe I did not understand the question. Does not Paul go on in the beginning of Romans 4 to say that "Abraham believes God, and it is reckoned to him for righteousness and that David declared "blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin"? Then, finally in 4:23-25, "Now it was not written for his (Abraham's) sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed. who are believing on Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead"?

Lock

---

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Rom 4:25

quote:

---

Undoubtedly, one of the most important causes of heresy is the failure to understand the exact nature of the human situation described by the Old and New Testaments, to which the historical events of the birth, teachings, death, resurrection and second coming of Christ are the only remedy. The failure to understand this automatically implies a perverted understanding of what it is that Christ did and continues to do for us, and what our subsequent relation is to Christ and neighbor within the realm of salvation. The importance of a correct definition of original sin and its consequences can never be exaggerated. Any attempt to minimize its importance or alter its significance automatically entails either a weakening or even a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Church, sacraments and human destiny.

. . .

A proper approach to the New Testament teaching of St. Paul concerning original sin cannot be one-sided. It is incorrect, for example, to emphasize, in Romans 5:12, the phrase, eph'ho pantes hemarton, by trying to make it fit any certain system of thought concerning moral law and guilt without first establishing the importance of St. Paul's beliefs concerning the powers of Satan and the true situation not only of man, but of all creation. It is also wrong to deal with the problem of the transmission of original sin within the framework of dualistic anthropology while at the same time completely ignoring the Hebraic foundations of St. Paul's anthropology. Likewise, and attempt to interpret the Biblical doctrine of the fall in terms of a hedonistic philosophy of happiness is already doomed to failure because of its refusal to recognize not only the abnormality but, more important, the consequences of death and corruption.

A correct approach to the Pauline doctrine of original sin must take into consideration St. Paul's understanding of (1) the fallen state of creation, including the powers of Satan, death and corruption, (2) the justice of God and law, and (3) anthropology and the destiny of man and creation. These divisions are not meant to suggest that each topic is to be dealt with here in detail; rather, they shall be discussed only in the light of the main problem of original sin and its transmission according to St. Paul.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by borg

AS I understand it, imputation is never specifiically mentioned in the Bible (however neither is the Trinity), but we can gather that Christ's righteousness is imputed upon us with the verses above and with the ideas as found in Zechariah 4 and Micha 7. In both cases it is Christ who justifies us with His own "clothes" or by taking upon Himself our "reproach". The fact is, is that we are justifed by grace alone through faith alone, and we are not justified through the works of the law, yet we stand justified before God, and Christ being the only one who ever fully kept the law, it seems that a transfer was necesarry.

---

• http://www.frederica.com/orthodox/meaning_of_his_suffering.html


• http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/All%20About%20Church%20Articles/Frederica%20Mathewes%20Green/The_Passion_Movie_by_Mel_Gibson.htm

quote:

---

MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR
ad thalassium 42

On Jesus Christ, the New Adam Who "Became Sin"

(CCSG 7:285-289)


And it is by virtue of his assumption of this natural passibility that he became sin for our sake, though he did not know any deliberate sin because of the immutability of his free choice. Because his free choice was incorruptible, he rectified our nature's liability to passions and turned the end of our nature's passibility which is death into the beginning of our natural transformation to incorruption. In turn, just as through one man, who turned voluntarily from the good, the human nature was changed from incorruption to corruption to the detriment of all humanity, so too through one man, Jesus Christ, who did not voluntarily turn from the good, human nature underwent a restoration from corruption to incorruption for the benefit of all humanity.

Therefore the Lord did not know "my sin", that is, the mutability of my free choice. Neither did he assume nor become my sin. Rather, he became the "sin that I caused"; in other words, he assumed the corruption of human nature that was a consequence of the mutability of my free choice. I For our sake he became a human being naturally liable to passions, and used the "sin" that I caused to destroy the "sin" that I commit. Just as in Adam, with his own act of freely choosing evil, the com­mon glory of human nature, incorruption, was robbed-since God judged that it was not right for humanity, having abused free choice, to have an immortal nature-so too in Christ, with his own act of freely choosing the good, the common scourge of our whole nature, corruption, was taken away. At the resurrection of Christ, human nature was transformed into incorruption because his free choice was immutable. For God judged that it was right for man, when he did not subvert his free choice, once again to recover an immortal nature. By "man" here I mean the incarnate Logos in virtue of the fact that he united to himself, hypostatically, the flesh animated by a rational soul. For if the deviance of free choice introduced passibil­ity, corruptibility, and mortality in Adam's nature, it only followed that in Christ, the immutability of free choice, realized through his resurrection, introduced natural impassibility, incorruptibility, and immortality.

Hence the mutation of human nature over to passibility, cor­ruption, and death is the condemnation of Adam's deliberate sin. Man was not created by God in the beginning with such a corrupted nature; rather, man invented and knew it since he created deliberate sin through his disobedience. And clearly condemnation by death is the result of such sin. Yet the Lord took on this very condemnation of my deliberate sin, that is to say, the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality of our nature. He became the "sin" that I caused, in terms of the passibility, corruptibility, and mortality, and he sub­mitted voluntarily to the condemnation owed me in my nature, even though he himself was blameless in his freedom of choice, in order to condemn both my deliberate "sin" and the "sin" that befell my nature. Accordingly he has driven sin, passion, corruption, and death from human nature, and the economy of Christ's philan­thropy on my behalf has become for me, one fallen through disobe­dience, a new mystery. For the sake of my salvation, Christ, through his own death, voluntarily made my condemnation his own, thereby granting me restoration to immortality.

---

Therefore the Lord did not know "my sin",

that is, the mutability of my free choice. Neither

did he assume nor become my sin. Rather, he became

the "sin that I caused"; in other words, he assumed

the corruption of human nature that was a consequence

of the mutability of my free choice. I For our sake he

became a human being naturally liable to passions, and

used the "sin" that I caused to destroy the "sin"

that I commit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by feelinahole

Awhile back someone posted a site that had a list of the different theories of the Atonement. Anyone remember where that was? Thanks.

---

Redemption

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Redemption.html


• Jesus, the Perfect Image of Human Life


• Jesus, the Reconciler of Man with God


• Jesus, the Destroyer of Death

quote:

---

• 1. SATISFACTION THEORY: - Strictly vicarious and exactly equivalent to man's guilt.


• 2. GOVERNMENTAL THEORY: - The Atonement was necessary to solve the problems of God as a Moral Governor, who lovingly desires to reconcile mankind.


• 3. MORAL INFLUENCE THEORY: - A manifestation of suffering Divine love was necessary to subdue man's rebellion so reconciliation could take place.


• 4. ETHICAL EXAMPLE THEORY: - Sinful man has been misguided and needed a noble virtuous example to challenge him to a new way of living.


• THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE ATONEMENT
  
  Case 1: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -All are not being saved through it. -Therefore, It could not have been made for all.
  
  Case 2: -The Atonement was a literal or an exact payment for sin. -It was made for all. -Therefore, all will be saved through it.
  
  Case 3: -The Atonement was made for all: Is. 53:6; Lk. 2:10-11; Jn. 1:29; 3:16-17; 6:51; II Co. 5:14-15; I Tim. 2.3-6; Tit. 2:11; He. 2:9; I Jn. 2:2; also Is. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1; Eze. 18:30-32; Mt. 23:37; Mk. 16:15-16; Ro. 2:11; Re. 3:20.
  
  Only a minority are being saved through it: Ge. 6:5-8; Is. 53:1; Mt. 21:10; Lk. 13:23-24; 23:21; Jn. 5:40; 6:60, 67; 7:7; 16:33; Acts 8:1; 14:22; I Co. 4:13.
  
  Therefore, it was not a literal or an exact payment for sin.
  
  

---

quote:

---

A. The sufferings of Christ were necessary to the Divine government, rather than to the Divine nature: Gregory of Nazianzus (330-390). "Is it not plain that the Father received the ransom, not because He Himself required or needed it, but for the sake of the Divine government of the universe, and because man must be sanctified through the incarnation of the Son of God?" He strongly opposed the idea of a ransom paid to Satan, and could not understand why a ransom should be paid to the Father. He could only fall back on the "economy" of God and put forth no theory of satisfaction. Other early writers, like Athanasius, also mentioned God's governmental problems.

---