quote:

---

BBC: ...The individualism of our culture veiws disobedience in terms of our "relationship with God" outside of any corporate understanding. The opposite of that is forgiveness involves incorporation into the "family of God." This hardly fares well with "the plan of salvation" grounded in disobedience (acts)-forgiveness understanding of sin and salvation.

Secondly, if disobedience is something that is understood in terms of a "divine slate" that Jesus death wipes clean, to the extent that he covers all sinful acts completely, the question remains, are we any less likely to engage in future sinful acts?

---

quote:

---

It is in this context of Necessity, which even gods obey, that we must understand the Western juridical conception of God's justice. It was necessary for God to punish man's disobedience. It was impossible for Him to pardon; a superior Necessity demanded vengeance. Even if God was in reality good and loving, He was not able to act lovingly. He was obliged to act contrary to His love; the only thing He could do, in order to save humanity, was to punish His Son in the place of men, and by this means was Necessity satisfied.

---

quote:

---

I just believe that we must at least incorporate the penal and satisfactory concepts somewhere in here: the wages of sin is death - who's death? Ours? Well, it should have been. I mean, plain ol' justice here just as we'd expect in our own world!

---

quote:

---

Actually my first encounter with OT was John Boykin's book, "The Gospel of Coincidence: Is God in Control?" still available at Amazon.com) I came away thinking how rather "different" it was then the the standard fan fare of the Calvinistic compatiblism that I was use to.

---

quote:

---

If the West blends the energy-essence distinction, it dichotomizes many things that the Orthodox view holistically as organic unities. (Note that org-anic is built on the same root as en-erg-y and English work.)
1. Dividing monastic life into active and contemplative types.
2. Opposing reasoned theology and mysticism. (See r.)
3. Letting Atonement refer to the Crucifixion rather than giving at least equal weight to the Incarnation and the Resurrection of OLGS Jesus Christ.
4. Splitting Salvation into a negative side ("Redemption"--with Atonement, Satisfaction, Justification, Adoption, etc.) and a positive side ("Sanctification"), where the Orthodox typically find in Philp. 2:13, Gal. 2:20, etc. good works to be part of the whole thing--which is Grace, Christ's sharing His uncreated Energies (and all that He has done of a positive or negative kind) with each member of His Body, energizing them to do works to please Him and not lose Grace, so as to arrive at the true Glory and Divinization in the Vision of uncreated Light.

The list could be augmented, not least with the monumentally proliferated categories of Grace in the declining years of scholasticism--the classifying mentality gone wild.
For the West, the Orthodox organic approach is a logic muddle. For the East, the West sunders unities in an unacceptable manner. There are various reasons why it is harder for the West to grasp the Eastern attitude than conversely. If you are an orthodontist, you can think holistically about approaches to teeth, but no one would get very surprised if you should get lost in thinking holisitically of your work in the context of that of the ophthalmologist, the neurologist, the dermatologist, the allergist, etc.--in short, the healing whole physical and mental and spiritual human being. It is a question of organs vs. organism--the organic whole. You probably wouldn't go so far as to say the other jobs are of no use, but you would be very likely to emphasize your focus and its various subapproaches to the detriment of the others. Quite understandably and forgivably, one cannot focus one's efforts in too many directions beyond the expertise that others depend on. Perhaps it is so with the doctrines of Salvation. The Orthodox see little point in breaking down the work of Grace into so many juridical categories in analyzing the Mystery of Salvation and shies away from dissecting what the East sees to be an organic whole and from analyzing Mysteries; the West sees this reluctance as a muddled approach, one that resists the logic of analysis--and thus confuses organic thinking with fuzzy thinking. The living whole is more than an inventory listing of parts.

ORLAPUBS P_ R7  DIVISIONS OR BRANCHES OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.htm

---

quote:

---

(!): "The goal of libertarian freedom is to BECOME compatibilistic freedom in perfect comformity with God's will."

---

Greg talks about "compatibilistic freedom." This is different than the "compatibilism" that says that God is all controlling to the very nth molecule and yet at the same time says, that there is genuine freedom. This is not "complementarianism" but a contradiction. As Sanders has said, "A contradiction by any other name...is still a contradiction."

Greg talks about "compatibilistic freedom." When he talks about this he usually talks about it in terms of "character formation" or (more precisely) "character solidification." This has to be a part of his argument. Basically, his point is, is that we are given genuine freedom and that the many choices we make eventually "solidify" our character to the point that we can no longer do otherwise. This can work both ways toward good or evil. The wrath of God and his proposal for the doctrine of hell (in Satan and the Problem of Evil fits in here well, in that, God gives us what we want and that is what Hell eventually is (in a future eschatological sense).

As I was reading that chapter, I think I could relate to just a foretaste of what that means in terms of my personal issues with depression and "disassociation" from reality (reality becomes "unreal" for me) during such very low times. And let me tell ya. It 'taint a pretty picture.

Excellent discussion, but as you say, it would be more appropriate for another board maybe.

Brandon

quote:

---

The relationships which exist among God, man and the devil are not according to rules and regulations, but according to personalistic freedom. … St. Paul's version of the devil is certainly not that of one who is simply obeying general rules of nature and carrying out the will of God by punishing souls in hell. Quite on the contrary, he is fighting God dynamically by means of all possible deception, trying by all his cunning and power to destroy the works of God. Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power.

… The moralistic problem raised by St. Augustine concerning the transmission of death to the descendants of Adam as punishment for the one original transgression is foreign to Paul's thoughts. The death of each man cannot be considered the outcome of personal guilt. St. Paul is not thinking as a philosophical moralist looking for the cause of the fall of humanity and creation in the breaking of objective rules of good behavior, which demands punishment from a God whose justice is in the image of the justice of this world. Paul is clearly thinking of the fall in terms of a personalistic warfare between God and Satan, in which Satan is not obliged to follow any sort of moral rules if he can help it. It is for this reason that St. Paul can say that the serpent "deceived Eve" and that "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Man was not punished by God, but taken captive by the devil.

… If man was created for a life of complete selfless love, whereby his actions would always be directed outward, toward God and neighbor, and never toward himself--whereby he would be the perfect image and likeness of God--then it is obvious that the power of death and corruption has now made it impossible to live such a life of perfection. The power of death in the universe has brought with it the will for self-preservation, fear, and anxiety, which in turn are the root causes of self-assertion, egoism, hatred, envy and the like.

---

Jesus, the Reconciler of Man with God

The second aspect of Christ's one, indivisible act of salvation of man and his world is the accomplishment of man's reconciliation with God the Father through the forgiveness of sins. This is the redemption and atonement strictly speaking, the release from sins, and the punishment due to sins; the being made "at one" with God.

While we were yet helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. Why, one will hardly die for a righteous man -- though perhaps for a good man one will dare even to die. But God shows His love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Since therefore we are now made righteous by His blood, much more shall we be saved by Him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by His life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received our reconciliation (Rom 5:6-11).

quote:

---

Though I have little exposure to Orthodox teaching, my sense is that it maintains a high Christology. 'Jesus as God and King';

The issue I am raising here may have more to do with the predominant
expressions of the Western church concerning the Incarnation, Christ's deity, and the implications of these for the Atonement.

---

quote:

---

Zizioulas is a good read.

---

Anyone named Zizioulas has got to have something interesting to say. pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
“…through the open windows and doors came so much stimulation for thought and discussion that there was hardly time or love or zeal left for the task to be accomplished within the house itself.” § Karl Barth, The Humanity of God

quote:

---

So, to your point (and re. the quotes you posted above) - modern explanations of the Atonement, whether in the vernacular or in more studied expressions, use language and metaphor concerning the Father and Son which differentiate the persons and roles oppositionally, while failing to hold in view (and articulate) the essential unity of God throughout the Incarnate life of Christ.

---

An A+ to fr.patmos' last post. Articulated very well. Bridging epistemological presupps to theology and how this affects our understanding of such doctrines as the atonement. Then wraps it up with a balanced analysis. Good stuff fr. patmos!

Brandon