quote:

---

Now, I would love to hear Ochuk explain, in his opinion, what Christ's death represents. Why did Christ die?

---

quote:

---

.
Can we comfortably define a condition that develops solely as the result of genetic wiring and/or a chemical imbalance in the brain -- as SIN??


For example...

Gluttony is a sin.
What if a person eats to excess -- because of an inherited condition called Prader-Willi Syndrome?
Is it still a sin??


In other words...
How can we judge that a lifelong disorder (and/or "way of being") is
SIN -- if the individual had no choice in the condition?
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ochuk

He died to absorb the wrath of God against sin.

---

quote:

---

quote:
---------------------------------
An earlier post referred to the so-called "wrath of the Lamb" and "wrath of the Father" in Revelations. Again, from an Eastern Orthodox perspective which is that of our original Greek (the West has a long history of forming its theology without being fluent in the original Greek that the East has always been), this is a mistranslation. The word in Greek is thymos. It occurs five times in the New Testament writings of St. Paul, once in Hebrews, twice in the Gospel according to Luke, and 10 times in Revelations. In general, thymos is the courageous power of the warrior and a part of the soul in Greek thought. It is also means to boil up and is a force that breaks bonds and obstacles. Thymos, even in Homer and Plato and the Bible, is the courage to overcome the fear of death. Thymos is means passion. The "passion of the Lamb" is how the Greek reads. Tou theou (so-called "wrath of God") is the "passion of God". If any of you know your early Church doctrinal history about the controversy of whether or not the "Father suffered"? Its scriptural basis was this expression in Revelations "tou theou" -- the "passion of God" (NOT "wrath of God") because everyone in the early Church read it as "passion of God" which is what the Greek means. Its the western mistranslations that screws up the west here. The early Latin translations of thymos was ardentio (ardent striving) and/or passio (passion). Later, in the middle ages after Anselm, iracundia (wrath, irate) and furor (anger) came into usage to interpret the Latin Bible's ardentio and passio christi. Protestants naively picked it up even despite the fact that a few of their Greek scholars pointed out it was wrong (bad theology drove scriptural mistranslation).
---------------------------------



and


quote:
---------------------------------
Simple. The action of God provokes others to anger (ogre). Literally, it is the reactive upsurge (usually human) to God's butting in, interfering. In the OT, especially in the LXX, ogre is the human reaction/perception of God's thymos. If this was God's anger, the Greek words kotos, cholos, or menis would have been used. Orge is basically evil's incompatibility with God's goodness. Thus in the active form, orgizo means God's actions/interventions makes people angry as does the noun form parorgisma (provocation to anger). Thus, God's protection of Israel from other nations fills them with vexation (orge) as does God's commitment to justice fills an astray Israel with vexation (ogre). In Genesis, God allows fallen humanity to have its way (give them enough rope to hang themselves) which vexes humanity (ogre). The Holiness of God vexes (ogre) unjust sinners. Thus, the justice of God (dikaiokrisis) has the effect of ogre on humans. Ogre is the effect on sinners of God's dikaiokrisis and ekdikesis (Lk, 21:22 and Rom. 2:5). Again, thymos = passion; ogre, orgizo, parorgizo, and parorgisma (provoked to anger and vexation -- royally "pissed off" following the Hebrew word "to pee in another's well") is the effect God has on others. Thus the numerous genitive constructions orge tou thymou (the vexation/anger provoked by God's passion) or orge thymoutai (the angry effect of God's passion). Thus, the justice, love, and holiness of God's passion is "vexful" for Israel (Mt: 3:7; Lk 21:23) and all sinners (Eph. 2:3), the rich and powerful (Rev. 6:15), and His salvation, symbolized by the Cup, "stupefies" (Rev. 14:8); ogre is the "feedback" of attempting to block or oppose God or despising God's love/justice.
---------------------------------

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quest for truth

In my understanding the Old Testament sacrifice is similar to the act that Catholics participate in after confession -- they pay for their sin in order to be made right with God. God needed a way to communicate with people and ease their guilt so he offered them the opportunity to pay for their sin -- atonement through a ritual sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iconoclast

Were the early church martyrs acting out of a sense of justice or out of love? Were they operating out of the legal view or the love view?

Is it justice for God to allow us to torture and murder Himself? Or is it unfathomable love? (PoW: Here I'd make an adendum that Christ took up death willingly, and that we could not kill him without his consent!)

It seems to me that God's "justice" is mercy. And this is what the Pharisees could not stand. God dying on the cross turns every man-made notion of justice on its head. It is nonsense to the wisdom of man. (PoW: God does not give us the "justice" we deserve. "God's" justice IS mercy!)


thanks,
Iconoclast

---

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

quote:

---

According to the scriptures, man's sins and the sins of the whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, by the offering of His life -- His body and His blood, which is the "blood of God" (Acts 20:28) -- upon the cross. This is the "redemption," the "ransom," the "expiation," the "propitiation" spoken about in the scriptures which had to be made so that man could be "at one" with God. Christ "paid the price" which was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all iniquities and sins (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23).

In the history of Christian doctrine there has been great debate over the question of to whom Christ "pays the price" for the ransom of the world and the salvation of mankind. Some have said that the "payment" was made to the devil. This is the view that the devil received certain "rights" over man and his world because of man's sin. In his rebellion against God, man "sold himself to the devil" thus allowing the Evil One to become the "prince of this world" (Jn 12:31). Christ comes to pay the debt to the devil and to release man from his control by sacrificing Himself upon the cross.

Others say that Christ's "payment" on behalf of man had to be made to God the Father. This is the view which interprets Christ's sacrificial death on the cross as the proper punishment that had to be paid to satisfy God's wrath over the human race. God was insulted by man's sin. His law was broken and His righteousness was offended. Man had to pay the penalty for his sin by offering the proper punishment. But no amount of human punishment could satisfy God's justice because God's justice is divine. Thus the Son of God had to be born into the world and receive the punishment that was rightly to be placed on men. He had to die in order for God to receive proper satisfaction for man's offenses against Him. Christ substituted Himself on our behalf and died for our sins, offering His blood as the satisfying sacrifice for the sins of the world. By dying on the cross in place of sinful man, Christ pays the full and total payment for man's sins. God's wrath is removed. Man's insult is punished. The world is reconciled with its Creator.

Commenting on this question about to whom Christ "pays the price" for man's salvation, St. Gregory the Theologian in the fourth century wrote the following in his second Easter Oration:

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.

We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!

But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).

Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.

In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of "payment" and "ransom" is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal. This is what the Church sings on the feast of the Resurrection, the New Passover in Christ, the new Paschal Lamb, who is risen from the dead:

Christ is risen from the dead!
Trampling down death by death!
And upon those in the tombs bestowing life!
(Easter Troparion)

And this is how the Church prays at the divine liturgy of Saint Basil the Great:

He was God before the ages, yet He appeared on earth and lived among men, becoming incarnate of a holy Virgin;
He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being likened to the body of our lowliness, that He might liken us to the image of His Glory.

For as by man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so it pleased Thine Only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of Thee, the God and Father, who was born of a woman, the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, who was born under the law to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who were dead in Adam might be made alive in Thy Christ Himself.

He lived in this world and gave commandments of salvation; releasing us from the delusions of idolatry, He brought us to knowledge of Thee, the true God and Father. He obtained us for His own chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

Having cleansed us in water, and sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, He gave Himself as a ransom to death, in which we were held captive, sold under sin.

Descending through the cross into Sheol -- that He might fill all things with Himself -- He loosed the pangs of death. He arose on the third day, having made for all flesh a path to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible for the Author of Life to be a victim of corruption.

So He became the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep, the first-born of the dead, that He might be Himself truly the first in all things ...
(Eucharistic Prayer of the Liturgy of St. Basil)

---

quote:

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't scripture say, in one place, that no one every had their sins paid for by the blood of an animal, and in another place that even all the OT people still had to live by faith? I think so.

---

quote:

---

• faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see


• the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen


• Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

A page on another website that I appreciate A LOT is one that answers the question: " "

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

[quote][size=2][font=Courier New]According to the scriptures, man's sins and the sins of the whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, by the offering of His life -- His body and His blood, which is the "blood of God" (Acts 20:28) -- upon the cross. This is the "redemption," the "ransom," the "expiation," the "propitiation" spoken about in the scriptures which had to be made so that man could be "at one" with God. Christ "paid the price" which was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all iniquities and sins (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quest for truth
We ALL sin and might I say everyday.

---

8And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about£ sin and righteousness and judgment: /b]

Where is the presence of the Spirit, bringing "conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment" in the "love not judgment" view? What would Christ (the most perfectly loving person who ever lived) say about this so-called "love, not judgment" view?

1 John 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; 2and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Of course these apostle guys and Jesus were obviously "hung up on the legal view."

---

http://revivaltheology.net

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

MAYBE WE NEED TO RETHINK THE NOTION ABOUT "He died to absorb the wrath of God against sin" MAYBE IT IS NOT ONLY NOT TRUE, BUT UNBIBLICAL!!!!!
(At least in the original language and writing.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

Wrath = Passion, very interesting POW. Is this similar to Christ’s passion, does God suffer as a result of our sin? Is it, this is going to hurt me more then you, type of punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JEE

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

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

[quote]According to the scriptures, man's sins and the sins of the whole world are forgiven and pardoned by the sacrifice of Christ, by the offering of His life -- His body and His blood, which is the "blood of God" (Acts 20:28) -- upon the cross. This is the "redemption," the "ransom," the "expiation," the "propitiation" spoken about in the scriptures which had to be made so that man could be "at one" with God. Christ "paid the price" which was necessary to be paid for the world to be pardoned and cleansed of all iniquities and sins (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23).

---

The portion I bolded gives pause to me. I think they perhaps mean to say that all of mankind's sins are potentially forgiven.

As to the "paid the price" motif, when we say that the Allied soldiers in WWII paid the price for our freedom from Hitler's tyranny, we do not mean to say that they paid a literal monetary sum, or even that there was a legal transaction or quid pro quo involved by which our freedom was purchased.

Rather, when we say someone has "paid the price for our freedom" we are speaking figuratively of the ultimate sacrifice they have made for the cause. Their figurative payment does in fact have a REAL effect, and the benefits thereof may be entered into by all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by spenlake

What was the "problem" that Jesus died to solve?

---

quote:

---

ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL
www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Fallen Creation


• The Justice of God and Law


• The Destiny of Man and Anthropology


• The Destiny of Man


• Anthropology of St. Paul


• Synthetic Observations


• Concluding Remarks

---

quote:

---

The power of death and corruption, according to Paul, is not negative, but on the contrary, positively active. "The sting of death is sin," which in turn reigns in death. Not only man, but all creation has been yoked under its tyrannizing power and is now awaiting redemption. Creation itself shall also be delivered from the slavery of corruption. Along with the final destruction of all the enemies of God, death--the last and probably the greatest enemy--will be destroyed. Then death will be swallowed up in victory. For St. Paul, the destruction of death is parallel to the destruction of the devil and his forces. Salvation from the one is salvation from the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BBBCanada
5. If Jesus "paid" a "ransom" for our sins, WHO DID HE PAY IT TO? Is it to the Devil, who owns our souls because we are imprisoned in sin (Satan has "kidnapped" our souls) -- would God pay off a ransom to a criminal? Or does Jesus pay this "ransom" to God -- the supreme judge of the eternal court? Does God extort the payment of ransoms like a common kidnapper? If Jesus is God, is he paying the ransom to himself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel
He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

POW, Is this the verse that tends itself to Christ’s sacrifice being made to God, if not, where did this common veiw come from?

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

---

quote: Anselm is rejected in the east. It never was the theory of atonment of the early Church nor of the eastern Church -- where it is seen as a theological monstrosity (a Frankish warlord theory). Christ did not pay alone. Christ and the Father paid. But not in the sense that there was a debt owed to anyone. Rather, to follow the original Greek the beetter translation is not payment (a western distortion) but cost. To rescue us from our self-destructive violence, God and Christ knew it was going to cost them the life of Christ at our murderous hands. They knew we were so violently self-destructive that we would murder our rescuer. We would commit deicide. But not even our act of violent deicide God would not allow to separate us from his love. The love that would not abandon us and that we killed was resurrected for no power under heaven and earth, not even our violent deicide, would separate God love from us. The Anselmian theory has been considered to be devilish idea to be pronounced heresy. It makes God as violent as we are. It makes a mockery of the idea of Image: in violence let us create them after our image and likeness (blood thirsty). NO! No one got "paid" even though God the Father and Christ paid dearly.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PotOnWheel

quote:

---

Originally posted by sparknheart

POW, Is this the verse that tends itself to Christ’s sacrifice being made to God, if not, where did this common veiw come from?

Matthew 26:39 (NIV)
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

---

Q: Where did this common veiw come from?
A: Augustine's pagan youth.
Also this:

quote: Anselm is rejected in the east. It never was the theory of atonment of the early Church nor of the eastern Church -- where it is seen as a theological monstrosity (a Frankish warlord theory). Christ did not pay alone. Christ and the Father paid. But not in the sense that there was a debt owed to anyone. Rather, to follow the original Greek the beetter translation is not payment (a western distortion) but cost. To rescue us from our self-destructive violence, God and Christ knew it was going to cost them the life of Christ at our murderous hands. They knew we were so violently self-destructive that we would murder our rescuer. We would commit deicide. But not even our act of violent deicide God would not allow to separate us from his love. The love that would not abandon us and that we killed was resurrected for no power under heaven and earth, not even our violent deicide, would separate God love from us. The Anselmian theory has been considered to be devilish idea to be pronounced heresy. It makes God as violent as we are. It makes a mockery of the idea of Image: in violence let us create them after our image and likeness (blood thirsty). NO! No one got "paid" even though God the Father and Christ paid dearly.

Hope that helps.

---

quote:

---

Not that things stay the same on the surface over time. But the "ortho-doxy" (right worship) is an unfolding of what is there all the time; not a "change" or "development" as the RCC has sometimes done. "They" (the Orthodox) "say" this is true; and after all the research I've done I'd say they are telling the truth.

---