Article: POLISHING THE DIAMONDS

[Papist]

Below is an article by the popular Catholic Bishop, Fr. Robert Barron. I am interested in what your thoughts my be on his understanding of redeeming sacrifice of Jesus.

POLISHING THE DIAMONDS - Bishop Robert Barron

"There is a regrettable interpretation of the cross that has, unfortunately, infected the minds of many Christians. This is the view that the bloody sacrifice of the Son on the cross was “satisfying” to the Father, and appeasement of a God infinitely angry at sinful humanity. In this reading, the crucified Jesus is like a child hurled into the fiery mouth of a pagan divinity in order to assuage its wrath..."

Full Article: http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/polishing-the-diamonds/5099/

 

[Cyrillic]

Nice.

Do bishops get "Fr." before their names, through?

 

[Second Chance]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

 

[Papist]

Nice.

Do bishops get "Fr." before their names, through?

Not in the Latin Tradition.

 

[primuspilus]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

satisfaction theory

Its kind of a monstrous view if you look at it from the Father's perspective.

PP

 

[benjohn146]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

 

[eddybear]

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

But didn't St John the Forerunner say, "Behold the Lamb of God...." ?

 

[benjohn146]

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

But didn't St John the Forerunner say, "Behold the Lamb of God...." ?

Yes indeed He is the Lamb of God, but He is not only the Lamb that is sacrificed as a sin offering. Much more has been fulfilled by His Death(defeated death by death, preached to the souls in Hades, uniting us with the divine nature, restoring our relationship to the state it was before the Fall, fulfilling the Law of Moses, etc...). I was only pointing out that some view only this aspect of the Crucifixion of Our Lord and that by believing that, they think they are justified and saved.

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

My point is that I think that the Orthodox view is the Roman Catholic view too.

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

satisfaction theory

Its kind of a monstrous view if you look at it from the Father's perspective.

PP

Agreed. Satisfaction theory is disgusting, but not surprising given the nearly cartesian view of theology that Calvinists are their kind subscribe to.

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

To be clear, I agree with Bishop Barron. I think what he presents is the orthodox (little 'o') view of salvation.

 

[Asteriktos]

I like it. It's hard to criticize what isn't there, since it's as short as it is and you can't expect everything and the kitchen sink to be covered. I would add, though, that one thing not really mentioned, but which I think a lot of Orthodox could benefit from, is western talk of blood. Blood is all over the New Testament, yet in much of Orthodox literature we find very little about it--certainly theologically and substantially, though it might get a token reference because of it's Scriptural pervasiveness. I'm not saying Orthodox (or Catholics) are wrong for focusing on things like theosis, or the theotokos, as it relates to the history and ongoing redeeming of the world, but balance is good too. There was a debt to be paid, he was the spotless lamb (self-)offered and slaughtered, there is 'power in the blood,' etc. This blurb seems to me to have a good balance like that--to me anyway--a good tone in something pointing out problems/errors.

 

[NicholasMyra]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

Christ is the lamb and a sin offering. The problem is with the faulty understanding of what a sin offering is/does

 

[eddybear]

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

But didn't St John the Forerunner say, "Behold the Lamb of God...." ?

Yes indeed He is the Lamb of God, but He is not only the Lamb that is sacrificed as a sin offering. Much more has been fulfilled by His Death(defeated death by death, preached to the souls in Hades, uniting us with the divine nature, restoring our relationship to the state it was before the Fall, fulfilling the Law of Moses, etc...). I was only pointing out that some view only this aspect of the Crucifixion of Our Lord and that by believing that, they think they are justified and saved.

Agreed

 

[benjohn146]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

My point is that I think that the Orthodox view is the Roman Catholic view too.

Officialy, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teach that:

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

and

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

Please fellow Brothers in Christ, correct me if i am wrong, but the Orthodox Church doesnt teach that Christ is a ransom, right?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Please fellow Brothers in Christ, correct me if i am wrong, but the Orthodox Church doesnt teach that Christ is a ransom, right?

What do you mean by "ransom"?

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

My point is that I think that the Orthodox view is the Roman Catholic view too.

Officialy, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teach that:

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

and

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

Please fellow Brothers in Christ, correct me if i am wrong, but the Orthodox Church doesnt teach that Christ is a ransom, right?

You don't believe that Christ ransomed us from sin and death?

 

[benjohn146]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

My point is that I think that the Orthodox view is the Roman Catholic view too.

Officialy, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teach that:

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

and

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

Please fellow Brothers in Christ, correct me if i am wrong, but the Orthodox Church doesnt teach that Christ is a ransom, right?

You don't believe that Christ ransomed us from sin and death?

No. My thoughts on that have already been put into words by holier men than I: Fr Steven Kostoff from the OCA and Saint Gregory the Theologian

From the OCA Website, An Orthodox Christian perspective on the Cross of Christ:

In soberly assessing too great of a dependency on juridical language when speaking of redemption, and anticipating some later theories that would narrowly focus on the language of “payment” and “ransom” in relation to the sacrifice of Christ; Saint Gregory the Theologian argued that a “price” or “ransom” was not “paid” to the Father or to Satan, as if either would demand, need or expect such a price as the “precious and glorious blood of God.” Saint Gregory says, rather, the following:  “Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or had any need for it but by His dispensation? It was necessary that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God; it was necessary that He Himself should free us, triumphing over the tyrant by His own strength, and that He should recall us to Himself by His Son who is the Mediator, who does all for the honor of the Father, to whom he is obedient in all things …. Let the rest of the mystery be venerated silently” (Oration 45,22).

 

[Papist]

Another Orthodox amongst the heterodox.

Well, to be honest, this was already my understanding of the Catholic view of atonement. I rejected satisfaction theory years ago after reading some Catholic critiques of what is essentially a protestant view.

Coming from a RC background (received Chrismation last december),  unfortunately some parishes and their clergymen are still teaching that Christ came as the Lamb to pay a sin offering to God.

The theory of destroying Death by Death and uniting mankind to the divine is an Orthodox teaching for sure. If some protestant denomination claim its there own theory, maybe they should have a look at the Church Fathers to observe that their claim is not their's.

Happy to see that a member of the RCC is sharing the Orthodox view!

My point is that I think that the Orthodox view is the Roman Catholic view too.

Officialy, the Cathechism of the Catholic Church teach that:

"He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

and

622 The redemption won by Christ consists in this, that he came "to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), that is, he "loved [his own] to the end" (Jn 13:1), so that they might be "ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [their] fathers" (I Pt 1:18).

Please fellow Brothers in Christ, correct me if i am wrong, but the Orthodox Church doesnt teach that Christ is a ransom, right?

You don't believe that Christ ransomed us from sin and death?

No. My thoughts on that have already been put into words by holier men than I: Fr Steven Kostoff from the OCA and Saint Gregory the Theologian

From the OCA Website, An Orthodox Christian perspective on the Cross of Christ:

In soberly assessing too great of a dependency on juridical language when speaking of redemption, and anticipating some later theories that would narrowly focus on the language of “payment” and “ransom” in relation to the sacrifice of Christ; Saint Gregory the Theologian argued that a “price” or “ransom” was not “paid” to the Father or to Satan, as if either would demand, need or expect such a price as the “precious and glorious blood of God.” Saint Gregory says, rather, the following:  “Is it not evident that the Father accepts the sacrifice not because He demanded it or had any need for it but by His dispensation? It was necessary that man should be sanctified by the humanity of God; it was necessary that He Himself should free us, triumphing over the tyrant by His own strength, and that He should recall us to Himself by His Son who is the Mediator, who does all for the honor of the Father, to whom he is obedient in all things …. Let the rest of the mystery be venerated silently” (Oration 45,22).

That's not what I was getting at.

 

[Papist]

This is what I was getting at: "Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." - 1 Timothy 2:6

 

[benjohn146]

Maybe we're just stuck on symantics here or i have a poor grasp of the context (English is not my first language, sorry, i try hard), but to whom the ransom is given?

 

[Papist]

Maybe we're just stuck on symantics here or i have a poor grasp of the context (English is not my first language, sorry, i try hard), but to whom the ransom is given?

I don't think it's given to anyone. I think it's metaphorical language. He ransomed us from death and sin by paying the ultimate price - his own life.

 

[benjohn146]

Maybe we're just stuck on symantics here or i have a poor grasp of the context (English is not my first language, sorry, i try hard), but to whom the ransom is given?

I don't think it's given to anyone. I think it's metaphorical language. He ransomed us from death and sin by paying the ultimate price - his own life.

On that we agree, it is best put in these following words:

From the OCA website:

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 Romans 5-8; Galatians 2-4)

Maybe that this is where the second language barrier is affecting me but my understanding is that by His Death, he destroyed the powers of death on us and give us the opportunity to live a life of repentance and imitation of Him in the hope that He will invite us in His Heavenly Kingdom. I dont see any "payment", He took back what was His from Satan: He defeated Death by Death, He is the Victor.

 

[benjohn146]

Maybe we're just stuck on symantics here or i have a poor grasp of the context (English is not my first language, sorry, i try hard), but to whom the ransom is given?

I don't think it's given to anyone. I think it's metaphorical language. He ransomed us from death and sin by paying the ultimate price - his own life.

On that we agree, it is best put in these following words:

From the OCA website:

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 Romans 5-8; Galatians 2-4)

Maybe that this is where the second language barrier is affecting me but my understanding is that by His Death, he destroyed the powers of death on us and give us the opportunity to live a life of repentance and imitation of Him in the hope that He will invite us in His Heavenly Kingdom. I dont see any "payment", He took back what was His from Satan: He defeated Death by Death, He is the Victor.

The next part of the OCA article is quite good too:

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.” (Romans 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.

He wasnt forced, it was totally His Will. On the contrary: He was the Enforcer. It is give to us out of Heavenly Love. He wasnt asked a payment by anyone. Thus, He didnt "pay" a "ransom".

 

[Papist]

He wasnt forced, it was totally His Will. On the contrary: He was the Enforcer. It is give to us out of Heavenly Love. He wasnt asked a payment by anyone. Thus, He didnt "pay" a "ransom".

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church agree with you on this. Though, I would say that we can't abandon the "ransom" terminology entirely because it is scriptural. What we need to do is understand "ransom" in the proper context which you and I have been discussing and be careful not to let the term be taken over by those who hold to the heresy of an atonement of "satisfaction."

 

[benjohn146]

He wasnt forced, it was totally His Will. On the contrary: He was the Enforcer. It is give to us out of Heavenly Love. He wasnt asked a payment by anyone. Thus, He didnt "pay" a "ransom".

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic Church agree with you on this. Though, I would say that we can't abandon the "ransom" terminology entirely because it is scriptural. What we need to do is understand "ransom" in the proper context which you and I have been discussing and be careful not to let the term be taken over by those who hold to the heresy of an atonement of "satisfaction."

Indeed!

I would be curious to see what possible definition could we extract from the original greek text IAW the context...

Any Greek friend that could help?

 

[Volnutt]

My problem with abandoning a satisfaction view is doesn't it cut into the sovereignty of God by positing that there is some kind of impersonal law ("paid the price to Reality") in play that even God Himself had to submit to by dying?

 

[Papist]

My problem with abandoning a satisfaction view is doesn't it cut into the sovereignty of God by positing that there is some kind of impersonal law ("paid the price to Reality") in play that even God Himself had to submit to by dying?

That would be the case if salvation were a 1 + 2 = 3 matter, rather than a Divine mystery occurring in a family setting.

 

[Volnutt]

My problem with abandoning a satisfaction view is doesn't it cut into the sovereignty of God by positing that there is some kind of impersonal law ("paid the price to Reality") in play that even God Himself had to submit to by dying?

That would be the case if salvation were a 1 + 2 = 3 matter, rather than a Divine mystery occurring in a family setting.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand you.

 

[benjohn146]

I found that interesting quote that can explain the term "ransom" seen through Orthodox Christianity's POV:

    “In order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by [Satan] who required it, Deity was hidden under the veil of our nature, that so, as with ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of flesh, and thus, life being introduced into the house of death, and light shining in darkness, that which is diametrically opposed to light and life might vanish; for it is not in the nature of darkness to remain when light is present, or of death to exist when life is active.

    -St. Gregory of Nyssa (The Great Catechism, 24)