What Does Eastern Orthodoxy Say About Original Sin?

[Kia ora]

And is it different from the Catholic understanding of original sin?

[1054]

This is a fantastic question.  Generally Orthodoxy refers to the fall as 'ancestral' versus 'original' sin.  I will look into some good links/quotations for you from those that have expressed it better than I ever could.  (This is one of my favorite talking points.) 

Some very quick basics in the meantime:
The Orthodox Church holds that:
- Adam and Eve were spiritually childlike at the time of the fall, therefore the fall was not as great as it could have been.  (If a child does something wrong it's not as bad as an adult since they can not be fully aware of the repercussions of their actions.) 
- While we do not inherit the guilt of their sin, we do inherit the fallen condition.  There is a fantastic retelling of the story of the Prodigal Son by Father Thomas Hopko that illustrates this well. 

Going to find some of my favorite sources on this subject before I misrepresent anything! 
 

[1054]

We don't inherit the guilt, but we inherit the 'pigpen'. 
Father Thomas Hopko: http://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/the_prodigal_son_and_the_fathers_house/print
"We find ourselves in the pigpen, forgetting the house of the Father, that we have to remind ourself again. And that’s why some fathers say that the forgetfulness of God, the forgetfulness of the Father’s house, is the cause of every sin." 

Father Antony Hughes: http://www.stmaryorthodoxchurch.org/orthodoxy/articles/ancestral_versus_original_sin
"His (Augustine's) misinterpretation of a key scriptural reference, Romans 5:12, is a case in point (Meyendorff, 1979). In Latin the Greek idiom eph ho which means because of was translated as in whom. Saying that all have sinned in Adam is quite different than saying that all sinned because of him. Augustine believed and taught that all humanity has sinned in Adam (Meyendorff, 1979, p. 144). The result is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance (Augustine, 1956b) Therefore the term original sin conveys the belief that Adam and Eve's sin is the first and universal transgression in which all humanity participates."

[Selah]

You beat me to it xD Nice job :)

[1054]

Why, thank you! 
So many excellent sources to quote, it's hard not to flood the system!

[John Ryan]

Does the Roman Church declare that we inherit the "guilt" of Adam and Eve's sin? I have read and re-read that part of the Catechism and I do not find that belief. 

[1054]

Does the Roman Church declare that we inherit the "guilt" of Adam and Eve's sin? I have read and re-read that part of the Catechism and I do not find that belief. 

 

I am hesitant to say definitively, however it is something I have come across both when reading about Catholicism and discussing with Catholic clergy.  The matter of guilt pertaining to original sin is one that has been heavily influenced by Augustine's writings, I think it fair to say he has had greater influence in the West than the East. I am grateful for any clarification those better versed in Catholic teaching are able to supply. 

The causes of the Great Schism can be brought up elsewhere, but it is important to remember the language barrier has caused many misunderstandings.  Perhaps it has influenced this as well? 

From the online Catholic Encyclopedia at New Advent the entry is much closer to the idea of an inherited condition: 
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
"Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam."

Roman Catholic and Orthodox differences on Original Sin:
http://http://www.frpeterpreble.com/2010/02/roman-catholic-and-orthodox-differences-on-original-sin.html
(This is significantly shorter than those links I posted above.) 
 

[rkwright]

I had this discussion with Apo a long time ago - back in 2010 I believe.  But Its been a while since I've been on PM and can't find the search button for that topic.  

 

Part of the issue I had was the understanding of what the result was from the Original Sin.  It is my understanding that the Eastern Tradition does not see the Original Sin as a sin attributed to the us now, but simply as fallen nature.  I remember I asked Apo what this meant, if say Jesus had never redeemed us.  His answer was that the souls would simply fall out of existence.  Thus Christ died for "all" in the sense that he restores existence to all souls, but through a life of theosis each soul is individually judged on their eternal fate.  The argument being that even a life in hell is in some way better than non-existence.  

 

I really wish I could find that topic! Apo is extremely educated on these issues and it would be good to re-read his comments on this.   

[Selah]

Rome teaches that we are born with a stain of original sin, even though no personal sin was committed

 

The East teaches that we have no such stain at birth.

 

Is that right?

[rkwright]

Rome teaches that we are born with a stain of original sin, even though no personal sin was committed

 

The East teaches that we have no such stain at birth.

 

Is that right?

Basically - the East still teaches that we have a "stain" of original sin at birth but the result of that stain is a fallen nature, a loss of unity with God.  Rome teaches that the stain is not a personal sin, but the CCC states that it is an individual sin.  

 

My question for Apo back then was, fine we can call it different things - a fallen nature or a non-personal but individual sin - but what is the result of each teaching.

 

My concern for EO theology was that if it isn't a sin per se, why is the cross necessary? Can we simply be good and make it to heaven.

[Selah]

Basically - the East still teaches that we have a "stain" of original sin at birth but the result of that stain is a fallen nature, a loss of unity with God.  Rome teaches that the stain is not a personal sin, but the CCC states that it is an individual sin.  

 

My question for Apo back then was, fine we can call it different things - a fallen nature or a non-personal but individual sin - but what is the result of each teaching.

 

My concern for EO theology was that if it isn't a sin per se, why is the cross necessary? Can we simply be good and make it to heaven.

 

Life. The purpose of the cross is that Christ died, and by dying conquered death, so we may live. 

 

I actually do not think the EO teaches that we have a stain, but I will wait for 1054 to answer. 

[John Ryan]

I still maintain that mere semantic separate the West and East on this particular theology.

[1054]

We inherit the fallen nature as stated.  Through the Incarnation God restores fallen creation.  As Saint Athanasius says, "God became man so that man might become god."  With the feast of Theophany (the Baptism of our Lord) it is not He who needed to be baptized, but rather through His baptism the waters were sanctified.  Death on the cross was needed to overcome death making it powerless.  The Paschal (Easter) troparion states this beautifully: "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!" 

Fr. Stephen Salaris says:
"First, Jesus is our scapegoat. At His baptism, the Sinless One took upon Himself, willingly and voluntarily, all of the sins of humanity – past, present, and future. Every sin, every transgression, every fault, and every error of fallen humanity is now laid upon Jesus’ head. In doing this, He fulfills the type seen in the Levitical scapegoat. After being baptized and assuming the burden of humanity’s sins, Jesus exits to the wilderness for forty days. The new scapegoat is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world."

There is an excellent talk available on YouTube given by Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware on the Orthodox perspective of the Crucifixion.  I don't have access to find it at the moment, but I will search for it for those who may be interested.  I also heartily recommend his book, "The Orthodox Way" which gives an in depth, yet extremely readable, overview of the Orthodox understanding.  He also wrote, "The Orthodox Church" however the focus of this book tends towards the historical whereas "The Orthodox Way" is more theological. 

[Credo in Deum]

What is the EO's take on baptism?  I was reading on oca.org, that in the sacrament of Baptism we put on the garments of salvation, our new humanity, which is Christ Himself; the new Adam.   Now calling Christ the new Adam is something that interests me.  Is Christ the new Adam because He was sinless?  If so then wouldn't us putting on His humanity, be a declaration that we need Him because unlike Him, we have not been created sinless?  

[1054]

What is the EO's take on baptism?  I was reading on oca.org, that in the sacrament of Baptism we put on the garments of salvation, our new humanity, which is Christ Himself; the new Adam.   Now calling Christ the new Adam is something that interests me.  Is Christ the new Adam because He was sinless?  If so then wouldn't us putting on His humanity, be a declaration that we need Him because unlike Him, we have not been created sinless?  

 

Going to rely heavily on quotations in this response as well.  The below excerpts are on the idea of Christ as the New Adam.  (The first one, “Adam’s Fall” doesn’t directly mention it whereas the second does.)  I suggest reading them in context from the source, but I thought I’d give a few quick points here. 

In Orthodoxy sin is seen as ‘missing the mark’.  There is an oft told story of someone asking a monk what they do in the monastery.  He replied, “We fall, we get back up, we fall, we get back up...”  This is repentance, getting up and trying again.  You’ll often come across the idea that each day we put off the old Adam and put on the new.  The idea is to strive for perfection – the perfection that can only be found in Christ.  ‘Perfect God, perfect Man.’  We will miss the mark, but we keep trying. 

I will address your questions concerning baptism as best I can.  Expect more quotations…   
 

Adam's Fall
By Fr. Patrick Reardon
http://www.antiochian.org/node/17955
“When we think of Adam's fall, there are two passive participles that should come forcefully to our minds: lost and cursed. These two words sum up the human condition without Christ.”
…
“If man was to return to God, God had to take the initiative. If God had not sought man out, he would keep going in the same direction-away. This is very clear in the biblical story of Adam's hiding from God immediately after his disobedience. He and all his descendents would still be lying low there in the bushes if God had not come after him, inquiring, "Where are you?"”
…
“The curse incurred by fallen man was related to the very earth from which he was taken: "Cursed is the ground for your sake. . . In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread/ Till you return to the ground,/ For out of it you were taken;/ For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." The curse, that is to say, was man's mortality. What Adam handed on was domination by death; "sin reigned in death" (Romans 5:21). By reason of Adam's Fall, man without redemption is under the reign of death and corruption, because "the reign of death (regnum mortis) operates only in the corruption of the flesh" (Tertullian, On the Resurrection 47).

This is what Adam bequeathed to his offspring, "the reign of death." To die without the grace of redemption is to die eternally. This is the real curse of death, because to die such a death is to be "lost" in a most radical way, lost in the sense of putting oneself beyond the possibility of being found.”
 

Jesus Christ, The ‘New Adam’
http://www.sourozh.org/orthodox-faith-texts/jesus-christ-the-new-adam.html
“The first-created Adam was unable to fulfil the vocation laid before him: to attain deification and bring to God the visible world by means of spiritual and moral perfection. Having broken the commandment and having fallen away from the sweetness of Paradise, he had the way to deification closed to him. Yet everything that the first man left undone was accomplished for him by God Incarnate, the Word-become-flesh, the Lord Jesus Christ. He trod that path to the human person which the latter was meant to tread towards Him. And if this would have been the way of ascent for the human person, for God it was the way of humble condescension, of self-emptying ( kenosis ).

St Paul calls Christ the 'second Adam', contrasting Him with the 'first': 'The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven' (1 Cor.15:47). This parallelism was developed by St John Chrysostom, who emphasized that Adam was the prototype of Christ: 'Adam is the image of Christ ...as the man for those who came from him, even though they did not eat of the tree, became the cause of death, then Christ for those who were born of Him, although they have done no good, became the bearer of righteousness, which he gave to all of us through the cross'.”

[dairygirl4u2c]

"Death on the cross was needed to overcome death making it powerless."

 

i would say it's more like 'triumph of the cross was needed to...."

 

i would say it's more than just the fallen nature in general, but includes more specifically the propensity to sin. 

 

i'm not super aware of the quotes that say the RCChurch teaches that we inherit the guilt, but it's pervasive in related theology. 'christus victor' does not need to squash an inherited guilt the same way that penal substitution does (necessarily). also, the idea that 'original sin sends one to hell' was clearly taught by a council of the RCChurch, which would at least more specifically cause one to go to hell. 

--- well, i guess it doesn't show that it's necessarily clear that we inherit the original sin from those related teachings, but they definitely lend themselves much better to it. 

 

in fact, an interesting idea to me, would be to consider the above referenced story of adam and eve. if we are sent to hell for knowing something is a sin, and doing it anyway, that requires knowledge. the above story says we weren't so knowledgeable at the fall. but, the fact that we are not in hell or diminished from existence shows that we have been spared despite that stuff, that we have a chance at redemption. 

 

i would almost go so far as to say that it shows the RCC is wrong that original sin causes one to go to hell, cause the fact that we have this existence shows that we have been redeemed, and that we are redeemable. now, one might contend that original sin is only a hellish state in and of itself, but the fact that it's commonly taught to say that hell is permanent and irreversible shows that there's something more to the consequences of original sin that it sends one to hell. i might suppose that the details of hell are not necessarily dogmatically defined, except to say it's debabably part of the original magisterial teaching. (which to me goes to show the 'magic hat' that the RCC uses, to say you should believe this as if it's infallible though not necessarily true that you have to treat it that way, but remember that it might be changed later)

 

well, i am thinking pretty critically about some of the things i've said, and there might be more to the idea of there being just differences in undertandings. 

 

but for certain, at least the unofficial teachings, and general understandings, of RCChurch, are more disdainful to me than the orthodox teachings. 

[Socrates]

Please be patient, as I'm not an expert on Eastern theology.  I'm still not clear on the Eastern view of original sin and Redemption.  (What I read here did not fully answer the questions, and one of the links 1054 gave doesn't work for me.

 

The doctrine of original sin seems pretty fundamental to basic Christian theology.  If we did not actually inherit original sin, but only a "fallen condition," then what exactly did Jesus come and die on the Cross to save us from?  And what exactly then does Baptism wash away?

 

Even after baptism, we still inherit the fallen condition (including such things as concupiscence, disease, and death); it is the original sin that bars us from union in heaven with God that is washed away.

 

(Sure I'm missing something here.  Please clarify.)

[Socrates]

 I remember I asked Apo what this meant, if say Jesus had never redeemed us.  His answer was that the souls would simply fall out of existence. 

 

Too bad Apo's  not around to explain, but this sounds utterly contrary to everything I've learned in Catholic theology.

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

here was a decent debate i had elsewhere on the subject below.

 

a strong point i really wanted to respond to, was the idea that God was not appeased and thus his wrath was removed, it was more that Jesus caused love to break death, and God's wrath was no longer necessary.

 

Romans 4:9 connects the blood sacrifice offered by Jesus with the removal of God’s wrath, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! “

 

 

 

christus victor is superior to penal substitution

 

christus victor basically says love conquers death, and God wouldn't let Jesus die. it focuses on his incarnation and life, as that is what allows him to trump death, and we when we are part of Jesus' brotherhood in building the kingdom of God, Jesus's death was a sacrifice that bought us life... only he could defeat death and by extension we are only saved by virtue of him being saved, and desiring us to be saved as well. God doesn't let Jesus die, God because of our relationship with Jesus doesn't let us die.

here is a great general website that contrasts CV and penal views.
http://therebelgod.com...

-----
christus victor was the predominent view of atonement for the first thousand years of christianity, and still remains so in the eastern church. and more on CV...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

we shouldnt assume unless we have reson to think otherwise, that the earliest christians were wrong. if they thought something we should defer to them. penal advocates just have obscure academic reasons for not deferring to them. i have just as much basis there. so, we should defer to them given past beliefs.
and it brings back the essence of the "good news". we can rise from the dead?? as jesus rose?? and he preached a kingdom of God based on love of each other etc?? great!

--------
'It should be clarified that from a Jewish perspective the purpose of the sacrifices was never to appease God, which is a Pagan concept, but to cleanse us (cf. Heb 9:13-14) and draw us near to God.'

the origianl idea behind sacrifices was giving up of self for another's benefit, or honor. but not in an appeasing wrath kind of way. yes sacrifices are good, even Jesus' sacrifice... but it's all just not done for the reasons thought of westerners.

----
"Propitiation is a word that in not in common use today. Proponents of Penal Substitution use it frequently, primarily referring to Romans 3:25"

"(Christ Jesus) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God"

"Propitiation literally means "to make favorable". It is similar to words like appeasement (Lit "to make peace") and Pacify (again to bring peace). However with all of these the context is placed on the idea of turning aside another's wrath usually through a gift or offering. The immediate difficulty with such as idea is that God does not need to be "made favorable" since he is the initiator of reconciliation. God is the one who "first loved us"."
http://www.therebelgod.com...

"So how did the word "propitiation" get into Romans 3:25? The original Greek word is hilasterion. Hilasterion is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew kapporeth which refers to the Mercy Seat of the Arc. Luther in his translation of the Bible renders Hilasterion as "Gnadenstuhl" which is German for Mercy Seat. In context this means that "God has set forth Jesus as the mercy seat (the place where atonement and expiation happen) through faith in his blood". Jesus is thus "the place where we find mercy"."
So we see that propiation works just as well under CV.

-----
as to how wrath or sin is dealt with. you get what you put in, and people get what they deserve, to quote kid rock. i know that's not an official source, but it says it well. God's wrath is fulfilled when people die and are not resurrected, or when they are put where they belong. are you a robber who is put with other robbers? you got what you deserve etc. many believe in levels to heaven and hell, the consequences of sin, and wrath. this applies to both life, and perhaps to the after life.
not to mention that as God said, "you are dust, and to dust you shall return", that we are not guaranteed anything in life. if God just lets us live oru natural lives and then die as anaimals are considered to do, how can we really complain? we are not entitled to anything, far as we can see. and if we are given anything, karma's a bitch when we get what we deserve. etc.

-----
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice or technical sacrifice doesn't mean too much to God. But for 'turning the other cheek' and self sacrifice and honor, it means a lot.

"The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the Lord . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" Stop bringing meaningless offerings!... wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isa 1:11,13,16-17)

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God, more than burnt offering". (Hosea 6:6)

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". (Psalm 51: 16-17)

Yahweh does not need a bribe to convince him to be just or merciful because he is the very definition of justice and mercy. God does not need an appeasement to forgive. On the contrary Jesus tells us that Yahweh is our model for loving our enemies:
" But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteousA533; Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. " (Math 5:44-45, 48)

"And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross" (Colossians 2:15)

By the cross God triumphed over the System and crucified it, he nailed the law to the cross.
"Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14)

"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death" (Romans 8:1).

"Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms" (Eph 6:12)

"I will ransom them from Hell. I will redeem them from Death
O Death I will be thy plague. O Hell I will be thy destruction" (Hosea 13:14)

The true gift to God is to "wash and make yourselves clean" and to seek justice by defending the oppressed and the broken. The Hebrew word translated as "sacrifice" is korban. The root karev means to "draw close." Sacrifices are to help us draw close to God. The New Testament understanding of sacrifice as an act of self-sacrificing love traces back to this Old Testament understanding of the korban. There is certainly here the concept of vicarious atonement, meaning that through the sacrifice we are reconciled to God, but not understood in the legal context of a requirement or an appeasement but as an act of communion.

"Unlike Satisfaction-Doctrine which focuses on the death of Jesus, the pivotal event of Christus Victor is the resurrection. It was through the resurrection that death was overcome and where love emerged as victor. It was in the power and hope of the resurrection that the first-century church set their hope that they too would be raised up.

 

 

Con

Playing Devils advocate, I don’t support either position but it is clear that the bible supports Substitutionary Atonement (SA).

The major problem with your position is that you cannot reconcile the Old and New testaments. You state that Jesus’ sacrifice was not to satisfy a legal requirement and you misrepresent the problem of sin. Consistent with Christus Victor (CV) you stress that God initiated reconciliation but omit God’s anger and dissatisfaction with mankind, which is the major theme of the Old Testament.

You concede that Jesus’ sacrifice reconciles man and God but argue that this is not a legal requirement. The Entirety of the Old Testament is focused on legal requirements and God’s anger at men who break his moral law. CV does not explain how these legal requirements are satisfied.

Substitutionary Atonement

The major point at which SA is in disagreement is that Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law because mankind could not. This is clearly presented in scripture and the only way to reconcile the demanding wrathful God of the Old Testament with the kind and loving savior presented in the New Testament.

God’s dissatisfaction with man because of sin is the major theme of the Old Testament

The Majority of the bible deals with God’s frustration with mankind for not living up to his standards of righteousness. There are 603 Commandments in addition to the 10 most people are familiar with. Clearly God takes sin very seriously; the death penalty was a common requirement arguably for minor offenses. The death penalty was commanded for anyone who worked on Saturday (Exodus 31:15), worshiped another god (Deuteronomy 17:1-5) or ‘cursed’ his or her parents (Exodus 21:17).

God’s vengeful anger/retributionary punishment (wrath) against mankind is mentioned 585 times in the Old Testament [1]. He commanded the early Jewish tribes to exterminate entire civilizations on multiple occasions because they were worshipping other God’s or committing other sins (1 Samuel 15). God personally executed out the entire population of the Earth (except for Noah and his family) In Genesis 6 as retribution for Sin.

For references to wrath in the New Testament see Romans 1:18, Ephesians 2:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 2:16, John 3:36, Revelation 14:9-10, 19:15. John 3:36 states: “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

In response to God’s wrath you suggest that a version of karma satisfies God’s wrath “As to how wrath or sin is dealt with. you get what you put in, and people get what they deserve.” Not only is this assertion not true, people do not get what they deserve, but how do you reconcile this with the Old Testament where God’s wrath was satisfied by death. Why has this changed? A sacrificial death is clearly required by law.

The need for atoning sacrifice

You argue that there is no need for sacrifice because God was often displeased with some sacrifices. You’re neglecting the context that God is displeased with sacrifices from sinful men and pleased with others.

 

In Genesis, God was pleased with Abel’s sacrifices displeased with Cains, “ but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry… If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door… Genesis 4:5-7.” In context this is also true of your reference to Isa 1:11,13,16-17 and Psalm 51: 16-17. I concede that the God of the bible is often displeased with sacrifices but he also makes it clear pleasing sacrifices are necessary.

 

God was pleased with many animal sacrifices, see Gen 8:20-21, 22:13-17, 46:1-4 and many others. God commands sacrifices, See Exodus 18, 21:24, 29:19, Leviticus 3:9, 4:10, 4:35, 7:29, 9:4-5 etc.

 

It is clear that Animal Sacrifice was a legal requirement to atone for sin and That Jesus was the final sacrifice.

 

This theme is also clear. In Leviticus 4:32-35 The Israelites were commanded to sacrifice a lamb as a ‘sin offering,’ saying that, “In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.” Hebrews 9:22 clarifies, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

Jesus indicates that his very purpose for coming was to fulfill the law and that the law must be satisfied. In Matthew 5:17-18 Jesus said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them… not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Also see Luke 24:44, Romans 10:4 and many others.

 

Hebrews 7:27 indicates that Jesus is the final sacrifice legally required to atone for sin:

“He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself.” Notice this passage refers back to the legal requirement to sacrifice a lamb for sin and indicates that Jesus satisfies this requirement once and for all.

The Early Church accepted the Christos Victor model for the first 1000 years.

This is just an assumption presented without evidence. I understand Wikipedia points this out but I may argue against this assertion next round if you can demonstrate that the Early Church was a legitimate authority.

I could just as easily argue that the view was primitive and modern interpretation of the scriptures has improved as in any other field. The fact that a view is archaic or that it was held for a long period of time in no way supports it’s accuracy or merit.

The early church has been wrong before; they assumed that Jesus would return in their lifetime [2]. Slavery was accepted or tolerated by the church until 1839 [3] and was specifically endorsed by Paul in Colossians 3:22. The idea of purgatory was not introduced until around 1160 and remains in the Catholic Catechism.

The early years of the church were chaotic and a variety of contradictory views were supported [4]. All modern doctrines were questioned from the divinity of Jesus to ironically the meaning of Jesus’ death.

The early church operated based on word of mouth since there was no accepted New Testament scripture or doctrine until 400AD [5]. There were many books in circulation that were read by churches as teaching but not ultimately accepted as part of the bible. Paul himself warned of the forged letters in circulation which were not reliable in 2 Thessalonians 3:17.

Propitiation

I Haven’t referenced Romans 3:25 or John 2:2 so there is no need to address this issue. The passages are not needed to support SA.

“Yahweh does not need a bribe to convince him to be just or merciful because he is the very definition of justice and mercy.”

 

I concede that God makes it clear that he loves mankind and is full of mercy. You reference Math 5:44-45, 48, Colossians 2:1415, Romans 8:1, Eph 6:12 and Hosea 13:14. Then you elaborate explaining that Jesus’ act was one of love to reconcile our relationship, that he desires acts of charity toward the oppressed and that he ‘defeated’ death. I won’t dispute these points but I do not see how these support your view over SA.

 

You acknowledge both God’s Mercy and Justice. It is clear that God has wrath against sin because of his justice but mercifully offered a final sacrifice for sin.

Pro

i give props to con for a well thought out argument for SV. i will respond to his points mostly by drawing attention back to verses and points made in the intial post.

con says that the OT is ripe with legal requirements of animal sacrifice and other ways of appeasing God's dissatisfaction with sin. no where, though, does it say that those sacrifices are to appease God's wrath, or his justice, via the merits of the sacrifice itself. the OT also points out the merit behind the sacrifice is the motive behind it... the death of an animal represents a sacrifice of your farm stock, it represents your acknowledgement that the wages of sin is death, it's a self sacrifice. all this stuff first and foremost before a legal act to fulfill God's justice etc. it is more the mode of bringing communion with God.
it isn't a requirement so much as a "this is how we are to reconcile with each other". if a friend says i buy a taco for you, you buy a taco for me, this is teh first step in a relationship of giving. if you have to be ordered, it isn't much of a reciprocal gift, but the friend is telling you how it is done. if you want to call it a requirement, you are free to do so, but the tones involved make it sound like a tit for tat thing, when the essence is much pure-er than that.

"The New Testament understanding of sacrifice as an act of self-sacrificing love traces back to this Old Testament understanding of the korban. There is certainly here the concept of vicarious atonement, meaning that through the sacrifice we are reconciled to God, but not understood in the legal context of a requirement or an appeasement but as an act of communion."

"The true gift to God is to "wash and make yourselves clean" and to seek justice by defending the oppressed and the broken. The Hebrew word translated as "sacrifice" is korban. The root karev means to "draw close." Sacrifices are to help us draw close to God"

drawing closer, communion, etc are better accomplished with self sacrifice and other motives.

jesus washed and made himself clean. he set aside retaliation and other problems, against his accursers, and in a general sense us as a human race. it's the first act of reconciliation, the first hand is extended. salvation is presented.

the OT says what the meaning was behind the prior acts. the acts themselves do little to apprease God, or legal requirements, but a "communnal act requirement".

"The multitude of your sacrifices- what are they to me?" says the Lord . "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats" Stop bringing meaningless offerings!... wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow". (Isa 1:11,13,16-17)

"For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God, more than burnt offering". (Hosea 6:6)

"You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise". (Psalm 51: 16-17)
Jesus knew the real meaning behind it all. and he gave himself in that way, self sacrifice, turning the cheek, allowing his death to trump death for himself and his loved ones.

no where does con show where wrath is appeased by the OT rules. or that the acts themselves merit or mean much of anything. wrath and justice are fulfilled when you get a lower level of heaven, or different level of hell, or are not resurrected at all. whatever the afterlife has in store for us. it is not uncommon to argue that Jews did not beleive in hell as understood by christians. most tones of hell are based on pagan ideas and questionable bible verses. my point being, the structures of heaven and hell are more open to interpretation and ideas than simply you etiher get heaven and absolute bliss, or hell and literal hellfire. this all gives wiggle room for levels of reward and nonreward, the consequnces of sin and whatever wrath God has. or justice or whatever.
some argue that the bible is not the word for word word of God. this is only a secondary argument, as i previouslyu have been arguing how to interpret CV with an infallible source. it is somewhat ridiculous that woman's period be considered unclean, and doves and other sacrifices be made. just to use one example. animal sacrifices in general are questionable. dont throw the baby out with the bath water, though. christainty can still be true even if the bible isn't compltely true. there is a "law" even if it's not down to the specific iota rules of the OT. jesus would have surely knew this when he said he came to fulfill the law. he would have meant the real law. but even if it's an infallible law, the arguments here for CV still hold. even the consequences of sin and techncial consequences of the law, like death and specific animals and doings, can be said to have been satisfied with Jesus' death. the law is defeated for death, by Jesus. the law is deafeated even to fundamentalist chrsitans, when things like a list of jewish rules no longer apply. yet moral codes and other considerations do apply. "Having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross" (Colossians 2:14) the gist of the sacrifices are fulfilled.. the communional aspects. this verse is not necessarily in contradiction with the verse that says he came to fulfill the law. the verses are referring to different things, especially if we are assuming an infallible source to begin with.
we might just be getting hung on on "requirement". was Jesus' death a requirement? in some sense, but not in an appeasing wrath sense, or a tit for tat sense. a technical legal requirement is not at all the best way of articulating the requirement, especially if it's to fulfill wrath. it is the first act of communion... an act that has the ability to save mankind, and demonstrates the willingness of God to save mankind.

as to the fathers debate issue. the book in the wiki article showed that no one in the early church tlked about the issue in terms of infinite justify, wrath, and legal requirements. these are all concepts developed by St Anslem. he is only a person can can be wrong. even the wiki artical is hesitatant about stressing metaphors about the devil and ransome etc used by many in the early church, instead referring to the underling general talk of defeating death and sin and evil, etc that unifed all christian beliefs. no where in this talk is legal requirements and wrath etc. this is essentially an idea thought to explain the bible etc, but that doesn't necessarily do so. it is quite possibly, and id argue probably, an invention of man.

so, we have merely academic arguements for and against each atonement theory. both are somewhat reasonable. CV has church father stamp to go with it. and as a matter of what actually fits better with a loving God, it goes with that view too. so, on balance, CV is the better theory.

 

 

Con

Old Testament Sacrifices are clearly a legal requirement to atone for Sin

I agree with you that the motivation behind sacrifice is important and that there are other issues, mainly rampant disobedience, that really upset God. This does not mean that sacrifice is not a requirement to atone for sin.

Do a word search for sin offering in the bible: http://www.turnbacktogod.com.... I stopped counting at 100 references and I had not even gotten out of the first five books of the bible. Refuting this point is extremely difficult.

Exodus 30:10 says, “annual atonement must be made with the blood of the atoning sin offering for the generations to come. Leviticus 4:3 says, “if the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a sin offering for the sin he has committed.” In 4:14, “When they become aware of the sin they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the Tent of Meeting.”

Many of the other references are similar and describe how sacrifices are used to atone for sin.

 

God’s wrath is motivated by sin

Romans 1:18 says, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people.” Second Chronicles 19:10 States, “warn them not to sin against the Lord; otherwise his wrath will come on you and your brothers.”

God’s wrath is motivated by sin and sacrifice is a legal requirement to atone for sin. How then how is it that sacrifice does not remove God’s wrath?

 

You simply have reframed these points

Your analogy about friends exchanging tacos could be better. Maybe a child trading tacos with an extremely angry domineering father but I get what you are saying. You are simply pointing out that the motivation behind the sacrifice is important and that there are other issues involved in the relationship. This is true but sacrifice was clearly an important requirement.

You bring up that there are a lot of other aspects to God’s Character and I concede these points. You say that sacrifices are to draw us closer to God. I agree. The Old Testament and Jesus sacrifices are clearly presented as the method used to atone for sin and abate God’s wrath.

 

Biblical Accuracy

I object with your secondary argument that there may be errors in the bible. The themes I have used are presented in many passages and are not limited to isolated scriptures. If you object to scriptures that I have used you need to demonstrate that there is a reason to doubt their accuracy.

I would concede, for instance, that a certain portion of Luke 16 (talking about believers drinking poison) is less reliable. It is not included in many texts and appears to be borrowed from another source. You are using scriptures to support your case as well, should I throw out your passages without justification? An error-ridden bible contradicts with the bulk Christendom including the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Catechism states, “the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God… [6]”

Propitiation

Romans 3:35 (NKJV) states, “being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed.”

You have essentially argued that this passage can also be used to support CV. You focus on the word propitiation but the glaring word for me is blood. We are made right with God because of blood. How is this consistent with CV? This is clearly a reference to a blood sacrifice and is confirmed in Hebrews 9:22, “Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”

Other versions now simply use the word ‘sacrifice’ because it is clear in context that this is what was intended. Romans 3:25 NIV, “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith.”

 

How does CV remove God’s wrath?

I still don’t see that you have successfully addressed this issue. You suggest that wrath is removed at various stages of an afterlife but you haven’t presented any evidence to back this up.

 

The law is satisfied

I concede that the legal requirements changed In the New Testament and Paul makes it pretty clear that gentiles should not be held to Jewish law. This is consistent with the idea that Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law and Colossians 2:14.

 

Pro

con insists Jesus' death fulfilled a technical legal requirement with God, where his death substituted our eternal damnation, and appeased God's wrath.

con has shown sacrifices are used, and even that Jesus' death as a sacrifice.. i concede every example of sacrifice he uses, even Jesus', i just dispute the meaning behind it all.

all con has shown on the wrath point, is a rhetorical question and no explicit biblical support. he mixes up atoning for one's sin, and appeasing God's wrath. asks how are the OT sacrifices not made to appease wrath? he also says i have not shown how wrath could be fulfilled by what you get in the afterlife, the levels of heaven and hell.
the issue is that con ignores my points about what the sacrifices mean mentioned earlier about self sacrifice etc. and, the bible should be known by everyone to have lots of material on getting what you deserve.
what you deserve. the parable of the "talents", where the servants reaped wht they sow. there are tons of passages that are explicit on the reaping what you sow point, peraps having made those terms common use. generally there's the sheep and goats point where you are rewarded for what you did in life etc. plenty more examples. http://www.gotquestions.org...
i agree that the bible says that God has wrath against sin. why wouldn't a loving God follow the saying, "love the sinner hate the sin"? this doesn't indicate sacrifices to appease God's wrath.
or isn't it natural, that a person would want to atone for his sins? so he makes sacrifices for the reasons i listed before.
atoning for one's sin and appeasing God's wrath and very much different

legal transaction. con's arguments in that regard is even less supported than con's wrath points. no real susport. we have just as much reason to think it's about relationships, than legal transactions. again, the taco example. or the bottom line of self sacrifice being initiated by the person being transgressed against. this is thinking in the mode of relationships, not legal requirements. you can spin it as a legal requirement to be involved in a friendship, to buy your friend a taco. but it misses the point and connotes something that actually is not present.

pointless substitutionary death of an innocent person. con as even less merit here than he did with wrath and and less than legal transactions. instead of pointless death, we have God man setting aside possible wrath against his killers and us as people, turning the cheek for us. the cycle of eye for an eye, and sin, was broken permanently when Jesus turned the cheek. God wouldn't let Jesus die, love conquers death. pure divine love. we are mere men, so cannot conquer death on our own. we live cause he lives, we are saved because he desires us to be saved. like the prodigal son, the father comes to him, and is willing to be beaten to death before he retaliates allows his son and the people to die or be damned. it is an act of pure love, pure self sacrifice, that breaks the cycle and brings life. i showed earlier passages about conquering sin and death etc. this has more biblical support than substutionary death. i write out the philophy behind it, not because con might dispute much of it, but because it makes it more scientific sounding, what people often like from SV.

id encourage us to go back to the fathers. i notice con didnt really talk much about it last post. we should defer to the fathers unless we have reason to think otherwise. CV makes more sense from a loving father, and it's just as if not more supported biblically, so we should defer to the fathers. the unifying theme from the fathers is not ransom and verious metaphors, it's about defeating sin and death. SV, however, is not present in the early church. not only that, it didnt come until a thousand years after christ. which makes more sense to call a man made doctrine?

also, it actually adds an element of the real world, of authenticity, to acknowledge that the bible could have error in it. con says he could say the bible is mistaken, in a way that advantages him. this is true, no disputing it. i'd argue though that we are putting aside potential errors in a way that makes God loving and that makes sense to us. i agree we are not necessarily arbiters of objective truth, but there's no reason our sensibilities are not what God actually believes.

 

 

Con

“Con insists Jesus' death fulfilled a technical legal requirement with God, where his death substituted our eternal damnation, and appeased God's wrath.”

Here you misrepresent my position. I did not assert that the sacrifice fulfills a technicality; I referred to the 100+ references to a ‘sin offering’ in the Old Testament explaining that this was a major theme and that there was a need to reconcile this with the New Testament. I presented several scriptures that indicate that a sin sacrifice was needed and fulfilled by Jesus, which is denied by CV.

See Romans 8:3-4 “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us.”

-

Karma

The parable you present to argue that God’s wrath is fulfilled by karma refers to ultimate judgment and not consequences in this life. The parable of the talents in matt 25:14-30 refers to God’s return an ultimate judgment sending the offender to hell. Verse 30 says, “(I will) throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” If there are tons of examples in the bible that support karma you should have found a better example.

The bible does not support that people get what they deserve in this life. A major theme of the bible is that good people should expect to suffer in this life and that evil men are better off until the ultimate judgment consistent with your example.

1 Peter 3:17, “For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil.”

 

Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

 

Habakkuk 1:13, “why do you idly look at traitors and remain silent when the wicked swallows up the man more righteous than he? “

-

“I agree that the bible says that God has wrath against sin.”

I have demonstrated that Jesus was an atoning sacrifice for forgiveness of sin, which clearly removes the motivation for God’s wrath. This is a stronger explanation for the removal of wrath than your assumption that wrath is dealt with at different levels of an afterlife or through a version of karma. I have conceded that God desires a relationship, which is a major reason to arrange forgiveness of sins and this does not support either position.

The motivation behind atonement does not remove the obvious need for a sacrifice. Sacrifice is a requirement for the forgiveness of sins clearly supported in Old Testament Law. Why is this no longer required? CV has no answer.

-

 

“you can spin it as a legal requirement to be involved in a friendship, to buy your friend a taco. but it misses the point and connotes something that actually is not present.”

Your analogy is flawed. We are not God’s buddies although he may want to be friendly towards us. A friend does not require the other to follow 613 laws and the death of an animal to forgive an infraction of these laws.

Romans 4:9 connects the blood sacrifice offered by Jesus with the removal of God’s wrath, “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! “

 

-

God wouldn't let Jesus die, love conquers death.

You present several arguments that can support either position but cannot dispute the arguments I have laid out to support the need for a substitute sacrifice. Again I agree the motivation is often presented as love in the New Testament and that Jesus conquered death. You have not presented arguments that support CV.

How is it that a block of text like this supports your position over mine?

“ we are mere men, so cannot conquer death on our own. we live cause he lives, we are saved because he desires us to be saved. like the prodigal son, the father comes to him, and is willing to be beaten to death before he retaliates allows his son and the people to die or be damned. it is an act of pure love, pure self sacrifice, that breaks the cycle and brings life. i showed earlier passages about conquering sin and death etc. this has more biblical support than substutionary death. i write out the philophy behind it, not because con might dispute much of it, but because it makes it more scientific sounding, what people often like from SV.”

I concede that Jesus sacrifice was intensely personal and difficult while still fulfilling the Old Testament sacrificial law.

-

“I’d encourage us to go back to the fathers. I notice con didn’t really talk much about it last post.”

I did not refute this point last round because you have not responded to my arguments. You simply repeat that the early church was an authority without backing this up. I barely felt the need to respond to your original assertion since it was presented without evidence.

Why should I feel the need to respond after you drop my arguments and have presented none of your own? I get that you believe the early church was an authority. Why do you believe this? You have not provided evidence.

 

Speaking of dropped arguments, you have not responded to my refutation of your propitiation position, the clear need for an atoning sacrifice or reconciled God’s Old Testament, angry dissatisfaction with mankind to the loving savior presented in the New Testament.

-

Biblical Accuracy

Again you say that there must be errors in the bible that help your position. What errors? Why do you believe the scriptures I have referenced are not accurate? Bringing up a potential rebuttal without presenting any evidence for it is not an argument.

Referring to potential errors in the bible you say, “I'd argue though that we are putting aside potential errors in a way that makes God loving and that makes sense to us.” Why does God make sense to you if everything written about him is in this error ridden bible and how do you know that the scriptures that present God as loving are not in error?

---

I enjoyed the debate; I think you are more influenced by extra biblical teaching than the bible. You really need extra biblical sources to support Christus Victor, which you did not provide. If you are willing to use extra biblical sources I would recommend Carl Sagan’s ‘Demon Haunted World,’ over commentaries on the bible.

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

and i focused too much in that debate on how wrath is dealt with, by saying we get bad 'kharma'... christian karma, in this life, and in the after life. i should have focused on the brotherhood of love established by jesus, as preventing wrath, dealing with it.