Orthodox view of atonement and "substitution"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 жов 2022
- This video is sponsored by Christian Ministry EDU. For more information, check out www.christianministryedu.org
Theologian's van spilled no small amount of ink talking about substitution and penal substitution as it relates to views of the atonement. In this video, Fr. Jeremy Davis, an orthodox monk, share's his perspective on the orthodox view of substitution and atonement.
Watch the full interview here: • Rediscovering the TRUE...
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/gospelsimplicity
Merch: gospelsimplicity.creator-spri...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a UA-cam channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Hey! My name is Austin, and I'm a 23 year old guy who’s passionate about the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel. I believe that the gospel, the good news about Jesus, is really good news, and I’m out to explore, unpack, and share that good news with as many people as possible. I'm a full blown Bible and Church History nerd that loves getting to dialogue with others about this, learning as much as I can, and then teaching whatever I can. I grew up around Frederick, MD where I eventually ended up working my first job at a church. They made the mistake of letting me try my hand at teaching, and instantly I fell in love. That set me on a path for further education, and I'm currently a student at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, IL, studying theology. On any given day you can find me with my nose in a book or a guitar in my hands. Want to get to know me more? Follow me and say hi on Instagram at: @austin.suggs
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link. - Розваги
This explaination just crystalized an idea for me; that Christ is the embodiment of both God's full commitment to man, and also of man's commitment to God. Glory to Jesus Christ.
Amin.. Faithfulness of Man/Faithfulness of God.
It's a very covenant of Peace idea where he takes the wounded nature and the offending nature in himself it's a very barfian idea right Christ had to be both priests to God and Redeemer towards man savior towards me so he is the part that's why he's the Savior he's the high priest to talk representing us bringing our names before God no Calvinism in that truth
Honestly, it was the very concept of substitutionary atonement that made me reject Christianity completely & become a staunch atheist for almost 20 yrs.
And it was this understanding that brought me back
Ive always believed the reason why so many people gave become athesit or secular is because of non orthodox understanding of the this snd many other things..
@@sinfulyetsavedas St Palamas told Barlaam: That approach will lead to atheism
To be honest everything but Orthodox is a lie... On so so many levels it's unbelievable
“Tell us you don’t believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ without outright saying it!”
Well expressed from Fr. Jeremy. Everything 'substitutionary' about Christ's work opens the door to us for deeper participation in his work. Thanks for this clip and your full interview with him, Austin.
Fr Jeremy! One of the best priests! He is an instrumental part of my learning of orthodoxy. He is absolutely amazing. He has an amazing presentation of orthodox on UA-cam. He was a wonderful priest at Holy Ascension and a deep inspiration to me on my orthodox journey.
I appreciate when you release these short excerpts from longer interviews, even if I already watched the full interview.
“In our place” DOES NOT have “nothing to do with us.” It is in OUR PLACE! It has everything to do with our personal salvation. Nothing could be more applicable to us. Christ is serious about our salvation by dying in our place.
Orthodoxy is anything but.
Thankyou, my Lord and Saviour from the depth of my heart.
“‘In our place’ means he offers a sacrifice and then his sacrifice has nothing to do with us.” What a misunderstanding of penal substitutionary atonement! Classical Protestantism says “in our place” AND “on our behalf”, not requiring this either/or.
Saint Polycarp
” Therefore we should persevere unceasingly in our hope and down payment of our righteousness, which is Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree(CROSS),42 who committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth,43 but because of us, in order that we might live in Him, endured all things. 2 Therefore let us be imitators of His endurance, and if we should suffer because of His name, we should glorify Him. For this [is] the example He set for us in himself, and this we have believed.”
Geez this was good. So simple. It makes perfect sense. I’ve already been so confused on the PSA model.
Christ's death was mechanistic. He was the archetypal/true Passover lamb (that the O.T. Passover prefigured) that was sacrificed (slain) to pay the wages of sin, which is mortal death, and by which mechanism he created a path (Passover) for ALL FLESH from mortal death to resurrection. (For those who have done good, to the resurrection of life and for those who have done evil to the resurrection of damnation). The resurrection is for all flesh. Not only can't it be earned but it can't be avoided.
The process of salvation occurs by faithfully uniting yourself to Christ which means to make God's will your will. If humans had never sinned, Christ would not have needed to destroy, death (the wages of sin), but not sinning means not exercising our own will, so faith is submitting entirely to God's will. We have faith to walk the path that he wills us to walk.
Western Christianity came to see salvation as how we get into heaven. For the Orthodox, since death is destroyed, we participate in heaven to the degree that we faithfully walk the path of God's will even in this life, so faith, salvation and doing God's will are all the same thing.
wow this was one of the most eye opening takes i’ve seen
There needs to be an interview with either an Eastern Orthodox priest or a Roman Catholic priest of the Order of Discalced Carmelites on the topic of theosis/diefication.
"Man was led into his captivity when he experienced God's wrath, this wrath being the good God's just abandonment of man. God had to be reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set free from the servitude. A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified and sinless priest" (Christopher Veniamin, trans. Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009) p. 124).
The entire premise to the subject of Penal Substitution is, To whom was the Ransom paid? The following is an exchange I once had with my diocese:
QUESTION: To whom/what was the ransom paid? to Death or to the Father? From a simplistic point of view, a ransom is paid to a captor by a redeemer; so I surmised that the ransom was paid to Death by the Father -- Jesus' life being the currency. Some Fathers seem to believe that the ransom was paid to the Devil (which is troublesome for me) -- some Protestants argue, to the Father (which is equally confusing). Was the ransom paid to the Father, the Law, the Devil, to Sin, or to Death? to all, or some of the above?
RESPONSE: Patristics is an amazing and enlightening study and I commend you for your interest and passion for the teachings of the early Church Fathers. Regarding to whom the ransom is paid, it is like when in war when soldiers die to free their nations, their life is paid not to any one but as a price to save their country. If a parent saw a car about to hit his child so he jumped to save his son and he did save him but he died, so he paid his life to save his child but we cannot say that he paid his life to someone. In the same way the Lord Jesus Christ paid His life as a ransom to save us but He did not pay it to anyone.
Good analogy, which shows that "ransom" is a poor translation. The Greek word *can* mean ransom, but it's not a necessary translation. The Greek word also has the meaning of "a price paid" and can include the price a soldier pays to protect his country.
@@KirbyHopper Or! we can broaden our definition of what "ransom" could also mean... I once heard a scholar explain that when studying (let's say) 17th century literature, one should also use a 17th century dictionary. The same applies when studying 17th century history; one should use maps of that period.
A literal ransom and redemption payment results in absurdities if carefully thought through. For example, consider “redeeming the time” (Eph. 5:16), “redeemed us from the curse” (Gal. 3:13), “redeem those under the law” (Gal. 4:5), “redeem us from all lawlessness” (Titus 2:14), and “redeemed from the empty way of life” (1 Peter 1:18). None of these statements involve a transfer of a payment from one party to another. They are all figuratively picturing a release. Jesus did not make a literal transaction with anyone. Jesus redeemed us (set us free) from the addiction and bondage of sin, so we would be the servants of God and display God’s righteousness. For this reason, God is just and righteous in passing over our former sins (Romans 3:25).
Psalm 74:2 is a good example of “purchase” and “redeem” being used as metaphors: “Remember Your congregation, which You have purchased of old, which You have redeemed to be the tribe of Your inheritance; and this Mount Zion, where You have dwelt.” The point here is that Israel belongs to God because God is the one who directly intervened to do what was needed to liberate Israel from bondage. In Psalm 74:2 the psalmist is praying and requesting God to remember that Israel belongs to Him because it was He who set them free from their bondage.
A similar verse is Exodus 15:13, part of the song of Moses immediately after the Red Sea crossing: “You have led in your steadfast love the people whom you have redeemed; you have guided them by your strength to your holy abode." Again, the word “redeemed” is being used to show freedom, liberty, or release, not a payment.
Moses himself is said to be the redeemer in Acts 7:35 “This Moses, whom they rejected, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’-this man God sent as both ruler and redeemer by the hand of the angel who appeared to him in the bush.” Moses was their liberator as God’s agent. The use should be obvious. The Biblical use of “redeem” is frequently understood as to liberate, to free, not to pay.
Excerpts from atonementandreconciliation.com/
@@atonementandreconciliation3749
Do mind me asking, are you Orthodox?
@@jamesb6818 No. I am aware that my studies led me to be close to the Greek Orthodox view. My personal background is Independent Baptist, but I no longer claim that. I would say that of all the major Christian groups, the Orthodox view is the closest to my view.
St. Justin Popovich, Commentary on the Epistles of St. John the Theologian
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.- 1 John 2:2
“The Lord Christ is the propitiation of the Father for our sins, because praying to the Father for us sinful bearers of flesh, He points out His wounds for our sake, on His Body, the human body, which was sinless on earth, and forever remained that way. He is the propitiation of the Father for the sins of the whole world, because for the sake of all, and in the place of all, and in the name of all, He bore countless sufferings from the cradle all the way to the death on the Cross, the ultimate sacrifice, and He bore it in His infinite love of man. If it were not for the salvific propitiation for the sin of mankind, the world, by God’s righteousness, would have been destroyed many times because of its sins.”
I find that Orthodox and Catholics have very similar views on the vast majority of their theology, sometimes they express it with different words but the inner meaning is the same.
Which parts of theology seem similar?
They have very different views on theology. Essence/Energy distinction, created Grace, the filioque, ext. These are just a few MAJOR differences. These change ones entire view on theology.
They do. But the Orthodox will apostatize before they would admit anything in common.
@@ErnestHarris19 the Pope!
@@L2A815 You're right. The Pope was always an important person in the Church, but the claims of Papal infallibility, Papal Monarchy, and Papal supremacy, are not historic, and the opposite is found in the Ecumenical Councils. God bless
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 10 on Romans
“For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.”
What he says, amounts to this nearly. What armed death against the world? The one man's eating from the tree only. If then death attained so great power from one offense, when it is found that certain received a grace and righteousness out of all proportion to that sin, how shall they still be liable to death? And for this cause, he does not here say grace, but superabundance of grace. For it was not as much as we must have to do away the sin only, that we received of His grace, but even far more. For we were at once freed from punishment, and put off all iniquity, and were also born again from above and rose again with the old man buried, and were redeemed, justified, led up to adoption, sanctified, made brothers of the Only-begotten, and joint heirs and of one Body with Him, and counted for His Flesh, and even as a Body with the Head, so were we united unto Him! All these things then Paul calls a superabundance of grace, showing that what we received was not a medicine only to countervail the wound, but even health, and comeliness, and honor, and glory and dignities far transcending our natural state. And of these each in itself was enough to do away with death, but when all manifestly run together in one, there is not the least vestige of it left, nor can a shadow of it be seen, so entirely is it done away. As then if any one were to cast a person who owed ten mites into prison, and not the man himself only, but wife and children and servants for his sake; and another were to come and not to pay down the ten mites only, but to give also ten thousand talents of gold, and to lead the prisoner into the king's courts, and to the throne of the highest power, and were to make him partaker of the highest honor and every kind of magnificence, the creditor would not be able to remember the ten mites; so has our case been. For Christ has paid down far more than we owe, yea as much more as the illimitable ocean is than a little drop. Do not then, O man, hesitate as you see so great a store of blessings, nor enquire how that mere spark of death and sin was done away, when such a sea of gifts was brought in upon it. For this is what Paul intimated by saying that they who have received the abundance of the grace and righteousness shall reign in life.
Father Jeremy is wonderful. Is there a full interview coming soon?
It already happened. The link is in the description
@@GospelSimplicity thank you!
Penal Subsitution is biblical look at Ephesians 5:2 "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself FOR US an offering and a sacrafice TO God for a sweetsmelling savour."
He did not offer himself to death or the devil it was to the Father and this he did willingly which is why it is called an offering and it covers our sins and saves from God's wrath that is why it is called a sacrafice to God.
I don't see penal substitution anywhere on there. Sacrifice does not imply penal substitution.
“For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21
“who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness-by whose stripes you were healed.” 1 Peter 2:24
“And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.” 1 John 2:2
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God,” 1 Peter 3:18
“For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 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, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” Romans 3:22-26
All quotations are from the Orthodox Study Bible.
I do feel like clarification may be needed because the analogy leaves one to believe Christ's sacrifice is incomplete in some sense or an insufficient payment.
The best analogy is the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant from Matthew 18:23-35. The debt and payment for our sake is complete and full, but it requires our participation in it. Like in the parable, if the free gift if something not embodied in our lives, it is not a reality for us.
thats exactly what it is
. it is not enough for yoursalvation. if you choose now to keep living in sin, christs sacrifice wont guarantee you heaven!
Maybe the problem is we don't see suffering with and for Christ as the gift?
I'm commenting on things way above me, but perhaps this is partially what is meant by: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church” (Col. 1:24)
Christ invites us to share in His suffering. Our suffering is not just for ourselves and our sins, but like Christ, we suffer and repent for the sins of the whole world. It's not incomplete in that He failed to "get the job done" Like the priest said, He has opened the door as a type of down-payment, and is inviting us to participate with Him out of love.
St. Polycarp is saying that Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross is the earnest of our righteousness. The whole saving economy of Christ’s work purchased our righteousness, glory, and eternal life. Christ made “full payment.” When we place our faith in Christ and are regenerated, we receive the gift of righteousness and the indwelling grace of the Holy Spirit. If we abide in Christ and do His will, we will receive the rest of the gifts Christ purchased for us with His blood at the end of the age when we are resurrected in glory and inherit the Kingdom and eternal life.
St. Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians:
“Let us then continually persevere in our hope, and the earnest of our righteousness, which is Jesus Christ, who bore our sins in His own body on the tree, 1 Peter 2:24 who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth, 1 Peter 2:22 but endured all things for us, that we might live in Him. 1 John 4:9 Let us then be imitators of His patience; and if we suffer Acts 5:41; 1 Peter 4:16 for His name's sake, let us glorify Him. For He has set us this example 1 Peter 2:21 in Himself, and we have believed that such is the case.”
@@chiefamongsinners16 no need for all that !
You believe that Christ did all and you are saved no matter what you do? Whether you kill, rob others, gamble, hate etc ?
Yes or No answer please
@@renato4183 No. What we do matters.
Austin, this is an honest question, I know you've got more of an ecumenical stance, that Christians should reunite, and I believe you are coming from a good place, but as a monastic convert from Catholicism to Orthodoxy put it: "The problem between East and West aren't that they are different, but that they are incompatible.".
You've put "versus" in the title, and I agree with that phrasing, I don't see how both can be right, so one of us can be right, or both of us could be wrong, but we can't both be right. What is your view on this?
(Don't feel pressured to give a response, I know it's a difficult question, maybe deserving of a video, or even quite a bit more time to ponder, so don't let my curiosity put you in a position where you feel like you have to give an answer)
The east is incompatible with the west of the 1st millennium. That isn’t a western problem.
Maybe some of our theological differences are incompatible, but are we all incompatible with salvation? I may not ever make an Orthodox church my church home because of theological disagreements, but if I can see the Holy Spirit working in a Catholic or Orthodox believer, I'll still consider them my brother or sister in Christ. Are our beliefs at the core actually too different? Is one side too off in their belief that Christ came and died on the cross, His body broken and His blood poured out for the forgiveness of sin, rising again on the third day, conquering death, so that all who believe in Him might have eternal life?
Unity is less about being the same and more about cohesion and harmony. One can imagine that it's incompatible for a cell to be both a heart cell and a brain cell, but it is compatible for some cells to be brain cells and some cells to be heart cells in a unified body. The key to unity between the heart cells and brain cells is not for them to become the same but rather to share a common goal that serves the whole body.
Sava, brate u Hristu, you need to understand that not everyone grew up in the Orthodox Church (kao ti i ja :-) ) and lived through the horrors of the nineties civil war in frmr. Yugoslavia, which, basically, was a religious war. Jesus founded only one church: "I believe in one, holy, universal and apostolic church", says Nicaenian Creed, one of the foundations of our Church (Serbian Orthodox Church) and a prayer that is used in every single Orthodox liturgy.
We'll probably agree that much of the contemporary ecumenism is political rubbish and gimmick for the naive.
However, until 1054, there was, for the most part, only one Christian Church, and although it had had its problems and feuds, it worked. Today, we have so many Protestant people who just don't know much about either Orthodoxy or the history of the Early Church. Why keep them away when they believe in Christ, like us, have good intentions and just strive to serve the Lord? 😃
From the very begining, there were cultural differences between the "Eastern" and the "Western" Churches. The differences were largely cultural: The Romans were famous for their law and judicial system, the Greeks for their philosophy, the Middle Easterners for their mysticism. These tendencies are reflected and in their theology. The question is: What is the essential element of Christian spirituality? Which are the gifts of the Spirit? Without those gifts, all the rest are just extentions of the cultural past.
In what way does Jesus sacrifice enable us to take up our own crosses and follow him, according to “orthodox” belief?
For the shear love of God and His command for us to take up our cross in imitation of His life.
Hopefully, one day this you g man will become an Orthodox so to have the fullness of the Christi6 faith....
Why dont you envite henok elias ethiopian orthodox he have a lot of knoeledge
Let’s make something clear here.
Although every Christian would love total unity, we need to have the same faith and beliefs period.
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodoxy do not have a lot in common in terms of faith , Papal supremacy, Salvation, Eucharist- Thanksgiving ( during every Sunday during the Divine Liturgy- in Orthodoxy ), Baptism, confirmation to the faith . The list goes on and on.
Where do you see similarities??
Orthodoxy has one rite/ belief for all the faithful, layman, priests, monks.
It has been said by all Orthodox guest in this platform.
Orthodoxy is not a club , it’s a lifestyle in hope of achieving Salvation one day .
That's half the Orthodox view. The Recapitulation Theory and Penal Substitution Theory together provide a complete understanding of the Atonement by Christ Jesus. Neither alone is enough to appreciate fully why Christ Jesus died on the cross. By His death on the cross our sins are imputed to Christ and in so doing He paid the penalty that we owed to God. Moreover, in return allowing true believers to receive the righteousness of Christ through the process of recapitulation, which includes "taking up one's cross" but goes beyond that.
So, Christ Jesus, the Son of God the Father, by offering Himself as a the perfect sacrifice, recapitulated the fallen stages of human life initiated by Adam by substituting Himself in our place, paying in full the penalty of our sin and bearing the punishment which should have been ours, satisfied the Father, effected a reconciliation between God and man, and became our justification by imputing His righteousness to us through faith in His perfect work of Atonement by His death on the cross, thus allowing God to grant eternal life to true believers without breaking His own rules of justice when He introduced the death penalty for sin. It was the only way God could avoid becoming untrue to His own words about the death penalty being applied to all who have sinned. If God had become untrue then Satan would have been able to achieve his ultimate goal of overturning God using His own rules. Fortunately, Jesus blocked any hope of Satan winning and instead provided a free gift of Salvation through His Atonement of our sins thus opening the door for those who so choose to take up the free gift.
As the Scriptures make clear, Christ's death on the cross cancels our sins and in return allows those are true believers to receive righteousness in the eyes of God; "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live for rightousness" 1 Peter 2:24. Many other verses in Scripture proclaim that truth. This verse encapsulates the two theories of Atonement. Jesus bore the sins of the world to fulfil the Penal Substitution form of Atonement, while at the same time we die to sin and live for righteousness as we are made a new creature by the Recapitulation form of Atonement.
The “door” is opened to everyone but only some will choose to pass through this door to be with God for an eternity. The Atonement performed by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus is what created the doorway. Like the saying one can lead a horse to water but one can't make it drink it rings true here. People can be shown the door but no one can be forced to go through it. Each person has to decide for themselves whether they will pass through the doorway or not. Those who have faith in Jesus, believe in Him and repent of their sins will want to pass through and will be allowed to do so thanks to God’s love for us, His Mercy and Grace. Those that don't repent will not pass through because they don’t want to “drink the living water”. Either way the choice is ours. Salvation is the other side of the doorway, which is a free gift but not all will pass through to receive it. Once a true believer passes through that door they will be saved for eternity. Proof of that is given by the resurrection of Jesus. While His death on the cross provided the Atonement (doorway) His resurrection conquered death and provided Salvation to those who accept it (other side of the doorway. The Word of God and His promises are absolute and true.
"On our behalf" - so, what happened? What was the exchange? No comments?
That was already answered.
Okay, so it sounds like a substitutionary take on moral influence atonement. I guess I don’t immediately see the connection between how Jesus taking up a cross and dying is our substitute if the only intended effect is to influence us to be a our crosses.
Catechism of the Orthodox Church by St. Philaret of Moscow
On the Fourth Article of the Creed
199. How came it to pass that Jesus Christ was crucified, when his doctrine and works should have moved all to reverence him?
The elders of the Jews and the scribes hated him, because he rebuked their false doctrine and evil lives, and envied him, because the people, which heard him teach and saw his miracles, esteemed him more than them; and hence they falsely accused him, and condemned him to death.
200. Why is it said that Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate?
To mark the time when he was crucified.
201. Who was Pontius Pilate?
The Roman governor of Judæa, which had become subject to the Romans.
202. Why is this circumstance worthy of remark?
Because in it we see the fulfillment of Jacob's prophecy: The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come: and He is the desire of the nations. Gen. xlix. 10.
203. Why is it not only said in the Creed that Jesus Christ was crucified, but also added that he suffered?
To show that his crucifixion was not only a semblance of suffering and death, as some heretics said, but a real suffering and death.
204. Why is it also mentioned that he was buried?
This likewise is to assure us that he really died, and rose again; for his enemies even set a watch at his sepulchre, and sealed it.
205. How could Jesus Christ suffer and die when he was God?
He suffered and died, not in his Godhead, but in his manhood; and this not because he could not avoid it, but because it pleased him to suffer.
He himself had said: I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. John x. 17,18.
206. In what sense is it said that Jesus Christ was crucified for us?
In this sense: that he, by his death on the cross, delivered us from sin, the curse, and death.
207. How does holy Scripture speak of this deliverance?
Of deliverance from sin: In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. Ephes. i. 7.
Of deliverance from the curse: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law being made a curse for us. Gal. iii. 13.
Of deliverance from death: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who, through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb. ii. 14, 15.
208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death?
That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death.
God hath willed to make known to his saints what is the riches of the glory of this mystery of the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col. i. 26, 27.
For if by one man's offense death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Rom. v. 17.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and, death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Rom. viii. 1-4.
209. Was it for us all, strictly speaking, that Jesus Christ suffered?
For his part, he offered himself as a sacrifice strictly for all, and obtained for all grace and salvation; but this benefits only those of us who, for their parts, of their own free will, have fellowship in his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. Phil. iii. 10.
210. How can we have fellowship in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ?
We have fellowship in the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ through a lively and hearty faith, through the Sacraments, in which is contained and sealed the virtue of his saving sufferings and death, and, lastly, through the crucifixion of our flesh with its affections and lusts.
I, says the Apostle, through the law, am dead to the law, that I may live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. Gal. ii. 19, 20.
Know ye not, that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Rom. vi. 3.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 1 Cor. xi. 26.
They that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Gal. v. 24.
211. How can we crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts?
By bridling the affections and lusts, and by doing what is contrary to them. For instance, when anger prompts us to revile an enemy and to do him harm, but we resist the wish, and, remembering how Jesus Christ on the cross prayed for his enemies, pray likewise for ours; we thus crucify the affection of anger.
@@chiefamongsinners16 Thanks for that. That makes sense. I'll have to meditate on that some. Also, just wondering, is that catechism accepted by all the Orthodox church? I'm not sure how catechism works in the Orthodox...or how Orthodox church and jurisdictions and all that work in general.
@@levilightning It’s a Russian Orthodox Catechism
@@chiefamongsinners16 Thank you. You saved me posting a quote from that Catechism. Although some prominent modern Orthodox apologists are dismissive of the "satisfaction to the justice of God" as a "Western" idea, it is clearly shared by traditional Orthodoxy, being quite in accord with Scripture.
Wait, did the Lord Jesus die FOR our sins, He PAID FOR our sins, died FOR us? Or not?
Hebrews 9:14 "How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot TO God, purge you conscience from dead works to serve the living God?"
Christ sacrafice was absolutely to the Father. Otherwise we would hace no hope of being saved from His wrath.
No one denied a sacrifice to the father. But a sacrifice is not a ransom, and a sacrifice is not penal substitution.
@@bad_covfefe it is penal substitution Isaiah infers as much "He (the Father) laid on Him (the Son) the iniquity of us all. Christ is bearing our sin. The fact he bears our sin implies and shows it is substitution. The fact he dies the death we should have shows he took our penalty namely death. For the wages of sin is death. Now we see Christ has taken both for us sin and death and in our place so the Father would be favorable to us through His Son. It's all language that is penal and substitionary.
@@bad_covfefe Also many church fathers did deny it was a sacrafice to the Father and said it was a ransom paid to the devil which is totally wrong.
@@BibleFanatics again, that doesn't make it penal substitution.
@@bad_covfefe uh yes it does. There is a penalty to us death. There are sins which God holds against us for breaking His law. Christ bears our sins. That passage I quotes in Epeshians 5:2 where is says For Us literally means in our place. I wonder what in our place could mean? It's means he died in our place that is substitution. You deserved to die not him. Yet he died for you in your place. He took your place. That is substitution. Just like in a soccer game when they have a substitution what happens one player takes the place of another player on the field. So Christ took your place on the cross. That is substitution.
Now the penalty. What is the penalty due to us for our sins? Death. Through sin death has passed unto all men. The wages or the penalty or what we earn/deserve from sin is death. What did Christ do on the cross? According to 2 Corinthians 5:21 and many other passages in the scriptures He became sin for us (again that means in our place) and died on account of those sins thus paying the penalty that was due to us which is death from sins. But praise God through His cross He has taken both away sin and death, and forgives us! You have to prove this plain language does not involve substitution or Christ bearing a penalty. I have given you scripture and logical conclusions from them. Which many church Fathers have said as well. Like Athanasius, Marius Victorinius, Ambrose, Clement of Rome. Even other Eastern Orthodox on this thread have mentioned that Penal Substitution is part of the atonement. Don't take my word for it read through their own comments. What this priest is saying about it is wrong.
True but not the only facet of orthodox atonement. This is mostly moral exemplar, which is only one part.
Isn't the Protestant view and the Orthodox view very similar only it emphasizing a different angle?
I think it depends on the Protestant denomination. Some yes, some no..
I would say the reformed view (which is quite popular) is that God the Son took on the wrath of God the Father in the place of man. It ends up creating a rift between the Father and Son that does not recognize the Father and Son are both God, of one essence.
@@josiahalexander5697 Look at Isaiah 53. how does that reflect within the E.O. camp?
"The first offering?"
Too brief and too vague I thought?🤔
St. Athanasius and St. Symeon the New Theologian Disagree with this Orthodox Priest. St. Athanasius in On The Incarnation of the Word writes that Death has a *legal* hold on Man, by which we're plunged into corruption. Because of God's *just* claim (i.e., Dying you will die), He permits the legal hold of death to remain. In the Incarnate Son, in His propitious death (a sacrifice that assuages wrath), both upholds God's Just Claim and, in so doing, breaks death's legal hold. He also says that all such is done in our place and offered in our place to the Father.
You cannot interpret the legal and just bond that st Athanasius uses with your Protestant interpretation. In context he means that Gods word is binding because it’s Gods word, not because it has some external legalistic hold that
Must be upheld outside of God. God forewarned that death would result in the transgression, and therefore Gods word is binding.
@@diegobarragan4904 I figured someone would say something like this. The burden of proof is on you to prove that words don't mean what they mean.
The legal hold is ascribed to death because of the binding word from God (dying you will die). The word from God is a *just* claim that Christ maintains vicariously by dying in the place of man, submitting to the legal hold of death.
@@marcuswilliams7448 everything you said there is the Orthodox position. You only begin to err when you misinterpret the word “Legal” through Protestant eyes and create the idea that God punished Christ in our place because a legal debt needed to be paid before forgiveness can happen. This is the position that Orthodoxy is against, we are not against substitution redemption
@@diegobarragan4904 How do the Orthodox understand Is 53: 4-12, 1 Pet 2: 24, Col 2: 13-14, and Heb 9: 22?
@@0nly0NE. we look to the commentaries of the Holy Fathers. For St Paul’s epistles our authority is St John Chrysostom’s commentary.
Maybe i just dont understand english very well, or our father here explains this very politically. I did not understand
so, Christ's Cross was merely an example? that cannot be right.
I was listening to Jeannie Constantinou and I felt really edified until she said Orthodox Christians don't know if they are saved and you can't know if you are saved until the day of judgment. So, why are we sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise? What would that be for if we can still die and spend eternity in hell? It was like the brakes squealed and I said, I'm not so sure about the original faith anymore, they lost their way like everyone else.
She may say wrong words but meaning is there: Christ is endlessly high, and being saved means being on that level
So... Humble yourself and you'll see how much you have to go further
At any given moment and time
We know saints are saved and already in heaven, many already became gods by Grace of God (i.e are already glorified), but from the point of humility, the only correct point, one themselves have so so much to go still deeper and humbler and truer and better
Yep, a viable alternative to Protestant Penal Substitution Atonement.
Under penal substitution, Christ's death is the mechanism by which we are saved because of the consequence of Adam's sin condition which we inherited. But if it is not mechanistic but just an example of sacrifice/ cross bearing for us to follow, then
1. Jesus suffering reveals a crueller Father than under penal substitution, since there was no reason for God the Father to demand it. This paints a worse picture of an archetype of an angry Father than the one people have a problem with in penal substitution, in which God allowed His Son to die as it was the only way for Him to be reconciled with His children
2. This places Jesus ministry to Israel as greater than Paul's ministry of the revelation of the Risen Christ to the gentiles, emphasising carrying our cross (which Jesus already carried for us) rather than reigning in life as a manifest son of God thanks to us being the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. It diminishes the finished works of the cross and instead makes it unfinished, simply a pattern for us to follow rather than the function of our salvation which empowers us to be free.
Jesus Christ died to save his people from their sins. He died for us, for our sins. St Matthew 1:21, Romans 5:8, 1 Corinthians 15:3.
This seems suspect 🤔🤔 if I'm getting right what he said... he's saying that Jesus' death is like the down payment that *we* make to God to show we're serious about surrendering wholly. We have righteousness to give to God, and Jesus' death is the first payment that we make to God from that righteousness. Is that what he was saying?
If so, I can't buy that. Pun intended 😄
We didn't make the sacrifice of Jesus' death. Jesus did that --- *for* us, before we knew he existed, before we knew we needed it.
I don't have any righteousness to give to God except the righteousness Jesus gives me by his death and resurrection.
I like Polycarp. Of course. He's a boss. But I think this priest may have misinterpreted what Polycarp meant, or Polycarp was wrong about this. Scripture over church father. The only place "down payment"-like language is used in scripture in reference to the mechanics of salvation is Ephesians 1:14 where the holy spirit is described as the down payment on out inheritance. In that case, *God* is giving *us* the down payment to show *he* is serious about giving us the whole inheritance on the last day. Seems like a near opposite of what this priest said - if I understand the priest correctly, that is.
The good news is not "You have given a down payment to God, and he's very happy about that, and the door is open for you to give the rest now." 🤔
Can anyone set me straight? Did I misunderstand this priest?
If what this priest says is true for the Orthodox then they can never refer to Jesus as the Redeemer. Because redemption isn't a down payment. It's the full payment of the debt. Instead they need to refer to Christ as the Downpayer. Me? I'll take Redeemer.
@@pete3397 Guys, I totally agree with your alarms going off. Please check out my comments. I agree with you that what he said sounds like that, but that is not the Orthodox teaching, it was just a really sloppy way of putting things. As an Orthodox, I was like what in the world is he saying I've never heard it like that. He's trying to get at the parable of the unmerciful servant way of looking at it. Matthew 18:23-35. But yeah whewww don't like the way this was put
I'm inclined to believe him based on the length of his beard, until I find another priest with an even longer beard.
😂
The crucifixion is the ultimate surrender to God
0:24 the theological mystical realm far removed from us ordinary mortals.jesus used simple everyday language for ordinary people.
Down payment? You should be ashamed of yourself.
That doesn't answer my question at all unfortunately.
I was dying inside hearing this cuz that analogy is so bad and does not communicate Orthodox teaching that Christ’s atoning sacrifice is a one and for all sacrifice. This is gonna get misconstrued as Orthodox being heretical and unbiblical and I can see why
Right? I don't understand why people don't just read the Orthodox catechisms of St. Peter Mogila and St. Philaret of Moscow on the questions of the atonement and original sin. They are authoritative per synodal acceptance and plain as day.
@@alexanderbrown5900have a link?
@@alexanderbrown5900Where can I find these teachings?
Prosperity Gospel Theology is not biblical.
According to the doctrine of penal substitution, God’s perfect justice demands some form of atonement for sin. Humanity is depraved, to such an extent that we are spiritually dead and incapable of atoning for sin in any way (Ephesians 2:1). Penal substitution means Jesus’ death on the cross propitiated, or satisfied, God’s requirement for justice. God’s mercy allows Jesus to take the punishment we deserve for our sins. As a result, Jesus’ sacrifice serves as a substitute for anyone who accepts it. In a very direct sense, Jesus is exchanged for us as the recipient of sin’s penalty.
Penal substitution is clearly taught by the Bible. In fact, much of what God did prior to Jesus’ ministry was to foreshadow this concept and present it as the purpose of the Messiah. In Genesis 3:21, God uses animal skins to cover the naked Adam and Eve. This is the first reference to a death (in this case, an animal’s) being used to cover (atone for) sin. In Exodus 12:13, God’s Spirit “passes over” the homes that are covered (atoned) by the blood of the sacrifice. God requires blood for atonement in Exodus 29:41-42. The description of Messiah in Isaiah 53:4-6 says His suffering is meant to heal our wounds. The fact that the Messiah was to be “crushed for our iniquities” (verse 5) is a direct reference to penal substitution.
During and after Jesus’ ministry, penal substitution is further clarified. Jesus claims to be the “good shepherd” who lays down His life for the sheep in John 10:10. Paul, in Romans 3:25-26, explains that we have the righteousness of Christ because of the sacrifice of Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, he says that the sinless Christ took on our sins. Hebrews 9:26 says that our sins were removed by the sacrifice of Christ. First Peter 3:18 plainly teaches that the righteous was substituted for the unrighteous.
I have no idea where he's coming from. We did not offer Christ as sacrifice. God offered himself as a sacrifice, as Jesus Christ, to save those who have faith in him. Faith gets us to the courtroom (justification), yet we will still be sorted/judged by our works once we're there. Our works mean nothing with respect to justification, though they have some impact on our place in heaven (to what extent the Bible isn't clear,) and to the wellbeing of ourselves and our neighbors on earth. Having read several of the church fathers myself, they would agree with what I said.
The Church Fathers would not say that our works done in Christ have no impact on our justification. Neither would Scripture.
Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is one and the same with the Eucharistic sacrifice offered on Orthodox Christian altars.
So saved by grace through works?
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Ephesians 2:8-9
Yup, many Orthodox admit they have no clue if they're saved. Very much like RCC.
Well, thank God the Scriptures don't say we are to work out our salvation in fear and trembling... Or Our Lord didn't say that not all who call Him Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom, but those who do the Will of the Father...
Phew, lucky us, huh?
@@user-ii3zs2gr6u ya, thank God we are not told to deny ourselves take up our cross and follow….waaaay to much work bro. I’m saved
@@L2A815 Yes, if anyone said any of the things we mentioned, they would be obvious pelagianists(tm).
Nick Hanley, I think (and may God forgive me for the ways in which I'm wrong) as Orthodox we would say that "saved by grace through works" means that it is our actions that demonstrate our faith (or, perhaps more accurately, our faithfulness). We would NOT say we are "saved by works" in the sense that if we do X number of good works, we are entitled to salvation. Hope that helps a little.
The man on the left has no idea what he's talking about.
Yes but works don’t save you
Indeed they don't?
@usdadsasda Do I need the to have the sacraments to be saved?
@usdadsasda no… baptism doesn’t save you! Should Christians get baptized? Yes