For further reading about Hank joining the Eastern Orthodox Church, read these FREE articles on our website: (1) Hank's article "Have I “Left the Christian Faith”? " www.equip.org/article/left-christian-faith/ (2) "Questions and Answers about Orthodoxy " www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ (3) "Does the Bible Answer Man’s Son Believe That He Has “Left the Christian Faith”?" www.equip.org/article/does-the-bible-answer-mans-son-believe-that-he-has-left-the-christian-faith/
@Pastor Michael... Yes, generally there is a Patron Saint of the Church. As you enter the Church there is the Narthex (an antechamber) you will see an Icon (image) of that Saint. I have never seen an Icon of Jesus in the Narthex, though there are a number of Icons of Christ in the church. We also practice the "Kiss of Peace".... Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you." Hopefully there is an Orthodox Church near you. We like to say "Come and See", I think you will enjoy it.
I listened to you as I was leaving the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You along with other men of Godinspired me to become a Christian and I have remained his follower since that time. However in the Evangelical circles where I was, I began seeing more and more things which caused me extreme discomfort. As I became more and more cognizant of the fact that those whose lives most completely emulated Christ were in fact the "Catholics" Mother Teresa being a prime example. Then came Easter, and the horrific explosion in Cairo. My heart was rent. And I heard about your conversation to Orthodoxy. It was you who gave me the courage to investigate and to follow you and thousands of Saints before us into this blessed faith in Christ. Please remember that there may be some who are very perplexed by this change which you have made. But there are also many of us who witnessed your actions and thereby found the courage to do what we knew to be right. So thank you ever so much for your open faithfulness.
This was very helpful… thank you. I stumbled into an Orthodox Church last month and I have not been the same since… I’m reading, studying… and trying to figure out what has happened to me. Thank you for this video♥️🙏🏽
Christ forbide the use of the word father with its absolute meaning, not with its pastoral meaning, i.e. alike the way also St. Paul used it for himself: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" [1 Corinthians 4:15]. Lord Jesus Christ forbade also the use of the word 'teacher' alike He did with the word 'father', however we see St. Paul to number 'Teachers' as a special category among the believers [1 Corinthians 12:28]. Is it the case that St. Paul neglects Lord's prohibition? Of course not. He simply uses the word 'teacher' as having its reference to God and not to a sole men's authority separated from Him. The fact that despite Christ's saying St. Paul did use the word 'father' in its pastoral meaning as for himself shows that Christ didn't actually forbid such use of that word. What Christ forbade was the use of this word in it's absolute meaning, i.e. not having its reference to God. That's why St. Paul in [1 Corinthians 4:15] didn't just say "I have begotten you through the gospel" but "in *Christ Jesus* I have begotten you through the gospel". What is said for the word 'father' applies also for the word 'teacher' etc. When we call a priest as spiritual father we relatively use this word always in reference to God the Father *"from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth takes its name"* [Ephesians 3:15]. That perspective of using the word father is adressed also in the writtings of early Christian writers as this was the understanding of the Church since the very beginning.
Frederica Mathewes-Green, who left the Episcopal Church, and joined Eastern Orthodoxy (1993), has been a clear voice, for explaining the Theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. No one should have any desire to argue with Eastern Orthodox Theology. One should want to be inspired to examine Eastern Orthodox Theology, using the meaning of the canon of Scripture. Hank Hanegraaff admits, in his youtube entitled "Using The Bible To Interpret The Bible," that we can interpret Scripture with Scripture. Included in this comment are the Bible answers, from the study by this commentor, in a "Two Part Comment," to the Eastern Orthodox statements of belief presented by Frederica Mathewes-Green. Some of Mrs. Mathewes Green's statements come from her youtube entitled "Orthodoxy And The Atonement." This comment serves as the First Part, the Second Part Comment is below this one. Frederica Mathewes-Green What Mrs. Mathewes Green expresses is that the Church preaches Jesus Christ, not Mary. At some point, though, we meet Jesus' mother, and you think that she's my friend too; she's wonderful, and you can become so drawn to her and so attracted to her, that she becomes like a prayer partner. The distinction is that Mary is not a jr. god; she's not a demi-god; she cannot over-rule things that God wants to do by her own power, but she is another person who loves the Lord Jesus Christ as much as we do, maybe even more than we do, and we can enjoy her presence and her fellowship. Biblical Answer Mary, when she was on earth, could be heard by others on earth, and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Jesus who was the Son of Mary...Mark 6: 3), said to others on earth, when she was also on earth, at that time, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it (John 2: 5)." Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water, and they filled them up to the brim (John 2: 7)." What we can presently hear from Mary, today, is what has been recorded in the Gospel, where written accounts, of when Mary spoke, is left for us to hear from the written Word of God. Mary did not say to listen to her, but she said listen to Christ, and Christ, who was then God in human form, answers the prayers of the servants. This written account, of how Mary spoke, when she was on earth, is a most vivid Biblical (Special Revelation) testimony, which can be made visual, by art work, of many versions of "Mary with Christ" icons. Frederica Mathewes-Green What shocks some people is they think that those who are alive in Christ, and with Christ, in heaven, are actually sleeping, or dead and that they will be made alive at some future point, but the Church has always believed that they are alive, and they are aware, and they are like the people gathered around the throne in the book of Revelation or like Moses and Elijah appearing and speaking with the Lord, but they are there doing nothing except pray all the time, so just as I would ask you to pray for me, or ask another friend to pray for me, I can ask the Virgin Mary to pray for me; she's just another one of our friends. Biblical Answer True Christians, know the Biblical implication, that those who are alive in Christ, and with Christ, in heaven, are not sleeping, and this means that true Christians often believe that the dead in Christ are not sleeping, but are alive. This misunderstanding cannot be the sole reason for why people are shocked, when someone asks Mary to save them. The shock occurs, because if we talk to Mary directly, while she is in heaven, and we on earth believe that she hears and answers us, then Mary would have to be omnipresent, for this to occur. Omnipresent means we can ask those in heaven for their intercession, just like we ask people in the visible church on earth to pray for us, but this extremity implies that the saints in heaven are omnipresent, but only God and God alone is omnipresent. One Biblical implication that those in heaven are alive and not sleeping, is shown by The Transfiguration of our Lord. The transfiguration was an unveiling of the Divine restraint which prohibited the illumination of Christ's sacred humanity. This also shows that the disciples, who were present (Peter, James, and John), were only in communication with Christ. Christ could communicate directly with Moses and Elijah in heaven. Unlike Christ, the disciples, who were in their earthly state, saw Christ, Moses, and Elijah, in their glorified state, but the disciples on earth could only communicate directly with Christ. Moses and Elijah appeared in glory, and Jesus spake to Moses and Elijah of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9: 30-31). Though the disciples, on earth, could hear and see Moses and Elijah and Christ, there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. The transfiguration was also when the prophecy (Malachi 4: 5), of Elijah's appearance, was fulfilled.
Frederica Mathewes-Green Asking for forgiveness of our sins has nothing to do with anybody else except God (Asking God to save us), but when we ask Mary to save us, we can consider this as asking Mary to pray for us, or asking Mary to say "Yes," like she said to Gabriel, when he said that Mary would bear a child; that's how she saves us by saying "Yes" at that moment. This is not meant to be a theological argument against a different point of view, but it's meant to be an outpouring of love and joy. Biblical Answer The heavenly saints are hearing from God face-to-face, as they are in the visible presence of God. The saints on earth pray to God, asking God, through Christ, to hear our prayer, as Mary did, when she was once on earth, and when she also bore Christ by the incarnation of God. Mary is now in the visible eternal presence of Christ, where she and other heavenly saints are informed, by the Heavenly Father, through Christ, that He has heard our prayer on earth. The earthly saints present their worship and prayers, in communion with God, and it is from God the Father through Christ and the Holy Spirit, that we receive communion with God, and by God the Holy Spirit, the earthly saints are in communion with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, as we laud and magnify God. God makes the heavenly saints aware that He has heard the prayers of saints on earth. Earthly saints believe that Christ has reconciled them to God the Father, and Mary, along with the other heavenly saints, who are in the face-to-face presence of God, are informed by God in heaven, about the saints on earth, who will one day be in heaven with God and his heavenly saints.
@@sunflowers7 Yes, I believe you are Biblically sound to believe that we are not suppose to talk to the dead. Passages throughout the Bible's Old and New Testaments instruct us not to speak to the dead. According to the Scriptures, the true prophets who were chosen by God to write the Old Testament, and the 12 apostles (Disciples) who wrote and taught the New Testament, along with many more disciples who believed the message of God's word, left us the written account of God's word. All of the true prophets and apostles, and Saints such as Mary, from Joseph to Abraham to St. Paul, just to name a few, have left us (They died), and their soul is in heaven, but we hear what they spoke through God's written word. Every time we open God's written word and receive His message, this is the same message, that those who were faithful and went before us, still speaks. If we read the teaching that says "Do whatever he (Christ) tells you (John 2: 5, NIV)," - And on that occasion, it was Mary who spoke God's word - Because God's word was documented, then we can still hear God's word as it was spoken by Mary. Now, Mary is in heaven with the Lord, and she is still agreeing with God's word, and she is hoping all who are on earth, are listening to what God spoke to her and what He speaks to us who are yet in the physical body. God spoke to the prophets, Mary, and the apostles, and they subjected their will to His will. God spoke to the prophets and the apostles and the saints, but the words that they wrote are from God. Believing saints, who have gone before us, are now dead (Asleep) in the Lord, and they are in their spiritual body, and they cannot visibly or audibly hear us or speak to us in the physical. This is why we grieve at the death of our loved ones. The Holy Scripture indicates that the Lord only can be contacted by us in prayer, because it is only He who can hear us directly, and it is He who can even answer our prayer asking Him to give our departed loved ones a message, informing our loved ones who are with Him in heaven, of our activity on earth. Naturally, if the Holy Spirit prays for us, then our loved ones in heaven are in uninterrupted heavenly worship, prayer, and fellowship with God, in the visible presence of God. When Saul tried to consult a medium to call up Samuel, and when Samuel's spirit appeared, his appearance was not a resurrection, but Samuel's ghost appeared by a divine act of God. God, who alone is omniscient, demonstrated that only He can hear and answer our prayers, and in the case of Saul, God caused the spirit of Samuel to appear, but Samuel was disturbed by having to leave God's heavenly abode to convey a warning to Saul from God. Who was it that actually heard Saul and the medium? God only was able to intervene as He demonstrated to Saul, that it was He who sent Samuel's spirit, which conveys to us that neither the medium nor Saul should have been calling on Samuel directly, because it was God only who saw and who heard, and it was God who answered, though the spirit of Samuel was disturbed by having to appear.
@@thy-ine thank you for your lengthy response. Having hit my knees 30+ years ago, landing in the rooms of AA, running forward in a Baptist Church to "I surrender All", staying on the outskirts of a deceptive works cult for way too many years, now returning to my roots having been confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I have come to realize the foundation of Luther's small catechism teachings have kept me from plugging into two cults. I trust it now. LCMS, a true gospel message. I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man many years ago. My childlike faith tends to want to keep it simple. It is Good News and Great Joy!
The information on Eastern Orthodox theology discussed in the podcast comes from WELCOME TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH: AN INTRODUCTION TO EASTERN CHRISTIANITY by Frederica Mathews-Green > www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/ www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/
One thing that helped me was realizing the Armenian Church, the first national church ever, never had requests to Mary and do not use icons like Eastern Orthodox and Romans do - as prayer channels. This is not because the Armenians removed these practices. It’s because these practices simply never existed there from the beginning. Please consider this historical fact if you are considering Orthodoxy.
Please do more research. Armenians are oriental Orthodox and have 99% of the same historic practices. They also were not part of the original 5 patriarchates even if they were first deemed a Christian nation, that doesn't mean anything from the records of the catacombs or early church fathers.
Jeez, just do a google search typing "armenian church interior" before you say this bs. They only time when they didnt was during the times of the Heretical Iconoclast Emperors who were hunting icons down.
@@eleftheriosmas I didn’t say they don’t have icons. I said, they don’t use icons to the extent and in the way the other traditions do… they definitely don’t have Mary without Christ like Romans - as far as I know. However, they’ve adopted a lot of Latin and Byzantine icons and practices.
April 9, 2017 Hank Hanegraaff has always been committed to championing of mere Christianity, which has been characteristic of his years of ministry as President of CRI and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast. Questions about Hank joining Christianity’s Eastern Orthodox Church are addressed here: General questions about Eastern Orthodoxy: www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ Did you leave the Christian faith to become Greek Orthodox? www.equip.org/broadcast/islamic-terrorism-persecuted-christians-qa/ (4/10/2017) What are the distinctive doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy and why are you interested in Eastern Orthodoxy? www.equip.org/broadcast/sounding-alarm-qa/ (4/4/2017) What church do you attend? www.equip.org/broadcast/incoherence-transgenderism-qa/ (2/7/2017 at 23:05) Check the monologues on these broadcasts too… www.equip.org/broadcast/body-christ-denominations-qa/ www.equip.org/broadcast/swirling-issues-nrb-tv-qa/ Plus, Hank’s response on whether or not he left the faith: www.equip.org/article/left-christian-faith/ Hank affirms the biblical teaching that: “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. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:8-10) Warren Nozaki Research
Bible Answer Man I, for one, am extremely happy he has returned to Orthodoxy because it contains the fullness of the Christian Faith. Thanks for the response.
this goes to prove that people are trying to get meaning in their lives by seeing the error in their own church and trying to find it ( meaning and a reason for being here ) and I must add truth and a right way to worship.rather than the secular Christianity that is so worldy and pervasive in nearly all of American church assemblies ,remember the word" Church "is a word substituted for the term ,followers of the new way , or the true saints ",Church" has morphed into a gathering of people and one man takes the stand every time they meet .remember no one person has it all , there has to be others to have a hearing , no wonder ______?
Rly how can you live with yourself? Do you think an argument which says "ohh since when did John the Baprist had the correct faith" (that's what Orthodox means) gives your silly Protestantism credit?
Frederica Mathewes-Green We are continuing, not just the early church's worship, but the worship of the Jewish people from the time of Moses. If your worshipping instead with drums and guitars, that's actually not an exodus; that's not the way God said He wanted it done. Green says the way the church has become a consumer product, and she thinks it's true of Protestant, Catholic, Liberal, Conservative, everyone; that is tragic because it has emptied the cross of it's power, and worship leaders are not trying to give worship to God; they're trying to give worshippers a good experience. Biblical Answer Every branch of Christendom has played their part in emptying the cross of it's power, and this includes Eastern Orthodoxy. The Bible does not mandate that music must be sung with or without musical instruments. Sometimes musical instruments are used, like in 1 Chronicles 15: 27-28. The music, though, must have the sound of a true reflection of God's majestic beauty - Melody with the sound of chorus mirth or joyous instrumental definition of overall sound. We are not referring to today's sound of contemporary music.
Frederica Mathewes-Green In Western Christianity, the cross kind of became extracted out of the whole story, and the cross became such a relentless focus that people forget that it is actually part of a story, which includes the incarnation and the resurrection. Mrs. Mathewes-Green asserts that churches, outside the Orthodox church, concentrate on a "Theology of the Cross" at the expense of the Resurrection. Biblical Answer Mrs. Frederica Mathewes-Green comes from the point-of-view, that the whole story (Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection) should be told with all the icons, and the cross should not be the only icon, but Mrs. Mathewes-Green seems to be without the understanding that the whole story, the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection, is told through the preaching of God's Word, which conveys the context of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Often, especially in Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches, stain-glassed windows are iconic, and serve to depict the whole story in pictures, of the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. Many, but not all, Lutheran Churches also have paintings of Jesus knocking, or paintings of His ascension, or the whole story depicted on stain-glass. The purpose of the Incarnation was not to taste food or to feel sorrow. The Son of God came in the flesh in order to be the Savior of mankind. First, it was necessary to be born "Under the law (Galatians 4:4)." All of us have failed to fulfill God’s Law. Christ came in the flesh, under the Law, to fulfill the Law on our behalf (Matthew 5: 17/ Galatians 4: 5). Second, it was necessary for the Savior to shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9: 22). A blood sacrifice, of course, requires a body of flesh and blood. This was God’s plan for the Incarnation: "When Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifice and offering (Under the Old Covenant) you did not desire,' but 'A body you prepared for me (Hebrews 10: 5).'" Without the Incarnation, Christ could not really die, and the cross is meaningless. Frederica Mathewes-Green "What does it take for God to forgive us? Who pays the debt? There's this big pile of sin, and it's more than any human being could pay; how does that get paid? Do we have to make up part of the debt?" For the early church, and for the Eastern church till today, there never was a question about it; we just believed that God forgives sins; he forgives the sin; he doesn't ask anybody to pay it. It's like if you owed your friends some money, and he said "I forgive the debt," it doesn't mean you have to get a third party to pay it for you; it means that he lets it go. Biblical Answer Christ's sacrifice, on the cross, was not consistent with the work of a "Third Party payment." Christ's sacrifice, on the cross, in the trinitarian life of God, was God taking the weight of sin onto himself. The atonement is, in the phrase of John Stott, ultimately the "Self-sacrifice of God." Penal substitution is rational (it makes sense), but it is not rationalistic. By His suffering and death on the cross, Christ's work on the cross won, for us, forgiveness of our sins, because Christ washed our sins away (Christ provided His baptism, for us to receive), reconciling us to God the Father. After Christ died, on the cross, physically, He descended into hell to proclaim his victory to the living and the dead, and rescued the spiritually dead from their prison. Then, Christ arose from the dead, and Christ conquered death and hell for us. After Christ rose from the dead, he was in a glorified body - a body as one would look like in heaven, not on earth. In His glorified body, Christ walked on earth until He ascended to heaven. This is the whole story of the Incarnation of Christ: The Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection. The New Testament authors used various metaphors to explain and interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to C. Marvin Pate, "There are three aspects to Christ's atonement according to the early Church: vicarious atonement (substitutionary atonement), the eschatological defeat of Satan (Christ the Victor), and the imitation of Christ(Participation in Jesus' death and resurrection)." Pate further notes that these three aspects were intertwined in the earliest Christian writings, but that this intertwining was lost since the Patristic times.
Frederica Mathewes-Green Mrs. Mathewes-Green likens Christ on the cross as serene as if Christ has buried Himself on the cross, as if the cross is a throne. Biblical Answer The built altar structure, when seen in the Christian Church, gives a reminder of two realities: Its once reality as an object which typified the Cross of Christ when the former Mosaic Ceremonial Law applied, and the New Testament reality of the cross that now applies, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament Ceremonial Law, by the merits of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross (Substitutionary atonement).
The answer that *we are like little children before God* with regards to Orthodox vestments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and so on, doesn't simply escape unnoticed and can't satisfy the hearts of Truth seekers, because God wants us to be *mature who feed on meat rather than continue to be babies and feed on milk* . I repeatedly heard this answer from her, and find it quite unacceptable.
@@AnHebrewChild Romans and Hebrews seem to be complete books on their own, expounding The Old in The New, but all the other books of The New Testament are *equally* favorites as well.
EVALUATION OF ATONEMENT THEORIES Every view about the atonement stresses something true about the cross. Of all the atonement views, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross, including all of the multi-faceted aspects, without subtracting parts or minimizing. Firstly, atonement views - the Recapitulation, Ransom, Moral influence, and Governmental theories - will be evaluated, and it will be shown how the named alternative views either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, and how these views also deny why our sin is first against God (Psalm 51: 4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross. Lastly, the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory will be explained to show how all of the atonement aspects must be equally and fully present within the Biblical context of Christ's atonement, but without subtraction or minimization.
The Recapitulation view, of the atonement, is often associated with Irenaeus and Athanasius. This view interprets Christ’s work primarily in terms of his identification with us, when Christ became human through the incarnation. The Divine Son, who reversed what Adam did, lived our life and died our death. Stephen Wellum, a professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville Kentucky, in his article entitled "Atonement Views In Historical Theology," helps to articulate the recapitulation view, that Adam's disobedience to Godlikeness resulted in the corruption of our nature and our spiritual separation from God. The recapitulation view conveys that because of Christ's incarnation, His entire work on the cross, and especially His resurrection, He restored to us immortality and reconciliation with God. The recapitulation view covers Biblical truth, in part, but it's central focus is not on our sin before God (God-centered), and the need for God's wrath to be taken away from us so we can obtain grace, but the said view, instead, captures how sin affects us (Man-centered), which only includes Christ's representation of us, and His substitutionary restorative work for us. The Ransom theory (Christus Victor), of the atonement, views that the powers of sin, death, and Satan, which Christ liberates us (Man-centered) from, is the primary focus, at His death. The ransom view does not include that God is the primary object of the cross. Likewise, the Moral Influence view, of the atonement, which had it's roots in the theology of Peter Abelard (1079-1142), also teaches that God is not the primary object of the cross, but that Christ's death only reveals God's love and sets an example for us. There is also the Governmental view, of the atonement, which arose in the post-reformation period, and associated with the Arminian tradition of Hugo Grotius and John Miley. This theology views God as the moral Governor, meaning Christ's cross upholds the moral governance of the world allowing God to forgive us (Man-centered) without a full payment for our sin. The Penal Substitutionary Atonement captures fully what the Bible teaches about the atonement of Christ. The doctrine of union with Christ affirms that by taking the punishment upon himself Jesus fulfils the demands of justice not for an unrelated third party but for those identified with him. Martin Luther explained the full context of the atonement clearly (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344). In Luther's Second Sermon on Luke 24:36-47, he wrote: But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made. Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them. This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, "If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation." Even though the penal satisfaction of Jesus’ atonement is the beginning (and foundation) of Christ’s salvation, it isn’t the only thing Christ accomplished. Luther goes on to say, in his sermon, that the term "Satisfaction" is nevertheless too weak and says too little concerning the grace of Christ and does not do honor enough to his sufferings, to which one should give higher honor, confessing that he not only has made satisfaction for sin but has also redeemed us from the power of death, the devil, and hell, and established an everlasting kingdom of grace and of daily forgiveness of the sin that remains in us. Thus Christ is become for us, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1: 30, an eternal redemption and sanctification (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 351). In a sermon on Easter Sunday, Luther pointed to Christ’s sacrifice in terms of ransom, satisfaction, propitiation, and implied substitution (Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 4.1: 190, 191). Luther's hearers needed to consider the greatness and terror of the wrath of God against sin in that it could be appeased and a ransom effected in no other way than through the one sacrifice of the Son of God. Only his death and the shedding of his blood could make satisfaction. And we must consider also that we by our sinfulness had incurred that wrath of God and therefore were responsible for the offering of the Son of God upon the cross and the shedding of his blood. He emphasized its substitutionary aspect when he reminded the congregation to be aware why God spared not his own Son but offered him a sacrifice upon the cross, delivered him to death; namely, that his wrath might be lifted from us once more. All men are naturally under the law as in the prescribing of the terms of their acceptance with God; and further, no obedience which sinners can render is sufficient to satisfy the demands of that law. Therefore, it follows, then, that unless we are freed from the law, not as a rule of duty, but as prescribing the conditions of acceptance with God, justification is for us impossible. So we are delivered from the law as a rule of justification and are at liberty to embrace a different method of obtaining acceptance with God (Romans 7: 1-6). Paul says of himself, that he had died to the law; that is, become free from it (Galatians 2: 19). And the same is said of all believers (Romans 7: 6). He insists upon this freedom as essential not only to justification, but to sanctification. For while under the law, the motions of sins, which were by the law, brought forth fruit unto death; but now we are delivered from the law, that we may serve God in newness of spirit (Romans 7: 5-6). Before faith came we were kept under the law, which he compares to a schoolmaster, but now we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3: 24, 25). The Scriptures teach us that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, became flesh, and subjected himself to the very law to which we were bound; that he perfectly obeyed that law, and suffered its penalty, and thus, by satisfying its demands, delivered us from its bondage, and introduced us into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
@thy-ine Stephen Wellum piece appreciated. Here is an important point to consider in grappling with the stereotypical meanings from the east and west on the atonement offered by Timothy Ware: Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west-particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109)-has tended to rather think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction designated to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father. Yet these contrast must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western writers, have applied judicial and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west from the 1930s onwards there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so. (From Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity [United Kingdom, Penguin Books,1963], 223).
First Orthodox Christianity was created as a break-away faction of Catholicism in about 988 or so, next new Orthodox theology was written over many centuries since 988 AD. King Vladimir, the ex Czar of Rus in 988 AD declared that all subjects and peasants of Rus, most were already Catholics for just "..few years" were converting their religion again:. In 569 AD, the Arch Patriach of Constantinople, declared and wrote that the people of Rus were converting to Catholicism in ever greater numbers, day by day. As per the desire and whims of King Vlad the Great in 988 AD or so, local subjects of the king will immediately convert to a break-away faction of Catholicism, to be called Orthodox Christianity, with ties only to Greece, and no ties to Rome at all. He also declared that his new Orthodox Christian faith of 988 will retain all Catholic saints and all customs and rituals of the former catholic faith. Catholic Former Catholic Bishops and officials in about 988 AD were given the option to stay back in Rus churches as Orthodox priests, or leave for Rome. Another important declaration of King Vladimir (he was No relation of Prez Vlad of 2019) in 988 AD or so was that Orthodox Christianity was suddenly born, out of nothing, in his watch. His Rus was almost never Catholic, except for a brief period in the recent past, and that Orthodox Christianity was directly born in Rus under his watch in 988 AD. Vladimir also expressed a desire to move the capital of Rus from Kyiv to a sleepy Inuit village, with Moscow population of one Inuit family and one Rus family, much further to the east, called Moscow village. The capital of briefly Catholic Rus was shifted from Kyiv to Moscow, the site proposed by Vladimir, about 150 years later, probably to avoid war with Catholic Rome.
For further reading about Hank joining the Eastern Orthodox Church, read these FREE articles on our website: (1) Hank's article "Have I “Left the Christian Faith”?
" www.equip.org/article/left-christian-faith/ (2) "Questions and Answers about Orthodoxy
" www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/ (3) "Does the Bible Answer Man’s Son Believe That He Has “Left the Christian Faith”?" www.equip.org/article/does-the-bible-answer-mans-son-believe-that-he-has-left-the-christian-faith/
This reminded me why I began exploring Orthodoxy. Thank you CRI.
@Pastor Michael... Yes, generally there is a Patron Saint of the Church. As you enter the Church there is the Narthex (an antechamber) you will see an Icon (image) of that Saint. I have never seen an Icon of Jesus in the Narthex, though there are a number of Icons of Christ in the church.
We also practice the "Kiss of Peace"....
Romans 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you."
Hopefully there is an Orthodox Church near you. We like to say "Come and See", I think you will enjoy it.
I listened to you as I was leaving the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You along with other men of Godinspired me to become a Christian and I have remained his follower since that time.
However in the Evangelical circles where I was, I began seeing more and more things which caused me extreme discomfort.
As I became more and more cognizant of the fact that those whose lives most completely emulated Christ were in fact the "Catholics" Mother Teresa being a prime example.
Then came Easter, and the horrific explosion in Cairo. My heart was rent.
And I heard about your conversation to Orthodoxy.
It was you who gave me the courage to investigate and to follow you and thousands of Saints before us into this blessed faith in Christ.
Please remember that there may be some who are very perplexed by this change which you have made. But there are also many of us who witnessed your actions and thereby found the courage to do what we knew to be right.
So thank you ever so much for your open faithfulness.
Can you explain the explosion in Cairo you mentioned and how it related to the Cathodic church?
This was very helpful… thank you. I stumbled into an Orthodox Church last month and I have not been the same since… I’m reading, studying… and trying to figure out what has happened to me. Thank you for this video♥️🙏🏽
where are you at now? what prompted your stumbling into an EO Church?
An hour well spent, being built up in the Faith by two true servants of God. God grant both of you many, many years.
God bless you with many more years.
Thank you!
It seems to me that the worst violence would not be to kill, but to torture. Pain. Living death.
@40:11 I think Jesus was saying we should call no one father spiritually.
Christ forbide the use of the word father with its absolute meaning, not with its pastoral meaning, i.e. alike the way also St. Paul used it for himself: "For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" [1 Corinthians 4:15]. Lord Jesus Christ forbade also the use of the word 'teacher' alike He did with the word 'father', however we see St. Paul to number 'Teachers' as a special category among the believers [1 Corinthians 12:28]. Is it the case that St. Paul neglects Lord's prohibition? Of course not. He simply uses the word 'teacher' as having its reference to God and not to a sole men's authority separated from Him.
The fact that despite Christ's saying St. Paul did use the word 'father' in its pastoral meaning as for himself shows that Christ didn't actually forbid such use of that word. What Christ forbade was the use of this word in it's absolute meaning, i.e. not having its reference to God. That's why St. Paul in [1 Corinthians 4:15] didn't just say "I have begotten you through the gospel" but "in *Christ Jesus* I have begotten you through the gospel". What is said for the word 'father' applies also for the word 'teacher' etc.
When we call a priest as spiritual father we relatively use this word always in reference to God the Father *"from whom all paternity in heaven and on earth takes its name"* [Ephesians 3:15]. That perspective of using the word father is adressed also in the writtings of early Christian writers as this was the understanding of the Church since the very beginning.
👍🏼very clear an informative thanks
Thanks for watching!
I don"t care if your plugged up or unplugged I believe there is consternation for believers in your move to Orthodoxy .
Frederica Mathewes-Green, who left the Episcopal Church, and joined Eastern Orthodoxy (1993), has been a clear voice, for explaining the Theology of Eastern Orthodoxy. No one should have any desire to argue with Eastern Orthodox Theology. One should want to be inspired to examine Eastern Orthodox Theology, using the meaning of the canon of Scripture. Hank Hanegraaff admits, in his youtube entitled "Using The Bible To Interpret The Bible," that we can interpret Scripture with Scripture. Included in this comment are the Bible answers, from the study by this commentor, in a "Two Part Comment," to the Eastern Orthodox statements of belief presented by Frederica Mathewes-Green. Some of Mrs. Mathewes Green's statements come from her youtube entitled "Orthodoxy And The Atonement." This comment serves as the First Part, the Second Part Comment is below this one.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
What Mrs. Mathewes Green expresses is that the Church preaches Jesus Christ, not Mary. At some point, though, we meet Jesus' mother, and you think that she's my friend too; she's wonderful, and you can become so drawn to her and so attracted to her, that she becomes like a prayer partner. The distinction is that Mary is not a jr. god; she's not a demi-god; she cannot over-rule things that God wants to do by her own power, but she is another person who loves the Lord Jesus Christ as much as we do, maybe even more than we do, and we can enjoy her presence and her fellowship.
Biblical Answer
Mary, when she was on earth, could be heard by others on earth, and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Jesus who was the Son of Mary...Mark 6: 3), said to others on earth, when she was also on earth, at that time, "Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it (John 2: 5)." Jesus said unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water, and they filled them up to the brim (John 2: 7)." What we can presently hear from Mary, today, is what has been recorded in the Gospel, where written accounts, of when Mary spoke, is left for us to hear from the written Word of God. Mary did not say to listen to her, but she said listen to Christ, and Christ, who was then God in human form, answers the prayers of the servants. This written account, of how Mary spoke, when she was on earth, is a most vivid Biblical (Special Revelation) testimony, which can be made visual, by art work, of many versions of "Mary with Christ" icons.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
What shocks some people is they think that those who are alive in Christ, and with Christ, in heaven, are actually sleeping, or dead and that they will be made alive at some future point, but the Church has always believed that they are alive, and they are aware, and they are like the people gathered around the throne in the book of Revelation or like Moses and Elijah appearing and speaking with the Lord, but they are there doing nothing except pray all the time, so just as I would ask you to pray for me, or ask another friend to pray for me, I can ask the Virgin Mary to pray for me; she's just another one of our friends.
Biblical Answer
True Christians, know the Biblical implication, that those who are alive in Christ, and with Christ, in heaven, are not sleeping, and this means that true Christians often believe that the dead in Christ are not sleeping, but are alive. This misunderstanding cannot be the sole reason for why people are shocked, when someone asks Mary to save them. The shock occurs, because if we talk to Mary directly, while she is in heaven, and we on earth believe that she hears and answers us, then Mary would have to be omnipresent, for this to occur. Omnipresent means we can ask those in heaven for their intercession, just like we ask people in the visible church on earth to pray for us, but this extremity implies that the saints in heaven are omnipresent, but only God and God alone is omnipresent.
One Biblical implication that those in heaven are alive and not sleeping, is shown by The Transfiguration of our Lord. The transfiguration was an unveiling of the Divine restraint which prohibited the illumination of Christ's sacred humanity. This also shows that the disciples, who were present
(Peter, James, and John), were only in communication with Christ. Christ could communicate directly with Moses and Elijah in heaven. Unlike Christ, the disciples, who were in their earthly state, saw Christ, Moses, and Elijah, in their glorified state, but the disciples on earth could only communicate directly with Christ. Moses and Elijah appeared in glory, and Jesus spake to Moses and Elijah of His decease which He should accomplish at Jerusalem (Luke 9: 30-31). Though the disciples, on earth, could hear and see Moses and Elijah and Christ, there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. The transfiguration was also when the prophecy (Malachi 4: 5), of Elijah's appearance, was fulfilled.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
Asking for forgiveness of our sins has nothing to do with anybody else except God (Asking God to save us), but when we ask Mary to save us, we can consider this as asking Mary to pray for us, or asking Mary to say "Yes," like she said to Gabriel, when he said that Mary would bear a child; that's how she saves us by saying "Yes" at that moment. This is not meant to be a theological argument against a different point of view, but it's meant to be an outpouring of love and joy.
Biblical Answer
The heavenly saints are hearing from God face-to-face, as they are in the visible presence of God. The saints on earth pray to God, asking God, through Christ, to hear our prayer, as Mary did, when she was once on earth, and when she also bore Christ by the incarnation of God. Mary is now in the visible eternal presence of Christ, where she and other heavenly saints are informed, by the Heavenly Father, through Christ, that He has heard our prayer on earth. The earthly saints present their worship and prayers, in communion with God, and it is from God the Father through Christ and the Holy Spirit, that we receive communion with God, and by God the Holy Spirit, the earthly saints are in communion with angels and archangels, and with all the company of heaven, as we laud and magnify God. God makes the heavenly saints aware that He has heard the prayers of saints on earth. Earthly saints believe that Christ has reconciled them to God the Father, and Mary, along with the other heavenly saints, who are in the face-to-face presence of God, are informed by God in heaven, about the saints on earth, who will one day be in heaven with God and his heavenly saints.
@thy-ine Critique duly noted. To understand better Frederica's position see www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/
We are not supposed to talk to the dead, correct?
@@sunflowers7 Yes, I believe you are Biblically sound to believe that we are not suppose to talk to the dead. Passages throughout the Bible's Old and New Testaments instruct us not to speak to the dead. According to the Scriptures, the true prophets who were chosen by God to write the Old Testament, and the 12 apostles (Disciples) who wrote and taught the New Testament, along with many more disciples who believed the message of God's word, left us the written account of God's word. All of the true prophets and apostles, and Saints such as Mary, from Joseph to Abraham to St. Paul, just to name a few, have left us (They died), and their soul is in heaven, but we hear what they spoke through God's written word. Every time we open God's written word and receive His message, this is the same message, that those who were faithful and went before us, still speaks. If we read the teaching that says "Do whatever he (Christ) tells you (John 2: 5, NIV)," - And on that occasion, it was Mary who spoke God's word - Because God's word was documented, then we can still hear God's word as it was spoken by Mary. Now, Mary is in heaven with the Lord, and she is still agreeing with God's word, and she is hoping all who are on earth, are listening to what God spoke to her and what He speaks to us who are yet in the physical body. God spoke to the prophets, Mary, and the apostles, and they subjected their will to His will. God spoke to the prophets and the apostles and the saints, but the words that they wrote are from God. Believing saints, who have gone before us, are now dead (Asleep) in the Lord, and they are in their spiritual body, and they cannot visibly or audibly hear us or speak to us in the physical. This is why we grieve at the death of our loved ones. The Holy Scripture indicates that the Lord only can be contacted by us in prayer, because it is only He who can hear us directly, and it is He who can even answer our prayer asking Him to give our departed loved ones a message, informing our loved ones who are with Him in heaven, of our activity on earth. Naturally, if the Holy Spirit prays for us, then our loved ones in heaven are in uninterrupted heavenly worship, prayer, and fellowship with God, in the visible presence of God.
When Saul tried to consult a medium to call up Samuel, and when Samuel's spirit appeared, his appearance was not a resurrection, but Samuel's ghost appeared by a divine act of God. God, who alone is omniscient, demonstrated that only He can hear and answer our prayers, and in the case of Saul, God caused the spirit of Samuel to appear, but Samuel was disturbed by having to leave God's heavenly abode to convey a warning to Saul from God. Who was it that actually heard Saul and the medium? God only was able to intervene as He demonstrated to Saul, that it was He who sent Samuel's spirit, which conveys to us that neither the medium nor Saul should have been calling on Samuel directly, because it was God only who saw and who heard, and it was God who answered, though the spirit of Samuel was disturbed by having to appear.
@@thy-ine thank you for your lengthy response. Having hit my knees 30+ years ago, landing in the rooms of AA, running forward in a Baptist Church to "I surrender All", staying on the outskirts of a deceptive works cult for way too many years, now returning to my roots having been confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I have come to realize the foundation of Luther's small catechism teachings have kept me from plugging into two cults. I trust it now. LCMS, a true gospel message. I used to listen to the Bible Answer Man many years ago. My childlike faith tends to want to keep it simple. It is Good News and Great Joy!
Is her book on the atonement out yet?
Nothing out yet as far as we know.
Did this book ever come out? I can't seem to find it.
The information on Eastern Orthodox theology discussed in the podcast comes from WELCOME TO THE ORTHODOX CHURCH: AN INTRODUCTION TO EASTERN CHRISTIANITY by Frederica Mathews-Green > www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/
www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/
This was awesome. And who knows?
I might just become orthodox...
Never heard someone so calmly mention they have cancer. My faith is stronger because of you
One thing that helped me was realizing the Armenian Church, the first national church ever, never had requests to Mary and do not use icons like Eastern Orthodox and Romans do - as prayer channels. This is not because the Armenians removed these practices. It’s because these practices simply never existed there from the beginning. Please consider this historical fact if you are considering Orthodoxy.
Please do more research. Armenians are oriental Orthodox and have 99% of the same historic practices. They also were not part of the original 5 patriarchates even if they were first deemed a Christian nation, that doesn't mean anything from the records of the catacombs or early church fathers.
Jeez, just do a google search typing "armenian church interior" before you say this bs. They only time when they didnt was during the times of the Heretical Iconoclast Emperors who were hunting icons down.
@@eleftheriosmas
I didn’t say they don’t have icons. I said, they don’t use icons to the extent and in the way the other traditions do… they definitely don’t have Mary without Christ like Romans - as far as I know. However, they’ve adopted a lot of Latin and Byzantine icons and practices.
When did Hank become Orthodox ?
April 9, 2017
Hank Hanegraaff has always been committed to championing of mere Christianity, which has been characteristic of his years of ministry as President of CRI and host of the Bible Answer Man radio broadcast.
Questions about Hank joining Christianity’s Eastern Orthodox Church are addressed here:
General questions about Eastern Orthodoxy:
www.equip.org/questions-answers-orthodoxy/
Did you leave the Christian faith to become Greek Orthodox?
www.equip.org/broadcast/islamic-terrorism-persecuted-christians-qa/ (4/10/2017)
What are the distinctive doctrines of Eastern Orthodoxy and why are you interested in Eastern Orthodoxy?
www.equip.org/broadcast/sounding-alarm-qa/ (4/4/2017)
What church do you attend?
www.equip.org/broadcast/incoherence-transgenderism-qa/ (2/7/2017 at 23:05)
Check the monologues on these broadcasts too…
www.equip.org/broadcast/body-christ-denominations-qa/
www.equip.org/broadcast/swirling-issues-nrb-tv-qa/
Plus, Hank’s response on whether or not he left the faith:
www.equip.org/article/left-christian-faith/
Hank affirms the biblical teaching that: “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. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:8-10)
Warren Nozaki
Research
Bible Answer Man I, for one, am extremely happy he has returned to Orthodoxy because it contains the fullness of the Christian Faith.
Thanks for the response.
@AnarchoRepublican Which tradition of Christianity do you adhere to?
this goes to prove that people are trying to get meaning in their lives by seeing the error in their own church and trying to find it
( meaning and a reason for being here ) and I must add truth and a right way to worship.rather than the secular Christianity that is so worldy and pervasive in nearly all of American church assemblies ,remember the word" Church "is a word substituted for the
term ,followers of the new way , or the true saints ",Church" has morphed into a gathering of people and one man takes the stand every time they meet .remember no one person has it all , there has to be others to have a hearing , no wonder ______?
The 1st preacher in the New Testamemt was John the Baptist not John the orthodox. My prayers for Hank+
I don't see any Baptists in the woods living ascetically like John, though there sure are a bunch of orthodox monks emulating him
Rly how can you live with yourself? Do you think an argument which says "ohh since when did John the Baprist had the correct faith" (that's what Orthodox means) gives your silly Protestantism credit?
Catholics emphatically don’t think of Mary as a Demi-god or something like that. At least, their theologians don’t present her that way.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
We are continuing, not just the early church's worship, but the worship of the Jewish people from the time of Moses. If your worshipping instead with drums and guitars, that's actually not an exodus; that's not the way God said He wanted it done. Green says the way the church has become a consumer product, and she thinks it's true of Protestant, Catholic, Liberal, Conservative, everyone; that is tragic because it has emptied the cross of it's power, and worship leaders are not trying to give worship to God; they're trying to give worshippers a good experience.
Biblical Answer
Every branch of Christendom has played their part in emptying the cross of it's power, and this includes Eastern Orthodoxy. The Bible does not mandate that music must be sung with or without musical instruments. Sometimes musical instruments are used, like in 1 Chronicles 15: 27-28. The music, though, must have the sound of a true reflection of God's majestic beauty - Melody with the sound of chorus mirth or joyous instrumental definition of overall sound. We are not referring to today's sound of contemporary music.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
In Western Christianity, the cross kind of became extracted out of the whole story, and the cross became such a relentless focus that people forget that it is actually part of a story, which includes the incarnation and the resurrection. Mrs. Mathewes-Green asserts that churches, outside the Orthodox church, concentrate on a "Theology of the Cross" at the expense of the Resurrection.
Biblical Answer
Mrs. Frederica Mathewes-Green comes from the point-of-view, that the whole story (Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection) should be told with all the icons, and the cross should not be the only icon, but Mrs. Mathewes-Green seems to be without the understanding that the whole story, the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection, is told through the preaching of God's Word, which conveys the context of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Often, especially in Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches, stain-glassed windows are iconic, and serve to depict the whole story in pictures, of the Incarnation, the Cross, and the Resurrection. Many, but not all, Lutheran Churches also have paintings of Jesus knocking, or paintings of His ascension, or the whole story depicted on stain-glass. The purpose of the Incarnation was not to taste food or to feel sorrow. The Son of God came in the flesh in order to be the Savior of mankind. First, it was necessary to be born "Under the law (Galatians 4:4)." All of us have failed to fulfill God’s Law. Christ came in the flesh, under the Law, to fulfill the Law on our behalf (Matthew 5: 17/ Galatians 4: 5). Second, it was necessary for the Savior to shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9: 22). A blood sacrifice, of course, requires a body of flesh and blood. This was God’s plan for the Incarnation: "When Christ came into the world, he said, 'Sacrifice and offering (Under the Old Covenant) you did not desire,' but 'A body you prepared for me (Hebrews 10: 5).'" Without the Incarnation, Christ could not really die, and the cross is meaningless.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
"What does it take for God to forgive us? Who pays the debt? There's this big pile of sin, and it's more than any human being could pay; how does that get paid? Do we have to make up part of the debt?" For the early church, and for the Eastern church till today, there never was a question about it; we just believed that God forgives sins; he forgives the sin; he doesn't ask anybody to pay it. It's like if you owed your friends some money, and he said "I forgive the debt," it doesn't mean you have to get a third party to pay it for you; it means that he lets it go.
Biblical Answer
Christ's sacrifice, on the cross, was not consistent with the work of a "Third Party payment." Christ's sacrifice, on the cross, in the trinitarian life of God, was God taking the weight of sin onto himself. The atonement is, in the phrase of John Stott, ultimately the "Self-sacrifice of God." Penal substitution is rational (it makes sense), but it is not rationalistic. By His suffering and death on the cross, Christ's work on the cross won, for us, forgiveness of our sins, because Christ washed our sins away (Christ provided His baptism, for us to receive), reconciling us to
God the Father. After Christ died, on the cross, physically, He descended into hell to proclaim his victory to the living and the dead, and rescued the spiritually dead from their prison. Then, Christ arose from the dead, and Christ conquered death and hell for us. After Christ rose from the dead, he was in a glorified body - a body as one would look like in heaven, not on earth. In His glorified body, Christ walked on earth until He ascended to heaven. This is the whole story of the Incarnation of Christ: The Incarnation, Cross, Resurrection.
The New Testament authors used various metaphors to explain and interpret the death and resurrection of Jesus. According to C. Marvin Pate, "There are three aspects to Christ's atonement according to the early Church: vicarious atonement (substitutionary atonement), the eschatological defeat of Satan (Christ the Victor), and the imitation of Christ(Participation in Jesus' death and resurrection)." Pate further notes that these three aspects were intertwined in the earliest Christian writings, but that this intertwining was lost since the Patristic times.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
Mrs. Mathewes-Green likens Christ on the cross as serene as if Christ has buried Himself on the cross, as if the cross is a throne.
Biblical Answer
The built altar structure, when seen in the Christian Church, gives a reminder of two realities: Its once reality as an object which typified the Cross of Christ when the former Mosaic Ceremonial Law applied, and the New Testament reality of the cross that now applies, which is the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament Ceremonial Law, by the merits of Christ's sacrificial death on the cross (Substitutionary atonement).
@thy-ine Critique duly noted. To understand better Frederica's position see www.equip.org/product/welcome-to-the-orthodox-church-cs/
The answer that *we are like little children before God* with regards to Orthodox vestments, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and so on, doesn't simply escape unnoticed and can't satisfy the hearts of Truth seekers, because God wants us to be *mature who feed on meat rather than continue to be babies and feed on milk* . I repeatedly heard this answer from her, and find it quite unacceptable.
Very interesting comment. Out of curiosity, what is your favorite book in the New Testament?
@@AnHebrewChild
Romans and Hebrews seem to be complete books on their own, expounding The Old in The New, but all the other books of The New Testament are *equally* favorites as well.
@@Merih98614 ok. Wow. Thank you.
EVALUATION OF ATONEMENT THEORIES
Every view about the atonement stresses something true about the cross. Of all the atonement views, only penal substitution best captures the God-centered nature of the cross, including all of the multi-faceted aspects, without subtracting parts or minimizing. Firstly, atonement views - the Recapitulation, Ransom, Moral influence, and Governmental theories - will be evaluated, and it will be shown how the named alternative views either minimize or deny that God’s holy justice is essential to him, and how these views also deny why our sin is first against God (Psalm 51: 4), and why Christ as our penal substitute is central to the cross. Lastly, the Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory will be explained to show how all of the atonement aspects must be equally and fully present within the Biblical context of Christ's atonement, but without subtraction or minimization.
The Recapitulation view, of the atonement, is often associated with Irenaeus and Athanasius. This view interprets Christ’s work primarily in terms of his identification with us, when Christ became human through the incarnation. The Divine Son, who reversed what Adam did, lived our life and died our death. Stephen Wellum, a professor of Christian theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville Kentucky, in his article entitled "Atonement Views In Historical Theology," helps to articulate the recapitulation view, that Adam's disobedience to Godlikeness resulted in the corruption of our nature and our spiritual separation from God. The recapitulation view conveys that because of Christ's incarnation, His entire work on the cross, and especially His resurrection, He restored to us immortality and reconciliation with God. The recapitulation view covers Biblical truth, in part, but it's central focus is not on our sin before God (God-centered), and the need for God's wrath to be taken away from us so we can obtain grace, but the said view, instead, captures how sin affects us (Man-centered), which only includes Christ's representation of us, and His substitutionary restorative work for us.
The Ransom theory (Christus Victor), of the atonement, views that the powers of sin, death, and Satan, which Christ liberates us
(Man-centered) from, is the primary focus, at His death. The ransom view does not include that God is the primary object of the cross. Likewise, the Moral Influence view, of the atonement, which had it's roots in the theology of Peter Abelard (1079-1142), also teaches that God is not the primary object of the cross, but that Christ's death only reveals God's love and sets an example for us. There is also the Governmental view, of the atonement, which arose in the post-reformation period, and associated with the Arminian tradition of Hugo Grotius and John Miley. This theology views God as the moral Governor, meaning Christ's cross upholds the moral governance of the world allowing God to forgive us (Man-centered) without a full payment for our sin.
The Penal Substitutionary Atonement captures fully what the Bible teaches about the atonement of Christ. The doctrine of union with Christ affirms that by taking the punishment upon himself Jesus fulfils the demands of justice not for an unrelated third party but for those identified with him. Martin Luther explained the full context of the atonement clearly (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344). In Luther's Second Sermon on Luke 24:36-47, he wrote: But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made. Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them. This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, "If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation." Even though the penal satisfaction of Jesus’ atonement is the beginning (and foundation) of Christ’s salvation, it isn’t the only thing Christ accomplished. Luther goes on to say, in his sermon, that the term "Satisfaction" is nevertheless too weak and says too little concerning the grace of Christ and does not do honor enough to his sufferings, to which one should give higher honor, confessing that he not only has made satisfaction for sin but has also redeemed us from the power of death, the devil, and hell, and established an everlasting kingdom of grace and of daily forgiveness of the sin that remains in us. Thus Christ is become for us, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1: 30, an eternal redemption and sanctification
(Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 351).
In a sermon on Easter Sunday, Luther pointed to Christ’s sacrifice in terms of ransom, satisfaction, propitiation, and implied substitution
(Martin Luther, Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, 4.1: 190, 191). Luther's hearers needed to consider the greatness and terror of the wrath of God against sin in that it could be appeased and a ransom effected in no other way than through the one sacrifice of the Son of God. Only his death and the shedding of his blood could make satisfaction. And we must consider also that we by our sinfulness had incurred that wrath of God and therefore were responsible for the offering of the Son of God upon the cross and the shedding of his blood. He emphasized its substitutionary aspect when he reminded the congregation to be aware why God spared not his own Son but offered him a sacrifice upon the cross, delivered him to death; namely, that his wrath might be lifted from us once more.
All men are naturally under the law as in the prescribing of the terms of their acceptance with God; and further, no obedience which sinners can render is sufficient to satisfy the demands of that law. Therefore, it follows, then, that unless we are freed from the law, not as a rule of duty, but as prescribing the conditions of acceptance with God, justification is for us impossible. So we are delivered from the law as a rule of justification and are at liberty to embrace a different method of obtaining acceptance with God (Romans 7: 1-6). Paul says of himself, that he had died to the law; that is, become free from it (Galatians 2: 19). And the same is said of all believers (Romans 7: 6). He insists upon this freedom as essential not only to justification, but to sanctification. For while under the law, the motions of sins, which were by the law, brought forth fruit unto death; but now we are delivered from the law, that we may serve God in newness of spirit (Romans 7: 5-6). Before faith came we were kept under the law, which he compares to a schoolmaster, but now we are no longer under a schoolmaster (Galatians 3: 24, 25). The Scriptures teach us that the Son of God, the brightness of the Father’s glory, and the express image of his person, who thought it not robbery to be equal with God, became flesh, and subjected himself to the very law to which we were bound; that he perfectly obeyed that law, and suffered its penalty, and thus, by satisfying its demands, delivered us from its bondage, and introduced us into the glorious liberty of the sons of God.
@thy-ine Stephen Wellum piece appreciated.
Here is an important point to consider in grappling with the stereotypical meanings from the east and west on the atonement offered by Timothy Ware:
Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ the Victor, the late medieval and post-medieval west sees chiefly Christ the Victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west-particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (?1033-1109)-has tended to rather think of the Cross in penal and juridical terms, as an act of satisfaction designated to propitiate the wrath of an angry Father.
Yet these contrast must not be pressed too far. Eastern writers, as well as western writers, have applied judicial and penal language to the Crucifixion; western writers, as well as eastern, have never ceased to think of Good Friday as a moment of victory. In the west from the 1930s onwards there has been a revival of the Patristic idea of Christus Victor, alike in theology, in spirituality, and in art; and Orthodox are naturally very happy that this should be so.
(From Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity [United Kingdom, Penguin Books,1963], 223).
First Orthodox Christianity was created as a break-away faction of Catholicism in about 988 or so, next new Orthodox theology was written over many centuries since 988 AD. King Vladimir, the ex Czar of Rus in 988 AD declared that all subjects and peasants of Rus, most were already Catholics for just "..few years" were converting their religion again:. In 569 AD, the Arch Patriach of Constantinople, declared and wrote that the people of Rus were converting to Catholicism in ever greater numbers, day by day. As per the desire and whims of King Vlad the Great in 988 AD or so, local subjects of the king will immediately convert to a break-away faction of Catholicism, to be called Orthodox Christianity, with ties only to Greece, and no ties to Rome at all. He also declared that his new Orthodox Christian faith of 988 will retain all Catholic saints and all customs and rituals of the former catholic faith. Catholic Former Catholic Bishops and officials in about 988 AD were given the option to stay back in Rus churches as Orthodox priests, or leave for Rome.
Another important declaration of King Vladimir (he was No relation of Prez Vlad of 2019) in 988 AD or so was that Orthodox Christianity was suddenly born, out of nothing, in his watch. His Rus was almost never Catholic, except for a brief period in the recent past, and that Orthodox Christianity was directly born in Rus under his watch in 988 AD. Vladimir also expressed a desire to move the capital of Rus from Kyiv to a sleepy Inuit village, with Moscow population of one Inuit family and one Rus family, much further to the east, called Moscow village. The capital of briefly Catholic Rus was shifted from Kyiv to Moscow, the site proposed by Vladimir, about 150 years later, probably to avoid war with Catholic Rome.
John Snow Kumar fake news.
🙄
I want so much Catholics to read this comment. Their facepalms will be so precious😂😂😂.