• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

For non-closed minded

Riane

Member
Thanks IacobPersul. It's always good to find people one can agree to disagree with so pleasantly.

I agree with you to a certain extent about the first analogy and the juridicial model - what I was trying to illustrate more in that case was that being sorry for something doesn't take away the fact that damage needs to be repaired. I think perhaps it falls into both the model you hold to and the juridical model, but in differing ways. (Perhaps the 'punishment' in that case would be the fact that if the person who ruined the car had no way to pay for it, then they would have to find some way to give recompense to have the car fixed - by having some of their property reposessed, or in the case where they own nothing of value, they would be put in prison. I realise that is extreme for ruining a car, but we need to remember that we're talking about humanity's eternal destiny here, and death is the pentalty for sin (as the Romans verse mentions).)

Your judge has to punish the criminal because he is bound to follow laws which he did not make.
But of course, in God's case he DID make the laws. I agree that the analogy isn't perfect - but then what analogy ever is?

Were he an absolute monarch rather than a judge this would not be the case as any law he had made he could just as easily unmake - he wouldn't have to do anything.
Agreed, the absolute monarch could unmake the law - but if he is a good monarch, a perfect monarch even, would not unmaking the law just so someone who had broken it go free be a violation of his good character? Just as a judge who did not hand down a sentence on a guilty criminal would be violating the law he had used to pronounce the person guilty. I would see unmaking the law as something worse than condemning the person who broke it, because then what stock would we hold in the law at all?

If God has to do something, if He is subject to some law of necessity then He is not sovereign, necessity is (i.e. it makes no sense to say that God is both omnipotent and had to do this or couldn't do that).
I disagree that the 'law of necessity' as you phrase it would mean God is not sovereign. Saying that God cannot sin, and cannot act in violation to his good character does not in my eyes make him less powerful. Someone who never went against their character and nature would be someone I would consider worth respecting and revering - even worhsipping (which of course I do). They would be someone I would gladly trust with my life, and whose gift of paying the pentalty for my sin I would cherish (not that I would suggest you don't cherish what Jesus did - it seems we simply understand it in different ways).

(I did a Bible college subject some time ago on the Person and Work of Christ, and one of the things we studied was propitiation, which in general terms is the idea of conciliation or appeasement through sacrifice [in this case the sacrifice is Jesus]; this is a rather important part of the juridicial model, if I understand it correctly. Unfortunately I would have to dig for my notes, so that will have to wait for another day - but I'll take a look at it again to see what scriptures are seen to be in support of the idea. Not that I'm trying to be contrary on purpose - simply to give the reason why I believe this model.)
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Riane,

I must ask this. Do you believe in Original Sin, by which I mean the doctrine first proposed by Bl. Augustine which says that we are born inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin? We Orthodox do not, and I think it's fair to say that it is one of the reasons we have a major problem with the western juridical view.

The reason I ask this is that that belief usually goes hand in hand with the a priori assumption you seem to have made that death is a punishment for sin. As I said, we view sin more in terms of sickness, death being the natural consequence of turning away from God, Who is the source of all life. Adam sinned, estranging himself and his descendants from God and so we inherited his mortal nature, but only he was guilty of that sin. In our view then, Christ's Incarnation was not about taking on Himself the punishment we deserved, but healing the rift Adam had created between man and God.

If we are all guilty of only our own personal sins and if we can still sin after Christ's crucifixion, does that mean we can sin without guilt? Surely no Christian would accept that idea. And if death is the punishment for sin and that could only be taken away by Christ's substituting Himself in our stead, why is it that now we are told we will be forgiven if only we repent? I find the whole judicial metaphor of sin as crime and death as punishment completely unsatisfactory and, more importantly, inconsistent with a God Who is Love, but I look forward to reading your reply. Like you I'm happy to find someone I can disagree amicably with.

James
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Riane said:
Ok, this is my first post out of the introduction forum, so bear with me here.

(Note: I'm coming from the juridicial model that IacobPersul mentioned in earlier posts. This is my understanding of the question from that perspective.)

Why didn't God just say 'I forgive you' - why did Jesus have to die? I like the following analogy to explain the situation.

Say I allow someone (say my brother) to borrow my car, and give them the responsibility not to damage it in any way, to which they agree. My brother then borrows my car, and subsequently goes out and causes an accident that totals it. Now obviously, I'm not going to be happy about that because I trusted my brother, but because I love him, I won't hold the damage to the car against him.

He may be as sorry as ever, but that doesn't change the fact that the car needs to be fixed for me to be able to use it again, and someone has to pay the bill for that to be fixed. My brother has no way to pay that bill - it is an impossibility for him.

What many Christians believe is that God sent his son to earth to pay the bill for the car to be fixed, so to speak. I could be as sorry as I liked, but that wouldn't change the fact that sin is something that God can't just overlook magically - it has to be paid for in some way. (Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.")

And that's the amazing thing - God sending his son to die in our place was a gift, something he did because he loves every one of us who have sinned. And that gift is free - all I have to do is believe that Jesus did what my Bible says he did.

Also, on repentance: (this is from the notes in my NIV Study Bible). "Repentance is more than a change of mind or feeling sorry for one's sins. It is a radical and deliberate turning or returning to God that results in moral and ethical change and action." (NIV note on Matt. 4:17)

So repentance involves action, not just emotion or words. It is a turning away from sin and a turning toward God. That's why someone who says they have repented but continues to committ murder or rape has not truly repented - their actions testify that their words are false.
Glad to see you here Riane and i hope you enjoy it here and i hope that all of us can learn in here somthing.

Actually, i feel depressed and frustrated because i sent my post directly after i saw this post but somthing happen to my post ( maybe gone with the wind or teachnical problems ) anyway it was a bit long and i was trying to reply to your post but what to do?

anyway, i just wanted to say that your example is so great and i envy you in your analyzing but after thinking of it i rialized that we used to give examples which can only apply on human beings only but when we talk about God so we talk about the one who knows the past, present and the future and he knows that human beings will sin and that's why he says that he will always forgive.


Peace ... :)
 

cturne

servant of God
The Truth said:
i guess i will answer you just directly from your post so you may understand what YOU already typed in here because simply you are contradicting yourself.


* here you said that impossible for a human being to be perfect right?



* Then, if we sin by nature so what is the benfit to push Jesus Christ for our salvation if we already sinned in the next day he crucified?
Since these were my posts you referred to, I will answer your question. Yes, it is impossible to be perfect. When Jesus Christ died for our sins, he died for all sins of mankind - past, present and FUTURE. But we must pray regularly and ask for forgiveness.
 

TashaN

Veteran Member
Premium Member
cturne said:
Since these were my posts you referred to, I will answer your question. Yes, it is impossible to be perfect. When Jesus Christ died for our sins, he died for all sins of mankind - past, present and FUTURE. But we must pray regularly and ask for forgiveness.
he died for all sins of mankind - past, present and FUTURE ( no sin any more ) = we must pray regularly and ask for forgiveness.


No comment :sarcastic
 

cturne

servant of God
The Truth said:
he died for all sins of mankind - past, present and FUTURE ( no sin any more ) = we must pray regularly and ask for forgiveness.


No comment :sarcastic
No, that does not mean there is no sin. There is always sin - people who reject God and/or do not ask for forgiveness are not forgiven. Just because Jesus paid for all of our sins, does not mean that everone has a 'go to heaven free' ticket. Again, we must repent, etc... as I have already stated. If you refuse to believe this or accept this, there is nothing I can do other than pray for you. However, there is no need to be sarcastic, just because you don't understand.
 

flacsmada

Member
I have been in youth and missionary ministries for a long time, when paul talks about forgiveness in a past tense (which he always does) i simply take that to be literall. So i don't have to ask for forgiveness as a child washed clean by Christ blood. I do remember when i sin that i am forgiven and rejoice for his grace and mercy in my life. It is a free ticket to heaven why should it be more complecated. It is not a free ticket to sin however because what paul again says in romans is "yes we are free from grace, no there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but does that mean we sin because we are free? May it never be so!" Romans 6,7, and 8. Also in galations 5:1 he says "it is for freedom that christ has set us free." Now if i continually have to ask for forgiveness first of what am i asking forgiveness from if like the psalmist says my sins are as white as snow; God has thrown them as far as the east is from the west." Second is that living in the unconditional grace/ freedom and abundance Christ died for in the first place? Granted a big part of the christian "religion" believes in asking for forgiveness everytime you sin, and repenting everytime "even though repentence is referred to as a single event in the bible." So my question is why?
 

joeboonda

Well-Known Member
When reading the four gospels, we find Jesus explaining to his disciples that he must die THAT THE SCRIPTURES MIGHT BE FULFILLED. THE scriptures he referred to was of course, the Old Testament. Most Muslims believe the Old Testament. Read Luke 24:13-31. In verse 25-27 it says: "Then he said unto them, Ofools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken; Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. Many times in the gospels, Jesus said he had to die to fulfil the scriptures.

It is very disrespectful to call the crucifixion the cruci-fiction, so I hope you will stop. Jesus himself said he must die for our sins. There were many eye-witnesseses of this event, and MANY prophecies from the Old Testament that specificaly detailed his death. I will believe this over anything else that comes along many years later.

Also, in Genesis, God said let us make man in OUR image, and throughout the Old Testament there are references to the Holy Spirit and to the coming Messiah who must suffer (see Isaiah 53). Thus a tri-fold God of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not at all blasphemous. I think of ice, water, and vapor.

The wonderful thing is that with one sacrifice he paid for all the sins of all the people of all the world for all time! He said we must believe this and if we do we are born again. Now if we are born again we are new creatures with God's spirit within us. We still have a sinful nature, but we also have the power of God to overcome sin. We will not be perfecly sinless while in this mortal body, but we are growing daily in his grace. But I don't want this to get too long. God bless you!
 

Riane

Member
Sorry for the delay in the reply. I've been quite busy over the last couple of days. I hope this will answer your query.

Do you believe in Original Sin, by which I mean the doctrine first proposed by Bl. Augustine which says that we are born inheriting the guilt of Adam's sin?
Yes, I do, for the following reason:

Romans 5:18-19 ~ Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Those two verses, and those prior to it, make it pretty clear that the result of Adam's sin was that all became sinners. (Note: I realise this raises an issue when thinking about unborn or young children who are not self-aware in the way an adult is, but I won't digress right now. Perhaps in a later post.)

A question: perhaps by original sin we mean a different thing? For me it signifies that through Adam's sin death came into the world, and that no one is without sin. (As I said, for the unborn or young child that becomes an interesting issue, and one I'm still considering and looking into. Perhaps it's worth another topic.)

that belief usually goes hand in hand with the a priori assumption you seem to have made that death is a punishment for sin.
I'm not sure in what sense you mean that this idea is an a priori assumption - I did reference a verse in one of my earlier posts that indicates that this is indeed what the Bible teaches: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gife of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23. It isn't an assumption on my part, simply a belief that the Bible means what it says.

We view sin more in terms of sickness, death being the natural consequence of turning away from God, Who is the source of all life. Adam sinned, estranging himself and his descendants from God and so we inherited his mortal nature, but only he was guilty of that sin.
I do think the sickness analogy is a good one, and certainly is something that the Bible talks about. Adam's sin did cause an estrangement between God and his descendants, and I agree that only he was guilty of his particular sin. However, the Bible states that we are all guilty of sin, and so we all receive the same consequence for sin, which the verse in Romans states is death (both physical and spiritual).

In our view then, Christ's Incarnation was not about taking on Himself the punishment we deserved, but healing the rift Adam had created between man and God.
I believe that it is about both facets - about taking our punishment upon himself so that the rift can be healed. I don't separate the two - the healing of the rift couldn't come without payment of the bill, so to speak.

If we are all guilty of only our own personal sins and if we can still sin after Christ's crucifixion, does that mean we can sin without guilt? Surely no Christian would accept that idea.
You're absolutely right. As someone mentioned elsewhere, Christ's crucifixtion paid the debt for past, present and future sins, but that does not mean that we can take that as a free ticket into heaven, with no action or change involved.

And if death is the punishment for sin and that could only be taken away by Christ's substituting Himself in our stead, why is it that now we are told we will be forgiven if only we repent?
Because Christ's sacrifice paid the price once and for all. Going back to our analogy, I'll expand it to see if I can make it clearer: the criminal has been judged guilty, the sentence has been handed down, and it must be followed through. The judge steps down, takes the sentence and puts himself in the criminal's place. The requirement of the law is fulfilled.

That gift is offered to everyone - because we are all that criminal - but we also have a part to play in what happens next. We need to believe that what Christ did has paid the penalty (Acts 10:43); we need to confess our sins, and acknowledge that we have done the wrong thing, broken the law (1 John 1:9); and we need to repent, to take action by turning toward God (Acts 3:19). The price is paid, but it won't have any affect in an individual's life if they don't do those things. We will be forgiven if we repent because the price has already been paid.

I find the whole judicial metaphor of sin as crime and death as punishment completely unsatisfactory and, more importantly, inconsistent with a God Who is Love, but I look forward to reading your reply.
I don't disagree with you that God is a God of love - God is love - but focusing only on that aspect disregards that the Bible also demonstrates he is a God of justice. I don't disagree with the sickness/healing metaphor, but I do think it is too narrow. The part of his character that is Just required that the pentalty of sin be paid for; the part of his character that is Love required that he pay that price himself. It is then our responsibility to acknowledge what he has done, confess that we have sinned, and turn back to him.
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Firstly, I'd like to state that I'm really enjoying this discussion with you. We seem to have been able to disagree amicably from the start and that is great. You also write well, which helps. This is quite unusual even here (which is a pretty friendly place by and large) and I appreciate it.

Riane said:
Sorry for the delay in the reply. I've been quite busy over the last couple of days.
Don't worry about it. I don't always get the opportunity to reply straight away either.

Yes, I do, for the following reason:

Romans 5:18-19 ~ Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Those two verses, and those prior to it, make it pretty clear that the result of Adam's sin was that all became sinners. (Note: I realise this raises an issue when thinking about unborn or young children who are not self-aware in the way an adult is, but I won't digress right now. Perhaps in a later post.)
Ah, but that doesn't actually argue for inherited guilt does it? Nor does it say that death is a punishment. I wouldn't dispute at all that death is the consequence of sin, though. You also seem to agree with me on this, in that your following comments sound more Orthodox than Augustinian. As an aside, there is also the issue, in English translations, that a false distinction is made between righteousness and justification. The original text uses the same word (or root when it comes to related nouns, verbs and adjectives) for both in Greek. It does make a difference to the way the text reads that I find many English speakers miss if this is corrected.

A question: perhaps by original sin we mean a different thing? For me it signifies that through Adam's sin death came into the world, and that no one is without sin. (As I said, for the unborn or young child that becomes an interesting issue, and one I'm still considering and looking into. Perhaps it's worth another topic.)
No, then we mean the same thing (except that I'm quite certain nobody is born a sinner), but that isn't what Bl. Augustine meant. Calvinists and the like usually follow him quite closely. The only difference really that I can see between our positions (apart from my certainty that infants are without guilt) is that I would generally refer to the Ancestral Sin rather than original sin.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean that this idea is an a priori assumption - I did reference a verse in one of my earlier posts that indicates that this is indeed what the Bible teaches: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gife of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23. It isn't an assumption on my part, simply a belief that the Bible means what it says.
What you appeared to be assuming was that death was a punishment for sin. You are quite welcome to believe so if you like, but the text you quoted does not say this. It says that the consequence of sin is death but that eternal life is a gift from God. I feel that reflects the Orthodox position much better than the juridical equivalent. And I do believe that the Bible means what it says (with the proviso that you are interpreting it correctly).

I do think the sickness analogy is a good one, and certainly is something that the Bible talks about. Adam's sin did cause an estrangement between God and his descendants, and I agree that only he was guilty of his particular sin. However, the Bible states that we are all guilty of sin, and so we all receive the same consequence for sin, which the verse in Romans states is death (both physical and spiritual).
Here we don't disagree at all. All are sinners because part of mortal man's nature is to find it easy to sin and hard to be righteous. St. Paul talks of precisely this, as I'm sure you know.

I believe that it is about both facets - about taking our punishment upon himself so that the rift can be healed. I don't separate the two - the healing of the rift couldn't come without payment of the bill, so to speak.

You're absolutely right. As someone mentioned elsewhere, Christ's crucifixtion paid the debt for past, present and future sins, but that does not mean that we can take that as a free ticket into heaven, with no action or change involved.

Because Christ's sacrifice paid the price once and for all. Going back to our analogy, I'll expand it to see if I can make it clearer: the criminal has been judged guilty, the sentence has been handed down, and it must be followed through. The judge steps down, takes the sentence and puts himself in the criminal's place. The requirement of the law is fulfilled.

That gift is offered to everyone - because we are all that criminal - but we also have a part to play in what happens next. We need to believe that what Christ did has paid the penalty (Acts 10:43); we need to confess our sins, and acknowledge that we have done the wrong thing, broken the law (1 John 1:9); and we need to repent, to take action by turning toward God (Acts 3:19). The price is paid, but it won't have any affect in an individual's life if they don't do those things. We will be forgiven if we repent because the price has already been paid.
As I don't believe in the punishment you do, I clearly can't agree with you on this point, but never mind. I absolutely agree with you for the need for true repentance, but I don't believe that our sins were already paid for prior to our births. At least, not in the sense you do.

I don't disagree with you that God is a God of love - God is love - but focusing only on that aspect disregards that the Bible also demonstrates he is a God of justice. I don't disagree with the sickness/healing metaphor, but I do think it is too narrow. The part of his character that is Just required that the pentalty of sin be paid for; the part of his character that is Love required that he pay that price himself. It is then our responsibility to acknowledge what he has done, confess that we have sinned, and turn back to him.
But this begs the question of what we mean when we say God is just. I don't believe for a moment that this is the same idea as human justice any more than I believe His Love is like human love. Everything about God is beyond all creation. Here are a couple of interesting quotes by Church Fathers that might illustrate what I mean. The first is directly relevant, the second, I feel, helps explain what St. Isaac means by the first. I don't expect you to take them on a par with Scripture, understand, merely trying to illustrate the Orthodox understanding more clearly than I can with my words alone.

How can you call God just when you read the passage on the wage given to the workers? 'Friend, I do thee no wrong; I will give unto this last even as unto thee who worked for me from the first hour. Is thine eye evil, because I am good?' How can a man call God just when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son, who wasted his wealth in riotous living, and yet only for the contrition which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck, and gave him authority over all his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him lest we doubt it, and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we were sinners, Christ died for us! - St. Isaac the Syrian


God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind. - St. Anthony


Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

James
 

Riane

Member
I'll have to post this in two parts, because the original is too long! Isn’t it always the way that just when you want to respond in a timely manner, life gets on top of you?! Thanks for your patience James. It’s greatly appreciated.

Firstly, I'd like to state that I'm really enjoying this discussion with you. We seem to have been able to disagree amicably from the start and that is great. You also write well, which helps.
I feel very much the same. Sharing differing opinions in a friendly way is such a great way to expand your knowledge. And thank you for the compliment – when you hope to be a published writer some day, it’s always good to know that you’re communicating effectively.

Ah, but that doesn't actually argue for inherited guilt does it? Nor does it say that death is a punishment. I wouldn't dispute at all that death is the consequence of sin, though.
Bear with me in this, as I’m not sure how clearly I’ll be able to communicate what I’m trying to. I’m using a couple of sources here, my Bible and a book called Foundations of Pentecostal Theology (as that is the branch of Christianity where I sit, and where I base my understanding/interpretation on).

According to the theology book I’m looking at, this is what is meant by original sin: there are two meanings of ‘original sin’, 1) the first sin of Adam (original = first), and 2) the sinful nature possessed by every man since Adam, due to Adam’s first transgression. This sinful nature is called ‘depravity’.

Facets of this second aspect include:

~ That humans are completely void of original righteousness (that is, we are not born ‘right’ or ‘good’). Psalm 51:5 – Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

~ That humans do not possess any holy affection toward God (in their sinful state). 2 Tim. 3:2-4 – People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God…

~ That it is the things that come from within a person are what defiles them. Mark 7:21-22 – For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.

~ That humans have a continuous bias toward evil. Genesis 6:5 – And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Also, in regard to the Romans 5 verse, I think it does argue for inherited guilt – unless I have misread the meaning of the second sentence, ‘For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners.’ What is your interpretation of this verse?

In regard to the punishment for sin, I think the Rom. 5:18 verse does indicate that death is a punishment. The word ‘condemnation’ in the Greek is katakrima, which my Bible dictionary says has the meaning: “the sentence pronounced, the condemnation with a suggestion of punishment following” or “a damnatory sentence, condemnation”. The word ‘justification’ in the Greek is dikaiosis in this verse has the meaning: 1) the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him, and 2) abjuring to be righteous, justification. (Both of these definitions come from Strong’s concordance and lexicon.) The connotation is one of acquittal, which is certainly a judicial idea. Thus the basis of the metaphor.

A false distinction is made between righteousness and justification. The original text uses the same word (or root when it comes to related nouns, verbs and adjectives) for both in Greek. It does make a difference to the way the text reads that I find many English speakers miss if this is corrected.
As outlined by the definitions above, I don’t believe there is a false distinction. There may be the same root word, but there is still a difference in meaning. Justification and righteousness are certainly related concepts, but they do have different meanings.

The only difference really that I can see between our positions (apart from my certainty that infants are without guilt) is that I would generally refer to the Ancestral Sin rather than original sin.
Could you expand on the idea of ancestral sin for me? How exactly do you see it differing from the idea of original sin and death as punishment as outlined above? I just want to clarify, because I’m not sure that I’m understanding you’re use of the concept fully.

What you appeared to be assuming was that death was a punishment for sin. You are quite welcome to believe so if you like, but the text you quoted does not say this.
True, the word ‘wages’ does not equate directly with ‘punishment’, but taken in light of the other verses in Romans 5, I believe the meaning to be quite similar. Wages are what is due a person for the work or actions they have performed, just as death is what is due a person for the sin he has performed.

It says that the consequence of sin is death but that eternal life is a gift from God. I feel that reflects the Orthodox position much better than the juridical equivalent.
If it seems I’m being pendantic, I’m sorry. I read the verse to say that the payment for sin is death. I don’t disagree that the natural consequence of sin is death also, but I still hold that it is a punishment for breaking of God’s commands, for the reasons mentioned above.

And I do believe that the Bible means what it says (with the proviso that you are interpreting it correctly).
I’m sorry if that sounded as if I was suggesting you don’t believe what the Bible says – that certainly wasn’t my intention. Obviously we are working with different interpretations here, both which we believe to be correct. If we have to agree to disagree in the end, then I have no trouble with that. (But the debate is still interesting.)

I absolutely agree with you for the need for true repentance, but I don't believe that our sins were already paid for prior to our births. At least, not in the sense you do.
Is this because you don’t believe that payment was necessary? If not, could you clarify that for me? (Again, so I can be sure I’m understanding your viewpoint as fully as possible.)

But this begs the question of what we mean when we say God is just. I don't believe for a moment that this is the same idea as human justice any more than I believe His Love is like human love.
That is and interesting question, and one that would probably take a while to answer in full. I agree that his love and his justice is nowhere near like human standards – it is perfect, and the human equivalents don’t always help us in understanding what that kind of perfection entails. I don’t think it’s even possible to understand fully what God’s justice and love are. But I do believe we can get a glimpse, and that comes through the Word.

Hebrews 9:24-28 – For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people. (Sorry for the length of that quote, but I wanted to make sure it was in context.)
 

Riane

Member
Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we were sinners, Christ died for us! - St. Isaac the Syrian
I’m not sure that I understood the entirety of that quote, but I’ll respond as I can. If I’ve misread, I apologise. I agree, those examples show God as loving. But I’m not sure how the question ‘Where is God’s justice?’ applies in this case. For me, the fact that Christ needed to die for sinners points to the fact that that was the penalty for sin. God’s justice required that someone pay the price, and the person who did so was Jesus. God’s justice was in the fact that he did not just remove the penalty for sin, but paid it himself by sending his Son.

To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions.
Now with this section I certainly have to disagree, because the Bible says otherwise. Zeph 3:17 – The Lord your God is with you, he is mighty to save. He will take great delight in you, he will quiet you with his love, he will rejoice over you with singing.

I agree, he is not ‘won over’ by gifts or works, but that doesn’t mean he is not pleased by such gifts. From a heart turned toward him and devoted to him, he takes great delight. Psalm 18:19 – He [God] brought me [David] out into a spacious place; he rescued me because he delighted in me.

He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him.
Again, I disagree – not that God does no harm, but that ‘harm’ equates with his justice in judging us guilty of sin and handing down the sentence of death. God does not maliciously pronounce the sentence of death – he does so because of his justice, and also with a saddened heart. 2 Pet. 3:9 – The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

It was not simply a decrease in resembling God that caused us to be separated from him – it was sin, Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God in Eden. The sin caused the loss of resemblance, sin is what the depravity or evilness in us. Loss of resemblance comes through the evil of sin, not the other way around.

And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness.
There is no way that humans can affect their own release from sin. We do not become good through resembling God in our own strength. We come to resemble God through the result of Jesus sacrifice, offered as a gift to those who will accept it – through justification and then the ongoing process of sanctification (being made more like God). Eph 2:8-9 – For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast.

It’s a shame I have to disagree with St Anthony so, because he certainly does express himself very well. However, I don’t believe his ideas reflect what the Bible teaches at all, as the verses above are witness.


Ok, that will have to do. It certainly turned out to be rather long! Congratulations to anyone who made it through the whole thing. :)


[font=&quot][/font]
 

blueman

God's Warrior
IacobPersul said:
Although you could have written this more clearly, I think you've stumbled on an important point that differentiates the Orthodox view from that of most western Christians. We do not hold to the idea that Christ was sacrificed as the only price acceptable for God to forgive our sins (this is the juridical model of salvation) and we have never done so. Of course God can, and does, forgive any sin we truly repent of and He is not bound to do something such as sacrifice his Son before He can do so (this I would refer to as the deification of necessity).

In our view, Christ's entire Incarnation and not just the Crucifixion is what enabled our reconciliation with God. He divinised human nature by being Incarnate and restored mankind to our proper relationship with God which was lost in the fall. By His resurrection he showed that He had defeated the hold of sin and death over man and it is this that His death ransomed us from, not the wrath of God. This is a distinct difference in the soteriology of east and west and hopefully the eastern (Orthodox) understanding might help you in your confusion. It simply is not necessary for a Christian to believe the things you are confused by - I certainly don't.

James
Christ's incarnation and ministry were extremely important and critical in the establishment and evolvement of the church that continues to resonate to this day. But His primary purpose was to redeem man through His ultimate sacrifice and that was the Cruxifiction and His resurrection. That was His primary purpose and fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies referenced in the Old Testament and Jewish Talmud. If His sacrifice on the cross was not a requirement as part of God's purpose for the reconciliation of man, then why would God allow His Son to be slaughtered in the most inhuman fashion during those times in 1st century Palenstine? :)
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
blueman said:
Christ's incarnation and ministry were extremely important and critical in the establishment and evolvement of the church that continues to resonate to this day. But His primary purpose was to redeem man through His ultimate sacrifice and that was the Cruxifiction and His resurrection. That was His primary purpose and fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies referenced in the Old Testament and Jewish Talmud. If His sacrifice on the cross was not a requirement as part of God's purpose for the reconciliation of man, then why would God allow His Son to be slaughtered in the most inhuman fashion during those times in 1st century Palenstine? :)
The Crucifixion is a part of the entire Incarnation. I was not arguing, and have never done so, that the Crucifixion was unimportant, merely disputing the interpretation of it's significance usually made by western Christians in accordance to the medieval juridical model of salvation. If you have read the whole thread I would hope that you would understand this. I would have to say, however, that I don't think you can pull out Christ's death by Crucifixion as His primary purpose - I would argue that His Resurrection is far more important than the Crucifixion and that His primary purpose was man's reconciliation to God. The early Church Fathers would seem to agree with our position on this.

James

P.S.
Riane, I promise I will reply to you as soon as I can. Give me some time, though as you've given me an awful lot to respond to.
 

blueman

God's Warrior
IacobPersul said:
The Crucifixion is a part of the entire Incarnation. I was not arguing, and have never done so, that the Crucifixion was unimportant, merely disputing the interpretation of it's significance usually made by western Christians in accordance to the medieval juridical model of salvation. If you have read the whole thread I would hope that you would understand this. I would have to say, however, that I don't think you can pull out Christ's death by Crucifixion as His primary purpose - I would argue that His Resurrection is far more important than the Crucifixion and that His primary purpose was man's reconciliation to God. The early Church Fathers would seem to agree with our position on this.

James

P.S.
Riane, I promise I will reply to you as soon as I can. Give me some time, though as you've given me an awful lot to respond to.
There is no doubt that the resurrection of Christ was the most significant event in history. Without it, there would be no basis for Christianity. But reconciliation with God required a sacrifice, as you well know, and that sacrifice was the shedding of Christ's blood through the cruxifiction. But the very core of Christian belief and the basis of salvation is that (1) Christ died for the sins of mankind and (2) He rose from the dead and lives today for all of us to have a relationship with Him.

I appreciated your earlier comments on this issue. :)
 

Riane

Member
Riane, I promise I will reply to you as soon as I can. Give me some time, though as you've given me an awful lot to respond to.
Absolutely. I was thinking that as I was posting - it seems this thread just keeps getting longer and longer. Also, I'm wondering whether this is perhaps better off in the Same Faith debates forum, now that the discussion has shifted in that direction?
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
This is my understanding of things:

There are two laws: The Law of Justice and the Law of Mercy.

The Law of Justice requires there be a punishment for a crime. For example, you steal something means you spend ten years in jail. Anything less than this would not completely satisfy the Law of Justice.

The Law of Mercy requires that there be a total pardon because it is understood that we sometimes make mistakes. For example, you steal something means you are forgiven without any punishment whatsoever. A day in jail would not be complete mercy.

Because of the Fall there is sin that EVERYONE will comit. No one is perfect. Because of these crimes, we must receive punishment. We know that "no unclean thing" can be in the presence of God and so that becomes the punishment -- separation from God. The Law of Justice demands it. However, God provided his only begotten son who was perfect as a sacrifice for us. Because Christ was spotless he was not subject to the Law of Justice and so was able to take upon himself the total punishment for all the sins that had been or ever would be comitted. In this way the Law of Justice is satisfied. Further, because Christ has done this for us, we can receive forgiveness if we accept Christ and repent. We comit the crime, but don't have to receive the punishment. In this way the Law of Mercy is satisfied.

I hope I made some sense. :)
 
Top