Ancient Christian Witness

A lecture by the Reformed protestant scholar T.F. Torrance

The link:
Lecture 8 Q&A



He talks about it in passing towards the later half of this lecture for a few minutes, but he spends more time on it in the Q&A session.
Lecture 8

This is part 1 of a 12 part series:


.

A reply to the authors of Pierced for Our
Transgressions by Derek Flood

The link:
http://therebelgod.com/AtonementFathersEQ.pdf

As seen from AncientFaithRadio from the podcast Frederica Here and Now




Play Audio

The link:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/11/term-propitiation-in-saint-paul.html

Quote:
"The ancients felt that if a taboo was infringed, the person or thing involved became unclean, defiled or profane. The condition of defilement might be removed by the performance of the appropriate act: it might be washing with water, or sprinkling with blood, or simply the forfeiture of some valuable object to the deity concerned with the taboo. Such acts were felt to have the value, so to speak, of a disinfectant. Thus in the Old Testament a whole range of ritual actions are prescribed for disinfecting the priest, the altar, or the people from various forms of defilement, ritual or moral. Our versions in such cases use the phrase "to make propitiation"; but the more proper translation would be "to make expiation"."

To read the rest please visit Mystagogy

As seen from princeton.edu:

Quote:
"Saturday, February 12, 2011
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Taking our cue from Fr. Florovsky, who wrote with passion on this topic, we will examine the doctrine of atonement in many of the same authorities upon which Fr. Florovsky relied: the New Testament, St. Irenaeus of Lyon, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and others. We will conclude with an analysis of Fr. Florovsky's own writings on atonement, followed by a panel discussion. So far, several well known Orthodox scholars have agreed to participate in the symposium, including the three listed below.

This symposium is co-sponsored by the Fr. Georges Florovsky Orthodox Christian Theological Society at Princeton University and the School of Christian Vocation and Mission at Princeton Theological Seminary"

To read the rest please visit princeton.edu:

I found this on Orrologion's blog


The link:
http://orrologion.blogspot.com/2010/02/sacrifice-of-christ-as-expiation-gk.html








ICXC NIKA

This one is from a Lutherian perspective, although most of it is serious and not really a satire:

(History of Christology for Calvinists and most Protestants)



(History of Christology for Calvinists and most Protestants Part 2)



(History of Christology for Calvinists and most Protestants Part 3)



(Conversation with a Calvinist on the Supper)



(Matthew 23:37, 1 Timothy 2:4, and Jame's White)





(Christology - Differences Between Calvinists and Lutherans)










ICXC NIKA

Jnorm888

This was taken from the Orrologion blog.


"Listen to the triumphant hymns of the Church! Not on the day of Holy Pascha alone, but on all the great fests you will frequently hear the word “incorruption.” The entire matter of the salvation of the human race is expressed in the Church’s living theology as the gift of incorruption. This means that we lack incorruption. We are in a condition of corruption. The Synaxarion for the Holy and Great Sunday of Pascha is read only in monasteries, of course, and not even in all of them. Here is how the theological significance of the event we celebrate is defined: “It was on this day that He came down from heaven and dwelt in the womb of the Virgin. And now He has snatched the whole of humanity from the vaults of Hell and made it pass upwards to heaven and brought it to its ancient dignity of incorruption.” Two details are significant here: Pascha is placed next to the event of the Nativity of Christ, and incorruption is called the ancient dignity.

Listening to the Church’s hymns, one grows increasingly convinced of what rich treasures of ideas they are, of how important they are for an authentic Orthodox understanding of life. Our school courses on dogmatics, taught from the cathedras of seminaries and academies, stand much lower in relation to that theology that our readers and singers teach the faithful from the church kliros.

A Pascha of incorruption… The return to the ancient dignity… Our school theology speaks of some sort of juridical accounts between God and man. Sin is called primarily a crime against God, an affront to God, for which the righteousness of God must avenge the paltry offender. But the Church calls sin first of all corruption, the loss of the ancient dignity of incorruption. Here there are no juridical accounts with the Lord God. Man fell away from God, and his spiritual and corporal corruption began. Self-rule in the spiritual life led to slavery to sin and the passions. Man began to decay in seductive lusts. The soul rots, the soul decays. This sounds awful, but it is indeed the case. The process of spiritual corruption can be compared to any other kind of rotting. When any organism rots everything in it breaks down, and in time it produces poisonous and malodorous gases. The spiritual nature, damaged and contaminated by sin, will also rot in the same way. The soul loses its chastity [whole-mindedness], its integrity, and decomposes; the will within it weakens, which connects everything, and to which everything is subordinate. Constant passionate thoughts and evil deeds escape from the sinful soul. Anyone who pays close attention to his spiritual life can not but be surprised by how difficult it is to instill any good and beautiful thing in the soul, and how easily and quickly any dark and evil thing is strengthened. Do we not therefore say that something bad is living in our soul; that it is unhealthy, ill? Corruption reigns in our soul, and it is especially evident that our body is subject to corruption. Many can live without being aware of spiritual illness, they can muffle the soul’s inner moaning and cries with the noise of life. But the corruption of the body in death is irrefutable. All the colors of life pale before this corruption. The works of the ascetics about spiritual death can be rejected and perhaps even ridiculed. But try to find a nihilist who would not understand the service of burial and the graveside mourning of St John of Damascus!"


To read the rest please visit "http://orrologion.blogspot.com/"









JNORM888

This is from the Energetic Procession blog by Perry Robinson.

"As with St. Ireneaus, there is an ecclesiological and sacramental dimension to the doctrine of Recapitulation. Baptism is an essential component of the mystery and for the spiritual life
since the believer must recapitulate that which Christ Himself fulfilled and repeated in His own Recapitulation. As was the case with Sts. Ireneaus and Athanasius, one cannot separate the divine and invisible nature and therefore one cannot separate water and the Spirit into two separate baptisms or events, as this would be a kind of sacramental Nestorianism"

To read the rest please visit Energetic Procession.







JNORM888

Some would like to attack some of the philosophical uassage of a few ancient christians. But the truth is, the finger can be pointed in both directons.


As seen from "Theopedia"



Some argue that it is based on Natural Theology

Quote:
Some argue that it is based on Natural Theology
J.I. Packer cautions that Penal Substitution was formulated during a period when "Protestant exegesis of Scripture was colored by an uncriticized and indeed unrecognized natural theology of law. . . drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought" [2]. Natural theology refers to knowledge of God drawn from our world around us (in this case from their own judicial concepts) as opposed to knowledge of God contained in the revelation of Scripture. Although Packer demurs basing Penal Substitution on the Natural theology of law and limiting the concept to retributive language, he nevertheless argues for the "substantial rightness of the Reformed view of the atonement."


According to Theopedia "Natural Theology" is:


"Natural theology is the branch of philosophy and theology which attempts to either prove God's existence, define God's attributes, or derive correct doctrine based solely from human reason and/or observations of the natural world. This endevour is distinct from other theological methods in that it excludes the assistance of special revelation. Thomas Aquinas is the most famous classical proponent of natural theology.
Others throughout church history have rejected natural theology. Most in the Calvinist and Reformed tradition reject natural theology as having no foundational validity because the doctrine of Sola Scriptura leaves no source apart from Scripture from which to derive an accurate understanding of God, man, morality, justice, etc. Furthermore, it is rejected on the basis that mankind is so bound by sin that they can "know" nothing of God except that which is revealed to them. Neo-orthodox theologian Karl Barth, one of the most influential Protestant theologians of the 20th century, sought to demonstrate that God can only be known through special revelation. Both he and Paul Tillich debated over this issue, Tillich arguing that revelation never runs counter to reason.
Supporters of natural theology, such as Paul Tillich and Aquinas (among others), have argued that the existence of God can be known through reason. Many "proofs" for the existence of God have been created, however, theologians have often rejected these proofs on the basis that they do not end up with the Christian God of the Bible."





According to the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, it says:

"Naturalism, natural theology. Naturalism sometimes refers to a form of *atheism and materialism that maintains that the "natural" universe (composed of energy and matter and based on natural laws) is the sum total of reality, thereby negating human freedom, absolute values and, ultimately *existential meaning. As an ethical theory naturalism suggests that ethical judgements arise out of or are based in the universe itself or "the way things naturally are." Natural theology maintains that humans can attain particular knowledge about God through human reason by observing the created order as one locus of divine *revelation." [1]




Alot of christians made use of philosophy, so the finger pointing goes both ways.

A prime example of classical Reformed protestants making use of "natural law" is found in Stephen J. Grabill's book "Rediscovering the Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics".




JNORM888

[1] page 82, by Stanley J. Greenz, David Guretzki & Cherith Fee Nordling, in the book "Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms" Inter Varsity Press 1999

Quote from: TruthSeeker
Are both the CLASSSIC and
JURIDICAL view of the atonement present in orthodoxy?


I understand
that orthodoxy emphases the "classical" view of the atonement .....that Christs
incarnation, life, death and resurrection is a victory over sin and
DEATH.....Christs death paid a ransom to death and in a way to it's prince,
Lucifer.

This is great news for me as I heard some but not much of this
in my western churching(non catholic)

BUT surely the "juridical" view of
the atonement is also present in orthodoxy, because it surely is part of the
atonement .
There is "an element" of Christ paying the penalty for human
sin. After all Jesus was the lamb without spot that was foreshawdowed in old
testament times. The entire hebrew religious system was based on the idea of
blood atonement for sin and Jesus was the fulfillment.

So I am hoping
that orthodoxy has room for both views of the atonement and has not closed it's
mind to the juridical view.

Any other modal outside of the "Classical" one would have to be an augmentation (added on to it) of the classical modal, not a replacement of it. Also the "juridical" reformed protestant view is not really the view of the Old Testament. Or else Orthodox Jews today would believe it and teach it......but they don't.


The Old Testament Sacrificial System was more about the "Cleansing/Expiation/purging" of sin. The idea of an "appeasement" sacrifice was pagan. Not that we don't embrace some of the good ideas of pagan culture......it's just that, that idea wasn't a good one.



So the blood of Christ cleanses us from our sins (at Baptism) and it is at this moment that we are made "at one with" God. The Old Testament system couldn't really clean anything. It really couldn't forgive sins, it was a shadow of the real Sacrificial Lamb Jesus Christ. It was His death that really expiates(clean/purge) sin. It is His death that really unites us with God.

That's basically what the word means....it simply means....being "at one with" ....all the extra stuff assiocated with it in some sectors of western christianity, changes the original meaning of the word.


So the Atonement is more about being "At one with", It's about "reconciliation". God is immutable, so He doesn't change His mind. HE is a God of Love, so the One who changed was mankind, not God. When Adam fell, God didn't change His mind to hate Adam. He still loved fallen Adam, or else He wouldn't of sent His Son to save Adam.

So God didn't change His mind. It was us who changed our minds, and we needed to change back in order to be "at one with" God. And it is God that made it possible by becoming Incarnate, living among us, and dying on the Cross so that our sins may be forgivin and washed clean in water Baptism. (because the blood of Christ is in the water, when we are Baptized, we are Baptized into His death, and as you know, Jesus died a bloody death)


I've been trying to understand the "classical" view for 10 years now, and I still don't understand it, in the way I do the protestant modals. But I have the rest of my life to figure it out. So I'm in no rush to figure it all out.

One day at a time


But as of right now, I am seeing that the Atonement killed two birds with one stone. Meaning it does multiple things.

And I am also seeing that one can't really separate His death from His Resurrection. The two go together. I may be wrong about this, because they both may have multiple solutions, but at this time.....it seems as if His death took care of the problem of sin, while His resurrection took care of the problem of death. So both sin and death were takin care of by His death and Resurrection.

And all of that was only possible because of His Incarnation. So, like I said.....I've been trying to figure this out for 10 years now, and I'm still not able to grasp it in the way I would like.


I say this because, both His death and resurrection can be used to talk about different issues....different topics...all related, but you can talk about it in reference to Jesus tying up the strong man, and setting the captives free, thus conquering death. Or you could talk about it in reference to the cleansing of sin, thus re-uniting us with the Father by being united to Christ's death in Baptism.


So it's mind bugling

Quote from: TruthSeeker
What about this then that I just
dug up from the orthodox information site.

"Though the idea of
substutionary Atonement is not wrong per se and can indeed be found in Orthodox
writings, the emphasis given to it by Protestants is completely
unbalanced."

It depends on what you mean by the words "Substitutionary Atonement". The classical view has a moderate form of "substitution" in it. It is a substitution void of "apeasement". It is a substitution void of "God's wrath". It is a substitution void of "the penal theory".


When we are Baptized into His death, that is automatically a form of "substitution". When Jesus conquered death by death, that is automatically a form of "Substitution". It's just a different kind of substitution. Not the kind you are thinking of.

I know that it's hard to think differently. It's hard to look at this with different lenses. I've been trying to grasp it for 10 years now, and I still have a long way to go in understanding it.


And even when we do talk of God's wrath, it is seen in the light of His love. So it's more like a "loving less" type of thing....just like "cold water" is only cold because it has less heat in it. It's the same type of thing going on.


So maybe that's what he means by "balance"....I don't know, I'm just guessing at what he could be talking about. But he is right. You can find a little of it in our writtings. But how we understand it is different than how some sectors of the west might understand it.



It takes time.











JNORM888

What does the word ιλαστηριον(hilasterion) mean in Romans 3:25?

NKJV verses 24-26
"24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through
faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had
passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the
present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the
one who has faith in Jesus."

In the "Expository Dictionary of Bible words" they translate the word as Propitiation.

They said:

"

"hilasterion is found only three times in the New Testament.
Each occurrence has a great deal of theological significance and refers to the
"atonement sacrifice" of Jesus Christ. It is this sacrifice that paid the
penalty for the sins of the people of God in their entirety-past, present, and
future. This substitutionary atonement appeased, or "propitiated," the wrath of
God once and for all (cf. Rom 3:25; 1st John 2:2; 4:10)"

page 766 of the expository Dictionary of the Bible. Words edited by Stephen D. Renn and Published by Hendrickson Publishers @ 2005

In dealing with Hilasmos it says:

"The noun hilasmos is found only twice. 1 John 2:2; 4:10
refer to the "propitiation" affected by the sacrificial death of christ on the
cross, whose atoning work eradicated the sin of human beings and appeased the
wrath of God."

page 766 of the Expository Dictionary of Bible
Words edited by Stephen D. Renn and published by Hendrickson Publishers @ 2005

This seems to be the standard Reformed understanding of Hilasmos and Hilasterion. However, many of the church Fathers had a different understanding of Hilasterion. Another difference I noticed about this dictionary is that it didn't have a section for "Justice".
Instead, it refers one to look under the words "judgement" and "righteous". Many Orthodox Jews understand "Justice" with the Hebrew word "zakah". When the Jews were delivered by God from Egyptian bondage they called that "Zakah".

However, in this dictionary the word Zakah is under the catagory of "cleansing". And it says:

"The verb zakah means to "be clean, pure" in a moral sense in most of the eight
occurrences of the term(e.g. job 15:14; 25:4; Ps 51:4)
The meaning "to keep
oneself (morally) pure" is indicated in Pss. 71:13; 119:9; Prov, 20:9. See also
Isa 1:16

page 184 of the expository Dictionary of the Bible Words edited
by Stephen D. Renn and published by Hendrickson Publishers

The reason why I brought this up is because Romans 3:24-26 also deals with the idea of Justice.

NIV

"and are justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of
atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice,
because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and
the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

But going back to Expiation vs Propitiation I have noticed that alot of the Fathers and nonfathers understood hilasterion to mean "expiation".

Origen: "Although the holy Apostle teaches many wonderful things about our Lord
Jesus Christ which are said mysteriously about him, in this passage he has given
special prominence to something which, I think, is not readily found in other
parts of scripture. For having just said that Christ gave himself as a
redemption for the entire human race so that he might ransom those who were held
captive by sin....now he adds something even more sublime, saying that God put
him forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This means
that by the sacrifice of Christ's body God has made expiation on behalf of men
and by this has shown his righteousness, in that he forgave their previous sins,
which they had committed in the service of the worst possible tyrants. God
endured this and allowed these things to happen. Commentary on the Epistle to
the Romans."

page 101 of ACCS Romans edited by Gerald Bray & Thomas C. Oden

Ambrosiaster: "Paul says this, because in Christ God put forward, i.e.,
appointed, himself as a future expiation for the human race if they believed.
This expiation was by his blood. We have been set free by his death so that God
might reveal him and condemn death by His passion. This was in order to make his
promise clear, by which he set us free from sin as he had promised before. And
when he fulfilled this promise he showed himself to be righteous."

page
102 of ACCS Romans edited by Gerald Bray & Thomas C. Oden

Gregory of Nyssa: "Christ, being an expiation by his blood, teaches each one
thinking of this to become himself a propitiation, sanctifying his soul by the
mortification of his members." On Perfection

page 102 of ACCS Romans edited by
Gerald & Thomas C. Oden

Chrysostom: "Paul calls the redemption an expiation to show that, if the
Old Testament type had such power, much more did its New Testament counterpart
have it.....What does it mean to show God's righteousness? It is like declaring
his riches not only for him to be rich himself but also to make others rich...Do
not doubt, for righteousness is not of works but of faith. Homilies on Romans 7
page 102 of ACCS Romans edited by Gerald & Thomas C. Oden

Theodoret of Cyr: "The mercy seat was gold-plated and placed on top of the ark.
On each side was the figure of a cherub. When the high priest approached it, the
holy kindness of God was revealed. The apostle teaches us that Christ is the
true mercy seat, of which the one in the Old Testament was but a type. The name
applies to christ in his humanity, not in his divinity. For as God Christ
responded to the expiation made at the mercy seat. It is as man that he receives
this label, just as elsewhere he is called a sheep, a lamb, sin and curse.
Furthermore, the ancient mercy seat was bloodless because it was inanimate.
It could only receive the drops of blood pouring from the sacrificial victims.
But the Lord Christ is both God and the mercy seat, both the priest and the
lamb, and he performed the work of our salvation by his blood, demanding only
faith from us. Interpretation of the Letter to the Romans"

page 102 of
ACCS Romans edited by Gerald Bray & Thomas C. Oden

"The Cross is made necessary by human nature, not by the Divinity...."we are
purified by the eternal Spirit who purges the earlier damage in us which we
received from the flesh, and we are also purified by our blood (for I call the
blood which Christ my God has shed our own), which expiates our original
weaknesses and redeems the world." We needed God to become flesh and die in
order to give us life....A few drops of blood renewed the whole World and did
for all men what rennet does for milk by drawing us together and binding us into
a unity"....Christ accepted everything proper to man, "everything which is
filled with death," and by dying He destroyed death. Death is Resurrection, and
this is the mystery of the Cross."
Archpriest Georges Florovsky(quoting
Gregory the Theologian), The Eastern Fathers of the fourth century B#47, volume
VII, pp 143,144
page 172 from the Orthodox Lexicon called "The Bible and the
Holy Fathers: For Orthodox"

It seems from many of the Fathers "hilasterion" was understood as a type of purging, cleansing, eradicating.....ect.

I think Tertullian sums it up when he says:

"Every Soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it
is born again in Christ. Moreover, it is unclean all the time that it remains
without this regeneration. And because it is unclean, it is actively
sinful."
page 273 of A dictionary of early christian beliefs modified
and edited by Bercot.

Paul tells Titus that "regeneration" washes.

Titus 3:5
"not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His
mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Spirit,"

Jesus Christ as our Expiation fits the Old Testament modal of animal sacrifices. Hebrews chapter 9 shows the relationship.

NKJV Hebrews chapter 9:11-15
"But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the
greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this
creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He
entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.
For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the
unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to
God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for
this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the
redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.""

The blood of Christ cleanses

1 John 1:7But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have
fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us
from all sin.

The blood of Christ washes

NKJV
Revelation
1:5and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead,
and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us
from our sins in His own blood

So with this said I will say that it seems as if hilasterion means something more than what the Expository Dictionary of the Bible depicted.




JNORM888

The classical theory of the Atonement is also called by different names by different groups.

Some call it "the Ransom Theory", while others like the Lutherians.......call it "the Christus Victor" theory of the Atonement.

Some would like to believe Origen started this theory but that's not true. Anyone who read the Early church Fathers would know this.


The theory basically states Jesus paid the devil to free us from the captivity of death.


Some who don't like this view would state that Jesus paid the Father and not the devil, but I would Object to this for scripture plainly states in Revelations that Jesus Purchased men for God.

Revelation 5:9
"And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the
scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you
purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and
nation."

Assuming the word "you" means Jesus/Son and the word "God" means the Father.


If this is the case then this scripture seems to be saying that Jesus bought men for the Father. He can't be paying the Father if He is buying people "FOR" the Father.


Hewbrews chapter 2 shows a link between the one who holds the power of death with the one who freed us by destroying the one who held the power of death.

Hebrews 2:14-15

"14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too
shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the
power of death—that is, the devil— 15and free those who all their lives were
held in slavery by their fear of death."

1.) According to Hebrews, who held the power of death? "The devil"

2.) According to Hebrews, who were the ones who were held in Slavery by their fear of Death? . "children/mankind"

3.) Who was the one who held them in slavery? . "the devil"

4.) Who freed them? . "JESUS"

5.) How did HE free them? . "by destroying the one who held the power of death by dying himself"


Thus, according to Hebrews chapter 2. It would seem as if Jesus freed mankind by paying the devil His life(His blood) so that we could live.

In order for us to be free, Jesus had to be captive to death. But by dying, Jesus destroyed the one who held the power of death.


And this is why Scripture says

KJV
Revelation 1:18
"I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am
alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell(Hades) and of death."

What would be the point of saying you got the keys of Hades and death if Hades and death never took you captive? He destroyed the devil's power over us by dying and this is why He has the keys of Death and Hades.


Scripture also says:

1 Corinthians 15:55
"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is
your sting?"

KJV
Acts 2:24
"24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of
death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."

KJV
Acts 2:27
"27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell(hades), neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption."

So In regards to death, Jesus paid the devil. In regards to sin, Jesus became a sacrifice for us to purge our sins in order to reconnect us to the Father.


And this is why both the DEATH and Ressurection are crucial to Salvation. Jesus's death counters the problem of sin ...... while Jesus's ressurection counters the problem of death.


However, I would like to add that My Orthodox Priest/Prespytere/elder believes Jesus paid it to Death........... Or paid the ransom to death itself. He didn't seem to like the idea of Jesus paying it to Satan. When he explained it to me. He began with God's Providence and spoke of how the only power that Satan really have was only so because it was first givin to him by God in the first place. So he wanted me to understand the payment to the devil doctrine in a more symbolic sense.....Or at least with an understanding that is filtered through God's Divine Providence.


I still hold to the payment to Satan view while contemplating the idea of Jesus paying it to death. The Orthodox view of the Atonement starts with the Incarnation of God. ......And it flows from there.

I know that alot of the early & later Church Fathers used Matthew chapter twelve verse twenty nine.

"How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his
goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his
house."

They used this verse to talk about what Jesus did to the devil. They believed that Jesus binded the strong man(the devil) and plundered his house(freeing us from his captivity)


But as far as Reformed Protestants go I would say it would be a safe bet to assume they followed some form of the theory that came from Anselm. It's been a while since I read Anselm(the Archbishop of Canterbury in the 11nth century) , but from the top of my head I would say he believed in an Honor system......in which Adam violated God's honor when he sinned. So Jesus had to pay for our sins in order to restore that Honor.


It is said by some that Charles Hodge molded that into a court room modal.


The basic Reformed view seems to be the court room and banking modal.

I could be wrong about when the court room modal started. I know it started in the western Church, but I'm not sure when.

Some Lutherans seem to be going back to the Classical modal theory. They call it by a different name. They call it "Christus victor" or something like that.





JNORM888

This is from a conversation I had with a Calvinistic Protestant. Some of them try to use this verse to say that God doesn't love everyone or that God only loves the Elect. While others use this verse to show that God loves everyone.


The greek word for "whoever" is "pas" and we all know it can mean "all" so the verse can be translated as :

"16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that "ALL" who believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."


So basically "all" in the World that God loved will be saved if they believe in His Son.The reason why we know the word "World" includes more than just christians is because of versus 17 and 18


"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."


Both the ones who believe as well as the ones who refuse to believe dwell in the same World the Father said He LOVED.

Also elsewhere we know that creation itself will be made new in which we are the first fruits........so the Father sent His Son into "CREATION" to save creation. We are just the first fruits of that process.


Romans chapter 8


"18I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently."


The word Kosmos in John 3:16 is talking about creation as found in Romans chapter 8 as well as John chapter 1


John chapter 1

"9There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."


Thus John 3:16 is not saying "God so loved the elect that he gave His only Begotten Son that whoever believes in him would have ever lasting life."


Not only would that be "tautology" but you would have to somehow figure out how those who dwell in the elect and not believe be condemned?. For the same World that God said he loved in verse 16 shows up again in versus 17 and 19.


Verse 18 tells us that both those who believe as well as those who don't believe dwell in the same Kosmos that the Son "Created"/MADE", "was sent into", and "eventually will save".



INLOVE jnorm