Eastern Orthodoxy and the wrath of God

[PreachTony]

And you need to reread the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe what Jesus taught there or not?

You do realize that a person can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, yet still believe in the wrath of God as it is so plainly elucidated in the scriptures, right? The scriptures clearly show Jesus Himself exercising even just a small portion of God's wrathfulness when He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers. Jesus overthrew tables and ran people out of the Temple. One account shows Him fashioning a type of whip to run people off. This is an example of what we would today call "righteous indignation."

We are to love one another, and support one another, and to lift up our brethren who fall. We are to stand against doctrines that are contrary to the scripture. The scriptures teach, as has been shown, that God's wrath will be made evident. It has been made evident.

Also, based of your comment quoted in this post, what has happened to this board lately? It seems like more and more we're seeing people seemingly stressing the notion that certain scriptures override and even outright negate other scriptures. Rebel here seems to be stating that the Sermon on the Mount overrides the writing of the apostles and John's vision in Revelation.

 

[Revmitchell]

Also, based of your comment quoted in this post, what has happened to this board lately? It seems like more and more we're seeing people seemingly stressing the notion that certain scriptures override and even outright negate other scriptures. Rebel here seems to be stating that the Sermon on the Mount overrides the writing of the apostles and John's vision in Revelation.

That is what liberals do.

 

[OldRegular]

And you need to reread the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe what Jesus taught there or not?

I sure do. I believe all of the Bible but you are apparently ignorant of what that Sermon teaches. You must understand that the Sermon includes much more than Blessed are of verses 5:1-11. In fact the Sermon includes all of Chapters 5 thru 7! Consider the following Scripture:

Matthew 5:17-22
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now consider the last clause of Verse 22: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now is the hell of fire an expression of the wrath of God or is it not?

You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe. it is all the inerrant Word of God whether you realize it or not.

You should also consider the following Scripture from the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:29, 30
29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 6:13, 14
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[OldRegular]

Is it a common belief among EO churches that God does not have wrath and/or that wrath is a sinful human emotion and incompatible with God?

I ask as I've had a conversation with a EO guy this week and this is his position. I simply can't wrap my mind around that in light of the teaching of scripture.

I've tried looking up info about this online but I couldn't find anything definitive.

I have an Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, New King James Version. Checking in it I find evidence that the Orthodox doctrine does include punishment in hell. If my copier was working I would post some info but it is not!

 

[Doubting Thomas]

As someone who a few years back spent a couple of years seriously considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy (and was even a CATECHUMEN for a couple of months), your post really resonated with me.

Is it a common belief among EO churches that God does not have wrath and/or that wrath is a sinful human emotion and incompatible with God?

Yes, this does seem to be a common idea particularly among the Internet Orthodox (and in some of the books I had read). I still peruse Orthodox blogs/forums from time to time, and continue to see this idea expressed. I've lost count of how many times I've read that the idea of God's wrath and penal substitution are examples of "Western Heterodoxy". I've seen several dismiss the idea of God's wrath as being simply and anthropomorphism.

I ask as I've had a conversation with a EO guy this week and this is his position. I simply can't wrap my mind around that in light of the teaching of scripture.

Ultimately, I couldn't either, which is one of the main reasons (although there were a few others) I abandoned my journey to Constantinople almost nine years ago. At the end of the day I couldn't swallow the idea that the EOC was exclusively "The One True Church (tm)" when they seemed to significantly downplay the Scriptural teachings of God's wrath, Christ's substitutionary atonement, and imputed justification.

 

[Getting it Right]

Sermon on the Mount? Think about it, Christian....

When one becomes a Christian one longs to serve Jesus. It is something we do because the Holy Spirit dwells within us and leads us to do so. We are Spirit-led.

Whenever one examines scripture one must be led to interpret and apply in accordance with His direction:

1. To whom is the Sermon on the Mount written?
2. When was it written?
3. What was its purpose?
4. Where was it written? Location in context?
5. How does it apply to we Christians today?

Matthew 5 answers these questions quite well:
(5-1: And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was seated, his disciples (the 12) came unto him:
5-2*And he opened his mouth, and taught them (the 12), saying..........)

1. It was spoken, and later recorded in the Book of Matthew, in its primary application, to the Apostles of Jesus as part of their learning/instruction as witnesses for Jesus, the Messiah, among God's Chosen, the Jews. It was not a command for non-Jews of that day. Jesus was still speaking in terms of establishing, at the precise moment of His choosing, the Kingdom of Heaven (Kingdom of God) on earth promised to the Jews in the Hebrew Bible. The application for Christians is for our insights into the nature of the relationship between the Jewish Messiah and the Nation of Israel.

At the risk of employing some commentary, I will......

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From the Pulpit Commentary:

Verse 1. The book of the generation. As St. Matthew was writing only for Jews, and they, by reason of their Old Testament prophecies, looked for the Messiah to be born of a certain family, he begins his Gospel with a pedigree of Jesus. In this he mentions, by way of introduction, the two points to which his countrymen would have special regard - the descent of Jesus from David, the founder of the royal line, him in whose descendants the Ruler of Israel must necessarily (2 Samuel 7:13-16) be looked for; and also from Abraham, who was the head of the covenant nation, and to whom the promise had been given that in his seed all the nations of the earth should bless themselves (Genesis 22:18; Genesis 12:3).

(Added Note: We Christians need to examine what Paul writes. Under Jewish Law, no one may hope for forgiveness for departing scripture intended for the Hebrews, who does not first forgive others. (Matthew 6:12-15). Under Grace, the Christian is exhorted to forgive because h/she is already forgiven, saved, sealed and secure for eternity, Spiritually demonstrating that Truth and Good News to everyone, Ephesians 4:30-32.

Pause to ponder, Christian: Is the Sermon on the Mount "Ya gotta do each 'n all of these or I'll burn you to a crisp?")
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


2. The Sermon on the Mount came from the very lips of the Jewish Messiah, Jesus. Matthew faithfully recorded it for the Hebrew folk, and under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, it became the Book we know today. For whom else was it recorded? Mark and Luke clarify it for the Romans and Hellenistic Jews.

3. As stated in 1, above, Jesus was training His Apostles and they, in turn, were to train His disciples. They would then spread the news that Jesus was, in fact, the promised Messiah for the Hebrew Nation. Jesus was not thinking in terms of a command, an obligation, a duty, for non-Jews. He was enunciating Kingdom of God (so-named in the Book of Mark) on earth principles. Christians do not live in a Kingdom of God on earth. That Kingdom does not arrive until after the Tribulation, after Armageddon.

Read the Epistles of Paul to see quite clearly what is expected of Christians with regard to the poor and needy. Is there an application for the non-Jew in the Sermon on the Mount?

Of course. Those who hunger and thirst after righteousness deserve to be filled, and will be filled by the Holy Spirit upon their confession of Faith. The Holy Spirit who brings the Good News of Jesus as Savior by Grace through Faith, and those preacher-teachers and evangelists called upon to recite that, are the merciful. I refer, of utmost importance, to those like the "Samaritan's Purse," Franklin Graham. Those Jews and non-Jews responding under the leadership of the Holy Spirit are The Blessed. These Truths are expounded upon in the Letters of Paul. See Galatians 5:22-26.

Jesus opened the window into a new day for the Hebrew folk and everyone else---including us, Hallelujah! The Apostle Paul (Acts 9ff), delivered Jesus' message that they/we are no longer under the heavy burden of Mosaic Law et al. Jesus has fulfilled, personally, ALL of its requirements. How? He took our sins and bore them on That Tree . NOW we look to passages of that assurance in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Let the Holy Spirit do the interpreting and application.

Read the Sermon on the Mount in view of "Rightly Dividing," 2 Timothy 2:15-16, KJV.

:jesus::godisgood:raying::wavey:

 

[Rebel]

You do realize that a person can believe and follow the teachings of Christ, yet still believe in the wrath of God as it is so plainly elucidated in the scriptures, right? The scriptures clearly show Jesus Himself exercising even just a small portion of God's wrathfulness when He cleared the Temple of the moneychangers. Jesus overthrew tables and ran people out of the Temple. One account shows Him fashioning a type of whip to run people off. This is an example of what we would today call "righteous indignation."

We are to love one another, and support one another, and to lift up our brethren who fall. We are to stand against doctrines that are contrary to the scripture. The scriptures teach, as has been shown, that God's wrath will be made evident. It has been made evident.

Also, based of your comment quoted in this post, what has happened to this board lately? It seems like more and more we're seeing people seemingly stressing the notion that certain scriptures override and even outright negate other scriptures. Rebel here seems to be stating that the Sermon on the Mount overrides the writing of the apostles and John's vision in Revelation.

On the contrary, I am stating that many Christians overemphasize God's wrath and pay little attention to the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Rebel]

That is what liberals do.

Aha, I was wondering when you or someone would trot out that tired charge against anyone with whom you or they disagree. Don't you think it's time to change tactics? That one doesn't work, not in this case. Or perhaps you would also charge that the Orthodox are liberals.

 

[Rebel]

I sure do. I believe all of the Bible but you are apparently ignorant of what that Sermon teaches. You must understand that the Sermon includes much more than Blessed are of verses 5:1-11. In fact the Sermon includes all of Chapters 5 thru 7! Consider the following Scripture:

Matthew 5:17-22
17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
21. Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now consider the last clause of Verse 22: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Now is the hell of fire an expression of the wrath of God or is it not?

You cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe. it is all the inerrant Word of God whether you realize it or not.

You should also consider the following Scripture from the Sermon on the Mount:

Matthew 5:29, 30
29. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matthew 6:13, 14
13. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I am well aware of what chapters the Sermon covers, and I know what Jesus teaches therein. And I would also say to you that you cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe, either.

Now as to your question of whether the "hell of fire" is an expression of the wrath of God, I say no. But I realize that you and I would see that differently.

 

[Rebel]

As someone who a few years back spent a couple of years seriously considering converting to Eastern Orthodoxy (and was even a CATECHUMEN for a couple of months), your post really resonated with me.



Yes, this does seem to be a common idea particularly among the Internet Orthodox (and in some of the books I had read). I still peruse Orthodox blogs/forums from time to time, and continue to see this idea expressed. I've lost count of how many times I've read that the idea of God's wrath and penal substitution are examples of "Western Heterodoxy". I've seen several dismiss the idea of God's wrath as being simply and anthropomorphism.



Ultimately, I couldn't either, which is one of the main reasons (although there were a few others) I abandoned my journey to Constantinople almost nine years ago. At the end of the day I couldn't swallow the idea that the EOC was exclusively "The One True Church (tm)" when they seemed to significantly downplay the Scriptural teachings of God's wrath, Christ's substitutionary atonement, and imputed justification.

And for the reasons I highlighted, I am drawn to Orthodoxy because on those doctrines, it holds to what the earliest Christians believed and continued to believe for a millennium. Other EOC doctrines, however, I find to be superstition and non-factual.

 

[Rebel]

On searching the forum, I found at least two people who hold similar beliefs on this as I do, one of whom was banned. So, since this has been represented here previously, I suppose there is no need for it to be rehashed by me. I guess I should simply cease to post on this subject. No minds will be changed anyway.

One interesting thing I have found over the years is that not everyone wants to learn facts, unless those facts confirm what they already believe. In other words, very few really want to know the truth wherever it may lead. But for me nothing less will do, and I've searched and researched for years to find it, trying as best I could to set aside any presuppositions I was raised with.

So, carry on. I'll politely bow out now.

 

[Revmitchell]

A great many of us have searched the facts. Since you have been to this board before Michael Wrenn and are using the same old argument about history we will just strike this up as the same old same old.

Honestly if you were just going to bow out you would have done so without all the fanfare. Instead what you have done is try to get in one last dig. Good luck with that.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

And for the reasons I highlighted, I am drawn to Orthodoxy because on those doctrines, it holds to what the earliest Christians believed and continued to believe for a millennium.

That's a little naive to say the least. While there certainly is more or less a 'consensus' on some things (and even this needs to be nuanced a little), there was a variety of thought among the fathers regarding others. The Atonement is one of those, as one can indeed find ideas of substitution and imputation in the first millenium. Besides, the EARLIEST Christians, the APOSTLES, certainly taught this. :smilewinkgrin:

Other EOC doctrines, however, I find to be superstition and non-factual.

Yep. There is certainly a blurring in the distinction between Tradition and traditions, as well as between history and hagiography .

 

[Rebel]

A great many of us have searched the facts. Since you have been to this board before Michael Wrenn and are using the same old argument about history we will just strike this up as the same old same old.

Honestly if you were just going to bow out you would have done so without all the fanfare. Instead what you have done is try to get in one last dig. Good luck with that.

You are not my conscience. I tried to contribute some knowledge to the discussion.

You do not know anything about me.

All you are is an instigator and false accuser of the brethren. This is very evident from reading your past posts, which I have done. Do you have any honor?

 

[Rebel]

That's a little naive to say the least. While there certainly is more or less a 'consensus' on some things (and even this needs to be nuanced a little), there was a variety of thought among the fathers regarding others. The Atonement is one of those, as one can indeed find ideas of substitution and imputation in the first millenium. Besides, the EARLIEST Christians, the APOSTLES, certainly taught this. :smilewinkgrin:



Yep. There is certainly a blurring in the distinction between Tradition and traditions, as well as between history and hagiography .

The only variety in atonement views of the earliest Christians and the fathers for the first millennium was whether they held to ransom or recapitulation. Satisfaction was an innovation of Anselm, and penal substitution was unknown until the Reformation.

Seriously, do some research, and you'll see that what I have said is correct.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The only variety in atonement views of the earliest Christians and the fathers for the first millennium was whether they held to ransom or recapitulation. Satisfaction was an innovation of Anselm, and penal substitution was unknown until the Reformation.

Seriously, do some research, and you'll see that what I have said is correct.

I've done plenty of research...which is why I ultimately decided against converting to Eastern Orthodoxy and why I stand by my judgment that your statement regarding the beliefs of the early Chruch was simplistic to say the least.

At any rate, regardless of when the specific expression of 'satisfaction' by Anselm took place, or the particular articulation of 'penal substitution' by the Reformers, the general idea of the substitutionary atonement is found in the prophets and apostles...you might want to read them a little more closely.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I've done plenty of research...which is why I ultimately decided against converting to Eastern Orthodoxy and why I stand by my judgment that your statement regarding the beliefs of the early Chruch was simplistic to say the least.

At any rate, regardless of when the specific expression of 'satisfaction' by Anselm took place, or the particular articulation of 'penal substitution' by the Reformers, the general idea of the substitutionary atonement is found in the prophets and apostles...you might want to read them a little more closely.

Here's a brief article providing documentation from the early church fathers of belief in the substitutionary aspect of the atonement:

https://readytoreason.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/the-atonement-in-the-early-church/

Whatever other motifs were used to describe the Atonement, the idea that it was a substitution existed along side of them in the Patristic period

 

[OldRegular]

I am well aware of what chapters the Sermon covers, and I know what Jesus teaches therein. And I would also say to you that you cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe, either.

Now as to your question of whether the "hell of fire" is an expression of the wrath of God, I say no. But I realize that you and I would see that differently.

You are either naive or Biblically illiterate!

 

[OldRegular]

You are not my conscience. I tried to contribute some knowledge to the discussion.

Denying the clear teaching of Scripture is not contributing knowledge. If anyone believed you you would be contributing confusion!

 

[Rebel]

I've done plenty of research...which is why I ultimately decided against converting to Eastern Orthodoxy and why I stand by my judgment that your statement regarding the beliefs of the early Chruch was simplistic to say the least.

At any rate, regardless of when the specific expression of 'satisfaction' by Anselm took place, or the particular articulation of 'penal substitution' by the Reformers, the general idea of the substitutionary atonement is found in the prophets and apostles...you might want to read them a little more closely.

I've read the apostles and prophets very closely, and I don't see any satisfaction or penal substitution views in them. And neither did the early church. That's why those atonement theories were absent in the early church and for a thousand years thereafter. Those later theories were formulated based on a legal view of God, man, and the work of Jesus, in other words, a view based on courtroom justice. These theories were a product of the times and the culture. The Eastern Church escaped these innovations and held to the original views.

Characterizing my views of the early church as simplistic is very misguided. The Orthodox view of the atonement is what was held by the early church, the fathers, and it held sway for 1000 years, until Anselm's Satisfaction theory. That is not conjecture on my part, not bias, not opinion, but objective, historical, scholarly fact. If you cannot or do not wish to deal with the facts, that is your problem, not mine.