Eastern Orthodoxy and the wrath of God

[Yeshua1]

I am Baptist, and I agree with the EO position.

Jesus suffered the Wrath of God towards sins while on the Cross, did he not?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

They also have a strange viewpoint on somehow we co shared in the passion of jesus, as they emphasise His humanity over his deity?

 

[Rebel]

Jesus suffered the Wrath of God towards sins while on the Cross, did he not?

No. That is an exclusively Western view.

 

[Rebel]

I have appreciated this thread. I knew nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy and had to do a bit of searching, thankful to the OP for it.

I'm glad, even though I'm not the OP.

 

[kyredneck]

I have appreciated this thread. I knew nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy and had to do a bit of searching, thankful to the OP for it.

Yes, it's been an informative thread mostly from refreshing the memory on the different facets of the atonement gem.

 

[RLBosley]

Then this person was either just repeating what they have been taught with no understanding as to why or they just plain do not like the idea of a wrathful God. There will be many who stand before God at the judgment with such beliefs. They will discover otherwise.

We cannot look at the cross of Christ and not see the wrath of God. So in order to defend that heresy the cross will have to be explained away.

Exactly right. I don't know what he believes occurred on the cross, but if he removes the wrath of God then he must diminish the cross.

Unlike some who claim to follow Christ's teachings and example, I actually believe and try to practice what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount. Do you? I'm not intending to be antagonistic, but I am partially answering your question with a question to you.

If Christians actually believe that Jesus is Who God is, I wonder why many do not seem to follow His example.

I'm really confused as to why you think the SoM somehow overturns the rest of scriptures clear teaching on the wrath of God against sinners? The end of the sermon even concludes with the terrifying revelation that many who claim to follow him will ultimately be condemned and suffer eternal fire. Sure sounds like wrath to me.

As for practicing it I would say I do, though imperfectly because I am still sinful. I'm believe in non-violence and several of the key passage for my position are found in the Sermon.

Do you believe the rest of scriptures teaching that God is angry with the wicked every day and that at the end of the age all not found in Christ will suffer eternally?

Greek Orthodox church on wrath of God

Just doing some quick scans it does appear 'the wrath of God' is indeed an issue with them.

Thanks. :thumbs:

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!

Interesting. There is an Orthodox Study Bible at my office (we have a prayer room - a great blessing!) and I was looking at it a few weeks ago. I put it away after I read the notes on Ephesians 1 saying that baptism and communion save us and enable us to be deified in the next life!

 

[RLBosley]

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.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I've been curious about EO for a while but haven't really spent much time studying it. I appreciate your perspective. So how do they justify ignoring the substitutionary aspects of the atonement? It seems very clear to me.

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

That I can actually agree with. However, we should not use another persons imbalance to justify our own imbalance. The Sermon on the Mount is true, just as the rest of scripture, including texts that teach the fierce wrath of God.

I have appreciated this thread. I knew nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy and had to do a bit of searching, thankful to the OP for it.

Glad it's been helpful.

They also have a strange viewpoint on somehow we co shared in the passion of jesus, as they emphasise His humanity over his deity?

Interesting. I did read something recently about how they believe that when we sin we somehow cause Christ more pain on the cross... weird stuff.

 

[Yeshua1]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I've been curious about EO for a while but haven't really spent much time studying it. I appreciate your perspective. So how do they justify ignoring the substitutionary aspects of the atonement? It seems very clear to me.



That I can actually agree with. However, we should not use another persons imbalance to justify our own imbalance. The Sermon on the Mount is true, just as the rest of scripture, including texts that teach the fierce wrath of God.



Glad it's been helpful.



Interesting. I did read something recently about how they believe that when we sin we somehow cause Christ more pain on the cross... weird stuff.

Think they see the atonement more along the lines of love of Gove, or to morally influence us to live right for God, and not as a penal substitutionary death!

 

[Yeshua1]

No. That is an exclusively Western view.

That is also the view held by jesus and the Apostles though!

 

[rsr]

And the following article refutes your article. ... The facts are on my side, not yours.

I think it is inappropriate to attempt to subsume the ransom theory under Christus Victor and ignore the continuity with Anselm's formulation.

While Christus Victor is not incorrect — you can find justification in the New Testament — it does not seem to be the full story. It is, perhaps, a complementary view of the atonement, or maybe an overarching theme the details of which should be fleshed out by other theories.

More to the point of the OP, does not the current emphasis on Christus Victor, as Mark Galli of Christianity Today said, lean toward our being victims of sin and not its perpretrators?

It is no coincidence in a society where we imagine ourselves mostly as victims of social or biological forces, in a culture increasingly illiterate in the language of guilt, sin, and personal responsibility, that Christus Victor is winning the day in the Christian world. ...

I have noticed—and do tell me if you see otherwise—that in general those who publically champion Christus Victor don't pepper their talks and prayers with personal guilt for sin or the need for divine forgiveness. By way of contrast, note the oldest advocates of Christus Victor, the Eastern Orthodox. Personal sin and guilt, and the consequent wrath of God, regularly weave themselves into their prayers. Note this prayer recommended for each morning:

Arising from sleep I thank you, O holy Trinity, because of the abundance of your goodness and long-suffering, you were not angry with me, slothful and sinful as I am. Neither have you destroyed me in my transgressions, but in your compassion raised me up as I lay in despair, that at dawn I might sing the glories of your Majesty.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilweb-only/christusvicarious.html?start=1

 

[Yeshua1]

I think it is inappropriate to attempt to subsume the ransom theory under Christus Victor and ignore the continuity with Anselm's formulation.

While Christus Victor is not incorrect — you can find justification in the New Testament — it does not seem to be the full story. It is, perhaps, a complementary view of the atonement, or maybe an overarching theme the details of which should be fleshed out by other theories.

More to the point of the OP, does not the current emphasis on Christus Victor, as Mark Galli of Christianity Today said, lean toward our being victims of sin and not its perpretrators?



http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilweb-only/christusvicarious.html?start=1

The truth is that there is a wrath of God towards all sinners due to the fall of Adam and our own personal sinning, and Jesus suffered that in our stead!

 

[Getting it Right]

The truth is that there is a wrath of God towards all sinners due to the fall of Adam and our own personal sinning, and Jesus suffered that in our stead!

Yes, the wrath of God is reserved for and pointed directly to those who rejected Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and to those who fail to receive the Free Gift of Salvation by Grace through Faith.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The facts are on my side, not yours.

My agenda is the truth. I don't know what yours is.

Your agenda seems to be to ignore those parts of Scripture you don't like.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

A perfect description of whoever is posing as Rebel!

 

[Revmitchell]

A perfect description of whoever is posing as Rebel!

Rebel is a banned member named Michael Wrenn. His arguments are the same and this issue seems to be the only one that he really engages in.

 

[kyredneck]

OK Michelle, this only makes like the umpteenth time you've told us this on this thread already. You used to be 'banned' too.

 

[OldRegular]

Rebel is a banned member named Michael Wrenn. His arguments are the same and this issue seems to be the only one that he really engages in.

I remember the ~person~. Had some strange ~ideas~!

 

[convicted1]

@Rebel,

If there's no wrath of God, then what wrath was poured out on Christ??

 

[Rebel]

Your agenda seems to be to ignore those parts of Scripture you don't like.

I view scripture in its totality, not in pieces. When there is no evidence in the earliest churches, the churches that existed in NT times, and those that existed for centuries afterward for a doctrine, that leads me to believe that the doctrine is not scriptural.

 

[Rebel]

I think it is inappropriate to attempt to subsume the ransom theory under Christus Victor and ignore the continuity with Anselm's formulation.

While Christus Victor is not incorrect — you can find justification in the New Testament — it does not seem to be the full story. It is, perhaps, a complementary view of the atonement, or maybe an overarching theme the details of which should be fleshed out by other theories.

More to the point of the OP, does not the current emphasis on Christus Victor, as Mark Galli of Christianity Today said, lean toward our being victims of sin and not its perpretrators?
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/aprilweb-only/christusvicarious.html?start=1

Definitely not.