Featured Eastern Orthodoxy and the wrath of God

I disagree. And so did the early Christians.

 

I could agree with the first part, but not the second.

 

Not sure what you mean.

 

Since you don't want to engage in meaningful discussion but only seem interested in tossing accusations about, I think it best for me to just ignore you from now on.

I am having a thoroughly enjoyable and fruitful discussion with other members here. It's a shame you can't contribute anything constructive. I have found that I can learn even from those with whom I disagree.

 

Would you mind elaborating, please?

 

I don't say there is no wrath of God, but I certainly don't believe God poured out His wrath on Christ. That is a view of the atonement that I do not accept.

 

I just meant that I believe, and I think Christus Victor teaches, that we are both the victims of sin and also perpetrators of sin. I don't know how anyone could study the Christus Victor view and see otherwise.

Oh, and just let me state for the record that my views of the atonement encompass all the views held by the earliest churches, that is, the Ransom view, the Recapitulation view, Christus Victor, and to a degree the moral influence view, although the latter was not fully formulated until Peter Abelard, and I do find it to be sort of an incomplete theory. I do not hold to any of the views that came much later in the history of the church, particularly those originating in the western churches, whether RC or Protestant.

 

Jesus and the Apostles held to the wrath of God was indeed poured out on the Cross unto Jesus, and that while on the Cross, Jesus experienced during that time a seperation from God, in same way sinners will after death!

 

I don't see where they held that.

 

Jesus knew that he was to taste the cup of suffering, to be the person to stand in before God for the wrath sinners deserved, and Paul and peter also identified him in same contex!

 

"Father, if Thou be willing, remove this cup from me."

raying:

 

Again, I don't see that, in the scriptures or the early church.

 

How do you not see that? What "cup" was Christ referring to when asking if it could pass from Him?

The OT prophecies reveal unto us Christ who would suffer punishment at the hands of man, in the form of scourging and crucifixion, that would render Him essentially unrecognizable.

Jesus explained in brief detail the way in which He would die, by being lifted up on the cross.

While Jesus hung on the cross, He became sin for us:

By the fact of Jesus taking on our sin, God was able to condemn sin in the flesh, to make atonement for us.

With Christ becoming sin, and God condemning sin, pouring His wrath onto sin as it hung on the cross, a way was made for you and I to not have to face God's wrath. That way is Christ Jesus.

Jesus is called the "propitiation" for our sins:

Propitiation, quite literally, means an act or sacrifice that appease the wrath of God.

What does it really matter if an early church member believed one way or the other? You need to search the scriptures. They make it quite clear that God's wrath was poured on Christ, who had become sin, so that we who know Him in the free pardon of sin would not have to face God's wrath.

 

Yea of course not Michael

 

Why are you here? Your chief purpose appears to be to stir stuff up and accuse. Where is the spirit of Christ in you? Besides that, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Scripture does not make that clear at all. And I'm not talking about one early church member. I'm talking about the entire early church and for the first ten centuries, until Anselm. The earliest Christians and churches did not see your view of Christ's death in the scriptures. It took the Reformers some 1500 years later to see it there. Anselm saw God as a feudal lord who had to be "satisfied". The Reformers saw God as a courtroom judge, declaring people guilty or innocent based on a legal transaction. Neither is correct.

I don't deny the atonement, just the Western views of it, views unknown for a thousand years after Jesus.

Can you not see how harmful it is to teach that God tortured and killed His Son in our place? I could not even be a Christian if that was the true doctrine.

 

If you use that rhetoric, then you can certainly couch the argument in a negative light. But instead of thinking of it as God torturing His Son, consider it as God Himself taking on our lowliness and becoming sin for us.

 

Yes, I have considered that. But that's not the way it is described, is it? Or believed, really.

 

Here are a few visual examples of the wrath of God which only the religious blind will not see: