Do Orthodox Christians Believe in Penal Substitution?

www.patreon.com/kabane
Don't forget to like and subscribe!
If you enjoyed this video, please consider making a monthly pledge.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Answering Protestantism from the Bible in 17 Hour Lecture Set: buy.stripe.com/5kA2bz6Y467K4JaaEJ Sample lecture: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaG0gKWbjJ14es0 Bundle with "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" for a discount (23 hours total): buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su

[@anselman3156]

It was refreshing to hear this presentation, and to read your responses to comments below, to counter the usual tiresomely repeated Augustine and Anselm bashing that goes under the name of "Orthodoxy" in many publications and KZbin videos. I am just building up a picture of modern Orthodoxy, and it seems to me that Romanides' views are being pushed as the definitive Orthodox position. Is this being challenged sufficiently by Orthodox theologians and bishops?

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

From where I stand, it seems to be falling out of fashion. I don't see it promoted as much anymore.

[@anselman3156]

I can be hopeful, then. Thanks.

[@stevepa999]

The reality is, whenever I explain to my Orthodox friends the Protestant and Catholic views of penal substitution they laugh. They think it is absurd. It is not a coincidence that Protestant countries are leaving the church en masse, while in Orthodox countries it is growing despite years of persecution under communist regimes.

[@anselman3156]

@@stevepa999 "we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death." St. Philaret of Moscow, the Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, 1830. If you present it in these terms, you are being Orthodox, and Scriptural. Death is the penalty for sin. The Lord Jesus paid that penalty, as the only one, perfect man and God, on our behalf, to satisfy the justice of God.

[@godsarmy8746]

​@@anselman3156 but in this view of atonement, what is the theological significance of the resurrection? Another way to phrase that question is: how does the resurrection contribute to atonement if atonement was made by Christ's passion?

[@sinfulyetsaved]

Its my understanding the church fathers did not have a one sided belief on this. Its my understanding Orthodox do believe in Penal substitution but not an over emphasis that occurred during the reformation era. With that church fathers both spoke of Christ taking our place but the emphasis was on Christ Victor over death. During the reformation and out of the medieval roman Catholic era the emphasis was on Christ Crucified. Also the way the eastern fathers understand divine justice and restorative justice was lost in the west and took on a more human judicial understanding of the atonement. Yes, Christ took our place on the Cross but not to appease and angry Father. He took our place to conquer sin and death once and for all something no human can do.

[@George-ur8ow]

This reflects my understanding as well

[@apologiacontra6992]

Where do you get this from? Read the fathers, they speak in judicial terms, they speak of appeasement and so on, and they don't separate it from Christ's victory over death, which you do for strange reason

[@tellmethetruth4844]

@@apologiacontra6992 quote mining words without the phronema that they were spoken in is useless and a fallacy.

[@apologiacontra6992]

@@tellmethetruth4844 so why are you quote-mining words of your teachers about the phronema, this universal excuse to attack proper words without proper reason, as if you knew my heart? Isn't that worse than a fallacy.

[@tellmethetruth4844]

@@apologiacontra6992 if by “my teachers” you mean St. Paul in Holy scripture and his specific literal and physical church that he was writing the scripture to, then I’d say it should be pretty self evident why I would go to that source for my overarching context and paradigmatic understanding of it. (Which would be the opposite of quote mining lol) The better question would be why would someone who rejects apostolic Christianity, it’s definitions and it’s phronema, be interested in what it’s “teachers” have to say at all? Disingenuous motives perhaps?

[@Sleader134]

Good video. Fr. Romanides' has been very bad for Orthodoxy. Because he made us reject PSA wholesale, except for stressing a different view of the atonement, he has made many of us look like fools to Protestants and Catholics, and rightly so, because it is so obviously Biblical and Patristic.

[@thepessimistictitan2655]

Have you read Romanides?

[@panokostouros7609]

@@thepessimistictitan2655 Have you read anyone else?

[@thepessimistictitan2655]

@@panokostouros7609 Yeah. But the point was that many people attacking Romanides have never read him

[@joshf2218]

Catholics don’t accept penal substitution either.

[@BobtheBuilder-bh8jr]

You misunderstand Seraphim. He is *not* saying the Orthodox church supports Penal Substitutionary Atonement, he is saying we acknowledge there is forensic language used in Scripture and that Christ suffers death which is the wages of sin. Penal Substitutionary Atonement is far more than this. There is no "reject PSA wholesale", it's a binary do you support the entire theory or not. We could say all theories of atonement recognize those two things, forensic language in Scripture and that Christ suffers the wages of sin. It has absolutely nothing to do with specifically Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

[@Duane422]

This is probably the best explanation of the atonement I’ve ever heard or read or come across. It’s so simple too “the wages of sin is death”. Did you do one on prayer???

[@truthdefenders-]

"This is probably the best explanation of the atonement I’ve ever heard or read or come across" you must not get out much, or read much or listen much. 😉

[@Duane422]

@@truthdefenders- Im a philosophy professor who definitely doesn’t get out much but who has read everything on paper on the atonement ! Lol (I even devoted a book I wrote to it )

[@truthdefenders-]

@@Duane422 You've read "everything on paper" and this is the best explanation for you, wow. ok.

[@Duane422]

@@truthdefenders- yes. I don’t remember the video. This was two years ago. But I likely meant form not necessarily content. You looking to start a fight ? You ok ?

[@truthdefenders-]

@@Duane422 Not looking for a fight why are you threatened by questions? Besides I don't like to pick on those incapable of discernment I prefer to educate you.

[@pavelmosko4309]

I listened to your Justification by Theosis, good stuff!

[@thattimestampguy]

*What Is Penal Substitution?* *Do Orthodox Christians Believe in Penal Substitution?* • It would appear so 1:30 Adam: Mini-Creation Dust + Spirit of Life = Constituted Life

[@nathanielblaney1631]

I agree with your critique of common evangelical versions of PSA. We tend to think of Jesus taking the cup of God's wrath as some inscrutable, incomprehensible spiritual affliction in his soul.This is the way that many think about eternal punishment in parallel to the cross, as I think you suggest. Roughly: the point is infinite punishment for sins against an infinite God. We would have to suffer forever to pay this penalty, but Jesus could suffer infinite punishment in a few hours because he is God.Unfortunately, I don't think this is just "popular evangelicalism."John Calvin, after saying some great biblical things about PSA from the gospels and prophets, goes on to make this mistake. "After explaining what Christ endures in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price - that he bore in his soul the tortures of a condemned and ruined man."I'm always a little puzzled as to where this kind of thinking comes from.

[@truthdefenders-]

Define the "energies" for me please, I want a clear definition. thnx.

[@jakegardner9153]

@@truthdefenders- don’t you have like 12,000 more denominations to break apart into?

[@truthdefenders-]

@@jakegardner9153 Shouldn't you research your silly little quotes so that you don't look so ignorant? 😆

[@gch8810]

@@truthdefenders- Wow! You really acted very Christlike there.

[@gch8810]

@@truthdefenders- Your are clearly disingenuous.

[@dw4270]

From my protestant background, the core of the penal atonement concept (as described by them) is the idea that God does not see our sins but He sees Christ's perfect righteousness when He looks at us, completely regardless of our behavior. No matter what we do, we stand before God guiltless, that's what the cross means to them, escape of personal responsibility. This was hammered into my brain my whole upbringing.

[@Thedisciplemike]

And this logically leads us to belief in an apathetic God who must fulfill an obligation of wrath on us for simply being human. It also separates the Father and Son, as the Son essentially saves us from the Father.

[@cheryl9856]

Odd. Most Protestants teach that repentance and faith are necessary to receive the benefits of Christ's life, death and resurrection. They also teach that good works must flow from faith. I'm sorry that you were not taught these things as a Protestant.

[@Thedisciplemike]

@@cheryl9856 so then you admit the inconsistencies of the Protestant argument: "Good works must flow from faith"

[@cheryl9856]

@@Thedisciplemike What inconsistency are you referring to? Faith believes and clings to God and his promises given in baptism and charity for our neighbor proceeds from the thankful heart he gives us.

[@Thedisciplemike]

@Cheryl I don't disagree with what you said just now. But wouldn't you agree our relationship with God is a path that is ongoing? That we eternally are drawn more and more to God? That we become more and more like Him?

[@emilesturt3377]

Great stuff as always! I thank God greatly for your ministry!!! This is my take on it all. I'm not Orthodox, but have lived and worshiped with them on and off for years... This is how I string it all together in my ed anyway! (and you all might disagree of course! : ) The Orthodox Communions view the uniting of the divine and human natures in the Person of Christ - Who gives Himself as a ransom "to death", to the state of reality in the fallen universe, and Who enters into the place of our shameful condemnation and death (the punishment of exile and the severance of soul from body) and the pleasing, satisfying and worthy Sacrifice and Offering of Himself to Himself - as being the emphasis: the Triune God reordering and recreating of all reality through His fulfilment of all righteousness in the Son, the good news of the whole of His incarnation which restores our union with Him and rescues us from the powers that bind us. We are covered and cleansed and alive in Him and so spared from "the wrath to come" . . . for in mercy He entered 'our place', that we might live, 'in His' Revelation Ransom Redemption Recapitulation Restoration Recreation Resurrection To the mind of the ancient Church, these words sum up the crux of the matter of the cross and the whole of the Incarnation.... But NOT the Son bearing the wrath / anger of the Father. If wrath is kind of akin to mortality and the sentance of death, then yes, He suffered it and was buried... but rose again on the third day after recapitulating and fulfilling all things, and via the Pure Body of His flesh, condemning sin "in the flesh". . . for He is the "sin offering". Whatever "bearing sin", "became sin", "was laid on Him" actually means in actual reality, in God's sight, we must remember that sin is not a thing. It describes thoughts words and deeds of persons. It is a privation of the good... an abstraction. "Without the shedding of blood there is no remission"... without the costly giving of a life, there can be no covering of death... "For Love covers a multitude of sins". He is our sacrifice of atonement, the expiratory offering. To the Orthodox, "propitiation", (gk: Hilasterion / Hilasmos / place of reconciliation) for instance, in 1 John 2:2, is often misconstrued in interpretation or emphasis in Protestant circles, as it is easily equated with pagan sacrifice relating to changeable deities who need to be appeased and reconciled (in disposition) to us, as opposed to the God Who was "reconciling the world to Himself" and is already favorably disposed to it: John 3:16. Surely the Cross and Resurrection were "pleasing", and "satisfied" the heart of God: affecting a Cosmic change in ontological reality, as well as the our 'legal' status (metaphors) associated with describing that relational change; but we have to be careful not to miss figurative language / descriptions in Scripture regarding God and sin within the Atonement... for error, heresy and blasphemy shortly follow X

[@JonathanGrandt]

Very well put. I don’t know if I agree but I also don’t know if I disagree. I see the strong point of the evangelical message to be fear. I see the strength of the gospel to be love.

[@derkleriker100]

I genuinely wonder what is even left of the term 'satisfaction' with regards to God after examining it apophatically. It almost implies that God himself experienced shame due to Adam's sin, which is why he gets angry and wants to obliterate and curse the whole human race to death in this theological scheme. Yet we know that shame is the first and foremost emotion and condition Adam felt after falling from grace. And it is precisely shame that Christ carried to the cross, a shameful death. So I don't really know how useful it is to talk about Penal Substitution in terms of satisfaction just to stick it to the simplistic theology of Fr Romanides. I would also disagree that the Protestant and RC views in this regard differ in any significant way and that anyone of those is closer to Orthodoxy. RC praxiology is still very much dependent on the idea of satisfaction, including the sacramental life and fasting (to satisfy God's wrath for our sins), as is the Protestant praxiology which essentially boils down to giving mental affirmation to the proposition of justification through satisfaction. It seems like Penal Substitution made a comeback in Orthodox circles recent years, and I cannot really grasp why that is. If it is an analogy among many it for sure is one of the weakest ones, since the concept of satisfaction is so intrinsically linked to shame in the human mind that it almost cannot have any cataphatic content left after an apophatic examination. But I am willing to hear and read other viewpoints.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

As a preface, "satisfaction" and "penal substitution" are two very distinct sets of conceptual grammar."Satisfaction" in this context does not mean "satisfaction of divine wrath by divine punishment." It is being used to mean "satisfying a debt." To use more contemporary English, it's really about what we would call restitution or reparation. As to whether Protestant and Catholic views differ, they certainly do- Protestant theology, as embodied in their confessions, is predicated on the notion of an imputed justification that corresponds with an imputation to Christ's account. That is what sola fide is all about, and it is precisely what Trent and other Catholic dogmatic sources reject. The problem with setting aside penal and substitutionary language is that it is all over the Fathers and the Scriptures, ala Galatians 3 and the Chrysostom comment in this video. And on "satisfaction"/restitution, St. Philaret of Moscow says in the passage below. But interpreted in light of this: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/186809881740/the-doctrine-of-restitutionary-atonement-in-light "208. How does the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross deliver us from sin, the curse, and death? That we may the more readily believe this mystery, the Word of God teaches us of it, so much as we may be able to receive, by the comparison of Jesus Christ with Adam. Adam is by nature the head of all mankind, which is one with him by natural descent from him. Jesus Christ, in whom the Godhead is united with manhood, graciously made himself the new almighty Head of men, whom he unites to himself through faith. Therefore as in Adam we had fallen under sin, the curse, and death, so we are delivered from sin, the curse, and death in Jesus Christ. His voluntary suffering and death on the cross for us, being of infinite value and merit, as the death of one sinless, God and man in one person, is both a perfect satisfaction to the justice of God, which had condemned us for sin to death, and a fund of infinite merit, which has obtained him the right, without prejudice to justice, to give us sinners pardon of our sins, and grace to have victory over sin and death." I agree about the legalistic accent in much traditional Roman Catholic praxis. This can be spiritually devastating. It is not that penal substitution in itself has made any kind of comeback, it is just a recognition that words and phrases are not self-interpreting and do not mean one thing. It depends on how one utilizes a phrase. But it is essential that such language be used, for two reasons: first, it is used in scripture- this is how God talks. Second, it maintains the bond between things like civic justice and the kingdom of Christ. Using financial language like debt and reparation to describe the work of God in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit allows us to see the entirety of our economic life through the lens of the love of Christ. The same for judicial language- this grammar goes back to the earliest chapters of Genesis and reframes the way we talk about the penal code such that we can think more deeply about what God expects of the world as it is subdued to the reign of Christ.

[@derkleriker100]

​@@Seraphim-Hamilton Thank you, Sera. But even the term 'owing a debt' only makes sense when applied in a universe with material resources not being readily available, applying it to God would imply him being petty. So I am not too convinced of this analogy either. And I do think that RC praxiology compensates for it's lack of an Essence/Energies distinction by making the sacramental life an elaborate role-play contingent on satisfaction, regardless of what Trent says. In case of the Protestants their 'sacramental life' boils down to the mental affirmation that I mentioned earlier. I think there can be a catechetical merit to Penal Substitution, as far as showing that God is just and neither voluntarist nor hypocrite, and by becoming human he ultimately subjected himself to the wage of sin (as opposed to splitting the Trinity like in the satisfactionist scheme). I still think that it is to be treated with the utmost care though, since there can be a tendency to demote the ontological significance of the resurrection by relying too heavily on it, and to demote sin to a mere moral issue. Ultimately Penal Substitution is 'just' one of the many aspects of universal recapitulation, and not a particularly exalted one at that. It's also noteworthy that Penal Substitution is pretty much the almost exclusive soteriological narrative in heterodox groups, not only among RCs and Protestants, but also among Monophysites.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

@@derkleriker100 I think you mean "Serro." :)This is how scripture speaks, though. The analogy is not something that we are or are not persuaded of, it is an analogy the Bible uses, and repeatedly. Some of this language has become so familiar we forget its freight- "redemption" means "to purchase." Paul says in Romans 8 that "we are debtors, but not to the flesh" (i.e. we *are* debtors to the Spirit, through whom we have died to sin and risen to God)- what a set of concepts does or doesn't entail or presuppose must be considered in light of how scripture and tradition speaks. As to how debt does and doesn't make sense- I do not agree with what you said about limitations. What it requires is that our nature is ordered in such a way that its fulfillment contains the discharging of certain duties in relation to another person as an internal characteristic. To speak in financial terminology (this is what "satisfaction" is about- as mentioned in my comment, it means "reparation", not "satisfying an urge to violence." Certainly all of this must be treated carefully and exactly, but I think that means giving a positive account of how the Bible uses the language it does rather than setting it aside because some people have misapplied or misread it. Scripture came long before anyone ever conceived of imputed justification. If we find ourselves unable to talk in the way the Bible talks, it lends credibility to the Protestant critique. If you have some comments or questions about the video itself, feel free to comment again- if it is just on the general issue, though, contact me privately instead of on the comments- [e-mail] .

[@orthodoxnet]

I enjoyed your video about penal substitution. It was very valuable. Of course you know that the heresies regarding this doctrine led to another heresy of the Latins, the so-called “immaculate conception”. I did a video on that, very short, and not very scholarly because that’s not what I am. I’m just a plain Christian and an Orthodox priest who listens to the services and studies them. I wish I had included your message on your KZbin page description, because the Roman Catholic trolls and any other kind of trolls just come out of the woodwork. It is aggravating to me to when people just contradict something or insult you without providing any useful commentary. I will be actually debating in a Friendly Way, a man who contacted me about the immaculate conception. He will take the Roman Catholic view and I will take the Orthodox view of course. I do not anticipate this to be intensely polemical. However, I would like to be better prepared. The debate or really more like a discussion, will be in December. Of course the penal substitution theory of the Latins must be discussed because without it, there is no need for the “immaculate conception”. Perhaps you have some things in the “immaculate conception” or some more material on penal substitution especially if it’s text and not audio or video. I would really like to be able to learn from them so that I can use it. Of course, I would credit you. Here is the short video. Of course, it needs a longer treatment but I also do one-minute videos. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iYi1hXybncqMhrs It’s not a work of art or anything, but hopefully you will agree with my premise. It is my opinion the immaculate conception removes all of the virtue from the Theotokos and makes her into a holy robot. It also basically completely misunderstands human character and what being in made in the image of God is. And of course, it is a heresy upon another heresy given authority because of another another heresy. By the way, it is very strange addressing somebody whose name I do not know. God bless you. Priest Seraphim Holland [e-mail] 972 658-5433 www.orthodox.net

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Father bless! Sorry for the late reply. We're actually friends on Facebook- I'm Seraphim Hamilton.

[@didilv2187]

i must disagree. there is no evidence to us having sex in holy state. i think you guys can't imagine life without your carnal egos. father and the mother are celibate. you are all fixed in your experiences

[@Thedisciplemike]

Our Virgin Mary is absolutely uncorrected by any stain of sin, for she is the icon of the Church who is guided to perfect and stainless truth.

[@gch8810]

The Orthodox and the Catholics basically believe the same thing on the Immaculate Conception.

[@pravolub8]

Penal substitution is Biblical, but it doesn't "define" what Salvation is. It is one metaphor, one "picture", of Salvation. Salvation is not "defined" or limited by it. That is what Orthodox theology calls "reductionism".

[@chrisvanallsburg]

Well done. Especially poignant is the symbolism from Genesis 15. Thank you!

[@bradbrown2168]

I see the Cross outside of the city likened to Day of Atonement. Scapegoat carrying the sins of the people to the dead realm. However I do jot see any teaching of this in NT. Thoughts?

[@joshuafritz1386]

The problem with Anselm's theory of the Atonement is that God is not a theory. He's a person. We don't need saving from the Father. God Himself is salvation.

[@braevblackthorn6853]

Seraphim, hook up with Idol Killer and Paul Vendredi!

[@WeAreBullets]

is imputed righteousness not part of the orthodox doctrine of atonement ? i know protestants seem to use the legal penal substitution example as the only way to look at what happened at crucifixion. after learning about orthodoxy tho i find all the doctrines so much more deeper yet help better explain for me why and what happened

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Check out my recent 3 hr video. It deals with this.

[@andrewvalantine184]

@@Seraphim-Hamilton Which video are you referring to? I couldn't find the video you were talking about.

[@Orthodoxology]

@@Seraphim-Hamilton same as the other guy… what video are you referring to?

[@Durnyful]

Very well put 👍

[@lordofhostsappreciator3075]

Beautiful. Just-

[@supertigerroadtrip5193]

Short answer, yes we do!

[@emilesturt3377]

Very balanced. Brilliant 😊

[@samkhalil3784]

Can you explain the Orthodox view plainly, as to a layperson. I believed in PSA all along....now I'm confused.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

What is confusing to you about this video?

[@KevynMS]

Sam Khalil - In Orthodoxy, PSA is one of many Biblical analogies (Christ the Paschal lamb, Christ the redeemer, Christ the ransom, Christ the healer, Christ the good shepherd, Christ our God as the prodigal's father, etc.) of the mystery of salvation. None of the analogies should be be strained beyond their breaking point, nor should any taken in isolation. One of the main differences between Western (RC & Prot.) and Orthodox is that the West makes a dogmatic method out of a single of many metaphors. Orthodoxy seeks to understand the allegorical truths of the many metaphors as they reveal this incredible gift and mystery of our salvation in Christ.

[@fredarroyo7429]

@@KevynMS so orthrodox dont know what they are talking about

[@lordofhostsappreciator3075]

@@fredarroyo7429 No, but you clearly don't.

[@fredarroyo7429]

@@lordofhostsappreciator3075 being psychic is a sin according to the bible

[@paulomi123]

Makes sense, great work as always Kabane.

[@mikehunt3436]

I am going to push back on your interpretation of Galatians and on Chrysostom's commentary on it. The quote from Chrysostom is discussing Jesus taking on the curse of a man hung to a tree in lieu of the curse of those subject to the law. The fact is Jesus' death is a penal substitution only in the sense he took upon death to overcome it. His incarnation was a rasom into the clutches of evil, his death a penal substitution and his resurrection a recaputation of humanity.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

I'm not sure how that is a disagreement- that's exactly what I'm saying. The three words "in the sense" are always the key words. We mean something in one sense and not in another.

[@apologiacontra6992]

You should refer to holy fathers in your second part where you explain your view. Without that I cannot say if this is just your opinion.

[@bradbrown2168]

Second death Lake of fire where hades and death is destroyed, Sounds like annilhilation. Thoughts?

[@MyChaz2]

Very good exposition. But I've heard othe orthodox theologians say oh no this was anselm or some other western theologian. I guess the orthodox churches dont have a consensus either. At least the Roman Catholic church is consistent. Protestants are really devided on it.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Yes, that's bad history.

[@josephkuzara2609]

Jesus did not take the penalty we deserved, our deserving penalty is wrathful judgment in hell. But Jesus as a ligit Son did suffer corrective discipline and scourging for our sins and why He is said to have taking on the likeness of sinful flesh as our substitute and scapegoat to suffer unto death voluntarily not for anything He had done being Sinless but for our sins while being a ligit Son. Father is only pleased in chastening and scourging ligit children out of love, Father does not take pleasure in killing the wicked. thus PSA has nothing to do with wrath. This Luther and Calvin misunderstood. Jesus has always been a ligit Son of Father, being imputed our sins to Him as our scapegoat Lev 16 does not affect His spirit ,soul or nature and why He remained Sinless unto death. But as our substitute and for our sins imputed, He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh to be chastised and scourged for our sins while being a child of God. To say He suffered our wrath from Father is to say He stopped being Father's Son. Only those not received as ligit children of Father receive wrath. But sense Jesus never ceased to be Father's eternal Son even when mortally incarnate in the likeness of sinful flesh, what He suffered as Sinless being our substitute is only loving discipline and scourging at the hands of Father. He atoned through His Sinless life unto death while under such discipline to learn obedience for our set example and benefit.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Romans 5 describes the penalty passed to Adam as death- I take issue with the way that the idea of hell is framed as conceptually independent from death. Hell, in scripture, is the second death- it is death's eternal perpetuation. I make a few notes on that here: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/133210453200/what-is-death

[@ayiosgeorgios5487]

I think we have to identify what the western doctrine of Penal Substitution teaches and also from where it was proliferated. Then we can see how it does not identify with Orthodox teaching. Anslem's Medieval model of the atonement is comprised of 12 claims: 1. Adam transmits the guilt of his sin to all his descendants (original sin). 2. Original sin renders all men vicious and incapable of seeking after God (total depravity). 3. Total depravity extends even to infants. 4. Adam's sin and the resulting degradation of mankind infinitely offend God. 5. Mankind's guilt is to be understood as a debt that we owe God for having offended him. 6. Not even infants are free from paying this debt to God. 7. Incapable of paying this debt, mankind can only hope for its cancellation. 8. But God cannot leave sin unpunished without offending his own sense of justice. 9. God requires that mankind's collective debt be recompensed in as painful a manner as possible. 10. Only a God-man can satisfy all the demands of the debt repayment. 11. The Son of God becomes incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth so that his human nature can be killed to satisfy mankind's debt to God. 12. Thus, Jesus sacrifices his humanity as a ransom to God. Modern Penal substitution as taught by the heterodox reformers: 1. Only bloodshed can satisfy God's wrath; hence God's instituting the Old Testament sacrificial system. 2. God pours out his wrath against our sins by punishing Christ, pretending that Christ is we, the ones who actually deserve to be punished (a greatly elaborated take on Anselm's doctrine of substitution). 3. On the cross, Christ becomes a concentrated mass of sin. 4. God forsakes the crucified Christ, turning his back on him. 5. As the perfect, unblemished sacrifice, Christ obviates the need for any further blood sacrifice. Obviously on the surface we see some real issues as to the precise western teaching of penal substitution. This really requires a full contextual understanding of scripture (In particular St. Paul's epistles) as to how we should view the work of the cross.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

+Ayios Georgios I agree that Orthodox soteriology is not compatible with the Reformation doctrine of penal substitution. I just wanted to clarify that we don't therefore reject all language of penalty and substitution. It just needs to be understood correctly, as the Bible and the Fathers understand it.

[@pavbtw]

Very good video! Watched it last night so my memory may be foggy but, what is the Orthodox view of 1 Peter 2:24, Isaiah 53:4; 53:11? Is it possible for Christ to have bore our sin and still be sinless? Thanks, -Pavlos (Paul).

[@marincusman9303]

Yes. 1 Peter says that he was sinless and that he bore our sins right after that. Isaiah 53:4 is interpreted in Matthew 8 as healing. Even 1 Peter says that by his wounds we are healed. Jesus put on our flesh so that we “might die to sin and live to righteousness.” It’s for rebirth and healing. The problem is the idea of “imputation,” saying that our sin BECAME Jesus’s sin. That’s not in scripture. He took on our sinful and fallen flesh, not sinning himself, so that he could let it die and be healed.

[@silveriorebelo2920]

what do you men by He bore our sin?? - behind well known expressions there are very different ideas and suppositions...

[@susansuewwilliams]

Thank you for your interesting discussion of Penal Substitution. However your view differ a bit from Father Peter Farrrington, KZbin channel Orthodox tidies.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Keep in mind that Fr. Farrington isn't Orthodox by historical standards, being a priest of the non-Chalcedonians, about whom there are real Christological questions. I consider Catholics and Orthodox, having more shared history, to be closer.

[@TheCopticParabolanos]

Kabane do you nevertheless believe that we have some ecclesial reality about us and that our sacraments are Grace-filled? You have one of the most interesting and nuanced views regarding ecclesiology I’ve ever seen, so I’m genuinely curious what you think.

[@Charles-Pettibone]

@@TheCopticParabolanos Yes, certainly. I explore the notion of sacramental validity from a biblical perspective here: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/618126805954691072/the-covenantal-basis-of-sacramental-validity And on division more generally: kabane52.tumblr.com/post/183320717280/the-paradox-of-christian-division I think it is clear that the OO have many gifts of grace as evidenced through things like wonderworking elders- to me, it's special pleading to point to such elders in the Orthodox Church but dismiss them in other cases.

[@TheCopticParabolanos]

@@Seraphim-Hamilton fwiw, I respectfully disagree with Fr. Peter on this point. The hymns of the Coptic and Syriac Churches clearly affirm a penal and substitutionary component to our Lord’s passion. And, the contemporary Romanidean rejection of juridical readings of the atonement make Old Testament Biblical hermeneutics basically impossible I have the utmost respect for Fr. Farrington (whom I’ve had the pleasure of meeting in person) and Fr. Romanides, but I do disagree with them on this matter