Orthodoxy and the Atonement

[@somnium5603]

When I saw the Icon of the resurrection where Jesus pulled Adam and Eve out of the grave I couldn't stop crying. It is so beautifl!

[@Viricanus]

Κυριε Ιησους Χριστε ελεισον υμας και υπερ Παναγια μας σωσον υμας. Αμην.

[@greenhaven-podcast]

Same!! ❤️🙏

[@giannobong6778]

It was very powerful

[@sweetbabytrae]

What a fantastic series. Was raised a Roman Catholic, basically gave it up upon entering adulthood and became an atheist, which honestly I was fine with. Recently however, I’ve had a pulling force bringing me back to the Church and Orthodoxy (at least through this series and a bit more reading) is starting to feel like where I need to be. Will definitely start attending some services and learning more

[@angrytogepi9182]

Former agnostic here. I’m in the process of becoming Orthodox myself You’re not alone on this journey

[@lindaobrien8538]

I listen to orthodox videos. Teaching. Chants. Prayers etc no orthodox churches for 500 miles I was raised Catholic .I am so interested in orthodoxy. Any suggestions on videos teachings. Etc very appreciated

[@GabrielKerr]

This is from an interview with an author named Brad Jersak on the Nomad podcast which I feel sums it up nicely. He says: "With the Western view, that juridical view, sin is usually regarded as guilt for wrongdoing. In the Eastern church we would say, oh no, the problem is much worse than that. Sin is a fatal disease that results in death. So death, then, becomes the deepest problem. So how is salvation viewed? And this is directly out of Athanasius. We would just say, well, it's there for you in his book. What he does is, he says, so here's humankind's dilemma: We have this fatal disease called sin that will kill us. What is God to do when he sees his precious creation dissolving before his eyes? What he needs to do is become human. The first stages we call the hypo-static union. That means, at conception, the Divine Word assumes human nature. so you've got Divinity and Humanity coming together in one person. When we say he "assumes a human nature," we don't just mean "A" human nature, we mean all of human nature. All of humanity is united to God in the person of Jesus at his conception. In the same way that Adam has infected the whole world with sin, Christ --uniting himself-- The Word, uniting himself to humanity, has infected the whole human nature with his healing. It's like something is released into the whole human race in that moment when God takes on human nature. Then he must pass through this whole life. So he dignifies and heals every element of human nature: our will, our emotions, our minds, our body, by living as one of us in surrender to his Father. But for that to be complete, he has to go all the way. He's not just healing our wills, he's gotta heal us from death itself. Now Athanasius says, "So how is God going to do that? Because God can't die." Ah! But if God takes on a human nature, then God can enter Hades. And so the importance of the cross is not to somehow punish sin so that he can forgive sin. Rather, the cross is Jesus, through his human nature, giving God access to death itself. So the way they (Eastern Orthodox) picture it is that Hades is sort of a personification of Death, and it's also the place of the dead. So that God is able to enter Hades through death, by taking a body that can experience death, and so that body takes God himself down into Death and Death can't handle it. And he blows up Death from the inside and destroys it... eradicates it. So it's the conquest of Death. We always sing at what we call the Pascal Service (it would be like Easter here): "Christ is risen from the dead. Trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." So the necessity of the cross is for God to enter death, to rescue the dead, and then to destroy death itself. Then to come back up, leading a train of captives in his wake. This is his victory over death through his death and resurrection. I find that really powerful."

[@anatille]

wow! this is a fabulous explanation of the eastern point of view. thanks.

[@MrDavicovic]

@Emil Suric Not because Christ decided to die in the most gruesome way during the time to identify with us.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Emil, Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My brother, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@katbos4995]

Gabriel Kerr : I’m exploring Orthodoxy. How and when (if ever), we’re our individual sins paid for by Christ? Ty

[@dimitrispeiraias]

@@katbos4995 My brother, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Our trauma was our separation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this separation was the misuse of our freedom in the ancestral sin! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency towards God! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! Our wounded freedom needed that ransom, in order to be healed! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitous! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitous!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@alrightthengreat]

Wow, this is beautiful. The image of Christ as a heroic rescuer pulling us up from the mire and madness of death, into new life is beautiful. It also helps to illustrate the kind of faith Christ calls us to have, a faith that trusts His work, not only His work in the cross to forgive sins, but the work as a whole to redeem and restore creation. This way of thinking puts us back into the story where faith in the heart is activated, rather than in a theological and systematic framework where reason may or may not activate heart faith. Thanks.

[@marian.9026]

Absolutley beautifully put! Thank you!

[@richardhildreth4471]

Thank you so much for this. I am 66 years old and have been Orthodox only 4 years (I LOVE my church!!!). After being a Protestant since I was 12, I could not understand the Orthodox concept of salvation, and it has always troubled me. How could I be saved if Christ did not pay for my ransom by his blood? Now I see that it was too simple for me to accept. Jesus conquered death and God simply forgives me. This video is the first time I actually realized that (Please correct me if my understanding is in error.). Also, commitment to righteousness is essential. But it is as if I want to travel to Mars. It is more than I can afford to have a seat on Elon Musks first Starship journey to Mars. Someone pays for my seat. Once there, I have to contribute to the survival of the colony. Thank you so much, and blessings.

[@johnnyd2383]

You've got it right bro... Atonement in Prot is inherited from RCC theology that was invented by Augustine of Hippo. That is not the faith that was delivered unto saints.

[@lenna9132]

God bless you!

[@franciscafazzo3460]

@@johnnyd2383 read leviticus and hebrews. read isiaha 53 and there are many orthodox writers who Do speak of atonement . you are. not informed yet

[@jewishmgtowinthejungle1259]

@@franciscafazzo3460 Isaiah 53 doesn't say the word Messiah or Annointed One. It is about Jeremiah or Israel. Even Jews know this. Sin has always been atoned through Repentance alone, no blood sacrifice. Charity and incense has even been used as a sacrifice in the Torah.

[@Bigchickens]

Love this I’m just not convinced this is Paul’s complete view from the NT

[@j.taylor3670]

This was FANTASTIC! I've never heard it explained so well. Thanks so much.

[@YeshuaHamashiach5791]

Tears are flowing. Thank you so much for this. My dad was agnostic my whole life. My mom was culturally southern baptist, but we never went to church unless it was a special occasion. We didn't discuss God at home. Didn't read the bible. I decided I believed in paganism or witchcraft as a teen. Later moved onto eastern religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, etc. I have asked for years to understand Jesus. I always wanted to feel anything about Jesus. And until I found orthodoxy, I never could. I cannot quit crying.

[@ginnylynn1]

Thank you 🙏🏻 I’m new to Orthodoxy, and learning so much from you ❣️💓

[@AJ-me1dg]

This is what I've believed for years (mainly from reading George MacDonald). I am so happy to learn that other Christians share this view :)

[@48wallace]

I love the simplicity of her answer. As it should be, the gospel is a simple message.

[@simonskinner1450]

But what if Frederica is simply wrong. The Cross only changed the covenant of Moses to bring on forgiveness of past sins, and by sanctification we can be forgiven, and go to heaven. I have a series of Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity' that explodes many such Myths in this religion.

[@wiglafthegrnlander4757]

That makes so much more sense than the reformed doctrine

[@Emper0rH0rde]

The reformed doctrine is a living nightmare for people who struggle with faith. I was convinced that I was destined for hell - created specifically to be thrown into hell for God's glory - by the time I was 14 or 15 years old.

[@Emper0rH0rde]

@Jake Sanders That's what they all say. Any time a protestant - especially a Calvinist - is confronted with the logical conclusion of their flawed doctrine, they stick their fingers in their ears and cry "Misrepresentation." And that's why I left. I don't have the faith to keep up with all those mental gymnastics. Or, you might say, God didn't sovereignly decree before the foundation of the world that I would have the faith to keep up with all the mental gymnastics required to hold to the "reformed" doctrine. Go gaslight somebody else.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@Olaf Haraldson The penal subsitutionary atonement is directly related to the ninth anathema of St.Justinian against Origen that was proclaimed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE). It says: ,,If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.'' If the penal substitution is rejected as a supposedly western teaching, that would mean to reject that by taking the penalty of the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ has saved us from the eternal punishment after the Last Judgment. But the rejection of the etenal punishment is condemned at the mentioned 9th anathema against Origen. Now there must be said Origen admitted punishment but only a temporary one while the modernists of the 20th century who reject the penal subsitution, reject even a temporary punishment, although most of them do not believe in the apokatastasis (but some do believe). In both cases there is a rejection of the eternal punishment and such a rejection is condemned in the 9th anathema as one of the Origenist false teachings. The rejection of the penal subsitutionary atonement is shared by almost all Orthodox modernists of the 20th century.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@Emper0rH0rde The penal subsitutionary atonement is directly related to the ninth anathema of St.Justinian against Origen that was proclaimed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE). It says: ,,If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.'' If the penal substitution is rejected as a supposedly western teaching, that would mean to reject that by taking the penalty of the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ has saved us from the eternal punishment after the Last Judgment. But the rejection of the etenal punishment is condemned at the mentioned 9th anathema against Origen. Now there must be said Origen admitted punishment but only a temporary one while the modernists of the 20th century who reject the penal subsitution, reject even a temporary punishment, although most of them do not believe in the apokatastasis (but some do believe). In both cases there is a rejection of the eternal punishment and such a rejection is condemned in the 9th anathema as one of the Origenist false teachings. The rejection of the penal subsitutionary atonement is shared by almost all Orthodox modernists of the 20th century.

[@panokostouros7609]

kzbin.info/aero/PLUj5YTVjIJgB-FC-qQ1OpNkPvgEu6wizi

[@angelquarts]

Thank you for this! I am someone who keeps feeling drawn to become a Christian despite walking away several times due to my struggles in understanding/accepting different parts of the doctrine. Over time though, I've gradually come to believe more and more of it and understand better what I couldn't before. While I love & prefer the more contemporary-style services of Protestant churches, I find that Eastern Orthodox theology solves a lot of issues I have with parts of their interpretation of doctrine. This time in my re-exploration of Christianity, my hang-up was on the Penal Substitution theory that most Protestant branches subscribe to. For me, a God who feels any wrath towards or needs sin to be punished does not make sense. In my own experiences when I've felt the presence of the divine, there is no feeling besides absolute love and forgiveness... I cannot imagine any anger or even punishment for judicial purpose coming from such a being. I understand that personal experiences such as mine cannot be assumed to contain God's entire nature, and our own minds can easily lead us astray... but even so, I can't reconcile a God who loves humanity enough to be born through a human being and submit Himself to death at the hands of His own children in order to save them and reveal His love for them, with a God who demands justice/repayment for sin to begin with. I tried challenging my Methodist coworker on this... I asked, "Do you think God is angry with us and Jesus died to satisfy his wrath?" And she said no. Then I asked, "Is it about karma? Does the negative karma of sin need to be repaid, and that's what happened with his death?" She also said no. So I asked, "Then what exactly is the nature of this "debt" that needs to be repaid, if it is neither wrath nor the balancing of "karma"?" And she could only answer with "Jesus was the Lamb who was slaughtered as a sacrifice on our behalf." But why is this sacrifice needed when there is no karmic debt? And how does God sacrificing Himself to Himself make any sense...? What is the point? The Eastern Orthodox view, as well as Moral Influence Theory, are the only perspectives on the Atonement that make any sense, in my opinion. Anything else requires a God that either feels fallen human emotions such as anger, or is limited by some sort of human-like legal system.

[@brianbachinger6357]

I’m not going to go into any detail regarding the different views of the atonement. Needless to say, without Jesus Christ’s atoning death, we could not have life. He is a living spirit of life. Truth is a person, not just an idea. But I feel God prompting me to tell you this: You must understand that God in his primary way is love, BUT love is not just passive; it is active. In other words, God must hate sin for him to be love, in the same way that light must extinguish darkness to be light. Also be cautious not to try to force a system onto scripture. Scripture is primarily meant to present a person complete in Christ. In other words, scripture has an end goal in mind. When we try to resolve all tensions we see in scripture, we actually end up trying to remove the very power of the scripture themselves.

[@christopherobrien5005]

Thank you so much for creating these videos

[@samanthagirikhanov2796]

I was in a very popular nondenominational church and the pastor said it’s like you got a $500 speeding ticket and when you went to court it had been paid. That’s Jesus dying to pay our sin. And it really didn’t sit well with me. How can the cross be analogous to a ticket? It hurt my heart to be honest. This makes more sense.

[@kjvacp]

And if every crime MUST be punished, then forgiveness doesn't exist.

[@nicknardo1968]

😢 God bless you God bless you so much sense so much said so many questions answered so little time only by God's hand could that be done 🙏🏼 so beautifully said Glory be to our God Amen amen amen

[@paulwilliams9207]

Beautifully put. Thank you

[@Nihit_Arora]

Wow... That's so beautiful

[@davidstar5008]

Good answer, however I do see in the scriptures Jesus described as a lamb. In the old testament, it say's Christ "Took on our transgressions, and bore our sickness." In sacrificial teaching in the old testament, we see a beloved lamb slaughtered. Now God was never angry at the lamb, as some people have made out that the Father was angry at the Son, however the lamb does take that sin on itself, as Christ did. I see no reason why both things can't be believed, both Christ as the sacrifice for sin and Christ as the Conqueror of Death.

[@urwinloefstop]

David Star500 valid point, we do focus on the result wich is leberation from dead not the reason wich is the sin.

[@jacfalcon]

Very good question! the answer, in my opinion, is that this ISN'T about taking on a payment. Bearing our sins means he had to face death, which was incredibly painful, and a consequence of our sin. But nowhere does that necessitate a legal issue. I can bare someone else's burdens without it being a legal burden, like carrying the groceries inside for my mom. It also doesn't mean we don't still have to face some of those things, because we certainly do have to suffer still. I find the kicker in the Old Testament to be when Pslam 51 (50 LXX) has King David clearly saying that God does not desire sacrifice, he desires a humbled heart. The presupposition is that sin is a legal issue rather than a heart issue, and then we read it into the passages about sin.

[@Joshula337]

Jesus is a lamb. But who are the goats and the bulls? The atoning of sins by the blood of Christ is only a portion of the magnificent work He did on the cross. Also notice that on the day of atonement you have the scapegoat carrying the sins of the people On the day of Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol had to follow a precise order of services, sacrifices, and purifications: Morning (Tamid) Offering The Kohen Gadol first performed the regular daily (Tamid) offering-usually performed by ordinary priests-in special golden garments, after immersing in a mikvah and washing his hands and feet. Garment Change 1 The Kohen Gadol immersed in a special mikvah in the Temple courtyard and changed into special linen garments, and washed his hands and feet twice, once after removing the golden garments and once before putting on the linen garments. Bull as Personal Sin-Offering The Kohen Gadol leaned (performed Semikha) and made a confession over the bull on behalf of himself and his household, pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. The people prostrated themselves when they heard. He then slaughtered the bull as a chatat (sin-offering) and received its blood in a bowl. Lottery of the goats At the Eastern (Nikanor) gate, the Kohen Gadol drew lots from a lottery box over two goats. One was selected "for the Lord", and one "for Azazel". The Kohen Gadol tied a red band around the horns of the goat "for Azazel". Incense Preparation The Kohen Gadol ascended the mizbeach (altar) and took a shovel full of embers with a special shovel. He was brought incense. He filled his hands and placed it in a vessel. (The Talmud considered this the most physically difficult part of the service, as the Kohen Gadol had to keep the shovelful of glowing coals balanced and prevent its contents from dropping, using his armpit or teeth, while filling his hands with the incense). Incense Offering Holding the shovel and the vessel, he entered the Kadosh Hakadashim, the Temple’s Holy of Holies. In the days of the First Temple, he placed the shovel between the poles of the Ark of the Covenant. In the days of the Second Temple, he put the shovel where the Ark would have been. He waited until the chamber filled with smoke and left. Sprinkling of Bull's Blood in the Holy of Holies The Kohen Gadol took the bowl with the bull’s blood and entered the Most Holy Place again. He sprinkled the bull’s blood with his finger eight times, before the Ark in the days of the First Temple, where it would have been in the days of the Second. The Kohen Gadol then left the Holy of Holies, putting the bowl on a stand in front of the Parochet (curtain separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies). Goat for the Lord as Sin-Offering for Kohanim The Kohen Gadol went to the eastern end of the Israelite courtyard near the Nikanor Gate, laid his hands (semikha) on the goat "for the Lord", and pronounced confession on behalf of the Kohanim (priests). The people prostrated themselves when he pronounced the Tetragrammaton. He then slaughtered the goat, and received its blood in another bowl. Sprinkling of Goat’s Blood in the Holy of Holies The Kohen Gadol took the bowl with the goat’s blood and entered the Kadosh Hakadashim, the Temple’s Holy of Holies again. He sprinkled the goat’s blood with his finger eight times the same way he had sprinkled the bull’s blood. The blood was sprinkled before the Ark in the days of the First Temple, where it would have been in the days of the Second Temple. The Kohen Gadol then left the Kadosh Hakadashim, putting the bowl on a stand in front of the Parochet (curtain separating the Holy from the Holy of Holies). Sprinkling of blood in the Holy Standing in the Hekhal (Holy), on the other side of the Parochet from the Holy of Holies, the Kohen Gadol took the bull's blood from the stand and sprinkled it with his finger eight times in the direction of the Parochet. He then took the bowl with the goat's blood and sprinkled it eight times in the same manner, putting it back on the stand. Smearing of blood on the Golden (Incense) Altar The Kohen Gadol removed the goat’s blood from the stand and mixed it with the bull's blood. Starting at the northeast corner, he then smeared the mixture of blood on each of the four corners of the Golden (Incense) altar in the Haichal. He then sprinkled the blood eight times on the altar. Cliffs of Mount Azazel Goat for Azazel The Kohen Gadol left the Haichal and walked to the east side of the Azarah (Israelite courtyard). Near the Nikanor Gate, he leaned his hands (Semikha) on the goat "for Azazel" and confessed the sins of the entire people of Israel. The people prostrated themselves when he pronounced the Tetragrammaton. While he made a general confession, individuals in the crowd at the Temple would confess privately. The Kohen Gadol then sent the goat off "to the wilderness". In practice, to prevent its return to human habitation, the goat was led to a cliff outside Jerusalem and pushed off its edge. Preparation of sacrificial animals While the goat "for Azazel" was being led to the cliff, the Kohen Gadol removed the insides of the bull, and intertwined the bodies of the bull and goat. Other people took the bodies to the Beit HaDeshen (place of the ashes). They were burned there after it was confirmed that the goat "for Azazel" had reached the wilderness. Reading the Torah After it was confirmed that the goat "for Azazel" had been pushed off the cliff, the Kohen Gadol passed through the Nikanor Gate into the Ezrat Nashim (Women’s Courtyard) and read sections of the Torah describing Yom Kippur and its sacrifices. Garment change 2 The Kohen Gadol removed his linen garments, immersed in the mikvah in the Temple courtyard, and changed into a second set of special golden garments. He washed his hands and feet both before removing the linen garments and after putting on the golden ones. Offering of Rams The Kohen Gadol offered two rams as an olah offering, slaughtering them on the north side of the mizbeach (outer altar), receiving their blood in a bowl, carrying the bowl to the outer altar, and dashing the blood on the northeast and southwest corners of the Outer Altar. He dismembered the rams and burned the parts entirely on the outer altar. He then offered the accompanying mincha (grain) offerings and nesachim (wine-libations). Musaf Offering The Kohen Gadol then offered the Musaf offering. Burning of Innards The Kohen Gadol placed the insides of the bull and goat on the outer altar and burned them entirely. Garment change 3 The Kohen Gadol removed his golden garments, immersed in the mikvah, and changed to a new set of linen garments, again washing his hands and feet twice. Removal of Incense from the Holy of Holies The Kohen Gadol returned to the Holy of Holies and removed the bowl of incense and the shovel. Garment Change 4 The Kohen Gadol removed his linen garments, immersed in the mikvah, and changed into a third set of golden garments, again washing his hands and feet twice. Evening (Tamid) Offering The Kohen Gadol completed the afternoon portion of the regular (tamid) daily offering in the special golden garments. He washed his hands and feet a tenth time. The Kohen Gadol wore five sets of garments (three golden and two white linen), immersed in the mikvah five times, and washed his hands and feet ten times. Sacrifices included two (daily) lambs, one bull, two goats, and two rams, with accompanying mincha (meal) offerings, wine libations, and three incense offerings (the regular two daily and an additional one for Yom Kippur). The Kohen Gadol entered the Holy of Holies three times. The Tetragrammaton was pronounced three times, once for each confession.[19]

[@spacebbq344]

Sounds like the most important ability Christ had in the depiction was to die. The cross and specifically His death upon the cross become irrelevant. His death could have come in any form. The question still remains but why the cross?

[@skyoung419z]

For Christ to die on the cross was a fulfillment of prophesy.

[@OrthodoxChristianTeaching]

Let us praise, bless and worship the Lamb of God, Who bore our sins and carried our iniquities and laid down His life as a ransom for many, Who fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Law, tearing up thereby the handwriting of our transgressions which was against us. 'This is My Body, broken for you, for the remission of sins. This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for you and for many, unto the remission of sins.' The believers truly and freely enjoy the love of God, the grace of Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, but this ediface stands upon the foundation of reconciliation through the taking away of our sin which was lain upon Him Who had no sin but became sin for us. The righteous One given up for the sake of the unrighteous. What ought to have fallen upon us, He bore for our sake. This is all of grace and not of works, so that no man may boast. Free for us, in the sense that the we could never merit or earn or be worthy of so great a salvation. But there was a process to go through of which the pain, 'the price' of the purchase, of the redemption, was borne by the Lord Jesus Christ. One died for many so that in Him all died. It was by the righteousness of this redemption that the Lord could thereby freely and with supreme authority plunder Hades, taking captivity captive, Sin, the Law, Satan all brought about a righteous and 'lawful' condemnation and capture of man. But by the judicial aspect of redemption, requiring the death of the sacrificial Lamb, the Lord Jesus ransomed and purchased us for God in such a way that firstly was in accord with the holiness, righteousness and glory of God and thereby crushed the authority of death under which we all lay, and destroyed the works of the devil. This is what is proclaimed in the Divine Liturgy and it is only upon this foundation of a righteous and incontestable, incorruptible and spotless redemption and justification by faith therein - for by grace have ye been saved and no other foundation can any man lay - that the entire process that may thereby follow from it, of sanctification, transformation, conformation and ultimately, glorification - all the rich organic aspects and requirements of Theosis, of which Orthodox theology often speaks. We need sanctification, but we ought not neglect the judicial redemption. We need to preach from the pulpit that which is set forth and proclaimed at the Holy Table - the good Shepherd layed down His life for His sheep. God's becoming man means that He Who hung and died upon the Cross was He as us. It is only by this saving death that our sin is taken away and we can say 'It is no longer I that live, but Christ that liveth in me.' A theosis which does not consist of these two aspects is a house which will not stand. Unless the Lord builds the house, they labour in vain that build it. Yes to light and life - but it was all won for us by He Who suffered and died, bearing our sins and carrying our iniquities, by Whose stripes we are healed, so that we could born, not of flesh and blood, nor by the will of man, but born of God and inherit all the riches of the New Testament and sing the triumphal hymn, proclaiming, crying aloud and saying: Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; always, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

[@cristinadriviera8144]

Papa Stephanos+ So beautifully written!

[@2610paul]

Amen very well put.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

My brother, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Our trauma was our separation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this separation was the misuse of our freedom in the ancestral sin! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency towards God! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! Our wounded freedom needed that ransom, in order to be healed! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitous! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitous!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@deaconjohn7875]

Amen. Very well said. Glory to the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the World.

[@deaconjohn7875]

@@dimitrispeiraias Nothing he says indicates that God was our enemy. One can affirm all the biblical images in an Orthodox way without falling into the errors of Calvin. Let's not deny truths in a knee jerk reaction to the heretics but let's present them without the errors read into them.

[@andrewseymore4506]

This makes so much more sense

[@FrWadeFahnestock]

Thank you for sharing!

[@thejulesfather]

Wonderful thank you

[@ArchimandritePhilip]

Another "Golden Great" I hadn't seen this one before. Just reading "Two Views of the Cross: Orthodoxy and the West" given as an early Christmas present.

[@chrisvanallsburg]

I would like to know more about the orthodox view on certain texts say, in Romans which speak of Christ as a propitiation.

[@sinfulyetsaved]

Well there is the work of Repentance.. Freeing ourselves of the sickness of sin. This we must struggle our entire life with and it is hard work.

[@tohokugirl8144]

We alone do not free ourselves of sin. It is through the Grace of God working in us afree baptism and through the sacraments, through prayers and the encouragement of the angels. To think we do it only of our own power is ego centric

[@bruderklaus9976]

Colossians 2:13-14 (LEB) "And although you were dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having destroyed the certificate of indebtedness in ordinances against us, which was hostile to us, and removed it out of the way by nailing it to the cross." Language of Jesus paying dept isn't foreign to the Eastern fathers. It's sad that it's downplayed by so many popular orthodox christians today.

[@prater6513]

Bruder Klaus, so true. It is very sad. It is an over correction and has gone too far. Christ is our Paschal Lamb. Our Liturgy, our Bible, and the Eastern Fathers all talk about the redemptive work of Christ, propitiation, and the payment of debt. I say this an an Orthodox Christian. orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/christcross.aspx

[@lenna9132]

@@prater6513 Passover lamb was to celebrate the liberation from Egypt.

[@prater6513]

@@lenna9132 St Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Exodus, specifically passover: "That it is by Christ alone that we escape the power of death--as the wise disciple described to us when he said, "There is no name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved"--one may learn, if one cares to, by numerous different means. For in the inspired Scripture many thousands of wonderful and manifest images brightly reflect the power of the mystery. So in what follows we shall now gather and make known what is useful for this purpose...but as it was necessary that those chosen in love on account of their forefathers should not perish along with that ungodly people, God instituted a type in the law of the Passover, and he gave special instructions that the mystery of the wrath of Christ should be enacted ahead of time. It can also be understood from this how it is impossible that death should be abolished through Moses or the law. Rather it is the precious blood of Christ that turns the Destroyer aside and delivers from destruction those who have been consecrated, for he is life from life, and the God of all, as he is God of God....You will be amazed when you discover there to be another mystical aspect of the divine economy in this matter. For the lamb is slain on the fourteenth day of the month, when the cycle of the moon reaches the full extent of its glory. Though it illuminates the world, as it were, with a counterfeit form of light, it nevertheless soon begins to decline, and the dignity and the beauty that it possesses of necessity then diminish. You may here understand, being led by the figure and shadow that this matter presents to an apprehension of the most true things, that the ruler of the night, namely the devil, depicted in a figure by means of the moon (for the moon was appointed to rule the night), was glorified throughout all the world and, having put the wisdom of the world as a counterfeit light into the hearts of those who were being deceived, he exerted the fullest degree of his glory. Then Christ, the true Lamb that takes away the sin of the world, died on our account and for our sake, and brought the glory of the devil to an end....The lamb is understood by the law to be a victim that is pure and without blemish, while the kind of animal taken from the kids is always offered for the sake of sins at the altar. This same thing you shall find in Christ also. For he himself was, as it were, a sacrificial victim without blemish, offering himself up as a pleasing aroma to God the Father, slain like a kid on behalf of our sins. Furthermore, after the animal was slain, they were commanded to smear the doorposts and lintel of the house with its blood. This, it seems to me, signifies nothing other than the fact that it is with the noble and precious blood of Christ that we protect our own earthly house, that is, our body, ridding it from the deadness caused by transgression through the sharing in his life. For partaking of Christ is life and sanctification. Also, we confound the Destroyer himself. Through the application of the blood we keep far from us the demon who had designs against us, and put to death the passions arising from carnal affections...while we are in this world we shall continue to partakes of Christ in a most earthly manner through his holy flesh and blood."

[@suaptoest]

Colossians 2:13-14 (LEB) "And although you ( you=Gentiles)were dead in the trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he made you alive together with him, having forgiven us (us= Israel) all our trespasses, having destroyed the certificate of indebtedness in ordinances against us, which was *hostile to us*, and removed it out of the way by nailing it to the cross." *hostile to us* = Deut.11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a CURSE; Deut.31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. As you can see, something is missing in the teaching of the churches. And that "something" changes the whole message.

[@tohokugirl8144]

Not downplayed at all, simply not h Jurisdiction in nature so not emphasized

[@prater6513]

Some verses from Holy Friday On the same day, O Lord, You granted the Robber Paradise. Now by the wood of the Cross, illumine me and save me. Then was Thou lifted up on a tree between two thieves and numbered among the wicked, O innocent One, to save man. We shall not feast like the Jews; for our Passover, Christ God, hath been slain for our sake. But let us purify ourselves of every defilement Thy Cross, O Lord, is life and resurrection for Thy people I have delivered my shoulders to scourges, and my face I have not turned away from insults. Before the tribune of Pilate I stood, and the Cross I endured for the salvation of the world. But Thou who didst suffer in the nature of the flesh for my sake.. Thou has ransomed us from the curse of the law, by Thy precious blood; when Thou was nailed to the Cross, and pierced with a spear, Thou didst pour forth immortality for men, O our Savior: glory to Thee. The Wise Thief didst Thou make worthy of Paradise, in a single moment, O Lord. By the wood of Thy Cross illumine me as well, and save me.

[@spilkafurtseva1918]

How I wish I grew up in Orthodoxy... teaching kids penal substitutionary atonement is psychological child-abuse.

[@aidanmcwhirter2612]

Can you elaborate a bit? I was raised in substitutionary atonement

[@zerbinettastrauss7906]

I’d like to know too; my daughter was trained under Eastern Orthodoxy & she loves it to this very day! ❤

[@lazaruscomeforth7646]

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is explicitly taught by John Chrysostom in his commentary on 2 Corinthians 5, and by Cyril of Alexandria in his commentary on the Gospel of John. It's also taught by Theophylact and Symeon the New Theologian, not to mention Ignatius Brianchaninov. Anyone who denies the Vicarious Atonement of Christ blasphemes.

[@fr.michael9213]

It's not child abuse. The fear of God is the beginng of wisdom.

[@tohokugirl8144]

We are always forgiven when we repent. We confess our sins, wrong doings. In Orthodoxy this is how the Nous, the Soul is healed.

[@crushtheserpent]

This is a distorted view of the Orthodox position on Atonement. The discussion between Fr. John Whiteford and Craig Truglia on the subject is much more balanced.

[@remmingtonstewart9826]

Pray for me, the worst of sinners!

[@davidstout6051]

I find this an eminently better understanding of the atonement, albeit James Cone makes some good points about God’s wrath with respect to the horrible injustices foisted upon African Americans and other peoples. I think I would go with the Orthodox position but with a recognition of the truths of other views as a balance.

[@exag0ra]

Can I ask a question? I absolutely LOVE this understanding, but how does this relate to the animal sacrifices needed in the Old Testament?

[@johnnyd2383]

Animal sacrifices were foreshadowing sacrifice of the Son of God.

[@exag0ra]

@@johnnyd2383 Right, I understand that, but I meant as it pertains to their sin. As far as I know, it wasn't for moral failures, but more so ceremonial and impurity (i.e., blood loss, touching a dead body, etc.)

[@Orthodoxi]

And yet many will not take this free gift. Instead they use their God given will to deny God. This is very astonishing to accept but accept it I must. So the price too high for many to pay is to take the gift. As if you were drowning and someone offered you a hand but you refuse to grab it in your prideful strife and instead will yourself to drown.

[@JohnWesley-w7z]

Have a question about this. Im RC but interested in Orthodoxy as well. Doesn't this doctrine of atonement as a rescue from death and sin but not as expiation for sin go against the teaching of the Apostles? How do you reconcile all this with the New Testament writings saying Jesus died for our sins? Thanks.

[@Christopher_TheFool]

How would you explain Hebrews 9:22 which says there cannot be remission without the shedding of blood?

[@vaska1999]

I would explain it as a remnant of a specifically Judaic tradition of thought Paul brought into the then emergent Christianity. It's the primitive human idea of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye, a practice Christ calls us to jettison and transcend.

[@Православл]

Christian Davis Christ’s shedding of blood is the last bloody sacrifice. It is enough for us all.

[@wuwei87]

@Root 66 Christ is God's Word, not the Bible.

[@wuwei87]

@Root 66 It is absolutely Christianity. God-breathed (i.e., God-inspired) does not mean "infallible." You can't even define what "infallible" means regarding Scripture anyway, since its verses are a mixture of historical, analogous, metaphorical, and practical writings, so you really need a stable system like church tradition to help interpret what it all means. There are many instances of the Greek word 'logos' being used, and it's such an all-encompassing word (as Christ is all-encompassing), because it applies both to mundane 'speech, word' and to The Logos, the Greek philosophical term for divine reason that makes sense of the world, deriving order from chaos, which is Christ as the being that connects us to the very mind of God (since God used his Logos to create the universe). Nowhere in the Bible is it referred to as "The Word of God".

[@wuwei87]

@Root 66 That doesn't refute what I've said! Logos means more than just 'the expression of a thought,' first of all. I meant nowhere is the Bible *as a whole* referred to as the Word of God, with capital-W. There are words of God mentioned, or God's word as in his direction and guidance for us, but it's Protestants that refer to the Bible *as a whole* as the Word, and there is no basis for that, because it elevates Scripture to something that is literally true and communicated directly to us in the modern world, as if verses can be taken out of context.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

The penal subsitutionary atonement is directly related to the ninth anathema of St.Justinian against Origen that was proclaimed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE). It says: ,,If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.'' If the penal substitution is rejected as a supposedly western teaching, that would mean to reject that by taking the penalty of the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ has saved us from the eternal punishment after the Last Judgment. But the rejection of the etenal punishment is condemned at the mentioned 9th anathema against Origen. Now there must be said Origen admitted punishment but only a temporary one while the modernists of the 20th century who reject the penal subsitution, reject even a temporary punishment, although most of them do not believe in the apokatastasis (but some do believe). In both cases there is a rejection of the eternal punishment and such a rejection is condemned in the 9th anathema as one of the Origenist false teachings. The rejection of the penal subsitutionary atonement is shared by almost all Orthodox modernists of the 20th century.

[@bryanthomas5954]

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him."

[@calvinpeterson9581]

He was crushed by our sins, not the wrath of God.

[@lenna9132]

@@calvinpeterson9581 Thank you, Calvin! People do not get it.

[@auntieanna]

Calvin & Lenna, could you help me understand your perspective? I agree, the text nowhere states the Father poured His wrath out on the Son. How would you nutshell what exactly happened on the cross? Currently I see Christus Victor theory, no problem. He defeated Satan, sin, sheol & shame. That He died for us in that, but not instead of us, as we must take cross and die with Him. Also, that He was made a "sin offering", and "bore our sin WITH His body", and that we must "eat His flesh" & "drink His blood", which blood cleanses our conscience. How would you describe the blood function?

[@MrMatt-qs2ck]

Beautiful : )

[@sustainablelife1st]

5:28 - YES! A debt is etiher forgiven or paid, can't be both.

[@Olgaleigh]

This is a great explanation and helps a lot with questions I have. My other other question is that all the people that would have died before Jesus died in bodily form, they were in hell suffering for their sin while they were alive believer or not?

[@jwilsonhandmadeknives2760]

The dead were in Hades, believer or not. Hell (Hades) is a general term, historically. Luke 16:19 describes it as the realm of the dead / spirit realm, divided into two parts which are separated by a wide gulf. There is a good side “Abraham’s Bosom” or “Paradise” and there is a bad side. When Christ was on the cross he tells the thief “today you will be with me in Paradise.” Jesus did not go to heaven that day. He descended to Hell and preached to those in Paradise / Abraham’s Bosom, and released the believers to Heaven. 1 Peter 3:18 Rev 1:8 Eph 4:8 Acts 2:31

[@cabellero1120]

The Cross is God's Masterwork of Love And Forgiveness. Just as the opening of the Red Sea was a wondrous miracle of God's deliverance, So, too is the Cross.

[@mandarin408]

I am exploring orthodoxy , thinking of joining the church. Where do I start?

[@Theoria]

m l find an Orthodox priest in your area and contact him! :)

[@stewart_92]

If God just forgives us then why could they not receive forgiveness of sin before the cross?

[@camuor3645]

I am having a bit of trouble understand so can you tell me if I have understood correctly? (I have a protestant view but trying to understand Russian orthodoxy) The reason Chirst died was to save us from death; where as our sin is just forgiven without Jesus or anything else? How would God be all powerful if He can't defeat death without sending His Son? Can someone explain?

[@johnnyd2383]

Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ incarnated in order to rescue and heal fallen humanity from the bondage of the sin. He came to save the humanity, not to judge it (John 3,17). Therefore, to apply judicial model to His coming is grave error that was invented and promoted by Augustine of Hippo and later expounded by other RCC theologians. As to why Son of God was sent to die to achieve this marvelous feat of God has been described by Early Church Fathers that wrote many treatises on the subject. In short, as St. Athanasius said: "Son of God became man so that we might become God", explains it all, and fulfills the truth written earlier in (Ps 82,6).

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@johnnyd2383 The promotion of the idea that the penal substitution and the judicial understanding of Christ's Incarnation and Redemptive Death on the Cross, is a grave error, is a later and modernistic tendency in the Orthodox Church that started in the 20th century. Noone in the Orthodox Church prior to the 20th century has denied that Christ saved us from our sins (as lawlessness) in the sense that with the penalty of the Cross Christ subsituted the eternal punishment in the gehenna that would otherwise await the unrepented sinners after the Last Judgment at His Second Coming, thus saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment. The rejection that Christ took the penalty of the Cross in our stead and that way appeased God's wrath by substituting with the Cross the eternal punishment in hell that would otherwise would come upon us, is a late idea within Orthodox theology. It is important to be added that He offered himself as a man to the Holy Trinity, i.e. also to Himself as God. The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae, in Constantinople, 1157, says: ,,…When Christ our Lord sacrificied Himself willingly, He offered Himself as man, and as God He received the sacrifice together with the Father and the Spirit. …To begin with, at the Lord’s Passion, the Logos as the God-man offered the salutary sacrifice to the Father and to Himself as God and to the Spirit. …But now He likewise offers the bloodless sacrifices to the All-perfect and perfecting Trinity, and the latter receives them. …“ (Doctrinal Disputes in the History of Nicetas Choniates by Dr. Harry J.Magoulias, p.207). Also it must be mentioned that according to the Orthodox tradition, God's wrath is not wrath in the sense of a human passion. That the rejection of teh penal subsitution in the above-mentioned sense is late and non-Orthodox and whose beginning dates to the first half of the 20th century, is evident for example, by the Encyclic of the Eastern patriarchs to pope Pius IX in 1848 and the 1895 Encyclical of the Constantinopolitan patriarch which is a reply to the papl encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. In both encyclical letters where the Western deviations of faith are pointed, there is no mention of the penal subsitutionary atonement as a supposed Western error.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@johnnyd2383 Also the eastern Church Fathers mention the penal substitution, for the example the interpratatio of Galatians 3:13:,,Christ has redeemed as from the curse of the Law, hacing become a curse for us (for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)'', by St.John Chrysostom and St.Cyril of Alexandria. Sy.john Chrysostom says:,,In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, ,,Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.‘‘ (Deuteronomy 27:26) To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. (Deuteronomy 21:23). As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Himself not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22). And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.‘‘ The curse that Christ replaced the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) with, was the curse of hanging on a tree (Deuteronomy 21:23). The curse for the transgressing of the Law is not mortality because mortality was inherited by all humans from Adam as a result of his sin, i.e. it came before the Law was given. Mortality is a merit of Adam’s sin. Of course, Christ rescued us from mortality with His Death instead of us. But St.John Chrysostom clearly says that Christ also rescued us from the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) that Christ delivered men from by replacing it with the curse of hanging on a tree:,,To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. (Deuteronomy 21:23).‘‘ Yes, death which was a result of Adam’s sin, is a curse. But the curse of mortality is different from the curse of the transgressing of the Law that Christ delivered us from by replacing it with the curse of hanging on a tree because the transgressing of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) refers to the personal sins as St.John says that people were subject to a curse for not continuing in and keeping of the whole Law, i.e. they were under a curse for committing different personal sins in violation of the Law. St.Cyril of Alexandria in his Lengthy discussion in his Book 12 on his Commentary on the Gospel of St.John, also distinguishes, even more clearly, between the curse of death and the curse of the transgression of not fulfilling the Law (Deuteronomy 21:23) as he says that God’s anger is provoked by Adam’s transgression and that Christ suffered condemnation for our sins which are lawlessness: ,,He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became ‘a curse for us’, according to the Scripture: ‘For cursed is everyone’, it is said, ‘that hangeth on a tree.’ (Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:23). And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfill the Law of God: ‘For in many things we all stumble’; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: ‘Cursed is he which continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them,’ (Deuteronomy 27:26) the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind. The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the Cross that awaited us, and was or due, through our condemnation by the Law., that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmsit; the Sinless having suffered for the sin of all. For God’s anger did not cease with Adam’s fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the creator’s decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressions was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam’s transgression, and through the breach of the Law laid down after him.“ So the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) which refers to the personal sins, it is the liability to the penalty of eternal condemnation in hell, of the second death:,,Wherefore there has been prepared for the devil and his demons, and those who follow him, fire unquenchable and everlasting punishment.‘‘ (St.John of Damascus, Book 2, Chapter 4 - Concerning the devil and the demons).

[@johnnyd2383]

@@Yasen.Dobrev On today's glorious feast of Dormition of Theotokos Mary I have neither desire nor will to read what you wrote. Malicious use of writings of Eastern Orthodox church fathers and saints is well known and any intents to "prove" and possibly "approve" heresies promoted by various heterodox religious groups can never suppress The Truth of Orthodoxy. If you desire to research Orthodox stance on the subject, I will suggest you to google "penal substitution and orthodoxy"... may God lead you to His Church - Eastern Orthodox Church.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@johnnyd2383 I am an Orthodox Christian.

[@Krs759]

So, I’m genuinely interested in this issue and trying to understand. If God doesn’t need anybody to pay for the sin, if he can just forgive it, why do we see the early church fathers talking about punishment in their writings? One example would be St. Theophilus of Antioch who wrote “It is obviously not the law which causes punishment, but the disobedience and transgression; - for a father sometimes enjoins on his own child abstinence from certain things, and when he does not obey the paternal order, he is flogged and punished on account of the disobedience…And God showed great kindness to man in this, that He did not suffer him to remain in sin forever; but, as it were, by a kind of banishment, cast him out of Paradise, in order that, having by punishment expiated, within an appointed time, the sin, and having been disciplined, he should afterwards be restored.” Another example would be St. Athanasius, who wrote: “And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father”

[@dimitrispeiraias]

My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Our trauma was our alienation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this alienation was the misuse of our freedom in the ancestral sin! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency, which is the core of sin! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! That ransom is the ultimate act of love, which humanity needed to commit in order to get out of the egocentric tendency of sin which caused death as a result of alienation from God Who is Life and Love! No man except for the incarnated Son of God could ever commit such a perfectly innocent self-sacrificing act of love! However we needed to freely respond to God's Love because freedom is a prerequisite for love! You could neither love by force nor be loved forcibly! Christ responded to God's Love and gave himself as a ransom for all people! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitous, according to the Orthodox Church. Who needed that ransom? Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Ransom is not a penalty! Ransom is paid for the release of a captive! By accepting Christ to be formed in us (Gal. 4:19), we respond to God's Love, through His Son's Grace in His Spirit Communion! "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:21

[@anio6865]

At the beginning of the video ? Who sings the song ? Title of song singer, album ? Where can I get it ?

[@tecomaman]

Matt18.11 he come to save those who are lost

[@Interested_Talker]

Salvation in Exodus is related to the blood on door posts and God not killing the first born of those households.

[@reeckstar6625]

Not really. Salvation in Exodus is being freed from slavery to the Egyptians. The blood on the doorposts is the 10th plague which leads to their release. After their release, the Egyptians chase after them again and are finally drowned in the Red Sea while the Israelites make it safely across.

[@cuttlefisch]

@Chana Bayla She could be an Arab Christian

[@tohokugirl8144]

Here is text her other video that explains our salvation in broader detail Transcript: I was originally saved over two thousand years ago, when God the Son took on human flesh, and offered himself as a perfect sacrifice for all of mankind, defeating the power of sin, by suffering on the cross, and destroying death, through His miraculous resurrection. I am being saved, daily, through my intentional decisions to follow Jesus’s example within each situation that I find myself. Viewing paradise, not is just a someday destination, but as the everyday experience of self-denial of being filled through the Eucharist, obedience, and love for others with Christ. I will, Lord have mercy, be saved at the great and final judgement, when I give an account for a lifetime of actions. When it becomes clear, whether or not, I cooperated with the grace so generously bestowed upon me. Who of us, having been blessed beyond all comprehension, should feel the need to ensure that regardless of our choices, a reward will be ours, free and clear? Who of us, dare to sit idle with our assurances, interpreting the conditions of the bridegroom’s invitation, while our lamps for illuminating the darkness run out of oil. My individual salvation, is being worked out with fear and trembling, through the unique responsibilities God deemed best to set before me. Based upon the model of the Publican who beat his breast and begged for leniency, I’m careful to not assume I have a handle on the spiritual state of others. I would do best, rather, to stay focused on my own flagrant shortcomings, reverencing both friends and enemies, all of whom were created in God’s image as living icons of Christ Jesus. I share my faith, yes, but not out of obligation. A soul that’s found its meaning cannot help but be witness to such a joy. My ongoing testimony, is presented through acts of service, in accordance with Christ’s commandment to love God by loving your neighbor. I pray ceaselessly for the courage to fight the good fight, staying faithful until my very last breath upon this earth.

[@Tsumebleraar]

Jesus took our punishment and we go free! Isaiah 53:5,6!

[@dimitrispeiraias]

The teahing of penal substitution is a false teaching! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@deaconjohn7875]

Certainly he offered up his sufferings in reparation for our sins to show God's righteousness in forgiving us as it says in Romans 3:26 but not because God had a need that prevented him. He already was not counting our sins against us, when he came to reconcile us. He forgave us objectively but we have to accept it subjectively. The Cross and Christ's sufferings vindicated his mercy..it was not a way for God the Father to vent his anger onto God the Son. It was not because God's needed healing but we needed healing. "By his stripes we are healed". His perfect act of worship as both our Great High Prist and as the offering itself infinitely and objectively outweighed all the injustices of the world. It was a sacrifice that was infinitely pleasing to God and Jesus can plead this offering as our advocate with the Father and obtain mercy for us. I John 2:1. This perfect offering in made present and re-presented in the Holy Eucharist and we participate in that offering and our nourished by Christ's body and blood for the healing of our souls and remission of sins. Of course we also affirm that upon his death, Jesus descended into hades and broke the power of the devil and death and set the captives free, having won redemption for them and for all as Victororious. The cross is therefore a symbol of victory!! The theology of the redemption is multifaceted and God forbid that we deny one truth when we affirm another...these various biblical images all form the one mosaic. The one aspect that Orthodox universally deny as false is the idea that God actually poured out wrath on the Son to make him capable of forgiving sinners.. This is an abhorrent teaching and unbefitting of God and found nowhere in scripture. It is from systematic theology books and read into scripture...it has created quite a few atheists. Would that protestants abandon this heresy before more people become repulsed by that distorted message.

[@DChristina]

Seems the critics are overthinking it, maybe missing the point entirely. Check out Fr Spyridon Bailey, Bishop Kalistos Ware & Metropolitan Anthony Bloom for further understanding.

[@cabellero1120]

It makes sense. The Israelites of Old did not earn God's favor. God brought them out of the bondage of Egypt because He Loved them and wanted them to be free. Jesus said in the synagogue that He came to liberate the captives.., Us sinners. Did Jesus come to pay a debt, a transaction Or did He come to rescue and redeem us Because He Loved Us and wanted to lead us back to Heaven?

[@gunboatdiplomat916]

Original sin is no more, good deed are not about removing sin it about you doing good deeds because your good. Its like murder you don't murder because it's bad you don't murder because it's not something you want to do. You do good because it brings joy to you and others.

[@theosteven3362]

Nope. This is conceptually wrong in christian theology. You dont murder because it is not good. It sounds very atheistic instead. The concept of good isnt strictly found anywhere in human civilization. The concept is different from one society to other societies. Why u dont murder because it is not justified in the eyes of lord sincu u dont have the life u have now.

[@theosteven3362]

Original sin is still there. The orthodox conceptualizes it differently as ancestral sin with different focus on what matters, but still hand in hand to original sin to explain why human has bad nature in the first place.

[@simonskinner1450]

Jesus was a Victor over death, and by his death he changed the covenant to allow his resurrection, and now he can judge those baptised and seek Justification. Only by repentance does the prodigal receive mercy, so by good works past sins are forgiven. As Galatians 6:7 "God is not mocked".

[@jaredg5663]

I can accept the understanding of Christ saving all human nature from death by his death, burial and ressurection ("what's not assumed is not healed"), but individual persons must also be saved in a secondary sense (or else the final judgement doesn't make much sense to me). So At around 4:20 the question of forgiveness comes up, and she just says we are forgiven freely. I must say I'm more confused by the response. It seems other Orthodox speak a ton about personal sanctification and working it out with fear and trembling. How do Orthodox reconcile this Universal salvation of human nature and universal forgiveness, but also speak of salvation not being "easy". Let me know where I'm misunderstood, thanks.

[@stevenhunter3345]

I understand and appreciate the limitations of a brief video to deal with such a broad and deep topic, but some of what Khouria Frederica says here is incorrect from an Orthodox point of view. It is not the teaching of Scripture nor of the Orthodox Church that "God just forgives sins and doesn't ask anyone to pay for it." She is so narrowly focused on one model/metaphor of the atonement (i.e., the liberation/ransom model) that she ignores the elements of sacrifice, expiation, and substitution which are indeed part of the patristic and Orthodox understanding. The Lord himself says that his blood is shed and poured forth "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matthew 26 : 28), and the 9th chapter of Hebrews is unmistakably clear. There is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood. And while both Orthodox and Roman Catholics reject the later Reformed concept of *penal* substitution (i.e., Christ was punished in our place in order to satiate the wrath of an angry God), Isaiah 53 makes perfectly clear that the Suffering Servant (the Messiah) suffered on our behalf and achieved in his life and death something which we could never achieve for ourselves. If you want a clearer picture of the Orthodox perspective on the atonement, do a KZbin search for "Metropolitan Kallistos Salvation in Christ," and you'll find a lecture given by the Metropolitan in which he explores various models or theories of the atonement. A very good lecture.

[@epost3039]

Yes indeed!

[@billk8874]

Correct, Hebrews 9:22 "Without blood there is no remission of sins". God does not forgive at the expense of his justice, God demands shedding of blood, because the wages of sin is death, and somebody must die and pay for sin, God's justice must be satisfied before anybody can be forgiven. God doesn't just forgive, God is a a God of justice, hates sin, and demands death as its punishment. Without blood there is no forgiveness of sin as the author of Hebrews states. This was so in the old testament where animal sacrifices had to be made and in the new testament where Christ had to give up his life, God forgives only after punishing sin, if God just forgave without punishment he would be an unjust God. Sin deserves punishment, and God does punish it by the death of his Son in our stead.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

The teahing of penal substitution is a false teaching! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Jonathan, nobody could ever overlook such an undeniable truth! However, it is our ultimate trauma that needed such an ultimate act of love in order to be healed! Our Father never needed anything in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus!

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Our trauma was our separation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this separation was the misuse of our freedom! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency towards God! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! Our wounded freedom needed that ransom, in order to be healed!

[@Therese-q5u]

I’m a little confused by this, if the debt is paid why did Jesus institute the Sacrament of Confession which Orthodox uses? If we are all saved because of the cross does that mean you believe we all go to Heaven? Excuse my ignorance. I’m only just learning about Orthodoxy.

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

u Still Have To Open yourself To God. God isn't going to open your hands to receive The Gift. That's Calvinism

[@ejminkhashaki6187]

What about Ephesians 1:7? Iconography?! What about the Scriptures?

[@johnnyd2383]

This video is not meant to argue with you but to present to you the ancient Faith s preserved in the Eastern Orthodox Church. You are free to disagree but please spare us of your delusions. Thank you.

[@georgatwater9062]

So much NT scripture regarding the atonement is ignored in this video. The atonement isn’t reducible to one “motif.” It’s rescue AND propitiation.

[@OrthodoxChristianBeliever]

For The Roman Church, they clearly don't Believe Christ's Death On The Crross Was Enough. They believe in faith+works

[@alanbourbeau24]

Does good deeds on earth work in order to redeem ourselves? I sure hope so.

[@skyoung419z]

No! Self righteousness (pride) is the unpardonable sin.

[@donissac8859]

good deeds is about crucifying the body which seeks to glorify and edify it self. Fasting, praying, humbling oneself, seeking to serve others all these take effort and causes hardship to self and may bring no tangible benefit to one self. Yet this is the method or way followed by the apostles and through their example the early Christians, to become more like Christ. less of me, more of Christ. Its not about redeeming yourself, its about becoming more in union with God.

[@ΜΑΚΗΣΜΠΑΜΠΗΣ]

Well yes and no.You get heaven(the Light of Christ) if you cooporate by the grace of the holy spirit in this life and let it transform you.That transformation and union with Christ saves us from Hades.But if the Holy Spirit transforms you(with your free will) you will do good deeds om earth because love is a gift of the holy Spirit and faith without works is dead

[@jordanobyrne5699]

Does anyone know the tune or composer of O Taste and See at the beginning of the video? I'd love to sing this hymn at my church.

[@Theoria]

Try contacting Frederica's church about it: www.holycrossonline.org/contact/

[@ramezaziz2336]

It was an ancient shepherd come king by the name of David 😁

[@WoundedEgo]

Personally, I am aghast and agog that 2000 years of theologians pondering the scriptural teaching about the death of Jesus that they still refer to it as an "atonement" and still speak of "the value of the merit" of it. Nowhere is the death of Christ said to be an atonement and there is no discussion of any "meritt" that it bestows on anyone. Never. It speaks of the death as a "propitiation" and tells us that the righteousness of God is the forgiveness of sins. An atonement is made by a sinner as an expression of remorse and an appeal for forgiveness. Jesus did not die to express his remorse or to ask for forgiveness for his sins. A propitiation is made by a judge who is inclined to forgiveness of the sins of an innocent or repentant person, to be vindicated for their "failure" to execute vengeance. It was God the Judge of All who made propitiation by offering the suffering of his own son to demonstrate to the public that he did not negligently or flippantly forgive sinners who had harmed others because he too was a victim of their treachery. That justification is forgiveness, not vicariously earned merit is easy to show: [Luk 24:47 NLT] (47) It was also written that this message would be proclaimed in the authority of his name to all the nations, beginning in Jerusalem: 'There is forgiveness of sins for all who repent.' [Luk 1:77 NLT] (77) You will tell his people how to find salvation through forgiveness of their sins. [Act 2:38 NLT] (38) Peter replied, "Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [Act 26:18 NLT] (18) to open their eyes, so they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God. Then they will receive forgiveness for their sins and be given a place among God's people, who are set apart by faith in me.' [Jas 5:20 NLT] (20) you can be sure that whoever brings the sinner back will save that person from death and bring about the forgiveness of many sins. So "Limited Atonement" needs to go back to the drawing board and start all over. Also, the elect were the remnant of Israel that Jesus was sent to gather - the lost sheep - as told of Ezekiel 37 and Isiah 10:21 and elsewhere: [Isa 10:21-22 NLT] (21) A remnant will return; yes, the remnant of Jacob will return to the Mighty God. (22) But though the people of Israel are as numerous as the sand of the seashore, only a remnant of them will return. The LORD has rightly decided to destroy his people. [Jer 44:14 NLT] (14) Of that remnant who fled to Egypt, hoping someday to return to Judah, there will be no survivors. Even though they long to return home, only a handful will do so." These elect were the firstfruits that followed the Lambkin wherever he went on the shores of Galilee, etc. aka the 144,000. The great crowd are as innumerable as the stars of the heaven and the sand of the sea.

[@GatchamanG4]

Amen!!

[@albertusrjcjung3523]

I am Catholic, have a degree in theology from a pontifical university in Rome (1978), and am familiar with Eastern Orthodoxy. I donot recognise the Catholic teaching of Atonement as briefly presented in this video, nor do i recognise the Eastern Orthodox teaching in this video. I do understand the important point that the speaker is trying to make, but it is so oversimplified that it risks becoming meaningless. How could Christ's mere descending into Hades after His Crucifixion save the souls captive there? What did Christ do in Hades to free them? Traditionally, we Catholics say that God the Son, by His incarnation, holy life on earth, suffering and crucifixion opened the Gates of Heaven, which had been closed by Adam's sin and our own sinfulness. This seems to be in accordance with Eastern Orthodox teaching. But there is more. And the theories of Anselmus are just that: theories, teachinigs, but NOT the official doctrine of the Catholic Church on the subject of Atonement. THe more, that the speaker in the video either denies or does not wish to accent, is the sacrificial aspect of the Atonement. Christ did not pay a price for us literally, neither to God, nor to the Devil; Christ did not have to appease God, for He Himself is God! He certainly did not have to appease Satan, as He as God is so much more powerful than Satan. What Christ did was to show us God's love by taking human nature upon Himself with its sufferings, sinfulness and death. He became participant in the earthly life of His own creatures. THis is how He took our sins and sorrows upon Himself, ''even unto death upon the Cross''. This was God the Son's Sacrifice. Moreover, in His assumed human nature God the Son obeyed to perfection all the commandments which other human beings could not, especially the triple commandment of Love of God, Love of self, Love of neighbour. God the Son allowed Himself to be put to death upon the Cross, like a sacrificial lamb, in order to show us that He did not aschew the most horrible suffering in His Will to become like unto us and to love us to the bitter end. Since then no man may say that God does not understand waht we are going through! Then He descended into Hades and took the souls there into Heaven, where His own risen gloriied Body later joined His own human soul and eternal Godhead. Thus is death fully defeated: for not only are our souls now free to enter into Heaven, but our bodies too shall follow Christ's own example - the First Fruit of Redemption - and be raised by Him from the dead on the last day. Our glorified risen bodies will be rejoined to their souls, and enjoy everlasting bliss with Christ our God, Who is also Perfect Man, the God-Man, Who atones for us also by the mere fact that he joins the divine and the human natures in Himself. To make a long story short, merely descending into Hades did not atone, save and redeem us: but the whole preceding process of Incarnation, Perfect Living, Suffering, Death upon the Cross, Resurrection - that is, Christ's Self-Sacrifice and Glorification - made His descent into Hades atoning, salvific and redemptive for the souls there, and eventually for all of us.

[@BlackenedDrummer]

Were you hoping for a 30 minute discourse on this subject? These are simple introductory videos, the topics are necessarily only covered in generalizations.

[@urwinloefstop]

Albertus RJC Jung its all true and she did simplified it for the laymen and woman, chill dude

[@jacfalcon]

Guys, he's very chill, he just wants to put his knowledge to use. Don't talk down to him for that. That's what Christ calls us to, to sharpen each other's iron and to be prepared to give an answer for the faith we have.

[@DChristina]

Albertus RJC Jung - yeah Albertus, stop showing off

[@charliegreska5240]

Ok

[@FlamSalad]

I don't understand how Christ defeated the powers of hell necessarily by dying on the cross. It seems to me that as long as he lived a righteous life, and resisted temptation perfectly throughout his whole life, then he would have defeated the powers of evil by not giving into temptation and allowing sin to enter into Him. Then the manner by which he dies becomes irrelevant; he could have simply died of old age. But the New Testament speaks repeatedly of Jesus being a sacrifice for sin qua Olt Testament Sacrifices. He is the sin offering prophesied in Isaiah 53. Only with PSA does Christ's death on the cross make sense. Someone please tell me how Christ defeated the powers of Hell specifically by dying on the cross using the Christus Victor model. Thank you.

[@yeehaw6267]

By dying on the cross He shared in human death. By resurrecting (i.e. defeating death) and freeing the souls in Hades (i.e. defeating Hell) He reigned victorious over both. If Christ was only a sacrifice, the resurrection wouldn’t have been necessary. It is specifically because Jesus resurrected that we have the hope of our salvation extending beyond death and being consummated with a similar resurrection

[@FlamSalad]

@@yeehaw6267 "By dying on the cross He shared in human death". He could have literally died in any way and he would have shared in human death. He could have died of old age, he could have died of cancer, he could have died by a heart attack -- all of this is sharing in a human death. Why would it have to be a cross specifically? Why does it have to be so gruesome? Because it was a punishment for our sins.

[@yeehaw6267]

FlamSalad We don’t say there was no punishment involved at all. Merely that the punishment is only part of a larger picture. As Josiah Trenham once wrote, one of the biggest problems in Protestant teaching is a constant tendency towards reductionism and oversimplification, he goes on to say: “Salvation is a grand accomplishment with innumerable facets, a great and expansive deliverance of humanity from all of its enemies: sin, condemnation, the wrath of God, the devil and his demons, the world, and ultimately death. But in Protestant teaching and practice, salvation is [only] a deliverance from the wrath of God.”

[@cslewis1404]

@@yeehaw6267 That’s untrue

[@lenna9132]

@@cslewis1404 That's totally true. Protestant teaching and practice is for dumb dumb dummies.

[@MrMann-gt1eh]

…I’m confused. I’m not seeing any difference taught and thought in the Eastern Orthodox Church vs Protestant churches in the west. I’ve been to more churches than I can count in my lifetime and they have, every single one of them, taught what was said here. Someone that was once Protestant and “converted” to EO help me out here. What am I missing? Christ died for our sins for whoever shall believe in Him would not die but have everlasting life… I’ve never heard anyone say God was mad at Jesus or anything close to that. I believe we’re all arguing the same thing in different phrases.

[@simonskinner1450]

Frederica the clue us in Hebrews 2:14 "the power of death", Jesus now has the "power of death". Jesus has not taken away our sin, he has the "power of death" by judgement.

[@camuor3645]

Does the Russian Orthodox church have a similar view of this?

[@johnnyd2383]

Entire Eastern Orthodox Church shares the same theology regardless of respective jurisdictions that you know as: Russian, Greek, Antiochian, etc.

[@camuor3645]

@@johnnyd2383 Thank you!

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@camuor3645 Actually the understanding of the atonement in the video is not Orthodox. You had asked in comment:,,I am having a bit of trouble understand so can you tell me if I have understood correctly? (I have a protestant view but trying to understand Russian orthodoxy) The reason Chirst died was to save us from death; where as our sin is just forgiven without Jesus or anything else? How would God be all powerful if He can't defeat death without sending His Son? Can someone explain?'' The promotion of the idea that the penal substitution and the judicial understanding of Christ's Incarnation and Redemptive Death on the Cross, is a Western error, and of the idea that sin is not a lawlessnes that requires punishment but is only a disease, is a later and modernistic tendency in the Orthodox Church that started in the 20th century. Noone in the Orthodox Church prior to the 20th century has denied that Christ saved us from our sins (as lawlessness) in the sense that with the penalty of the Cross Christ subsituted the eternal punishment in the gehenna that would otherwise await the unrepented sinners after the Last Judgment at His Second Coming, thus saving us from God's wrath and the eternal punishment. The rejection that Christ took the penalty of the Cross in our stead and that way appeased God's wrath by substituting with the Cross the eternal punishment in hell that would otherwise would come upon us, is a late idea within Orthodox theology. It is important to be added that He offered himself as a man to the Holy Trinity, i.e. also to Himself as God. The Definition of faith of the Local Council of Blachernae, in Constantinople, 1157, says: ,,…When Christ our Lord sacrificied Himself willingly, He offered Himself as man, and as God He received the sacrifice together with the Father and the Spirit. …To begin with, at the Lord’s Passion, the Logos as the God-man offered the salutary sacrifice to the Father and to Himself as God and to the Spirit. …But now He likewise offers the bloodless sacrifices to the All-perfect and perfecting Trinity, and the latter receives them. …“ (Doctrinal Disputes in the History of Nicetas Choniates by Dr. Harry J.Magoulias, p.207). Also it must be mentioned that according to the Orthodox tradition, God's wrath is not wrath in the sense of a human passion. That the rejection of the penal subsitution in the above-mentioned sense is late and non-Orthodox and whose beginning dates to the first half of the 20th century, is evident for example, by the Encyclic of the Eastern patriarchs to pope Pius IX in 1848 and the 1895 Encyclical of the Constantinopolitan patriarch which is a reply to the papl encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. In both encyclical letters where the Western deviations of faith are pointed, there is no mention of the penal subsitutionary atonement as a supposed Western error.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@camuor3645 Also the eastern Church Fathers mention the penal substitution, for the example the interpretation of Galatians 3:13:,,Christ has redeemed as from the curse of the Law, hacing become a curse for us (for it is written, Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree)'', by St.John Chrysostom and St.Cyril of Alexandria. St.John Chrysostom says:,,In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, ,,Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law.‘‘ (Deuteronomy 27:26) To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. (Deuteronomy 21:23). As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Himself not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. (Isaiah 53:9; 1 Peter 2:22). And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.‘‘ The curse that Christ replaced the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) with, was the curse of hanging on a tree (Deuteronomy 21:23). The curse for the transgressing of the Law is not mortality because mortality was inherited by all humans from Adam as a result of his sin, i.e. it came before the Law was given. Mortality is a merit of Adam’s sin. Of course, Christ rescued us from mortality with His Death instead of us. But St.John Chrysostom clearly says that Christ also rescued us from the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) that Christ delivered men from by replacing it with the curse of hanging on a tree:,,To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. (Deuteronomy 21:23).‘‘ Death which was a result of Adam’s sin, is a curse. But the curse of mortality is different from the curse of the transgressing of the Law that Christ delivered us from by replacing it with the curse of hanging on a tree because the transgressing of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) refers to the personal sins as St.John says that people were subject to a curse for not continuing in and keeping of the whole Law, i.e. they were under a curse for committing different personal sins in violation of the Law. St.Cyril of Alexandria in his Lengthy discussion in his Book 12 on his Commentary on the Gospel of St.John, also distinguishes, even more clearly, between the curse of death and the curse of the transgression of not fulfilling the Law (Deuteronomy 21:23) as he says that God’s anger is provoked by Adam’s transgression and that Christ suffered condemnation for our sins which are lawlessness: ,,He had undergone, for our sakes, though innocent, the sentence of death. For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. For He became ‘a curse for us’, according to the Scripture: ‘For cursed is everyone’, it is said, ‘that hangeth on a tree.’ (Galatians 3:13, Deuteronomy 21:23). And accursed are we all, for we are not able to fulfill the Law of God: ‘For in many things we all stumble’; and very prone to sin is the nature of man. And since, too, the Law of God says: ‘Cursed is he which continueth not in all things that are written in the book of this Law, to do them,’ (Deuteronomy 27:26) the curse, then, belongeth unto us, and not to others. For those against whom the transgression of the Law may be charged, and who are very prone to err from its commandments, surely deserve chastisement. Therefore, He That knew no sin was accursed for our sakes, that He might deliver us from the old curse. For all-sufficient was the God Who is above all, so dying for all; and by the death of His own Body, purchasing the redemption of all mankind. The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the Cross that awaited us, and was or due, through our condemnation by the Law., that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmsit; the Sinless having suffered for the sin of all. For God’s anger did not cease with Adam’s fall, but He was also provoked by those who after him dishonoured the creator’s decree; and the denunciation of the Law against transgressions was extended continuously over all. We were, then, accursed and condemned, by the sentence of God, through Adam’s transgression, and through the breach of the Law laid down after him.“ So the curse of the transgression of the Law (Deuteronomy 27:26) which refers to the personal sins, it is the liability to the penalty of eternal condemnation in hell, of the second death:,,Wherefore there has been prepared for the devil and his demons, and those who follow him, fire unquenchable and everlasting punishment.‘‘ (St.John of Damascus, Book 2, Chapter 4 - Concerning the devil and the demons).

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

@@Yasen.Dobrev Yes, the understanding of the atonement in the video IS ORTHODOX, and your comments show you are NOT, as you seem to fail to understand the basics of Orthodoxy.

[@marlowewayde2968]

Forgive me for not understanding. Isnt god angry? Who has a heart that is clean?? How is it cleansed if the breath of life belongs to the father. Isnt the blood pf christ enough to save us from the evil one and lead us to the kingdom but then how are we cleaned to live completely pure of past transgressions? How are we washed of that?

[@dimitrispeiraias]

My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Our trauma was our alienation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this alienation was the misuse of our freedom in the ancestral sin! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency, which is the core of sin! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! That ransom is the ultimate act of love, which humanity needed to commit in order to get out of the egocentric tendency of sin which caused death as a result of alienation from God Who is Life and Love! No man except for the incarnated Son of God could ever commit such a perfectly innocent self-sacrificing act of love! However we needed to freely respond to God's Love because freedom is a prerequisite for love! You could neither love by force nor be loved forcibly! Christ responded to God's Love and gave himself as a ransom for all people! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitous, according to the Orthodox Church. Who needed that ransom? Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! By accepting Christ to be formed in us (Gal. 4:19), we respond to God's Love, through His Son's Grace in His Spirit Communion! "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:21

[@PythonPilgrim]

Where exactly is the Biblical evidence to support what she’s saying?

[@johnnyd2383]

What portion of her speech? Christ descending into Hades? 1 Pet 3,18-19

[@internetuser777]

Hebrews 2:14-18

[@RVGMInc]

Nice sentiments. It doesn't explain repentance and conversion. How can one pick up their cross and follow him, when it is unnecessary. Christ had to die for humanity to be saved, yet our acceptance of Christ's salvific act is still an act of free will. Only Christ can save us, and only we can accept or reject that free gift of God. It is as if we are on a timeline and today we accept Christ, our sins have been forgiven, but what about today's sins or tomorrow's sins? Perhaps we need to be reminded of that Christian Dignity occasionally from which we draw strength? Christ's Salvific Act occurred once and for eternity, however, our acceptance or rejection of it is an ongoing matter. Thank you!

[@bebopbountyhead]

Why would Christ impugn those who didn't feed him if he freely forgives all sin?

[@johnnyd2383]

He knocks on the door but one needs to open it. He won't open the door... that would be infringement of one's free will.

[@stevanmarkovic9527]

❤

[@pariscarla822]

I’m exploring this out of curiosity ( orthodoxy) and I find this take on it a bit strange. Sure God forgives but I believe one must repent to be forgiven.

[@TheAncientLight]

You’re confusing Orthodoxy with Protestant ideas, we Orthodox don’t believe in “faith alone”. Repentance is a central part of our theology

[@JP-rf8rr]

Interesting position but I think Luther was closer to getting it right. "But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made. Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them. This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation." I say this as a non-denominational. There are plenty of things I agree with Orthodoxy on (ancestral sin vs original sin is a prime example) but I don't think you hit the nail on this one. (But that just my personal opinion)

[@AULIGAofBLEED]

I am seeking orthodoxy , while this seems very beautiful and I would wholeheartedly agree that Jesus fixes the death problem for humanity. It seems this teaching is off and very much universalism which was condemned in the 5th,6th and 7th ecumenical councils. Jesus takes on universal humanity and frees humanity from death and God just forgives . Am I missing something?

[@bretthoskins6620]

Icons and movies, but no Bible. Interestingly enough, the only scripture quoted, Heb. 2:14, just three verses later talks about our Lord Christ being a faithful high priest and offering “propitiation for the sins of the people.” (Heb. 2:17)

[@diversityofideasnotidentit5213]

Christ's death is sufficient, apart from our works, to justify us before God's justice (1 Cor 15:1-4). but you missed the sense of imputed righteousness (2 Cor 5:21, Phil 3:9), the thing that not only saves us from the penalty of sin but also empowers us against sin's present bondage. that's what the Orthodox church does not have. don't lump all non-orthodox churches together. we are not all worldly and careless about the way we live.

[@johnnyd2383]

We have to lump you together... in the parable of smart and foolish virgins foolish ones were lumped together and shared the same outcome.

[@deaconjohn7875]

We believe the cross empowers us against sin. Christ is our righteousness and in union with him we become the righteousness of God. He changes us and conforms us to the image of Christ. Our righteousness is the Righteousness from God by which he makes sinner just before him and not without the gift of life, cleansing and sanctification. Justification is intrinsic and because of that God pronounces the sinner accepted and in his friendship, having pardoned him and having cleansed him from his unrighteousness inwardly and sanctified him. St Paul writes: "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." It is not a legal fiction but a declaration of blessedness based on the simultaneous interior work of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Protestants divide sanctification from justification but the Apostles never did in the NT. They think you can be extrinsically justified while interiorly defiled. Not so. Nothing unclean will ever the kingdom.

[@ramezaziz2336]

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures. (1 Cor 15:3.) Christ died for our sins. Not to show love nor to smuggle himself into hades. At least not according to the scriptures. The ultimate love of dying voluntarily for the one(s) you love ONLY makes sense if you will die instead of them so that they live. You don't surprise your wife or husband by killing yourself on your anniversary as a show of ultimate love. You do jump in front of the bus or run into the burning house to save them and put your life for theirs. Christ paid OUR death penalty, so that we don't. If God simply forgives us then the whole incarnation business was just for show.

[@lenna9132]

So, Christ died for our sins means penal substitution. WOW, you clearly do not get it, do you?

[@ramezaziz2336]

@@lenna9132 is this a question, an argument, an assertion??

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

@@ramezaziz2336 Listen to the video again, maybe you start to make some sense. Christ died for our sins, not in a legal way, as you seem to imply. You will never find the Bible saying Christ dies in our place. He died FOR us! His death is a heroic act to free us from evil, death and sin. God was IN CHRIST on the cross, not outside killing Him, or punishing Him as you imply. Seems like you don't agree with the Trinity concept, as you make the Father and the Son to be on the opposite camps.

[@ramezaziz2336]

@@bethanyapostolicmission4195 it seems like you're attacking a straw man of your own imagination. I never said any of what you claim I imply! Now, please explain to me exactly what you mean by Christ died for us as a heroic act. In what universe is the price of our freedom the death of Christ? Now when you say I will not find in the Bible that Christ died in our place, I'm sorry but you don't seem to know the meaning of words. Die for simply means die in place of. That's just how language works. Notice, I don't mention any legal jargon, anything about the Trinity, nothing about God killing Christ.

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

@@ramezaziz2336 You mean, you attack a straw man of your imagination? Let's see ... Yo make false assertions. In your words ... "Die for" simply means "die in place of" ..... straw man !!!! FALSE !!! For instance, when a country was occupied by an enemy and was oppressed, and an army of heroes arose to fight the enemy and drive them out of the country in order for people to be free, when some of those heroes died they did NOT die in place of the people of the country, they died for them, to set them free.

[@jayman1338]

The earlier understanding? How about the biblical understanding through words that are written on the pages, those words that were inspired by God to reveal the truth of the atonement and what we are saved from. 6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. (Romans 5:6-11 NASB) Saved from the wrath of God verse 9

[@saenzperspectives]

I would recommend listening to the following: media.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2008-08-18_pc.mp3 media.ancientfaith.com/gallatin/pfp_2008-08-28_pc.mp3

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Could you find the phrase "God's wrath is satisfied" in the Scripture? You cannot find such a sentence in the Bible, because penal substitution is a false teaching! Our Father never needed a penal substitution in order to be satisfied! Our trauma needed an ultimate act of love in order to be healed! The western teahing of penal substitution is a false teaching! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@BrotherofWord]

One statement she makes highlights completely the shortcomings of Eastern understanding of Christ's atoning work. She says that "God delivering His people through the Red Sea is the defining moment of the Exodus" and thus the orthodox understanding of the atonement makes more sense than the penal, substitutionary atonement understood in the west. The problem is that the defining moment of the exodus isn't the Red Sea crossing, it's the Passover, which is ALL ABOUT substitutionary penal sacrifice. Yes, Jesus rescued us from the curses of this evil, fallen world (including death), but ake no mistake that the Father's knife, which was spared Isaac (and us), was not spared Jesus. This is the essence of the atonement: God did not spare His own Son but gave Him up for us all!

[@abrahamhaile7596]

BrotherofWord

[@vaska1999]

In the Jewish tradition, the deliverance from Egypt -- the salvific act of God of liberating his people from bondage and exploitation -- is indeed the defining moment and meaning of the Exodus.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Keep also in mind that the western teahing of penal substitution is a false teaching! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@prater6513]

Brother of the Word, she doesn't express the Eastern understanding of Christ's atoning work. We (Eastern Christians) call our Easter, not Easter, but Passover. Pascha. That is what Pascha means. It means Passover. We speak about Christ being our Paschal (Passover) Lamb, that His blood was shed for the remission of sins, that He paid the debt, that Christ is our propitiation as the scriptures and the Church throughout the centuries affirms. Frederica, and many like her, is attempting to correct against Anselm, and in doing so has gone way to far in an over correction in the opposite way and missed some very important details.

[@richardbenitez7803]

Right at the introduction the speaker spoke of works as if it was part of our debt in a share in our atonement. This is a total misunderstanding of what is meant by works by catholics. It is not my intention to go over what is meant by works and faith. I'm just very upset the speaker presents a misunderstanding of the catholic faith and I suspect the Eastern Orthodox faith.

[@vaska1999]

That almost complete absence of emphasis on the works of compassion -- enjoined on all of his followers by Christ himself -- is in my view, and I was born into Orthodoxy, a major failing of the Orthodox Church and its traditions.

[@deaconjohn7875]

@@vaska1999 It is taught in my parish all the time. Not all parishes are equally healthy. Sorry to hear that was your experience.

[@tecomaman]

1Cor.5.21 he was made sin.how was he made sin for us ?

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

He was made sin offering

[@tecomaman]

@@bethanyapostolicmission4195 scripture please, not your philosophy

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

@@tecomaman 2 Corinthians 5:21 For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.

[@tecomaman]

@@bethanyapostolicmission4195 yours is the only translation that says that ,all others say ,For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.How was he made sin for us ? he died ,or God laid on him the sins of the world meaning is was Jesus task to free us from sin ,he overcame death by rising from the dead ,and now we must take up our cross and believe we can overcome sin and death ,we are righteous by believing we are free from sin and live accordingly,not because God is blind to our sin

[@praisegod3768]

So I visited a GO church during their Greekfest, and a nice guy gave us a tour of the lovely church. It was the season of Pascha and so some of the liturgical items were evident. I said something about how good that Jesus died to save our sins. And the guy said, "Well, we don't really see it that way ... we believe that Jesus is an example for us, of courage (and of this, and that)." I'm like (to myself, of course), "Say WHAT?!" I mean, I've read the Patristics, and I cannot believe that a church with such rich roots, and one that makes such an incredible celebration of Jesus Christ's resurection, would simply see Jesus as an example. So, I find the Orthodox theory of the passion of the Christ VERY confusing. I mean: 1) Does the OC believe that we are all fallen -- that we all fall short? 2) Does the OC believe that Jesus' suffering on the cross -- and resurrection -- indeed "pay the price" as his final word stated (Tetelestai)? 3) What must one do to "be saved" according to the OC? By the way, I really appreciate this lady's explanations, though it all still seems a bit murky to me.

[@dogfood2525]

It saddens me also being of this denomination to find out so many years later, late in life, the same thing you just purported. It saddens me greately. The current heritic, I mean so called priest at my former parish, is an unabashedly, shameless proclaimed Freemason and has pictures of the compass an square symbol shown in his office with him picutred in the regalia garb of the Masonic Lodge along with the other members dressed accordingly. No one cares - the Parish Counsel and the parish at large.

[@tohokugirl8144]

This is not the case in every Orthodox jurisdiction. Some ethnic churches are quite stuck in their ethnic identity and so some members are part of these groups sadly. One person at a Greek Orthodix Church stating something does not represent all Orthodoxy. Christ is our passover Lamb. He bore the sins of the world and opened to us the way of eternal life defeating sin, death and the evil one. Undoing the curse that be fell us through ancestrsl sin. His death however was not penal or judiciary. We do not follow a capricious God, like a mythical Greek or Roman God that demands wrath n blood and the death of someone.

[@dogfood2525]

@@tohokugirl8144 "He bore the sins of the world." ... That IS Justification. Read Isaiah 53 the entire chapter and focus on verse 10 when you get to it. There is a Heaven and there is a Hell. There is a day of Judgement. God wiped out almost the entire population of the world when he decided to flood the world and save Noah and his family. God is a holy God and will destroy sin unmercifully. But, God is also merciful to us, and loves us so much that the Logos became flesh. And as John the Baptist proclaimed, "behold the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world." Also look up Romans 3:25 and John 2:2

[@cabellero1120]

Orthodoxy holds a different teaching on the Fall of Man and Salvation..

[@jimoaks9270]

the whole reason for our redemption by Jesus was His mission completion on the cross. we had 1500 years of sacrifices as a model for the spilling of blood. she mentions how serene Yeshua looked while on the cross. historians of the day say He was so badly beaten that He was unrecognizable as a man. no other human would have survived the beating to even make it to the cross. if that was not to pay our wages for sin, then His mission was for nothing. one more point, He did not allow them to kill Him, He orchestrated it.

[@billk8874]

Correct, actually Isaiah 53:10 clearly states that "it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer". And this Lady says that Jesus was not in pain at the cross, maybe she should go to the cross herself and see how painful it is, actually she really doesn't have to but she must believe that "Christ suffered for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous" (1 Peter 3:18). God does not just forgive, if that was the case, God would not have caused his Son to suffer as Isaiah 53:10 states.

[@derekward3512]

@@billk8874 No one is saying that Christ never experienced pain and you clearly do not understand the Orthodox idea of the atonement. The Orthodox do not deny Christ's holy suffering on the cross, we embrace it. But in depictions of Christ on the cross in the iconography of the Orthodox Church, Christ is seen as serene and calm in his conquering of death and darkness through his own death, as we sing in the Paschal troparion "Trampling down death by death" So we aren't denying Christ's suffering on the cross, rather we are saying that through Christ's death he has conquered death as the king of glory

[@billk8874]

@@derekward3512 I don't disagree with what you say. But the primary work of Christ was to make satisfaction for our sins, to be our substitute, both in his active obedience (his life) and passive obedience (the cross), Christ satisfied the Father perfectly in order that God can receive, love us, and accept us solely based on Christ's vicarious satisfaction. And, yes he defeated death, sin, and the devil the victorious aspect of the atonement protestants accept as well. But the most important is the substitutiounary nature of the atonement and of his life, Christ is our substitute, he is the perfect man and God imputes to us his righteousness and our sins are laid on Him at the cross, so God views us as sinless Saints in Christ Jesus when we are united with Him in Baptism or in the case of adults through faith.

[@derekward3512]

@@billk8874 The Orthodox believe in a substitutionary sacrifice, but not like Protestantism does. God doesn't need to be paid anything. The Western idea of the atonement, which is completely foreign to the majority of the church father's, is a completely pagan idea that portrays the Father as an angry wrathful Zeus who demands payment. Instead the Orthodox Church teaches the recapitulation theory, in that God does not need a payment. Man was separated from God as a result of the fall and, left to his own devices, was incapable of returning to God. However, Recapitulation sees the model through which God dealt with man’s sin as a hospital rather than a courtroom. Instead of viewing the atonement as Christ paying the price for sin in order to satisfy a wrathful God, Recapitulation teaches that Christ became human to heal mankind by perfectly uniting the human nature to the Divine Nature in His person. Through the Incarnation, Christ took on human nature, becoming the Second Adam, and entered into every stage of humanity, from infancy to adulthood, uniting it to God. He then suffered death to enter Hades and destroy it. After three days, He resurrected and completed His task by destroying death.

[@billk8874]

@@derekward3512 As long as you believe that Christ's satisfied for you, in your stead and the Father is pleased with his Son and because of this he is pleased with you, I am not going to argue with you. Both Luther and Calvin said that the active obedience of Christ is credited to the sinner's account in justification when the sinner by faith believes that Christ obeyed the righteous requirements of the law in his stead (Romans 8:3-4). With that being said it is clear that it pleased God to chastise his Son, to make him suffer, as an offering for sin: Isaiah 53:5: 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isaiah 53:8: for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. Isaiah 53:10: Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

[@Kashabba1]

1John 3(8)

[@danstoian7721]

I'm sorry but there are so many problems. I don't even know where to start 1:10 Our image of Christ on the cross, doesn't show him in agony. Am... it's the cross! It can't be anything but agony. 2:16 Christ came to free us from Hades, and the the righteous with him. IF they where righteous, how come the devil had power over them? You can't have them both! Either they were righteous, so why didn't they end up in Heaven in the first place? Because humanity fall? Well then humanity is not righteous. 2:35 So he needed to get himself to Hades to free them, but then later on you say in Orthodoxy God just forgives, just like that. Why not here as well? Also why allowing himself to be killed and die on the cross? It makes no sense, why not just die of old age and get to Hades like that, as opposed to having Judas go to hell and being nailed at the cross. Orthodoxy just leaves out soooo much of the narative in order to have it it's way. It explains nothing as to why Jesus had to be crucified, as to what it means he was a ransom for us, like the Bible says, as to why he prayed this cup be taken away from him, but it was not possible.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@Dan Stoian The penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty for our sins, thus substituting the eternal punishment for the unrepented sins in hell and that way saving us from God's wrath, has always been an Orthodox teaching. It started being rejected as being supposedly non-Orthodox in the 20th century. If we look the history of the Orthodox polemics with the West regarding the Western deviations of the ancient faith we will see nowhere a rejection of the penal subsitutionary atonement (in the above-mentioned aspect) as supposedly a Western error. That the penal substitutionary atonement in the aspect of Jesus taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the unquencheable fire of hell that we would otherwise be condemned to, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment and from God’s wrath, is not a Western heresy, can be clearly seen from the first encyclical letter where the deviations of Rome are mentioned - the Encyclical letter of St.Photius (867) to the Eastern patriarchs, and from the history of the attempts for a union between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox Church because during those attempts there clearly arose the dogmatic differences between the East and the West. St.Photious says: ,,… Next, they convinced the faithful to despise the marriage of priests, thereby sowing in their souls the seeds of the Manichean heresy… Likewise, they persuaded them that all who had been chrismated by priests had to be anointed again by bishops. In this way, they hoped to show that Chrismation by priests had no value, thereby ridiculing this divine and supernatural Christian Mystery. From whence comes this law forbidding priests to anoint with Holy Chrism? From what lawgiver, Apostle, Father, or Synod They attempted by their false opinions and distorted words to ruin the holy and sacred Nicene Symbol of Faith - which by both synodal and universal decisions possesses invincible power - by adding to it that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, as the Symbol declares, but from the Son also. … Now, concerning these forerunners of apostasy, common pests and servants of the enemy, we, by divine and synodal decree, condemn them as impostors and enemies of God. It is not as though we were just now pronouncing judgement upon them, but rather, we now declare openly the condemnation ordained by the ancient synods and Apostolic Canons. If they stubbornly persist in their error, we will exclude them from the communion of all Christians. They introduced fasting on Saturdays, although that is prohibited by the 64th Apostolic Canon which states: If some cleric is found fasting on Sundays or Saturdays except the one Great Saturday before Pascha, let him be removed from the ranks of the clergy, and if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. Similarly, by the 56th canon of the holy Fourth Ecumenical Synod which states: Since we have learnt that in the city of Old Rome some, during the Great Fast, in opposition to the ecclesiastical order handed down to us, keep the fast even on Saturdays, the holy Ecumenical Synod orders that in the Church of Old Rome the Apostolic Canon which prohibits fasting on Saturdays and Sundays is to be followed exactly. Similarly, there is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra which anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. …’’ (churchmotherofgod.org/salvation-history/new-life-church-history/6257-encyclical-letter-of-saint-photius-867.html). He mentions the heresies of Rome - the celibacy of the priesthood, the rejection of the validity of the chrismation made by priests, the fasting on Saturdays, the heretical Filioque addition in the Creed. But he does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement. After the acceptance by emperor Michael VIII Paleologos of an union with Rome which was, however, short-lived, the Athonite monks of the Bulgarian Zographou monastery sent a letter to the emperor in which they pointed out the major heretical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and the penal subsitutionry atonement in the aspect of Christ taking the penalty of the Cross as a replacement of the everlasting punishement of the hell fire that we would otherwise undergo, thus saving us from that everlasting punishment, was not among them: ''26 Monkmartyrs of the Zographou Monastery on Mount Athos In the year 1274 at the Council of Lyons (in France), the Byzantine emperor Michael VIII Paleologos decided to buttress his waning power by forming a union with Catholic Rome. This step evoked universal discontent. In 1278, the emperor issued a decree to introduce the Union at Constantinople by forceful measures, if necessary. Mt. Athos stood in firm opposition to the Union. The Athonite monks sent a letter to Michael pointing out that the primacy of the Pope, his commemoration in the churches, celebrating the Eucharist with unleavened bread, the insertion of the “filioque” [“and from the Son”] into the Creed, could not be accepted by Orthodox, and they asked the emperor to change his mind. “We clearly see,” the letter said, “that you are becoming a heretic, but we implore you to forsake all this and abide in the teachings that were handed down to you.... Reject the unholy and novel teachings of a false knowledge, speculations, and additions to the Faith.” (www.oca.org/saints/lives/2016/10/10/108024-26-martyrs-of-the-zographou-monastery-on-mount-athos-at-the-hand). They do not mention the penal substitutionary atonement as a heresy. The differences between the East and West were discussed also during the negotiations at the Councils of Ferrara 1438-1439) and Florence (1439-1449) that led to the setting of the Ferraro-Florentine union of Rome and the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1452. In his 1444 Encyclical letter (orthodoxethos.com/post/the-encyclical-letter-of-saint-mark-of-ephesus) St.Mark of Ephesus who opposed the establishing of the union, does not mention among the fundamental heresies of the Roman Church he does not mention the mentioned aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement. In his 1570s' letters to the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen, Patriarch Jeremias of Constantinople (1572-1595) does not mention, especially in his commentaries on the Augsburg confession of faith, the mentioned aspect of the penal substitutionary atonement as a false teaching of the Lutherans. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople of 1672 which condemned Calvinism and the total depravity of the unregenerate man, and affirmed the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, also does not mention as a deviation of Western Christianity the penal subsitutionary atonement in the aspect that was referred to above. The Local Council in Constantinople of 1722 condemned the teaching of the Purgatory but dod not condemn the penal substitutionary atonement in the said aspect. The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 to Pope Pius IX summarizes the main heretical deviations of the Papacy - the Filioque, the papal claim of supremacy over the Church by jurisdiction but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement among the biggest heretical deviations of Rome. The Patriarchal encyclical from 1895 by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch Anthimus VII (1895-1896) from 1895 which is a reply to the Papal encyclical of Pope Leo XIII (1853-1903) Praeclara Gratulationis publicae (On the Reunion of Christendom) summarizes the heretical deviations of the Papacy but does not mention the penal subsitutionary atonement: ,,VI. And indeed for the holy purpose of union, the Eastern orthodox and catholic Church of Christ is ready heartily to accept all that which both the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously professed before the ninth century, if she has perchance perverted or does not hold it. And if the Westerns prove from the teaching of the holy Fathers and the divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the then orthodox Roman Church, which was throughout the West, even before the ninth century read the Creed with the addition, or used unleavened bread, or accepted the doctrine of a purgatorial fire, or sprinkling instead of baptism, or the immaculate conception of the ever-Virgin, or the temporal power, or the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome, we have no more to say. But if, on the contrary, it is plainly demonstrated, as those of the Latins themselves, who love the truth, also acknowledge, that the Eastern and orthodox catholic Church of Christ holds fast the anciently transmitted doctrines which were at that time professed in common both in the East and the West, and that the Western Church perverted them by divers innovations, then it is clear, even to children, that the more natural way to union is the return of the Western Church to the ancient doctrinal and administrative condition of things; for the faith does not change in any way with time or circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, for 'there is one body and one Spirit,' it is said, 'even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." The Patriarch does not mention among them the penal subsitutionary atonement in the above-mentioned aspect.

[@danstoian7721]

@@Yasen.Dobrev YES! Finally someone with common sense, thank you! Just like with Hell! More recently they started affirming "Orthodoxy never affirmed hell to be a place, but a state". First of all, I don't even know what that will change? Second, it's false.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@danstoian7721 In relation with that, it must be said that the penal subsitutionary atonement is indirectly related to the ninth anathema of St.Justinian against Origen that was proclaimed at the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553 CE). It says: ,,If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema. Anathema to Origen and to that Adamantius, who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable and wicked doctrine and to whomsoever there is who thinks thus, or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.'' If the penal substitution is rejected as a supposedly western teaching, that would mean to reject that by taking the penalty of the Cross, our Lord Jesus Christ has saved us from the eternal punishment after the Last Judgment, i.e. we would have to reject that there would even be a punishment in hell after the Last Judgment. But the rejection of the etenal punishment is condemned at the mentioned 9th anathema against Origen.

[@bethanyapostolicmission4195]

They are not problems at all if you read the Bible without the philosophical lenses of neo-platonism and gnosticism. 1. It can be more than agony, and it was! It was His glorious victory over evil! When a woman gives birth the agony of it is overshadowed by the joy of having a human being born into this world. 2. Righteous or not, all people are affected by the fact that when Adam sinned death, sin and evil came into this world. Every single person is subject to death, no matter if you are righteous or not. Even the protestants who claim to be "saved", they still die later on, isn't it? You cannot speak about Heaven (as you say) and Hell before the resurrection. So the resurrection would not be possible without the victory of Christ, and everybody would end up stuck in the hades, righteous or not. 3. God's character is to forgive without any payment. That's why Jesus Christ teaches us to forgive each other just as God forgives us. Do you require a payment when you forgive your kids, or your wife, or your mates? 4. Christ had to suffer the cross, because He made Himself like us in every aspect. He had to endure all the effects of sin and death. And He was NOT killed by anybody. He OFFERED His life, He GAVE His life, nobody was able to kill Him.

[@Yasen.Dobrev]

@@bethanyapostolicmission4195 Actually it is the suggestion that God does not punish because He is merciful, that is gnostic dualism, not the statement that He punishes. The Marcionites who were gnostic dualists rejected that God punishes because they thought that that contradicts His mercy and love, wherefore they divided Him in two Gods - a God of Old Testaments Who punishes and a God of the New Testament Who is a God of love and so does not punish. Of course, God is merciful but that does not contradict His justice as St.Irenaeus explains when he refutes Marcionism: St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 25) This world is ruled by the providence of one God, who is both endowed with infinite justice to punish the wicked, and with infinite goodness to bless the pious, and impart to them salvation. … 2. Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities. For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge. On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment. 3. Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity. And how can they call the Father of all wise, if they do not assign to Him a judicial faculty? For if He is wise, He is also one who tests [others]; but the judicial power belongs to him who tests, and justice follows the judicial faculty, that it may reach a just conclusion; justice calls forth judgment, and judgment, when it is executed with justice, will pass on to wisdom. Therefore the Father will excel in wisdom all human and angelic wisdom, because He is Lord, and Judge, and the Just One, and Ruler over all. For He is good, and merciful, and patient, and saves whom He ought: nor does goodness desert Him in the exercise of justice, nor is His wisdom lessened; for He saves those whom He should save, and judges those worthy of judgment. Neither does He show Himself unmercifully just; for His goodness, no doubt, goes on before, and takes precedency.‘‘ Of course, God’s anger is not a human passion because God is not a human and so is not passionless. St.John Chrysostom says Commentaries on Psalms, Psalm 6:,,When you hear of anything of anger and rage in God’s case, do not get the idea of anything typical of human beings; the words, you see, arise from considerateness. The divine nature, after all, is free of all these passions. On the contrary, he speaks this way so as to make an impression on the minds of more materialistic people…“ St.Gregory of Palamas says that God’s anger is the just abandonment of man :"Man was led into his captivity when he experienced God's wrath, this wrath being the good God's just abandonment of man. God had to be reconciled with the human race, for otherwise mankind could not be set free from the servitude. A sacrifice was needed to reconcile the Father on high with us and to sanctify us, since we had been soiled by fellowship with the evil one. There had to be a sacrifice which both cleansed and was clean, and a purified and sinless priest" (Christopher Veniamin, trans. Saint Gregory Palamas: The Homilies (Waymart, PA: Mount Thabor Publishing, 2009) p. 124). So God’s anger is not anger in the sense of a human passion because God is passionless but His anger refer to His abandonment of man in accordance with His justice, i.e. despite not being a passion, His anger is related to His justice.

[@Alexander-Herman]

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Hebrews 9:22 ESV

[@ChangesOfTomorrow]

If God did indeed 'just forgives' without anything else, then the crucifixion was meaningless. I think this video oversimplifies the Orthodox view to a degree where it makes little sense.

[@vaska1999]

Not meaningless at all. Its meaning is something other than the primitive, punitive/penal notion of a God who requires and demands sacrifice, something already and explicitly transcended in the Old Testament, too, when we learn from Amos that God does not want sacrifices and burn offerings but justice and mercy and loving kindness among human beings.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Keep in mind that the western teahing of penal substitution is a false teaching! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@adim00lah]

This actually makes A LOT more sense than believing that Jesus was some sort of human sacrifice to God for our sins. This idea of human sacrifice to God is a very pagan concept. where they would sacrifice people to appease their gods. But God says in the bible that this is an abomination, so it makes no sense Jesus is a human sacrifice for sin. Murder of a man is a sin, how can sin pay back sin, it makes no sense to me.

[@jameslovell2626]

Curious: Why attribute any power to the devil? Hasn't God had the power over all things since the beginning? 'I am the Lord, there is none else, I form the light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe - I the Lord do all these things' (Isaiah 45.7). How can God claim victory over something that he had power over all along?

[@DChristina]

Bridget Darling - think you've misunderstood.

[@adrianirimescu988]

He is the Saviour. The Almighty claims Victory on our behalf, for our sake, as WE alone have No Chance.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Keep in mind that our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Divine Justice never needed any penal substitution in order to be satisfied! God is not necessitus! God does not need anything in order to be satisfied! Has Christ given himself as a ransom for all people? Yes! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitus!!! Who needed that ransom? Our wounded freedom! Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! My friend, we have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed!

[@internetuser777]

You must keep in mind that Satan had power over us, not God. I think technically God could’ve executed our salvation without leaving his throne or lifting a finger, but the whole point of letting humanity fall in the first place was so that he could give us this amazing spectacle of his redemptive love. Salvation through the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection... is much more personal than just willing Satan out of existence or something. A genuine act of love.

[@IHIuddy]

I mean you can have that take. But if you still with that your also deny a bunch of scripture. Especially verses like without bloodshed there is no forgiveness of sin. The atonement is not just one view. As this women has presented without saying it. She introduced the Christus Victor view of atonement. But scripture also speaks of not only that but the ransom theory, the substitution theory the Christus victor theory, penal substitution theory it’s all of them all together. You can find each one in scripture.

[@johnnyd2383]

You are a child of theology of Ambrose and Augustine. Eastern Orthodox fathers have never endorsed theology of those two... However, it is true that earthly juridical terms were used in the Scriptures (here and there) for the sake of simple minds who can not understand the true concept of the Soteriology.

[@IHIuddy]

@@johnnyd2383 if you can pin point exactly what the OC believes on soteriology I would go along with you but you can’t. The scriptures and the early church fathers believed in multiple views. There are no dogmatic statements by the church. You’ll find like I stated above almost everyone of those views on atonement. I’ll reject the PSA model but you do find ransom, victory, reconciliation, redemption, and substitution (even though this one is very narrow). I’m not a fan of Augustine you have to take him with grains of salts. His reflections are not too terrible.

[@johnnyd2383]

​@@IHIuddy This lady does it pretty well and perhaps viewing the video several times may be needed to figure it all out (do not intend to slander you but it is not an easy concept for someone who have never heard of it). I can also give you another excellent video on the topic for your review: kzbin.info/www/bejne/b5LXYWqMrKx6nM0 ... that video covers both approaches - Theosis and juridical model, plus is far more comprehensive.

[@Awakeningspirit20]

That imagery is so powerful... why, then, do the Orthodox still believe in hell? Think about it, if He's pulling Adam and Eve up from hell (these two are indirectly the biggest mass murderers in history because they triggered sin), then can't anyone be saved from hell? If Christ is time-less (He is), then isn't His descent sort of a final destruction of this place outside of time? It makes me think... there's a lot we need to rethink. Hell perhaps is finite and maybe we all go there, only to be busted out by the Redeemer when we thought all hope was lost!

[@deaconjohn7875]

There is a difference between hades and gehenna. Hades is before the final judgement. Those who are there can be helped by the prayers of the Church and those who had begun to repent, can find release through the prayers offered for them. The old testament people there had the chance to hear the gospel announced to them by St.John the forerunner and by Jesus himself when he descended there and those who were willing were rescued because his blood was shed for all, even for those who lived before the incarnation. At the Judgement the temporal place of the dead, hades, will itself be thrown into Gehenna, which is the eternal hell, the Lake of Fire. There is no being saved from that...the final judgement has occurred at that point. Up until that last day, the day of judgement, there can be help given to the departed by the living. When God resurrects all the souls from hades for judgement day, some will be saved in the mercy of God and others who were not in the book of life ( foreknown by God) will be cast into the Lake of fire, which is the second death because they were wicked and without repentance. The righteous will participate in this judgement somehow...perhaps as intercessors? I am not sure. We do see that forgiveness can happen in this world and in the world to come. AND some will not find forgiveness at the judgement day because of their hardened hearts from rejecting mercy so many times while they were living. They were judicially hardened. MATTHEW 12: 32

[@truckdriver8416]

The substitution for sin argument? It has some truth. The crucifixion was the ending of the levitical priesthood blood sacrifices Covenant for the Forgiveness of sins. That is the context Jesus stated (it is finished). At that moment the curtain tour and the levitical priesthood ended along with all capital punishment for sin. I would even make the argument this is why no more circumcisions were necessary because that in itself is also a blood Covenant. This also begs the question what was the fruit that caused Adam and Eve to sin? The resurrection conquered death and is the most important of the two events however many Protestants would have you believe the crucifixion is the most important however it is over and was a one-time event whereas the resurrection is an ongoing event because Jesus defeated death and we as Christians all look forward to being raised for the resurrection. The New Covenant for the Forgiveness of sins was given to the apostles by Jesus At The Last Supper Jesus explain the new sacrifice and established the priesthood. The book of Hebrews explains that we now follow the priesthood of the order of Melchizedek as part of the New Covenant and that Jesus is the high priest and the audience we're all priest of the royal priesthood. Note it is self-evident women cannot be priests therefore the lecturer was addressing priest not the laity. My conclusion on the substitution for our sins Dogma it certainly applies in the context of ending the old Covenant death penalty for breaking the law. Remember God is not a hypocrite and he changes not. So he had no choice but to fulfill his own laws which he did completely. This is self-evident because we have the New Covenant now given to us by Jesus At The Last Supper with the substitution of the bread and the wine for the Forgiveness of sins. However it is also self-evident that the crucifixion did not take away the sins of the world for perpetuity as so many Protestants believe. This also explains why Protestants dismiss the Last Supper as being literally the blood and body of Jesus for the Forgiveness of sins and they completely missed the fact that it is the New Covenant. Protestants also dismiss James chapter 2 on the subject of works. Theology is applicable upon context and that is why it has been argued for more than 1000 years

[@billk8874]

Christ triumphed over sin, death, and the devil and I agree with this view of the atonement. Also that we were all ransomed and set free by Christ is biblical. However, this idea that Christ did not suffer at the cross is heresy though, Christ did suffer,. Isaiah 53:10 clearly states: "Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin". It is clearly heresy to say God just forgives, and nobody pays the penalty for sin, Christ paid it with his own life, forgiveness is not free, it cost God's Son his life and it is by his shed blood that we have been redeemed and purchased. Galatians 3:13- 3:!5 could not be clearer that Christ paid the penalty for sin, Christ made satisfaction, without this satisfaction we would all be going to hell paying for our sin, but thank God that Christ suffered an atrocious death and paid it all, Galatians 3:13-15 "13 Christ bought us with His blood and made us free from the Law. In that way, the Law could not punish us. Christ did this by carrying the load and by being punished instead of us. It is written, "Anyone who hangs on a cross is hated and punished.” 14 Because of the price Christ Jesus paid, the good things that came to Abraham might come to the people who are not Jews. And by putting our trust in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit He has promised." To teach that God forgives without punishing sin is heresy, the apostle Paul is clear that God justifies the ungodly, God does not forgive at the expense of his justice, God's justice must be satisfied, Christ's perfect obedience and death on the cross satisfied God's justice and God forgives solely on that basis, the satisfaction of Christ. This is why the word justification is a more accurate word than forgiveness, because the latter gives the impression that God doesn't care about sin, he just forgives without punishing sin. If that were the case there would have been no need for a propitiation or atonement, scripture clearly teaches that "without blood there is no remission of sins" Hebrews 9:22. God does not forgive as this heretic lady teaches because he is a nice guy, God forgives only when when there is shedding of blood, without the bloody sacrifice and death of his son, God is not a forgiving God. Even in the old testament, blood had to be shed for the remission of sins, God cannot and will not forgive without blood because God hates sin and must punish it with the shedding of blood.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

Of course, our Lord Jesus Christ felt pain on the cross! Frederica emphasised that such a pain didn't take place because God needed this pain! We have to apprehend that God was never our enemy! He is Love! We became His enemy because of our self-centered attitude towards Him! Our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma(=our hostile tendency towards God-Love) by his loving sacrifice(=the ultimate offering of love) and He conquered death(=seperation from God-Life) by his death(=the ultimate offering of love) and since then He became our Resurrection! Our ultimate trauma needed that ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Our trauma was our alienation from God who is Love and Life! The cause of this alienation was the misuse of our freedom in the ancestral sin! Because of such a misuse, our freedom was wounded and we were trapped in a hostile egocentric tendency, which is the core of sin! The antidote to such an egocentric tendency was an ultimate act of love which is the voluntary sacrifice of the absolutely innocent Christ! Such a sacrifice was a ransom for our wounded freedom! God never needed such a ransom! That ransom was an antidote of absolute Love to our hostile egocentric tendency towards God! That ransom is the ultimate act of love, which humanity needed to commit in order to get out of the egocentric tendency of sin which caused death as a result of alienation from God Who is Life and Love! No man except for the incarnated Son of God could ever commit such a perfectly innocent self-sacrificing act of love! However we needed to freely respond to God's Love because freedom is a prerequisite for love! You could neither love by force nor be loved forcibly! Christ responded to God's Love and gave himself as a ransom for all people! To Whom? To God the Father! Had God needed any ransom in order to be satisfied? NO!!! God is not necessitous, according to the Orthodox Church. Who needed that ransom? Our ultimate trauma needed an ultimate act of Iove in order to be healed! Ransom is not a penalty! Ransom is paid for the release of a captive! By accepting Christ to be formed in us (Gal. 4:19), we respond to God's Love, through His Son's Grace in His Spirit Communion! "To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and sat down with my Father on his throne." Revelation 3:21

[@billk8874]

@@dimitrispeiraias it is heresy to say that God did not need any ransom to be satisfied. The perfect obedience to God”s Law had to be satisfied, and Christ satisfied the righteous requirements of the law that are now fulfilled In all those who believe, Romans 8:1-4. Without this necessary satisfaction We would all be going to hell, because the wages of sin is death and we all sinned, except one Jesus Christ.

[@dimitrispeiraias]

The belief that God damned His Son is absolutely heretical, given that Christ is one person with both a divine and a human nature! If Christ's person was damned, His two natures would have been damned! That's a blasphemy which leads to the heretical beliefs that there is not one Divine nature of the Persons in the Trinity or the whole Trinity was damned! The blasphemous damnation of Christ may also imply that there are two Persons in Christ and His human Person was damned! Such a belief is Nestorian! My brother, we are the problem! God is the Solution! God never needed any of the animal sacrifices in the Old Testament! "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice" ( Hosea 6:6 & Matthew 9:13 & Matthew 12:7) In the Old Testament people needed to be rehabilitated from their hostile egocentric tendency towards God which is the core of the sin! A sacrifice is the ultimate offering of a victim to a beloved one! The meaning of "sacrifice" is "the ultimate offering of love"! Temporarily such an offering of love helped the people to recover from their egocentric tendency in order to have a chance to reconcile with God for a while! However such an offering was inadequate, because our trauma is huge! We needed a greater Love as an antidote to our egocentricity! The Son of God became one of us to heal our trauma by his loving sacrifice! "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." John 15:13 God never needed anything in order to be satisfied! Our trauma needed an ultimate act of love in order to be healed! Keep always in mind that our trauma (the sin) is our alienation from God who is Life! Separation from Life is death!

[@RandomCogitations]

I could be misunderstanding her words, but it seems she is teaching everyone will be saved. She says God forgives for free and that no one has to pay the price of sin. If I understand her correctly, I have to disagree. If, however, I have misunderstood what she said, I hope someone will explain her position more clearly to me.

[@TheAncientLight]

This is just a short video, you misunderstood her words, The Orthodox Church doesn’t believe in “universal salvation” or “saved by faith alone”