For non-closed minded

[James the Persian]

The Truth,

None of your quotes are from my posts. I suggest you look again if you wish to show that I have contradicted myself.

James

 

[TashaN]

Although you could have written this more clearly, I think you've stumbled on an important point that differentiates the Orthodox view from that of most western Christians. We do not hold to the idea that Christ was sacrificed as the only price acceptable for God to forgive our sins (this is the juridical model of salvation) and we have never done so. Of course God can, and does, forgive any sin we truly repent of and He is not bound to do something such as sacrifice his Son before He can do so (this I would refer to as the deification of necessity).

This is what leads me to my assumption but i may be wrong !!!

i guess you meant you do believe in the cruci-FICTION but not in the purpose for most christians nowdays believe Jesus crucify for.

am i right? please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[James the Persian]

This is what leads me to my assumption but i may be wrong !!!

i guess you meant you do believe in the cruci-FICTION but not in the purpose for most christians nowdays believe Jesus crucify for.

am i right? please correct me if i'm wrong.

I think you've got it right. We and the Oriental Orthodox reject the juridical view of salvation and always have done, but that doesn't mean we reject the Crucifixion. Without it and the subsequent Resurrection our soteriology wouldn't make any sense either. We don't, then, question the events themselves, only the interpretation that some other Christian groups have made as to their significance.

James

 

[michel]

We do believe in the Crucifixion (how did you manage to read that we didn't into my post?) but we do not assign the same significance to it as is commonly done in western Christianity. We do not believe that it was a sacrifice to God to save us from His wrath, but a self-sacrifice of God Incarnate that defeated the hold of sin and death over us. That last part also answers your question as to whether we believe Christ is God - we do.

James

James, I am sorry; I don't 'Get the hang' of this...........

I honestly don't understand the difference between your beliefs and those of Western Christianity - could you spell it out for me, please ?

 

[James the Persian]

James, I am sorry; I don't 'Get the hang' of this...........

I honestly don't understand the difference between your beliefs and those of Western Christianity - could you spell it out for me, please ?

I thought I'd already done this several times before, but I'll try again. Bear in mind that I'm necessarily speaking in generalisations and don't believe all western Christians have the same position on this.

The usual western view is that our sins (or Adam's depending on whether or not you adhere to the Original Sin ideas of Bl. Augustine) are so great that the only way God could forgive us was to Sacrifice His Son on the cross. In effect He suffered the punishment that should rightfully have been ours and saved us from God's wrath. This results in a view of God somewhat like a medieval tyrant king whose honour has to be satisfied before he can forgive a crime and also seems to lead to an overemphasis on the Passion rather than the entire Incarnation. This is what we call the juridical view as its dominant metaphor is that of God as the angry judge and the Church as rather like a court room.

In contrast, the dominant metaphor in our soteriology is of God as the loving Father, Christ as the Physician and the Church as a hospital. Consequently we see sin in terms of sickness requiring healing rather than crimes requiring punishment. In our view, then, salvation was not achieved by Christ sacrificing Himself in our stead, but rather by His Incarnating as a man. His entire Incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension is important and there is not such an emphasis on the suffering of the Cross. Basically, we see Christ as restoring mankind to communion with God. Because He is fully man and fully God He acts as the bridge between the human and the divine, reconciling us and allowing us to come to be closer to God through following His example and believing in Him. In dying and resurrecting he destroyed the hold of sin and death over mankind, but He was not a sacrifice to His Father (which idea, incidentally, implies that God is not omnipotent - surely an omnipotent being doesn't have to do anything to forgive us?).

I'm not sure how clear what I have written is, and I would note that this is really just scratching the surface, but if you have any more questions on this I'd be happy to try and answer them.

James

 

[michel]

Actually, that was very clear to me - you really explained it in properly understandable terms. You mentioned that you 'have done this before' - well, if practice makes perfect.......


Thank you ever so much - and I want to emphasize how easy you managed to make that sound. The trouble with 'Novices' like me is that scholars tend to talk in 'scolar speak' which often leaves me even more confused than I was before. You should be a teacher - you have a knack.

 

[James the Persian]

Actually, that was very clear to me - you really explained it in properly understandable terms. You mentioned that you 'have done this before' - well, if practice makes perfect.......


Thank you ever so much - and I want to emphasize how easy you managed to make that sound. The trouble with 'Novices' like me is that scholars tend to talk in 'scolar speak' which often leaves me even more confused than I was before. You should be a teacher - you have a knack.

Thank you very much. Actually, I'd like to be a priest (which I guess has a certain teaching aspect to it), but I'm not sure I'll ever get the chance - trying to support two small children and a wife while attending the seminary could be rather difficult.

I did actually consider being a teacher at one point but was persuaded not to by my parents (both teachers) because of the horrendous situation in modern British education. I'm sure you know what I mean. I think I would have liked it, though, if I'd actually been allowed to teach, rather than merely trying to keep control and doing tons of paper work. You've given me an idea, though. Maybe I should volunteer to teach the kids at church in a sort of Sunday school. You never know, it might work, I might do some good, and I'd definitely enjoy it.

James

 

[michel]

And I am sure that you would be excellent at it; I joke not.


I understand what you mean about teachers though - a very hard life, with hands tied. I always recognize that 'spark' when someone explains something - I am lucky enough to be good at explaining maths to children; half of the art is in making it sound fun, and exiting, and novel - and I can tell, you have that touch. Well, you now know what to do.........

 

[TashaN]

The usual western view is that our sins (or Adam's depending on whether or not you adhere to the Original Sin ideas of Bl. Augustine) are so great that the only way God could forgive us was to Sacrifice His Son on the cross.

* is there many kinds of sin?

according to many dictionaries i found out that a sin means:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
   1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
   2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

intr.v., sinned, sin·ning, sins.

1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

[Middle English sinne, from Old English synn.]


so if Jesus was as a sacrifice for our pervious sins so what about our new sins?

do we have to search for someone to sarifice himself for the latest sins?

otherwise you have 2 meanings for the sin ?

but i found out that in the bible the meaning of sin in the bible is only one and all sins supposed to be forgiven by God" the father" if we asked him to forgive ... isn't it?

 

[michel]

* is there many kinds of sin?

according to many dictionaries i found out that a sin means:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Theology.
   1. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
   2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
3. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

intr.v., sinned, sin·ning, sins.

1. To violate a religious or moral law.
2. To commit an offense or violation.

[Middle English sinne, from Old English synn.]


so if Jesus was as a sacrifice for our pervious sins so what about our new sins?

do we have to search for someone to sarifice himself for the latest sins?

otherwise you have 2 meanings for the sin ?

but i found out that in the bible the meaning of sin in the bible is only one and all sins supposed to be forgiven by God" the father" if we asked him to forgive ... isn't it?

I can only repeat my friend Jame's comments, which I think you have misunderstood;

"His entire Incarnation, birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension is important and there is not such an emphasis on the suffering of the Cross. Basically, we see Christ as restoring mankind to communion with God. Because He is fully man and fully God He acts as the bridge between the human and the divine, reconciling us and allowing us to come to be closer to God through following His example and believing in Him."

James is, in effect, saying That Christ's life on Earth, together with his death was a means of 're connecting' us to God; by our believing in Jesus Christ, and by attempting to follow his example, we will be forgiven our sins by God.

But here again, there is debate, because James' 'style' of Christianity is different from the one practiced in the West. It must be very confusing to you.

 

[glasgowchick]

So, how does one repent ? To say" 'sorry';I'm ok I'm forgiven" is obviously not repentance - but what if even though we try, we keep repeating the sin? - despite trying hard not to?

Hi Michel, God knows we try hard to stop doing the things we hate to do but do them anyway..It seems to me that Paul had the same problem. In Romans 7:14-25 it says " For we know that the law is Spiritual, but I am of Flesh, sold into the bondage of sin, For what I am doing I don't understand for I am not practicing what I would like to do but I am doing the very thing I hate. But If I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is Good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it but sin that dewells in me That is, in my flesh for the willing is present in me, but the doing of good is not For the Good that I want ,I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it but the sin that dewells in me I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good For I joyfully concur with the law of God in my inner man. But I see a different law in my members of my body waging war against the law of mt mind and making me a prisoner of the Law of sin which is in my members..Wretched man that I am Who will set me free from the body of this death..Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord So then, on the one hand, I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other with my flesh the law of sin...

Michel, Looks like paul had some battle going on there Huh, he wants to do right but can't, Paul said he was a wretched man, but who was going to set him free, God through Jesus..We live each day trying to please God to the best of our ability, we fall many times, wether in heart or deed..maybe its the same sin or 100 different sins I don't feel it matters, if we are truely trying to keep Gods Commandments every day, like Paul we can say " wretched man that I am" but we can have the same confidence as Paul too when he asks " who will set me free from the body of this death ? " Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord...Also read 2Cor 12 Paul talks about a thorn in His flesh...

God Bless Michel, I hope this helps at least a wee bit..

 

[michel]

Thanks Jackie; the theory does - but there is a distance between theory and the application of it.


God bless.

 

[Hazel]

actually i was wondering and asking about things in another thread but no one could help me so i'm trying to get some answeres in here if you don't mind.


* I'm really so confused

if you didn't do any sin for example rape so what you are repenting from?
why anyone who kills and rapes will not be repentant???

There is no one on the entire earth who has not sinned ie: told a lie, been cruel to someone else, etc.

is that means there are some sins which we can consider as sins which we can repent from and some not or you mean the first repent means to repent from the sin you didn't ever knew it exist and you don't have any relationship with it which is ( original sin ) ?

how comes ? I'M CONFUSED :banghead3

God is love and love from God is so comprehenisve word that cover everybody even sinner so WHERE DO SINNER SUPPOSED TO GO IF THEY HAVE SINNED ?


Can i tell you please a logic example any human being can understand?

what is your opnion about a respectable guy and we can say for example a proffesor who suddnly while he was teaching stand over his table and started dancing ???

Will you say ... WHAT THE ???

it's the same case when you think our God made himself in human form which is unrespectable to imagine that about our creater when he made himself a toy for some jews ( his children and his creatures ) to make him suffer and crucify him and all this to make all his children ( us ) clean from sins WHICH HE CAN SIMPLY FORGIVE IT unless there is nothing such exist as a forgivness and what is the point and purpose of forgivness if he can't ((( CAN NOT ))) forgive unless he let some tiny creatures play with his body ((( AND FOR THE SAKE OF GOD DO YOU STILL THINK HE IS THE CREATER OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH MAKES HIM GREATER THAN EVERYTHING EVEN GREATER THAN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE ))) ?????????????????????????????????????

God created the world to be perfect. He created humans to be perfect. He also gave humans free will because he loves us so very much. He didn't want mindless robots. Then Adam and Eve sinned. They made a decision to abandon the commands of God and the result was imperfection. God is so holy that he cannot stand imperfection, it is abhorrent to him. This is where the practice of animal sacrifice came in, blood had to be paid in order for God to come near to his people. The sins had to be atoned for. Again this was not how the world was intended to be but rather a result of sin.

Then God sent his only son (a part of the trinity and therefore wholly God) to be an everlasting sacrifice. Because his son was human and sinless he was able to pay the sin debt for mankind. It was the ultimate example of love. You are right that the experience would be extremely humbling, but it was necessary because God wanted us to have a chance to live with him forever.

PLEASE I HAVE NO IDEA WHY DO NOT USE OUR MIND BECAUSE IF WE JUST SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE BLINDLY I WILL JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTION COMES TO ME SAYING go and have some faith from then come back to me so i can explain for you !!!!!

I'M CONFUSED SO ANYONE HERE CAN HELP WITH WHAT I JUST POSTED IN HERE?

:help:

 

[TashaN]

There is no one on the entire earth who has not sinned ie: told a lie, been cruel to someone else, etc.

you are so right devinitely but can you tell me why you said the following quote?

God is so holy that he cannot stand imperfection

are you assuming that God has no idea about his creatures and he doesn't know that they may sin? even thought he is holy and can't stand imperfection but for this reason he mentioned the word ( forgivness ) to forgive the one who sin without the need of sacrificing his son because he can simply forgive the sin instead of letting human beings ( his creatures ) to crucify his son.

Then God sent his only son (a part of the trinity and therefore wholly God) to be an everlasting sacrifice. Because his son was human and sinless he was able to pay the sin debt for mankind. It was the ultimate example of love. You are right that the experience would be extremely humbling, but it was necessary because God wanted us to have a chance to live with him forever.

by the way until now i don't recall about how you see Jesus !!!

is he a son of God or God himself in human form because some are caliming he is a person by himself (a son) and some are saying he is God in human form.

love is to kill your son for the sake of your creatures?
love in blood?
love in suffering?
like when you made toys then when you become angry over them you bring your own son killing him for the sake of these toys.

the question is why if God has the magic word FORGIVNESS he didn't just forgave human beings?

no would could answer !!!

once there is a sin we have forgivness but you don't care about the coneption of it then what is the forgivness stand for and what is the benfit of it if God when he is angry we have to sacrifice a sinless human being to make him happy ? :banghead3​

 

[TashaN]

Basically, we see Christ as restoring mankind to communion with God. Because He is fully man and fully God He acts as the bridge between the human and the divine

i guess i must start a new thread and you may answer my question about this because i don't want to spoil the title of currect thread.


now get your new thread in here Michel

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=225354#post225354


Peace

 

[flacsmada]

Sorry i haven't read post in a while. The few responses after mine am the ones i am talking to. Romans 5,6, and 7 paul speaks to this issue to the romans. He states we are forgiven once and for all(also says this in hebrews 10 i believe) then he adds the answer to your very question "you are forgiven. Does this mean you continue in your sin? May it not be so." The fact is we are forgiven already and when Jesus washes the sins from your life His spirit becomes one with you and "transforms you into a new creation" from then on your desire is not to do evil. Therefore, if you are a child of GOd's you are forgiven so can feel freedom and peace about not having to prove yourself or do something at all to enter into Heaven or relationship with GOd, but at the same time you have Jesus tender heart within yours starting to guide you so you don't have a taste for the sin in your life anymore, but the peace that comes from relationship with Christ(abundant life) drives you.

 

[Riane]

the question is why if God has the magic word FORGIVNESS he didn't just forgave human beings?

Ok, this is my first post out of the introduction forum, so bear with me here.

(Note: I'm coming from the juridicial model that IacobPersul mentioned in earlier posts. This is my understanding of the question from that perspective.)

Why didn't God just say 'I forgive you' - why did Jesus have to die? I like the following analogy to explain the situation.

Say I allow someone (say my brother) to borrow my car, and give them the responsibility not to damage it in any way, to which they agree. My brother then borrows my car, and subsequently goes out and causes an accident that totals it. Now obviously, I'm not going to be happy about that because I trusted my brother, but because I love him, I won't hold the damage to the car against him.

He may be as sorry as ever, but that doesn't change the fact that the car needs to be fixed for me to be able to use it again, and someone has to pay the bill for that to be fixed. My brother has no way to pay that bill - it is an impossibility for him.

What many Christians believe is that God sent his son to earth to pay the bill for the car to be fixed, so to speak. I could be as sorry as I liked, but that wouldn't change the fact that sin is something that God can't just overlook magically - it has to be paid for in some way. (Romans 6:23 says, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.")

And that's the amazing thing - God sending his son to die in our place was a gift, something he did because he loves every one of us who have sinned. And that gift is free - all I have to do is believe that Jesus did what my Bible says he did.

Also, on repentance: (this is from the notes in my NIV Study Bible). "Repentance is more than a change of mind or feeling sorry for one's sins. It is a radical and deliberate turning or returning to God that results in moral and ethical change and action." (NIV note on Matt. 4:17)

So repentance involves action, not just emotion or words. It is a turning away from sin and a turning toward God. That's why someone who says they have repented but continues to committ murder or rape has not truly repented - their actions testify that their words are false.

 

[michel]

Riane;

A beautiful post, and so well said; fruballs are on their way - I had a feeling I would enjoy your posts!

 

[Riane]

Thanks Michel.

I actually thought of another analogy after posting that one, just to add another dimension to the forgiveness thing.

(This is closer to the courtroom/judge analogy actually.)

I've been called into a courtroom for a crime, for doing something that is against the law. The evidence is brought before the judge, and the verdict is in - I did the crime I'm accused of, and I have to pay the penalty. Now, the judge is a good judge and so he can't simply let me off the hook without pronouncing a sentence on me or calling me guilty - it would actually be incredibly negligent and dare I say 'evil' for him to do so. (Wouldn't we cry foul if a judge in the real world let a convicted criminal go free without having any kind of sentence or conviction pronounced on them?)

So the judgement is handed down, but then the judge steps down from the bench and does an amazing thing - he offers himself to take the punishment he just handed down for me, because he loves me. No strings attached, no questions asked - it's a gift.

Some questions that often stem from this kind of discussion are: 'Well if God is such a good God, then why did he make rules in the first place, so that if we break them we go to hell? If we choose anything other than what he decreed, we're doomed. How can that be freedom?'

Using the law analogy again, I would answer that having laws is hardly a sign that God want's to restrict freedom, or doom us to hell like a tyrant. Why do we have laws in the civilised world? To define what IS freedom - we find freedom within the law, not by breaking it. And although many laws nowadays come into existence simply as a way to stop people hurting on infringing others, what I think we sometimes lose sight of is that laws aren't all inherently restrictive, but are actually freeing.

God's law is not a set of 'rules' that are there to restrict and hinder people from freedom or fun, but they show us what is best for us. Example: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength, and love your neighbour as your strength."

If we believe that God created us, then it makes sense that he knows how we can be most happy and free, and thus he give us 'laws' that show us the things that will give us freedom, or to warn us against the things that will put us in bondage (sin). He made the machine; he knows the best fuel for it to run on; thus we have the Bible, God's instruction manual to mankind.

 

[James the Persian]

Riane,

I must echo Michel in praising your posts, despite disagreeing with the juridical model you're trying to explain.

For me, however, your first analogy (of the car) falls down with respect to the juridical model. It sounds much more like the Orthodox position - Christ had to be Incarnated to 'fix' human nature, that's certainly our belief and this fits in with the idea of Christ (metaphorically) as chief physician. As such, I wholeheartedly endorse your original analogy but fail to see how it relates to the juridical model, there being no punishment involved.

Your second analogy does succeed in illustrating the juridical model. However, it also illustrates a major issue we have with it. Your judge has to punish the criminal because he is bound to follow laws which he did not make. In other words he is subject to the very same laws that the criminal is. Were he an absolute monarch rather than a judge this would not be the case as any law he had made he could just as easily unmake - he wouldn't have to do anything. This is what I referred to as the deification of necessity. If God has to do something, if He is subject to some law of necessity then He is not sovereign, necessity is (i.e. it makes no sense to say that God is both omnipotent and had to do this or couldn't do that).

I look forward to reading more of your posts.

James