Eastern Views of the Cross

[Tercel]

Pomanzanski's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology should give you the Orthodox frame of reference in addressing your inquiry...
http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Dogma...8266905&sr=1-1

Another is Romanides': Patristic Theology
http://www.amazon.com/Patristic-Theo.../dp/B0029D6XNY

And another of his, in both Greek and English:
An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics
http://www.amazon.com/Outline-Orthod.../dp/0974561843

Hi George, your third link was wrong, and I've corrected it above.

That third book is searchable on Amazon (sadly the other two are not). It seems pretty brief in what it has to say about salvation and the cross. Sadly I've found that's all too common among Eastern Orthodox writings. I have yet to encounter a clear and sustained explanation of full Eastern Orthodox thinking on the issue. I've had to learn things piecemeal through the various writings of Timothy/Kallistos Ware, and ploughing through Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology and Vladimir Lossky's The Image and Likeness of God and the relevant sections of Georges Florovsky's Collected Works. At no point did I encounter a single clear satisfactory explanation of EO beliefs on the cross and the atonement, though I gained an overall understanding as a result. George, it's possible the first two books you linked to above contain a simple and clear description of EO beliefs on the subject, but given past experience I'm not going to hold my breath... I've simply come to believe that EO prefer poetry and mysticism to clear explanations and frankly I don't think most EO believers have a very clear idea themselves on these subjects simply because their church doesn't teach very clearly on these subjects. Rather, the EO Church is heir to a massive mixed and complex tradition, but one which lacks clear and concise summaries and explanations.

The secret truth is that Orthodoxy dos not regard justification as a central feature of its theology,
But instead tends to lump it together with sanctification, but not in the way you might think...
As YOU understand justification, as a one time event, we understand sanctification, given at baptism...
And as YOU understand sanctification as an ongoing progression, so also we understand justification...

For us, our justification is progressive, increasing as we progress in repentance...

And our sanctification is complete in baptism, except insofar as we sin afterward,
in which case we are restored by confession and repentance...

So that you will not find the great theological treatises in Orthodoxy on justification [eg righteousness...]

We understand righteousness as one's relationship to God in deeds...

And sanctification is the holiness - eg the separation from the world -
given us in the laver of regeneration of Baptism into Christ's death from the world...

I agree George that these can all be very confusing. Over the years, I have come to believe that these terms 'justification' and 'sanctification' and 'holiness' are more confusing than they are helpful when Eastern Orthodox Christians dialogue with Western Christians. Likewise I think the Eastern Orthodox term "deification" can be initially very confusing to Western Christians. I have found the phrases "moral transformation" and "positive moral change" to be very good unambiguous replacement terms, and I now prefer to use these terms wherever possible.

An alternative Orthodox approach that examines "Orthodox Problems with Penal Substitution" is given here...
http://www.orthodox-christianity.com...-substitution/

Well I see they quote me! ('Theogeek' is my now-unused blog) That's nice of them.


DaveKicks,

If I may be so bold, I would like to recommend my own book about the early Christian beliefs on the cross and salvation. While I am not Eastern Orthodox, I am pretty well-read in their writings and conversant with their views (and apparently EO websites quote me). I believe Eastern Orthodox Christians would strongly agree with a massive proportion of the things my book covers, since the book is about early Christian beliefs, and the Eastern Orthodox church has largely retained most of those beliefs much better than Western Christianity. I feel it's important to note that unlike Eastern Orthodox writings, my book prioritizes clarity - clear explanations were a huge priority for me during the writing process and reader feedback has been very positive in this regard. Actually, I believe a lot of Eastern Orthodox Christians could really benefit from reading my book simply in order to get a clear explanation of the things that their Church teaches. It does seem a bit bold to claim my book teaches Eastern Orthodox theology on salvation and the cross better than the Eastern Orthodox church does, but on reflection that might actually be true. (See my signature below for a link)

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I've simply come to believe that EO prefer poetry and mysticism to clear explanations

LOL!

Moral Transformation is a term more accessible to the west, but is no equivalent of theosis...

When one becomes one with God for a brief period of time, be it a few seconds, minutes, hours or days,
then that experience itself does indeed morally transform a person,
BUT
That transformation is a consequence, an almost minor consequence,
of the event of theosis, or deification, which is life-transforming...

It flat out defies ANY "Clear Explanation"...

It is not a preference for Mysticism..
But a dumbfoundedness in the Presence of God in unity with Him...

If'n ya ain't a-bin thar, ya kain't know...

Arsenios

[Tercel]

Moral Transformation is a term more accessible to the west, but is no equivalent of theosis...

Sure, it's only a part of theosis. I was thinking of "moral transformation" more as an equivalent of "justification".

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Sure, it's only a part of theosis. I was thinking of "moral transformation" more as an equivalent of "justification".

That's the point - Spiritual growth, development and, well, maturity constitute our degree of relationship with God... They are a product of our repentance, and of God's response to our repentance... So that maturity in the Faith is progressive, and is advanced in repentance, and is retracted in sinning... It is the acquisition of virtue in the face of temptations through acts of repentance that overcome the demons...

So that "justification" CAN be understood as a kind of GRADUAL moral transformation, I suppose, except that its foundation in repentance does not itself remove the infirmity in us that requires such courageous acts of repentance to overcome - And indeed, this infirmity of soul and body is only healed by the grace of God, and this happens only after we demonstrate to God's satisfaction that we desire it, for IF we [also by His grace] continue in overcoming the temptations, God will remove them for us by making firm our members... And if we do not, He will not... The ontological righteousness is given by God, and the moral righteousness is acquired piecemeal by us in deeds of repentance... Once the weakness is strengthened by God, however, we then no longer NEED the moral decision to overcome, because the temptation is gone... And then other, greater ones arise, as we go from the glory of God in overcoming the lesser, on to the greater glory of God in overcoming the greater, going from glory to glory... And the temptations of demons becomes the very MEANS of our ascent to God...

I mean, Tercel, it is an AWESOME thing, this Faith!

Arsenios

[Jawa Man]

I've simply come to believe that EO prefer poetry and mysticism to clear explanations and frankly I don't think most EO believers have a very clear idea themselves on these subjects simply because their church doesn't teach very clearly on these subjects. Rather, the EO Church is heir to a massive mixed and complex tradition, but one which lacks clear and concise summaries and explanations.

Tercel, I wonder what you would think of the book I linked to earlier. I have not read it yet but I think it is next on my list. Maybe you would find it has a similar angle as your own book?

[Tercel]

Tercel, I wonder what you would think of the book I linked to earlier. I have not read it yet but I think it is next on my list. Maybe you would find it has a similar angle as your own book?

Yeah, it looks interesting.

Just reading the comments about it makes me worry a little that they might have predetermined their answers about justification due to their choice of the desert fathers as source material. That is, from the various writings of the Desert Fathers I'm read, they come across as very ascetic and thus it's not really surprising that the Desert Fathers' understanding of justification should have a strong ascetic slant to it. This leads me to wonder if the Desert Fathers are really a good representation of Eastern Orthodox thinking on this subject, and to suspect that the answer is "no". I know the Desert Fathers are pretty popular within Orthodoxy, but let's face it: The vast majority of Orthodox Christians in history have not migrated into the desert to live lives of extreme self-denial - so the Desert Fathers' aren't typical of Orthodoxy. I strongly suspect that if one surveyed other Orthodox theologians one would get a far less ascetically oriented idea of justification that what arises from the writings of the Desert Fathers. So I would think that we should be careful to realise that the understanding of justification that emerges from the writings of the desert fathers is an Orthodox understanding of justification rather than the Orthodox understanding of justification.

For another historical view on justification, there's a book on my reading list on Origen's doctrine of justification, which I'm looking forward to reading.

[James-Scott]

Some Very Broad Strokes:
There is not a universal consensus of the primary objective of the cross: Did Jesus primarily satisfy God's wrath over sin (the "penal substitution" view emphasized in the western Church)? Or did Jesus primarily defeat evil/liberate us from death (the "Christus Victor" view emphasized in the eastern Church)?

A Request:
Can anyone point me in the direction of prominent, post-reformation sources discussing this from the east? I'm aware of Gustaf Aulén's book (not actually a product of the Orthodox churches but supportive of that view) and I'd like to read some more.

Thanks in advance for any help!

I believe the Eastern view.
I do not believe that God made Jesus guilty of our sins so He could turn His wrath on Him, punish Him, and kill Him. It is unScriptural and unTraditional.

[DaveKicks]

I believe the Eastern view.
I do not believe that God made Jesus guilty of our sins so He could turn His wrath on Him, punish Him, and kill Him. It is unScriptural and unTraditional.

Ummm.... thanks for not even trying to answer the question.

[DaveKicks]

I wanted to give everyone an update on what I've gleaned from the resources you pointed out:

George,
I have a copy of Pomazansky's Orthodox Dogmatic Theology but haven't gotten a chance to work through it. I'm very interested in the sections on "Man's fall into sin" and "God and the Salvation of Mankind." I've listened to Hopko's sermon on God's wrath and was not impressed. His final argument looked something like: "Scripture speaks of God's wrath more frequently in regards to God's people breaking covenant than to the rest of the world. Therefore God's wrath is a post-salvation issue." That logic is so deficient it borders on irresponsible.

Jawa,
I'm halfway through "Prayer of the Publican." It's an interesting read and I'm gaining some insights on early . When I finish it I'm still going to need to find a way to determine the degree to which modern eastern Christians follow/adhere to the desert fathers. Any help to that end would be appreciated!

Thanks everyone!