Does anyone know much about the Eastern Orthodox view of the atonement? Know of anywhere I can find out about it?
I believe that, generally speaking, the EO view of the atonement is very different to the Western mainstream view (i.e. satisfaction and substitution). That seems quite significant, given the dogmatic force with which the Western view is presented as correct. So I'd like to reliably learn a little more about the EO view.
0
4 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 34,244 posts
Omega
Posted 05 December 2010 - 10:41 AM
Like a number of EO doctrines, it's far more mystic. There is a participatory element which is Scriptural, however, and the emphasis on theosis means that the EO understand the expiatory act to change the offender, not the offended. Thus they would agree with us on the necessity of participation in Christ's life, and that the purpose of the atonement was to change us, not God.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
#3
-
- Members
-
- 6,442 posts
Chi
Posted 22 December 2010 - 09:43 PM
Quote
Like a number of EO doctrines, it's far more mystic.
"and will smite every HORSE OF THE PEOPLE with blindness"
Read more: http://wiki.answers....e#ixzz1K0LLUt00
Read more: http://wiki.answers....e#ixzz1K0LLUt00
#4
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 3,175 posts
Tau
Posted 23 December 2010 - 01:29 PM
Thanks for the reply, Fort (I've only just seen it!).
#5
-
- Christadelphian MD
-
- 34,244 posts
Omega
Posted 23 December 2010 - 02:12 PM
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”
Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)
______________________________________________________________________
Apologetics
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
