[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / chicas / had / hikki / lovelive / strek / sw / webmcams ]

/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Christchan is back up after maintenance! The flood errors should now be resolved. Thank you to everyone who submitted a bug report!

File: a17194e289ec866⋯.png (537.16 KB, 382x512, 191:256, 467978978.png)

33cb5d No.580945

I was looking up the differences between Catholic and Orthodox and came across this.

>Original sin is understood differently by the Orthodox, who do not see it as the inheritance of guilt passed down from generation to generation, but rather an inheritance of a fallen condition of humanity. This difference affects the Orthodox understanding of baptism, the Virgin Mary, the Atonement, and the whole approach to sin and salvation.

>After Rome’s separation from the rest of the universal Church in 1054AD, it adopted a new, previously unknown view of Christ’s atonement for sin called the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.” Following the theology of Anselm of Canterbury (1109AD), the view holds that God was offended by man’s sin and required reparation (satisfaction) to be made before He could forgive man. Since man’s crime was committed against the infinite God, the payment would also have to be infinite. Therefore, Jesus Christ made satisfaction through the Cross, restoring God’s honor and undoing His being offended. This teaching is rejected by the Orthodox who view Christ’s voluntary sacrifice as the expression of God’s love and a means of rescuing man from death, not God from being offended. The Satisfaction Theory makes God the problem, not man. The focus becomes God’s need to be appeased rather than man’s need to be healed. In effect, it turns the atonement on its head, requiring God to change, not man! The Orthodox hold that it is man who needs repentance not God.

http://www.wenorthodox.com/2012/08/whats-the-difference-between-orthodox-and-catholic-or-protestant/

Could some Orthodox expand on this? The Catholic view is the only one I've ever known(despite technically being a Protestant) so this is a bit difficult for me to grasp.

33cb5d No.580949

I should clarify. Since, from my understanding of this, Orthodox Christians don't believe that Christ came to take the punishment for our sins in our place, what then is the significance of the crucifixion in Orthodox theology?


0cd9d9 No.580950

>Original sin is understood differently by the Orthodox, who do not see it as the inheritance of guilt passed down from generation to generation, but rather an inheritance of a fallen condition of humanity.

I'm a catholic and I was always teached the "orthodox version".


46d2b7 No.580956

>>580949

In short, Christ's death and resurrection defeats death, freeing humanity from the bondage of sin.

I


207caf No.580980

File: 3477cfb7eae6b5d⋯.jpg (168.58 KB, 685x900, 137:180, DUCCIOCrucifixion.jpg)

>>580945 (OP)

>as the inheritance of guilt passed down from generation to generation, but rather an inheritance of a fallen condition of humanity.

Meanwhile in reality:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

>Since man’s crime was committed against the infinite God, the payment would also have to be infinite. […] The focus becomes God’s need to be appeased rather than man’s need to be healed.

Meanwhile in reality:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-christ-have-to-suffer

See also CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) 604:

>By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love, prior to any merit on our part: "In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." God "shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

The best source on Catholic theology are actual Catholic theologians. "Catholic Encyclopedia" (it's online as it's in public domain) is a very solid reliable source on all matters Catholic.


8709e0 No.580995

>>580945

I was going to lament that the fact that the same misinformation from the same source was posted 3 times, but this is actually another Orthodox source telling people outright falsehoods about Catholic doctrine. Catholic teaching holds the same view of original sin as the fallen nature of man and use terms like concupiscence to describe man's inclination to sin. It is also a wrong on the Catholic views of atonement, which follow Aquinas' theories, not Anselm's, and regard atonement as man reconciling with a just God as attributed to Orthodox theology, not placating an angry one. I don't know who's teaching Orthodox Christians these lies about Catholic doctrine, but it's sad to see Orthodox priests spreading misinformation about our beliefs.


b3649b No.581006

File: f520a8a8b67adba⋯.jpg (63.54 KB, 599x502, 599:502, f520a8a8b67adbae2a04d03646….jpg)

>>580949

Theosis. We are to become by grace everything that God is by nature, inasmuch as he took on and elevated that nature in the Person of Christ. Through Christ's triumph over death we are to be restored to that natural state wherein we find the true meaning of our existence which is in union with God. This is why the Eastern Church refers to Christ as the Second Adam as he succeeds where Adam fails.


47d4bb No.581723

>>580956

So, in clearer words, Christ's death does nothing, it's only the resurrection?

>>581006

>We are to become by grace everything that God is by nature

Why do Orthodoxes think this is somehow reconcilable with strict monotheism?


619eb5 No.581731

>>581723

>Why do Orthodoxes think

Its not just Orthodox to begin with.

To begin with, in Psalm God addresses humans "ye are gods and all of you are sons of The Most High." (82:6). Jesus cites this in John 10:34

as for denomination:

Catholics:

>460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."

Anglicans:

>Whereby, as before He of ours, so now we of His are made partakers. He clothed with our flesh, and we invested with His Spirit. The great promise of the Old Testament accomplished, that He should partake our human nature; and the great and precious promise of the New, that we should be "consortes divinae naturae", "partake his divine nature," both are this day accomplished


619eb5 No.581733

Also

>>581006

>This is why the Eastern Church refers

wrong Bible, hence every Christian denomination refers to him as second Adam


70ca3d No.581748

>>580945

>After Rome’s separation from the rest of the universal Church in 1054AD, it adopted a new, previously unknown view of Christ’s atonement for sin called the “Satisfaction Theory of Atonement.”

Does this include other Apostolic(but non Eastern Orthodox) churches, such as Eastern Catholics?


e2491b No.581753

>>580945

Your whole OP is worthless. Your very first point states that we believe in some kind of "inherited guilt". This is outright wrong and you should take a book and read about it rather then posting baseless hearsay.


47d4bb No.581763

>>581731

>To begin with, in Psalm God addresses humans "ye are gods and all of you are sons of The Most High." (82:6)

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no god formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

>Jesus cites this in John 10:34

Yeah, and He doesn't interpret it to mean a multitude of true gods exist or will exist.


619eb5 No.581775

>>581763

Well thank you for this """valuable""" information that nobody on this board knew before.

Anywho, I dont think that you get the meaning of Theosis/Divinization AT ALL.


47d4bb No.581830

>>581775

>I dont think that you get the meaning of Theosis/Divinization AT ALL

I'm not talking about "theosis/divinization", I'm talking about this >>581006

>We are to become by grace everything that God is by nature

That is polytheism. Monotheism is not compatible with this sentence. The only way to be a monotheist is to reject what these words mean


4e9e8e No.581837

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

>>581830

Stop posting.


d5b121 No.582598

>>580995

they do this everywhere on the internet




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / asmr / chicas / had / hikki / lovelive / strek / sw / webmcams ]