I've been praying for about six months: "Lord, by Thy Grace, bring me closer unto Your Love" and when listening to this conversation I've been overcome with: Here it is...my Cross. God bless you both! Sincerely, An Orthodox homeschooling mother of 4
Thanks Austin, I love Dr. Constantinou. Strong woman with a deep love for her podcast listeners and book readers. She reminds me of my Aunt, who was a college professor. She was a tough, smart women who would set you straight in a heartbeat, but always with deep motherly love. That's Dr. Jeanie, for sure!
“He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, by his wounds we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:5&6. Jesus laid down his life, no one took it from him. His love for us compelled him. Praise His holy name!
Thinking Orthodox is my favorite Christian book, not just Orthodox Faith book, ever.And, her podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio have been extremely educational. She's not just for Orthodox Christians.
I am lucky enough to have one of Dr Genie's students right here in my diocese. She is absolutely amazing and I highly recommend her Search the Scriptures Bible study podcast.
Wow! I have been a part of the Christian church all my long life. I was brought up by nuns, educated by them and by priests, studied Divinity for three years and went on to teach and read many, many books. I was raised a Catholic and became an Evangelical and read the Bible every day and attend Bible Study groups. I have listened to numerous sermons but now I can say, I have been waiting for this. Thank you Lord for bringing this to my attention. My search for truth has been continuous and I feel a wonderful peace, at last, at the opening of this new door, leading to further exploration of the most important topic in all of life, so beautifully explained by Eugenia Constantinou. Amen.
Welcome to Orthodoxy and what an excellent introduction you've had by Dr Eugenia Constantinou. There are many more theologians and people of God since the first years of Christianity until this day that speak about the old and new testament and do so with the help of the Holy Spirit and that is what any soul stops and listens to. Not human logic and countless of fruitless analyses of 'Bible Study groups'. You need God to understand God and that is what Orthodoxy is about. The original, authentic and unblemished faith in the Holy Trinity. The more you delve into this the more wonders you will uncover. God bless you sister.
Austin, I have to say this is one of the most fascinating discussions you've ever had on your channel, which is saying a whole lot considering how interesting the discussions on your channel are!! Thank you SO much for doing these discussions and bringing us along on the journey of continuing to explore/examine the Christian faith.
Thank you for this video, being a Christian Orthodoxy I very rarely hear Orthodox priest talking about Crucifixion of Christ as payment for our sins! In orthodox Christianity we hear often about the love of God and Christ for us, so thank Dr Constantinou for mentioning the Catholic /Protestant concept that diminishes the high values of Christ message , that all He did was Out of Love ❤️ for Us.
Thank you for hosting Teacher Eugenia. She has been such an instrumental vessel in my growth and understanding. May God bless you both for this illuminating discussion.
All Glory to God for Dr. Constantinou truly she’s a wonderful treasure in the Orthodox Christian community. Not only is she worldly valued because of her knowledge but most importantly spiritually value as a presbytera ( Priest wife) something that was not mention as her credentials. She has so many talks and lecture that are greatly edifying to ones spiritual walk and understanding of the Orthodox Christian Faith and mindset. ☦️💕
So glad that Dr Constantinou passionately spoke on the Love of God as the explanation of the cross and not what we hear spread today that its simply to pay our sin debt. Even Christians who believe they have a sin debt from each mistake oscillate between righteous and sinner constantly. What a watery gospel it is now. Thank God for the Grace revolution 🔥
Thank you, RUclips algorithm, for suggesting Gospel Simplicity to me. Every video I watch I’m more and more and more fascinated, I learn so much, and intellectually as well as spiritually invigorated. Keep doing what you do, Austin! This channel is a gift!
I can't thank you enough Austin for this awesome interview. I enjoyed it so much and was left was more so ordered the book right away. It arrived today so I'll be starting to read it after posting this comment! Thanks again and God bless you. As a Catholic I love the dialouges you have and your quest for Christian unity. I wish you and your wife a healthy and blessed marriage. God bless and please get Dr. Constantinou on again.
Dr Eugenia - your such an inspiration to me! Your passion and knowledge is amazing. I love studying 2nd temple Judaism but never thought to study the Roman thought during That time also. Thank you!
Thank you so much for this incredible presentation and for the great book recommendation. I think it is very important to respond in charity to the Protestant claim of penal substitution because it does stem from the Catholic Church's great mind, St. Anselm who said ""Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe because we owed a debt we couldn't pay" In fact, growing up Catholic, this is a quote I heard in catechism and from other Catholic sources often. It is only in recent years that I have heard this being corrected, and Dr. Constantinou's explanations are helping me grapple with the amazing reality of God's love as a gift, not a transaction. Pax Christi and Happy Easter to all.
Dr Conatantinou is one of the Greek-iest women I've ever seen, the number of bushes that have been beaten around is equal to the number of scriptural examples of the Cross being a payment to quench God's Wrath. Absolute joy to listen to. (I am told Italians would relate, but as a Serb, I've mostly been exposed to Greeks)
The stupidity of the theology of Penal Substitution makes it so that anyone who was ever crucified is guaranteed salvation and paid the "debt" for their own sins
i will be buying this book, it a refreshing look at Jesus' passion... i think the Doctor is spot on. i have read so many 'jesus seminar' book authors whose interpretations i don't agree with
Thank you Austin for conducting such a great interview with Dr. Jeannie to give a taste of her book. It is a cornucopia of well-documented information from historical, medical and legal as well as biblical sources that walks from the significance of the Raising of Lazarus who was expected to be already decomposing and, more importantly, whose soul was no longer around to be able to reoccupy his body according to the thinking of the times, through the Tearing of the Temple Veil and its importance. You were both respectful of other people's beliefs, while gently showing that some may be superficial, current culturally biased, based on later tradition or defensive. I was very pleased that Dr. Jeannie explained that the Greek word is not "justified" but "righteous." God's grace and incomprehensible love for His creation can only be known through loving and following Him. Only a theologian who is both well trained and spiritually growing can articulate all of the elements of the event as well as Dr. Jeannie has in The Crucifixion of the King of Glory.
Great talk. Note her point about the tragedy of Bible scholars saying that it has non historical details where as historians seem to give the Bible more credit for being historically accurate. One more reason to trust the scriptures and the early church fathers more than modern scholarship, even if they do sometimes bring helpful teaching in some areas. It seems todays scholars, even the professing Christian ones are often more concerned with bringing forth a new idea in order to get people to read their books or papers, rather than following the tried and true understanding of texts from the historic church’s perspective.
I love Dr. Jeannie’s work! So glad you had her on. She has a great podcast (also on RUclips via Ancient Faith Radio channel) called Search the Scriptures that is absolutely amazing.
At 1:11:00, Dr. Constantinou addresses the question of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and answers saying “We don’t really see that kind of transactional idea [that sin is a debt] anywhere in the New Testament.” In light of that comment, I wonder what to make of this verse… “And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” - Colossians 2:13-15
Im so glad to have found this episode. She addresses so many questions I've had of which I could not find a sensible answer. I never understood the significance of Pilate, nor his intial rejection to find fault with Jesus. ❤🙏
9:20 Lazarus Saturday was on April 9th in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church(East Syriac calendar). The reading was about Christ having dinner at his home/Martha's story. And the Friday prior to it - April 8th- the reading was about Lazarus being brought back to life. So this is in the liturgical calendar just before Holy Week. Infact on Lazarus Saturday we make special kind of rice dumpling (that's sweet) in reference to Christ's dinner with Lazarus's family.
Lazarus Saturday is this week, April 16, on Orthodox and most Oriental and Byzantine Catholic calendar’s. You know this I’m sure. We make small shaped bread that looks like Lazarus bound up. Don’t know when that custom began. After the Liturgy on Saturday, we have a pancake breakfast and everyone makes the palm crosses for Palm Sunday. Also, The Children’s choir practices for next week Holy Saturday morning when they sing, and the little girls that accompany Christ’s Tomb in procession (myrrhbearers) practice for Holy Friday evening! It’s a busy day! Have a glorious celebration of Christ’s Resurrection! Christo’s Anesti!☦️
The beard really suits you Austin. You are such a gentle soul, and the beard gives you a more masculine edge that helps to balance out that impression and give you a more rounded demeanour.
By Jesus raising Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and others, I'm sure that the Sadducees not only felt threatened, buy it probably insulted and embarrassed them; since they didn't even believe in a resurrection.
"Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17.
Austin, I thank you for this outstanding interview, that brings out so very many wonderful insights and relevancies from Dr Constantinou! What a well-spent hour! (Not to mention the times I am sure to reflect back on it as well.)
Austin, i just found your channel, because i saw you on The Council of Trent. I wish i could learn more about what Dr. Constantinao means when she mentions things that the Catholic Church has added from outside of apostolic tradition. I love your channel and have subscribed. Thank you for all you are doing!
This discussion really built momentum and ended on a strong note. I do know that certain Catholic Theologians agree with her Atonement conclusions...a particular book was republished and promoted by Scott Hahn. Though I'm sure medieval theology, especially as coming to a head with Martin Luther and John Calvin was the impetus for the current Protestant Debt Atonement paradigm.
Loved this. I have found penal substitution / atonement instinctively off... I think I've also tended to over spiritualise the crucifixion - To hear the historic context is great. Something that has struck me strongly in prayer around the crucifixion is how Jesus in my understanding, lived through this in faith. I mean that he had faith in who he was, faith in his father and through this period of time, he wasn't consoled with nice feelings or supernatural visions etc and he knew his divinity in the same way as we know we are loved by God - we don't know it in the same way that we know we are sat on the chair beneath us. When I brought this up with the Dominicans, even referring to this as a possibility, Ie that is that Jesus was like us in this way, it caused some consternation/ shock. I keep getting the words 'man of faith, God of salvation' come to mind as a thesis. Are you aware of work in this field. Could you offer this in a programme? I ve ordered the book. Thanks to you both for your work and sharing it.
Luisa Piccarreta's Book of Heaven has Jesus explaining that He has no need of faith because He is God and is thus the Object of faith. It is only creatures who have to exercise faith as action in this world that brings the Divine Will of heaven into existence on earth,
Having come to understand the sense of faith as "pistis" is more like faithfulness, or being true to something/someone, one could certainly say that Jesus is a man of perfect faith, as his human will is perfectly aligned with the (his) divine will. Since sin occurs when we allow our will to deviate from God's will, what it means that Jesus never sinned is that those two wills were never out of alignment.
I can’t see how that would cause consternation to Dominicans. There’s nothing wrong with what you said. Jesus was faith-ful to God and what he went through so frightened him that he asked 3x to be delivered from it while sweating blood at the prospect. As God he would have not experienced fear or the need for faith, but his human nature was like ours in all things but sin.
I listened to one of Dr Jeannie's podcasts on this subject about the buying and selling of animals for temple sacrifice it was really good. I learnt more about how it set the chief priests up in a very high place with a lot of money, power and control that they did not want to forfeit at any cost.
“These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree” - St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catachetical Lecture XIII “Listen to the reason for his coming and glorify the power of the one who became flesh. The human race was deep in debt and incapable of paying what it owed. By the hand of Adam we all signed a bond to sin. The devil held us all in slavery. He kept producing our bills, using our suffering body as his paper. There he stood, the wicked forger, threatening us with our debts and demanding satisfaction. One of two things had to happen: either the penalty of death had to be imposed on all, because ‘all had sinned,’ or else a substitute had to be provided who was fully entitled to plead on our behalf. No man could save us; the debt would have been his liability too. No angel could buy us out, for such a ransom was beyond his powers. One who was sinless had to die for those who had sinned; that was the only way left by which to break the bonds of evil.” (1st Homily on the God-bearer; citation from Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 141) See more: erickybarra.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/penal-substitution-in-the-church-fathers/
As an Orthodox believer I respectfully disagree with a few things Dr. Constantinou is saying. I do believe in Penal substitution in the sense that Jesus took on himself the consequences of our sin, but also brought us to new life in His resurrection. Also, the book of Isaiah talks about the suffering servant dying for the sins of His people. I see this as an act of love. With respect. God bless you all!
That’s not the definition really. You’re talking about the Atonement. For Christ to pay for our sins in a judicial way, who did He Pay? Himself? (He is God) Satan? That would be blasphemy! He doesn’t owe anything to satan! Christ conquered sin and death on the cross. We still have the choice to freely accept the love of God or reject His love into eternity.
Thank you both for your comments. They made me think a bit. My current understanding is this: I believe that the Lord came and died for our sins (He had no sin) to free us from our sins (when we repent and choose Him of course). Saint Paul talks about us dying with Him and being raised in baptism. I definitely don't believe the Lord paid the price to the evil one. Instead I believe He united Himself to us, died for our sins, and rose to give us new life. I'm sorry if that sounds complicated. There is a lot more to say about the matter too! God bless you all!
@@bonniejohnstone we had a council gathered specifically for figuring out who the recepeint of the sacrifice is. The council of 1157 stated the sacrifice is to the all Persons of the Trinity. It even mentiones the reson for the neccessity of Atonement: Man offended God by transgressing the commandment. Source: Synodus graecae ecclesiae de dogmate circa illa verba, «Tu es qui оffеrѕ, еt qui offеrеriѕ, еt qui recipis» // PG. 140. Col. 185-186. Btw, as you see, sin is also an offence against God's Truth even here and, for example, in st. Cyrill of Jerusalem, st. Nicolas Cabbasilas and many other Church fathers. As one example, st. Nicolas as if "followed" Anselm in his views writing about the offence of God - "ὕβριν φέρει" (Nicolaus Cabasilas. De Vita in Christo, 4.12-15 // SC. 355. P. 272-276. There's patristic evidence for "penas substitution" and "judicial Atonement" but, as far as I know, there's different views on penal substitution as well so some may or may not be compatible with Orthodoxy. But I haven't even watched the video, went straight to the comments....better watch it first :)
So what specifically does the cross do for us? Why the need for the sacrifice of Jesus? Aren’t unbeliever’s condemned for their sin? How do we understand John 3:36 “…the wrath of God abideth on him.”?
Except she’s not just an academic. She is married to a priest, chants in church and has a weekly podcast called Search the Scriptures where she goes line by line explaining the Bible. I’ve read her book and there are things in there that I guarantee would blow your mind, like the fact that the lambs for Passover were placed into an oven upright pierced with two wooden skewers horizontally and vertically, just like Christ was crucified. Plus much more.
Shout out to the Lord of Spirits podcast… Aside from Daniel, “Son of Man” is also a very prominent title of the Messiah in the Book of Enoch, which the Apostles Sts Peter and Jude quote in the NT. The Enochian tradition was very well known in the Second Temple Judaism of that time.
The one that sticks out to me also is how it's used in Ezekiel, which is a haunting book for many reasons, but ultimately shows how much God is willing to do for us.
My priest told us to imagine death is like machine that the souls would fall into before Christ came. Every death ended with the souls separated from God, some in the place of the righteous, some in torment. When Christ came, the machine of death took His soul, but it did not encounter a body like usual, it encountered God Himself, so it was like throwing a diamond in the machine. He broke the machine of death! That's why the icons show the gates of hades broken open with the padlocks scattered on the ground, death is defeated, and Christ is pulling Adam and Eve out and bringing them to paradise. As I understand it, it's the work of Holy Saturday that defeated death, and the grave could not contain God and He rose on Sunday, proving from that point onward Christians are not truly dead, but just temporarily separated from their bodies. On another topic, my kids and I read some of the lives of Plutarch and a repeated refrain was that it was better to die than be shamed. One story was about a defeated king being marched through the streets in a parade of the spoils of war, and the consensus was that the defeated king was worthy of scorn because he didn't take his own life, but surrendered. It kind of reminds me of Christ being paraded through the streets carrying His Cross. He truly changed how the Christian world (and even secular world) thinks to such a degree, that we can't comprehend what it was like before. Why do we think of self-sacrifice as the supreme good? It's because of Christ.
Yep! Most folks miss 1 Peter 3:17- 4:6. as they only see Jesus as a sacrifice to die in place of us... "For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ... but they will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For the gospel has for this purpose been [e]preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as people, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. " What so many people miss when they say "He descended into Hades..." on Good Friday, is that Jesus wasn't merely there to be punished in place of us, but was also on a rescue mission, so that even those long buried would have a chance to hear the Holy Gospel, to be evangelized, so that the New Adam may reach the Old Adam! WHo is this King of Glory?!
Omg i like this woman , in all i have reseached what this lady talks about takes us further back to or before romans and the cheif priests the jews wow. Just the knowledge i need . Now the jigsaw puzzle is coming together. I have read about the jews but dnt want to be dissing them if it aint true .this woman tells the truth and this guy too very good points he makes both of them together working has a team i like you i appreciate you thankyou for sharing. Taking me back to Lasuruz havnt heard this name since i was a child . Please keep this up we all need this you both reduced me to tears it rings so true from what i read has a child and not knowing everything has slowly changed has i grew. Thankyou from the bottom of my heart. I have been begging for the truth. I wished i found you so much earlier you could of saved me so much heartache . The spiritual battle i was in thanks to you two has become lighter. Thankyou so much and in this time we need you please dont stop. Im sharing this all over 😍❤😇
Back in the 1970s when I was working on my B.S., in religion I was rebuked for saying that the phrase, "Son of Man" that Jesus used was a mention of the book of Daniel's prophecy. The professor said no it refers to the humanity of Christ. This professor was a conservative, yet lacked knowledge of his O.T. I was in my late 20s back then, but spent hours studying the O.T. before even going to college. Unlike many Christians I read much in the O.T. Now I am 73 and felt out of place like I don't fit in the evangelical movement because I see so many things that are lacking. I didn't know that there were people in other communions that believe like I do.
My friend, she is right about the problems with substitutional atonement. It is from the medieval text, Cur Deus Homo, by St Anselm. However, it was never the primary understanding of the cross in Catholicism. It was favored among descents of the English Reformation because Anselm was from Canterbury. The motivation to favor Anselm was nationalist not theological. Please interview a theologian from Franciscan University like John Bergsma to learn about Catholic approaches to scripture and Covenantal theology of the Eucharist and the cross. It will be mindblowing and absolutely transformative. And only Catholics are deep in the scriptures in this way.
The 'Son of Man' title is also the title God often uses with the prophets. So, it could also be said up until the trial, they were seeing him refer to himself as a prophet.
The Brooklyn rabbi whose followers believed he was the Messiah was Menachem Schneerson..I remember that period. His followers hung around his burial site for days afterward as I recall.
Protestants don't teach or believe that God demanded Christ sacrifice Himself for our sins....Jesus voluntarily offered Himself. I disagree where Eugenia says that the sacrifice was not required to be a substitutionary payment for our sins. If Christ did not die on the cross, each of us would have to pay for our sins individually - which none of us could do. We all have sinned and we are all responsible to a just God for the penalty of our sins. Before creation God the Father and Yeshua Jesus Christ knew the dilemma of making man with a free will. They knew we would sin and they needed a way to be just and merciful at the same time. Out of love it was decided that Jesus would offer Himself as a sacrifice for the payment owed God for sin. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, but God temporarily accepted animal sacrifices until the sacrifice of Christ on the cross could be made. This is also why the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and God never had it rebuilt. It was no longer needed! The sacrificial system and the Levitical priesthood came to an end because Christ suffered once and for all for the sins of all mankind. We obtain this benefit when we humble ourselves in repentance, we confess Christ as our Lord and Savior, we get baptized, and then live for Him and keep His commandments.
The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all (John 19:16-18). Cyril of Alexandria, 'Book XII Commentary on John' For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross… St Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah' “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, sinless priest… It was clearly necessary for Christ to descend to Hades, but all these things were done with justice, without which God does not act.” Homily 16, 1, 2, 21 St Gregory Palamas ‘The Lord had to taste death for each, and having become a propitiatory sacrifice for the world, justify all by His blood’ St Basil, ' Letter to Bishop Optimus' God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. Romans 3.25 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. Isaiah 53.5-6 There are many contemporary Orthodox writers who wish to deny or downplay a number of concepts that relate to our redemption. They will argue we don't believe Christ had to die in our place, or that His blood needed to be shed to pay the penalty for our sins. They will deny the legitimacy of legal terms, in favor of the idea that the Church is a spiritual hospital. The problem is not that the Church is not a spiritual hospital, but rather that in emphasizing one set of images used to explain our salvation, they deny a whole set of equally valid images that are clearly Biblical. It is true that in the west there was an over emphasis on legal imagery, but the solution to such an imbalance is not a new imbalance in the opposite direction. We can and should speak of sin as an illness, but when we die, we do not go before the final medical exam -- we face the final judgment, which is a legal image if ever there was one. And so we can also speak of sin as a transgression of the Law of God, and of our need to be justified by God, even as we speak of sin in terms of an illness that we need to be healed of. Fr John Whiteford, 'Do Orthodox Christians Believe in the Atonement?'
I’m always so confused why the Orthodox do the “either or” thing and not both/and. It’s not Christus Victor instead of penal substitution, or recapitulation over legal satisfaction. Scripture definitely uses both kinds of language
I don’t think there is an either or. It’s when the context is “God killed Jesus” or God required Jesus to die in order to change his mind about you, where things get dicey. God doesn’t change this includes His mind. Also Jesus is God and God doesn’t kill God. There is a penal substitution even in orthodoxy from what I can see. The the substitution is Christ who underwent the punishment as our substitute. That punishment was death which we brought into the world through sin. God is the only life, He alone is the only source of it. When Adam and Eve left the life death entered. Christ warned them in the garden. Death passed to all men and God in his love for mankind took that punishment, death, in our place to defeat it so we don’t have to fear death our Creator has made a way for us. Christ died that he might bring us to the Father according to the scripture. He emptied the tombs and all men will now be resurrected, some to eternal life and some to torments.
I agree with you, Anglican Aesthetics! I am Catholic, and this kind of talk that Christ did not “pay” for our sins is very foreign to me. Scripture is FULL of references to Our Lord Jesus paying the price for us. Our Lord Himself said at the Last Supper that His blood was going to be poured out for the forgiveness of sin. It is not “God killing Jesus.” It is God sacrificing Himself.
There’s no dispute Scripture uses the language of ransom, sacrifice, substitution, and punishment. The question is what is meant by this? By the time Calvin was formulating his PSA theory of the Atonement, he was already centuries and several philosophical movements removed from the context of the biblical images and language and their interpretation in the early Church Fathers. Calvin was a lawyer, not a theologian, Saint or even a patristic scholar. It matters.
@@lornadoone8887 Calvin wasn’t at all removed from the Fathers. The language of Christ paying the debt of punishment himself through his death is in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. Anselm and Aquinas’ satisfaction theory is very, very close to PSA as well. And also, while Calvin’s training was in law, it was more precisely in the humanities. He knew Greek and Hebrew like the back of his hand; it’s a huge stretch to say he wasn’t a theologian when all the Westminster divines considered him one of the best of the Reformed
I was with Dr. C up until she denied the penal aspect of the crucifixion. She claims that this idea was unheard of in the early Church and only emerged in the medieval era. Clearly, she is not familiar with St. Athanasius (~300-375 A.D.), who wrote "On the Incarnation," often referred to today by the title "The Divine Dilemma," which is an explanation of Christ's sacrifice as God's answer to the dilemma posed by man's disobedience in the face of God's promise of punishment and Man's subsequent inability to correct it, or "pay for it," on his own. I'll leave it at that. Whatever other early writers might have thought, or what the common notion was in the first centuries after Christ, the fact is that one of the great Doctors of the Church dealt with this issue explicitly loooong before the middle ages, which is contrary to what she's claiming.
I agree 100%. What she says is actually heresy, which is shocking. The cross was both a penal substitution AND a working of healing. But to outright deny the penal atonement? She is orthodox, she SHOULD know better!
No one with even a passing familiarity of patristics is unaware of St. Athanasius. And you might want to revisit him on that; it seems you were reading him through your own preconceptions. Dr. Constantinou specifically said Christ's death wasn't a payment *to God the Father* for the sins of men. This doesn't contradict the passage you mentioned from St. Athanasius. In it, he talks about Christ's death as solving the problem of "the law of death" which "prevailed on us" after the fall. He says that repentance alone *would* have been enough to save us from our trespasses, but because we were suffering from the corruption of our nature, something more needed to be done. For this reason, Christ assumed human nature and "surrendered his body to death... that the law of death might be abolished" The fact that Athanasius notes it wouldn't be fitting for God's warning in Genesis to be an empty one doesn't imply a legal transaction demanded by God the Father. What it means is that God's warning wasn't empty because, as Athanasius explains, the corruption of human nature made it impossible for repentance alone to save us. Nowhere does he (or the Bible) say that God cannot forgive sins and must kill someone for His justice to be satisfied.
@@jacob5283 100% agree, and it can be quite eye-opening to revisit the text while consciously setting aside preconceptions of what it means. I understand the original commenters hang-up and have been there myself. Complex text after all, but there's no view from nowhere.
Cabasilas has a helpful section on "The ransom which Christ has paid for us" in his "The Life in Christ": according to Cabasilas, Jesus has done no "no wrong for which He might pay the penalty, nor had He committed sin, nor had He done anything of which the most shameless informer might accuse Him. Yet wounds, pain, and death were from the beginning devised against sin! Why then did the Lord permit it, since He loves man? It is not reasonable for goodness to take pleasure in an atrocity and in death. This is the reason that God permitted death and pain as soon as sin had entered in, not so much to inflict penalty on the guilty but rather to supply a remedy for him who had fallen into sickness. Since, therefore, it was impossible to apply this penalty to the things which Christ had done, and since the Savior had no trace of any disease for which He needed a remedy to heal Him, the power of His cup is applied to us and slays the sin that is in us. The wounding of Him who is under no censure becomes the penalty of those who are guilty of many things...it not only cancelled the indictment but added so great an abundance of benefits...how great a sin had human nature committed that needed so great a penalty to expiate it! How great was the wound that required the power of this remedy! It was necessary that sin should be abolished by some penalty, and that we, by paying a just penalty, should be cleared of the indictment of the sins which we have committed against God...but among men there was no one who, himself being guiltless, might have suffered for the others. Since no one could have sufficed for himself, even the whole race, could it have died ten thousand times, was unable to pay the penalty it deserved. What fitting penalty could that most wretched slave undergo, who had utterly destroyed the image of the king and acted contemptuously towards so great a dignity? It is for this reason that the Master who is without sin suffers many terrible things and dies and endures the blow. As man He undertakes the cause of mankind. He releases our race from the indictment and gives freedom to the prisoners, since He Himself, being God and Master, stood in no need thereof." (pp. 58 - 60). So here there is (1) penalty; (2) penalty bearer; (3) effects of the payment of the penalty. It's this sort of thing that is staple theology. We all deserve the penalty due our sins and He paid it all on our behalf. Whilst this is not affirmation of penal substitution atonement per se., it is certainly not a denial of an aspect of it that we should do well to remember and be thankful for!!
Woah! Most of what she said was everything I learned in my many years of Catholic school…up until she claimed we shouldn’t think of Christ’s death on the cross as a payment. What?! Of course it was about love, but yes it was about payment. If it was not, then the whole point of Christianity-that Jesus was the Lamb of God, who sacrificed Himself to pay the debt of sin for we who believe in Him- is lost. What she is saying is heresy. What a jolting conclusion after all that she said. Why did Jesus “lovingly” sacrifice himself on the Cross, if not for a purpose…to pay for our sins? That is the essence of Christianity.
It is not a literal payment, because no one got paid. St Gregory Nazianzus discusses this. Who got paid? The devil? But he is not our lawful master but a thief and a liar. God? But it is not by God that we were held captive, and He does not delight in human sacrifice. Rather, the "payment" is an evening out of what was out of order, a filling in of what was lacking in us. One could say that the payment was to reality itself. In any case, when she said Christ's death wasn't a payment on our behalf, I think she was specifically attacking the Protestant idea that Jesus' death was a payment to satisfy the Father.
@@ButSeriouslyThough I am not interested in the semantics of theologians. . My entire life in Catholic school I was taught that Christ paid for our sins so that we could have eternal life. The Protestants believe the same. The wages of sin is death, right? If His death on the Cross wasn’t a payment (or atonement, or whatever you want to call it - again, spare me the semantics) then what was it? And yes it was the will of the Father because Christ himself asked if he could be spared that cup, and then asked the Father why he was forsaken. The Father planned this! He came down in the form of a human. Our Lord was born into this world for this very purpose! He gave His life for US, so that we would be reconciled to God and our sins would be forgiven. It’s Christianity 101. Sometimes these theologians speak in circles and mess with peoples’ minds. Even at Catholic Mass we ask God to accept the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Who are we kidding here with this “it’s not a payment to God” nonsense? It most certainly is. The catechism clearly states Christ paid the ransom for our sins. And it is not merely human sacrifice. It was God sacrificing Himself in human form. Very different. Is there mystery there which can not be fully explained by the human brain? Yes. But that’s what it was…both sacrifice and payment by our one God.
@@delvaassante5699 Yes, the Father planned this (or rather the Father, Son and Holy Spirit planned this together, since they have one will), but as Dr. Constantinou points out in the video and as St Gregory Nazianzus says, He did not -require- it. Also, a sacrifice is not a transaction and was never understood as such. And redemption means to buy back a slave - but again, to whom was the price of manumission paid? It was not the Father Who enslaved us. We do also speak of Christ's sacrifice to the Father, of Christ redeeming us with His blood, even of Christ's payment on the cross, but I believe Dr. Constantinou was attacking in particular the Protestant doctrine that this was a payment to the Father to satisfy divine justice. Surely Catholics do not believe this, or else I cannot understand why I was told by several Catholic priests that our beliefs are the same. :) And if you guys do believe this after all, well, it kinda proves the claim of some Orthodox that we are not just Catholics without a Pope and that Protestantism is just democratized Catholicism. But I certainly hope this is not the case! I go to Catholic masses often and don't see or hear anything objectionable.
Dear friend. What dr. Constantinou says are not a heresy at all. If we speak for the sacrifice of Christ in terms of a payment, we have to check to whom Christ paid the ransom. As Orthodox Christians we don’t accept that the sacrifice of Christ satisfied God the Father in a legalistic way neither sin was an offence to the Father. In the early father we find sin to be a disease that our Lord come to heal. Through His Gross restores the human nature and makes it open again to the Grace of deification. And indeed it is the love of God that consented to be crucified!
@@sergioskyriacou6435 My Catholic Church has always taught that sin is an offense to God, and that Christ sacrificed Himself to pay for our sin and reconcile us to God. The Bible itself is full of reference to Christ paying for our sin with his death. Our catechism literally reaffirms this in writing. Any Catholic denying or spinning this truth is a heretic. His crucifixion was not just an unfortunate incident which occurred because he as a human angered some people. It was a planned sacrifice. The Lord Himself stated at the Last Supper that he was giving His body and pouring out His blood for the forgiveness of sins. This is our Nicene Creed, the profession of our faith. I believe yours is similar? Note that it says: “For US men and for our salvation He came down from Heaven…For OUR SAKE He was crucified. “. It was a plan of salvation, God sacrificing Himself. To focus only on “love” (as Dr Constaninou said). breezes by the point that Jesus intentially died for us, as willed by the Father, to save us. After all, what better love to lay down one’s life for another? That is exactly what Christ did. Catholic Profession of Faith: “We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfilment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
Isaac, was thought to be about 30 and willingly carried the wood on which he was to be sacrificed. The Rabbis were on to something, but did not follow all the Way.
Colossians 2:13-15 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him. This verse speaks of debt paid right?
I don’t understand how the humility of the cross shows God’s love for us with no transactional gain. Yes, God loves us so much He sent His Son who humbled himself enduring a horrific and humiliating death. But without some transactional reason for that awful death it also would seem kind of arbitrary to me. We can’t forget that evil has a face and that the bondage had to be broken with a very specific kind of death and shedding of blood. This is why I think of the cross as somewhat transactional - the atoning for sin. There is even sin sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament as a type. We as humans need to be liberated from the hold that sin and satan have on us. I don’t think of the cross as a transaction that God required, but we need the transaction. The fact that satan is real and has a real hold on us through sin means to me that a transaction did need to occur, one that was of the nature of a payment but much much more. We need the atoning blood sacrifice of Jesus to liberate us from continuing in our sin and serving evil/satan. At the cross and subsequent resurrection, we were stolen back out of the bondage to sin and satan in which we placed ourselves. Through the blood of the sinless lamb of God, we are set free and our consciences released from bondage. This seems transactional to me.
I’ve never heard of this woman before, but I think I’ve just found a new favourite christian scholar.
Dr Jeannie is brilliant. I’ve learned so much by listening to her podcasts Search the Scriptures.
She's really good
She's written a great book on the Orthodox mindset
I've just been introduced to her this year myself. She is a pre-eminent scholar
@@mary-jodukas7627 Phronima 🙂
I've been praying for about six months: "Lord, by Thy Grace, bring me closer unto Your Love" and when listening to this conversation I've been overcome with: Here it is...my Cross.
God bless you both!
Sincerely,
An Orthodox homeschooling mother of 4
Thanks Austin, I love Dr. Constantinou. Strong woman with a deep love for her podcast listeners and book readers. She reminds me of my Aunt, who was a college professor. She was a tough, smart women who would set you straight in a heartbeat, but always with deep motherly love. That's Dr. Jeanie, for sure!
Dr. Constantinou is brilliant.
“He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, by his wounds we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Isaiah 53:5&6. Jesus laid down his life, no one took it from him. His love for us compelled him. Praise His holy name!
Thinking Orthodox is my favorite Christian book, not just Orthodox Faith book, ever.And, her podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio have been extremely educational. She's not just for Orthodox Christians.
Greek - Orthodox Christian here. Christianity is not only for the "faithful" Christians is for all of humanity.
I am lucky enough to have one of Dr Genie's students right here in my diocese. She is absolutely amazing and I highly recommend her Search the Scriptures Bible study podcast.
I just started listening to her podcast. I'm 4 episodes in. I plan on listening to the entire podcast.
Yeah search the scriptures live and the original search the scriptures.
Wow! I have been a part of the Christian church all my long life. I was brought up by nuns, educated by them and by priests, studied Divinity for three years and went on to teach and read many, many books. I was raised a Catholic and became an Evangelical and read the Bible every day and attend Bible Study groups. I have listened to numerous sermons but now I can say, I have been waiting for this. Thank you Lord for bringing this to my attention. My search for truth has been continuous and I feel a wonderful peace, at last, at the opening of this new door, leading to further exploration of the most important topic in all of life, so beautifully explained by Eugenia Constantinou. Amen.
Welcome to Orthodoxy and what an excellent introduction you've had by Dr Eugenia Constantinou. There are many more theologians and people of God since the first years of Christianity until this day that speak about the old and new testament and do so with the help of the Holy Spirit and that is what any soul stops and listens to. Not human logic and countless of fruitless analyses of 'Bible Study groups'. You need God to understand God and that is what Orthodoxy is about. The original, authentic and unblemished faith in the Holy Trinity. The more you delve into this the more wonders you will uncover. God bless you sister.
Austin, I have to say this is one of the most fascinating discussions you've ever had on your channel, which is saying a whole lot considering how interesting the discussions on your channel are!! Thank you SO much for doing these discussions and bringing us along on the journey of continuing to explore/examine the Christian faith.
Thank you for this video, being a Christian Orthodoxy I very rarely hear Orthodox priest talking about Crucifixion of Christ as payment for our sins! In orthodox Christianity we hear often about the love of God and Christ for us, so thank Dr Constantinou for mentioning the Catholic /Protestant concept that diminishes the high values of Christ message , that all He did was Out of Love ❤️ for Us.
Thank you for hosting Teacher Eugenia. She has been such an instrumental vessel in my growth and understanding. May God bless you both for this illuminating discussion.
Dr. Eugenia is an absolute treasure who deserves far more respect in the realm of theological discourse in this country (and beyond).
ST. (Fill in name) would be more profitable. There are only 3 theologians in the Orthodox Church and she ain't one.
@@WishingForRain what a strange comment. Welcome to the internet.
All Glory to God for Dr. Constantinou truly she’s a wonderful treasure in the Orthodox Christian community. Not only is she worldly valued because of her knowledge but most importantly spiritually value as a presbytera ( Priest wife) something that was not mention as her credentials. She has so many talks and lecture that are greatly edifying to ones spiritual walk and understanding of the Orthodox Christian Faith and mindset. ☦️💕
So glad that Dr Constantinou passionately spoke on the Love of God as the explanation of the cross and not what we hear spread today that its simply to pay our sin debt.
Even Christians who believe they have a sin debt from each mistake oscillate between righteous and sinner constantly. What a watery gospel it is now.
Thank God for the Grace revolution 🔥
Dr. Eugenia, just outstanding! And Austin, as usual another outstanding interview/discussion conducted by you!
Thank you, RUclips algorithm, for suggesting Gospel Simplicity to me. Every video I watch I’m more and more and more fascinated, I learn so much, and intellectually as well as spiritually invigorated. Keep doing what you do, Austin! This channel is a gift!
I can't thank you enough Austin for this awesome interview. I enjoyed it so much and was left was more so ordered the book right away. It arrived today so I'll be starting to read it after posting this comment! Thanks again and God bless you. As a Catholic I love the dialouges you have and your quest for Christian unity. I wish you and your wife a healthy and blessed marriage. God bless and please get Dr. Constantinou on again.
Dr Eugenia - your such an inspiration to me! Your passion and knowledge is amazing. I love studying 2nd temple Judaism but never thought to study the Roman thought during That time also. Thank you!
Started listening to her book 'Thinking Orthodox' last week, it's excellent, highly recommend.
This woman is brilliant, powerful speaker and well informed
Not one minute was waisted ! Thank you for this encouraging video!
Thank you so much for this incredible presentation and for the great book recommendation. I think it is very important to respond in charity to the Protestant claim of penal substitution because it does stem from the Catholic Church's great mind, St. Anselm who said ""Jesus paid a debt he didn't owe because we owed a debt we couldn't pay" In fact, growing up Catholic, this is a quote I heard in catechism and from other Catholic sources often. It is only in recent years that I have heard this being corrected, and Dr. Constantinou's explanations are helping me grapple with the amazing reality of God's love as a gift, not a transaction. Pax Christi and Happy Easter to all.
I loved listening to this entire video, thank you for sharing. Blessings to my former professor! IC XC NIKA ☦️
this is a great meditation for Holy week
Dr Conatantinou is one of the Greek-iest women I've ever seen, the number of bushes that have been beaten around is equal to the number of scriptural examples of the Cross being a payment to quench God's Wrath.
Absolute joy to listen to.
(I am told Italians would relate, but as a Serb, I've mostly been exposed to Greeks)
The stupidity of the theology of Penal Substitution makes it so that anyone who was ever crucified is guaranteed salvation and paid the "debt" for their own sins
@@liquidoxygen819 Well except that Jesus being sinless is supposed to give His sacrifice infinite weight to pay for our sins.
@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 More like Him being God. ;)
@@LadyMaria Yes more so I suppose, thanks. :)
i will be buying this book, it a refreshing look at Jesus' passion... i think the Doctor is spot on. i have read so many 'jesus seminar' book authors whose interpretations i don't agree with
She is a brilliant writer. Amazing interview.
Glad you enjoyed it!
This was wonderful, and I want to listen to it again.
Great podcast. I came across this by accident and I'm impressed.
Thank you Austin for conducting such a great interview with Dr. Jeannie to give a taste of her book. It is a cornucopia of well-documented information from historical, medical and legal as well as biblical sources that walks from the significance of the Raising of Lazarus who was expected to be already decomposing and, more importantly, whose soul was no longer around to be able to reoccupy his body according to the thinking of the times, through the Tearing of the Temple Veil and its importance.
You were both respectful of other people's beliefs, while gently showing that some may be superficial, current culturally biased, based on later tradition or defensive. I was very pleased that Dr. Jeannie explained that the Greek word is not "justified" but "righteous." God's grace and incomprehensible love for His creation can only be known through loving and following Him. Only a theologian who is both well trained and spiritually growing can articulate all of the elements of the event as well as Dr. Jeannie has in The Crucifixion of the King of Glory.
Another incredible interview. Thanks Austin.
Well done! I love the last segment about the “true meaning of the cross”
I like this study very much. Not Orthodox Christian but like a lot of what I hear.
Great talk. Note her point about the tragedy of Bible scholars saying that it has non historical details where as historians seem to give the Bible more credit for being historically accurate. One more reason to trust the scriptures and the early church fathers more than modern scholarship, even if they do sometimes bring helpful teaching in some areas. It seems todays scholars, even the professing Christian ones are often more concerned with bringing forth a new idea in order to get people to read their books or papers, rather than following the tried and true understanding of texts from the historic church’s perspective.
I love Dr. Jeannie’s work! So glad you had her on. She has a great podcast (also on RUclips via Ancient Faith Radio channel) called Search the Scriptures that is absolutely amazing.
At 1:11:00, Dr. Constantinou addresses the question of Penal Substitutionary Atonement and answers saying “We don’t really see that kind of transactional idea [that sin is a debt] anywhere in the New Testament.”
In light of that comment, I wonder what to make of this verse…
“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.” - Colossians 2:13-15
That's the exact verse that came to mind for me.
I love Dr Genie's audio-books and podcast, thanks Austin for another great interview.
Im so glad to have found this episode. She addresses so many questions I've had of which I could not find a sensible answer. I never understood the significance of Pilate, nor his intial rejection to find fault with Jesus. ❤🙏
9:20 Lazarus Saturday was on April 9th in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church(East Syriac calendar). The reading was about Christ having dinner at his home/Martha's story. And the Friday prior to it - April 8th- the reading was about Lazarus being brought back to life. So this is in the liturgical calendar just before Holy Week. Infact on Lazarus Saturday we make special kind of rice dumpling (that's sweet) in reference to Christ's dinner with Lazarus's family.
Lazarus Saturday is this week, April 16, on Orthodox and most Oriental and Byzantine Catholic calendar’s. You know this I’m sure.
We make small shaped bread that looks like Lazarus bound up. Don’t know when that custom began.
After the Liturgy on Saturday, we have a pancake breakfast and everyone makes the palm crosses for Palm Sunday. Also, The Children’s choir practices for next week Holy Saturday morning when they sing, and the little girls that accompany Christ’s Tomb in procession (myrrhbearers) practice for Holy Friday evening! It’s a busy day!
Have a glorious celebration of Christ’s Resurrection! Christo’s Anesti!☦️
Interesting and edifying discussion. Love from Ethiopian orthodox church.
Fascinating stuff. Thank you so much, both of you, for this discussion. God bless you and thank you.
The beard really suits you Austin. You are such a gentle soul, and the beard gives you a more masculine edge that helps to balance out that impression and give you a more rounded demeanour.
It's on AUDIBOOK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't thank you enough. I am up to my eyeballs in book I'll never get finished.
I personally think that the cross has not just one meaning but there are many aspects that culminate there.
Amazing ❤❤❤ Glory to God!!❤❤❤
By Jesus raising Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the widow's son at Nain, and others, I'm sure that the Sadducees not only felt threatened, buy it probably insulted and embarrassed them; since they didn't even believe in a resurrection.
I just adore listening to this woman speak her knowledge.
Great discussion. Helped me understand so much more of the Cross. Thank you.
"Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people." Hebrews 2:17.
He was the priest and the sacrifice in one body.
Austin, I thank you for this outstanding interview, that brings out so very many wonderful insights and relevancies from Dr Constantinou! What a well-spent hour! (Not to mention the times I am sure to reflect back on it as well.)
I love hearing fresh perspectives. Great content!
Austin, i just found your channel, because i saw you on The Council of Trent. I wish i could learn more about what Dr. Constantinao means when she mentions things that the Catholic Church has added from outside of apostolic tradition. I love your channel and have subscribed. Thank you for all you are doing!
It's my pleasure! Thanks for subscribing!
This discussion really built momentum and ended on a strong note. I do know that certain Catholic Theologians agree with her Atonement conclusions...a particular book was republished and promoted by Scott Hahn.
Though I'm sure medieval theology, especially as coming to a head with Martin Luther and John Calvin was the impetus for the current Protestant Debt Atonement paradigm.
Loved this. I have found penal substitution / atonement instinctively off... I think I've also tended to over spiritualise the crucifixion - To hear the historic context is great. Something that has struck me strongly in prayer around the crucifixion is how Jesus in my understanding, lived through this in faith. I mean that he had faith in who he was, faith in his father and through this period of time, he wasn't consoled with nice feelings or supernatural visions etc and he knew his divinity in the same way as we know we are loved by God - we don't know it in the same way that we know we are sat on the chair beneath us. When I brought this up with the Dominicans, even referring to this as a possibility, Ie that is that Jesus was like us in this way, it caused some consternation/ shock. I keep getting the words 'man of faith, God of salvation' come to mind as a thesis. Are you aware of work in this field. Could you offer this in a programme? I ve ordered the book. Thanks to you both for your work and sharing it.
Super interesting idea. Thanks for sharing.
Luisa Piccarreta's Book of Heaven has Jesus explaining that He has no need of faith because He is God and is thus the Object of faith. It is only creatures who have to exercise faith as action in this world that brings the Divine Will of heaven into existence on earth,
Having come to understand the sense of faith as "pistis" is more like faithfulness, or being true to something/someone, one could certainly say that Jesus is a man of perfect faith, as his human will is perfectly aligned with the (his) divine will. Since sin occurs when we allow our will to deviate from God's will, what it means that Jesus never sinned is that those two wills were never out of alignment.
I can’t see how that would cause consternation to Dominicans. There’s nothing wrong with what you said. Jesus was faith-ful to God and what he went through so frightened him that he asked 3x to be delivered from it while sweating blood at the prospect. As God he would have not experienced fear or the need for faith, but his human nature was like ours in all things but sin.
@@brianamend6983 Read Luisa's Book Of Heaven. It is fascinating and totally Catholic.
Thank you for this wonderful conversation!!
Ordered the book while listening.
Christ is Risen! ☦️☦️☦️
I listened to one of Dr Jeannie's podcasts on this subject about the buying and selling of animals for temple sacrifice it was really good. I learnt more about how it set the chief priests up in a very high place with a lot of money, power and control that they did not want to forfeit at any cost.
Doc EC is back?! Wheeeee!!!!
absolutely beautiful final quote from her last chapter. 1:09:30 - ordered her book just for that.
“These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree” - St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catachetical Lecture XIII
“Listen to the reason for his coming and glorify the power of the one who became flesh. The human race was deep in debt and incapable of paying what it owed. By the hand of Adam we all signed a bond to sin. The devil held us all in slavery. He kept producing our bills, using our suffering body as his paper. There he stood, the wicked forger, threatening us with our debts and demanding satisfaction. One of two things had to happen: either the penalty of death had to be imposed on all, because ‘all had sinned,’ or else a substitute had to be provided who was fully entitled to plead on our behalf. No man could save us; the debt would have been his liability too. No angel could buy us out, for such a ransom was beyond his powers. One who was sinless had to die for those who had sinned; that was the only way left by which to break the bonds of evil.”
(1st Homily on the God-bearer; citation from Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2003), p. 141)
See more: erickybarra.wordpress.com/2019/02/14/penal-substitution-in-the-church-fathers/
As an Orthodox believer I respectfully disagree with a few things Dr. Constantinou is saying. I do believe in Penal substitution in the sense that Jesus took on himself the consequences of our sin, but also brought us to new life in His resurrection.
Also, the book of Isaiah talks about the suffering servant dying for the sins of His people. I see this as an act of love. With respect. God bless you all!
Listen again what she says and what the definition is of sin.
That’s not the definition really. You’re talking about the Atonement. For Christ to pay for our sins in a judicial way, who did He Pay? Himself? (He is God) Satan? That would be blasphemy! He doesn’t owe anything to satan!
Christ conquered sin and death on the cross. We still have the choice to freely accept the love of God or reject His love into eternity.
That is not really what "Penal Substitution" means. Atonement is one thing, Penal Substitution Atonement is quite another.
Thank you both for your comments. They made me think a bit. My current understanding is this: I believe that the Lord came and died for our sins (He had no sin) to free us from our sins (when we repent and choose Him of course). Saint Paul talks about us dying with Him and being raised in baptism.
I definitely don't believe the Lord paid the price to the evil one. Instead I believe He united Himself to us, died for our sins, and rose to give us new life. I'm sorry if that sounds complicated. There is a lot more to say about the matter too! God bless you all!
@@bonniejohnstone we had a council gathered specifically for figuring out who the recepeint of the sacrifice is. The council of 1157 stated the sacrifice is to the all Persons of the Trinity. It even mentiones the reson for the neccessity of Atonement: Man offended God by transgressing the commandment. Source: Synodus graecae ecclesiae de dogmate circa illa verba, «Tu es qui оffеrѕ, еt qui offеrеriѕ, еt qui recipis» // PG. 140. Col. 185-186.
Btw, as you see, sin is also an offence against God's Truth even here and, for example, in st. Cyrill of Jerusalem, st. Nicolas Cabbasilas and many other Church fathers. As one example, st. Nicolas as if "followed" Anselm in his views writing about the offence of God - "ὕβριν φέρει" (Nicolaus Cabasilas. De Vita in Christo, 4.12-15 // SC. 355. P. 272-276.
There's patristic evidence for "penas substitution" and "judicial Atonement" but, as far as I know, there's different views on penal substitution as well so some may or may not be compatible with Orthodoxy. But I haven't even watched the video, went straight to the comments....better watch it first :)
Interesting ,while watching your teaching about Jesus rebuking the chief priests and thinking about the parallels in the Modern Church.
I enjoyed and love this episode!! God bless you! ❤️
Reading her book for Great Lent…. I’ll have to watch this interview
So what specifically does the cross do for us? Why the need for the sacrifice of Jesus? Aren’t unbeliever’s condemned for their sin? How do we understand John 3:36 “…the wrath of God abideth on him.”?
Thank you for this interview beautiful painful during holy week
She seems full of herself. The reason i wrote my book is because i know ALL these things that no one else does. This is the problem with academics
Her thesis confronts the academy
@Anomie thats nit-picking or demanding perfection either way it negates goodness which works 🙂👍
Except she’s not just an academic. She is married to a priest, chants in church and has a weekly podcast called Search the Scriptures where she goes line by line explaining the Bible. I’ve read her book and there are things in there that I guarantee would blow your mind, like the fact that the lambs for Passover were placed into an oven upright pierced with two wooden skewers horizontally and vertically, just like Christ was crucified. Plus much more.
Great interview!
Thanks!
I have always wondered what Issac was thinking and what God was doing there with his instructions to Abraham.
Looking forward to this
Shout out to the Lord of Spirits podcast…
Aside from Daniel, “Son of Man” is also a very prominent title of the Messiah in the Book of Enoch, which the Apostles Sts Peter and Jude quote in the NT. The Enochian tradition was very well known in the Second Temple Judaism of that time.
The one that sticks out to me also is how it's used in Ezekiel, which is a haunting book for many reasons, but ultimately shows how much God is willing to do for us.
My priest told us to imagine death is like machine that the souls would fall into before Christ came. Every death ended with the souls separated from God, some in the place of the righteous, some in torment. When Christ came, the machine of death took His soul, but it did not encounter a body like usual, it encountered God Himself, so it was like throwing a diamond in the machine. He broke the machine of death! That's why the icons show the gates of hades broken open with the padlocks scattered on the ground, death is defeated, and Christ is pulling Adam and Eve out and bringing them to paradise. As I understand it, it's the work of Holy Saturday that defeated death, and the grave could not contain God and He rose on Sunday, proving from that point onward Christians are not truly dead, but just temporarily separated from their bodies. On another topic, my kids and I read some of the lives of Plutarch and a repeated refrain was that it was better to die than be shamed. One story was about a defeated king being marched through the streets in a parade of the spoils of war, and the consensus was that the defeated king was worthy of scorn because he didn't take his own life, but surrendered. It kind of reminds me of Christ being paraded through the streets carrying His Cross. He truly changed how the Christian world (and even secular world) thinks to such a degree, that we can't comprehend what it was like before. Why do we think of self-sacrifice as the supreme good? It's because of Christ.
Yep!
Most folks miss 1 Peter 3:17- 4:6. as they only see Jesus as a sacrifice to die in place of us... "For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which He also went and made proclamation to the spirits in prison, who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God [p]for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ... but they will give an account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For the gospel has for this purpose been [e]preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as people, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. " What so many people miss when they say "He descended into Hades..." on Good Friday, is that Jesus wasn't merely there to be punished in place of us, but was also on a rescue mission, so that even those long buried would have a chance to hear the Holy Gospel, to be evangelized, so that the New Adam may reach the Old Adam! WHo is this King of Glory?!
Magnífica y nueva información para mí como converso ortodoxo
Tienes razón!
Omg i like this woman , in all i have reseached what this lady talks about takes us further back to or before romans and the cheif priests the jews wow. Just the knowledge i need . Now the jigsaw puzzle is coming together. I have read about the jews but dnt want to be dissing them if it aint true .this woman tells the truth and this guy too very good points he makes both of them together working has a team i like you i appreciate you thankyou for sharing. Taking me back to Lasuruz havnt heard this name since i was a child . Please keep this up we all need this you both reduced me to tears it rings so true from what i read has a child and not knowing everything has slowly changed has i grew. Thankyou from the bottom of my heart. I have been begging for the truth. I wished i found you so much earlier you could of saved me so much heartache . The spiritual battle i was in thanks to you two has become lighter. Thankyou so much and in this time we need you please dont stop. Im sharing this all over 😍❤😇
A great interview!
Brilliant interview!!! I cannot wait to read Dr. C’s book after this lovely peek into what she has covered in it. God bless you both!!
Stoked!
Back in the 1970s when I was working on my B.S., in religion I was rebuked for saying that the phrase, "Son of Man" that Jesus used was a mention of the book of Daniel's prophecy. The professor said no it refers to the humanity of Christ. This professor was a conservative, yet lacked knowledge of his O.T. I was in my late 20s back then, but spent hours studying the O.T. before even going to college. Unlike many Christians I read much in the O.T. Now I am 73 and felt out of place like I don't fit in the evangelical movement because I see so many things that are lacking. I didn't know that there were people in other communions that believe like I do.
Thank you both.
Please pray for me everyone that reads this I need the intercession of Gods Children thank you for considering
What is your name?
Wonderful! I thought I understood the crucifixion. Hardly.
My friend, she is right about the problems with substitutional atonement. It is from the medieval text, Cur Deus Homo, by St Anselm. However, it was never the primary understanding of the cross in Catholicism. It was favored among descents of the English Reformation because Anselm was from Canterbury. The motivation to favor Anselm was nationalist not theological.
Please interview a theologian from Franciscan University like John Bergsma to learn about Catholic approaches to scripture and Covenantal theology of the Eucharist and the cross. It will be mindblowing and absolutely transformative. And only Catholics are deep in the scriptures in this way.
Dr. Eugenia is amazing!
Blessings to you my dear sister and your moderator.
Am blessed by your lectures.How can i get in touch with you?
The 'Son of Man' title is also the title God often uses with the prophets. So, it could also be said up until the trial, they were seeing him refer to himself as a prophet.
The Brooklyn rabbi whose followers believed he was the Messiah was Menachem Schneerson..I remember that period. His followers hung around his burial site for days afterward as I recall.
Protestants don't teach or believe that God demanded Christ sacrifice Himself for our sins....Jesus voluntarily offered Himself. I disagree where Eugenia says that the sacrifice was not required to be a substitutionary payment for our sins. If Christ did not die on the cross, each of us would have to pay for our sins individually - which none of us could do. We all have sinned and we are all responsible to a just God for the penalty of our sins. Before creation God the Father and Yeshua Jesus Christ knew the dilemma of making man with a free will. They knew we would sin and they needed a way to be just and merciful at the same time. Out of love it was decided that Jesus would offer Himself as a sacrifice for the payment owed God for sin. The blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin, but God temporarily accepted animal sacrifices until the sacrifice of Christ on the cross could be made. This is also why the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and God never had it rebuilt. It was no longer needed! The sacrificial system and the Levitical priesthood came to an end because Christ suffered once and for all for the sins of all mankind. We obtain this benefit when we humble ourselves in repentance, we confess Christ as our Lord and Savior, we get baptized, and then live for Him and keep His commandments.
The Cross, then, that Christ bore, was not for His own deserts, but was the cross that awaited us, and was our due, through our condemnation by the Law…He took upon Himself the Cross that was our due, passing on Himself the condemnation of the Law, that the mouth of all lawlessness might henceforth be stopped, according to the saying of the Psalmist; the Sinless having suffered condemnation for the sin of all (John 19:16-18). Cyril of Alexandria, 'Book XII Commentary on John'
For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace [with God] through the blood of His cross… St Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah'
“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, sinless priest… It was clearly necessary for Christ to descend to Hades, but all these things were done with justice, without which God does not act.” Homily 16, 1, 2, 21 St Gregory Palamas
‘The Lord had to taste death for each, and having become a propitiatory sacrifice for the world, justify all by His blood’ St Basil, ' Letter to Bishop Optimus'
God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood-to be received by faith. Romans 3.25
But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53.5-6
There are many contemporary Orthodox writers who wish to deny or downplay a number of concepts that relate to our redemption. They will argue we don't believe Christ had to die in our place, or that His blood needed to be shed to pay the penalty for our sins. They will deny the legitimacy of legal terms, in favor of the idea that the Church is a spiritual hospital. The problem is not that the Church is not a spiritual hospital, but rather that in emphasizing one set of images used to explain our salvation, they deny a whole set of equally valid images that are clearly Biblical. It is true that in the west there was an over emphasis on legal imagery, but the solution to such an imbalance is not a new imbalance in the opposite direction. We can and should speak of sin as an illness, but when we die, we do not go before the final medical exam -- we face the final judgment, which is a legal image if ever there was one. And so we can also speak of sin as a transgression of the Law of God, and of our need to be justified by God, even as we speak of sin in terms of an illness that we need to be healed of.
Fr John Whiteford, 'Do Orthodox Christians Believe in the Atonement?'
Dignity, Honor and Glory; the Cross destroys them all. Christ was not destroyed by the cross. He Destroyed the Cross!
I’m always so confused why the Orthodox do the “either or” thing and not both/and. It’s not Christus Victor instead of penal substitution, or recapitulation over legal satisfaction. Scripture definitely uses both kinds of language
I don’t think there is an either or. It’s when the context is “God killed Jesus” or God required Jesus to die in order to change his mind about you, where things get dicey. God doesn’t change this includes His mind. Also Jesus is God and God doesn’t kill God. There is a penal substitution even in orthodoxy from what I can see. The the substitution is Christ who underwent the punishment as our substitute. That punishment was death which we brought into the world through sin. God is the only life, He alone is the only source of it. When Adam and Eve left the life death entered. Christ warned them in the garden. Death passed to all men and God in his love for mankind took that punishment, death, in our place to defeat it so we don’t have to fear death our Creator has made a way for us. Christ died that he might bring us to the Father according to the scripture. He emptied the tombs and all men will now be resurrected, some to eternal life and some to torments.
I agree with you, Anglican Aesthetics! I am Catholic, and this kind of talk that Christ did not “pay” for our sins is very foreign to me. Scripture is FULL of references to Our Lord Jesus paying the price for us. Our Lord Himself said at the Last Supper that His blood was going to be poured out for the forgiveness of sin.
It is not “God killing Jesus.” It is God sacrificing Himself.
There’s no dispute Scripture uses the language of ransom, sacrifice, substitution, and punishment. The question is what is meant by this? By the time Calvin was formulating his PSA theory of the Atonement, he was already centuries and several philosophical movements removed from the context of the biblical images and language and their interpretation in the early Church Fathers. Calvin was a lawyer, not a theologian, Saint or even a patristic scholar. It matters.
@@lornadoone8887 Calvin wasn’t at all removed from the Fathers. The language of Christ paying the debt of punishment himself through his death is in Athanasius’ On the Incarnation. Anselm and Aquinas’ satisfaction theory is very, very close to PSA as well.
And also, while Calvin’s training was in law, it was more precisely in the humanities. He knew Greek and Hebrew like the back of his hand; it’s a huge stretch to say he wasn’t a theologian when all the Westminster divines considered him one of the best of the Reformed
@@anglicanaesthetics Facts 🔥
I was with Dr. C up until she denied the penal aspect of the crucifixion. She claims that this idea was unheard of in the early Church and only emerged in the medieval era. Clearly, she is not familiar with St. Athanasius (~300-375 A.D.), who wrote "On the Incarnation," often referred to today by the title "The Divine Dilemma," which is an explanation of Christ's sacrifice as God's answer to the dilemma posed by man's disobedience in the face of God's promise of punishment and Man's subsequent inability to correct it, or "pay for it," on his own.
I'll leave it at that. Whatever other early writers might have thought, or what the common notion was in the first centuries after Christ, the fact is that one of the great Doctors of the Church dealt with this issue explicitly loooong before the middle ages, which is contrary to what she's claiming.
Oops. Please insert "substitution" after "penal" in the first sentence above.
I agree 100%. What she says is actually heresy, which is shocking. The cross was both a penal substitution AND a working of healing. But to outright deny the penal atonement? She is orthodox, she SHOULD know better!
No one with even a passing familiarity of patristics is unaware of St. Athanasius. And you might want to revisit him on that; it seems you were reading him through your own preconceptions.
Dr. Constantinou specifically said Christ's death wasn't a payment *to God the Father* for the sins of men. This doesn't contradict the passage you mentioned from St. Athanasius. In it, he talks about Christ's death as solving the problem of "the law of death" which "prevailed on us" after the fall. He says that repentance alone *would* have been enough to save us from our trespasses, but because we were suffering from the corruption of our nature, something more needed to be done. For this reason, Christ assumed human nature and "surrendered his body to death... that the law of death might be abolished"
The fact that Athanasius notes it wouldn't be fitting for God's warning in Genesis to be an empty one doesn't imply a legal transaction demanded by God the Father. What it means is that God's warning wasn't empty because, as Athanasius explains, the corruption of human nature made it impossible for repentance alone to save us. Nowhere does he (or the Bible) say that God cannot forgive sins and must kill someone for His justice to be satisfied.
@@jacob5283 100% agree, and it can be quite eye-opening to revisit the text while consciously setting aside preconceptions of what it means. I understand the original commenters hang-up and have been there myself. Complex text after all, but there's no view from nowhere.
Cabasilas has a helpful section on "The ransom which Christ has paid for us" in his "The Life in Christ": according to Cabasilas, Jesus has done no "no wrong for which He might pay the penalty, nor had He committed sin, nor had He done anything of which the most shameless informer might accuse Him. Yet wounds, pain, and death were from the beginning devised against sin! Why then did the Lord permit it, since He loves man? It is not reasonable for goodness to take pleasure in an atrocity and in death. This is the reason that God permitted death and pain as soon as sin had entered in, not so much to inflict penalty on the guilty but rather to supply a remedy for him who had fallen into sickness. Since, therefore, it was impossible to apply this penalty to the things which Christ had done, and since the Savior had no trace of any disease for which He needed a remedy to heal Him, the power of His cup is applied to us and slays the sin that is in us. The wounding of Him who is under no censure becomes the penalty of those who are guilty of many things...it not only cancelled the indictment but added so great an abundance of benefits...how great a sin had human nature committed that needed so great a penalty to expiate it! How great was the wound that required the power of this remedy! It was necessary that sin should be abolished by some penalty, and that we, by paying a just penalty, should be cleared of the indictment of the sins which we have committed against God...but among men there was no one who, himself being guiltless, might have suffered for the others. Since no one could have sufficed for himself, even the whole race, could it have died ten thousand times, was unable to pay the penalty it deserved. What fitting penalty could that most wretched slave undergo, who had utterly destroyed the image of the king and acted contemptuously towards so great a dignity? It is for this reason that the Master who is without sin suffers many terrible things and dies and endures the blow. As man He undertakes the cause of mankind. He releases our race from the indictment and gives freedom to the prisoners, since He Himself, being God and Master, stood in no need thereof." (pp. 58 - 60). So here there is (1) penalty; (2) penalty bearer; (3) effects of the payment of the penalty. It's this sort of thing that is staple theology. We all deserve the penalty due our sins and He paid it all on our behalf. Whilst this is not affirmation of penal substitution atonement per se., it is certainly not a denial of an aspect of it that we should do well to remember and be thankful for!!
Woah! Most of what she said was everything I learned in my many years of Catholic school…up until she claimed we shouldn’t think of Christ’s death on the cross as a payment. What?! Of course it was about love, but yes it was about payment. If it was not, then the whole point of Christianity-that Jesus was the Lamb of God, who sacrificed Himself to pay the debt of sin for we who believe in Him- is lost. What she is saying is heresy. What a jolting conclusion after all that she said. Why did Jesus “lovingly” sacrifice himself on the Cross, if not for a purpose…to pay for our sins? That is the essence of Christianity.
It is not a literal payment, because no one got paid. St Gregory Nazianzus discusses this. Who got paid? The devil? But he is not our lawful master but a thief and a liar. God? But it is not by God that we were held captive, and He does not delight in human sacrifice. Rather, the "payment" is an evening out of what was out of order, a filling in of what was lacking in us. One could say that the payment was to reality itself. In any case, when she said Christ's death wasn't a payment on our behalf, I think she was specifically attacking the Protestant idea that Jesus' death was a payment to satisfy the Father.
@@ButSeriouslyThough I am not interested in the semantics of theologians. . My entire life in Catholic school I was taught that Christ paid for our sins so that we could have eternal life. The Protestants believe the same. The wages of sin is death, right? If His death on the Cross wasn’t a payment (or atonement, or whatever you want to call it - again, spare me the semantics) then what was it? And yes it was the will of the Father because Christ himself asked if he could be spared that cup, and then asked the Father why he was forsaken. The Father planned this! He came down in the form of a human. Our Lord was born into this world for this very purpose! He gave His life for US, so that we would be reconciled to God and our sins would be forgiven. It’s Christianity 101. Sometimes these theologians speak in circles and mess with peoples’ minds.
Even at Catholic Mass we ask God to accept the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood. Who are we kidding here with this “it’s not a payment to God” nonsense? It most certainly is. The catechism clearly states Christ paid the ransom for our sins.
And it is not merely human sacrifice. It was God sacrificing Himself in human form. Very different. Is there mystery there which can not be fully explained by the human brain? Yes. But that’s what it was…both sacrifice and payment by our one God.
@@delvaassante5699 Yes, the Father planned this (or rather the Father, Son and Holy Spirit planned this together, since they have one will), but as Dr. Constantinou points out in the video and as St Gregory Nazianzus says, He did not -require- it. Also, a sacrifice is not a transaction and was never understood as such. And redemption means to buy back a slave - but again, to whom was the price of manumission paid? It was not the Father Who enslaved us. We do also speak of Christ's sacrifice to the Father, of Christ redeeming us with His blood, even of Christ's payment on the cross, but I believe Dr. Constantinou was attacking in particular the Protestant doctrine that this was a payment to the Father to satisfy divine justice. Surely Catholics do not believe this, or else I cannot understand why I was told by several Catholic priests that our beliefs are the same. :)
And if you guys do believe this after all, well, it kinda proves the claim of some Orthodox that we are not just Catholics without a Pope and that Protestantism is just democratized Catholicism. But I certainly hope this is not the case! I go to Catholic masses often and don't see or hear anything objectionable.
Dear friend. What dr. Constantinou says are not a heresy at all. If we speak for the sacrifice of Christ in terms of a payment, we have to check to whom Christ paid the ransom. As Orthodox Christians we don’t accept that the sacrifice of Christ satisfied God the Father in a legalistic way neither sin was an offence to the Father. In the early father we find sin to be a disease that our Lord come to heal. Through His Gross restores the human nature and makes it open again to the Grace of deification. And indeed it is the love of God that consented to be crucified!
@@sergioskyriacou6435
My Catholic Church has always taught that sin is an offense to God, and that Christ sacrificed Himself to pay for our sin and reconcile us to God. The Bible itself is full of reference to Christ paying for our sin with his death. Our catechism literally reaffirms this in writing. Any Catholic denying or spinning this truth is a heretic. His crucifixion was not just an unfortunate incident which occurred because he as a human angered some people. It was a planned sacrifice. The Lord Himself stated at the Last Supper that he was giving His body and pouring out His blood for the forgiveness of sins.
This is our Nicene Creed, the profession of our faith. I believe yours is similar? Note that it says: “For US men and for our salvation He came down from Heaven…For OUR SAKE He was crucified. “. It was a plan of salvation, God sacrificing Himself. To focus only on “love” (as Dr Constaninou said). breezes by the point that Jesus intentially died for us, as willed by the Father, to save us. After all, what better love to lay down one’s life for another? That is exactly what Christ did.
Catholic Profession of Faith:
“We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial
one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfilment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Amen.”
If any man [or woman ] loves not the Lord Jesus Christ Let him be anathema.....maranatha!!....
Isaac, was thought to be about 30 and willingly carried the wood on which he was to be sacrificed. The Rabbis were on to something, but did not follow all the Way.
Fantastic video really gets to the point
the wages of sin is death....
Wages are owed
therefore a debt is paid when death occurs.
Thoughts?
Austin, you are an excellent interviewer!
14th Day of Nisan: Binding of Isaac, Passover in Egypt, Crucifixion.
Colossians 2:13-15
And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
This verse speaks of debt paid right?
I don’t understand how the humility of the cross shows God’s love for us with no transactional gain. Yes, God loves us so much He sent His Son who humbled himself enduring a horrific and humiliating death. But without some transactional reason for that awful death it also would seem kind of arbitrary to me. We can’t forget that evil has a face and that the bondage had to be broken with a very specific kind of death and shedding of blood. This is why I think of the cross as somewhat transactional - the atoning for sin. There is even sin sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament as a type. We as humans need to be liberated from the hold that sin and satan have on us. I don’t think of the cross as a transaction that God required, but we need the transaction. The fact that satan is real and has a real hold on us through sin means to me that a transaction did need to occur, one that was of the nature of a payment but much much more. We need the atoning blood sacrifice of Jesus to liberate us from continuing in our sin and serving evil/satan. At the cross and subsequent resurrection, we were stolen back out of the bondage to sin and satan in which we placed ourselves. Through the blood of the sinless lamb of God, we are set free and our consciences released from bondage. This seems transactional to me.