Jay Dyer Thread

[WoodArch4033]

This is the contention that is nonsensical to me. How can the Son be bearing penalty for sin that is not being accounted to Him by the Father? Why does the Son taking on a distinct operation, namely the incarnation, not count as "splitting the Trinity" but Him bearing sin and it's penalty does? Moreover, what do you do with a passage like Isaiah 53:10-12? "It pleased Yahweh to crush Him, He will bear their iniquities, He bore the sin of many."

Yes it pleased The Father to give His Son to be crushed at the cross, however it also pleased The Son to crush His own self, and it pleased The Holy Spirit

You don't believe God has wrath against sinners? I propose that the cross shows both the wrath of God against sin and the mercy of God to His chosen ones.

I agree that the cross shows both God's judgement and mercy, however since Christ's human nature is not a second person, and there is One Divine Will, we don't believe that Christ was separated from The Father because of sin, but rather that He took on the punishment for sin. Growing up going to bible churches, non-denom, and baptist churches it was my impression that the later development of penal substitution in western Protestantism (which also in part stems from Latin theology) states that The Son was in hell for three days as a separation, a punishment from The Father. We Orthodox reject that, because The Son bore our punishment in union with The Spirit and The Father. He was crushed by The Father's Will and of His own Divine (which is the same as The Father's) and His Human Will.

The types of animal sacrifice are one of the biggest reasons I am convinced of PSA, that is one of the big points in Hebrews. And it is not the claim of PSA that the Father "needs" sacrifice. He only "needs" sacrifice in the sense that His justice towards our sin has to be carried out if we are to enter into His presence.

Most types of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament are for purifying the altar/tabernacle space so that God's presence could dwell among them. They needed the blood of the animal to sprinkle around the altar and cleanse things, to do that the animal would be killed. There was also the scapegoat, which was a goat iirc, and the sins of the people would be transferred to the goat and the goat would be kicked out of the camp.
Christ fulfills all of the law and the prophets, so He fulfills all of these things, and in the Eucharist He gives His Blood into the temple of the body of the Orthodox Christian, so that by His Flesh and The Holy Spirit, The Triune God dwells in the temple of the body.

Since Christ is God, when He takes sin upon the cross, He burns it up! He is not separated from The Father, He is always One with The Father, and if Christ was separated from The Father, how can we be united to The Father through Christ? Christ was crushed, but willingly, and not in separation from the Godhead

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yes it pleased The Father to give His Son to be crushed at the cross, however it also pleased The Son to crush His own self, and it pleased The Holy Spirit

I agree, there is One Divine Will. PSA is not saying that the Son did not will to be crushed but the Father willed for Him to be crushed anyway. This is why the contention that PSA "splits the Trinity" does not carry water, at least not with regard to the Divine Will.

I agree that the cross shows both God's judgement and mercy, however since Christ's human nature is not a second person, and there is One Divine Will, we don't believe that Christ was separated from The Father because of sin, but rather that He took on the punishment for sin.

I agree with this as well. I don't believe the Father pouring His wrath out on Jesus constitutes as "separation." Because we both just agreed that they had the same Will in carrying out the Atonement. I suppose the question at this point is this: did Jesus actually take on our sin or was He punished without taking on our sin?

Growing up going to bible churches, non-denom, and baptist churches it was my impression that the later development of penal substitution in western Protestantism (which also in part stems from Latin theology) states that The Son was in hell for three days as a separation, a punishment from The Father.

The idea that Jesus was burning in Hell for three days, as part of the Atonement, seems to be an IFB distinctive, and I agree that it is heretical. The Atonement was completed at the cross.

There was also the scapegoat, which was a goat iirc, and the sins of the people would be transferred to the goat and the goat would be kicked out of the camp.

That is penal substitution in the Old Testament, which points to the only truly effective penal substitution in the New Testament, as defined in Hebrews.

Christ fulfills all of the law and the prophets, so He fulfills all of these things, and in the Eucharist He gives His blood into the temple of the body of the Orthodox Christian, so that by His flesh and The Holy Spirit, The Triune God dwells in the temple of the body.

That is a different topic, we may or may not discuss now. But mainly our difference on that will come to this: do you believe the cross points to the Eucharist or do you believe the Eucharist points to the cross?

 

[WoodArch4033]

I agree with this as well. I don't believe the Father pouring His wrath out on Jesus constitutes as "separation." Because we both just agreed that they had the same Will in carrying out the Atonement. I suppose the question at this point is this: did Jesus actually take on our sin or was He punished without taking on our sin?

I would say yes, He did take our sin upon Himself, but the distinction between the Orthodox and the now Protestants would be how that takes place in the life of the Christian. He takes our sin upon His sacrifice so that we can be united to Him against our sin, that by being the Body of Christ, our sins are burned up in new life in resurrection.
1 Peter 2:24 who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

The idea that Jesus was burning in Hell for three days, as part of the Atonement, seems to be an IFB distinctive, and I agree that it is heretical. The Atonement was completed at the cross.

That's good

do you believe the cross points to the Eucharist or do you believe the Eucharist points to the cross?

I believe both/and. The real and true Eucharist happened by Christ's grace before the cross in our view of time, and it also happens after the resurrection. I think it's God's way of uniting His people that are in His Church to the eternal Christ who was slain at the foundation of the world.
I also think that the Eucharist points to the incarnation, the resurrection, the manna, feeding the 5,000, the ascension, The Holy Spirit, and The Father

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I would say yes, He did take our sin upon Himself, but the distinction between the Orthodox and the now Protestants would be how that takes place in the life of the Christian. He takes our sin upon His sacrifice so that we can be united to Him against our sin, that by being the Body of Christ, our sins are burned up in new life in resurrection.
1 Peter 2:24 who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

I have no love lost for people like Dyer because they set up false dialectics where there needn't be. There's nothing here I disagree with, even as a Calvinist.

I believe both/and. The real and true Eucharist happened by Christ's grace before the cross in our view of time, and it also happens after the resurrection. I think it's God's way of uniting His people that are in His Church to the eternal Christ who was slain at the foundation of the world.
I also think that the Eucharist points to the incarnation, the resurrection, the manna, feeding the 5,000, the ascension, The Holy Spirit, and The Father

Let me frame the question tighter: do you believe that the Atonement, the cross, is actually effective and saves those whom it's made for? Or is our partaking of the Eucharist what will determine our salvation?

By the way, thank you for taking the time.

 

[Iacobus]

I have no love lost for people like Dyer because they set up false dialectics where there needn't be. There's nothing here I disagree with, even as a Calvinist.


Let me frame the question tighter: do you believe that the Atonement, the cross, is actually effective and saves those whom it's made for? Or is our partaking of the Eucharist what will determine our salvation?

By the way, thank you for taking the time.

Just jumping in here but I don't see how the reframing of the question necessitates an either or. Christ's sacrifice was a necessary part of God's plan for the salvation of man, yet at the same time Christ in John says unless you drink His blood and eat His flesh you have no life in you. And yet again, Christ says unless we are born of water and spirit we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. And yet again, Christ teaches that participation in the Kingdom of Heaven is contingent on loving God and obeying his commandments. It is a tapestry of salvation, why would there be a need to try to reduce it to a single element?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Just jumping in here but I don't see how the reframing of the question necessitates an either or.

It's a pretty simple question. Saying both/and is saying that Christ dying for you alone is insufficient to save you, and His atoning work must be added to or actuated in some other way. Which is contradictory to Hebrews: by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Christ in John says unless you drink His blood and eat His flesh you have no life in you.

That's true but He's not even talking about the Eucharist in John 6. There's people who are saved who have not taken the Eucharist. But no one is saved outside of believing in Jesus, which is what John 6 is really talking about.

And yet again, Christ says unless we are born of water and spirit we cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Also a spiritual application. There's people who are saved who did not receive water baptism. But everyone who believes is born again.

And yet again, Christ teaches that participation in the Kingdom of Heaven is contingent on loving God and obeying his commandments.

True, this is why God writes His Law on the hearts and minds of the members of the Church.

It is a tapestry of salvation, why would there be a need to try to reduce it to a single element?

Not a reduction, just clarifying to see if you believe that God alone justifies you, or if you believe that you earn your salvation by doing good works.

 

[Iacobus]

It's a pretty simple question. Saying both/and is saying that Christ dying for you alone is insufficient to save you, and His atoning work must be added to or actuated in some other way. Which is contradictory to Hebrews: by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

The simplicity of the question doesn't correlate to its validity. You could ask me whether I hold Matthew's Gospel to be authoritative or John's... as a Christian that's clearly a nonsensical reason and I have no need to choose between the two.

I see that you are quoting Hebrews 10, which goes on to say in verse 26 onward:

26 For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

That's true but He's not even talking about the Eucharist in John 6. There's people who are saved who have not taken the Eucharist. But no one is saved outside of believing in Jesus, which is what John 6 is really talking about.

Going to disagree here as we Orthodox certainly hold that as an allusion to the Eucharist.

Not a reduction, just clarifying to see if you believe that God alone justifies you, or if you believe that you earn your salvation by doing good works.

I'm sure that no one on here Orthodox or otherwise thinks you can earn your salvation through works alone without need of Christ's sacrifice or God's providence. I think one of the key theological differences here may be in the concept of synergy; we Orthodox hold (correct me if I'm wrong brothers) that God has provided the means for our salvation but to achieve it we must unite and subsume our human will to the Divine will through participation in the sacraments, worship of God and obedience to His commandments. Without accepting the gift of Christ's sacrifice we cannot be saved yes, but through our actions and sins we can separate ourselves from God and be damned.

Yes God's mercy provides that some who were not baptized or did not partake in the Eucharist may be saved. But there is no one for whose sins Christ did not sacrifice himself to cleanse. I'm not sure if that is the distinction you are trying to make.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I see that you are quoting Hebrews 10, which goes on to say in verse 26 onward:

So He hasn't perfected forever by His one offering? Do you have a way of harmonizing these texts or is the writer to the Hebrews contradicting himself in the same chapter? 1 John says that no one who is born again can remain in sin because he is born again.

Going to disagree here as we Orthodox certainly hold that as an allusion to the Eucharist.

If you insist that He is, despite the fact that He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet, then your understanding is that the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation. And yet, we can see many in Scripture who are saved despite never taking the Eucharist.

I'm sure that no one on here Orthodox or otherwise thinks you can earn your salvation through works alone without need of Christ's sacrifice or God's providence. I think one of the key theological differences here may be in the concept of synergy; we Orthodox hold (correct me if I'm wrong brothers) that God has provided the means for our salvation but to achieve it we must unite and subsume our human will to the Divine will through participation in the sacraments, worship of God and obedience to His commandments. Without accepting the gift of Christ's sacrifice we cannot be saved yes, but through our actions and sins we can separate ourselves from God and be damned.

If it depends on our will, why does Paul say this in Romans 9?: 16So then it does not depend on the one who wills or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy.

Yes God's mercy provides that some who were not baptized or did not partake in the Eucharist may be saved. But there is no one for whose sins Christ did not sacrifice himself to cleanse. I'm not sure if that is the distinction you are trying to make.

I do not believe Christ fails in His atoning work. If He died for you, you will be saved.

 

[Iacobus]

So He hasn't perfected forever by His one offering? Do you have a way of harmonizing these texts or is the writer to the Hebrews contradicting himself in the same chapter? 1 John says that no one who is born again can remain in sin because he is born again.


If you insist that He is, despite the fact that He hadn't instituted the Eucharist yet, then your understanding is that the Eucharist is a requirement for salvation. And yet, we can see many in Scripture who are saved despite never taking the Eucharist.


If it depends on our will, why does Paul say this in Romans 9?: 16So then it does not depend on the one who wills or the one who runs, but on God who has mercy.


I do not believe Christ fails in His atoning work. If He died for you, you will be saved.

I'm probably not going to do any better at elaborating the Orthodox position than to quote the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem which responded to the Calvinists:

We believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. For that would be contrary to the nature of God, who is the common Father of all, and no respecter of persons, and would have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth {1 Timothy 2:4}. But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. And we understand the use of free-will thus, that the Divine and illuminating grace, and which we call preventing [or, prevenient] grace, being, as a light to those in darkness, by the Divine goodness imparted to all, to those that are willing to obey this — for it is of use only to the willing, not to the unwilling — and co-operate with it, in what it requires as necessary to salvation, there is consequently granted particular grace. This grace co-operates with us, and enables us, and makes us to persevere in the love of God, that is to say, in performing those good things that God would have us to do, and which His preventing grace admonishes us that we should do, justifies us, and makes us predestinated. But those who will not obey, and co-operate with grace; and, therefore, will not observe those things that God would have us perform, and that abuse in the service of Satan the free-will, which they have received of God to perform voluntarily what is good, are consigned to eternal condemnation.

But to say, as the most wicked heretics do and as is contained in the Chapter [of Cyril's' Confession] to which this answers — that God, in predestinating, or condemning, did not consider in any way the works of those predestinated, or condemned, we know to be profane and impious. For thus Scripture would be opposed to itself, since it promises the believer salvation through works, yet supposes God to be its sole author, by His sole illuminating grace, which He bestows without preceding works, to show to man the truth of divine things, and to teach him how he may co-operate with it, if he will, and do what is good and acceptable, and so obtain salvation. He takes not away the power to will — to will to obey, or not obey him.

But than to affirm that the Divine Will is thus solely and without cause the author of their condemnation, what greater defamation can be fixed upon God? and what greater injury and blasphemy can be offered to the Most High? We do know that the Deity is not tempted with evils, {cf. James 1:13} and that He equally wills the salvation of all, since there is no respect of persons with Him. we do confess that for those who through their own wicked choice, and their impenitent heart, have become vessels of dishonor, there is justly decreed condemnation. But of eternal punishment, of cruelty, of pitilessness, and of inhumanity, we never, never say God is the author, who tells us that there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repents. {Luke 15:7} Far be it from us, while we have our senses, to believe or to think this; and we do subject to an eternal anathema those who say and think such things, and esteem them to be worse than any infidels.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I'm probably not going to do any better at elaborating the Orthodox position than to quote the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem which responded to the Calvinists:

I've read this synod before. The Bishop's confession that they are condemning was far more Biblical. What it amounts to is what you've elucidated; that God does His part, but the rest is up to us. Which is contrary to what Paul was teaching in Romans 9: before we have done anything good or bad, it doesn't depend on our will but God who has mercy.

 

[Iacobus]

I've read this synod before. The Bishop's confession that they are condemning was far more Biblical. What it amounts to is what you've elucidated; that God does His part, but the rest is up to us. Which is contrary to what Paul was teaching in Romans 9: before we have done anything good or bad, it doesn't depend on our will but God who has mercy.

Yes, it depends, first, before we have done anything, on God' mercy, love and sacrifice on our behalf. And then it depends on us doing our part, with the empowerment and help and mercy of God.

I mean if we're just quote mining, then okay, here's one I'm sure you've seen in James:

Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Black and white as you can get. Says right here in my Bible that faith without works is dead, and that a man is justified not by faith only, but by works also.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Yes, it depends, first, before we have done anything, on God' mercy, love and sacrifice on our behalf. And then it depends on us doing our part, with the empowerment and help and mercy of God.

I can affirm that. The empowerment, help and mercy of God is why we will not fail in doing our part. Because He never fails.

Black and white as you can get. Says right here in my Bible that faith without works is dead, and that a man is justified not by faith only, but by works also.

Given that faith itself is a gift from God, and His purpose in saving us is that we will carry out good works according to that faith, I say amen.

 

[Iacobus]

I can affirm that. The empowerment, help and mercy of God is why we will not fail in doing our part. Because He never fails.


Given that faith itself is a gift from God, and His purpose in saving us is that we will carry out good works according to that faith, I say amen.

So you agree that we are justified, not alone but in part, by our works?

 

[JCSteel]

So you agree that we are justified, not alone but in part, by our works?

As an Orthodox Inquirer I appreciate this robust discussion. Could it be said both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox believe the merit or grounds of our justification is Christ; the only difference is whether we are united to Christ through "faith alone" or through "faith working through love"(faith with works) as the E.O.C. teaches?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

So you agree that we are justified, not alone but in part, by our works?

I'll put it this way: There are no good works without faith, there is no faith without the Holy Spirit regenerating us, there is no Holy Spirit regenerating us without the Son dying and interceding for us, there is no Son dying and interceding for us without the Father ordaining it all for us.

I can't have good works at all without faith, and if I have faith, I will continue on in good works.

There is no work I can perform, outside of faith, that will avail a righteous God. It is only on the basis of what He has done for me, removing my sin and accounting me as righteous, that I can have any good works at all.

 

[Iacobus]

As an Orthodox Inquirer I appreciate this robust discussion. Could it be said both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox believe the merit or grounds of our justification is Christ; the only difference is whether we are united to Christ through "faith alone" or through "faith working through love"(faith with works) as the E.O.C. teaches?

I think there are two different branches of this discussion, one is about faith and works which I do think we are actually on a similar wavelength as the Protestant sola fide was a reaction to indulgences and such abuses which no Orthodox would condone as acceptable.

The other branch is about whether man has free will to accept God's gift or to choose to reject it to live in sin. Or whether it is entirely out of our hands, double predestination, etc on this I don't think there is reconciliation between Calvinist double predestination and Orthodox synergism.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Could it be said both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox believe the merit or grounds of our justification is Christ; the only difference is whether we are united to Christ through "faith alone" or through "faith working through love"(faith with works) as the E.O.C. teaches?

That is what I am trying to figure out. Being Reformed, I affirm that it is on the basis of God's Grace and Mercy alone that anyone is saved at all. If salvation is mine to lose, then I cannot consistently say that. Either I cause God to save me or God causes me to be saved.

The sacraments/ordinances are good works. But there are no good works without faith. I can be saved without good works, many have been, nevertheless I am commanded to carry out the good works. And good works that glorify God are the very purpose of why God saved us. However, no one is saved without faith. If I take the sacraments without faith, then the judgement will be greater.

 

[WoodArch4033]

I've never thought of the sacraments as good works. I think they're the tools of the uncreated grace of God, in other words, they are a mercy and a gift. There's nothing we can do to earn baptism, the Holy Spirit, absolution, and the Eucharist

"A certain elder once said it is not as easy as it looks for a Christian to perish. Do you really think God has called you, washed you with the water of baptism, given you the Holy Spirit, allowed you partake of the body and blood of the Lord, forgiven you your sins, and now He is just going to let the devil have you for lunch? Not on your life! He will take care of you -whether it means smacking you upside the head or showing you His mercy. He will fight for you with everything He has."

-Fr Daniel Sysoev

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I've never thought of the sacraments as good works. I think they're the tools of the uncreated grace of God, in other words, they are a mercy and a gift. There's nothing we can do to earn baptism, the Holy Spirit, absolution, and the Eucharist

There are covenantal conditions to receiving the sacraments. Do you not believe in guarding the table? Repentance and faith precede baptism. Baptism precedes the Supper. This is why Paul warns against taking the Supper in an unworthy manner.

Were they instituted according to God's Grace? Yes. But the way we take them can be done in an unworthy manner, incruing greater judgement.

 

[Samseau]

Either I cause God to save me or God causes me to be saved.

I think this is your problem. This is a false dichotomy. It's not either/or here. It's and/both.

You cause God to save you, and God causes you to be saved.

You're thinking in terms of contradictions, but with God all things are possible and there are no contradictions for Him. He exists outside of time and can be in an infinite number of places at the same time.

Thus God creates you and I, so that we may be saved, but that we do so by saving ourselves. Such is the mystery of the Lord!