The critique of this thread is focused on something called redemptive theology. Eastern Orthodox Christians like myself do not believe in this. I like to step careful in this line of discussion on forums because I tend to sound critical of Catholic/Protestant theology on this mark because I think they are so fundamentally wrong. The Eastern churches do not hold that Catholic/Protestants are "not Christian" and "going to hell", Orthodox theology doesn't work that way. We do view them as what we call "schismatic" meaning we believe their belief and practices are so fundamentally incorrect we cannot be in communion with them. We do not judge their relationship with God because
that is never for us to judge, or any human.
I will summarize redemptive theology as this:
Man is sinful, rejected God and was punished. We received God's justice, and the wages of sin are death. God doesn't want that for us, so he offers up Jesus to "pay the price" and redeem us.
This is a formula, and IMO it is not scriptural and is not the teachings of the holy Church as they were 2000 years ago. You can build an argument for redemptive theology from passages in the bible, but like many of the atheists on this board have noted, there is a lot of logical inconsistencies to that argument. The best way I have heard the Orthodox take on this explained is like this:
God gave us free will, and we rejected God. Innate to being given free will, was the certainty that we would use that free will to reject God. There is a divine purpose for us being given free will, and it is not necessarily understood (i.e. is a divine mystery.) By rejecting God, we actually rejected
life. God is not vindictive or punishing, he never said "You must pay me in blood for your sins." Instead, he offered us a
path back to him. He came to earth as a human, and taught us, and then he accepted death--just as all humans must. His death did not save us. To believe so, is to worship a "death God", which our God is not a death god. Salvation
did not occur on the cross, it occurred on the third day, when Christ proved God's power over death by returning to life. Christ can be seen as a guide, he lived as a man on earth, he died as a man on earth, but he was reborn--this is promised to all of us if we keep the faith.
How then, do we address some biblical passages that use phrases like "ransom for death." Saint Gregory the Theologian, preaching in the 4th century, had this to say about it:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?
If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!
But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham], but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (see Gen 22).
Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant [i.e., the devil] and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.
Note what Gregory says here--1600 years ago he was already aware of and countering some of the arguments made about redemptive theology that some of you have made in this thread. As Saint Gregory notes, the idea that he is paying Satan the ransom is entirely ridiculous, this would be akin to God paying a criminal, which God would never do.
Additionally, Gregory notes that God
paying himself, makes no sense and is not in compliance with other things we know about God--for example God interceded to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, because he would not actually make someone pay such a price to him.
Instead, the ransom is metaphorical, and denotes that God through his incarnation on earth as Christ has done everything necessary for our redemption--redemption is not our paying a sin wage, it is us moving on the path to closeness with God.
