lampalm | May 28, '11 7:42 pm |
Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Windfish | May 28, '11 7:43 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Short answer: nope.
lampalm | May 28, '11 7:44 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
How is a Catholic declared righteous before God?
Algo1 | May 29, '11 10:09 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Here is an early example of the "Great Exchange" long before Luther embraced it.
Quote:
Mathetes to Diognetus: As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.
Algo1 | Jun 7, '11 7:04 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"?
gurneyhalleck1 | Jun 7, '11 7:06 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Penal substitution is a subtle offshoot of substitutionary atonement from St. Anselm. Catholics don't generally buy into Penal Subst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
guanophore | Jun 7, '11 7:22 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Yes. If Jesus had actually accomplished penal substitution, then He would burn in hell. :eek:
Instead, He bore our sins in His Body on the Cross as the lamb of sacrifice.
The idea of penal subsitution came from Calvin, who was a lawyer, and enjoyed the forensic conception of Christian doctrine.
guanophore | Jun 7, '11 7:27 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 (Post 7960716) I think it's interesting that the Orthodox point to the problems they see with Anselm's doctrine and that it's this Anselmian Catholic doctrine that opened the door to worse atonement views like penal substitution |
Yes, I find it interesting about all the areas with which there are disagreements with the East. It seems like Latins tended to overthink the mysteries, and in an effort to make sense of them, came up with constructions that wedged even more distance, like transubstantiation.
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 12:03 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 (Post 7960609) Penal substitution is a subtle offshoot of substitutionary atonement from St. Anselm. Catholics don't generally buy into Penal Subst. |
Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers?
Quote:
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing which no man is justified.* Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by the Creator: “Behold,” says He, “I have set before you a blessing and a curse.” You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, “Christ was made a curse for us,” is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator’s appointment.* * But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours,—in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with reason in your god, it is equally so—nay, much more so—in mine. For it would be more credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had done so, who, according to you, never at any time pronounced either. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 3. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Who has redeemed another’s death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me? ANF: Vol. IV, On Modesty, Chapter 22. |
gurneyhalleck1 | Jun 8, '11 12:29 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Tertullian was a Montanist and a schismatic with heterodox views. I wouldn't use him as a source personally despite the fact that the man was in many ways brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963667) Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers? |
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 12:43 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) Yes. If Jesus had actually accomplished penal substitution, then He would burn in hell. :eek: |
Christ's propitiation in which HE bore the wrath of GOD The Father on the cross was indeed a suffering beyond what any one sinner could ever experience in hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) Instead, He bore our sins in His Body on the Cross as the lamb of sacrifice. |
Yes, as a Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Quote:
Athanasius (297-373): For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from usbefore. For no past of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery — lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought — He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave ‘it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father — doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from fire. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word §8, 1-4. Athanasius (297-373): For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. 2. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life33 of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §9, 1-2. |
Athanasius (297-373): We have, then, now stated in part, as far as it was possible, and as ourselves had been able to understand, the reason of His bodily appearing; that it was in the power of none other to turn the corruptible to incorruption, except the Savior Himself, that had at the beginning also made all things out of naught and that none other could create anew the likeness of God’s image for men, save the Image of the Father; and that none other could render the mortal immortal, save our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life; and that none other could teach men of the Father, and destroy the worship of idols, save the Word, that orders all things and is alone the true Only-begotten Son of the Father. 2. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. 3. And do not be surprised if we frequently repeat the same words on the same subject. For since we are speaking of the counsel of God, therefore we expound the same sense in more than one form, lest we should seem to be leaving anything out, and incur the charge of inadequate treatment: for it is better to submit to the blame of repetition than to leave out anything! that ought to be set down. 4. The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it was placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, “Bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §20, 1-6.
Athanasius (297-373): And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have “become a curse,” unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: “Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §25, 1-2.
Athanasius (297-373): He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §38, 7.
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 7:36 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) The idea of penal subsitution came from Calvin, who was a lawyer, and enjoyed the forensic conception of Christian doctrine. |
Did it come directly from Calvin?
Or did he possibly glean it from ECFs like Augustine and others?
Quote:
Augustine (354-430) commenting on Gal. 3:13: He, therefore, who was made a curse for us, certainly is the one who hung on a tree—Christ, who set us free from the curse of the law that we might no longer be justified in fear by works of the law but by faith before God, which works not through fear but through love. For the Holy Spirit, speaking through Moses, provided for both in such a way that those who were not yet able to live by faith in invisible things might be restrained by fear of visible punishment, and Christ himself might break down that fear by taking upon himself the thing that was feared and, once the fear was taken away, bestow the gift of love. Nor is it to be thought an insult to the Lord that the one who hangs on a tree is called cursed. Indeed, in his mortal aspect he hung on a tree, but believers know the origin of our mortality—it comes from the penalty and curse for the sin of the first human being, which the Lord took upon himself and bore our sins in his body on the tree (1 Pet. 2:24). See Eric Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 161. Latin Text Qui ergo pro nobis factus est maledictum, ipse utique pependit in ligno, id est, Christus, qui nos liberavit a maledicto Legis; ut non jam timore justificaremur in operibus Legis, sed fide apud Deum, quae non per timorem, sed per dilectionem operatur. Spiritus enim sanctus, qui hoc per Moysen dixit, utrumque providit, ut et timore visibilis poenae custodirentur qui nondum poterant ex invisibilium fide vivere; et ipse timorem istum solveret suscipiendo quod timebatur, qui timore sublato donum dare poterat charitatis. Nec in hoc quod maledictus est appellatus qui pendet in ligno, contumelia in Dominum putanda est. Ex parte quippe mortali pependit in ligno: mortalitas autem unde sit, notum est credentibus; ex poena quippe est, et maledictione peccati*primi hominis, quam Dominus suscepit, et peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum* (I Petr. II, 24).*Expositio Epistulae ad Galatas, §22, PL 35:2120. Augustine (354-430): Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness’ sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book X, Chapter 24. Augustine (354-430): Begotten and conceived, then, without any indulgence of carnal lust, and therefore bringing with Him no original sin, and by the grace of God joined and united in a wonderful and unspeakable way in one person with the Word, the Only-begotten of the Father, a son by nature, not by grace, and therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant. sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” He does not say, as some incorrect copies read, “He who knew no sin did sin for us,” as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes; but he says, “Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness of sin; and that although He Himself had never lived the old life of sin, yet by His resurrection He typified our new life springing up out of the old death in sin. NPNF1: Vol. III, Enchiridion, On Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 41. |
Augustine (354-430): He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified,... NPNF1: Vol. III, The Enchiridion, Chapter 41. |
(Notice: Christ was never "infused" with sin, and Christ is the parallel Augustine uses with "us" here.)
Quote:
Augustine (354-430): He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth; to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him; whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book III, Chapter 13. Augustine (354-430): He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this also: “The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” And John says in his epistle: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole world.” The whole world then is the Church , and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed. 3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate LXXXVII, §2-3, John 15:17-19. |
guanophore | Jun 8, '11 10:05 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963667) Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers? |
Without doubt.
But they have since expanded beyond the boundaries of the once for all divine deposit of faith to the Church.
guanophore | Jun 8, '11 10:11 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963858) Christ's propitiation in which HE bore the wrath of GOD The Father on the cross was indeed a suffering beyond what any one sinner could ever experience in hell. Yes, as a Penal Substitutionary Atonement. |
These notions emanate from the Reformation, and the heresies introduced by Calvin. As an attorney, he was looked at Christian theology through the forensic lens.
They represent a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7965432) Did it come directly from Calvin? Or did he possibly glean it from ECFs like Augustine and others? continued: |
Gleaned, certainly. And this is the major source of the trouble. The gospel is to be RECEIVED from those who are authorized by Christ to transmit it. It is not to be "gleaned" from the pages of books, however holy. Every time a Christian has attempted to "glean" the Gospel from the pages, errors result. The "gleaning" method is insufficient.
To be continued in part #4
Posts
8 comments:
Though I no longer have 'a dog in this fight', for me to remain silent would trouble my soul. In the opening post of this thread, the following was published:
==Here is an early example of the "Great Exchange" long before Luther embraced it.
Quote:
Mathetes to Diognetus...==
Two difficulties with this, first, the "Great Exchange" espoused and repeated in many of the ECFs (and the Bible) was this:
Irenaeus - Adv. Her. 5.Pref ...the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself. (ANF 1.526).
Clement of Alexandria - Exhortation 1 ...the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God. (ANF 2.174).
Hippolytus - Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. (ANF 5.236).
Athanasius - De Incarnation 54 For He was made man that we might be made God. (PNF, second series, 4.65).
Augustine - Letters 140.4 Make the exchange; become spirit and dwell in him who became flesh and dwelt among you. No longer need we despair of becoming children of God by participation in the Word, because by participation in the flesh the divine Son became a human son. (Duffy, The Dynamics of Grace, p. 79 – see Fathers of the Church volume 11, p. 66, for alternate translation.)
St. Paul - 2 Cor. 2 Corinthians 8:9 For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.
Gregory Nazianzen - Oration 43 “The Panegyric On St. Basil” (61)
...Christ, who made Himself poor in the flesh for our sakes, that we might enjoy the riches of His Godhead (PNF 2.7.415)
Gregory Nazianzen - The Third Theological Oration (29.19) While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed ... in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man. (PNF 7.308)
Second, as for the quote for Mathetes to Diognetus, in what is probably the most definitive study of the epistle to date, Henry G. Meecham's, The Epistle To Diognetus – The Greek Text With Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Manchester Univ. Press, 1949), we read:
==By righteousness of the Son man’s sins are ‘covered’ (see note on ix. 3). “In that righteousness we are justified. The Pauline term is used, but the meaning has become much less forensic. The thought is not that of an externally imputed righteousness, but of a real change in the sinful heart of man, and the writer seems to feel that the righteousness of Christ actually becomes ours” (Grensted). (Page 25.)==
Meecham's view falls in line with the rest of the ECFs on this issue: the "Great Exchange" involves a real change, not mere 'imputation': just as Son of God actually became man, man through the grace of God will become what the Son of God was/is.
Grace and peace,
David
David,Indeed there have been many views of The Atonement.
http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ
Your quotation of Meecham is actually his use of another source (Grensted) in which he is arguing that Diognetus:
"In the main this is the Moral theory of the Atonement, a theory which indeed is directly suggested by ^the reference to " persuasion." As a theory, however, it is quite unconscious, and, indeed, incomplete. It lacks the clear-sighted mysticism of St. Paul and St. John, and falls back instead upon phrases which were to expand later into transaction theories (" ransom "), satisfaction theories (" what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins "), substitution theories (" O the exchange ")."
Grensted, L. W. (Laurence William), 1884-1964. A short history of the doctrine of the Atonement (Kindle Location 300). Manchester : University Press.
Grensted then goes on to acknowledge:
... that transference which meant so much to the author of the letter to Diognetus. And as a consequence we have in this passage a curious anticipation of the not very successful doctrine of active and passive obedience, a doctrine typical of the rigid and unsympathetic theology of scholastic Protestantism."
Grensted, L. W. (Laurence William), 1884-1964. A short history of the doctrine of the Atonement (Kindle Locations 310-312). Manchester : University Press.
Meecham's work may have been
"what is probably the most definitive study of the epistle to date, Henry G. Meecham's, The Epistle To Diognetus – The Greek Text With Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Manchester Univ. Press, 1949), "
However a much more recent work by Michael F. Bird:
Paul And The Second Century
in which Bird addresses both Meecham and Grensted in his chapter entitled:The Reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus.
"ED poetically expands upon Paul's theme of the justification of the ungodly and presents an array of images to demonstrate the forensic and Christocentric nature of justification."
p.87
Good to see you went into the lions den, which again shows RCs invoking apostolic tradition, and thus the magisterium as supreme, in contrast to Scripture, while they demonstrate how the former needs to be interpreted, and that they can engage in interpretation of the latter as needed to support Rome as they understand her.
Carlan says they are
perfectly righteous as long as we continue in God's grace, without commiting deadly sin
which would eliminate the need for purgatory.
And the same asserts that by reading CA forums,
You will learn the all the truth we believe, you may not accept it but in the end you will know what was handed on to us from Christ through his Apostles. Two thousand years of Christian history.
Which means as Manning said, that history is what Rome says it is.
WCH [banned] does most of the challenging exchange, and asks,
If the righteousness of Christ, which is a perfect righteousness, is infused into you, why aren't you perfectly righteous? You should be.
po18guy (forum master) replies,
At that point, for a brief moment for most of us, we are.
And that meaning is lost when the reader is separated from the Apostolic faith that produced it.
The latter is a substitution for persuading souls by relying on the manifestation of the truth, (2Cor. 4:2) and instead is basically an appeal to the esoteric ecclesiastical channeling of the Rome's amorphous "Tradition," by which she defines herself as assuredly infallible.
The same poster then invokes
(2 Peter 1:20). (King James Version) "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".
He was speaking specifically of the twisting of Paul's words.
While the reference to Paul is reasonable in the light of 2Pt. 3:16, that verse upholds the supremacy of Scripture, as it is not "tradition" that is used as authoritative but Scripture.
Moreover, the wresting of Scripture is what the poster examples by making 2Pt. 1:20 refer to exegesis based upon the weight and warrant of Scripture, and which noble souls in Acts 17:11. understood, for what 2Pt. 1:20 refers to is how prophecy was written, in which men of God were "Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." (1 Peter 1:11)
Another writes,
Catholic Encyclopedia explains that man is justified and made holy by his or her own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis) and this is a different teaching than Protestant teaching.
The RC argument is that imputed righteousness is non-substantive, versus regeneration makes on actually holy, yet according to the (relatively unknown) RC doctrine of baptism of desire via faith out of a perfectly contrite heart (contritio caritate perfecta), then the desire to be baptized, if one understands the need) is counted for the act.
Of course, the fact that regeneration clearly preceded baptism in Acts 10:43-47; cf. 11:13-18; 15:7-9) presents a problem for the doctrine that Jn. 3:5 refers to baptism.
In addition, the historical Prot position also holds that conversion results in a changed heart, and that true faith must be of a kind that effects obedience toward its Lord, but that the regenerated new heart does not constitute the perfect righteousness needed to be with God.
Hello Algo,
Thanks for responding to my musings. In your weekend post, you wrote:
==David,Indeed there have been many views of The Atonement.
http://www.theopedia.com/Atonement_of_Christ
Your quotation of Meecham is actually his use of another source (Grensted) in which he is arguing that Diognetus:
"In the main this is the Moral theory of the Atonement, a theory which indeed is directly suggested by ^the reference to " persuasion." As a theory, however, it is quite unconscious, and, indeed, incomplete. It lacks the clear-sighted mysticism of St. Paul and St. John, and falls back instead upon phrases which were to expand later into transaction theories (" ransom "), satisfaction theories (" what else but His righteousness would have covered our sins "), substitution theories (" O the exchange ")."
Grensted, L. W. (Laurence William), 1884-1964. A short history of the doctrine of the Atonement (Kindle Location 300). Manchester : University Press.==
Me: Yes, Meecham was quoting from Grensted's, A Short History of the Doctrine of the Atonement (a good quality, free, pdf version available online HERE).
I became aware of Grensted's tome while reading Meecham's book back in the Spring of 2010. Though an 'older' work, I am of the opinion that it remains an excellent survey of the doctrine of the atonement.
==Meecham's work may have been
"what is probably the most definitive study of the epistle to date, Henry G. Meecham's, The Epistle To Diognetus – The Greek Text With Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Manchester Univ. Press, 1949), "
However a much more recent work by Michael F. Bird:
Paul And The Second Century
in which Bird addresses both Meecham and Grensted in his chapter entitled:The Reception of Paul in the Epistle to Diognetus.
"ED poetically expands upon Paul's theme of the justification of the ungodly and presents an array of images to demonstrate the forensic and Christocentric nature of justification."
p.87==
Me: I was not aware of this 2011 work; thank you so much for bringing it to my attention. I was able to access most of Dr. Bird's 20 page chapter, "THE RECEPTION OF PAUL IN THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS" (pages 70-90), via Google Books and Amazon.com.
cont'd
cont'd
Though not anywhere near as comprehensive as Meecham's 165 page book, Dr. Bird does offer some valuable insights; he wrote:
A compact soteriological summary draws on a string of texts from Romans when it says, "he himself gave up his own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust" (αὐτος τὸν ἲδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὸν ἃγιου ὑπέρ ἀνόμων τὸν ἂκακον ὑπὲρ τῶν κακῶν τὸν δίκαιον ὑπέρ τῶν ἀκακων). The giving up of his own Son for the purpose of redemption relates to Paul's use of the Adedah tradition in Rom. 8.3, 32, where God's sending/not sparing his own Son parallels Abraham's giving-up of Isaac in Genesis 22. The giving-up of the Son is chiefly a redemptive event. Although the Pauline texts use the form of the noun with the prepositional intensifier, viz., ἀπολύτρωσις (Rom. 3.24; 8.23; 1 Cor. 1.30; Eph. 1.7, 14; 4.30; Col. 1.14); some Pauline interpreters like Mark (10.45) could change this to the simpler form λύτρον and ED should be seen in this vein. The description of Jesus' death as a ransom "for us" (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν)—and the "us" is defined as the lawless, guilty, and unjust—is indicative of Paul's comments that Christ died for the ungodly (Rom. 5.6) and sinners (Rom. 5.8). Further similarities can be found where Jesus' death was "made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5.21), "became accursed for us" on the cross (Gal. 3.13), Christ gave himself as an "offering" for Us (Eph. 5.2), "he died for us" (1 Thess. 5.10). The closet text is probably Tit.2.14, "He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds" (ὃς ἔδωκεν ἑαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἵνα λυτρώσηται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ πάσης ἀνομίας καὶ καθαρίσῃ ἑαυτῷ λαὸν περιούσιον, ζηλωτὴν καλῶν ἔργων). In the very least, the author has adopted a Pauline narrative that is peppered with Pauline words and themes. (Page 86)
And:
There is a clear Paulinesque feel to the content of ED 9.3-6 though it is hard to pin this down to the echo of any specific text. The proximity of redemption (ED 9.2) to justification (ED 9.4-5) is an echo of Rom. 3.24. Yet the Pauline formulation of righteousness by faith (διά/ἐκ πιστεως) does not loom at all. Meecham avers that "[t]he place of 'faith' in the work of justification is doubtless present to his mind, though not explicitly stated." Meecham is correct because even though the distinctive phrasing about faith does not appear the significance of faith is still highlighted in ED8.6, 9.6, and 10.1. That nothing but Jesus' righteousness could have "covered" (καλύπτω) over sins is analogous to Rom. 4.7 where Paul says that the blessed man has his sins "covered over" (ἐπικαλύπτω). The reference to how the lawless and ungodly are justified "only in the Son of God" (ἐν μόνῳ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ) captures perfectly Paul's thought that justification occurs in the sphere of union with Christ (e.g. 2.17; Phil. 3.9; 2 Cor. 5.21). The "sweet exchange" that announces that the "sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners appears to be an amalgam of 2 Cor. 5.21 and Rom. 5.15-18 with possible hints of Isa. 51.11 (LXX).
cont'd
cont'd
In his "Conclusion", he states:
The Paulinism of ED has several distinct characteristics. Whereas Paul was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian or Grecized Judean, the Hellenism of ED is acute and the intellectual and literary framework of the letter is Greek philosophy and Asiatic rhetoric. The letter possesses an anthropology that is more Platonic than Pauline (e.g. ED 6.1-9). The moral discourse of the letter, particularly with the imitation of God, is at home in Stoic ethics (e.g. ED 10.4-6)... A final characteristic is that the Paulinism of ED stands at a point between proto-orthodoxy and Marcion. Paul was a major influence upon the Gnostics and segments of the letter have a certain parity with the Gnostic quest for noetic enlightenment, seen in the need to acquire the full knowledge of the Father (ED 10.1-3), the benefits of knowing God's heavenly dwelling (ED 10.7), and veneration of "knowledge" in the homily (ED 12.17). If we take all of this together—the Platonic anthropology, disinterest in the Old Testament, a rewriting of Genesis 2, the emphasis on knowledge, a very polemical anti-Judaism—then the ED stands within a Christian Hellenism that was very probably the same seedbed from which Christian Gnosticism grew. (Pages 88, 89)
I agree with Dr. Bird that there is clearly a forensic element in ED's ch. 9, but it seems to be relegated to the negative aspect—i.e. the "covering"/forgiveness of sins. The positive side is less forensic and more in line with the concept of transformation as seen in ch. 10, which includes the notion that those who become an "imitator of God", "becomes [a] God" (10.4-6).
Anyway, thanks again for the heads-up on Dr. Bird's new essay.
Grace and peace,
David
Reading more of that debate, i saw a piece referenced by an RCA on justification by faith by Akin.
While he does state that the "better" Prots understand that sola fide refers to a faith that effects charity, etc., yet he links it to antinomianism, but ignores that sola Roma has abudantly fostered easy believism or basic antinomianism. For regardless of high sounding pronouncements, what Rome internally effectually fosters overall is liberal moral views and spiritual complacency (except as regards leaving Rome), so that every Ted Kennedy type Catholic is given strong consolation and good hope of eternal life as long as they die a RC, much due to the pull she claims to have with God.
In addition, Akin places much weight on retaining a normative use for given terms less they be taken the wrong way, and sees "faith alone" as going against Scriptural language.
Yet the use of "not by/of works," "worketh not but believeth" in the context of what actually appropriates justification easily justifies that use in that context.
Meanwhile, his own religious system uses "priest" as the formal term for bishops/elders, and extra biblical terms like "mother of God" and multitude others terms which easily can infer more than what Scripture or even she theologically allows.
I really miss discussing things with my CAF Friends.
Post a Comment