Some Catholics and Eastern Orthodox like to say Martin Luther invented the concept of the “Great Exchange.” The Great Exchange, in short, teaches that Christ bore the punishment for our sins, thus satisfying God’s need for justice, but at the same time credited us Christ’s righteousness.
A graphic representation of what 2 Cor 5:21 amongst other Scriptures teaches about the Great Exchange.
The Scripture is abundantly clear that Chris bore the penalty for our sins:
But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed (Is 53:7).
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities (Is 53:11).
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors (Is 53:12).
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross (Col 3:13, 14).
To doubt that Christ bore our iniquities and paid their penalty on the cross, is in my mind, is completely unthinkable. Being that there are Catholic apologists that for whatever reason reject this plain statement of fact, my response to them is that this is not an idea Luther invented.
The Epistle to Diognetus, written in the second century, understood the ramifications of Christ baring the burdens of our sins, if not also crediting us His righteousness:
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 (Chapter 9)!
The underlined is where we may infer that the Epistle taught the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness. However, because it is inferred it is not convincing to Catholics or Eastern Orthodox who find it hard to believe that unrighteous men like us can really be credited fully righteous as Christ.
It is not an idea that is explicit in the Scripture. We may infer it from passages that speak of us being “in Christ” and others such as Eph 5:31-32 which speak of the Church’s literal union with Christ. The idea is, if the Church (with its believers) are literally one with Christ, they my be accounted as righteous as Christ upon judgment.
Indeed, this is an interpretative stretch, but one that appears justified by 2 Cor 5:21 which states, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” Christians are not merely made righteous or credited as righteous in a theoretical sense, but really “become the righteousness” specifically “of God” and not their own, an “alien righteousness.”
Now, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox reject this for legitimate interpretive reasons, but also because of its ramifications. If believers are in union with Christ, and this happens upon faith in Christ, then good works wrought in holiness really do not make one more righteous in any way. Instead, it is Christ’s righteousness that really makes us righteous, not us conforming or doing something in accord with Christlikeness. Hence, we can be really unchristlike, but be accounted fully as righteous as Christ due to our union with Him.
This does not mean that by necessity all Christians achieve equal awards in heaven. The Scripture mitigates against this as does the interpreters of the early church, specifically Jerome in his letters against Jovanian.
However, it does mean that our justification is a completed act because of what Christ done, not an ongoing event. Our union with Christ does not increase in time, rather it gets consummated specifically upon Christ’s second coming.
This is why Protestants teach “Forensic Justification,” which in short means that justification is a completed and not a ongoing act. We simply can point to Scripture that uses the words “believed” and “justified” in the past tense to show that the event already occurred. Catholics and Eastern Orthodox accuse of of preaching a novelty. However, let our argument be based upon the Scripture and not tradition, because we are not the first to traditionally to espouse the idea. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
Oh the great loving-kindness of God! For the righteous were many years in pleasing Him: but what they succeeded in gaining by many years of well-pleasing , this Jesus now bestows on you in a single hour. For if you shall believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved, and shall be transported into Paradise by Him who brought in there the robber. And doubt not whether it is possible; for He who on this sacred Golgotha saved the robber after one single hour of belief, the same shall save you also on your believing (Catechetical Lecture 5, Chap 10).
Chrysostom concurs in his exegesis of Rom 3:26:
He does also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, viz. what is declaring,
that he has added, That He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus.
Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God (Homily 7 on Romans).
Now, because all of this seems a great deal more theoretical than the negative imputation of our sins onto Christ, Catholics and Orthodox will accuse us Protestants of coming up with an innovation. I must respectfully disagree.
For one, Augustine interpreted 2 Cor 5:21 as teaching the positive imputation of Christ’s righteousness:
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, has made to be sin for us, that is, has 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 (Chapter 41, Handbook on Hope, Faith, and Love).
Many Protestant interpreters like to say that Jesus Christ was fully obedient to the letter of the Jewish Law, henceforth fulfilling the Law and its righteous requirements on our behalf. Not all ECFs affirmed this idea, but Athanasius did and he writes specifically that it is this righteousness that is credited to the Church:
It is necessary therefore it is necessary to believe the Holy Scriptures to confess him who is the first fruit of us to celebrate the philanthropy of him who assumed our nature to be struck with wonder at the great dispensation to fear not the curse which is from the Law for Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law Hence the full accomplishment of the Law which was made through the first fruit must be imputed to the whole mass (Athan Synops Sacr Script lib vii in Epist ad Rom Oper vol ii p 125, see link here).
Jerome concurs:
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law being made a curse for us Properly He was not under the curse because in all things He perfectly fulfilled the Law And therefore in the matter of debt our debt has been paid off by his curse so that He should set free from all obligation those who pass over to faith (Comment in Epist ad Galat iii, see link here).
Chrysostom also concurs, stating in his comments on Rom 8:4–
For the righteousness of the Law, that one should not become liable to its curse, Christ has accomplished for you.
Now there is more on the topic, but I think I have shown enough from both the Scriptures to justify Protestant doctrine and tradition to show that our doctrine is not an innovation. In fact, I would say that the burden of proof is on those that would teach that righteousness is infused into a believer and not a completed event:
An eternal rest remains to those who in the present life have wrestled legitimately which rest is given not according to the debt of works in way of just retribution but is bestowed to the grace of an abundantly bountiful God to who have hoped in Him (Basil, Homily on Psalm 104, see link here).
An eternal rest remains. It is a completed state, it is not a state that continues and grows over time. To God, the author and perfecter of our faith, be the glory forever. Amen.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
I think you’re oversimplifying. Clearly the doctrine that Christ bore our sins and became our sin offering, is plainly taught in Scripture, and no Catholic or Orthodox denies that (the apologist you link to in fact does not deny this). Christ’s perfect righteousness was credited to, imputed to, and given to us as sinners. That, too, is plain Scripture, and no, Protestants did not invent that, and Catholics generally do not deny that (though I can’t speak for everyone).
What Luther legitimately invented, as even many Protestant theologians acknowledge, was Luther’s understanding of the nature of that imputation, as a purely forensic act, a “declaring righteous” in the heavenly court and a crediting of Christ’s righteousness to our account as something alien and external to us without that righteousness in some sense becoming internal to us and ours, and without it actually, by His grace, changing us — thus dividing justification (in Luther’s view, the forensic declaration) from sanctification (the actual making holy of sinners). This is called “extra nos [outside us] imputation” in theological circles. Catholics, Orthodox, and the Church Fathers, on the other hand, generally understand this imputation as a grace, a gift to the sinner by which Christ’s righteousness is actually given to him in a way that justifies him, sanctifies him, regenerates him, and all the rest: it is poured into our hearts (Romans 5:5) or infused. Certainly this is what Augustine believed.
I highly recommend Anglican historian Alister McGrath’s treatise on justification, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, which gets to the fine contours of this. Here are a couple of quotes, first concerning Augustine’s understanding of the righteousness of God (iustitia dei, the namesake of the book):
And concerning Luther’s doctrine of justification:
Peace and grace be with you!
To quote the Catechism, showing that Catholics do not deny what you suppose they deny:
I understand that you act as an apologist that tries to Protestantize Roman Catholicism. Being that what we all really are is the same (Catholics) I do not doubt that you can pull from the catechisms things in which we would be in accord. In as much as Roman Catholics do not reject the Gospel, then they are right with God. I am writing against statements that I read amongst Catholics that call forensic justification and positive imputation Protestant theological innovations. I am only here to show that they are not. If these truths may be affirmed, then there is no disagreement nor should we purposely disagree because we supposedly play fr different teams. There is only one body of Christ, team memberships is dependent upon faith in Him.
I am not trying to “Protestantize Catholicism”. Protestants and Catholics certainly have many legitimate differences. But you accuse that Catholics reject historic doctrines of Christianity, or that the teachings of the Church somehow contradict the teachings of the Church Fathers. I am only showing you that in fact they do not. (What the apologist you linked above actually rejected was the idea of “double imputation,” that as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, our sin is actually imputed to Christ, leading to Christ being punished by God for our sins — the notion of “penal substitutionary atonement,” which is something that the Catholic Church rejects and neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers teach.)
As my comment above shows (and citing not my opinion, but that of a well-respected Protestant theologian), certain aspects of the Protestant understanding of justification — as a purely forensic act and an imputation of an alien righteousness such that justification and regeneration are separated — were in fact theological innovations. There are fine contours at work here: just because various Church Fathers affirm the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, etc., does not evince that they taught the full Protestant understanding of those doctrines — any more than patristic affirmation of the authority of Scripture in any way equals sola scriptura as Protestant apologists frequently argue.
If it is a problem that Luther’s understanding was an innovation, then that’s something to think about. McGrath accounts for it essentially by arguing that Augustine was wrong, that he misunderstood justification by reading the texts in Latin and not the original Hebrew and Greek, and that Luther, 1,500 years departed from the original context, got it right. That’s a bolder argument than I’m willing to accept: certainly none of the earliest Church Fathers evinced such ideas as Luther’s (few of them paid much attention at all to the theology of justification prior to Augustine), and Augustine’s understanding of the transformative infusion of righteousness finds its analog in the Eastern Fathers’ idea of theosis, of our union with God actually making us like God. Certainly neither of these ideas are anything like Luther’s conception of a forensic act that only declares us righteous and doesn’t actually make us righteous.
“I am only showing you that in fact they do not.”
I can link to Shameless Popery rejecting Forensic Justification, which teaches that a beleiver is justified in a moment in time, a doctrine that I think is proved definitively by the Scriptures and affirmed by the ECF.
“What the apologist you linked above actually rejected was the idea of “double imputation,” that as Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, our sin is actually imputed to Christ, leading to Christ being punished by God for our sins — the notion of “penal substitutionary atonement,” which is something that the Catholic Church rejects and neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers teach.”
What part of Is 53 or the Epistle to Diognetus is confusing? I don;t have to call it penal substitutionary atonement, call it anything you want, but Christ paid the penalty for our sins who believe in Him. THis is the clear teaching of the Scripture.
“certain aspects of the Protestant understanding of justification — as a purely forensic act and an imputation of an alien righteousness such that justification and regeneration are separated — were in fact theological innovations.”
No, words such as “penal substitution” and such were developed in the middle ages and into the Protestant Reformation, but they convey theological doctrines always affirmed by the Church, as I have shown and you have not contradicted. The doctrine of the Trinity was only beginning to be defined by the 3rd century, though the Church was always Trinitarian.
“There are fine contours at work here: just because various Church Fathers affirm the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, etc., does not evince that they taught the full Protestant understanding of those doctrines…”
Any more than Clement and Igantius when they used Trinitarian formulations in their respective letters at a worked out theology of the idea of “homoousios” that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have in common. Nor would they have rejected it, the words and formulations did not exist for them to discuss it using such terms. But, rejecting using any terms it would have been heresy. In the same way, rejecting the Great Exchange and especially Forensic Justification can be heretical, is salvation by faith alone is rejected in favor of adding works to the equation.
“Augustine’s understanding of the transformative infusion of righteousness finds its analog in the Eastern Fathers’ idea of theosis, of our union with God actually making us like God.”
Yet you ignore Chrysostom, who taught that we are suddenly justified. You are using terms from the middle ages to anachronistically describe what Augustine and Chrysostom acutally taught, which I actually quoted. So, I reject your argument unless you can show that they taught some sort of derivative of theosis.
“Certainly neither of these ideas are anything like Luther’s conception of a forensic act that only declares us righteous and doesn’t actually make us righteous.”
Read and answer to the post before making blanket statements like this. It just sounds silly without actually showing how I misquoted one of the fathers or the Scripture.
What part of Is 53 or the Epistle to Diognetus is confusing? I don;t have to call it penal substitutionary atonement, call it anything you want, but Christ paid the penalty for our sins who believe in Him. THis is the clear teaching of the Scripture.
Christ paying the price for our sins is clearly taught from Scripture, and the Catholic Church affirms this. I am not rejecting your interpretation, and neither is the Catholic Church. That’s my whole point. (“Penal substitutionary atonement” is not merely the understanding that Christ paid the price for our sins; it’s that Christ was punished for our sins by God. There are fine distinctions here you are overlooking.)
No, words such as “penal substitution” and such were developed in the middle ages and into the Protestant Reformation, but they convey theological doctrines always affirmed by the Church, as I have shown and you have not contradicted.
I’m sorry I even mentioned “penal substitution,” as that is a side-issue to the point of your post and mine. 😦 I only mentioned it at all because that is what the other apologist was writing to reject. Yes, you are right, the Church has always affirmed that Christ paid the price for our sins, and I don’t contradict that.
In the same way, rejecting the Great Exchange and especially Forensic Justification can be heretical, is salvation by faith alone is rejected in favor of adding works to the equation.
If you want to call Clement, Augustine, and all the rest “heretical” for insisting that works are “part of the equation,” be my guest. That is the historic teaching of the Christian Church and of Scripture (James 2:24 — which, however you interpret it, makes works “part of the equation”). It’s exactly for this reason that the Church labeled the early Protestants heretics for insisting they were not.
Again, there is no dispute that justification has a forensic aspect. It is the argument that justification was a purely forensic act with no real implications for the sinner that was an innovation. If you conceive of “The Great Exchange” as merely Christ’s righteous being imputed (and given) to us, then you have no dispute with the Catholic Church. It’s the idea that our sins are imputed to Christ, making Him sinful in God’s sight, that is rejected.
Yet you ignore Chrysostom, who taught that we are suddenly justified.
I ignore nothing. It is the nature of justification, not its mode, that is at issue.
You are using terms from the middle ages to anachronistically describe what Augustine and Chrysostom acutally taught, which I actually quoted.
No, actually, Augustine himself used the term infusion (Latin for “pouring in”, i.e. “His love has been poured into our hearts”, Romans 5:5), and Chrystostom spoke of theosis (I am not sure he used that term, but the concept was certainly there, as it was in Athanasius). There is nothing in your quote from Augustine that contradicts the understanding I have presented.
So, I reject your argument unless you can show that they taught some sort of derivative of theosis.
I’m sorry, but I don’t really have time to dig for quotes for you today (I have to study for class). Take McGrath’s word for it if you don’t take mine.
It just sounds silly without actually showing how I misquoted one of the fathers or the Scripture.
You didn’t misquote anything, and I generally agree with your interpretations, except where you attempt to read Luther’s idea of a purely forensic justification, etc. — which simply isn’t there, as McGrath, far more educated in the matter than either you or I, confirms.
Peace be with you!
I am not going to be able to keep replying today, so I am sorry if I cannot keep up:
“Christ paying the price for our sins is clearly taught from Scripture, and the Catholic Church affirms this. I am not rejecting your interpretation, and neither is the Catholic Church. That’s my whole point. (“Penal substitutionary atonement” is not merely the understanding that Christ paid the price for our sins; it’s that Christ was punished for our sins by God. There are fine distinctions here you are overlooking.)”
I would be overlooking the fine distinction on purpose, because if we make anything distinct enough absolutely everything can become supposed heresy. If Christ was crushed for our iniquities, “the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Is 53:6), and He “was smitten of God” (Is 53:4) I honestly fail to see the distinction. God predestined the punishment, brough Christ into the world to bear the punishment, then punished Him in the place of sinful people. To call the Protestant formulation of this clear idea a novelty is at best, extremely misleading if not deliberately a distortion of the truth.
“If you want to call Clement, Augustine, and all the rest “heretical” for insisting that works are “part of the equation,” be my guest.”
Problem is that they didn’t (and yes, I am aware that Augustine was big into formulating the earliest sacramental theology, Augustine Himself taught double imputation).
“That is the historic teaching of the Christian Church and of Scripture (James 2:24 — which, however you interpret it, makes works “part of the equation”).”
No, it doesn’t, that is a misinterpretation of James 2:24, not only according to me (and James), but the early Church as well.
“Again, there is no dispute that justification has a forensic aspect. It is the argument that justification was a purely forensic act with no real implications for the sinner that was an innovation.”
This is where you are wrong. Justification is purely a forensic act. Growing in holiness and working out one’s salvation, being a light to the world are results of justification, not necessary ingredients to bringing about justification or maintaining it. I am willing to argue at length with you on this, the Scripture is clear on this, but refer to Phil 2 and Gal 3 because this is where I would dig my heels in.
“If you conceive of “The Great Exchange” as merely Christ’s righteous being imputed (and given) to us, then you have no dispute with the Catholic Church. It’s the idea that our sins are imputed to Christ, making Him sinful in God’s sight, that is rejected.”
I am not aware of Protestants that argue that Christ Himself became sinful, and other than taking lurid second hand comments attributed to Luther that Christ became sinful, you won’t find that at protestant doctrine.
So now it appears on both counts, you agree with what protestantism actually teaches instead of what you claim is taught historically.
“I ignore nothing. It is the nature of justification, not its mode, that is at issue.”
You continue to misunderstand, I am sincerely sorry to say. Chrysostom said we were suddenly justified. Infused righteousness theology contradicts this, s justification is no longer sudden but a multi-year event.
“No, actually, Augustine himself used the term infusion (Latin for “pouring in”, i.e. “His love has been poured into our hearts”, Romans 5:5), and Chrystostom spoke of theosis (I am not sure he used that term, but the concept was certainly there, as it was in Athanasius). There is nothing in your quote from Augustine that contradicts the understanding I have presented.”
The anachronism is saying that they taught what these modern doctrines teach. Theosis comes up after Pseudo Dionysus, which is 150 years after Chrysostom. So, the word was not invented in the middle ages (as I am sure the word “infusion” is probably found in the Old Latin and Vulgate), the using of a word does not mean they ascribed to a doctrine. I am still waiting for you tos how me that they taught the doctrine. I have quoted them to show that they did not. You have not shown anything.
“I’m sorry, but I don’t really have time to dig for quotes for you today (I have to study for class).”
That’s fine, I really want to finish my commentary on Romans by God’s grace. Take your time, there is no rush. I spent hours researching this, so it takes time.
I enjoy our conversations and I wish you the best.
God bless,
Craig
I think, since we are both pressed for time and apparently talking past each other, it might be helpful to point out this article, which is the clearest formulation I have seen of the fine but nonetheless significant differences between the Catholic and Reformed conceptions of substitutionary atonement:
Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement
Augustine [h]imself taught double imputation).
I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. Read McGrath, who devotes a considerable chapter to Augustine’s conceptions of justification.
Problem is that they didn’t [teach “works were part of the equation”]… That is a misinterpretation of James 2:24, not only according to me (and James), but the early Church as well.
You’ll have to demonstrate that. Your proposition is that our works play no role at all in salvation, which is certainly not something that any Church Father ever held — especially if, like many Reformed Christians, you suppose that the Sacraments are “works.”
This is where you are wrong. Justification is purely a forensic act.
It’s not important whether I am wrong or you disagree with me; but this is not an interpretation taught by anyone prior to Luther — as again McGrath attests. I don’t have the depth of learning to claim a deep and thorough knowledge of the Church Fathers, and I presume neither do you; but this was the subject of McGrath’s doctoral research, so I presume he knows what he is talking about, and as a Protestant, would not present something so damaging to Protestant presuppositions if there were not good evidence for it.
I am not aware of Protestants that argue that Christ Himself became sinful, and other than taking lurid second hand comments attributed to Luther that Christ became sinful, you won’t find that at protestant doctrine.
I said that Christ became sinful in God’s sight (not that He became actually sinful). Our sinfulness being imputed to Christ (such that he treated as sinful by God) as the analog of His righteousness being imputed to it (such that we are treated as righteous by God) is the implication of “double implication” as I understand it. If that’s not what you actually believe, then again, you have no disagreement with the Catholic Church.
Infused righteousness theology contradicts this, as justification is no longer sudden but a multi-year event.
No, that’s incorrect. The infusion of grace can and does take place in an instant, as certainly are our regeneration and initial justification. We are suddenly made righteous by Christ’s righteousness in an instant — both by forensic declaration and actual transformation. Santification (which Catholics consider to be a part of justification) is an ongoing process, but even in that, the infusion of grace takes place in an instant or series of instants.
I am still waiting for you to how me that they taught the doctrine. I have quoted them to show that they did not. You have not shown anything.
As I said, I don’t really have time for that right now but I will work on it if you’d like. I cited McGrath, who is more of an authority on Augustine than either you or I, attesting that he did not teach what you are reading from him. That is “something.” Here are more quotes from McGrath on Augustine, and quotes from Augustine himself. To very briefly address your quote from Augustine, he says that “we are made righteousness, our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him.” This teaches merely what it teaches, what Scripture itself teaches: that we are transformed into righteousness by the gift of the righteousness of God. This is something that Catholics and Protestants agree on. I see nothing at all in this quote that implies justification is purely forensic and not a gift of actual righteousness (infusion). Chrystotom likewise says only that we are suddenly justified by faith, with which I’ve already agreed — nothing at all about imputation as a forensic act in contradiction to anything else.
I enjoy our conversations and I wish you the best.
As do I. Peace and grace be with you.
“I think, since we are both pressed for time and apparently talking past each other, it might be helpful to point out this article, which is the clearest formulation I have seen of the fine but nonetheless significant differences between the Catholic and Reformed conceptions of substitutionary atonement:
Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement”
I just read it, and it really is off topic, as I only went about showing that double imputation and forensic justification was taught by the fathers. If you have an issue with Penal Substitution, I’ll make a post about it but I have not done the research for it as of present.
“I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken [Augustine did not teach double imputation].”
I’m sorry, he did.
“You’ll have to demonstrate that. Your proposition is that our works play no role at all in salvation, which is certainly not something that any Church Father ever held — especially if, like many Reformed Christians, you suppose that the Sacraments are “works.””
http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/02/25/saved-by-works-and-not-by-faith-alone-james-2-and-a-response-to-shameless-popery/
“It’s not important whether I am wrong or you disagree with me; but this is not an interpretation taught by anyone prior to Luther …”
I quoted a few already and it is in the Scripture, so you can say that but it is not true.
“No, that’s incorrect. The infusion of grace can and does take place in an instant, as certainly are our regeneration and initial justification.”
I’ll stop you there. There is no such thing as “initial justification.” The Bible does not talk about it and neither does the Scripture. The Scripture speaks simply of justification. One is justified upon belief, and upon justification is sealed with the Holy Spirit, which is given as a pledge (Eph 1:14). This is irrevocable, and if it weren’t, it would render the word “pledge” meaningless.
“Santification (which Catholics consider to be a part of justification) is an ongoing process, but even in that, the infusion of grace takes place in an instant or series of instants.”
Again, you won’t find any of this in the Bible or the ECFs. Santification occurs during justification. It is not an ongoing event (even though protestants speak of the “sanctification process,” this is simply very bad verbiage.) Hence, there is not an infusion of grace over time, and you cannot point to a single passage of Scripture or ECF that teaches that.
I can tell you this much about Augustine’s sacramentalism (he’s the only ECF which I have read extensively enough to get a decent grasp of in this sense.) He believes the sacraments are the means God gives to us to essentially erase post-baptismal sins. So, while he taught that God has an elect, and that the elect are saved by faith, and the faithful are predestinated to remain faithful, and part of remaining faithful is taking part in the sacraments which in time accomplish what God intended to be accomplished before the beginning of the world.
While I would definitely disagree with this mindset though it is the logical result of the sacramentalism of his day, it does not teach infused grace. This is a later development.
“As I said, I don’t really have time for that right now but I will work on it if you’d like.”
I would like that, because I brought forward my evidence, and I get back second hand comments from McGrath, someone who I know nothing about.
“To very briefly address your quote from Augustine, he says that “we are made righteousness, our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him.” This teaches merely what it teaches, what Scripture itself teaches: that we are transformed into righteousness by the gift of the righteousness of God. This is something that Catholics and Protestants agree on. I see nothing at all in this quote that implies justification is purely forensic and not a gift of actual righteousness (infusion).”
You are missing the point, the verse is not used to prove forensic justification, it is used to show that Luther was not the first to formulate the idea of the “Great Exchange,” which is the picture you see in the article. My point is that Augustine clearly affirmed what you see in the picture, even though there are Catholics that claim that Luther invented the idea. This is simply not true.
“Chrystotom likewise says only that we are suddenly justified by faith, with which I’ve already agreed — nothing at all about imputation as a forensic act in contradiction to anything else.”
Being that there is an absence in his theology, like in Reformed Theology’s, of grace infusion, this puts him in agreement. He makes the same claim we make, and none of the claims that you make concerning infusion.
God bless,
Craig
Craig,
This may be the only post I have time for today.
I think the essential problem with your thesis is that you are conflating multiple ideas and then attempting to read the whole conflation back upon the source texts. You say that the article on the atonement is “really off topic,” that you “only went about showing that double imputation and forensic justification was taught by the Fathers.” This sums up the issue: Forensic justification is a theory of the nature of justification. The Great Exchange is a theory of the atonement, the theological understanding of why and how we are justified by Christ’s work on the Cross. “Double imputation,” as I understand it and you have not corrected me, and as the image at your header indicates, teaches that by Christ’s work on the Cross, His righteousness is imputed to sinners, and in exchange, our sin is imputed to Christ — causing God the Father to reckon us as righteous on account of Christ’s alien righteousness, and to reckon Christ as sinful on account of our sin, and therefore to punish Christ for our sins. This is necessarily connected with the theory of the atonement called “penal substitutionary atonement.” To speak of anachronism: None of the Church Fathers understood the atonement in this way. None of them understood that our sin was imputed to Christ such that He became sinful in God’s sight and was punished for our sins. Both the term “double imputation” and the specific understanding of the atonement associated with it are foreign to the understanding of the Church Fathers.
You insist that your whole argument is only about the “Great Exchange,” that Luther was not the first to teach it, that the idea is present in Scripture and in the Church Fathers. But that all depends on how you are understanding the term “Great Exchange”. That term is traditionally understood in terms of the ransom theory of atonement, that Christ paid the price for our sins as a ransom or sacrifice — which is certainly taught by Scripture (e.g. Mark 10:45) and even the earliest Church Fathers. This is the view that Augustine held and taught. In this idea of the “Great Exchange,” it is an exchange of persons, Christ for us, Christ becoming the sin offering for our redemption.
There is no notion of “imputation” inherent in this understanding. The Reformers developed a new theory of the atonement, “penal substitution,” which is part and parcel of their doctrine of imputation. For the Reformers, the “Great Exchange” was an exchange of legal standing, Christ’s righteousness imputed to us as a legal standing and our sinfulness imputed to Christ as a legal standing. This is not an understanding that any of the Church Fathers held or taught. By conflating these multiple ideas and terms together, you are “bootstrapping,” and presuming that because various Church Fathers held one idea, the notion of an exchange, in which they are virtually or literally quoting Scripture itself, they held all the other notions that the later Reformers and you read into that Scripture.
To look again at the quote you give from Augustine: Augustine explicitly affirms the ransom theory of the atonement (and rejects the “penal substitution” theory) when he says that “[God] made [Christ] a sacrifice for our sins by which we might be reconciled to God.” He here states his understanding of what Scripture means by “Christ was made sin“: not, as the Reformers taught, that our sin was imputed to Christ — Augustine rejects the notions that Christ becoming sin should be understood “as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes,” that He actually became our sin, or that “our sin” actually became “in Him” or was imputed or assigned to Him. He certainly does not say that our sin was imputed to Christ — which would be a necessary point for him to state if he in fact “taught ‘double imputation'” as you say. There is nothing of the sort here. Because you read one aspect of your understanding here — which you read not even from what Augustine says, but from the Scriptures he quotes — then you attempt to bootstrap the rest.
You complain that I give you “secondhand comments from McGrath, someone who [you] know nothing about.” I have done a lot of research for you that I haven’t really had time for. Perhaps you could take just a moment to google or read his Wikipedia bio. “Alister Edgar McGrath is a Northern Irish theologian, priest, intellectual historian, scientist, and Christian apologist. He currently holds the Andreas Idreos Professorship in Science and Religion in the Faculty of Theology and Religion at the University of Oxford, and is Professor of Divinity at Gresham College. He was previously Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at King’s College London and Head of the Centre for Theology, Religion and Culture., Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford, and was principal of Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, until 2005. He is an Anglican priest and is ordained within the Church of England. Aside from being a faculty member at Oxford, McGrath has also taught at Cambridge University and is a Teaching Fellow at Regent College. McGrath holds three doctorates from the University of Oxford, a DPhil in Molecular Biophysics, a Doctor of Divinity in Theology and a Doctor of Letters in Intellectual History. McGrath is noted for his work in historical theology, systematic theology, and the relationship between science and religion, as well as his writings on apologetics” (emphases mine). McGrath wrote a focused academic treatise on the history and development of the doctrine of justification, previously cited. In it, he devotes considerable treatment to Augustine as the “fountainhead” of the doctrine of justification, to medieval developments of the doctrine, and to the doctrines of Luther, Calvin, and the other Reformers.
Now, I am not an expert in theology or patristics. I do not hold a doctorate, in anything, let alone three. I have not published almost forty books, both academic and popular, on Christian theology or history. I presume neither have you. When I cite McGrath as an expert on this subject, it is because he is a bona fide, verified, widely respected authority, acclaimed by both Catholics and all stripes of Protestants. You dismiss my quotations of him out of hand and insist I do my own research; why? McGrath has read, understood, and synthesized far more of Augustine and dozens of other theologians than I could ever hope to do in a lifetime. So, if you are genuinely interested in learning about Christian theology to the benefit of your Christian walk, as I am; if you are open to the possibility that you might not know everything already; then you would do well not to reject McGrath as an authority. You might even, as I’ve suggested, read his book.
I have access to a ton of treatises on justification and the atonement, various works, histories, encyclopedias and other authorities on Christian doctrine, via my Logos library. I can’t paste lengthy articles here, but I would be glad to share them with you via email if you would like. A few brief quotes:
The idea of Christ being reckoned a sinner in place of man is the necessary second half of your idea of “double imputation.” It was a new concept with Luther.
That’s about all I have time for. I’ve already spent more time than I needed to. Peace be with you.
“To speak of anachronism: None of the Church Fathers understood the atonement in this way. None of them understood that our sin was imputed to Christ such that He became sinful in God’s sight and was punished for our sins…”
No one is arguing he became sinful. We are arguing that he was accounted as sinful and punished for it. For example, if you have a bad gambling debt, and I say “charge it to my account” it still isn’t my gambling debt. No am I a debtor. But I have born your debts and paid them, according to the accountants accounted as you when it pertains to this debt.
So, am I going to sit here and defend every specific description of penal atonement theory? No. I am here just to defend the idea, which I find to be Biblical and understood by the Church Fathers.
“This is the view that Augustine held and taught. In this idea of the “Great Exchange,” it is an exchange of persons, Christ for us, Christ becoming the sin offering for our redemption.
There is no notion of “imputation” inherent in this understanding. ”
Yes there is, because there is a crediting of debt. Gregory of Nanzianzen writes in Letter (Division I):
“The Word was made Flesh, seems to me to be equivalent to that in which it is said that He was made sin, 2 Corinthians 5:21 or a curse Galatians 3:13 for us; not that the Lord was transformed into either of these, how could He be? But because by taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities. This, then, is sufficient to say at the present time for the sake of clearness and of being understood by the many.”
R.C. Sproul, in more colorful language, essentially says the same thing:
“Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity.”
Christ did not literally become evil any more than I became an indebted gambler if I were to pay your gambling debts. But, for all accounting purposes He did because be bore the sins of many.
As Jerome writes on his exegesis on Is 53: “For that which we owed to us according to our crimes bear it, so He suffered for us, having made peace through the blood of His cross…”
So, the whole court room thing, with Christ suffering the penalty we deserve in our place, is not an invention of Luther…or Jerome. As Nanzianzen says, it was accepted by “many” of his time. And he was not speaking specifically of the Ransom theory. It was essentially a proto-satisfaction theory, which Jerome adds a touch of substitution to it. So, Luther did not invent the idea, because again, it’s in the Bible. it’s there for everyone to read.
God bless,
Craig
I couldn’t resist.
No one is arguing he became sinful. We are arguing that he was accounted as sinful and punished for it.
Yes, I understand the Reformed position. And this argument was a new interpretation of the theory of the atonement by Luther.
No. I am here just to defend the idea, which I find to be Biblical and understood by the Church Fathers.
So you acknowledge what you are doing. You are (1) reading the idea in Scripture, and (2) presuming that the Church Fathers understand the same thing, whether they actually state it or not. This is fallacious logic. An author cannot be said to “teach” a doctrine unless he actually teaches it. What he understands can only be evident by what he says, not by the mere fact that he is quoting from the same passages of Scripture from which you made your initial premise.
The passage from Gregory, by way of demonstration, says little more than what Scripture itself says: “By taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities.” How does he understand this taking away our sins and bearing our iniquities? He does not say. He does not say anything which you can take to be a statement of “double imputation.” You cannot presume, by the mere fact that you understand those words in a certain way, that Gregory understands those words in the same way you do — unless he actually, explicitly expresses your understanding. Other authors, as demonstrated, understand those words in the sense of Christ becoming a sin offering, the teaching of Scripture itself.
Once again: an idea of substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, understood by the Church Fathers variously in terms of a ransom or satisfaction. The idea of penal substitution, with our sinfulness being imputed to Christ and Christ being reckoned as sinful, is a Protestant development, as every history of the doctrine of the atonement I can find (and I have about a dozen) confirms. From Wikipedia, citing about a dozen scholarly sources: “In scholarly literature it has been generally recognised for some time that the penal substitution theory was not taught in the Early Church..” Question: Why is it so important to you that this not be a new doctrine with Protestants, that you would ignore scholarly consensus and break the back of logic and interpretation to prove it? Unless you grant that the Church Fathers held some kind of inherent doctrinal authority, why does it matter what they believed?
Peace be with you.
“An author cannot be said to “teach” a doctrine unless he actually teaches it.”
Fair enough. I suppose my point is that there are people who believe truths that lay behind a doctrine, but not adhere to the doctrine in its totality. For example, the early church always believed that God is on in three Persons, but they never said it as such nor explained it as such. I would even go as far as to say that that some of these men would have said things we would deem heresy today, but they were not considered heretics during their time (i.e. Origen) probably because terms were less defined and doctrines less polished.
So, I know I can produce ECFs speaking of substitution, payment for wrath as it pertains to Penal Substitution, just as I can produce ECFs speaking of the Great Exchange and Forensic Justification. There would be varying degrees of maturity in their understanding of these things depending on a lot of things. Forensic Justification appears to be the norm (as grace infusion is entirely absent in their theology, as even still you fail to bring up a single example), but because no one questioned it it never was defined or dwelt upon. The same can be said of the Great Exchange, though this is a even more narrow topic that simply did not appear relevant to them. The reason the Great Exchange is a bigger deal now is because of the denial of Forensic Justification. If no one doubts Forensic Justification, the theory as to how one becomes instantly just does not demand as much of an explanation.
As for Penal Substitution, this is an entirely different matter. The earliest theory is still the one espoused by the EO Church, which is the Christus Victor one. Now, if we simply accepted doctrine for simply being the first to be written outside of the Scripture, then this is the one we must accept. Then, with Origen, came the Christ as a ransom for Satan. These two were the biggest theories. And, in part neither of them are wrong, and there would be no contradiction in one ECF espousing both at the same time.
In the writings of Eusebius, Athanasius, and Jerome is clear penal substitution language. Notably absent would be any mention of the ransom theory, so even if they espoused to Christus Victor in part, well so do the Reformed. The difference is on emphasis.
Further, the Catholic Church ascribes to the Satisfaction Model, the kissing cousin of Penal Atonement. So, if you want to argue as opposed to the evidence that there was never even a hint of Penal Atonement in the teachings of the early church, then you must say the same about the Satisfaction model you espouse. So, you’re 1100 years out of date instead of 1500 years.
Of course, being that as the theories I just listed don’t contradict one another (while Arianism would contradict Trinitarianism), we may accept the truths taught by all of these theories without being post-modernists.
“You cannot presume, by the mere fact that you understand those words in a certain way, that Gregory understands those words in the same way you do — unless he actually, explicitly expresses your understanding.”
I must disagree. Gregory puts himself in a different camp than Justin Martyr and Irenaeus a couple centuries before. He wrote, “But because by taking them upon Him He took away our sins and bore our iniquities.”
Justin Martyr wrote in his Dialogue with Trypho: “For the statement in the law, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,’ [Deut.21:23] confirms our hope which depends on the crucified Christ, not because He who has been crucified is cursed by God, but because God foretold that which would be done by you all, and by those like to you, who do not know.”
So, clearly they disagreed in interpretation. Gregory was espousing the model where I am coming from while Justin Martyr is specifically rejecting it. It does not even figure into his theology at all.
“The idea of penal substitution, with our sinfulness being imputed to Christ and Christ being reckoned as sinful, is a Protestant development, as every history of the doctrine of the atonement I can find…”
I will respond to this in more detail, but being that I can find Penal language in the fathers, even though they did not flesh out this doctrine (nor satisfaction for that matter), they ascribed to a proto-version. Just like you cannot find transubstantiation in the ECFs, but you can find statements that while not affirming it in its fullness, affirm aspects of it.
“Question: Why is it so important to you that this not be a new doctrine with Protestants, that you would ignore scholarly consensus and break the back of logic and interpretation to prove it?”
I have not broken the back of logic, but simply put our basis of truth is Scripture alone, because the Scripture is the only written record that we know comes straight from God. However, the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church to lead it into all truth. So, while this does not guarantee that every point of doctrine would be completely settled by the end of the first century, it is highly suggestive that a brand new idea should not appear out of thin air hundreds of years later, let alone 2000 years later. God is not revealing new truths.
God bless,
Craig
So essentially, you can find Church Fathers who say things that sound similar to what you believe, but none that actually articulate it. The problem is still exactly the same: You are reading Church Fathers who quote the passages of Scripture on which you base your understanding — but unless they articulate the same understanding you have of those passages, such an understanding cannot be inferred.
You have ignored my citations to the work of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of these matters, insisting that you can read things into the writings of the Church Fathers that numerous scholars — both Catholic and Protestant — have concluded that they did not hold. I’ll give you credit for your imagination, but I wonder if you think you know better than these scholars? Does the fact not concern you that even scholars in your own camp disagree with your arguments?
No, God does not reveal new truths. But the Protestant Reformers, in studying the Scriptures, came to radical new ideas, interpretations, and formulations that had never been thought of before. This is a fact acknowledged by even most Protestants scholars. Sure, there may have been some points of contact with the thought of various Church Fathers, especially Augustine when it came to the doctrine of justification. But the truth is that the Protestant Reformers — as all Protestants after them, and as you yourself acknowledge — looked first to Scripture alone. They had little concern that their ideas were new or that they were breaking with 1,500 years of theological tradition. So why should it concern you so much? Is Scripture alone not sufficient to teach the truth? It seems you are trying to have it both ways, hold on to the truths you read “straight from Scripture,” and at the same time hold on to the Tradition of the Church. But it does great damage to the truth to try to force the Church Fathers into a Protestant mold as you seem desperately determined to do.
Peace be with you.
“So essentially, you can find Church Fathers who say things that sound similar to what you believe, but none that actually articulate it.”
Just like you can find none that exactly articulate transubstantiation, grace infusion, and a plethora of other doctrines. For the purpose f the article I actually wrote, I found church fathers that articulated both positions I actually wrote about.
As it pertains to Penal Substitution, you can find ECFs that mention substitution, ECFs that mention the penal metaphor, and ECFs that mention God’s wrath on Christ. I will make a post on it and give you a better explanation. Did I find an ECF that exactly wrote what Luther did? No. But at least I found similar things.
Take notice I don’t bash transubstantiation. Like Penal Substitution, though it lacks explicit traditional support, it at least has some sort of basis in tradition and Scripture. I’m being consistent in not bashing it. However, you are wildly inconsistent in attacking Protestant doctrines that have similar Scriptural and traditional support.
“You have ignored my citations to the work of scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of these matters…”
I chose not to engage in it because you know as well as I that we can raise up scholars and set them against one another. So, honestly, it is a waste of my time and I am going to ask that you stop bringing it up, because you are simply avoiding engaging the issue. If you really want, I’ll name theologians that disagree with you theologian’s historical conclusions. They too have multiple degrees and tons of books. What does it prove in our conversation? Absolutely nothing.
“I’ll give you credit for your imagination, but I wonder if you think you know better than these scholars?”
No, I don’t necessarily know better than a lot of scholars, but not every scholar knows something better than me. Years of learning something wrong and pushing books through a highly political peer review process does not really prove anything. I have one peer-reviewed work published concerning Neo-Platonism. Am I a Neo-Platonism expert? Far from it.
“Does the fact not concern you that even scholars in your own camp disagree with your arguments?”
You can’t take one Protestant scholar and say he represents all of Protestantism. There are Catholic scholars that argue that the Church of Rome began with a plurality of Bishops. You don’t see me citing them in conversations with you, because I am well aware they don’t represent the majority of Catholicism.
“They had little concern that their ideas were new or that they were breaking with 1,500 years of theological tradition.”
You apparently have not read Calvin’s Institutes, not that I would recommend it it is really boring.
“Is Scripture alone not sufficient to teach the truth?”
No, it isn’t. Scripture alone is sufficient as a basis of truth, and it ultimately s the authority that all doctrinal standings stem from. But to ignore tradition entirely in favor of private interpretations is foolishness.
“But it does great damage to the truth to try to force the Church Fathers into a Protestant mold as you seem desperately determined to do.”
Interestingly enough, I challenged you to defend grace infusion and transubstantiation using the same bar of evidence you demand for Protestant doctrines. You will find yourself in existential doubt, because you know traditions does not support you in these doctrines to the level that is supposedly acceptable to you.
God bless,
Craig
Sorry, but you are changing the subject by referring to “transubstantiation” and “grace infusion” and I don’t really have the time or interest in being drawn into an inconsequential debate that has already been substantially settled. The same scholars I have cited, notably McGrath, who conclude that the Church Fathers did not teach Protestant doctrines affirm that the same Fathers, in the case of infusion Augustine, teach the traditional Catholic ones. This is all I’ll say about it:
McGrath on Augustine:
“Transubstantiation” is acknowledged to be a medieval, scholastic formulation; no one expects to find it fully articulated in the early Church Fathers. It is, however, a formulation of truths that the Church has always believed and that can be found plainly articulated in (not just inferred from) both Scripture and the Church Fathers. It is evident from the very earliest Church Fathers that they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that the elements of the Eucharist really became the Body and Blood of the Lord. Ignatius of Antioch complained of the heterodox:
Not only did the Eucharist become the Body and Blood of Christ, in the understanding of the earliest Church Fathers, but it remained so, thereby excluding doctrines such as the Lutheran understanding that Christ was only present in the elements during the liturgy:
These are the two most central concerns of the doctrine of transubstantiation.
However, you are wildly inconsistent in attacking Protestant doctrines that have similar Scriptural and traditional support.
I am not bashing the doctrines; I am challenging your assertions that “the Church Fathers taught” them. If you acknowledge that they did not, as you have, then it’s fine.
I chose not to engage in it because you know as well as I that we can raise up scholars and set them against one another. So, honestly, it is a waste of my time and I am going to ask that you stop bringing it up, because you are simply avoiding engaging the issue.
On the contrary, I cite these scholars as authorities on the matter. You are citing only your own opinion. I believe I am “engaging the issue” more appropriately than you are. If you have accredited scholars who agree with your opinions, let’s have at them, because I have found none.
You can’t take one Protestant scholar and say he represents all of Protestantism. There are Catholic scholars that argue that the Church of Rome began with a plurality of Bishops.
It did begin with a plurality of bishops; Clement of Rome is clear enough. That’s not even an issue. The Wikipedia article I referenced cites a good collection of Protestant scholars of the atonement who agree that the Church Fathers did not teach penal substitution. I can cite more if you would like. I cite authorities in the areas in which they are authorities; there aren’t many who can be cited to represent “all of Protestantism,” and I haven’t made any such claims.
You apparently have not read Calvin’s Institutes, not that I would recommend it it is really boring.
I have read parts of it. And Calvin is clear enough: he appeals to the Church Fathers when they agree with him but readily challenges them when they do not. The source of his doctrine is what he gleans from Scripture alone. He does not depend on the theological tradition of the Church and does consciously break from it where he deems fit.
To ignore tradition entirely in favor of private interpretations is foolishness.
Is it foolishness, then, to acknowledge tradition and choose to disagree with it?
Peace be with you.
“Sorry, but you are changing the subject by referring to “transubstantiation” and “grace infusion” and I don’t really have the time or interest in being drawn into an inconsequential debate that has already been substantially settled.”
No, I am pointing out that in your criticisms, you have set impossibly high standards which would include central Catholic doctrines.
“He does not depend on the theological tradition of the Church and does consciously break from it where he deems fit.”
Not true, the reformers felt that they were bringing back tradition that was lost.
“Is it foolishness, then, to acknowledge tradition and choose to disagree with it?”
Yes, which is why you need to evaluate the standards you use to judge tradition, because as I have shown, tradition would exclude central Catholic doctrines. have shown that even if the whole of tradition did not affirm this or that Protestant doctrine, they did not reject them and some even espoused them.
Scholars that see penal substitution in the Church Fathers:
JND Kelly
John Piper
Steve Jeffrey
Michael Ovey
Andrew Sach
Michael J. Vlach
Do we really need to do this?
The other half of Justin I should have cited:
That’s not transubstantitation. It says nothing about elements changing during the consecration, or that their substance is flesh and blood but their accidens are bread and wine.
So, if you say, “That’s not Penal Substitution” or “That’s not forensic justification,” by the same standards in which you exclude what I quote because they do not cover every single aspect of the doctrine that is presently espoused, I can exclude your quotation.
Can’t you see that you have set your bar too high?
The difference is that I am not making claims that the early Church Fathers “taught transubstantiation.”
So yes, if I had made such a claim, that such claims represented “the Church Fathers teaching transubstantiation,” you should rightly have rejected it. Those quotes do plainly show the Fathers’ belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the only point I claimed they support.
I am pointing out that in your criticisms, you have set impossibly high standards which would include central Catholic doctrines. … You need to evaluate the standards you use to judge tradition, because as I have shown, tradition would exclude central Catholic doctrines.
Catholicism has no problem with the understanding that certain doctrines developed, or that later theologians formulated new ideas based on the revelation once received. So no, it’s quite plain that Ignatius or Justin or Irenaeus or even Augustine or Gregory the Great had no notion of all the fine, metaphysical contours that came to be defined as “transubstantiation”; there is no difficulty and no challenge in admitting that. Transubstantiation is not an essential doctrine of the faith. It is a scholastic description and explanation of what the Church has always believed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Church embraces transubstantiation because it’s a mighty fine explanation that has served Christians well. But the Church’s belief in the Real Presence precedes “transubstantiation,” does not stand or fall by it, and will likely outlive it.
Likewise with the “infusion” of grace or righteousness: that is not an essential doctrine of the faith either, but only a theory and an explanation of what the Church has always believed from Scripture and Tradition: namely, that the grace Christ gives to us actually justifies us, sanctifies us, regenerates us, and sets us free from sin; that through it we actually become righteous, by a righteousness not our own but that does become our own, as we become the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Infusion” is a well respected and accepted theory, but it’s not the only one acceptable to the Catholic Church, nor will it be the last.
So no, the “standard” I am setting is only that we tell the truth about what the Church Fathers held and taught and that we be precise in our language and in our claims. I do my best not to make overreaching claims that early authors taught late-developing doctrines, and I hope you call me out on it if I do. Admitting these doctrines were late does not “exclude” anything; rather it acknowledges that the Church’s thought and understanding is always unfolding.
[I] have shown that even if the whole of tradition did not affirm this or that Protestant doctrine, they did not reject them and some even espoused them.
Most Church Fathers did not reject the Mormon doctrines of exaltation or translation, but that does not mean that they were accepting of them, simply that they had no idea about them and did not anticipate them or conceive of them. Likewise, you cannot assume that because the Church Fathers “did not reject” Protestant doctrines that they accepted them. Neither did the early Church Fathers “espouse Protestant doctrine,” any more than they espoused “transubstantiation” or the Immaculate Conception of Mary: such things simply weren’t on their radars.
If you want to argue that specific Church Fathers had notions of Christ being a penal substitute (with the specific understanding that Christ bore the punishment for our sins), etc., as precursors to Protestant developments, then knock yourself out. But such a specific claim requires actual, concrete support — the actual declaration or implication of such beliefs (e.g. actually saying that “Christ bore the punishment for our sins”) — not merely showing that the Fathers quoted Scripture you understand to teach penal substitution — since there is no indication from this that they understood that Scripture the same way you do.
The problems with this post are (1) that you make absolute claims that they do have such understandings (e.g. “Augustine himself taught double imputation”, Cyril, Chrysostom, etc. “espouse the idea”), (2) you conflate ideas together, such that you “bootstrap” Protestant understandings of forensic justification, double imputation, and penal substitution to the mere fact that various Fathers affirmed the Scriptures from which the later Protestants developed those doctrines (e.g. “The Great Exchange, in short, teaches that Christ bore the punishment for our sins, thus satisfying God’s need for justice, but at the same time credited us Christ’s righteousness” — when the biblical idea of an exchange or substitution does not necessarily entail those other ideas at all), and (3) while discussing the Church Fathers, you actually dictate doctrines that those very Church Fathers rejected (“e.g. Justification is a completed and not a ongoing act”; “You are wrong; justification is purely a forensic act”), which gives the appearance of attempting to “shoehorn” them into your understanding of doctrine.
Not true, the reformers felt that they were bringing back tradition that was lost.
Regardless of what they “felt,” they did not base their doctrinal formulations in the tradition of the Church but on their own gleanings from Scripture. Isn’t this something Protestants are supposed to be proud of?
JND Kelly
John Piper
Steve Jeffrey
Michael Ovey
Andrew Sach
Michael J. Vlach
Do you have quotations?
I am pointing out that in your criticisms, you have set impossibly high standards which would include central Catholic doctrines. … You need to evaluate the standards you use to judge tradition, because as I have shown, tradition would exclude central Catholic doctrines.
Catholicism has no problem with the understanding that certain doctrines developed, or that later theologians formulated new ideas based on the revelation once received. So no, it’s quite plain that Ignatius or Justin or Irenaeus or even Augustine or Gregory the Great had no notion of all the fine, metaphysical contours that came to be defined as “transubstantiation”; there is no difficulty and no challenge in admitting that. Transubstantiation is not an essential doctrine of the faith. It is a scholastic description and explanation of what the Church has always believed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The Church embraces transubstantiation because it’s a mighty fine explanation that has served Christians well. But the Church’s belief in the Real Presence precedes “transubstantiation,” does not stand or fall by it, and will likely outlive it.
Likewise with the “infusion” of grace or righteousness: that is not an essential doctrine of the faith either, but only a theory and an explanation of what the Church has always believed from Scripture and Tradition: namely, that the grace Christ gives to us actually justifies us, sanctifies us, regenerates us, and sets us free from sin; that through it we actually become righteous, by a righteousness not our own but that does become our own, as we become the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Infusion” is a well respected and accepted theory, but it’s not the only one acceptable to the Catholic Church, nor will it be the last.
So no, the “standard” I am setting is only that we tell the truth about what the Church Fathers held and taught and that we be precise in our language and in our claims. I do my best not to make overreaching claims that early authors taught late-developing doctrines, and I hope you call me out on it if I do. Admitting these doctrines were late does not “exclude” anything; rather it acknowledges that the Church’s thought and understanding is always unfolding.
[I] have shown that even if the whole of tradition did not affirm this or that Protestant doctrine, they did not reject them and some even espoused them.
Most Church Fathers did not reject the Mormon doctrines of exaltation or translation, but that does not mean that they were accepting of them, simply that they had no idea about them and did not anticipate them or conceive of them. Likewise, you cannot assume that because the Church Fathers “did not reject” Protestant doctrines that they accepted them. Neither did the early Church Fathers “espouse Protestant doctrine,” any more than they espoused “transubstantiation” or the Immaculate Conception of Mary: such things simply weren’t on their radars.
If you want to argue that specific Church Fathers had notions of Christ being a penal substitute (with the specific understanding that Christ bore the punishment for our sins), etc., as precursors to Protestant developments, then knock yourself out. But such a specific claim requires actual, concrete support — the actual declaration or implication of such beliefs (e.g. actually saying that “Christ bore the punishment for our sins”) — not merely showing that the Fathers quoted Scripture you understand to teach penal substitution — since there is no indication from this that they understood that Scripture the same way you do.
The problems with this post are (1) that you make absolute claims that they do have such understandings (e.g. “Augustine himself taught double imputation”, Cyril, Chrysostom, etc. “espouse the idea”), (2) you conflate ideas together, such that you “bootstrap” Protestant understandings of forensic justification, double imputation, and penal substitution to the mere fact that various Fathers affirmed the Scriptures from which the later Protestants developed those doctrines (e.g. “The Great Exchange, in short, teaches that Christ bore the punishment for our sins, thus satisfying God’s need for justice, but at the same time credited us Christ’s righteousness” — when the biblical idea of an exchange or substitution does not necessarily entail those other ideas at all), and (3) while discussing the Church Fathers, you actually dictate doctrines that those very Church Fathers rejected (“e.g. Justification is a completed and not a ongoing act”; “You are wrong; justification is purely a forensic act”), which gives the appearance of attempting to “shoehorn” them into your understanding of doctrine.
Not true, the reformers felt that they were bringing back tradition that was lost.
Regardless of what they “felt,” they did not base their doctrinal formulations in the tradition of the Church but on their own gleanings from Scripture. Isn’t this something Protestants are supposed to be proud of?
JND Kelly
John Piper
Steve Jeffrey
Michael Ovey
Andrew Sach
Michael J. Vlach
Do you have quotations?
Do we really need to do this?
If you are going to claim that various Church Fathers taught specific doctrines that the consensus of scholarship agrees were late developments, then yes, you really need to support such claims with something other than your own opinion.
Why is it so problematic for you that these were late developments?
Peace be with you.
“Catholicism has no problem with the understanding that certain doctrines developed, or that later theologians formulated new ideas based on the revelation once received.”
Okay, so never criticize Protestants for supposedly coming up with doctrinal innovations, when in reality they were doctrinal developments based upon Scripture and tradition. Thanks 🙂
“So no, it’s quite plain that Ignatius or Justin or Irenaeus or even Augustine or Gregory the Great had no notion of all the fine, metaphysical contours that came to be defined as “transubstantiation”;”
And, so a Protestant may argue (though I have not specifically argued this) that Luther and Calvin had a better understanding of justification, and the ECFs did not have a notion of some of the fine, metaphyscial contours of doctrines they would mention in passing (i.e. forensic justification and the like) but were otherwise not central in their thinking. Now, based on your own logic, you must accept this as legitimate, even if you disagree.
“Likewise with the “infusion” of grace or righteousness: that is not an essential doctrine of the faith either…”
Well, it is a doctrine that would throw into contradiction beliefs of the Church Fathers. Marius Victorinus writes in his commentary on Galatians, :As it was accounted to Abraham as justice, then, because he had faith, therefore, if we have faith in Christ and his whole Mystery, we too will be children of Abraham. This means that our whole life will be accounted to us as justice” (Gal 3:7).
Whole life is accounted as justice. Where is the room for increased grace throughout life if this is true in one moment, by faith?
Further, and more importantly, if grace infusion developed, then a Protestant can argue that doctrine that has taken us away from grace infusion has also developed, correcting previous doctrine. Again, even if you disagree, you would be force to concede that the reasoning is at least consistent.
You are a convert to Catholicism. Perhaps you got started on this road thinking the RCC actually preserved what the Apostles taught. Look at yourself now, you have downed the Kool-Aid! Now you are here defending that it is fine that your church specifically does not teach what was once taught. So, that means your church can teach absolutely anything one day, and you are compelled to accept it. Pray about that. I will pray for you.
Okay, so never criticize Protestants for supposedly coming up with doctrinal innovations, when in reality they were doctrinal developments based upon Scripture and tradition. Thanks 🙂
I don’t criticize them for innovation; I criticize them for claiming their innovations were not innovations.
And, so a Protestant may argue (though I have not specifically argued this) that Luther and Calvin had a better understanding of justification…
Yes, that is actually what most knowledgeable Protestants argue, and it is a sounder (or at least more defensible) argument than claiming such understandings were present in the Church Fathers.
Well, it is a doctrine that would throw into contradiction beliefs of the Church Fathers…
No one claims that the Church Fathers were infallible, that they all held the same understanding, or that they don’t sometimes disagree with one another.
A Protestant can argue that [their doctrine] developed, correcting previous doctrine. Again, even if you disagree, you would be force to concede that the reasoning is at least consistent.
Yes, that is more consistent reasoning, and in fact what most educated Protestants argue (and I think what the Reformers themselves argued).
You are a convert to Catholicism. Perhaps you got started on this road thinking the RCC actually preserved what the Apostles taught. Look at yourself now, you have downed the Kool-Aid!
You are misunderstanding of how doctrine in the Catholic Church is taught, and you are misrepresenting my argument. I am only glad I got the Protestant “Kool-Aid” out of my system.
You are here defending that it is fine that your church specifically does not teach what was once taught.
I’m not sure I even understand what you are driving at, but let me try. Are you suggesting that doctrinal development in the Church equals not teaching what was one taught, i.e. changing doctrine? Actually, no, doctrinal development means teaching develops where previously there was no official teaching. From the plain teaching of Scripture, teachers and theologians prayed and reflected and their collective understanding, over time, developed.
This is the clear trajectory, as we have seem in these threads, of the Church’s understanding of the atonement: Different Church Fathers read and reflected on the Scriptures, and developed different interpretations and understandings of the passages pertaining to the Atonement. At various times in history, theologians came to profound new interpretations that affected the thought of the whole tradition: Origen and the ransom theory, Anselm and the satisfaction theory, and so forth. So, the understanding has developed within the tradition of the Church, but there is still a fairly wide degree of latitude with regard to how the atonement can be understood within that tradition. There is not a single, “official” teaching about the atonement; each of the various opinions inform and support one another. There is actually very little, with regard to the atonement that the Church requires Catholics to believe. As the Catechism says, It is love “Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father” (CCC 615); His love “confers on Christ’s sacrifice its value as redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction” (CCC 616). “The Council of Trent emphasizes the unique character of Christ’s sacrifice as ‘the source of eternal salvation’ and teaches that ‘his most holy Passion on the wood of the cross merited justification for us.'” (CCC 617) That’s about it.
So, that means your church can teach absolutely anything one day, and you are compelled to accept it.
Actually, no. The Church can only teach from what was once delivered to the saints, what is present in the deposit of faith. Doctrines of the atonement are only theories, founded on the teaching of Scripture; they have developed and expanded and will continue to do so. But the Church could never declare, say, that Mary died on the Cross for our sins — which is nowhere found in revelation; or that Jesus did not die for our sins, which contradicts revelation. You ought to read my most recent post on the teaching authority of the Church.
I will pray for you.
Thank you; I will also pray for you. The peace of the Lord be with you.
“Actually, no, doctrinal development means teaching develops where previously there was no official teaching. From the plain teaching of Scripture, teachers and theologians prayed and reflected and their collective understanding, over time, developed…”
Except where that teaching explicitly contradicts Scripture. For example, we are told that the Scripture is the only source of authority, that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church has brought to bear interpretations of the Scripture and oral tradition that are authoritative.
Yet, the Scripture itself says, “[T]he sacred writings… are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching..so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”(2 Tim 3:15-17).
So, how could I need oral tradition in addition to the Scripture, plus authoritative later Catholic interpretations, when the Bible says that it is sufficient for EVERY good work?
“The Church can only teach from what was once delivered to the saints…”
Except where they obviously add stuff, or pretend to preserve doctrines such as the assumption of mary that have zero ancient attestation. Then, it is not a matter of preserving what was always taught, but compelling Catholic believers to believe that even new ideas must therefore be ideas that have existed since the beginning, even if there is literally zero evidence for this.
God bless,
Craig
We are told that the Scripture is the only source of authority…
Scripture doesn’t say that.
“[T]he sacred writings… are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching..so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:15-17).
So, how could I need oral tradition in addition to the Scripture, plus authoritative later Catholic interpretations, when the Bible says that it is sufficient for EVERY good work?
What part of the quoted Scripture says either that (a) Scripture alone is solely sufficient for all the stated purposes, or (b) that it is the only source of authority? All it says is that Scripture is profitable (useful, beneficial) in order that (ἵνα) a man might be equipped. It should be remembered, of course, that Paul was referring here to the Old Testament, which alone wasn’t sufficient at all. This is a feeble argument I have already responded to at length. In fact, neither of those points is ever taught in Scripture at all.
That the Early Church never held a Protestant conception of the sole authority of Scripture is self-evident: from the very earliest Church Fathers we have testimony that Christians accepted developments in doctrine beyond the written word of Scripture; for example, St. Ignatius’s testimony to the prime authority of a single bishop, in contradiction (so Protestants claim) to the plain scriptural teaching of a “plurality of elders.”
Except where they obviously add stuff, or pretend to preserve doctrines such as the assumption of Mary that have zero ancient attestation.
The Assumption of Mary is attested to as early as the third century.
Then, it is not a matter of preserving what was always taught, but compelling Catholic believers to believe that even new ideas must therefore be ideas that have existed since the beginning, even if there is literally zero evidence for this.
I don’t know where you are getting your ideas about Catholic doctrine, but you have a seriously mistaken understanding.
(a) The doctrines that were present in the beginning, the Church has preserved, both in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Apostles: for examples of such Tradition not explicitly preserved in Scripture, see the universal understanding of baptismal regeneration in all the churches, of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and of the prime authority of a single bishop, as mentioned above. (Possibly helpful to you: “What Sacred Tradition Is and Is Not: Answers to Common Misconceptions”; “The Prior Authority of Tradition”, “Some Early Testimonies to the Authority of Apostolic Tradition”.)
(b) One doctrines did develop, the fruit of a developing understanding of the received Scriptures and Tradition and of evolving practice: for example, the development of the monoepiscopacy (one bishop), necessitated by growing Christian community and by crises in succession as evidenced by the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians; and for example, the doctrine of the Trinity, as discussed in another thread.
(c) The Church does not “compel believers to believe that even [these developing ideas] must … have existed since the beginning”. The development of doctrine is well acknowledged by the Church, and it is not an issue. I do not know where you are getting this charge.
Peace be with you.
“Me: It says that the Lord was pleased to crush Him!
“You: Again, this is a statement of divine will, not of divine agency.”
Jerome, who knew Hebrew better than you and me, translated it: “And the Lord was pleased to bruise him in infirmity [et Dominus voluit conterere eum in infirmitate].” It does not say that the Lord was please that He was bruised. It says the Lord was pleased TO BRUISE HIM. That’s not my private interpetation, the word “to” is in the translation, and one verified by Jerome’s commentary where he lists other Scripture which credit God for striking the Shepherd.
So, do you reject that the Lord was pleased to bruise Him.?
“I honestly don’t know what you’re talking about.”
The satisfaction construction, where it speaks of atonement as Christ accomplishing righteousness on our behalf instead of paying a debt, is missing for more than 1000 years of Church History. This is a good indication that the theory is at least lacking some crucial elements.
“So by what logic do you presume that God’s wrath being satisfied by the sacrifice of Christnecessarily entails that God was angry at Christ?”
You yourself said, “They show, in the case of Cyril, that Christ satisfied God’s anger by His sacrifice, by paying the price for our sins.”
Let me ask you then, how was His anger satisfied by Christ’s sacrifice? Please explain in your own words.
“When the priests of the Old Testament sacrificed goats to satisfy God’s wrath, do you presume that God was angry at the goat? There is no trace at all in these quotations of the notion that God was angry at Christ or punished Christ.”
But this is a strawman. I started out the article stating my terms. First, I quoted Calvin: “Christ is “made a substitute and a surety in the place of transgressors and even submitted as a criminal, to sustain and suffer all the punishment which would have been inflicted on them.”
In my own words, I wrote: “This substitution had the effect of satisfying God’s wrath, so that God exacted justice by literally punishing all the accumulated sin of men in Christ’s place.”
I never said, nor did Calvin, that God was literally angry at Christ. Christ acted as a substitute to take the punishment of God’s wrath for His anger at us. So, God punished Christ in our place, and this idea is not objectionable because Christ bore our stripes. “For, in His own Person, He bore the sentence righteously pronounced against sinners by the Law. ”
I don’t think you are even sure what you disagree with anymore.
“Me: That’s PSA. You can call it something else all day, but you just conceded it to me right there.
“You: It is clear from Scripture, and the Church Fathers have accordingly understood, that (a) Christ bore our sins (Isaiah 53:6, 1 Peter 2:24), that (b) He suffered pain and death for us (e.g. Hebrews 2:9, etc.); that He became our sin offering in His own blood (e.g. Hebrews 9:12) and sacrifice for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 10:12, Ephesians 5:2, 1 Corinthians 5:7); that His sacrifice brought expiation for our sins (e.g. Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2, Romans 3:25); that He died as a substitute, the righteous for the unrighteous (e.g. 1 Peter 3:18, Romans 5:6-8); that believers are saved by Him from the wrath of God (e.g. Romans 5:9).”
Good. And I will add that He bore specifically in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgressions. Do you agree with that?
“Cute.”
Actually, it is sad that I would have to actually prove to you that penal language is being used, being that it should have been obvious.
“But it does not mean that God punished Christ.”
No, it means Christ acted as a substitute, bearing the punishment for men. Being that the Lord knew that this would bring salvation to many, the Lord was pleased to crush Him.
“Neither Scripture nor the Church Fathers follow your legal terminology of “crime” and “punishment.””
I am sure you are aware that “penalty” comes from the word “penal,” right? You are aware that I quoted Jerome, in the article you keep responding to, used the word “crime,” right? Are you aware that these things would invalidate what I just quoted you saying?
As the sources I have quoted explained, this juridical language of Calvin’s legal training and understanding. But in fact, the tradition satisfaction theory of the atonement is exactly that Christ made satisfaction to God. There is a key distinction here you are glossing over.
“Me: So, Jerome clearly affirms that in Is 53:4, that Christ was indeed put to death by God, which is why he quotes “I will strike the shepherd,” “O God, to do Thy will,” and “He was offered, because Himself willed it” as evidence for this.”
“You: No, Jerome doesn’t say that. The construction in Zephaniah is imperative: “Sword, strike my shepherd.” Yes, the Lord willed this, as Scripture repeatedly affirms. No, it is nowhere taught that “God punished Christ,” and this understanding cannot be inferred from Jerome.”
You ignored Jerome’s 3 other quotes that show his obvious vantage point. “I [as in God] will strike the shepherd.” This is huge to gloss over because it directly attributes God as the “striker.”
“In fact, what Jerome teaches is an understanding of Christ offering satisfaction.”
Other than the fact that he uses penal language (“crimes”), he says God was the one who struck our shepherd, and he mentions nothing of Christ having been righteous satisfying God’s demand for righteousness (not that this is untrue, but he simply does not emphasize it.)
“You didn’t. Your read a garbled machine translation, in which a fair portion came out as garbage. Though the Google translator has gotten a lot better, Latin is really not a language that lends itself to being translated by a machine.”
Perhaps so, but I read as much as I was able to. You said, go read Jerome. I did as best as I can. I can’t go learn a whole dead language to do it.
“You are determined to read “PSA” in any mention at all ofsatisfaction or wrath or punishment.”
Yes, because that’s what it means, your strawmen aside.
“God punished Christ, in the legal sense, for our sins.”
Yes, in our place.
Do you realize that you just quoted my own comment back to me verbatim?
I editted the comment to make space, don’t know what happened. Fixed it.
It now appears that you posted the wrong reply. What’s here is a reply to the other thread.
It’s gone for good I suppose. Oh well.
That’s too bad. I was much more interested in your thoughts on this thread than the other one.
I believe reading chapter 42 of Job is much more profitable.
“Me: We are told that the Scripture is the only source of authority…[that the Magesterium of the Catholic Church has brought to bear interpretations of the Scripture and oral tradition that are authoritative.]”
“You: Scripture doesn’t say that.”
You quoted me out of context. I was restating the Catholic position, though I really should have not put the word “only” in front of source of authority, because I literally say that the Magesterium and oral tradition are also authoritative to the Catholic.
“What part of the quoted Scripture says either that (a)Scripture alone is solely sufficient for all the stated purposes,”
First, 2 Tim 3:15 says the Scriptures “are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” So, I technically do not need to every meet a Catholic and have him tell me his view of doctrine to be saved, as the Scriptures say of themselves that they are able to do this very thing.
What is your position? Are they not able?
Second, 2 Tim 3:16-17 states, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching…so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
Is it your position that the Scripture does not equip a man for every good work and that there are some good works the Scripture would not inform him of?
“That the Early Church never held a Protestant conception of the sole authority of Scripture is self-evident: from the very earliest Church Fathers we have testimony that Christians accepted developments in doctrine beyond the written word of Scripture;”
But not in contradiction to the Scriptures and they found only authoritative reputed Apostolic teachings, not later developments. For example, several ECFs argued that church traditions were as authoritative as Scripture because they came from the Apostles. The problem is that many of these, such as tasting milk and honey, have disappeared. In fact, the Catholic Church does not follow a single “oral tradition” that both Jerome and Tertullian ascribe to the apostles:
(http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-tradition-5-types-3-expedient.htm)
Practice from Tradition
Orthodox
Catholic
disown the devil before baptism
Click to View
Click to View
thrice immersed
Click to View
Click to View
Drink milk and honey after baptism
Click to View
Click to View
don’t bath for a week after baptism
Click to View
Click to View
kneeling in worship is forbidden
Click to View
Click to View
Sign of cross on forehead
Click to View
Click to View
SCORE
What percentage of the oral tradition in 200 AD do Orthodox and Catholic keep today?
Worse still, the traditions of Orthodox and Catholic today contradict each other!
50%
0%
Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4
Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8
So, what I would not find in the ECFs is the idea that a doctrine like the immaculate conception could lack any mention for centuries and then say, “Yes, this is what we always believed.”
My own readings of the ECFs have led me to believe that essentially, the view of the Scriptures they have is much closer to Protestants than Catholics. I was joy-reading Augustine’s Confessions yesterday and just happened to run across this in Book VII:
“[I]n your Son, Christ our Lord, and in the Holy Scripture which the authority of the Catholic Church guarantees, you have laid down the way of human beings to reach that eternal life.”
Augustine names only two parties that have laid down the way: Christ and the Scripture. The Catholic Church, guarantees the authority of the Scripture and verifies its trustworthiness, but it does not lay down another way or act for us as a depository of additional information.
This concept would be foreign to Augustine, as would the Magesterium.
“The Assumption of Mary is attested to as early as the third century.”
No, fourth century in gnostic works specifically rejected by at least two early Popes. The first time anyone under their own name discussed the doctrine was John of Damascus in the 8th century, and he was repeating a story about another church father supposedly teaching the doctrine at the council of chalcedon. So, he essentially was giving a second hand account about something that happened a few centuries before. It’s the stuff of legend.
“(a) The doctrines that were present in the beginning, the Church has preserved, both in Scripture and in the Tradition of the Apostles…”
Other than tradition once universally subscribed to by the church, such as those surrounding baptism, that have been abandoned. Other than those doctrines that demonstrably were never taught by the early church.
“(b) One doctrines did develop…the doctrine of the Trinity, as discussed in another thread.”
But these are not really new doctrines. It is like the Scripture. THe Scripture existed once it was written, but it took centuries for the Church to formalize the books into a Canon (i.e. Rule). Trinitarian theology existed since the beginning, but the terms were not defined in the language we are used to today.
God bless,
Craig
First, 2 Tim 3:15 says the Scriptures “are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” So, I technically do not need to every meet a Catholic and have him tell me his view of doctrine to be saved, as the Scriptures say of themselves that they are able to do this very thing.
You are quoting a poor translation (or more probably, one biased to Protestant interpretations). What it says is that “the holy writings [the ones Timothy has known since childhood, i.e. the Old Testament] are able to make you wise for [with reference to, with an end to, toward] salvation through faith (σε σοφίσαι εἰς σωτηρίαν διὰ πίστεως [se sophisai eis soterian dia pisteos]). The verb σοφίζω [sophizo] is one of teaching, “to cause a person to develop understanding; to make wise, teach, instruct.” So, this is not a declaration at all that “Scripture [alone] can make you saved.” It says, literally, that Scripture (specifically the Old Testament) can teach Timothy, help him develop in understanding, in a way directed towards (with an end to) salvation.
First, this does not say that “Scripture [alone] is sufficient” for salvation. It was not for Timothy! He, having a knowledge of the Old Testament, was wise enough to accept the preaching of Christ when it was offered — but he could not have been saved without such preaching and teaching from Paul.
Second, to read this as a statement of “sufficiency for salvation” creates another problem: Is Paul really saying that the Old Testament [alone] is sufficient for salvation in Christ Jesus? If that were the case — if “you do not need” anything besides that — then why do you need a New Testament at all? Plainly, the Old Testament by itself is not “sufficient” to lead anybody to Christ at all: For “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?” (Romans 10:14).
Therefore, it’s clear that this argument of “sufficiency” is not the one Paul intended to make at all.
You apparently did not read the linked post I referred you to.
Is it your position that the Scripture does not equip a man for every good work and that there are some good works the Scripture would not inform him of?
If that wasn’t the argument Paul meant to make before, then it isn’t here, either. Does Paul really mean to say that “Scripture equips a believer for each and every good work“? And that “no work that Scripture does not inform you of is good”? What about how to write a good sermon? What about methods for studying the Scriptures? What about, for starters, that Scripture should be the only authority of the Church as you maintain? It doesn’t “inform” us of these things. In fact, in the Greek, πᾶν ἔργον [pan ergon], “every good work,” does not have the exclusive sense at all; rather this should be understood that “Scripture can prepare you for all sorts of good works, in order that the man of God be competent (capable, proficient).” Nothing about this teaches the sense you and other Protestants want to read from it. Paul is praising the usefulness of Scripture, not declaring it the only useful thing or excluding other good and useful things not taught by Scripture.
Again, you should read the linked post. I am repeating the argument I made there in greater detail.
The problem is that many of these, such as tasting milk and honey, have disappeared. In fact, the Catholic Church does not follow a single “oral tradition” that both Jerome and Tertullian ascribe to the apostles.
You are ignoring the argument I made and the evidence I gave, and choosing to beat up on straw men. There is a distinct difference between Sacred Tradition, the doctrines handed down from the Apostles — per the examples I gave, the Church’s understandings of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, confession — which mostly certainly were presented from the early times and have continued through all the ages of the Church — and little-t “traditions,” practices and disciplines of the Church which are not part of any doctrinal understanding but merely the way Christians do things. These latter “traditions” may or may not have come from the Apostles at all, or they may have developed later, they may or may not be universal practices in the Church, and they may or may not be continued as Christians find them beneficial, or not. All of the “traditions” you list here fall into the latter category.
So, what I would not find in the ECFs is the idea that a doctrine like the immaculate conception could lack any mention for centuries and then say, “Yes, this is what we always believed.”
How many times do I have to say it? No, the Church does not teach that the Immaculate Conception or similar doctrines were present in that form from the very beginning, or that “this is what [the Church] always believed.” This is a profoundly mistaken understanding and a straw man. So please drop it.
My own readings of the ECFs have led me to believe that essentially, the view of the Scriptures they have is much closer to Protestants than Catholics. I was joy reading Augustine’s Confessions yesterday…
And yet Augustine Himself believed in baptismal regeneration, the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the authority of a single bishop (for he himself was one!), the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the veneration of Mary, and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Is this your “Protestant view of Scripture”?
This concept [of the Church preserving Apostolic Tradition] would be foreign to Augustine, as would the Magisterium.
You apparently did not read any of the posts I linked. Augustine:
“Me: First, 2 Tim 3:15 says the Scriptures “are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
“You: You are quoting a poor translation…”
Then you quote back to me a rendering that says the same thing. Further, you ignore that in 2 Tim 3:17 it says that the Scripture equips us for every (“pan” in the Greek, I know what that means because it’s the pan in pantheism!) good work.
So, your point, and it’s attempt to skirt around the power and authority of the Scripture, is irrelevant. I am not denying that Paul is likely addressing the Old Testament. So? If the Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient, how does that make it where we need additional knowledge than what they provide? And, if the Old Testament Scriptures are Scripture, and Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scriptures, isn’t what is true of the Old Testament also true of the New?
So, unless you have Scriptures in addition to mine that I am not aware of, then I have every reason to believe that within them is ALL the information I need to be saved and do EVERY good work.
“He, having a knowledge of the Old Testament, was wise enough to accept the preaching of Christ when it was offered — but he could not have been saved without such preaching and teaching from Paul.”
Christ is in the Old Testament. In fact, when I preached I usually quoted the Law. “You must be blameless before the Lord your God” (Deut 18:13). THe promise of the New only makes sense with the Old.
“Is Paul really saying that the Old Testament [alone] is sufficient for salvation in Christ Jesus? If that were the case — if “you do not need” anything besides that — then why do you need a New Testament at all? ”
You honestly don’t need it. Many men were saved before a single letter of the NT was written. However, GOd has made the NT to preserve APostolic interpretations of the Old. After all, the Apostles wrote it. So, if you can show with 100% certainty that something outside the OT is actually Apostolic, then I will accept it like I accept NT Scripture. But if you can’t, you have to ask yourself why you accept something on dubious authority and use that to add to something which explains itself as useful for every good work and salvation?
Honestly, if your whole argument relies upon the presupposition that Paul had no idea that he and other Apostles were writing Scripture themselves, even though all the men they appointed to succeed them understood that they indeed wrote Scripture, it’s a weak argument.
“Me: Is it your position that the Scripture does not equip a man for every good work and that there are some good works the Scripture would not inform him of?
You: [Yes].”
Then you clearly reject the Scripture and we believe in two different things. There is no debate then.
““every good work,” does not have the exclusive sense at all; rather this should be understood that “Scripture can prepare you for all sorts of good works, in order that the man of God be competent (capable, proficient).” ”
Pan simply means “every” or “all.” You seem to be adding a lot to that word Pan to make it fit your presuppositions.
“There is a distinct difference between Sacred Tradition, the doctrines handed down from the Apostles — per the examples I gave, the Church’s understandings of baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, confession — which mostly certainly were presented from the early times and have continued through all the ages of the Church — and little-t “traditions,” practices and disciplines of the Church which are not part of any doctrinal understanding but merely the way Christians do things.”
Well, they share one key thing i common that you are intent upon ignoring. They rest upon heresay and consensus. Yet, if one thing can be forgotten with time though its basis was identical to the other things you mentioned, so could the others if they have no basis in Scripture.
Again, that does not mean baptismal regeneration or transubstantiation is wrong. The extent of our certainty in their truth rests upon how thoroughly explained the ideas surrounding them are in the Scripture. Anything outside the Scripture is based upon the hearsay of ECFs that it was an universally accepted teaching, and many of these have not stood the test of time.
“These latter “traditions” may or may not have come from the Apostles at all, or they may have developed later…”
Not according to every single ECF that commented on them. Five different ones commented on the milk and honey rite,e very single one said it was Apostolic. So, if you base your extra-bibilical teachings’ authority on the consensus of the early church, then you have to accept teachings such as these. The fact that you don’t invalidates your whole position.
“How many times do I have to say it? No, the Church does not teach that the Immaculate Conception or similar doctrines were present in that form from the very beginning, or that “this is what [the Church] always believed.” This is a profoundly mistaken understanding…”
Of course, because you believe that the RCC can make it up as they go along, they are revealed new truths like Pentecostals, thee new truths can appear for hundreds, even more than 1,000 years after the time of Christ with hardly a soul ever entertaining the notion that Rome now decalres as dogma.
“And yet Augustine Himself believed in baptismal regeneration, the reality of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, the authority of a single bishop (for he himself was one!), the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the veneration of Mary, and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.”
What’s the issue with the majority of these things? Lutherans would uphold all of them other than the primacy of Rome (something Cyprian rejected) and the veneration of Mary, which you actually cannot find in Augustine. Calling her sinless (something both Luther and Calvin affirmed, yet Chrysostom didn’t), would put him in line with standard conservative Lutheranism on those issues.
Now, I don’t agree with Augustine on every point, my point is to show that Augustine seemed to preach and live without many of the innovations that Rome now requires as dogma. Sadly, Augustine was the forerunner of some of these things himself, though being that he was the originator a lot of the later applications do not bare a resemblance to what Augustine taught. Nor can you show it. But, if you think you are going to cow me by invoking the real presence or baptismal regeneration, doctrines that are Biblical and do not bother me, is a waste of time.
“Me: This concept [of the Church preserving Apostolic Tradition] would be foreign to Augustine, as would the Magisterium.”
You put words in my mouth, let me fix it for you with my own words:
“Me: This concept [the RCC does not lay down another way or act for us as a depository of additional information outside of the Bible] would be foreign to Augustine, as would the Magisterium.”
“You: You apparently did not read any of the posts I linked. Augustine:
[I believe that this custom (i.e. of not requiring the rebaptism of heretics)] comes from apostolical tradition, like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors. (Augustine of Hippo, Contra Bapt. Donat. II.7.12)”
Let me quote what Augustine wrote in full:
“And this custom, coming, I suppose, from tradition (like many other things which are held to have been handed down under their actual sanction, because they are preserved throughout the whole Church, though they are not found either in their letters, or in the Councils of their successors),— this most wholesome custom, I say, according to the holy Cyprian, began to be what is called amended by his predecessor Agrippinus. But, according to the teaching which springs from a more careful investigation into the truth, which, after great doubt and fluctuation, was brought at last to the decision of a plenary Council, we ought to believe that it rather began to be corrupted than to receive correction at the hands of Agrippinus.”
Hmmm. “I suppose.” Does that sound like perfect confidence in the teaching. “Great doubt and fluctuation.” Does this sound like the Church was universal in retaining an extrabiblical Apostolic teaching without botching it along the way?
It is interesting you not only only decided to surmise my own writing wrong, but also Augustine.
Then you quote back to me a rendering that says the same thing. Further, you ignore that in 2 Tim 3:17 it says that the Scripture equips us for every (“pan” in the Greek, I know what that means because it’s the pan in pantheism!) good work. … Pan simply means “every” or “all.” You seem to be adding a lot to that word Pan to make it fit your presuppositions.
The difference is your implication that “Scripture alone is sufficient” for these things, which is neither what Paul said nor the context of his argument. Concerning πᾶν: it is irresponsible to presume words in translation have a simple one-to-one relationship (“pan” means “every”). You seem to be ignoring a lot to make it fit your presuppositions. Foreign words have wider connotations and meanings that may or may not translate well into our language. Of πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν (πᾶν is the neuter nominative form), the BDAG, the premier lexicon of New Testament Greek, in an entry taking up several pages, gives the following meanings:
1. pert. to totality with focus on its individual components, each, every, any
2. any entity out of a totality, any and every, every
3. marker of the highest degree of someth., all
4. pert. to a high degree of completeness or wholeness, whole
5. everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun, every kind of, all sorts of
With regard to this particular verse, the BDAG specifically cites this verse as an example of the last meaning (5), “every kind, all sorts of”.
… ALL the information I need to be saved and do EVERY good work.
Unless you are limiting “every good work” to an extremely narrow field, again, there are actually quite a lot of “good works” that Scripture does not contain any information at all about.
You honestly don’t need it. Many men were saved before a single letter of the NT was written.
Show me just one who was saved by the Old Testament alone. The Old Testament, even containing Christ veiled, was powerless until He unveiled it. It was only by Christ’s revelation and preaching and the preaching of the Apostles who followed Him taht anyone was saved.
So, if you can show with 100% certainty that something outside the OT is actually Apostolic, then I will accept it like I accept NT Scripture.
Can you show me with certainty that any book of Scripture is “actually apostolic”? How do you think the New Testament Scriptures even came to you? How do you know the canon of Scripture with “100% certainty”?
… it’s a weak argument.
If your whole argument depends on reading words and meanings into Paul that he neither said nor intended, then it is not only weak, but completely empty. Paul transmitted his message by oral preaching and teaching that carried just as much authority as the written word (2 Thes 2:15). He implored Timothy, in the very same breath as what you claim is an appeal to the “sole sufficiency” of Scripture, to take care to maintain and continue these teachings orally (2 Timothy 2:2). There is no clear statement anywhere in Scripture of this supposed “sole sufficiency.”
So, if you base your extra-bibilical teachings’ authority on the consensus of the early church, then you have to accept teachings such as these. The fact that you don’t invalidates your whole position.
I accept them. Whoever said I didn’t?
Of course, because you believe that the RCC can make it up as they go along, they are revealed new truths like Pentecostals, thee new truths can appear for hundreds, even more than 1,000 years after the time of Christ with hardly a soul ever entertaining the notion that Rome now decalres as dogma.
That’s absurd. Have you been ignoring every word I’ve been saying? The Catholic Church cannot and does not “make it up as they go along.” There are no “revealed new truths.” Are you at all interested in learning, or only in beating up on straw men?
You clearly reject the Scripture and we believe in two different things. There is no debate then.
Good. Then let’s stop right now.
“Me: Pan simply means “every” or “all.” You seem to be adding a lot to that word Pan to make it fit your presuppositions.”
“You: The difference is your implication that “Scripture alone is sufficient” for these things, which is neither what Paul said nor the context of his argument.”
What difference, he clearly wrote that the Scriptures, however you want to understnad which Scriptures he refers to is irrelevant, are able to lead us into salvation and equip us for every good work. If that s not the definition of sufficiency, I would like to know then what would make Scripture more sufficient.
“5. everything belonging, in kind, to the class designated by the noun, every kind of, all sorts of
With regard to this particular verse, the BDAG specifically cites this verse as an example of the last meaning (5), “every kind, all sorts of”.”
This is the least used definition of pan (http://biblehub.com/greek/pan_3956.htm), but I don’t see how it changes the point of 2 Ti 3:17.
Let’s look at Mat 5:11: “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds [pan] of evil against you because of Me.”
You can argue that Christ is using hyperbole, but He is saying blessed are those who are accused of what we would say in today’s lingo “everything under the sun.” So, if the Bible can equip us for “all kinds of good work” another way of saying this is “good works of all kinds.” Again, what’s the difference? On what textual grounds do you infer an insufficiency? What possible word, other than “pan” could Paul have possibly used to say the Bible can equip us for all good works? The Greek did not afford him another way to say it.
Hence, you are forced to read your presupposition into the language. “Pan” cannot mean “all” because it disproves your whole viewpoint, so you hope that if Paul meant “all kinds” then this somehow changes things. However, this only works if you read into the words “all kinds” to mean that there are some kinds of good works the Scripture does not equip us to do. Ironically, the word “all kinds” still disproves your fallacious presupposition! All kinds does not mean some kinds, end of story!
“Unless you are limiting “every good work” to an extremely narrow field, again, there are actually quite a lot of “good works” that Scripture does not contain any information at all about.”
This is where you are wrong. THe Scripture teaches me to have faith in Christ, pray for His Spirit, and this is sufficient for me to live by the Spirit and do every good work. “This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us” (1 John 3:23). In the verse alone I have been equipped, because God does not expect me to follow a rule book with directions on how to do everything good in a certain way. If I live by faith, everything I do is good.
“Show me just one who was saved by the Old Testament alone.”
There are men saved without Scripture, but by direct revelation from God (i.e. Abraham). We have a whole list of men in Heb 11 that lived when all that existed was OT Scripture that were saved.
Now, you are going to argue that “well, the OT alone did not save them.” Of course, the NT alone saves no one, a church alone saves no one, the Holy Spirit alone saves men. The Holy Spirit alone makes the Scripture, and teachings of the Church, useful to men. But this is not our dispute. Our dispute is whether the Scripture is sufficient to bring men to salvation and equip them for every good work by guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the answer would be obviously yes, there were tons of faithful men before the time of Christ.
“It was only by Christ’s revelation and preaching and the preaching of the Apostles who followed Him taht anyone was saved.”
THis is simply not true, there is a whole OT full of saved people.
“Can you show me with certainty that any book of Scripture is “actually apostolic”?”
This is an in-house argument, so we need to use the criteria of the Church not that of atheists. I cannot prove anything to atheists. I am asking you, by your own standards, which teachings outside of the Scripture can be known with equal certainty to be Apostolic? Which extra-biblical writings meet the standard of being God breathed?
“Paul transmitted his message by oral preaching and teaching that carried just as much authority as the written word (2 Thes 2:15). He implored Timothy, in the very same breath as what you claim is an appeal to the “sole sufficiency” of Scripture, to take care to maintain and continue these teachings orally (2 Timothy 2:2). There is no clear statement anywhere in Scripture of this supposed “sole sufficiency.””
Being that you are quoting 2 Thes 2:15 and 2 Tim 2:2, and let me add 1 Cor 11:2 to the list to save you the leg work, out of context, I do not need to seriously address that these verses unveil to us a whole litany of extra-biblical apostolic traditions binding upon the consciences of Christians.
“I accept them. Whoever said I didn’t?”
You cannot accept the milk and honey rite because you did not practice it, nor do you contend that it should be practiced.
“The Catholic Church cannot and does not “make it up as they go along.” There are no “revealed new truths.” Are you at all interested in learning, or only in beating up on straw men?”
“Developing understandings” and “making stuff up” are indeed two different things. If a truth exists in seed form, and is clearly expressed but not elaborated upon in the early church, then we can make the argument that a later, more formulated understanding is a development. If there is nothing of the teaching in seed form, then later elaborations are simply innovations.
He clearly wrote that the Scriptures … are able to lead us into salvation and equip us for every good work. If that s not the definition of sufficiency, I would like to know then what would make Scripture more sufficient.
Except that this is not what he clearly wrote at all. The part about “being able to lead us into salvation” is not there in the Scripture at all, nor does what is there imply any sort of sufficiency. Paul wrote to Timothy that the Scriptures (again, the Old Testament) were able to make him wise in a way that was directed toward salvation (εἰς σωτηρίαν). I might say that “Milk is able to make us strong in a way that is directed toward being healthy” — but no one would conclude from this statement that milk alone could make us healthy, that drinking milk and nothing else would make us healthy, or that only milk had the ability to make us healthy — and yet these are the very implications that Protestants want to read into this simple statement about Scripture.
Likewise with “every good work.” Suppose Paul wrote that “Reading books is profitable for teaching, correction, and discipline, in order that you may become proficient in these things and be equipped for every sort of good works.” Would anyone conclude from this statement that Paul was saying that reading books alone, and doing nothing else, was all that was needed to become proficient and equipped? What about being taught by qualified instructors? What about the experience of actually doing these things? Is anything about Paul’s statement meant to either exclude other worthy means of instruction, or denigrate other good and worthy works not provided for by Scripture? Of course not.
This is the least used definition of pan, but I don’t see how it changes the point of 2 Ti 3:17.
The latter is an open category and not an exclusive set. Your argument is that “if a work is not explicitly provided for by Scripture, then it is not a good work!” This argument fails if in πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν (“every good work”), the “good” refers to a category of works, to the kinds of works Scripture equips one to do, and not to some closed set of “good works” that Scripture prepares one for, that nothing else can prepare one for, and that if Scripture does not prepare one for, it is not an element of the set (as you’ve argued several times).
So, if the Bible can equip us for “all kinds of good work” another way of saying this is “good works of all kinds.” Again, what’s the difference? On what textual grounds do you infer an insufficiency? What possible word, other than “pan” could Paul have possibly used to say the Bible can equip us for all good works? The Greek did not afford him another way to say it.
Paul knew the meanings and limitations of the words he used much better than even we do. If he meant to speak to the “sufficiency” of Scripture — to describe an exclusive set of “good works” — if he meant to say that Scripture alone can prepare us for certain things, or that anything Scripture does not prepare us for is not good — then he certainly could have done so, using only a few more and clearer words. You presume a priori your conclusion, that Paul was describing the sufficiency of Scripture. I am not “inferring an insufficiency” from what is there; I am declaring that the argument you are reading is not there at all: Paul was not even speaking in such terms, and did not envision that anyone would seek to build such an argument about “sufficiency” from the words he used, and especially not the words he didn’t use.
Hence, you are forced to read your presupposition into the language. “Pan” cannot mean “all” because it disproves your whole viewpoint, so you hope that if Paul meant “all kinds” then this somehow changes things. However, this only works if you read into the words “all kinds” to mean that there are some kinds of good works the Scripture does not equip us to do. Ironically, the word “all kinds” still disproves your fallacious presupposition!
I’ve hesitated to start naming “good works that Scripture does not prepare us to do,” since I think the very presupposition you are making is absurd and I hoped you would realize so. But fine:
Scripture does not equip us to:
Order a church service
Establish a Christian calendar
Resolve disputes between dissenting factions
Baptize (a lack of clarity leading to endless disputes between said dissenting factions)
Organize the leadership structure of the local church
Plan a missionary itinerary
Compose a rhetorically effective sermon
Construct an architecturally sound church building
Evangelize in Swahili
Care for the livestock of the needy
Repair the pastor’s automobile
… And many more!
Are these not “good works”? Does Scripture “equip” us to do them? Do I need to continue?
In the verse alone I have been equipped, because God does not expect me to follow a rule book with directions on how to do everything good in a certain way. If I live by faith, everything I do is good.
This is not the argument you have been making, or even that you made just above (“All kinds does not mean some kinds, end of story!”). You are backpedaling and equivocating. You argued above that you did not need “oral tradition in addition to the Scripture … [because] the Bible says that it is sufficient for EVERY good work” — the implication being that anything the Apostolic Tradition might provide is not a “good work” you need to know about, or in fact, might not be “good” at all. You’ve even gone so far as to say that “ALL Scripture equips us for ALL good works,” such that “You honestly don’t need [the New Testament].” Per this hypothesis, does the Old Testament teach us everything we need to know about Baptism, or salvation by faith, or the atoning sacrifice of Christ? Does it contain the profound revelations that Christ brought on the spirit of the Law before its literal word? If it is now you who are arguing that it is the kind of works Scripture equips you for that is good, and not a specific, closed set, then I think my argument is proven. If I live by faith, then honoring the Virgin Mother of God, which Scripture does equip me to do in the sense of building up my faith in Christ and teaching me about His mother, is a good work.
There are men saved without Scripture, but by direct revelation from God (i.e. Abraham). We have a whole list of men in Heb 11 that lived when all that existed was OT Scripture that were saved.
Hebrews 11 does not say that these men were “saved” in the Christian sense. The idea of being saved in the Old Testament, especially in patriarchal times, was exclusively in the temporal sense, of being saved from something. When Christians, and the New Testament, speak of “salvation,” they are speaking of a different category altogether, salvation to eternal life. Were the Old Testament patriarchs saved to eternal life? Christians believe they were, but only with the coming of Christ, and by His direct revelation to them — not in their own lifetimes on earth (Hebrews 11:13). Projecting this same category of “salvation” back onto the Old Testament is anachronistic: no Old Testament patriarch was “saved by faith” to eternal life in Christian the sense you are arguing.
The Holy Spirit alone makes the Scripture, and teachings of the Church, useful to men. But this is not our dispute. Our dispute is whether the Scripture is sufficient to bring men to salvation and equip them for every good work by guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the answer would be obviously yes, there were tons of faithful men before the time of Christ.
Yes, there were many “faithful men” before the Old Testament — many of whom had no Scripture at all (Abraham, for example). And those of the Old Testament who had Scripture were not “brought to salvation” by “Scripture alone” or by Scripture-plus-the-guidance-of-the-Holy-Spirit — for they had neither the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, nor the promised salvation of Christ. So your evidence here (“the answer would be obviously yes, there were tons of faithful men before the time of Christ”) does not support the argument you are making at all (“Our dispute is whether the Scripture is sufficient to bring men to salvation”). A question more on point is this: Was anyone, in the time of Christ’s New Covenant, ever brought to salvation in Christ by the Old Testament alone — if “all Scripture is sufficient to bring men to salvation”?
This is simply not true, there is a whole OT full of saved people.
False.
This is an in-house argument, so we need to use the criteria of the Church not that of atheists. I cannot prove anything to atheists. I am asking you, by your own standards, which teachings outside of the Scripture can be known with equal certainty to be Apostolic?
No, I am asking you, “in house,” within the criteria of the Church: How do you know “with absolute certainty” that any book of the New Testament is “actually apostolic”?
I do not need to seriously address that these verses unveil to us a whole litany of extra-biblical apostolic traditions binding upon the consciences of Christians.
I have addressed your argument. Would you rather avoid mine? If Paul meant to argue that “Scripture is solely sufficient,” is he here contradicting himself?
You cannot accept the milk and honey rite because you did not practice it, nor do you contend that it should be practiced.
Why can’t I? If a great many Church Fathers commend it as apostolic, why can’t I take their word for it? It sounds like a worthy practice to me — but again, not one that touches on the truth of any doctrine, which is why it was disposable, and could very well be revived if the Church thought it beneficial. For example, the catechumenate, the defined period of instruction and purification before the Baptism of converts, was certainly a practice of the Early Church, attested to by Justin Martyr and others, but had fallen into disuse for many centuries. It was restored with great benefit in the twentieth century.
“Developing understandings” and “making stuff up” are indeed two different things. If a truth exists in seed form, and is clearly expressed but not elaborated upon in the early church, then we can make the argument that a later, more formulated understanding is a development. If there is nothing of the teaching in seed form, then later elaborations are simply innovations.
Thank you.
Peace be with you.
“Except that this is not what he clearly wrote at all. The part about “being able to leadus into salvation” is not there in the Scripture at all…”
First, I asked what the Scripture would need to be more sufficient. You avoided answering the question. Why?
Second, the part about being able o lead us into salvation is in the Bible:
“The sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15).
“nor does what is there imply any sort of sufficiency.”
Hence, my question. If leading you into salvation and equipping one for all good works is not sufficient enough, what would be even more sufficient specifically?
“Paul wrote to Timothy that the Scriptures (again, the Old Testament) were able to make him wise in a way that was directed toward salvation (εἰς σωτηρίαν).”
Directed? My translation says “into.” The Greek word is “eis.” Find a single verse in the concordance that shows the sort of connotation you would like the word to take: http://biblehub.com/greek/eis_1519.htm
And, to save you the time, Matt 14:19 pertains to Christ looking in to a particular direction, so in this instance saying “looking to” and “looking toward” would be equivalent. There is nothing in the context of 2 Tim 3:15 that you can even begin to stretch such a meaning as you are attempting to here.
“Would anyone conclude from this statement that Paul was saying that reading books alone, and doing nothing else, was all that was needed to become proficient and equipped?”
Let’s just pretend for a moment that it is the belief of Neo-Shakespearians that by reading Shakespeare alone they can be equipped to perform literally every good work. In what other words, giving the Greek, would Neo-Shakespearians be able to communicate the same idea? I suppose the word “literally”? Is there even a Greek equivalent?
“Is anything about Paul’s statement meant to eitherexclude other worthy means of instruction”
No, because it does not comment on their sufficiency, it only comments on that of the Bible’s.
“, or denigrate other good and worthy works not provided for by Scripture? Of course not.”
I think it is safe to say that we cannot presume there are other good works other than those provided for by in the Scripture. You would be drawing an inference that the Bible does not allow us to draw,
“Me: What possible word, other than “pan” could Paul have possibly used to say the Bible can equip us for all good works? The Greek did not afford him another way to say it.”
“You: Paul knew the meanings and limitations of the words he used much better than even we do. If he meant to speak to the “sufficiency” of Scripture — to describe an exclusive set of “good works” — if he meant to say that Scripture alone can prepare us for certain things, or that anything Scripture does not prepare us for is not good — then he certainly could have done so, using only a few more and clearer words.”
I think he did use clear words, do you care to volunteer different, clearer words so we can evaluate that the point can be proven somehow more definitively?
“Me: Hence, you are forced to read your presupposition into the language. “Pan” cannot mean “all” because it disproves your whole viewpoint…you read into the words “all kinds” to mean that there are some kinds of good works the Scripture does not equip us to do.”
“You: I’ve hesitated to start naming “good works that Scripture does not prepare us to do,” since I think the very presupposition you are making is absurd…”
You still have not addressed the simple point. Clearly, your interpretation is that the Bible does not prepare us for all kinds of good works, but some kinds of good works. The fact your interpretation, translated into the Greek, would require a word less all encompassing than “pan,” which literally in its meaning means “all encompassing,” disproves your whole notion.
“Order a church service
Establish a Christian calendar
Resolve disputes between dissenting factions
Baptize (a lack of clarity leading to endless disputes between said dissenting factions)
Organize the leadership structure of the local church
Plan a missionary itinerary
Compose a rhetorically effective sermon
Construct an architecturally sound church building
Evangelize in Swahili
Care for the livestock of the needy
Repair the pastor’s automobile”
The Law may be summed up as love your neighbor as yourself! If you do any of these things, irrespective of method, in love, God knows the heart and does not judge by outward appearances!
So, the Bible has prepared us.
“Do I need to continue?”
Perhaps, you would have to find something that the principle law of Scripture would not apply to.
“This is not the argument you have been making, or even that you made just above…You are backpedaling and equivocating.”
I have actually shown and proven in the Penal SUbstitution posts where you ahve literally back pedaled and equivocated, despite definitive public proof of you doing so, you have not admitted to it. So, do you have any proof that I have backpedaled on the position you just accused me of equivocating or is this just mud being slung all about?
“Per this hypothesis, does the Old Testament teach us everything we need to know about Baptism, or salvation by faith, or the atoning sacrifice of Christ?”
Typologically, yes. Apart from the Holy SPirit, one wont understand of course. Further, apart from the Holy Spirit, all the writings of the Apostles, their successors, and all the great minds of history won’t help you either.
“If I live by faith, then honoring the Virgin Mother of God, which Scripture does equip me to do in the sense of building up my faith in Christ and teaching me about His mother, is a good work.”
Perhaps. So, if you can venerate her or any other saint, but not have any other God before God, then, there is nothing wrong with that. It’s between you and God if your heart has passed the point of veneration to worship.
“Hebrews 11 does not say that these men were “saved” in the Christian sense.”
Actually, to argue this point is to totally misunderstand the whole point of the Epistle. To sum up, Paul is writing against Christians who are considering returning to or turning to Judaism. They are clearly converts, and have already suffered for Christ’s name.
So, Paul goes about proving the superiority of the New Covenant because it was mediated by God Himself instead of angelic intermediaries, warns against rebellion against God or one will not enter His rest, gives us confidence that in Christ we can enter that rest because of His superior priesthood, and then he explains how His priesthood adequately deals with our sins unlike the Jewish one.
After proving all of these points as summed up in Heb 10 Paul writes, “But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul” (Heb 10:39).
The very next sentences read: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it the men of old gained approval” (Heb 11:1-2).
He then makes a list of such men who by faith did this or that (some sort of manifested good work), and then offering the rationale behind the good work as it applies to that faith. For example:
” By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son; it was he to whom it was said, “In Isaac your descendants shall be called.” He considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead, from which he also received him back as a type” (Heb 10:17-19).
So Abraham had gained approval by faith, as all the men of old. By this faith, he offered up Isaac. Why? He believed God’s promise and hoped that God could raise his son from the dead to fulfill the promise. As James says, “You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected” (James 2:22).
So, to argue that Heb 11 is talking about men who were not saved by sin through faith, as we all are is simply wrong. James is obviously presuming that Abraham was saved by the existential threat posed by sin and comments on the episode about how we are not saved by nominal faith. If your interpretation of the men and the events disagrees with James in the Scripture, it has to be wrong.
Further, Hebrews disproves the notion. The chapter ends with saying “And all these, having gained approval through their faith” (Heb 11:39) and the very next sentence saying that they are a great crowd of witnesses surrounding us (Heb 12:1).
“Yes, there were many “faithful men” before the Old Testament — many of whom had no Scripture at all (Abraham, for example).”
Precisely, which is why no one is saying you need to every lay your eyes on Scripture, be baptized with water, or anything to be saved. The issue is whether the Scripture sufficiently communicates the faith in which men are saved. 2 Tim 3:15-17 says yes. You are yet to show how the Scripture would be insufficient in saving men.
“False.”
Interesting that Moses and Elijah, Lazarus in the the lap of Abraham, and others (though perhaps not literally in heaven yet) were in a state of salvation that with the passing of time and Christ’s atonement on the cross, would become actualized.
“No, I am asking you, “in house,” within the criteria of the Church: How do youknow “with absolute certainty” that any book of the New Testament is “actually apostolic”?”
Because the Church testifies that it is.
“I have addressed your argument. Would you rather avoid mine?”
It’s a non-argument. If you want to write an article and have me thoroughly rebut, fine. But it is a detour here and as I pointed out, the inferences you draw from the verse simply are not there, nor have you showed them to me.
“Why can’t I?”
Well, I think you should though I know you won’t.
“…not one that touches on the truth of any doctrine, which is why it was disposable,”
Well, not according to the ECFs who wrote about it, who saw important typology in it.
God bless,
Craig
Craig–
Two short years ago, you rebuffed this (obtuse) fellow deftly, fiercely, confidently. Now, you seem to have bought into the gist of his claims. What happened?
Hans you are reading my manuscript, I defended the all sufficiency of Scripture.