Reformed Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Refuted

May 18, 2009

“You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.” (Mark 1:11)

Christ’s earthly life and/or obedience to the law will be called R and his other acts as a divine person will be called D.

(1) R & D are belong Christ as a Divine Person equally. If R & D are not predicable of the same *subject* at all times, then Christ is (at least) two persons.

(2) If R is predicated of a divine person, accredited to him as a divine person, but also imputed to human persons as having performed R, then it follows that forensically the divine subject is a human subject or the human subjects are divine subjects, that is, through the Incarnation either a divine person forensically became a human person or human persons forensically become divine persons.

(3) If R is imputed to human persons as though executed by a human subject, then it follows that Christ is a human person and his personal righteousness creaturely rather than divine.

(4) If (1) is true, then (2)-(3) are false.

Comments and criticisms of this argument are not only welcome but actively sought.

“We are considered, as soon as we believe, as though the works of Christ here our works. God looks upon us as though that perfect obedience, of which I have just now spoken, had been performed by ourselves,—as though our hands had been bony at the loom, an though the fabric and the stuff which have been worked up into the fine linen, which is the righteousness of the saints, had been grown in our own fields. God considers us as though we were Christ—looks upon us as though his life had been our life—and accepts, blesses, and rewards us as though all that he did had been done by us, his believing people.” (Charles Spurgeon, The Lord Our Righteousness”)

[H/tip to Jay Dyer and Perry Robinson.]

84 Comments | Calvinism, Christology, Dialectic and Theological Method, Nestorianism | Permalink
Posted by NeoChalcedonian

St. Maximus on Caesaropapism

March 29, 2009

Then the saint mentioned how the synod convened in Rome by the blessed Pope Martin had condemned the Monothelites, to which Bishop Theodosius responded, “It is the Emperor’s summons that gives authority to a council.”

“If that were so, the Orthodox faith would have long since come to an end,” said Maximus. “Recall the councils summoned by imperial decree to proclaim that the Son of God is not of the same essence as God the Father. The first was held in Tyre, the second in Antioch, the third in Seleucia, the fourth in Constantinople under Eudoxius the Arian, the fifth in Nicaea, and the sixth in Sirmium. Considerably later, a seventh false council took place in Ephesus, at which Dioscorus presided. All these synods were convened by imperial decree, but were rejected and anathematized, since they endorsed godless doctrines. On what grounds, I would like to know, do you accept the council which condemned and anathematized Paul of Samosata? Gregory the Wonder-worker presided over that council, and its resolutions were confirmed by Dionysius, Pope of Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria. No Emperor convoked it, but it is unassailable and irrefutable. The Orthodox Church recognizes as true and holy precisely those synods that proclaimed true dogmas. Your holiness knows that the canons require that local councils be held twice yearly in every Christian land for the defense of our saving faith and for administrative purposes; however, they say nothing about imperial decrees.”

45 Comments | Church Fathers, Eastern Orthodox, Maximus, Maximus the Confessor | Permalink
Posted by NeoChalcedonian

Seven Sacraments?

April 19, 2008

Since things are not numbered together unless they belong in the same category or possess certain shared characteristics, the theological basis of the claim that there are seven and only seven “sacraments” can only be understood if we know what is being signified by that term. My pre-Orthodox perception was that if “sacrament” in the RC tradition and “Holy Mystery” in Orthodoxy were completely synonymous terms, then the claim that there were only seven such “mystical” acts within the Church plainly contradicted Scripture and Holy Tradition; for this reason I was comforted by the fact that Fr. Thomas Hopko was in agreement with this observation:

The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are “sacraments” and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions. The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical.

The Church may be defined as the new life in Christ. It is man’s life lived by the Holy Spirit in union with God. All aspects of the new life of the Church participate in the mystery of salvation. In Christ and the Holy Spirit everything which is sinful and dead becomes holy and alive by the power of God the Father. And so in Christ and the Holy Spirit everything in the Church becomes a sacrament, an element of the mystery of the Kingdom of God as it is already being experienced in the life of this world. (The Orthodox Faith, emphasis added)

The definition of sacrament presupposed by the claim that there are only seven is explicated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

In order, therefore, to explain more fully the nature of a Sacrament, it should be taught that it is a sensible object which possesses, by divine institution, the power not only of signifying, but also of accomplishing holiness and righteousness. Hence it follows, as everyone can easily see, that the images of the Saints, crosses and the like, although signs of sacred things, cannot be called Sacraments. That such is the nature of a Sacrament is easily proved by the example of all the Sacraments, if we apply to the others what has been already said of Baptism; namely, that the solemn ablution of the body not only signifies, but has power to effect a sacred thing which is wrought interiorly by the operation of the Holy Ghost. (COTC, Introduction to the Sacraments)

Since only those acts that meet the defined criteria as understood within the Augustinian tradition are properly called sacraments, it makes sense that Protestants do not affirm that there are seven sacraments for (1) they possess a different understanding of grace and (2) only signify with that term practices explicitly commanded by God. Certainly the following is conclusive evidence of the fact that there is a considerable lack of correspondence between RC and Orthodox terminologies:

Reply to Objection 6. Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which is the receiving of grace.

I trust that I am not the only one who has trouble with the claim that Holy Water is graceless, but the above only confirms my main point, which is that one must be very careful appropriating theological terms from other traditions.

67 Comments | Divine Mysteries, Eastern Orthodox | Permalink
Posted by NeoChalcedonian

The Gnomic Will in Scripture

February 18, 2008

St. Maximus the Confessor: “Thus, those who say that there is a gnomie in Christ, as this inquiry is demonstrating, are maintaining that he is a mere man, deliberating in a manner like unto us, having ignorance, doubt and opposition, since one only deliberates about something which is doubtful, not concerning what is free of doubt. By nature we have an appetite simply for what by nature is good, but we gain experience of the goal in a particular way, through inquiry and counsel.” [Joseph P. Farrell, Disputation with Pyrrhus, p. 31-32]

“There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” (Prov. 14:12)

“So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.” (Gen. 3:6)

“For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” (Heb. 5:13-14)

11 Comments | Biblical Exegesis, Christology, Church Fathers, Maximus, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by NeoChalcedonian