Wednesday, November 30, 2022

Daniel K. Eng on δικαιοω in James 2:21, 25

  

. . . even if εδικαιωθη refers to a present event and it not related to σωσαι, the discourse devices reveal that the focal point of each appeal to an exemplar is not the verb, but εξ εργων. Thus, regardless of the referent of εδικαιωθη, the author uses these examples to support the notion that eschatological salvation 9through faith, given 2.13-14) is εξ εργων. IN other words, the point of continuity between the hearers and the two OT exemplars is εξ εργων. Just like Abraham and Rahab were justified by their deeds (2.21-25), one is saved by faith that has deeds (2.13-14).

 

In James 2.26, the author again gives the axiom that faith without deeds if impotent to save. This time, an analogy supports the point. With clauses introduced by ωσπερ and ουτως, the first clause acts as a framing comparison; the focus is on the second clause. Word order is used to highlight the important element in each clause: νεκρον/νεκρα is in the preverbal P2 position, indicating saliency. As a body without a spirit is dead, so is faith without deeds. In other words, deeds bring life to faith, making the faith potent.  This potency is not a matter of degree: ‘James is not merely arguing that a “faith working with works” is more “righteous” before God . . . What is at stake is salvation and justification in an eschatological sense’ (Cargal, Restoring the Diaspora, p. 132. Cf. Kondradt, Christliche Existenz, p. 289). (Daniel K. Eng, Eschatological Approval: The Structure and Unifying Motif of James [New Testament Monographs 45; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2022], 151-52)

 

Daniel K. Eng on δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ in James 1:20

  

. . . the interpretation of δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ in James 1.20 is thorny. The noun δικαιοσύνη alone could refer to (1) a quality of fairness, (2) correctness based on redemptive action, or (3) a characteristic of uprightness. . . . a case can be made that δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ refers to justification be bestowed by God, the second usage of δικαιοσύνη. This would make θεοῦ a subjective genitive, consistent with δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Rom. 1.17; 3.5, 21-22; 10.3; 2 Cor. 5.21). McKnight correctly points out an intimate association between standing before God and a behavioural moral attitude as a result of redemption. He cites God’s saving action as described by δικαιοσύνη in LXX Isa. 46.13 (McKnight, Letter of James, p. 139). It would also preserve the parallel between οργη ανδρος and δικαιοσύνην θεοῦ, with both as subjective genitives. Also, justification from God would harmonize best with the final result of the next saying in Jas. 1.21, which derives its logical form 1.20 through διο. Jas. 1.21 most likely has a favourable judgment in view . . . (Daniel K. Eng, Eschatological Approval: The Structure and Unifying Motif of James [New Testament Monographs 45; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2022], 128, italics in original)

 

Tuesday, November 29, 2022

Seyoon Kim on Romans 4:25

  

J. D. G. Dunn also recognizes the influence of Isa 53 in Rom 4:25, but, like most commentators, denies a differentiation between the effect of Jesus’ death and that of his resurrection, treating the two δια phrases in v. 25 as a pure rhetorical parallelism for a simple affirmation that Jesus’ death and resurrection took place for our justification (Dunn, Romans 1-8, 224-25). Certainly Christ’s death and resurrection belong together as the two moments of the single saving event that brings about our justification. Yet consider the following three facts: (1) Christ’s resurrection did not just vindicate his atoning death and confirm his victory over the powers of sin and death, but also exalted him as “God’s Son in power” or the universal “Lord,” to that he might go on destroying the powers of sin and death with god’s kingship for our redemption (1 Cor 15:20-28, etc.), and eventually intercede for our justification at the last judgment (Rom 8:32-34). 92) the believers have already obtained their justification on the basis of Christ’s atoning death (Rom 5:1, 8-91a, 10a; 3:23-26), but they are yet to have in consummation (deliverance from God’s wrath) at the last judgment through the intercession of God’s Son Jesus as the Lord (Rom 8:32-34; 1 Thess 1:10; cf. also Gal 5:4-5; also Rom 8:23-25). And (3) this “already – but not yet” structure of justification leads us to believe that Paul is conscious of the present phase of justification between its “firstfruit” and consummation. Then, it is natural to think that Paul understands the risen Christ’s present royal work of destroying the powers of sin and death for our redemption in terms of sustaining us in the state of justification (or sustaining our present status as the justified or the righteous) by keeping us away from the Satanic reign of sin and making us render “the obedience of faith” to his reign of righteousness, that is, by commanding and enabling us to obey his rule rather than Satan’s rule (cf. Rom 6:11-23). At the end of this present reign, at his parousia, the risen and exalted Christ will intercede for us at God’s last judgment for the consummation of our justification. Those two things, which are vitally necessary for the consummation of our justification, are precisely what the risen Christ, the exalted Son of God, is doing and will do by “his [resurrection] life” (Rom 5:10b). So, “Christ was raised for our justification” (Rom 4:25b), i.e., to do those two things for our justification “through his [resurrection] life.” Thus, when in Rom 5:9-10 Paul juxtaposes future salvation “by him [i.e., Christ]” or “by his [i.e., God’s Son’s] life” with the already wrought justification or reconciliation “by his blood” or “by the death of his [i.e., God’s] Son,” he has in view the present reign of the risen Christ, God’s Son, through his (and God’s) Spirit (Rom 1:4; 8:9), which makes us bear “the fruit of righteousness/the Holy Spirit” (Phil 1:11; Gal 5:22; 1 Cor 9:10; 1 Thess 3:12-13; cf. also Rom 8:4) for God (Rom 7:4-6; Col 1:10) and so stay in the state of justification (i.e., maintain our status as the righteous), as well as Christ’s intercession at the last judgment, which will consummate our justification and finally deliver us from God’s wrath. (Seyoon Kim, Justification and God’s Kingdom [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018], 40-42)

 

The formulation in Rom 4:25b (“raised for our justification”) makes it clear that the future “salvation from the wrath [of God] through him” (5:9b) and “salvation through his [God]s Son’s resurrection] life” (5:10b) mean the consummation of justification at the last judgment. But the general (nonmetaphorical) term “salvation” (σωθησομεθα) is used for it in 5:9b and 10b in order to avoid confusion with the metaphorical terms for salvation, “justification” (5:9a: “justified by his blood”) and “reconciliation” (5:10a), which we have already obtained (at baptism). This view is supported by Rom 10:9-10, in which justification and salvation appear synonymous within a chiastic structure:

 

A. confess with our mouth that Jesus is the Lord and

B: believe in our heart that

God raised him from the death,         you will be saved

B’: with the heart one believes          for righteousness

A’: with the mouth cone fesses                      for salvation

 

Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1979), 2:530-31; J. D. G. Dunn Romans 9-16, WBC 38B (Waco: Word, 1988), 609; Moo, Romans 658-59.

 

Romans 8:31-39 confirms that for Paul the ultimate eschatological salvation is the consummation (final realization) of justification at the last judgment (cf. 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9-10), which brings about our ultimate redemption from the Satanic powers of sin, the flesh, the law, and death (negatively speaking; cf. Rom 8:23-25; 1 Cor 15:50-57), and our attainment of God’s image/glory or divine life, i.e., eternal life (positively speaking; cf. Rom 8:28-30; 6:23). (Ibid., 41-42 n. 16)

 

Erick Ybarra on the Development of Doctrine and the Vatican 1 Definition of the Papacy

The following notes come from

 

Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road, 2022)


 

According to the New Testament, the Apostolic Tradition was “once for all delivered to the saints.” Both Orthodox and Catholics agree that the divine Revelation which came through Jesus Christ and his holy Apostles was “deposited” into the Church. The task of the Church is to guard that deposit by disseminating its original content without any addition, subtraction, or any alternation at all. . . . there is no substantial change of the Revelation, but a change nonetheless, a change which only makes the revelatory data more of what it is by a fuller realization of itself through time. (pp. 90, 91)

 

To get a thoroughly accurate picture of how the Catholic Church has thought about the nature of doctrinal development, I rely heavenly on the treatment given by Dr. Lawrence Feingold, who explains the Catholic position on doctrinal development most succinctly, while referring to the most relevant ecclesial documents. If there was ever a question of whether the idea of doctrinal development was at least semi-official Catholic teaching, the following references should put the question to rest. In his address at the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope St. John XXIII made it clear that the doctrine was once delivered by Christ and the Apostles is unchangeable. He said:

 

This certain and immutable doctrine, faithfully assented to, needs to be investigated and proclaimed as our time demands. One thing is the deposit of faith, that is, the truths contained in the venerable doctrine; another thing is the way by which they are proclaimed, while always preserving the same sense and judgment.

 

For Catholics, therefore, the deposit of faith is immutable and must be assented to. But as one can see, there is a distinction to be drawn from doctrine and the manner in which it is made known. There is immutability in doctrine while mutability in expression. This duality of immutability of doctrine and mutability of expression is communicated in the opening of the First Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius:

 

For the doctrine of faith as revealed by God has not been presented to men as a philosophical system to be perfected by human ingenuity; it was presented as a divine trust given to the bride of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly interpreted. IT also follows that any meaning of the sacred dogmas that has once been declared by holy Mother Church, must always be retained; and there must never be any deviation from that meaning on the specious grounds of a more profound understanding. “Therefore, let there be growth . . . and all possibly progress in understanding, knowledge, and wisdom whether in single individuals or in the whole body, in each man as well as in the entire Church, according to the stage of their development; but only within proper limits, that is, in the same doctrine, in the same meaning, and in the same purport.

 

The Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) follows exactly this explanation in a document ratified by Pope S.t Paul VI in 1973:

 

As for the meaning of dogmatic formulas, this remains ever true and constant in the Church, even when it is expressed with greater clarity or more developed. The faithful therefore must shun the opinion, first, that dogmatic formulas (or some category of them) cannot signify truth in a determinate way, but can only offer changeable approximations to it, which to a certain extent distort or alter it; secondly, that these formulas signify the truth only in an indeterminate way, this truth being like a goal that is constantly being sought by means of such approximations. Those who hold such an opinion do not avoid dogmatic relativism and they corrupt the concept of the church’s infallibility relative to the truth to be taught or held in a determinate way. (Mysterium ecclesiae, Declaration in Defence of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church against Certain Errors of the Present Day [June 24, 1973])

 

The same document harkens back in the speech given by Pope St. John XXIII above and ways: “What is new and what he recommends in view of the needs of the times pertains only to the modes of studying, expounding and presenting that doctrine while keeping its permanent meaning.” And, in description of what is actually changing in doctrinal development, it states: “Moreover, it sometimes happens that some dogmatic truth is first expressed incompletely (but not falsely), and at a later date, when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge, it receives a fuller and more perfect expression.” It is therefore unmistakable that a Catholic perspective on doctrinal development is ruled by the immutability of doctrine all the while having the mutable capacity to grow in its expression, adding clarify or explication from what is implicated. (pp. 92-95)

 

The idea here is not that the Church learns brand new things which the Apostles would have cocked their heads sideways to. Rather, the same divine Helper, the Holy Spirit, which animated the Apostles and led them “into all truth,” continues to live in the Church and lead the Church into the same. To say that we are limited to simply repeating what the Scripture says without allowing it to cause more growth in the apprehension of divine content, is to deny that the Holy Spirit can empower clarifying resolutions when the doctrine debates arise. On top of that, we must admit that not every possible theological question related to faith and morals was confronted by the Apostles or the early Fathers. On this point, the Apostles are not surpassed in knowledge, as if a greater knowledge borne by us stands between us and them. rather, it is simply time which stands between us and them. It was the successors to the Apostles who were faced with fresh, new, and unforeseen questions that were never before posed. (p. 101)

 

Theoretically speaking, if the Apostles during their missionary days in Jerusalem were put in a time machine forward to the Council of Nicaea (787), which dogmatized the legitimacy of icon-veneration, they would probably have to ponder the arguments as if they were new questions to them. I do not for a second think that they would have come to a different conclusion, but they may not have had all the intellectual minutia right off the bat. (p. 101)

 

The assumption behind this assumption behind this objection is that in order for something to be shown true, it must be universally accepted, but huge sections of the Nicene Creed were not universal accepted until doctrine more fully developed. This should suffice to show that a lack of universal acceptance at one point in time does not present a particular belief from rising to the level of unquestionably certain belief later on. Such is the nature of doctrinal development. (p. 154)

 

Returning to the matter of a criteria for the ecumenicity of councils, just how and why ecumenical councils came to be regarded as “infallible” is another phenomenon which underwent historical, qualitative, and conceptual evolution. This does not entail an introduction of the foreign or novel ideas into the conversation of the Church. Rather, the Church looks back upon the Tradition to pull out implications whose principles are already inherent in such Tradition. (p. 170)

 

Was the Tome of Leo Infallible?

 

One question that has been variously answered throughout history is whether the Tome of Leo was a papal ex cathedra teaching and whether the eastern bishops received it as such. This is a difficult question to answer, and much of the substance of the papal dogmas do not hinge on a positive or negative answer. Whether the Tome was, ipso facto, infallible by the divine intervention of God seems to have little relevance to the disputes between Orthodox and Catholics. The more relevant question is whether the Church Fathers understood a pope’s official teaching to be ipso facto, infallible.

 

It should also be borne in mind that this question of the precise nature of papal decrees was a matter of theological development, much like how the contemporary Orthodox Church is still trying to figure out the institutional primacy in Orthodoxy as well as the mechanics of a successful pan-Orthodox Council. (p. 320)

 

The two stories of Pope Vigilius and Pope Honorius makes for an especially important growth in doctrinal development with regard to the papacy. How are we to understand the tradition which says the First See of government known among men, there are exceptions to the primary rules. The exception, in fact, is what proves the rule. (p. 533)

 

. . . the ex cathedra condition appears to be a logically supported development from the idea of the Apostolic See as the final judge, but it is a development nonetheless. It would be very difficult to say that the Byzantines at the Sixth Ecumenical Council employed this ex cathedra conditioning to explain the existence of the heretical Pope Honorius. While they accepted St. Agatho’s letter, which included a claim of Christ’s promise to protect the Apostolic See from error while at the same time accusing Pope Honorius of heresy, there is no an explicit explanation for how these two unseemly facts are conjoined in the minds of the bishops at the council.

 

Fr. John Chapman, therefore, slightly exceeds the evidence provided by the Sixth Ecumenical Council when he states that “no council has by acts and word more fully recognized the authority and infallibility of Rome than the sixth council which condemned—rightly condemned—Pope Honorius” (The First Eight General Councils and Papal Infallibility [London: Catholic Truth Society, 1906], 67). He can only say this by assuming that the churchmen at the time were conscious of a strict distinction within papal teaching, namely, between ex cathedra and ordinary fallible decrees that we saw articulated in the fourteenth century Carmelite Guido Terreni. Although it seems to be assumed by Pope St. Leo II, it is only by the time of Hadrian II (869) that we have an explicit record of how it was resolved that the Petrine supremacy stands firm even if an occupant of Peter’s Chair fails in doctrine. That would lead to further developments in the second millennium . . . (p. 544)

 

The Catholic Church’s dogmatization of the papacy over the centuries leading up to the First Vatican Council is, admittedly, a complex development which can appear to include certain novelties, but that substance of the Petrinological DNA, mixed with the scriptural and patristic gloss on the authority of the keys, is only further elucidated in order to speak to the Church’s confrontation with the unfolding drama of time and history. The resources with which to maintain outward and visible unity for the Church of Christ has been maintained by, among other things, the insistence of the divinely appointed position of the head of the Church. (p. 682)

 

W. E. Best (Calvinist) on Abraham being Justified in Genesis 12

  

The only way to understand Abraham’s life of faith is to begin by considering his first act of faith. Abraham, being called, obeyed to go forth into a place which he was destined to receive for an inheritance, and he went forth not understanding where he was going (Heb. 11:8). To read and understand Abraham and his life of faith one would begin with the latter part of Genesis 11 and especially with the first verses of chapter 12. Stephen gave a brief history of this in Acts 7:2-8. God appeared to Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia before he dwelt in Charran. He told Abraham to get out of Ur of the Chaldes and away from his kindred and come to a land He would show him.

 

“By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out in to a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went” (Heb. 11:8). Abraham’s faith began with God calling him. The word “called” is a present passive participle of kaleo, and it means “being called.” God’s call of Abraham was effectual. There was nothing general about this call. . . . In Hebrews 11:8, the present passive participle kaloumenos, “being called,” speaks of action going on at the same time of the action of the leading verb, and the leading verb is “obeyed.” By faith, Abraham being called obeyed. He did not wait and pray about it. He did not say he would have to think it through; he was not sure yet; or he wanted to be positive. This could continue for months and years. When God has given faith to a person, that individual will respond to God’s call, and he will act immediately on truth. While Abraham was being called he obeyed. Therefore, his obedience was immediate. . . . Abraham looked (imperfect middle indicative of ekdechomai, which means wait for, wait, expect, or look forward to) for a city (v. 10). This patriarch was obediently living the life of faith expecting a city having the foundations whose architect and builder is God. Likewise, Christians should be obediently living the life of faith expecting the city that will come down from God out of heaven, the new Jerusalem, when all things will be new. . . . Many acts of faith follow the first act of faith. This was true in the life of Abraham. Based on his faith that God would make his seed as the dust of the earth and God’s command to arise and walk through the land, Abraham obeyed (Gen. 13:16-18). Based on his faith, he obeyed God and fought and won a battle with Chedorlaomer (Gen. 14:13-24). After his victory over Chedorlaomer, Abraham’s assurance was renewed, and his faith was strengthened (Gen. 15:1). In response, Abraham believed God, and it was put to his account because of righteousness. Hence, Abraham exhibited many faiths of faith prior to Genesis 15:6 (W. E. Best, Justification Before God (Not By Faith) [Houston, Tex.: W. E. Best Book Missionary Trust, 1992], 70-71, 73, 74)

 

Monday, November 28, 2022

W. E. Best (Calvinist): Arminianism is a Heresy and Satanical

In a chapter entitled “God Dethroned by Free Will,” W. E. Best wrote the following:

 

The heresy of free will dethrones God and enthrones man. Supporters of free will insist that God would be unjust and tyrannical to control the will of man. They see nothing egoistic or Satanic in attempting to fetter and direct the will of God. These natural-minded men suppose their own foolish wills cannot be gratified unless the all-wise God consents to relinquish His will. The doctrine of the free will of man tears the reins of government from the hands of the sovereign God. God’s character is maligned by every person who believes in free will. Depraved natures make men unwilling to submit themselves to God’s will. Their inability prevents their coming to Jesus Christ: “And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life” (John 5:40).

 

The Arminian theory is polytheistic in its concept of the first cause. It yields to the same temptation of Satan that Eve did in the garden of Eden: “ . . . ye shall be as gods . . . “ (Gen. 3:5). Free will is attractive to natural men because it appeals to their pride. It impresses upon them the fact that they have natural power which gives them self-determination toward God, righteousness, and holiness. It is blasphemous to think that a man has the ability within himself to control the will of God! . . . Arminians believe that man’s will precedes God’s will. . . . self-will is the essence of anti-Christian religions. . . . Arminians assert that free will belongs as much to man as it does to God. However, God’s will alone is absolutely free. Once a person grants that the Creator is subordinated to the creature, he has joined forces with all the vain philosophies of the world. (W. E. Best, Free Grace Versus Free Will [Houston, Tex.: W. E. Best Book Missionary Trust, 1977], 35-36, 37)

 

Excerpts from Sergius Bulgakov (EO) "Icons and the Name of God" affirming the Veneration of the Icon, not Heavenly Proto-type, Merely

The following comes from Sergius Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God (trans. Boris Jakim; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2012)

 

Divine energy radiates from the icon of Christ, just as it does from the Divine Name Jesus. The icon is not just a picture, and the Name of God is not just a word: they are modes in which this Divine energy radiates into us. (Translator’s Introduction, p. vii)

 

The veneration of icons was legitimized in the Church by the decree accepted in the seventh act of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. (p. 1)

 

In order to deflect completely the accusation of idolatry, the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council sought a dogmatic expression for the special form of icon veneration that would distinguish it from the veneration of God Himself. The dogmatic terms used there were service, latreia, with respect to God; and reverent veneration, timētikē proskunēsis, with respect to icons. “Kissing, veneration, and reverence, but in no wise that true service which in our faith is appropriate to the divine essence alone . . . because the honor bestowed upon the icon refers to its proto-image and one who venerates the icon venerates the hypostasis of the one portrayed on it” (Acts of the Council, p. 285). Therefore, the distinction here is connected with the ideality of the image, in contrast to the reality of the proto-image. However, this consideration can be complemented by the further consideration that the image itself on the icon acquires a certain reality, i.e., that it becomes the place of the gracious presence of Christ, listening to the prayer offered to Him. And precisely this positively grounds the “reverent veneration” (through kissing, bowing, the lighting of candles, censing) that characterizes icons but that is of course impossible in relation to religious pictures or in relation to icons before they are sanctified. Reverent veneration is based on the connection between image and Proto-image, on a certain identity between the two, but the distinction between image and Proto-image limits this veneration, distinguishing it from the veneration of latreia offered to the Proto-image itself. The veneration of latreia is appropriate to the Holy Gifts too, as the mysterious appearance of the Lord Himself; however, for the sake of accuracy it must be added that, though it was left unarticulated at the Seventh Ecumenical Council, the concept of latreia as the veneration of God does admit further definition within its own limits. The latreia that is offered to the Holy Gifts is of course nevertheless different from the veneration of the Lord Himself (cf. Matt. 28:17: “And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him”; Rev. 1:7: “Behold, He cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see Him . . . and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of Him”). However, this distinction lies beyond the doctrine of the icon. (pp. 89-90)

 

 Further Reading:


Answering Fundamentalist Protestants and Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox on Images/Icons

Joachim Jeremias on Paul's Affirmation of Baptismal Regeneration

  

How is justification bestowed? How does God accept the ungodly? In this matter we see things more clearly today because have learned in the last decades that it is in baptism that this bestowal takes place. This follows, for example, from 1 Cor. 6.11, where the verb ‘to be justified’ is surrounded by baptismal terms and formulae: ‘But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God’ (cp. Further Gal. 3.24-27; Rom. 6.7; Tit. 3.5-7). Paul does not stress explicitly the connection between justification and baptism for the very simple reason that in the justification formula the term ‘by faith’ includes baptism by way of abbreviation, as R. Schnackenburg has convincingly shown (Das Heilsgeschehen bei der Taufe nach dem Apostel Paulus [1950], 120). The connection of justification with baptism is so obvious to Paul that he feels no necessity to state in so many words that it is in baptism that God saves him who believes in Jesus Christ.

 

Here we must remind ourselves that Paul speaks and writes as a missionary. In the missionary situation, for the Gentile or the Jew who believed in the good news and decided to join the Christian congregation, baptism was the decisive act by which he was included among those belonging to Jesus as their Lord. Therefore, Paul incessantly stresses the importance of baptism, and he uses a multitude of illustrations to show to the newly converted what this rite means ot them. He tells them: ‘When you are baptized you are washed; you are cleansed; you are sanctified; you are buried in the water and by this burial you get a share in Christ’s death and resurrection; you are putting on Christ like a garment; you are incorporated into his body; you are adopted and you become sons of God; you are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, that is, you are made members of God’s people; in short, you are included in the kingdom.’

 

The formula ‘justification by faith’ is but one of these manifold illustrations. It is the description of God’s grace in baptism using a figure taken originally from the judicial sphere: God’s grace in baptism consists in his undeserved pardon. It is that formulation of the grace of baptism which Paul created in conflict with Judaism. Therefore it is not a ‘subsidiary crater’, but it occupies a place of equal importance with all other descriptions of the grace of baptism, cp, again 1 Cor. 6.11: ‘But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.’

 

This statement has a far-reaching consequence, namely that the doctrine of justification should not be isolated. On the contrary, it can only be understood in connection with all the other pronouncements about baptism. God’s grace through baptism is so comprehensive that each of the many illustrations, images and comparisons which Paul uses expresses only one aspect of it. If he speaks of ablution, the stress is upon deliverance from the uncleanness of the old existence. If he uses the image of the putting on of Christ, borrowed from the language of the mysticism, the emphasis is upon communion, even unity, with the risen Lord. (Joachim Jeremias, The Central Message of the New Testament [London: SCM Press Ltd., 1965], 59-61)

 

Sunday, November 27, 2022

Erick Ybarra on Roman Catholic Claims only winning out Eastern Orthodox Claims by a Narrow Margin

 The following notes come from

 

Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox (Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road, 2022)

 

As the reader can guess, this entire book is a publication seeking to revisit the debate on the subject of the papacy between Catholics and Orthodox. Admittedly, when I commenced my studies, I had thought the case for Catholicism was far more compelling than any case for Orthodoxy could afford. As of now, I am thoroughly convinced that this debate is not concluded with a first round knockout for either side. I now sense that if Catholicism does win this debate, it only wins going the full distance of twelve rounds and by a remarkably close call. This is because the Byzantine claims can be well supported by good historical evidence. (p. xvi)

 

[in summarizing the Pre-Nicene evidence for the Papacy]:

 

. . . the historical is left with a number of explanations, none of which needs to be the logic of the First Vatican Council. This does not mean that they were unaware of a theory of Roman primacy that accords with the Vatican Council. My observations here are simply in light of the limited amount of data and documentary evidence that exists today which we can reconstruct the beliefs of the pre-Nicene era. (p. 157)

  

. . . there is still criteria of falsification that would disprove the papacy and therefore Catholicism. And here is explained why, if Catholicism wins the debates, it is by milligrams and not a landslide. If it could ever be shown, as St. John H. Newman admitted, that the magisterium of the Catholic Church has contradicted itself in the solemn pronouncements on faith or morals, then everything written in this book, or in any book, in defence of Catholicism would immediately shatter to pieces. And to be both honest and fair, I have surveyed at least two major instances that the Orthodox can choose that would make a big problem for Catholics, namely, the events surrounding both Pope Honorius and Pope Vigilius, especially their seeming subjection to the authority of ecumenical councils. In particular, the Fifth Council, as I noted in the relevant chapter, comes very close to favoring some kind of conciliarism over papalism by its eighth session, rejecting that one person, the pope in particular, can determine the faith of the whole Church by his own individual decrees. On the contrary, they look to the Apostles and the Fathers and see the tradition, which says that final decisions must be made altogether with the brethren in councils.

 

There is this, and there is also the hypothetical situation that the Orthodox can pose about what happens when the pope himself becomes a source of disunity? I have provided my reflections on this, but I must be candid in saying the Orthodox have many solid punches that land clean in this debate over primacy. This calls to mind the relatively simple yet profound criticisms levelled against papal infallibility by the late French Cistercian monk who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholicism, Archimandrite Placide (Deseille) Simonopetritis, in his Stages of a Pilgrimage. On the sentence of the Sixth Council against Honorius, he wrote: “In any case, a similar condemnation of a pope would be unthinkable today. One must thus admit that there has been an evolution” (“Stages of a Pilgrimage,” in The Living Witness of the Holy Mountain, ed. Hieromonk Alexander Golitzin [South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary, 1996] 81). Who can deny the force of that? On top of this, each and every time the pope was suspected of being guilty of heresy in the first millennium, even the bishops of the West, not to mention the East, felt no anxiety over removing the pope’s name from the diptychs of communion. Could we picture something like this happening today? (Perhaps further light on this will be shed when the Church looks more upon what to do in the case of an overtly heretical pope) What these actions show is that sizable portions of the Church were not convinced of an invincible rule that one had to be in communion with the pope of Rome for their eternal salvation. Otherwise, they would have avoided severance from unity with the Apostolic See just like one would avoid denying the name of Christ before his persecutors. And with that single element gone, potentially the whole doctrine of the papacy is ground to powder. We also saw the peculiar case of St. Maximum the Confessor who originally pressed hard on the a priori infallibility of Rome, but when pushed under trial, perhaps against his will, he seems to indicate that he was willing to sever his unity with the See of Rome if the latter caved in to union with heretics.

 

These are powerful points to consider, and Catholics should not wave them off. On the other hand, the Orthodox might have good points to make on Vigilius and Honorius but then there is an issue with their wholesale rejection of something their Fathers and saints held to be traditional orthodoxy, namely, the essential Petrine-Roman constitution of universal primacy. (pp. 689-91)

 

Gaye Strathearn on John 6 Containing Eucharistic Theology

  

Sacramental Teachings in John’s Gospel: The Spiritual Meal

 

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John’s Gospel refers not to a Passover meal but to a meal that took place “before the feast of the passover,” where Jesus washed the feet of the disciples (John 13:1-30). His Gospel emphasizes the sacramental teachings, in part, in chapter 6’s Bread of Life discourse. John placed the discourse in the context of the meal of feeding the five thousand (John 6:1-14). The day following the meal, the people came looking for him (seeking more free food). Jesus used sacramental language of eating the bread of life to teach them about the spiritual aspect of eating. He declared, “I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and he that believeth on me shall never thirst” (John 6:35). Then he declared:

 

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. (John 6:51-56)

 

Jesus’s teachings here are more expansive than his recorded teachings at the Last Supper and may help us consider one way of understanding his directions to “take eat: this is my body, which was broken for you” and “this cup is the new testament in my blood” (1 Corinthians 11:24-25; see also Mark 14:22-23 and parallels). Just as food and drink are essential for maintaining our physical lives, Jesus emphasizes the importance of his atoning sacrifice bringing not just physical, mortal life but, more importantly, eternal life. Just as bread was broken in antiquity so that it could be consumed, Jesus’s body was broken so it could be consumed spiritually. By partaking of the sacramental emblems, a person symbolically partakes of a portion of Jesus’s divinity. Such a sacramental act is meant to change a person, slowly to be sure, to symbolize their being transformed into divine beings like Jesus. In John’s Gospel this is a central part of our “indwelling” with God and his son that Jesus speaks of in his intercessory prayer (see John 17). He prays, “Holy Father, keep through thine town name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be the one, as we are” (John 17:11), and further, “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou has sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me” (John 17:20-23; emphasis added). Given our discussion on meals, it should not be surprising that this transformation is also celebrated in a meal setting. (Gaye Strathearn, “Communal Settings for Meals in the New Testament,” in The Household of God: Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Jason R. Combs, Mark D. Ellison, Frank F. Judd Jr., and Cecilia M. Peek [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 62-63, emphasis in original)

 

Saturday, November 26, 2022

Camille Fronk Olson on Jesus' Relationship with his (half) Brothers and Mary

  

The New Testament tells us that Jesus grew up in a large family with several siblings, presumably children born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus. We know his brothers’ names—James, Joses, Judah, and Simon—and that he had more than one sister (see Mark 6:3). We might assume that Mary the mother of Jesus would be first in line to enter the household of God, followed by the rest of Jesus’s mortal family. After all, biological kinship has been privileged throughout history.

 

An incident during the Savior’s ministry suggests that many bystanders assumed Jesus would give special access to his mother and half brothers. While Jesus was teaching in Galilee, Mary and her other sons were kept from him because he was surrounded by many people. The crowd somehow relayed a message to Jesus that “thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.” Much like the townspeople, we may expect Jesus to part the crowd and usher in his immediate family. But that is not what Jesus did. Instead, he told the multitude, “My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it” (Luke 8:19-21; see also Matthew 12:46-5; Mark 3:31-35). I imagine Jesus making a large sweep with his arm over the crowd and he said, “these.” Jesus described those who make up his family as the men, women, and children who hear and willingly follow the word of God.

 

So, what of Mary his biological mother? Is she part of the household of God? Yes, because she heard the word of God and obeyed it. Yet she did not get a free pass because she was biologically related to the Lord. (Camille Fronk Olson, “’No More Strangers or Foreigners, but Fellowcitizens,’” in The Household of God: Families and Belonging in the Social World of the New Testament ed. Lincoln H. Blumell, Jason R. Combs, Mark D. Ellison, Frank F. Judd Jr., and Cecilia M. Peek [Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2022], 16)

 

Friday, November 25, 2022

Stanley E. Porter on Romans 2 not being Hypothetical

  

The apocalyptic imagery is concerned with those who are brought before God at the final and ultimate judgment of humanity, when each one is rewarded according to their response to—whether they have chosen to ignore or endorse—the divinely embedded knowledge that they have been given. Those who have ignored it are the focus of much of the discussion here, where Paul makes clear that their reward is clearly condemnation, because they have acted upon their ignorance and disregard in wilfully inverting divine moral values. The wonder, according to Paul, is that God has not acted sooner for those who have been accumulating wrath for the day of that revelation. However, Paul notes that God’s graciousness has been extended to allow for repentance. Those who repent are the ones whom Paul addresses further in the letter when he articulates what it means to be justified, be reconciled, and live the life of the Spirit (and whom he is addressing already as his actual addresses in the letter to the Romans). However, here he anticipates this life in the Spirit by noting that there are ‘those who seek glory and honor and immortality’ (Rom. 2.7). These are the very kind of qualities that Paul has depicted earlier as representative of the divine nature (e.g. glory and immortality; Rom. 1.23). These qualities characterize those who have repented of their inversion (note that repentance in Rom. 2.4 comes before depiction of judgment in Rom. 2.5) and have sought to restore or retain those characteristics of God. They are the ones who are then rewarded with glory and honor and peace (peace is mentioned here in anticipation of Rom. 5.1 and Romans 9-11, that is, reconciliation). Thus, ‘evil’ is that some people do is not a single evil thing, or even a series of particular evil things, but the life of unrepentant evil that inverts divine values and ‘good’ is not any particular good action, but the good of having heeded the embedded knowledge of God in repentance and then appropriately lived life according to the knowledge. These are not hypothetical alternatives, but, for Paul, the lived-life realities of the repentant or unrepentant person (including those of broader humanity who thought they were qualified to pass judgment on others), for both Jews and Gentiles alike. (Stanley E. Porter, The Letter to the Romans: A Linguistic and Literary Commentary [New Testament Monographs 37; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015], 75, emphasis in bold added)

 

Lars Hartman on the Water Baptism Reading of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

  

First, the Corinthians were washed. The imagery of washing was naturally inspired by the fact that baptism is a water rite. The image stands for cleansing, from the sins of the past. The introductory 'but' in 'but (αλλα) you were washed ...' contrasts the clause to the list of vices in the preceding vv. 9f. Before becoming Christians the Corinthians are said to have indulged in idolatry, adultery, etc. But the context also suggests that the vices represent not only various sinful actions in the past which are now forgiven, but also earlier, basic conditions of life which were dictated by evil powers and paganism. From those conditions the addressees are now liberated.

 

Secondly, entrance into the church meant that the Corinthians were 'sanctified'. Already at the beginning of the letter Paul addressed them as 'the church of God', 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, the holy, called ones' (1 Cor 1.2). To be holy means that a person or an object belongs to God and to the realm which is reserved for and dedicated to him. There he is also present in a particular manner. Therefore the holy person or the holy object is separated from the secular world (see e.g. Rom 12.2; 1 Cor 5.9f; Gal 1.4). It behooves those who belong to this divine sphere to be holy, i.e. to live in a manner which is worthy of the divine. According to 1 Corinthians 6 the opposite has occurred when the Corinthians' conduct is incompatible with their holy state.

 

Thirdly, the transition from old to new is characterised by the phrase 'you were justified' (εδικαιωθητε). In the context it is contrasted to verse 9, which claims that 'unrighteous (or: unjust, αδικοι) people will not inherit the kingdom of God'. To have been 'justified' here means that the transgressions of the past have been forgiven. But we should also allow the whole of Paul's thinking on justification to colour our understanding of the passage. The entrance into the church of God meant that the Christian was delivered from the power of sin and entered a realm where God's creative Spirit held sway. The fact that all the verbs in the passage are in the passive voice implies that the underlying agent is God. It is he who cleanses, sanctifies, and justifies. Paul expresses the same opinion in other places when dealing with people's entering the church. The entrance is actually performed by God: people are 'called' (see 1 Cor 1.26; 7.18ff, etc.), and God is the one who calls (cf. the active use in Rom 8.30; 1 Cor 7.17; Gal 1.6; 1 Thess 2.12). 


Finally, the washing, the sanctification, and the justification are said to have taken place 'in (or: through) the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in (or: through) the Spirit of our God'. Probably the first half of the phrase echoes a baptismal formula. Above, we saw that the meaning was probably the same whether one said 'baptise into the name...' or 'baptise in the name ...'. Thus it also fits well into this context to assume that 'the Lord Jesus Christ', that which he has done, and that which he means in the present, are the foundation of the baptism and of the other phases of the entrance into the church. They make it meaningful to speak of a cleansing, of being sanctified and dedicated to God, and of being justified in the profound, Pauline sense of the word.(Lars Hartman, "Into the Name of the Lord Jesus": Baptism in the Early Church [Studies of the New Testament and Its World; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997], 64-65)

 

Thursday, November 24, 2022

My Xmas Books

For those who are curious as to what books I got for myself for Christmas, here you go:


Reid L. Neilson and Scott D. Marianno, Restless Pilgrim: Andrew Jenson's Quest for Latter-day Saint History

 

Don Cecil Corbett, Mary Fielding Smith, Daughter of Britain: Portrait of Courage

 

Gregor McHardy, Eight Myths of the Great Apostasy

 

Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture (volume 2 of Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics)

 

William L. Kynes, A Christology of Solidarity: Jesus as the Representative in Matthew

 

Daniel B. Glover, Patterns of Deification in the Acts of the Apostles

 

Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul's Gospel


Seyoon Kim, Justification in God's Kingdom


Sergius Bulgakov, Icons and the Name of God

 

Lawrence Feingold, The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion

 

Ty P. Monroe, Putting on Christ: Augustine's Early Theology of Salvation and the Sacraments

Adam Harwood on Predestination

  

 

PREDESTINATION IN THE BIBLE

 

The word “predestine” occurs only six times in the Bible, all in the New Testament. Predestination is not a prominent theme in the Scripture. By comparison, the verb translated “believe” (pisteuō) occurs 241 times in the New Testament alone. The Greek word behind “predestine” is proorizō. A standard Greek lexicon defines the verb as “to come to a decision beforehand—to decide beforehand, to determine ahead of time, to decide upon ahead of time.” Another lexicon defines the word in a similar way: “decide upon beforehand, predetermine.” Do the six New Testament occurrences of the word indicate precisely what was decided beforehand? Every New Testament occurrence of the word proorizō is considered here in its context to determine what was decided, or determined, in advance.

 

ACTS 4:28

 

They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

—Acts 4:28

 

Acts 4:28 is part of Peter and John’s prayer spoken upon their release by the religious authorities. Verses 25–26 quote from an Old Testament text, which states that people raged against the Lord and the Christ. In verse 27, Jesus is identified as the Christ, who was rejected by both Herod and Pilate. Verse 28 continues the prayer by referring to the actions of the people: “They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.” In this verse, the action predestined was neither every event in history nor the salvation of certain people chosen by God from eternity past. Rather, the action predestined—or decided in advance—was the cross of Christ.

 

ROMANS 8:29–30

 

For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

 

Romans 8:29–30

 

Paul has already established in his letter that all people are sinners (Rom 1:18–3:20). Thankfully, God justifies sinners through the atoning work of Christ on the cross. People are justified, or made right with God, by faith in Jesus (3:21–5:11). Adam’s transgression, which resulted in death and judgment, was answered by Christ’s gift, which resulted in justification and life for those who receive God’s grace (5:12–21). Chapters 6 and 7 address a believer’s relationship to sin. Chapter 8 deals with many important themes, especially the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. The Holy Spirit is mentioned nineteen times in the chapter, as God reveals his glory in and renews his broken creation (vv. 18–30). Romans 8:27 states that the Holy Spirit intercedes for saints, a common biblical term for believers. Verse 28 contains the well-known promise that all things work together for good for those who love God. The following terms in verses 27–28 describe the same group of people: saints, those who love God, and those who are called according to his purpose.

 

Verse 29 states those whom God foreknew (“to know in advance”) God also predestined. Who is predestined, and for what purpose? The verse refers to people “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” In verse 29, predestination does not refer to God from eternity choosing certain people for salvation. Instead, the verse promises that believers are predestined to, one day, be glorified and thus conformed to the Son’s image. In other words, God decided in advance that those who believe in Jesus will one day be like Jesus.

 

Verse 30 refers to the same group, “those whom he predestined,” and states they were called, justified, and glorified by God. Other texts also reveal that believers will be glorified. Paul writes, “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit” (2 Cor 3:18). John promises, “Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2). Predestination in Romans 8:29–30 is a promise that believers in Jesus—those who are called, justified, and glorified—will one day be conformed to and remade to be like Jesus.

 

1 CORINTHIANS 2:7

 

No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

 

1 Corinthians 2:7

 

In this verse, Paul refers to God’s wisdom as a mystery, “a wisdom God predestined before the ages for our glory” (CSB). What was the hidden wisdom that God predestined? Paul uses the same phrase at the end of his letter to the Romans. He refers in his doxology to “the message I proclaim about Jesus Christ, in keeping with the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience that comes from faith” (Rom 16:25–26). In the doxology of Romans, the hidden mystery is that through faith in Christ, the gentiles were included among God’s people. Paul teaches the same concept in Ephesians 1:9; 3:2–9; and Colossians 1:26–27. According to 1 Corinthians 2:7, God predestined that the boundaries constituting God’s people would expand in Christ to include the gentiles.

EPHESIANS 1:5, 11

He predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.

—Ephesians 1:5

 

In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will.

Ephesians 1:11

In the Greek, Ephesians 1:3–14 comprises one extended sentence of praise to God. The emphasis is union with Christ, as demonstrated by the ten statements in these verses, such as “in Christ,” “in him,” or “in the One he loves.” For example, Paul states, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4). God chose believers, a group, in Christ. William Klein comments on Ephesians 1:4, “The ‘chosen ones’ designate the corporate group to whom Paul writes with himself (and presumably all Christians) included: God chose us. The focus is not on the selection of individuals, but the group of those chosen.” In other words, Ephesians 1 concerns corporate election, God’s choice of a group. Those who define election as God’s choice of certain individuals for salvation also affirm corporate election. However, their definition of election renders their corporate view as a reference to the group composed of those individuals chosen by God for salvation.

 

Herschel Hobbs commented on Ephesians 1: “ ‘Predestinated’ translates a verb meaning to mark out the boundaries beforehand (see v. 11). But note also that God has chosen ‘in him.’ Thus God’s election was in Christ. And he marked out the boundaries of salvation in love, not by an arbitrary choice.” Hobbs concludes, “God has chosen ‘in the sphere of Christ.’ He elected that all who are ‘in Christ’ shall be saved. ‘In Christ’ is the boundary that God marked out beforehand, like building a fence around a field.” He adds, “Man is free to choose whether or not he will be in Christ.” Hobbs writes, “Simply stated, before the foundation of the world God elected a plan of salvation and a people to propagate that plan.” Chadwick Thornhill’s explanation is similar: “God intends to accomplish the plan through his previous decision to adopt the elect as children through Jesus Christ.” He clarifies how predestination in Ephesians 1 should not be interpreted: “We need not read this as God marking out certain individuals for salvation and thereby rejecting others, but rather God determining the sphere and the means by which his people will be identified as his children.”

 

Predestination is mentioned twice in Ephesians 1. In verse 5, believers are predestined for adoption. Romans 8:23 refers to adoption as a future event: “the redemption of our bodies.” In Ephesians 1:11, believers are informed they have been predestined to obtain an inheritance. In both verses, predestination refers to what occurs to believers and what they receive, not how they become believers. Verse 13 clarifies how a person becomes a believer, stating: “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit.” According to Ephesians 1:13, believers are those who hear the gospel, believe in Jesus, and are sealed with the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 1, predestination refers to what occurs to believers and what they receive as a result of trusting in Jesus. (Adam Harwood, Christian Theology: Biblical, Historical, and Systematic [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Academic, 2022], 583-89)