Excepts from Joseph P. Farrell's Summary of Maximus the Confessor's (d. 662) Theology

  

(1)

 

Proper theological method subsumes theological questions and doctrines under two correlative headings of Christology and Triadology, for all properly theological doctrines would appear to have christological and triadological implications. Any proposition, method, or other statement which does not start directly and consciously from this context does not go under the name of Christian theology.

 

All theology must therefore be thoroughly grounded in the distinction of person and nature. Each of these categories must be given equal weight and emphasis with the other. Consequently, there are two basic ways in which this distinction may be lost. On the one hand, person may be subordinated to nature in order of concepts to such an extent that it becomes absorbed in it as a special kind of attribute of nature. Within the context of the discussion on predestination and free will, the apokatastasis implies just such a confusion, for the human nature of Christ was seen to determine every human person's eternal bliss in spite of, and apart from, the individual's gnomic reception of the grace conferred by Christ. On the other hand, nature may be subordinated and confused with person, and to some extent, defined as the aggregate of persons. The doctrine of the limited atonement is perhaps an example of this process, for the human nature of Christ is defined in terms of its efficaciousness for a predetermined number of individual elect: Christ loses no one that the Father has given Him, but raises them up at the last day.

 

. . .

 

(4)

 

In Christ’s human nature which is consubstantial with all men, God humanly wills, decrees, and perfectly fulfills the salvation of all men, for no human being is untouched by His Incarnation, and nothing is detracted from His sovereignty as God is individual persons choose not to accept salvation.

 

Nothing is lost to His sovereignty as God Incarnate precisely because nothing is lost to the perfection of His human nature; it retains its full integrity as human nature despite the fact that individual persons reject Him. Hence, the expression current in some evangelical circles, “once saved always saved”,  bears a certain truth, if seen in this context, namely, that all human nature, once assumed by Christ in its totality, eternally abides in and with God by virtue of the Word’s hypostatic union with it.

 

(5)

 

Christ, being truly consubstantial with all men, truly died for all men, and this His atoning Passion, Death, and Resurrection are in no way limited.

 

In turn, the doctrine of the limited atonement may be reversed to show its hidden and heretical implications: If not all men rise with the second Adam then not all die with the first Adam. There would consequently be some men who, not being affected by the consubstantiality of Christ's human nature, would not be consubstantial with Him. Therefore, they would not be in Adam either. Not being in Adam, they would have no need of Christ. This is a denial of the inheritance of ancestral sin, and is therefore Pelagianism. The way out of this impasse is the distinction between person and nature, and between the mode of the employment of the will and the natural will itself.

 

Furthermore, if Christ's human nature is efficacious in salvation only for a number of elected individuals, then it would appear that Christ's humanity, insofar as it is efficacious for those individuals, is united with them not naturally but only by the object of their wills, since His human nature itself is not united with them. This union only in object of will between God and man in Christ is Nestorianism.

 

It would also appear that, on this view, the human nature of the elected individuals gives nothing to election, and Christ's human nature certainly does not, as it affects only the elected individuals. Human nature therefore either has no will, which is a kind of "anthropological" Apollinarianism, or it is merely ineffectual in salvation ("soteriological" Apollinarianism). Christ's human decision of salvation at Gethsemane is therefore illusory, and this is Docetism. (Joseph P. Farrell, Free Choice in St. Maximus the Confessor [South Canon, Pa.: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1989], 222, 224-25, emphasis in bold added)

 

What Most Readers Miss About the Sword of Laban

 

What Most Readers Miss About the Sword of Laban

Lawrence Feingold on the Urim and Thummim and Its Relationship to the Casting of Lots in Acts 1

 Commenting on the vestments of the High Priest outlined in Exo 28:

 

The most mysterious part of the vestments were two objects, the Urim and the Thummim, which went on Aaron’s breastpiece and were used as sacred lots to discern the will of God. The judges or kings who led the people could thus consult God’s will in difficult matters. In Numbers 27:21, God commands that Joshua be invested with some of Moses’ authority to lead the children of Israel after him: “And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the Lord; at his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in.”

 

We see King David in 1 Samuel 23 consulting the Lord through the high priest Abiathar’s ephod, which contained the Urim and Thummim. When David was seeking refuge from Saul in the city of Keilah, he consulted the ephod of Abiathar as to whether Saul would besiege the city of Keilah. On receiving a positive answer, he asked whether the men of Keilah would then hand him over to Saul. Once again the answer was positive, and David fled immediately from that city.

 

The Urim and Thummim were still being used to discern God’s will in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65 recount an episode in which the Urim and Thummim were consulted regarding certain men who claimed to be of priestly descent but whose names were not found in the genealogies: “The governor told them that they were not to partake of the most holy food [reserved for priests], until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim.”

 

In Acts 1, Peter used lots in a similar way to determine God’s will for a successor to Judas. This strikes modern ears as very strange, but it should be connected with the tradition of the Urim and Thummim. Peter has become high priest of the New Covenant, and so he not unnaturally took up a prerogative of the Aaronic high priest.

 

After Pentecost, however, lots were never used again to determine the will of God. Prayer and the gift of counsel, one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, fully poured out on Pentecost, take the place of the casting of lots. The Urim and Thummim can thus be seen as types of the gift of counsel which is given to all the confirmed faithful in the Church through the Holy Spirit. It remains in all who are in a state of grace, and fully blossoms in the lives of the saints. (Lawrence Feingold, “Typology of the Old Testament Priesthood,” [2013], pp. 6-7)

 

Baptism and the Imagery of Being "Clothed Upon" in the Tripartite Tractate

Source for the following: Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020)

 

Background:

 

The Tripartite Tractate is the fifth text in Nag Hammadi codex I. Since no title appears in the manuscript, the Tripartite Tractate has received its editorial title on the basis of its division into three parts by scribal decoration. Spanning eighty-seven manuscript pages, the Tripartite Tractate offers a comprehensive account of salvation history, beginning with the ineffable God and the population of the heavenly realm of fullness with eternities, and culminating in humanity’s final return to the Father. While the anonymous Tripartite Tractate was once thought to be the work of Heracleon, scholars now reject this attribution on the basis of theological differences between the work and Heracleon’s surviving writings. (p. 165)

 

English translation (from Coptic):

 

The baptism that we previously discussed is called “garment of those who do not strip themselves of it,” because those who will clothe themselves in it and those who have received redemption wear it. It is also called “the strength of the truth that does not have destruction.” Without wavering and movement it grasps those who have received the <restoration> even as they grasp him. Iy is called “silence” on account of the tranquility and imperturbability. IT is also called “bridal chamber” on account of the agreement and the lack of division of those who know that they have known him. It is also called] “the light that never sets and has no flame,” since it does not illuminate, but those who have worn it are made of light. They are those whom he wore. (p. 245)

 

Lawrence Feingold on the Threefold Priestly Hierarchy in light of Numbers 16 and the Rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram

  

St. Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians, sees this episode of rebellion as a type of schism in the New Covenant. As Korah, Dathan, and Abiram rebelled against the priestly authority of Aaron, his sons, and the Levites, so the New Covenant is not exempt for schism and rebellion against those who hold the priesthood of the New Testament. And as God rebuked Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, so He will not hold guiltless those who upset the right order of supernatural governance in the Church through the most grave sin of schism. Speaking of the miraculous blossoming of Aaron’s rod, St. Clement writes:

 

Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Of course he knew. But in order that disorder might not arise in Israel, he did it anyway. . . . Our apostles likewise knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife over the bishop’s office. For this reason, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the leaders mentioned earlier and afterwards they gave the offices a permanent character; that is, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. . . . For it will be no small sin for us if we depose from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts blamelessly and in holiness. (Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians 43-44, in Michael Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, 103-105)

 

In this well-known text, St. Clement, towards the end of the first century, clearly affirmed the principle of apostolic succession, and its great importance in the life of the Church. (Lawrence Feingold, “Typology of the Old Testament Priesthood,” [2013], p. 6)

 

Discussion of 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Baptism for the Dead in “Excerpts of Theodotus”

 Source for the following: Geoffrey S. Smith, Valentinian Christianity: Texts and Translations (Oakland, Calif.: University of California Press, 2020)

Background:

 

In his Excerpts of Theodotus Clement of Alexandria records a series of extracts from a variety of Valentinian sources. Despite the title of the work, not all of the extracts come from Theodotus, a Valentinian teacher who is known only from Clement’s extracts. He is named only five times in the entire text. In other instances Clement may be citing Theodotus, but he does not do so by name. Another challenge the text poses to interpreters is that unlike the Gospel of Philip, which, if it is a collection of extracts, does not seem to include additions by the person responsible for compiling the extracts, Clement has added his own comments to many of the extracts, and his additions are not always easily distinguishable from the texts he excerpts from his Valentinian sources.

 

While questions remain about the precise nature of the sources Clement uses, scholars often divide the Excerpts into four groups: (A) 1–28, (B) 29–43:1, (C) 43.2–65, and (D) 66–86. Group C has affinities with Irenaeus, AH 1.4.5–7.1 and may draw upon the source used by Irenaeus.

 

The Excerpts survive in two late manuscripts, one directly copied from the other. The earliest of the two is Laur. V 3, which dates to the eleventh century c.e. Clement likely produced the collection, however, in the latter part of the second century c.e. The following Greek text comes from my own transcription of Laur. V 3, in consultation with Sagnard’s edition. (p. 57)

 

Greek Texts:

 

22 Καὶ ὅταν εἴπῃ ὁ Ἀπόστολος, «Ἐπεὶ τί ποιήσουσιν, οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν;» ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γάρ, φησίν, οἱ Ἄγγελοι ἐβαπτίσαντο, ὧν ἐσμεν μέρη.

 

Νεκροὶ δὲ ἡμεῖς οἱ νεκρωθέντες τῇ συστάσει ταύτῃ, ζῶντες δὲ καὶ ἄρρενες οἱ μὴ μεταλαβόντες τῆς συστάσεως ταύτης.

 

«Εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, τί καὶ βαπτιζόμεθα;» Ἐγειρόμεθα οὖν ἡμεῖς ἰσάγγελοι τοῖς ἄρρεσιν ἀποκατασταθέντες, τοῖς μέλεσι τὰ μέλη, εἰς ἕνωσιν.

 

«Οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι» δέ, φασίν, «ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῶν νεκρῶν,» οἱ Ἄγγελοί εἰσιν οἱ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν βαπτιζόμενοι, ἵνα ἔχοντες καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸ Ὄνομα μὴ ἐπισχεθῶμεν κωλυθέντες εἰς τὸ Πλήρωμα παρελθεῖν τῷ Ὅρῳ καὶ τῷ Σταυρῷ.

 

Διὸ καὶ ἐν τῇ χειροθεσίᾳ λέγουσιν ἐπὶ τέλους, «εἰς λύτρωσιν ἀγγελικήν,» τουτέστιν ἣν καὶ Ἄγγελοι ἔχουσιν, ἵν’ ᾖ βεβαπτισμένος ὁ τὴν λύτρωσιν κομισάμενος τῷ αὐτοῦ Ὀνόματι ᾧ καὶ ὁ Ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ προβεβάπτισται.

 

Ἐβαπτίσαντο δὲ ἐν ἀρχῇ οἱ Ἄγγελοι, ἐν λυτρώσει τοῦ Ὀνόματος τοῦ ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐν τῇ περιστερᾷ κατελθόντος καὶ λυτρωσαμένου αὐτόν.

 

Ἐδέησεν δὲ λυτρώσεως καὶ τῷ Ἰησοῦ, ἵνα μὴ κατασχεθῇ τῇ Ἐννοίᾳ ᾗ ἐνετέθη τοῦ ὑστερήματος, προ`σ´ερχόμενος διὰ τῆς Σοφίας, ὥς φησιν ὁ Θεόδοτος. (pp. 72, 74)

 

English:

 

22 And when the Apostle said, “Otherwise what will they do, those baptized on behalf of the dead?” For on our behalf, he says, the angels, of whom we are parts, were baptized.

 

But we are dead who are made dead by this structure, but males are alive who did not take part in this structure.

 

“If the dead are not raised, why are we baptized?” Therefore we are raised equal to angels, having been returned to the males in oneness, the members with the members. “Those baptized on our behalf, the dead,” they say, are the angels who are baptized on our behalf, so that when we also have the name, we might not be restrained, prevented by the limit and the cross from entering into the fullness.

 

Wherefore when laying on hands they say at the end, “For the angelic redemption,” that is, what the angels have, so that the one receiving the redemption might be baptized in his name, in which his angels had also been baptized.

 

The angels were baptized in the beginning, in the redemption of the name that descended upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him.

 

Redemption was necessary even for Jesus, so that he might not be detained by the mind of the deficiency in which he was placed while approaching through Wisdom, as Theodotus says. (pp. 73, 75)

 

John M. Rist on Sola Scriptura and the Theological Debates Among the Various Reformers

 

 

Despite their agreement on sola Scriptura, almost from the start the Reformers found it as hard (or harder, since each was in effect his own pope) to agree among themselves on the exegetically correct readings of the Bible as had the bad old logic-choppers of the schools. Luther himself became an (ultimately ineffectual) enforcer of theological ‘orthodoxy’ when in 1528 he realized the seriousness of the problem. The more radical wing of the Reform movement, led by Karlstadt, the ‘Zwickau Prophets’, Thomas Münzer and others, had produced not only religious chaos but, in the form of the Peasants’ Revolt (1524–5), the likelihood that the Lutherans would lose the princely support on which they relied for personal as well as theological survival. Because those who so obviously misinterpreted Scripture could only be diabolically inspired, Luther concluded that the devil – already hugely more present in his writings than in those of Augustine – was in this instance too working from within to overthrow the kingdom of the godly.

 

Still more ‘diabolical’, however, were John of Leyden and the other Anabaptist leaders of the commune established in Munster in 1534–5. Apart from their abolition of commerce and private property, their establishment of communal meals and eventually of polygamy, more important theologically was their denial of infant baptism: precisely the move which had prompted Augustine’s first attack on the ‘Pelagian’ Caelestius in Carthage in 411. For to deny infant baptism, as Augustine saw it, was to deny our vita communis in Adam, and with it the guilt and effects of Adam’s original sin. As we shall see, original sin was fading fast among those whose work pointed to secularism during the seventeenth century; it is important to recognize a similar trend – signalling what is to come – among religious fanatics a hundred years earlier.

 

It had become obvious to Luther that not only such ‘Ockhamist’ followers of the ‘modern way’ as Gabriel Biel should be indicted as Pelagian (at least in their accounts of the power – however limited – of the human will to merit salvation ex puris naturalibus) but that the whole medieval tradition had become tainted, not least those ‘intellectualists’ about human action like Aquinas against whose claimed errors extreme voluntarism had been largely developed. According to Luther – a nominalist in dialectic, anti-nominalist in theology – extreme voluntarism, while wholly appropriate in accounts of the hidden God, had spawned blasphemous accounts of man’s fallen nature and moral capacities. (John M. Rist, Augustine Deformed: Love, Sin and Freedom in the Western Moral Tradition [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014], 178-80)

 

 

By the time of his comments on the Leipzig disputations (1519) Luther was clear in his own mind that not only Biel (and the moderni) but also the Scotists and Thomists were infected by Pelagianism. Only Gregory of Rimini was free of it. The rest held that man can follow the dictates of right reason to which the will can naturally conform (WA 2, 384ff.). On Luther’s ignorance of Aquinas’ work see Janz (1983: 32) and (with very substantial bibliography) McSorley (1969: 139–43). Janz identifies the source of much of Luther’s confusion in the ex-Thomist Karlstadt’s misrepresentations, in his 151 (Augustinian) Theses, both of Aquinas himself and of his own former ‘master’ Capreolus. These theses were published in 1517, only four months before Luther’s Disputation against Scholastic Theology. Janz cites as evidence for Karlstadt’s willingness to lie about his opponents a passage of Against the Heavenly Prophets (WA 18, 190) where Luther is even prepared to defend the pope against Karlstadt’s ‘lies’ (Janz 1983: 120–2). Unfortunately, he seems never to have asked himself whether Karlstadt might also have lied about Aquinas and Capreolus. (Ibid., 179-80 n. 8)