Excerpts from Édouard Hugon, God’s Use of Instrumental Causality: A Philosophical and Theological Treatise

  

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL CAUSE AND THE INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE
	PRINCIPAL CAUSE	INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE
In regard to the activity performed	Active and mover of the instrumental cause	Passive and moved by the principal cause
In regard to the duration of the power exercises	Possesses the power in a permanent and intrinsic way	Power is not possessed intrinsically but passes through it in a transitory way
In regard to the effect	The effect is proportionate to the capability of the principal cause	The effect surpasses the capacity of the instrumental cause

 

. . .

 

We define an instrumental cause as a cause which is elevated by a principal agent so as to produce an effect that is superior to its natural powers. There are two essential traits that must be noted:

 

1. an instrumental cause has to cooperate in producing an effect that is nobler than itself

2. an instrumental cause receives a temporary influence from the agent, which elevates it and applies it.

 

It is easy to understand these two characteristics. If the effect were not superior to the instrument, then the effect would fall within the sphere of the instrument's activity. Then, we wold be dealing with a principal cause, a cause which is able to bring about its effects by its own proper power. Thus, it is necessary that the instrument collaborate in the production of an effect that is beyond itself.

 

But this is not enough. A piece of iron which has been reddened produces results that are beyond the activity of a piece of iron that has been left to itself. Nevertheless, the heated iron is the principal cause of its radiation, since its heat has become natural to it. The iron has taken on the properties of the fire in a lasting manner, and one can rightly say that it is the iron itself which heats things. Instruments, on the other hand, are incapable of realizing the (higher) effect. Their native powers are never capable of rising to that level. They have need of a borrowed power, a power which is lent to them in a way that is always precarious and dependent. The causality of the instrument is only ever a communicated influence, as opposed to being a proper power. (Édouard Hugon, God’s Use of Instrumental Causality: A Philosophical and Theological Treatise [trans. Paul Robinson; Saint Mary’s, Kans.: Angelus Press, 2024], 26, 27-28)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jože Krašovec on how the name "Lehi" is rendered in Different Biblical Traditions

  

The name Lehi is not rendered consistently in the LXX and Vg when it appears alone; the LXX has: en Lechi (A at Judg 15:9); en Leui (B at Judg 15:9); hés Siagónos (Judg 15:14); tês siagónos… siagónos (A at Judg 15:19); en Sigagóni (B at Judg 15:19); eis Thría (2 Sam 23:11); the Vg has: et in loco qui postea vocatus est Lehi id est Maxilla eorum (as addition at Judg 15:9); ad locum Maxillae (Judg 15:14); in maxilla asini…de maxilla (Judg 15:19); in statione (2 Sam 23:11). NV uses the Hebrew form Lehi in every place, obviously following the example of later translations. The name Ramath-lehi appears in the Renaissance and in modern translations in various forms of translitera- tion, translation and in a combination of transliteration and translation: Ramathlechi, which is interpreted the lifting up of the jawbone (DRA); Jawbone Hill (NLT); Ramath-Lehi (das ist Kinnbackenhöhe) (LUO); Ramat Lechi, Hoher Kinnbacken (BUR); Ramat Lehi (Kinnbackenhöhe) (EIN); Ramathléchi, c’est-à-dire l’Élévation de la Mâchoire (BLS); “Ramat-Lè_i,” le Tertre de la Mâchoire (CHO); Ramat-Lehí (que vol dir “turó de la maixella”) (BCI); Rámat-lechí (to je Výšina elisti) (BKR); Ramathlechi, kar _e pravi gorivsdignenje t zhelú_ti (JAP); Ramat-Lehi, kar se potolmai vzdignjenje eljusti (WOL); de hoogte van Lehi (LEI). In replicating this name we note dependence between LUB and DAL because both have transliteration in the unusual orthographic form: RamatLehi. (Jože Krašovec, The Transformation of Biblical Proper Names [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 418; London: T & T Clark, 2010], 36-37)

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Matthew J. Thomas on "the means of justification" in Patristic Literature

The following comes from Matthew J. Thomas, “Justification,” in the St Andrews Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. Brendan N. Wolfe et al.

 

The means of justification

 

Patristic sources frequently restate the principle of justification by faith, which is closely linked with baptism (cf. Tit 3:4–7) and tends to be understood in terms of an active fidelity which is paired with other biblical virtues. For example, 1 Clement recounts the justification of Abraham by commending his faith, hospitality, and obedience (1 Clem 10), and similarly describes Rahab as saved by faith and hospitality (1 Clem 12; cf. Jas 2:25, Origen, Romans 4.1.12). Irenaeus sees justification by faith as closely linked with obeying the ‘natural’ precepts of the law which the righteous patriarchs observed, such as to love God and one’s neighbour, which Christ fulfils and extends in the new covenant (Against Heresies 4.13.1, 4.17.1; cf. similarly Justin, Dialogue 43–46; Tertullian, Answer 2). Indeed, for Irenaeus faith and obedience to God are practically equated, as he writes succinctly: ‘To believe in him is to do his will’ (Against Heresies 4.6.5, Roberts and Donaldson 1994; cf. similarly 2 Clem 3:4). Faith is thus understood to be both the means by which God’s gracious gift is received and the fidelity which holds on to this gift in subsequent obedience. The close coordination of faith and works in patristic sources also means that little commentary (much less controversy) is to be found on James’ rejection of ‘faith alone’ within this early period (Mooney 2020).

 

Interestingly, early fathers such as Origen, who describe faith and works as closely linked (see e.g. Romans, 2.13.23, 4.1.6), can also use the phrase ‘faith alone’ to describe the basis on which this justifying gift is received (see Romans 3.9.2–3, 3.10.10). In some instances, the phrase appears to function as a synecdoche for faith, hope, and love (with ‘alone’ used to negate either the law or prior works; cf. Scheck 2001: 39–42). In others, faith alone can be referred to as the foundation of all other theological virtues, and the root from which the fruit of good works is borne. As Origen explains:

 

For faith which believes in the one who justifies is the beginning of being justified by God. And this faith, when it has been justified, is firmly embedded in the soil of the soul like a root that has received rain, so that when it begins to be cultivated by God’s law, branches arise from it, which bring forth the fruit of works. The root of righteousness, therefore, does not grow out of the works, but rather the fruit of works grows out of the root of righteousness, that root, of course, of righteousness which God also credits even apart from works. (Romans 4.1.18, Scheck 2001; cf. similarly Ignatius, Ephesians 14.1–2)

 

With respect to the other side of the Pauline dichotomy, early patristic sources consistently interpret ‘works of the law’ as referring to the prescriptions of the Torah, with circumcision, Sabbath, food laws, and sacrifices frequently noted (Thomas 2020; cf. Wiles 1967: 66–69; Calvin, Com. Rom. 3.20). These practices are regarded as identifying one with the Jewish nation and covenant, which they attest to now have been superseded by Christ and his empowering grace in the new covenant (see especially Justin, Dialogue 11.5; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.16; Origen, Romans 8.7.6).

 

As noted above, such an understanding of works of the law does not mean that any other works are the source of justifying grace, which has as its only origin the mercy of God alone (see e.g. 2 Clem 1; Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.18.2, 3.20.3, 5.21.3). Further, to insist upon the reality of judgment according to works for Christians – a frequent theme in patristic texts – does not mean that such works should serve as a basis for confidence or boasting: even for those who have done all they have been commanded, Christians should continue to recognize themselves as unworthy servants, since it is God’s power which makes such works possible (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.22.2; Origen, Romans 3.9.6).

 

Thomas is the author of an excellent book, Paul’s “Works of the Law” in Perspective of Second-Century Reception.

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

B. H. Roberts on "the Church of the Devil" (General Conference, April 1906)

  

"The church of the devil" here alluded to I understand to mean not any particular church among men, or any one sect of religion, but something larger than that--something world-wide--something that includes within its boundaries all evil wherever it may be found; as well in schools of philosophy as in Christian sects; as well in systems of ethics as in systems of religions--something that includes the whole empire of Satan--what I shall call "The Kingdom of Evil."

 

This descriptive phrase, "the church of the devil," is also used in the Book of Mormon; and while in attendance at a conference in one of the border stakes of Zion, a question was propounded to me in relation to its meaning. The passage occurs in the writings of the first Nephi. An angel of the Lord is represented as saying to Nephi, "Behold, there are save two churches only: the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil." The question submitted to me was, "Is the Catholic church the church here referred to--the church of the devil ?" "Well," said I, in answer, "I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify." So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

 

I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context--with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found--then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom, but he has in mind, as just stated, the whole empire of Satan; and perhaps the thought of the passage would be more nearly expressed if we use the term "the kingdom of evil" as constituting the church of the devil.

 

I understand the injunction to Oliver Cowdery to "contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil," to mean that he shall contend against evil, against untruth, against all combinations of wicked men. They constitute the church of the devil, the kingdom of evil, a federation of unrighteousness; and the servants of God have a right to contend against that which is evil, let it appear where it will, in Catholic or in Protestant Christendom, among the philosophical societies of deists and atheists, and even within the Church of Christ, if, unhappily, it should make its appearance there. But, let it be understood, we are not brought necessarily into antagonism with the various sects of Christianity as such. So far as they have retained fragments of Christian truth--and each of them has some measure of truth--that far they are acceptable unto the Lord: and it would be poor-policy for us to contend against them without discrimination. Wherever we find truth, whether it exists in complete form or only in fragments, we recognize that truth as part of that sacred whole of which the Church of Jesus Christ is the custodian; and I repeat that our relationship to the religious world is not one that calls for the denunciation of sectarian churches as composing the church of the devil. All that makes for untruth, for unrighteousness constitutes the kingdom of evil--the church of the devil. All that makes for truth, for righteousness, is of God; it constitutes the kingdom of righteousness--the empire of Jehovah; and, in a certain sense at least, constitutes the Church of Christ. With the latter--the kingdom of righteousness--we have no warfare. On the contrary both the spirit of the Lord's commandments to His servants and the dictates of right reason would suggest that we seek to enlarge this kingdom of righteousness both by recognizing such truths as it possesses and seeking the friendship and co-operation of the righteous men and women who constitute its membership. (B. H. Roberts, Conference Report [April 1906], 14-15)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Chad Nielsen on the "Church" Mentioned in Pre-April 1830 Revelations

On D&C 5:14, 18 (cf. D&C 10:53):

 

The word choice found in the earlier revelation is worth noting. It alludes to both the Song of Solomon—which describes the author’s love as “she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners” (Song of Solomon 6:10)—and the Revelation of St. John the Divine, which speaks of seeing “a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars” who “fled into the wilderness” after “she brought forth a man child” and was persecuted by the dragon (See Revelation 12). Those same texts were brought together and used by the Scottish minister Alexander Fraser in his popular work, Key to the Prophecies (1795).

 

Fraser gives us a way to understand the invisible church in his text. He interpreted the women in Revelation to be “the Church of Christ, considered as a community or collective body,” and her fleeing into the wilderness as representing a time when “the visible church declined from the doctrines and precepts of Christianity, the true Church of Christ gradually retired from the view of men, till at length . . . the true church of Christ, considered as a community, wholly disappeared.” While the church of God lost the outward ties of “government, doctrine and ordinances,” an invisible church, or the church in the wilderness, still existed among those who were tied together by “the Spirit of God, which animates the great Head of the church, and every read member of his mystical body.” This church, he wrote, is “visible in that state as a community, only to the eyes of . . . God.” Fraser believed that this invisible or universal church would eventually be brought back into a visible church community when the time of the prophesied years of exile ended. At that time, “the universal church shall against become visible as a community, extended over the whole earth, ‘clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners.’” (Alexander Fraser, Key to the Prophecies of the Old and New Testaments, Which Are Not Yet Accomplished, 2nd ed. [Philadelphia: John Bioren, 1802], 156-164) While I’m not sure whether or not Joseph Smith was familiar with Fraser's work, it seems possible that he shared its language as he communicated that the Restoration would accomplish the work of re-establishing the visible Church of God, with the proper government, doctrine, and ordinances.

 

In any case, Fraser’s invisible church or church in the wilderness seems to be a useful way of understanding the other church mentioned in section 10. In the revelation, the Lord says that he will not establish His church “to destroy my church . . . to built up my church; therefore whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven” (D&C 10:54-55). The church referenced in this quote seems to be separate from the church that will be established, since the soon-to-be established institutional church is spoken of in terms of a relationship to this other church, building it up rather than destroying it. Later on in the section, the Lord defines the church as “whosoever repeneth and cometh unto me” (D&C 10:68). This can be understood as both broadening and constricting the membership of the Lord’s church to include individuals outside of the institutional church who repent and come unto Him while also excluding members of the institutional church who do not. Thus, the second church referenced in section 10 seems to be more similar to Fraser’s invisible church than an institutional Church of Christ. (Chad Nielsen, Fragments of Revelation: Exploring the Book of Doctrine and Covenants [Draper, Utah: By Common Consent Press, 2024], 51-52)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Édouard Hugon (1867-1929) on Verbal Inspiration of the Originals and How Translated Texts Can Be the Word of God

 Addressing the proposition, “If verbal inspiration is necessary, the versions of the Bible would not contain the divine word,” Édouard Hugon in 1924 wrote:

 

--In the versions, we have the word of God translated, just as you find it, in the English language, Bossuet translated. An exact version must not content itself with translating the thoughts; it must reproduce the expressions in an equivalent way to the degree that the words of the translation are the true signs of the words translated. Thus, the autograph contains the word of God absolutely, while the copies and versions contain the word of God relatively, insofar as they are the representatives and the signs of the inspired autographs. But even that supposes that there was an original which was the writing of God in its entirety, thoughts and words, just as a writing of Bossuet in English presupposes a book which has Bossuet as its total author, both of the thoughts and of the words. (Édouard Hugon, God’s Use of Instrumental Causality: A Philosophical and Theological Treatise [trans. Paul Robinson; Saint Mary’s, Kans.: Angelus Press, 2024], 60)

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Notes from Alister E. McGrath and Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen on Luther's Theology of Forensic Justification and Theosis

  

FORENSIC JUSTIFICATION? LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON IN THE 1530s

 

During the 1530s, Luther’s Wittenberg colleague Philipp Melanchthon developed a forensic or declarative approach to justification. Luther had laid the groundwork for such an approach in the late 1510s, arguing that justification was to be seen as the enfolding of the believer in the “alien righteousness [iustitia aliena] of Christ.”  Yet at this time, Luther tended to see this as a protective external shield or garment, which enabled the believer to grow in faith and holiness.

 

Melanchthon took this idea in a somewhat different direction, arguing that justification is to be understood forensically, as the declaration that the believer is righteous on account of the alien righteousness of Christ. Justification thus comes to be understood primarily as “pronouncing righteous.” Although Luther was not opposed to this theological move, his own thought remained focused on the indwelling Christ as the agent of transformation. This, in the view of many scholars, allowed the declarative and transformative aspects of justification to be held together, anticipating John Calvin’s idea of the “double grace” of justification and sanctification, grounded in the believer’s union with Christ.

 

It could be argued that incorporating the notion of theosis into a Lutheran account of justification would counter the limitations of its impersonal, transactionalist, or declaratory emphases. Yet Luther’s own account of justification is not vulnerable to such criticisms, in that his clear emphasis on the believer’s transformative union with Christ is capable of accommodating both declaratory and effective accounts of justification, providing a theological bridge between them. Although many would argue that Calvin’s more rigorous analysis of the grounds and consequences of the believer’s union with Christ provides a more satisfactory intellectual foundation for the correlation of the declarative and affective aspects of justification, Luther’s account, particularly in his later writings, is perfectly adequate to secure this connection. (Alister E. McGrath, “Deification or Christification: Martin Luther on Theosis,” in Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification, ed. Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2024], 120-21)

 

 

WHAT ABOUT THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FORENSIC ASPECT OF JUSTIFICATION?

 

Although the rediscovery of the centrality of union, participation, and adoption as controlling metaphors has helped contemporary Finnish Lutheran theology to establish a more satisfactory and integral account of justification, an account of that materially approximates deification, the downplaying of the forensic element (particularly in the Mannermaa school) also calls for reconsideration. It does not do—nor is it necessary—to put union against forensic justification; that was the valid critique of the Council of Trent against the Protestant Reformers. In this respect, Lutherans have had a chance to correct themselves as in that joint declaration with the Roman Catholics they affirm justification as both forgiveness of sins (forensic) and making righteous (effective).

 

Those interpreters who advocate the effective understanding of justification (that is, justification includes also the inner change) understandably have undermined the idea of imputation (of Christ’s righteousness), a key mainstream Protestant idea. The reason is self-evident: in Protestantism at large, imputation has been seen merely as a forensic act. But does it have to be so? I do not think so. Only if justification as imputation is understood exclusively as a forensic act that blocks the way for making righteous is the opposition justification. But what if, as the most recent research has allowed us to understand, the concept of imputation of Christ’s righteousness does not have to be solely (or even primarily) forensic but could also include the process of change and renewal?

 

Indeed, as argued above, Luther’s own concept of “Christ present in faith” (in ipsa fide Christus adest) is just that: the imputed Christ’s real presence in the believer also instantly brings about the lifelong process of change. Even semantically, imputation has a number of meanings, from commercial exchange and accounting (the primary meaning in Protestant orthodoxy), to personal (not to count the friend’s mistake as a reason for breaking relationship), to hermeneutical (to consider one’s own experience as the key to understanding), and so forth. What clearly comes into the fore in Luther’s theology is the personal orientation. As Mannermaa’s successor in Helsinki, Risto Saarinen, importantly argues: whereas in Augustine righteousness could be imputed to the believer in a nonpersonal manner (as a liquid is poured into a container), in Luther it is always a matter of personal trust, personal relationship. That justification is more than forgiveness (forensic declaration, “favor”), however, should not hinder us from lifting up its significance in a proper manner. (Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Justification as Union and Christ’s Presence: A Lutheran Perspective,” in Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification, ed. Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2024], 286-87)

 

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com