What have you been convicted by lately?

On Thursday, two weeks ago or so, I went up for a frisbee and collided with someone else, with their knee slamming into my thigh. I walked it off and finished out the game, but the next day I was in a bit of pain. "No worries, just a bruise" I thought and I figured I'd just walk it off.

That continued for a week and a half, each day the pain was just continual. It was always at a "walk it off" stage, but it just refused to be walked off.

All the while, my prayers were continually, "God heal me....if it is your will."

But then a few things all sort of came together that really convicted me -

1) My pastor gave a sermon on biblical healing. Jesus and the leper in

12While he was in one of the cities, there came a man full of leprosy.^[a] And when he saw Jesus, he fell on his face and begged him, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." 13And Jesus^[b] stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately the leprosy left him. 14And he charged him to tell no one, but "go and show yourself to the priest, and make an offering for your cleansing, as Moses commanded, for a proof to them."

He pointed out that this broken world isn't meant for us. That God does do healings. God does desire to rescue us, and will ultimately do so in glorified bodies. To top it off, he pointed out that healing was a sign of the Kingdom of Heaven to come.

2) I read an article by Vincent Cheung on healing and unbelief, where he quotes an author who remarks on how often we lack faith when it comes to healing. Do we think that God cannot or does not want to please his children?

3) And finally, I was reminded of that passage in Scripture:

24And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon.^[g] And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. 25But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet. 26Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27And he said to her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29And he said to her, "For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." 30And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone.

And I was just blown away. This woman wouldn't take "no" for an answer, even willingly accepting Christ's rebuke that she was a dog if he would heal her daughter.

Those three together really just rebuked me. Why didn't I believe that God would heal His people? Did I believe he lacked the power? Or the desire?

Simply put, I wanted a way out, a "just in case" because I didn't actually believe God's promises. Now, given, there are solid biblical reasons that God does not heal. We have the example of Paul and his thorn in the side. We have the fact that Jesus makes clear that the blessing is only for some (), but why was I so doubtful that the blessing didn't apply to me?

I do not have, because I do not ask.



16Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.

(this is my testimony that I wrote for the Missions Team at my home church in my application for support for my trip to South Africa this summer. I cut out the South Africa specific stuff.)

I grew up in the Greek Orthodox Church; both my parents were Greek Orthodox (my mom converted from Catholicism when she married my dad), and we went to church every Sunday until my junior year of high school. Through I considered myself a Christian, I did not really believe much of anything besides that God existed. It was not until the end of my junior year that I began to think about “big picture” questions about God and my purpose on this earth. Most of my questions started after talking with my friend in my Psychology class, Brian Thompson, a believer who attended FBCD. He recommended to me Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It was the first “Christian” book I ever read, and while I agreed with Lewis’ arguments for the existence of God, his ideas about Christ and salvation were new to me.

God had been working in my heart throughout this time. It was no coincidence that God had put many Christians in my life, especially believers from FBCD. The high school pastor at the time, Job Lara, was one of my club volleyball coaches, his daughter played with me on my high school team, and many other FBCD high school students were in my classes. The only bible in my house at the time was one my sister owned but never read. A comment in school one day by a student who said the three magi of the Christmas story were not in the bible prompted me to prove him wrong, and I began reading the gospel of Matthew. This turned into a daily occurrence, and I found myself looking forward every day to reading the more and more of Matthew and the Bible.

A few weeks before Easter of my senior year one of my friends, Steven Partnoff, asked me if I would like to go to Mexico on a mission trip during spring break. Looking back, I have no idea why my parents agreed to let me go on a trip out of the country with a group that had an obvious evangelical mission; only God working to allow me to go to Mexico can account for it. During the training for the Mexico mission trip I met Pastor Jon Castillo, and he asked me a question that made me think hard about why I attended the Greek Orthodox Church. When I told him that was where I went to church he asked, “Are you getting fed?” Though I did not admit it aloud, the undeniable answer was “No.” The training meetings, meanwhile, were teaching me more about Christ than I had ever learned before, and I was overjoyed to learn that we could study the bible to find out what it meant and that it contained God-given revelation and truth. I fit in well with the high school group, and the first couple days in Mexico were very fun. Before worship on the third night, all the students were gathered outside the main hall and told that we needed to take worship seriously by preparing our hearts; we could only go back inside when we felt prepared to worship God. I, as did everyone else, took a while to pray, and realized that I had been struggling with jealousy issues towards on of my teammates on the trip and that it was eating away at me. I asked God to take those feelings away. When I felt prepared I went into the worship hall. Something about the worship cut deep to my soul and I found myself on my knees within minutes. I wanted to give my life to Christ and I did.

Many Christians in their testimonies talk about the realization of their own sinfulness and need for a Savior as the turning point in their lives, but this wasn’t exactly what was going on in my heart and head that night. I knew that I was not perfect, but I thought I was in general a “good” person. There was just an overwhelming feeling that Jesus was the way, I did not have him, and so I wanted him. The rest of that week was the best week of my life, and—praise God!—the jealousy I was struggling with went away. I did not tell anyone about my decision because I myself did not realize what had actually occurred. It was only looking back later that I pinpointed that night as the night I made a decision to follow Christ.

The next few months was a time of intense growth and joy at knowing I had a God who created me and loved me so much he sent his Son to take the just punishment for my and the world’s sins. My parents saw me becoming more involved with FBCD, going to bible studies, college wrap-up, and helping with Vacation Bible School that summer. They were not too pleased, partly because they felt I was rejecting how they brought me up and partly because they felt I had been brainwashed. Since then I have learned that my dad is an atheist and my mother, though she believes in a God, is a relativist and pluralist. When I asked for her permission to go to South Africa on a mission trip this summer I was surprised when she asked more questions about the logistics rather than reacting with skepticism and disapproval about the actual trip. She easily agreed to let me go. Praise God! My dad does not approve of my faith and there is definitely a lot of tension when we talk about these issues, but God has blessed me with parents who love me and support me even though we disagree on these matters. They are even helping to fund my trip.

Coming to Stanford has grown me—a lot! It is an environment very hostile to Christianity, but equally important have been the trials any student faces at this time of their lives. The atmosphere here is one of self-reliance, individualism, achievement, and success. I have continually struggled with relying on God and not my own strength; my experiences as a student have taught me to rely on Christ’s promised unwavering strength. It is so easy to think in terms of what I need to get done every week and let myself believe I do not have the time to spare for a good quiet time in the morning, or else just get so caught up in the workload that I feel overwhelmed and stressed. This happened a couple weeks ago during midterms when on Monday night I broke down and felt there was no way I would make it through the week with all the things I needed to get done. These times teach me that I am correct in thinking I cannot do everything. I cannot do all my reading, write my papers, get enough sleep, invest in time with friends, go to bible study, and stay on top of my spiritual life when I try to do these things on my own. But with God’s power, through seeking him in prayer, thirsting for his word, casting my burdens on him, and trusting that his grace is sufficient for every day, I can have confidence that He will carry me through whatever work I have and at the end of the day I will be right where He wants me.

(What I didn't include in the app: so basically what happened was I had a crush on Brian, then after a few months found out he liked another girl and they were dating. This was the "teammate" I had jealousy issues with. Soon Brian, Sarah (his girlfriend), and I are all in the college group in our church. This past summer I spent sooo much time hanging out with both of them and we all took a trip to Vegas together. Fast-forward to this past spring break: Brian and Sarah are now married and expecting their first baby in June and I got to visit them and hang out at their new house. We have a great friendship. God redeems!!)

Tradition Tradition Tradition Tradition!

Discussing ECFs, we get into their position on tradition. An excerpt from an email just sent off -

In an earlier e-mail, you [Mickey] also commented:

. . . [I] wonder if he uses "tradition of the Apostles" as shorthand for the Gospel and the Scriptures.

Athanasius sets up this dichotomy between Scripture and what has been heard from the Fathers several times in the quotes that I gave you. I can't prove that every time he or another ECF uses the term "tradition," he doesn't just mean Scripture itself; however, I can provide a long list of quotes from ECFs in which they do explicitly distinguish between Scripture and tradition, suggesting that, in the common vocabulary of the time, tradition meant what it still means today--an authoritative oral teaching handed down apart from Scripture. Whether or not the material content of that teaching entirely overlaps with the material content of Scripture is to this day an open question. Like Catholics today, some ECFs seem to lean one way and others in the opposite direction. But, either way, the oral teachings are a critical component of the deposit of faith; at the very least, they represent the correct understanding of the truths contained in Scripture, and thus Scripture cannot stand alone as the sole rule of faith without them.

I sent several of these before, so sorry for the repeat; but I think all of them clearly show that the ECFs did not habitually use "tradition" as shorthand for Scripture:

Ok, so you say each of these usages of the word "tradition" has defniite content apart from Scripture. What is it? The assumption of Mary, purgatory, or what? To quickly examine two of your quotations, I think it's clear that their content of tradition is not what you claim it is.

Irenaeus: "It comes to this, therefore, that these [heretics] do now consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition . . . . Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings [on this question]? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?" (Against Heresies 3:2:2, 3:4:1)

To take this as one example. What does Irenaeus mean by tradition here? A little searching finds that this passage comes from book 3 -

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html

In which he clearly establishes his authority upon apostolic tradition, I agree.

But what is apostlic tradition for Irenaeus? It is sacred Scripture, as can be seen in his introduction and first chapter. (I find it interesting that he refers to Matthew as being written in Aramiac btw). Emphasis and commentary added:

1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ²

He begins his first section by saying what we have learned from the Apostles has been handed down in the Scriptures. I think this clearly implies formal sufficiency, as clearly if the Apostles also taught a manner of interpreting the Scriptures, he wouldn't make such a broad claim that the Scriptures is the "ground and pillar of our faith."

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews³ in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Mark hands down what was preached by Peter. Luke record's Paul's preaching. No secret traditions here.

And what is the content of all this preaching, the tradition that he appeals to finally?

2. These have all declared to us that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.

Simply that Christ is God!

So if you want to establish your point that the fathers are in your favor, you have to give the content of your tradition that these people are quoting as well. In his preface he makes clear what he's doing with this book that you are quoting from -

Wherefore, since the conviction of these men and their exposure is in many points but one work, I have sent unto thee [certain] books, of which the first comprises the opinions of all these men, and exhibits their customs, and the character of their behaviour. In the second, again, their perverse teachings are cast down and overthrown, and, such as they really are, laid bare and open to view. But in this, the third book I shall adduce proofs from the Scriptures, so that I may come behind in nothing of what thou hast enjoined; yea, that over and above what thou didst reckon upon, thou mayest receive from me the means of combating and vanquishing those who, in whatever manner, are propagating falsehood.

This whole book is Scripture proofs, which undermines your entire point if an appeal to tradition is necessary (or sufficient). He is making a Scriptural case for Christ being God here, and he appeals to tradition by tracing it back to Scripture.

Next case, and I bet I could keep searching too

Tertullian: "If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted . . . . If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer" (De Corona 3-4).

What is Tertullian talking about here? He's talking about pious and optional traditions. What you deleted here is critical! The text in full, emphasis added.

-And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week . We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4)

So here's the question. If you appeal to Tertullian for authoritative tradition, then you must also disown the Roman Catholic Church, for it does not follow any of these traditions. People aren't immersed three times, they are sprinkled. People don't refrain from bathing for a whole week. People don't cross themselves (on the forehead!) every step.

He doesn't appeal to this tradition as authoritative and binding upon your conscience, he appeals to tradition as setting forth something beneficial for one's piety. Which is certainly something I can agree with!

This is not to say that "tradition" and "Scripture" were always mutually exclusive concepts for the ECFs. Sometimes, "tradition" seems to encompass the totality of truths handed down by the Apostles, in writing and otherwise. Also, "tradition" is arguably occasionally used just to mean Scripture; I was reading Gregory of Nyssa, and I saw him say "the Gospel tradition" apparently referring to Scripture itself. However, when the meaning of "tradition" can be divined from the text, it is usually presented as something complementary to but apart from Scripture. Thus, when we see ECFs emphasizing the importance of "tradition," the default conclusion must be that they are speaking of something in addition to Scripture.

I think that still remains to be proven, as a quick search on google has shown with the two quotes I've given.

slowing down....

All -

As I have a lot less time (and as a whole, a lot less energy=p) these days, I'm going to have to pick and choose what I respond to. Sorry in advance.

I think there's still a few bits of "talking past one another" here. Let me see if I can clear some things up, especially over this major issue.

I think Scripture supports the concept of justify to be the equivalent of being declared righteous (the same word translates both phrases). It is the act of a righteous judge (God), declaring "yes, you are righteous." It is an instantaneous declaration.

Now, this is done on the basis of only one possibility as God does not clear the guilty. We actually have to be righteous and perfect in order for us to be justified.

Thus the key distinction between infusion and imputation.

Either God looks upon me or God does not. If God looks upon me, then however much I cooperate with the divine grace, my sin still taints what I do, and my guilt from previous sins hangs over me (all have sinned), I am still guilty.

The other option, and this is what makes the Gospel the Gospel, is that God looks not upon me, but chooses instead to look upon a substitute. The guilty sentence that I earned is placed upon Christ, and the "just, righteous" sentence that Christ earned (if we may use so base a term for a relationship between a father and son, though the concept of "wages" is there), is placed upon me.

So a lot of skipping here. No snipping. If you'd like me to cover a point specifically that I didn't, feel free to bring it up. I can't promise a response, but I'll try.

And I'd like to get to some scripture, as that's where this debate is going to have to go. So hopefully I can do some exegesis at the end.

On 5/18/07, Charles F. Capps wrote:

Well, let's see . . .

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth…

Agreed…

…not by infusing righteousness into them…

Disagreed, of course…

…but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

We wouldn't put it in this way, but I guess we agree with much of this. He pardons our sins and accounts/accepts us as righteous for Christ's sake alone, yes. Apart from Christ, nothing done by us suffices to justify us, yes. We receive and rest on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith we have not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, yes.

Again, though, we would phrase the entire process differently. We would say that becoming a child of God in the New Covenant in place of a child of Adam frees us from the curse of subjection to the Levitical Law (Rom 8:2). In baptism, we receive adoption by God by uniting ourselves to Christ and receiving His own divine life infused into our souls. If you want to use the term "righteousness," then we are infused with "righteousness" when we are infused with Christ's divine life, which we call sanctifying grace.

Here is where the "righteousness is a sentence" would come into play. If by "infused with righteousness" you mean "infused with holiness" then I think I can agree. We are given holiness, the new heart that loves God rather than the old one that hates Him. But the righteousness of Christ is a sentence laid down by God.

This righteousness is a sentence given to Christ and all who are united with him by faith, not because of their faith or any subsequent obedience, but because of Christ and His life on earth, being fully without sin and perfect. He is declared righteous truly.

All others cannot look to themselves, or even to Christ in them, as their works are tainted by sin. They must look to a substitute. That's why I have to make the distinction between the works done in me (through Christ) and the works done in Christ (through Christ). It's His works, and His righteousness (the sentence, passed down by God).

Returning to your terminology, we would see God imputing Christ's righteousness to us to be inexorably accompanied by God infusing Christ's righteousness into us. If God accounts us as righteous, how can we not be (Rom 8:31-34)? As God says in Isaiah 55:11: "so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose." By virtue of God declaring us righteous on Christ's account, we are righteous on Christ's account.

I'm not too sure your application of the passages are good, but I do affirm that we are made holy by God, while we are declared holy by God. I agree with you here. I think.

But I do see what is said above as different from what the council of Trent said -

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Justification, by faith alone, says exactly what is being declared anathema here. It is resting in Christ alone for righteousness and looking not to what we've done, however much we have become holy by God's gracious work in us.

Thus, if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, apprehended by faith (also given to us), then you're actually a protestant. Which would make this whole discussion rather silly, though I would say very beneficial =D.

Catholics are often accused of undermining the totality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by encouraging prayer through Mary or by repeatedly offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. We will address these points later, but for now I would like to turn the tables for a moment and argue that Protestants, by limiting salvation in Christ to a merely forensic justification, actually underestimate the power of the cross. According to you, Christ's sacrifice simply covers our dung with snow and causes God, when He finds us worthy of eternal damnation, to declare our sentence paid and usher us into heaven. Christ's sacrifice has now done its work. AND YET WE ARE STILL DUNG. So then, because nothing unclean will enter heaven (Rev 21:27) you say God instantaneously/painlessly transforms our dung into gold.

My point is this: you regard Christ's sacrifice as sufficient to justify us but unable to sanctify us (where by "sanctify" I mean not an imputed veneer of holiness but rather actual "de-dung-ification"). The reason you are forced to argue that God the Father snaps His fingers and de-dung-ifies us after the Last Judgment is because, under your view of salvation, Christ's sacrifice fails to do so. The fuller, Catholic picture of justification includes, in addition to the external imputation of freedom from the curse of the law, the infusion of sanctifying grace that does just what it's title suggests--sanctifies us. Sanctification is something that transforms us--it is not just something that changes the way that God sees us without correspondence to our actual state. So we would say that something very important is "wrought in us" when we are baptized.

Well, Christ's sacrifice isn't limited just to the declaration of righteousness of course. Maybe the synergistic protestants may think so, but certainly the holiness is bought by the blood of Christ as well. So we are still dung, we are changing into gold, and we will be transformed (in a blink) all by the power of the cross.

Thus, while your argument may work with other protestants, it has no effect here, as I do affirm all those things you say we deny.

We are made holy. We are gradually being purified. We are given a new heart, not a heart of stone but of flesh (Eze. 36:22ff), we are given a spirit of God that moves in us to no longer hate God, but delight in Him (Romans 8:5ff).

But the declaration of righteousness is, as you say correctly, forensic, because it's a declaration that we are in the right. We are worthy. We are pure and perfect.

And in order for God to make that declaration, he cannot look upon me, because I still am unclean, impure, unholy, however much I've become holier and purer as God has worked His grace in me. He must look upon Christ and join me in Christ (through faith). So my sentence (condemned) is Christ's, and Christ's sentence (righteous) is mine.

We would also point to Scripture (Heb 10:14; 2Pet 1:9; etc.) to support our idea of infused righteousness.

Once again, if you mean "holiness" I agree. God makes us holy along with justifying us. But righteousness isn't infused in us, we are counted righteous, just as Abraham was. (Romans 4:3)

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

The act of faith and the sacrament of baptism together constitute God's chosen instrument of justification. As long as the person is justified, the faith is not dead faith, but it worketh through love. Disregard for works of charity renders faith dead and therefore represents a free choice to cast off justification (Jas 2:17).

Justification – meaning the initial event of becoming justified – may therefore be said to be by faith alone (where this faith, this openness to receiving Christ's righteousness, by definition includes an openness to having the grace of God work charitably through us). However, justification – meaning the state of being justified – is negatively upheld through the grace of God by the continued openness to this, that is, by the lack of mortal sin. As John says, it is impossible for someone to commit mortal sin and yet continue to abide in Christ (1Jn 3:4-9). For this reason, referring more to the condition of being in a justified state than to the initial event of justification itself, James wrote that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24).

Once again, the distinction must be made at a definitional level. Justification is a declaration, not a process. Thus, it's an on-off switch. Either you have it or you don't.

I would say those who fail to bear fruit never were justified. If they were, they would have also been purified and made holy.

With regards to James 2, I would say that he is using the term justified in a different sense than Paul. Over and over you see James dealing with very practical topics, living life rightly. The book is referred to as the "proverbs of the NT." So I would say his usage of the term "justified" is "proven true."

Luke 7:35 uses it in a similar manner -

Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."

Is wisdom wisdom? Tautology. But wisdom is displayed, proven to be wisdom, by her children. In the same way faith is still faith, but it's displayed and proven to be faith. And a man is proven to be a child of God by his works.

III. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction of his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

Agreed.

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Yep, this is fine.

V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

Apart from "and although they can never fall from the state of justification," we agree.

As I wrote above, we believe that faith without works of love is dead (Jas 2:17)--and dead faith is not associated with justification. A rejection of love is a rejection of God (because God is love--1Jn 4:8) and hence a rejection of Christ and hence a rejection of justification, because our justification derives solely from the righteousness of Christ. Such a complete rejection of love we call mortal sin (1Jn 5:16-17). Unlike you, we believe that it is possible for someone who is truly justified to reject this justification; we believe our position is necessitated by free will (but, since you do not believe in free will, you argue that God causes a perfect correlation to occur between those who are truly justified and those who persevere). Without addressing the underlying difference of free will vs. unconditional election, we would point to Scripture to support our position.

HEB 10:

28: A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29: How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

I strongly feel that Paul is not speaking hypothetically in verse 29 (especially in light of verses 36 and 38). Neither can "sanctified" mean "temporally set apart" because in verse 14 Paul states, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." If I remember correctly, you claim Paul is operating under two different definitions of "sanctified." As you would say, this objection raises up a possibility without establishing it--and I would add that this possibility is an unlikely possibility at best considering how close verse 14 is to 29 both textually/spatially and topically.

Obviously that conclusion is driven by the strength of "sanctified" and why that necessitates some gymnastics in v.29.

Here's a very brief outline of why I think "sanctified" may have two different interpretations, and I would also suggest even if it doesn't, it seems that Paul does not seem quite as concerned as you might think, judging by the way he finishes up that very passage, where he affirms that he actually believes this is not going to happen. -

32But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For,

"Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."

39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

Briefly - the perfection of Christ's sacrifice from Hebrews 10

1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

v.1 we have the concept of being made perfect being introduced. The distinction between the two sacrifices is being made. The law sacrifice and Christ.

What does being made perfect mean? Well from verse 2 it must include the "no longer have any consciousness of sin" along with "being cleansed." In contrast to this, the sacrifices are offered every year (v.3) so there's a reminder of sin.

v.4 tells us (once again, setting up contrasts) that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

5Consequently, when Christ^[a] came into the world, he said,

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"

8When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

v.5 starts the great contrast (Hebrews is a book of contrasts, Christ and angels. Christ and men. Christ and Moses. Christ and the law) - In contrast to the law, which cannot take away sins. Christ has come. Contrasted to the OT law of sacrifices and offerings (v.5-6), He comes and abolishes that.

v.10 then establishes the big connection. Those sacrifices could not remove sins, could not cleanse the conscience. But Christ's offering of His body does all that.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ^[b] had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

The contrast continues and is finished. many offerings - no cleansing. One offering, perfected. v.14 links us back to v.1 which points us to verse 2 -

For those who are dead in Christ, we have been cleansed and perfected. No more does sin stand against us, condemning us, but rather it has been taken away.

Additionally, the interjection of "enables us to be made perfect" ruins the whole contrast, thus is unacceptable. Thus those being sanctified are now perfect, sins taken away. There's no future aspect to these passages, as it's all looking back.

Thus they cannot be condemned anymore, as there is no sin to condemn them with. Christ makes full atonement for all sins -> it's all been punished. So thus I must interpret the other punishment threatened as punishment for sins that weren't taken away.

But that cannot have happened to those who have already been perfect, so it requires a different interpretation of "sanctified."

PHP 1:6 [discussed in an earlier one of my e-mails]

2PET 2 [discussed in one of George's]

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respect, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.

I think we’re ok with that.

I hope this helps!

kt,
Charlie

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for.... hardcore nudity!!

whoops, Simpsons episode, I mean....exegesis!

I hope to prove with this passage the forensic aspect of justification - done not on the basis of our holiness (or as you would say, righteousness infused, though I still would say that "righteousness" is the wrong term here), but on the basis of faith alone -

Romans 4 -

1What then shall we say was gained by^[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul transitions from Romans 3, which had just declared that all had fallen short, but were justified by God's free gift on the basis of Christ's propitiation (Romans 3:25), which basically means "turning away wrath." He moves onto Abraham forefather of the Jews. How was Abraham saved?


2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

As Abraham comes before the Mosaic law, Paul broadens his rejection of being justified by the "law" to simply that of works. But notice that he points out that if Abraham was justified by these works, there's something to boast about, but this cannot be the case before God.

I might rephrase this to direct it against "free will" as many commonly see it. If people are justified finally on the basis of passively accepting Christ's sacrifice, then they have something to boast about, they did not reject God. But this cannot be so! There is no grounds for boasting, thus no room for "passive acceptance."

And how passive is an action that determines whether or not we are ultimately saved? It seems like verbal slight of hand here to call it "passive" if you can say God does 99.99999% and we refuse to allow God to do 0.00001% we won't be saved. I'm not saying it's wrong for you to hold that position, but let's call a spade a spade at least.

3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Paul then points out that in contrast to any works, Abraham was justified (counted righteous again), on the basis of belief.

Immediately, Paul makes clear that it's not "working out with love" that justifies Abraham, but faith. As if it's "working out with love" then his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. Instead, Abraham, like me, like everyone, must not work (or more precisely, not trust in our work, even if done in holiness and love), but trust god who justifies the ungodly.

Ungodly! God justifies the ungodly. Not those who through faith worked out in love persevere and thus are holy, but ungodly!

6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

this blessing is echoed again in the Psalms, where Paul quotes David as pointing to those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, not on the basis of their cooperation with grace, but are covered and not counted against them. (by the blood of the Lamb of God)

9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Notice as well, Paul rejects any concept of "cooperation with grace" by pointing to the fact that justification happens before Abraham was circumcised. The circumcision that Abraham underwent was not an act of obedience (however passive you might call it) that resulted in God justifying Abraham, but was a fruit of the faith that Abraham had before.

In the same way, man is justified (declared righteous) not by our cooperation, or passive going along, but by faith and faith alone, through Christ alone.

You said you'd get to how Catholics actually believe in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. So here are some questions to ponder. I'm not expecting an answer (as I am no longer to able to answer everything), but I would hope you would read and think -

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why is there further punishment as purging in purgatory?

I would say all sins are paid for, so there no longer is punishment for sins or for impurity, but perfection is bought and paid for. Delivered partially in life, wholly upon death (or the second coming).

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why do some fall away? Was it not perfect enough for them?

I would say none that Christ dies for, being perfected, will fall away. This is in accord to the entirety of the Scriptures, specifically note John 6:37-39, John 10:27-28, where Christ makes clear that those given to Him by God will never fall and will be saved.

And regarding the Eucharist, I had to do some reading but I'm curious why you don't see it as truly a sacrifice -

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."[185] In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."[186]

Not just a memorial, but also a sacrifice- what kind of sacrifice? an efficacious one. body given up, blood poured out all over again. Reading on, we see Eucharist to be of exactly the same as the sacrifice on the cross.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

But that flatly contradicts the one sacrifice once for all which is spoken of in Hebrews 10.

Lots of lead up to the final question -

If Christ's sacrifice on the cross (as Hebrews 10 knows nothing of continual sacrifice) perfects once for all, why is there a continual sacrifice upon the altar, during which it is necessary to offer Christ repeatedly?

Sorry for the many words, you have given more than me =p and once again I apologize for not being able to answer every point. If there are points specifically, you'd like me to address, please put them somewhere prominent, and I'll try to get to them. Otherwise I'm just going to pick and choose, on the basis of not having the time or energy. Thanks much again for the discussions, and hopefully email will suffice for now.

Mickey

High School

One of my good friends from high school, with whom I played with on the worship team, recently decided to convert to Catholicism.

Read about it here.

Evangelism Sermon

Since I promised... the following are my notes in the raw... (with a few things removed to remove clutter) that I used for my sermons these past 2 Sundays. I hope it encourages and challenges you.

How Shall They Believe?

Romans 10:1-15

People don’t know what the gospel is.

People don’t know why other people need it.

How to witness to family member – same as everyone else!

Have a Passion for the Lost (1)

- This is very strong language. We see the seriousness of what Paul is saying here in the previous chapter, Romans 9:1-3 (read, comment).

o “Great sorrow and unceasing anguish”

- Desire their deliverance

o Paul is willing to trade his salvation!

- Pray for them

o God also desires that all people be saved

o 1 Tim 2:1-4 – prayer for the lost is good, because God wants all to be saved!

o 2 Pet 3:9 – God is delaying the apocalypse so that more may be saved!

Identify the Problem of the Unbeliever (2-3)

- Unbelievers need the righteousness of God (3) – “ignorant of the righteousness”

o Most are self-righteous (Prov 20:6, 21:2) – “I’m a good person”

o God does not like self-righteousness (Prov 26:12, Is 65:5, Luke 16:15).

o Attempting to justify oneself is futile (Job 9:20, Matt 23:25-28).

o God does not save you because you’re more worthy (Titus 3:5).

- Unbelievers need more than spirituality (2a) – “a zeal for God”

o God’s righteousness does not come from being “religious.”

- Unbelievers need to know God (2b) – “not according to knowledge”

o epignosis (different kind of knowledge than gnosis, fuller)

o Isa 5:13 – people go into exile for lack of knowledge

o Hos 4:6 – destroyed for lack of knowledge; forgotten the law

§ ignorance is willfull.

§ “forgotten” = ignored, ceased to care

§ These are not “honest mistakes”

o Relationship with God

- How do you convince someone of this?

- Why should they believe that this is a problem?

Recognize the Purpose of the Law (4-5)

- What it doesn’t do (4)

o It cannot justify you

§ I had a talk with my Latin teacher… he wouldn’t stop justifying himself…

- What it does do (5)

o Silences you (Rom 3:19a)

§ Shows you that you have no excuses: b/c conscience = “with knowledge”

§ Lady in San Fran who wouldn’t continue after the first question

o Sentences you (Rom 3:20)

§ Shows you where you deserve to go

§ No preacher, teacher, or evangelist can faithfully or effectively present the gospel if he does not first convince his hearers of their damning unrighteousness apart from Christ. - MacArthur

§ “You can’t judge people”

· The law does the judging. Let people convict themselves.

§ If God judges you by his law, will you be guilty or innocent?

§ Being guilty, where should God send you?

§ What are you going to do about it?

o Sends you to Christ (Gal 3:24)

§ Note: Law->No Hope->Anger

§ They need to: Admit sin->Admit Punishment->Express Concern->Gospel

Understand the Promise of Salvation (6-13)

- Two questions: how do you get it and who is it for?

o Do people understand the gospel? No!

§ Catholic guy (David?) at the mall.

- How it is done (6-10)

o The “formula” is not complicated (6-8,10)

§ No pilgrimage, baptism, priest

o Keep this question in mind: does the Devil know/do that?

o Repentance: Turn from sin (9a) (Acts study)

§ “Jesus is Lord” means that you are not!

§ Conviction of sin (John 16:8)

· Realize you’ve broken God’s law!

§ Contrition over sin (Ez 43:10, 2 Cor 7:8-11, Ps 51:17, Ps 38:18)

· Be sorry for what you’ve done!

· Hate it because it’s wrong, against God, God hates it

§ Confession of sin (James 5:16, 1 John 1:9, Ps 32:5, Neh 9:2)

· Get specific!

§ Conversion from sin (Rom 6:12f, Ez 14:6, Is 55:7, Matt 3:8)

· Stop sinning, and start doing good!

o Faith: Turn to Jesus (9b)

§ Jesus does NOT need your acceptance. You need his mercy.

- Who it is for: everyone! (11-13)

o List people: mall, school, work, family, etc.

Boldly Preach the Gospel (14-15)

- The questions Paul is asking are all rhetorical and the answer is always a negative one (i.e. “they can’t” or “no”). We can see this from the context. (Read and explain).

- The lost cannot be saved without believing (14a)

- The lost cannot believe without hearing (14b)

o What does it sound like it means?

- The lost cannot hear without a preacher (14c)

o Mark Cahill Quote

o A preacher is anyone who speaks God’s truth to someone else

- The preacher cannot preach unless he goes (15a) (Story of Lazarus – pers. evang.)

o Notice that the assumption is that the Christians go out, not that we bring the unbelievers in; It’s everyone’s job to share the gospel with everyone they know.

o What do you think happens when we die?

o Do you have a religious background?

o Did you get one of these?

- The goer cannot regret it (15b) (Jer 20:9)

o You will have the eternal thanks of everyone you talk to – everyone

Mark Cahill

- What is worse than a massacre? People who know what it takes to get to heaven, and be right with God, and don’t tell anyone. People who walked around the VA Tech campus as believers in Jesus Christ, and didn’t strike up a conversation or hand a tract to Cho, the Jewish professor, or any of those other students, and didn’t tell them about judgment day. Those people are just as selfish as Cho was. He didn’t want to live this life God’s way. That is also the description of someone who knows what it takes to get to heaven and will not tell anyone. Total, utter, selfishness and nothing less.

- Please Christians don’t live your life more selfishly than a mass murderer

On a slightly different note... an examination of the views of an early church father

Background: Origen (185-254 A.D) grew up in Alexandria and then moved to Caesarea and taught in the church there. He was one of the last non-bishop theologians and is remembered especially for his consistently anti-Gnostic stance, and his work arguing against Celsus (a prominent secular critic of Christianity). Unless noted otherwise, all quotes are from Origen's On First Principles and cited as book.chapter.section.

The Concept of a Savior in Origen’s Cosmological System

Different wars require different weapons and tactics. Likewise, different rescue options require very different strategies. For instance, there is no need of a flotation device to rescue someone from a burning building. In much the same way, one’s view of the world will greatly influence what kind of a savior is needed to save the world, if indeed a savior is even required. In Christianity there were different views of the world and hence different views of the nature of the savior. The early church father Origen, wrote many works about the nature of the Christian savior, Jesus Christ. He also believed in a very well defined cosmological system into which one would expect to be able to place his conception of Jesus Christ. Central to Origen’s cosmology is the belief that “the sun also, and the moon and the rest of the heavenly bodies are living beings” (1.7.4) and so have souls, as do men, angles, and daemons. Origen further argues that the “entire creation” will be subjected to Christ, which “implies the salvation, proceeding from Christ, of those who are subject” (1.6.1). Yet he reasons that the Lord “desired… to save the body, just as it was likewise his will to save also the soul” and that “the whole man would not have been saved unless he had taken upon him the whole man” (Dialogue with Heraclides 136). Despite the fact that Origen’s concept of salvation is a part of his cosmological system there is a tension between the two as it is difficult to understand how a salvation could come from Christ that was effective for the souls in non-human bodies, as the nature of Christ was a dichotomy between the human and divine and nothing else.

In order to understand Origen’s cosmology the first step is to grasp his concept of the soul. He held that “before the ages” there were souls, called “minds”, which later became angels, daemons, and people. In addition, he believed that, “all souls and all rational natures, whether holy or wicked, were made or created. All these are incorporeal in respect to their proper nature, but though incorporeal they were nevertheless made. For all things were made by God through Christ” (1.7.1). This is an important distinction for it indicates that each of the souls were on a level playing field at the beginning, and that Christ, who would later become the savior was not one of these souls who was made, but rather they were made through him. Furthermore, these souls were “all pure” until they fell due to their sin. Origen describes the Fall this way:

Before the ages minds were all pure, both daemons and souls and angels, offering service to God and keeping his commandments. But the devil, who was one of them, since he possessed free-will, desired to resist God, and God drove him away. With him revolted all the other powers. Some sinned deeply and became daemons, others less and became angels; others still less and became archangels; and thus each in turn received the reward for his individual sin (1.8.1).

Thus Origen believes that while every soul sinned, some sinned to a greater degree, and that the final state of the soul was a punishment for the sin. This is further emphasized when he says, “there remained some souls who had not sinned so greatly as to become daemons, nor on the other hand so very lightly as to become angels. God therefore made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). Origen also extends this idea to the conclusion that the heavenly bodies, the sun, moon, and stars, are also souls that “have been given bodies of one sort or another” (1.7.4)

This cosmological system leads to several conclusions about the character of God, the need of a Savior, and the nature of that savior, namely Jesus Christ. Origen sees God as the creator, judge, and one who desires to bring all creation once again into subjection to him (1.6.1). As the creator, God made all souls as well as the world, though the world was made later and souls were placed in bodies afterwards. It is indeed interesting that God calls the world good (Genesis 1) even though Origen says that God “made the present world and bound the soul to the body as a punishment” (1.8.1). But in light of God’s desire to restore the souls to unity and Origen’s argument that God uses these punishments to do so (1.6.3), it makes sense that God would call the world good for it serves to bring about His ultimate goal. Origen also places a large emphasis on the free will of the souls. He argues that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and so punishes and rewards each soul according to their actions which they freely chose to do. Through this argument Origen presents God as having a broad purpose, restoring the souls to subjection to Him (1.6.2), but not as much a specific purpose for every single soul. For instance he reasons that,

All these duties (the roles of different angels) are not performed by accident or chance, nor because the angels were naturally created for them, lest in so doing we should chare the Creator with partiality. Rather must we believe that they were conferred in accordance with merit and virtue and with the activity and ability of each individual spirit, by God the most righteous and impartial governor of all things (1.8.1).

Yet this reasoning arguably limits the role of God in the world. For God, who cannot be impartial, instead of designing a world with each actor having a specific purpose becomes simply a judge whose role is to respond to the actions of the souls and hand out the “most appropriate and righteous judgment… being settled in accordance with merit” (1.8.1). However, at the same time, Origen recognizes that God is active in the world, for He is the creator and assigns the judgments specifically, rather than simply by chance, though their basis is merit (1.8.1). Further, Origen points out that God took an active role in seeking to reconcile creation to Him. For “(the savior) descended to earth to grieve for the human race and took our sufferings on himself before he endured the cross and deigned to assume our flesh” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6) . But why was such intervention by God necessary?

Origen argues that all of creation is need of a savior as all have rebelled against God (1.8.1), been cast from His presence, and are currently in a state of punishment for their sin (1.6.1, 1.7.4, 1.8.1). All souls are guilty of sin, even before they enter the body to which they are constrained, and so regardless of their form, every soul is separated from God. Though each man is punished according to his sins and rewarded according to their good acts (1.6.3), “salvation procede(s) from Christ” (1.6.1). Origen argues that salvation is necessary because “the end is always like the beginning” and so though all sinned they “in their turn are restored, through God’s goodness, through their subjection to Christ and their unity with the Holy Spirit” (1.6.2). Furthermore, he says, “had there been no death of Christ, there would certainly have been no resurrection and there would have been no ‘firstborn from the dead’” (Homilia in Ezechiel 6.6)2. An interesting caveat about Origen’s conception of salvation is that he believes that in the end all souls will be saved, including the enemies of God, daemons (1.6.1), and even Satan himself (Gregg). It may take more time for the souls that are currently in rebellion and actively opposing the people of God (1.6.3) to be saved as they, due to their free will are not forced to salvation. Yet they, “over may ages, are by these stern methods of correction (various punishments for sin) renewed and restored, first by the instruction of angels and afterwards by that of powers yet higher in rank” (1.6.3). So despite initial resistance, eventually all will believe, though a savior is needed as part of the process of bringing about that belief.

What kind of savior would fit in Origen’s cosmology? If, as he argues, all souls have sinned but at the very end of things all will again be brought into subjection to God then it follows that all need a savior. This is particularly true as Origen mentions no distinctions between the souls before they fell, which would imply that the only difference between them now is the degree to which they sinned and the body to which they are constrained. Further evidence that these are the only major distinctions between the souls is that all of the souls have free will and that all of them sinned, none resisted completely. So if all souls need a savior then the savior should be able to save all of the souls. As will be discussed later Origen argues that the savior, Jesus Christ, himself had a soul of the same nature as every other soul (2.6.3), which would then mean that he is sufficient to save all souls if only the souls were to be saved. But Origen emphasizes that the body will be saved as well stating that “even for those destined for eternal fire or for punishment there will be an incorruptible body through the change of the resurrection” (de Principiis 2.10.3) . If one were to base their conception of the savior solely on the basis of Origen’s cosmology then they would expect that the savior would not only be a “soul like all souls” (2.6.3) but would also somehow take on the bodily nature of every being that he intended to save, namely all of creation. Since Origen emphasizes that “God is no ‘respecter of persons’” (1.8.1) and cannot be charged with partiality, it seems counter-intuitive that He should not endeavor to save all souls as well as all bodies, so as not to treat the bodies of men different than the bodies of other souls. If this is the case one would also expect the savior to be able to identify with those he is saving and to either somehow nullify their sin or provide a method and reason for the souls to strive to be near to God as Origen says that the angels, who sinned the least, do (1.8.1).

However, the kind of savior that Origen depicts when he describes Christ is notably different from what one would expect. Origen’s focus when it comes to Christ is the nature of Christ, namely that it is both fully human and fully divine at the same time. He argues that Jesus Christ is comprised of both a divine nature and a human nature, each of which is essential. The divine nature is the Logos, the Word of God, through whom God created the world (2.6.3). On the other hand the human nature was a soul, the nature of which “was that which belongs to all souls” (2.6.5). It was the soul that had sinned the least, and had, “from the beginning of its creation and after, clung inseparably and persistently to him, to the Wisdom and Logos of God… It entered itself into his light and his glory. So it was made, in the proper sense, one spirit with him” (2.6.3). But in order to be able to save mankind this soul, while being like all other souls (as Origen claimed was essential in his Dialogue with Heraclides 136) was different in the sense that,

The capacity to choose good and evil present in all souls, this soul, which belongs to Christ, chose to love justice in such a way that justice was rooted unchangeably and inseparably within it, in proportion to its immeasurable love…. Thus it is true both that we must believe Christ to have had a human and rational soul and that we must judge him to have had neither sense nor possibility of sin (2.6.5).

Origen states that although the Savior is both God and man, “the Logos of God is more truly ‘in one flesh’ with the soul (of Jesus) than a man is with his wife” (2.6.3). Yet, in consistency with his emphasis on free will and God’s impartiality Origen says that, “God’s assumption of that soul was not a chance affair nor a case of favoritism. Rather, it was accorded to that soul by reason of the merit of its virtues” (2.6.4).

This argument of Origen however, focuses solely on the issue of reconciling the two natures of Christ. The question remains, why did Christ not take on more natures if he was truly meant to be a Savior for all souls. As he only took on the nature of man he must not be the Savior of all souls, but that statement does not align with Origen’s emphasis on the ultimate reconciliation of all souls with God. Thus there is an apparent discrepancy between Origen’s cosmology and the Savior that plays an integral part in it.

Are there possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy? One possibility is that although all sinned and are in need of a Savior, due to the different levels of sin and hence levels of the fall, a different kind of Savior is needed for different souls. For instance, the angels, as they did not fall as far are still able to stand before God and are given by God the right to rule and instruct those who fell below them (1.8.1-2). Therefore they may not need a Savior who identifies with them and pays the penalty for their sin as Christ does for men. This seems especially possible as the angels already desire to serve and stand before God (1.8.1) even without a Savior. Scripture also lends support to this idea in I Peter 1:12, which indicates that the angles have not experienced or fully comprehend the salvation of men through Christ. Therefore this shows that this Savior was probably not intended for them. This theory would hold for the souls in the heavenly and daemonic bodies as well. Another possible explanation is that the Savior is only interested in the bodily (in addition to spiritual) salvation of humanity and that when it comes to the rest of creation God is content to save only the soul. There is not much evidence to support this theory, except for the fact that Origen only specifically emphasizes the fact that the bodily salvation of men is necessary. Yet, in contrast, it may be inferred that God cares about the bodily salvation of all souls if He cares about it in regards to humanity and is a God that does not show partiality (1.8.1).

There is indeed a tension between Origen’s cosmological view of salvation and his “earthly” view of it. The surviving texts of Origen’s works do not seem to specifically address this discrepancy and so we are left pondering the question of how salvation, particularly the salvation of men through Jesus Christ, reconciles with Origen’s cosmology. Origen himself recognized that some of his beliefs would be difficult to understand reconcile for he said,

These are the ideas that were able to make their way into our minds as we took up these very difficult questions about the incarnation and the deity of Christ. If someone comes up with better ideas and can confirm what he says with plainer assertions from the Holy Scriptures, let them be accepted instead of what we have written (2.6.7).