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

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).

Jumping Ahead (3)

On 5/9/07, Charles F. Capps <ccapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Thanks again for your patience in explaining yourself to us, Mickey; we are new to the way you describe justification and we are still trying to wrap our minds around it. I would like to say right now that we were both very impressed yesterday with how consistent you were in your reasoning and how well your position held up to our objections.

Regarding Php 1:6 very briefly, I will try to explain why I think this particular passage is consistent with our stance as well as with yours. First of all, reading the passage in context, I have no problem with what Paul is saying.

3: I thank my God in all my remembrance of you,
4: always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy,
5: thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.
6: And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

Paul is commending the Philippians on their works of charity, and for this reason he says that he has no doubt that God will bring them into their inheritance as sons with Christ, and therefore heirs with Christ (Rom 8:15-17). (Aside from your problem with synergism) would we be correct to say that you interpret this passage in a similar way? In other words, you think that Paul is saying: "I have utmost confidence that your act of faith actually justified you"--presumably on account of the Philippians' works of charity, which provide a clue as to whether or not other Christians are actually among the elect or merely in a temporal covenantal relationship with Christ.

Yes, I would understand it in a similar way. I don't know how much Paul's infallibility of an apostle plays into his statements here, but I think that interpretation is reasonable.

Now moving on to your questions regarding synergism. No, we agree that even our act of faith is a work done in us by Christ, just like you do. The good act of faith itself is moved and accomplished by grace alone. So yes, God is the one who began the good work in us. In the same way, God is the one who carries the salvation of the elect to completion. The carrying to salvation is "done" or "powered" or "accomplished" or however you want to put it by God's grace alone, not by our efforts. The only issue we take with your position is this: God does not carry the salvation of the reprobate to completion not because He desires their damnation but because they freely refuse to cooperate with His grace.

So you would say that God began a good work in them by enabling faith, which we passively go along with. Along with that, you would say all have received this enablement.

So, in what ways is that "begun a good work" carried to completion in the reprobate?

It seems inconsistent to me because I see you as banking on God's saving graces, yet still trying to maintain that we somehow have free will in accepting God's grace, and in accepting God finishing it.

Yet, Paul does not make any remark that "you who have passively started the good work done by God, will carry it to completion, provided that you continue availing yourself to God's grace." Rather, he puts the emphasis solely upon God and His actions throughout. God begins the good work (faith) and He will finish it (salvation).

If in fact, God begins this good work in all people, then Paul is actually lying, for God doesn't complete it in all people, but only in those who "passively go along." I wonder also how "passive" this action is, if indeed it is a determining factor, but the nature of the human condition is another topic we have to address in the future.

Now you seem to be objecting that God's grace is only enabled by our cooperation – or our lack of dis-cooperation, however we like to word it. This is true enough if you mean "if and only if we refuse to cooperate, we would not receive the grace." But, going back to the family analogy, I think it is fair to say that the parents who adopt a child and eventually give him the inheritance are the sole movers in the process. It is the parents who do the adopting, not the child, and it is the parents who confer the inheritance, not the child. Even though the son did absolutely nothing to earn his right to that inheritance which is gratuitously being bestowed on him by the parents, it is nonetheless his by default as a member of the family. However, he retains the power to reject it by rejecting membership in the family at any point.

I think I understand your point, though I do have a few quibbles with the analogy (as we are spoken not only of as "adopted" but also "reborn," so in what ways did you have a choice in being reborn?) But I digress. An analogy is helpful for clarifying your position, but it doesn't establish it.

We realize the distinction we are making is subtle and might be frustrating to you who are coming from the perspective of not believing in free will, but at the same time we really do not think that we are creating a distinction that is not there.

I see nothing wrong with making man "passive" in salvation. But what I'm saying is that he is wholly passive, contributing nothing to his salvation. Your view of man is more active than mine, as he has to at least "not resist," whereas I would say God, being the unstoppable force, cannot be resisted, and changes our hearts so we cannot resist.

I would say that is exactly what Philippians 1:6 teaches, that man is wholly passive in salvation. God begins the good work, and He carries it to completion.

For a view that affirms independent free will in man, God begins the good work, but then depending upon whether or not they accept it or not, He carries it to completion if they do, and He does not if they do not.

To sum it up - If indeed God gives the gift of faith to all people, in what sense does God carry to completion the gift of faith given (but rejected) to the reprobate?

Jumping ahead (cont)

Another email exchange. I need to get on the attack eventually, or at least present a positive defense of justification by faith alone, which I'm hinting at over and over, but haven't gotten to.

And if you guys haven't read the hitchens wilson debate, I'd highly suggest it. Douglas Wilson is doing a splendid job of demonstrating the utter irrationality of the atheistic worldview.

Gar,.

This is what I get when I speak off the cuff. Let me see if I can do some damage control. I'd like to get into positive presentations eventually, but I've been lazy.

On 5/10/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Thanks again for your replies, Mickey. One more clarification (again, just
so I can get your position straight).

I'm afraid your exegesis on 2Pet 2:1 confused me more than anything
else. In your blog, you seemed to suggest that these false teachers were
probably never even temporally justified at all--that "the Master who
bought them" just means "the God who created them." However, in your
e-mail, you say that "the Master who bought them" means "Jesus who
delivered them" as God delivered even wicked Israelites from Egypt.

Once again, I'm hesitant to speak of "temporal justification", as I'm not sure that those words are necessitated by Scripture. I view justification as "being declared righteous" (as the same word is used to translate those two ideas). It is a legal declaration by God as sovereign judge over all creation, and that sentence is given to all the elect. They are righteous on the basis of Christ's righteous life lived while he walked the earth and on the basis of nothing within themselves, or even "infused" in them.

(another distinction that I've discovered, you would say we are righteous on the basis of Christ in us (our works, while we live). I would say we are righteous on the basis of us in Christ (His works, while he lived)).

I would prefer to speak of "temporal setting apart" or "in a covenant with God." This summarizes well what I was talking about. People can keep the covenant or break it. For the elect, Christ as kept it and now that covenant keeping is considered as "done" by all those who have faith, apart from any personal "covenant keeping" or "covenant breaking" they do. Those who are justified of course, will persevere in covenant keeping (to a degree), but it's not because they kept the covenant that they are justified, but because Christ did.

Regarding 2 Peter, I think I would go back to a general "God" since that's how God revealed himself previously in the OT. I can't name names (was it Jesus? or God the Father?), but if I had to guess, I'd say God the father. I'm not particularly committed to that though.

Since I don't see how non-temporally-justified reprobate could be said to be
delivered from anything other than a state of non-existence, this implies
to me that you think these false teachers were temporally justified--that,
thanks to Jesus' blood which made the Christian community possible, they
were temporarily delivered from the defilements of the world by living as
an apparent member of that community.

Just as creation of people in general and the deliverance of Israel in
particular out of Egypt were two entirely separate events, I feel that "the
God who created them" and "Jesus who delivered them" are two
non-overlapping interpretations of "the Master who bought them." Are you
willing to commit to one or the other? If the former, do you think it
possible that these false teachers were never temporally justified at
all? And, if the latter, does this interpretation necessarily entail
temporal justification?

That's true, they are non-overlapping. As that post was based upon another research, whom I think has done better study on it than myself, I would probably go with his conclusion over mine. It's God who created them.

That said, that interpretation does not necessarily entail being in a covenant at all, and rather could refer to all those who blaspheme God in the way these false teachers have.

But, it seems these false teachers were members of the physical church (though obviously not members of the True Church), and thus are in a covenant, so the option of temporal setting apart (sanctification) can be understood there. With that case, I would say these false teachers are breaking the covenant and were never (?? not 100%, but Peter's language is strong) justified (eternally).

Thanks!

Cheers,

George

Hope this helps.

Jumping ahead

Our last discussion was on justification. Here's the last series of emails sent out on it. They are clipped together.

And I hope no one thinks I'm a heretic here, but I basically think Douglas Wilson is right in this area, so I spoke of a temporal justification (being grafted into the physical body of Christ) as well as an eternal justification (being grafted into the spiritual body of Christ). I think I tried to explain it clearly. Let me know what you guys think.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Hi, Mickey. This one will be short. And, once again, I am not in any way
meaning to challenge you here--I just want to understand what you were
trying to tell us.

Your doctrine of temporal justification of the reprobate was unfamiliar to
me; I was really intrigued by it and was wondering if you could clarify
what it is and how, aside from its temporariness and to whom it applies, it
differs from eternal justification of the elect. For example, you admitted
that the temporally justified are "in Christ" (cf. Gal 5:4), are "set
apart" (cf Heb. 10:29), have received grace (cf. Gal 5:4), but are not
"made holy." Peter speaks of reprobate who had previously "escaped the
defilements of the world" through Jesus but have now fallen to a position
worse than their original state (2Pet 2:20). Without actually being made
holy, in what sense do the temporally justified escape defilement? Also,
is the grace from which they eventually fall irresistible grace like that
given to the elect? How can they have grace of any sort acting through
them and yet not grow in holiness?

I would say that they are set apart in the same sense that Israel was set apart from the rest of the nations. Yet they fell in the desert and did not enter into Canaan. In the same way, one can be a covenant member of a church, hear the preaching of the Word, see the good works of the saints, partake of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper, yet not take it in faith. Eventually that lack of faith may decisively manifest itself on this earth (or maybe not, as Matthew 7:22ff teaches) and they fall away. Yet, they were never really a member of the true church in the sense of them being one of the elect. Not all Israel is Israel.

They thus escape temporal defilement by living in a community of believers in the church. They are "set apart" in that sense. The community of God acts as salt and preserves and protects them from worse physical manifestations of the spiritual sins that are already present in their hearts.

And no, the grace is not irresistible. It's not the same grace. That grace is an outward grace, like the sun and the rain are. The inward grace is the irresistible one. It's a changing of the heart. Opening the eyes of the blind, new heart of flesh instead of stone.

The grace is not acting through them, but is wholly outside of them (though sometimes it can manifest itself in inward actions, like the person who does charity work because other people do it too).

Does temporal justification always begin with some kind of invalid act of
faith, and is its loss contemporaneous with either the denial of Christian
truth or the committing of a grave sin (cf. Eph 5:5 or Gal 5:19)?

Not necessarily. We're born in rebellion, and some (Esau and Ishmael) are born as members of the covenant didn't necessarily have faith. This is where Ryan would disagree with me, as I believe baptizing infants is part of the NT church and he doesn't. So he might have a different answer here.

But I would say all those who are baptized as adults rather than infants must have had some sort of "faith." And usually false faith is not one specific instance of denial like saying "Today I believe Jesus isn't God" but is actually a continual life lived out in rebellion to God, just like they were before they entered the covenant, it's just it looked different for a time.

Temporal justification could sometimes apply to the elect, could it
not? In other words, one could be temporally justified, fall away, repent,
and become eternally justified?

Hypothetically, yes. I say hypothetically because it depends on how you define your terms. Eternal justification is settled in God's eyes, so in what way is their temporal justification really temporal if it's actually eternal? A person may fall into sin, but if he's eternally justified, he hasn't lost that.

Last question: what is the relation between Christ's sacrifice and temporal
justification? You already said that the process of being set apart
somehow requires the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:29). Also, in 2Pet 2:1,
it speaks of false teachers who will "deny the Master who bought them,
bringing upon themselves swift destruction." It think it becomes
increasingly clear as you read on that these folks are headed for damnation
(in fact, I think he's still talking about them in 2:20). If so, in what
sense did Jesus "buy" them? Does this relate to temporal justification?

Regarding 2 Peter 2:1, I've posted about that on my blog before - http://mcshoo.blogspot.com/2007/03/tulip-20-2-peter-21ff.html

And being "bought" i see in the same sense as "delivered" from Egypt (through the passover lamb). Israel was delivered and bought in that sense, but they weren't bought in the spiritual sense.

If God bought someone, paid for their sins by His Son, then there's nothing more to be paid. They no longer have sin against their account but rather stand righteous in God's eyes.

Thanks so much for your patience, Mickey. I was really impressed with how
thoroughly you knew your position and with its internal consistency. From
what little I understand of it, I can already see how this temporal
justification idea really helps bring that position in line with
scripture. I'm interested in learning more about it.

I'll be honest and say that many people don't think it's right, and one of the major proponents of it has been accused of gross heresy. But I think it's more consistent, and not only that, but true.

On 5/9/07, George Capps <gcapps@stanford.edu> wrote:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but you were saying that, from humans'
perspective in this life, there is never 100% assurance of
salvation. While each of us can be sure that we were justified back when
we made our act of faith, none of us (not even Paul) can be sure that that
was an eternal justification and not a temporal justification. We can grow
in confidence when we see ourselves working good deeds, but unless we hold
fast to the end we might discover that it was only temporal justification
after all. Right?

It depends on what you mean by 100%. All our emotions do seem to be subjective and no one can really say "absolutely sure" except God. No one else has an exhaustive knowledge of the truth and thus can say with absolute certainty that "A is true."

But if we profess faith with a true believing heart, then it is a faith that will save us. That's where the assurance comes from. And that's how we can speak of eternal security and preservation of the saints (which are used as "Christians" to protestants). That rests in the promises of God. When Paul writes that "God, who began a good work in you will carry it to completion" (Phil. 1:6) he's talking about facts. That faith was the original good work will be carried to completion. Thus a true believer can point to God's beginning work in their lives and rest in the promises that God will carry to completion that work to the last day. They need not fear that they will fall away, as it is God who preserves them. One of the means by which God preserves them is that He warns them to work out their salvation, to make their calling and election sure. In that warning, the believer hears and obeys and thus does persevere, or, in the passive sense "are preserved", as it is ultimately by God that we persevere

If you might permit to ask a question about your view on that passage...

How do you understand that passage just quoted? Afterall, if the act of faith itself is something wholly of man (enabled by God). In what way has God begun a good work in someone? And in what way does the promise apply, that He will carry it to completion?

After all, if the good works of God are just enabled and it requires our going along (or, as you would say, "refusal to resist"), then how does God carry anything to completion?



Another thing -

I'm not 100% on this "justified" term. I think the concept as I'm using it simply means "in a covenant with God" rather than the legal declaration "Not Guilty" that first comes to mind.

I double checked the verses you cited, and it's not there. It may be there, but I'm not 100%.

So, if just to keep from equivocating, I might move away from stating "temporal" justification, as if there's a time when God says "not guilty" but not more, but I would speak of being "in a covenant with Christ." Some are there eternally (the elect) some are there temporally. John 15, Romans 11 and so.

This also would introduce a distinction between our positions, as I understand you would say that there are times when God says "not guilty" yet that sentence gets changed. Correct?