Arminian Chronicles

Do the Romans 9 Objections Make Sense?

2011-12-23T09:35:00.000-05:00

Calvinist's often say the objections in Romans 9 don't make sense unless Paul is talking about unconditional election on individuals to salvation. But Steve Hays provides some decent examples of why they still make sense if Paul is talking about God's plan to save by grace (rather than works or nationality). (link) Romans 9 is about God's sovereignty , one way or another.

Other Views on the Middle Knowledge Texts

2011-12-16T13:25:00.000-05:00

I recently posted a list of verses teaching God knows what we would choose under various settings. (link) Steve Hays responded, providing two alternative views of these texts. The first grants that the passages teach what a person would in various settings but denies we are choosing¹. Here’s Steve’s suggested alternative:

God knows what might have happened because he knows how things would turn out had he decreed that alternative.

And that’s also consistent with God as the final source of every alternate possibility. What’s possible is a measure of divine omnipotence. God knows what God is capable of doing. Divine omnipotence is the engine generating those possibilities. (link)

I don’t think omnipotence (i.e. God’s capabilities) is enough to account for these passages. Imaging God creates Santa (which of course He could do). God could have Santa deliver toys this year or He could have Santa occupy Wall Street instead. How does He know which would happen if Santa existed? God must not only be able to do either, but He must choose one.

The Dominicans (early opponents of the Molinists) said God decrees not only what will happen, but also what would happen under every possible scenario. If you believe in God’s decree about what would happen in every hypothetical world, then you could use that view to account for these texts. And they accuse me of imposing speculative philosophy on scripture. James White once said middle knowledge reminded him of the Star Trek episode when Spock had a beard. Welcome to the club.

Steve also posted a link to Brandon’s post suggesting that in Matthew 11:21-23, Christ uses a figure of speech meaning Capernaum is more hard-hearted than Sodom. (link) Unquestionably Christ is teaching Capernaum is more hard-hearted than Sodom, but how is He teaching that? Are we looking at a divine guess? No way I am buying that. Is it exaggeration? Rhetorical exaggeration works if the person knows you are exaggerating. If I tell my kids, have some of this salsa, but not that one or smoke will come out of your ears, it works, because they know I am exaggerating. But is it obvious Christ is exaggerating? No, what He is saying is plausible. Besides, His point is better made with the truth.

Brandon also suggests that in 1 Corinthians 2:8, if the leaders knew who Christ was, they could not have killed Him. Granted, it would have been much harder, but impossible? What about Satan or Judas? They faced hard evidence and still rebelled.

---------------------------------------------------------

¹At least what I mean by choosing and what I strongly believe the bible means by choosing - Steve and I had an extended debate on this, which I don’t mean to reopen, but clearly we ended with different views (link))

God Blames us when we Don't use our Abilities for Him

2011-12-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

Jeremiah 5:21"Hear this, O foolish and senseless people, who have eyes, but see not, who have ears, but hear not.

This passage implies the Israelites were able to see and hear but refused to do so. God gave them the ability but they didn’t use it. Not only could they do otherwise, but they should have. We are accountable to God for how we use the freedom and ability He gave us.

Middle Knowledge in Scripture

2011-12-15T12:29:00.001-05:00

One of the criticisms I repeatedly hear of middle knowledge is that it’s a philosophical system rather than scriptural. Now the two scriptural pillars of middle knowledge are the many passages saying men choose and the many passages saying God is in control. Middle knowledge reconciles the two.

However, there’s no shortage of the passages more directly supporting middle knowledge – those passages showing that God’s knows what we would choose under different settings. It’s not as if scripture limits middle knowledge to the famous examples of David in Keilah or the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon. Here’s a list of passages showing God does know what we would choose in various circumstances : Deuteronomy 28:51-57, 1 Samuel 23:6-10, Ezekiel 3:6-7, Jeremiah 49:9, Obadiah 1:5, Matthew 11:21-23, Matthew 12:7, Matthew 23:27-32, Matthew 24:43, Luke 16:30-31, Luke 22:67-68, John 8:39, John 8:42, John 14:28, John 15:19, John 18:36, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Galatians 4:15, and 1 John 2:19.

Some may still protest this fall short of a full-fledge systematic presentation. Well show me the scriptural full-fledge systematic presentation of supra or sub lapsarianism or the Trinity or your brand of eschatology.

Do Permissible Options Imply LFW?

2011-12-14T16:08:00.000-05:00

Numbers 30:13 Every vow and every binding oath to afflict her soul, her husband may confirm it, or her husband may make it void. (NKJV)
This passage teaches that both options were permissible, neither option being a sin. Calvinists would probably respond by saying permissible options do not imply that the man can choose either option but why it does not is beyond me.

A Handful of Anti-Molinist Arguments

2011-12-02T11:54:00.001-05:00

Steve Hays recently launched a series of anti-Molinism arguments,mostly in response to William Lane Craig’s defense of Molinism here.

Steve’sfirst criticism of Molinism is to call it fate and fatalistic, because inMolinism God does not decide what we would freely do in variouscircumstances. (link) Stevedoesn’t explain why this qualifies as fatalism. Was the Cowboys selection of Tryon Smith fatalistic just because thefirst eight players were off the board? No, just because you don’t decide everything does not mean you cannotdecide anything or that the outcome of what you do choose is inevitable. While God does not determine what we wouldchoose in various circumstances, He does decide the circumstances. Steve is confusing the inability to determineeverything with the inability to determine anything.

Steve’s second criticism of Molinsim is that “So not only must Godplay the hand he’s been dealt, but he was dealt that hand from a fictitiousdeck by a fictitious dealer!” (link)Steve basis this argument onCraig’s statements that “thecounterfactuals of creaturely freedom which confront Him are outside His control.He has to play with the hand He has been dealt” and on Craig’s denial thatabstract objects, like numbers, exist. Butcounterfactuals of freedom are not abstract objects like numbers. Imagine God has a hypothetical simulatormachine and keeps it in your basement. He puts hypothetical people in it and it spits out scenarios. The idea of the simulator machine or the ideaof its output, the scenarios, may be abstract objects like numbers, but themachine is not. It’s sitting in yourbasement. Steve is confusing God’sthoughts and ability to hypothesize with the concepts of God’s thoughts andability to hypothesize.

Steve’s third criticismof Molinism is that it’s incoherent to talk about what a person would do if weassume they had a radically different past and were in completely differentcircumstances, like JFK being born in medieval Tibet. This assumes there is nothing more to us thanour nature, genetics and circumstances. It’s like we could have an identity swap with another person, so long asthat other person had our genetics, memories and upbringing. But the bible does talk about what peoplewould do if they had been born in another time, like the Pharisees in Christtime would have killed the OT prophets (Matthew 23:29-32) or what Christ’sservants would do if His kingdom had been of this world (John 18:36). Such statements are not incoherent, in partbecause there is such a thing as “us”, over and above our circumstances andgenetics.

Steve’s fourth criticismof Molinism is that God’s not determining what we would choose in every settingconflicts with His omnipotence. Steve evencompares William Lane Craig to a Rabbi who’s rejected by Orthodox Jews andpopular among Mormans for denying omnipotence. (link) The comparison is uncalled for and would belike comparing Calvinists to Hindus with an evil god. Probably Steve’s argument would looksomething like God cannot create a rock so big He cannot lift it because theidea of a rock so big God cannot lift is logically impossible. There’s no such rock, and similarly there’sno such thing as libertarian free will. But if LFW is impossible, God does nothave LFW, as Plantinga points out (see Theism and Persons within Advice toChristian Philosophers (link)).But perhaps Steve is a uniwiller; holding it’s impossible for more than one libertarianfree will to exist. If so, he shouldpresent his argument and meanwhile here’s a decent Molinist account ofomnipotence by Flint and Freddoso (link).

Thy Will Be Done

2011-10-28T14:58:00.000-04:00

Martin Luther provides a devotional challenge applicable to Calviniststoday:

With reference to the elect we might distinguish betweenthree classes. First, there are thosewho are satisfied with God’s will, as it is, and do not murmur against God, butrather believe that they are elected. Theydo not want to be damned. Secondly,there are those who submit to God’s will and are satisfied with it in theirhearts. At least they desire to besatisfied, if God does not wish to save, but reject them. Thirdly, there are those who really are readyto be condemned if God should will this. These are cleansed most of all of their own will and carnal wisdom. (Martin Luther. Commentary on Romans. Kregel Publishing. 1976 p 132)

Would you be satisfied with God not electingyou? Should you be? One the one hand, I can see a certainselflessness in what Luther calling for. Whatever may happen to me, Thy will be Done! But being reprobate entails your being an unrepentantsinner and perishing for your sins. Godhates sin and has no pleasure in the death of the wicked. So there’s also a lawlessness to what Luthersuggests here. This tension stems forthe “two wills of God” and the practical reality of having to back one of God's wills at the expense of the other.

Arnobius of Sicca on Free Will

2011-09-15T13:06:00.000-04:00

Arnobius of Sicca (died c. 330)

64. But, my opponents ask, if Christ came as the Saviour of men, asyou say, why does He not, with uniform benevolence, free all without exception? I reply, does not He free all alike who invites all alike? or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the Supreme who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him,—to men of high rank, to the meanest slaves, to women, to boys? To all, He says, the fountain of life is open, and no one is hindered or kept back from drinking. If you are so fastidious as to spurn the kindlyoffered gift, nay, more, if your wisdom is so great that you term those things which are offered by Christ ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting you, while His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His bounty depend upon your own free choice? God, Plato says, does not cause any one to choose his lot in life; nor can another’s choice be rightly attributed to any one, since freedom of choice was put in His power who made it. Must you be even implored to deign to accept the gift of salvation from God; and must God’s gracious mercy be poured into your bosom while you reject it with disdain, and flee very far from it? Do you choose to take what is offered, and turn it to your own advantage? You will in that case have consulted your own interests. Do you reject with disdain, lightly esteem, and despise it? You will in this case have robbed yourself of the benefit of the gift. God compels no one, terrifies no one with overpowering fear. For our salvation is not necessary to Him, so that He would gain anything or suffer any loss, if He either made us divine, or allowed us to be annihilated and destroyed by corruption.

65. Nay, my opponent says, if God is powerful, merciful, willing to save us, let Him change our dispositions, and compel us to trust in His promises. This, then, is violence, not kindness nor the bounty of the Supreme God, but a childish and vainstrife in seeking to get the mastery. For what is so unjust as to force men who are reluctant and unwilling, to reverse their inclinations; to impress forcibly on their minds what they are unwilling to receive, and shrink from; to injure before benefiting, and to bring to another way of thinking and feeling, by taking away the former? You who wish yourself to be changed, and to suffer violence, that you may do and may be compelled to take to yourself that which you do not wish, why do you refuse of your own accord to select that which you wish to do, when changed and transformed? I am unwilling, He says, and have no wish. What, then, do you blame God as though He failed you? do you wish Him to bring you help, whose gifts and bounties you not only reject and shun, but term empty words, and assail with jocose witticisms? (link)

Paul's Article on God's decrees and Determinism

2011-08-10T17:09:00.000-04:00

Here's a link to Paul Manata's excellent article titled 'Free Will, Moral Responsibility, and Reformed Theology: A Contemporary Introduction'. (link) Paul's main point, that Calvinism is determinism, is spot on. Paul recognizes and answers the movement being generated by those denying Calvinism is deterministic. I also think the article serves as a highly useful interface into the literature on free will/determinism.

I do, of course, disagree with a number of points in the article, but they are fairly minor except in the arguments against libertarian free will section.

Response to Steve Ray on Salvation by Faith Alone

2011-07-13T11:33:00.001-04:00

Steve Ray recently pointed out that the bible attributes salvation to things other than faith. (link)

Salvation, taken narrowly, is a synonym for justification, but salvation also has a broad sense, including things like entrance into heaven itself. We are justified by faith alone, but that does not mean we are saved (in the broad sense) by faith alone. My ear alone hears, but if it’s torn from my head, it will no longer hear. Likewise, faith, when not accompanied with works, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and forgiving others, does not save. In this sense, things besides faith are conditions for salvation, but they do not receive God’s free gift of justification – only faith does.

One of the categories of items Steve mentioned deserves special attention – God’s grace, the cross, Christ’s blood and His righteousness. It’s wrong to oppose faith with God’s grace. Faith does not earn but rather receives God’s gifts.

Which is more likley?

2011-05-23T18:12:00.000-04:00

That Camping could know when Christ will return or that James White could know that if Camping seeks to rescue his reputation, he will end up in hell?

James White: "I fear if you seek to rescue your reputation, you will end your life under the wrath of God. Your unwillingness to listen to counsel has already caused great damage to the cause of Christ. You have one final chance for redemption, sir. Do not remain stiff-necked. Repent and turn from your ways." (link)

The Chruch Fathers on Penal Substitution

2011-05-23T11:48:00.000-04:00

I recently reviewed what the Church Fathers had to say on the atonement and was pleasantly surprised by what I learned. They often said things that support my understanding of the atonement - penal substitution.
Penal substitution is the idea that sin we broke God's law, His justice demanded that we be punished, and Christ satisfied God's justice by a substitutionary penalty. Sometimes this idea is fairly explicit in the Fathers. In particular, I found Eusebius' statement that in OT sacrifices, animals were slain in the place of men, prefiguring what Christ would do, as a very powerful affirmation of penal substitution. Clearly, the OT sacrifices were offered to God, not Satan, so if you view the sacrifices as penal substitutions, you are basically there. The other person that stood out to me was Theodore Abucara, who plainly taught penal substitution. While he was pre-reformation, he is probably too late to be considered a church father.
Beyond Eusebius and Abucara, the idea of penal substitution is in the Fathers, but it's in pieces; one father talking about Christ paying a penalty, another saying He satisfies the Father, another saying He took our place or was substituted. And that's perhaps why I often hear the Reformers took the best elements of the Fathers and assembled them in a systematic way. After all, the fathers didn’t write that many systematic theologies.

One final lesson I learned from the study; don't throw out a father because he taught the ransom theory or at times describes Christ's work as in medical terms rather than judicial terms. Abucara taught me that the ransom theory (Christ's rescuing us from Satan's power) is compatible with penal substitution. There are just two different views of the atonement - but they are not fundamentally at odds with each other. Similarly, the view that Christ healed our sickness due to sin is not mutually exclusive with the idea that He was a penal substitute.

But enough from me, let's hear from the church fathers!
Turrtullian (160-220): But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles
Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14

Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 265-c. 340)

But he alone having reached our deep corruption, he alone having taken upon himself our labors, he alone having suffered the punishments due for our impieties, having recovered us who were not half dead merely, but were already in tombs and sepulchers, and altogether foul and offensive, saves us, both anciently and now, by his beneficent zeal, beyond the expectation of any one, even of ourselves, and imparts liberally of the Father's benefits—he who is the giver of life and light, our great Physician and King and Lord, the Christ of God. Church History. Book X.

And how can He make our sins His own, and be said to bear our iniquities, except by our being regarded as His body, according to the apostle, who says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and severally members?" And by the rule that "if one member suffer all the members suffer with it," so when the many members suffer and sin, He too by the laws of (c) sympathy (since the Word of God was pleased to take the form of a slave and to be knit into the common tabernacle of us all) takes into Himself the labours of the suffering members, and makes our sicknesses His, and suffers all our woes and labours by the laws of love. And the Lamb of God not only did this, but was chastised on our behalf, (d) and suffered a penalty He did not owe, but which we owed because of the multitude of our sins; and so He became the cause of the forgiveness of our sins, because He received death for us, and transferred to Himself the scourging, the insults, and the dishonour, which were due to us, and drew down on Himself the apportioned curse, being made a curse for us. And what is that but the price of our souls? And so the oracle says in our person: "By his stripes we were healed," and "The Lord delivered him for our sins," with the result that uniting Himself to us and us to Himself, and appropriating our sufferings, He can say, "I said, Lord, have mercy on me, heal my soul, (468) for I have sinned against thee," Demonstratio Evangelica. Book X.

And this thought, I hold, was not due to accident, nor was its source in man, but it was divinely suggested. For when they saw since they were holy, brought nigh to God, and enlightened by the Divine Spirit in their souls that there was need of great stress on the cleansing of the sons of men, they thought that a ransom was due to the source of life and soul in return for their own salvation. And then as they had nothing better or more valuable than their own life to sacrifice, in place of it they brought a sacrifice through that of the unreasoning beasts, providing a life instead of their own life. They did not consider this was sinful or unrighteous. They had not been taught that the soul of the brutes was like man's, which has discourse of reason: they had only learned that it was the animal's blood, and that in the blood is the principle of life, which they offered themselves, sacrificing as it were to God one life instead of another.
Moses makes this abundantly clear, when he says:

"For the life of all flesh is the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your sins: for the blood shall make atonement for the soul. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood."

Note carefully in the above the words, "I gave to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for the blood shall make atonement for the soul."

He says clearly that the blood of the victims slain is a propitiation in the place of human life. And the law about sacrifices suggests that it should be so regarded, if it is carefully considered. For it requires him who is sacrificing always to lay his hands on the head of the victim, and to bear the animal to the priest held by its head, as one offering a sacrifice on behalf of himself. Thus he says in each case:

"He shall bring it before the Lord. And he shall lay his hands on the head of the gift."

Such is the ritual in every case, no sacrifice is ever brought up otherwise….
And any Jews, of course, who have taken refuge in Christ, even if they attend no longer to the ordinances of Moses, but live according to the new covenant, are free from the curse ordained by Moses, for the Lamb of God has surely not only taken on Himself the sin of the world, but also the curse involved in the breach of the commandments of Moses as well. The Lamb of God is made thus both sin and curse—sin for the sinners in the world, and curse for those remaining in all the things written in Moses' law. And so the Apostle says: "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us"; and "Him that knew no sin, for our sakes he made sin."For what is there that the Offering for the whole world could not effect, the Life given for the life of sinners, Who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a lamb to the sacrifice, and all this for us and on our behalf? …

He then that was alone of those who ever existed, the Word of God, before all worlds, and High Priest of every creature that has mind and reason, separated One of like passions with us, as a sheep or lamb from the human flock, branded on Him all our sins, and fastened on Hirn as well the curse that was adjudged by Moses' law, as Moses foretells: "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." This He suffered "being made a curse for us; and making himself sin for our sakes."And then "He made him sin for our sakes who knew no sin,"and laid on Him all the punishments due to us for our sins, bonds, insults, contumelies, scourging, and shameful blows, and the crowning trophy of the Cross. …

Demonstratio Evangelica. Book I .

Macarius of Jerusalem (Bishop of Jerusalem from 312 to shortly before 335): But he himself came as the Saviour of all, and in our name bore, in his own flesh, the punishment owed by us. (Acts of the Council of Nice. Book 2)

Athanasious (296-373)

And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father— doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord's body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers)

But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said , it was owing that all should die, for which special cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to show Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. On the Incarnation of the Word.

And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord's body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, “Bring to nought Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” On the Incarnation of the Word.

For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have become Galatians 3:13 a curse, unless He received the death set for a curse? And that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: Cursed Deuteronomy 21:23 is he that hangs on a tree. On the Incarnation of the Word

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270): and in the glorious advent of the Son of God, who of the Virgin Mary took flesh, and endured sufferings and death in our stead, and came to resurrection on the third day, and was taken up to heaven; and in His glorious appearing yet to come; and in one holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and life eternal. (A Sectional Confession of Faith, Section 17)

Victor of Antioch (303) He was made like us; he took upon himself our miseries and crosses that he might raise up our nature, fallen through sin, and finally restore it to its former grade of dignity. The advantages, therefore, which have flowed to us thorugh his sufferings are very many; for he himself paid our debts for us, himself bore our sins, himself for our sake both suffered and groaned. (On Mark xv Cited in J.A. Cramer, Catenae in evangelia Matthaei et Marci (Oxford. 1840))

Ambrose (337-397)
And so by his own blood he redemed those whom their own sins had sold. But Christ, sold by undertaking a condition, is not held by the price of a fault and sin, because he committed no sin. He therefore contracted the debt at our price, not by his own expenditure; he took away the handwriting, removed the userer, freed the debtor, alone paid that wihc was owed by all. (On the Patriarch Joseph, Ambrose. "De Joseph" PL 14.673–704 Chap. iv)

God so took flesh as to abolish the curse of sinful flesh, and was made a curse for us that blessing might absorb the curse, perfection the sin, pardon the sentance, life death. For he accepted death that the sentance might be fulfilled, and perfect satisfaction even unto death be made for him condemned through the curse of the flesh. Therefore nothing was done contrary to the sentence of God, since the condition of the divine sentence was fulfilled. For the curse extends even unto death, but after death is grace. (Concerning Esau, or concerning the Flight of the Age, Chap. vii Ambrose. Seven Exegetical Works. CUA Press, 1972 p. 314)

Augustine (354-430)
But how do the Pelagians say that only death passed upon us by Adam's means? For if we die because he died, but he died because be sinned, they say that the punishment passed without the guilt, and that innocent infants are punished with an unjust penalty by deriving death without the deserts of death. This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death— that is, the penalty of sin— without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Against two epistles of the Pelagians. Bk. iv.

The apostle boldly says of Christ, "He was made a curse for us;" for he could also venture to say, "He died for all." "He died," and "He was cursed," are the same. Death is the effect of the curse; and all sin is cursed, whether it means the action which merits punishment, or the punishment which follows. Christ, though guiltless, took our punishment, that He might cancel our guilt, and do away with our punishment. Against Faustus the Manicheaean, Bk. xiv

It is your fault that you are unjust; it is your punishment that you are mortal. That he might be your neighbor he undertook your punishment. He did not receive your sin. Or if he received it, he received it to destroy it, not to do it.... By receiving the punishment, and not receiving the sin, he has destroyed both sin and punishment. (Sermon in Luke, Sermon CLXXI III. PL XXXVII)

Proclus of Constantinople (d 446): The nature of man owed much in consequence of sins, and was in perplexity over the debt. For through Adam all had been accused of sin; the devil held us slaves; he made boast of having purchased us, employing for a proof our much suffering body. The evil falsifier of the passions stood pressing the debt upon us, and demanding justice from us. There was therefore need of one of two things, — either that death, arising from the condemnation, should be laid upon all, since also all sinned; or that such a payment should be made in recompense as to satisfy every righteous demand. A man, therefore, could not save us; for he lay under the debt of sin. An angel could not redeem humanity, for he did not know how to provide such a ransom. It remained, therefore, that the sinless God should die in behalf of those who had sinned. For this was the only deliverance from the evil left. What then? He that brought all nature from nothingness into being, who was not perplexed to find a way of delivery, found out for them that were condemned a most sure life, and release most becoming to death, and is made man of a virgin in such a manner as he himself knows, — for reason is not able to interpret the wonder, — and dies in what he became, and paid the ransom in what he was; as Paul says: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." Oh great work! he purchased immortality for others, for he was himself immortal. (Homily on the Nativity of Christ Proclus. C. Moss. Le Museon. 1929)

Gregory the Great (540-604)

But we must consider how He is righteous and ordereth all things righteously, if He condemns Him that deserveth not to be punished. For our Mediator deserved not to be punished for Himself, because He never was guilty of any defilement of sin. But if He had not Himself undertaken a death not due to Him, He would never have freed us from one that was justly due to us. And so whereas ‘The Father is righteous,’ in punishing a righteous man, ‘He ordereth all things righteously,’ in that by these means He justifies all things, viz. that for the sake of sinners He condemns Him Who is without sin; that all the Elect [electa omnia] might rise up to the height of righteousness, in proportion as He Who is above all underwent the penalties of our unrighteousness. Morals Book III

Theodore Abucara (d 770) God, in his just judgment, demanded of us all things that were written in the law, when we were not competent to pay them; for that reason our Lord paid them for us, and assumed the curse and condemnation to which we were exposed, and further took it upon himself. What things we ought to have suffered, he himself bore. — The same, in the same place: Now tell me, what those five enemies are from which Christ has liberated us.
A. Death; the devil; the curse of the law, and its condem- a nation; sin; and hell.

B. As far as pertain to death, you have said that this was destroyed by the obedience of Christ; so also you have told how it liberated us from servitude to the devil. Now tell us how he redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made a curse for us ? — After a little:

A. God in his just judgment demanded of us all those things that were written in the law, when we were not competent to pay them; for that reason Christ our Lord paid them for us, and assumed the curse and condemnation to which we were exposed, and further took it upon himself, and himself bore what things we ought to have suffered, having been scourged, spit upon, smitten, struck upon the ears, crucified, and put to death for us. (Bishop of the Carians. Discussion xv. Chap. v. (Dialogues (PG, XCVII, 1461-1609))

Theophylact of Ohrid (1050-1109) When he had spoken of the majesty of the Divine Word, then he discoursed of the care which he took for men through his flesh, which was of much greater importance than that he sustains all things. Moreover, he lays down here two things, both that he cleansed us from sins, and that he did this through himself. For by the cross and death which he sustained he purged us, not only- because he died for our sin, though he was himself free from all sin, and because he paid the penalty, which nevertheless he did not owe, for us, and freed that nature, which was condemned simply because of the sin and transgression of Adam, etc. — On Chap. ix.: Christ died for this purpose that he might cleanse us, and left to us in his testament pardon of our fault, and the use of our Father's goods, having been made a Mediator of our Father. For the Father was not willing to bestow upon us the inheritance, but was angry with us, as sons rejecting him, and estranged from him. Christ, so made Mediator, reconciled him to us. How? He himself bore for us that which we ought to have suffered (for we deserved to die), and made us worthy of his testament (On those words (Heb. i.) " When he had by himself purged our sins" Migne, CXXIII-CXXIV)

Anselm (1033-1109)
Does any one say, If they have not each the sin of Adam, how do you assert that none is saved without satisfaction for the sin of Adam? For how does a just God exact from them satisfaction for that which they have not? To which I say: God does not exact from any sinner more than he owes; but since none can pay as much as he owes, Christ alone paid more than is due for all that are saved. (On the Conception of the Virgin, and Original Sin, Chap, xxi. Why God Became Man, and the Virgin Conception and Original Sin. Magi Books, 1969))

Anselm. To remit sin in this manner is nothing else than not to punish; and since it is not right to cancel sin without compensation or punishment; if it be not punished, then is it passed by undischarged.

Boso. What you say is reasonable.
Anselm. It is not fitting for God to pass over anything in his kingdom undischarged.
Boso. If I wish to oppose this, I fear to sin.
Anselm. It is, therefore, not proper for God thus to pass over sin unpunished.
Boso. Thus it follows
Cur Deus Homo. Book I, Chapter XII

Bernard de Clairvaux (1090-1113) It was a man who owed, a man who paid. For if one, he says, died for all, then all died, viz. that the satisfaction of one may be imputed to all, just as he alone bore the sins of all; nor is there any one found to purchase, and another one to make satisfaction, because one Christ is head and body. The head, therefore, made satisfaction for the members, Christ for his own bowels. (Epistle cxc to Innocent:, Tractate on the Errors of Abelard. PL, CLXXXII, 1062b-1062c)

Nicolaus of Cusa (1401-1464) For our justification did Christ so do. For we, sinners, in him paid the penalties of hell, which we justly deserved. (Cardinal, Excitationes, Book 10 (In Opera Omnia. Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1983))

Susanna vs. Open Theism

2011-05-22T17:43:00.000-04:00

In one of the additions to the book of Daniel, Susanna makes a statement that I don't think would sit well with Open Theism.

Then Susanna cried out with a loud voice, and said: O eternal God, who knowest hidden things, who knowest all things before they come to pass, (Daniel 13:42)

It seems safe to say the OT Jews were not Open Theists.

What Makes the Catholic Church 'Catholic'?

2011-05-21T08:16:00.000-04:00

Is it her people, her leadership, her beliefs? The term catholic usually means universal, so one would think it's her 1 billion plus people spread throughout the world.

However, I recently pointed out that an overwhelming majority of Catholics use birth control. (link) Does this mean the Catholic Church is OK with birth control? Matthew Bellisario responded by pointing me to an earlier post he had written where he claimed all Christians up till the 1930's rejected birth control.

All Christians up until the 1930s interpreted this text as referring to Onan's punishment of death [Genesis 38 7:9] by his act of “coitus interruptus.” (link)

I responded by quoting Jovinianus' alternative explanation in the 4th century (link).

Matthew then made an interesting move; backing away from his claim of 'all Christians' to 'every Christian group'.

every Christian group before the 1930 interpreted this passage the way I am interpreting it. (link)

So what is a church group? Given that 1) the Catholic church group rejects birth control and 2) most Catholics use birth control, one might think a church group is not really about her people, but rather her leadership. Rome's leadership is so small a group compared to the whole Catholic church that they are statistically insignificant - and in this case they don't represent most Catholics.

Recently Matthew Bellisario added another wrinkle, by posted that Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are united in Christ due to their common belief of the real presence in the mass. (link) So there's a connection between the East and West that transcends leadership differences; since the East does not recognize the Pope as their leader. So if it's not her people or her leadership, what makes the Catholic church 'Catholic'?

I think Matthew's move here undermines a fundamental principle of Roman Catholicism - namely the epistemic priority of the Church over doctrine. Indeed, for a Catholic to know some doctrine is true, they must first know it's approved by the Church. In some cases knowing the Church teaches something is sufficient to know it's true, without further inquiry. This is of course contrary the the scriptural model of 'search the scriptures' or teach then baptize, but it's also at odds with Matthew's finding unity across Church boundaries, which seems to invite people to examine doctrine first, then look for the Church. How could Rome stand up doctrines such as the assumption of Mary based on the evidence rather than her authority?
Of course, the right answer here is that the catholic church is all those who are assembled to Christ by the call of the Gospel. (Hebrews 12:22-24) Other than that, the bible simply speaks of individual, local congregations as churches.

Review of the Father’s Know Best on the Pope

2011-05-10T12:31:00.000-04:00

Jimmy Akin’s book the Father’s Know Best provides hundreds of quotations from the Church Fathers on various topics allegedly showing the link between the early church and modern Roman Catholicism. Of greatest interest to me were the 143 quotations from the Fathers in support of the Papacy. Reading the book gave me an opportunity to learn more about the Fathers.

Below is a matrix of the results of my review. However, given my review I will risk providing some overall conclusions.

I didn’t find anything in the Fathers that explicitly taught Papal infallibly or got into ex cathedra vs. non-ex cathedra statements by Popes. So right off the bat I would say the Fathers were not Roman Catholic. However, that doesn’t mean they were Southern Baptists either. Many times they were somewhere in-between. As such, I categorized each quotation from the Fathers Know Best on the Papacy in degrees of agreement. My categories were:

1. No objection
2. No biggie
3. Don’t like the wording, but OK
4. I disagree
5. I strongly disagree
6. Roman Catholic

Please note, I never had to use category six but out of the 143 quotes I disagreed nine times and strongly disagreed another nine times. Wherever I didn’t like the wording or disagreed, I looked for the quotes online and read them in their broader contexts.

Two areas of disagreements with the Fathers stood out. First, Leo, around 450, was acting like the boss of the church. That doesn’t mean he thought he was infallible, but he certainly wasn’t a Congregationalist or Presbyterian. Second, in 251 Cyprian of Carthage’s Treaties on the Unity of the Church says the Chair of Peter is the intrinsic reason for unity in the Church. Interestingly there are two versions of the treaties - one of which is fine. Since there’s nothing before Cyprian that I disagree with and nothing after until about 312, Cyprian becomes fairly important. Time permitting, I would like to dig into that work by Cyprian further.

Before getting into the review, I must qualify the ongoing by saying I am only reviewing arguments that the Father’s supported the Papacy. So this review is consciously one sided and can present an unbalanced picture. To get a broader picture one would have to look at arguments from the Fathers against the Papacy – but I will leave that for another day. Here’s the analysis. (link)

More Evidence that Rome, not Sola Scriptura Causes Division

2011-05-10T11:14:00.000-04:00

http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2011/05/luther-calvin-hitler-stalin-and-mao.html

To give credit to Matthew, he is just following Trent the way the Church tells him he should. He's being consistent - while many Catholics downplay Trent in an attempt to be more ecumenical.

Hitting Rome Below the Belt

2011-05-06T11:45:00.000-04:00

It appears most Catholics ingnor Rome's extra-biblical requirements on birth control. (link)