Monday, April 23, 2012

NEWLY PUBLISHED: Justification by Faith Alone Debate

This morning, while browsing the web for activity that transpired over the weekend, I came across a full debate concerning the doctrine of justification by faith alone that was published online April 20th, 2012. The debate is between two bloggers that I follow: Nick who owns Nick's Catholic Blog; and Drake Shelton, owner of Eternal Propositions/Uncreated Light and the website, The King's Parlor.

So far, I have only scanned the contents—with that said, it looks quite promising—but plan to read the entire debate after I publish this post.

 Links to the debate:




Looking forward to some charitable dialogue, and reflections, very soon...



Grace and peace,

David


P.S. I wanted to mention that one the books cited by Drake in his opening statement was previously unknown to me; but after a little online research, was able to obtain a full copy of it: The Covenant of Life - Samuel Rutheford



Addendum: Drake has provided a link to all of his contributions of the debate, including a 3rd rebuttal, and a response to Nick's "5 questions", HERE.

11 comments:

Drake Shelton said...

Nick still has not given me an answer to my five questions.

David Waltz said...

Hi Drake,

Interesting debate...

In addition to no response to your 5 questions, I have not seen any comment/s concerning the fact the Thomas Aquinas held to a tripartite view of the Mosiac Law.


Grace and peace,

David

Drake Shelton said...

Yeah. Actually Nick just posted his answers. Check his blog.

Nick said...

The debate is finished.

Drake Shelton said...

David, I read in one of your posts that you thought John 20:28 was saying that Jesus is the visible representative of God on earth. Is that right? If so could you refer me to something I could about that?

Drake Shelton said...

"I could about that?"

I could READ about that. Sorry

David Waltz said...

Hi Drake,

You posted:

==David, I read in one of your posts that you thought John 20:28 was saying that Jesus is the visible representative of God on earth. Is that right? If so could you refer me to something I could [READ] about that?==

IMHO, the notion that Jesus "is the visible representative of God (the Father) on earth" is a key component of the theology found in John's inspired writings. For instance, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him"; "Not that any man has seen the Father".

The early Church Fathers seemed understand this teaching by placing emphasis on the Father's unbegotteness and absolute invisibility. John Henry Newman, citing the Catholic patristic scholar/theologian Lous Thomassin, in the essay I shared a few thoughts on in the 5 propositions thread, penned:

"This," he says, "first of all must be laid down, that it belongs to the Father to be without birth, but to the Son to be born. Now innascibility is a principle of concealment, but birth of exhibition. The former withdraws from sight, the latter comes forth into open day ; the one retires into itself, lives to itself, and has no outward start ; the other flows forth and extends itself, and is diffused far and wide. It corresponds then to the idea of the Father, as being ingenerate, to be self-collected, remote, unapproachable, invisible, and in consequence to be utterly alien to an incarnation. But to the Son, considered as once for all born, and ever coming to the birth, and starting into view, it especially belongs to display Himself..."

"Wherefore, since the Majesty and Goodness of God, in the very bosom of His Nature, look different ways, and by the one He retires into Himself, and by the other He pours Himself out, it is by the different properties of the Divine Persons that this contrariety is solved, and the ingenerate Father secures the majesty and invisibility of the Godhead in its secret place; while the Son, who issues thence, manifests Its goodness and sheds abroad Its beneficence. And hence, further, as might be proved from Irenaeus and other Fathers, not to speak of the Platonists, the Father is the Son's incomprehensibility and invisibility, and the Son is the Father's comprehensibility and visibility..." ("The Causes of the Rise and Success of Arianism", pp. 180, 181).


Hope I have been of some assistance...


Grace and peace,

David

Drake Shelton said...

Thanks David. been reading your posts on Nicene 325 vs. Constantinople 381. Great stuff. You have a patience with people I don't have. I wish I had your charity.

David Waltz said...

==Thanks David. been reading your posts on Nicene 325 vs. Constantinople 381. Great stuff.==

And thank you Drake. It is good to know that my efforts are appreciated.

It remains of interest to me (and a mystery) why the Council of Ephesus in 431 only cites the 325 creed, while the Council of Chalcedon in 451 cites the 381 creed...


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

Hello David,

The way I understand it, Ephesus being the 3rd Council was a lot more formal than the 2nd Council, which was less well attended and somewhat in a dubious status as to whether it was really ecumenical. In the eyes of Ephesus, Cyril the leader (speaking as the Pope's delegate) didn't seem to recognize 1st Constantinople as Ecumenical Council. That's why at Ephesus Saint Cyril and the Fathers made an anathema against tampering with Nicaea's Creed, not 1st Constantinople's.

That's why it's somewhat ironic that people point to Ephesus to condemn modifying the Creed (e.g. Filioque) when Ephesus was speaking of Nicaea only, and thus too rigid of an application of the Anathema would mean 1st Constantinople tampered with the Creed.

By the 4th Council (Chalcedon), it seems 1st Constantinople had been affirmed as Ecumenical, but even then I'm not fully sure.

David Waltz said...

Hi Nick,

You wrote:

== In the eyes of Ephesus, Cyril the leader (speaking as the Pope's delegate) didn't seem to recognize 1st Constantinople as Ecumenical Council. That's why at Ephesus Saint Cyril and the Fathers made an anathema against tampering with Nicaea's Creed, not 1st Constantinople's.==

The famous Catholic scholar, Dr. Charles Joseph Hefele, in the 2nd volume of his monumental 5 volume work, A History of the Creeds writes extensively on this council (1st Constantinople - pp. 340-374 ). He points out that the creed of the council was accepted by the "Latins", particularly by Pope Dasmasus, but that, "as late as the year 600, only the creed, but not the canons of the Synod of Constantinople were accepted at Rome" (p. 371).

As for the "anathema against tampering with Nicaea's Creed", the following is from the 1st paragraph of canon VII from the ecumenical council of Ephesus (431):

"When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa."


Grace and peace,

David