tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post5187815811167758157..comments2024-03-21T10:33:24.876-07:00Comments on Articuli Fidei: Development, Justification/Soteriology and the Early Church FathersDavid Waltzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-3382968356712332892008-10-01T09:31:00.000-07:002008-10-01T09:31:00.000-07:00Hello Interlocuter,Before I begin commenting on yo...Hello Interlocuter,<BR/><BR/>Before I begin commenting on your last post, I want to make sure that I ask for Heckel’s blog address before I forget—I sure would like to take a gander at it…<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>>>would you agree with iohannes that "neither the Tridentine nor the Reformed view on justification has unambiguous support from Christian theology prior to the Reformation" and that the EO, RC, Reformed, Lutheran views (I distinguish R/L in the same way as RC/EO - similar but definitely enough differences/nuances to warrant distinction) could be considered logical/plausible derivations/consequences from seeds in history?>><BR/><BR/>My ‘comfort zone’ concerning dogmatic development from primary sources pretty much ends with the close of the 5th century, and starts up again with the 16th. My knowledge of development between the two relies pretty much on secondary sources (with the notable exception of Thomas Aquinas). So, I just don’t feel qualified at this point in my studies to take a definitive stance on the questions you raised. <BR/><BR/>If either you, or John (or anyone else reading this post) are aware of some individuals who are truly up to the task, perhaps with some encouragement we could get them to comment on your questions.<BR/><BR/>Wish I could be of more help…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-51049590561094863262008-09-30T13:32:00.000-07:002008-09-30T13:32:00.000-07:00Cool, David. Yes, I did not mean to really focus ...Cool, David. Yes, I did not mean to really focus on Augustine (though I will still read that thread) - I remember you had that post with Heckel's essay a while back that argued Augustine's theology simply cannot accommodate sola fide and he makes a strong case (btw just discovered heckel has a (infrequently updated) blog). But since Augustine obviously had a dominant influence on western development, his thought is key but he wasn't the only one who wrote on soteriology and grace of course. And one must also consider the wide variety of views of soteriology before Trent that McGrath alludes to, some of which were not faithful to Augustine and approached semi-pelagianism (I believe McGrath attributes this partly to the canons of orange being lost for a great period of time) - there doesn't seem to be a gradual upward curve from augustine/carthage/orange to Trent, but rather an erratic movement with peaks and valleys. <BR/><BR/>I have not yet read the huge development threads from last month, so apologies if this may have been covered there, but leaving aside paradigms/frameworks and just examining the development of soteriology/justification just as the history of an idea like any non-theological idea, would you agree with iohannes that "neither the Tridentine nor the Reformed view on justification has unambiguous support from Christian theology prior to the Reformation" and that the EO, RC, Reformed, Lutheran views (I distinguish R/L in the same way as RC/EO - similar but definitely enough differences/nuances to warrant distinction) could be considered logical/plausible derivations/consequences from seeds in history?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-55911233690160150452008-09-30T12:20:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:20:00.000-07:00Hey John,Thanks much for getting back to me so qui...Hey John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks much for getting back to me so quickly, and thanks for the Contarini link. (BTW, A.N.S. Lane has some good material on Contarini in his <I>Justification By Faith</I>, and mentions a book I really need to get a hold of, <I>Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg</I>, by P. Matheson.)<BR/><BR/>As for Calvin and 2 Peter 1:4, I cite the latter portion of the quote you provided in a book I have been working on (off and on for about 5 years now, more off than on [grin]). <BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-57492123136691755032008-09-30T12:00:00.000-07:002008-09-30T12:00:00.000-07:00Hello again Interlocutor,Just thought of an older ...Hello again Interlocutor,<BR/><BR/>Just thought of an older <A HREF="http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3010" REL="nofollow">THREAD</A> I started back in 03/30/07 in which I discuss some aspects of justification in the thought of Augustine—think you might find it somewhat interesting…<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-8720839837303699882008-09-30T11:41:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:41:00.000-07:00Hi Interlocutor,Thanks for your further reflection...Hi Interlocutor,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your further reflections. I cannot help but think, once again, that the “key” to the issue of which paradigm is the ‘true’ one, is directly tied to ones theory of DD—get DD ‘right’, and you will identify the correct paradigm.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>>Kind of an aside, I wonder if Jerome's mistranslations (such as "do penance") had a substantial impact on the development in the west?>><BR/><BR/><BR/>I found Gerald Hiestand’s blog post, <A HREF="http://iustificare.blogspot.com/2007/03/meaning-of-dikaioo.html" REL="nofollow">THE MEANING OF DIKAIOO</A>, quite informative; here is a portion from his article:<BR/><BR/>“Further, McGrath is incorrect in his contention that Augustine’s dependency on Latin—and thus the ontologically ladened Latin expression <I>iustificare</I> as a translation of the Greek <I>dikaioo</I>—caused Augustine to mistakenly read a transformative sense into Paul’s doctrine of justification that wasn’t originally present in the Greek (see <I>Iustitia Dei</I>, 12-16). But Augustine’s <I>iustificare</I> had a semantic range that allowed for a strictly declarative sense (see <I>On the Spirit and the Letter</I>, ch. 45). Augustine interpreted <I>iustificare</I> in a transformative sense because this was how he understood the term to be used in Scripture, and because this is how most of the early church fathers before him understood Paul’s doctrine of justification. Augustine had the tools to interpret <I>iustificare</I> in a declarative sense, and even did so on some occasions. But he chose not to do so in relation to the bulk of Paul’s letters.”<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-47273478373550512612008-09-30T11:08:00.000-07:002008-09-30T11:08:00.000-07:00Hello John,Sincerely appreciate your insightful po...Hello John,<BR/><BR/>Sincerely appreciate your insightful post. As for the length, IMHO it certainly was not verbose; I found the content to be well worded, and cogent.<BR/><BR/>I think you were spot-on in identifying the core issue between Catholics and the magisterial Reformers (concerning justification) by writing:<BR/><BR/>>>Calvin and other Reformers disagreed and argued that although there is indeed an infused righteousness, it is separate from justification.>><BR/><BR/>For Catholics (and the EO) the interior renewal and union with Christ (deification) truly makes us righteous; this, and the forgiveness of ALL sin/s, allows us to stand in God’s ‘court’ no longer as condemned sinners, but rather, as redeemed, adopted Sons of God. Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteous by infusion, rather than via mere imputation. Are the two principals diametrically opposed? Can the two be somehow reconciled? Unfortunately, I feel that the answer/s to these questions is beyond the scope of my expertise, though the colloquies of Regensburg do come to mind…<BR/><BR/>If you have the time, and desire, I would be interested in any further thoughts you may have on this matter.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-83982238349431616432008-09-29T11:23:00.000-07:002008-09-29T11:23:00.000-07:00Hi David,"the same can be said of all the dogmatic...Hi David,<BR/>"the same can be said of all the dogmatic formulations of the previous Ecumenical Councils, and hence, THE dilemma for those who accept some of those previous formulations, but then reject the subsequent ones."<BR/><BR/>Right, but when you consider things from the patristic angle, wouldn't you think that many of the RC theologians approaching (or even embracing) sola fide up to Trent were probably decently versed in the fathers as well? And yet they didn't think the ecf's statements completely precluded their view on the matter? As you've said before, pre-Nicene theology was close to, if not pretty much completely, subordinationist, so if Nicea had adopted a subordinationist perspective, if one is using patristic witness as a guidepost in development, that certainly seems like it could have been valid. The EO view of justification does not match the RC view, and the EO certainly could make a strong case from the fathers I think you would agree. <BR/><BR/>You may think Chemnitz and other Reformers unfairly used the ecfs in support of their view of justication, but the counterclaim would be they are merely trying to find *traces* of sola fide, and that there's a difference between explicitly denying a doctrine versus being open to correction or being inconsistent/holding varying views on it (which is I believe David King's perspective as I posted before). I guess if you're viewing development from purely a historical perspective, then I don't see it's the case that sola fide is easily and necessarily ruled out. But if you tie development to theological paradigms, then it becomes a different question.<BR/><BR/>Kind of an aside, I wonder if Jerome's mistranslations (such as "do penance") had a substantial impact on the development in the west?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-47105332308732999772008-09-29T10:33:00.000-07:002008-09-29T10:33:00.000-07:00In ending, perhaps all of us need to ask: Which th...<I>In ending, perhaps all of us need to ask: Which theory of DD will best aid Christ’s followers in achieving that lofty goal that He emphasized in His prayer to the Father, “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:21 – NAS).</I><BR/><BR/>FWIW, I completely agree with this suggestion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-86204929678590225522008-09-29T10:14:00.000-07:002008-09-29T10:14:00.000-07:00I tend to think justification is a second order do...I tend to think justification is a second order doctrine. It is not unimportant; indeed, it lies very much near the center of the gospel, but it is not itself the center, which is prior to it--union with Christ. Incorporation into the body of Christ is what brings us all the benefits of redemption, one of which (some might say the preeminent) is justification.<BR/><BR/>The key issue that put Calvin and Hooker on one side, and Trent on the other, is often poorly understood today. As (now retired episcopal bishop of SC) FitzSimons Allison has shown, this issue was the specific question of the formal cause of justification. Most everyone at the time of the Reformation agreed that one of the benefits of redemption is infused righteousness and internal renewal. What divided Rome and Protestants was how to relate this to justification. Rome at Trent (after coming very close to a compromise at Ratisbon where one of its representative was Contarini who took a view on justification remarkably close to Calvin's) made infused righteousness the sole formal ground of justification, which was in effect to put forward the idea that the believer's own Christ-imparted righteousness is in the strict (condign) sense what merits his salvation. Calvin and other Reformers disagreed and argued that although there is indeed an infused righteousness, it is separate from justification. Justification, they said, is based simply on the fact that, being incorporated into Christ by faith, the believer is one with Christ in so real and intimate a sense that what is Christ's is in truth also his own--the believer thus shares in Christ's life and obedience, culminating in the Savior's death on the cross, and then the triumphant vindication of his resurrection.<BR/><BR/>I sometimes wonder whether imputation draws the reactions it does today because of its prodigious Latinity. It's not a word we use in every day speech. But in the scheme above, imputation means simply that because we are in Christ in a real sense (and not just as a legal fiction), what is Christ's is justly also reckoned as ours, including Christ's perfect righteousness. The Lord is our righteousness in the fullest sense. And that we draw this one particular benefit from union with Christ, namely that our forgiveness and acceptance with God is founded solely on Christ's righteousness (which is in an important sense external to us but still really ours), does not exclude the fact that we receive other benefits from Christ, including the infusion of the principle of new life in our souls and growth in grace through the work of Spirit, especially by the regular and ordinary means of the word, the sacraments, and prayer. These two benefits go hand in hand; as Calvin said, Christ is like the Sun, which radiates both light and heat--two benefits that though distinguishable in our experience are yet always joined together.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, I don't mean to say a lot here, and have probably written too much already (Dr. L. has already called me out for being too lengthy). The main point I would make is that there are different ways of presenting the Reformers' understanding of justification. If we present it in a way like the above, we can see more easily how what the Reformers taught fits in with the pre-Reformation tradition. I would venture to say that neither the Tridentine nor the Reformed view on justification has unambiguous support from Christian theology prior to the Reformation. The question simply hadn't come up yet; which is perfectly reasonable, if justification is a kind of second order doctrine.<BR/><BR/>As a parting thought, I'd recommend a comment Dr Witt has made before:<BR/><BR/><I>Was the Reformers’ understanding of justification a novelty? Yes, in the sense that it was a genuine development, in the same way as Athanasius’ introduction of homoousios was a genuine development. The pre-Nicene fathers had tended to be subordinationist. Athanasius showed that subordinationism was incompatible with affirming the true deity of Christ. After Athanasius’ insight, it was really impossible to embrace subordinationism without compromising the deity of Christ. Similarly, once Luther arrived at his insight into the meaning of Paul’s use of forensic justification language, it was really impossible any longer to continue to conflate Christ’s alien righteousness with my own (albeit infused) righteousness.</I><BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>JohnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-37586390204637707432008-09-29T09:56:00.000-07:002008-09-29T09:56:00.000-07:00Hi Interlocutor,So good to see you back at AF. You...Hi Interlocutor,<BR/><BR/>So good to see you back at <I>AF</I>. Your post certainly brings to the fore some important issues, least of which is:<BR/><BR/>>>… if all these theories were floating around, and sola fide was actually being considered as an option by Trent's representatives, it's not just obvious that the Trent formulation is the only logical valid development.>><BR/><BR/>Me: This is true, but the same can be said of all the dogmatic formulations of the previous Ecumenical Councils, and hence, THE dilemma for those who accept some of those previous formulations, but then reject the subsequent ones.<BR/><BR/>[BTW, as for <I>sola fide</I>, many Catholic theologians affirm the concept when properly nuanced—e.g. Thomas Aquinas, Karl Rahner, signers of the <A HREF="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-annex_en.html" REL="nofollow">ANNEX</A> to the <I>JD</I>.]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-3588392776695847332008-09-29T09:38:00.000-07:002008-09-29T09:38:00.000-07:00Hello Mike (Dr. Liccione, I presume [grin]),What a...Hello Mike (Dr. Liccione, I presume [grin]),<BR/><BR/>What a pleasant surprise to see you show up here at <I>AF</I>; sincerely hope to ‘see’ more of your presence in the future…<BR/><BR/>You posted:<BR/><BR/>>>The key difference between Luther's DD on justification and the Catholc Church's DD in general is that Luther consciously substituted his own hermeneutic— fashioned in terms of his "canon with the canon" based on Romans and Galatians—for the Church's in order to get his results.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Two points on this: first, I have read more than one author who comments that Catholic theologians have a tendency to give priority to the Gospels, while Protestants to Paul’s epistles; second, the notion of a ‘canon within the canon’ sure seems to be a principal that pretty much all exegetes/theologians are forced to adopt to one degree or another as soon as one attempts to create a ‘systematic’ theology (non-Lutherans tend to term the principal as ‘scripture interprets scripture’, which, of course, means that the so-called ‘clear’ passages interpret the not so ‘clear’ ones).<BR/><BR/>>>That entailed negation of what the Great Tradition had attained in both East and West. Authentic development can never entail negation of what has been previously taught with the Church's full authority.>><BR/><BR/>Me: Interlocutor in his response argues that prior to Trent, there was no “definitive magisterial pronouncement” concerning the “astonishingly broad spectrum of theologies of justification”. Though I personally would not use the phrase, “astonishingly broad” to describe the theological landscape of the “later medieval period”, concerning the doctrine of justification, there certainly existed some clear diversity. But, this is to be expected, given the fact that theological diversity precedes pretty much all conciliar decrees. So the real question that needs to be asked is: <B>Did Trent get it right?</B> And with you, I too, “have become convinced that DD is <I>the</I> issue separating traditional Christians from each other on the question of the nature of orthodoxy.” (<A HREF="http://perennis.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/development-of-doctrine-its-that-time-again/" REL="nofollow">SOURCE</A>.) <BR/><BR/>In ending, perhaps all of us need to ask: Which theory of DD will best aid Christ’s followers in achieving that lofty goal that He emphasized in His prayer to the Father, “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, <I>art</I> in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me” (John 17:21 – NAS).<BR/><BR/><BR/>Grace and peace,<BR/><BR/>DavidDavid Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-49744495495322192202008-09-28T21:01:00.000-07:002008-09-28T21:01:00.000-07:00Important to remember that the doctrine of justifi...Important to remember that the doctrine of justification was not clearly defined leading up to Trent, as McGrath notes in The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation:<BR/><BR/>"…an astonishingly broad spectrum of theologies of justification existed in the later medieval period, encompassing practically every option that had not been specifically condemned as heretical by the Council of Carthage. In the absence of any definitive magisterial pronouncement concerning which of these options (or even what range of options) could be considered authentically catholic, it was left to each theologian to reach his own decision on this matter. A self perpetuating doctrinal pluralism was thus an inevitability. The point is of importance for a number of reasons. First it can be shown that Luther’s theological breakthrough involved his abandoning one specific option within the broad spectrum of theologies of justification, and embracing another within that spectrum. In other words, Luther’s initial position of 1513-1514, and his subsequent position (probably arrived at in 1515), were both recognized contemporary theological opinions, regarded as legitimate by the doctrinal standards of the time."<BR/><BR/>And during session 6 of Trent where justification was discussed, bishops themselves were quite at odds with each other, some adopting a very close concept of sola fide, although the Jesuit contingent won the day. So if all these theories were floating around, and sola fide was actually being considered as an option by Trent's representatives, it's not just obvious that the Trent formulation is the only logical valid development.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3771009444113723863.post-33125210534959387642008-09-28T17:51:00.000-07:002008-09-28T17:51:00.000-07:00David:Thanks for the blurb and the thoughts.The ke...David:<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the blurb and the thoughts.<BR/><BR/>The key difference between Luther's DD on justification and the Catholc Church's DD in general is that Luther consciously substituted his own hermeneutic— fashioned in terms of his "canon with the canon" based on <I>Romans</I> and <I>Galatians</I>—for the Church's in order to get his results. That entailed negation of what the Great Tradition had attained in both East and West. Authentic development can never entail negation of what has been previously taught with the Church's full authority.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/>MikeMike Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09060404905348849140noreply@blogger.com