Problems with Faith Alone Theology and the Double Imputation Theory.

[Light of the East]

1) • He would have to confirm the original text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith and defend its use in all the churches, beginning with his own. At the very least (should some churches for pastoral reasons be permitted to keep the filioque in their creed), he would insist on an explanation that would clearly teach that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Son” only in relation to God’s saving dispensation in the world. He would make certain that no Christian be tempted to believe that the Holy Spirit essentially proceeds from the Father and the Son together, and certainly not “from both as from one (ab utroque sicut ab uno.) (* In other words, the filioque clause gets dropped and the Creed returns to its original wording).

Not to be trite, but this is really semantic nitpicking. We know from scripture that the Holy Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son. That's what the Creed says. The addition of "and the son" in no way changes doctrine, it just modifies the creed to bring it more in line with what the bible says. The original Creed wasn't wrong, just incomplete in this regard.

Does this really bother you, or are you just including it because it is in the article?

It wasn't in the original Creed, was it? Now who gave the Roman Church the right and authority to change the canons of an ecummenical council, which is the mind of the Church, which the Bible says is "the pillar and ground of truth." Because this is not the original Creed, yes, it is problematic for me. I am not a scholar on this, but I have read some very good dissertations on A.) why this is a serious problem and B.) how your position regarding the scriptural idea of the Holy Spirit's double procession is wrong. It has to do with the spiration of the Spirit versus the giving of the Spirit by Christ in His salvific work. In the sense of the eternal existence of the Son and the Spirit, the Spirit originates only from the Father.

John 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

This is not talking about the origination of the Spirit (which I think is referred to as the "spiration" of the Spirit)> It is referring to the work of salvation in the world. Big difference.

John 15:26
When the Advocate comes, whom I will send you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--He will testify about Me.

Same as above. This is not the spiration.

John 16:7
But I tell you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

Again, same thing. And the filioque creates serious theological problems. If it did not, then the Orthodox would not object to it.

 

[Light of the East]

I have no idea what this first one means. I don't understand it enough to comment.

As to the second, I just disagree. I think the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception makes sense. The vessel that bore Christ was pure by God's design. Because we all are tainted by original sin, Mary's conception and birth could only be purified by the merits of Christ. Why would the pope need to make it clear that Mary died? We don't know if she did or not, but we do know that her body was taken to heaven. What difference does it make if there is no clear evidence to make this claim?

The first one goes back to the ages old argument between hesychasm and scholasticism, of knowing God in silence vs knowing Him through the intellect. St. Gregory Palamas vs Barlaam of Calabria.

The problem with the Immaculate Conception (and I am still learning about this) is that it puts Mary in a different class anthropologically, which causes all kinds of salvific and anthropologic problems. The idea of "original sin" is not found in the Early Fathers. It was something that Augustine came up with, and I believe it was one of the things that the Orthodox Fathers of Constantinople vehemently disagreed with when Augustine's writings reached Constantinople. But by that time, Augustine's theological musings had taken deep root in the West, to be later built upon by St. Anselm of Canterbury and also used by the Reformers to thoroughly deform the Gospel.

One of the reasons that we, in the Orthodox East, give such honor to the Theotokos is that She, being like us, is a model of how humanity can achieve perfection on earth ("Be ye perfect, as the Father is perfect" - Jesus). Being full of grace, She used that grace in total dedication to God, which is what we are all called to.

Another concern raised by the IC is that if God could do that for Her, thus protecting Her from all taint of sin (based on Christ's sacrifice of the Cross as being applied to Her at the instant of Her conception and thus rendering Her spotless and sinless) then why not to all who would be born?

Those are two concerns I have seen the Orthodox raise.

And, of course, the IC was not approved by an ecummenical council, so is it really the voice of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth?

 

[Light of the East]

The Catholic Church does not teach penal substitution. That is a protestant teaching.

Here's a good article on the subject:

Why Penal Substitution Doesn’t Work

The Catholic View

The Catholic view of atonement is called the Satisfaction view. Instead of taking our punishment on Himself, Christ offered up something else that God would accept instead: Himself, a holy, perfect, blameless sacrifice, freely offered for all sinners. This offering was worth so much more than our punishment, and in offering this sacrifice, Christ appeased God’s wrath.

Unlike penal substitution, satisfaction is certainly found in Scripture. One of the most obvious accounts comes from the incident of the golden calf at Mount Sinai (Exodus 32 / Deuteronomy 9:15-21). While Moses is with God on Mount Sinai, Aaron and the Israelites make a golden calf to worship. God sees this and is angry, intending to destroy them. Moses asks the Lord to have mercy, and goes down the mountain. After dealing with the situation, Moses says to the people, “You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going up to the LORD, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin” (Ex 32:30). Later, he says, “I fell down before the LORD, as at the first, forty days and nights; I neither ate bread nor drank water, because of all your sin which you had committed in doing what was evil in the sight of the LORD to provoke Him to anger” (Deut 9:18). Moses tried to make atonement, and was successful. Many died, but God did not destroy the nation of Israel.

There are other examples of this satisfaction, such as Phinehas (Psalm 106:29-30 / Numbers 25:1-13). Israel began to worship the false god Baal, again stirring the Lord’s wrath against Israel. Phinehas, in his zeal, killed an Israelite and his Midianite wife, and thereby “turned back” God’s wrath (Numbers 25:11). Though all Israel sinned, Israel was not destroyed. Like Phinehas and Moses, Jesus offered up something else to God so that we wouldn’t be punished. He offered Himself.

Also unlike penal substitution, satisfaction and forgiveness are compatible. Something that wasn’t owed to God was given so that what was owed would not be demanded (compared to penal substitution saying that something that was owed to God was given by someone else). Thus, God’s justice is satisfied, but forgiveness still occurs.


Why Penal Substitution Doesn’t Work

That is interesting. I have not heard of the Satisfaction View. What I have heard (and perhaps heard wrongly) is that the Catholic Church adheres to Penal Substitution.

Obviously it is time for me to hit the books and do some more study of this issue.

Thank you for posting that.

 

[Light of the East]

So you want the Church to stop being Catholic and the OC puts nothing on the table? The OC left the CC, not the other way around.

Of course (and I say this with a combination of both sorrow at the even and some amusement at how both sides view it) the OC say that the RC left the unity. And in the article I linked, Fr. Hopko did say that the Orthodox would have work to do also. He was just addressing what he felt the Roman Church would have to bring to the table. The Orthodox do not get off scot-free!

What makes you think he doesn't do this?

Where have you ever heard in your Church any description of the "uncreated energies" of God. That is simply not a Western understanding. It goes back to the age old argument between Gregory Palamas and Barlaam of Calabria.

What problems? Can the OC at least bend a little and say the IC was fitting?

Not if it causes anthropological and soteriological problems. I'm still investigating this issue and have a lot of work to do in general, but what I have heard from the Orthodox side makes a great deal of sense.

And it wasn't approved by an ecummenical council.

Then don't, but what the OC doesn't accept is the authority to bind and loose.

If I have understood correctly, the Orthodox consider this authority given to all the apostle's successors.

All this is found in the Catechism. Neither the Church nor Augustine taught penal substitution.

As I mentioned in another post to forum member Thursday, I am now going to have to do my due diligence in this matter. Study is required.

That is anti-papal myth. The pope has the authority to make decisions on minor disciplinary issues, but infallible declarations involve unity with the world's bishops. He is always in consultation.

I think that is exactly the problem the Orthodox see with the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.

Catholics have always had the right to raise questions, or the Church would not grow. We don't have the right to rebel.

Agreed. Which is why I am taking my time examining this issue and Orthodoxy in general. Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft - and odious in the sight of the Lord.

There are a number of ecumenical documents Fr. Hopko has not read, that aims for these very things. Ut Unam Sint for starters.

Could be. I did not know the man personally.

How did the Apostles immerse 3000 people in the middle of Jerusalem that had no large body of water? Did they rent swimming pools from the Romans?

All I can tell you is what I read of the Early Fathers and their instructions regarding baptism, that it was to be done in "running waters" if possible, which suggests immersion. Immersion is a proper picture and symbol of the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. I think it more fitting than sprinkling or pouring for that reason.

Conclusion: Fr. Hopko is not a reliable source for Catholicism. The most reliable source for the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church.

Fair dinkum, and that is what I tell Protestants all the time when discussing/debating with them. However, given who Fr. Hopko was and his level of intellect, I have a feeling he may have known more than we realize.

 

[kepha31]

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to “faith working by charity.” In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or “faith formed by charity.” The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or “faith unformed by charity.” This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term “faith” is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word “formed” to clarify the nature of the faith in “sola fide” renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Given the different usages of the term “faith” in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “faith formed by charity” than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean “intellectual belief.” In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of “the faith,” meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad “faith” is taken to mean “formed faith” then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term “faith” in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith, hope, and charity.” This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are “saved by faith alone” if the term “faith” is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

 

[Daniel_]

This is very true, but the difference between an earthly parent and our Father is that the consequences a rebellious child brings upon him/herself in this life have a chance to be remediated. And a good father will continue to work to that end, even if the child is hateful and disrespectful.

But in eternity, we are talking about an eternity of torment, of (as the Fundamentalist Catholics and others describe) a conscious, searing, never-ending torture for the sins committed in this life. With that in mind, I guess my question would be if God gives up after we are dead.

1. Does God give up, or continue shedding His love on all souls forever? Can God stop loving, since He is love? Love is not extrinsic to Him. It is what He is, therefore, His love must continue.

2. Therefore, the real question is whether this continual expression of love towards even the most hardened (humanly speaking) soul can eventually bring about change (repentance) in that soul. Almost to a man, most all Christians say "no." They insist that once a soul is in the next life, that is it for them...there is no possibility of change. But upon what do they base this, seeing that there is A.) nothing in the Scriptures which gives us a clear description of the soul's state in the next life and B.) no one who has been there and come back with said description.

I think that since it is God's will (and not a fond wish) to save all, that He is wise enough to know exactly what will work with each soul, no matter how hardened, to break it and bring it to repentance. Look at us. What worked with me to bring me out of my life of deep sin very well might not have worked with you. Each of us is different and each of us required different amounts of time for a response.

And since God is love....well, as the Scriptures says "Love never fails."

Revelation 20:11-15 makes it clear that not everyone will go to heaven because not everyone's name is in the Book of Life. Not everyone will enter the Kingdom of Heaven according to Jesus in Matthew 7:21-23. The Bible does not teach Purgatory. If everyone will be eventually saved then why does Jesus say there'll be an eternal separation between the righteous and the wicked in Matthew 25:31-46)?
God's love is indeed eternal, the words 'love never fails' in 1 Corinthians 13:8 doesn't seem to me in that context to suggest that love will eventually win over all people. It is only the blood of Christ that saves people (Ephesians 1:7).

 

[Daniel_]

How does my suggestion indicate that it somehow is salvation outside the Blood of Christ. It is the Cross, and the Blood shed there which has redeemed all mankind, according to Romans 5:18 and other passages.

As for Purgatory (or purgation after death, as we Orthodox do not believe in a place, but a cleansing) if you still have sinful lusts, things in your heart that are not Christlike, passions, etc. when you die, how do you think to be rid of them unless you are changed to be fully like Christ? Could you answer this question, please? How will your ontological being be changed if not purged by the fire of God's love?

The Greek in Matthew and other places is questionable at best regarding the idea of eternal or separation. This is what I am working through now. Here is the Greek of that passage:

25:46 καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰςζωὴν αἰώνιον

Note the words in red - aionios in Greek. Does not mean "eternal." (or unending or anything of that nature). The word is a derivative of the root word "aion" which means "age." "aionios" has the connotation of "age-long" or "age-during" instead of the poor translation given to it by men like Augustine, who admitted that he could not understand Greek and found the language distasteful. That is the problem here...Latin translators who had no understanding of the Greek language.

This Greek word is why a number of the Greek Early Fathers taught Patristic Universalism. If I want to understand the Russian language, I am not going to go to a man whose native tongue is Urdu. Likewise with the language of the Scriptures. And that is just one of many problems with the Latin translation. For instance, they interpreted "repent" (metanoia in Greek) as "do penance." Means nothing of the kind. Not even close.

So how honest is that with the Scriptures? Talk about putting your own spin on something!!

I do not use a translation based on Latin but from the Greek text by Greek scholars. I am currently learning Greek myself, my lexicon states that aiOnios can be translated as 'age long, eternal, something without beginning or without end'. Sorry if I missed your point by the blood of Christ, my point was that I don't see from the Scriptures that everyone will be saved, such as I mentioned in Revelation 20. I don't see from the Scriptures that all will be changed and be like Christ eventually.

Regarding Romans 5:18 it could be said from that verse that all will be saved, but Paul refers elsewhere in Romans 8:30 to 'those who have been justified' implying only some. Also in 1 Corinthians 15:22-23 he makes a similar point as in Romans 5:18; As all die in Adam (remember this is because of sin), so in Christ all are made alive, which he then goes on to say in the following verse the order of those who will be made alive in Christ: Christ first, then the firstfruits, then when he comes again, those who belong to him, again signifying only some belong to Christ. Paul also says in Romans 8:9-11 that not everyone has the Spirit and so not everyone belongs to Christ. And he says only those who have the Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead, will partake in the bodily resurrection, which is when Christ returns. So is it possible that the means for justification is faith in the righteous act of Jesus that gives opportunity for all people to be justified? Whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

Blessings to you!

 

[now faith]

What was it that worked with Hitler and Stalin, both of whom knew all about the Christian religion?

Well that cuts it,I declare Godwin's Law

 

[Albion]

Well that cuts it,I declare Godwin's Law

Well, we can scratch that comment about Hitler and Stalin. I had thought, from the way earlier posts were worded, that 'Light of the East' was of the opinion that God's love would bring everyone around prior to judgment. He actually was describing something that could happen either in this life or sometime in the afterlife, which is, in truth, the most common POV among Christian Universalists.

Some people think that even the most wicked human will have his eyes opened to his mistakes when he reaches the judgment, and so be forgiven and reformed then, but that wasn't the issue with this discussion. So, no controversy here.

 

[Righttruth]

Well, we can scratch that comment about Hitler and Stalin. I had thought, from the way earlier posts were worded, that 'Light of the East' was of the opinion that God's love would bring everyone around prior to judgment. He actually was describing something that could happen either in this life or sometime in the afterlife, which is, in truth, the most common POV among Christian Universalists.

Some people think that even the most wicked human will have his eyes opened to his mistakes when he reaches the judgment, and so be forgiven and reformed then, but that wasn't the issue with this discussion. So, no controversy here.

If everyone is going to be saved eventually, why then this drama running to thousands of years?

 

[Light of the East]

Some people think that even the most wicked human will have his eyes opened to his mistakes when he reaches the judgment, and so be forgiven and reformed then, but that wasn't the issue with this discussion. So, no controversy here.

And that really is the issue - whether such is possible or if we can so harden our hearts here on earth as to be irremediable in the next life. No one really knows for sure.

 

[now faith]

Well, we can scratch that comment about Hitler and Stalin. I had thought, from the way earlier posts were worded, that 'Light of the East' was of the opinion that God's love would bring everyone around prior to judgment. He actually was describing something that could happen either in this life or sometime in the afterlife, which is, in truth, the most common POV among Christian Universalists.

Some people think that even the most wicked human will have his eyes opened to his mistakes when he reaches the judgment, and so be forgiven and reformed then, but that wasn't the issue with this discussion. So, no controversy here.

I never put much faith in secular laws of reasoning ,the events that transpired during that time will never be forgotten.

 

[Thursday]

The first one goes back to the ages old argument between hesychasm and scholasticism, of knowing God in silence vs knowing Him through the intellect. St. Gregory Palamas vs Barlaam of Calabria.

The problem with the Immaculate Conception (and I am still learning about this) is that it puts Mary in a different class anthropologically, which causes all kinds of salvific and anthropologic problems.

I think you are mistaken here.

From the Catechism:

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

 

[Light of the East]

I think you are mistaken here.

From the Catechism:

970 "Mary's function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it."513 "No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source."514

As I said, still studying this. What I posted was from Orthodox sources I have been resorting to.

 

[corinth77777]

OP, what do you believe justifies us and why?

For the record, I believe we are justified by Christ's faith, so what do you believe?

I been trying to understand justification for a lont time now....Gal 2;16...really was a nice scripture to find in the kjv ...Cant never put it all together....the question when is one justified....my quest all day today....

 

[corinth77777]

OP, what do you believe justifies us and why?

For the record, I believe we are justified by Christ's faith, so what do you believe?

I been trying to understand justification for a lont time now....Gal 2;16...really was a nice scripture to find in the kjv ...Cant never put it all together....the question when is one justified....my quest all day today....

 

[corinth77777]

I don't have a problem with other people having different views in their faith because I haven't always had the same views I have now, so I'm not attacking anyone's belief. That is my way of saying don't get offended by what I'm about to say The problem I see with that definition of purgatory is we are the body of Christ, who became sin, literally, not by word or symbol or thought or lie, but became sin to be a sacrifice that cleansed all sin. If we are the body of Christ then we have already paid the wages of sin by the faith of Christ. Not by our faith, but by his faith and his righteousness. He was imputed with righteousness from the Father for His faithfulness unto us, the body of Christ. We are therefore justified by faith alone, but it is the faith of Christ and not our faith, not our works, not our righteousness, but Christ alone. So my belief is the closest thing we have to purgatory is living in a body of flesh.

Where u get those ideals

 

[david.d]

Where u get those ideals

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
1 Corinthians 12:12‭-‬14‭, ‬19‭-‬20‭, ‬27 KJV

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Galatians 2:16 KJV

 

[david.d]

Repost

 

[david.d]

Repost

 

[david.d]

Repost

 

[david.d]

I been trying to understand justification for a lont time now....Gal 2;16...really was a nice scripture to find in the kjv ...Cant never put it all together....the question when is one justified....my quest all day today....

I believe we were justified and redeemed on the cross.

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
Galatians 3:11‭-‬13 KJV