Problems with Faith Alone Theology and the Double Imputation Theory.

[Thursday]

That is an interesting question. The response I am waiting to see from someone will most likely be that God gives all the grace to be saved, but only certain people respond to it.

So does God stop calling people at a certain point in time? Or do they become so hardened in their sins that breaking a piece of 1/2" steel plate with your bare hands would be more likely than them ever repenting. Which of course, leads to the question, does that put them in an impossible place for an all-powerful God to break and bring to repentance?

Hmmmmmmm....

God gives us a fair chance. He is just. Some people choose evil.

 

[kepha31]

Could be. Priests are always right.

No, they are not. It takes about 7 years of education and spiritual formation to become a priest. They are very educated and knowledgeable but they are not 100% right 100% of the time. Ordination does not remove their humanity. If a priest is teaching something totally off the wall, it quickly becomes the bishop's problem.
BTW, priests will not waste time with psychos screaming "harlot of babble-on".

 

[Thursday]

No, they are not. It takes about 7 years of education and spiritual formation to become a priest. They are very educated and knowledgeable but they are not 100% right 100% of the time. Ordination does not remove their humanity. If a priest is teaching something totally off the wall, it quickly becomes the bishop's problem.
BTW, priests will not waste time with psychos screaming "harlot of babble-on".

That was a typo. I fixed it. Should have read "aren't always right".

 

[Light of the East]

That was a typo. I fixed it. Should have read "aren't always right".

Thanks for the clarification. I am really struggling to stay in the Western Church, and for the first time since my conversion from Protestantism, am really having problems with some of the teachings.

I appreciate your time and knowledge.

 

[JohnMartin]

The imputation of Christ's righteousness is the only way we may enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

You are yet to make an argument.

JM

 

[Thursday]

Thanks for the clarification. I am really struggling to stay in the Western Church, and for the first time since my conversion from Protestantism, am really having problems with some of the teachings.

I appreciate your time and knowledge.

Which teachings?

 

[Mountainmike]

Indeed.
The only place the words "faith" and " alone" are used together is James 2:24
Which explicitly contradicts faith alone. Rather than accept this, Luther decided it was an epistle of straw, changing scripture to suit his belief, not vice Versa..

Both battle cries of the reformation,
Sola scriptura and sola fidei are easily proven false.
And since both the foundations of Protestantism are false, so is protestantism

The first just as damaging: sola scriptura is the falsehood that caused 10000 Protestant schisms.

Problems/Questions with faith alone theology and it's accompanied theory of double imputation are presented below.

On Faith Alone

Question - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?


Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?


Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.


Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -


5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”


Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?


Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.


Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -



There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.



The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

JM

 

[Daniel_]

So is God like man, that is, does just sit around, sigh, and wish that things He likes could happen? Or is He sovereign and omnipotent and all His holy will actually does get accomplished?

Any good parent desires their children to do right and follow what will be beneficial for their future. If they force their will upon their children it will not breed love but fear. In a similar way God desires we should do right and love him. No one can choose to love God without God first working in them (1 John 4:10) which he does through the Holy Spirit and enables people to choose him, unfortunately not everyone will, but on Judgement Day no one will be able to blame God for being unfair or unjust, all will be set straight. I wanted nothing to do with God but his Spirit was at work in my life and eventually I came to a point of accepting Jesus as my Lord and Savior, so I know God isn't idle, but no one can fathom all that God does from beginning to end (Ecclesiastes 3:11). There are certain mysteries like predestination vs man's free will which seem to both be true on a level which we are incapable of comprehending, God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours (Isaiah 55:9).

 

[now faith]

You are yet to make an argument.

JM

That's because there is nothing to argue about.

 

[kepha31]

When I came out of Protestantism 16 years ago, I wanted to be Orthodox. But after study, I felt that there should be only one head over the Church on earth. I was disappointed until someone told me about the Eastern Catholic churches, which are called "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." That is why I went to the East as a Catholic.

However, the word "communion" presupposes an agreement and unity on dogma. As I have studied to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, I am wondering if such a thing is possible, since to be Orthodox means that you accept certain teachings which are particular to the East. I am having a headache trying to synthesize these things, and I catch a lot of heat from Roman Church members when I disagree with certain teachings they have, as they insist "You can't deny that and call yourself a Catholic."

Fr. Thomas Hopko wrote a rather good article which nicely sums up the differences that will have to be resolved before unity can take place between East and West:

I will therefore proceed to list what I believe must happen if the Orthodox churches would consider recognizing the bishop of Rome as their world leader who exercises presidency among all the churches of Christ.

First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine. This means that the pope would have to do several specific things, chief among which, I would think, are the following.

• 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).

• The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply “subsistent relations” within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable “modalism.” He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus’ Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him. (I have never heard this from any of my Roman acquaintances, so I am not sure where Fr. Hopko gets this from. It is not on my particular radar screen at this time)

• The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God’s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

• He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary’s conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply “the merits of Christ” to Joachim and Anna’s sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from “the stain of original sin.” And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus. (The Immaculate Conception creates anthropological problems and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox as necessary.)

• The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, (for the greater part of us, we can rest assured we will need to go through that cleansing process) there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the “days” of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others. (Orthodoxy does not accept the idea of indulgences)

• The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation. (The Cross was provides medicine for the cure of the sin-sick soul, not a penal substitution, which was first put forth by Augustine)

• The pope would also assure all Christians that the bishop of Rome will never do or teach anything on his own authority, “from himself and not from the consensus of the church (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae).” He would promise to serve in his presidency solely as the spokesperson for all the bishops in apostolic succession who govern communities of believers who have chosen them to serve, and whose validity and legitimacy as bishops depend solely on their fidelity to the Gospel in communion with their predecessors in the episcopal office, and with each other. (One man does not make decisions for the entire Church)

• On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his presidential authority to insure that everyone – clergyman or layperson – would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church’s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.

• The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sole “vicar on earth”, may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus).

In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship. This, too, for Orthodox Christians, would mean some specific things.

• The pope would have to insist that, except for extraordinary pastoral reasons, baptisms would be done by immersion in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He would also insist that the newly-baptized be immediately chrismated with “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” and brought into communion with Christ by participation in the Holy Eucharist. This includes infants who enter the Church’s sacramental life by virtue of the faith of the adults who care for them. The practice of a later episcopal laying-on-of hands confirming the faith of the baptized may be permitted in churches desiring to continue this practice. (This was the way the first baptisms were done and is in keeping with the proper symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection)

The rest of the following items mentioned by Fr. Hopko are things I am unfamiliar with. The things with the green and red markings are particular to my questions regarding how to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." I post the following link so that if you wish, you can read the rest of the things that Fr.Hopko states are problematic to reunion of the East and West.

LINK: Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

June 7, 2016 (Fr. Hopko retired in 2002, and died in 2015; in light of more recent developments, some of his writings may be outdated)

Orthodox leaders end historic meeting hailed by pope as ‘step forward’...
...Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I led prayers attended by the 10 Orthodox church leaders who attended to mark the end of the week-long Holy and Great Council - the first of its kind in more than 1,200 years.

​

...Keep in mind the purpose of a council, its goal, which is unity. Unity is an objective, not a given. It’s something we aspire to. It may be there spiritually and liturgically and sacramentally, but to make it visible is hard, painful and slow work, all of which take time. Unity comes at the end of the council, not before. It is a consequence, not a condition...
Leading cleric says Orthodox Church’s ‘Vatican II’ is a go

 

[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.

 

[Thursday]

When I came out of Protestantism 16 years ago, I wanted to be Orthodox. But after study, I felt that there should be only one head over the Church on earth. I was disappointed until someone told me about the Eastern Catholic churches, which are called "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." That is why I went to the East as a Catholic.

However, the word "communion" presupposes an agreement and unity on dogma. As I have studied to be Orthodox in Communion with Rome, I am wondering if such a thing is possible, since to be Orthodox means that you accept certain teachings which are particular to the East. I am having a headache trying to synthesize these things, and I catch a lot of heat from Roman Church members when I disagree with certain teachings they have, as they insist "You can't deny that and call yourself a Catholic."

Fr. Thomas Hopko wrote a rather good article which nicely sums up the differences that will have to be resolved before unity can take place between East and West:

I will therefore proceed to list what I believe must happen if the Orthodox churches would consider recognizing the bishop of Rome as their world leader who exercises presidency among all the churches of Christ.

First of all, the Orthodox would insist that the bishop of Rome hold the orthodox faith of the catholic church, and teach and defend true Christian doctrine. This means that the pope would have to do several specific things, chief among which, I would think, are the following.

• 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).

• The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply “subsistent relations” within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable “modalism.” He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus’ Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him. (I have never heard this from any of my Roman acquaintances, so I am not sure where Fr. Hopko gets this from. It is not on my particular radar screen at this time)

• The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God’s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

• He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary’s conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply “the merits of Christ” to Joachim and Anna’s sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from “the stain of original sin.” And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus. (The Immaculate Conception creates anthropological problems and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox as necessary.)

• The pope would also clearly state that though there may be a purification and cleansing from sin in the process of human dying, (for the greater part of us, we can rest assured we will need to go through that cleansing process) there is no state or condition of purgatory where sinners pay off the temporal punishment that they allegedly owe to God for their sins. The pope would also stop the practice of indulgences whereby, through certain pious activities, Christians can allegedly reduce the “days” of purgatorial suffering for themselves and others. (Orthodoxy does not accept the idea of indulgences)

• The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation. (The Cross was provides medicine for the cure of the sin-sick soul, not a penal substitution, which was first put forth by Augustine)

• The pope would also assure all Christians that the bishop of Rome will never do or teach anything on his own authority, “from himself and not from the consensus of the church (ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae).” He would promise to serve in his presidency solely as the spokesperson for all the bishops in apostolic succession who govern communities of believers who have chosen them to serve, and whose validity and legitimacy as bishops depend solely on their fidelity to the Gospel in communion with their predecessors in the episcopal office, and with each other. (One man does not make decisions for the entire Church)

• On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his presidential authority to insure that everyone – clergyman or layperson – would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church’s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.

• The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sole “vicar on earth”, may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus).

In order for the Pope of Rome to exercise presidency among the churches and Christian leadership in the world, his church would also have to exemplify proper Christian worship. This, too, for Orthodox Christians, would mean some specific things.

• The pope would have to insist that, except for extraordinary pastoral reasons, baptisms would be done by immersion in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He would also insist that the newly-baptized be immediately chrismated with “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit” and brought into communion with Christ by participation in the Holy Eucharist. This includes infants who enter the Church’s sacramental life by virtue of the faith of the adults who care for them. The practice of a later episcopal laying-on-of hands confirming the faith of the baptized may be permitted in churches desiring to continue this practice. (This was the way the first baptisms were done and is in keeping with the proper symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection)

The rest of the following items mentioned by Fr. Hopko are things I am unfamiliar with. The things with the green and red markings are particular to my questions regarding how to be "Orthodox in Communion with Rome." I post the following link so that if you wish, you can read the rest of the things that Fr.Hopko states are problematic to reunion of the East and West.

LINK: Roman Presidency and Christian Unity in our Time | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

I'll address these one at a time since it will take quite a while:


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?

FYI:

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.

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.

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.

 

[Thursday]

• The pope would also teach that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons or hypostases, and not simply “subsistent relations” within the one God who is identified with the divine nature. And he would insist that the one true God of Christian faith is not the Holy Trinity understood as a quasi-uni-personal subject who reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit, which is unacceptable “modalism.” He would rather hold that the one God is Jesus’ Father from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds who dwells in the Son, and in those who by faith and grace become sons of God through him. (I have never heard this from any of my Roman acquaintances, so I am not sure where Fr. Hopko gets this from. It is not on my particular radar screen at this time)

I'm not sure where Fr. Hopko gets this either. Here's what the Catechism says:

The dogma of the Holy Trinity

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity".83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

 

[Thursday]

• The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God’s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

• He would also officially say that the immaculate conception of Christ’s mother Mary from her parents, and Mary’s total glorification in the risen Christ “at the right hand of the Father,” are not properly explained in the papal bulls that originally accompanied the Roman church’s “ex cathedra” dogmas on these two articles of faith. The pope would explain that Mary’s conception by her parents was pure and holy without a need for God extraordinarily to apply “the merits of Christ” to Joachim and Anna’s sexual act of conceiving her in order to free her from “the stain of original sin.” And the pope would also have to make it clear that Mary really died, and was not assumed bodily into heaven before vanquishing death by faith in her Son Jesus. (The Immaculate Conception creates anthropological problems and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox as necessary.)

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?

 

[Thursday]

• The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation. (The Cross was provides medicine for the cure of the sin-sick soul, not a penal substitution, which was first put forth by Augustine)

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

 

[kepha31]

(* In other words, the filioque clause gets dropped and the Creed returns to its original wording).

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.

• The pope would also insist that human beings can have real communion with God through God’s uncreated divine energies and actions toward creatures, from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit.

What makes you think he doesn't do this?

(The Immaculate Conception creates anthropological problems and therefore is not accepted by the Orthodox as necessary.)

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

(Orthodoxy does not accept the idea of indulgences)

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

• The pope would also make it clear that Christ’s crucifixion was not a payment of the debt of punishment that humans allegedly owe to God for their sins. He would rather teach that Christ’s self-offering to his Father was the saving, atoning and redeeming payment of the perfect love, trust, obedience, gratitude and glory that humans owe to God, which is all that God desires of them for their salvation.

All this is found in the Catechism.

The Cross was provides medicine for the cure of the sin-sick soul, not a penal substitution, which was first put forth by Augustine)

Neither the Church nor Augustine taught penal substitution.

(One man does not make decisions for the entire Church)

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.

• On undecided doctrinal and moral issues the Pope of Rome would use his presidential authority to insure that everyone – clergyman or layperson – would be encouraged to freely present his or her arguments concerning Christian teaching and practice as witnessed in the Church’s formal testimonies to Christian faith and life, i.e. the canonized scriptures, the traditional liturgies, the councils and canons, and the witness and writings of the canonized saints for the reasons that they are glorified.

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

• The pope would also use his presidential authority to guarantee a spirit of freedom, openness, respect and love in and among all churches and Christians, and indeed all human beings, so that the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sole “vicar on earth”, may bring to remembrance what Christ has said, and guide people into all the truth. (Jn 14.25, 16.13) The pope would, in this way, truly be the Great Bridgebuilder (Pontifex Maximus).

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

(This was the way the first baptisms were done and is in keeping with the proper symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection)

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

 

[Albion]

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."

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

 

[Albion]

Did you read my post? I indicated that it takes varying amounts of time with each soul. Each of us is different. What if the time required takes longer than in this lifetime?

Well, that is what most Universalists think. You're right about that and I did apparently misunderstand that you were not confining your thinking to this life. It's also worth noting that Universalism is a heresy.

 

[Albion]

Not in the East. There has never been a dogmatic statement regarding Patristic Universalism in the East.

I thought about that as I was writing, but my understanding is that it is all right to hope or to speculate that God will save everyone. However, on this thread we had something closer to a declaration that universal salvation is what will happen. THAT is different.

 

[Light of the East]

I thought about that as I was writing, but my understanding is that it is all right to hope or to speculate that God will save everyone. However, on this thread we had something closer to a declaration that universal salvation is what will happen. THAT is different.

I understand and am sorry for the misunderstanding. My posts do look very dogmatic, but what I was doing was posting the various reasons I feel we can have a strong hope that God's love overcomes even the worst of sin and the worst of sinners.

This notwithstanding, I pray constantly for the salvation of my children, who were run off from Christ by my following very hard-nosed, angry, and vitriolic Fundamentalism when I was young and stupid. Now I'm just old and stupid.