Hypostatic Union, Imputation at the Cross and Forensic Justification ...
The connection between the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures of Christ and Objective Justification at the Cross is the connection between the Person and Work of Christ. The Person of Christ cannot be separated from His Work. That there is an "additional union" between the Hypostatic Union and Christ's Work cannot be denied.
The question is, what kind of union is this? The fact of the union is established by virtue of Christ assuming the role of a Mediator and Intercessor for the human race. The defining issue is what is the mode of this type of union, i.e. between His Person and Work?
To determine the mode and effect of the union, there must needs be an understanding or at least an appreciation that the Catholic faith compels us to recognise that the concept of the 'Person' has priority and primacy over the concept of "Nature". This is clear from Holy Scripture and the creedal tradition of the Church which speak of Three Distinct Persons forming the Godhead. The "Substance" of God which is identified with the Godhead (i.e. the "unitive principle" of the Trinity) is equivalent to the Nature of God or the characteristics of Divinity such as omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. And this "Nature" or "Substance", otherwise known as "Essence" is primarily and principally possessed or "embodied" by God the Father Almighty Who is identified as the epistemological and ontological starting-point.
Since the Father is the Sole Ingenerate Source and Cause of the Godhead, this means that the same unitary Substance or Essence of the First Person is possessed by the Other Two Persons wholly and simultaneously in Themselves through immanent generation and procession: The Father has the Substance in its fulness, the Son likewise and the Holy Spirit likewise. The identity of the Essence makes it impossible for the Trinity to exist without One of the Persons included. The absolute uniqueness of the Triune Personhood makes it impossible for the One to be collapsed into the Other without confusing Nature with Person. The implication of this truth is that vis-a-vis God, Person determines Nature, not vice-versa. By the term 'determined', it is emphatically meant that the particularising characteristics of the Person gives concrete expression to the manifestation of the Nature in all its attributes. It is the Person of the Father Who wills to elect a Church in His beloved Son, that is, infallibly and efficaciously cause to happen the immutable and unchangeable salvation of certain individuals through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. The 'will' inheres in Divine Nature as an attribute possessing potentiality, but It (i.e. the Divine Nature) does not act or operate from within Itself but that the power (dunamis) is animated, demonstrated or instantiated (energeia), i.e. given a mode of expression by the Triune Persons.
Now, the primacy and priority of Person over Nature as epitomised by the Chalcedonian Definition has implications for how we are to understand the Incarnation and Atonement.
(To be cont. ...)
Labels: Christology, Soteriology
posted by Augustinian Successor at
2:33 AM
27 Comments:
Dear KS, can you please post your newer comments under this thread? It's more convenient than having to scroll down to the same thread! :-) Thank you.
Do you have a personal library (of theological books)? It's quite rare to meet someone who is interested in reading theological books in Malaysia. You did mention that you are keen to read on Newman?
Unfortunately theological books are very expensive and hard to come by. Sometimes you can find certain extracts or materials via the internet but you would rather have it in a hard book form where you can curl up on your bed or lounge on the couch and read instead of staring at the square monitor screen. One inexpensive way to get printed materials, say if I want to get some reading done on some particular papal letter or some essay written by some doctor of the church, I would go and goggle it or search through the Vatican website in the archive/library section and then save the text in Microsoft word format and then print it out and bind it into a book. But be prepared to buy a re-filler for your ink printer. It’s not that expensive nowadays when all you got to do is to inject the black ink into your ink cartridge. You don’t need to purchase an entirely new one which might cost you an arm or a leg. Another way is to borrow the books from the Archdiocese Pastoral Resource Centre in Jalan Robertson which you have mentioned earlier. Unfortunately it’s a bit too far for me to get there.
Jason if you don’t mind I would like to recommend you to read on a papal letter that was once written by the late Pope John Paul II entitled Rosarium Virginis Mariae (The Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary). I came across your article in relation to the Virgin Mary sometime back. I would just want to clarify here that though the significance of Mary is very much apart of the Latin Church, but it can never replace Christ nor can she be placed in equal footing with Christ or the trinity. All Marian devotions must and always be “Christ-Centred.” Anyway I don’t wish to concise what JP2 wrote in just a few sentences I hope you’ll read it. You may find the readings here:-
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/index.htm
In addition to that, I wish to send some short supplementary notes on the apostolic letter of JP2 of RVM written by one Anthony Fisher, who is one of my favourite speakers. He was teaching in the JP2 institute as a lecturer and is now a bishop. But never mind that, may I have your e-mail address so that I can send you the notes as attachments? If there is anything else we can discuss further in-dept in the near future, God willing ....
KS TAN
Dear KS,
I'm very sorry for the late response. Here's my e-mail address: jasonloh@um.edu.my
My H/P no. is at 012 5549795
Thank you for sharing ...
In the meantime too, please feel free to post any comments pertaining to the Hypostatic Union!
I doubt if one can be devoted to Mary the mother of Jesus and at the same time Jesus at the center.
There is no command, nor example from Scripture that enjoins us to be devoted to anyone except the Christ who is confessed as Lord.
I tried doing it when I was an RC kid, it did not work for me, and I am not interested in trying it now I am an adult. Faith in Jesus is necessary and sufficient injunction of Scripture, all the rest is idolatry.
LPC
Oh incidentally on the post you wrote here, great and wonderful! Good and helpful insight.
Thanks.
Lito
Brother Lito, I agree wholeheartedly with you about devotion to Mary. The problem is keeping devotion to Mary at its very bare minimum, which is not easy to do at times because one can still be easily carried away, which is precisely how the patristic and medieval Church went on a doctrinal and liturgical 'trajectory'.
It is not only the best approach but the safest approach too to stick closely to Scripture. It is ironic how the Romans accuse the Reformed of indulging in theological speculation regarding the decrees of God when what the Reformed is doing is to arrange the data of Scripture concerning predestination in systematic coherence, whereas the Roman has to resort to extra-Scriptural tradition for sources in mariological speculation.
Dear Bro. Jason,
What you put there in RefCat is well put. Theology is the art of making distinctions isn't it? What they are doing is confounding rather than distinguishing. Their insistence that faith and obedience are the same is to cause confusion. They really make the Gospel as Law, not something to believe but something to do.
When faith is turned to obedience, then there is no escape I think, but to look inside and tap yourself in the shoulder and say - there I have obeyed your Gospel - there I am in. This also makes the disciple uncertain of God's graciousness for once again it makes him do something.
What they are doing is to explain the questions away. For example - would one not ask if he has sufficiently obeyed, exercise belief in the Gospel? They avoid this question and simply waves the hand saying it is irrelevant.
Faith is the assurance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen. That hope is founded on the declared promises of God. It sees it done even though it has not seen it nor experienced with the senses.
I am curious at your critique, a year ago I encountered and Anglican too (also from KL) he also believed that the modern Reformed are not Reformed either, and neither are they 'catholic' (not even small c).
What is happening RefCat is like Protestant pluralism. I know they are struggling to find a basis ad are sincere, but unless they go full swing on the Sacraments as the early church did, unless they abandon their pre-commitment to deny that the sacraments confers what they convey, it won't happen.
Thanks for your comments,
Bro. Lito
Short, simple and sweet. Well done Jason!
KSTAN
I appreciate your taking up the problem of relating the Chalcedonian dogma of Hypo-Static Union with the Reformation theology of the imputation of sin. It seems to me that there are serious difficulties in maintaining the orthodox form of the former while espousing the orthodox form of the latter.
Hi Thomas, thanks for dropping by. Your Thomistic perspective would be appreciated in this blog/forum.
Hi Jason
How are you? Remember me?
I stumbled upon your blog page.
I am Pastor Paul Goh from Singapore.
Do drop me a note when you are free.
Press Forward,
Pastor
http://www.cerc.org.sg
Dear Pastor Paul,
Our Lord's richest blessings to you, your wife, ministry and church!
Keep up the good work!
In Christ,
Jason
Hi, thanks for stopping by and for your comment. It's true; I am reformed...and growing. :)
I'll have to take a look around your blog for sure!
no i'm safe. the fires are almost under control now- the santa ana winds really killed us.
we need rain.
Jason,
Thank you for all your comments on my blog. I am sorry that I have not been able to do the same on yours until now!
How did you find my blog? Your comments are encouraging and I would like to know more of your story. What are you doing in Malaysia? Were you born there or just going to school?
Have a wonderful day!
Just a quick question, you say that the Father is not only the ontological but also the epistemological starting point of the Trinity. But isn't the Scriptural notion that we start with the man Jesus, and from a personal knowledge of the Man Jesus, know the Father. "If you have seen me you ahve seen the Father" "He is the exact image of the Father" etc.
Also, I think you are still giving nature priority over person.
Matthew N Petersen wrote:
"It's a bit much when Catholics call Vatican I ecumenical. But Dort!!!
Also, perhaps you aren't, but it sounds like you are opposing justification by faith alone and the Sacraments. If you are, I am more than a little confused.
What exactly was it that happened at Marburg? Did Zwingli stand for justification by faith alone against Luther? Are Lutherans heretics who deny justification by faith alone?"
Of course Dordt was ecumenical, because the holy synod represented a huge portion of the Catholic Church. But, no I do NOT oppose justification by faith alone to the Sacraments? Why do you say that??
As for epistemological starting-point, it means precisely knowledge of the Triune Persons and Their Relations. You can't separate Personhood from Relations because Personhood constitutes the Relations, i.e. Persons are prior to Relations. The Trinity is of course, as you said, rightly grounded in Divine Revelation. But no, in terms of the encounter, we do not start with the man Jesus, but the GOD-Man, who comes to us by His external Word and Spirit. The difference therefore is between creedal theology and sacramental theology, i.e. the difference between knowledge of the immanent and economic Trinity!
Not sure why you still insist that I give nature priority over person. Not at all, I affirm the primacy of the Person which is why I disagree with the idea - which you presumably hold - that Jesus willed two contradictory choices at Gethsemane. Now THAT'S Nestorianism!
Well, like I said, I wasn't sure if you were opposing justification by faith and the sacraments. Thanks for correcting me. The confusion came from your statement "The Caroline divines, notwithstanding the liberal appropriation of medieval scholastic and even Tridentine terminology to express their sacramental theology were mostly single predestinarians and upheld justification by faith alone" which could be read as "though they may sound like sacramentalists, they indeed afirmed justification by faith alone."
I'm not sure what your second to last paragraph means. I assume "Word" does not mean "Christ" since that would make Mary's Son the Father, but rather you mean the "Scripture." But then may I use Jesus' phrase "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life." We get to know the Man Jesus Christ through the Scripture, and through the Sacrament, and through the Church (that is at least the saints), but we should look to the Man Jesus Christ, and meditate on Him. The scriptures are but a window through which we may Him. And not some silly doctrine about Him, but the very Man Himself.
"though they may sound like sacramentalists, they indeed afirmed justification by faith alone."
Precisely. The Carolines were Protestants to a man, and Protestantism is not synonymous with Puritanism and low-church evangelicalism. About the 'Word', yes, it means either Incarnate or Written ('external'). Liturgically, in the Anglican tradition at least, it has been understood to refer to the Words of Institution (WOI) (and Narrative component).
And just as a clarrificaiton, I wasn't quoting John to say you weren't looking to Christ, but to establish the primacy of Christ over the Scripture.
I would have to disagree with you and the other Protestants ... Christ is Scripture, Scripture is Christ ... but God was made Christ, full-stop ...
Jason, thank you for linking to my blog. I appreciate your blog for its thoughtfulness and thoroughness. I have returned the favor.
Intriguing post... Correct me if I am wrong. It seems that you are saying that the modus operandi is the means by which we know the Godhead.
The Son of God takes priority over His Mediatorial role for He was not always a Mediator (in eternity past) but we as beneficiaries of this cannot "know" Him otherwise via His person and work.
It is then by the priority of Person over Nature that we have the priority of ontology over economy.
The Covenantal work of Christ is the means by which we partake of the gracious knowledge of the Trinity. All knowledge must be through Him.
The wording is quite helpful and instructive. Thank you for commenting on my blog and linking to me. I have done the same.
I am afraid I'm not able to inter-act with your comment at the moment. I'm still thinking through the implications, and trying to read as much as I can on Personhood, Nature and the Trinity and integrate my readings into the dogmatic loci of atonement and justification. I am way behind your understanding of the Covenant now since moving towards Lutheranism, although I have kept my Five Points. Yes, like you and SP, I believe that the recovery of catholicism does not mean abandoning the Reformation nor betraying the Reformation "from within", but precisely to emphasise and accentuate the convergence and unity of the Reformation traditions.
Having said this, yes, you're right. Implicit in this post is that justification is both an event here and now for you and I as much as it is a past historical event. However, the sequence is - if we are to maintain a Christo-centric perspective - instead of us going back to history, history catches up with us, i.e. it comes to us. So, it is not we who incorporate the narrative of the Cross into our personal lives but that we ourselves are incorporated into the narrative of the Cross. So that righteousness is as Luther says always extra nos.
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2008/11/ravi-zacharias-recommends-mysticism.html#links
Ravi Zacharias and his wrong teaching on Henri Nouwen.
I used to debate acolyte4236 in mirc on undernet. He's a radical proponent of Eastern Orthodoxy and a total nut. He was once part of the Reformed Episcopal Church and later converted to Eastern orthodoxy. I could be wrong but I think this is the same guy.
Hi, again, Jason. Please say a prayer for Perry Robinson? I have discovered that he lost his job as a professor wherever it was. His family is struggling.
I am praying that God will use this to bring Perry back to the doctrines of grace. Here is the link to his webpage:
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/save-ferris/#comment-7813
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home