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. ...)

Coming Up Next ...

Triadology ...

• Augustinian Filioquism and Byzantine Monarchianism - A Synthesis in the Ordo Theologiae?

Christology ...

• Hypostatic Union and Imputation
• Christ's sinlessness and Original Sin

Soteriology ...

• The salvific will of God
• Eucharist, Justification and Sanctification

Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman (Mary: Grace and Hope in Christ)

Dear Sir,
RE: ARCIC ON MARY (GRACE & HOPE IN CHRIST)

The ARCIC joint-declaration on the subject of Mary represents a de facto capitulation by pseudo-Anglicans to the dogmatic pronouncements of the Roman See, and not a convergence of apprehension of the Sacred Mysteries as constituted by Divine Revelation and transmitted alongside developed, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, through Apostolic Succession: the instrument of demonstrable organic continuity with the faith & practice of the Church of Pentecost.

As an Anglican, I deplore the acceptance of the Marian teachings concerning the Immaculate Conception & Bodily Assumption - as being definitively reflected in Holy Scripture - in bearing witness to the motifs of grace & hope respectively. This is, in effect, an implicit consent to its status as de fide (i.e. an article of faith) rather than merely a "pious opinion" - especially in relation to the latter – in consonant with the consensus fidelium as historically received within the "broader" Anglican tradition.

The Immaculate Conception of Our Lady cannot be legitimately deduced from Scriptural data in the absence of & in contradiction to express statements. Indeed, Roman theologians do not assert its "theological necessity" (notwithstanding the Protoevangelium in Gen 3:15). Creationism (until now not declared as de fide) which posits an immediate infusion of the soul into the body by God defies the doctrine of Original Sin - as explicated by St. Augustine of Hippo and grounded no less in the Pauline corpus as the primary theological source - wherein Adam’s fault or guilt (reatus) and not only the corruption (a.k.a. "stain") of Man’s nature is propagated, i.e. inherited generatively a.k.a. Traducianism (cf. Article IX). That is to say, the ‘person’ or the Idea of the Species (to employ Realist language) is wholly derived by lineal descent. Hence, the absolute silence of the Bible on Mary’s alleged sinless-ness.

A second theological difficulty is that, at the Incarnation, Our Lord assumed an "un-individualised" human nature common to us all (His Personhood deriving from the Father by eternal generation). If the Blessed Virgin was conceived without sin, then the redemption of humanity as a genus-race would have necessarily (though not exhaustively) begun at the Immaculate Conception, thus effectually subordinating Christ’s role as Mediator - on the Cross - to Mary, the indirect instrumental cause of our salvation!

However, sin did not affect Our Blessed Saviour since it is only proper to the person; the body suffering its effects or temporal liability, i.e. in the state of a weakened or mortal nature. This is why Article XV was wisely inserted, in consonant with Scripture!

Having said this, Co-Redemptrix (i.e. Co-Saviour!!!) represents the "summit of heresy," with the Roman Mary exemplifying perfectly the role of the Synergist in cooperating by way of faith and obedience to the will and call of God manifested at the Annunciation in the Angelus. The theological motivation essential to Co-Redemption is none other than bringing the synergism of Rome to its logical climax. Nonetheless, Post-Tridentine Catholicism has never repudiated predestination to glory (cf. Thomism), but like Amyraldianism, Arminianism (except the decrees of God) & (post-Luther) Lutheranism reject reprobation, affirm a universal salvific will of God, teaches Sufficient Redemption in actu primo (otherwise the rest as per above, Hypothetical Universalism, Universal Atonement & Objective Justification respectively), and not least, resistible sufficient (i.e. prevenient) grace.

By contrast, Article XI affirms total depravity, by virtue of which concupiscence (fomes pecatti sometimes known as ad agonem) is sin and in coordination with Articles XII & XIII denies common grace, thus positing the distinction (not separation) between grace and nature. In other words, the Articles are clear about the singularity of grace in common with orthodox Reformed theology. The Lambeth Articles (1595) & Irish Articles (1615) supplement & complement the 39 Articles of Religion; together they embody the substance of Pauline teaching. This faith is held by the Church of England (Continuing), the true inheritors of Mother Church, standing in statu confesionis (i.e. in the state of confessional protest) against the Synergistic error (in all its expressions).

The proposed elevation into dogma of Co-Redemption outside the context of the Ecumenical Church and therefore without broader consultation & appeal also violates the spirit of lex orandi, lex credendi not to mention the implausibility of deducing the dogma from e.g. the Apostles’ Creed. The role of Mary at the Eucharist has yet to be clarified satisfactorily, especially as it is generally recognised she does not share in the Priesthood of Melchizedek. Her so-called Compassion and Co-Offering with Christ at the foot of the Cross is not alluded to in the Liturgy of the Faithful, in particular the Canon of the Mass. One is hard pressed to discern any explicit role attributed to Mary other than her prominent intercession in the accompaniment of the Saints in Heaven.

Personally, I affirm Our Lady as Queen OF Heaven ONLY for her typological representation in redemptive history as the Church, the Bride of Christ. Mary qua believer is – like the rest of the elect women – a queen IN Heaven. Furthermore, like Zwingli, Luther, the English Reformers & even Calvin I prefer not to question the traditional view of Mary’s sexuality (i.e. her perpetual virginity) or speculate about the married life of the Holy Couple. Having said this, my views do not - in its entirety - necessarily represent the Church of England (Continuing).

The Continuing Church hereby professes to be an authentic claimant to Apostolic Succession as it is grounded in our adherence to the Received Text ("Eastern" origin) & substance of the Book of Common Prayer ("Western" origin) …

"Almighty and everlasting Father, Whose righteousness was revealed at the Cross in Christ Jesus, Our Saviour, for the utter deliverance of us poor and miserable sinners from condemnation; Give us, O Lord, the same faith by which we are justified by the word of the Gospel, and even as I behold the Crucifixion and doth steadfastly cling to the symbol of my salvation amidst the ever-present trials & tribulations of this life: We wouldst continue steadfast in the reception & reverence of Thy Word, which self-same Text hast been preserved and passed down by the Catholic faithful, the Church Remnant, whereby by Thy grace we were chosen to belong, to the attainment of our eternal joy. This we beseech Thee, through the mediation of Jesus Christ and in His merits alone, now & forever: Amen."

Letter to the English Churchman on Theotokos and a Prayer of the Church Militant

Dear Sir,
RE: THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY AS MOTHER OF GOD

I agree wholeheartedly that the title, “Mother of God (Theotokos)” ascribed by the holy ecumenical council of Ephesus (431 AD) to Our Blessed Virgin Mary has led to many errors (doctrine) and superstitions (practices). Nonetheless, the designation by itself – being the theological reflection of the Church on the essentials of the Faith - is wholly appropriate in expressing the concrete Unity of the Two Natures of Christ in One Person (i.e. the Hypostatic Union), over against the teachings of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (of the school of Antioch in the tradition of Theodore of Mopsuestia). The “Nestorian” heresy has often been inaccurately described as a Two Person/Sonship Christology. However, both Nestorius and the Nestorians maintained an orthodox understanding of the Incarnation.

The defining issue arose out of the differences over the propriety of interchanging appellations and peculiar properties belonging to one nature with the other (i.e. the communicatio idiomatum). Nonetheless, the occasion for Nestorius’s condemnation was set in the context of ecclesiastical rivalry, instigated in particular by St. Cyril, the great 5th-century defender of Catholic doctrine. The Antiochene school was concerned (see for example, the “Second Epistle of Nestorius to Cyril”) to safeguard the integrity of the Divine Nature and by extension, the Godhead against implications of passibility.

On the Alexandrian side, to deny that sufferings of the Gospel Figure could be referred or transferred to His Divinity weakens the intrinsic oneness - in Identity - of the composite Union and by extension, the impeccability of His Humanity which is absolutely necessary for our redemption. Therefore, Nestorianism amounted to a denial of the complete human experience of Our Lord “for what is not assumed (in the fullest sense) is not saved”, as per the Cappadocian fathers. So, Christ’s Human Nature (including the rational soul or mind) does not subsist apart from the Ego or Self-Consciousness of His Divine Person.

Convinced by that truth, the Orthodox party paid appropriate reverence to the Virgin Mary by addressing her as “Theotokos” (lit. “God-bearer”). This article of faith has always been implicit in the Catholic creeds before Ephesus (431 AD) and the Chalcedonian Definition (451 AD), alongside the lesser status of Mary’s perpetual virginity (“Aeiparthenos”). But, the voice of the broader Ecumenical Church does not condemn, for pastoral reasons, congregations or individuals who refuse to subscribe to this venerable tradition for conscience’s sake, partly because of its association with Mariolatry. The elevation of “Theotokos” as dogma relates only to its Symbolic Representation of the Hypostatic Union and NEVER for its own sake.

Hence, for instance, Luther and his true disciples (i.e. the Gnesio-Lutherans) held to the ubiquity of the God-Man - in relation to His “definitive” presence in the consecrated species – on the basis of “Logos non extra carnem est" (i.e. the Logos is not apart from His flesh). Luther’s phrase that “God died on the Cross” is not Patripassianism precisely because it was not God the Father who was the Subject of the bloody agony and precious death.

Let it be known, that the Church of England (Continuing), alongside the Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church and the Anglican Orthodox Church, in common with the Reformation Churches do utterly denounce the detestable enormities of the Bishop of Rome and confess him as Anti-Christ, and Enemy of the Catholic Faith. We hereby also condemn the false professors of Anglicanism within the Canterbury Communion and the Continuum (for example, the Traditional Anglican Communion – TAC) for their irrefragable movement towards the Man of Sin in fulfilment of the great apostasy of the last days.

“Almighty and ever-living God, Who hast predestined unto glory a Church elected in Christ, we thy unworthy servants, in communion with the Church Triumphant above, continue to beseech Thee for the increase of Thy Holy Spirit in us, that being grounded in the abiding Baptism of Pentecost, assured of the triumphant advance of the Gospel, armed with the Sword of the Spirit, that is, Thy most holy Word and looking for the great and glorious appearing of the Son of Man, our blessed hope: the militant Church here on earth, the pillar and ground of the Truth, would ever contend for the faith once for all delivered unto the saints for the gathering, defence and preservation of the same Catholic Church in all ages; through the one and only Intercession of Our Lord Jesus. Amen”.