2020-03-18T12:17:37-04:00

Chapter 11 of my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (July 2004 / 3rd revised edition July 2015, 335p), co-authored with Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier (Byzantine Catholic), pp. 275-302.

***

In Chapter Five, I briefly alluded to the fact that theosis (profound union with God) is just as much a part of Western tradition as it is in the Eastern tradition (yet it is often oddly claimed that this is not the case at all). I cited just one of St. John of the Cross’ many statements concerning this wonderful teaching of Catholic and Orthodox spirituality, and also related ones from St. Thomas Aquinas. The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes reference to it:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”(2 Pet 1:4): “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God” (Irenaeus) . . . “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (Athanasius).

1996 Our justification come from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life” (Council of Trent). The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. “Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due…Our merits are God’s gifts” (Augustine).

Presently, I shall cite St. Augustine on the topic, and fourteen Catholic mystics (whose notable utterances I recently compiled in my book, Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives).

For this thing God does, out of sons of men He makes sons of God: because out of Son of God He has made Son of Man. See what this participation is: there has been promised to us a participation of Divinity: . . . For the Son of God has been made partaker of mortality, in order that mortal man may be made partaker of divinity. . . . He that to you has promised divinity, shows in you love. (Explanations of the Psalms, 53:3 [53, 5] )

Let human voices be hushed, human thoughts still: let them not stretch themselves out to incomprehensible things, as though they could comprehend them, but as though they were to partake of them, for partakers we shall be….Partakers then we shall be: let none doubt it: Scripture says it. And of what shall we be partakers, as though these were parts in God, as though God were divided into parts? Who then can explain how many become partakers of one single substance? . . . it is good that he confess weakness, who desires to attain to the divine nature. (Explanations of the Psalms, 147:5 [147, 9] )

And the Son of God came and was made the Son of man, that He might re-create us after the image of God . . . (On the Trinity, iv, 4, 7)

[W]e should love that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and by believing in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in the spirit through faith, that we should be justified by being made one in the one righteous One; and that we should not despair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself, when we consider that the one Head had gone before us the many members; in whom, being now cleansed through faith, and then renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cleave to the One, to feast upon the One, to continue one. (On the Trinity, iv, 7, 11)

For there is but one Son of God by nature, who in His compassion became Son of man for our sakes, that we, by nature sons of men, might by grace become through Him sons of God. For He, abiding unchangeable, took upon Him our nature, that thereby He might take us to Himself; and, holding fast His own divinity, He became partaker of our infirmity, that we, being changed into some better thing, might, by participating in His righteousness and immortality, lose our own properties of sin and mortality, and preserve whatever good quality He had implanted in our nature perfected now by sharing in the goodness of His nature. For as by the sin of one man we have fallen into a misery so deplorable, so by the righteousness of one Man, who also is God, shall we come to a blessedness inconceivably exalted. (City of God, xxi, 15)

[T]he Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who became a partaker of our mortality that He might make us partakers of His divinity. (City of God, xxi, 16)

O pure and holy love! most sweet and blessed affection! O complete submission of a disinterested soul; most perfect in that there is no thought of self; most sweet and tender in that the soul’s whole feeling is divine! To attain to this, is for the soul to be deified; as a small drop of water appears lost if mixed with wine, taking its taste and colour; and as, when plunged into a furnace, a bar of iron seems to lose its nature and assume that of fire; or as the air filled with the sun’s beams seems rather to become light than to be illuminated. So it is with the natural life of the Saints; they seem to melt and pass away into the will of God. For if anything merely human remained in man, how then should God be all in all? It is not that human nature will be destroyed, but that it will attain another beauty, a higher power and glory. (St. Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Love of God, ch. 10)

He who with full face looks to this propitiatory by looking upon Him suspended on the cross in faith, hope, and charity, in devotion, wonder, exultation, appreciation, praise, and jubilation, makes a passover – that is, the phase or passage [Exod. 12:11] with Him – that he may pass over the Red Sea by the staff of the cross from Egypt into the Desert, where he may taste the hidden manna . . . In this passage, if it is perfect, all intellectual operations should be abandoned, and the whole height of our affection should be    transferred and transformed into God. This, however, is mystical and most secret, which no man knoweth but he that hath received it [Apoc. 2:17], nor does he receive it unless he desire it; nor does he desire it unless the fire of the Holy Spirit, Whom Christ sent to earth, has inflamed his marrow. And therefore the Apostle says that this mystic wisdom is revealed through the Holy Spirit. . . . If you should ask how these things come about, question grace, not instruction; desire, not intellect; the cry of prayer, not pursuit of study; the spouse, not the teacher; God, not man; darkness, not clarity; not light, but the wholly flaming fire which will bear you aloft to God with fullest unction and burning affection. This fire is God, and the furnace of this fire leadeth to Jerusalem; and Christ the man kindles it in the fervor of His burning Passion, . . . (St. Bonaventure, The Mind’s Road to God, ch. 7)

[W]e are taken possession of by the Holy Ghost, and we take possession of the Holy Ghost and the Father and the Son, and the whole Divine Nature: for God cannot be divided. . . . In that very moment in which man turns away from sin, he is received by God in the essential unity of his own being, at the summit of his spirit, that he may rest in God, now and evermore. And he also receives grace, and likeness unto God, in the proper source of his powers, that he may evermore grow and increase in new virtues. . . . For whosoever lives without sin, he lives in likeness unto God, and in grace, and God is his own.  (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, Bk. II, ch. 59-60)

[S]ince the spirit is now like unto God, and means and loves God alone above all gifts, it will no longer be satisfied by likeness, nor by a created brightness; . . . the spirit is enkindled into fruition, and it melts into God as into its eternal rest; for the grace of God is to God even as the sunshine is to the sun, and the grace of God is the means and the way which leads us to God. And for this reason it shines within us in simplicity, and makes us deiform, that is, like unto God. And this likeness perpetually merges itself in God, and dies in God, and becomes one with God, and remains one, for charity makes us one with God, and causes us to remain one and to dwell in the One. (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Adornment of the Spiritual Marriage, Bk. II, ch. 63)

[S]uch enlightened men are, with a free spirit, lifted up above reason into a bare and imageless vision, wherein lives the eternal indrawing summons of the Divine Unity; and, with an imageless and bare understanding, they pass through all works, and all exercises, and all things, until they reach the summit of their spirits. There, their bare understanding is drenched through by the Eternal Brightness, even as the air is drenched through by the sunshine. . . . the created image is united above reason in a threefold way with its Eternal Image, which is the origin of its being and its life; and this origin is preserved and possessed, essentially and eternally, through a simple seeing in an imageless void: and so a man is lifted up above reason in a threefold manner into the Unity, and in a onefold manner into the Trinity. Yet the creature does not become God, for the union takes place in God through grace and our homeward-turning love: and therefore the creature in its inward contemplation feels a distinction and an otherness between itself and God. (Bl. John of Ruysbroeck, The Book of Supreme Truth, ch. 11)

[T]he more disengaged and abstracted the self-egression of such souls is, the more free will be their soaring exaltation; and the more free their exaltation, the deeper will be their penetration into the vast wilderness and unfathomable abyss of the unknown Godhead, wherein they are immersed, overflowed, and blended up, so that they desire to have no other will than God’s will, and that they become the very same that God is: in other words, that they be made blessed by grace as He is by nature. (Bl. Henry Suso, A Little Book of Eternal Wisdom, Pt. I, ch. 12)

For the annihilation of the spirit, its passing away into the simple Godhead, and all its nobility and perfection, are not to be regarded as a transformation of man’s created essence into God, in virtue of which all that he is is God, only that he does not perceive it through his grossness, or, in other words, that he has become God, and his own essence is annihilated; but they are to be understood of a going out of self, and a contempt for self, such as has been described. And thus it is that the spirit of a man is taken out of itself and passes away duly and rightfully, and then for the first time it is well with him. For God has now become all things to him, and all things have become, as it were, God to him; for all things present themselves to him now in the manner in which they are in God, and yet they all remain each one what it is in its own natural essence. (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 52)

In this merging of itself in God the spirit passes away, and yet not wholly; for it receives indeed some attributes of the Godhead, but it does not become God by nature. . . . it is unclothed of all created modes, though without ceasing to retain its own proper mode of existence as a creature. (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 56)

This entry of the spirit into God strips it of all images, forms, and multiplicity, and it loses consciousness of itself and all things, and Becomes merged with, the three Persons in the abyss of their indwelling simplicity, and enjoys there its highest and truest bliss. Here all striving and seeking cease, for the beginning and the end have become one, and the spirit, being divested of itself, has become one with them, . . . (Bl. Henry Suso, The Life of Blessed Henry Suso by Himself, ch. 57)

If a man could only once in his life thus turn to God, it would be well for him. Those men whose God is so powerful, and Who has been so faithful to them in all their distress, will be answered by God with Himself. He draws them so mysteriously unto Himself and His own blessedness; their spirits are so lovingly attracted, while they are at the same time so filled and transfused with the Godhead, that they lose all their diversity in the Unity of the Godhead. These are they to whom God makes their work here on earth a delight; so that they have a real foretaste of that which they will enjoy for ever. (Johannes Tauler, The Inner Way, Sermon 10)

This prayer is the entrance into union of the created spirit with the uncreated Spirit of God, and is the result of a design formed by the Holy Godhead throughout eternity. These men are the true worshippers of God, who worship God the Father in spirit and in truth. . . . All has been poured forth into God and has become one spirit with God; as St Paul says: “He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” [1 Cor 6:17] What that is and how it comes to pass, it is easier to experience than to describe. All that has been said of it is as poor and unlike it as the point of a needle is to the heavens above. (Johannes Tauler, The Inner Way, Sermon 36)

The third sort, which is as perfect Contemplation as can be had in this life, consisteth both in knowing and affecting; that is, in knowing and perfect loving of God, which is when a man’s soul is first reformed by perfection of virtues to the image of Jesus, and afterwards, when it pleaseth God to visit him, he is taken in from all earthly and fleshly affections, from vain thoughts and imaginings of all bodily creatures, and, as it were, much ravished and taken up from his bodily senses, and then by the grace of the Holy Ghost is enlightened, to see by his understanding Truth itself (which is God) and spiritual things, with a soft, sweet, burning love in God, so perfectly that he becometh ravished with His love, and so the soul for the time is become one with God, and conformed to the image of the Trinity. The beginning of this Contemplation may be felt in this life, but the full perfection of it is reserved unto the bliss in heaven. Of this union and conforming to our Lord speaks St Paul thus: Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est cum eo; [1 Cor. 6:17]. that is to say, he who by ravishing of love is become united to God, God and that soul are not now two, but both one. (Walter Hilton, The Scale [or, Ladder] of Perfection, Bk. I, Pt. I, ch. 8)

Highly ought we to rejoice that God dwelleth in our soul, and much more highly ought we to rejoice that our soul dwelleth in God. Our soul is made to be God’s dwelling-place; and the dwelling-place of the soul is God, Which is unmade. And high understanding it is, inwardly to see and know that God, which is our Maker, dwelleth in our soul; and an higher understanding it is, inwardly to see and to know that our soul, that is made, dwelleth in God’s Substance: of which Substance, God, we are that we are. And I saw no difference between God and our Substance: but as it were all God; and yet mine understanding took that our Substance is in God: that is to say, that God is God, and our Substance is a creature in God. For the Almighty Truth of the Trinity is our Father: for He made us and keepeth us in Him; . . . the high Goodness of the Trinity is our Lord, and in Him we are enclosed, and He in us. We are enclosed in the Father, and we are enclosed in the Son, and we are enclosed in the Holy Ghost. And the Father is enclosed in us, and the Son is enclosed in us, and the Holy Ghost is enclosed in us: Almightiness, All-Wisdom, All-Goodness: one God, one Lord. And our faith is a Virtue that cometh of our Nature-Substance into our Sense-soul by the Holy Ghost; in which all our virtues come to us: for without that, no man may receive virtue. For it is nought else but a right understanding, with true belief, and sure trust, of our Being: that we are in God, and God in us, Whom we see not. (Julian of Norwich, Revelations of Divine Love, ch. 54)

Oh, abyss of love! What heart can help breaking when it sees such dignity as Yours descend to such lowliness as our humanity? We are Your image, and You have become ours, by this union which You have accomplished with man, veiling the Eternal Deity with the cloud of woe, and the corrupted clay of Adam. For what reason?—Love. Wherefore, You, O God, have become man, and man has become God. (St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, “A Treatise of Discretion”)

[B]y following His doctrine with the affection of love, you are united with Him, and, being united with Him, you are united with Me, because We are one thing together. And so it is that I manifest Myself to you, because We are one and the same thing together. (St. Catherine of Siena, The Dialogue, “A Treatise of Discretion”)

Above thyself thou art: for why, thou attainest to come thither by grace, whither thou mayest not come by nature. That is to say, to be united to God, in spirit, and in love, and in accordance of will. Beneath thy God thou art: for why, although it may be said in manner, that in this time God and thou be not two but one in spirit—insomuch that thou or another, for such onehead that feeleth the perfection of this work, may soothfastly by witness of Scripture be called a God—nevertheless yet thou art beneath Him. For why, He is God by nature without beginning; . . . only by His mercy without thy desert are made a God in grace, united with Him in spirit without departing, both here and in bliss of heaven without any end. So that, although thou be all one with Him in grace, yet thou art full far beneath Him in nature. (The Cloud of Unknowing: ch. 67)

Wherefore God took human nature or manhood upon Himself and was made man, and man was made divine. (Theologia Germanica, ch. 3)

Behold! albeit no man may be so single and perfect in this obedience as Christ was, yet it is possible to every man to approach so near thereunto as to be rightly called Godlike, and “a partaker of the divine nature.” [2 Pet 1:4] And the nearer a man cometh thereunto, and the more Godlike and divine he becometh, the more he hateth all disobedience, sin, evil and unrighteousness, and the worse they grieve him. (Theologia Germanica, ch. 16)

Let Your presence wholly inflame me, consume and transform me into Yourself, that I may become one spirit with You by the grace of inward union and by the melting power of Your ardent love. (Thomas à Kempis, The Imitation of Christ,  Bk. IV, ch. 16)

A heart which finds itself in God sees all created things beneath itself, not through pride or conceit of self, but by reason of its union with God, which makes all that is God’s appear to be its own, and beside him it sees, knows, and comprehends nothing. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Spiritual Dialogue, Pt. III, ch. 8)

God receives her into himself, where she is transformed by his burning love, and thus transformed remains in him forever. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Spiritual Dialogue, Pt. III, ch. 13)

I behold such a great conformity between God and the soul, that when he finds her pure as when his divine majesty first created her he gives her an attractive force of ardent love which would annihilate her if she were not immortal. He so transforms her into himself that, forgetting all, she no longer sees aught beside him; and he continues to draw her toward him, inflames her with love, and never leaves her until he has brought her to that state from whence she first came forth, that is, to the perfect purity in which she was created. . . . And when this is accomplished, she rests wholly in God. Nothing of herself remains, and God is her entire being. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Treatise on Purgatory, ch. 9-10)

[T]he soul . . . is inflamed with so burning a desire to be transformed into God, that in it she finds her purgatory. Not, indeed, that she regards her purgatory as being such, but this desire, so fiery and so powerfully repressed, becomes her purgatory. (St. Catherine of Genoa, Treatise on Purgatory, ch. 11)

How this, which we call union, is effected, and what it is, I cannot tell. Mystical theology explains it, and I do not know the terms of that science; nor can I understand what the mind is, nor how it differs from the soul or the spirit either: all three seem to me but one; though I do know that the soul sometimes leaps forth out of itself, like a fire that is burning and is become a flame; and occasionally this fire increases violently—the flame ascends high above the fire; but it is not therefore a different thing: it is still the same flame of the same fire. . . . What I undertake to explain is that which the soul feels when it is in the divine union. It is plain enough what union is—two distinct things becoming one. . . . one moment is enough to repay all the possible trials of this life. The soul, while thus seeking after God, is conscious, with a joy excessive and sweet, that it is, as it were, utterly fainting away in a kind of trance: breathing, and all the bodily strength, fail it, so that it cannot even move the hands without great pain; the eyes close involuntarily, and if they are open, they are as if they saw nothing; nor is reading possible,—the very letters seem strange, and cannot be distinguished,—the letters, indeed, are visible, but, as the understanding furnishes no help, all reading is impracticable, though seriously attempted. The ear hears; but what is heard is not comprehended. The senses are of no use whatever, except to hinder the soul’s fruition; and so they rather hurt it. It is useless to try to speak, because it is not possible to conceive a word; nor, if it were conceived, is there strength sufficient to utter it; for all bodily strength vanishes, and that of the soul increases, to enable it the better to have the fruition of its joy. Great and most perceptible, also, is the outward joy now felt. . . . Let us now come to that which the soul feels interiorly. Let him describe it who knows it; for as it is impossible to understand it, much more is it so to describe it. When I purposed to write this, I had just communicated, and had risen from the very prayer of which I am speaking. I am thinking of what the soul was then doing. Our Lord said to me: It undoes itself utterly, My daughter, in order that it may give itself more and more to Me: it is not itself that then lives, it is I. As it cannot comprehend what it understands, it understands by not understanding. He who has had experience of this will understand it in some measure, for it cannot be more clearly described, because what then takes place is so obscure. All I am able to say is, that the soul is represented as being close to God; and that there abides a conviction thereof so certain and strong, that it cannot possibly help believing so. (St. Teresa of Ávila, Autobiography, ch. 18)

One day, in prayer, I felt my soul in God in such a way that it seemed to me as if the world did not exist, I was so absorbed in Him. (St. Teresa of Ávila, Autobiography, Relation 9)

[I]f this is genuine union with God, the devil cannot interfere nor do any harm, for His Majesty is so joined and united with the essence of the soul, that the evil one dare not approach, nor can he even understand this mystery. This is certain, for it is said that the devil does not know our thoughts, much less can he penetrate a secret so profound that God does not reveal it even to us. . . .  These heavenly consolations are above all earthly joys, pleasure, and satisfaction. As great a difference exists between their origin and that of worldly pleasures as between their opposite effects, as you know by experience. . . . If we did not see it, how can we feel so sure of it? That I do not know: it is the work of the Almighty and I am certain that what I say is the fact. I maintain that a soul which does not feel this assurance has not been united to God entirely, . . . (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. V, ch. 1)

So mysterious is the secret and so sublime the favour that God thus bestows instantaneously on the soul, that it feels a supreme delight, only to be described by saying that our Lord vouchsafes for the moment to reveal to it His own heavenly glory in a far more subtle way than by any vision or spiritual delight. As far as can be understood, the soul, I mean the spirit of this soul, is made one with God Who is Himself a spirit, and Who has been pleased to show certain persons how far His love for us extends in order that we may praise His greatness. He has thus deigned to unite Himself to His creature: He has bound Himself to her as firmly as two human beings are joined in wedlock and will never separate Himself from her. . . . Perhaps when St. Paul said, ‘He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit,’ [1 Cor 6:17] he meant this sovereign marriage, which presupposes His Majesty’s having been joined to the soul by union. (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. VII, ch. 2)

[D]oubtless by its becoming one with the Almighty, by this sovereign union of spirit with spirit, the soul must gather strength, as we know the saints did, to suffer and to die. (St. Teresa of Ávila, The Interior Castle, Pt. VII, ch. 4)

[I]n order to reach the summit of this high mount, it must have changed its garments, which, through its observance of the first two things, God will change for it, from old to new, by giving it a new understanding of God in God, the old human understanding being cast aside; and a new love of God in God, the will being now stripped of all its old desires and human pleasures, and the soul being brought into a new state of knowledge and profound delight, all other old images and forms of knowledge having been cast away, and all that belongs to the old man, which is the aptitude of the natural self, quelled, and the soul clothed with a new supernatural aptitude with respect to all its faculties. So that its operation, which before was human, has become Divine, which is that that is attained in the state of union, wherein the soul becomes naught else than an altar whereon God is adored in praise and love, and God alone is upon it. (St. John of the Cross,  Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. I, ch. 5)

In thus allowing God to work in it, the soul (having rid itself of every mist and stain of the creatures, which consists in having its will perfectly united with that of God, for to love is to labour to detach and strip itself for God’s sake of all that is not God) is at once illumined and transformed in God, and God communicates to it His supernatural Being, in such wise that it appears to be God Himself, and has all that God Himself has. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favour, that all the things of God and the soul are one in participant transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul, and is indeed God by participation; although it is true that its natural being, though thus transformed, is as distinct from the Being of God as it was before, even as the window has likewise a nature distinct from that of the ray, though the ray gives it brightness. (St. John of the Cross,  Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. II, ch. 5)

[W]hen the memory is transformed in God, it cannot receive impressions of forms or kinds of knowledge. Wherefore the functions of the memory and of the other faculties in this state are all Divine; for, when at last God possesses the faculties and has become the entire master of them, through their transformation into Himself, it is He Himself Who moves and commands them divinely, according to His Divine Spirit and will; and the result of this is that the operations of the soul are not distinct, but all that it does is of God, and its operations are Divine, so that, even as Saint Paul says, he that is joined unto God becomes one spirit with Him. Hence it comes to pass that the operations of the soul in union are of the Divine Spirit and are Divine. . . . all the first motions of the faculties of such souls are Divine and it is not to be wondered at that the motions and operations of these faculties should be Divine, since they are transformed in the Divine Being. . . . as Saint Paul says, the sons of God who are transformed and united in God, are moved by the Spirit of God, that is, are moved to perform Divine work in their faculties. And it is no marvel that their operations should be Divine, since the union of the soul is Divine. (St. John of the Cross, Ascent of Mount Carmel, Bk. III, ch. 2)

The tenth and last step of this secret ladder of love causes the soul to become wholly assimilated to God, by reason of the clear and immediate vision of God which it then possesses; when, having ascended in this life to the ninth step, it goes forth from the flesh. These souls, who are few, enter not into purgatory, since they have already been wholly purged by love. Of these Saint Matthew says: Beati mundo corde: quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. And, as we say, this vision is the cause of the perfect likeness of the soul to God, for, as Saint John says, we know that we shall be like Him. Not because the soul will come to have the capacity of God, for that is impossible; but because all that it is will become like to God, for which cause it will be called, and will be, God by participation. (St. John of the Cross, Dark Night of the Soul, Bk. II, ch. 20)

When the soul has lived for some time as the bride of the Son, in perfect and sweet love, God calls it and leads it into His flourishing garden for the celebration of the spiritual marriage. Then the two natures are so united, what is divine is so communicated to what is human, that, without undergoing any essential change, each seems to be God — yet not perfectly so in this life, though still in a manner which can neither be described nor conceived. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXII)

For as the understanding of the soul will then be the understanding of God, and its will the will of God, so its love will also be His love. Though in heaven the will of the soul is not destroyed, it is so intimately united with the power of the will of God, Who loves it, that it loves Him as strongly and as perfectly as it is loved of Him; both wills being united in one sole will and one sole love of God. Thus the soul loves God with the will and strength of God Himself, being made one with that very strength of love with which itself is loved of God. This strength is of the Holy Spirit, in Whom the soul is there transformed. He is given to the soul to strengthen its love; ministering to it, and supplying in it, because of its transformation in glory, that which is defective in it. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXXVIII)

This is a certain faculty which God will there give the soul in the communication of the Holy Spirit, Who, like one breathing, raises the soul by His divine aspiration, informs it, strengthens it, so that it too may breathe in God with the same aspiration of love which the Father breathes with the Son, and the Son with the Father, which is the Holy Spirit Himself, Who is breathed into the soul in the Father and the Son in that transformation so as to unite it to Himself; for the transformation will not be true and perfect if the soul is not transformed in the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity in a clear manifest degree. This breathing of the Holy Spirit in the soul, whereby God transforms it in Himself, is to the soul a joy so deep, so exquisite, and so grand that no mortal tongue can describe it, no human understanding, as such, conceive it in any degree; for even that which passes in the soul with respect to the communication which takes place in its transformation wrought in this life cannot be described, because the soul united with God and transformed in Him breathes in God that very divine aspiration which God breathes Himself in the soul when it is transformed in Him. . . . God has bestowed upon it so great a favor as to unite it to the most Holy Trinity, whereby it becomes like God, and God by participation, . . . the soul becomes like God, Who, that it might come to this, created it to His own image and likeness. (St. John of the Cross, A Spiritual Canticle, Stanza XXXIX)

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier

Dave has done a great service to his readers in weaving together a tapestry of quotes from both the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as writings of Western Catholic fathers, saints and mystics. For my part, I would like to offer a brief overview of this subject as well, since many readers may not be familiar with this doctrine, which has especially come to the forefront of Orthodox teaching in recent decades as a means of recovering the patristic witness in Eastern soteriology. At the conclusion, I will also make mention of certain modern polemical developments within Orthodoxy.

In recent years, one of the subjects that has received greater scholarly and popular attention in both Western and Eastern Christian circles is the doctrine of Christian deification, or – according to the Greek term by which it is better known – , theosis. The historical reasons for this modern resurgence of interest in a subject dating back to at least the 2nd century and arguably the New Testament period itself, are many, and will not be covered here.1

It should suffice to say that the interest in theosis is wide-ranging, going far beyond its typical treatment in Eastern Orthodox settings to include both Catholics and Protestants in dialogue, most especially as it pertains to the roots of this doctrine in both Scripture and studies of the teachings of the Church fathers.

Daniel Keating has written a very helpful summary of this doctrine in both modern and ancient authors in his Deification and Grace (Ave Maria, Florida: Sapientia Press, 2007). On the evangelical side of the aisle, Daniel B. Clendin’s Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003) has in many respects opened up new vistas of dialogue and exchange between the Orthodox East and the Protestant West, exposing many of the children of the Reformation to the rich theological and spiritual heritage of their Eastern brethren. In this work he dedicates an entire chapter to the subject of “The Deification of Humanity: Theosis.”

Other very important recent treatments include Father David Vincent Meconi, S.J.’s The One in Christ: St. Augustine’s Theology of Deification (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2013), Christopher Veniamin’s The Orthodox Understanding of Salvation: “Theosis” in Scripture and Tradition (Dalton, Pennsylvania: Mount Thabor publishing, 2014), as well as the edited work by Michael J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung entitled Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Baker Academic, 2007).

This particular work includes contributions from some eighteen authors all of whom hail from varied ecclesiastical and theological affiliations: Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant. And explores the development of the doctrine of theosis through four historical periods: Classical and Late Antiquity, the wide-spanning patristic period, the Medieval and Reformation eras and in modern times.

Luther, Calvin and Wesley’s treatment of this subject are explored in depth: which speaks to the potential resonance this subject can have in the ecumenical dialogue among Christians.     This fact has not been lost on Protestant biblical scholar, Michael J. Gorman, whose work, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2009), sees theosis as the best description of Paul’s entire doctrine of salvation, weaving together the threads of an incarnational and trinitarian kenosis as well as the doctrine of justification into “a single soteriological reality of inhabiting the cruciform God revealed in Christ by the power of the Spirit from the first moment of faith to the eschatological goal of complete glory.”2

To say more about Gorman’s treatment at this point would take us far afield and wouldn’t do justice to the whole argument of his project, but suffice it to say that this subject is far from limited to more narrow dogmatic and confessional commitments. When one considers how the ancient and modern Christian East, as will be shown, places theosis at the centerpiece of God’s creative and redemptive intentions, it is easy to understand why the implications are far more reaching.

The purpose of this small contribution is far more modest in its scope: to explore the main points of the doctrine of Christian deification or theosis by way of introduction in the hope that it establishes a foundation for further ecumenical exploration and discussion.

What is Theosis?

Theosis or deification has a long history, going back even into pre-Christian or especially pre-Socratic Hellenistic antiquity.3 In comparing pagan Greek antecedents to the Christian doctrine of theosis, John Lenz identifies in his chapter on “Deification and the Philosopher in Classical Greece,” in Partakers of Divine Nature, points of continuity and also profound discontinuity, especially as it relates to Platonism and its critical treatment by the fathers.4

That being said, the fact that the name was appropriated and cleansed of any pagan presuppositions antithetical to the gospel is not in itself a reason to discard it since, as will be seen, its fuller and fulfilled sense within the Christian message is based on divine revelation.

The Christian understanding of theosis is simply that it is “the ancient theological word used to describe the process by which a Christian becomes more like God.”5 It reflects the meaning of the words of the Second Epistle of Peter, which will be treated shortly, in which Christ makes us “partakers of the divine nature,” (2 Peter 1:4). This understanding of deification or theosis should not be understood in the sense of an immediate appropriation of the divine nature. Rather it is to be understood metaphorically within the broader context of the divine economy. According to Russell:

All theological language is rooted in metaphor. Redemption, for example, means literally ‘being ransomed or bought back.’ Salvation means ‘being made safe and whole.’ Theosis or ‘becoming god,’ implies more than redemption or salvation. It is not simply remedying our defective human state. It is nothing less than our entering into partnership with God, our becoming fellow workers with him (1 Cor 3.9) for the sake of bringing the divine economy to its ultimate fulfillment.6

Such a process occurs by virtue of the incarnation of Christ within the unfolding divine plan or economy of salvation. As the Orthodox Study Bible states:

Deification means that we are to become more like God through His grace or divine energies. In creation, humans were made in the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26) according to human nature. In other words, humanity by nature is an icon or image of the deity. The divine image is in all humanity. Through sin, however, this image and likeness of God was marred and we fell. When the Son of God assumed our humanity in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, the process of our being renewed in God’s image and likeness was begun…Because of the incarnation of the Son of God, because the fullness of God has inhabited human flesh, being joined to Christ means that it is again possible to experience deification, the fulfillment of our human destiny. That is, through union with Christ, we become by grace what God is by nature – we “become children of God” (John 1:12). His deity interpenetrates our humanity.7

Two points stand out in this paragraph. First, theosis is first and last a matter of participation in the energies of divine grace – that is the divine life and love overflowing from the Holy Trinity – and not by direct, immediate sharing in the divine nature, which would be a form of pantheism. This covenantal grace of theosis is ultimately something mediated to us through the Christ’s high priesthood and our incorporation into His living Body, the church.

Second, the ontological basis for this participation is twofold. It is based, first of all, in the fact of our created nature in the image and likeness of God. God’s original plan for man in Orthodox theology was deification, which is why it is frequently held in the Christian East that the incarnation was not solely a divine rescue mission in the spirit of the Augustinian felix culpa (“Oh happy fault, which deserved to have such and so great a Redeemer”), but rather part of God’s original intention at the covenant of creation.8 “Deification is the fulfillment of creation,” Louth says, “not just the rectification of the Fall.”9

This leads to the second part of the ontological basis for deification, which is the hypostatic union of two natures (divine and human) and the Divine Person in Jesus Christ at the event of the incarnation. Here we see not simply the dogmatic affirmation of Chalcedonian orthodoxy, but the unfolding of this dogma’s soteriological import. The Son’s kenotic self-emptying, begun in the incarnation, culminating in the crucifixion, becomes the basis of man’s elevation to participate in divinity. We see this in Paul’s letter to the Philippians (2:5-11):

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

This divine kenosis is the basis of a redemptive exchange through a double movement of catabasis (God’s descent to man) and anabasis (man’s ascent to God).10 As Russell notes, the Church fathers expanded upon this theme of the admirabile commercium with great regularity:

“The Son of God ‘became what we are in order to make us what he is himself.’” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5).

“The Word of God became man so that you too may learn from a man how it is even possible for a man to become God” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 1.8.4).

“He became human that we might become divine” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation 54).

“He gave us divinity, we gave him humanity” (Ephrem, Hymns of Faith 5.7).

“Let us become as Christ is, since Christ became as we are: let us become gods for his sake, since he became man for our sake” (Gregory of Nanzianus, Oration 1.5).

“The Son of God became the Son of Man that he might make the sons of men sons of God” (Augustine, Mainz sermons 13.1).

“God and man are paradigms of one another, that as much as God is humanized to man through love for mankind, so much has man been able to deify himself to God through love” (Maximos the Confessor, Ambigua 10).11

Here we see how the Church fathers bore witness in the early years of the Church to this divine exchange as the starting point whereby man through the energies of grace is able to participate more fully in the very life of God in Christ. As the quote from Maximos the Confessor implies, however, man is called to actively participate in this exchange through cooperation with love. Our sanctification is not simply a passive and static reality. Rather, it is one in which we are called “work out (our) salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12).

Once again, as the Orthodox Study Bible relates:

[T]he divine energies interpenetrate the human nature of Christ. Being joined to Christ, our humanity is interpenetrated with the energies of God through Christ’s glorified flesh. Nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, we partake of the grace of God – His strength, His righteousness, His love – and are enabled to serve Him and glorify Him. Thus we, being human, are being deified.12

If the directness of the nature of the exchange appears too much, Daniel Clendenin relates three very familiar pedagogical images that the Church fathers used to explain the doctrine of theosis beyond that of the incarnation, and in a manner more readily understood. He writes:

Macarius and Chrysostom employ the analogy of marriage to define theosis. Just as two people are joined together in one flesh yet all the while maintain the integrity of their separate identities, just as they share a single existence and hold all things in common, so the believer is joined to God in an “ineffable communion” (see 1 Cor. 6:15-17). Maximos even dares to call this theosis an “erotic union.”…Elsewhere Chrysostom compares our union with God to grains of wheat: “Just as the bread is constituted by many grains united together so that the grains cannot be distinguished from one another even though they are there, since their difference is made unapparent in their cohesion, in the same manner we are joined together both to each other and to Christ.” Cyril of Alexandria likens our participation in Christ to the joining of wax with wax, to the interpenetration of yeast with a lump of dough, and to red-hot iron penetrated by fire.

All of these images – marriage, erotic union, grains of wheat in bread, wax, yeast and dough and a red-hot iron in the fire – communicate the nature of the union presupposed by the doctrine of deification. This spiritual union is from the first – and ultimately – the initiative of God towards man with the purpose of allowing man to share in His own divine life through grace. This grace of adoption and sonship in the Son does not destroy our individuality, but fulfills us by healing and elevating our humanity through grace.

Finally, in the context of the verse most frequently cited related to deification and theosis, 2 Peter, 1:4, we see the full extent of the call of what it means to be partakers of divine nature:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.13

Such participation by grace in divine nature should therefore be lived out progressively by pursuing the virtues of a godly life, principally the virtue of charity. It is this progress in holiness which conforms us more greatly to His likeness, moving us from corruptibility to incorruptibility through the power of the Resurrection, and from image to likeness. As St. Basil the Great observed in the fourth century: “the image was given to us in our nature, and it is unchangeable; from the beginning until the end it remains. The likeness on the other hand, we gain and achieve through our cooperation and volition; it exists potentially in us, and is energized through the good life and excellent behavior.”

To be sure, the doctrine of theosis or deification has a basis within the sources of Christian faith, most especially Sacred Scripture and the writings of the early fathers of the Church. Far from developing along a trajectory that is foreign to the biblical worldview, theosis helps to express more perfectly the unfolding divine plan of God for man at the beginning of creation. Man was called to participate in the divine nature by grace through the eventual event of the Incarnation of the Son of God.

Following the Fall, this plan at creation became simultaneously a redemptive mission, seeking through the condescension of the Son of God, the means to restore man to covenant communion with God, to heal him of his sins and to elevate him to participate in the divine life of grace flowing from the Holy Trinity through Christ.

Theosis thus becomes the true basis of our growth in sanctification and the basis of our participation in the glorious life of the Son in this life and the next. As the late Anglican clergyman, Philip E. Hughes observed:

[Theosis is] the reintegration of the divine image of man’s creation through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit conforming the redeemed into the likeness of Christ, and also of the believer’s transition from mortality to immortality so that he is enabled to participate in the eternal bliss and glory of the kingdom of God.14

Theosis and the Christian Faith of East and West

Finally, despite these shared roots and teachings, it is important to note in a work of Catholic apologetics, one more important chapter in Partakers of Divine Nature, namely “Neo-Palamism, Divinizing Grace, and the Breach between East and West,” written by Catholic theologian, Dr. Jeffrey D. Finch.       Finch, whose doctoral dissertation at Drew University was entitled Sanctity as Participation in the Divine Nature according to the Ante-Nicene Eastern Fathers Considered in the Light of Palamism, attempts in this short chapter to address the polemics of a group he identifies as the “Neo-Palamite school,” who began writing in the early part of the 20th century in response to the assertions of the Augustinian friar, Martin Jugie, concerning his assertion that St. Gregory’s Palamas’ distinction between the energy and the essence of God came close to heresy, something which has never been asserted, it is worth noting, by the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

The result of this unhelpful polemic, was an equally polemical reaction from the Orthodox side, most especially by theologian and one time student of the great Parisian Thomist, Etienne Gilson, Vladimir Lossky (c. 1903-1958). As one might expect, Augustine was made out in large part to be the theological villain in this drama due to the doctrine developed in the West of uncreated grace, which was treated as antithetical to the teachings of Palamas.

The great Orthodox historian and theologian, Father John Meyendorff, contributed greatly to this debate, as well as to the overall recovery of the long-forgotten memory and writings of this great saint of the East, St. Gregory Palamas, albeit with a slightly anti-Western edge as a result of the polemical atmosphere which precipitated his recovery.

Without attempting to reconstruct the whole argument here (which, while complex, is worth taking the time to read), one of the points which Finch brings up at the end is the fact that there is no consensus at all that Palamas’ teaching should be interpreted as neo-Palamites do: that is, in opposition to Western understandings of the manner of our participation in the divine nature.

He cites theologians such as Met. Kallistos Ware, Yves Congar, O.P., David Bentley Hart and A.N. Williams who argue against any false dichotomy between Catholicism and authentic Palamism. As with the discussion of the ancestral / original sin, I believe all sides would do well to avoid assuming incompatibility based on the assertions of certain modern Orthodox and Catholic theologians.

That being said, this topic also merits a fuller, in-depth treatment removed from the polemics on either side, so that the full beauty of this doctrine and its rich patrimony in the Church might be shared and celebrated by both East and West.

Footnotes

1    For a good summary of the underlying reasons for this newfound interest, see the “Introduction” to Norman Russell’s very fine Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009) 13-21.

2    Michael J. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2009) 168.

3    John R. Lenz, “Deification of the Philosopher in Classical Greece,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffrey A. Wittung, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007) 62.

4    Ibid., 42, 53-54.

5    “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1993) 561.

6    Norman Russell, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis. (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009) 36.

7    “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, 561.

8    Andrew Louth, “The Place of Theosis in Orthodox Theology,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, 34-35.

9    Ibid., 34-35.

10  Michael Kunzler, The Church’s Liturgy, (London: Continuum, 2001) 3-4.

11  Norman Russell, Fellow Workers with God: Orthodox Thinking on Theosis (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 38-39.

12  “Deification,” Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, 561.

13  Daniel B. Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2003), 132-133.

14  The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1989) 281.

Dave Armstrong

Theosis continues to usually be discussed as primarily or even solely an Eastern conception and belief, and many Orthodox (being apparently unfamiliar with the strong Catholic mystical and contemplative tradition and practice) casually assume this.

Yet it is directly indicated in the Bible and has a long and noble history in the West as well (with somewhat different terminology, as one would expect). May the “movement” of noting and rejoicing in things that the Christian East and West share in common grow by leaps and bounds.

We have enough real differences to work through (this book makes an attempt – however successful – to do that), without laboring under imaginary ones.

***

Related Reading

Theosis and the Exalted Virgin Mary [7-11-04]

Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis & Sanctification Linked to Justification [11-23-09]

“In Him” An Expression of the Oneness of Theosis? [3-13-14]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
Photo credit: adonesFAO (5-12-17) [PixabayPixabay License]
*
***

 

2017-11-13T11:27:58-04:00

Theosis2

(3-13-14)

***

Some of the texts brought forth as evidence of theosis / deification / divinization, or the attainment of a profound oneness with God, are the following (RSV):

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

1 Corinthians 6:17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

2 Corinthians 3:18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;

2 Peter 1:4 . . . you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

From my recent reading of Catholic mystic authors, I came across exposition of another biblical motif in this regard: that of being “in God” / “in him” (as a sort of “flipside” of His being “in” us; in our hearts, in the indwelling). Perhaps this has (at least in some of these passages) a connection with the notion of deification as well. It’s another way to think of the phrase that we casually use, not thinking much about its deeper meanings (I have omitted “in Christ”: which seems to have a much wider latitude of meaning):

John 6:56 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.

John 15:4-7 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. [5] I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. [6] If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. [7] If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.

John 16:33 . . . in me you may have peace. . . .

John 17:21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Acts 17:18 . . . In him we live and move and have our being . . .

2 Corinthians 5:21 . . . in him we might become the righteousness of

Ephesians 1:10 as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

Colossians 2:6-7, 10 As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, [7] rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, . . . [10] and you have come to fulness of life in him, who is the head of all rule and authority.

Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

1 John 2:5-6 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: [6] he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.

1 John 2:24, 28 . . . If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father. . . . [28] And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.

1 John 3:6 No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.

1 John 3:24 All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

1 John 4:13, 15-16 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his own Spirit. . . . [15] Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. [16] So we know and believe the love God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

1 John 5:20 . . . we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. . . .

***

Photo credit: Image by “geralt” (6-15-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons]

***

2017-02-25T11:42:35-04:00

MaryQueenofHeaven2

The Coronation of the Virgin with Six Saints (1504), by Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio (1483-1561) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

*****

[7-11-04]

***

The exaltation of Mary is the supreme example of how highly God sought to raise man. This is part and parcel (as the foremost and most extraordinary instance) of the notion of divinization or deification or theosis — a common motif, particularly in Orthodox thought, Catholic mysticism and spirituality, and the early Eastern Church fathers.

Matthias Scheeben (1835-1888), the extraordinary German Catholic mystic and theologian, explains this concept in the detail necessary to avoid huge misunderstandings:

By grace the first man was deified, but he was not made God or turned into God, if we may so speak. It is only in a figurative sense that the Fathers refer to the deified man as God, that is, as a different God by similarity, not by identity, but only in the sense in which we are accustomed to speak of the so-called parhelion or mock sun as the sun. When man, the original bearer and possessor of a purely human nature, became also the possessor and bearer of a share in the divine nature through grace, he did not become another, but remained the same person. He did not lose himself; he continued to belong to himself. By participation in the divine nature he only acquired a new possession, a new, higher, supernatural character, by which he was transformed into God’s image, was made like to God in a supernatural manner, and in consequence of this resemblance necessarily entered into a most intimate union and unity with the divine Exemplar . . .

(The Mysteries of Christianity, translated by Cyril Vollert, St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1946; originally 1888 in German, 316-317)

Biblical indications for theosis are abundant:

1) The symbolic equation of Christ and His disciples (even all of mankind) is a most biblical concept:

. . . whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. (John 13:20; cf. Luke 9:48, Mark 9:37, Matthew 18:5 — NRSV)

. . . for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink [etc.] . . . just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me. (Matthew 25:35, 40)

2) In Scripture there is often taught a mystical (but almost literal) identification of the Body of Christ (the Church: 1 Corinthians 12:27, Ephesians 1:22-23, 5:30, Colossians 1:24) with Christ Himself. Jesus equated Paul’s persecution of the Church with persecution of Him (Acts 9:5; cf. 8:1,3, 9:1-2). This is incarnational theology.

3) 2 Peter 1:3-4 is the all-important verse in this regard:

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature . . . (KJV; same clause in RSV / NKJV ; cf. John 14:20-23; 17:21-23)

4) Note also the following cross-exegesis (from RSV):

a) For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

b) For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell. (Colossians 1:19)

c) And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:16)

d) . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3:19)

e) until we attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:13)

f) But you are not in the flesh, you are in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Any one who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

g) If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Jesus Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit which dwells in you. (Romans 8:11)

h) What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, ‘I will live in them . . . ‘ (2 Corinthians 6:16)

i) and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith . . . (Ephesians 3:17)

j) for ‘In him we live and move and have our being’: as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ (Acts 17:28)

k) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. (Romans 8:29)

l) And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. (2 Corinthians 3:18)

(cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16; 2 Timothy 1:14; 1 John 4:12, 15-16)

The Greek word for “fulness” in all instances is pleroma (Strong’s word #4138). These references also suggest the notion of theosis, or deification: a participation in God’s energies and power, through the Holy Spirit.

5) The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes frequent mention of theosis or divinization: see #398, 460, 1129, 1265, 1812, 1988.

Pope John Paul II, in his General Audience of May 27, 1998, spoke about this aspect of theology and spirituality, in his talk entitled, “Spirit Enables Us to Share in Divine Nature”.

To summarize: it is plausible that God could and would bestow an extraordinary place upon Mary in His redemptive plan for the human race. If we are all potentially partakers of the divine nature, as St. Peter informs us, then how much more so the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculate New Eve, the Theotokos? If we all can be potentially God’s fellow workers, urged on by God’s enabling grace to work out our own salvation, then why cannot Mary conceivably have been chosen by God to be a dispenser of His salvific grace and Mediatrix?

*****

Meta Description: Explanation of how theosis, or union of God, quintessentially applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially as Mediatrix of all graces.

Meta Keywords: divine nature, theosis, mysticism, union with God, deification, divinization, Blessed Virgin Mary, Blessed Virgin Mary, Co-Redemptrix, distribution of graces, Marian doctrine, Mariology, Mary mediatrix

2017-04-27T15:13:38-04:00

Original title:  Martin Luther: Strong Elements in His Thinking of Theosis and Sanctification Linked to Justification
TheosisClouds
[public domain / Pixabay]
(11-23-09)
[see also a highly related article: “Justification as Healing: The Little-Known Luther” (Ted M Dorman)  ]
St. Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle.

(Summa Theologica, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 112: The Cause of Grace, Art. 1: Whether God Alone is the Cause of Grace)

* * * * *

The following information was obtained from the fascinating article, “Luther and Theosis,” by Kurt E. Marquart, Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Concordia Theological Seminary (Fort Wayne, Indiana), and was published in Concordia Theological Quarterly, Vol. 64:3, July 200, pp. 182-205.

Many back issues of that excellent scholarly magazine are available online on a great site that I happily ran across. All subsequent words below are from the article, with Luther’s own words in blue. Footnotes appear in brackets immediately after the section that utilizes the sources therein.

* * * * *
The chief New Testament reference to theosis or deification is 2 Peter 1:4: . . . (AV : “partakers of the divine nature”; NEB: “come to share in the very being of God). Certainly John 17:23 is to the point: “The glory which Thou gavest Me I have given to them, that they may be one, as We are one; I in them and Thou in Me, may they be perfectly one” (NEB, upper case added). This at once suggests the divine nuptial mystery (Ephesians 5:25-32; one may compare 2:19-22 and Colossians 1:26-27), with its implied “wondrous exchange.” That the final “transfiguration” of believers into “conformity” . . . with Christ’s glorious body (Philippians 3:21; one may compare 1 Corinthians 15:49) has begun already in the spiritual-sacramental life of faith, is clear from “icon” texts like Romans 8:29, Colossians 3:10, and especially 2 Corinthians 3:18: “thus we are transfigured into His likeness, from splendor to splendor” . . . One may also wish to compare 2 Corinthians 4:16 and Ephesians 3:14-19.

The most celebrated patristic statement on the subject is no doubt that of Athanasius: “For He was made man that we might be made God.” To avoid any pantheistic misunderstandings, it is necessary to see that “deification” applies first of all to the flesh of the incarnate Son of God Himself. It is simply a traditional way of putting what Lutherans now call the second genus, or the genus maiestaticum, of the communication of attributes.

[ . . . ]

In a 1526 sermon Luther said: “God pours out Christ His dear Son over us and pours Himself into us and draws us into Himself, so that He becomes completely humanified (vermzenschetand we become completely deified (gantz und gar vergottet, “Godded-through”) and everything is altogether one thing, God, Christ, and you.”‘

[Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 58 volumes (Weimar, 1883- ), 20:229,30 and following, cited in Werner Elert, The Structure of Lutheranism, volume 1 (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1962),175-176. The present author has altered the translation given there in order to make it more literal. All subsequent references to the Weimar edition of Luther’s works will be abbreviated WA.]

[ . . . ]

Sadly, this we] is now unknown in the whole world, and is neither preached nor pursued; indeed, we are even quite ignorant of our own name, why we are Christians and are so-called. Surely we are so-called not from Christ absent, but from Christ dwelling [inhabitante] in us, that is, inasmuch as we believe in Him and are mutually one another’s Christ, doing for neighbors just as Christ does for us.

We conclude therefore that the Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbor, or he is no Christian; in Christ through faith, in the neighbor through love. Through faith he is rapt above himself into God, and by love he in turn flows beneath himself into the neighbor, remaining always in God and in His love.

[The Freedom of the Christian, Latin: WA 7:66,69; German: WA 7:35-36,38; English: Luther’s Works, American Edition, 55 volumes, edited by J. Pelikan and H. T. Lehmann (Saint Louis: Concordia and Philadelphia: Fortress, 1955-1986), 31:368, 371. In “Theosis as a Subject,” the end of the first paragraph has been rendered “mutually in one another, another and different Christ. . .” Subsequent references to the American edition of Luther’s works will be abbreviated LW.]

In an early (1515) Christmas sermon, Luther notes:

As the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary that the flesh should also become Word. For just for this reason does the Word become flesh, in order that the flesh might become Word. In other words: God becomes man, in order that man should become God. Thus strength becomes weak in order that weakness might become strong. The Logos puts on our form and figure and image and likeness, in order that He might clothe us with His image, form, likeness. Thus wisdom becomes foolish, in order that foolishness might become wisdom, and so in all other things which are in God and us, in all of which He assumes ours in order to confer upon us
His [things].

We who are flesh are made Word not by being substantially changed into the Word, but by taking it on [assumimus] and uniting it to ourselves by faith, on account of which union we are said not only to have but even to be the Word.”

[WA 1 2825-3239-41. Cited in “Grundlagenforschun,” 192; “Zwei Arten,” 163.]

[ . . . ]

The one who has faith is a completely divine man [plane est divinus homo], a son of God, the inheritor of the universe. . . . Therefore the Abraham who has faith fills heaven and earth; thus every Christian fills heaven and earth by his faith. . .

[WA 40 I:182,390; LW 26:1001 247,248.]

Obviously there are many implications here as well for love, good works, and other important topics . . .

[ . . . ]

. . . Luther . . . knows a God who is not gingerly beaming thoughts and effects at us from afar while taking care to keep His real being (if He has any!) well away from us. With Luther biblical realism is in full cry:

The fanatical spirits today speak about faith in Christ in the manner of the sophists. They imagine that faith is a quality that clings to the heart apart from Christ [excluso Christo]. This is a dangerous error. Christ should be set forth in such a way that apart from Him you see nothing at all and that you believe that nothing is nearer and closer to you than He. For He is not sitting idle in heaven but is completely present [praesentissimus] with us, active and living in us as chapter two says (2:20): “It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me,” and here: “You have put on Christ. . . .”

Hence the speculation of the sectarians is vain when they imagine that Christ is present in us “spiritually,” that is, speculatively, but is present really in heaven. Christ and faith must be completely joined. We must simply take our place in heaven; and Christ must be, live, and work in us. But He lives and works in us, not speculatively but really, with presence and with power [realiter, praesentissime et eficacissim].

[WA 40 1:545-546; LW 26:356-357; “In ipsa,” 39-40.]

By faith, finally,

you are so cemented [conglutineristo Christ that He and you are as one person, which cannot be separated but remains attached [perpetuo adhaerescatto Him forever and declares: “I am as Christ.” And Christ, in turn, says: “I am as that sinner who is attached to Me, and I to him. For by faith we are joined together into one flesh and one bone.” Thus Ephesians 5:30 says: “We are members of the body of Christ, of His flesh and of His bones,” in such a way that this faith couples Christ and me more intimately than a husband is coupled to his wife.

[WA 40 1:285-286; LW 26:l68; “In ipsa,” 51.]

[ . . . ]

And that we are so filled with “all the fulness of God,” that is said in the Hebrew manner, meaning that we are filled in every way in which He fills, and become full of God, showered with all gifts and grace and filled with His Spirit, Who is to make us bold, and enlighten us with His light, and live His life in us, that His bliss make us blest, His love awaken love in us. In short, that everything that He is and can do, be fully in us and mightily work, that we be completely deified [vergottet], not that we have a particle or only some pieces of God, but all fulness. Much has been written about how man should be deified; there they made ladders, on which one should climb into heaven, and much of that sort of thing. Yet it is sheer piecemeal effort; but here [in faith] the right and closest way to get there is indicated, that you become full of God, that you lack in no thing, but have everything in one heap, that everything that you speak, think, walk, in sum, your whole life be completely divine [Gottisch].

[Sermon of 1525, WA 17 1:438; “In ipsa,” 54.]

When one ponders the lively, full-blooded realism of Luther’s theology, one can only wonder how such a legacy could have been so tragically squandered in world “Lutheranism” over the centuries. Chesterton complained about the Church of England’s tendency to tolerate “underbelievers” but to persecute “overbelievers.” Why this preference for ever less, for the minimal? Reductionist philosophy alone is hardly the whole story. Sin has a way of defending itself against God’s saving incursions on a broad front.

[ . . . ]

If there is such a thing as a characteristic “structure of Lutheranism” which distinguishes it from other confessions, then it must lie surely in a relentless realism of faith that will not let any of God’s life-bearing gifts be spirited away into significances and abstractions.

[ . . . ]

Very God of very God, a real incarnation, genuine, full, and free forgiveness, life, salvation and communion with the Holy Trinity, imparted in the divinely powerful gospel and sacraments – including the evangelic doctrine as revealed, heavenly truth, not academic guesswork, and the true body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar – all these mysteries to be cherished and handled for the common good by responsible householders in the God-given office, rightly dividing law and gospel (sola fide!): do not these constitute the “structure of Lutheranism”?

[ . . . ]

Luther insists just as rigidly, as does the Formula, on a radical differentiation between imputed and inchoate righteousness, only his terms for this are “passive” and “active” righteousness. Luther devotes a whole introductory section to this topic, under the title, “The Argument of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.” The distinctively “Christian righteousness,” by which alone we are justified and saved, “is heavenly and passive,” that is, Christ’s. All the various forms of earthly, active righteousness are excluded from this.

[ . . . ]

Luther’s sublime comment on Psalm 5:2-3 provides a suitable conclusion:

By the reign of His humanity or (as the Apostle says) His flesh, which takes place in faith, He conforms us to Himself and crucibles us, making genuine men, that is wretches and sinners, out of unhappy and haughty gods. For because we rose in Adam towards the likeness of God, He came down into our likeness, in order to lead us back to a knowledge of ourselves. And this takes place in the mystery [sacramentumof the Incarnation. This is the reign of faith, in which the Cross of Christ holds sway, throwing down a divinity perversely sought and calling back a humanity [with its] despised weakness of the flesh, which had been perversely abandoned. But by the reign of [His] divinity and glory He will conform [configurabitus to the body of His glory, that we might be like Him, now neither sinners nor weak, neither led nor ruled, but ourselves kings and sons of God like the angels. Then will be said in fact “my God,” which is now said in hope. For it is not unfitting that he says first “my King” and then “my God,” just as Thomas the Apostle, in the last chapter of Saint John, says, “My Lord and my God.” For Christ must be grasped first as Man and then as God, and the Cross of His humanity must be sought before the glory of His divinity. Once we have got Christ the Man, He will bring along Christ the God of His Own accord.

[0perationes in Psalmos (1519-1521), WA 5128-129. I am indebted for this reference to Walter Mostert, “Martin Luther- Wirkung und Deutung,” in Luther im Widerstreit der Geschichte, Veroffentlichungen der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg, Band 20 (Erlangen: Martin-Luther Verlag, 1993), 78.]

***

2025-03-01T15:11:51-04:00

False premises; unfounded, unbiblical divine “impossibilities”; cessationism; ten types of physical divine presence 

Photo credit: image by VesaL (4-8-24) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used thscholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge’s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to portions of a section of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 3, 19th Topic: The Sacraments / 28th Question: The Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Supper and the Oral Manducation of It). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

*****

Is Christ corporeally present in the Eucharist, and is he eaten with the mouth by believers? We deny against the Romanists and Lutherans.

And they “deny” against the Church fathers, medieval theologians, and the Bible. Not a good place to be . . .

The fiction of transubstantiation having been overthrown, . . . 

I must have missed it. But it’s not overthrown if I am around to shoot down the weak and insufficient and radically unbiblical arguments against it. One day all saved believers will know what the truth of the matter is and will all agree. What a marvelous and blessed concept!: total unity. How sad that it was supposed to be like that in the Church all along.

The Scriptures so often propose to us the communion of the body and blood of Christ as the foundation and source of all his blessings . . . 

Isn’t it odd and sad that Turretin can so casually and frequently make reference to “the body and blood of Christ” while at the same time denying that it really is that? But that’s the first thing that theological falsehood and heresy do: change the plain meanings of words.

Hence they invented a local and corporeal presence in order that it might be eaten with the mouth.

We didn’t invent anything. Jesus introduced these ideas, that had never crossed anyone’s mind:

John 6:50-51, 53-58 “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. . . . if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh. . . . unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. . . . he who eats me will live because of me. . . . This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”

How many repetitions of an obvious truth does one need? It’s almost as if God was anticipating the eucharistic nonsense that we have been burdened with since the 1520s, and made the truth of the matter so clear in Scripture that no one without a prior bias or constant brainwashing could possibly deny it. Yet they do . . . so our apologetic and exegetical task still remains.

It is not inquired whether our union with Christ is necessary for salvation (which we acknowledge and urge) . . . 

Note how he rightfully holds that partaking of Holy Communion is “necessary for salvation.”

Christ’s body is proposed in the Supper to us and represented by the sacramental signs as dead and his blood as poured out of his veins (in which manner it is impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally and indistantly [adiastatōs], since he can die no more); . . . 

This is simply not impossible at all for God to do. Nothing logically forbids it, for those who grant miracles, the supernatural, and God’s omnipotence. Turretin assumes it but doesn’t prove it. Again, he thinks like the Pauline “unspiritual man.” His God is “too small.” As a thought experiment, imagine that instead of becoming one man, Jesus, in the incarnation, God the Father decided to become 10,000 men? Who could tell Him that it was “impossible” to do that? It’s no more impossible than one incarnation was. It’s no more impossible than God subsisting in three Persons, yet being one God and not three. Yet Turretin wants us to believe that it’s  “impossible for Christ’s body to be made present to us at this day corporeally.” Nonsense!

Christ commands us “to do this in remembrance of him” (Lk. 22:19). Now memory is only of things absent and past, not of those present; nor, if all things are said to be present to faith, is this understood of a local presence . . .

Actually, the words used suggest a timeless present. The one crucifixion of Jesus in history is supernaturally made present to us in the Mass. See:

*
*
Time-Transcending Mass and the Hebrew “Remember” [National Catholic Register, 8-3-18]
*
From the passages in which the departure of Christ from the world is spoken of. (a) Where he predicts that he will go out of the world and will no longer be present here in his body: “Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always” (Mt. 26:11); “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father” (Jn. 16:28); . . . 
*
Being sacramentally present is a different category of presence, so that there is no conflict in His saying that He would be gone in the sense of what He was during His earthly life. “Apples and oranges” in other words . . .
*
“They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds” (Mt. 24:30).
*
Exactly! That’s obviously visible presence; whereas eucharistic Real Presence is discerned only by faith and revelation. This isn’t complicated. I contend that Protestants who deny the Real Presence don’t have enough faith. It’s a “miracle too far” for them. This is primarily a spiritual lack, as opposed to an intellectual one. Many of these same Protestants who deny the Real Presence, by the way, disbelieve in all miracles since the apostolic age (what’s known as cessationism). The Wikipedia article on the topic states,
The cessationist doctrine arose in the Reformed theology: initially in response to claims of Roman Catholic miracles. . . .
*
It was when these miracles in the Catholic Church were used as a polemic against the post-Reformation Protestant churches that John Calvin began to develop a doctrine of cessationism, and it was primarily in the Calvinist tradition that this doctrine was developed. . . .
*
The Roman Catholic Church and most other wings of Protestantism were never cessationist by doctrine.
In other words, disbelief in continuing miracles wasn’t based on the Bible (where, of course, it is never taught), but rather, upon anti-Catholic prejudice and polemics; not exactly an indisputable criterion of belief in anything. Sure enough, in the same volume 3 of the work I am critiquing, Turretin adopts cessationism: “miracles are accidents and extraordinary gifts which were given to the church only for a time, not always; for the establishment of Christianity, not for its continuance” (18.13.43; from an article on Turretin’s ecclesiology).
*
Obviously, if one is already hostile to miracles under false and unbiblical pretenses, then one will be disinclined to accept miracles at every Church gathering, which is what occurs in the Catholic Mass. So there is an inveterate false premise before we even begin this discussion. This is why one must always examine the underlying premises and presuppositions of one’s dialogical opponents. They determine everything else. It reminds me of Jesus’ remarks about “a foolish man who built his house upon the sand” (Mt 7:26), as opposed to building it on a “rock” (7:24).
*
From all these, an invincible argument is derived.
*
In fact, it isn’t “invincible” at all because it’s built upon false premises, or “sand” — as Jesus would say.
*
He who departed in body from the earth and left the world that he might betake himself to heaven where he is to remain until the restitution of all things; who is sought in vain on earth where he no longer is; and must be sought in heaven, where he sits at the right hand of God, cannot be said to be carnally present in the sacrament. . . . It is repugnant to the words of Christ, which speak of his departure and leaving the world, not only concerning the disappearance and hiddenness of his body. But how can he be said to leave the world and to be raised up into heaven, if he as yet remains perpetually on earth? 
*
This doesn’t follow because he is again comparing apples and oranges. There are at least twenty major types of divine presence, that I can think of: ten involving physicality and ten in an immaterial sense:
Immaterial Divine Presence
*
1) God is omnipresent.
2) God can be and was specially present in empty spaces (e.g., the temple, tabernacle, and above the ark of the covenant).
3) God was “with” the victorious armies of the Israelites (Jud 6:16) and with holy men like Moses and Joshua.
4) God was present in sublime visual scenes, such as described by Isaiah, Daniel, and St. John (Is 6:1-7; Dan 7:1-10; Rev 1:12-16).
5) God was specially present in — even to the point of being equated with — the Angel of the Lord.
6) God indwells believers. The Bible says this interchangeably about all three Persons of the Holy Trinity. Once again, God is “in” physical matter (us).
7) We are continually working towards being united to God in the sense of theosis / divinization (2 Cor 3:18; Eph 4:15; 2 Pet 1:4).
8) Jesus’ disciples are “in Christ”.
9) Jesus’ disciples are “in the Father” (1 Jn 2:24), and (the same thing) “in him” (Acts 17:18; 1 Jn 2:5; 3:6).
10) Jesus’ disciples are “in the Holy Spirit” and “in the Spirit”.
Divine Presence Involving Physicality Wholly or Partially
*
11) God can be and was  present in a special way in matter (the pillars of cloud and fire, the burning bush).
12) God was present in theophanies in the Old Testament.
13) God became a man, Jesus, in the incarnation (Jesus’ 33 years or so of earthly life).
14) Jesus was present for forty days as the incarnate God the Son risen from the dead, with a resurrected body capable of walking through walls (Jn 20:19, 26).
15) Jesus will be physically present in His glorified post-Ascension state when He returns in the Second Coming.
16) Jesus is present sacramentally (a different sort of miraculous physicality) in the Holy Eucharist.
17) We’re mysteriously united to Jesus in His death and resurrection in baptism (Rom 6:3-8).
18) We’re united in a profound sense to Jesus’ death and resurrection on an ongoing basis (2 Cor 4:10; Phil 3:10; Gal 2:20).
19) St. Paul said that “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” (Col 1:24) and “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Gal 6:17).
20) Jesus is somehow connected to His Church, the Body of Christ; so much so that He told Paul that he was persecuting Him when he was persecuting the Church (Acts 9:4-5; 22:7-8; 26:14-15).
Yet a little later, Turretin wrote:
The union which exists between us and Christ is nowhere said to be corporeal, but spiritual and mystical, which can be brought about in no other way than by the Spirit and faith (1 Cor. 6:17; Eph. 3:17).
This is untrue, since #17-20 above (especially #19) refer to mysterious but literal corporeal aspects of our union with Jesus.
*
Much of theology involves rather fine distinctions. Turretin knew all of this (or should have, as a theologian). But he appears to either be unaware of or to ignore many of these necessary distinctions in direct proportion to how much he is hostile in an anti-Catholic sense, and hence he descends to being a prisoner of his own bias, leading to false premises and equally false conclusions drawn from them. This particular one isn’t rocket science. But Turretin only regards as relevant to this discussion, #13 and #15 of the types of presence and ignores the others, which — considered as a whole — highly suggest by analogy and variety that eucharistic Real Presence is altogether possible, if not plausible and likely and actual.
*
Christ in consoling the minds of his sad disciples ought to have used this distinction—that he would indeed visibly depart, but still would be invisibly with them by the presence of his body, to such a degree that he could be both received into their hands and taken into their mouths. But he employed far different means (to wit, the substitution of the Holy Spirit in place of his bodily presence, whom he promised to send that he might remain with them forever as his vicar). 
John 6:56 For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. [56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
So we see that in fact Jesus did say what Turretin said He ought to say if indeed the Real Presence and transubstantiation are true. Thus, according to Turretin, in this saying Jesus proved what Catholics have been saying all along. But sadly, Turretin and those who think like he does in effect act like those who heard this from Jesus:
John 6:60-61, 64, 66 Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” [61] But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them, “Do you take offense at this? . . . [64] But there are some of you that do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. . . . [66] After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.
Based on how Turretin argues, he likely would have taken that approach if he were alive when Jesus was (i.e., not having enough faith or submissive obedience when Jesus taught about the Eucharist and transubstantiation). But one hopes not.
*
Now what need was there of the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit if the flesh of Christ always remains invisibly?
*
He’s our Helper, of course, and we have plenty of moments (indeed, the vast majority of the time) when we are not partaking in Holy Communion. But Jesus and the Father indwell us, too, according to Scripture. If we are to become one with God (deification) and begin that process in this life, then Holy Communion is one profound way that we do that on an ongoing basis in this life.
*

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: image by VesaL (4-8-24) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Calvinist theologian François Turretin says transubstantiation is impossible and offers various and sundry weak arguments: all of which I shoot down from the Bible and logic.

2025-02-06T00:20:10-04:00

Including a Turn the Tables Argument Regarding Protestant Doctrines Virtually Nonexistent in the Fathers (Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide)

Photo credit: Sistine Madonna (1513-1514), by Raphael (1483-1520) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
Javier Perdomo, who recently became a Lutheran (I believe, from another Protestant denomination), and who runs an active YouTube channel, with 289 videos, wrote the very lengthy article, “Church Fathers & Medievals on the Immaculate Conception: An EXTENSIVE list of 150+ Patristic & Medieval quotes undermining the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception” (2-4-25). It was on his substack, that I subscribe to, so I received it in my email. His words will be in blue below. I replied underneath his article, and we have since engaged in a very pleasant dialogue. I hope it continues indefinitely, on this and other topics.
*****
I received this article in my email today. I sincerely commend you for the tremendous amount of research that went into this. As a Catholic apologist myself, I seriously considered making a long, in-depth reply, which I would consider enjoyable and challenging in roughly equal measure, but ultimately decided not to, for several reasons:
1) virtually no one, Protestant or Catholic, cares about such an exhaustive treatment of the Fathers;
*
2) very few in either group care about, or even understand in the most rudimentary way, development of doctrine (my favorite topic in theology, by the way, and the biggest factor in my becoming Catholic), that this subject necessarily involves;
*
3) I know that it’s exceedingly unlikely, based on almost universal past experience of thirty years, that you or any other Protestant apologist, would reply and interact with anything I might produce by way of counter-reply. So, e.g., Jordan Cooper tells me he has no time to counter-reply to my 18 or so critiques of his videos. Gavin Ortlund has only replied once to over 30 critiques. He, too, says he has no time for it and cites priorities, etc.
It’s fine to be good stewards. I do the same thing. But what I’m saying is that for me to undertake a project this huge, which virtually no one would care about or read, and which would almost certainly receive no reply back, is, in the end, not worth the huge amount of time and effort this would require, seeing that there are hundreds of other things in apologetics and theology to write about or discuss (on my new YouTube channel with Kenny Burchard).
*
In the meantime, my analogical mind immediately thought of a similar situation that is the Protestants’ “problem” just as this is ours to work through. Protestants, too, claim that the Church fathers are more on their side than ours. Luther, Melanchthon, and Chemnitz certainly thought that, and non-Lutherans like Calvin did as well, and I hear this repeated times without number by Protestant apologists, such as Cooper and Ortlund, Jason Engwer, and many others. In other words, judging by the grandiose patristic claims that also regularly come from your side (largely in reaction to us), you, too, have the intellectual burden of having to demonstrate that the fathers espoused your distinctive (and I say, novel and late-arriving) views. Thus, I could paraphrase your own words as follows:
“Our Protestant friends are as fond as we are of making grand appeals to history and the consensus of the Church’s theologians down through the ages. But could they truly argue that the consensus of the theologians is on their side when it comes to their two “pillars”: sola Scriptura and sola fide?”
When it comes to these two “pillars” of the Reformation, it’s exceedingly difficult to demonstrate virtually any patristic espousal at all, let alone a supposed “consensus.” I contend that it’s much more difficult than our task with regard to Mary’s sinlessness, as developed over a long period into the Immaculate Conception. I myself have — through many hundreds of hours of work — collected scores and scores of evidences that the Church fathers en masse rejected both. But I can also draw from Protestant experts on the topic. Hence, Alister McGrath, widely considered the foremost authority on the history of justification, made the following observation:
Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .
The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .
The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . . Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . .” (Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)
Protestant apologist Norman Geisler makes an even more striking observation:
One can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 222)
In other words, goose and gander, pot calling the kettle black, etc. You guys make your arguments against Marian doctrines and other distinctively Catholic positions, and we offer similar ones back, about distinctively Protestant positions. Yet Protestants only very rarely are willing to produce any counter-replies when we make our arguments along these lines, which in turn is one of the reasons why I’m disinclined to reply to this article of yours. “No one” would read it or care about it, and almost certainly no one — who is able to — would reply to whatever I came up with.
*
We all must be wise stewards of our time and efforts. In an ideal world, where everyone loved debate and dialogue and the exchange of ideas, and loved to back up their own opinions under intense scrutiny, I would like few things more than to discuss this and many other theological topics for months on end, with able and willing dialogue opponents, but I don’t expect that that will ever happen, because it takes two . . .
*
Thank you for your reply. I’m sorry you haven’t been able to have the robust back-and-forths that you’ve been wanting to have with Protestant apologists.
I can certainly understand how much of a bummer it is to put a lot of effort into a robust response while receiving no interaction in return. I, myself, am also very busy spinning a lot of plates (with my YT channel, my job, other projects, family, etc…), but at the very least, I would like to interact with your comment here.
*
I haven’t done a deep-dive into all the relevant sources regarding Justification yet, so I can’t provide a lengthy, in-depth analysis of the historical data at the moment. That being said, I wouldn’t agree with the idea that the Lutheran understanding of Justification is a clear break with the past. Alister McGrath isn’t the only Protestant scholar who has done work on this issue. Additionally, McGrath also didn’t survey every single Patristic writing (realistically, who could though!) and his analysis of the sources isn’t uncontested. See here for a brief interaction with McGrath by a fellow Lutheran:
*
Do you have an article detailing your case for doctrinal development? If so, I’d like to read it. When it comes to understanding the Roman Catholic understanding of doctrinal development, what are some of your favorite resources (books, videos, articles) that you would recommend?
*

Delighted to see your reply!

There are always, of course, other scholars who disagree with any given scholar. That’s where it gets fun! I think it’s striking that statements such as the ones I cited from McGrath and Geisler exist at all. I believe that Jordan Cooper said in one of his videos that I’ve critiqued, if I recall correctly (and I think I do), that the Lutheran conception of justification was only fully developed in the 16th century (and that this was okay). I’m sure you could find bits and pieces of imputed justification here and there in the fathers and medieval theologians, but nowhere within a million miles of a consensus, even if McGrath’s views aren’t entirely accurate.

Also, our view of what we call initial justification is essentially the same. In this respect, even Trent allows some degree of imputation. Initial justification is entirely monergistic. Trent is very explicit and clear about that. Our concern is with the post-regenerate person’s life, and what he or she is responsible for then (and good works are a necessary part of that).

And so, if I’m correct about that, you’re basically in the same boat that you claim we’re in: you firmly believe a doctrine that is hard to find before Melanchthon (not even fully in Luther, who talked about theosis), just as you would say our Marian doctrines are late-arriving, and corruptions rather than developments. And the same goes for sola Scriptura. So that is one turn-the-tables reply. I’m not saying it nullifies your argument against us; just that Protestants also have similar “problems” in locating their distinctive views in historical theology.

As for resources on development, I have a web page devoted to it, including several introductory treatments and more in-depth stuff. I also wrote a book on the topic, way back in 2002. I’ll send you a free e-book version of that if you like (pdf, mobi, or ePub). Cardinal Newman’s essay on development is the classic treatment, and it’s free online. Nothing else comes to mind, but on Amazon, these three looked interesting:

A Brief Introduction to the Development of Doctrine: According to the Mind of St. Thomas Aquinas (Fr. Thomas Gilby, March 2023)

Vincent of Lérins and the Development of Christian Doctrine (Thomas G. Guarino, May 2013)

St. Vincent was basically Newman’s jumping-off point, as he developed his theory.

The Development of Dogma: A Systematic Account (Guy Mansini, Jan. 2024)

Here are five meaty and good Catholic articles:

What Does it Mean for Doctrine to Develop? (Fr. Thomas Weinandy, Catholic Answers, 5-2-20)

The Difference Between Development and Change (Eduardo, Echeverria, Catholic Answers, 6-15-20)

Newman, Aquinas, and the Development of Doctrine (Joshua Madden, Homiletic & Pastoral Review, 6-30-21)

Development of Doctrine and St. Vincent of Lerins (Joe Heschmeyer, Catholic Answers, 12-29-22)

On the relevance and reality of the development of doctrine today (Fr. Thomas Weinandy, The Catholic World Report, 1-18-24)

I will at least do a partial reply-article consisting of Newman’s thoughts on the patristic and later development of the belief in Mary’s sinlessness and Immaculate Conception, drawn from one or more of my three quotations books devoted to St. Cardinal Newman.

God bless!

Thank you for the lengthy reply!

Part of my interest in this article was in asking the question: Does every Roman Catholic dogma pass the “consensus of the fathers” check? (With the Immaculate Conception as a case study); especially since that check is very often levied by RC laymen against all sorts of Protestants on all sorts of issues (whether accurate or not). As such, it was intended to be a bit of an internal critique of sorts. I need to do a lot more reading before I make up my own mind on the subject of doctrinal development and put forth my own positive construction on the issue (and the ways it may relate to doctrines such as Sola Fide).

In line with that, I will certainly check out the resources you’ve linked (probably a little later once I’m done working on a few projects I have going at the moment). If you do write an article on this, I’ll also try to make time to read it as promptly as my schedule allows.

Thanks again for the charitable interaction.

Well, the short answer to your question is that we think doctrines develop at different rates. The Immaculate Conception obviously developed very slowly. The first motif was “New Eve” or “Second Eve”. Newman notes that pre-fallen Eve — like Adam — was a sinless person; therefore the patristic analogy, which he describes as “explicit” presupposes a sinless Mary. If that’s true, then it’s present in that sense every time we see this common theme in the fathers.

On a broad scale, Catholics agree that Jesus was front and center, both in the NT and in the fathers. That’s our answer if asked why there is so little about Mary in the NT. Trinitarianism was still being importantly developed in the 6th and even 7th centuries. The Christological heresy of Monophysitism was still present in the 6th century, and Monothelitism extended all the way to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681, where it was condemned. So we’re talking about some 650 years after Christ just to get trinitarianism and the deity of Christ right once and for all. A lot of folks (including in vast areas in the East, still didn’t fully get it) Once that was established, folks thought relatively more about Mary and many other topics of theology, and development quickened as a result. First things first, in other words.

By the time of III Constantinople, Germanus, from the same city was alive (c. 634-c. 733), and he even taught the doctrine of Mary Mediatrix. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1983, ed. Cross), stated that “Mary’s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception” was a “frequently recurring” theme in his writing (see p. 561).

Likewise, Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) wrote about how “human nature . . . regains in her person its ancient privileges and is fashioned according to a perfect model truly worthy of God” (Homily 1 on Mary’s Nativity) and described Mary as “alone wholly without stain” (Canon for the Conception of Anne).

Marian scholar Hilda Graef, a source that appeared once in your article, noted that “according to John of Damascus [c. 675-749], even the ‘active’ conception of Mary was completely without stain . . .”: a position that even goes beyond what the Catholic dogma holds (which is that her immaculate conception had nothing to do with her parents at all). Thus, these last two writers express pretty much the fully developed doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, around the same time as trinitarian debates were wrapping up, or only shortly thereafter.

So Catholics ask Protestants, in Newmanian analogical style: “if even trinitarianism was fully developed as late as 681, why is it an issue that Mary’s Immaculate Conception was first explicitly expressed (as far as we know) around the same time?” If one thing is okay, so is the other. One can’t accept late development only of Protestant distinctives or doctrines where we agree. The same analysis and standard has to be used across the board.

What I’ve always argued is that the sinlessness of Mary (which is the essence of her immaculate conception) is biblical, based on Luke 1:28 (“full of grace” / kecharitomene“) and the analogies of others also sanctified in the womb (John the Baptist, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Paul). Sinlessness is the original essential kernel. The thought then developed over many centuries, just as almost every other doctrine did. But a few doctrines seem almost fully developed early on; for example, baptism and the Real Presence in the Eucharist, where Lutherans and Catholics agree. Others, like original sin or the Two Natures of Christ, took many centuries.

But some fathers are simply wrong about things. St. Augustine was wrong about double predestination (again, we agree there). Even “unanimous consent” doesn’t literally mean that, in the Latin. It means “overall consensus.”

There are many relevant factors concerning Mary’s sinlessness in the fathers that I will at least briefly allude to in my reply paper, that will primarily concentrate on Newman’s thoughts.

This whole thing interested me because my two favorite topics in theology are development of doctrine and Mary.

Thanks for your charitable demeanor as well.

*
***
*

Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Sistine Madonna (1513-1514), by Raphael (1483-1520) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I respond to Lutheran apologist Javier Perdomo’s claim that the Church fathers taught many things that run contrary to Mary’s sinlessness and/or her Immaculate Conception.

2024-12-16T16:10:12-04:00

Regeneration is Only the Beginning . . . 

Photo credit: image by KELLEPICS (10-16-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

[all verses RSV]

Transformation / New Life / Newness / Renewal

Luke 5:37-38 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the new wine will burst the skins and it will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed.

[38] But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. (cf. Mt 9:17; Mk 2:21-22)

Romans 6:4, 6 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. . . . [6] We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.

Romans 7:6 But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

1 Corinthians 5:6-8 . . . Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? [7] Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. . . . [8] Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

2 Corinthians 4:16 . . . Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Galatians 4:19 My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you! (cf. 4:12)

Galatians 6:15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.

Ephesians 4:22-24  Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, [23] and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, [24] and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Philippians 1:6, 9-11 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. . . . [9] And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, [10] so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, [11] filled with the fruits of righteousness which come through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (cf. 2:13 in the final section below)

Colossians 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
[12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Colossians 3:9-10 . . . you have put off the old nature with its practices [10] and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.

Titus 3:5 he saved us,. . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Partaking of the Fullness of God / Unity with God / Theosis

John 1:16 And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon grace.

John 17:20-24, 26 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, [21] that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. [22] The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, [23] I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. [24] Father, I desire that they also, whom thou hast given me, may be with me where I am, to behold my glory which thou hast given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. . . . [26] I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

Romans 6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Romans 8:17 . . . fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.

1 Corinthians 6:17 . . . he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.

1 Corinthians 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. (cf. 10:16; Rom 7:4)

2 Corinthians 1:5 . . . we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings . . .

2 Corinthians 3:17-18 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. [18] And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another

2 Corinthians 4:10-11 always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. [11] For while we live we are always being given up to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

Galatians 2:19-20 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God. [20] I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Galatians 6:17 . . . I bear on my body the marks of Jesus.

Ephesians 1:22-23 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

Ephesians 3:19 . . . to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.

Ephesians 4:12-13, 15-16 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, [13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; . . . [15] . . . we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Ephesians 5:23 . . . Christ is the head of the church, his body . . .

Ephesians 5:29-30 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, [30] because we are members of his body.

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him . . . and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, (cf. 1 Pet 4:13)

Colossians 1:24 . . . in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church,

Colossians 2:10 . . . you have come to fulness of life in him, . . .

Colossians 2:19 . . . the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

2 Timothy 2:11 The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;

Hebrews 12:10 . . . he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.

2 Peter 1:3-4 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, [4] by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

Filled with / Guided by the Holy Spirit

Matthew 10:19-20 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; [20] for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Luke 1:15 . . . he [John the Baptist] will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

Luke 1:41 . . . Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit

Luke 1:67 . . . Zechari’ah was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, . . .

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth

Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit . . .

Acts 4:8 . . .  Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, . . .

Acts 4:31 . . . they were all filled with the Holy Spirit . . .

Acts 6:3 . . . men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom . . .

Acts 6:5 . . . Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit . . .

Acts 7:55 . . . he [Stephen], full of the Holy Spirit, . . .

Acts 9:17 . . . be filled with the Holy Spirit. [St. Paul]

Acts 11:24 . . . he [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith . . .

Acts 13:9 . . . Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, . . .

Acts 13:52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Spirit.

Ephesians 5:18 . . . be filled with the Spirit, (cf. Phil 1:11; Col 1:9-10)

Power and Strength from God

Luke 9:1 And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases,

Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall hurt you.

Luke 24:49 . . . I send the promise of my Father upon you; but stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high.

John 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God

Acts 1:8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you . . .

Acts 4:33 And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, . . .

Acts 6:8 . . . Stephen, full of . . . power, . . .

Romans 8:28-39 We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose. [29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren. [30] And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified. [31] What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? [32] He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him? [33] Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies; [34] who is to condemn? Is it Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us? [35] Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? [36] As it is written, “For thy sake we are being killed all the day long; we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.” [37] No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. [38] For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, [39] nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 15:13 May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that by the power of the Holy Spirit you may abound in hope.

Romans 15:19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyr’icum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ,

Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you . . .

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (cf. 1:24)

1 Corinthians 2:4-5 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, [5]  that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:4 . . . with the power of our Lord Jesus,

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God and not to us.

2 Corinthians 10:4 for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds.

2 Corinthians 12:9 . . . I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

2 Corinthians 13:4 . . . For we are weak in him, but in dealing with you we shall live with him by the power of God.

Ephesians 1:19 and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might

Ephesians 3:16-18 that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with might through his Spirit in the inner man, [17] and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [18] may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,

Ephesians 3:20-21 Now to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, [21] to him be glory . . .

Ephesians 6:10-16  Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. [11] Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. [12] For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. [13] Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [14] Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, [15] and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; [16] besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one.

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, . . .

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things in him who strengthens me.

Colossians 1:11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy,

1 Thessalonians 1:5 for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. . . .

2 Thessalonians 1:11 To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his call, and may fulfil every good resolve and work of faith by his power,

2 Thessalonians 3:3 But the Lord is faithful; he will strengthen you and guard you from evil.

1 Timothy 1:12 I thank him who has given me strength for this, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful by appointing me to his service,

2 Timothy 1:7-8 for God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control. [8] Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God,

2 Timothy 3:5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

2 Timothy 4:17 But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth.

Hebrews 13:6 Hence we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper, I will not be afraid; what can man do to me?”

James 5:16 . . . The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

1 Peter 4:11 . . . whoever renders service, as one who renders it by the strength which God supplies; . . .

1 Peter 5:10 . . . the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, establish, and strengthen you.

Grace of God

Acts 4:33 . . . great grace was upon them all.

Acts 6:8 . . . Stephen, full of grace . . .

Romans 12:6 . . . gifts that differ according to the grace given to us . . .

1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation . . .

1 Corinthians 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.

2 Corinthians 1:12 . . . not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God.

2 Corinthians 12:9 but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” . . .

Ephesians 3:7 Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace which was given me . . .

Ephesians 4:7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

1 Timothy 1:14 and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

2 Timothy 2:1 You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus,

Hebrews 4:16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 13:9 . . . it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, . . .

James 4:6 . . . he gives more grace . . .

1 Peter 4:10 As each has received a gift, employ it for one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace:

1 Peter 5:5 . . . “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”

2 Peter 1:2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

2 Peter 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. . . .

Sanctification

John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.

Acts 15:9 and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

Acts 26:18 . . . those who are sanctified by faith in me.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus . . .

Ephesians 1:3-4 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, [4] even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification . . .

1 Thessalonians 5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 . . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Hebrews 9:14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

1 Peter 1:2 . . . sanctified by the Spirit . . .

1 John 1:7, 9 . . . the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Indwelling of God / Being “In” God

We’re described as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). God “will live in” us (2 Cor 6:16). He’s “in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:4). We “abide in” God (1 Jn 2:24; 3:6; 4:13, 15-16) and specifically, abide in Jesus (Jn 6:56; 15:4; 1 Jn 2:24), and God “abides in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:12-13, 15-16). Jesus abides in us (Jn 6:56; 15:4), and He is “in” us (Jn 14:20; 17:23; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27), and we are “in” Him (Jn 14:20; Phil 4:7). Jesus dwells in our “hearts” (Eph 3:17). The Holy Spirit is “within” us (Ezek 37:14). He’s “with” us (Jn 14:16), “dwells” “in” or “with” us (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 2 Tim 1:14), and is in our “hearts” (2 Cor 1:22; 3:3; Gal 4:6). And we’re “in” the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9), and “possess the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13). “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Our “life is hid with Christ in God” (Col 3:3). “God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:13). See also John 17:20-26 above.

*

***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: image by KELLEPICS (10-16-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Collection of NT passages concerning transformation, renewal, union with God (theosis), the Holy Spirit, the power & grace of God, sanctification, the indwelling, & being in God.

2024-05-28T13:08:00-04:00

+ Early Catholic Church & St. Thomas Aquinas on Grace Alone (Contra Pelagianism) & Justification

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

A website called Reformation 500 provides the standard, boilerplate Protestant polemic and mythology about one of the key events of the Protestant Revolt (aka, “Reformation”) and about the supposed Catholic belief before it occurred:

The [Catholic] church taught that the church and its human priesthood were indispensable for salvation. (“Luther’s Tower Experience: Martin Luther Discovers the True Meaning of Righteousness by Faith,” 1-13-17)

In fact, both Martin Luther and John Calvin taught a version of the same notion. Luther stated:

[O]utside the Christian church there is no truth, no Christ, no salvation. (Sermons II, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand; Sermon for the Early Christmas Service, Luke 2 [:15-20], 25 December 1521, translated by John G. Kunstmann; in Luther’s Works, vol. 52)

And Calvin agreed:

[B]eyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for . . . the abandonment of the Church is always fatal (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Bk. IV, 1:4)

This being the case, why rail against the Catholic Church for believing the same? The article continues:

[R]elief from guilt and punishment could be dispensed by the church at whatever price it set. There was no benefit in the church teaching that God “so loved the world” that He paid the price of the sinner’s disobedience Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. If Christians feared God, the church had an important role to play in mediating between God and sinners.

Salvation as a gift of grace and righteousness by faith were not understood by Christians until the Reformation. Christians were taught to feel terror toward God and to believe that He watched their every move, eager to punish any slip. As a result, Christians felt indebted to the church for standing between that wrathful God and themselves.

Luther’s breakthrough in understanding and his preaching of justification by faith as a gift from the heart of a loving, heavenly Father changed everything. Suddenly, God’s character was seen in a new light. The Reformation taught believers to approach God personally because He was a loving Father who delighted in mercy. (Ibid.; my italics)

First of all, before I begin my analysis proper, I have in the past noted many times how the Catholic belief concerning initial justification is virtually identical to Protestant justification by faith alone; and we also agree that salvation is ultimately by grace (sola gratia). See:

Trent Doesn’t Utterly Exclude Imputation (Kenneth Howell) [July 1996]

Initial Justification & “Faith Alone”: Harmonious? [5-3-04]

2nd Council of Orange: Sola Gratia vs. Total Depravity [1-5-09]

Grace Alone: Perfectly Acceptable Catholic Teaching [2-3-09]

Monergism in Initial Justification is Catholic Doctrine [1-7-10]

Catholics & Justification by Faith Alone: Is There a Sense in Which Catholics Can Accept “Faith Alone” and/or Imputed Justification (with Proper Biblical Qualifications)? [9-28-10]

Salvation: By Grace Alone, Not Faith Alone or Works [2013]

Grace Alone: Biblical & Catholic Teaching [12-1-15]

Catholics and Protestants Agree on Grace Alone and the Necessity of the Presence of Good Works in Regenerate and Ultimately Saved Persons; Disagree on Faith Alone [5-4-17]

Now let’s look at Luther’s own report of his “tower” experience, from the same article cited above:

Meanwhile in that same year, 1519, I had begun interpreting the Psalms once again. I felt confident that I was now more experienced, since I had dealt in university courses with St. Paul’s Letters to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the Letter to the Hebrews. I had conceived a burning desire to understand what Paul meant in his Letter to the Romans, but thus far there had stood in my way, not the cold blood around my heart, but that one word which is in chapter one: “The justice of God is revealed in it.” I hated that word, “justice of God,” which, by the use and custom of all my teachers, I had been taught to understand philosophically as referring to formal or active justice, as they call it, i.e., that justice by which God is just and by which he punishes sinners and the unjust.

But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.

I meditated night and day on those words until at last, by the mercy of God, I paid attention to their context: “The justice of God is revealed in it, as it is written: ‘The just person lives by faith.’” I began to understand that in this verse the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: “The just person lives by faith.” All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light. I ran through the Scriptures from memory and found that other terms had analogous meanings, e.g., the work of God, that is, what God works in us; the power of God, by which he makes us powerful; the wisdom of God, by which he makes us wise; the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God. (translation by Bro. Andrew Thornton, OSB, for the Saint Anselm College Humanities Program. It is distributed by Project Wittenberg with the permission of the author. (c)1983 by Saint Anselm Abbey).

Our beef with this is the idea that this was some blinding insight that never crossed Catholic minds since time immemorial. It’s the same sort of myth that we also see when, for example Luther made out that no one ever had the Bible in their own tongue till he came along. Now he wants to claim credit for discovering the true doctrines of sola gratia and justification. And that myth had been bandied about for 500 years now.

Readers of this article have the rare opportunity of actually being able to learn about the Catholic perspective on all this, too. There are always two sides to every story. It so happens that the basic outlook of Luther’s realization — at least in some significant aspects — was expressed by the Catholic Church 989 to 1000 years earlier. The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Heinrich Denzinger) is the standard Catholic compendium of Catholic dogmas. It’s available online (30th edition, 1854), and I have the latest 43rd edition (2012) in my library, about three feet away from me as I write. It was partially translated and edited by a good friend of mine, Dr. Robert Fastiggi. The two versions have a different numbering system. I will note both as I cite these reference works.

The 15th (or 16th) Synod of Carthage in May 418 decreed:

“whoever says, that for this reason the grace of justification is given to us, that what we are ordered to do through free will we may be able to accomplish more easily through grace, just as if, even were grace not given, we could nevertheless fulfill the divine commands without it, though not indeed easily, let him be anathema. For of the fruits of his commands the Lord did not speak when He said: Without me you can accomplish (them) with more difficulty, but when He said: Without me you can do nothing [John 15:5].” (Denz. #138 / new number: 227)

Then we have the Second Council of Orange, begin on July 3, 529:

Can. 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be bestowed by human invocation, but that the grace itself does not bring it to pass that it be invoked by us, he contradicts Isaias the Prophet, or the Apostle who says the same thing: “I was found by those who were not seeking me: I appeared openly to those, who did not ask me” [Rom. 10:20; cf. Isa. 65:1]. (#176 / 373)

Can. 4. If anyone contends that in order that we may be cleansed from sin, God waits for our good will, but does not acknowledge that even the wish to be purged is produced in us through the infusion and operation of the Holy Spirit, he opposes the Holy Spirit Himself, who says through Solomon: “Good will is prepared by the Lord” [Provo 8:35: LXX], and the Apostle who beneficially says: “It is God, who works in us both to will and to accomplish according to his good will” [Phil. 2:13]. (#177 / 374)

Can. 5. If anyone says, that just as the increase [of faith] so also the beginning of faith and the very desire of credulity, by which we believe in Him who justifies the impious, and (by which) we arrive at the regeneration of holy baptism (is) not through the gift of grace, that is, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit reforming our will from infidelity to faith, from impiety to piety, but is naturally in us, he is proved (to be) antagonistic to the doctrine of the Apostles, since blessed Paul says : We trust, that he who begins a good work in us, will perfect it unto the day of Christ Jesus [Phil. 1:6]; and the following: It was given to you for Christ not only that you may believe in Him, but also, that you may suffer tor Him [Phil. 1:29]; and: By grace you are made safe through faith, and this not of yourselves; for it is the gift of God [Eph. 2:8]. For those who say that faith, by which we believe in God, is natural, declare that all those who are alien to the Church of Christ are in a measure faithful [cf. St. Augustine]. (#178 / 375)

Can. 6. If anyone asserts that without the grace of God mercy is divinely given to us when we believe, will, desire, try, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, urge, but does not confess that through the infusion and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in us, it is brought about that we believe, wish, or are able to do all these things as we ought, and does not join either to human humility or obedience the help of grace, nor agree that it is the gift of His grace that we are obedient and humble, opposes the Apostle who says: W hat have you, that you have not received? [I Cor. 4:7J; and: By the grace of God I am that, which I am [I Cor. 15:10; cf. St. Augustine and St. Prosper of Aquitaine]. (#179 / 376)

Can. 7. If anyone affirms that without the illumination and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, — who gives to all sweetness in consenting to and believing in the truth,– through the strength of nature he can think anything good which pertains to the salvation of eternal life, as he should, or choose, or consent to salvation, that is to the evangelical proclamation, he is deceived by the heretical spirit, not understanding the voice of God speaking in the Gospel: “Without me you can do nothing” [John 15:5]; and that of the Apostle: Not that we are fit to think everything by ourselves as of ourselves, but our suffic1ency is from God [II Cor. 3:5; cf. St. Augustine]. (#180 / 377)

Can. 9. “The assistance of God. It is a divine gift, both when we think 182 rightly and when we restrain our feet from falsity and injustice; for as often as we do good, God operates in us and with us, that we may work” [St. Prosper]. (#182 / 379)

Can. 12.”God loves such as us. God loves us, such as we shall be by 185 His gift, not such as we are by our own merit” [St. Prosper]. (#185 / 382)

Can. 14. “No wretched person is freed from misery, however small, unless he is first reached by the mercy of God” [St. Prosper], just as the Psalmist says: Let thy mercy, Lord, speedily anticipate us [Ps. 78:8 J; and also: “My God, His mercy will prevent me” [Ps. 58:11].” (#187 / 384)

Can. 18. “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done” [St. Prosper]. (#191 / 388)

Can. 19. “That no one is saved except by God’s mercy. Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator; therefore, since without the grace of God it cannot guard the health which it received, how without the grace of God will it be able to recover what it has lost?” [St. Prosper]. (#192 / 389)

Can. 20. “That without God man can do no good. God does many good things in man, which man does not do; indeed man can do no good that God does not expect that man do” [St. Prosper]. (#193 / 390)

Can. 21. Nature and grace. Just as the Apostle most truly says to those, who, wishing to be justified in the law, have fallen even from grace: If justice is from the law, then Christ died in vain [Gal. 2:21]; so it is most truly said to those who think that grace, which the faith of Christ commends and obtains, is nature: If justice is through nature, then Christ died in vain. For the law was already here, and it did not justify; nature, too, was already present, and it did not justify. Therefore, Christ did not die in vain, that the law also might be fulfilled through Him, who said: I came not to destroy the law but to fulfill (it) [Matt. 5:17], and in order that nature ruined by Adam, might be repaired by Him, who said: He came to seek and to save that which had been lost [Luke 19:10]” [St. Prosper]. (#194 / 391)

We see, then, that grace alone and God’s mercy were no new things (Catholics are neither Pelagians nor Semi-Pelagians), putting the lie to the article’s ludicrous claim: “Salvation as a gift of grace and righteousness by faith were not understood by Christians until the Reformation.” An instant salvation — unable to be lost — by faith alone, however, was a novel and false idea.  See:

Faith Alone: Development of Church Fathers & St. Augustine? [11-24-00]

Romans 2-4 & “Works of the Law”: Patristic Interpretation [2-16-01]

Church Fathers vs. the “Reformation Pillar” of “Faith Alone” [10-24-07]

Final Judgment & Works (Not Faith): 50 Passages [2-10-08]

Justification: Not by Faith Alone, & Ongoing (Romans 4, James 2, and Abraham’s Multiple Justifications) [10-15-11]

Final Judgment Always Has to Do with Works and Never with “Faith Alone” [9-5-14]

Jesus vs. “Faith Alone” (Rich Young Ruler) [10-12-15]

“Catholic Justification” in James & Romans [11-18-15]

Philippians 2:12 & “Work[ing] Out” One’s Salvation [1-26-16]

“Faith Alone”?: Quick & Decisive Biblical Refutation [1-8-19]

Jesus: Faith + Works (Not Faith Alone) Leads to Salvation [8-1-19]

Defense of Bible Passages vs. Eternal Security & Faith Alone (vs. Jason Engwer) [8-12-20]

Banzoli’s 45 “Faith Alone” Passages; My 200 Biblical Disproofs [6-16-22]

Luther’s Translation of “Faith Alone” in Romans 3:28 (Also: Did “Early Erasmus” Agree with Luther?) [12-7-22]

Abraham: Justified Twice by Works & Once by Faith [8-30-23]

Abraham and Ongoing Justification by Faith and Works [National Catholic Register, 9-19-23]

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) Nonexistent Before the Protestant Revolt in 1517 (Geisler & McGrath) [Catholic365, 10-31-23]

Bible / Faith “Alone” vs. The Fathers (vs. Gavin Ortlund) [2-13-24]

Abraham’s Justification By Faith & Works (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Catholic Exegesis Regarding St. Paul’s Specific Meaning of “Works” in Romans 4 [3-1-24]

Church Fathers vs. “Faith Alone”: Handy Capsule Proofs [4-8-24]

16 Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-23-24]

14 More Church Fathers vs. Faith Alone [National Catholic Register, 4-30-24]

St. Thomas Aquinas provided great insight on these matters in the 13th century (still nearly 300 years before Luther). Here are some of the relevant sub-topics from my book, The Quotable Summa Theologica (Jan. 2013, 200 pages):

Grace Alone (for Justification and Salvation)

Now it is manifest that human virtues perfect man according as it is natural for him to be moved by his reason in his interior and exterior actions. Consequently man needs yet higher perfections, whereby to be disposed to be moved by God. These perfections are called gifts, not only because they are infused by God, but also because by them man is disposed to become amenable to the Divine inspiration, according to Is. 50:5: “The Lord . . . hath opened my ear, and I do not resist; I have not gone back.” Even the Philosopher says in the chapter On Good Fortune (Ethic. Eudem., vii, 8) that for those who are moved by Divine instinct, there is no need to take counsel according to human reason, but only to follow their inner promptings, since they are moved by a principle higher than human reason. This then is what some say, viz. that the gifts perfect man for acts which are higher than acts of virtue. (ST [Summa Theologica] 1-2, q. 68, a. 1c)

. . . in matters directed to the supernatural end, to which man’s reason moves him, according as it is, in a manner, and imperfectly, informed by the theological virtues, the motion of reason does not suffice, unless it receive in addition the prompting or motion of the Holy Ghost, according to Rm. 8:14,17: “Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God . . . and if sons, heirs also”: and Ps. 142:10: “Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the right land,” because, to wit, none can receive the inheritance of that land of the Blessed, except he be moved and led thither by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, in order to accomplish this end, it is necessary for man to have the gift of the Holy Ghost. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 2c)

By the theological and moral virtues, man is not so perfected in respect of his last end, as not to stand in continual need of being moved by the yet higher promptings of the Holy Ghost . . . (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 2, ad 2)

. . . man, by his natural endowments, cannot produce meritorious works proportionate to everlasting life; and for this a higher force is needed, viz. the force of grace. And thus without grace man cannot merit everlasting life . . . (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5c)

It is written (Jn. 6:44): “No man can come to Me except the Father, Who hath sent Me, draw him.” But if man could prepare himself, he would not need to be drawn by another. Hence man cannot prepare himself without the help of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, sed contra)

. . . since God is the First Mover, simply, it is by His motion that everything seeks to be likened to God in its own way. Hence Dionysius says (Div. Nom. iv) that “God turns all to Himself.” But He directs righteous men to Himself as to a special end, which they seek, and to which they wish to cling, according to Ps. 72:28, “it is good for Me to adhere to my God.” And that they are “turned” to God can only spring from God’s having “turned” them. Now to prepare oneself for grace is, as it were, to be turned to God; just as, whoever has his eyes turned away from the light of the sun, prepares himself to receive the sun’s light, by turning his eyes towards the sun. Hence it is clear that man cannot prepare himself to receive the light of grace except by the gratuitous help of God moving him inwardly. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6c)

Man’s turning to God is by free-will; and thus man is bidden to turn himself to God. But free-will can only be turned to God, when God turns it, according to Jer. 31:18: “Convert me and I shall be converted, for Thou art the Lord, my God”; and Lam. 5:21: “Convert us, O Lord, to Thee, and we shall be converted.” (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, ad 1)

It is the part of man to prepare his soul, since he does this by his free-will. And yet he does not do this without the help of God moving him, and drawing him to Himself . . . (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 6, ad 4)

The Apostle says (Gal. 2:21; Cf. Gal. 3:21): “For if there had been a law given which could give life—then Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. Hence with equal reason, if man has a nature, whereby he can he justified, “Christ died in vain,” i.e. to no purpose. But this cannot fittingly be said. Therefore by himself he cannot be justified, i.e. he cannot return from a state of sin to a state of justice. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, sed contra)

Man by himself can no wise rise from sin without the help of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7c)

To man is bidden that which pertains to the act of free-will, as this act is required in order that man should rise from sin. Hence when it is said, “Arise, and Christ shall enlighten thee,” we are not to think that the complete rising from sin precedes the enlightenment of grace; but that when man by his free-will, moved by God, strives to rise from sin, he receives the light of justifying grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, ad 1)

. . . man cannot be restored by himself; but he requires the light of grace to be poured upon him anew, as if the soul were infused into a dead body for its resurrection. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 7, ad 2)

The Pelagians held that this cause was nothing else than man’s free-will: and consequently they said that the beginning of faith is from ourselves, inasmuch as, to wit, it is in our power to be ready to assent to things which are of faith, but that the consummation of faith is from God, Who proposes to us the things we have to believe. But this is false, for, since man, by assenting to matters of faith, is raised above his nature, this must needs accrue to him from some supernatural principle moving him inwardly; and this is God. Therefore faith, as regards the assent which is the chief act of faith, is from God moving man inwardly by grace. (ST 2-2, q. 6, a. 1c)

To believe does indeed depend on the will of the believer: but man’s will needs to be prepared by God with grace, in order that he may be raised to things which are above his nature . . . (ST 2-2, q. 6, a. 1, ad 3)

Justification by Faith

. . . if we suppose, as indeed it is a truth of faith, that the beginning of faith is in us from God, the first act must flow from grace; and thus it cannot be meritorious of the first grace. Therefore man is justified by faith, not as though man, by believing, were to merit justification, but that, he believes, whilst he is being justified; inasmuch as a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5, ad 1)

Justification, Imputed (Initial); of the “Ungodly”

. . . this justice may be brought about in man by a movement from one contrary to the other, and thus justification implies a transmutation from the state of injustice to the aforesaid state of justice. And it is thus we are now speaking of the justification of the ungodly, according to the Apostle (Rm. 4:5): “But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in Him that justifieth the ungodly,” etc. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 1c)

As God’s love consists not merely in the act of the Divine will but also implies a certain effect of grace, . . . so likewise, when God does not impute sin to a man, there is implied a certain effect in him to whom the sin is not imputed; for it proceeds from the Divine love, that sin is not imputed to a man by God. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 2, ad 2)

The justification of the ungodly is brought about by God moving man to justice. For He it is “that justifieth the ungodly” according to Rm. 4:5. Now God moves everything in its own manner, just as we see that in natural things, what is heavy and what is light are moved differently, on account of their diverse natures. Hence He moves man to justice according to the condition of his human nature. But it is man’s proper nature to have free-will. Hence in him who has the use of reason, God’s motion to justice does not take place without a movement of the free-will; but He so infuses the gift of justifying grace that at the same time He moves the free-will to accept the gift of grace, in such as are capable of being moved thus. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 3c)

. . . a movement of free-will is required for the justification of the ungodly, inasmuch as man’s mind is moved by God. Now God moves man’s soul by turning it to Himself according to Ps. 84:7 (Septuagint): “Thou wilt turn us, O God, and bring us to life.” Hence for the justification of the ungodly a movement of the mind is required, by which it is turned to God. Now the first turning to God is by faith, according to Heb. 11:6: “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” Hence a movement of faith is required for the justification of the ungodly. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 4c)

The justification of the ungodly is called the remission of sins . . . (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 6, ad 1)

The justification of the ungodly is caused by the justifying grace of the Holy Spirit. Now the Holy Spirit comes to men’s minds suddenly, according to Acts 2:2: “And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a mighty wind coming,” upon which the gloss says that “the grace of the Holy Ghost knows no tardy efforts.” Hence the justification of the ungodly is not successive, but instantaneous. (ST 1-2, q. 113, a. 7, sed contra)

Works, Good (in Grace)

. . . grace is the principle of all our good works . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5c)

Man’s every good work proceeds from the first grace as from its principle . . . (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 5, ad 3)

In the citations above, St. Thomas illustrates instances where Catholics and Protestants essentially agree. But St. Thomas was, of course, an orthodox Catholic, so he also believed in the following things, that Protestants reject:

Apostasy (Falling Away from the Faith or Salvation)

Some have said that none could be blotted out of the book of life as a matter of fact, but only in the opinion of men. For it is customary in the Scriptures to say that something is done when it becomes known. Thus some are said to be written in the book of life, inasmuch as men think they are written therein, on account of the present righteousness they see in them; but when it becomes evident, either in this world or in the next, that they have fallen from that state of righteousness, they are then said to be blotted out. . . . the book of life is the inscription of those ordained to eternal life, to which one is directed from two sources; namely, from predestination, which direction never fails, and from grace; for whoever has grace, by this very fact becomes fitted for eternal life. This direction fails sometimes; because some are directed by possessing grace, to obtain eternal life, yet they fail to obtain it through mortal sin. . . . Those, however, who are ordained to eternal life, not through divine predestination, but through grace, are said to be written in the book of life not simply, but relatively, . . . God knows one is first ordained to eternal life, and afterwards not ordained when he falls from grace. (ST 1, q. 24, a. 3c)

But if he give up the faith, then he seems to turn away from God altogether: and consequently, apostasy simply and absolutely is that whereby a man withdraws from the faith, and is called “apostasy of perfidy.” In this way apostasy, simply so called, pertains to unbelief. (ST 2-2, q. 12, a. 1c)

For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Prov. 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Rm. 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” (ST 2-2, q. 12, a. 1, ad 2)

. . . it is written (2 Pet. 2:21): “It had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them.” Now those who know not the way of truth will be punished for ever. Therefore Christians who have turned back after knowing it will also be punished for ever. (ST Suppl., q. 99, a. 4, sed contra)

Grace: Degrees or Greater Measure of

It is written (Eph. 4:7): “But to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” Now what is given in measure, is not given to all equally. Hence all have not an equal grace. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 4, sed contra)

Augustine says (super Ep. Joan.; cf. Ep. clxxxvi) that “charity merits increase, and being increased merits to be perfected.” Hence the increase of grace or charity falls under merit. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, sed contra)

By every meritorious act a man merits the increase of grace, equally with the consummation of grace which is eternal life. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, ad 3)

Justification, Infused (Sanctification)

Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia xxvi) that “as the eye of the body though most healthy cannot see unless it is helped by the brightness of light, so, neither can a man, even if he is most righteous, live righteously unless he be helped by the eternal light of justice.” But justification is by grace, according to Rm. 3:24: “Being justified freely by His grace.” Hence even a man who already possesses grace needs a further assistance of grace in order to live righteously. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 9, sed contra)

. . . in order to live righteously a man needs a twofold help of God—first, a habitual gift whereby corrupted human nature is healed, and after being healed is lifted up so as to work deeds meritoriously of everlasting life, which exceed the capability of nature. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 9c)

. . . man, even when possessed of grace, needs perseverance to be given to him by God. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 10, sed contra)

Grace causes faith not only when faith begins anew to be in a man, but also as long as faith lasts. . . . God is always working man’s justification, even as the sun is always lighting up the air. Hence grace is not less effective when it comes to a believer than when it comes to an unbeliever: since it causes faith in both, in the former by confirming and perfecting it, in the latter by creating it anew. (ST 2-2, q. 4, a. 4, ad 3)

A thing is impure through being mixed with baser things: for silver is not called impure, when mixed with gold, which betters it, but when mixed with lead or tin. Now it is evident that the rational creature is more excellent than all transient and corporeal creatures; so that it becomes impure through subjecting itself to transient things by loving them. From this impurity the rational creature is purified by means of a contrary movement, namely, by tending to that which is above it, viz. God. The first beginning of this movement is faith: since “he that cometh to God must believe that He is,” according to Heb. 11:6. Hence the first beginning of the heart’s purifying is faith; and if this be perfected through being quickened by charity, the heart will be perfectly purified thereby. (ST 2-2, q. 7, a. 2c)

The Apostle says (Heb. 9:14): “The blood of Christ, Who by the Holy Ghost offered Himself unspotted unto God, shall cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God.” But dead works denote sins. Therefore the priesthood of Christ has the power to cleanse from sins. (ST 3, q. 22, a. 3, sed contra)

Christ’s Passion is applied to us even through faith, that we may share in its fruits, according to Rom. 3:25: “Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood.” But the faith through which we are cleansed from sin is not “lifeless faith,” which can exist even with sin, but “faith living” through charity; that thus Christ’s Passion may be applied to us, not only as to our minds, but also as to our hearts. And even in this way sins are forgiven through the power of the Passion of Christ. (ST 3, q. 49, a. 1, ad 5)

Merit

It is written (Eccles. 12:14): “All things that are done, God will bring into judgment . . . whether it be good or evil.” Now judgment implies retribution, in respect of which we speak of merit and demerit. Therefore every human action, both good and evil, acquires merit or demerit in God’s sight. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4, sed contra)

. . . our actions, good and evil, acquire merit or demerit, in the sight of God. On the part of God Himself, inasmuch as He is man’s last end; and it is our duty to refer all our actions to the last end, . . . Consequently, whoever does an evil deed, not referable to God, does not give God the honor due to Him as our last end. . . . Now God is the governor and ruler of the whole universe, . . .  and especially of rational creatures. Consequently it is evident that human actions acquire merit or demerit in reference to Him: else it would follow that human actions are no business of God’s. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4c)

Man is so moved, as an instrument, by God, that, at the same time, he moves himself by his free-will, . . . Consequently, by his action, he acquires merit or demerit in God’s sight. (ST 1-2, q. 21, a. 4, ad 2)

Augustine is speaking here of that hope whereby we look to gain future bliss through merits which we have already; and this is not without charity. (ST 1-2, q. 65, a. 4, ad 3)

. . . to fulfil the commandments of the Law, in their due way, whereby their fulfilment may be meritorious, requires grace. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5, ad 2)

A certain preparation of man for grace is simultaneous with the infusion of grace; and this operation is meritorious, not indeed of grace, which is already possessed—but of glory which is not yet possessed. . . .  merit can only arise from grace . . . (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 2, ad 1)

Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 1c)

. . . a man can merit nothing from God except by His gift, which the Apostle expresses aptly saying (Rm. 11:35): “Who hath first given to Him, and recompense shall be made to him?” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 2, ad 3)

Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. . . . If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to Jn. 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 3c)

. . . our actions are meritorious in so far as they proceed from the free-will moved with grace by God. Therefore every human act proceeding from the free-will, if it be referred to God, can be meritorious. Now the act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God, so that it is subject to the free-will in relation to God; and consequently the act of faith can be meritorious. (ST 2-2, q. 2, a. 9c)

Salvation, Instantaneous (Falsity of)

But just as eternal life is not given at once, but in its own time, so neither is grace increased at once, but in its own time, viz. when a man is sufficiently disposed for the increase of grace. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 8, ad 3)

. . . a man hopes to obtain eternal life, not by his own power (since this would be an act of presumption), but with the help of grace; and if he perseveres therein he will obtain eternal life surely and infallibly. (ST 2-2, q. 1, a. 3, ad 1)

. . . perseverance . . . may be taken to denote the act of perseverance enduring until death: and in this sense it needs not only habitual grace, but also the gratuitous help of God sustaining man in good until the end of life, . . . Because, since the free-will is changeable by its very nature, which changeableness is not taken away from it by the habitual grace bestowed in the present life, it is not in the power of the free-will, albeit repaired by grace, to abide unchangeably in good, though it is in its power to choose this: for it is often in our power to choose yet not to accomplish. (ST 2-2, q. 137, a. 4c)

Man is able by himself to fall into sin, but he cannot by himself arise from sin without the help of grace. Hence by falling into sin, so far as he is concerned man makes himself to be persevering in sin, unless he be delivered by God’s grace. On the other hand, by doing good he does not make himself to be persevering in good, because he is able, by himself, to sin: wherefore he needs the help of grace for that end. (ST 2-2, q. 137, a. 4, ad 3)

Synergy: Cooperation with God’s Grace as “Co-Laborers” and Secondary Mediators

One is said to be helped by another in two ways; in one way, inasmuch as he receives power from him: and to be helped thus belongs to the weak; but this cannot be said of God, and thus we are to understand, “Who hath helped the Spirit of the Lord?” In another way one is said to be helped by a person through whom he carries out his work, as a master through a servant. In this way God is helped by us; inasmuch as we execute His orders, according to 1 Cor. 3:9: “We are God’s co-adjutors.” Nor is this on account of any defect in the power of God, but because He employs intermediary causes, in order that the beauty of order may be preserved in the universe; and also that He may communicate to creatures the dignity of causality. (ST 1, q. 23, a. 8, ad 2)

This argument holds, in the case of an instrument which has no faculty of action, but only of being acted upon. But man is not an instrument of that kind; for he is so acted upon, by the Holy Ghost, that he also acts himself, in so far as he has a free-will. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 3, ad 2)

. . . we may say that, as regards the infusion of the gifts, the art is on the part of the Holy Ghost, Who is the principal mover, and not on the part of men, who are His organs when He moves them. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 4, ad 1)

The mind of man is not moved by the Holy Ghost, unless in some way it be united to Him: even as the instrument is not moved by the craftsman, unless there by contact or some other kind of union between them. (ST 1-2, q. 68, a. 4, ad 3)

If, however, by man’s fruit we understand a product of man, then human actions are called fruits: because operation is the second act of the operator, and gives pleasure if it is suitable to him. If then man’s operation proceeds from man in virtue of his reason, it is said to be the fruit of his reason: but if it proceeds from him in respect of a higher power, which is the power of the Holy Ghost, then man’s operation is said to be the fruit of the Holy Ghost, as of a Divine seed, for it is written (1 Jn. 3:9): “Whosoever is born of God, committeth no sin, for His seed abideth in him.” (ST 1-2, q. 70, a. 1c)

. . . our works, in so far as they are produced by the Holy Ghost working in us, are fruits . . . (ST 1-2, q. 70, a. 1, ad 1)

Man, by his will, does works meritorious of everlasting life; but . . . for this it is necessary that the will of man should be prepared with grace by God. (ST 1-2, q. 109, a. 5, ad 1)

. . . if we speak of grace as it signifies a help from God to move us to good, no preparation is required on man’s part, that, as it were, anticipates the Divine help, but rather, every preparation in man must be by the help of God moving the soul to good. And thus even the good movement of the free-will, whereby anyone is prepared for receiving the gift of grace is an act of the free-will moved by God. And thus man is said to prepare himself, according to Prov. 16:1: “It is the part of man to prepare the soul”; yet it is principally from God, Who moves the free-will. Hence it is said that man’s will is prepared by God, and that man’s steps are guided by God. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 2c)

God ordained human nature to attain the end of eternal life, not by its own strength, but by the help of grace; and in this way its act can be meritorious of eternal life. (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 2, ad 1)

It is not on account of any defect in God’s power that He works by means of second causes, but it is for the perfection of the order of the universe, and the more manifold outpouring of His goodness on things, through His bestowing on them not only the goodness which is proper to them, but also the faculty of causing goodness in others. Even so it is not through any defect in His mercy, that we need to bespeak His clemency through the prayers of the saints, but to the end that the aforesaid order in things be observed. (ST Suppl., q. 72, a. 2, ad 1)

Theosis; Divinization

Nothing can act beyond its species, since the cause must always be more powerful than its effect. Now the gift of grace surpasses every capability of created nature, since it is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every other nature. And thus it is impossible that any creature should cause grace. For it is as necessary that God alone should deify, bestowing a partaking of the Divine Nature by a participated likeness, as it is impossible that anything save fire should enkindle. (ST 1-2, q. 112, a. 1c)

. . . the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Rm. 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.” (ST 1-2, q. 114, a. 3c)

The head and members are as one mystic person; and therefore Christ’s satisfaction belongs to all the faithful as being His members. (ST 3, q. 48, a. 2, ad 1)

. . . grace is nothing else than a participated likeness of the Divine Nature, according to 2 Pet. 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises; that we may be partakers of the Divine Nature.” (ST 3, q. 62, a. 1c)

. . . one can be changed into Christ, and be incorporated in Him by mental desire, even without receiving this sacrament [the Eucharist]. (ST 3, q. 73, a. 3, ad 2)

Now, granted, if we are talking about 16th century Catholics in practice, there was a great deal of ignorance and much to be desired. It wasn’t one of the Catholic Church’s best times. But when analyzing any Christian belief-system, we can only look at what their confessions and creeds teach. We can’t ultimately go by the man in the pub or old ladies with purple tennis shoes (as if they are the best representatives of theological thought). We compare Luther and Calvin and Protestant creeds and arguments with Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas and ecumenical councils. All that Luther introduced (considered his great insight) were false beliefs and novelties.

But grace alone and God’s mercy and enabling of all good things had been there since the beginning of Christianity, and articulated in a more advanced form by Catholic anti-Pelagian writers like St. Augustine, and in the 5th and 6th centuries in Catholic councils confirmed by popes. Now that folks have had a chance to consider both sides in the dispute, they can get a much more accurate (and I think, also more interesting) picture of the actual historical and theological realities in play. The more we learn, the more we realize that the two sides are closer in thinking than most on either side imagined.

*

***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: The Augustinian Monastery in Wittenberg, Saxony, where Martin Luther lived, including the tower where he had a “new” insight about justification. From the article, “Luther’s Tower Experience: Martin Luther Discovers the True Meaning of Righteousness by Faith,” 1-13-17.

Summary: Analysis of Luther’s famous “tower experience” of 1519 where he arrived at a Protestant understanding of justification, & Catholic thinking (early Church & Aquinas).

2024-05-07T15:42:52-04:00

François Turretin (1623-1687) was a Genevan-Italian Reformed scholastic theologian and renowned defender of the Calvinistic (Reformed) orthodoxy represented by the Synod of Dort, and was one of the authors of the Helvetic Consensus (1675). He is generally considered to be the best Calvinist apologist besides John Calvin himself. His Institutes of Elenctic Theology (three volumes, Geneva, 1679–1685) used the scholastic method. “Elenctic” means “refuting an argument by proving the falsehood of its conclusion.” Turretin contended against the conflicting Christian  perspectives of Catholicism and Arminianism. It was a popular textbook; notably at Princeton Theological Seminary, until it was replaced by Charles Hodge‘s Systematic Theology in the late 19th century. Turretin also greatly influenced the Puritans.

This is a reply to a portion of Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Vol. 2, 17th Topic: Sanctification and Good Works). I utilize the edition translated by George Musgrave Giger and edited by James T. Dennison, Jr. (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: 1992 / 1994 / 1997; 2320 pages). It uses the KJV for Bible verses. I will use RSV unless otherwise indicated.  All installments of this series of replies can be found on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, under the category, “Replies to Francois Turretin (1632-1687).” Turretin’s words will be in blue.

***

First Question

What is sanctification and how is it distinguished from justification, yet inseparable from it?

I. As Christ was made to us of God righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30)—not dividedly, but conjointly; not confusedly, but distinctly—so the benefit of sanctification immediately follows justification as inseparably connected with it, but yet really distinct from it.

Protestants (particularly Reformed ones) make a sharp distinction between justification and sanctification (whereas Catholics — following Holy Scripture — combine them). For Protestants, works of sanctification have — in the final analysis — nothing to do with salvation. They are done in thankfulness for a justification already attained. Thus, Turretin writes a bit later:

God makes us first new creatures by regeneration; then we show that we are regenerated by our new obedience (as these acts are distinguished in Eph. 2:10; Ezk. 36:26; Jer. 32:39). . . . The actual laying aside of vices and the correction of life and morals follow regeneration, as its proper effects (Gal. 5:22, 23; Col. 3:5). . . . Scripture has frequently distinguished these benefits (1 Cor. 1:30; 6:11; Tit. 3:5; Rev. 22:11).

But the formal separation is not a biblical distinction, as I will show again and again. Let’s look at the Bible passages Turretin sets forth as alleged proof of his view:

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

This is itself doesn’t prove the formal separation of justification and sanctification. It is stating that the justified person or disciple of Christ will do good works. All agree on that. But it doesn’t establish Protestant soteriology. In the previous two verses, Paul wrote:

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God — [9] not because of works, lest any man should boast.

This is consistent with his overall teaching. See: St. Paul on Grace, Faith, & Works (50 Passages) [8-6-08]. When Paul writes that we’re “not” saved “because of works” (Eph 2:9), he is denying works salvation. But in Ephesians 2:10 he shows that works are part of the overall equation. They can’t save us by themselves, but neither can or does faith. They have to function together, with both being caused by God’s prior grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 presents the whole package, and it’s thoroughly Catholic. It’s our “three-legged stool” of salvation: grace, faith, and works.

Ezekiel 36:25-27 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. [26] A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

Jeremiah 32:39-41  I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for their own good and the good of their children after them. [40] I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them; and I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me. [41] I will rejoice in doing them good, and I will plant them in this land in faithfulness, with all my heart and all my soul.

Again, God cleanses us and indwells us, and we do good works. But this is completely harmonious with the Catholic view of an organic connection between justification and sanctification. It doesn’t prove the Protestant view over against ours. We would contend that the justified person does the good works precisely because of the prior organic connection.

Galatians 5:22-25 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. [24] And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. [25] If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit.

Colossians 3:1-2, 5 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. [2] Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. . . .  [5] Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Paul is saying that those who have the Holy Spirit simply do these things. They flow from the nature of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This seems altogether organic and connected by nature. It’s a somewhat subtle distinction, but a real one. Of course, the good works are later in time than initial justification, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t intrinsically connected.

1 Corinthians 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;

1 Corinthians 6:11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Revelation 22:11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

These are clear expressions of organic, intrinsic connection of justification and sanctification. It’s difficult to understand why anyone would think otherwise.

Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

Paul reiterates that we are not saved by works alone and that God’s grace is the ultimate cause (cf. 2:11). But in the same letter he writes five times that good works are part of the whole package:

Titus 1:16 They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

Titus 2:7 Show yourself in all respects a model of good deeds, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity,

Titus 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Titus 3:8 The saying is sure. I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.

Titus 3:14 And let our people learn to apply themselves to good deeds, so as to help cases of urgent need, and not to be unfruitful.

Nor could Paul so often have denied that we are justified by works if justification is the same as sanctification;

He could do so if what he meant in those “negative” passages was Jewish works of Mosaic Law, as the New Perspective on Paul (a Protestant school of thought) maintains.

The former [justification] consists in the judicial and forensic act of remission of sin and imputation of righteousness; the latter [sanctification] in the physical and moral act of the infusion of righteousness and internal renovation. 

This plainly states the anti-traditional, innovative Protestant conception of sanctification: imputed justification and infused sanctification. Catholicism holds that both are infused.

sanctification is indeed begun in this life, but is perfected only in the other. . . . by degrees and successively.

If it’s perfected in the afterlife; indeed, even “by degrees and successively”: how is that to be distinguished from purgatory?

Although we think that these two benefits should be distinguished and never confounded, still they are so connected from the order of God and the nature of the thing that they should never be torn asunder.

This is the sense in which the two competing views are actually quite similar (almost merely abstractly or conceptually distinct), in terms of practical application to life. I have often noted this and rejoiced in it. I argue for the Catholic viewpoint, but at the same time recognize that the two views are very close to each other.

This is clearly evident even from this—that they are often set forth in one and the same word as when they are designated by the words “cleansing” and “purging” and “taking away,” not only in different places, but also in the same context (as Jn. 1:29, when “the Lamb of God” is said “to take away the sin of the world,” i.e., both by taking away its guilt and punishment by the merit of his blood and by taking away its pollution and taint by the efficacy of the Spirit; and in Rev. 1:5, Christ is said “to wash us from our sins,” both as to justification and as to sanctification; in which sense “the robes of believers” are said “to have been made white in the blood of Christ” [Rev. 7:14] . . . God joined these two benefits in the covenant of grace, since he promises that he will not remember our sins and that he will write his law in our hearts (Jer. 31:33, 34). Nor does the nature of God suffer this to be done otherwise. For since by justification we have a right to life (nor can anyone be admitted to communion with God without sanctification), it is necessary that he whom God justifies is also sanctified by him so as to be made fit for the possession of glory. Nay, he does not take away guilt by justification except to renew his own image in us by sanctification because holiness is the end of the covenant and of all its blessings (Lk. 1:68–75; Eph. 1:4).

Amen! Like I said, “close.”

The very faith by which we are justified demands this. For as it is the instrument of justification by receiving the righteousness of Christ, so it is the root and principle of sanctification, while it purges the heart and works through love (Gal. 5:6). Justification itself (which brings the remission of sins) does not carry with it the permission or license to sin (as the Epicureans hold), but ought to enkindle the desire of piety and the practice of holiness. With God, it is a propitiation that he may be feared (Ps. 130:4); speaks peace to his people that they may not turn again to folly (Ps. 85:8). Thus justification stands related to sanctification as the means to the end. And to this tends the whole economy of grace, which for no other reason has dawned upon us, unless “that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly” (Tit. 2:12).

More great thoughts, which Catholics wholly agree with.

Three opinions concerning the necessity of good works.

II. There are three principal opinions about the necessity of good works. First is that of those who (sinning in defect) deny it; such were formerly the Simonians and the modern Epicureans and Libertines, who make good works arbitrary and indifferent, which we may perform or omit at pleasure. The second is that of those who (sinning in excess) affirm and press the necessity of merit and causality; such were the ancient Pharisees and false apostles, who contended that works are necessary to justification. These are followed by the Romanists and Socinians of our day. The third is that of those who (holding the middle ground between these two extremes) neither simply deny, nor simply assert; yet they recognize a certain necessity for them against the Libertines, but uniformly reject the necessity of merit against the Romanists. This is the opinion of the orthodox.

This is trying to have it both ways. Are works necessary for salvation (alongside grace and faith) or not? Turretin opts for a supposed “middle ground” and a “certain necessity.” He (and Protestants en masse) can’t have it both ways. In order to maintain some sort of necessity for works, they go after merit. But it’s a distinction without a difference. I have collected fifty biblical passages directly tying good works to entrance into heaven and ultimate salvation. They simply can’t be interpreted as involving no merit whatsoever. If they weren’t meritorious whatsoever, then heaven couldn’t possibly be any kind of reward for doing them. Yet it is; so they are meritorious. It’s as simple as that. Here are some of them:

Matthew 7:19-21 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 25:31-36 “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. [32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, [33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. [34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’

Luke 3:9 (+ Mt 3:10; 7:19) Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.

John 5:26-29 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honour and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Hebrews 6:7-8 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Revelation 2:5 Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 20:11-13 Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

Moreover, there are several biblical passages that tie salvation directly to sanctification, in a way contrary to the Protestants view of sanctification:

Acts 26:18 to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: “made holy by their faith in me”] [cf. Acts 20:32; Jude 1]

This would appear to contradict a strict notion of sola fide, or faith alone: one of the two “pillars” of the so-called “Reformation”, because it connects sanctification directly to faith; indeed, it comes “by” faith. Here is another passage that connects sanctification with faith (traditionally associated with justification):

Acts 15:8-9 And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.

The Greek word for “cleansed” used here is katharizo. It is used many times in the Gospels in reference to the cleansing of lepers (e.g., Mt 10:8; Lk 7:22). We see this dynamic also in Hebrews:

Hebrews 9:12-14 he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (cf. 1 John 1:7, 9: same word: katharizo)

Thus, the “eternal redemption” secured by Jesus Christ with “his own blood” leads inexorably to a purified conscience, and a new ability to serve God, just as flesh was purified by the old sacrificial system. Sanctification seems intimately connected to justification, or in any event, redemption. Perhaps the two clearest verses in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself, are these:

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.

Romans 6:22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.

The author of Hebrews maintains the same motif:

Hebrews 10:10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Hebrews 10:14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.

Hebrews 10:29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

Hebrews 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

The following five passages also plainly teach the notion of meritorious works:

2 Timothy 2:15, 21-22 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. . . . If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

Hebrews 10:36, 38-39 For you have need of endurance, so that you may do the will of God and receive what is promised. . . . but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.

2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall;

Jude 1:20-21 But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

See also:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
‘Doers of the Law’ Are Justified, Says St. Paul [National Catholic Register, 5-22-19]
*
Jesus on Salvation: Works, Merit and Sacrifice [National Catholic Register, 7-28-19]
*
*
*
good works are set forth to us as the effects of eternal election (Eph. 1:4); the fruit and seal of present grace (2 Tim. 2:19; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Jn. 15:4; Gal. 5:22); and the “seeds” or “firstfruits” and earnests of future glory (Gal. 6:7, 8; Eph. 1:14; Rom. 8:23).
*
They are also described as a partial cause of salvation, and instrumental in achieving it, per all the biblical data I brought forth above.
*
everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be
reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).
*
Exactly! This state of affairs can’t exist unless good works brought about by grace and done in faith are also meritorious. It simply makes no sense trying to deny the merit part of it. It’s an internal difficulty of Protestant soteriology.
*
Although we acknowledge the necessity of good works against the Epicureans, we do not on this account confound the law and the gospel and
interfere with gratuitous justification by faith alone . . . 
*
That’s the contradiction and incoherent position.
*
*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: from the Brill page, “Francis Turretin (1623–87) and the Reformed Tradition”: chapter 6, publication history.

Summary: Critique of the 17th century Reformed / Calvinist theologian François Turretin with regard to the doctrine of sanctification, including meritorious good works.

2024-03-20T23:39:27-04:00

Including a Summary of the Extraordinary, Unfathomable Characteristics of Redeemed Human Beings in Heaven

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 13th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page.

*****

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you’ve received benefit from this or any of my 4,500+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (email address) on the sidebar to the right, above the icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure and concretely supports my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

*****

This is a response to a portion of Jordan’s YouTube video, “A Critique of Prayer to the Saints” (4-19-20).

30:52 To argue for prayers to the saints, what you’re arguing for is not only the idea that saints are in heaven praying for the church generally before the Father and seeing kind of the events of the world unpacked themselves. What they’re saying is that the saints have an almost divine omniscience, because the saints themselves are to some degree able to hear the prayers of so many people. I mean, think about the Blessed Virgin Mary or think about St. Peter  . . . how many prayers St. Peter must have to actually hear, so that he can hear every word that is spoken by everyone that is praying to him and not just out loud but even prayers that are in your head. So it gives the saints almost this kind of divine quality or this divine attribute of almost omniscience, to the point that they’re able to hear everything both externally and even in people’s minds. And we’re simply never told that those are qualities that are true of any creature . . . that is never ascribed to mere creatures, so that is the second major theological problem that that we have with that.

The gist of this oft-expressed Protestant criticism is that there is something logically possible, that is, nevertheless, not possible for God to do. God can’t grant these abilities to saints in heaven, even though angels already somehow possess them. Who gave them their powers? So God can’t or wouldn’t do this, we are told. I’m not at all sure of that. These powers need not be “omniscient” (having all knowledge) at all. It’s simply extraordinary abilities, combined with being outside of time in heaven. And indeed there are many biblical examples of extraordinary characteristics that all human beings who make it to heaven will have, and I submit that they could explain hearing “millions” of prayers or requests for intercession. Let’s look at some of those aspects in the Bible, shall we?:

St. Paul states that now we only “see in a mirror dimly” and “know in part” (1 Cor 13:12), and that “eye has not seen” (1 Cor 2:9) what God has “prepared” for us. We shall “see his face” (Rev 22:4) and see Him “face to face” (1 Cor 13:12), and He will be our “light” (Rev 22:5). Saints in heaven “shall understand fully” (1 Cor 13:12), and possess “knowledge” that he describes as “perfect”(1 Cor 13:9-10), and “an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison” (2 Cor 4:17): “the glory that is to be revealed” (Rom 8:18), “the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom 8:21), and “eternal glory in Christ” (1 Pet 5:10).

St. Paul implies that believers even while on the earth can achieve “the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding” (Col 1:9) and can obtain “all the riches of assured understanding and the knowledge of God’s mystery, of Christ” (Col 1:10). And they “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17). Christians “are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor 3:18). This will be perfected in heaven. Saints in heaven will be “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and will be fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and totally free of and from sin (Rev 19:8; 21:8, 27; 22:14-15). Hebrews 12:1 (“we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”) proves that the saints are quite aware of happenings on earth (especially when we examine it closely and see what commentators think).

If we’re “equal to” angels after death, according to Jesus (Lk 20:36), and “like angels” (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25), and we know that angels communicate with those on earth (many examples in the Bible; e.g., “the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven” — Gen 21:17), then it stands to reason that the dead saints will by analogy be able to do the same thing. Jesus said, “I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents” (Lk 15:10). That’s an interior disposition. If angels know that, and we will be “equal” to them, then dead saints in heaven can certainly hear a petition, since by analogy to the angels they’ll be able to discern interior thoughts.

Moreover, there is the whole theology of God indwelling us. We’re described as “God’s temple” (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:22). God “will live in” us (2 Cor 6:16). He’s “in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:4). God “abides in” us (1 Jn 3:24; 4:12-13, 15-16). Jesus abides in us (Jn 6:56; 15:4), and He is “in” us (Jn 14:20; 17:23; Rom 8:10; Col 1:27). He dwells in our “hearts” (Eph 3:17). The Holy Spirit is “within” us (Ezek 37:14). He’s “with” us (Jn 14:16), “dwells” “in” or “with” us (Jn 14:17; Rom 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16), and is in our “hearts” (2 Cor 1:22; 3:3; Gal 4:6). All of these factors will no doubt be all the more intensified in heaven, and serious disciples have already experienced them to a large degree on earth. We become like God, united to Him.

Is it reasonable, then, to believe that even though the saints in heaven possess all of these extraordinary — and largely unknown and probably incomprehensible to us — characteristics, the ability to hear an intercessory request or a petition (or even millions, having transcended time) is not part of their abilities? That position is neither plausible nor biblical. Facebook friend Peter Rowe made a great related comment on my Facebook page:

I think the fact that computers can literally handle hundreds of millions of requests per second from all over the world at the same time, refutes the notion that this is impossible for a creature, since computers are a human creation and a divine one only secondarily.

Excellent point! If we (distantly echoing God’s creative capabilities) can make a computer that can do all that, certainly God the Creator can make it possible for a person to do so. Their love will be perfected, and will certainly include intercession. We already know for sure that saints and angels present our prayers to God in heaven (Rev 5:8; 8:3-4). What are they doing with them and how did they obtain them? The most logical, feasible explanation is that they had received prayers (technically, intercessory requests) from people on earth as intermediaries to God.

The notion of a human being in heaven being outside of time and in eternity, which is essentially different from time, is not merely Catholic thought. Once one has this view, answering of millions of prayers is entirely possible (and I would say, likely, given these departed saints’ perfect love). What Jordan casually assumes is impossible is not at all: not if God wills it. Protestant writer Ray Stedman wrote:

We constantly think of heaven as a continuation on a larger and perfect scale of life on earth. Locked into our world of space and time, we find it very difficult to imagine life proceeding on any other terms. But we must remember that time is time and eternity is eternity and never the twain shall meet. . . .

The thing we must remember in dealing with this matter of life beyond death is that when time ends, eternity begins. They are not the same, and we must not make them the same. Time means that we are locked into a pattern of chronological sequence which we are helpless to break. For example, all human beings sharing the same room will experience an earthquake together. While there are varying feelings and reactions, everyone will feel the earthquake at the same time. But in eternity events do not follow a sequential pattern. (“Time and Eternity”; ch. 9 of the book, Authentic Christianity, 1996)

The great Catholic author and apologist Peter Kreeft similarly expressed the state of those in heaven as follows:

A related consequence of all time being present in eternity is that we will be able to travel in time when we are in eternity. From eternity time is manipulable: expandable, compressible, reversible, divisible. It is silly-putty time. “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” [2 Peter 3:8], and just as He plays time like an accordion, expanding and contracting it at will, so can we when we live in Him. As an author can move backward or forward in a story, God can move in time, and so can we, once we get out of the story and into the Author. (Every Thing You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven . . . But Never Dreamed of Asking, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990, 168-169)

So where is the direct proof of our being outside of ordinary time as we know it, in heaven? We have already seen it. All we have to do is combine 2 Peter 3:8 (God being outside of ordinary time) with passages such as those that state we “shall be like” Jesus (1 Jn 3:2) and fully “united to the Lord” and “one spirit with him” (1 Cor 6:17), “filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19) and “the fulness of Christ” (Eph 4:13) and fully “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). Moreover, we “abide in” God (1 Jn 3:24; 4:13, 15-16), and specifically, abide in Jesus (Jn 6:56; 15:4). We’re “in” Jesus (Jn 14:20; Phil 4:7). We’re “in” the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9), and “possess the Spirit” (1 Cor 2:13).

I think it’s quite reasonable and plausible to posit that having a different relationship to time will be part of that. And once that is granted, answering all those prayers (that may be simultaneous according to our earth-time, but not in heavenly time-eternity) poses no problem or “difficulty” at all. It’s been shown from the Bible alone. Protestants accept all these verses. Luther and Lutherans believe in theosis (union with God). Yet they also believe that we’re not identical to God in all respects. But we can be “like” Him in the matter of our relationship to time in heaven. God is omnipotent. If He wants this, He can make it happen; no problem! I think we know enough from Scripture and from the very nature of love (His and that of the saints and angels) to know that He does want it.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: EdenMoon (4-17-20) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Jordan Cooper expresses the myth about the impossibility of saints hearing millions of prayers at once. I provide much biblical support for its possibility & likelihood.

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives