{"id":716,"date":"2014-06-30T23:42:52","date_gmt":"2014-06-30T23:42:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/?p=716"},"modified":"2014-06-30T23:42:52","modified_gmt":"2014-06-30T23:42:52","slug":"distinguo-brevis-mannermaa-osiander-and-eastern-orthodoxy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/justandsinner\/distinguo-brevis-mannermaa-osiander-and-eastern-orthodoxy\/","title":{"rendered":"Distinguo brevis – Mannermaa, Osiander, and Eastern Orthodoxy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"tuommo-mannermaa\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2026starting in medias res.<\/i><\/p>\n

The reason why Tuomo Mannermaa\u2019s article<\/a> is controversial is less theological than political and cultural, though there may be a theological component to it. Part of Mannermaa\u2019s thesis is that Luther\u2019s very realistic understanding of the atonement was forgotten and therefore not present in the Formula of Concord, and that therefore there exists a chasm between Luther and the Formula, as well as Luther and Chemnitz, on the nature of deification. He finds this chasm to be spelled out particularly in the Formula\u2019s condemnation of Osiandrianism.<\/p>\n

What Mannermaa fails to see, according to my opinion, is that the Formula does not condemn Osiander\u2019s soteriological realism, but rather it condemns Osiander on two points: firstly, that Osiander taught that Christ\u2019s presence in us is only according to the divine nature, and not according to both, as Lutheran Christology would demand (this topic would be dealt with at length in Chemnitz\u2019s De Duabus Naturis in Christo<\/em>), and secondly, that Osiander found that logical \u201creason\u201d for our justification to be found not in the judgment upon Christ qua<\/em> Mankind on the cross, but upon our inner renewal through the indwelling of Christ. The problem of Osiandrianism is that of \u201cwho is the Father looking at when He declares \u2018not guilty\u2019\u201d?<\/strong> Is He looking at you with the divine nature renewing you from within (an idea which seems almost a Lutheranized form of Catholicism\u2019s \u201cinfused grace\u201d), or is He looking at Christ as the first and fullness of a new humanity?<\/p>\n

The second reason for the controversy over Mannermaa is that since his entire theology was developed in the crucible of the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, there is suspicion that when Mannermaa speaks of Luther\u2019s doctrine of deification, he is actively trying to make it sound just a little more Orthodox so as to make it appealing to them, as opposed to allowing it to sit in its full Lutheran glory. The main way he does this is in (seemingly) repeating Osiander\u2019s mistake (and the mistake of the Orthodox) and finding the locus of justification in the presently-living Christian who has Christ within him by faith, and not in Christ on the cross, who has Mankind in Him.<\/p>\n

The primary question of the Lutheran doctrine of the Forensic Atonement is this: where does God find you righteous?<\/strong><\/p>\n