![\"The Incredulity of St. Thomas\"; Caravaggio, ~1601-1602.](\"https:\/\/www.tdaviddemarest.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/04\/the-incredulity-of-saint-thomas-caravaggio.jpg\")
<\/a>[The following essay has been excerpted from personal correspondence and was originally posted at Pseudepigrapha: Deniable Plausibility<\/i> as part of the \u201cDear Robert\u201d series.<\/span><\/a><\/span>]<\/h5>\n\u00a0<\/p>\n
Dear Robert,<\/p>\n
It is most important that I begin by saying that I am but a seminarian and am by no means an authority or a great theologian. However, I am able to express the position of the historic Lutheran church on matters such as Justification as I have understood them from my readings of the Fathers (both Patristic and Lutheran) and from the lectures of eminent Lutheran scholars here on campus.<\/p>\n
I must also admit that I am not much of a \u201cscholastic\u201d, and so I often write with a bit of imprecision. With that said, I hope you can discern the spirit of my words and that you will not hold any semantic inconsistencies against me.<\/p>\n
You wrote that, according to the Reformed theology which you have inherited, you have understood Justification as being an attribution of Christ\u2019s righteousness to the sinner, the concept of it being merely<\/em> an attribution \u2014 that is, that some attribute, some nominal predicate, is being connected to the sinner which does not properly belong to him. But why is it merely attributed to him, rather than being truly his?<\/p>\nIt is my impression that the Reformed tend vigorously to defend the complete transcendence of God.<\/strong> If God is truly to be \u201cthat which nothing greater can be conceived,\u201d if He is to be the \u201cunknowable, infinite, ineffable God,\u201d then He must be infinitely separated from creation, for the distance between any finite thing and\u00a0any infinite thing is infinite. This is a very rational argument, and there is indeed much good piety to be procured from a consideration of God\u2019s transcendence. However, I believe the Calvinists abuse this doctrine by using it to deny the central mystery of Christianity: that this very infinite and transcendent God has become entirely immanent, that is, that He has united Himself with His creation in man, and that He has done so essentially<\/em> (that is, at the level of his essence).<\/p>\nThe most startling way in which Calvinism realizes this separation of the transcendent Creator and the created is in\u00a0a denial of any real communication between the two natures of Christ.<\/strong> To Calvinists, the hypostatic union between the human and the divine natures in Christ is little more than verbal.\u00a0This being so,\u00a0there is surely nothing \u201cdeified\u201d about the nature of man in Christ, for human nature is incapable of interacting with the infinite Divine nature in any way. Similarly, the Divine is in no way bound to the human nature of Christ. The two, though in some sense \u201ccombined\u201d in Christ, do not in any way communicate their attributes to each other. They are as two boards, glued to one another; connected by a certain tie, but utterly distinct. Theodore Beza writes:<\/p>\nTo posit any communication that is an effect of the union and other than the actual and usual uniting that they call \u2018grace\u2019, I say, that is nothing other than intolerable Eutychianism (Resp. ad. act. Colloq., p.92).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Similarly, he writes:<\/p>\n
We teach on the basis of the hypostatic definition of the union that neither the deity nor the properties of the deity can be said about the humanity in any way, not even in the union (ibid).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Elsewhere he again writes:<\/p>\n
We call the communication of properties \u2018verbal\u2019 insofar as this is a figurative expression of speech. Yet at the same time we call it \u2018real\u2019 and \u2018utterly true\u2019 because it is said about the entire person against Nestorius, according as it is one. But if they are said about the natures, as our adversaries take this, we claim that it is neither verbal nor real, but blasphemy, something to be hated (Opera, vol. 1, p. 638).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
What Beza seeks to make clear here is a teaching found already in the Institutes<\/em> of Jean Calvin, that the divine and human are unbridgeably separated, not because of sin, but by nature \u2014\u00a0that is to say, even in the state of grace before the fall, there was an infinite chasm between Adam and God.<\/p>\nIf to the Reformed there is a separation between the divine and human in the hypostatic union of Jesus himself, it is needless to say that there is an insurmountable divide between humanity in general and God. Because of this, to the Calvinist the goal of Justification is not to be in any real sense \u201creturned to God\u201d but rather just to be in a \u201cright relation\u201d to Him, in the same way that two friends can be put into a right relation.<\/strong> Since Calvinists see the problem to be relational and not ontological, they posit a solution which is relational and not ontological, namely, that God decides to accept the death of one man, Jesus, as a propitiation for the sin of all man, thereby forgiving the elect their sin, and granting them His favor.<\/p>\nThe important thing to note about the entire Calvinist system is how much it relies on \u201cdecisions\u201d by God, that is, on God\u2019s will, and not on His essence.<\/strong> He decides to save man, and then decides which particular men to save (Limited Atonement) and then decides on a plan to save mankind (the salvation narrative) and then decides to accept Christ\u2019s death as an atonement, though in and of itself it was of no particular value. God decides to forgive the elect, and since it is merely a decision on behalf of God, it need not have any \u201cobjective\u201d substance. In a sense, it is very subjective, for it all occurs within the mind of God. This leads to Calvinism\u2019s famous theology of \u201cdecrees\u201d whereby all things pertaining to salvation happen primarily by God\u2019s decreeing from His infinite holiness that it come to pass.<\/p>\n![\"StCyrilAlexandria27-6a\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/523\/2014\/07\/StCyrilAlexandria27-6a.jpg\")
<\/a>Lutherans differ here, for they would agree with St. Cyril of Alexandria that man was meant from the beginning to have a true, essential communion with God. It is for this reason that St. Peter writes that we will be \u201cpartakers of the divine nature\u201d and the Psalmist that \u201cYe are gods, all of you are children of the most high!\u201d Similarly, the language of adoption assumes an essential union between the adopter and the adopted, for a man can only adopt that which is another man; if a son is to be a son of a father, he must be like unto the father. The image of \u201cfamily\u201d employed in any way assumes a kinship. Therefore, if we are to be adopted by God, becoming sons of the Father, and the brothers of Christ, we must be likened unto God, or as Paul writes, we must be \u201ctransformed into the same image, from glory to glory.\u201d<\/p>\nIt is also not to be taken lightly that the communion between God and the Church is likened in the Scriptures to a bridegroom and his bride. God is not distant\u00a0from His Church, neither does He merely \u201crelate to it.\u201d Rather, just as a bridegroom desires to unite with his wife, so does God long to unite with His Church. God\u2019s love for the church is erotic, that is, He longs to pour Himself into His Church, to pour His being into mankind. It should not seem strange, therefore, that St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans<\/em>, refers to Jesus as \u2018Eros\u2019 that is, a passionate love.<\/p>\nGod, therefore, longs to bring mankind into Himself, not in such a way that man is \u201cmerged into\u201d God, but in such a way that man and God might be said to be one, though they are also said to be distinct.<\/strong> Man must be deified. But some problems lie in the way, namely: that man has severed his nature from God\u2019s love, and has instead devoted himself to the devil and all the powers of the demonic. Fallen man is not only separated from God ontologically, then, but he actively hates God and serves Satan. How then, can he be saved?<\/p>\nIn the Incarnation, Christ once again reunites the human nature to the Divine in Himself. The Reformed tend to think that the Incarnation means that the Son \u201cbecame\u00a0a<\/em> man.\u201d But note that the Nicene Creed reads that the Son \u201cbecame man<\/em>,\u201d that is, humanity. In Him, the schism between the Divine and the human which was wrought by man\u2019s rebellion was ontologically undone. By becoming mankind in this way, by uniting the two natures in His own person, He is able to conquer the devil as mankind<\/em>, that is \u2014 He is able to undo the evil of Adam, not as God, but as man. Similarly, He can be put to death, and die not just as Jesus of Nazareth, but die as mankind. All man died in Jesus, and therefore God\u2019s first promise that \u201cif you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die\u201d comes to pass in Him, not metaphorically, but truly.<\/p>\nTo understand the Lutheran doctrine of \u201cForensic Atonement\u201d you must first grasp the concept that Jesus was not just \u201cGod taking on flesh\u201d but the Son taking on the human race in every respect. In some mysterious way He took on and bore all the sin of mankind within Himself, while never sinning Himself. In this sense (and in this sense only, pace Matthias Flacius<\/a>) He was the greatest sinner of all. He was a murderer, a harlot, an adulterer, a thief, a backbiter, a rapist. He was all evil, and for this He was put to a terrible death. Even more so, He was not just a generic \u201cmurderer\u201d or a generic \u201charlot\u201d but He was every murderer and harlot individually. He was David, the killer and adulterer; He was Rahab, the prostitute; He was Adam, the rebel,\u00a0the hater of God. He was them all, and they all received their death in Him, and so justice was wrought (cf. Great Commentary on Galatians<\/em>, Blessed Martin Luther). The \u201caccount was settled\u201d before God, for mankind had truly been punished. Jesus \u201cbore our sorrows.\u201d The more strongly we are able to accept the awful truth of the imputation of our sin to Christ, the closer we come to comprehending the great mystery of the religion.<\/p>\n
It is my impression that the Reformed tend vigorously to defend the complete transcendence of God.<\/strong> If God is truly to be \u201cthat which nothing greater can be conceived,\u201d if He is to be the \u201cunknowable, infinite, ineffable God,\u201d then He must be infinitely separated from creation, for the distance between any finite thing and\u00a0any infinite thing is infinite. This is a very rational argument, and there is indeed much good piety to be procured from a consideration of God\u2019s transcendence. However, I believe the Calvinists abuse this doctrine by using it to deny the central mystery of Christianity: that this very infinite and transcendent God has become entirely immanent, that is, that He has united Himself with His creation in man, and that He has done so essentially<\/em> (that is, at the level of his essence).<\/p>\n The most startling way in which Calvinism realizes this separation of the transcendent Creator and the created is in\u00a0a denial of any real communication between the two natures of Christ.<\/strong> To Calvinists, the hypostatic union between the human and the divine natures in Christ is little more than verbal.\u00a0This being so,\u00a0there is surely nothing \u201cdeified\u201d about the nature of man in Christ, for human nature is incapable of interacting with the infinite Divine nature in any way. Similarly, the Divine is in no way bound to the human nature of Christ. The two, though in some sense \u201ccombined\u201d in Christ, do not in any way communicate their attributes to each other. They are as two boards, glued to one another; connected by a certain tie, but utterly distinct. Theodore Beza writes:<\/p>\n To posit any communication that is an effect of the union and other than the actual and usual uniting that they call \u2018grace\u2019, I say, that is nothing other than intolerable Eutychianism (Resp. ad. act. Colloq., p.92).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Similarly, he writes:<\/p>\n We teach on the basis of the hypostatic definition of the union that neither the deity nor the properties of the deity can be said about the humanity in any way, not even in the union (ibid).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Elsewhere he again writes:<\/p>\n We call the communication of properties \u2018verbal\u2019 insofar as this is a figurative expression of speech. Yet at the same time we call it \u2018real\u2019 and \u2018utterly true\u2019 because it is said about the entire person against Nestorius, according as it is one. But if they are said about the natures, as our adversaries take this, we claim that it is neither verbal nor real, but blasphemy, something to be hated (Opera, vol. 1, p. 638).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n What Beza seeks to make clear here is a teaching found already in the Institutes<\/em> of Jean Calvin, that the divine and human are unbridgeably separated, not because of sin, but by nature \u2014\u00a0that is to say, even in the state of grace before the fall, there was an infinite chasm between Adam and God.<\/p>\n If to the Reformed there is a separation between the divine and human in the hypostatic union of Jesus himself, it is needless to say that there is an insurmountable divide between humanity in general and God. Because of this, to the Calvinist the goal of Justification is not to be in any real sense \u201creturned to God\u201d but rather just to be in a \u201cright relation\u201d to Him, in the same way that two friends can be put into a right relation.<\/strong> Since Calvinists see the problem to be relational and not ontological, they posit a solution which is relational and not ontological, namely, that God decides to accept the death of one man, Jesus, as a propitiation for the sin of all man, thereby forgiving the elect their sin, and granting them His favor.<\/p>\n The important thing to note about the entire Calvinist system is how much it relies on \u201cdecisions\u201d by God, that is, on God\u2019s will, and not on His essence.<\/strong> He decides to save man, and then decides which particular men to save (Limited Atonement) and then decides on a plan to save mankind (the salvation narrative) and then decides to accept Christ\u2019s death as an atonement, though in and of itself it was of no particular value. God decides to forgive the elect, and since it is merely a decision on behalf of God, it need not have any \u201cobjective\u201d substance. In a sense, it is very subjective, for it all occurs within the mind of God. This leads to Calvinism\u2019s famous theology of \u201cdecrees\u201d whereby all things pertaining to salvation happen primarily by God\u2019s decreeing from His infinite holiness that it come to pass.<\/p>\n It is also not to be taken lightly that the communion between God and the Church is likened in the Scriptures to a bridegroom and his bride. God is not distant\u00a0from His Church, neither does He merely \u201crelate to it.\u201d Rather, just as a bridegroom desires to unite with his wife, so does God long to unite with His Church. God\u2019s love for the church is erotic, that is, He longs to pour Himself into His Church, to pour His being into mankind. It should not seem strange, therefore, that St. Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans<\/em>, refers to Jesus as \u2018Eros\u2019 that is, a passionate love.<\/p>\n God, therefore, longs to bring mankind into Himself, not in such a way that man is \u201cmerged into\u201d God, but in such a way that man and God might be said to be one, though they are also said to be distinct.<\/strong> Man must be deified. But some problems lie in the way, namely: that man has severed his nature from God\u2019s love, and has instead devoted himself to the devil and all the powers of the demonic. Fallen man is not only separated from God ontologically, then, but he actively hates God and serves Satan. How then, can he be saved?<\/p>\n In the Incarnation, Christ once again reunites the human nature to the Divine in Himself. The Reformed tend to think that the Incarnation means that the Son \u201cbecame\u00a0a<\/em> man.\u201d But note that the Nicene Creed reads that the Son \u201cbecame man<\/em>,\u201d that is, humanity. In Him, the schism between the Divine and the human which was wrought by man\u2019s rebellion was ontologically undone. By becoming mankind in this way, by uniting the two natures in His own person, He is able to conquer the devil as mankind<\/em>, that is \u2014 He is able to undo the evil of Adam, not as God, but as man. Similarly, He can be put to death, and die not just as Jesus of Nazareth, but die as mankind. All man died in Jesus, and therefore God\u2019s first promise that \u201cif you eat of this fruit, you shall surely die\u201d comes to pass in Him, not metaphorically, but truly.<\/p>\n To understand the Lutheran doctrine of \u201cForensic Atonement\u201d you must first grasp the concept that Jesus was not just \u201cGod taking on flesh\u201d but the Son taking on the human race in every respect. In some mysterious way He took on and bore all the sin of mankind within Himself, while never sinning Himself. In this sense (and in this sense only, pace Matthias Flacius<\/a>) He was the greatest sinner of all. He was a murderer, a harlot, an adulterer, a thief, a backbiter, a rapist. He was all evil, and for this He was put to a terrible death. Even more so, He was not just a generic \u201cmurderer\u201d or a generic \u201charlot\u201d but He was every murderer and harlot individually. He was David, the killer and adulterer; He was Rahab, the prostitute; He was Adam, the rebel,\u00a0the hater of God. He was them all, and they all received their death in Him, and so justice was wrought (cf. Great Commentary on Galatians<\/em>, Blessed Martin Luther). The \u201caccount was settled\u201d before God, for mankind had truly been punished. Jesus \u201cbore our sorrows.\u201d The more strongly we are able to accept the awful truth of the imputation of our sin to Christ, the closer we come to comprehending the great mystery of the religion.<\/p>\n<\/a>Lutherans differ here, for they would agree with St. Cyril of Alexandria that man was meant from the beginning to have a true, essential communion with God. It is for this reason that St. Peter writes that we will be \u201cpartakers of the divine nature\u201d and the Psalmist that \u201cYe are gods, all of you are children of the most high!\u201d Similarly, the language of adoption assumes an essential union between the adopter and the adopted, for a man can only adopt that which is another man; if a son is to be a son of a father, he must be like unto the father. The image of \u201cfamily\u201d employed in any way assumes a kinship. Therefore, if we are to be adopted by God, becoming sons of the Father, and the brothers of Christ, we must be likened unto God, or as Paul writes, we must be \u201ctransformed into the same image, from glory to glory.\u201d<\/p>\n