unhewn

[unhewn]

Irenaeus, Marcion & Hades

Description of Marcion's Belief Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 27, Section 3 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103127.htm

Salvation will be the attainment only of those souls which had learned his doctrine; while the body, as having been taken from the earth, is incapable of sharing in salvation. In addition to his blasphemy against God Himself, he advanced this also, truly speaking as with the mouth of the devil, and saying all things in direct opposition to the truth — that Cain, and those like him, and the Sodomites, and the Egyptians, and others like them, and, in fine, all the nations who walked in all sorts of abomination, were saved by the Lord, on His descending into Hades, and on their running unto Him, and that they welcomed Him into their kingdom. But the serpent which was in Marcion declared that Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and those other righteous men who sprang from the patriarch Abraham, with all the prophets, and those who were pleasing to God, did not partake in salvation. For since these men, he says, knew that their God was constantly tempting them, so now they suspected that He was tempting them, and did not run to Jesus, or believe His announcement: and for this reason he declared that their souls remained in Hades.

Refutation of Marcion Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 8) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103408.htm

Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. And the Lord [also bears witness to him,] in the first place, indeed, by raising up children to him from the stones, and making his seed as the stars of heaven, saying, They shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; and then again by saying to the Jews, When you shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of heaven, but you yourselves cast out. This, then, is a clear point, that those who disallow his salvation, and frame the idea of another God besides Him who made the promise to Abraham, are outside the kingdom of God, and are disinherited from [the gift of] incorruption, setting at naught and blaspheming God, who introduces, through Jesus Christ, Abraham to the kingdom of heaven, and his seed, that is, the Church, upon which also is conferred the adoption and the inheritance promised to Abraham.

Fragment on the Descent Irenaeus, Fragments, Fragment 28 https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm

And the man of God said, Where did it fall? And he showed him the place. And he cut down a tree, and cast it in there, and the iron floated. This was a sign that souls should be borne aloft through the instrumentality of wood, upon which He suffered who can lead those souls aloft that follow His ascension. This event was also an indication of the fact, that when the holy soul of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies. For just as the wood, which is the lighter body, was submerged in the water; but the iron, the heavier one, floated: so, when the Word of God became one with flesh, by a physical and hypostatic union, the heavy and terrestrial [part], having been rendered immortal, was borne up into heaven, by the divine nature, after the resurrection.

Additional Reading:

Alexander of Alexandria, Epistles on Arianism and the Deposition of Arius

Origen, Contra Celsum, Book 3, Chapter 43

[unhewn]

What is the Wrath to Come?

If the Lord Jesus Christ must suffer the wrath we are due so that it does not fall on us, then what is the content of that wrath?

This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering—since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed. To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. —2 Thessalonians 1:5-12

The content of the wrath is to suffer "the punishment of eternal destruction, away [or the destruction that comes from] from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his might."

Who is the Lord here? Paul uses "Lord" in reference to Jesus 4 times, and always indicates the Father with the term "God". In 2 Thess 2:1 he does the same again. So Lord = Jesus. This is about the coming of the Lord Jesus.

So, if the wrath to come is Christ's own wrath, and Christ experiences the wrath to come, Christ experiences his own wrath on the cross.

[unhewn]

Evil as Privation

Evil is the privation of good. It has no proper existence, but is rather parasitic and a misuse of a real good.

A step often built from this is that evil actions arise, or are made possible, by ignorance or lack of understanding about what the good is. All beings naturally seek their own good, but go astray by either misidentifying a good (ignorance), or pursuing a good as an end in itself (ingratitude). In the second case it seems that this is also a misidentification, as a being confuses the good with its source.

Thoughts: - What is knowledge? Does inability to fall require perfect knowledge? Or is it possible to be unchangeably righteous without perfect knowledge? - Did Satan have imperfect knowledge of his action? Definitionally no, he could not have understood really what he was doing. - Is unbelief a sin? - Is belief a virtue? - Can a perfect will fall? - "Done what is evil"? - Ignorance is a necessary condition for committing evil?

[unhewn]

Against the Theotokos

But why do you not cease to call Mary the mother of God, if Isaiah nowhere says that he that is born of the virgin is the "only begotten Son of God " and "the firstborn of all creation"?

But if, as you believe, the Word is God born of God and proceeded from the substance of the Father, why do you say that the virgin is the mother of God? For how could she bear a god since she is, according to you, a human being?

— Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans

Discovered via Jaroslav Pelikan's Imago Dei.

[unhewn]

Blind to Obedience

Record of a thread in response to the following:

The grace of final perseverance is God's gift. It is not the result of human obedience. That grace is given by means of Word and Sacrament. (Source)

—

Is it obedience to take the sacrament?

The Sacrament is no work. It is a gift, passively received.

I didn't ask if it's a work, but if it's obedience. If Christ gives a command to observe and celebrate it, isn't following that command obedience?

Obedience is a work.

So what word do you use for “doing what Jesus says”?

Obedience. But again, when Christ says “do this in remembrance of me,” it is indeed a command, but it’s a command to the apostles to administer the sacrament by doing what Christ did (taking bread and wine, giving thanks, breaking the bread, and distributing the gifts). External Link

Love that short reflection, and agree with it. But if this is the new feast of the covenant, then it is not just in the administration but also in the participation/reception that the observance is fulfilled. Otherwise a valid Lord’s Supper would need no communicants.

No, you’re confusing different texts. The reception is not commanded. The only command (“do this”) doesn’t refer to the reception. The words ‘do this’ do not appear anywhere in the Matthew account (or the Markan one).

You’re right, Matthew just has “take, eat” and “drink this, all of you.” But I take the synoptics to be supplying complementary details about the same event.

Yes, Luke and Paul are focusing on the commissioning of the apostles (and those called to the pastoral office), while Matthew and Mark are focusing on the gift given. One is about obedience, the other about receiving a gift without having to do anything for it.

Never claimed they had to do anything for it. Obedience doesn’t necessitate merit. Your last sentence is a claim that is not substantiated.

Ok, so you’re operating with an idiosyncratic definition of obedience.

We agree that things done in response to the instruction of God are obedience, but you want to carve this one spot out as something else because it doesn’t fit with a Law/Gospel grid.

I am also not persuaded that “Take, eat” and “Drink of it, all of you” are not instructions by Christ to be obeyed.

Yes, we do agree that things done in response to the instruction of God are obedience but we don’t agree on what counts as an instruction. When I say to a friend, “take this present,” I’m not instructing him. I’m offering him a gift. It wouldn’t be accurate to characterize reception of a gift as an obedience. Nor its giving a command.

"Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” ... "This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” How are these not commands?

The Sabbath was also a gift to man, yet its observance was commanded. That doesn't mean the Sabbath was earned, but that it required obedience. I'm unclear why you don't want to call obedience obedience?

There is an old Lutheran approach to issues like this. Is this passage of the Law or of the Gospel. Is this something that I must do or is this the gift of God to us for the forgiveness of sins? To make the Sacrament law is to radically misunderstand what is going on.

My question is directed specifically at this bifurcation. I think it breaks down here and requires you to deny a very obvious reality in scripture: that partaking of the sacraments is obedience. I am not saying anything beyond that. It can be a useful rubric but many important things don’t fit neatly in these boxes. Not the least of which is marriage: Is it Law or Gospel? And yet it is the picture of Christ and the Church.

“Go wash in the pool of Siloam” — is this only passive reception of a gift too?

Yes.

What definition of "obey" are you working with which excludes the blind man's response?

You are viewing everything from the lens of “obedience.” That one must do a thing in order to received grace. That there is an obligation to do these things, and therefore you mix merit with the work of the promises of God. The man got to wash, not that he had to wash.

Obedience doesn’t require a begrudging attitude. But I’m seeing no definition of obedience that excludes this. In John 9 the blind man could wash his eyes out anywhere. But he trusts Jesus, and washes his eyes at the pool of Siloam. It doesn’t mean he earned it. But he obeyed. I’m also not saying obedience is ALL that’s happening. But you’re saying obedience isn’t happening at all on the grounds that it just can’t be, because your framework doesn’t allow it. He doesn’t earn his sight, but he can certainly fail to obtain it if he fails to obey.

There we would disagree. The gift is there. It exists. It is objective. Should he choose to reject the gift having been given, that isn’t a failure to obey. It’s an affirmative act rejecting faith. You are totally passive in salvation, but you damn yourself. It isn’t a matter of a begrudging attitude. It’s a matter of making the reception of grace contingent upon a good work. What cured the blind man? Faith! Faith that received the water mixed with the Word. (Almost like it prefigures Christian baptism.)

Then I would ask again to give a definition of obey that carves this out as an exception. It’s obedience unless you want to do it? Unless it involves receiving a gift?

Do you feed your children out of obedience to the law?

The law also doesn’t command feeding, it commands not starving. I do feed and provide for my family in obedience to scripture. I also find joy in it.

You feed your children because you love them. You care for your wife because you love her. Not out of obedience to a law or command, but out of love. You can’t, and shouldn’t try, to make everything about command and obedience. That’s what the Pharisees did.

You're again conflating motive and act; obedience doesn't have to be begrudging. You said I don't care for my family "out of obedience"; you're right. Obedience is not my motive, but it is my act. I can obey out of love. But that doesn't mean it's not obedience.

I am saying nothing other than what Christ taught, who told us to keep his commandments if we love Him. Are we then not obeying Christ if we're keeping his commandments out of love?

I would suggest picking up a copy of Bo Giertz’s Hammer of God. The Bishop says all of this far more clearly than I am able at this point.

[unhewn]

When PSA Isn't PSA

Take the following demonstration that the Bible teaches Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA):

Throughout the Bible, death is a penalty for sin

Jesus died but was sinless, therefore…

Jesus’ death was a punishment for someone else’s sin (ours)

The words are certainly all there: a Penalty, a Substitutionary death, all to Atone. We're looking at PSA, right? Wrong.

Let's clarify. Every Christian should affirm our culpability for Christ's death. Our sin brings death into the world, our sin desires Christ's crucifixion, and our captivity to sin and death are the reason for Christ's death. Yet you can affirm every point above (and I do) and still deny PSA.

This is because PSA is a view of how Christ satisfies the justice of God. What about Christ's death was effective? It is not working at the level of whether or not I deserved to die instead of Christ. PSA says: "What is not suffered is not paid." Sin has incurred a punishment we must endure. For us to be saved, Christ must suffer all that we are due for us. If Christ does not suffer it for us, it still awaits us. In fact, for the Calvinist, this is the reprobate's situation: Christ has not suffered their punishment, therefore it still awaits them. And since we are due not just death but hell, physical death is not enough for Christ's death to be effective. His spiritual death is also required.

What is spiritual death? Spiritual death is the soul’s loss of personal communion with God. It is the dying in which we die (lit. Gen 2:17). The question is then: can we affirm that Christ suffered spiritual death while also affirming the Hypostatic Union? Can his soul remain united to Himself, as the Word of God, while being deprived of union with God? That is also to say, with Himself, since he is one with the Father? Things don't look promising. Perhaps the communication of attributes will give us a path out of these woods? If we can ascribe things to the person of the Son that are fitting of only one of his natures (like hunger, sleep, or omnipresence) why not spiritual death too? Humans can die spiritually, why can’t the incarnate Son?

The issue is that while Christ is truly man, he is not merely a man. In fact, that is the crux (pun intended) of the incarnation. He enters into our condition, but enters whole, not broken as we are, by uniting humanity to Himself, and in doing so saves us.

So the communicatio idiomata is constrained in what can be affirmed about the Word of God, because the affirmations cannot contradict who He is as God. He is without sin, and it does no good to say Christ sinned or committed an evil act as long as it was according to his human nature. The reason for this becomes clear: it is a contradiction of the character, of the Who we are referring to. A sinful Christ would not be a true revelation of the Father, and therefore not his Word. Christ only expresses the character of the Father, since he is the express image of the Father.

So if the Word of God suffers spiritual death, that is only to say he has lost unity with His own soul—the union has fallen into disunion. We have just pierced the heart of the Hypostatic Union, and thus the very grounds of our salvation and our faith. The communication of attributes does not allow us to say Christ can sin according to his Human Nature, because sin is properly personal and not natural—it is an ontological, relational rupture.

This is why Christ's soul can never be estranged from His person, and why we cannot affirm Christ's spiritual death. If the union between the Son and his own soul is lessened or dissolved, we are talking about a lessening or dissolution of the hypostatic union. His soul and body can be separated from each other. But not from Him.

And since spiritual death is relational, it entails a loss of personal union or communion with God. If that loss occurs within Christ, the Hypostatic Union is compromised; if between the persons of the Trinity, the Trinity is compromised.

—

Something that feels obvious to me, but needs to be fleshed out, is that while one can be innocent in physical death, spiritual death requires personal sin. This is Augustine's view, but I want to establish that spiritual death could not be substitutionary (and doesn't need to be for the atonement to be effective.)

[unhewn]

Real Separation means Real Despair

A "real separation" view requires Christ's cry to be a natural—even spontaneous—exclamation in response to his experience. For the cry itself is a question, and this question cannot be premeditated if it is genuine. If Christ must experience the wrath of God as we would experience it—and as we deserve it—in order to accomplish atonement, then it must be an experience of real despair. The abandonment cannot be feigned. Christ must really think there is no hope, because there is no hope in hell.

[unhewn]

Hasty Notes™ on Matthew Emerson's "He Descended to the Dead"

First, the positives.

There's a lot of good research here, and Emerson conclusively establishes that the early understanding of this clause of the Apostle's Creed necessarily refers to Christ's soulish descent to the dead on Holy Saturday. It is packaged helpfully for a non-catholic minded evangelical.

He conclusively destroys Grudem's position, showing that there are layers upon layers of misunderstanding (or lack of attention to detail) in his critiques of the descensus and desire to excise it from the Creed. There's one particular line I'll need to quote in my review that was a death blow to his position.

He similarly disassemble's Calvin's view on the descensus, making it clear that it's a novelty, and why it's based on basic misunderstandings. There's no salvaging the historicity or catholicity of this view of the descent clause after Emerson's finished.

Very interesting engagement with Balthazar, who comes across as an ecumenical syncretist, weaving together a picture of the descent (and the atonement) that is creative, but definitely not orthodox.

He does a great job of cataloging the varied views on the descensus throughout time and across traditions. The table he provides comparing views on the descent (and all the diagrams about the cosmology of 1c Judaism) are incredibly helpful.

He engages with Eastern Orthodox perspectives, which is great, since the descensus is nearly a distinctive in shaping their understanding of the atonement.

Generally well written, engaging, and gave a good lay of the land. Grateful for the book.

The negatives:

Nitpick: I hit a few distracting, non-obvious typos (or badly written sentences?) that I knew had to be incorrect (or should be?) only based on following Emerson's argumentation. I mentioned one before (God vicariously experiences death?) but there was another about which day Christ rises on the Lutheran understanding.

Signaling: Emerson is very aware that arguing for the descensus makes him look like he's pro catholic, or pro orthodox, or anti protestant, or SOMEthing bad, and so he must reassert his membership qualifications for being considered evangelical. I think this desire to distance himself from anything smacking of "catholic" makes him attempt to justify how the descensus doesn't change the atonement even when it clearly does. He makes a point of saying that theology is a "web," yet from the outset is convinced that removing the only possible creedal reference to a reformed understanding of penal substitution from the apostle's creed does nothing to the importance of PSA.

Lacking: From one of the footnotes it's clear that this book is a reworked version of an earlier paper/thesis that did not interact with Orthodox views/scholarship on the descent. So kudos to him for including this interaction. However, it seems like he did not rethink the entirety of the book through with this interaction in mind. It feels like he finished his analysis then added EO data, but didn't rework his original analysis to account for any changes in analysis that this might require. This had several effects. One was that it...

Made me yell at the book: After establishing that there is a not-insignificant patristic witness to Christ as the liberator of (all) those in the place of the dead (because, you know, the early church believed that the resurrection was universal and contingent on Christ's resurrection), he shows Alfeyev affirming the same thing but paints it as universalism. If Alfeyev is a universalist, then so is the early church, because they're affirming the exact same principles: Christ's liberating victory over death, its universal effects, and the personal accountability every person has with Christ. Does the descent open up the possibility of postmortem repentance? Perhaps. Does this necessitate universalism? Not at all. He also interacts with Bulgakov—not as an Orthodox outlier, like Balthazar is for catholics—but treats him as just representative of Orthodox thought, which he is decidedly not (whatever your views on Bulgakov, the one thing you can say is that he's _controversial_). Distinguishing from Meyendorff or Lossky would be better here, at least for balance. Emerson then goes on to crown Luther as the view closest to the early churches, which genuinely made me say "WHAT" out loud while reading. Despite making a table which shows that it differs in every way from the early view, not the least being that for Luther the descent happens on SUNDAY and not on SATURDAY, and BODILY rather than SOULISHLY, he says this is the closest view to the early church. How can he make this claim straightfaced? I don't know. Somehow the Reformers have to win, even if they come in last place.

[unhewn]

Vicariously Dead: An Update

UPDATE: I'm just an idiot, apparently "vicarious" has two almost contradictory definitions:

experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person.

acting or done for another.

I thought he was using the first definition, but he's using the second.

——

I reached out to Dr. Emerson over the passage in question, and he responded.

My (edited) opening email:

Dr. Emerson, I purchased your book and I am finally reading it (I've been looking forward to it). This passage in the preface was unclear to me, and I hoped you could explain: "That God himself would descend in the incarnate Son to take on human flesh and all that entails, including not only dying but remaining dead, in order to redeem us from the curse of sin, is at the heart of the good news. God the Son first descended when he took on flesh, and in doing so he experienced all that humanity experiences, including death and its temporal state. What good news is this, that God vicariously experiences not only life but also death with us through the incarnate Son? (p. xii)" I was tracking with you on this passage until the last sentence: "What good news is this, that God vicariously experiences not only life but also death with us through the incarnate Son?" Specifically, what do you intend to say by the words "God" and "vicariously"? It raised my eyebrows, because it seemed like at the last moment you swerved from affirming that God died—that is the Son of God, that single Subject which possesses two natures, died. Who do you mean to say is dying, and who do you say is experiencing this death vicariously? And what do you mean by "vicariously experiences"?

Dr. Emerson responded:

The key phrase here is “in the incarnate Son.” It is in helps that the descent occurs, and vicariously so. Hope that helps.

I responded:

I think I'm still unclear on your meaning. Any definition I can find of "vicarious" requires 2 subjects: one subject feels/experiences/etc for another, either by simulation or substitution. For which person is the incarnate Son's life & death vicarious?

Dr. Emerson responded:

Those human beings who trust in his saving work by faith.

I responded:

But you said "God vicariously experiences" life and death with us through the incarnate Son with us; God is one subject and the Incarnate Son is the other subject, I'm just trying to understand what subject "God" intends to refer to in that sentence?

At which point he no longer responded, likely because he's a professor and dean with more to do than email with a rando.

However, after this interaction, I am less confident in what he intended to say.

[unhewn]

Who will deliver me from this body of death?

Reading Tom McCall's "Forsaken", I thought I had passed the meat of his argumentation, only to be hit in the end chapter with an explanation of Romans 7 that rearranged my mental furniture. I had always understood Rom 7 to be the plight of the Christian: desiring the good, inevitably sinning, crying out "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", and waiting to one day be free from futility. This was "the Christian life," one of ontological frustration. McCall argues strongly that this does violence to Paul's whole argument in Romans. That it is, in fact, a description of someone without Christ, and that Paul goes to great lengths to make this clear.

Hearing the gospel throughout my life, the enormity of the change that occurs within a person when they are united to Christ has been downplayed—it is always subjugated to the lived experience. Yes you are united to God in Christ, but look at you. There is nothing good in you, and the Christian life is learning to get used to failure. our righteousness is essentially a statement, something true for God but not for me. It makes sense of the extreme emphasis on justification as a legal reality which requires no particular change in me to be valid. Of course there are no saints; Paul rules that out with this interpretation of Romans 7. There is no expectation of change, only a hope. But this is not the view of the fathers, certainly not Augustine. Romans 7 becomes key in how you proceed. Is it a description of the Christian, or of someone without Christ?

What strikes me most is that we can even ask this question. What low view must I have of salvation that I could mistake a description of someone without Christ for the agony of someone united to Christ and in whom the Holy Spirit dwells? These are not just two interpretive approaches to Paul grammar, but two literally opposing models of what it is Christ has accomplished, really, for real people. How are red flags not being raised, making me stop and wonder "If life in Christ is a life of futility, maybe I'm reading this wrong." Maybe my life is shaping my theology.

Anyway, I wanted to dig more into this argument, and came across an excellent article that critiques Dunn, who is the representative proponent of this struggle view. A good way to describe the difference in views is that for Dunn, already but not yet is primarily within the Christian. For Chang (in the article), Paul says that the already is within you, the not yet is in the world.

—————

Chang, Hae-Kyung. “The Christian Life in a Dialectical Tension? Romans 7:7-25 Reconsidered.”

The argument develops in a pair of diatribe-styles (question, emphatic rejection, explanation)...

... [T]he person 'I' of 7:7-25 ... represents the situation of those Jews and Judaizing Christians who unavailingly seek justification and holiness by observing the Mosaic Law. Here Paul is most probably looking back upon his own experience as a Pharisaic rabbi.

Rom. 7 is nothing but a hypothetical, imaginary picture painted by Paul of a man who sees the complete hopelessness of salvation by the Law.

[unhewn]

Textual Variants of God's Word

A series of brief reflections on the Reformed notion of Scripture, and the questions that textual variants raise in that context.

Judging the Judge

The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. ... The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them. Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.8 & 1.10

"This passage is not found in some early manuscripts."

Why do the findings of textual critics have immediate bearing on which passages of Scripture are the Word of God?

It appears the WCF and confessions like it create a situation where there is an original (albeit long-lost) text which alone is the immediately-inspired Scripture. What we hold in our hands is a modern reconstruction that we trust includes that original scripture. But, it may have additions to it. It is an article of faith that authentic scripture is preserved by God through the centuries. It is not an article of faith that only authentic scripture has been preserved. The Lord gives, and the textual critic takes away. There is an inspired text; the question is how it relates to the text we have. Is the true text a subset of our received text? "Just chip away everything that doesn't look like Scripture."

If the "Supreme Judge" in "all controversies of religion" is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture," the question becomes: are there parts of our Scriptures where the Spirit does not speak? Where can the Spirit be reliably found to speak? It appears that this job of discernment has fallen to the academy. Which academics? The ones you trust. Which should you trust? The ones who believe in the authority of— uh oh.

What mechanism is in place to determine whether a passage is Scripture? Who has the authority to remove a jot or tittle? How are these findings disseminated to the people of God? How does the church accept them? By a council? Is every individual supposed to examine the data and decide for themselves? Is the local pastor?

The Critic and the Christian

This is not to downplay the extraordinary wealth of manuscript evidence we have, or the confidence we can have in the reliable transmission for most of Scripture. Clearly we have more manuscripts of the OT and NT than we could ever hope to have for any other ancient writings. The textual critics have plenty to play with.

But—and this is a point that I don't think is taken seriously enough by apologists—the claims on scripture from within the faith are much higher than those from without. The historian thinks it probable a man named Jesus was crucified by Rome in the first century; very well. The lay faithful asks: "Did Jesus really say I must be baptized to be saved?" The woman in the pew does not wonder whether her copy of the Bible is generally reliable; that bar is far too low. She is, or is told she should be, building her life around every word of it. To throw it into doubt is to throw the very material of her faith and her life into doubt. Sure, removing the Pericope Adulterae has no real impact on the Christian faith—unless, of course, you yourself were once caught in adultery.

"Is the Holy Spirit speaking to me through this passage or not, pastor?"

"We used to think God said this, but now we're not so sure."

Pick One

"Nothing we believe to be doctrinally true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."

Mark 16:9-20 is suspect because it appears to teach baptismal regeneration.

"Ought" vs "Is"

If the Holy Spirit worked through history to accomplish both the composition and the recognition of scripture (if the Bible is inspired in a forest, etc.), then the academic's work is just retracing the Spirit's process through time. "Some of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20." Yes, and some of the earliest canon lists do not have Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, or Revelation. But it was the providence of God that led to their acceptance, right?

Is Scripture just the oldest manuscripts we can find? What if we found an earlier draft of Mark, with more sections missing? Do we bracket more passages? "No, it's not the final Gospel." Why not? If it's there, did the Spirit preserve it? "Because it's not what the Church received." Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

Maybe the Spirit has us on a quest for the True Scriptures, and is now working through the academy to clean barnacles from the ark of the Word. Maybe.

[unhewn]

Cyril of Alexandria on the Cry of Dereliction

From "On the Unity of Christ" by St. Cyril of Alexandria, translated by John McGuckin, SVS Press, pages 105-106

We had become accursed through Adams transgression and had fallen into the trap of death, abandoned by God. Yet all things were made new in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and our condition was restored to what it was in the beginning. It was entirely necessary that the Second Adam, who is from heaven (1 Cor 15:45) and superior to all sin, that is Christ, the pure and immaculate first-fruits of our race, should free that nature of man from judgement, and once again call down upon it the heavenly graciousness of the Father. He would undo our abandonment by his obedience and complete submission: "For he did no sin" (1 Pet 2:22) but the nature of man was made rich in all blamelessness and innocence in him, so that it could now cry out with boldness: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt. 27:46) Understand that in becoming man, the Only Begotten spoke these words as one of us and on behalf of all our nature. It was as if he were saying this: "The first man has transgressed. He slipped into disobedience, and neglected the commandment he received, and he was brought to this state of wilfulness by the wiles of the devil; and then it was entirely right that he became subject to corruption and fell under judgment. But you Lord have made me a second beginning for all on the earth, and I am called the Second Adam. In me you see the nature of man made clean, its faults corrected, made holy and pure. Now give me the good things of your kindness, undo the abandonment, rebuke corruption and set a limit on your anger. I have conquered Satan himself who ruled of old, for he found in me absolutely nothing of what was his." In my opinion, this is the sense of the Savior's words. He did not invoke the Father's graciousness upon himself, but rather upon us. The effects of God's anger passed into the whole human nature as from the original rootstock, that is Adam: "For death has had dominion from Adam up to Moses, even on those who committed no sin in the manner of Adam's transgression" (Rom 5:14). In the same way, however, the effects of our new first-fruits, that is Christ, shall again pass into the entire human race. The all-wise Paul confirms this for us when he says: "For if many died because of the transgression of one, how much more" (Rom 5:15) shall many come to life because of the righteousness of one. And again: "As all men die in Adam, so shall all be made alive in Christ" (1 Cor 15:22).

Notes

Cyril's interpretation is at odds with any modern take on the passage that I've read. Christ "[cries] out with boldness" because of the "blamelessness and innocence in him." Rather than an expression of anguish at God's wrath or his situation, it is a cry to "invoke the Father's graciousness." If I'm not mistaken, Cyril is saying Christ asks the Father to reevaluate whether He is still justified in abandoning humanity: "On what grounds is humanity forsaken now that I have renewed it?"

Once again the raising of all humanity in Christ appears here: "In the same way, however, the effects of our new first-fruits, that is Christ, shall again pass into the entire human race." I keep finding this idea in the fathers, and always centered around 1 Cor 15:22. Christ affects all of humanity by participating in our nature. One effect is that all will be raised. (General Resurrection, not Universalism.)

Cyril gives a helpful way to understand God's anger: its effects are throughout human nature, from Adam on. Man is already in an accursed state "through Adams transgression," having "fallen into the trap of death" is already "abandoned by God". Christ enters not into God's active anger, but into its effects. Then he calls on the Father to rescind his judgment in light of the new state of humanity Christ has wrought. (If we can jump to Augustine, Christ is not under curse of the law because he is blameless, so he must participate in the curse via the cross.)

[unhewn]

The Law Cannot Save You; It Is Fulfilled in You.

From Fr. Reardon's Daily Reflections, on Romans 8:

Man’s real problem was not the Law, but man’s indwelling sin (7:22-23). Inasmuch as it remained external to man, the Law was unable to take away sin (verse 3). Man could not be justified by something that remained external to being. The new, internal principle of his righteousness is the Holy Spirit, who dwells within him (verses 9-11; Jude 9). The requirement of the Law, that is to say, is “fulfilled in us”(verse 4) by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

God, therefore, does not simply declare the believer righteous; He makes the believer righteous. Because sin is internal to man; righteousness must be internal to man. Righteousness is not an act of God that remains only forensic and external. If that were the case, it would be no improvement over the Law.

[unhewn]

Fleming Rutledge Interview: PSA & Christus Victor

Source: https://religionnews.com/2017/05/17/fleming-rutledge-woman-crucifixion/

Religion News Service: I grew up in a religious context that saw “penal substitution” theory of atonement — that Jesus died for our sins to satisfy God’s wrath — as a non-negotiable doctrine. How does your view compare? Fleming Rutledge: I argue strongly against (1) making this model the “non-negotiable” feature of authentic faith; (2) presenting any feature of the Bible as a “theory,” since the Bible deals largely in images and narrative; (3) the rationalized, schematized nature of the penal substitution model as expounded in 19th century Protestantism; 4) any model that splits the Father from the Son. I do, however, attempt to present the strongest case possible to show that the theme of substitution — in the words of a great hymn, “the slave has sinned, and the Son has suffered” — is embedded in Scripture and tradition and, if discarded, is a serious impoverishment. RNS: You also embrace “Christus Victor” as an atonement motif. Can you explain this briefly for those who don’t know, and what are you saying about this that’s fresh and perhaps more convincing? FR: Christus Victor is not really an atonement motif. Paul Ricoeur points out that the Bible speaks of Sin in two essential ways: (1) as a responsible condition for which atonement must be made; and (2) as an Enemy that must be driven from the field. Sin is therefore both a guilt and a Power. The biblical motifs of substitution and sacrifice address the first problem, and Christus Victor (incorporating the Passover-Exodus imagery from earliest Christian liturgies) depicts Christ the conqueror of the cosmic Powers of Sin and Death. It’s important to hold both of these pictures simultaneously. Taken together, they are the most complete account of the human predicament that we have. Of course, if you don’t think humanity is in a predicament, this won’t mean much to you.

[unhewn]

Ben Myers & the Patristic Atonement Model

Metaphysical Assumptions

Realism — There is one human nature. All individual human beings participate in this universal.

Privation Theory — Death is not a positive quality but a privation of being.

Divine Impassibility — The divine nature is infinite life and fullness, incapable of suffering or change.

Hypostatic Union — Exactly how this union occurs is unknowable.

The Model

Humanity, created in the image of God, is loved by God.

But human nature has succumbed to the power of death.

To rescue humanity from its plight, God needs to retrieve human beings from the state of death.

But God is unable to enter a state of death, i.e., to undergo privation from being.

What is God to do?

In Christ, God becomes incarnate: the divine nature is united with human nature.

In this union, each nature retains its own distinctiveness while participating in the properties of the other. Christ's human nature (without compromising its humanness) is filled with divine life; and the divine nature (without compromising its impassability) is able to enter the privation of death.

The Mechanism: When Christ's human nature succumbs to death, the fullness of divine life enters the privative state of death. As a result, the privation is filled, i.e., cancelled out. In the death of Christ, death dies.

Christ's resurrection is the inevitable consequence of his death. The suffering, dying Christ shows the union of the divine nature with a human nature subject to death; the resurrected Christ shows the union of the divine nature with a human nature no longer subject to death.

Universal Effect: What happens to human nature in Christ happens to humanity as a whole, because of MA1.

The Solution: Human nature is now freed from the power of death and is restored to its created position. This is a Good Thing.

The Surplus: Human nature is now united to God and receives benefits far surpassing its created position. This is a Very Good Thing.

Takeaways

Sacrificial language in the Fathers (e.g. Athanasius) is in reference to Universal Effect (point 10) not the Mechanism (point 8). What Christ does affects all of humanity. Great example of how easy it is to read post-Reformation meanings into patristic sources, and how quickly it distorts things.

I think this model could be strengthened by distinguishing between natures and persons. In fact, this distinction is the only way to preserve a normatively non-Universalist position, which Myers flounders over a bit in Q&A. There is the question of how Christ's work gets applied to individuals (baptism, eucharist, etc.)

[unhewn]

Debt Forgiven, Ransom Paid

The New Testament never speaks of Jesus paying our debt. He forgives it, or He cancels it, but He never pays it:

"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" —Luke 7:41-42

"And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt." —Matthew 18:25-27

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. —Colossians 2:13-14

To repay a debt means it is not owed to you, but to someone else. This is why Christ forgives our debts rather than pays them. The Father and Son are one, such that a debt owed to the Father is a debt owed to the Son. This is why people were so astonished that Christ forgave people's sins (Luke 5:20ff), since it was a claim to be our creditor—and who is our creditor but God?

✳ ✳ ✳

If Christ doesn't pay our debt, why is it said that we were bought with a price? When there is payment language in the New Testament, it refers to the ransom paid for our redemption:

Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. — 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. — 1 Corinthians 7:23

...there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them. — 2 Peter 2:1

A price is paid, a ransom is given, but not to God. It is offered to an oppressor for our freedom. What is the ransom, and from what are we ransomed?

...knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. — 1 Peter 7:18-19

I shall ransom them from the power of Sheol / I shall redeem them from Death. / O Death, where are your plagues? / O Sheol, where is your sting? — Hosea 13:14

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 2:20

...our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. — Titus 2:14

"For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” — Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. — 1 Timothy 2:5-6

...for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, — Revelation 5:9

For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. — Romans 8:20-23

What is redeemed? The Church. Humanity. Creation.

What are they ransomed from? Bondage; lawlessness; Death; the power of Sheol; Sin; futility; corruption. What is given as ransom? Christ himself; his blood; his life.

[unhewn]

Rutledge and the Father's Wrath

Reading through Fleming Rutledge's tome The Crucifixion, I've come upon a few gems that shed light on how to think about the cross.

The first is from her discussion of hilasterion in Chapter 6 (pp 278-282). Rutledge strongly argues against translating it as "propitiation":

...it should now be generally agreed that any concept of hilasterion in the sense of placating, appeasing, deflecting the anger of, or satisfying the wrath of, is inadmissible. The more important, and truly radical, reason for firmly rejecting this understanding of propitiation is that it envisions God as the object, whereas in the Scriptures, God is the acting subject. (p 280, emphasis mine)

Propitiation does have its place, says Rutledge, but as an effect of Christ's expiatory work. Having been expiated by Christ's blood, there is nowhere in us for the Father's (or, more accurately, God's) wrath to lodge:

However, Barrett continues, “it would be wrong to neglect the fact that expiation has, as it were, the effect of propitiation: the sin that might justly have excited God’s wrath is expiated (at God’s will) and therefore no longer does so.” Cousar summarizes Barrett’s argument: “The propitiation is a secondary result rather than a primary cause of the atonement." That, in one sentence, tells us what we need to know at the conclusion of the debate. (282)

This is closer to Augustine's understanding of the cross. What's more, it preserves the unity of the Father and the Son:

God is not divided against himself. When we see Jesus, we see the Father (John 14:7). The Father did not look at Jesus on the cross and suddenly have a change of heart. The purpose of the atonement was not to bring about a change in God’s attitude toward his rebellious creatures. God’s attitude toward us has always and ever been the same. (282)

The second is the Trinitarian concern Rutledge highlights, which I've shared for a while. Reading the cross as primarily propitiating wrath requires a consistent theologian to split the Father from the Son. She discusses this formulation in the Late Post-Reformation Scholastics (quoting Hodge). Anselm, Rutledge argues, is no friend of theirs:

However, Anselm never used language like this: “When the Lord suffered, the Wrath of God was poured out in such measure upon him, that the Father was satisfied.” Such statements easily lead into both of the errors we have identified, separating the Father from the Son and suggesting a change in the Father (not to mention a truly distressing view of the Father). (488)

Rutledge repeats this concern several times throughout the book, cautioning that everything "must be held in a Trinitarian perspective, never splitting the Father from the Son or the Spirit."

✳ ✳ ✳

Since this book was recommended to me by someone who wished to convince me that the "Wrath Exhaustion" formula was the heart of the Gospel, I was absolutely confused my first time through. Was I misreading this? This seemed like fodder for my own arguments, not a refutation of them.

Beyond that, if I was reading Rutledge right, her account seemed nonsensical: she wanted all the guts of PSA while distancing herself from the label. So, in this age of worldwide connection, I decided to send her a tweet:

Me: [...] I am confused; if hilasterion cannot mean "satisfying the wrath of", and only the Son suffered on the cross, where does the wrath of God lodge in God except in the person of the Son on the cross?

She, surprisingly, responded:

Rutledge: Someone more adept in the patristic controversies than I am (although I am not wholly ignorant, either) can help explain why the Father can't be portrayed as visiting wrath upon the son. Don't all three Persons suffer together?

Certainly Rutledge rules out the "Father exhausts wrath on the Son" formula. This, coupled with her conclusion on hilasterion, and her view that "justified" is better rendered "rectified"-- I think all this leads to something that could be considered Penal Substitutionary Atonement as a literal description, but whose guts are entirely different from what most understand PSA to be.

Ultimately I think she wishes to retain more from a PSA view than she can support given the crucial changes she makes to its premises. The mechanism of our salvation is entirely different in this model, and it's very Augustinian: we are saved, not by the exhaustion of God's wrath, but by the cleansing power of God's self-offering love.