Free Will and Virtue in Athanasius

“‘Wherefore having already begun and set out in the way of virtue, let us strive the more that we may attain those things that are before. And let no one turn to the things behind, like Lot’s wife, all the more so that the Lord hath said, “No man, having put his hand to the plough, and turning back, is fit for the kingdom of heaven.’ And this turning back is nought else but to feel regret, and to be once more worldly-minded. But fear not to hear of virtue, nor be astonished at the name. For it is not far from us, nor is it without ourselves, but it is within us, and is easy if only we are willing. That they may get knowledge, the Greeks live abroad and cross the sea, but we have no need to depart from home for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, nor to cross the sea for the sake of virtue. For the Lord aforetime hath said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you.” Wherefore virtue hath need at our hands of willingness alone, since it is in us and is formed from us. For when the soul hath its spiritual faculty in a natural state virtue is formed. And it is in a natural state when it remains as it came into existence. And when it came into existence it was fair and exceeding honest. For this cause Joshua, the son of Nun, in his exhortation said to the people, “Make straight your heart unto the Lord God of Israel,” and John, “Make your paths straight.” For rectitude of soul consists in its having its spiritual part in its natural state as created. But on the other hand, when it swerves and turns away from its natural state, that is called vice of the soul. Thus the matter is not difficult. If we abide as we have been made, we are in a state of virtue, but if we think of ignoble things we shall be accounted evil. If, therefore, this thing had to be acquired from without, it would be difficult in reality; but if it is in us, let us keep ourselves from foul thoughts. And as we have received the soul as a deposit, let us preserve it for the Lord, that He may recognize His work as being the same as He made it.”

Life of Anthony, 20.

“Christic” Grace in Augustine’s Christology

“If Adam had been created upright (rectus ) and without defects (sine ullo uitio ), how could he possibly lack the gift of final perseverance? Augustine responds by saying that Adam was not lacking in this respect, but that he lost that gift when he fell from the state of grace in which God has created him. Moreover, the real difficulty arises as the logical consequence of the first statement, viz. : if Adam was perfect, how could he, in fact, lose his perfection, and sin against God?

Ogliari, Gratia et Certamen: The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in the Discussion of Augustine with the so-called Semi-Pelagians, Leuven, 2003.

“Analogously [to the angels], the first man, had he so willed could have remained in his original state of uprightness (rectitude) and bliss (beatitudo) without any defects or faults. Had he stood firm using his free will in accordance with God’s plan, instead of abusing the gift God had given, he too would have received, like the angels who did not rebel against God, eternal, perfect bliss and happiness of resting in God’s beneficent regard. Having freely abandoned God, Adam was condemned to be abandoned by God, together with his heirs who share in his sin.”

Ogliari, 78.

“Since the time of Adam’s fall and condemnation in which all men became obstricti, only Christ’s redemptive and gratuitous death is able to save those predestined, through God’s design, for salvation.  This redemptive grace is great but at the same time different (magna, sed dis parem) from the gratia laeta …Mankind then requires not so much a laetior gratia as a potentior gratia, a more powerful grace than that given to Adam, namely the grace that comes only from the incarnate Son of God, Christ the Savior, through whom human beings are enabled to overcome the sinful desires of the flesh…the grace accorded to Adam was ultimately dependent on his own free will which having been perfectly created, was able to decide whether to remain in perfection and persevere in justice of abandon it. The grace accorded to Adam’s heirs through Christ, instead is more powerful (plus potest), not only because it gives man the possibility of doing good and persevering in it, but above all because it makes him desirous of that same good.”

Ogliari, 80.

“In Augustine’s eyes, divine grace is ‘one’, even though it operates on different levels (or regimes, temps), and is per se efficacious at any stage. Adam was left completely free in his decision for good or evil, and yet could not have desired and chosen good, nor persevered in it, except under the sovereign influence of God’s bountiful grace.  On the other hand, the internal action exercised by Christ’s grace on Adam’s descendants, an action which has to be sought ‘plus loin,-et plus bas’, possesses the prodigious feature of providing fallen human nature with the capability of following righteousness in an unquestionable and unfailing manner. This does not mean that the human being remains passive before grace, but certainly, de facto, he remains a secondary co-operator, subordinate and subservient to the agency of grace…In other words, if primordial operative grace did preserve intact the human (and angelic) ability to obey or disobey the will of God, in Adam’s heirs, this ability would seem to be overshadowed from the beginning by the ‘Christic’ grace, the direct cause of mankind’s desire for good and of its perseverance in it.”

Apostolic Succession (2): Presbyterian Ordination?

Felix Cirlot argues in Apostolic Succession: Is It True? that there are no clear cases in primitive Christianity of Presbyterian ordination. Instead, every instance of ordination in the first few hundred years of Christianity fits into the hypothesis that only the third tier of ministry can ordain; in other words, only monarchical bishops and Apostles can appoint new officers in the Church. Each example, says Cirlot, fits one of three categories. The first category of texts is those that teach ordination by monarchical bishops and Apostles, but do not state or imply that only bishops and Apostles can ordain. There are many clear cases of appointment and ordination of new officers in the Church by someone in the third tier of ministry (an Apostle or a monarchical bishop). Numerous biblical texts can be offered that involve Apostolic ordination, and perhaps even texts that teach monarchical bishops can ordain (though that will not be the subject of this post). Early in the post-Apostolic era we see St. Clement of Rome attesting to the practice of appointment (presumably by the laying on of hands, as was the scriptural practice) by monarchical bishops (circa 90 AD). St. Irenaeus supplements this testimony (writing circa 180 AD, though his views in Against Heresies probably represent his beliefs at an earlier age, closer to 160 AD). And at the beginning of the third century, Tertullian speaks of the ordination of bishops by Apostles.

The second category is texts that state or imply only bishops and Apostles can ordain. Early in Church history we have writers like St. Clement of Alexandria (at around 190 AD) that imply an exclusive ordination by bishops and Apostles. Additionally, there is St. Hippolytus who in his On the Apostolic Tradition (around 217 AD) explicitly states that only bishops can ordain. It is noteworthy that as a liturgical and theological conservative, Hippolytus’ views probably did not change much over the course of twenty years; so we have attestation of exclusive ordination by bishops that stretches back to before the end of the second century. This evidence will be treated in more detail in a later post.

The third category of texts is those that are consistent with the idea that only bishops and Apostles can ordain. Though some have argued that the canons of the Council of Ancyra, or a quotation from Jerome about the presbyterate in Alexandria, or numerous other patristic citations show that members of the second tier of ordination had the power to ordain, it is not so. These citations, upon examination, either fail to establish the intended point, or ironically show an implicit belief that only the bishop ordains.

But there is one last refuge for proponents of Presbyterianism about church government: 1 Timothy 4:14.

Christmass Idols

Usually I don’t try to put up Christmass stuff during Advent. Christmass is more than one day which is something that modern American culture can’t seem to fathom. So I was putting up our little creche scene in our home and it kind of struck me. Perhaps it has struck you too, but I suppose it was just so much a normal part of Americana that it never did before. Usually when you think about controversy and nativity scenes you think of some left wing legal group or some atheist with an anoying sense of moral superiority. But then it struck me that many Protestants have nativity scenes too. But why?

It is one thing if you’re Anglican or say Lutheran (maybe Anglican-lite = Methodist). They more or less have a tradition of sorts on retaining images. But why object to icons in church as idolatry if every December you put up your little Chrismass idols in your house or on your front lawn? How is it that I never hear so much as a peep about Protestant idols of the baby Jesus? Why no arguments about how Christmass idols of the baby Jesus imply a Nestorian confusion since it requires a conflating of the divine and human essence in order to depict Jesus? (This is a bad argument when used against icons of Jesus since it views the appearance or prospon as a profuct of the union, which is ironically enough Nestorian.) Why are there no howls of no graven image around Christmass time? Granted, that Protestants who are iconoclasts don’t bow to their plastic or plaster baby Jesus or kiss his feet (let alone Mary’s) but setting up the nativity scene is still a form of veneration or an expression of honor (just as tombstones are incidentally). After all, no graven image means, no graven image period, right?

I am not saying that they are bad things, but I think the Puritans in abolishing Christmass and other holy days altogether were more consistent. I suppose I am asking those who have such things and object to icons to do one or the other.

Eternity, time and change

Some think that when it comes to religious world views that anything goes and that such views are beyond reasoned discussion. This is not the case and one task of theology is to demonstrate what is a sound understanding of God, or existence in general, and what is not.

It is the aim of this post to demonstrate that what is eternal cannot be subject to change. This is in answer to LDS believers and others who conceive of God, or gods, as subject to change, time and even parts and yet being eternal. This conception will be shown to be unsound theologically and in error. It will be argued that it is impossible for such a concept to be actual and belief in such a concept, while one is free to believe it, is not belief of the truth.

Time cannot exist without change and at a basic understanding of time that does not measure but simply refers to before and after, change cannot exist without time. One cannot define change without having a state before the change, initial state, and a different state after the change. If there is not an initial state then we cannot have an after state, so there is no change. If change is infinite in duration in the past then there is no beginning and so no initial state. Without an initial state we cannot define any subsequent state and hence we cannot have change. So, the premise that change is infinite in duration in the past is self contradictory. Hence, what is of infinite duration in the past does not change and change must be finite because it must have a beginning.

Thus, change, and with it time, must have a beginning and what is infinite in duration in the past cannot be something subject to time and change. Further, we cannot have something of infinite duration in the past because that is defined in terms of time and hence change. We can only have something that exists before time began and that something cannot be defined or conceived in terms of time or change. Eternal is not the equivalent to infinite duration in time because it also speaks of existence beyond time and beginning.

Any concept of anything, including a god, that permits change must be a concept of something that has a beginning that is comes into existence out of non-existence because it cannot be eternally existing before time. This is the chief problem with a concept of existence that limits existence to the changing material universe because such an existence must have a beginning, evidence supports that this is the case, and such a universe must come from non-existence by itself. Yet, this is impossible because what does not exist cannot bring itself to existence without already existing to do so. Even to argue it was random presupposes the existence of randomness as an eternally existing something but randomness only has meaning with change and so only begins to exist with change and time. Thus, the only coherent understanding of existence must include the existence of something not subject to time or change that is able to create the existence of things that change without itself changing.

Theology comes into its own to set some boundaries as to what this something is and properly excludes as unsound ideas of that something that are in any way defined in terms of change or time, such as LDS or pagan Greek concepts of gods.

These arguments are better made by others but posted here to challenge thinking on some basics of theology that are largely assumed by the Fathers and much thelogical discussion.

Mexican Jumping Beans

So over at Triablogue, against my better judgment, Steve Hays and I have been going at it. Steve has been kind enough to talk about the Protestant Confessional adherence to the Filioque, a doctrine he admits isn’t justifiable by Scripture alone. If you want to see how a Protestant jumps around trying to avoid the obvious internal inconsistency, go take a look at the comments here,  here and here.  Either they have to give up Sola Scriptura or their doctrine of the Trinity as confessionally stated in say the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession. (Where is James White when you need him, eh?)  And don’t think things like the Covenant of Grace can go through without the assumptions that drive the Filioque. Anyway, its a real hoot to watch a Calvinist jump around.

Have a joyful and merry Christmass everyone.

God Bless Your Veins and Your Arteries

I just wanted to say thank you for those of you who sent me a book. I appreciate it quite a bit. For those who know me, they know that I quote regularly (such as the blog title)  probably one of the best films ever made and also one of the most underappreciated films ever produced, The Ninth Configuration. It is laced with black comedy and some serious material about the problem of evil. It had a significant impact on me and my thinking on that subject. I highly recommend it, though it is not for those with virgin ears. Here’s a clip to motivate you.

The heavy stuff is at about 4 min fwd.

Divine Passivity and Simplicity in Eunomius

“It is interesting, however, that though the Neo-Arians made a clear distinction between God’s ungenerated essence and God’s activity (ένεργεία) as Father, Eunomius treated Jn. 14:28 as if it said, ‘The ungenerated essence who sent me is greater than I.”

Kopecek, A History of Neo-Arianism vo. 2, 320.

“From his introductory remarks it is clear that Eunomius intended to base a number of Part III’s arguments upon a refinement of the Middle Platonic theory of language Neo-Arianism had inherited. Like Albinus, Eunomius assumed that there is a ‘natural conformity of names with things’ and that ‘a name is a tool meant for teaching and differentiating the essence of each thing.’ Because it follows that a difference of names indicates a differences of essence, God who is ‘ungenerated’ and the Son who is ‘generate’ must be different in essence.’

Ibid., 321.

Against Khomiakov

When I was first seriously considering becoming Orthodox, how the Orthodox understood church authority was an important area to map out. In discussing the matter with Catholics that I knew, they often objected that Orthodox ecclesiology falls prey to the same problems as Protestantism. There was no locus of authority in the offices of the church, but the source of normativity was ultimately to reside in the judgment of the people.

The cardinal example of this was the rejection of the council of Florence. Upon returning, delegates found that the overwhelming majority would not accept the terms of the union and choose death and slavery to theological compromise. This is true as far as it goes. The signatories were rebuked and the majority did not accept the decree of union. But a little more study brings to light the fact that not all of the Orthodox representatives signed. Mark of Ephesus did not. Other signatories’ assent borders on simony. The Pope provided all kinds of gifts and provisions for those he thought could be won over. For Mark, there was nothing. Mark’s decision was therefore free and clear. Lest it be thought that Mark’s refusal to sign is insignificant, the Pope upon learning that Mark refused to sign, exclaimed, “Then nothing has been accomplished.” And Mark’s rejection was before the majority rejection.

The second line of evidence that is proffered is that for the Orthodox an ecumenical council is either known to be such or becomes such when it has been accepted by the “whole church.” There is no shortage of Catholic apologetic materials that go down this path. (I suspect they do because they rely on pop-Orthodox works or some distinctly Russian theological works.)

The position usually isn’t stated very clearly. Usually it begins with a claim regarding what the sufficient conditions are for a council to be ecumenical, which is a metaphysical claim and then slides into a claim regarding how one can know that a council is ecumenical. This is apparent for example in the above cited source. I take the metaphysical claim to be the more significant. So the idea is that a council can only be ecumenical if the “whole church” assents to it. This is obviously problematic since no council could ever meet such conditions where every professing Christian agreed. There is no council that I know of, even the Apostolic council in Acts 15 that didn’t result in some measure of dissent. I think Catholics are right to object to this idea as untenable. But I don’t think it is Orthodox teaching as such either.

Support Your Local Sherriff

As some of you know, I am unemployed. For some time I’ve been working odd jobs to help support my family while I attempt to find something more stable.  This  means that I don’t buy books anymore. That was fine while I had a number of books to read. Now I’ve run out of books to read. Most of what I read ends up on the blog in one way or another. The way I figure it, I provide the information here for free. I am happy to do so as it is my intent to help people think through the kinds of issues and ideas we discuss here. A good number of you helped me financially out when I lost my academic position. That was a great help that served to get us through the summer without loosing our home. Now that we are reasonably stable in being more poor than we were, waxing Pauline I don’t think it is unreasonable to not muzzle the ox while he is threshing grain. So I don’t think it is too much to ask for some contribution to the efforts I make here.

So below I’ve placed a list of books. I am not asking people who are in a similar financial situation. Worry about your own family first. Seriously. I’d hate to find out that someone sent me something when they were in about the same spot. If you are already giving to a worthy cause, thats great. But should I have some reasonably well off readers who aren’t, I’d ask them to make a contribution by buying a book. It is better than cash since you know exactly what your efforts are going towards and you’ll see it deployed here.