There are many bad arguments against Sola Scriptura. There are many terrible arguments made to suggest that none of the early church fathers taught or practiced Sola Scriptura. But there is, in my opinion, one worst argument.
That worst argument is this:
1) Reformed apologist demonstrates that early church father X taught Sola Scriptura.
2) Person opposed to Sola Scriptura responds: Oh, so you think that ECF X got "Y" from Scripture alone? Where "Y" is some belief allegedly held by ECF X, but one that we don't accept.
3) The enhancement of this terrible argument is when it turns out belief "Y" is not actually what ECF X taught.
4) The further enhancement is when the person opposed to Sola Scriptura elsewhere makes the claim that Sola Scriptura leads to doctrinal diversity.
There are several ways we can respond:
1) We can point out that just because we have the same rule of faith doesn't mean we agree on every single doctrine.
2) We can point out that there is no logical connection between Sola Scriptura, as such, and doctrine "Y".
3) We can ask the person to try to demonstrate to us how ECF X got doctrine Y.
We could also
* dispute that ECF X taught "Y", where appropriate (obviously, if they did teach Y, then this is not an option), but that gets the argument off on a tangent (which may be what some of the folks who use this worst argument may hope);
* point out that the ECFs were not perfectly consistent with themselves (sometimes they contradicted not only other ECFs but also themselves); and
* ask what alternative to Sola Scriptura they think the particular ECF actually practiced/believed/taught (this is not a direct rebuttal, of course, but it does provide an opportunity to learn from the critic - after all, it is possible that our claim was mistaken, as God nowhere promises that all the teachers of the church will teach all the truth all the time).
-TurretinFan
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Gregory of Nyssa on the Head of the Church
Another test as to Gregory of Nyssa's affiliation is who he considered the head of the church. If he only views Christ as the head of the church, then he falls more in the Reformed camp. If he also (or instead) views the bishop of Rome as the head of the church, then he falls more into the Romanist camp.
So, what does he say?
Paul's words show us the significance of Christ's name when saying that he is the power and wisdom of God. But he also called Christ peace, inaccessible light where God dwells, sanctification, redemption, the great high priest and Pasch, propitiation of souls, splendor of glory, stamp of [God's] substance and maker of the ages, spiritual food and drink, rock, water, foundation of faith, chief cornerstone, image of the great and invisible God, head of his body the Church, first-born among many brothers, mediator of God and of men, only-begotten Son crowned with glory, the principle of created beings which he, the beginning, said about himself (Col 1.18).
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Notice that in this quotation, Christ is the head of the Church. This is the Biblical teaching, which we will see again and again in Gregory of Nyssa.
He who teaches Christ as the head of the Church [Eph 5.23] holds this observation as most important: the entire head has the same nature and substance as the body under subjection, and the individual members as a whole share a single unity effecting cooperation among the limbs in every activity. If anything is external to the body, it does not belong to the head. Therefore the head has the same nature as each member in order that they may conform to it. But we are the limbs which contribute to Christ's body. Should anyone who has become a limb of Christ do evil [1Cor 6.15] by taking up the sword of unbridled rage, this wicked passion has severed the limb from its head. Thus the remaining organs of evil become swords which severe limbs from the body's unity, and all the limbs are severed from the head as if the passions had made the cut.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Same reference to the Biblical metaphor.
In order that the entire body might have the same nature, each limb must be united to the head; if we consider the head to be pure by reason of its essence, the limbs must be made pure under such a head. If we understand the head as incorrupt, the limbs are necessarily incorrupt. As for the other notions with regard to the head, it follows that they are likewise perceived in the limbs: peace, purity, truth and so forth. This example and similar elements manifested in the limbs show an affinity with the head. The Apostle says that Christ is the head from whom the entire body is fit together and connected by every joint performing its task and which makes the body grow according to each member's capacity [Eph 4.16]. The term "head" also applies to animals as the principle for their bodies' actions; the eye and ear effects movement and action of their feet and limbs. Neither does the eye know its actions nor does the ear obtain guidance as it ought when things are brought to its attention: every impulse and action of our bodies must be moved in accord with the true head to wherever he who formed the eye or planted the ear directs it [Ps 93.9]. When the head looks above, the limbs ought to be united under the head's direction and have their impulse directed on high.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Same metaphor - notice as well that Gregory appeals explicitly to Scripture ("The Apostle says").
391.12: he is the head of his body the Church, the first fruit of our nature.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Song of Solomon
Same metaphor.
The Apostles of the Savior were neither lamps, lights nor stars but messengers of light not illumining one region or area but brightening every place under heaven. The most important leaders were Peter, James and John who were designated as witnesses by Christ, running to the end of their lives and expending themselves by various forms of witness. For he whom the Lord designated as leader of the apostolic chorus obtained proper glory. By the cross he expressed the lordly image of the king (I mean the image of the cross of which he was not ashamed of suffering but took it as a great trophy. Neither we nor any other person, as Paul says, can say that Jesus Christ is our Lord. Thus Peter radiates with much holiness and reverence when he is suspended upside down on a cross in order not to equal himself with his Savior's glory which spread through his crucifixion to humanity in its entirety and whose embrace included the entire world. James was beheaded [cf. Acts 12.2] out of love for Christ his true head. As the Apostle says, Christ is the head of man and the entire church [cf. 1Cor 11.3, Eph 5.23]. Blessed John endured many, diverse conflicts and succeeded in various positions with regard to fostering the religion. He underwent an unsuccessful attempt at being drowned and was judged to be numbered among the martyrs' chorus. [John] was held in esteem not by his suffering but by his desire to undergo martyrdom, a type of death which became an immortal tribute who by his death had graced the churches. It is indeed fitting to recall those special men not only with regard to their outstanding piety but their noble character. Together they hold special rank among the other apostles, and their courage does not belong to human reasoning but is in accord with the judgment of divine truth.
- Gregory Nyssa, Two Homilies Concerning St. Stephen, Protomartyr, Second Sermon
Notice how Gregory views Peter as the "leader of the apostolic chorus" and considers him (along with James and John) to be of "special rank among the other apostles" but still reserves the title of "head of man and the entire church" for Christ.
Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the Church [ekklesia]. The true Ecclesiastes [ekklesiastes, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel" [Jn 1.49]? If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the Church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David" [1.1]: thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the First Homily
The usual metaphor with the true head being Christ. The translator inserted the "Christ" in the first bracket above, but he is correct that Gregory is making that identification.
Those in the grave seek the voice of the resurrection; light is agreeable to persons in darkness, and a road is helpful for those who have strayed while a gate forms an entrance. And so Ecclesiastes speaks to those of us who belong in the Church. Let us who compose this Church now listen to his words. As a chorus looks to its leader, sailors to their pilot and soldiers to their general, so do those in the assembly of the church look to Ecclesiastes.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Second Homily
It's interesting how Christ is not just the head, but the chorus-leader, the pilot, and the general of the church.
Now the great leader of the Church [Christ] indoctrinates us into loftier teachings. The preceding words have purified the soul and have banished the vanity of cupidity from mens' desire. Ecclesiastes leads our minds to the truth by pointing out the grief resulting from vanity and by lifting its burden from our shoulders. May the Church be learned in this teaching and realize that the beginning of a virtuous life consists in alienation from evil! The great David introduced a pure manner of living by means of the psalms; he did not begin [the psalter] with the perfection of blessedness. David did not first say that blessedness consists in doing all things well; rather, he compared a [blessed] person to a tree rooted by flowing waters, always green in good works and one who gathers at appropriate times the fruit of his own life [Ps 1.3].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Fifth Homily
Again, it is the translator inserting "Christ," but he is correct in doing so, based on the context.
"There is a time to cast stones and a time to gather stones" [3.5]. The leader of the Church's ranks confirmed the strength of his hearers by his teaching that they may now cast stones at their adversaries and procure such stones.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Seventh Homily
Again, the reference to Christ is a bit indirect. However, since - as we established above, the speaker in the book is viewed by Gregory as Christ, we can see he is referring to Christ as the "leader of the Church's ranks."
If we have gained knowledge about the enemy against whom we must fight and take up arms, we ought to learn about another part of the text, that is, when to make a treaty of peace. Who is the good commander? He enables me to win favor by peaceful means. Who is the leader of this army? The divinely inspired scriptures clearly depict the battle array of angels belonging to the heavenly army: "There was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" [Lk 2.13]. Daniel saw a thousand thousands and thousand times ten thousand worshiping him [Dan 7.10]. The prophets testify to this, calling him the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts [Ps 23.10]. And to Joshua Nave, the powerful one in battle, he said, "I am the commander of the [M.749] army [of the Lord]" [Jos 5.14]. If we have understood the assistance we receive in battle and the leader of our allies, let us make a truce with him, fly to his powerful aide and become friends in order to secure his assistance. The great Apostle [Paul] teaches us how to gain intimacy with him and how to be united in friendship saying, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God" [Rom 5.1]. And, "We are ambassadors for Christ as though God besought you by us [saying], 'Be reconciled to God'" [2Cor 5.20]. As long as our shameful deeds made us sons of wrath [Eph 2.3] we were among those who opposed the right hand of the Most High. The Apostle says of him "He is our peace" [Eph 2.14], words which form the end and summation of all temporal reality. We who had once been God's adversaries have learned to accomplish all things in time in order to establish peace with ourselves and with him. If the virtues truly belong to the army of peace with which we must be associated, it would not be outside the sense of the text which refers the name of every virtue to the Lord of virtues.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Eighth Homily
For if we have learnt what the good alliance is and who is the Commander of these allied troops, let us make a treaty with him, let us join his command, let us make friends with the one who has gained such power. The way to be attached to him is taught by the assembler of this league, the great Apostle, when he says Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God [Romans 5:1], and again, We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were urging through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled with God [2 Corinthians 5:20]. As long as we were by nature children of wrath by doing what is wrong [Ephesians 2:3], we stood in the ranks of those who resist the right hand of the most high [Psalm 77:10/76:11]; but if we lay aside ungodliness and worldly desires, in holy, just and godly living, by making this peace we shall be joined to the true Peace. For so the Apostle says of him, He is himself our peace [Ephesians 2:14].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8) (Hall/Moriarty Translation)
Christ is the good commander, the leader of the army, the "the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts."
By reason of their greatness, such men are soldiers of Christ armed with the Holy Spirit, champions of faith and towers of the divine city. They resist every infliction of torture, fear, threats and foolish, shameful ridicule; they appear to offer their bodies to such outrages, but these are merely shadows. Such persons who are in the flesh defeat the flesh and have contempt for death; they disdain all fear of tyrants and appear more noble. How lovely are those trained in such bodily victories! How wonderful is their training when applied to combat against the devil! They are not armed with swords, shields, helmets nor leg protection; rather, they are armed with the full armor of God which the divine Apostle [Paul], the leader of the Church, illustrates: a shield, breastplate, helmet and sword (Eph 6.11+). These weapons are used against the enemy's forces, but divine grace supports them against the devil's troop which has the power to inflict death. This troop takes its stand in the tribunal, the place of decisive contest, where blood is shed; here [the devil's band] makes it threats and fights against those who patiently resist it.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Two Homilies regarding the Forty Martyrs, Second Homily (part 2)
Interestingly, here Gregory refers to Paul, not Peter, as the leader of the Church. It's the only time I could find where Gregory refers to anyone other than Christ in this way. Interestingly, I cannot find him referring to Paul as even one of the foremost apostles, but he gets the title "the leader of the Church." Not something one would expect from a Romanist author.
So, what does he say?
Paul's words show us the significance of Christ's name when saying that he is the power and wisdom of God. But he also called Christ peace, inaccessible light where God dwells, sanctification, redemption, the great high priest and Pasch, propitiation of souls, splendor of glory, stamp of [God's] substance and maker of the ages, spiritual food and drink, rock, water, foundation of faith, chief cornerstone, image of the great and invisible God, head of his body the Church, first-born among many brothers, mediator of God and of men, only-begotten Son crowned with glory, the principle of created beings which he, the beginning, said about himself (Col 1.18).
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Notice that in this quotation, Christ is the head of the Church. This is the Biblical teaching, which we will see again and again in Gregory of Nyssa.
He who teaches Christ as the head of the Church [Eph 5.23] holds this observation as most important: the entire head has the same nature and substance as the body under subjection, and the individual members as a whole share a single unity effecting cooperation among the limbs in every activity. If anything is external to the body, it does not belong to the head. Therefore the head has the same nature as each member in order that they may conform to it. But we are the limbs which contribute to Christ's body. Should anyone who has become a limb of Christ do evil [1Cor 6.15] by taking up the sword of unbridled rage, this wicked passion has severed the limb from its head. Thus the remaining organs of evil become swords which severe limbs from the body's unity, and all the limbs are severed from the head as if the passions had made the cut.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Same reference to the Biblical metaphor.
In order that the entire body might have the same nature, each limb must be united to the head; if we consider the head to be pure by reason of its essence, the limbs must be made pure under such a head. If we understand the head as incorrupt, the limbs are necessarily incorrupt. As for the other notions with regard to the head, it follows that they are likewise perceived in the limbs: peace, purity, truth and so forth. This example and similar elements manifested in the limbs show an affinity with the head. The Apostle says that Christ is the head from whom the entire body is fit together and connected by every joint performing its task and which makes the body grow according to each member's capacity [Eph 4.16]. The term "head" also applies to animals as the principle for their bodies' actions; the eye and ear effects movement and action of their feet and limbs. Neither does the eye know its actions nor does the ear obtain guidance as it ought when things are brought to its attention: every impulse and action of our bodies must be moved in accord with the true head to wherever he who formed the eye or planted the ear directs it [Ps 93.9]. When the head looks above, the limbs ought to be united under the head's direction and have their impulse directed on high.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
Same metaphor - notice as well that Gregory appeals explicitly to Scripture ("The Apostle says").
391.12: he is the head of his body the Church, the first fruit of our nature.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Song of Solomon
Same metaphor.
The Apostles of the Savior were neither lamps, lights nor stars but messengers of light not illumining one region or area but brightening every place under heaven. The most important leaders were Peter, James and John who were designated as witnesses by Christ, running to the end of their lives and expending themselves by various forms of witness. For he whom the Lord designated as leader of the apostolic chorus obtained proper glory. By the cross he expressed the lordly image of the king (I mean the image of the cross of which he was not ashamed of suffering but took it as a great trophy. Neither we nor any other person, as Paul says, can say that Jesus Christ is our Lord. Thus Peter radiates with much holiness and reverence when he is suspended upside down on a cross in order not to equal himself with his Savior's glory which spread through his crucifixion to humanity in its entirety and whose embrace included the entire world. James was beheaded [cf. Acts 12.2] out of love for Christ his true head. As the Apostle says, Christ is the head of man and the entire church [cf. 1Cor 11.3, Eph 5.23]. Blessed John endured many, diverse conflicts and succeeded in various positions with regard to fostering the religion. He underwent an unsuccessful attempt at being drowned and was judged to be numbered among the martyrs' chorus. [John] was held in esteem not by his suffering but by his desire to undergo martyrdom, a type of death which became an immortal tribute who by his death had graced the churches. It is indeed fitting to recall those special men not only with regard to their outstanding piety but their noble character. Together they hold special rank among the other apostles, and their courage does not belong to human reasoning but is in accord with the judgment of divine truth.
- Gregory Nyssa, Two Homilies Concerning St. Stephen, Protomartyr, Second Sermon
Notice how Gregory views Peter as the "leader of the apostolic chorus" and considers him (along with James and John) to be of "special rank among the other apostles" but still reserves the title of "head of man and the entire church" for Christ.
Perhaps this inscription refers to the leader of the Church [ekklesia]. The true Ecclesiastes [ekklesiastes, Christ] gathers into one assembly those persons who often have been scattered and frequently deceived. Who could he be except the true king of Israel to whom Nathaniel said, "You are the son of God and the king of Israel" [Jn 1.49]? If these words pertain to the king of Israel, the Son of God, as the Gospel says, then he is called Ecclesiastes. We will not deviate from the inscription's meaning provided that we learn about him who firmly establishes the Church through the Gospel and to whom these words apply. "The words of Ecclesiastes, son of David" [1.1]: thus Matthew begins his gospel with the name David and calls him Lord.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the First Homily
The usual metaphor with the true head being Christ. The translator inserted the "Christ" in the first bracket above, but he is correct that Gregory is making that identification.
Those in the grave seek the voice of the resurrection; light is agreeable to persons in darkness, and a road is helpful for those who have strayed while a gate forms an entrance. And so Ecclesiastes speaks to those of us who belong in the Church. Let us who compose this Church now listen to his words. As a chorus looks to its leader, sailors to their pilot and soldiers to their general, so do those in the assembly of the church look to Ecclesiastes.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Second Homily
It's interesting how Christ is not just the head, but the chorus-leader, the pilot, and the general of the church.
Now the great leader of the Church [Christ] indoctrinates us into loftier teachings. The preceding words have purified the soul and have banished the vanity of cupidity from mens' desire. Ecclesiastes leads our minds to the truth by pointing out the grief resulting from vanity and by lifting its burden from our shoulders. May the Church be learned in this teaching and realize that the beginning of a virtuous life consists in alienation from evil! The great David introduced a pure manner of living by means of the psalms; he did not begin [the psalter] with the perfection of blessedness. David did not first say that blessedness consists in doing all things well; rather, he compared a [blessed] person to a tree rooted by flowing waters, always green in good works and one who gathers at appropriate times the fruit of his own life [Ps 1.3].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Fifth Homily
Again, it is the translator inserting "Christ," but he is correct in doing so, based on the context.
"There is a time to cast stones and a time to gather stones" [3.5]. The leader of the Church's ranks confirmed the strength of his hearers by his teaching that they may now cast stones at their adversaries and procure such stones.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Seventh Homily
Again, the reference to Christ is a bit indirect. However, since - as we established above, the speaker in the book is viewed by Gregory as Christ, we can see he is referring to Christ as the "leader of the Church's ranks."
If we have gained knowledge about the enemy against whom we must fight and take up arms, we ought to learn about another part of the text, that is, when to make a treaty of peace. Who is the good commander? He enables me to win favor by peaceful means. Who is the leader of this army? The divinely inspired scriptures clearly depict the battle array of angels belonging to the heavenly army: "There was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" [Lk 2.13]. Daniel saw a thousand thousands and thousand times ten thousand worshiping him [Dan 7.10]. The prophets testify to this, calling him the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts [Ps 23.10]. And to Joshua Nave, the powerful one in battle, he said, "I am the commander of the [M.749] army [of the Lord]" [Jos 5.14]. If we have understood the assistance we receive in battle and the leader of our allies, let us make a truce with him, fly to his powerful aide and become friends in order to secure his assistance. The great Apostle [Paul] teaches us how to gain intimacy with him and how to be united in friendship saying, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God" [Rom 5.1]. And, "We are ambassadors for Christ as though God besought you by us [saying], 'Be reconciled to God'" [2Cor 5.20]. As long as our shameful deeds made us sons of wrath [Eph 2.3] we were among those who opposed the right hand of the Most High. The Apostle says of him "He is our peace" [Eph 2.14], words which form the end and summation of all temporal reality. We who had once been God's adversaries have learned to accomplish all things in time in order to establish peace with ourselves and with him. If the virtues truly belong to the army of peace with which we must be associated, it would not be outside the sense of the text which refers the name of every virtue to the Lord of virtues.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, the Eighth Homily
For if we have learnt what the good alliance is and who is the Commander of these allied troops, let us make a treaty with him, let us join his command, let us make friends with the one who has gained such power. The way to be attached to him is taught by the assembler of this league, the great Apostle, when he says Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God [Romans 5:1], and again, We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were urging through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled with God [2 Corinthians 5:20]. As long as we were by nature children of wrath by doing what is wrong [Ephesians 2:3], we stood in the ranks of those who resist the right hand of the most high [Psalm 77:10/76:11]; but if we lay aside ungodliness and worldly desires, in holy, just and godly living, by making this peace we shall be joined to the true Peace. For so the Apostle says of him, He is himself our peace [Ephesians 2:14].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8) (Hall/Moriarty Translation)
Christ is the good commander, the leader of the army, the "the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts."
By reason of their greatness, such men are soldiers of Christ armed with the Holy Spirit, champions of faith and towers of the divine city. They resist every infliction of torture, fear, threats and foolish, shameful ridicule; they appear to offer their bodies to such outrages, but these are merely shadows. Such persons who are in the flesh defeat the flesh and have contempt for death; they disdain all fear of tyrants and appear more noble. How lovely are those trained in such bodily victories! How wonderful is their training when applied to combat against the devil! They are not armed with swords, shields, helmets nor leg protection; rather, they are armed with the full armor of God which the divine Apostle [Paul], the leader of the Church, illustrates: a shield, breastplate, helmet and sword (Eph 6.11+). These weapons are used against the enemy's forces, but divine grace supports them against the devil's troop which has the power to inflict death. This troop takes its stand in the tribunal, the place of decisive contest, where blood is shed; here [the devil's band] makes it threats and fights against those who patiently resist it.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Two Homilies regarding the Forty Martyrs, Second Homily (part 2)
Interestingly, here Gregory refers to Paul, not Peter, as the leader of the Church. It's the only time I could find where Gregory refers to anyone other than Christ in this way. Interestingly, I cannot find him referring to Paul as even one of the foremost apostles, but he gets the title "the leader of the Church." Not something one would expect from a Romanist author.
Sola Fide in Gregory of Nyssa
Just so I have heard the sacred record laying blame upon the sons of Benjamin who did not regard the law, but could shoot within a hair's breadth [Judges 20:16], wherein, methinks, the word exhibited their eager pursuit of an idle object, that they were far-darting and dexterous aimers at things that were useless and unsubstantial, but ignorant and regardless of what was manifestly for their benefit. For after what I have quoted, the history goes on to relate what befell them, how, when they had run madly after the iniquity of Sodom, and the people of Israel had taken up arms against them in full force, they were utterly destroyed. And it seems to me to be a kindly thought to warn young archers not to wish to shoot within a hair's-breadth, while they have no eyes for the door of the faith, but rather to drop their idle labor about the incomprehensible, and not to lose the gain that is ready to their hand, which is found by faith alone.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius (Book X), Chapter 1
And so, after this ecstasy which came upon him as a result of these lofty visions, Abraham returned once more to his human frailty: I am, he admits [Genesis 18:27], dust and ashes, mute, inert, incapable of explaining rationally the Godhead that my mind has seen. (And the dust and ashes, I think, symbolizes all that is dead and unfruitful.) Thus this became the norm of faith for all that followed; for in his life we are taught that for those who are advancing in the divine paths there is no other way of drawing near to God than by the intermediary of faith; it is only through faith that the questing soul can unite itself with the incomprehensible Godhead. Abandoning, then, the curiosity of the mind, Abraham, says the text, believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice [Romans 4:3; cf. Genesis 15:6]. And this, says the Apostle, was written not for Abraham but for us, for it is by faith and not knowledge that men are accounted just before God. For knowledge has a kind of market value, accorded to the knower alone. But this is not so of Christian faith. For it is the substance of things to be hoped for [Hebrews 11:1], not of things that are known. We not hope for what we already possess. As the Apostle says, For what a man hath, why doth he hope for? [Romans 8:24].
-Gregory of Nyssa, Against Euonius (Book XII)
And after she has gone about the entire supramundane city by the operation of her mind, and has not recognized her Beloved even among things spiritual and immaterial, then at last she gives up all she has found; for she realizes that what she seeks can be understood only in the very inability to comprehend His essence, and that every intelligible attribute becomes merely a hindrance to those who seek to find him. This is why she says: When I had a little passed by them [Song of Solomon 3:4], I abandoned all creatures and passed by all that is intelligble in creation; and when I gave up every finite mode of comprehension, then it was that I found my Beloved by faith. And I will never let Him go, now that I have found Him, from the grasp of faith, until He comes within my chamber [Song of Solomon 3:4]. For the heart is indeed a chamber to be filled by the divine indwelling -- that is, when it is restored to the state that it had in the beginning.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 3:4)
34: This done, the serpent was changed back into a rod by which sinners are brought to their senses, and those slackening on the upward and toilsome course of virtue are given rest, the rod of faith supporting them through their high hopes. Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for. [Heb. 11:1]
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses, Book 2
Having zealously directed the church's affairs in this fashion before his death, [Gregory] wished to see everyone converted from idolatry to the faith which saves.
- Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Gregory the Wonderworker
Whether faith saves or whether we are saved through faith or await grace through patience, "love believes all things and hopes all things" as the Apostle says [1Cor 13.7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, A Euology for Basil the Great
For if we have learnt what the good alliance is and who is the Commander of these allied troops, let us make a treaty with him, let us join his command, let us make friends with the one who has gained such power. The way to be attached to him is taught by the assembler of this league, the great Apostle, when he says Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God [Romans 5:1], and again, We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were urging through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled with God [2 Corinthians 5:20]. As long as we were by nature children of wrath by doing what is wrong [Ephesians 2:3], we stood in the ranks of those who resist the right hand of the most high [Psalm 77:10/76:11]; but if we lay aside ungodliness and worldly desires, in holy, just and godly living, by making this peace we shall be joined to the true Peace. For so the Apostle says of him, He is himself our peace [Ephesians 2:14].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8) (Hall/Moriarty Translation)
If we have gained knowledge about the enemy against whom we must fight and take up arms, we ought to learn about another part of the text, that is, when to make a treaty of peace. Who is the good commander? He enables me to win favor by peaceful means. Who is the leader of this army? The divinely inspired scriptures clearly depict the battle array of angels belonging to the heavenly army: "There was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" [Lk 2.13]. Daniel saw a thousand thousands and thousand times ten thousand worshiping him [Dan 7.10]. The prophets testify to this, calling him the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts [Ps 23.10]. And to Joshua Nave, the powerful one in battle, he said, "I am the commander of the army [of the Lord]" [Jos 5.14]. If we have understood the assistance we receive in battle and the leader of our allies, let us make a truce with him, fly to his powerful aide and become friends in order to secure his assistance. The great Apostle [Paul] teaches us how to gain intimacy with him and how to be united in friendship saying, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God" [Rom 5.1]. And, "We are ambassadors for Christ as though God besought you by us [saying], 'Be reconciled to God'" [2Cor 5.20]. As long as our shameful deeds made us sons of wrath [Eph 2.3] we were among those who opposed the right hand of the Most High. The Apostle says of him "He is our peace" [Eph 2.14], words which form the end and summation of all temporal reality. We who had once been God's adversaries have learned to accomplish all things in time in order to establish peace with ourselves and with him. If the virtues truly belong to the army of peace with which we must be associated, it would not be outside the sense of the text which refers the name of every virtue to the Lord of virtues.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes
Note well: these are expressions of Sola Fide in Gregory of Nyssa. However, I cannot ensure that Gregory of Nyssa doesn't somewhere else undermine the position laid out above.
What about the places where Gregory of Nyssa speaks to the relation of faith and works?
By dividing the virtues into different types the Apostle has made each type of virtue into the particular piece of armor for each of the crucial moments in our lives. Entwining justice with faith and plaiting them together he constructs with them the hoplite's breastplate, protecting the soldier’s body thoroughly and securely with them both. One piece of armor separated from another cannot by itself be a protection for the one who handles it. Faith without the works of justice is not enough to save one from death, nor again is the justice of one's life a guarantee of salvation if it is on its own, divorced from faith.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
This, as I understand it, is the Good that truly is, the thing Solomon sought to see, which people will do under the sun throughout all the number of the days of their life. This seems to me to be none other than the work of faith, the performance of which is common to all, available on equal terms to those who wish for it, lasting in full strength continuously throughout life. This is the good work, which I pray may be done in us too, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. AMEN.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 2 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 2:3)
198. That was the outward appearance of the ornament, and this is its meaning: The shield-like ornaments hanging down from both shoulders symbolize the two-fold nature of our armor against the Adversary. Therefore, as I said a short time ago, since the life of virtue is lived in a two-fold way -- by faith and a good conscience in life -- we are made safe with respect to both by the shield's protection. We remain unwounded by the enemy's darts, by being armed with the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left [2 Corinthians 6:7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Malherbe/Ferguson translation)
The golden bells alternating with the tassels stand for the brilliance of our good works. Perfect virtue consists indeed of two things, having faith in God and living our lives according to our conscience. Thus the great Paul fastens bells and tassels to the garment of Timothy when he says that he must have faith and a good conscience [1 Timothy 1:19]. Faith then, should sound strong and clear in its preaching of the Trinity; and our lives should imitate the form of the pomegranate. For on the outside it is covered with a hard and bitter rind which is inedible; but on the inside the brightness and regularity of its fruit makes [sic] it very pleasant to see and even more pleasant to taste. So too, the life of wisdom is bitter and difficult to the senses, but full of good expectations when it has produced fruit in due season. For when the gardener opens the pomegranate of our lives in due time and reveals the beauty hidden there, sweet indeed will be the taste of that fruit to those who share in it. The divine Apostle somewhere says: All chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorry (and so it seems for those who first come in contact with the pomegranate): but afterwards it yields the peaceable fruit of justice [Hebrews 12:11], that is, the sweetness of spiritual nourishment.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Daniélou/Musurillo translation)
This was the way this ornament was made. And its meaning is as follows. The two bosses suspended from the shoulders symbolize the double aspect of our armor against the adversary. For, as we said earlier, virtue works in two ways, by faith and by a life lived according to one's conscience; in this way we are protected on both sides by the bulwark of the bosses and remain untouched by the darts of the enemy, by the armor of justice on the right hand and the left [2 Corinthians 6:7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Daniélou/Musurillo translation)
Apparently Inconsistent Remarks in Gregory of Nyssa
But if some one says that such a life [of an infant dying in infancy] does not only exist, but exists as one of the good ones, and that God gives, though He does not repay, what is good to such, we may ask what sort of reason he advances for this partiality; how is justice apparent in such a view; how will he prove his idea in concordance with the utterances in the Gospels? There (the Master) says, the acquisition of the Kingdom comes to those who are deemed worthy of it, as a matter of exchange. "When you have done such and such things, then it is right that you get the Kingdom as a reward." But in this case there is no act of doing or of willing beforehand, and so what occasion is there for saying that these will receive from God any expected recompense?
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Deaths
Let us suppose two persons suffering from an affection of the eyes; and that the one surrenders himself most diligently to the process of being cured, and undergoes all that Medicine can apply to him, however painful it may be; and that the other indulges without restraint in baths and wine-drinking, and listens to no advice whatever of his doctor as to the healing of his eyes. Well, when we look to the end of each of these we say that each duly receives in requital the fruits of his choice, the one in deprivation of the light, the other in its enjoyment; by a misuse of the word we do actually call that which necessarily follows, a recompense. We may speak, then, in this way also as regards this question of the infants: we may say that the enjoyment of that future life does indeed belong of right to the human being, but that, seeing the plague of ignorance has seized almost all now living in the flesh, he who has purged himself of it by means of the necessary courses of treatment receives the due reward of his diligence, when he enters on the life that is truly natural; while he who refuses Virtue's purgatives and renders that plague of ignorance, through the pleasures he has been entrapped by, difficult in his case to cure, gets himself into an unnatural state, and so is estranged from the truly natural life, and has no share in the existence which of right belongs to us and is congenial to us.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Deaths
You'll notice in the two passages above there is a strong emphasis on personal desert.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius (Book X), Chapter 1
And so, after this ecstasy which came upon him as a result of these lofty visions, Abraham returned once more to his human frailty: I am, he admits [Genesis 18:27], dust and ashes, mute, inert, incapable of explaining rationally the Godhead that my mind has seen. (And the dust and ashes, I think, symbolizes all that is dead and unfruitful.) Thus this became the norm of faith for all that followed; for in his life we are taught that for those who are advancing in the divine paths there is no other way of drawing near to God than by the intermediary of faith; it is only through faith that the questing soul can unite itself with the incomprehensible Godhead. Abandoning, then, the curiosity of the mind, Abraham, says the text, believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice [Romans 4:3; cf. Genesis 15:6]. And this, says the Apostle, was written not for Abraham but for us, for it is by faith and not knowledge that men are accounted just before God. For knowledge has a kind of market value, accorded to the knower alone. But this is not so of Christian faith. For it is the substance of things to be hoped for [Hebrews 11:1], not of things that are known. We not hope for what we already possess. As the Apostle says, For what a man hath, why doth he hope for? [Romans 8:24].
-Gregory of Nyssa, Against Euonius (Book XII)
And after she has gone about the entire supramundane city by the operation of her mind, and has not recognized her Beloved even among things spiritual and immaterial, then at last she gives up all she has found; for she realizes that what she seeks can be understood only in the very inability to comprehend His essence, and that every intelligible attribute becomes merely a hindrance to those who seek to find him. This is why she says: When I had a little passed by them [Song of Solomon 3:4], I abandoned all creatures and passed by all that is intelligble in creation; and when I gave up every finite mode of comprehension, then it was that I found my Beloved by faith. And I will never let Him go, now that I have found Him, from the grasp of faith, until He comes within my chamber [Song of Solomon 3:4]. For the heart is indeed a chamber to be filled by the divine indwelling -- that is, when it is restored to the state that it had in the beginning.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Song of Solomon (Song of Solomon 3:4)
34: This done, the serpent was changed back into a rod by which sinners are brought to their senses, and those slackening on the upward and toilsome course of virtue are given rest, the rod of faith supporting them through their high hopes. Only faith can guarantee the blessings that we hope for. [Heb. 11:1]
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses, Book 2
Having zealously directed the church's affairs in this fashion before his death, [Gregory] wished to see everyone converted from idolatry to the faith which saves.
- Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Gregory the Wonderworker
Whether faith saves or whether we are saved through faith or await grace through patience, "love believes all things and hopes all things" as the Apostle says [1Cor 13.7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, A Euology for Basil the Great
For if we have learnt what the good alliance is and who is the Commander of these allied troops, let us make a treaty with him, let us join his command, let us make friends with the one who has gained such power. The way to be attached to him is taught by the assembler of this league, the great Apostle, when he says Therefore, since we are justified by faith, let us have peace with God [Romans 5:1], and again, We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were urging through us; we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled with God [2 Corinthians 5:20]. As long as we were by nature children of wrath by doing what is wrong [Ephesians 2:3], we stood in the ranks of those who resist the right hand of the most high [Psalm 77:10/76:11]; but if we lay aside ungodliness and worldly desires, in holy, just and godly living, by making this peace we shall be joined to the true Peace. For so the Apostle says of him, He is himself our peace [Ephesians 2:14].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8) (Hall/Moriarty Translation)
If we have gained knowledge about the enemy against whom we must fight and take up arms, we ought to learn about another part of the text, that is, when to make a treaty of peace. Who is the good commander? He enables me to win favor by peaceful means. Who is the leader of this army? The divinely inspired scriptures clearly depict the battle array of angels belonging to the heavenly army: "There was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God" [Lk 2.13]. Daniel saw a thousand thousands and thousand times ten thousand worshiping him [Dan 7.10]. The prophets testify to this, calling him the Lord of all the armies and Lord of hosts [Ps 23.10]. And to Joshua Nave, the powerful one in battle, he said, "I am the commander of the army [of the Lord]" [Jos 5.14]. If we have understood the assistance we receive in battle and the leader of our allies, let us make a truce with him, fly to his powerful aide and become friends in order to secure his assistance. The great Apostle [Paul] teaches us how to gain intimacy with him and how to be united in friendship saying, "Having been justified by faith, we have peace with God" [Rom 5.1]. And, "We are ambassadors for Christ as though God besought you by us [saying], 'Be reconciled to God'" [2Cor 5.20]. As long as our shameful deeds made us sons of wrath [Eph 2.3] we were among those who opposed the right hand of the Most High. The Apostle says of him "He is our peace" [Eph 2.14], words which form the end and summation of all temporal reality. We who had once been God's adversaries have learned to accomplish all things in time in order to establish peace with ourselves and with him. If the virtues truly belong to the army of peace with which we must be associated, it would not be outside the sense of the text which refers the name of every virtue to the Lord of virtues.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes
Note well: these are expressions of Sola Fide in Gregory of Nyssa. However, I cannot ensure that Gregory of Nyssa doesn't somewhere else undermine the position laid out above.
What about the places where Gregory of Nyssa speaks to the relation of faith and works?
By dividing the virtues into different types the Apostle has made each type of virtue into the particular piece of armor for each of the crucial moments in our lives. Entwining justice with faith and plaiting them together he constructs with them the hoplite's breastplate, protecting the soldier’s body thoroughly and securely with them both. One piece of armor separated from another cannot by itself be a protection for the one who handles it. Faith without the works of justice is not enough to save one from death, nor again is the justice of one's life a guarantee of salvation if it is on its own, divorced from faith.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 3:8)
This, as I understand it, is the Good that truly is, the thing Solomon sought to see, which people will do under the sun throughout all the number of the days of their life. This seems to me to be none other than the work of faith, the performance of which is common to all, available on equal terms to those who wish for it, lasting in full strength continuously throughout life. This is the good work, which I pray may be done in us too, in Christ Jesus our Lord, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. AMEN.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 2 on Ecclesiastes (Ecclesiastes 2:3)
198. That was the outward appearance of the ornament, and this is its meaning: The shield-like ornaments hanging down from both shoulders symbolize the two-fold nature of our armor against the Adversary. Therefore, as I said a short time ago, since the life of virtue is lived in a two-fold way -- by faith and a good conscience in life -- we are made safe with respect to both by the shield's protection. We remain unwounded by the enemy's darts, by being armed with the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left [2 Corinthians 6:7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Malherbe/Ferguson translation)
The golden bells alternating with the tassels stand for the brilliance of our good works. Perfect virtue consists indeed of two things, having faith in God and living our lives according to our conscience. Thus the great Paul fastens bells and tassels to the garment of Timothy when he says that he must have faith and a good conscience [1 Timothy 1:19]. Faith then, should sound strong and clear in its preaching of the Trinity; and our lives should imitate the form of the pomegranate. For on the outside it is covered with a hard and bitter rind which is inedible; but on the inside the brightness and regularity of its fruit makes [sic] it very pleasant to see and even more pleasant to taste. So too, the life of wisdom is bitter and difficult to the senses, but full of good expectations when it has produced fruit in due season. For when the gardener opens the pomegranate of our lives in due time and reveals the beauty hidden there, sweet indeed will be the taste of that fruit to those who share in it. The divine Apostle somewhere says: All chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorry (and so it seems for those who first come in contact with the pomegranate): but afterwards it yields the peaceable fruit of justice [Hebrews 12:11], that is, the sweetness of spiritual nourishment.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Daniélou/Musurillo translation)
This was the way this ornament was made. And its meaning is as follows. The two bosses suspended from the shoulders symbolize the double aspect of our armor against the adversary. For, as we said earlier, virtue works in two ways, by faith and by a life lived according to one's conscience; in this way we are protected on both sides by the bulwark of the bosses and remain untouched by the darts of the enemy, by the armor of justice on the right hand and the left [2 Corinthians 6:7].
- Gregory of Nyssa, Contemplation on the Life of Moses (Daniélou/Musurillo translation)
Apparently Inconsistent Remarks in Gregory of Nyssa
But if some one says that such a life [of an infant dying in infancy] does not only exist, but exists as one of the good ones, and that God gives, though He does not repay, what is good to such, we may ask what sort of reason he advances for this partiality; how is justice apparent in such a view; how will he prove his idea in concordance with the utterances in the Gospels? There (the Master) says, the acquisition of the Kingdom comes to those who are deemed worthy of it, as a matter of exchange. "When you have done such and such things, then it is right that you get the Kingdom as a reward." But in this case there is no act of doing or of willing beforehand, and so what occasion is there for saying that these will receive from God any expected recompense?
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Deaths
Let us suppose two persons suffering from an affection of the eyes; and that the one surrenders himself most diligently to the process of being cured, and undergoes all that Medicine can apply to him, however painful it may be; and that the other indulges without restraint in baths and wine-drinking, and listens to no advice whatever of his doctor as to the healing of his eyes. Well, when we look to the end of each of these we say that each duly receives in requital the fruits of his choice, the one in deprivation of the light, the other in its enjoyment; by a misuse of the word we do actually call that which necessarily follows, a recompense. We may speak, then, in this way also as regards this question of the infants: we may say that the enjoyment of that future life does indeed belong of right to the human being, but that, seeing the plague of ignorance has seized almost all now living in the flesh, he who has purged himself of it by means of the necessary courses of treatment receives the due reward of his diligence, when he enters on the life that is truly natural; while he who refuses Virtue's purgatives and renders that plague of ignorance, through the pleasures he has been entrapped by, difficult in his case to cure, gets himself into an unnatural state, and so is estranged from the truly natural life, and has no share in the existence which of right belongs to us and is congenial to us.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Infants' Early Deaths
You'll notice in the two passages above there is a strong emphasis on personal desert.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Gregory of Nyssa on the Illustration of Divine Beauty
Gregory of Nyssa makes no reference to icons/statues/etc. but instead provides a very Reformed view of how the Divine Beauty is illustrated for us:
"It is true, indeed, that the Divine beauty is not adorned with any shape or endowment of form, by any beauty of colour, but is contemplated as excellence in unspeakable bliss. As then painters transfer human forms to their pictures by the means of certain colours, laying on their copy the proper and corresponding tints, so that the beauty of the original may be accurately transferred to the likeness, so I would have you understand that our Maker also, painting the portrait to resemble His own beauty, by the addition of virtues, as it were with colours, shows in us His own sovereignty: and manifold and varied are the tints, so to say, by which His true form is portrayed: not red, or white, or the blending of these, whatever it may be called, nor a touch of black that paints the eyebrow and the eye, and shades, by some combination, the depressions in the figure, and all such arts which the hands of painters contrive, but instead of these, purity, freedom from passion, blessedness, alienation from all evil, and all those attributes of the like kind which help to form in men the likeness of God: with such hues as these did the Maker of His own image mark our nature."
- Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, Chapter V, Section 1
"It is true, indeed, that the Divine beauty is not adorned with any shape or endowment of form, by any beauty of colour, but is contemplated as excellence in unspeakable bliss. As then painters transfer human forms to their pictures by the means of certain colours, laying on their copy the proper and corresponding tints, so that the beauty of the original may be accurately transferred to the likeness, so I would have you understand that our Maker also, painting the portrait to resemble His own beauty, by the addition of virtues, as it were with colours, shows in us His own sovereignty: and manifold and varied are the tints, so to say, by which His true form is portrayed: not red, or white, or the blending of these, whatever it may be called, nor a touch of black that paints the eyebrow and the eye, and shades, by some combination, the depressions in the figure, and all such arts which the hands of painters contrive, but instead of these, purity, freedom from passion, blessedness, alienation from all evil, and all those attributes of the like kind which help to form in men the likeness of God: with such hues as these did the Maker of His own image mark our nature."
- Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man, Chapter V, Section 1
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Terms One Doesn't Find in Gregory of Nyssa
One of the interesting things about Gregory of Nyssa's work are the things one does not find in the English translations of Gregory's works:
"pope"
"papacy"
"papal"
"pontiff"
"bishop of bishops"
"vicar"
"cardinal"
"legate"
"penance" (One might argue that the concept is there in Gregory of Nyssa the concept of penance, though not the term.)
"rosary"
"purgatory"
"holy water"
"queen of heaven"
"blessed virgin"
"transubstantiation"
"icons" (in the religious art sense - the Greek word from which "icon" comes is, of course, found in Gregory's writings in other contexts)
Sorry that there are not a lot of quotations in this section, but that's the nature of this particular topic of words Gregory of Nyssa doesn't use - words he doesn't use because his beliefs were not that close to the views of modern Rome.
-TurretinFan
"pope"
"papacy"
"papal"
"pontiff"
"bishop of bishops"
"vicar"
"cardinal"
"legate"
"penance" (One might argue that the concept is there in Gregory of Nyssa the concept of penance, though not the term.)
"rosary"
"purgatory"
"holy water"
"queen of heaven"
"blessed virgin"
"transubstantiation"
"icons" (in the religious art sense - the Greek word from which "icon" comes is, of course, found in Gregory's writings in other contexts)
Sorry that there are not a lot of quotations in this section, but that's the nature of this particular topic of words Gregory of Nyssa doesn't use - words he doesn't use because his beliefs were not that close to the views of modern Rome.
-TurretinFan
Friday, July 10, 2009
Calvin on Birthdays - Don't Overdo It
Calvin wrote:
With regard to what Moses records, that Pharaoh celebrated his birthday by a great feast, we know that this custom has always been in use, not only among kings, but also among plebeian men. Nor is the custom to be condemned, if only men would keep the right end in view; namely, that of giving thanks unto God by whom they were created and brought up, and whom they have found, in innumerable ways, to be a beneficent Father. But such is the depravity of the world, that it greatly distorts those things which formerly were honestly instituted by their fathers, into contrary corruptions. Thus, by a vicious practice, it has become common for nearly all to abandon themselves to luxury and wantonness on their birthday. In short, they keep up the memory of God, as the Author of their life, in such a manner as if it were their set purpose to forget Him.- John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis 40:19
The real Francis Turretin on: Continuing vs. Abrogated Portions of Civil Law
One of the areas where I might disagree (with respect to some of the nuances) with the real Francis Turretin, is in his treatment of the Old Testament civil law. Nevertheless, as Andrew Myers has (at Virginia is for Hugenots) kindly provided a quotation from Turretin on this subject (along with other interesting related material), perhaps you'd like to see what he says: (link).
To the glory of our Most High Law-giver!
-TurretinFan
To the glory of our Most High Law-giver!
-TurretinFan
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Bellisario (by Proxy) on the Papacy - Part 2
Although I could not find any other published debates, articles, or podcasts from Mr. Bellisario specifically on the papacy, I did find one book review that is of interest. Mr. Bellisario recommends Mr. Adrian Fortescue's "The Early Papacy" as being: "full of great apologetics material for substantiating the Papacy in the early Church." One presumes that Mr. Bellisario may rely on what Mr. Fortescue has written in his presentation on the Dividing Line today.
Mr. Fortescue writes: "let us see what [the pope's] authority really is, as defined by the Catholic Church today. We shall then be able to show that it was the same in the first four and a half centuries." (pp. 34-35) Mr. Fortescue seems to recognize that the immediate objection to his claim is that the doctrine of the papacy developed. Mr. Fortescue responds thus: "Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every Dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. We come here to that question of the development of doctrine, of which much might be said." (p. 35) After briefly qualifying the kinds of development, Mr. Fortescue concludes: "But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations." (p. 35)
Mr. Fortescue, in his brief discussion, had compared the development of the papacy to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. In Mr. Fortescue's view, the decision of the Council of Nicaea "grew" the doctrine of the Trinity. In his view, the Fourth Lateran Council's use (in the 13th century) of the term "transubstantiation" and Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility (in the 19th century) are analogous developments to Nicaea. They are simply making explicit something that was already the old faith.
There is a serious problem with Mr. Fortescue's argument: the Nicaean definition can be shown historically to be simply a restatement of ancient doctrine. We can prove (from Scripture) that the Trinity was the teaching of the Apostles. The same is not the case for transubstantiation or papal infallibility. With respect to those views one is essentially left taking Rome's word for it: the historical evidence (whether Scriptural or patristic) does not substantiate Rome's claim that transubstantiation and papal infallibility were the faith of the Apostles.
Mr. Fortescue tries to make a positive case for papal infallibility being the ancient faith. He writes:
Again, Mr. Fortescue's argument is seriously flawed - in this case on at least three levels. First, it has been shown that the early church fathers did not view the bishop of Rome as having the final word in matters of discipline. In fact, to the contrary, we can demonstrate from history that this is not the case. In lieu of making this an unbearably long article, let me post a two historians (as quoted in William Webster's book, the Matthew 16 Controversy (available here):
A second weakness is that even if there is evidence of an eventual widespread jurisdiction of the papacy in the West, there is not corresponding evidence that the papacy had "the final word in matters of faith." In fact, as late as 1418, the "ecumenical" Council of Constance stated that: “legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.” According to the Council of Constance, ecumenical councils, not the pope, had the final say in matters of faith.
A third weakness is that even if there were evidence both of teachings of universal disciplinary jurisdiction (which there is not) and universal "final say" in matters of faith (which there is not), it would not follow that the early church fathers viewed the bishop of Rome as infallible in himself. In other words, one could still reject the portion of Vatican I's definition: "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." In a hypothetical world in which the bishop of Rome has "veto" authority over even ecumenical councils (contrary to what the Council of Constance said), the bishop of Rome would still not be infallible in himself, but only by the consent (as expressed by the council) of the church. He could prevent a definition from being made, but he could not make one himself, much as the American President can veto laws, but he cannot legislate.
We could go on and on, but why belabor the point? These sorts of arguments that the doctrine was "implicitly" there in the early church fathers is almost as crushing an admission as that provided by Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who, speaking of his theory of the development of the papacy, wrote:
In short, Newman has to admit that all he has is a theory, not historical documentation. A theory that he does not find contradicted by the evidence, but one that cannot be supported from the evidence (for if it could, the theory itself would not be a theory). It is a theory that "all depends on the strength of [Newman's] presumption" and more specifically the notion that there is "otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity."
Whether Fortescue's approach of seeking to find implicit teachings of the doctrine or whether Newman's approach of reading the doctrine in via external presumption is more fair, I leave to the reader's judgment. It is sufficient that both of these gentlemen are forced to admit that there is no clear teaching of such essential doctrines of Roman Catholicism as papal infallibility in the early church. Let us hope that, in his discussion on the Dividing Line today, Mr. Bellisario is as candid regarding the absence of explicit and clear patristic evidence as the scholars of his church are.
-TurretinFan
Mr. Fortescue writes: "let us see what [the pope's] authority really is, as defined by the Catholic Church today. We shall then be able to show that it was the same in the first four and a half centuries." (pp. 34-35) Mr. Fortescue seems to recognize that the immediate objection to his claim is that the doctrine of the papacy developed. Mr. Fortescue responds thus: "Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every Dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. We come here to that question of the development of doctrine, of which much might be said." (p. 35) After briefly qualifying the kinds of development, Mr. Fortescue concludes: "But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations." (p. 35)
Mr. Fortescue, in his brief discussion, had compared the development of the papacy to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. In Mr. Fortescue's view, the decision of the Council of Nicaea "grew" the doctrine of the Trinity. In his view, the Fourth Lateran Council's use (in the 13th century) of the term "transubstantiation" and Vatican I's definition of papal infallibility (in the 19th century) are analogous developments to Nicaea. They are simply making explicit something that was already the old faith.
There is a serious problem with Mr. Fortescue's argument: the Nicaean definition can be shown historically to be simply a restatement of ancient doctrine. We can prove (from Scripture) that the Trinity was the teaching of the Apostles. The same is not the case for transubstantiation or papal infallibility. With respect to those views one is essentially left taking Rome's word for it: the historical evidence (whether Scriptural or patristic) does not substantiate Rome's claim that transubstantiation and papal infallibility were the faith of the Apostles.
Mr. Fortescue tries to make a positive case for papal infallibility being the ancient faith. He writes:
A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.(p. 35)
Again, Mr. Fortescue's argument is seriously flawed - in this case on at least three levels. First, it has been shown that the early church fathers did not view the bishop of Rome as having the final word in matters of discipline. In fact, to the contrary, we can demonstrate from history that this is not the case. In lieu of making this an unbearably long article, let me post a two historians (as quoted in William Webster's book, the Matthew 16 Controversy (available here):
Rome itself never either exercised or claimed to exercise 'patriarchal' rights over the entire West. Such ‘patriarchal’ jurisdiction of Rome existed de facto over the so-called suburbicarian dioceses, which covered a relatively large territory - ten provinces - which were within the civil jurisdiction of the prefect of Rome. The power of the pope upon this territory was, in every way, comparable to the jurisdiction of the Eastern patriarchs.(John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 328)
Nicaea I, which took place during Sylvester’s episcopate, is of interest...because of canon 6. It invoked ancient customs in assigning Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis to the bishop of Alexandria, affirming the customary jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, and asserting the traditional authority of the bishop of Antioch and of the provincial metropolitans. The canon does not fix the boundaries of Roman regional power. But the expansion of the canon in Rufinus (345?–410) seems to limit Rome’s authority to the suburbicarian sees. This may reflect the actual jurisdictional situation at the end of the fourth century...Nicaea presupposes a regional leadership of Rome, but indicates nothing more. Thus one concludes that down through the Council of Nicaea, a Roman universal primacy of jurisdiction exists neither as a theoretical construction nor as de facto practice awaiting theoretical interpretation.(Paul Empie and Austin Murphy, Ed., Papal Primacy and the Universal Church (Augsburg: Minneapolis, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 72, 77)
A second weakness is that even if there is evidence of an eventual widespread jurisdiction of the papacy in the West, there is not corresponding evidence that the papacy had "the final word in matters of faith." In fact, as late as 1418, the "ecumenical" Council of Constance stated that: “legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the Catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members.” According to the Council of Constance, ecumenical councils, not the pope, had the final say in matters of faith.
A third weakness is that even if there were evidence both of teachings of universal disciplinary jurisdiction (which there is not) and universal "final say" in matters of faith (which there is not), it would not follow that the early church fathers viewed the bishop of Rome as infallible in himself. In other words, one could still reject the portion of Vatican I's definition: "such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable." In a hypothetical world in which the bishop of Rome has "veto" authority over even ecumenical councils (contrary to what the Council of Constance said), the bishop of Rome would still not be infallible in himself, but only by the consent (as expressed by the council) of the church. He could prevent a definition from being made, but he could not make one himself, much as the American President can veto laws, but he cannot legislate.
We could go on and on, but why belabor the point? These sorts of arguments that the doctrine was "implicitly" there in the early church fathers is almost as crushing an admission as that provided by Roman Catholic Cardinal John Henry Newman who, speaking of his theory of the development of the papacy, wrote:
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it.(An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, p. 154 of the London:1878 edition)
In short, Newman has to admit that all he has is a theory, not historical documentation. A theory that he does not find contradicted by the evidence, but one that cannot be supported from the evidence (for if it could, the theory itself would not be a theory). It is a theory that "all depends on the strength of [Newman's] presumption" and more specifically the notion that there is "otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity."
Whether Fortescue's approach of seeking to find implicit teachings of the doctrine or whether Newman's approach of reading the doctrine in via external presumption is more fair, I leave to the reader's judgment. It is sufficient that both of these gentlemen are forced to admit that there is no clear teaching of such essential doctrines of Roman Catholicism as papal infallibility in the early church. Let us hope that, in his discussion on the Dividing Line today, Mr. Bellisario is as candid regarding the absence of explicit and clear patristic evidence as the scholars of his church are.
-TurretinFan
Bellisario (by Proxy) on the Papacy - Part 1
Mr. Matthew Bellisario has, as far as I can tell, only a single blog post directly on issues relating to the papacy (although there are a number of contra-Lutheran and contra-contraceptive posts that mention the papacy)(link to MB's post).
Even in this instance, however, Mr. Bellisario is merely providing a quotation from another author. The author Bellisario quotes is Cornelius a'Lapide, a Flemish Jesuit Theologian/Exegete who died in 1637. Mr. a'Lapide's commentary is certainly interesting.
One interesting admission from Mr. a'Lapide is that Augustine denied that Peter is the Rock. To combat Augustine, a'Lapide appeals to a mythical Syriac/Hebrew original Gospel of Matthew and claims:
But, since Mr. Bellisario simply quotes from a theologian of his church (who in turn purports to derive his opinions from the fathers), perhaps it is an adequate rebuttal to point to a theologian of our church who has extensively studied the fathers with the benefit of a few hundred additional years of scholarship: (link to "The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18: The Most Extensive Documentation of the Patristic Understanding of the Rock of Matthew 16 in the English Language, Spanning the Third to the Eighth Centuries" by William Webster)
-TurretinFan
Even in this instance, however, Mr. Bellisario is merely providing a quotation from another author. The author Bellisario quotes is Cornelius a'Lapide, a Flemish Jesuit Theologian/Exegete who died in 1637. Mr. a'Lapide's commentary is certainly interesting.
One interesting admission from Mr. a'Lapide is that Augustine denied that Peter is the Rock. To combat Augustine, a'Lapide appeals to a mythical Syriac/Hebrew original Gospel of Matthew and claims:
To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and, therefore, thought that Petrus was something different from Petra, and that Peter was, as it were, called appellatively from it “rock-like,” although it is clear from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same.Mislead by ignorance! I wonder if Mr. Bellisario will be so bold?
But, since Mr. Bellisario simply quotes from a theologian of his church (who in turn purports to derive his opinions from the fathers), perhaps it is an adequate rebuttal to point to a theologian of our church who has extensively studied the fathers with the benefit of a few hundred additional years of scholarship: (link to "The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18: The Most Extensive Documentation of the Patristic Understanding of the Rock of Matthew 16 in the English Language, Spanning the Third to the Eighth Centuries" by William Webster)
-TurretinFan
The real Francis Turretin on: the Duty of Faith
Beng at Call it Grace has just discovered Francis Turretin and provided some good quotations from the real Francis Turretin on the duty that men have to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (link).
-TurretinFan
-TurretinFan
Gregory of Nyssa on Rome
In a first post, we examined what Gregory of Nyssa considered to be inspired (link). In a second post, we discussed Gregory's view of who was sinless: answer was Christ alone (link). In this post, we are going to examine Gregory's view of Rome, to see whether he was some kind of proto-papist, or whether he accorded Rome nothing more than pride of place or cultural/imperial preeminence. It turns out he gives it even less attention than that.
Perhaps even now it is thought something foolish, as things appear to men, when one is not able to do much from poverty, or is slighted because of meanness of extraction, not of character. But who knows whether the horn of anointing is not poured out by grace upon such an one, even though he be less than the lofty and more illustrious? Which was more to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him ? What house had he, what slaves, what property ministering luxury, by wealth constantly flowing in? But that stranger, without a table, without a roof over his head, was richer than those who have all things, because through having nothing he had God wholly. So too the people of Mesopotamia, though they had among them wealthy satraps, preferred Thomas above them all to the presidency of their Church; the Cretans preferred Titus, the dwellers at Jerusalem James, and we Cappadocians the centurion, who at the Cross acknowledged the Godhead of the Lord, though there were many at that time of splendid lineage, whose fortunes enabled them to maintain a stud, and who prided themselves upon having the first place in the Senate. And in all the Church one may see those who are great according to God's standard preferred above worldly magnificence.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Letter 13
Notice how, in this letter, Gregory does seem to think that Peter initially presided over the church at Rome (although without the regal trappings of the modern papacy). If one stopped there, one might get the sense that Gregory had similar views to modern Roman Catholics. However, one should have paid closer attention. Gregory uses the expression "church at Rome," because he viewed it as its own church, not as the head of all the churches. Likewise, he goes on to treat other regional churches as having their own respective founders: Mesopotamia has Thomas, Crete has Titus, Jerusalem has James, and Cappadocia has the Centurion who personally witnessed the crucifixion. Each church has its own "founder" in Gregory's view, and each is treated as (to some extent) a separate entity.
For by how many appellations, say, is the created firmament called according to the varieties of language? For we call it Heaven, the Hebrew calls it Samaim, the Roman cœlum, other names are given to it by the Syrian, the Mede, the Cappadocian, the African, the Scythian, the Thracian the Egyptian: nor would it be easy to enumerate the multiplicity of names which are applied to Heaven and other objects by the different nations that employ them. Which of these, then, tell me, is the appropriate word wherein the great wisdom of God is manifested? If you prefer the Greek to the rest, the Egyptian haply will confront you with his own. And if you give the first place to the Hebrew, there is the Syrian to claim precedence for his own word, nor will the Roman yield the supremacy, nor the Mede allow himself to be outdone; while of the other nations each will claim the prize. What, then, will be the fate of his dogma when torn to pieces by the claimants for so many different languages?
- Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book
This admittedly is not very close to dealing with the Roman church as such. The problem is, this is about as close as one can find to anything dealing with the Roman church. The Romans here are simply treated as yet another ethnic group with their own language and nomenclature. Latin is certainly not given any preference, and Gregory doesn't see a common tongue that serves as the lingua franca of a mythical institutionally unified church.
There are a few other uses of "Roman" in Gregory's works, typically to essentially irrelevant things like "Roman soldiers" and the like. Nothing else suggesting that Gregory viewed Rome with any special regard or as being the seat of an earthly head of the church.
-TurretinFan
Perhaps even now it is thought something foolish, as things appear to men, when one is not able to do much from poverty, or is slighted because of meanness of extraction, not of character. But who knows whether the horn of anointing is not poured out by grace upon such an one, even though he be less than the lofty and more illustrious? Which was more to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him ? What house had he, what slaves, what property ministering luxury, by wealth constantly flowing in? But that stranger, without a table, without a roof over his head, was richer than those who have all things, because through having nothing he had God wholly. So too the people of Mesopotamia, though they had among them wealthy satraps, preferred Thomas above them all to the presidency of their Church; the Cretans preferred Titus, the dwellers at Jerusalem James, and we Cappadocians the centurion, who at the Cross acknowledged the Godhead of the Lord, though there were many at that time of splendid lineage, whose fortunes enabled them to maintain a stud, and who prided themselves upon having the first place in the Senate. And in all the Church one may see those who are great according to God's standard preferred above worldly magnificence.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Letter 13
Notice how, in this letter, Gregory does seem to think that Peter initially presided over the church at Rome (although without the regal trappings of the modern papacy). If one stopped there, one might get the sense that Gregory had similar views to modern Roman Catholics. However, one should have paid closer attention. Gregory uses the expression "church at Rome," because he viewed it as its own church, not as the head of all the churches. Likewise, he goes on to treat other regional churches as having their own respective founders: Mesopotamia has Thomas, Crete has Titus, Jerusalem has James, and Cappadocia has the Centurion who personally witnessed the crucifixion. Each church has its own "founder" in Gregory's view, and each is treated as (to some extent) a separate entity.
For by how many appellations, say, is the created firmament called according to the varieties of language? For we call it Heaven, the Hebrew calls it Samaim, the Roman cœlum, other names are given to it by the Syrian, the Mede, the Cappadocian, the African, the Scythian, the Thracian the Egyptian: nor would it be easy to enumerate the multiplicity of names which are applied to Heaven and other objects by the different nations that employ them. Which of these, then, tell me, is the appropriate word wherein the great wisdom of God is manifested? If you prefer the Greek to the rest, the Egyptian haply will confront you with his own. And if you give the first place to the Hebrew, there is the Syrian to claim precedence for his own word, nor will the Roman yield the supremacy, nor the Mede allow himself to be outdone; while of the other nations each will claim the prize. What, then, will be the fate of his dogma when torn to pieces by the claimants for so many different languages?
- Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book
This admittedly is not very close to dealing with the Roman church as such. The problem is, this is about as close as one can find to anything dealing with the Roman church. The Romans here are simply treated as yet another ethnic group with their own language and nomenclature. Latin is certainly not given any preference, and Gregory doesn't see a common tongue that serves as the lingua franca of a mythical institutionally unified church.
There are a few other uses of "Roman" in Gregory's works, typically to essentially irrelevant things like "Roman soldiers" and the like. Nothing else suggesting that Gregory viewed Rome with any special regard or as being the seat of an earthly head of the church.
-TurretinFan
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Although it's just bread ...
... if you do this (link) you are just begging to be lambasted by folks who worship it. What that guy did was a bad idea, don't copy it.
Gregory of Nyssa on Sinlessness: Only Jesus Sinless
Some folks like to paint Gregory of Nyssa as though he were a Roman Catholic. Certainly, of course, there are points where his theology contains errors. His beliefs would not have squared with the Westminster Confession of Faith in every respect. So, to be clear, Gregory of Nyssa was neither a "Roman Catholic" nor a "Reformed Presbyterian." He was an early churchman, and more specifically a Cappadocian.
One area where we can see his similarity to the Reformed camp and difference from the Roman camp is on the issue of the supposed immaculate conception of Mary. Like many of the church fathers, Gregory of Nyssa had no concept of the sinlessness of Mary. The only person Gregory of Nyssa ever describes as "sinless" is Christ, and Gregory viewed Christ as unique in this regard. Let's look at his discussion of that topic.
We next learn about the return of a person who has erred and the change from evil to enjoyment of the good. He [Christ] who has been tempted in all things and is without sin [Heb 4.15] holds converse with us in our human nature. He who assumed our weakness showed us a way out of evil through the infirmities of his human nature. "Instruct me in the Wisdom [Christ] according to the Solomon who was in the flesh which held converse with us." Once familiar with it, we are able to pass judgment on what men pursue.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Second Homily
This is really just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of our Lord has been preached to all nations by His disciples, is neither of men, nor by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who being the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, and God, and Wisdom, and all else that He is by nature, for this cause above all was made in the likeness of man, and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things, yet without sin.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 1
Again, this is just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
Thus we say that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox interpretation. For He Who for our sakes became like as we are, was in the last days truly created—He Who in the beginning being Word and God afterwards became Flesh and Man. For the nature of flesh is created: and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet without sin, He was created when He became man: and He was created "after God [Ephesians 4:24]," not after man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human wont.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 10
This too is just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
Now sin is nothing else than alienation from God, Who is the true and only life. Accordingly the first man lived many hundred years after his disobedience, and yet God lied not when He said, "In the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die." For by the fact of his alienation from the true life, the sentence of death was ratified against him that self-same day: and after this, at a much later time, there followed also the bodily death of Adam. He therefore Who came for this cause that He might seek and save that which was lost, (that which the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep,) both finds that which is lost, and carries home on His shoulders the whole sheep, not its skin only, that He may make the man of God complete, united to the deity in body and in soul. And thus He Who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, left no part of our nature which He did not take upon Himself. Now the soul is not sin though it is capable of admitting sin into it as the result of being ill-advised: and this He sanctifies by union with Himself for this end, that so the lump may be holy along with the first-fruits.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 13
Here Christ's sinlessness is used to uniquely identify him. Although Gregory does not explicitly say that there is only one such person, he uses the expression as though it were a particular identifier.
Now if, in becoming Son of Man, he were without participation in human nature, it would be logical to say that neither does He share in the Divine essence, though He is Son of God. But if the whole compound nature of man was in Him (for He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" [Hebrews 4:15]), it is surely necessary to believe that every property of the transcendent essence is also in Him, as the Word "Son" claims for Him both alike— the Human in the man, but in the God the Divine.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book III, Chapter 4
This is just another quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
For he everywhere attributes to the Human element in Christ the dispensation of the Passion, when he says, "for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead [1 Corinthians 15:21]," and, "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh " (for he says, "in the flesh," not "in the Godhead"); and "He was crucified through weakness" (where by "weakness" he means "the flesh"), "yet lives by power [2 Corinthians 13:4]" (while he indicates by "power" the Divine Nature); and, "He died unto sin" (that is, with regard to the body), "but lives unto God [Romans 6:10]" (that is, with regard to the Godhead, so that by these words it is established that, while the Man tasted death, the immortal Nature did not admit the suffering of death); and again; "He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin 2 Corinthians 5:21," giving once more the name of "sin" to the flesh.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book VI, Chapter 1
This passage is interesting in the debate on the atonement with modern Roman Catholics, but as to the issue of Christ's sinlessness, it is simply a quotation of one of the Scriptural affirmations of that fact.
For we give the name of "passion" only to that which is opposed to the virtuous unimpassioned state and of this we believe that He Who granted us salvation was at all times devoid, Who "was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin [Hebrews 4:15]." Of that, at least, which is truly passion, which is a diseased condition of the will, He was not a partaker; for it says "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth [1 Peter 2:22]"; but the peculiar attributes of our nature, which, by a kind of customary abuse of terms, are called by the same name of "passion,"— of these, we confess, the Lord did partake,— of birth, nourishment, growth, of sleep and toil, and all those natural dispositions which the soul is wont to experience with regard to bodily inconveniences,— the desire of that which is lacking, when the longing passes from the body to the soul, the sense of pain, the dread of death, and all the like, save only such as, if followed, lead to sin.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book VI, Chapter 3
Here Gregory emphasizes Christ's sinlessness with reference to several relevant passages.
Since, then, this was the sum of our calamity, that humanity was exiled from the good Father, and was banished from the Divine oversight and care, for this cause He Who is the Shepherd of the whole rational creation, left in the heights of heaven His unsinning and supramundane flock, and, moved by love, went after the sheep which had gone astray, even our human nature. For human nature, which alone, according to the similitude in the parable, through vice roamed away from the hundred of rational beings, is, if it be compared with the whole, but an insignificant and infinitesimal part. Since then it was impossible that our life, which had been estranged from God, should of itself return to the high and heavenly place, for this cause, as says the Apostle, He Who knew no sin is made sin for us, and frees us from the curse by taking on Him our curse as His own, and having taken up, and, in the language of the Apostle, "slain" in Himself "the enmity" which by means of sin had come between us and God—(in fact sin was "the enmity")— and having become what we were, He through Himself again united humanity to God.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book XII, Chapter 1
This is another passage that is very interesting with respect to the atonement. It also tangentially touches on the theological point that a reason that Christ was a suitable mediator was his sinlessness. But again, as to our particular topic, Gregory is simply reiterating the Scriptural position that Christ had no sin.
"But I do not see," he rejoins, "how God can be above His own works simply by virtue of such things as do not belong to Him." And on the strength of this clever sally he calls it a union of folly and profanity, that our great Basil has ventured on such terms. But I would counsel him not to indulge his ribaldry too freely against those who use these terms, lest he should be unconsciously at the same moment heaping insults on himself. For I think that he himself would not gainsay that the very grandeur of the Divine Nature is recognized in this, viz. in the absence of all participation in those things which the lower natures are shown to possess. For if God were involved in any of these peculiarities, He would not possess His superiority, but would be quite identified with any single individual among the beings who share that peculiarity. But if He is above such things, by reason, in fact, of His not possessing them, then He stands also above those who do possess them; just as we say that the Sinless is superior to those in sin. The fact of being removed from evil is an evidence of abounding in the best. But let him heap these insults on us to his heart's content. We will only remark, in passing, on a single one of the points mentioned under this head, and will then return to the discussion of the main question.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book
Here Gregory identifies "Sinless" and God, and uses "the Sinless" as a unique designator, even more clearly than in the previous instance above.
He became the image of the invisible God out of love so that in his own form which he assumed, you might be conformed through him to the stamp of archetypal beauty for becoming what he was from the beginning. If we are to become the invisible God's image, we must model the form of our life upon the pattern given us (Jn 13.15). What is this model? He who lives in the flesh does not live according to it (Rom 8.12). That prototype is the image of the invisible God; having become man through the Virgin, he was tempted in all things according to the likeness of human nature yet did not experience sin. "He committed no sin, neither was any guile found in his mouth" (1Pt 2.22).
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is a restatement and emphasis on the Scriptural teaching that Christ was and is sinless.
If we have become brothers of the Lord who became the First-Born among many brothers through a similar rebirth by water and the Spirit, certain characteristics in our lives should manifest a close relationship to him, the First-Born of creation, who was conformed to our life. What characteristics of that form has scripture taught us? We have often said that "He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth" (1Pt 2.22). If we are to be named brothers of him who brought us into birth, innocence of life will constitute our relationship with him provided that no impurity separates us from a union in innocence.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is yet another quotation of the Scriptural doctrine that Christ was sinless.
However, the mediator of God and man (1Tim 2.5) who joined the human race to God through his own person brings into union with God only that person who is worthy of it. When Christ united man to himself by the power of his divinity, he assumed part of our common nature not subject to nature's passions which excite us to sin (for it says "He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth"). Christ will unite each person with his divinity provided that they have no hindrance preventing their union with God.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is another restatement and emphasis on the Scriptural teaching that Christ was and is sinless.
Only the Lord is free from the adversary's possessions; he conformed himself to us and our passions yet had no sin [Heb 4.15]. "The prince of this world is coming and he has no power over me" [Jn 14.30]. Anyone who takes care to cleanse himself by repentance can observe persons who allow virtue to shine through. Paul despised the evil of unbelief by accepting the gift of prophecy [Gal 2.8-9] since it had the treasure he sought. Isaiah lost all impurity of word and thought through purification by the divine coal [Is 6.6-7] and was filled by the Holy Spirit. He lost every bit by participating in the good or anything he reckoned contrary to it. And so, the temperate man loses licentiousness, the righteous loses unrighteousness, the modest person loses arrogance, the benevolent loses jealousy and the loving person loses hostility. Similarly, the blind man in the Gospel found what he did not have and lost what he already had [Mk 8.22-26], that is, the splendor of light took the place of his blindness. Also the leper received the boon of health [Mt 8.1-4], and life was bestowed upon those who rose from the dead while death passed away [Mk 1.40-45]. Therefore our teaching claims that we cannot possess anything on high unless we lose our earthly, humble qualities.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Seventh Homily
This final quotation puts the nail in the coffin. If we did not have this quotation, we would have only indirect affirmations of the unique sinlessness of Christ, but this quotation makes it explicit: "Only the Lord."
What about Mary? Did Gregory of Nyssa view her as sinless and somehow absentmindedly forget about her above? There is nothing in his teachings to suggest that. He does use the adjective "immaculate" of her, but only (as was traditionally the case) with respect to her body: she was an immaculate virgin, not simply a technical virgin or something like that.
Let us attempt to clarify our position and offer our own view. Human nature subsists by union of the intellectual soul with the body. However, both have their existence from a certain material substance. Man's material existence has its origin in the divine power; if anyone supposes his existence does not spring from this creative power, matter is sterile and does not come to life through [God's] creative activity. Just as this creative power brings man into existence by a union of body and soul, so does the power of the Most High exercise itself with regard to the Virgin's immaculate body in an immaterial fashion through the Spirit's vivifying where incorruptibility assumes matter in the virgin's body to create a fetus. And so, the New Man is formed who first and alone received this means of existence. He was formed according to God, not man, since the divine power equally pervaded his entire constitution. As a result, both parts of his constitution partook of divinity with a harmonious composition of soul and body.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius
Notice that it is the virgin's immaculate body. The immaculateness of her body relates to the fact that no man had lain with her before the conception. Thus, Christ's conception was the opposite, in a sense, of our own glorification:
1 Corinthians 15:53-54
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Furthermore, from the same passage of Gregory, we can see that he viewed Christ's immaculate conception to be unique: "the New Man is formed who first and alone received this means of existence." Now, of course, that is primarily referring to having God as a father instead of a human father, but the whole event is unique and unparalleled.
I believe that [Christ] is both man and God, a statement complying with faith's correct interpretation and not with [Apollinarius'] inscription. For neither is the divinity earthly nor is humanity divine as he maintains; rather, the power of the Most High comes from above through the Holy Spirit [Lk 1.35] which overshadowed our human nature, that is, this power took on form, the spotless Virgin nourished it in human flesh, and he who was born from her was named Son of the Most High. The divine power which has its origin with the Most High thus assumed fellowship with mankind.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius
Again, notice that the "spotless" aspect of the Virgin is in regard to her flesh. She was a spotless Virgin, not having even marred her virginity by intercourse with Joseph during Jesus' pregnancy.
This, I think, was the reason why our Master, Jesus Christ Himself, the Fountain of all innocence, did not come into the world by wedlock. It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fullness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 2
Likewise here, the "stainless" aspect of Mary is her virginity. Of course, there is some ambiguity. If someone wanted to try to impose a view of Mary being sinless, this is doubtless where they would attempt to do so, since there is some parallel between Mary and "every soul." But, in context, it is referring to the fact that Mary was "estranged ... from the passions of the flesh," meaning that she did not know Joseph before Jesus was born.
I searched in vain for additional references to Mary being "immaculate" in any sense in Gregory's writings. No further references were forthcoming. Nevertheless, some additional uses of that term (or terms like it) were to be found in Gregory's writings:
Such is the God of heresy. But what we, who, in the words of the Apostle, have been called to liberty by Christ, Who has freed us from bondage, have been taught by the Scriptures to think, I will set forth in few words. I take my start from the inspired teaching, and boldly declare that the Divine Word does not wish even us to be slaves, our nature having now been changed for the better, and that He Who has taken all that was ours, on the terms of giving to us in return what is His, even as He took disease, death, curse, and sin, so took our slavery also, not in such a way as Himself to have what He took, but so as to purge our nature of such evils, our defects being swallowed up and done away with in His stainless nature.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book X, Chapter 4
The nature of Christ is stainless according to Gregory - no similar comment is ever made (that we can find) by Gregory of Mary.
For our Lord has announced that the life after our resurrection shall be as that of the angels. Now the peculiarity of the angelic nature is that they are strangers to marriage; therefore the blessing of this promise has been already received by him who has not only mingled his own glory with the halo of the Saints, but also by the stainlessness of his life has so imitated the purity of these incorporeal beings.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 13
In this example, the "stainlessness" that Gregory seems to have in mind is Christ's own virginity, although it could perhaps refer to Christ's sinlessness.
Indeed it has been revealed in the oracles of God, on what occasion to conceive and to bring forth is a good thing, and what species of fecundity was desired by God's saints; for both the Prophet Isaiah and the divine Apostle have made this clear and certain. The one cries, "From fear of You, O Lord, have I conceived;" the other boasts that he is the parent of the largest family of any, bringing to the birth whole cities and nations; not the Corinthians and Galatians only whom by his travailings he moulded for the Lord, but all in the wide circuit from Jerusalem to Illyricum; his children filled the world, "begotten" by him in Christ through the Gospel. In the same strain the womb of the Holy Virgin, which ministered to an Immaculate Birth, is pronounced blessed in the Gospel; for that birth did not annul the Virginity, nor did the Virginity impede so great a birth.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 19
Here we find further confirmation of the same principle. This is the only "immaculate birth" of which Gregory is aware (the only one that appears in his writings that we can find). It is the immaculate birth of Christ. Now, to be sure, there is some doctrine in Gregory's comments here that sounds more like a Gnostic or Roman Catholic view (especially the idea that "birth did not annul the Virginity, nor did the Virginity impede so great a birth"). But we can just accept the fact that Gregory was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Reformed Presbyterian. Like any Christian, his teachings were imperfect, but we must take him as he was, not try to change him into something he was not as our Romanist adversaries sometimes try.
-TurretinFan
One area where we can see his similarity to the Reformed camp and difference from the Roman camp is on the issue of the supposed immaculate conception of Mary. Like many of the church fathers, Gregory of Nyssa had no concept of the sinlessness of Mary. The only person Gregory of Nyssa ever describes as "sinless" is Christ, and Gregory viewed Christ as unique in this regard. Let's look at his discussion of that topic.
We next learn about the return of a person who has erred and the change from evil to enjoyment of the good. He [Christ] who has been tempted in all things and is without sin [Heb 4.15] holds converse with us in our human nature. He who assumed our weakness showed us a way out of evil through the infirmities of his human nature. "Instruct me in the Wisdom [Christ] according to the Solomon who was in the flesh which held converse with us." Once familiar with it, we are able to pass judgment on what men pursue.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentaries on Ecclesiastes, Second Homily
This is really just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
The Christian Faith, which in accordance with the command of our Lord has been preached to all nations by His disciples, is neither of men, nor by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, Who being the Word, the Life, the Light, the Truth, and God, and Wisdom, and all else that He is by nature, for this cause above all was made in the likeness of man, and shared our nature, becoming like us in all things, yet without sin.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 1
Again, this is just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
Thus we say that this expression, as well as the other, admits of an orthodox interpretation. For He Who for our sakes became like as we are, was in the last days truly created—He Who in the beginning being Word and God afterwards became Flesh and Man. For the nature of flesh is created: and by partaking in it in all points like as we do, yet without sin, He was created when He became man: and He was created "after God [Ephesians 4:24]," not after man, as the Apostle says, in a new manner and not according to human wont.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 10
This too is just a quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
Now sin is nothing else than alienation from God, Who is the true and only life. Accordingly the first man lived many hundred years after his disobedience, and yet God lied not when He said, "In the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die." For by the fact of his alienation from the true life, the sentence of death was ratified against him that self-same day: and after this, at a much later time, there followed also the bodily death of Adam. He therefore Who came for this cause that He might seek and save that which was lost, (that which the shepherd in the parable calls the sheep,) both finds that which is lost, and carries home on His shoulders the whole sheep, not its skin only, that He may make the man of God complete, united to the deity in body and in soul. And thus He Who was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin, left no part of our nature which He did not take upon Himself. Now the soul is not sin though it is capable of admitting sin into it as the result of being ill-advised: and this He sanctifies by union with Himself for this end, that so the lump may be holy along with the first-fruits.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book II, Chapter 13
Here Christ's sinlessness is used to uniquely identify him. Although Gregory does not explicitly say that there is only one such person, he uses the expression as though it were a particular identifier.
Now if, in becoming Son of Man, he were without participation in human nature, it would be logical to say that neither does He share in the Divine essence, though He is Son of God. But if the whole compound nature of man was in Him (for He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" [Hebrews 4:15]), it is surely necessary to believe that every property of the transcendent essence is also in Him, as the Word "Son" claims for Him both alike— the Human in the man, but in the God the Divine.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book III, Chapter 4
This is just another quotation of the Biblical declaration of Christ's sinlessness.
For he everywhere attributes to the Human element in Christ the dispensation of the Passion, when he says, "for since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead [1 Corinthians 15:21]," and, "God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh " (for he says, "in the flesh," not "in the Godhead"); and "He was crucified through weakness" (where by "weakness" he means "the flesh"), "yet lives by power [2 Corinthians 13:4]" (while he indicates by "power" the Divine Nature); and, "He died unto sin" (that is, with regard to the body), "but lives unto God [Romans 6:10]" (that is, with regard to the Godhead, so that by these words it is established that, while the Man tasted death, the immortal Nature did not admit the suffering of death); and again; "He made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin 2 Corinthians 5:21," giving once more the name of "sin" to the flesh.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book VI, Chapter 1
This passage is interesting in the debate on the atonement with modern Roman Catholics, but as to the issue of Christ's sinlessness, it is simply a quotation of one of the Scriptural affirmations of that fact.
For we give the name of "passion" only to that which is opposed to the virtuous unimpassioned state and of this we believe that He Who granted us salvation was at all times devoid, Who "was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin [Hebrews 4:15]." Of that, at least, which is truly passion, which is a diseased condition of the will, He was not a partaker; for it says "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth [1 Peter 2:22]"; but the peculiar attributes of our nature, which, by a kind of customary abuse of terms, are called by the same name of "passion,"— of these, we confess, the Lord did partake,— of birth, nourishment, growth, of sleep and toil, and all those natural dispositions which the soul is wont to experience with regard to bodily inconveniences,— the desire of that which is lacking, when the longing passes from the body to the soul, the sense of pain, the dread of death, and all the like, save only such as, if followed, lead to sin.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book VI, Chapter 3
Here Gregory emphasizes Christ's sinlessness with reference to several relevant passages.
Since, then, this was the sum of our calamity, that humanity was exiled from the good Father, and was banished from the Divine oversight and care, for this cause He Who is the Shepherd of the whole rational creation, left in the heights of heaven His unsinning and supramundane flock, and, moved by love, went after the sheep which had gone astray, even our human nature. For human nature, which alone, according to the similitude in the parable, through vice roamed away from the hundred of rational beings, is, if it be compared with the whole, but an insignificant and infinitesimal part. Since then it was impossible that our life, which had been estranged from God, should of itself return to the high and heavenly place, for this cause, as says the Apostle, He Who knew no sin is made sin for us, and frees us from the curse by taking on Him our curse as His own, and having taken up, and, in the language of the Apostle, "slain" in Himself "the enmity" which by means of sin had come between us and God—(in fact sin was "the enmity")— and having become what we were, He through Himself again united humanity to God.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book XII, Chapter 1
This is another passage that is very interesting with respect to the atonement. It also tangentially touches on the theological point that a reason that Christ was a suitable mediator was his sinlessness. But again, as to our particular topic, Gregory is simply reiterating the Scriptural position that Christ had no sin.
"But I do not see," he rejoins, "how God can be above His own works simply by virtue of such things as do not belong to Him." And on the strength of this clever sally he calls it a union of folly and profanity, that our great Basil has ventured on such terms. But I would counsel him not to indulge his ribaldry too freely against those who use these terms, lest he should be unconsciously at the same moment heaping insults on himself. For I think that he himself would not gainsay that the very grandeur of the Divine Nature is recognized in this, viz. in the absence of all participation in those things which the lower natures are shown to possess. For if God were involved in any of these peculiarities, He would not possess His superiority, but would be quite identified with any single individual among the beings who share that peculiarity. But if He is above such things, by reason, in fact, of His not possessing them, then He stands also above those who do possess them; just as we say that the Sinless is superior to those in sin. The fact of being removed from evil is an evidence of abounding in the best. But let him heap these insults on us to his heart's content. We will only remark, in passing, on a single one of the points mentioned under this head, and will then return to the discussion of the main question.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius' Second Book
Here Gregory identifies "Sinless" and God, and uses "the Sinless" as a unique designator, even more clearly than in the previous instance above.
He became the image of the invisible God out of love so that in his own form which he assumed, you might be conformed through him to the stamp of archetypal beauty for becoming what he was from the beginning. If we are to become the invisible God's image, we must model the form of our life upon the pattern given us (Jn 13.15). What is this model? He who lives in the flesh does not live according to it (Rom 8.12). That prototype is the image of the invisible God; having become man through the Virgin, he was tempted in all things according to the likeness of human nature yet did not experience sin. "He committed no sin, neither was any guile found in his mouth" (1Pt 2.22).
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is a restatement and emphasis on the Scriptural teaching that Christ was and is sinless.
If we have become brothers of the Lord who became the First-Born among many brothers through a similar rebirth by water and the Spirit, certain characteristics in our lives should manifest a close relationship to him, the First-Born of creation, who was conformed to our life. What characteristics of that form has scripture taught us? We have often said that "He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth" (1Pt 2.22). If we are to be named brothers of him who brought us into birth, innocence of life will constitute our relationship with him provided that no impurity separates us from a union in innocence.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is yet another quotation of the Scriptural doctrine that Christ was sinless.
However, the mediator of God and man (1Tim 2.5) who joined the human race to God through his own person brings into union with God only that person who is worthy of it. When Christ united man to himself by the power of his divinity, he assumed part of our common nature not subject to nature's passions which excite us to sin (for it says "He committed no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth"). Christ will unite each person with his divinity provided that they have no hindrance preventing their union with God.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Perfection
This is another restatement and emphasis on the Scriptural teaching that Christ was and is sinless.
Only the Lord is free from the adversary's possessions; he conformed himself to us and our passions yet had no sin [Heb 4.15]. "The prince of this world is coming and he has no power over me" [Jn 14.30]. Anyone who takes care to cleanse himself by repentance can observe persons who allow virtue to shine through. Paul despised the evil of unbelief by accepting the gift of prophecy [Gal 2.8-9] since it had the treasure he sought. Isaiah lost all impurity of word and thought through purification by the divine coal [Is 6.6-7] and was filled by the Holy Spirit. He lost every bit by participating in the good or anything he reckoned contrary to it. And so, the temperate man loses licentiousness, the righteous loses unrighteousness, the modest person loses arrogance, the benevolent loses jealousy and the loving person loses hostility. Similarly, the blind man in the Gospel found what he did not have and lost what he already had [Mk 8.22-26], that is, the splendor of light took the place of his blindness. Also the leper received the boon of health [Mt 8.1-4], and life was bestowed upon those who rose from the dead while death passed away [Mk 1.40-45]. Therefore our teaching claims that we cannot possess anything on high unless we lose our earthly, humble qualities.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Seventh Homily
This final quotation puts the nail in the coffin. If we did not have this quotation, we would have only indirect affirmations of the unique sinlessness of Christ, but this quotation makes it explicit: "Only the Lord."
What about Mary? Did Gregory of Nyssa view her as sinless and somehow absentmindedly forget about her above? There is nothing in his teachings to suggest that. He does use the adjective "immaculate" of her, but only (as was traditionally the case) with respect to her body: she was an immaculate virgin, not simply a technical virgin or something like that.
Let us attempt to clarify our position and offer our own view. Human nature subsists by union of the intellectual soul with the body. However, both have their existence from a certain material substance. Man's material existence has its origin in the divine power; if anyone supposes his existence does not spring from this creative power, matter is sterile and does not come to life through [God's] creative activity. Just as this creative power brings man into existence by a union of body and soul, so does the power of the Most High exercise itself with regard to the Virgin's immaculate body in an immaterial fashion through the Spirit's vivifying where incorruptibility assumes matter in the virgin's body to create a fetus. And so, the New Man is formed who first and alone received this means of existence. He was formed according to God, not man, since the divine power equally pervaded his entire constitution. As a result, both parts of his constitution partook of divinity with a harmonious composition of soul and body.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius
Notice that it is the virgin's immaculate body. The immaculateness of her body relates to the fact that no man had lain with her before the conception. Thus, Christ's conception was the opposite, in a sense, of our own glorification:
1 Corinthians 15:53-54
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Furthermore, from the same passage of Gregory, we can see that he viewed Christ's immaculate conception to be unique: "the New Man is formed who first and alone received this means of existence." Now, of course, that is primarily referring to having God as a father instead of a human father, but the whole event is unique and unparalleled.
I believe that [Christ] is both man and God, a statement complying with faith's correct interpretation and not with [Apollinarius'] inscription. For neither is the divinity earthly nor is humanity divine as he maintains; rather, the power of the Most High comes from above through the Holy Spirit [Lk 1.35] which overshadowed our human nature, that is, this power took on form, the spotless Virgin nourished it in human flesh, and he who was born from her was named Son of the Most High. The divine power which has its origin with the Most High thus assumed fellowship with mankind.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Apollinarius
Again, notice that the "spotless" aspect of the Virgin is in regard to her flesh. She was a spotless Virgin, not having even marred her virginity by intercourse with Joseph during Jesus' pregnancy.
This, I think, was the reason why our Master, Jesus Christ Himself, the Fountain of all innocence, did not come into the world by wedlock. It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fullness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 2
Likewise here, the "stainless" aspect of Mary is her virginity. Of course, there is some ambiguity. If someone wanted to try to impose a view of Mary being sinless, this is doubtless where they would attempt to do so, since there is some parallel between Mary and "every soul." But, in context, it is referring to the fact that Mary was "estranged ... from the passions of the flesh," meaning that she did not know Joseph before Jesus was born.
I searched in vain for additional references to Mary being "immaculate" in any sense in Gregory's writings. No further references were forthcoming. Nevertheless, some additional uses of that term (or terms like it) were to be found in Gregory's writings:
Such is the God of heresy. But what we, who, in the words of the Apostle, have been called to liberty by Christ, Who has freed us from bondage, have been taught by the Scriptures to think, I will set forth in few words. I take my start from the inspired teaching, and boldly declare that the Divine Word does not wish even us to be slaves, our nature having now been changed for the better, and that He Who has taken all that was ours, on the terms of giving to us in return what is His, even as He took disease, death, curse, and sin, so took our slavery also, not in such a way as Himself to have what He took, but so as to purge our nature of such evils, our defects being swallowed up and done away with in His stainless nature.
- Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, Book X, Chapter 4
The nature of Christ is stainless according to Gregory - no similar comment is ever made (that we can find) by Gregory of Mary.
For our Lord has announced that the life after our resurrection shall be as that of the angels. Now the peculiarity of the angelic nature is that they are strangers to marriage; therefore the blessing of this promise has been already received by him who has not only mingled his own glory with the halo of the Saints, but also by the stainlessness of his life has so imitated the purity of these incorporeal beings.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 13
In this example, the "stainlessness" that Gregory seems to have in mind is Christ's own virginity, although it could perhaps refer to Christ's sinlessness.
Indeed it has been revealed in the oracles of God, on what occasion to conceive and to bring forth is a good thing, and what species of fecundity was desired by God's saints; for both the Prophet Isaiah and the divine Apostle have made this clear and certain. The one cries, "From fear of You, O Lord, have I conceived;" the other boasts that he is the parent of the largest family of any, bringing to the birth whole cities and nations; not the Corinthians and Galatians only whom by his travailings he moulded for the Lord, but all in the wide circuit from Jerusalem to Illyricum; his children filled the world, "begotten" by him in Christ through the Gospel. In the same strain the womb of the Holy Virgin, which ministered to an Immaculate Birth, is pronounced blessed in the Gospel; for that birth did not annul the Virginity, nor did the Virginity impede so great a birth.
- Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, Chapter 19
Here we find further confirmation of the same principle. This is the only "immaculate birth" of which Gregory is aware (the only one that appears in his writings that we can find). It is the immaculate birth of Christ. Now, to be sure, there is some doctrine in Gregory's comments here that sounds more like a Gnostic or Roman Catholic view (especially the idea that "birth did not annul the Virginity, nor did the Virginity impede so great a birth"). But we can just accept the fact that Gregory was neither a Roman Catholic nor a Reformed Presbyterian. Like any Christian, his teachings were imperfect, but we must take him as he was, not try to change him into something he was not as our Romanist adversaries sometimes try.
-TurretinFan
Response from James Anderson
I am pleased to report that Mr. Anderson has replied (here) to my previous post (here) regarding irresolvable paradoxes.
Mr. Anderson indicates that he does not accept the following:
(P1) The situation that both proposition P is true and P is false (at the same time and in the same way) is a possible situation for any given P.
This is, at least to my mind, some progress in our discussion. I view P1 as being representative of a general acceptance of paradoxes.
I do recall that Mr. Manata had characterized Mr. Anderson's position thus: "James Anderson sets out to show that certain doctrines of the Christian faith are paradoxical, but may be reasonably believed in spite of this feature (if not because of it). Anderson also argues that these doctrines are not actually contradictory, but merely apparent." (source - emphasis omitted)
I don't have a problem with merely apparent contradictions. I have a problem with actual contradictions. Given that Mr. Anderson does not appear to subscribe to what I have called the "general acceptance" view of paradoxes, I wonder whether Mr. Anderson would even subscribe to "special acceptance" view?
The special acceptance view would be (continuing the numbering from my previous article:
(P5) The situation that both proposition P is true and P is false (at the same time and in the same way) is a possible situation for a given proposition P iff further condition FC is met.
P5 is not liable to the same critique as P1 if (for P5) FC is met. However, I'm not aware of any good reasons to accept P5. However, again, I'm not sure that Mr. Anderson accepts P5. In fact, Mr. Manata characterized Mr. Anderson's position as: "If real contradictions could be true, then the desire to preserve orthodox interpretations is gone. Indeed, one could no longer object to heterodox statements." Assumed, of course, is that the desires to preserve orthodoxy is not gone. I should point out that I do fully agree with Mr. Anderson in this regard.
This makes me think that Mr. Anderson also would not accept P5. I hope he'll stop by and confirm that he does not accept P5.
In fact, I think part of the issue is that I am using "paradox" in a rather stronger form from Mr. Anderson. Mr. Manata claimed that Mr. Anderson defines paradox with the following:
"X is paradoxical [iff] X amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent."
But, of course, I have no problem with apparent logical inconsistencies, so long as they are merely apparent contradictions (MACs). My problem is when apparent logical inconsistencies are also actual logical inconsistencies. Mr. Anderson's definition is broad enough to include actual and apparent inconsistencies (AACs), which is all that my narrower definition includes. My definition excludes merely apparent contradictions, while his includes them.
Now, I notice that Mr. Anderson's definition could be made to be completely separate in domain from mine if he were to add the word "only" before "appear." In other words, with that additional qualifier Mr. Anderson's definition would no longer include AACs, whereas mine would consist solely of AACs.
(There is a further category we could add to the discussion: non-apparent actual contradictions (NACs). This category isn't especially useful to our discussion, although it serves to remind us that there may be undiscovered contradictions.)
Furthermore, some of Mr. Manata's comments in his review of Mr. Anderson's work appear to reflect an understanding that the "only" that is missing from Mr. Anderson's definition should be implied. Mr. Manata writes:
As a strictly logical matter, the definition quoted above does not presuppose that a meaningful distinction can be made between apparent and real contradictions. It evades that issue, since real contradictions often are also apparent (though sometimes they are secret).
Anyhow, rather than continue to speculate, I'd just pose the question to Mr. Anderson who (I hope) has not given up on reading my comments here.
Is P5 your position?
Did you mean to imply "only" in the definition of paradox that you provided?
-TurretinFan
Mr. Anderson indicates that he does not accept the following:
(P1) The situation that both proposition P is true and P is false (at the same time and in the same way) is a possible situation for any given P.
This is, at least to my mind, some progress in our discussion. I view P1 as being representative of a general acceptance of paradoxes.
I do recall that Mr. Manata had characterized Mr. Anderson's position thus: "James Anderson sets out to show that certain doctrines of the Christian faith are paradoxical, but may be reasonably believed in spite of this feature (if not because of it). Anderson also argues that these doctrines are not actually contradictory, but merely apparent." (source - emphasis omitted)
I don't have a problem with merely apparent contradictions. I have a problem with actual contradictions. Given that Mr. Anderson does not appear to subscribe to what I have called the "general acceptance" view of paradoxes, I wonder whether Mr. Anderson would even subscribe to "special acceptance" view?
The special acceptance view would be (continuing the numbering from my previous article:
(P5) The situation that both proposition P is true and P is false (at the same time and in the same way) is a possible situation for a given proposition P iff further condition FC is met.
P5 is not liable to the same critique as P1 if (for P5) FC is met. However, I'm not aware of any good reasons to accept P5. However, again, I'm not sure that Mr. Anderson accepts P5. In fact, Mr. Manata characterized Mr. Anderson's position as: "If real contradictions could be true, then the desire to preserve orthodox interpretations is gone. Indeed, one could no longer object to heterodox statements." Assumed, of course, is that the desires to preserve orthodoxy is not gone. I should point out that I do fully agree with Mr. Anderson in this regard.
This makes me think that Mr. Anderson also would not accept P5. I hope he'll stop by and confirm that he does not accept P5.
In fact, I think part of the issue is that I am using "paradox" in a rather stronger form from Mr. Anderson. Mr. Manata claimed that Mr. Anderson defines paradox with the following:
"X is paradoxical [iff] X amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent."
But, of course, I have no problem with apparent logical inconsistencies, so long as they are merely apparent contradictions (MACs). My problem is when apparent logical inconsistencies are also actual logical inconsistencies. Mr. Anderson's definition is broad enough to include actual and apparent inconsistencies (AACs), which is all that my narrower definition includes. My definition excludes merely apparent contradictions, while his includes them.
Now, I notice that Mr. Anderson's definition could be made to be completely separate in domain from mine if he were to add the word "only" before "appear." In other words, with that additional qualifier Mr. Anderson's definition would no longer include AACs, whereas mine would consist solely of AACs.
(There is a further category we could add to the discussion: non-apparent actual contradictions (NACs). This category isn't especially useful to our discussion, although it serves to remind us that there may be undiscovered contradictions.)
Furthermore, some of Mr. Manata's comments in his review of Mr. Anderson's work appear to reflect an understanding that the "only" that is missing from Mr. Anderson's definition should be implied. Mr. Manata writes:
Note well the qualifier ‘apparent.’ Thus, a paradox does not entail a logical inconsistency per se, just the appearance of logical inconsistency. This definition “presupposes that a meaningful distinction can be made between apparent and real contradiction.”(internal quotation apparently from Mr. Anderson)
As a strictly logical matter, the definition quoted above does not presuppose that a meaningful distinction can be made between apparent and real contradictions. It evades that issue, since real contradictions often are also apparent (though sometimes they are secret).
Anyhow, rather than continue to speculate, I'd just pose the question to Mr. Anderson who (I hope) has not given up on reading my comments here.
Is P5 your position?
Did you mean to imply "only" in the definition of paradox that you provided?
-TurretinFan
The real Francis Turretin on: the Hypostatic Union
Henry Bartsch at the Like a Bell blog, has provided an interesting post on the hypostatic union. His focus is on Calvin's Institutes but he provides an interesting quotation on the subject from that leading Calvinist theologian, the real Francis Turretin (link).
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Enjoy!
-TurretinFan
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Biblical Model of Family Should be Avoided??
I came across this conclusion to a post seemingly against the Biblical mandate of patriarchy for family government:
I realize that there are many feminists (of both sexes) out there, but it is absolutely ridiculous to the point of absurdity to suggest that Christians should seek to rebel against God's mandate of patriarchy. The article that concludes with the comment above shows a lack of sense so profound that, at first, I figured that the author must be joking.
The article is wrong on so many levels it is tough to summarize them.
1) Patriarchy is Not the Result of the Fall
Yes, the specific statement that Adam would rule over Eve was given upon the fall, but Eve was created under Adam's headship: a help meet for him, from his rib. It was in Adam's sin that mankind fell (not in Adam's and Eve's sin).
2) Human Government Necessary Because of Fall
However, further, human government is necessary because of sin. If men were angels, we would not need a government. This is true in all spheres of authority: it is necessary for children to have parents, for wives to have husbands, for servants to have masters, for citizens to have kings, and for the church to have elders.
3) The Powers that be are Ordained by God
This, again, is true in all spheres of authority. Parents are ordained over their children - husbands over their wives - masters over their servants - kings over their subjects - and the elders over the church.
Mr. Wade Burleson's idea of trying to undermine the headship of husbands on the grounds of his misconception that this headship is the result of the fall is tragic and at the same time outlandish. Until the modern times, virtually every society on Earth has remained aware of the propriety of husbands ruling over their wives - the mythical race of the Amazons has to be discovered. That men are to be the rulers over their wives is something so clear that one might think Scriptural revelation unnecessary, because the general revelation in the light of nature is so clear. But sadly, its opponents are unafraid to publish their criticism of it.
Remember this, however: the Husband/Wife motif is one of the illustration of Christ's role to us, believers. To the extent that you seek to undermine the husband's headship role, you are (at least implicitly) undermining its analogy. If you think it bad for the husband to rule over the wife, you are questioning the model of Christ's headship over the church. I doubt many of these egalitarian Christians would actually seek to dethrone Jesus from his rightful headship, but they do not realize that their opposition to Biblical patriarchy accomplishes that end, not only be opposing the explicit teaching of Scripture, but by demolishing the image of our relationship to our Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ.
-TurretinFan
Patriarchy is the result of man's sinful desire to control and dominate and should be, by God's grace, avoided at all costs.(link)
I realize that there are many feminists (of both sexes) out there, but it is absolutely ridiculous to the point of absurdity to suggest that Christians should seek to rebel against God's mandate of patriarchy. The article that concludes with the comment above shows a lack of sense so profound that, at first, I figured that the author must be joking.
The article is wrong on so many levels it is tough to summarize them.
1) Patriarchy is Not the Result of the Fall
Yes, the specific statement that Adam would rule over Eve was given upon the fall, but Eve was created under Adam's headship: a help meet for him, from his rib. It was in Adam's sin that mankind fell (not in Adam's and Eve's sin).
2) Human Government Necessary Because of Fall
However, further, human government is necessary because of sin. If men were angels, we would not need a government. This is true in all spheres of authority: it is necessary for children to have parents, for wives to have husbands, for servants to have masters, for citizens to have kings, and for the church to have elders.
3) The Powers that be are Ordained by God
This, again, is true in all spheres of authority. Parents are ordained over their children - husbands over their wives - masters over their servants - kings over their subjects - and the elders over the church.
Mr. Wade Burleson's idea of trying to undermine the headship of husbands on the grounds of his misconception that this headship is the result of the fall is tragic and at the same time outlandish. Until the modern times, virtually every society on Earth has remained aware of the propriety of husbands ruling over their wives - the mythical race of the Amazons has to be discovered. That men are to be the rulers over their wives is something so clear that one might think Scriptural revelation unnecessary, because the general revelation in the light of nature is so clear. But sadly, its opponents are unafraid to publish their criticism of it.
Remember this, however: the Husband/Wife motif is one of the illustration of Christ's role to us, believers. To the extent that you seek to undermine the husband's headship role, you are (at least implicitly) undermining its analogy. If you think it bad for the husband to rule over the wife, you are questioning the model of Christ's headship over the church. I doubt many of these egalitarian Christians would actually seek to dethrone Jesus from his rightful headship, but they do not realize that their opposition to Biblical patriarchy accomplishes that end, not only be opposing the explicit teaching of Scripture, but by demolishing the image of our relationship to our Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ.
-TurretinFan
The real Francis Turretin on: Theology and the Creator/Creature Distinction
At Against Heresies, Martin Downes has provided some thoughts on theology in general including some interesting quotations on the subject of theology as well as its relation to the Creator/Creature distinction. (source)
God is great!
-TurretinFan
God is great!
-TurretinFan
Monday, July 06, 2009
Edwards Comparing the real Francis Turretin and Peter van Mastricht
Edwards on the real Francis Turretin and Peter van Mastricht in comparison:
"Turretine is on Polemical divinity; on the 5 Points, & all other Controversial Points; & is much larger in these than Mastrict; & is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in Controversies. But take Mastrict for divinity in general, doctrine Practice & Controversie; or as an universal system of divinity; & it is much better than Turretine, or any other Book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion." (source)
Both, of course, are excellent - and we hope to see an English translation of van Mastricht in the next few years.
-TurretinFan
"Turretine is on Polemical divinity; on the 5 Points, & all other Controversial Points; & is much larger in these than Mastrict; & is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in Controversies. But take Mastrict for divinity in general, doctrine Practice & Controversie; or as an universal system of divinity; & it is much better than Turretine, or any other Book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion." (source)
Both, of course, are excellent - and we hope to see an English translation of van Mastricht in the next few years.
-TurretinFan
Benedict XVI vs. James White
No, there is no such debate scheduled yet (though I'd love to see that debate). No, I'm pointing out an area where Dr. White has moved a technological step ahead of the Roman Catholic pope.
Dr. White is on Twitter. (although TurretinFan is not)
Pope Benedict XVI is not on Twitter. (although Patrick Madrid is)
-TurretinFan
Dr. White is on Twitter. (although TurretinFan is not)
Pope Benedict XVI is not on Twitter. (although Patrick Madrid is)
-TurretinFan
Vatican Praise for Calvin?
"Vatican newspaper praises French Protestant John Calvin" that's the AP headline for this article (link). The paper apparently called Calvin extraordinary and emphasized that Calvin was a Christian. Isn't interesting how times change?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
