Cur Deus Homo I-III

Internet Medieval Source Book. ^ | A.D. 1097-1100 | Saint Anselm of Canterbury

[kosta50]

Ah, Kosta, you beat me to it! Some of us do have to work

Sorry, someone has to do it. :)

It is ironic, is it not, that the West chose theological opinions of both +Augustine and +Gregory which were outside the consensus patrum

In a way it explains how we drifted apart. If the west stuck with the consensus we would be on the same sheet of music, and probably there would have never been a rift.

There has been of late quite a discussion in the Latin Church over the proper “translation” of the words “pro multis” at the consecration. The post Vatican II era saw the usage of “for all” as opposed to the appropriate “for many”. +Gregory’s theology arguably would support the former

Pro multis is biblical (Mat 26:28, Mar 14:24). "For all" is not what He said. This is a good example that cherry-picking your favorite Church Father is inferior to consensus patrum, which is the only approach that guarantees the catholicity of the Church and the orthodoxy of the Faith.

For only through consensus do we all believe the same thing and agree that the faith is right and true.

[Kolokotronis]

"which of rus is at base a hesychastic pursuit,"

which for us is at base is a hesychastic pursuit,

Sorry!

[annalex]

"For all" was probably inserted to draw a brighter line with respect to Calvinism.

Blessed are all they that fear the Lord: that walk in his ways. (Ps. 127)

[God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

I agree, they should have kept it as in Latin.

[annalex]

Next installment: Cur Deus Homo III-V

[Mad Dawg]

then the reading and study should be undertaken under the guidance of a spiritual father.

Something about having a fool for a client? Some kind of guide is critical, whether or not one is familiar with the consensus patrum -- seems to me.

[Kolokotronis]

“Something about having a fool for a client? Some kind of guide is critical, whether or not one is familiar with the consensus patrum — seems to me.”

Even the greatest of Elders at the Holy Mountain are under obedience to someone.

[kosta50]

[God] will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Tim 2:4)

"Pro multis" is part of what Christ actually said, knowing that not all will benefit from it, even though God does not delight in seeing his people perish, even the wicked (cf Eze 18:23), or anyone for that matter (cf Eze 18:32).

The Divine Liturgy of +John Chrystsostom retains the pro multis

Priest: "Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins."

However, the very next recitation sung by the priest says:

"We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all."

Thus expressing our universal conviction that God loves all people and desires to have all men saved (cf 2 Tim 2:4) and that it is our sincere hope that our God is a Savior of all men, especially the believers (cf 1 Tim 4:19).

Yet, we know that not all men will come to Him when called.

I agree. The Catholic Church would have been better off never changing what it says in Latin because, as it is, it is misleading.

[Alex Murphy]

"For all" was probably inserted to draw a brighter line with respect to Calvinism.

A "brighter line" drawn to include, or to exclude Calvinism?

[annalex]

Exclude, of course. Our disagreement with Calvinism is that we believe that Christ redeemed all sin and wished the salvation of all; yet not all respond to the call. Thus both “for all” and “for many” is a true statement, deppending on the intended and unsaid here, context. The rise of calvinist thinking, I suspect, drove the desire to avoid the false conclusion that the Church teches limited atonement, drawn from the Epiclesis.

[Alex Murphy]

Exclude, of course. Our disagreement with Calvinism is that we believe that Christ redeemed all sin and wished the salvation of all; yet not all respond to the call. Thus both “for all” and “for many” is a true statement, deppending on the intended and unsaid here, context. The rise of calvinist thinking, I suspect, drove the desire to avoid the false conclusion that the Church teches limited atonement, drawn from the Epiclesis.

annalex, I had hoped you would have said "included". Religion Moderator, I'd like to request that the "caucus" designation be removed, so that Calvinists can engage the thread and discuss the doctrines/beliefs mentioned.

[Religion Moderator]

Caucus protection removed because the article poster raised doctrines of another confession (Calvinism) and that confession now has an interest in discussing them.

[Alex Murphy]

We, of course, do not teach his doctrine of atonement, but the one that was taught in the first millennium by the whole Church, known as the ransom doctrine. For those unfamiliar with it, the doctrine says that Satan demanded Christ in exchange for freeing humans from the bondage of death. When Christ died, death reached for Him and discovered it was God over whom it had no power, whereby it was rendered powerless. Thus this doctrine is one of a divine "sting" and is beautifully summarized in St. John Chrysostom's Paschal Homily (see Kolokotronis' tag line).

Ping to read the Paschal Homily

[Alex Murphy]

Our disagreement with Calvinism is that we believe that Christ redeemed all sin and wished the salvation of all; yet not all respond to the call. Thus both “for all” and “for many” is a true statement, deppending on the intended and unsaid here, context. The rise of calvinist thinking, I suspect, drove the desire to avoid the false conclusion that the Church teches limited atonement, drawn from the Epiclesis.

IMO it's at that singular point that I believe the discussion should start. Ping to some friends for help with explaining Limited Atonement...

[HarleyD]

Based on the writings from NewAdvent, the Catholic Church looks upon Anselm’s writings on the Atonement as kind of the genesis of thought but not the final word. It would be interesting to compare current Orthodox and Catholic perspectives. While we often discuss differences between these two churches (church authority, the filoque, etc), the atonement doesn’t seem to be one of them. Is there a difference in views?

[HarleyD]

I will say that of all the doctrines of the Reformers, this one seems to be the most controversial yet for me it was the easiest to grasp. In my mind all Christians believe in limited atonement simply because all are not saved no matter how you look at atonement. But in keeping with annalex above request, we’ll save the discussion of limited atonement for another time.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

The RCC actually believes in Limited Atonement although its modern defenders shrink from the concept because they've been bewitched by the false lure of squishy ecumenicism, too.

The RCC believes there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.

Calvinists (like most Protestants) believe there is no salvation outside of God's merciful gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Same result; different criteria. Magisterium-ordained salvation; God-ordained salvation.

Like you, Alex, I recognized the absolute truth of Limited Atonement in an instant by a single sentence. It was so powerful in its clarity and obvious truth I couldn't deny it --

If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.

He's God. He gets what He wants. He lacks for nothing.

[Mad Dawg]

Wow, It's like Dracula! Invite him into the house, and you're stuck with him.

Me, I'm out of here.

[alpha-8-25-02]

The

CAUSE OF GOD AND TRUTH.

Part 1

Section 35—Romans 11:32.

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

---

This passage of Scripture is produced as a proof of God’s will, that all men should be saved, and to show that he has rejected none from salvation by an absolute and antecedent decree, and consequently that Christ died for all men; seeing as God hath concluded all men in unbelief, none excepted, so, by the rule of opposition, he hath mercy on all, none excepted.[1] To which I answer:

1. That God shows mercy to all men in a providential way, is granted, for his tender mercies are over all his works; (Psalm 114:9.) but that all men are partakers of his special mercy through Christ, must be denied, since the vessels mercy are manifestly distinguished from the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction (Rom. 9:22, 23); and certain it is, that there are some whom he that made them will not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will show them no favor (Isa. 27:11); and where God does extend his special mercy, it is wholly owing to his sovereign will and pleasure, for he hath mercy on whom, he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth (Rom. 9:18).

2. By the rule of opposition, no more can be thought to be the objects of God’s mercy than those whom he has shut up in unbelief; which is not true of all men that ever were in the world; for, though all men are, by nature, unbelievers, yet they are not all shut up by God in unbelief. To be shut up in unbelief, is the same as to be concluded under sin, the meaning of which phrases is, not that God makes men sinners and unbelievers, or puts them into the prison of sin and unbelief, but that he proves, demonstrates, and convinces them, that they are in such a state and condition, as Chrysostom[2] on the other place observes, and which is the sense that Grotius and Vorstius,[3] who were both on the other side of the question, give of these words; for such who are savingly convinced of sin, are held and bound down by a sense of it in their consciences, that they can find no by-way to creep out, or make any excuse for it. Now, all men are not in this sense concluded under sin, or shut up in unbelief, none but those whom the Spirit of God reproves and convinces of these things; which convictions are wrought in them, on purpose that they may flee, not to their own merits, but to the mercy of God, which they may hope to share in, since with the Lord is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption (Ps. 130:7).

3. It is not said absolutely, God hath concluded, pantaV , all in unbelief, that he might have mercy, pantaV , on all; but God hath concluded, touV pantaV , them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy, touV pantaV , on them all, which limits and restrains the all to the persons the apostle is speaking of in the context; were the elect of God among the Jews and Gentiles, and so designs the fullness of the Gentiles, whom God determined to bring in, (v. 25), and especially that all Israel, (v. 26), that shall be saved, not by their own righteousness, but by the pure mercy and free grace of God. In short, by the all whom he has mercy on, and in order to bring them to a sense of their need thereof, concludes in, and convinces of, unbelief, are to be understood all believers, that is, who are eventually so, be they Jews or Gentiles, as Vorstius observes,[4] and which is manifest from a parallel text, The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe (Gal.3:22). Hence this passage neither militates against an absolute election, nor special redemption of particular persons.- John Gill

http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%201/section_35.htm

5 SOLAS!

[P-Marlowe]

Like you, Alex, I recognized the absolute truth of Limited Atonement in an instant by a single sentence. It was so powerful in its clarity and obvious truth I couldn't deny it -- If God wanted all men to be saved, all men would be saved.

I don't think your sentence is entirely inconsistent with the general doctrine of unlimited atonement. I for one believe that the atonement was unlimited in scope, but limited in application. The scope is towards "all men" the application is "limited" to "all who believe".

Carry on.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

limited in application

Yes, and applied by God alone, perfectly and personally. 8~)