Martin Luther on Reprobation

 

"Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natural reason that God by his own sheer will should abandon, harden, and damn men as if he enjoyed the sins and the vast, eternal torments of his wretched creatures when he is preached as a God of such great mercy and goodness." (Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will, in LW 33:190)

"It is likewise the part of this incarnate God [i.e., Christ] to weep, wail, and groan over the perdition of the ungodly, when the will of the Divine Majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish." (LW 33:146) 

"It is clear that Luther did, at least early in his career as is evident in the writing of De servo arbitrio, assert a doctrine of double predestination. His presentation of it was not in the theological sense as seen in Calvin, but in a pastoral sense." (Joel R. Beeke, Debated Issues in Sovereign Predestination: Early Lutheran Predestination, Calvinian Reprobation, and Variations in Genevan Lapsarianism [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2017], pg. 24)

The Sin of Concupiscence - Response to Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

 

Argument #1 - Baptism takes away sin; but it does not take away concupiscence, therefore concupiscence is not sin.

Response: Baptism does indeed take away sin in respect of its guilt (and this is not done ex opere operato, but only when the recipient has a genuine faith in Christ and is regenerated), but not in respect of sin’s presence and existence in the soul, since as is seen from many passages of Scripture, the believer still has a struggle against indwelling sin in the process of sanctification (Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17; James 3:2). As Augustine says “Carnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward man shall be clothed with incorruption.” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, 1.28)

Argument #2 - Concupiscence is the result and punishment of original sin. Therefore, it is a part of original sin itself. 

Response: Sin is often the punishment of sin. Such was the case with the heathens whom God gave over to a reprobate mind and to the sins of homosexuality, as a punishment (Romans 1:18-32). As Augustine says “In like manner, the concupiscence of the flesh against which a good spirit lusts is not only a  sin, because it is disobedience against the dominion of the mind—as well as punishment for sin, because it has been reckoned as the wages of disobedience—but also  a cause of sin, in the failure of him who consents to it or in the contagion of birth.” (Against Julian, 5.3)

Argument #3 - Concupiscence, if by it means the motions of sin which the mind resists, is not itself sin. 

Response: This is an obvious case of begging the question. Any lusting after an unlawful object is wrong and sinful, but such is the nature of concupiscence. Therefore it is sin. Bellarmine objects that it cannot be considered sin, since it is not the power of the regenerate to not possess such a faculty. But the formal reason of sin is anomia, not what Bellarmine alleges. Add on to that, that his reasoning could equally apply to show that original sin is not sin, since it is not in the power of the unregenerate to not possess it. 

Argument #4 - If concupiscence is sin, and remains justified, then Christ has not genuinely freed us from sin, but only imputatively. 

Response: Christ has freed us not only from the guilt of sin, but also from its dominion and power. We are freed also from the presence of sin, but this is through a process. It is certainly true that Christ could in one moment free us from sin entirely and make us completely holy here in this life. Oh, if it were true! Yet, in His wisdom He permits to wage war against the flesh and concupiscence in order that we might be constantly receiving anew for sanctification, and that we would be leaning on Him in all things.

The Two Operations/Energies of Christ: Dyothelitism and Dyoenergism

 

Sergius of Constantinople attempted to reconcile the idea of Severus of Antioch and the Monophysites (which was that there was one will or operation with Christ) with the Chalcedonian view of two natures. Sergius wrote to Theodore of Pharan, who was convinced by Sergius’ argumentation (Leo Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 261). However, the orthodox view, which was taught by the Tome of Leo and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, is that Christ has two operations or energies. 

The Teaching of John of Damascus on Two Operations

[Books 2-3 of Exposition of the Orthodox Faith]

Passion refers to a movement in one that is caused by another. It is a sensible activity.

Energy is a “drastic movement” (that which is moved of itself). Since energy is something that is natural, things that have the same nature have the same energy. Likewise, things that have different natures have different energies. Natural energy is “the force in each essence by which its nature is made manifest.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 2.23)

Actions are the result of the energies are themselves also called energies at times. 

When energy does act in accordance with nature, it may be spoken of as a “passion”, since passion generally goes against nature. 

Damascene discusses the faculties of the soul in a twofold manner: those of knowledge, and those of life. The faculties of knowledge would be things like thought and sensation, whereas the faculties of “life” would be things like wish, the will, and desire. 

Though Christ has two wills, they terminate in one effect (apotelesma) or object. Christ’s human wills follows the divine will. 

The subject that exercises (key word here, lest we think wrongly that will is a property of person, which is a Monothelite and tritheistic error) the will is the person.

Corresponding to His two natures, Christ has two energies, two volitions, two wills, and two kinds of wisdom/knowledge. 

Though Christ has two wills, we say that it is the person who wills in both natures, rather than the natures themselves willing, since that might imply Nestorianism (at least in our current context and morale, since Leo spoke of the natures doing what was proper to them, but that is not necessarily Nestorian language). Christ wills and energies without separation and in unity. 

Willing and the manner of willing are not the same thing. This is why we say that it is one and the same Christ who operates in His two natures. The subject of willing is one, not two. 

“For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural wil l of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: ' I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!' (John 6:38) where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own.” (The Acts of Constantinople III, Session 18)

It is wrong to speak of one compound thing made of two wills in Christ. If we speak of a composition of wills and energies, then we would need to be consistent and extend this also to the other natural properties. 

Though Christ has two energies, we need to distinguish between the energy itself, and the capacity for energy, the product of energy, and the agent of energy (the person which uses the energy). Sometimes the term “energy” is used to denote the product of energy, similar to the way the terms “creation” and “creature” are used interchangeably. 

Energy is an activity which is energized, but does not itself energize. 

The most common example given in the early Church (which is the case here with John Damascene) to show how the unity of Christ’s mediatorial operations work was that of Christ healing a leper (Matthew 8:3 & 11:5).  Christ, in His humanity, walks, puts forth his hand, touches the leper and physically speaks. His human nature, as such, does not heal the leper, nor can it.  Christ, by his divine nature, heals the leper; and yet Christ does not heal the leper by his divine nature alone: Christ’s Person works by both natures to accomplish the one work (Greek: apotelesma).  Hence Christ’s two operations, springing from both his divine and human wills, terminate in one completed effect, the healing of the leper.

John Damascene presents a number of arguments to show that Christ has two energies:

1. If Christ only has one energy, then is it divine, human, or neither? If it is only a divine energy, then Christ is stripped of His human nature. 

2. If Christ only has one energy, then we would end up having to say that the same energy performs both divine and human actions, which is a contradiction. Just as fire does not freeze, so likewise the divine nature of Christ does not physically touch anyone by the hand. Therefore, Christ has human energy and divine energy. 

Christ’s Human Will as being subject to His Divine Will

“But in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ, since He possesses different natures, His natural wills, that is, His volitional faculties belonging to Him as God and as Man are also different. But since the subsistence is one, and He Who exercises the will is one, the object of the will, that is, the gnomic will , is also one, His human will evidently following His divine will, and willing that which the divine will willed it to will.” (John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II, Ch. 22)

“Christ, then, energizes according to both His natures and either nature energizes in Him in communion with the other, the Word performing through the authority and power of its divinity all the actions proper to the Word, i.e. all acts of supremacy and sovereignty, and the body performing all the actions proper to the body, in obedience to the will of the Word that is united to it, and of whom it has become a distinct part. For He was not moved of Himself to the natural passions , nor again did He in that way recoil from the things of pain, and pray for release from them, or suffer what befell from without, but He was moved in conformity with His nature, the Word willing and allowing Him œconomically to suffer that, and to do the things proper to Him, that the truth might be confirmed by the works of nature.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3.15)

“He, therefore, assumed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and mind, a spirit that holds sway over the flesh but is itself under the dominion of the divinity of the Word. So, then, He had by nature, both as God and as man, the power of will. But His human will was obedient and subordinate to His divine will, not being guided by its own inclination, but willing those things which the divine will willed. For it was with the permission of the divine will that He suffered by nature what was proper to Him. For when He prayed that He might escape death, it was with His divine will naturally willing and permitting it that He did so pray and agonize and fear, and again when His divine will willed that His human will should choose death, the passion became voluntary to Him. For it was not as God only, but also as man, that He voluntarily surrendered Himself to death. And thus He bestowed on us also courage in the face of death.” (John Damascene, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 3.18)

Theandric Energy

Damascene also had the concept of what is known as Christ’s “certain theandric energy.” In all honesty, it has been difficult to find a precise definition of this. However, it seems to be the meaning that Christ’s two operations are united in such a way as to produce one effect or apotelesma. 

The expression “certain theandric energy” originally comes (Ps-?) Dionysius the Areopagite, in one of his letters to Gaius. It was used by the Monothelites in 633 in the Alexandrian Pact of Union. The Monothelites altered Dionysius’ text to say “one theandric energy” (Hovorun, pg. 179). John of Scythopolis was one of the earliest writers to give Dionysius a dyenergist interpretation:

Sophronius of Jerusalem also addressed the Dionysian formula regarding Christ’s energies. This interpretation was developed later at the Lateran council in 649. Of all of them, Maximus the Confessor likely went the most in-depth on reconciling Dionysius with the Dyothelite Orthodox teaching:

In chapter 5 of the Ambigua, Maximus taught that Dionysius was not teaching a single energy, but rather the unity of the two energies. The energies permeate each other, and become known and manifested through each other. Christ’s human operation shares in the power of the divine (Aquinas, ST, Pt. 3, Q. 19, Art. 1, Reply to Obj. 1)

“He who does not accept equally and appropriately both (= one-nature-energeia) and two-natures-energeiai-wills expressions), applying the former to the union, and the latter to the natural difference, falls inevitably, as is normal, into either division or confusion.” (Maximus, Opuscula Theologica et Polemica, 8, cited in Hovorun, pg. 186)

When it was discovered how the Monothelites had altered Dionysius, they went back to using the original phrase “a certain new theandric energy.” An example may be seen in Macarius of Antioch, in his confession (Hovorun, 189). Macarius made a distinction between the single energeia and its results (the latter of which could have divine or human characteristics). 

The orthodox understood that anything Christ did, He did as both God and Man. All divine activities were done with the participation of his human nature, and vice versa. 

The Teaching of Thomas Aquinas on Two Operations

When there are several agents in a given situation, the inferior is operated and moved by the superior. An example of this would be the way that the soul moves the body (the latter being the instrument of the former). Therefore, the thing that is being operated is the inferior principle. 

Things that are moved by another have a twofold action/operation. First, it has one which it has properly from its own nature. Secondly, the one it has as it is moved by another. For example, an axe has both the operation to cut (which is proper to its nature) and also the operation to make benches, when it is used by a craftsman or architect. This second type of operation (the thing in so far as it is moved by another) is the same as the operation of the mover. 

Objection: The doctrine of two operations in Christ leads to Nestorianism, since operation pertains to person, therefore there must only be one operation.

Answer: Being and operation are attributed to person in two different ways. Being is attributed by virtue of the fact that it is the constituent of person. On the other hand, operation is an effect of the person by reason of form and nature. Therefore, two operations doesn’t lead to Nestorianism.

The Teaching of Reformed Orthodoxy

“Christ, in the work of mediation, acteth according to both natures; by each nature doing that which is proper to itself (Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18)…” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 8.7)

Theodore Beza: “Finally, this rule prevails: in this hypostatic union, the natures themselves remain distinct, and each does distinctly what is proper to itself; accordingly the Word [o logos] is distinctly that which is Word [logos], and it does distinctly that which belongs to the Word [o logos].  Just so, flesh remains also distinctly that which is flesh, and accomplishes that which distinctly belongs to flesh. Hence to make a long story short: just as we can say there are two distinct essences [ousiai], not separate, but nevertheless distinct in number, so there are also two wills and operative functions [energiai], and two operations [energemata] but one end purpose [apotelesma], just as the person is one only.” (Lutheranism vs. Calvinism: the Classic Debate at the Colloquy of Montbeliard 1586, ed. Jefferey Mallinson & trans. Clinton J. Armstrong  [Concordia Publishing House, 2017], “‘On the Person of Christ’, Dr. Beza’s Responses to the Theses”, pg. 248)

“But we believe and confess that these two natures, are truly and inseparably joined and united into one person of Christ: that yet we doubt not, but each of them remains whole and perfect, and the one truly distinct from the other, yea and that they do hold the essential properties and operations of each of them distinct: without all manner of confusion: so that as the divine nature holding the properties remains uncreated, infinite, immeasurable, simply omnipotent and simply wise: even so the human nature holding her’s remains created, comprehensible, and determined with certain limits: And as the divine nature has will and power, whereby Christ wills and works, as God, such things as are of God: so has the human nature will and power, whereby Christ as man, wills and works those things which are of man: so far forth as Christ in that He is God, He wills not nor works by human will or power: so neither as He is man, wills He or works He by divine will or power: as it has been learnedly determined by the fathers both against Eutyches and against Macarius” (Jerome Zanchius, Confession of Christian Religion, ch. 11.9)

“Of these natures, the necessity, and verity whereof hath been declared, there are divers operations; for there are two natures in Christ, as it were two inward, and effectual beginnings; out of which formally, Actions, and their manners, are deduced: wherefore, as all things in Christ, (his subsisting only excepted,) are two-fold, (or of two sorts) to wit, his Nature, Properties, Will, Knowledge: so are there two-fold operations; some divine, some humane, distinguished by their beginnings, manners of doing, and the particular Actions of each of them. By their beginnings: because, look how many Natures there are; so many formal beginnings of actions there are. By the manners of doing: for every beginning works according to its own manner, and condition: the God-head, after a supernatural, and divine manner: the man-hood after a Natural and Human manner. By particular Actions; for the Word works that, which is of the Word, and the Flesh, that which is of the Flesh, without any confusion of Natures, in the unity of Person.” (Lucas Trelcatius, A Brief Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinity [London, 1610], pgs. 152-153)

“The actions performed by our royal Mediator flow from a double principle in this single Person, because this person does consist of two natures, and each nature performs its proper work; the divine nature does what is divine, and the human nature what is human; and therefore though the Person be but one, and the effect one, yet there are two different actions of two different natures united in one Person for producing of one and the same glorious effect, and we are to give to each nature what is properly due unto it.” (Francis Cheynell, The Divine Triunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit [London, 1650] pg. 347)

“…this sacred, fundamental truth, concerning his [Christ’s] divine Person, and the union of his natures therein, retaining their distinct properties and operations…” (John Owen, Christologia: A Declaration of the Glorious Mystery of the Person of Christ – God and Man, as found in The Works of John Owen, 1:12)

Two Operations in the Church Fathers

“But consider how Christ accredited his words by His deeds…Nor is it wrong to speak of Christ's Passion as action, for in suffering all He performed that great and wonderful act, by which He destroyed death, and effected all else that He did for us.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Acts of the Apostles)

“How, indeed, can there be sameness of operation with diversity of power? Can the inferior ever work such effects as the greater, or can there be unity of operation where there is diversity of substance?” (Ambrose, On the Christian Faith, Book II, Ch. 8)

Relationship Between Energeia and Subject

Both sides agreed that Christ was one subject and one hypostasis. However, they came to different conclusions based on this premise. For the Monothelites, energy must correspond to person, and therefore Christ has only one operation. They used this same premise to argue for one will. However, they viewed the operation as divine and human, while the will was completely divine.

The Orthodox position does not see one energy as following from the one person (the latter we believe, the former we do not). The subjects of activities do not act on their own, they must have a corresponding nature. They added that Christ is not simply Him who wills, but Him who wills according to His two natures. 

According to Leo the Great, “The person of Christ appears to be a primary subject, whereas the natures are secondary ones.” (Serhiy Hovorun, Theological Controversy in the Seventh Century Concerning Activities and Wills in Christ, pg. 233)

“As for Maximus, he also spoke of both the single Christ  and the natures as the subjects of activities.” (Hovorun, pg. 234)

“The Orthodox meanwhile ascribed the wills of Christ not only to his natures, but to his hypostasis too.” (Hovorun, pg. 236)