Beatus Vir

Well-stated. I cannot comment on Augustine's writings but Scripture, even Scripture "alone," (if one is to insist on that) clearly teaches both/and. Both imputed and imparted righteousness belong to justification. Distinctions cannot separate the one work of Christ. Or said differently, if imputed and imparted righteousness are different in essence then there need be two Christs. They may be two sides of one coin but they cannot be two coins.

You can see my reply there too...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-on-imputationimpartation.html

LP Cruz

Which part did the BoC misrepresent Augustine on? Can you give some sections in the BoC?

The Large Catechism misquotes Mt 18:15 for Mt 19 too. So do you continue to believe that the BoC should be infallible in its words?

I do not know where you got that idea that the BoC has to be infallible? It must be from American Lutheran Fundamentalism,no? Maybe some professor of a seminary taught you this?

I subscribe to the meaning of the words pointed by the BoC and not to the very letter or words per se found in it. The BoC ain't at par with Scripture, Scripture rules over it.

LPC

Thanks for the comment, Tim. Once again your agreement has me a little baffled. I am also a little uncomfortable with the "two sides of one coin" analogy, perhaps because it's just so cliche'. Every analogy breaks down sooner or later, and I guess I don't like where this one breaks down.

LP,

WRT Augustine, I have the Apology in mind. It is more than a single reference, but rather the line of argument that the Lutherans were not departing from the Church fathers, and Augustine in particular. Melancthon knew better.

There is quite a difference between making a mistake(as in a incorrect citation), and making an argument that is untruthful.

I never said anything about the the BoC being infallible. There is a difference between being truthful and infallible. I once held the BoC to be truthful, but never would not have gone so far to use the word "infallible", even if I agreed with its contents in content and formulation.

Our righteousness or justification, imputed and imparted, is a "whole" work of God in Christ. That is all I am attempting to say here.

(The coin analogy is what I hear sometimes among Lutherans - an overemphasis, I think, on distinctions that seems too often to miss out on the whole.)

Don't be baffled by the agreement here. The real question is if Lutherans can hold to the "whole" or if we must stick only to the distinctions. It can be awful tiring.

Justification is both by imputation and impartation. Fine. The question is this: Which does our salvation hinges on? Imputation or impartation? It cannot be both, unless you're going to argue that imputation *succeeds* rather than *precedes* impartation. But no Lutheran worth his salt is going to take this approach.

So which is it?

If you are a successor to Augustine does that mean your theology includes Augustine's input or do you hold strictly to "Scripture alone"? (It does not concern me really if you are or not influenced by him. I believe we all are influenced by the Fathers of the Church in one way or another.)

To answer your question justification hinges on both. It has to be both as in Holy Baptism where we receive Christ (once again we cannot divide Christ). Lutherans teach that where there is forgiveness of sins there is also life and salvation. In Baptism we are declared righteous. We are clothed with Christ and Christ dwells in us. Therefore, in Baptism, this could be considered a simultaneous imputation and impartation.

Justification hinges on and depends on Christ. Imputation for each person is not apart from the impartation of "God with us" as we know and receive in the Word and Sacraments. Here we receive both the benefits of Christ's work and Christ Himself.

My guess is you know all of this so the "which is it?" really is not a fair question. Only if Christ were divided would it be a question to be considered.

Every good and perfect gift comes from above. Gratias Deo.

Fr.Timothy jumped in before I had a chance, but maybe the question was for him anyway.

I am also puzzled at his choice of screen name. If you oppose Roman Catholic Theology, why would you call yourself after one of it's top doctors. But I suspect that he is under the delusion that the Church Fathers were Protestants at heart, as I did for many years. I wonder, A.S., whether you knew that Augustine rejection the idea that justification is by faith alone?

Finally, my question is why can't salvation hinge on both imputation and impartation?

Man's dammation hinges on both an imputation and an impartation. Adam's guilt is imputed to him, and the corruption of nature is imparted to him by his parents. So if man's problem is two-fold, why shouldn't the solution also be two-fold?

I do not know "Augustinian Successor" personally but have chatted with him briefly in the past on other lists. Based on what little we discussed he(?) sounds like a good Calvinist and I think his screen name is meant to reflect Calvin and Calvinism as the true heirs of Augustine. Undoubtedly, Calvin is an heir of Augustine although that is a separate question. Once again I am guessing at the reason for his screen name.

Dan, as to damnation hinging on both imputation and impartation as you have described I agree and so would also agree that the solution would also be two-fold. I was coming at it from the "one Christ" but I think we are in agreement here.

Bowing out so the discussion you are having with A.S. may resume without further interruption.

Dan,

WRT Augustine, I have the Apology in mind. It is more than a single reference, but rather the line of argument that the Lutherans were not departing from the Church fathers, and Augustine in particular. Melancthon knew better.

As I suspect, you have no concrete citation.

Where did the Apology say that they (the Lutherans) are not departing from Augustine in particular? I must have missed something and I am curious if you would correct my ignorance. From what I know the word Fathers or Church Fathers are generic names for a body of people, they are historical appellations. The Fathers disagreed with each other.

Having said what I said and having a position against you...

I do admire you enormously.

You have the courage of conviction to swim the Tiber and kiss the Pope's ring.

Bravo.

You are so unlike other Lutheran pastors I know I believe remain crypto-RC at heart.

LPC

LP:

I don't want your admiration, especially when it is simply an off-handed criticism on other people (those nasty crypto-papists who have not the courage to swim the Tiber.)

Frankly, I do not understand why it is necessary to so frequently put down other folks, as you have done here and in your comments to me on your own blog. Does this make you feel like a big man? Do you think it helps your argument. It is so very self-indulgent from my perspective.

I mentioned that I was a student of Dr. Preus. While I certainly have my disagreements with him now, one thing that I will always admire was his gentleness and his refusal to use his knowledge of theology, which was immense, to club others over the head. I was at sem during the years during which his presidency was shamefully stolen from him. And yet never once did he speak ill of his opponents.

The discussion of theology is no light matter. When we speak concerning the doctrine of justification, we embark on a topic that is the subject of angelic conversations and the tabletalk of the blessed saints. It is too holy of a thing to be twisted into an avenue for fleeting vainglory.

If you want to continue this discussion, that is fine with me. But if you use this conversation to put down anyone else, I am finished.

As for Augustine, I apologize for not giving a concrete reference. Honestly, I didn't want to expend the time to dig out a reference for something which I thought was well known and not really necessary. But I thought wrong, and you have a right to a citation.

The Apology, after its lengthy treatment of the doctrine of justification (article 4), states:

"We know that that what we have said agrees with the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures, with the holy Fathers Ambrose, Augustine, and many others, and with the whole Church of Christ, which certainly confesses that Christ is the propitiator and the justifier."

Dan,

Fair enough, you have no need of my respect and admiration, but try not to be touchy. I was just expressing the truth as I see it.

---
I will by-pass your ad hominem re:my need to feel bigger than anyone else.

Just a piece of advice. If we are involve in apologetics we cannot have onion skin, we cannot be sensitive.


The issue is truth.

I answer your charge and reference in here...
http://extranos.blogspot.com/2008/11/boc-lied-about-augustine.html

LPC

Chemnitz, who was a student of Melanchthon, acknowledged that Augustine used the word iustificare in a manner different than the Lutherans (Examination of Trent, Vol I), but argued that the substance of his thought regarding the basis of God's acceptance of man was the same. In general, this is consistent with Lutheran patristic exegesis--look beyond the mere form of the words to get the substance of the thought.

The early Lutheran confessors were neither liars nor idiots. They didn't interpret the Fathers the way you do, but to accuse them of "lying" is simply fatuous.

Fearsome,

What you call "Lutheran patristic exegesis", I call "quote mining."

"look beyond the mere form of the words to get the substance of the thought.". Oh, I get it. Don't look at what they said, look at what they meant.

If, based on Chemnitz, you believe that Augustine and the Lutheran reformers agreed "in substance of thought" but different only on the use of "justicare." Then it is clear to me that you have never read Augustine on this topic.

Had you done so, you may be able to say that you disagree with Augustine's doctrine of grace, but you could not say they are substantially the same.

Seriously, guys, you need to read Augustine. If you don't, you can't engage this conversation intelligently.

Dan,

http://extranos.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-editor-of-boc-wrote.html

LPC