The old sinful nature strives daily to live anew in thee; and daily must thou destroy it that Christ may daily begin to live in thee. -- Blessed Johann Gerhard, *Sacred Meditations* LI
Calling human nature 'sinful' seems to be a confusion of theological categories, i.e. person and nature. Natures don't do anything, persons do; hence persons can be sinful but natures cannot.
By the way, I read both excursus tied to Piepkorn's essay, 'The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church', and -- sadly! -- he adds nothing new to the arguments already proffered in Lightfoot's The Christian Ministry. Cirlot interacts substantially (meaning several hundred pages) with Lightfoot's -- and therefore, by extension, Piepkorn's -- historical arguments regarding the synonymity of presbyter and episcopos, and I have yet to find a notable response to Cirlot. I was hoping that Piepkorn would've provided such a response, but I was wrong.
If you are not interested in actually reading Cirlot's Apostolic Succession: Is It True? then I'd be happy to respond in due time to several of the key historical arguments given by Lightfoot/Piepkorn. Then again, I wouldn't be able to accurately reproduce the profundity of Cirlot's argumentation, so you'd be better off just reading him.
Human nature from the fall is sinful (but is not sin itself). That is, it is corrupted and corruptible.
Sounds like I've got to get that book and read it. I will certainly give it a whirl. But I wonder if you found Cirlot's work persuasive because it said what you wanted it to say? Again, St. Jerome is pretty darned clear.
But I wonder if you found Cirlot's work persuasive because it said what you wanted it to say?
But this perspective wouldn't be limited to only those on one side of the argument. I would imagine Lutherans would find Piepkorns work persuasive for the very same reason.
Of course I grant that. I'd love for someone who has no dog in this hunt whatsoever to give their opinion on the data. But I will say this, I came across the Piepkorn material at a time when I was already persuaded that the Lutheran approach to the question had simply been in error and was hopelessly out of synch with the earlier church. Piepkorn changed my mind.
Pr Weedon,
ReplyDeleteCalling human nature 'sinful' seems to be a confusion of theological categories, i.e. person and nature. Natures don't do anything, persons do; hence persons can be sinful but natures cannot.
By the way, I read both excursus tied to Piepkorn's essay, 'The Sacred Ministry and Holy Ordination in the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran Church', and -- sadly! -- he adds nothing new to the arguments already proffered in Lightfoot's The Christian Ministry. Cirlot interacts substantially (meaning several hundred pages) with Lightfoot's -- and therefore, by extension, Piepkorn's -- historical arguments regarding the synonymity of presbyter and episcopos, and I have yet to find a notable response to Cirlot. I was hoping that Piepkorn would've provided such a response, but I was wrong.
If you are not interested in actually reading Cirlot's Apostolic Succession: Is It True? then I'd be happy to respond in due time to several of the key historical arguments given by Lightfoot/Piepkorn. Then again, I wouldn't be able to accurately reproduce the profundity of Cirlot's argumentation, so you'd be better off just reading him.
God bless!
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteHuman nature from the fall is sinful (but is not sin itself). That is, it is corrupted and corruptible.
Sounds like I've got to get that book and read it. I will certainly give it a whirl. But I wonder if you found Cirlot's work persuasive because it said what you wanted it to say? Again, St. Jerome is pretty darned clear.
Pax!
But I wonder if you found Cirlot's work persuasive because it said what you wanted it to say?
ReplyDeleteBut this perspective wouldn't be limited to only those on one side of the argument. I would imagine Lutherans would find Piepkorns work persuasive for the very same reason.
Dixie,
ReplyDeleteOf course I grant that. I'd love for someone who has no dog in this hunt whatsoever to give their opinion on the data. But I will say this, I came across the Piepkorn material at a time when I was already persuaded that the Lutheran approach to the question had simply been in error and was hopelessly out of synch with the earlier church. Piepkorn changed my mind.