The Apostle's Creed - Part 2
✝️ The Apostles' Creed
Six articles of the Creed are devoted to Jesus Christ — more than to the Father and the Holy Ghost combined. This reflects the heart of the Christian faith: not primarily a philosophical system about God, but the proclamation of concrete saving events accomplished by the eternal Son who became man, died, and rose for our redemption.
Of the twelve articles of the Apostles' Creed, six concern Jesus Christ. This preponderance is not accidental. The Church does not profess faith in a set of abstract metaphysical propositions about a distant God — she professes faith in a Person, and in specific events that that Person accomplished in human history: His Incarnation, His Passion, His descent, His Resurrection, His Ascension, and His coming Judgment.
This page examines each of these six articles in sequence, attending both to the historical facts they assert and to the inexhaustible theological meaning beneath every phrase. Six of the Church's twenty-one ecumenical councils addressed aspects of Christology directly — a measure of how central, and how contested, these truths have been across the centuries.
📜 The Text — Articles Three Through Eight
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost; born of the Virgin Mary.
Suffered under Pontius Pilate: was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell: the third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand
of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead." — The Apostles' Creed, Articles III–VIII (Traditional English)
These six articles move through the complete arc of Christ's saving work: His eternal divine identity, His Incarnation, His Passion and death, His descent to the righteous dead, His Resurrection, His Ascension and glorification, and finally His return as Judge. Each phrase is a compressed theology worth a lifetime of contemplation. We will unpack each in turn.
☩ Article III — "And in Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord"
Three names are packed into this single article, and each one is a theological declaration in itself. Together they identify who this Person is: Jesus (His personal name, given at the Incarnation), Christ (His messianic office), and Lord (His divine identity). To profess this article is to make three distinct and interlocking claims.
The Three Names: A Theology in Miniature
⚜️ Thomistic Foundation: "Lord" as the Divine Name
St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III, q.22, a.1) explains that the title "Lord" (Dominus) denotes supreme authority and governance over rational creatures. When applied to Christ, it expresses what the early Christians professed at the risk of their lives in a Roman empire demanding emperor-worship: that Jesus, not Caesar, is the true Lord of heaven and earth. This is why St. Paul can say that "no one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Ghost" (1 Cor 12:3) — the confession requires the grace of faith because it claims so much.
"His Only Son" — Consubstantiality and the Council of Nicaea
The Creed says Christ is God's "only Son" — a description that requires immediate precision. How is Christ the Son of God differently from Christians who are also called "sons of God" (Rom 8:14)?
🔮 Theological Depth: Monogenēs — The Only-Begotten
The Greek word translated "only Son" is μονογενής (monogenēs) — "only-begotten." This term appears in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, 3:18) and distinguishes Christ's Sonship categorically from ours. Christians are children of God by adoption and grace (filiatio adoptiva). Christ is Son of God by nature and in eternity (filiatio naturalis aeterna). The adopted child shares in the Father's life as a gift; the only-begotten Son shares in the Father's divine nature essentially and eternally — He is God from God.
📅 The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) — Defining Homoousios
The Arian controversy of the 4th century forced the Church to articulate the Son's relationship to the Father with maximum precision. Arius taught that the Son was the greatest of God's creatures — exalted above all else, yet ultimately a creature with a beginning: "There was a time when he was not." He used language of "likeness" (homoios) but denied true identity of nature.
The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) responded by defining that the Son is ὁμοούσιος (homoousios) — "of the same substance" as the Father. This is the most critical single word in the history of Christian dogma. It means the Son does not merely resemble God or participate in the divine nature from outside — He is God, sharing identically the same divine nature as the Father. The Nicene Creed was the Council's formal response: "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."
⚠️ The Arian Error — Still Alive Today
Arianism was condemned at Nicaea in 325 AD, but the theological error it represents has never fully disappeared. Modern religious movements such as the Jehovah's Witnesses teach a directly Arian Christology: that Jesus Christ is a created being — the "first and greatest creation" of God — but not God Himself. Recognizing the Arian error by name helps Catholics explain why homoousios — consubstantiality — is not a philosophical technicality but the exact boundary between authentic Christianity and its most persistent denial.
🌟 Articles IV–V — "Conceived by the Holy Ghost, Born of the Virgin Mary"
These two articles together confess the Incarnation: the eternal Son of God took on a complete human nature — body and soul — in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is the central mystery of the Christian faith, the event toward which all of sacred history was ordered, and from which all of our redemption flows.
The Incarnation: What It Means
The word "Incarnation" comes from the Latin in carne — "in the flesh." The Gospel of John expresses it with theological economy: "The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn 1:14). The eternal, omnipotent, infinite Second Person of the Trinity — through whom all things were made — entered into His own creation as a human being, taking on everything that belongs to human nature except sin.
"Conceived by the Holy Ghost" — Why This Appropriation
The Incarnation was an act of the whole Trinity — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — since the external acts of the Trinity are always undivided (opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt). The Son took on human nature; the Father willed it; the Holy Ghost effected it in Mary's womb. Yet the Creed attributes the conception specifically to the Holy Ghost. This is a classical appropriation: the Holy Ghost is the Love that proceeds from Father and Son, and the Incarnation is supremely the supreme act of divine love entering the world. The appropriation signals the inner-Trinitarian character of this gift: God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son — and it is the Spirit who is the bond and expression of that Love.
The Hypostatic Union — Two Natures, One Person
The result of the Incarnation is the most complex dogma in all of Christian theology. Jesus Christ is:
- Fully God — the eternal, uncreated, omnipotent Second Person of the Trinity
- Fully Man — possessing a complete human nature: body, soul, intellect, and will
- One Person — the one divine Person of the eternal Son, in whom both natures are permanently and inseparably united
🔮 The Hypostatic Union — Defined at Chalcedon (451 AD)
The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) gave the Church's definitive formulation: the two natures of Christ subsist in the one Person "without confusion, without change, without division, without separation" (ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως). Each nature retains its proper characteristics — the divine nature does not absorb the human, and the human nature does not diminish the divine. They are united in the single divine Person of the Son (hypostasis), which is the meaning of "hypostatic union."
St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III, q.2, a.2) explains that this union is unique in all of reality: it is not a mixture of the two natures (which would produce something that is neither fully God nor fully man), but a union in the order of Person while the two natures remain distinct and intact.
⚠️ Christological Heresies — What the Church Rejected
- Nestorianism (condemned at Ephesus, 431 AD) — Taught that there are effectively two persons in Christ: a divine person and a human person, joined by a moral union. Nestorius consequently refused to call Mary Theotokos (Mother of God), preferring only "Mother of Christ." The Council of Ephesus defined that Mary is truly Theotokos precisely because the one Person born of her is truly God.
- Monophysitism/Eutychianism (condemned at Chalcedon, 451 AD) — Taught the opposite error: that the divine nature absorbed the human nature at the Incarnation, producing a single (mono) nature (physis). Christ's humanity would thus be dissolved into divinity. Chalcedon defined that both natures remain complete and distinct.
- Apollinarianism (condemned at Constantinople I, 381 AD) — Taught that Christ had a human body but that the divine Logos replaced His human soul or rational mind. This would make His humanity incomplete. The Council defined that Christ assumed a complete human nature, including a fully human rational soul.
- Arianism — As noted above: denies the true divinity of Christ. If Christ is not truly God, the Incarnation is not God entering creation, and the atonement is not of infinite value.
"Born of the Virgin Mary" — The Theotokos
The Creed specifies that Christ was born "of the Virgin Mary" — not merely "of Mary." The virginal conception is both historical fact and theological sign. As historical fact, it was attested by the angel to Mary (Lk 1:35), confirmed in the annunciation to Joseph (Mt 1:20-23), and fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14. As theological sign, it manifests that Christ's coming into the world was entirely God's initiative — a new creation that, like the first, required no human act of generation but only the creative power of God.
📋 Mary as Theotokos — "Mother of God"
Because the one Person born of Mary is the eternal Son of God — a divine Person — Mary is rightly called Θεοτόκος (Theotokos): "God-bearer" or "Mother of God." This title, defined at Ephesus (431 AD), is fundamentally a Christological statement, not a Mariological one. It guards the unity of Christ's Person: He who is born of Mary is not a separate human person who later became united to the divine Son — He is the divine Son, from the first moment of His conception. To deny Mary the title Theotokos is to deny the hypostatic union.
✝️ Articles VI–VII — "Suffered, Crucified, Dead, and Buried"
The Creed moves quickly from the glory of the Incarnation to its purpose: suffering and death. These articles confess that Christ's Passion was real — genuinely historical, genuinely painful, genuinely fatal. The eternal, impassible God took on a nature capable of suffering precisely in order to suffer for us.
Why "Under Pontius Pilate"? The Historical Anchor
The Creed is unique among ancient professions of faith in naming a specific Roman bureaucrat — Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judaea (26–36 AD). This is not accidental. The naming of Pilate serves several critical functions:
- Historical grounding — It pins the Passion to a precise and verifiable moment in history. Christianity does not claim to follow a mythological figure or a timeless archetype. The death of Christ happened under a specific named official, in a specific province, at a specific time — datable, documentable, and attested by pagan historians including Tacitus (Annales XV.44) and Pliny the Younger.
- Apologetic value — The naming of Pilate distinguishes the Christian claim from the mystery religions of antiquity, which presented dying-and-rising deities as cosmic myths without historical location. Christ's death is not a mythological event but a historical one.
- Indictment of human justice — Pilate declared Christ innocent three times (Lk 23:4, 14, 22) and then executed Him anyway. The Creed implicitly recalls this travesty: the innocent One was condemned by the very system of human law that should have protected Him.
The Theology of Atonement: Why Did He Have to Die?
The Creed states the fact of Christ's death; theology asks its meaning. Why was death necessary for our redemption? This is the question the great medieval theologian St. Anselm asked in his work Cur Deus Homo? — "Why did God become man?"
⚜️ Thomistic Foundation: The Fitting Necessity of the Passion
St. Thomas Aquinas (ST III, q.46, a.1–3) carefully distinguishes between absolute and fitting necessity. Was the Passion absolutely necessary — i.e., could God have redeemed us in no other way? Aquinas says no: God's omnipotence is not constrained to a single method. But was the Passion supremely fitting (conveniens)? Aquinas says yes — and for multiple reasons:
- It maximally manifested the depth of God's love (Jn 15:13: "greater love has no man than this").
- It provided the highest example of virtue — obedience, humility, charity, patience under suffering.
- It liberated us from sin not by a mere divine decree but by just satisfaction: a human being (in the Person of Christ) offering infinite reparation for humanity's offense against God.
- It destroyed our grounds for pride and supplied our grounds for hope.
Aquinas identifies four aspects of Christ's Passion considered as a redemptive act: it is sacrifice (offered to God), redemption (a ransom paying our debt), satisfaction (repair of the honor due to God), and merit (earning grace for us). Each aspect illuminates a different dimension of the same saving event.
📅 Old Testament Typology: The Sacrifice Prefigured
The sacrificial system of the Old Testament was not arbitrary ritual — it was a long preparation for understanding the meaning of Christ's death:
- The Passover Lamb (Ex 12) — The unblemished lamb whose blood marked the doorposts, sparing Israel from death. St. Paul: "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us" (1 Cor 5:7). The Last Supper, a Passover meal, is the moment Christ re-interprets the Passover as His own sacrifice.
- The Suffering Servant (Is 53) — Isaiah's prophecy of one who "was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities," who "made his soul an offering for sin." Written six centuries before Calvary, this passage is cited in all four Gospels in relation to the Passion.
- The Day of Atonement / Yom Kippur (Lev 16) — The high priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year to offer blood for the sins of the people, and one goat was sent into the wilderness bearing the sins of Israel (the scapegoat). The Letter to the Hebrews (ch. 9-10) interprets Christ as the definitive High Priest who enters the true Holy of Holies — the presence of the Father — with His own blood, once for all.
⬇️ Articles VIII–IX — Descended into Hell; Rose Again from the Dead
Two events that are the most misunderstood in the entire Creed and the most important in the history of redemption. The first requires a careful clarification of what "hell" means here. The second is the central event of the Christian faith — the Resurrection — which must be understood in its full weight.
"He Descended into Hell" — What "Hell" Means Here
This is the most commonly misread line in the Apostles' Creed. When Catholics hear "He descended into hell," many assume this means Christ went to the place of eternal punishment. This is not what the Creed teaches. The word "hell" here translates the Hebrew Sheol, the Greek Hades, and the Latin infernum — which in ancient usage simply meant "the realm of the dead," not the place of eternal punishment.
📅 The Four Regions of the Underworld in Catholic Tradition
🔮 The Harrowing of Hell — What Christ Accomplished
Christ's descent to the Limbo of the Fathers is what medieval theology and popular tradition call the Harrowing of Hell. The just souls of the OT — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Isaiah, and all who died in faith awaiting the Messiah — dwelt in a state of natural blessedness but could not yet enter the beatific vision, because the gates of heaven were not yet opened by the sacrifice of Christ. When Christ descended after His death, He fulfilled the promises of the Messianic age and brought these souls with Him into the fullness of heavenly glory at His Resurrection.
The scriptural basis: "He also descended into the lower parts of the earth" (Eph 4:9); "In which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Pet 3:19); "For this reason the gospel was preached even to the dead" (1 Pet 4:6). The CCC §633 affirms: "Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him."
"The Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead" — The Foundation of All Faith
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is the single most important event in human history and the absolute foundation of the Christian faith. St. Paul expresses this with uncompromising directness:
Resurrection vs. Resuscitation — A Critical Distinction
The Bible records several instances of the dead being raised: Lazarus (Jn 11), the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5), the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7), Tabitha by Peter (Acts 9), Eutychus by Paul (Acts 20). Yet the Church has always insisted that Christ's Resurrection is categorically different from all of these:
✅ Resurrection vs. Resuscitation
| Resuscitation | Resurrection |
|---|---|
| Temporary return to the same mortal life | Permanent entry into a new, glorified mode of existence |
| Subject to death again — Lazarus died a second time | Can never die again — "Christ being raised from the dead will never die again" (Rom 6:9) |
| Raised by the power of God acting through another (Moses, Elijah, Peter, Paul) | Raised by His own power as God (Jn 10:18: "I have power to lay it down and power to take it again") |
| Body unchanged — the same mortal, corruptible flesh | Body glorified and transformed — "a spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:44), possessing the four gifts |
🔮 The Four Properties of the Glorified Body
St. Paul's treatment of the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15 was developed by Aquinas (ST Supplement, q.82-85) into the traditional doctrine of the four gifts of the glorified body:
- Impassibility (impassibilitas) — The glorified body cannot suffer or be harmed. Christ's risen body bears the marks of the wounds but they no longer cause pain (Jn 20:27).
- Subtility (subtilitas) — The glorified body is wholly subject to the spirit; it is not confined by material limitations. Christ enters through locked doors (Jn 20:19).
- Agility (agilitas) — The glorified body moves instantly and without effort wherever the soul directs. Christ appears and disappears (Lk 24:31, 36).
- Clarity (claritas) — The glorified body shines with the radiance of the soul's beatitude. Christ's transfiguration (Mt 17:2) anticipated this; the Resurrection makes it permanent.
⬆️ Article X — "He Ascended into Heaven, Sitteth at the Right Hand"
Forty days after His Resurrection, Christ ascended bodily into heaven (Acts 1:3, 9-11). Ten days later, the Holy Ghost descended at Pentecost. The Ascension is not Christ's departure from human affairs but His permanent glorification as the God-Man — and the beginning of His heavenly intercession for us.
Ascension vs. Assumption — An Important Distinction
The Creed's specific word "ascended" carries theological weight by contrast with "assumed." The distinction is this: one who ascends does so by their own power; one who is assumed is taken up by the power of another.
- Enoch was taken by God without dying: "God took him" (Gen 5:24) — Assumption.
- Elijah was taken up in a whirlwind by God's power (2 Kgs 2:11) — Assumption.
- The Blessed Virgin Mary, as defined by Pope Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus, 1950), was assumed bodily into heaven by God — Assumption.
- Moses — Deuteronomy 34:5-6 records his death and God's burial of him. Some Church Fathers, citing his appearance at the Transfiguration (Mt 17:3) and the dispute over his body (Jude 9), have suggested a subsequent assumption, but this is a theological opinion, not defined dogma.
- Christ alone ascended — by His own divine power, because He alone is God. He did not need to be taken up; He took Himself up.
"Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father" — The Heavenly Session
The phrase "sitteth at the right hand" is not a literal spatial description — God has no right hand — but a royal and priestly image with deep Old Testament roots:
⚜️ Thomistic Foundation: Christ as Eternal High Priest
The Letter to the Hebrews (4:14-16; 7:25) presents the heavenly session of Christ as the fulfillment of the High Priesthood: "He always lives to make intercession" for those who draw near to God through Him. Aquinas (ST III, q.57-59) explains that Christ's session at the right hand of the Father denotes three things: (1) beatitude — the fullness of glory He possesses as God and now as man; (2) judicial power — the authority to judge all things given to Him as the God-Man; and (3) intercession — His permanent, effective pleading of His sacrifice before the Father on behalf of His people. The Ascension does not end Christ's concern for us — it elevates it into its most perfect form.
📋 The Ascension and the Sending of the Spirit
Christ Himself explains why the Ascension was necessary for the gift of Pentecost: "It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you" (Jn 16:7). The Ascension of the Son in His glorified humanity makes possible the descent of the Spirit in a new way — not as a temporary anointing or prophetic gift, but as the permanent indwelling Gift of God poured into the Church. Pentecost is the direct consequence of the Ascension.
⚖️ Article XI — "From Thence He Shall Come to Judge the Living and the Dead"
The final article concerning Christ looks forward rather than backward: the One who ascended will return. The Creed affirms both the certainty and the universal scope of Christ's judgment — He will judge every person who has ever lived.
Two Distinct Judgments: Particular and General
Catholic theology carefully distinguishes between two moments of divine judgment — a distinction that the Creed implies but does not make explicit:
🔮 The Particular Judgment — At the Moment of Death
At the moment of each individual's death, he or she faces an immediate and personal judgment before God. "It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb 9:27). This Particular Judgment determines the soul's immediate destination: eternal life (heaven, perhaps by way of purgatory), or eternal punishment (hell). The soul's state at the moment of death — whether in God's grace or in unrepented mortal sin — is determinative. After death, there is no further possibility of merit or conversion (CCC §1022).
🔮 The General Judgment — At the Second Coming
At the end of time, Christ will return in glory (the Second Coming / Parousia), and the General Judgment — the Last Judgment — will take place for all people simultaneously. The bodies of the dead will be resurrected and reunited with their souls. Then the sentence already given at the Particular Judgment will be confirmed publicly before all creation. The purpose is not to change verdicts but to manifest God's justice before the entire history of the world, revealing how grace and sin worked through every human life in ways that were not always visible to human eyes (CCC §1038-1041).
The Basis of Judgment — Grace, Faith, and Works
Christ describes the Last Judgment in the parable of the sheep and the goats (Mt 25:31-46): it is conducted on the basis of how we treated the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and the imprisoned — the corporal works of mercy. Yet this passage must not be read in isolation from the whole of Scripture and Tradition. The Church's teaching on judgment holds together several truths that belong inseparably together:
⚜️ Grace, Merit, and the Augustinian Principle
The acts by which we will be judged — the works of charity, the living of faith — are genuinely ours: real human choices made in freedom. But they are also, at their root, God's gift. St. Augustine expresses this with perfect economy: "da quod iubes et iube quod vis" — "Give what you command, and command what you will" (Confessions X.29.40). And again: when God crowns our merits, He is crowning His own gifts (Epistola 194.5.19).
The CCC (§2006-2011) affirms this balance: merit, in the supernatural order, belongs to us because God makes it truly ours through grace — but the initiative, the power, and the completion are God's. A theology of judgment that begins with human effort and appends grace as an afterthought risks the ancient error of semi-Pelagianism. The correct ordering is: God's grace first enables, then elevates, then crowns the free acts of the justified soul.
💡 Practical Application: Living in Light of the Judgment
The Creed's affirmation of the coming judgment is not primarily a threat but an assurance: history is not meaningless, and no act of love or wickedness disappears without consequence. Every act of charity performed in the state of grace, however hidden, will be revealed and rewarded. Every injustice, every unrepented cruelty, will be accounted for. The coming judgment is the guarantee that God takes history, and the human person within it, with absolute seriousness. This is why the Creed professes it as a matter of faith — not fear, but hopeful accountability.
📊 Christological Heresies — Quick Reference
Six ecumenical councils addressed aspects of Christology — the doctrine of who Christ is and how His natures relate. The following table summarizes the major errors the Church has formally rejected, providing the apologetic foundation for defending Catholic Christology.
| Heresy | The Error | What It Denies | Condemned At |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arianism | The Son is the greatest creature, but not truly God; "there was a time when he was not" | Christ's full divinity and consubstantiality with the Father | Nicaea I (325 AD) |
| Apollinarianism | Christ had a human body but the divine Logos replaced His human rational soul | The completeness of Christ's human nature (body and soul) | Constantinople I (381 AD) |
| Nestorianism | Christ is effectively two persons — a divine person and a human person — joined morally | The unity of Christ's Person (the hypostatic union) | Ephesus (431 AD) |
| Monophysitism / Eutychianism | After the Incarnation, Christ has only one nature (the divine absorbed the human) | The permanence of Christ's distinct human nature after the Incarnation | Chalcedon (451 AD) |
| Monothelitism | Christ has two natures but only one will (the divine); His human will was absorbed | The genuine human will of Christ, which was distinct from but perfectly obedient to His divine will | Constantinople III (681 AD) |
| Orthodox Catholic Faith | One divine Person (the eternal Son) subsisting in two complete, distinct, permanently united natures — fully divine, fully human — without confusion, change, division, or separation | Nothing — this is the fullness of Christological truth | Definitively: Chalcedon (451 AD) |
🌸 Study Questions for Reflection
- The name "Jesus" means "YHWH saves," and the title "Lord" (Kyrios) translates the divine name YHWH in the Septuagint. Why would these names, used for Jesus in the New Testament, constitute the most radical claim the early Christians could make in their Jewish and Roman contexts?
- What is the difference between saying the Son is homoousios (of the same substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) with the Father? Why was the Council of Nicaea right to insist on homoousios? What is lost theologically if the Son is "like" God but not truly God?
- The Chalcedonian formula defines the hypostatic union with four negatives: the two natures are united without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. Which two of the five major Christological heresies does each pair of negatives address? Why does each negative matter?
- The Creed specifies that Christ suffered "under Pontius Pilate." What theological and apologetic work does this historical specificity do that a more general phrase (e.g., "under Roman authority") would not accomplish?
- Aquinas says Christ's Passion was not absolutely necessary but was supremely fitting for multiple reasons. What does this distinction between absolute and fitting necessity mean, and what are the most significant reasons Aquinas gives for why the Passion was fitting?
- "He descended into hell" is the most misread line in the Creed. What does "hell" actually mean in this article, and what are the four regions of the underworld in Catholic tradition? What did Christ accomplish by His descent to the Limbo of the Fathers?
- What is the difference between Christ's Resurrection and the resuscitations of Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, and others? Why does this distinction matter for understanding the nature of our own promised resurrection (1 Cor 15)?
- St. Augustine says that when God crowns our merits, He is crowning His own gifts. How does this principle hold together the reality of human free acts and the absolute priority of divine grace in the theology of judgment? How does it address the risk of semi-Pelagianism in popular Catholic piety?
Comments
Post a Comment