Theology on Thursday
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, better known as Tertullian (c. 155 – 230), was an early Church leader and Christian apologist. The son of a Roman centurion who was raised in Carthage as a pagan, Tertullian was a notable attorney during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. After his conversion, he became the first great writer in Western Christianity and is sometimes referred to as the “Father of the Latin Church.” He is responsible for the introduction of the terms, “Trinity,” “Old Testament,” and “New Testament,” as well as the theological formula, “three Persons, one Substance.”
This edition of “Theology on Thursday” focuses upon Tertullian’s (quite theological) thoughts on persecution.
“Nor would the devil’s legion have had power over the herd of swine unless they had got it from God; so far are they from having power over the sheep of God. I may say that the bristles of the swine, too, were then counted by God, not to speak of the hairs of holy men.”
“For what is the issue of persecution, what other result comes of it, but the approving and rejecting of faith, in regard to which the Lord will certainly sift His people? Persecution, by means of which one is declared either approved or rejected, is just the judgment of the Lord.”
“This (persecution) is the fan which even now cleans the Lord’s threshing floor the Church, I mean winnowing the mixed heap of believers, and separating the grain of the martyrs from the chaff of the deniers.”
“If persecution proceeds from God, in no way will it be our duty to flee from what has God as its author; a twofold reason opposing: for what proceeds from God ought not on the one hand to be avoided, and it cannot be evaded on the other.”
“You are deceived if you think that a Christian can live without persecution. He suffers the greatest persecution of all who lives under none.”
The Story of St. Valentine
Marriage was outlawed by Claudius II, Emperor of Rome, in the third century. The emperor thought married men, who were reluctant to be separated from their wives and children, made terrible soldiers. He believed outlawing marriage would strengthen his army. Individuals were either imprisoned or put to death. Claudius also outlawed Christianity, desiring to extinguish the one religion which repudiated the validity of worshiping the emperor as divine.
The Bishop (Pastor) of Interamna, Valentinus, believed individuals should be free to worship the true and living God and to follow God’s plan for union through marriage. Many young couples requested Pastor Valentinus to conduct their wedding ceremonies, which he did gladly, though in secret. He was arrested for this eventually and brought before Emperor Claudius. The Roman leader tried to persuade Valentinus to abandon his faith in Christ Jesus, promising full pardon if he would only serve Rome and its deities. The bishop refused to renounce Christ, further angering the emperor and resulting in the sentence of a three-part execution. Valentinus was to be beaten brutally, then stoned with rocks, and finally beheaded.
While imprisoned and awaiting his fate, he fell in love with the jailer’s daughter, Asterius. Prior to his execution, which was carried out on February 14, AD 270, he sent her a final farewell note. It was signed, “From Your Valentine.” Now you know the rest of the story about St. Valentine’s Day.
Theology on Thursday
“God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This simple declaration from the Apostle Paul expresses the fundamental Christian conviction regarding the Incarnation which the Church has labored strenuously to understand, preserve and defend. One of the foremost defenders of orthodox Christology in the history of the Church is Athanasius.
Athanasius was a fourth century bishop-theologian from Egypt. Born around AD 298, he lived in Alexandria. At that time, Alexandria was the chief learning center in the Roman Empire. Around AD 320, Arius, a priest in Alexandria, began teaching that Christ Jesus was “a god,” but that he did not exist eternally as “the God.” At that point in history, Athanasius was a newly ordained deacon and served as an assistant to Bishop Alexander. The deacon responded to the Arian heresy by proclaiming that the Father’s begetting of the Son was to be understood in the context of an eternal relation, not as a temporal event. Arius was condemned by the bishops of Egypt (with the exception of Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmorica).
Arius then traveled to Nicomedia, from where he wrote letters of defense and explanation to Church leaders throughout the world. His teachings were creating chaos within the life of the Church all over the empire. Constantine, desiring peace within his realm, called a council of bishops together at Nicea (near modern Instanbul) in AD 325. 317 bishops, from both the East and the West, were present (though most were from the East). Athanasius accompanied Bishop Alexander yet became recognized as the chief spokesman for orthodoxy. He articulated clearly that Jesus Christ is fully God, co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. The Council of Nicea formulated a creedal statement to express the orthodox view of Christ’s divinity. The Greek term “homoousios,” meaning “of the same substance, essence, or nature,” was employed to prevent the heresy of Arianism from circumventing orthodoxy with clever semantics. Of the 317 bishops, only two did not affirm the creed – Secundus and Theonas.
Shortly following the Council of Nicea the Arians mounted a theological uprising, refusing to accept the decision of the Council. The orthodox bishops began to negotiate with the Arians and considered various creedal statements that would soften the Nicene formula. Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328, refused to negotiate. He declared that if the orthodox made peace with the Arians their ultimate priority, then they would eventually sacrifice the truth. He defended the full deity of Jesus Christ at all costs before bishops, theologians and politicians. His magnum opus in this regard is De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation). His defense of the faith led his adversaries to brand him as a troublemaker and led to his banishment from Alexandria on five different occasions.
Due to Athanasius’ persistence, Christians began to understand the implications of his arguments, realizing that the surrender of the original Nicene formulation would result in the abandonment of biblical Christianity. For this reason, the Council of Constantinople convened in A.D. 381 and reaffirmed the Nicene formula. Today, the most comprehensive confession regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the Athanasian Creed (also known as Quicunque Vult). It takes its name, obviously, from the bold bishop from Egypt. Though the bishop did not author this creed, it nonetheless affirms his convictions and those of orthodox Christians around the globe. It maintains:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all
hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken
will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their Persons nor dividing their essence.
For the Person of the Father is a distinct person,
the Person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
Their glory equal, Their majesty co-eternal.
What quality the Father has,
the Son has,
and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal Being.
So too there are not three uncreated
or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated
and immeasurable Being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty Being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us to confess
each Person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
He was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
He proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this Trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in Their entirety the Three Persons
are co-eternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship Their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the Trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
God’s Son, is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and He is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although He is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by His divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God’s taking humanity to Himself.
He is one, certainly not by the blending of His essence,
but by the unity of His Person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
He descended to hell;
He arose from the dead;
He ascended to heaven;
He is seated at the Father’s right hand;
from there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
Election Day
With Election Day being tomorrow (Nov. 2), the Rev. Dr. Michael Horton points us back to St. Augustine and provides a thoughtful reminder regarding the Christian’s ultimate citizenship.
* * * * *
A Tale of Two Kingdoms by Michael Horton 
There is no better time to refresh our memories about the “two kingdoms” doctrine than at election time in the United States, when American Protestantism often seems divided more by its political allegiances than its faith and practice.
In the aftershocks of the sacking of Rome by the pagans in 410 a.d., the great church father Augustine, bishop of Hippo, wrote his famous City of God. Jerome, another celebrated church father, had collapsed in despair: “What is to become of the church now that Rome has fallen?” No doubt as a patriot, Augustine felt the same wound, but as a Christian pastor he greeted the event as a providential opportunity: God had brought the mission field to the missionaries. The question was whether there were many “missionaries” left in an empire that had weakened the faith precisely to the extent that it had fused it with civil religion.
Whether we face a similar possibility in our own civilization, we certainly stand in need of the wisdom that Augustine brought to the crisis. Like all great books, his City of God is interpreted rather differently by various schools. However, it is indisputable that it helped to create what came to be called the doctrine of the two kingdoms.
According to Augustine, the distinction between the two cities — the city of God and the city of man — is grounded in the two loves: love of God and love of self. The former leads to genuine fellowship and a communion of mutual giving and receiving, while the latter engenders strife, war, and the desire to exercise domination over others.
Ultimately, Augustine says, these two loves and two cities are themselves grounded in God’s eternal predestination. Although the city of man is destined to perish, God is both creating a new city (the church) from its ruins and preserving the old city by His common grace until ultimate peace and justice arrive with Christ’s return. In this era of common grace, God “sends rain on the just and on the unjust” and calls us to imitate His clemency (Matt. 5:43–48). So Christians have two callings: the high calling in Christ to belong to His body and the calling to the world as citizens, parents, children, friends, coworkers, and neighbors. Because God is still faithful to His creation, there is the possibility of an earthly city with its relative peace and justice; because God is faithful to His electing purposes, there is a church in all times and places that brings true peace and justice. He does this first of all by uniting sinners to Christ, and then one day by eradicating all strife from the earth at Christ’s return.
Consequently, each city has its own polity, serving distinct ends through distinct means. Although some of its citizens are converted to citizenship in the city of God, the earthly city is always Babylon. Like Daniel, believers pray for the city, work in the city, contribute to the city’s general welfare, and even fight in its armies. However, they never forget that they are exiles and pilgrims. Babylon is never the promised land.
The kingdom of God advances through the proclamation of the Gospel, not through the properly coercive powers of the state, although the church may take advantage of the relative peace that is possible in the earthly city (City of God, 19.26–27). These two cities we find “interwoven, as it were, in this present transitory world, and mingled with one another” (11.2). The good things that we do with non-Christian citizens to preserve and enlarge society really are good, but they are not ultimate goods. The earthly city will never be transformed into the city of God this side of Christ’s return in glory. A Christian would then approach politics not with the question as to how the world can best be saved, but how it can best be served in this time between the times.
Throughout the Middle Ages, the national covenant that Israel made with God at Sinai was regularly invoked as an allegory for Christendom. Crusades against “the infidel” (often Muslims) were declared by popes with the promise of immediate entrance into paradise for martyrs. Kings fancied themselves as king David, leading the armies of the Lord in cleansing the Holy Land. The very idea of a Christian empire or a Christian nation was a serious confusion of these two cities. It was against this confusion of Christ’s kingdom with Israel’s theocracy that Luther and Calvin launched their retrieval of Augustine’s “two kingdoms.”
Like Augustine, Luther emphasized the distinction between “things heavenly” and “things earthly,” righteousness before God and righteousness before fellow humans. On one hand, the Reformers were rejecting Rome’s confusion of Christ’s kingdom, which is extended by the proclamation of the Word, and earthly kingdoms. On the other hand, they were also opposing the Anabaptist movement, which regarded the earthly city as simply evil and unworthy of Christian involvement.
Opposing what he called the “contrived empire” of Christendom, Calvin says that we must recognize that we are “under a two-fold government…so that we do not (as commonly happens) unwisely mingle these two, which have a completely different nature.” Just as the body and spirit are distinct without being intrinsically opposed, “Christ’s spiritual kingdom and the civil jurisdiction are things completely distinct. …Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole nature of government a thing polluted, which has nothing to do with Christian men.” These two kingdoms are “distinct,” yet “they are not at variance” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.20.1–2).
Like Augustine, Calvin simultaneously affirms the natural order and its inability to generate an ultimate society because of sin. Bound to God as Creator in the covenant of creation, all human beings are heirs to a cultural mandate that they have transgressed. However, the cultural mandate is distinct from the Great Commission that belongs to the covenant of grace. The goal of common grace is not to perfect nature, but to restrain sin and animate civic virtues and arts, so that culture may fulfill its own important but limited, temporal, and secular ends, while God simultaneously pursues the redemptive aims of His everlasting city.
Responding to the radical reformers’ insistence that a commonwealth is only legitimate if it is ordered by biblical law, Calvin declares, “How malicious and hateful toward public welfare would a man be who is offended by such diversity, which is perfectly adapted to maintain the observance of God’s law! For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain” (Institutes, 4.20.8, 14). After all, Calvin says, “It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved on the minds of men” (Institutes, 4.20.8, 14). Even unbelievers can rule justly and prudently, as Paul indicates even under the more pagan circumstances of his day (Rom. 13:1–7).
When Jesus Christ arrived, He did not revive the Sinai theocracy as His contemporaries had hoped. Instead of driving out the Romans, He commanded love for our enemies. Gathering the new Israel — Jew and Gentile — around Himself, by His Spirit, through Word and sacrament, Jesus inaugurated the kingdom of grace that will be manifested one day as a kingdom of glory. In this time between His two comings the wheat grows together with the weeds, the sons of thunder are rebuked for calling down judgment here and now on those who reject their message, and the faithful gather regularly for the apostles’ teaching, fellowship, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers (Acts 2:42). Through its administration of Gospel preaching, baptism, the Supper, prayer, and discipline, the church is God’s new society inserted into the heart of the secular city as a witness to Christ and the age to come when He will be all in all.
In our Christian circles in the United States today, we can discern a “Christendom” view, where some imagine America to be a Christian nation invested with a divine commission to bring freedom to the ends of the earth. Of course, Christians have an obligation both to proclaim the heavenly and everlasting freedom of the Gospel and the earthly and temporal freedom from injustice. But they are different. When we confuse them, we take the kingdom into our own hands, transforming it from a kingdom of grace into a kingdom of glory and power.
We also recognize an opposite view, more characteristic of the Anabaptist perspective, as evangelist D. L. Moody asserted: “I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel. God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, ‘Moody, save all you can.’” In this view, improving the lot of our neighbors in the world is like polishing the brass on a sinking ship. Christians are often encouraged to focus almost exclusively on personal salvation (their own as well as that of others), unsure of the value of their secular vocations.
But we need not choose between these two kingdoms. Citizens of both, we carry out our vocations in the church and the world in distinct ways through distinct means. We need not “Christianize” culture in order to appreciate it and participate in it with the gifts that God has given us as well as our non-Christian neighbors. Though called to be faithful in our callings until Christ returns, with Abraham, we are “looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10, hcsb).
Theology on Thursday
John Chrysostom (c. 347–407) was a Church Father who served as the Archbishop of Constantinople (modern Instanbul, Turkey). Known primarily as a preacher, he was an eloquent preacher and public speaker who earned the nickname “the golden-mouthed” (Greek – chrysostomos). He is also known as a theologian and liturgist, particularly in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Chrysostom was a fierce antagonist of those who abused ecclesiastical and political authority, and was active in the destruction of pagan symbols and places of worship, including the temple of Artemis in Ephesus. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday comes from an excerpt of The Lord Will Answer: A Daily Prayer Catechism (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2004), featuring this prayer from Chrysostom:
I know, O Lord my God, I am unworthy that You should enter beneath the roof of the temple of my soul, because it is all empty and dead. There is in me no worthy place where You may lay Your heard. But since from Your loftiness You humbled Yourself for our sake, please humble Yourself now toward my humility. And as it seemed good to You to lie in the cavern and in the manger of dumb beasts, so also now graciously lie in the manger of my dumb soul, and enter into my defiled body. Just as You did not refuse to enter into the house of Simon the leper, and there to sit at a meal with sinners, so also graciously enter into the house of my humble soul, which is leprous and sinful. Just as You did not feel loathing for the polluted lips of a sinful woman who kissed Your feet, so also do not loathe my even more defiled and polluted lips and unclean tongue. Amen.
Theology on Thursday
The late Rev. Dr. Peter Toon was a graduate of King’s College, London, and Christ Church, Oxford, with a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil). Ordained a priest in the Church of England, he taught theology in both Great Britain and the United States, and was also a visiting professor and guest lecturer at a number of universities and seminaries in Europe, Australia, and Asia. He also served as a parish priest and as the president of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. Dr. Toon authored hundreds of articles, edited two series of theological books for seminarians, and published over thirty books. His books, many of which may be found online, include The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765; God’s Statesman: Life and Work of John Owen; What We Believe, Good News of Regeneration and Justification; Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity; Genuine godliness & true piety: Worshipping God in faith, hope and love; Let Women Be Women: Equality, Ministry & Ordination; and, Knowing God Through the Liturgy. He resided in San Diego with his wife,, Vita, where he died on April 25th of last year. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is the fourth and final installment containing excerpts from Dr. Toon’s Knowing God Through the Liturgy.
Another theme which is found in Common Prayer is the ancient Christian wisdom that all Christian holiness is contained in two things – the knowledge of God and the knowledge of self. Often Augustine of Hippo, whose Confessions is a true classic and whose writings have always been prized by Anglicans, exclaimed, “Lord, that I may know Thee and that I may know myself.” To claim that this prayer is a summary of the Common Prayer tradition of piety and devotion would not be an excessive claim! I think it is generally true.
The knowledge of God elevates the Christian believer while knowledge of self keeps him humble. Knowing God is that ascent wherein the believer contemplates the divine perfections and glory while knowing self is that descent which makes him see his own nothingness and sinfulness. That knowledge of God which raises the believer up to God also simultaneously humbles him by the comparison of himself with God as He is revealed in Jesus. Further, genuine self-knowledge, though it humbles the believer, also lifts him up through the necessity of approaching God to final comfort, forgiveness and solace through Christ Jesus. The true elevation of man is inseparable from his true humiliation – which is made crystal clear in the Anglican Common Prayer Tradition. To elevate man without humbling him is to cause pride; and to humble him without exalting him is to bring misery without hope. Thus to complain as do some modern teachers of liturgy that the Common Prayer Tradition is preoccupied with concerns of guilt, sin and justification is to go against the wisdom of Scripture and tradition. Unless worshippers see their sin, guilt and hopelessness how can they see that in Jesus Christ alone is salvation?
To know self is as necessary for holiness as is the knowing of God. To know self is to treat the self justly for to know ourselves as we really are is to see ourselves as God Himself sees us. Consider the question, Who am I? I am nothing in and of myself for from all eternity I was not and there was no reason why I should exist or be what I am. My existence is the effect of God’s will alone – not mine or anyone else’s. Were God to withdraw His powerful, sustaining word and power my being would cease to be. All I am and can be comes from God and is dependent upon Him and thus there is nothing in myself to love. In fact since I have sinned against my Creator I justly deserve His punishment. I have offended and continue to offend the Lord my God. I have become His enemy and I transgress His law. I fail in essential duties to Him and my fellow creatures for in me the tendency to sin has become a fixed habit and a strong inclination. Further, I cannot help myself out of this mess. God Himself must lift me up if I am to be raised.
Theology on Thursday
The late Rev. Dr. Peter Toon was a graduate of King’s College, London, and Christ Church, Oxford, with a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil). Ordained a priest in the Church of England, he taught theology in both Great Britain and the United States, and was also a visiting professor and guest lecturer at a number of universities and seminaries in Europe, Australia, and Asia. He also served as a parish priest and as the president of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. Dr. Toon authored hundreds of articles, edited two series of theological books for seminarians, and published over thirty books. His books, many of which may be found online, include The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765; God’s Statesman: Life and Work of John Owen; What We Believe, Good News of Regeneration and Justification; Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity; Genuine godliness & true piety: Worshipping God in faith, hope and love; Let Women Be Women: Equality, Ministry & Ordination; and, Knowing God Through the Liturgy. He resided in San Diego with his wife,, Vita, where he died on April 25th of last year. Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday is the second installment containing excerpts from Dr. Toon’s Knowing God Through the Liturgy.
When we speak of knowing God we have in mind, I think, both knowing about Him and knowing Him in personal friendship. We need to know something about God, Creator and Redeemer, in order to accept His gracious call to enter a personal relationship of faith in Him and love of Him. . . . We do not accept the ever-popular doctrine of pantheism, the doctrine that God is equivalent to nature and that the natural order is either God or the external expression of God. . . . Anglicans who take their Bible and Prayer Book seriously do not believe that God is the equivalent of nature. They confess that He is the Lord of nature. Further, we do not accept deism, a doctrine of God popular in the eighteenth century both in America and Europe, and intimately associated with the Enlightenment. Deism is the teaching that God created the world and then left it all alone to get on with its existence. That is, like the great clockmaker, He made a clock and then wound it up to let it go on with the job of keeping time. Rejecting this approach Anglicans believe that God the Creator is also God the Sustainer and Redeemer: God cares for the world that He made ex nihilo (out of nothing); and by His mighty word He keeps it in existence and order moment by moment. . . . So what is theism? It is the belief in one God who is the Creator of the world; He is infinite, self-existent, incorporeal, eternal, immutable, impassible, simple, omniscient and omnipotent. . . . God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. . . . Theism is the belief in one God who totally transcends (is above and wholly distinct from) the world that He made and who is perfect in wisdom, power, and love.
Modern living forms of theism include Judaism and Islam. There is of course a profound continuity between Jewish and Christian theism for the first disciples were Jewish theists who were wholly committed to the LORD, their God. Yet, through their encounter with Jesus, they eventually went forth gladly and commitedly to baptize converts to Christianity “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” They moved from the confession of One God to the confession of One God in Trinity. Therefore what distinguishes classical Christian theism from any other form of theism is that Christians believe, teach and confess that God eternally exists not only as the One and Only God but as One God in Three Persons—the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Further, Christians also hold that the eternal Son became incarnate as Jesus, the Christ, and that He alone is the means of their salvation. . . . Of course the confession of the Holy Trinity has to be stated with great care for it can be so easily misunderstood. For example, it can be carelessly stated and taken to mean that God is One God with three major names (Father, Son and Spirit)—this was called Modalism or Sabellianism in the Early Church. . . . Or the Trinity can be taken to mean that there are three equal Gods called the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is tritheism. Then there is the concept of the Trinity as a descending hierarchy of three related but not equal expressions of deity. First is the Father; at a lower level of deity is the Son and at an even lower level is the Holy Spirit. Thus only the Father is really God – the Son and the Spirit are superior angels. . . . A typical Anglican devotion for Trinity Sunday will be something like this:
Come let us adore the Sacred Trinity, Three Persons and One God.
To Thee, the eternal Father, made by none;
To Thee, the increated Son, begotten by the Father alone;
To Thee, the blessed Spirit, proceeding from the Father and the Son;
To this one, holy, consubstantial and undivided Trinity,
be ascribed all power and wisdom and glory, now and for ever.
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth.
Heaven and earth are full of Majesty of Thy glory.Further, the constant appearance of heresies and errors ought to make us keen to learn sound and edifying knowledge about the God whom we worship. There is much to know about God, for He is like a glorious, everlasting inexhaustible Fountain from which we drink and continue to drink. He is super-essential Being and the more we know about Him the more we realize that there is to know. Knowledge of the LORD as the Holy Trinity is fundamental and without this knowledge we can make no progress in worship and devotion; but, there are many other aspects to the knowledge of God that we need to know in order that we might grow in our personal relationship with Him. For this reason we study and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures.
Theology on Thursday
The late Rev. Dr. Peter Toon was a graduate of King’s College, London, and Christ Church, Oxford, with a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil). Ordained a priest in the Church of England, he taught theology in both Great Britain and the United States, and was also a visiting professor and guest lecturer at a number of universities and seminaries in Europe, Australia, and Asia. He also served as a parish priest and as the president of the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. Dr. Toon authored hundreds of articles, edited two series of theological books for seminarians, and published over thirty books. His books, many of which may be found online, include The Emergence of Hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity, 1689-1765; God’s Statesman: Life and Work of John Owen; What We Believe, Good News of Regeneration and Justification; Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity; Genuine godliness & true piety: Worshipping God in faith, hope and love; Let Women Be Women: Equality, Ministry & Ordination; and, Knowing God Through the Liturgy. He resided in San Diego with his wife,, Vita, where he died on April 25th of last year.
Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday, along with the subsequent three editions, include excerpts from Dr. Toon’s work, Knowing God Through the Liturgy. One does not have to be an Anglican, or even a liturgical Evangelical, in order to appreciate a great deal of what Toon wrote in this work. He combined a passion for worshiping God in spirit and in truth with keen theological insight. May the Lord bless you as you read excerpts from the first two chapters today.
…There is an equating of the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) with the Holy Spirit by much of the leadership of the Church. The nature of the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of Christ, is presented in Scripture for our study and meditation in such places as John 14-16 and Romans 8. He is the Spirit of holiness and wholeness, of regeneration and renewal, of goodness and faithfulness, and He leads us in the way of Christ. What He guides disciples of Jesus to be and to do stands in contrast and opposition to the secular spirit of the world, the raw desires of the flesh and the temptations of the devil. The Holy Spirit is on no account to be confused with the spirit of the age or the modern spirit – however this contemporary spirit is defined. I have been profoundly disturbed to hear of such things as the right of human beings to name God as they choose, and the practice of homosexuality and lesbianism, described as examples of the way the Holy Spirit is showing us new values and truths today. Is this not coming near to that sin our Lord said was unforgivable – sin against the Holy Spirit? (See Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10.) . . . .
…To say ‘we believe…’ is not the same thing as saying ‘I believe’. We are there together at Holy Communion as the Body of Christ and each believer who is present is a member of that Body: thus each of us has to respond to the God who has revealed and given Himself to us: therefore, the right response is ‘Lord, I believe!’ Though the members of the Council of Nicea composed the Creed and said together against heretics, ‘We [as a body standing together] believe’ they each confessed the same faith in the Eucharist in personal terms, ‘I believe’ (as the ancient Liturgies of St Basil and St Chrysostom show). . . .
The seeking after God and the knowledge of Him is the most deeply fulfilling journey upon which we can embark. We need a sure road to travel on, an accurate map to use and a faithful guide to direct us in our search for the living God and fellowship with Him. I believe that wise people will take that road, use that map and employ that guide which have proved themselves over the centuries to achieve what they promise. Modern forms of transport may be better than older ones: modern houses may be warmer than older ones; but, knowing God is not like using transport or buying houses. In this human quest we need to pay attention to the accumulated wisdom and tested practice of the centuries: this is more likely to lead us where we want to go than are modern insights and untested ways.
St. Patrick
St. Patrick (c. AD 373-465) was the most influential Christian missionary to serve Ireland. Patrick came from a Christian family (for two generations at least). His father, Calpurnius, was a deacon and the son of Potitus, a presbyter of Bannaven Taburniae. Patrick was born in what was then Roman Britain (and now Scotland). Kidnapped by a band of pirates when he was 16, he was sold to a chieftan in northern Ireland and forced to labor as a shepherd. It was during this time he was himself converted and became a follower of Jesus Christ. He recounted:
“Before I was humbled, I was like a stone lying in deep mire, and He that is mighty came and in His mercy raised me up and, indeed, lifted me high up and placed me on top of the wall. And from there I ought to shout out in gratitutde to the Lord for His great favours in this world and for ever, that the mind of man cannot measure.”
Following six years of captivity, Patrick escaped and returned to his home in Scotland. After several years he sensed a divine calling to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ in the land of his former captivity. Though his family urged him to remain with them, he sensed this calling was confirmed by Holy Scripture and set out for Ireland with several associates around AD 405.
The task facing Patrick and his comrades was a difficult one with Druids ruling the religious landscape of Ireland. The Irish worshiped “idols and things impure,” and the land was filled with sorcerers and exorcists. The missionary later related his labors suffered “twelve dangers in which my life was at stake—not to mention numerous plots.” He noted tribal leaders “laid hands on me and my companions and on that day they eagerly wished to kill me; but my time had not yet come. And everything they found with us they took away, and me they put in irons; and on the fourteenth day the Lord delivered me from their power, and our belongings were returned to us because of God.”
Patrick spent 60 years preaching the gospel throughout Ireland. Thousands were baptized after professing faith in Jesus Christ, including numerous pagan kings and nobles. Patrick ordained approximately 450 elders and established approximately 365 congregations all across the Emerald Isle. Patrick readily praised God for these successs:
“I am greatly God’s debtor, because he granted me so much grace, that through me many people would be reborn in God, and soon after confirmed, that clergy would be ordained everywhere for them, and the masses lately come to belief, whom the Lord drew from the ends of the earth. As He once promised through His prophets: To you shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Our fathers have inherited naught but lies, worthless things in which there is no profit. And again, I have set you to be a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the uttermost ends of the earth. And I wish to wait then for His promise which is never unfulfilled, just as it is promised in the Gospel.”
Theology on Thursday
St. Jerome (c. 347 –420) was a Christian priest, apologist, historian, and eminent scholar. Best known for his translation of the Holy Bible into Latin (the Vulgate), his list of writings are extensive. His writings in the field of dogmatic theology are quite polemical, directed against assailants of orthodoxy. During his lifetime the Church at Antioch was divided deeply by doctrinal disputes. During his lifetime the Church at Antioch was torn by doctrinal strife, and many from the congregation called upon Jerome to provide his opinions on the subjects at hand. Around AD 380 he journeyed to Constantinople to study Scripture under Gregory of Nazianzus. Two years later he traveled to Rome with Paulinus of Antioch to attend a council called by Bishop Damasus to deal with the schism at Antioch. Jerome was appointed secretary of the council. Due to his ability, and the prestige of Rome and its bishop, the East and West both recognized a high degree of ability for the Roman see to arbitrate ecclesiastical issues. Jerome was also recognized for his personal piety and learning. Nonetheless, he aroused resentment from many non-Christians whom he condemned in his writings and by many Christians who were offended by his biting sarcasm.
Today’s edition of Theology on Thursday focuses upon a trio of concise statements made by St. Jerome related to death and grief in the Christian life:
- “We should indeed mourn for the dead, but only for him whom Gehenna receives.”
- “You must regret him not as dead but as absent.”
- “Why do we grieve for the dead? We are not born to live forever.”
Epiphany
Today, January 6, is the Christian feast day known as Epiphany. Epiphany, from the Greek ἐπιφάνεια, means “appearance” or “manifestation”. The purpose of the feast is to celebrate the revelation of the Incarnation – God taking on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. The observance of Epiphany originated in the East, with the commemoration of the Lord’s birth, the Magi’s visit, the Lord’s childhood, His baptism in the Jordan River, and His first miracle at Cana. It was known in the earliest centuries as the feast of the Manifestation, the Theophany, and the Feast of Light. Second only to Easter in importance, Epiphany was observed in the East as early as the second or third century. The earliest reference to Epiphany is a remark by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), who noted in Stromateis (I, xxi, 45):
“And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day… The followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings. And they say that it was the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, the fifteenth day of the month of Tubi; and some that it was the eleventh of the same month [Jan. 6 and 10].”
Today, Christians in the West generally commemorate the visitation of the Magi to worship the Lord, understood as the time He was manifested to the Gentiles. There has been a traditional emphasis in the West upon the “Revelation to the Gentiles,” mentioned in the Gospel of Luke (2:32). In Scripture, Gentile means all non-Jewish peoples. The Magi, representing the Gentiles as a whole, worshiped the Lord Jesus in stark contrast to Herod the Great, the King of Judea who sought to put Him to death. Early Church leaders believed this manifestation implied a revelation to the Jews as well as the Gentiles. John Chrysostom noted of this event, “The star had been hidden from them so that, on finding themselves without their guide, they would have no alternative but to consult the Jews. In this way the birth of Jesus would be made known to all.” Before A.D. 354, the Western Church separated the celebration of the Nativity as the feast of Christmas and set its date as December 25. It reserved January 6 as a commemoration of the manifestation of the Christ, particularly to the Magi (along with his baptism and the miracle at Cana). The West has historically observed a twelve-day festival, beginning on Christmas Day and concluding on January 5, known as Christmastide (the Twelve Days of Christmas). Eventually, the observance of Christmas Day in the West overshadowed Ephipany (the “old Christmas”).
Christians in the East generally commemorate the baptism of Christ Jesus in the Jordan River, understood as His manifestation to the world as the Son of God. Eastern Christians also call this Theophany. Epiphany became the day for receiving new members through baptism. These members were called illuminandi – the ones enlightened by Christ, the Light of the world. In a sermon delivered on December 25, 380, Gregory of Nazianzus referred to Epiphany as the Theophany. He declared it as a day commemorating “the holy nativity of Christ,” and told his hearers they would soon celebrate the baptism of the Lord Jesus. On January 6 and 7, 381, he preached two more sermons. In both he declared the celebration of Christ’s birth and the visitation of the Magi had already occurred, and the baptism of Jesus would now be celebrated. The East emphasizes the revelation of Jesus as the Christ and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity at the time of His baptism because this event marked one of only two occasions when all three Persons of the Holy Trinity manifested themselves simultaneously to humanity. God the Father spoke through the clouds, God the Son was baptized in the Jordan, and God the Holy Spirit descended from heaven upon Him in the form of a dove (the other occasion was the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor). Those in the East consider the Lord’s baptism the first step towards the crucifixion (Good Friday).
Theology on Thursday
“God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This simple declaration from the Apostle Paul expresses the fundamental Christian conviction regarding the Incarnation which the Church has labored strenuously to understand, preserve and defend. One of the foremost defenders of orthodox Christology in the history of the Church is Athanasius.
Athanasius was a fourth century bishop-theologian from Egypt. Born around AD 298, he lived in Alexandria. At that time, Alexandria was the chief learning center in the Roman Empire. Around AD 320, Arius, a priest in Alexandria, began teaching that Christ Jesus was “a god,” but that he did not exist eternally as “the God.” At that point in history, Athanasius was a newly ordained deacon and served as an assistant to Bishop Alexander. The deacon responded to the Arian heresy by proclaiming that the Father’s begetting of the Son was to be understood in the context of an eternal relation, not as a temporal event. Arius was condemned by the bishops of Egypt (with the exception of Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmorica).
Arius then traveled to Nicomedia, from where he wrote letters of defense and explanation to Church leaders throughout the world. His teachings were creating chaos within the life of the Church all over the empire. Constantine, desiring peace within his realm, called a council of bishops together at Nicea (near modern Instanbul) in AD 325. 317 bishops, from both the East and the West, were present (though most were from the East). Athanasius accompanied Bishop Alexander yet became recognized as the chief spokesman for orthodoxy. He articulated clearly that Jesus Christ is fully God, co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. The Council of Nicea formulated a creedal statement to express the orthodox view of Christ’s divinity. The Greek term “homoousios,” meaning “of the same substance, essence, or nature,” was employed to prevent the heresy of Arianism from circumventing orthodoxy with clever semantics. Of the 317 bishops, only two did not affirm the creed – Secundus and Theonas.
Shortly following the Council of Nicea the Arians mounted a theological uprising, refusing to accept the decision of the Council. The orthodox bishops began to negotiate with the Arians and considered various creedal statements that would soften the Nicene formula. Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328, refused to negotiate. He declared that if the orthodox made peace with the Arians their ultimate priority, then they would eventually sacrifice the truth. He defended the full deity of Jesus Christ at all costs before bishops, theologians and politicians. His magnum opus in this regard is De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation). His defense of the faith led his adversaries to brand him as a troublemaker and led to his banishment from Alexandria on five different occasions.
Due to Athanasius’ persistence, Christians began to understand the implications of his arguments, realizing that the surrender of the original Nicene formulation would result in the abandonment of biblical Christianity. For this reason, the Council of Constantinople convened in A.D. 381 and reaffirmed the Nicene formula. Today, the most comprehensive confession regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the Athanasian Creed (also known as Quicunque Vult). It takes its name, obviously, from the bold bishop from Egypt. Though the bishop did not author this creed, it nonetheless affirms his convictions and those of orthodox Christians around the globe. It maintains:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all
hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken
will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their Persons nor dividing their essence.
For the Person of the Father is a distinct person,
the Person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
Their glory equal, Their majesty co-eternal.
What quality the Father has,
the Son has,
and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal Being.
So too there are not three uncreated
or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated
and immeasurable Being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty Being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us to confess
each Person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
He was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
He proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this Trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in Their entirety the Three Persons
are co-eternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship Their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the Trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
God’s Son, is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and He is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although He is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by His divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God’s taking humanity to Himself.
He is one, certainly not by the blending of His essence,
but by the unity of His Person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
He descended to hell;
He arose from the dead;
He ascended to heaven;
He is seated at the Father’s right hand;
from there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
Theology on Thursday
St. Augustine examines Ephesians 1 in his work, On the Predestination of the Saints, pointing out that election is to holiness, not on account of it or foreknowledge of it. Chapters 35-37 make up today’s edition of Theology on Thursday.
Ch. 35
Who can hear the apostle saying, ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; just as He chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without spot in His sight; in love predestinating us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will, wherein He hath shown us favour in His beloved Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins according to the riches of His grace, which hath abounded to us in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He hath purposed in Himself, in the dispensation of the fullness of times, to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and in the earth, in Him: in whom also we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose; who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will, that we should be to the praise of His glory;’ – who, I say, can hear these words with attention and intelligence, and can venture to have any doubt concerning a truth so clear as this which we are defending? God chose Christ’s members in Him before the foundation of the world; and how should He choose those who as yet did not exist, except by predestinating them? Therefore He chose us by predestinating us. Would He choose the unholy and the unclean? Now if the question be proposed, whether He would choose such, or rather the holy and unstained, who can ask which of these he may answer, and not give his opinion at once in favour of the holy and pure?
Ch. 36
‘Therefore,’ says the Pelagian, ‘He foreknew who would be holy and immaculate by the choice of free will, and on that account elected them before the foundation of the world in that same foreknowledge of His in which He foreknew that they would be such. Therefore He elected them,’ says he, ‘before they existed, predestinating them to be children whom He foreknew to be holy and immaculate. Certainly He did not make them so; nor did He foresee that He would make them so, but that they would be so.’ Let us, then, look into the words of the apostle and see whether He chose us before the foundation of the world because we were going to be holy and immaculate, or in order that we might be so. ‘Blessed,’ says he, ‘be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us in all spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ; even as He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted.’ Not, then, because we were to be so, but that we might be so. Assuredly it is certain, – assuredly it is manifest. Certain we were to be such for the reason that He has chosen us, predestinating us to be such by His grace. Therefore ‘He blessed us with spiritual blessing in the heavens in Christ Jesus, even as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight, predestinating us in love to the adoption of children through Jesus Christ to Himself.’ Attend to what he then adds: ‘According to the good pleasure,’ he says, ‘of His will;’ in order that we might not in so great a benefit of grace glory concerning the good pleasure of our will. ‘In which,’ says he, ‘He hath shown us favour in His beloved Son,’ – in which, certainly, His own will, He hath shown us grace by grace, even as it is said, He has made us righteous by righteousness. ‘In whom,’ he says, ‘we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, which has abounded to us in all wisdom and prudence; that He might show to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure.’ In this mystery of His will, He placed the riches of His grace, according to His good pleasure, not according to ours, which could not possibly be good unless He Himself, according to His own good pleasure, should aid it to become so. But when he had said, ‘According to His good pleasure,’ he added, ‘which He purposed in Him,’ that is, in His beloved Son, ‘in the dispensation of the fullness of times to restore all things in Christ, which are in heaven, and which are in earth, in Him; in whom also we too have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things according to the counsel of His will; that we should be to the praise of His glory.’
Ch. 37
It would be too tedious to argue about the several points. But you see without doubt, you see with what evidence of apostolic declaration this grace is defended, in opposition to which human merits are set up, as if man should first give something for it to be recompensed to him again. Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God’s will toward himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory [Philippians 2:13]. For this reason it is that we cry that no one should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let him glory in the Lord, that we may be for the praise of His glory. Because He Himself worketh according to His purpose that we may be to the praise of His glory, and, of course, holy and immaculate, for which purpose He called us, predestinating us before the foundation of the world. Out of this, His purpose is that special calling of the elect for whom He co-worketh with all things for good, because they are called according to His purpose, and ‘the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ [Romans 11:29]
Theology on Thursday
Athanasius (c. 293 – May 2, 373) was a noted fourth-century Christian theologian from Alexandria, Egypt, who served as the bishop of that city’s church. Best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius, Athanasius affirmed the orthodox doctrine of Christ against the heretical subordinationist Christology of Arianism. Arius argued Christ is a created being who consists of a distinct essence from the Father. Athanasius’ De Incarnatione (The Incarnation of the Word of God), along with Contra Gentes (Against the Heathen), constitutes the first classical work of developed orthodox theology. The second portion of the work presents teaching on the matter of redemption. The Bishop of Alexandria argues the Son of God, the eternal Word through whom God created the world, entered creation as a Man to lead human beings back into the harmony from which they have fallen. Rather than being an innovator, as he stated in his First Letters to Serapion, he upheld “the tradition, teaching, and faith proclaimed by the apostles and guarded by the fathers.”
Regarding salvation, he writes in De Incarnatione (c. 318):
But though this is unavoidable, there is on the other side the honour of God’s character, so that God may appear consistent in His decree about the death. . . . What then ought God to do about this matter? Demand repentance. . . ? But this would not safeguard the honour of God’s character; for He would remain inconsistent if death did not hold sway over men. . . . What else was needed [to restore man from corruption] but the Word of God, who in the beginning made everything from nothing?
For it was His task to restore the corruptible to uncorruption, and to maintain the honour of the Father before all. For being the Word of the Father and above all, it followed that He alone was able to re-create everything and to be ambassador for all men with the Father.
. . . . And thus, taking a body like to ours, because all men were liable to the corruption of death He surrendered it to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father; . . . that by all dying in Him the law touching the corruption of mankind might be abolished (inasmuch as its power was fulfilled in the Lord’s body, and no longer has capacity against men who are like Him), and that He might turn back to incorruption men who had reverted to corruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of His resurrection. . . .
. . . . The Word takes on a body capable of death, in order that, by partaking in the Word that is above all, it might be worthy to die instead of all, and might remain incorruptible through the indwelling Word, and that for the future corruption should cease from all by the grace of His resurrection. . . . Hence He did away with death for all who are like Him by offering of a substitute. For it was reasonable that the Word, who is above all, in offering His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute-like for all, fulfilled the liability in His death, and thus the incorruptible Son of God, being associated with all mankind by likeness to them, naturally clothed all with incorruption in the promise concerning the resurrection.
Theology on Thursday
Holy Scripture teaches neither salvation by works-righteousness nor antimonianism (lit. “against the law”, e.g., licentiousness). In regard to the doctrine of the preservation and perseverance of the saints, the Word of God reveals Christians are to persevere in faith in the midst of great trail and that God preserves His people by His abiding grace. Here are some thoughts from giants in the faith regarding this truth:
“It is the will of God that all whom He loves should partake of repentance, and so not perish with the unbelieving and impenitent. He has established it by His almighty will. But if any of those whom God wills should partake of the grace of repentance, should afterwards perish, where is His almighty will? And how is this matter settled and established by such a will of His?”
- Clement of Rome
“Such a soul shall never at any time be separated from God…. Faith, I say, is something divine, which cannot be pulled asunder by any other worldly friendship, nor be dissolved by present fear.”
- Clement of Alexandria
“God forbid that we should believe that the soul of any saint should be drawn out by the devil…. For what is of God is never extinguished.”
- Tertullian
“Of these believers no one perishes, because they all were elected. And they are all elected because they were called according to the purpose–the purpose, however, not their own, but God’s…. Obedience then is God’s gift…. To this, indeed, we are not able to deny, that perseverance is good, progressing even to the end, is also a great gift of God.”
- Augustine
Theology on Thursday
I’m confessional without apology. One of the confessions I affirm without hesitation as a Christian is The Apostles’ Creed. There are essentially three articles within the creed. The first article regards creation as it states: “I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” What does this mean? That God has made everything within creation, including me; that He has given me my body and soul and takes care of my needs. He provides food, clothing, shelter, family, possessions, property, and pets. Every day He provides me with everything I need to support this life. He does this solely out of His mercy, without regard to any merit or worthiness within me. For all of these things, it is my duty to love Him faithfully, thank Him fully, praise Him joyfully, and serve Him obediently.
Theology on Thursday
This past Sunday I led Chapel congregants in the recitation of the Apostles’ Creed. Those gathered each confessed, “I believe in the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints.” I’m not sure how many congregations across the country did the same, but I’m doubtful that it was many. Contemporary Americans, including those who call themselves Christians, are generally cynical when it comes to institutions – an outlook which has impacted our comprehension of the Church in a negative manner. All too often people make statements about liking Christ but not Christians, or wanting a relationship with God apart from organized religion.
To be brutally honest, the visible church in North America appears worldly and weak. Televangelists, with their abhorrent anthropocentric theology and perverse avarice, are often perceived erroneously as spokespersons for the church at large. Winning grins and shallow slogan provide comfort to those whose faith is too superficial to endure solid exposition regarding sanctification and suffering. Popular works of fiction are hailed as “the next best thing to Scripture” despite their unscriptural content. Novelists, whether their topic is demonology, eschatology, or even God Himself, are considered authorities in the realm of theology while systematic theologians are often denounced as focusing too much upon “man-made systems.” Democratic individualism, which has much to do with the culture and little or nothing to do with Scripture, permeates everything from altar calls to business meetings. It is no wonder many people are so discouraged with the congregational life they witness, since many congregations are focused upon entertaining the masses rather than carrying out the tasks delineated within Holy Writ. As Spurgeon put it, they are “amusing the goats rather than feeding the sheep.”
Nonetheless, the Christian must never forget that the Church is the family of God, the body and bride of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27; Revelation 19:7), and the residence of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16; Ephesians 2:19-21). Those within her walls who denounce and belittle her do so at their own peril, for they speak against her Groom (Acts 9:4). At this time, the visible church is mixed with wheat and tares (Matthew 13:24-30) and Christ is sanctifying His bride so that she will be without blemish and without spot (Ephesians 5:25-27). That reality should make us pause, careful to speak about the Church and her present condition. Contemplate the Church with me and consider these words from the Early Church Fathers:
“As long as she is a stranger in the world, the city of God has in her communion, and bound to her by the sacraments, some who shall not eternally dwell in the lot of the saints. Of these, some are not now recognized; others declare themselves, and do not hesitate to make common cause with our enemies in murmuring against God, whose sacramental badge they wear. These men you may today see thronging the churches with us, tomorrow crowding the theatres with the godless.”
- Augustine
“The spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.”
- Ignatius
“He cannot posses the robe of Christ who rends and divides the Church of Christ.”
- Cyprian
“Make no mistake about it. If anyone is not inside the sanctuary, he lacks God’s bread.”
- Ignatius
“The unity of the Church is proved by the mutuality of the greetings of peace, by the use of the name ‘brother,’ and by mutual hospitality.”
- Tertullian
“If anyone outside the ark of Noah was able to escape, then perhaps someone outside the pale of the Church may escape.”
- Cyprian
“Let us love our Lord God, let us love His Church; Him as a Father, her as a Mother.”
- Augustine
“He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”
- Cyprian
“…You would receive unity which you do not have, you would receive peace which you do not have. But if you regard these things as nothing, then fight, you deserter, fight against your Commander who says, ‘He that gathereth not with Me, scattereth.’ Fight, then, against His apostle, yes, even against Him who speaks through him when he says, ‘Supporting one another in charity, careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’”
- Augustine
Theology on Thursday
Psalm 90:10-14 – 10 The years of our life are seventy, or even by reason of strength eighty; yet their span is but toil and trouble; they are soon gone, and we fly away. 11 Who considers the power of Your anger, and Your wrath according to the fear of You? 12 So teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom. 13 Return, O Lord! How long? Have pity on Your servants! 14 Satisfy us in the morning with Your steadfast love, that we may rejoice and be glad all our days.
A couple of recent editions of Theology on Thursday have focused upon suffering and death. Those subjects don’t tend to stimulate excitement, yet Scripture points us to contemplate these topics so that we may live our lives more wisely. This past Monday evening I received a phone call driving this point home. When I picked up the telephone, I didn’t expect the message I heard – my very best friend from high school, Billy Goff, passed away. His ex-wife, Joyce, graciously thought of me and wanted to make sure I knew. The news punched me in the gut.
Billy and I met as freshman at Ft. Knox High School in Kentucky back in ’81. We were nearly inseparable after we met. We’d hang out in each other’s homes, played video games at the arcade (neither one of us owned an Atari), hung out at the roller-skating rink, worked odd jobs together, and attended Sunday school at the post chapel. We laughed a lot, got into a little trouble, and shared things with each other that we didn’t trust with anyone else. We both moved to Germany during our sophomore year, but he ended up at Frankfurt High School and I went to Bamberg. Still, we visited each other fairly often. Following graduation, Billy ended up joining the Army. He visited me in North Carolina right before I went off to college. The next time I saw him, he was married to Joyce and had three beautiful children – Billy, Kim, and Ryan. In fact, Billy and his family traveled to see me a couple of times when I was preaching in revival services, once in Indiana and once in Ohio.
The last time we saw each other was when Billy came with his family to Cleveland to attend services. We chatted a few times on the phone since then, but it had been several years. It seemed the last few times we talked that he always wanted to remember the good times from our glory days in high school, while I was more interested in family and what was happening in the present. I think a result of that was that we fell out of touch. Just a few weeks ago I got on Facebook. I tried to see if I could find Billy, but didn’t. I also tried tracking him down via the online edition of White Pages. He wasn’t listed anywhere in Ohio, where he had been for so long. It was Joyce, who told me on Monday, that Billy had ended up in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. That is where he passed away. How I wish now I had been able to track him down earlier.
A couple of hours after I got off the phone with Joyce, I began perusing theology. I picked up the works of St. Irenaeus, where I intended to study the topic of baptism. Instead, I read this line from the pen of the Patristic author, “The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death.” My theological reading was finished for the night, and I’ve been contemplating St. Irenaeus’ statement ever since.
Theology on Thursday
Mark 10:35 – And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36 And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37 And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38 Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40 but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”
Many Christians, including those who have been called to ordained ministry, must constantly examine themselves and their motives. Too many pulpits and too many pews are filled with individuals seeking their own glory rather than God’s, motivated by selfish desires rather than godly ones. Some are satisfied with trifles, “naming and claiming” their “best life now,” rather than being satisfied with God and Him alone. Christians must constantly recall that the central symbol of following Christ is the cross. It is even possible for someone within an orthodox, Bible-believing congregation to get carried away with thinking Christianity exists “to give me salvation, to grant me health and wealth, to satisfy my desires, to increase my power.” Too often we may act and speak like the Apostles James and John prior to the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Robert Raines has captured this well in his work, Creative Brooding:
I am like James and John
Lord, I size up other people
in terms of what they can do for me;
How they can further my program,
feed my ego,
satisfy my needs,
give me strategic advantage.I exploit people,
ostensibly for Your sake,
but really for my own sake.Lord, I turn to You
to get the inside track
and obtain special favors,Your direction for my schemes,
Your power for my projects,
Your sanction for my ambitions,
Your blank checks for whatever I want.I am like James and John.
Instead, may we be like the Apostles James and John after the resurrection, who faced execution and exile for the sake of Him who gave His life for them.
The Doctor is IN
Thomas asked:
“What is the difference between the dithelyte and monothelyte positions, do two wills constitute two personages, and how or which is most proper view of the hypostatic union?”
A new branch of Monophysitism emerged during the seventh century when the Empire was under threat of invasion by the Persians and Islamists. Seeking greater numerical strength by uniting orthodox (Chalcedonian) Christians with moderate Monophysites, some ecclesiastical leaders produced what they believed was an acceptable compromise to both sides – affirming the Incarnate Word has two natures but only a single mode of activity (mia energeia). This compromise proved popular at first, approved both by Honorius, Bishop of Rome, and Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. After Honorius had written there is “one will” in Christ Jesus, Sergius drafted the Ekthesis, asserting there are two natures in the one Christ united by a single will. The Ekthesis was actually approved by two synods held in Constantinople in 638 and 639, but rejected by leading bishops. Emperor Constans II removed the Ekthesis from publication, replacing it with the imperial edict entitled Typos. It called for the retention of the terminology employed by the five Ecumenical Councils and prohibited anyone of speaking either of “one will” or “two wills” (Dyothelitism) in the Incarnate Word. Despite the edict, controversy still swirled around the subject.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council met in Constantinople (AD 680-81) specifically to address the heresy of “Monothelitism” (from monos, one, and thelema, will) – the belief there is only one will in Jesus Christ. The Council declared emphatically that orthodox Christianity maintains Jesus Christ is one Person and that He has two natures and two wills. Honorius and Sergius were both anathematized by the Council for attempting to “destroy the perfection of the Incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ, our God, by blasphemously representing His flesh endowed with a rational soul as devoid of all will or operation.” The Council understood the position of these two former leaders negated the humanity of Jesus Christ. The Council declared, at length:
“In Him are two natural wills and two natural operations which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And these two natural wills are not opposed to each other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but His human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should not be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as His flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as He Himself says: ‘I come down from heaven, not that I might do My own will but the will of the Father which sent Me’ where He calls His own will the will of His flesh, inasmuch as His flesh was also His own.”
The phrase “hypostatic union” was one of the three phrases employed constantly by the Monophysites. The other phrases they used were “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos” and “out of two [natures].” Though they opposed the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the orthodox leaders of the following Ecumenical Council, that held at Constantinople (AD 553), made it plain they rejected Nestorianism emphatically while seeking reconciliation with the Monophysites. The orthodox emphasized their similarities with the Monophysites and were accommodating to particular expressions and aspects of their position. Time and again they insisted the union of natures in Christ is truly a “hypostatic union” and accepted the use of the phrase, “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos.” They hoped the Trinitarian Monophysites would grasp the affirmations of orthodoxy and embrace the Definition of Chalcedon. These Councils made it plain that the union of the two natures and wills in Christ Jesus is not presented as a parallelism, but as a synthesis which occurs in the one Person.
Theology on Thursday
At the beginning of the year I had the opportunity to attend a six-week chaplaincy course. Students included Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I had the pleasure of being assigned a seat between two Roman Catholic chaplains. One was curious to hear my affirmation of being catholic but not Roman Catholic. He seemed intrigued by the fact I affirm the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but was highly perplexed (and a bit vitriolic) because I do not affirm the thirteen General Councils (beginning with Lateran I in 1123 and concluding with Vatican II in 1962-65, all of which Roman Catholics assert as Ecumenical Councils). He was also surprised at my affirmation of Mary as Theotokos.
Modern evangelicals would do well to familiarize themselves with the Ecumenical Councils if they have not already done so. Two of these Councils are especially pertinent to the month of December, in many respects, as we consider the nature of the Lord’s Incarnation. While the first two Ecumenical Councils of the Church addressed the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the third and fourth Ecumenical Councils focused on the identity of Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Word. To declare that Jesus Christ is fully divine and fully human, as the Ecumenical Councils did in the Creed of Nicea (325) and the Nicene Creed (381), raises Christological questions. Is Christ two persons united perfectly; or, is Christ one Person with two natures?
Two individuals linked inseparably with the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431) are Nestorius of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria. Nestorius opposed the use of the theological term Theotokos (“God-bearer”) by itself in reference to the virgin Mary. He believed (with good reason) the term should not be employed without also using the term anthropotokos (“man-bearer”). He preferred the term Christotokos (“Christ-bearer”), but this actually created confusion. His opponents took his teaching to mean he asserted there are not only two different natures, but two different persons, within Christ Jesus and that Mary gave birth to the human person with only a human nature. In opposition to such a view, Cyril insisted Jesus Christ is one and only one Person with two natures. Mary did not give birth to a mere man with a human nature, but to the Son of the Eternal Father who took human nature and flesh upon Himself in her womb. She is, therefore, truly Theotokos because her Son is the Son of God.
The Council condemned Nestorianism and declared Cyril’s doctrine to be in line with the Nicene Creed. Following the Council, John of Antioch drafted a theological statement now known as the Formula of Union. Preserved in the decrees of the Council, it declares:
We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
perfect God and perfect man composed of a rational soul and a body,
begotten before the ages from His Father in respect to His divinity,
but likewise in these last days for us and for our salvation
from Mary the virgin in respect to His manhood;
Consubstantial with the Father in respect of His divinity
and at the same time consubstantial with us in respect of His manhood.
For a union of two natures has been accomplished.
Hence we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.According to this understanding of the union without confusion,
we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God (Theotokos)
because the divine Word became flesh and was made man
and from the very conception united to Himself the temple taken from her.As for the evangelical and apostolic statements about the Lord,
we recognize that theologians employ some indifferently
in view of the unity of person,
but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures,
applying the God-befitting ones to Christ’s divinity
and the lowly ones to His humanity.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), like its predecessor at Ephesus, affirmed both the Creed of Nicea and the Nicene Creed. As the Council of Ephesus was held largely in response to Nestorianism, the Council of Chalcedon met to address Eutychianism. Eutyches, a monk from Constantinople, denied that the humanity of Christ was consubstantial with ours. He also taught Christ has only one nature in the Incarnation. His teaching became known as Monophysitism (mono – one, physis – nature). The Council responded with the following Definition of Faith:
Following, then, the holy fathers, we all with one voice
teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ
is one and the same Son,
the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood,
truly God and truly man,
the same consisting of a rational soul and body;
consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father as to His Godhead,
and the same consubstantial [homoousios] with us at to His manhood;
in all things like unto us, sin only excepted;
begotten of the Father before the ages as to His Godhead,
and in the last days, the same, for us and for our salvation,
of the virgin Mary, Mother of God [Theotokos], as to His manhood.One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten,
made known in two natures which exist without confusion,
without change, without division, without separation;
the difference of the natures having been in no wise
taken away by reason of the union,
but rather the properties of each being preserved,
and both concurring into one Person and one Hypostasis—
not parted or divided into two Persons,
but one and the same Son, only begotten, the divine Word,
the Lord Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from of old
have spoken concerning Him,
and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us
and the Creed of our Fathers has handed down.These things, therefore, having been expressed by us
with the greatest accuracy and attention,
the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one
shall be allowed to bring forth a different Faith,
nor to write, nor to put together, nor to think,
nor to teach it to others.
But such as dare either to put or to deliver
a different Creed to such as wish to convert
to the knowledge of the truth from the Gentiles,
or Jews or any heresy whatever—
if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed,
the Bishops from the episcopate,
the clerics from the clergy;
but if they be monks or laity,
let them be anathematized.
After the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils concluded, congregations of Nestorians and Monophysites formed. Historical Nestorians may be found within the Assyrian Church while the Copts and Syrian Jacobite congregations are heirs of the Monophysite tradition. Many within modern Evangelicalism, particularly those within the Open Theism and Emergent circles, tend to denigrate the historic orthodox Christology affirmed by these two Councils and downplay the authority with which they made their declarations. Any Christology which fails to affirm the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ (sin excepted) fails to be truly Christian.
Theology on Thursday
“God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself” (2 Corinthians 5:19). This simple declaration from the Apostle Paul expresses the fundamental Christian conviction regarding the Incarnation which the Church has labored strenuously to understand, preserve and defend. One of the foremost defenders of orthodox Christology in the history of the Church is Athanasius.
Athanasius was a fourth century bishop-theologian from Egypt. Born around AD 298, he lived in Alexandria. At that time, Alexandria was the chief learning center in the Roman Empire. Around AD 320, Arius, a priest in Alexandria, began teaching that Christ Jesus was “a god,” but that he did not exist eternally as “the God.” At that point in history, Athanasius was a newly ordained deacon and served as an assistant to Bishop Alexander. The deacon responded to the Arian heresy by proclaiming that the Father’s begetting of the Son was to be understood in the context of an eternal relation, not as a temporal event. Arius was condemned by the bishops of Egypt (with the exception of Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmorica).
Arius then traveled to Nicomedia, from where he wrote letters of defense and explanation to Church leaders throughout the world. His teachings were creating chaos within the life of the Church all over the empire. Constantine, desiring peace within his realm, called a council of bishops together at Nicea (near modern Instanbul) in AD 325. 317 bishops, from both the East and the West, were present (though most were from the East). Athanasius accompanied Bishop Alexander yet became recognized as the chief spokesman for orthodoxy. He articulated clearly that Jesus Christ is fully God, co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father. The Council of Nicea formulated a creedal statement to express the orthodox view of Christ’s divinity. The Greek term “homoousios,” meaning “of the same substance, essence, or nature,” was employed to prevent the heresy of Arianism from circumventing orthodoxy with clever semantics. Of the 317 bishops, only two did not affirm the creed – Secundus and Theonas.
Shortly following the Council of Nicea the Arians mounted a theological uprising, refusing to accept the decision of the Council. The orthodox bishops began to negotiate with the Arians and considered various creedal statements that would soften the Nicene formula. Athanasius, who succeeded Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria in A.D. 328, refused to negotiate. He declared that if the orthodox made peace with the Arians their ultimate priority, then they would eventually sacrifice the truth. He defended the full deity of Jesus Christ at all costs before bishops, theologians and politicians. His magnum opus in this regard is De Incarnatione Verbi Dei (On the Incarnation). His defense of the faith led his adversaries to brand him as a troublemaker and led to his banishment from Alexandria on five different occasions.
Due to Athanasius’ persistence, Christians began to understand the implications of his arguments, realizing that the surrender of the original Nicene formulation would result in the abandonment of biblical Christianity. For this reason, the Council of Constantinople convened in A.D. 381 and reaffirmed the Nicene formula. Today, the most comprehensive confession regarding the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the Athanasian Creed (also known as Quicunque Vult). It takes its name, obviously, from the bold bishop from Egypt. Though the bishop did not author this creed, it nonetheless affirms his convictions and those of orthodox Christians around the globe. It maintains:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all
hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken
will doubtless perish eternally.Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their Persons nor dividing their essence.
For the Person of the Father is a distinct person,
the Person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
Their glory equal, Their majesty co-eternal.What quality the Father has,
the Son has,
and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal Being.
So too there are not three uncreated
or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated
and immeasurable Being.Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty Being.Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.Just as Christian truth compels us to confess
each Person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
He was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
He proceeds from the Father and the Son.Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.Nothing in this Trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in Their entirety the Three Persons
are co-eternal and coequal with each other.So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship Their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the Trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,
God’s Son, is both God and human, equally.He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and He is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.Although He is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by His divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God’s taking humanity to Himself.
He is one, certainly not by the blending of His essence,
but by the unity of His Person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.He suffered for our salvation;
He descended to hell;
He arose from the dead;
He ascended to heaven;
He is seated at the Father’s right hand;
from there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
At His coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
The Doctor is IN
During each of my pastorates I held Q & A sessions once per month, usually on a Sunday or Wednesday evening. I encouraged church members to ask any questions they had related to biblical, theological or historical matters. These sessions proved to be beneficial to the members for their spiritual growth. Some individuals were helped because their individual questions were answered, and others were helped by listening to the answers given to the questions raised by others. For an extended time, I also answered questions as an online “expert” related to religious questions. One of the benefits of online answers is that anyone may view what is posted. Over the years, I’ve replied to questions ranging from, “Will my dog be in heaven?” to “Are Baptists Protestant?”
Wanting this blog to serve as a useful tool for the sake of Christ Jesus, I’ve decided to bring the Q & A format here. Here are the “qualifications” I bring to the table:
Ecclesiastical Endorsement
Ordained to the Gospel Ministry
Licensed to the Gospel Ministry
Theological Education
PhD in Theology
Master of Divinity with Biblical Languages
Masterof Arts in Theology
Bachelor of Arts in Religion
Associate of Arts in ReligionMinisterial Experience
- Over 20 years in ministry
If you would like to pose a question, please do so via the “comment” option. It is likely that your question, along with the corresponding answer, may end up as a post on 2 Worlds Collide.
Theology on Thursday
This month Theology on Thursday will focus upon the mystery and dogma of the Incarnation, the doctrine which implies three facts: the absolute deity of Jesus Christ, the full humanity of Jesus Christ, and the hypostatic union of the two natures in the person of Jesus Christ. Without apology, I affirm the historical creeds in regard to these doctrines. Two creeds related particularly to Christology are the Creed of Chalcedon (also known as the Confession of Chalcedon or the Definition of Chalcedon) and the Athanasian Creed (Quicunque Vult).
The Creed of Chalcedon spells out the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union or the Two-Nature Doctrine, and was adopted at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). It maintains Jesus Christ has two distinct natures, divine and human. It refutes Eutychianism (Monophysitism), which confuses both the Lord’s authentic humanity and His true deity, as well as Arianism, Apollinarianism and Nestorianism. The Council of Chalcedon is one of the seven Ecumenical Councils accepted by Christians in both the West and the East, though it is not recognized by any of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. The Creed of Chalcedon became standard orthodox Christian doctrine although the Coptic Church of Alexandria dissented in favor of Cyril’s formula of the oneness of Christ’s nature as the incarnation of God the Word. Other factors influencing the dissent flowed from the influence of the emperor upon the Church and the status of the Roman see.
Speaking of Christology and the Creed of Chalcedon, Gordon Clark declares emphatically:
The Christology of the New Testament is admirably summed up in the Creed of Chalcedon; and those who repudiate the creed…are simply not Christians. There may indeed be any number of people in the churches who have never heard of Chalcedon. There are undoubtedly some who have never heard of one person and two natures—a disgrace to the church they attend—but there is a great difference between being an ignorant Christian and being a witting repudiator of the doctrine.
In case you have never heard of the Council of Chalcedon or read the Creed of Chalcedon, the Creed states:
We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent,
teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body;
consubstantial with us according to the manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead,
and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation,
born of the virgin Mary, the mother of God,
according to the manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord,
Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union,
but rather the property of each nature being preserved,
and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence,
not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son,
and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ,
as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him,
and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us,
and the Creed of the holy fathers has handed down to us.
