Medieval Theology: Hidden Diamonds

Having finished Volume 2, I've moved on to Volume 3 of Pelikan's Christian Tradition: The Growth of Medieval Theology. I highly recommend the set so far. I've read a lot of Church and Christian history, but this treatment of the history of doctrine is by far the most intelligent and profound treatment I've ever encountered. It enriches one's knowledge of God, rather than merely relaying the facts of history. Pelikan himself offers great insight into Medieval ideas such as on grace:

"it was the doctrine of the person and work of Jesus Christ, rather than the doctrine of justification or even the doctrine of grace, that became the principle vehicle for affirming the character of salvation as a free and utterly unearned gift of God." -Jaroslav Pelikan pg 116.

Pelikan also offers some other gems from medieval theologians I've liked:

"When we pray, we speak to God. But when we read [Scripture], God speaks to us" - Adalger

"To eat his flesh and drink his blood means that one abides in Christ and Christ in him." - Radbertus

"On has to ask whether we are to adore or worship anything except true God. If not, the inference must be drawn: 'How is it that you worship the Son of the Virgin if He is not true God?'" -Alcuin

"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." -Julian of Toledo

"all effort of human argument must be postponed were faith alone is sufficient...The righteousness of faith by which we are justified [consists in] that we believe in Him whom we do not see, and that, being cleansed by faith, we shall eventually see Him in whom we know believe." -Julian of Toledo

Concerns about Baptism

Early Church History class

Jay Bennett and I taught a mid-week class at PCPC on the history of the church in the form of questions. We now have the first four class notes online for those interested in perusing the material for their own knowledge or to help prepare to teach a similar class. The questions all address some area of theology especially prominent in church history in a roughly chronological order (here dealing with Bibliology, Trinitarianism, Christology and Soteriology)

1. How has God revealed himself? (Gnosticism, Ebionism, Marcionism, and Montanism) (Jay Bennett)

2. How can God be both one and more than one? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Modalism, Arianism, Apollinarianism, and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism) (Jared Nelson)

3. How can divinity be united with humanity? (Docetism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism [Monophysitism], and Chalcedonian Christology) (Jay Bennett)

4. What is the moral capability of fallen humanity? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (Pelagianism, Augustinianism, and Orange Semi-augustinianism) (Jared Nelson)

Another revival bites the dust

Augustine and Pelagius Pt 3: Original Sin, Augustine and Infant Baptism.

In Augustine’s debate with the Pelagians, the doctrine of Original Sin came to the forefront very early on. The denial of Original Sin by the Pelagians led Augustine to another conclusion: They will soon deny infant baptism.

Infant Baptism and Original sin were intricately tied together for Augustine. Infant baptism proved Original Sin, while at the same time, Original Sin necessitated Infant Baptism.

When a parent brought a child for baptism, this was acknowledged:

“[Christ] came to call not the righteous, but sinners…For who would dare to say that Christ is not the Savior and Redeemer of infants?” (On Forgiv. Bapt. Chpt 24,33)

This did not mean all baptized infants were saved by the mere fact that they were baptized. Indeed: “many who seem to be on the outside are in fact on the inside, and many who seem to be on the inside are neverless in fact on the outside.” (Bapt. 5.27.38)

But if baptism does not assure salvation or even indicate predestination, why perform infant baptism? Beyond the biblical covenantal considerations already considered, it would be beneficial to consider Augustine’s close connection between original sin and infant baptism. The image in an infant baptism becomes the image we all experience in salvation:

God comes to us in our infimity, or helplessness, or inability to feed ourselves, recognize our condition or our need and gives to us grace. Why baptize infants? Because they are sinners in need of a savior, and a parent acknowledges this every time they bring a child for baptism. The confession of a person’s salvation becomes the confession of God’s coming to him, and confessing God’s initiative. The adult convert who is baptized is not allowed to see this as an acknowledgment of his decision and then God’s response, but is taught every time he sees an infant baptized, THIS is the story of your conversion, God’s initiation, not yours.

In fact, the practice of bringing infants to Christ is as old as the time when Christ walked the earth. In Luke 18:15-18, mothers bring their children to Jesus to bless. The disciples rebuke the mothers, but Jesus in turn rebukes them saying “let the children come to me, do not hinder them…whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” Clement has a great line commenting on this verse that "mothers still bring their children for Jesus to touch."

Whoever receives the kingdom is one who is brought without their own ability, as one without ability to save themselves.

Augustine and Pelagius Pt 2: What is the moral capacity of fallen man?

[sorry, I am low on time, so Part 2 may be a little sketchy and less complete than my original outline in teaching this. I might correct it later...]

The story of St. Augustine is largely known from his autobiography “The Confessions.” Augustine, especially in this work, The Confessions, exerted more influence than any figure previously or since on Western Civilization. Within this book, Augustine posits the priority of grace and God’s initiative in salvation. Within the book, Augustine pens a prayer that becomes popular:

"Lord command what you will, and will what you command" or
“Lord command what You wish, and grant what You command.”

Augustine believed that God must grant us the power and grace to do anything that God commands.

On the other side of the Roman Empire, Pelagius labored to minister to English sailors. Pelagius found this popular prayer of Augustine to be a perscription for licence. If God has commanded us, then this implies we are able to perform that which God commands, Pelagius retorted.

The Question at hand was: What is the moral capacity of fallen man?

Pelagius, as stated, believed that man was capable of fulfilling the will of God in his own power. Adam had set an unfortunate example, but Christ is our perfect example, the model of what our obedience should be.

Augustine, on the other hand, said Adam’s sin killed us, and our moral capacity is dead. (Eph 2:1,5) What man requires in order to do anything God commands is the restoration of his life. If we see anything in us that is worthy of calling good, Augustine turned to his favorite verse in the debate, 1 Cor 4:7:

1 Cor 4:7 – “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”

In the debate, Pope Zosimus defended Pelagius. The church, however, condemned Pelagius at the Council of Ephesus. Vindicating Augustine’s position. The Council of Orange even confirmed Augustine’s position that the good of faith must be said to be from God as well, stating in Canon 5:

“ the increase of faith…also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly …[is] a gift of grace ”


This seemed to create a problem. The question then has to be answered, if the early church insisted that man was responsible for their own sin, how is it that man is free, yet God must draw them?

Augustine drew a distinction between coersion and inevitability: God coerses no man against his will, but all whom God draws come.

How did Augustine explain this seeming contradiction?

It is worth a lengthy quotation from Augustine's commentary on John 6:44-45:

Thence also He says here, if thou turn thy attention to it, "No man cometh to me except he whom the Father shall draw." Do not think that thou art drawn against thy will. The mind is drawn also by love. …"How can I believe with the will if I am drawn?" I say it is not enough to be drawn by the will; thou art drawn even by delight. What is it to be drawn by delight? "Delight thyself in the Lord, and He shall give thee the desires of thy heart." There is a pleasure of the heart to which that bread of heaven is sweet. Moreover, if it was right in the poet to say, "Every man is drawn by his own pleasure," --not [compulsion], but pleasure; not obligation, but delight,--how much more boldly ought we to say that a man is drawn to Christ when he delights in the truth, when he delights in blessedness, delights in righteousness, delights in everlasting life, all which Christ is?... … for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." This revealing is itself the drawing. Thou holdest out a green twig to a sheep, and thou drawest it. Nuts [candies] are shown to a child, and he is attracted; he is drawn by what he runs to, drawn by loving it, drawn without hurt to the body, drawn by a cord of the heart.

Another illustration in a different sense may be given. If a group of blindfolded people are running for a cliff and you take the blindfold off of some, they will stop running for the cliff. They choose not to run over the side, yet they would do no other action when they are given sight. The same with God, all who are given sight can do no other than be drawn to Him, drawn by the delight of His Glory, for they can do no other.

1054: The Great Schism and the Reformation

I've been making my way through the works of Jaroslav Pelikan on the History of Doctrine, in his series, "The Christian Tradition." Volume 2 is all about Eastern Christendom and it's independent development in doctrine. I really knew nothing about some of the issues Eastern Christians dealt with in regards to the debate over Christ's will (did He have one or two) and icons. A selection stood out to me as I have been asking this question while reading the book: Would the Reformation have happened if Rome had not made a power grab in insisting on Papal Supremecy? Pelikan gave this answer (actually quoting heavily from Zernov):

"The Schism between Eastern and Western Christians is one of the greatest calamities in the history of the Church. On the one hand, it seriously underminded the Christian East to the advance of Islam, and on the other hand, it hastened the centralization of Western Christendom, which resulted in many abuses and provoked widspread discontent, so that the Reformation itself, which split the West into two hostile camps, was one of its consequences." (Christian Tradition Vol 2, pg 147)

The Dilemma

Judson was a learned man. He graduated valedictorian of his class from Brown and went onto Andover Theological Seminary where he was converted. He wrote two textbooks, one on grammar and one on Mathematics. On the boat to India as America’s first foreign missionary he was contemplating who to baptize when people were converted. After much reading he came to the conclusion that the NT taught that it should be only those who have repented and expressed faith in Jesus Christ. I get a kick out of how he continually does not want to be one of those Baptists. He expressed his dilemma in this way in a letter to his church. Not much has changed in how Baptists are viewed (yet they are still around) and we can all admire his heart even if you think he does not have sense enough to comprehend the connection:

“I cannot describe to you, dear brethren, the light of satisfaction, which I obtained, in taking this view of the matter, in considering the two churches distinct, and in classing my ideas of each in their proper place. I became possessed of a key that unlocked many a difficulty, which had long perplexed me. And the more I read the Bible, the more clearly I saw, that this was the true system therein revealed.
But while I obtained light and satisfaction on one side, I was plunged into difficult and distress on the other. If, thought I, this system is the true one, if the Christian church is not a continuation of the Jewish, if the covenant of circumcision is not precisely the covenant in which Christians now stand, the whole foundation of Paedobaptism is gone; there is no remaining ground of the administration of any church ordinance, to the children and domestics of professors; and it follows inevitably, that I who was christened in infancy, on the faith of my parents, have never yet received Christian baptism. Must I, then, forsake my parents, the church with which I stand connected, the society under whose patronage I have come out, the companions of my missionary undertaking? Must I forfeit the good opinion of all my friends in my native land, occasioning grief to some, and provoking others to anger, and be regarded henceforth, by all my former dear acquaintance, as a weak, despicable Baptist, who has not sense enough to comprehend the connection between the Abrahamic and the Christian systems? All this was mortifying; it was hard to flesh and blood. But I thought again – It is better to be guided by the opinion of Christ, who is the truth, than by the opinion of men, however good, whom I know to be in an error. The praise of Christ is better than the praise of men. Let me cleave to Christ at all events, and prefer his favor above my chief joy.”

Another reason not to like Osteen's Lakewood Church

"HOUSTON, Texas (AP) -- She's the wife of a renowned evangelical pastor and one of the leaders of a Houston megachurch, but Victoria Osteen is being accused of behavior that wasn't very Christian"

story here.