Francis of Assisi: Use Words, They are Necessary

Francis of Assisi is known for 3 things. A poem he likely didn't write, a love of animals that was likely oversold, and a saying he never said: “Preach the Gospel, and if necessary, use words.” It is popular to quote this and attribute it to Francis of Assisi, but again, he never said it.

Francis, in fact, would never have said something like that. Francis was a traveling preacher who left his wealthy family's money behind to call people to repentance. In the 1200s, the rulers and even clergy were focused on the new mercantile economy and the race to gain wealth. Francis preached the gospel of Jesus, and emphasized the treasure of heaven and the temporariness of wealth on earth. And he used words. 

 

Some of his favorite words came from Christ:

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. "Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

"But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you shall be hungry. "Woe to you who laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep. Woe to you, when all people speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:20-26)

These words emphasized that the rich and powerful are not those you should envy. It is tempting to think that if you don't end up rich, powerful, or famous, that you have not “arrived” and you have not succeed in life. Christ instead speaks of a time to come, a reward that is not here, but is to come. 

 

Francis, in his time, was sad over the wars that developed between the West and Islamic State to the East. So he went to the Sultan al-Kamil to do something bold: preach the gospel...with words. He spoke to the Sultan about Christ who died and rose again, and whose riches were not of this earth, but of greater value in forgiveness, peace with God, and newness of life. 

 

The Sultan's advisers suggested beheading Francis for attempting to convert the Sultan. But the Sultan took Francis aside and told him that he was impressed that Francis cared for his soul. As a result, within a year the Sultan negotiated peace with the West. 

But the Sultan told Francis that he could not convert. It would cost him his throne and his life. The heavenly treasure cost an earthly treasure he was not willing to pay. When Francis left, the Sultan asked Francis to pray for him. Francis' words made him pause, and he said he wanted Francis to pray that he would be shown the truth. 

 

The lesson of Francis is not silent preaching, but the power of words. Words can cause our grip on mere things to be loosened. Words can bring peace to a war. And words of the good news can deliver us from this world, to the next. Follow the example of Francis. Preach the Gospel. And use words, they're necessary.

Much Love in Christ,

Pastor Jared Nelson

This Day in Presbyterian History

Wayne Sparkman, director of the PCA Historical Society, has a daily blog that highlights different men and events in Presbyterian History. All Presbyterians that love history (but I repeat myself) will enjoy the entries:

http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/

Piper: Christian Biography

Every Year, John Piper delivers a talk about a figure from Church History. Here is a list of most of his talks:

J.C. Ryle.
A minister in the Church of England in 1800's, prolific author

Charles Simeon
A minister in the Church of England in 1700's, often suffered opposition for preaching the gospel

Charles Spurgeon
A Baptist minister in the 1800's, powerful preacher who also dealt with depression

William Tyndale
Early translator of the Bible into English who was executed by Catholics for his efforts. 1500's

 John Owen
A Congregationalist minister in 1600's, greatest theologian in the English language

Athanasius
 A bishop who fought against Arius over the deity of Christ, in 300's

John Calvin
 Reformer in the 1500's

Martin Luther
 The monk that started the Reformation over justification by faith alone
 
Robert Murray McCheyne
 Scottish Presbyterian minister in the 1800's, died in late 20's

 Augustine
 Bishop that fought against the heretic Pelagius in 300's and 400's

George Muller
minister in 1800's

Andrew Fuller
 Baptist supporter of missions

Adoniram Judson
Missionary to Burma


George Whitefield
Church of England evangelist in the 1700's, the Spirit started the Great Awakening through his preaching, and was the actual founder of Methodism.

William Cowper
 Poet and hymn writer that suffered from Depression

J. Gresham Machen
 Founder of Westminster Seminary and the Orthodox Presbyterian church who fought against liberalism in the early 1900's
 
John Newton
 Minister in Church of England and hymn writer of Amazing Grace.

C.S. Lewis
 writer and author


David Brainerd
 American missionary to the Indians in the 1700's, friend of Jonathan Edwards who wrote his biography of his short life.
 
Martin Lloyd Jones
 Minister in the Church of England in the 1900's
 
Jonathan Edwards
 Congregationalist minister in the 1700's
 
William Wilberforce
 Member of Parliament that fought to end slavery in England in 1700's


John Bunyan
Baptist preacher and writer of "Pilgrim's Progress" in 1600's

John C Paton
 Presbyterian missionary in the Pacific in 1800's

Machen on Doctrinal Accuracy

"Clearcut definition of terms in religious matters, bold facing of the logical implications of religious views, is by many persons regarded as an impious proceeding. May it not discourage contribution to mission boards? May it not hinder the progress of consolidation, and produce a poor showing in columns of Church statistics? But with such persons we cannot possibly bring ourselves to agree. Light may seem at times to be an impertinent intruder, but it is always beneficial in the end. The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from 'controversial' matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life."

-J. Gresham Machen. Christianity and Liberalism. pg 1

[somehow, I don't think Machen would like 'safe places' and the assumption that we have our doctrine good enough and it is time to move on to more important matters]

Chesterton Quote

"My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."

- New York Times Magazine, 2/11/23

Guess the Heretic!

Some Protestants and Catholics misrepresent the doctrine of justification by faith as some entirely novel invention of Martin Luther. This is said by Roman Catholics to imply that no one before him had ever had the audacity or pure evil intentions to declare such a thing. And it is said by some non-Catholics to dismiss the church pre-1500 as irrelevant and to dismiss the idea of tradition having any proper role in aiding exegesis. But what if part of your exegesis of Scripture had to answer this question: "Has anyone before 1800, or 1500, ever interpreted this passage this way? If not, what do you have access to that they don't that would inform such a difference in interpretation?" Certainly, the doctrine of justification by faith in Luther and Calvin is more developed, but it is not novel:


"All effort of human argument must be postponed where 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 now believe." -Julian of Toledo, Bishop of Toledo (circa 7th Cent)

"[Justification is] thou art not only righteous, but art called 'righteous' a righteousness that justifies...The righteousness of God consists in his not sinning, but the righteousness of man consists in his being forgiven by God." -Bernard of Clairvaux, Catholic mystic (circa 14th Cent)

"God who does make the unclean clean and who by taking away sins does justify the sinner without works." -Ildefonsus of Toledo, Bishop of Toledo (circa 7th Cent)

"The beginning of human salvation comes from faith...which when it is in Christ, is justification to the believer." -Hincmar of Reims, Bishop of Reims (circa 9th Cent)

"We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to Whom be glory for ever and ever, Amen" -Clement of Rome, presbyter/bishop? of Rome (circa 1st Cent)

"A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are work of the law these are not based on hte foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God." -Origen, early church theologian (circa 3rd Cent)

"No one has been so foolish as to say that merits are the cause of the divine act by which God predestines...There would indeed be injustice if the effects of predestination were rendered as a debt which is due, and not given by grace." -Thomas Aquinas, Latin Theologian (circa 13th Century) *

"We believe that man is justified by faith, not by works...we understand the correlative of faith, namely the righteousness of Christ, which faith, performing the function of a hand, grasps and applies to us salvation." -Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris, Greek Orthodox's highest bishop (circa 17th Cent.)

"no one, [Paul] saith, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He hath saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast...the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith." -John Chysostom, Greek preacher (circa 4th Cent)


*[Update: I do realize Thomas has an Augustinian idea of justification as "making righteous" but included him because the statement by itself without the identifier would be most often identified as sounding Lutheran/Reformed rather than Thomistic. Hence the title "Guess the heretic." This is only meant to show the seeds, not the full fruit of justification. The same premises that lead Thomas to his doctrine of presdestination lead Luther to his doctrine of justification. I mean no more.]

Reformed Catholicism: Getting started

[I'm in the UK from July 24 until Aug 4, so I thought I would leave this long post I've been working on a while as my last post for a couple of weeks.]

REFORMED CATHOLICISM: HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

From my Catholicism series, one may be able to tell I am partial towards the concept of a Reformation or Reformed Catholicism. There once was a site named "ReformedCatholicism.com" and one of the best features of the site was a post on “10 steps to becoming a Reformed Catholic” with some recommended reading. I was not fully on board with everything they wrote, and since the website seems to be in a permanent state of re-direction, I thought I might offer some perspective on my own preference for the concept and perspective of Reformed Catholicism, with some recommended reading.

How to read the History of Theology Christianly, Reformed and catholic:

Scripture always takes precidence in authority over those interpreting it. Reading History is reading Scripture with others that have gone before you. No one should believe something merely because Chysostom, or Augustine or Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin believed it. One should read the arguments and conclusions of these men on Scripture to evaluate their thought process, compare it with Scripture and other great thinkers and then humbly determine who makes the best case from all of Scripture (of which you should first be familiar with) and allow a writer to teach you the Scriptures at their feet. And yes, the appropriate posture for learning from teachers is in submission, at their feet. Not that everything you hear is accepted as Scripture is, but that one thinks their thoughts after them and holds them in high regard, rather than merely holding their thought up to the measure of your own or to merely confirm your own prejudged opinions. One must be in a position where one is willing to have one's mind changed in interaction with those who are probably wiser, more learned and more pious than oneself.


So read other great Christian writers throughout history. Not just Reformation history, or Puritan History or the history of your local church or Billy Graham, but of the rich 2000-year history of the church. Personally, I’d recommend immersing yourself in each era for a good deal of time to get a handle on it. Read multiple books from that era, don’t read a Reformation era book, then an early church book, but read 4 or 5 books from the Early church, then read 4 or 5 books from the Reformation. If you read a survey, don’t just read a one volume history of the church, but instead, follow something like this guide below with both surveys and primary source works:

The Early Church

Read a comprehensive history of a period like: Jaroslav Pelikan’s volume 1 of the Christian Tradition then skim Schaff’s volume 1 & 2 of Church History. Then, buy Schaff’s 38 volume ante- and post-Nicene fathers, Immerse yourself in the first 600 years of Christianity by reading:

1) the Apostolic Fathers, (Michael Holmes is a better translation than the Ante-Nicene Father’s translation)

2) Then some pre-Nicene fathers, like Irenaeus (Against Heresies, The Apostolic Preaching), Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Typho, others), Clement of Alexandria, and Cyprian. Familarize yourself with the heretics too, whether slight (Tertullian and Origen) or great (like Marcion, the Ebionites, Arius, Apollonarious, and the Montanists). Be able to hear “Marcion” and know what he taught and why it was wrong.

3) Then read the great Post-Nicene Fathers (Christology of the Later Fathers is a good start), especially the Greeks: Athanasius-On the Incarnation, The Cappadocians (Basil - On the Holy Spirit, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazanerius) Be able to read the Nicene Creed and see how one cannot be Arian and confess it.

4) Then read some of the Latins: Augustine (Confessions, Christian Doctrine, the Anti-Pelagian Writings), Ambrose (Sermons), maybe some Jerome

5) Optional, if you want to see the transition of early to medieval Christianity, read some selections of later early church figures such as the Latins: Gregory the Great, Leo the Great and the Greek: John of Damascus (On the Divine images).

Middle Ages

Then get into the Middle Ages. Read Pelikan’s Volume 2 on Eastern theology and 3 on medieval theology. (peruse volume 4 on Medieval Christianity by Schaff) First look to the East since Western Scholasticism was an attempt to catch up with the fact that Eastern Theology was more advanced and loyal to the Scriptures than the West. Look into selections of Maximus the Confessor and Cyril.

Then read Anselm’s “Why God Became Man.” One might also read selections of Thomas Aquinas (I recommend Nature and Grace for theology, the Penguin Selections for philosophical issues). Bernard of Clairvaux and Bonaventure would help. The work of Thomas a Kempis would help you get an idea of the best of devotional works, but when you get past 1300 AD, most theology in the West is in decline (by decline, I mean concerned with adiophra, fighting with kings, developing doctrines of merit and downright heresy rather than Christology, Theology Proper, etc).

Reformation of Church and Doctrine

Reformation: Read Diamond McCullough’s wonderful “The Reformation.” Pelikan’s volume 4, and the final 2 volumes of Schaff. Read Pelikan’s Obedient Rebels. Begin to recoil when people attack Luther’s lingering catholicism, rather, see it as a good thing. By now, you should have learned to love the 1500 years before Luther, and especially their love of Christology and composition of theology in relation to Christology. Luther's theology only makes sense in that context, not as a “new Christianity.”

Look for good biographies of the Reformers: Bainton’s “Here I Stand” on Luther, McGrath’s “Life of Calvin,” McCullough’s bio on Cramner, and Reformers in the Wings for lesser known Reformers.

Read:

The Confessions of the Reformation: Augsburg, Belgic, Hiedelberg Catechism, Westminster, Book of Concord, Canons of Dordt, The 39 Articles of the Church of England.

Luther’s Babylonian Captivity, Christian Liberty, Bondage of the Will

Calvin’s Institutes, (pay attention to how much Calvin interacts with the past and past fathers), Bondage and Liberation of the Will

Martin Bucer, Melancthon’s Loci, Bullinger, Cranmer’s prayers, English Reformers.


Puritans

Make a visit to the Puritans. Read Ryken's book: "Worldy Saints: The Puritans as They Really Were." It is a country with many great resources, especially in personal devotion. Remember, Puritans might be Anglican, Presbyterian, Independent or Baptist. They might have a little too much separationism in them (proto-fundamentalism), but many of them have a wonderful piety and great writings. I am attempting to read deeper here, but make sure you don’t leave without taking with you:

John Owen (Communion with the Triune God, Death of Death)
Jonathan Edwards (Religious Affections, Freedom of the Will)


Modern Times

Finally, read about modern church history in Pelikan’s volume 5. Mourn a little, read Noll’s America’s God. Cry a little. Read, Iain Murray’s Revival and Revivalism. Dispair.

Read Schaff’s the Principle of Protestantism. Read Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, Warfield, Nevin (The Mystical Presence, Reformed and Catholic), maybe even Hodge. Light a candle of hope for American Reformed theology. Read Barth’s Outline of the Dogmatics. Light a smaller candle of hope for European theology. Read Torrence’s Incarnation. Rejoice. Read Robert Raymond’s A New Theology of the Christian Faith. Rejoice. Read “Drinking with Calvin and Luther” Laugh a little.

Now, buy Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck’s 4 volume Reformed Dogmatics and begin reading them, appreciating that theology stands on the back of faithful believers who were probably more pious and intelligent than you and whom you must consider and read before dismissing in a flame of presentist elitism that thinks that since you live now, the present and yourself are the measures of correctness and relevance. Indeed, past writers are likely more relevent to our age than most of our living writers...

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

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)

The History of Infant Baptism: Who started it?

When looking at the issue of infant baptism, the historicity of the practice is one of great speculation. Many Baptists historians have said the practice arose in the third century and then engulfed the church shortly thereafter. The question of when it started is an important one, for if it was not a practice of the early church and one that was invented or arose later, then it should be rejected.

The first exposure in the English Bible to the word “baptize” is in the Gospels, when we see John the Baptizer in the Jordan performing some Jewish cleansing ritual. Some might be tempted to speculate that Baptism began here. However, if one looks at the Greek Translation of the Jewish Bible (used by the apostles and the early church to read the Old Testament) the word appears there as well. Such a use can be seen in Leviticus 14:6, where the priest is given instructions to take two doves, kill one, and then dip the other dove in the blood of the first bird. Besides being a striking picture of the coming atonement in Christ, this action is called dipping or baptso (the root of baptismo - Baptism).

Later, in Jewish practice, baptism became a normal part of worship. Later, according to the Talmud, it became a ritual associated with proselyte initiation. The confessor Gentiles would be circumcised (if male) and undergo a washing ritual (the Talmud calls baptism). Why mention this in a post on the history of infant baptism? Because if the convert had any children, males over 13-years old and females over 12 would speak for themselves if they wanted to convert. If they were under that age, the father spoke for them and the males were circumcised and both the females and the males underwent baptism. Thus, the history of infant baptism starts BEFORE the New Testament. [so, when educating the Jews on baptism, they would have to be told to stop baptizing infants, not to start]

During the New Testament period, the Christians adopted baptism from Judaism. In regards to infant baptism, no statement as blatant as “and this infant so-and-so was baptized” occurs. However, many “household” baptisms occur in the book of Acts (such as Acts 16:15) and the word for household οἶκος includes any children and infants of the family (even in the same book of Acts in 7:20).

After the time of the New Testament, in the Early Church baptism always had a close identification with circumcision. (as it does in Paul in Col 2:11) The first recorded instance we have of a local synod addressing the timing of baptism is in Carthage in the early 200s. But it did not debate the efficacy of infant baptism, for that was assumed, instead the debate was over how some wanted baptism preformed even sooner. Many Christians were waiting until the 8th day, like circumcision in the OT, and the synod gave parents permission to baptize sooner if they wished. (Pelikan, Christian Tradition Vol 1. Pg 290-292)

But what is our earliest reference? Origen was baptized as an infant in 185AD. We also have liturgies detailing the practice of baptism near Rome in “On the Apostolic Tradition” that attempts to detail the practices of the church for posterity as they were practiced in the time of the apostles and the apostles’ followers. The later parts of the book have a “late date” (conservative scholars like to date things at their latest possible date) of 215, which is the part that gives instructions on prayer and the like. However, the early part of the book all scholars who have worked on the syntax and sources believe is older, perhaps conservatively the late 100s. The manual instructs the elder to ask the person seeking baptism to speak to their faith for themselves. But “you are to baptize the little ones…those who cannot speak for themselves, their parents or someone who belongs to their family should speak for them.” (Apostolic Tradition - Chapter 21)

Here are the hard questions to ask if infant baptism was not the consistent practice of the church in the first three centuries (really, the first 15 centuries, but let’s just focus on the early church first):

1. The church was not afraid to debate doctrine on everything from Christ’s person to Scripture canon. If a new practice arose that the apostles did not practice, why is there no record of any debate on the subject?

2. The practice of infant baptism was universal geographically. This would mean the practice would have a starting point and then spread quickly between the time of the apostle John’s death (90AD) to the time of Origen’s birth (185AD), being the most silent and fastest spreading heresy of any heresy faced in the early church.

3. Why did infant baptism stop (for it existed in Judaism) and then start again with no statement of either the stopping of the practice in the New Testament or the starting of it in the historical record?

Augustine and Pelagius Pt. 1: Free Will and the Early Church

When explaining the Christian beliefs, eventually you will come across a wide spread belief in American culture of a benevolent passive God. If you explain that God is good and offers life in His Son, a response will come back that if God is good he will save everyone and wouldn’t be so “not nice” as to send anyone to hell. For a good example of how an informed Christian should respond, see Tim Keller’s talk at Berkley. However, I am not addressing that problem here.

But just like our need to have an answer to the modern objection of passive benevolence, so the early church had to respond to the Greco-Roman culture of their time when presented with the gospel. The early church, in proclaiming the gospel, encountered resistance to the idea that people are responsible before God for their actions. In pagan and Stoic philosophy, the idea (and eventually god) “Fortuna” ruled the universe. To the typical Greco-Roman, everything is fated. To say our sinfulness can be counted against us is to not realize that Fate had made them do bad things, thus they are not responsible.

This philosophy is called Fatalism. True Fatalism destroys human responsibility for sin. Fatalists do not look to a Savior, as they are not responsible for their sin, and thus are in no need of action on their part to find a solution. What will be will be so why worry about it?

This background is essential in understanding the writings of the early church. Much of the New Testament literature argues for Christianity in the background of a Judaic understanding of God and the world. After the New Testament, the early church literature can be seen as a development of what Paul started in Acts 17 in dialoging with the Athenians. One must enter the thought world of an alien culture in order to help them understand another culture. Thus Paul uses the language of Athenian religion and literary culture to communicate ideas to them.

If one reads the early church, one inevitably comes across the phrase “free will.” Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria all talk about it. Many times Reformed Christians can see such references as a misunderstanding of human nature, just as Arminians can see these references as supporting their Enlightenment ideas of a libertarian free will (as Norm Geisler does in just listing the references as if they are definitive because they use the buzz words “free will")

Paying attention to the context, however, we see that the sense and concept they argue for, we too must acknowledge. Clement says the will is “self-determined” but also “nothing happens apart from the will of God” and thus God “permits evil.” Irenaeus wrote that “there is no coercion with God.” Archellaus wrote “To sin is ours, and that we sin not is God’s gift.” All these statements we must acknowledge as true. That we sin is our responsibility. We cannot appeal to fate or providence as an excuse, for we “are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

These truths lead to other inevitable questions: Then, are we responsible for our good too? Is salvation our choice? Isn’t true freedom the ability to choose neutrally between good and evil?

These questions were answered differently by two of the church’s rising stars: Pelagius and Augustine. [Part 2, forthcoming]

How can God be one, AND more than one?

This post is an outline for the material I taught a few weeks ago in a "mid-week" class I am team-teaching with Jay Bennett, a pastoral intern at my church (PCPC).


God is One

We see in Scripture that the most fundamental confession of Israel in the Old Testament is "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut 6:4) The language and confession is repeated as the most basic declaration of faith in 1Kings 8:60 and Isa 45:5-6 .


Then, in the New Testament, we see three names, that seem to be distinct, called God.
1) God the Father such as in 1 Cor 1:3
2) Jesus (also called the Son or Word) in places such as John 20:28, or John 1:1-14
3) The Holy Spirit in places such as Acts 5:3-4


How is it then, that God is one, and these three are God? The Early Church stuggled with this question, with many answers being posited by men such as Arius, Apollonarius, Sabellius and Athanasius. How do we speak of these three? How do we speak of this one?

MODALISM

The first answer we will look at is the one given by a man named Sabellius. His answer was simple, logical and seemingly true to the Biblical witness. It goes like this:

God is one
The Father is God
The Son is God
Because the Father is the Son



Sabellius would even start calling this Person of God the "Sonfather." It sees one God, with different modes or manifestations. in fact, if we read John 10:30, where Jesus declares "I and the Father are one" this explanation seems to have biblical support. Modalism appealed to some in the Early Church because:

– Preserves equal worth of Son and Father
– Maintains the Fully Deity of the Son

If we are searching for model for this explanation, we may think of water (and in fact, we may shutter to think this may have been how God was explained to us). You see, the Modalist will say, Water can be solid, liquid or gas manifesting itself as an ice cube, a glass of water or steam. Yet, it is all the same water.

Tertullian voiced many of the objections of the other leaders in the church to this teaching, because while Modalism helped explain some things, it also:

– Denies distinction of Father and Son
– Denies the distinct Personhood of Son

The explanation is too simple. If the Son and Father are the same, why does the Son who was on earth, teach us to pray to the Father who is in heaven? Why does the Son pray to the Father in the Garden? How is it that the Son and Father have different roles and actions (John 5:22) if they are the same person?

No, the church could not accept the denial of the division between Son and Father. Other means must be solicited.

ARIANISM

Arius was a superb Biblical scholar. He used the technique taught in seminaries across the world: Let the New Testament aid in interpreting the Old Testament. Like a good evangelical, Arius placed his trust in his hermenutic. Finding that Paul had called Christ "the wisdom of God" in the New Testament, Arius knew he had been given the key to understanding the passage about wisdom in the Old Testament in Proverbs 8:12, 22. Here, wisdom personified declares: "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works." This translation is based on the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and while the Hebrew has a meaning closer to "possessed me at the beginning of your works" still this translation persists today in the NIV and NET as alternative readings. Arius also pointed to the very word "begat" as proof that the Son was distinct, but a created being, divine and the greatest of God's creation, but not God.

Apolloniarius also had a theory of "Son as lesser being" teaching that Jesus was "adopted" at his baptism, when the Holy Spirit decended, as God's vehicle, Jesus then was a man who became God or divine. Yet, still not God as the Father is God.

What does it mean that the Son is Deity?

This is a difficult question, especially when facing the language of "begotten." Our favorite verse in America is John 3:16, containing the very word "begotten." Does this word mean? Very early in the history of the Church was the church father Irenaus. The apostle John had as a disciple Polycarp and Polycarp trained Irenaeus in the teaching of John. Irenaeus, even before Arius, taught what John meant by this word as communicating:

“The Father is God, and the Son is God, for whatever is begotten of God is God.”

If a human begets a son, it is human? Does it share the qualities that make the father human? Then if God begets a Son, then the Son is God in the same shared qualities of Deity. One of these qualities is Eternality. The Son himslef makes this claim as to himself in John 8:58. So also to say the Son is begotten of the Father and shares Eternality is to say there is no time in which the Son did not exist. There was never a time when the Son "was not." For the Son is I AM.

This understanding informs the Creed believed by the Church from 325AD to the present: The Nicean Creed in which it is confessed:

"We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made."

The bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, continued this argument after the Council issued this creed. Athanasius tried to answer: Why is this even important? Athanasius related this back to our salvation. For:

– Man has debt
– Man has no means to pay this debt
– God has means to pay debt
– God has no debt to pay
– Must be paid by a God-man

The denial of the full deity or full humanity of Christ, leaves us dead in our sins and without hope for salvation.

HOW DO WE SPEAK OF GOD?

Can we have a model for God? Can we speak of him as exactly like a Father and Son? Can we speak of Him as water? Augustine wrestled with the same problem and asked this rhetorically:

How can we find a model in nature for a God outside of nature (supernatural)?

The answer: We cannot. Yet, we also long to understand the one-ness and three-ness of God. To this end, we have this model from Augustine:



On the one-ness of God, the Early Church tried to answer when Jesus said "I and the Father are one," Jesus is saying they are one...what?

The word they settled on was "Ousia." This is translated as Substance or Essence. This is defined as Traits of Deity that are shared by Father, Son and Spirit, such as
• Eternality
• Power
• Worth

As for the "Three-ness" of God, the word commonly used was that God is three in hypostasis. This is commonly translated as "Person." Basil simply defined hypostasis as “That which is spoken of distinctly." So:

Ousia - the common traits of God
Hypostasis - that which is spoken of distinctly

Another way to think of it is:

Ousia = What
Hypostasis = Who


We can see this simply defined in the Westminster Confession of our Church:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of
none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the
Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. "

And even more importantly in the Nicean Creed, the creed of our common Christianity, confessed by Reformed, Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans, confessional Baptists, Catholics and Orthodox everywhere:


We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son.] With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
If you are interested in more on this, my highest recommendation is for T.F. Torrence's "The Trinitarian Faith."



.