Tradition Envy

When I look to other traditions, there are certain traditions I have little or no envy over. I don't read many Methodists. I'm not impressed with their theology or homiletics. Sorry. No offense, but I'm just not interested. There are some traditions that I can enjoy certain theologians and persons, such as Anglicanism. I love many Anglican theologians and hymn writers (like John Newton, William Cowper, C.S. Lewis, etc.) I enjoy the occassional Episcopal Euchraist or liturgy. But, ultimately, I what I like about Anglicanism is where it has commonalities with the Reformed Tradition.

Then, there is the one tradition I truly have tradition envy over. The Lutherans. Not usually their theology. I'm a 5-point Calvinist. I think the Lutheran approach to Free Will is 10-fold better than Arminians, but still too weak...still, not Luther-like enough. But I will tell you where I do envy Lutherans:

1) Homiletics. Conservative Lutherans know Law and Gospel. They distinguish the two to the point of predictable regularity in their sermons. And that's great. We could learn from their homiletics.

2)Devotional material. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has released seven resources that has made me ask: Why don't we have this?! Sure, the book of Concord is a book of confessions like the Westminster Standards. No envy there. Our theology is better anyway :)



But also see:


The Lutheran Study Bible – Yeah, there is a “Reformation Study Bible” and the new ESV Study Bible, that some say is covenantal. But the Reformation Study Bible was made to be so broad that it should be called Reformish or Reformesque rather than Reformed. Sacramental Theology and Ecclesiology are both weak in key passages to accomidate Reformed Baptists and other possible customers. The ESV Study Bible's notes are New Covenantal rather than covenantal. So, ironically, the notes on the sacraments and Law and Gospel in the Lutheran Study Bible are closer to true Reformed ideas than in the Reformation or ESV Study Bible.

Lutheran Service Book – A book of liturgies. The CRC (Dutch Reformed) have produced practical works like this (see Worship Sourcebook). But the conservative Presbyterians have only produced a hymnal. A good hymnal, but it needs more liturgy.

Treasury of Daily Prayer – Wonderful daily readings from Scripture, OT, Psalms, and NT. Also includes songs to sing, prayers to pray and quotes from figures in Church History, from the Apostolic Fathers up to the 20th Century. But 90% of the reading is Scripture, to get one in the Bible daily. How great is that?

Lutheran Book of Prayer – Daily prayers to aid morning and nightly prayers and gets one started when praying on other topics when one does not know how to start.

Reading the Psalms with Luther – An introduction to each Psalm to aid understanding from Martin Luther himself.

After exposure to these resources, and in the case of “Treasure of Daily Prayer” and “Lutheran Book of Prayer” my personal use, I would love to have resources more in line with the Reformed Tradition along these lines. A real Reformed and covenantal Study Bible. A Reformed Book of Prayer. A Reformed Treasury of Daily prayer with selections from the Three Forms or Westminster instead of Book of Concord. But, oh well. Until such things happen, I'm content to read my Westminster next to my Lutheran Book of Prayer. But I'm really tempted to get a Lutheran Study Bible and carry it to church. When asked why, I would reply: it's as close to a Reformed Study Bible in English. Sad but true.

Once for All Given to the Saints

Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham on the virtue of orthodox faith:

Owen: Is Limited Atonement Language Novel?

[A John Owen extract, from the Appendix of Death of Death: ]

Some few testimonies of the ancients.

I. The confession of the holy Church of Smyrna, a little after the commendation given it by the Holy Ghost, Rev. ii. 9, upon the martyrdom of Polycarpus:— Ὅτι οὔτε τὸν Χριστόν ποτε καταλείπειν δυνησόμεθα τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου τῶν σωζωμένων σωτηρίας παθόντα, οὔτε ἕτερον τιμῇ σέβειν. — Euseb. Hist. Eccles., lib. iv. cap. 15. — “Neither can we ever forsake Christ, him who suffered for the salvation of the world of them that are saved, nor worship any other.”

[It is an extract from a letter of the church of Smyrna to the churches of Pontus, giving an account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.]

II. The witness of holy Ignatius, as he was carrying to Rome from Antioch, to be cast to beasts for the testimony of Jesus, Epist. ad Philad. [cap. ix., a.d. 107]: Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἄγουσα ὁδός, ἡ πέτρα, ὁ φραγμός, ἡ κλείς, ὁ ποιμήν, τὸ ἱερεῖον, ἡ θύρα τῆς γνώσεως δι’ ἧς εἰσῆλθον Αβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ καὶ Ἰακώβ, Μωσῆς, καὶ ὁ σύμπας τῶν προφητῶν χορός, καὶ οἱ στύλοι τοῦ κόσμου οἱ απόστολοι καὶ ἡ νύμφη τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὑπὲρ ἧς, φερνῆς λόγῳ, ἐξέχεε τὸ οἰκεῖον αἷμα ἵνα αὐτὴν ἐξαγοράσῃ. — “This is the way leading to the Father, this the rock, the fold, the key; he is the shepherd, the sacrifice; the door of knowledge, by which entered Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and the whole company of prophets, and the pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ; for whom, instead of a dowry, he poured out his own blood, that he might redeem her.”

Surely Jesus Christ gives not a dowry for any but his own spouse.

III. Clemens, “whose name is in the book of life,” Phil. iv. 3, with the whole church at Rome in his days, in the epistle to the church of Corinth:— Διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην ἣν ἔσχεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὸ αἷμα αὐτοῦ ἔδωκεν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐν θελήματι αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν σάρκα ὑπὲρ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ ψυχῶν ἡμῶν. — “For the love which he had unto us, he gave his blood for us, according to his purpose, and his flesh for our flesh, and his life for our lives.”

Where you have assigned, 1. The cause of Christ’s death, — his love to us; 2. The object of it, — us, or believers; 3. The manner how he redeemed us, even by commutation.

This triple testimony is taken from the very prime of undoubted antiquity.

IV. Cyprian, Epist. lxii. to Cæcilius, a holy, learned, and famous martyr, a.d. 250:— “Nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et peccata nostra portabat.” — “He bare all us, who bare our sins;” that is, he sustained their persons on the cross for whom he died.

The same to Demetrian:— “Hanc gratiam Christus impertit, subigendo mortem trophæo crucis, redimendo credentem pretio sanguinis sui.” — “This grace hath Christ communicated, subduing death in the trophy of his cross, redeeming believers with the price of his blood.”

The same, or some other ancient and pious writer of the cardinal works Christ, Serm. 7, secund. Rivet. Crit. Sac. in Cyp. [lib. ii. cap. 15] Scultet. Medul. Pat. Erasm. præfat, ad lib.

The same author also, in express terms, mentions the sufficiency of the ransom paid by Christ, arising from the dignity of his person:— “Tantæ dignitatis illa una Redemptoris nostri fuit oblatio, ut una ad tollenda mundi peccatum sufficeret.” — “Of so great dignity was the oblation of our Redeemer, that it alone was sufficient to take away the sins of the world.”

V. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cataches. xiii. [a.d. 350]:— Καὶ μὴ θαυμάσῃς εἰ κόσμος ὅλος ἐλυτρώθη, οὐ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ψιλὸς ἀλλὰ υἱὸς Θεοῦ μονογενὴς ὁ ὑπεραποθνήσκων — καὶ εἰ τότε διὰ τὸ ξύλον τῆς βρώσεως ἐξεβλήθησαν ἐκ παραδείσου, ἆρα διὰ τὸ ξύλον Ἰησοῦ νῦν εὐκοπώτερον οἱ πιστεύοντες εἰς παράδεισον οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται; — “Wonder not if the whole world be redeemed; for he was not a mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God that died. If, then, through the eating of the tree” (forbidden) “they were cast out of paradise, certainly now by the tree” (or cross) “of Jesus shall not believers more easily enter into paradise?”

So also doth another of them make it manifest in what sense they use the word all.

VI. Athanasius, of the incarnation of the Word of God [a.d. 350]:— Οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ πάντων ζωή, καὶ ὡς πρόβατον ὑπὲρ, τῆς πάντων σωτηρίας ἀντίψυχον τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σῶμα εἰς θάνατον παραδούς. — “He is the life of all, and as a sheep he delivered his body a price for the souls of all, that they might be saved.”

All in both places can be none but the elect; as, —

VII. Ambrose de Vocat. Gen., lib. i: cap. 3; or rather, Prosper, lib. i. cap. 9, edit. Olivar. [a.d. 370]:— “Si non credis, non descendit tibi Christus, non tibi passus est.” — “If thou believe not, Christ did not descend for thee, he did not suffer for thee.”

Ambr. de Fide ad Gratianum:— “Habet populus Dei plenitudinem suam. In electis enim et præscitis, atque ab omnium generalitate discretis, specialis quædam censetur universitas, ut de toto mundo totus mundus liberatus, et de omnibus hominibus omnes homines videantur assumpti.” — “The people of God hath its own fulness. In the elect and foreknown, distinguished from the generality of all, there is accounted a certain special universality; so that the whole world seems to be delivered from the whole world, and all men to be taken out of all men.”

In which place he proceedeth at large to declare the reasons why, in this business, “all” and “the world” are so often used for “some of all sorts.”

These that follow wrote after the rising of the Pelagian heresy, which gave occasion to more diligence of search and wariness of expression than had formerly been used by some.

IX. Augustine, de Cor. et Grat. cap. xi. [a.d. 420]:— “Per hunc Mediatorem Deus ostendit eos, quos ejus sanguine redemit, facere se ex malis in æternum bonos.” — “By him the Mediator, the Lord declareth himself to make those whom he hath redeemed with his blood, of evil, good to eternity.” “Vult possidere Christus quod emit; tanti emit ut possideat.” — “Christ will possess what he bought; he bought it with such a price that he might possess it.”

Idem, Serm. xliv. de Verbis Apost.:— “Qui nos tanto pretio emit non vult perire quos emit.” — “He that bought us with such a price will have none perish whom he hath bought.”

Idem, Tract. lxxxvii. in Johan.:— “Ecclesiam plerumque etiam ipsam mundi nomine appellat; sicut est illud, ‘Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi;’ itemque illud, ‘Non venit Filius hominis ut judicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum;’ et in epistola sua Johannes ait, ‘Advocatum habemus ad Patrem, Jesum
424Christum justum, et ipse propitiator est peecatorum nostrorum, non tantum nostrorum sed etiam totius mundi.’ Totus ergo mundus est ecclesia, et totus mundus odit ecclesiam. Mundus igitur odit mundum; inimicus reconciliatum, damnatus salvatum, inquinatus mundatum. Sed iste mundus quem Deus in Christo reconciliat sibi, et qui per Christum salvatur, de mundo electus est inimico, damnato, contaminato.” — “He often calleth the church itself by the name of the world; as in that, ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;’ and that, ‘The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.’ And John in his epistle saith, ‘We have an Advocate, and he is the propitiation for [our sins, and not for ours only, but also for] the sins of the whole world.’ The whole world, therefore, is the church, and the world hateth the church. The world, then, hateth the world; that which is at enmity, the reconciled; the condemned, the saved; the polluted, the cleansed world. And that world which God in Christ reconcileth to himself, and which is saved by Christ, is chosen out of the opposite, condemned, defiled world.”

Much more to this purpose might be easily cited out of Augustine, but his judgment in these things is known to all.

IX. Prosper [a.d. 440], Respon. ad Capit. Gall. cap. ix.:— “Non est crucifixus in Christo qui non est membrum corporis Christi. Cum itaque dicatur Salvator pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanæ naturæ susceptionem, potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus quibus mors ipsius profuit. Diversa ab istis sors eorum est qui inter illos censentur de quibus dicitur, ‘Mundus enim non cognovit.’ ”— “He is not crucified with Christ who is not a member of the body of Christ. When, therefore, our Saviour is said to be crucified for the redemption of the whole world, because of his true assumption of the human nature, yet may he be said to be crucified only for them unto whom his death was profitable. Diverse from these is their lot who are reckoned amongst them of whom it is said, ‘The world knew him not.’ ”

Idem, Resp. Object. Vincen. Res. i.:— “Redemptionis proprietas, haud dubie penes illos est, de quibus princeps mundi missus est foras. Mors Christi non ita impensa est humano generi, ut ad redemptionem ejus etiam qui regenerandi non erant pertinerent.” — “Doubtless the propriety of redemption is theirs from whom the prince of this world is cast out. The death of Christ is not to be so laid out for human-kind, that they also should belong unto his redemption who were not to be regenerated.”

Idem, de Ingrat., cap. ix.:—

“Sed tamen hæc aliqua sivis ratione tueri

Et credi tam stulta cupis; jam pande quid hoc sit,

Quod bonus omnipotensque Deus, non omnia subdit

Corda sibi, pariterque omnes jubet esse fideles?

Nam si nemo usquam est quem non velit esse redemptum,

Haud dubie impletur quicquid vult summa potestas.

Non omnes autem salvantur” ―

“If there be none whom God would not have redeemed, why are not all saved?”


X. Concil. Valen. can. iv.:— “Pretium mortis Christi datum est pro illis tantum quibus Dominus ipse dixit, ‘Sicut Moses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet Filius hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipso non pereat, sed habeat vitam eternam.’ ” — “The price of the death of Christ is given for them alone of whom the Lord himself said, ‘As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish.’ ”


EDITOR'S NOTE ON X - This was a council held at Valence in a.d. 855, and convened from the three provinces of Lyons, Vienne, and Arles. Remigius presided, five canons by a council in a.d. 853, at Chiersey, were condemned, and the cause of Godeschalcus, who had raised the controversy, was warmly supported. The canon quoted above is designed to contradict the fourth canon of the council at Chiersey, according to which “there never was, is, or will be a man for whom Christ has not died.”

Calvin on Apostolic Tradition

"Irenaeus had seen the followers of the apostles. He and Tertullian mention the small number of bishops who had been in succession to the apostles up to their time. Many old people were still alive then during whose lifetime the very words uttered by the apostles had been well known from the reports of their fathers. So it is not surprising if they put forward as apostolic tradition what at that time not only had been accepted in common by the first churches, but was considered fixed and unchangeable as the sure doctrine of the faith which Paul, Peter, and their other colleagues had only lately delivered to them. But even Origen, whose time was not much different from theirs, counts among the essentials of the faith certain opinions which, if Pighius [his Catholic opponent] does not anathematise, will get him stoned by his own side too.....I urge readers merely to compare those ancient times with our own; then they will be able to judge how much sincerity or alternatively disgrace there is in his [Pighius'] building his case on [the Father's] support."

-John Calvin. The Bondage and Liberation of the Will. pg 66-67

My Secret Catholic Shelf

I was sitting with a friend the other night, talking about a friend we both knew and speculating if he was on his way to converting to Roman Catholicism. My friend then said, “Well, I'd be less bothered by it than you would.” The statement took me by surprise. I merely replied, “better Catholic than liberal, I guess,” echoing J.I. Packer in a similar situation.

My attitude towards Catholicism is one of ambivalence. Speaking theologically, I see Catholicism as in error, out of accord with the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.” [see my “Why I can not be a Roman Catholic series”] Yet, I also have read and profited from several Catholic writers. A few days later, I looked over my Catholic books and decided I would write an appreciation of Catholic writers that have profited me, and where they have done so. So here are a few Catholic writers I have on my Catholic shelf:

James V. Schall – Schall holds the award for having a book with my favorite title: “On the Unseriousness of Human Affairs: Teaching, Writing, Playing, Believing, Lecturing, Philosophizing, Singing, Dancing.” I came across Schall when pursuing an undergrad degree in History Education. Most education writers had swallowed whole much of John Dewey (*cue Darth Vader music*). But I found a few, like James Schall and Jacques Barzun, that had a different, less utilitarian, less subjective view of education. Schall opens the book with a quote from Samuel Johnson, mourning the lack of “seriousness” with which the Ancient Greeks treated their gods. James V. Schall viewed knowledge and philosophy as one of the best and most delightful parts of being alive. So, if “serious” means sternly dower, and joyless, then the best parts of human existence are “unserious.” And the most useless thing about humans (philosophy and theology - the least utilitarian subjects) are the best things about us. [Good books: On The Unseriousness of Human Affairs, Another Sort of Learning, A Student's Guide to the Liberal Arts]

Jacques Maritain – Schall led me to Maritain. Maritain was a French Thomist who wrote on classical education. But better than his perspectives on education was his treatment of Art. Maritain was able to introduce me to an approach to Art that was serious, but not mathematical. Ultimately, Burke said it best: “Art is Man's Nature.” The best thing about humanity is not his reason, but his affection and creativeness expressed in art. [good books - Art and Scholasticism, Challenges and Renewals]

Etiene Gilson – A fellow Thomist to Maritain, Gilson introduced me to the concept of “Theologism.” Gilson critiqued some Augustinian and Reformed theologians for reasoning that whatever gives God the most Glory, is what He does. Gilson showed this could be used to defend Deism, as a God who created a world without need for supernatural interference would be most glorious. Indeed, the critique is overstated, and then is used in annoying ways by people like Norman Geisler to beat Calvinists over the head whenever they mention the glory of God. Even so, Gilson helped me nuance my thoughts and see how an appeal to the Glory of God can be heard by non-Reformed. [good books -The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. The Christian Philosophy of St. Augustine, The Arts of the Beautiful, God and Philosophy, The Unity of Philosophical Experience]

Christopher Dawson – In studying History, I soon discovered that an important question was : What is the telos (end) of History? This is not asking how the world will end, necessarily, but what is History moving towards. Marx says that History is moving towards a Socialist Utopia, where the means of production will no longer be alienated from the workers. Some say history is headed no where. There is no point or progress. But I finally came across Dawson, a Harvard professor, that told History as the story of the church on earth, History as an expansion of the kingdom of God on earth. This, a modified “City of God” approach, was the first exposure I would have to a Christian view of History. Eventually I would find Augustine himself to be preferred, but Dawson was helpful in getting there. Also, Dawson had a strange respect for Calvin. Dawson disagreed with Calvin, but respected his thought and found it the best alternative to his approach in a Christian view of History. [good books - Dynamics of World History, Christianity and European Culture]


Richard John Neuhaus – Neuhaus was a former Lutheran who converted to Catholicism. A man who died recently and helped me think constructively about death. Death on a Friday Afternoon is a wonderful reflection on time, the church calendar and death as a weekly reflection of the life of Christ. As I Lay Dying, was written as Neuhaus thought he was dying of cancer. Neuhaus recovered and collected these thoughts to describe his comfort in Christ and the beauty of a life that ends ("a life born towards dying"). [good books - Death on a Friday Afternoon, As I Lay Dying]

Peter Kreeft – Kreeft is a wonderful philosopher who engages with modern thought in a helpful way. Peterkreeft.com includes many interesting and challenging talks. But Kreeft's book “The God Who Loves You” convinced me that there were good evangelical Catholics out there. But good evangelical Catholics are often bad Catholics, and Kreeft can probably be accused of such by many hardline Catholics with what Kreeft says in appreciation of Luther in that book. Kreeft is also indebted to Pascal for his worldview, and I think he has some wonderful Jansenist tendencies (which Kreeft would deny). [good books - Christianity for Modern Pagans, The God Who Loves You, Portable Professor: “What Would Socrates Do?”]

G.K. Chesterton – In high school, I read “Orthodoxy.” This was at the same time I read “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis. The two books together started me on a journey that eventually led me to seminary. “Mere Christianity” was the more weighty theologically, but Orthodoxy made Christianity read like a Beethoven Symphony. Reason goes insane because it tries to cross the infinite sea, but poetry is sane because it floats on that sea. Chesterton's Christianity was baptized 19th Century Romanticism. But when I read it in high school, I loved it. I'm a Romantic at heart, and Chesterton helped me see the Romance of and in Christianity. But even better, Chesterton, in "The Everlasting Man," told the story of History as the story of Christ. Of all the authors, I must thank Chesterton for pointing me, not to the church like Dawson, but to Christ as the central fact of history, as unfolding in the church. Of all authors, Chesterton is my favorite of this list. [Good books – Orthodoxy, What's Wrong with the World, Heretics, The Ball and the Cross, The Man who was Thursday, The Everlasting Man]

But still, even with Chesterton, I am ambivalent towards my Catholic shelf. Chesterton once wrote as a slight against Lutheranism, what I found to be the beauty of Reformation Christianity. Chesterton wrote of his dislike for the view of Lutheranism that:

“Man could say nothing to God, nothing from God, nothing about God, except an inarticulate cry for mercy and for the supernatural help of Christ, in a world where all natural things were useless. Reason was useless. Will was useless. Man could not move himself an inch any more than a stone. Man could not trust what was in his head any more than a turnip. Nothing remained in earth or heaven, but the name of Christ lifted in that lonely imprecation; awful as the cry of a beast in pain.” [-Chesterton, from St. Thomas Aquinas, Ch 8]

My heart actually races at what Chesterton finds repugnant. For all the benefit I gain from Catholics, especially in philosophy and education, I part company from as many of them see Chesterton's "insult" here as a problem, rather than a testament to the sovereign grace of God. Alas, if only Catholics could see the beauty in the grace they find distasteful.

Clark on Reformed Confessionalism

"the classical Reformed approach controlled tradition with the Scriptures, but did not reject tradition as such...What makes us Reformed is how we understand Scripture, and this understanding is summarized in our confession. If we thought that our confession was not biblical, we would not use it, and if anyone can show that our confession is unbiblical, the church ought to revise it to bring it into conformity with Scripture...

The difference between the confessional Reformed and Rome is not that we deny tradition, but that we do not venerate our Reformed tradition 'with a feeling of piety and reverence equal to that with which Scripture is received and venerated.' Tradition properly understood, is subject to the authority and test of Scripture and as such has no intrinsic authority. Its authority is derived from Scripture...Christians are best served by reading Scripture with our tradition."

-R. Scott Clark. Recovering the Reformed Confession.pg 9-10

The limits of Tradition

Custom without truth is the antiquity of error. [“Consuetudo sine veritate vetustas erroris est.”] On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth.

- Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258 A.D.) (Epistle 73.9)

Mere Christianity: Only the Hallway

“I hope no reader will suppose the ‘mere’ Christianity is here put forward as an alternative to the creeds of the existing communions - as if a man could adopt it in preference to Congregationalism or Greek Orthodoxy or anything else. It is more like a hall out of which doors open into several rooms. If I can bring anyone into that hall I shall have done what I attempted. But it is in the rooms, not the hall, that there are fires and chairs and meals. The hall is a place to wait in, a place from which to try the various doors, not a place to live in…When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall.”

- C.S. Lewis - Preface to Mere Christianity.

Why I cannot be a Roman Catholic (Part 5): I believe in Authority

I don’t have as much time for these posts with school work piling up, but I thought I would end on a final question of Authority. The question relates to the ability of the visible church and one in authority to contradict the true faith. Can the church or tradition be placed in a position of authority?


I would like to submit that the question must be nuanced to be of any value. For if the question is merely stated as above, the Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox should answer yes. There are many different ways at looking at authority in relation to Scripture, tradition and the church. I would like to briefly (probably too briefly) explore three possibilities. The Pope authoritatively determines doctrine, the Councils authoritatively determines doctrine and the "Church Fathers" determine church doctrine. My answer to the Church fathers and the councils is actually, yes they do to a large degree help determine the faith. Yet, the question is not just a determination of doctrine, but an infallible guide. The real question becomes: Can the Pope, a Council or a/the Father(s) infallibly be an authority of the Christian faith in the same way Scripture can?


The Church Fathers?


Some, mostly those new to Church History, will place the Church Fathers, (variously grouped from the Apostolic Fathers to Augustine or perhaps to Gregory the Great) in a place of authority and infallibility alongside the Bible. I think seeing Church Fathers as the deposit of infallible authority is the weakest answer. Various early church fathers, and not just Origen and Tertullian, but recognized orthodox church fathers like Gregory Nyssa, contradict each other and accepted orthodox doctrine in certain areas. If the Church Fathers are an infallible guide, do we accept Ireneaus’ premillenialism, or Augustine’s amillennialism? Do we hold to the Latin fathers who held to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a function of the priest’s invocation, or to the Eastern Fathers’ view of the presence as a function of the Holy Spirit? Do we hold to the partaking of the Eucharistic presence as by faith (as Augustine does) or as objective, as Thomas Aquinas does? Considering their disagreement with each other, it is not disrespectful to put them in a secondary relationship to Scripture, as the Second Helvetic Confession put it in Chapter 2: “Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.”


And this is true, when writing about theology, early church theologians cited Scripture as a rule over faith. Tertullian would often base points of argument on merely stating "for the Scriptures have taught us." [Against Praxeas, ch 17] Justin Martyr called Typho the Jew to believe on the authority of "so many Scriptures [as] proved to you." Typho's criteria for belief is "the Scriptures compel me to admit." The early fathers themselves held Scripture to have authority over them.


The Church Councils?


One must first ask what is meant by elevating “councils” to authoritative status. In the early history of the church, multiple synods and councils met, some now called the “Ecumenical Councils” and some not. The Councils of Toledo where rejected as not speaking for the entire church by the East. Other councils such as Orange issued decrees that were later lost to a great part of the church. Generally, there are either Four or Seven Councils recognized by Christians. The first problem is identifying what is a genuine ecumenical council. The Council of Hieria met as an Ecumenical Council, but was later rejected by a subsequent Ecumenical Council (Second Nicaea).


If we look at the first four Ecumenical Councils, perhaps there can be more agreement there. While the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Definition have a position of high importance in identifying orthodox Christianity, are they on the same level as Scripture? Scripture carries the same inspiration in Genesis as in Revelation, can we say this for the first four councils? In the first council in Nicea, an anathema was affixed at the end of the creed, condemning any who say Christ is of another “hypostasis” than the Father. By Chalcedon (the four council), Christ was being describes as one in ousia with the Father, but a different hypostasis than the Father. At one point, the wording of hypostasis was anathema, at another it was catholic faith. I say this not to undermine those creeds, which are vitally important to the faith, but to place the fluidity of tradition and developing understanding in contrast to the Scriptures.


The Councils display a developing understanding and a fluidity of terminology and words. Scripture, on the other hand, lends itself to interpretation based on the particular wording, tense and phrases invariably, rather than with fluidity. Jesus based His defence of resurrection on the particular tense of a verb in Exodus. (Matt 22:23-33) Jesus also spoke of the Law being preserved in such a way in the Law that neither a “jot or tittle” would pass from it. (this incidentally, is not a philosophy of text criticism, but a statement of the precise nature of Scripture's authority to the word.) Deuteronomy stated God is one, and though the New Testament developed the three persons, it was never to the denial of the Shema (that God is one). On the other hand, Nicaea first said one hypostasis, then developing terminology and need of another term then required the church to declare three hypostasis.


Can the Pope contradict the true faith?



I would submit for your consideration the little known case of Honorius. Honorius was Pope in the early Middle Ages and publicly backed the Monothelitist heresy. The church anathematized (condemned as a heretic) Honorius in the third Council of Constantinople for his heresy. In this case, the pope in authority did not speak for the true catholic faith. In fact, this case was cited in 1870 by Roman Catholics who did not want papal infallibility to become official doctrine (yes, it was not a formal doctrine until 1870). Of course, modern Catholics can use an achronistic new category of ex cathedra to read back into the affair to say that somehow though Honorius was supporting, writing letters and encouraging people to believe such a heresy he still was not "officially wrong" because he did not say he was officially speaking from the chair of St. Peter. It is a good argument since that phrase was not used for making teaching “official” by bishops of Rome - but it was said about the bishop of Rome in the Council of Chalcedon when they praised the current bishop of defending orthodoxy at the council. This is another interesting instance where the orthodoxy of the bishop of Rome was judged by others and not his own self-declaration, but I digress. One must deal with the fact that to be true to the catholic faith during Honorius’ reign, one had to disagree with the Pope to be catholic. That is because the true catholic faith is about something other than mere human authority. But for more detail, and how this helps disprove papal infallibility, see Schaff’s treatment here.


The Authority of Scripture.


Catholic apologetics cannot allow for a fallible Pope, mostly due to their quasi-Gnostic view of Scripture. What do I mean by quasi-Gnostic view of Scripture? Catholics set up interpretation of Scripture as this impossible task, best left to the magesterium. The Papacy becomes the only way to know if an interpretation is correct. In this way, modern Catholic apolegtics sets up a faith to crumble. The idea that the teaching of the Pope was errent now has set up a situation where because the Scriptures are set up as a foreign book of codes, it no longer is able to be understood at all. Is this how the early church interpreted the Bible?


Irenaeus, when facing the question of interpretation, never appeals to a magesterium, but boldly declares, "the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospel, can be clearly, unambigiously and harmoniously understood by all..." but the important distinction between the Christian understanding and the pagan is "...all do not believe."

There are several principles the early church sets up for the interpretation of scripture, the first:

1) Believe and you will understand.
This is a trust in the authority and of God to speak through the Scriptures. Anslem said this more broadly about theology stating he does not "understand in order to believe, but believes in order to understand."


2) Christ is the key to interpretation
The Apostolic Father Ignatius wrote to a group of believers who debated if they should accept the gospel preached to them in the Gospels and the preachers, questioning how to interpret the Old Testament (which they refered to as the ‘archives‘). Ignatius replied “But for me, the archives are Jesus Christ, the unalterable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith that comes through him.” [Ignatius to the Philadelphians 8:2] The rule of faith in interpretation was to see the Scriptures through the lens of the person and work of Christ. The first creed of Christianity is "Jesus is Lord." (Rom 10:9, Phil 2:11, etc.) Such a creed is not merely bestowing a title, but the reorienting of all life to a different paradigm. This reorientation extends even to the reading of Scripture. The true interpretation of Scripture is Christotelic. But you can read more on that elsewhere…


3) Scripture does not answer all our questions
Irenaeus ends his short section on interpretation declaring that though some questions can be clearly answered from Scripture, not all can. "In regards to those things which we investigate in the Scriptures, we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God." Scripture does not intend to explain some scientific matters like the human circulatory system or even some theological matters such as the circumstances of the fall of Satan or workings of the responsibility of man and the sovereignty of God or the reasons behind God's election of some and not others.


The writings of the church fathers inform our reading of Scripture. The creeds provide the boundries. Christ provides the key. Yet, in the end, the Scriptures are our only infallible rule for faith, of which no other has claim, be it tradition, a pope, a theologian or a council. Perhaps this is why theology remains both a science and an art. Yet, objective truth remains, as the Second Helvetic puts it:


“Who Is The Judge? Therefore, we do not admit any other judge than God himself, who proclaims by the Holy Scriptures what is true, what is false, what is to be followed, or what to be avoided. So we do assent to the judgments of spiritual men which are drawn from the Word of God.”

Why I cannot be Roman Catholic (Part 4): I believe Mary is the Theotokos

My summer free time reading has been filled with Historical Theology. In reading the history of doctrine, I noticed I had a blind spot: Mary. My attention to Mary, mother of Jesus, only consisted in the fact that she was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Beyond that, what was there to learn from her? Soon, I realized there was much to learn from her.

First, what did it mean that she was the mother of Jesus? In the Christological debates asking about the deity of Christ, the most orthodox thing to say about Mary was that she was "Θεοτόκος" (Theo=God, tokos=bearer). This does not mean Mary is "God the Mother” (as I heard one person attack the term), but that Mary is “God-bearer.” This title contains the baffling paradox, that a teenage single mother carried inside her the One who created her, Who created the earth she walked on and the universe in which that earth hung. The Creator was held in a creature.

Second, I had to learn that Mary was supreme in her commitment to Jesus. Before any signs, Mary knew her son’s mission, commanding others to do “whatever he says” at the wedding in John 2. Mary was there at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and even at the end at the cross in John 19:25-27, even when the “great” disciples had run off. Though Mary may have had a lapse of judgment back at the temple in Jesus’ youth (leaving him, then scolding him), Mary was committed to her son’s adult ministry from start to finish. Christ’s mother and earthly authority was supremely submissive to her Son’s authority and duty.

Throughout my studies, I found Mary to be someone of honor in the early church, and continuing in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, who lifted up Mary as a supreme example of holiness, and I had to agree: Mary was the Theotokos and truly a saint worthy of imitation.

That was until my reading encountered the post-Thomas Aquinas Latin church. During Thomas’ time, a new teaching arose that declared that Mary was conceived immaculately herself. Both Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux opposed this new teaching, for if she was conceived this way, and born without original sin and herself was sinless, then she also would need no redemption, and all humans need redemption, even the mother of the Redeemer.

The Latin Church, however, pushed a noble honor of Mary into idolatry. They changed the accepted interpretation of Scripture. Originally, Proverbs 8:22-31 had always been interpreted as pointing to Christ, the wisdom of God (see the debate with Arius). Now Mary was the wisdom of God according to Nicholas of Cusa. Richard of St. Lawrance could even insert Mary’s name into John 3:16 - “that Mary so loved the world that she gave her only son” …Mary was “my only hope” [Thomas a Kempis] and exercised “maternal authority over God.” [Gerson] Finally, Mary could be “adored as God” according to Nicholas of Cusa, a mediatrix between Christ the Mediator and humanity. Despite the honor given to writers like Thomas Aquinas and Bernard of Clairvaux who opposed some of this, the cult of Mary dominated the scene. The paradox of a creature carrying God, became herself the god of many.

Despite my deference to the development of the treatment of Mary in the East, even to the point of not finding the “ever-Virginity” of Mary to be a doctrine worth fighting over for those who hold it, yet the Latin Church went beyond the bounds of devotion. Saints make up a “great cloud of witnesses” but their primary job is to be witnesses. The lives of the saints abound in rich treasures of contextual gospel living, worship and devotion, but if their actions do not point upward, they are distractions. God shares his Glory with no one, and no one is worthy of worship other than God. (Ps 115:1, Isa 42:8) It is quite important to keep the title of Mary as Theotokos, especially for its Christological importance, but most importantly to point to the object of worship which she bore, not to herself. The cult of Mary as it arose in Latin Christendom is neither catholic, nor Christian. Mary’s greatness is found in her bearing not a mere man who rose to greatness, but bearing the great God who condescended to humility and suffering.

Truly and simply this is why I cannot be Roman: Romanism too often fails to keep the main thing the main thing. It places a man (or a woman) in the place of satifier, of ultimate authority, and of worship. The center of our life and worship is Christ. Theology is not primarily a reflection on the words of Calvin or Aquinas or papal encyclicals or Ecumenical Councils or Creeds or even Scripture - it is a reflection on the Word. Theology is understood by, points to, resolves in and professes the Word as Person, in Christ. He is our Mediator. His Spirit is our guide. His Father, the Son reveals; for the Triune God is revealed in and by Christ. The Scriptures are His word. The Church is His Bride. Religious reflection can often obsess over Soteriology or Ecclesiology - and this might be acceptable, if it is obsessively looking for Christ. A man who may be too often an idol himself once said: “men are born idol makers.” We may place trust in many things as Christians: a preacher, an upbringing, a teacher, in a Pope, or a Reformer or tradition. Yet none of these is worthy of our trust in the same way as Christ. The highest they can attain to is a pointer to God in Christ.

Why I Cannot be a Roman Catholic (Part 2): I believe in Tradition.

In Galatians 2:11-14, Paul recounts how Peter acted hypocritically, denying the gospel in his works, eating according to the Law with the circumcision party. The circumcision party believed membership in the community required subscription to the Jewish law. Paul rebuked Peter to his face, in front of everyone, for his deeds which proclaimed a false doctrine (2:14).

I began to wonder, what would have happened if Peter told Paul to take a flying leap? What if Peter excommunicated Paul? Who the heck was Paul, a murderer and by his own admission the least of the apostles (1 Cor 15:9), who wasn’t even around when Christ gave to Peter (Matt 16:19) and the other apostles (Matt 18:18) the right to bind and loosen. How dare Paul?!

Paul, one of lesser authority rebuked one of higher authority over the importance of the purity of the gospel. But what if Peter commanded Paul to recant? Paul was disrespecting the dignity of Peter’s office and causing disrepute to Peter’s ministry and the appointment of Christ.

Question: What happens when apostolic authority is challenged by apostolic doctrine? Biblically, apostolic doctrine trumped apostolic authority.

Actually, the question can be asked differently now, for we do not have divinely appointed apostles in the same manner today. The question today focuses on the nature of apostolic tradition. Roman Catholicism when confronted with a man calling for repentance played their card of apostolic authority. Martin Luther was not to question the authority of the church, for this was the nature of apostolic tradition according to the Pope: the transfer of authority.

What is Apostolic Tradition?
The difference between Roman Catholics and Protestants is NOT the acceptance of tradition by Catholics and the rejection of tradition by Protestants. For Scripture itself speaks to tradition, sometimes negatively, but the tradition of the apostles is always positive such as in 1 Corinthians 11:2:

Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Biblical Christianity requires “maintaining the traditions.” So what is the primary nature of apostolic tradition? Our answer is clear in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

The church is commanded to hold firm in the traditions “taught.” Tradition is primarily the content of faith, not the transfer of authority over what is taught. That is tradition’s own self-understanding as well. It is in 2 Thess 2:15, and in early church history. Why else would the Athanasian creed say salvation was based on the catholic faith, which was the doctrine of Christ’s assumption of human flesh for the accomplishment of salvation (with no mention of authority of the Pope)? The Athanasian creed defines the catholic faith as doctrine, not authority. Irenaeus defended his doctrine because his teacher was Polycarp, and Polycarp’s teacher was the Apostle John. Irenaeus had tradition on his side, a tradition of a taught doctrine of catholic faith.

Galatians 2:11-14 presents a vivid picture of what happens when apostolic authority clashes with apostolic teaching; the apostolic faith takes precedence over all authority. Obedience to apostolic tradition means defense even against those higher in authority who contradict the gospel, be they a priest, a Bishop or even the chief of the apostles Mr first Pope himself Peter. Paul even includes himself, an apostle of authority, as under the standard of measurement, in the same book, in 1:8:

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

The Protestant case is that of, as Jaroslav Pelikan put it, “obedient rebels.” The Reformation is a question of “catholic substance and protestant principle.” The obedience of the Reformers was to the catholic faith in rebelling against the claim of apostolic authority to invalidate a call to repentance. Peter denied the gospel in deed and then repented. Rome denied the gospel in deed, then invented (or solidified the teaching of) another doctrine of the gospel to validate its deeds. Remember, Luther did not seek to found a new church, he sought repentance - he got excommunication when he refused to recant his call to repentance. To say Luther was unconcerned about the church or unity would be like saying John the Baptist had his beheading coming to him for not respecting Herod or the Pharisees. The gospel defines the church, the church does not define the gospel. The first Reformation confession, the Augsburg confession, claimed to teach nothing new, that "the Sum of our Doctrine, in which, as can be seen, there is nothing that varies from the Scriptures, or from the Church catholic" and is but the catholic faith so very old, - the gospel of Christ and Paul explained so well by Augustine and the fathers. That is, it taught the Reformation faith - the catholic faith.

So was that truly the case with Luther against the Leo X? I submit that it was, but more on that in Part 3.

Until then, enjoy:

Why I Cannot be a Roman Catholic (Part 1): I believe in the catholic faith

I have engaged many Roman Catholics when discussing religion, either online or in person. I enjoy engaging Catholics on common beliefs, and even on controversial issues. When I state my belief that tradition is important (even authoritative), that the church has authority in matters of discipline and that the canon of the New Testament is based (at least partially) on the testimony of the church - Roman Catholics usually want a sinner’s prayer conversion to Catholicism right there.

I feel I should first state that several pre-Trentine Catholics have been instrumental in my theological and spiritual development (such as Thomas Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury). I have even appreciated some post-Trentine Catholics like Francis Thompson, Peter Kreeft, Richard John Neuhaus, Henri Nouwen, G.K. Chesterton, and James V. Schall.

But I am not Roman Catholic. I cannot be. Paradoxically, my inability to be Catholic depends on my inability to recant the catholic faith. I thought I would take a few posts over the next few days and explain what this means in a few important areas. I believe I have sufficiently posted on my own beliefs to warrant a critique of another tradition, without the charge that the project or my entire intention in blogging is merely negative.

But the task seems negative. In fact, to a degree it is and must be. In being a Protestant, it is a question one must ask: What am I protesting? By living in western civilization, one must at one time or another ask “Why am I not ‘Catholic’?” After all, Christianity is not a cafeteria where you get to choose those teachings which are to be authoritative and which are not. The catholic faith deserves submission.

This series also does not mean to imply that all Catholics are hell-bound. It does, however, imply and explicitly state (at least here) that the Roman Catholic church is not the external manifestation of the true Church. There are doctrines in the Roman Catholic church which I will not attack, for they are either correct or at a minimum not contrary to the Bible such as the honor of the saints, exercise of church discipline, paedobaptism, confession to a priest, doing penance, or exclusivity of salvation in the church, for though I may have critiques on their exercise and exclusivity in the Latin Church, they are not apostate beliefs.

Being Protestant means I protest certain things in the teachings of the church claiming catholicity. The Roman claim to catholicity is just as offensive to Protestants as my criticism of Rome’s demerits are to Catholics. So be it.

[Please note my use of ‘Catholic’ refers to Roman Catholics and ‘catholic’ refers to universal. As a Protestant, I hold that the two are NOT interchangeable. That is why Reformation Christians refer to Catholics sometimes as Papists or Romish, because they are not catholic in the truest sense of the word. But all that in due time…]

Early Church and Abortion

Most have heard of Speaker Pelosi's recent theological pontifications. Pelosi declared that Augustine of Hippo wrote that a baby was not entitled to human rights until 3 months in the womb. Jay the Bennett had a couple of good posts already on it (here and here).

What I was wondering is where the heck she got that from? I cannot find any references to Augustine saying such a thing, though someone suggested that it was Thomas Aquinas and not Augustine. Having just completed a study on the Early Church and their view of Sex and Marriage, most believed that the egg was fully contained in the man's contribution to procreation, and thus even having sex during pregnancy or after menapause was prohibited. Abortion was nothing new in the Early Church, and as early as it is mentioned, it is condemned. Witness Clement of Alexandria:

"Our entire life will be spent observing the laws of nature...if we do not kill off with devious instruments the human creature that has been conceived according to divine providence. For women who, in order to conceal their incontinence, make use of death-dealing drugs that completely expel the mortal creature, abort not only the embryo, but also human kindness." -Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 96

Why reference tradition when it is so slanted against you? Why not claim new revelation like liberals have on homosexuality and women's ordination? Where was she getting this from? Has anyone run across something like what she said in your studies?

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

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)

Who do you say I am? - The Need for Creeds

American Christianity has bred a suspicion of creeds. Yet, a creed connects us with Christians across time, space and denomination. Before he died, Jaroslav Pelikan gave an interview about his multivolume collection of Christian Creeds (outlined in his book Credo).

Listen to the interview here.

Pelikan also published a 5 volume history of Christian Doctrine. His defining of the role and development of tradition and its relation to Christian faith helps Protestants accept tradition while maintaining the supremecy of the Scriptures. As Pelikan says in his interview: "The only substitute for tradition is bad tradition" (i.e. the tradition you make up and try to pass on)

Why Bother with Trinitarianism?

The most often heard denigration of the doctrine of the Trinity (and really for all Theology) is that it may be true, but it doesn’t matter. There’s no application in our daily lives.

There are actually three problems with this:

1) It is false, the doctrine of the Trinity does have application
2) A concern for application is good, but not when everything has to benefit me in areas separate from Who God is, then the problem in the question is not the “problem” but the questioner.
3) It is telling of our lack of concern for God, who is supposed to be the object of our desires. If we truly do not care Who God is, it means our love for God is lacking or absent.

Though I do believe the doctrine of the Trinity has application for our daily lives, I will leave those concerns for last; because of first priority should be the third point: our need to worship a God we know. Imagine telling your wife how thankful you are to her for giving birth to you. The idea is absurd. You should not thank your wife for the gift of your mother! Yet, in worship and prayer we often do this very thing thanking the Father for dying for us, or the Son for converting us.

WORSHIP

The question has arisen, “Who should we worship in the Trinity?” Should our praise be centered on the Father as Jesus told the woman at the well that the Father is seeking worshippers? (John 4:23) While the Father is often the object of our worship, both tradition and Scripture reveal that the other members of the Godhead also are to be worshipped. The Nicene Creed tells us the “Holy Spirit…with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.” And in the book of Revelation 22:3, of Jesus it is said: “the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship Him.” Many of the hymns in [good] hymnbooks reflect this concern, with verses dedicated to the Father, then to the Son, then to the Spirit. If your hymnal does not do this, consider this one that does:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Hymnal
http://www.gcp.org/products_b.asp?id=987663333&cat=A

PRAYER

This might also be extended to our prayer life. We often pray to the Father, ending with an appeal to the Son (in Jesus name). The Father is traditionally the object of our prayers in worship, often with us thanking the Father for His only-begotten Son and for the Spirit He sent. This formula originates in the very earliest liturgies of the church:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.html

While the Father may be object of the Lord’s Prayer, this should not restrict us to prayer only to the Father. However, we should be conscious of which Person we are praying to. Paul prays (speaks) directly to Christ in his conversion. Much of the worship of Christ in Revelation is in the form of prayer. Also, tradition has developed liturgical prayers with this very concern in mind. Puritans often had Trinitarian petitions in their prayers beginning with “O Father” or “O Son” depending on the object of that prayer or petition. For examples see: the Valley of Vision.

HUMAN IDENTITY

Scripture tells us that man is made in God’s Image. More than that, Scripture tells us that man is made up of two parts, male and female. Anyone concerned about the equality and diversity of gender should take notice here. This “Image of God” and the knowledge that God is Triune, informs our idea of the relationship between men and women. Scholar Bruce Waltke says as much about relationship in his commentary on Genesis writing, “Relationship is modeled after God who does not exist in isolation but is a trinity, surrounded by a heavenly court” When the model for marriage is given in Genesis 2:24, the man and woman are said to come together and become “one” or “echad.” This is the same word used in Deuteronomy 6:4 when God tells us He is “one.” This truth stands beside the truth of God’s diversity in the Persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The fact is that the Son has equal worth as the Father, even though the roles may differ. As we consider the difference of roles between men and women, the fact that the two (men and women) are one mankind, tells us that while we may differentiate the roles, if we denigrate the worth of women, a similar action to the denigration of Christ is occurring.

There are more implications for the doctrine of the Trinity, but for our purposes, and my time, I can only leave you with the exhortation to give closer thought and study to the doctrine of the Trinity. It has implication for our lives, but more importantly, it is the nature of the object that should be our greatest desire, because the Triune God is the highest good, our highest good and our greatest joy is found in Him.

In what sense Christ died for all men, In what sense He died for the elect.

[Update: I think Jay Bennett does a good job of making the case that common grace does not require atonement, which I speculated about in point 2 under 'in what way Christ died for all,' see what you think: LINK HERE]


Limited Atonement, by far, is the most debated doctrine of grace. Part of this, I believe, is due to its unfortunate title. The title seems to cheapen the atonement by limiting it. Yet, perhaps without knowing it, every group of Christians is forced to limit it in some manner, unless we are Universalists and believe everyone is headed to heaven. I do believe, we might explore the ways in which we might talk about both realities, of Christ's death in regards to the Church/Elect and all men

The Particular, Special nature of the Atonement
[What ways we say that Christ died particularly for the Elect]

1) It’s application of true reconciliation. Even if we attach a trigger, to say Christ did all and merely requires faith for the salvation of the believer to be complete, we still limit the application of the atonement to the elect, or believing Christians. (more on that in the conclusion)

2) It’s intent - Did Christ die intending that every person end up in heaven? Many would quote the verse from 2 Peter 3:9:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

So does the Lord not wish for any person in the world ever born to perish? Within the content of the verse, we can see the word “any” point back to “you” or in Texan “y’all” since it is plural (ὑμᾶς). Who is “you”? When writing a letter, when the 2nd person is used, the author is talking to the intended audience of the letter, which is told to us in 2 Peter 1:1:

2 Peter 1:1 - Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

Rather than speaking of the wish that may not be fulfilled in 2 Peter 3:9, Peter is assuring those of true faith (of equal worth with ours I.e. the apostles) they will not be abandoned by God in their salvation.

So again to our question, Who did Christ intend to be adopted in His death?

Eph 1:4-6 “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace.”

We must confess that Christ’s intention for His death is for the elect, those He chose.


But don't other people experience grace?

1) We can all confess that Christ’s death is of limitless worth. Even the Canon of Dort on the Atonement says as much. If Christ was God, then His payment must have the element of infinity attached to it. Even if every man was saved, it would not drain the merit of Christ’s death.

2) All are benefits of some graces that are not saving. However, these are not attached to the work of atonement. The Reformed faith includes an element of Common Grace, or grace given to both the elect and the non-elect. The rain falls on the just and the unjust (Matt 5:45). That God forebears in His justice, is a part of His grace in being merciful to the reprobate. That the reprobate enjoy the beauty, pleasure and delights of creation is a grace unexplained and seemingly wasted on those who will never turn that enjoyment into praise toward the Glory of God.

I would distinguish atoning grace from other graces. But Christ died for atoning grace, not common grace. And Christ atoned only for the elect.

The only place that the idea of atonement or propitiation seems to be applied to more than the elect is in John, in particular

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

In what sense is “whole world” meant here? I do believe there is a compelling case that the intent of this verse, as recorded in explanation in tradition, is multiracial, as in some from all peoples. This was a hard lesson for the Jews to learn (look at Peter, who needed it pounded into his head, that Cornelius was to be a recipient of the gospel too).

Thereby, the whole world mean here the elect. (see Michael Svigel’s post here, where I steal this argument from).

Follow me here: When the disciple of John, Polycarp, is being killed, his students declare:

“They [the pagans] did not know that we [Christians] will never be able either to abandon the Christ who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of those who are saved, the blameless on behalf of sinners, or to worship anyone else.”

Polycarp taught his disciples that this was the proper way to understand 1 John 2:2. If those in closest contact with the disciples have given us the exposition and meaning of the words “whole world,” should our modern sentimentality correct this?

Does it matter?

When we speak of the death of Christ especially in the gospel message, we are primarily speaking of the atoning work of Christ. So in the atoning sense, we cannot say that Christ died for all.

By faith the sinner is made a recipient of the work of atonement. And God knows, if He did not give this as a gift to me, I would never be a recipient of the atonement, for I am incapable of faith and repentance. This faith is a work of God in his Holy Spirit, given to all He has chosen, to the elect of His Bride. Given to all those whom he intend to apply the atonement.

In that way, I confess the particular death of the groom for His Bride, as much as she has ignored Him, denigrated Him, disbelieved Him and left with Her inheritance, still she, still I am His son and His bride because He has pursued and purchased me, never to leave me.

Lenten Prayer

Collect for the Fourth Sunday in Lent:

Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God, that we, who for our evil deeds do worthily deserve to be punished, by the comfort of thy grace may mercifully be relieved; through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen

-Book of Common Prayer 1928

Hypostasis: How do we speak of the individual Persons in the Trinity?

As Westerners, we are good at talking about the unity of God. Western thinkers, however, have always had trouble speaking about the three Persons of the Trinity distinctively. In fact, we may even find Eastern ways of describing the Trinity strange and even bordering on Polytheism/Tritheism. Below is a popular depiction of the Trinity, derived from a place few modern Christians would think to look for such an image, Genesis 18:1-8.

When we see three, we become uncomfortable. To be sure, there are those who call themselves Christians who deny the three. They are Unitarians and Oneness Pentecostals. Though if one does not confess the three-ness of God, the rest of the Christian traditions will warn you not only that you are out of sync with 2000 years of Christian understanding, but your very salvation may be in question as the Athanasian Creed ends with this warning:

"This is the catholic faith. One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully."

How do we think of these Persons individually? What is different when I think of the Father than the Son, or the Son than the Spirit, or the Spirit than the Father? To be sure, not only is this a potential problem, but one that occurs regularly in worship and the life of the Christian mind. A friend of mine told me a story before of being in a church during worship singing "You are my King." The song is explicitly about the death and resurrection of the Son. The second time through the song, the worship leader shouted out: "Now sing it to the Father!" My friend's jaw dropped and he internally screamed, "NO!" The Father did not die for our sins. The Father is not the "Sonfather" of Sabellius and Modalism. Yet, when Christians get mentally lazy they fall back into Modalism. The previous story illustrates one way in which we must distinguish the Persons of the Trinity.

THE DISTINCT ACTIONS OF THE PERSONS

As we looked at the Nicene Creed, we notice that we confess that the Father is "Maker of Heaven and Earth." The Father is identified as the Initiator of Creation (Gen 1:1, 1 Cor 8:6).

In describing the actions of the Son, we find in the creed a biblical and nearly unknown function of the Son: "by whom all things are made." We may think that the Early Church was speculating here, perhaps on some theory of the "Word" as Christ's title and God "spoke" and creation happened. But, when we look at 1 Cor 8:6, we see the same language. In fact, we see the Son's role in sustaining all creation as it is through the Son "through whom we exist." Second of the Son, we see his role in Redemption, as the one who "came down" and took our sins for us, became sin for us. This is not spoken of the Father or the Spirit, but of the Son distinctly.

The Holy Spirit we see given the credit for inpiration of the prophets in Acts 28:25. We also see the credit for conversion given to the Holy Spirit in 1 Cor 2:11-14.

Yet, this is not the only means by which we can speak distinctively of the Persons of the Trinity. More important than the Persons' relation to us (though their relation to us is more interesting to self-interested humans) is Their relationship to each other.

INTRATRINITARIAN RELATIONS

Within the creed, all the Persons are defined by their relation to the Father, largely due to the fact that this is how Scripture defines Their relations. Again, our favorite, theology-packed verse, tells us that the Son is begotten of Father (John 3:16), as we have explored what that meant in the previous post. Of the Spirit, we are told the Spirit proceeds from Father (John 15:26). One may ask what the difference between begotten and proceeding are in meaning. The answer most pleasing, that I have found, is the difference between εδωκεν and εκπορευεται. In other words, we don't really know. This leaves us with the Father, of Whom we may say that he is not begotten or proceeding.

The relations between the persons are deeper and worthy of much more space than I have given them. To see how the "Father loves the Son" and what that means has filled the works of Jonathan Edwards and was of more interest to the early church than the few vaporous thoughts we allow it today.

For more on the relationships and roles, my brother has recommended Bruce Ware. I have heard Ware speak and he is insightful and at the same time easy to follow, which should encourage us to look into his book: Father Son and Holy Spirit for more on this topic.