Watching the Lutherans, and Violating the 10th Commandment

Something happened last week that few people in the PCA noticed (at least judging from the blogging world). Everyone, of course, noticed the passing of the Strategic Plan by a slim majority in the PCA. In doing so, it seemed to signal the slight majority looking to cultural cues and has moved away from her sister denomination the OPC, seeing her has a little too confessional and “truly reformed” but still does not embrace the mainline PCUSA. They're the evangelicals, not the liberals, not the fundamentalists (which many wrongly equate with confessionalism). In other words, the PCUSA tried to be culturally relevant and failed, but we can do it and we won't fail, because we're smarter or something.

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, however, had a much different Synod. They have theirs less often (once every three years), and so their business is serious when they do. There are two groups, much like the PCA, vying for control. One is the confessionalists (to the Book of Concord) who are largely younger, and the other more relevant people (mostly older) who don't want to be like the Wisconsin Synod that seems too narrow in its confessionalism, and they think they can do the culturally relevant thing but not be like the ELCA, because they're smarter or something.

At the LCMS Synod, something interesting happened. The Confessionalists won. They elected their Synodical President Matt Harrison, they filled the mission agencies with confessionalists, all young ministers, and the party the young people found relevant was the confessionalists and not the culturally relevant guys.

It's just interesting. I hope the Strategic plan is not indicating the the “culturally relevant crowd” is winning in the PCA, but if it does, it will be interesting if a different Reformation denomination becomes more relevant to the emerging generation because they didn't try to be...

Evangelical and Liberalism: What's the difference?

[Reason #132 why I reject the label evangelical]


According to a 2008 PEW study, 57% of self-identified Evangelicals don't believe Jesus is the only way to eternal life.

A 2010 survey of the Presbyterian Church USA (the "liberal" one) showed 43% disagree or strongly disagree that “all the world’s religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth.” (that would make 57% left over) and majorities of members (60 percent), elders (68 percent), and pastors (66 percent) at least agree that “the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.”

Therefore, I will now no longer call the Presbyterian Church USA the "liberal" denomination, but the evangelical denomination, for there is no real difference in reality between the two words. Also, if someone in the PCA says they want to be more evangelical and less Reformed, I will rebuke them.

Westminster Confession Surprises

Many people from as diverse backgrounds as John Piper (Baptist) and J.I. Packer (Anglican) have praised the Westminster Standards as, in the case of Packer, “the greatest summation of the faith in English” to, in the case of Piper, “perhaps 98% agreement in my faith.” The Westminster Standards contains much that every Christian ought to hold dear: The Trinity, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, etc. It also holds some particularly Calvinistic truths: The Eternal Decree of God determining election, the total depravity of man, the perseverence of the saints, which still endear it to Calvinistic Baptists like Piper and Calvinistic Anglicans like J.I. Packer.

Yet, I also find it kinda funny, because I sometimes hear believers praise the Westminster Standards (The Confession and Shorter and Larger Catechism) which contain things that might fit into Piper's 2%, or be why Packer is not Presbyterian but Anglican, but I wonder if they know it. In studying the Westminster Standards, I've found several things I had not considered before. All but a couple, I have accepted and still consider myself comparing the last couple to Scripture to see if they are faithful in their interpretation. Some of the teachings that might hit us as peculiar:

Those in authority in the church are to be considered as “father” and “mother.” (LC 124)

Sacraments become effectual means of salvation by the Holy Spirit. (LC 161)

Only approved or ordained men ought to preach the Word (LC 158)

Outside of the visible church "there is no ordinary possibility of salvation" (WCF 25.2)

Those taking the Supper in faith truly feed on Christ. (LC 170)

Those who doubt should especially take the Supper. (LC 172)

Baptism rightly administered and received confers the grace which it promises. (WCF 28.6)

The Supper rightly administered and received conveys the grace which it signifies. (WCF 29.7-8)

The pope is the antichrist. (WCF 25.6 – original language, struck by the OPC and PCA)

Making any image of any Person of the Trinity is forbidden by the Second Commandment (LC109)

The Third Commandment forbids not taking a required oath in God's name, if by a lawful authority. (LC 113, WCF 22.2)

The Fourth Commandment forbids recreation on the Sabbath (LC 117)

Christians ought not marry unbelievers or papists (WCF 24.3)

Only adultery or willful desertion are grounds for divorce (WCF 24.6)

Worship and Belief: Worshipping the way I want to

The typical modern conception of worship likely has more to do with emotions and the will than with what one believes. This, in some ways, has more to do with the denigration of beliefs than with worship. To this point I have said “beliefs” for that very reason, because when synonyms like doctrine, theology or dogma are used, the modern person immediately recoils. These are not the terms they first associate with Christianity. They prefer other, admittedly good terms such as joy and relationship.

Still, when the question is put forward: “Does it matter what you believe?” The majority will (probably still?) answer: yes. If you deny the existence of God, there may be a problem. If you say Jesus is not God, there may be some concern. Even if you deny grace, there may be some taking of a person aside for a talking to. Yet, if we begin to apply what it is we believe that God tells us to any area, a typical reaction is to accuse one of quenching the Spirit or of getting in the way of relationship and joy.

Don't believe me? The next time someone tells you they have shared their faith with someone, ask them what they said. Then, if something is off in the doctrine, criticize their wording. This is a sure way to get an ear full of the Spirit providing words and that the important thing that was said was that God wants a relationship. We think what we believe is important...just not in evangelizing.

Still don't believe me? The next time someone says they had a wonderful time of worship, ask what they learned. If nothing, ask what they were reminded of as a great doctrine of the gospel. Ask if Christ was mentioned. If not, tell them they may have done something, but they did not engage in Christian worship. See if they really believe it matters what one believes, or just what one feels. Typically saying that one had a “good time” of worship is saying something about the style or selection of music rather than having anything to do with what Christians believe, or particularly having something to do with Who Christ is and what He has done. Yet, Scripture mentions confession (what we believe) along with gathering together:

Heb 10:23-25 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

What might happen if we let our beliefs...our confession/doctrine/dogma inform our worship?

1) We would see worship as at the invitation of God, not our own wills.

We worship at the invitation of God. The Psalms continually repeat a call to worship God. “Let us worship God, our light and our salvation.” (Psalm 27) “Praise the Lord.” (Psalm 34) “Shout for joy to the Lord.” (Psalm 100) “Come let us bow down in worship” (Psalm 95).

If we believe that God invites us to worship Him at His pleasure, then we will not see worship as our self-expression or emotion, but at its core: prayer (Ps 116:4, Acts 1:14) and confession (Heb 3:1, 4:14, 10:23, 1 Tim 6:12-13), praying to God a confession of Who He is. Not by the functions of our autonomous wills (Col 2:23) but in accordance to His Will (Matt 26:42).

2)We will confess Who Christ is, every time we worship.

Not only is Christianity a confessional faith, Christianity's Saviour is confessional. His confession is the object of our emulation in Heb 3:1 and 1 Tim 6:12-13. As Peter confessed (Matt 16:16) and as Israel confessed (Deut 6:4) or as Nathaniel (John 1:50), Thomas (John 20:28), and the Baptismal formula (Matt 28:19) confesses. Any of these would be acceptable in worship if the Apostles' Creed, Nicene or other creeds scare “Biblical” Christians.

3) We will pray. (Ps 116:4, Acts 1:14)

Prayer is often a filler in worship. Something to do as the band sets up or as a transition to let the pastor make his way to the pulpit. They are rarely intentional or Scriptural. This is sinful.

4) We will confess who we are.

In other words, we will confess our sins. We may use the words of the Psalmist in Psalm 51 to acknowledge that sin is not being unhappy or doing something frowned on, but something that is a personal offense against God alone. But we are assured that if we confess our sins, we are forgiven by a gracious God. (John 1:8-9). We should also be absolved of our sins. This is a fancy way of saying we should be assured of the forgiveness won by Christ's work (John 3:16, Romans 5:1, Romans 8:1).


5)We will read the Word publicly.

Paul gives this specific instruction to Timothy as part of his duties as a minister. To obey Scripture, we ought not to ignore or neglect this command. (1 Tim 4:13) It might also be nice to hear more Scripture than merely what the pastor has chosen to preach from, but also to hear something from both testaments, Old and New, in the context of worship.

6)We will administer the sacraments

Christ's final command includes baptizing. (Matt 28:19) Christ also commanded the observance of the Supper until he returns. (1 Cor 11:26) Not to do these things occasionally at an evening service or a non-worship service. They are the commands of God not to be trifled with by mere human preference for other more exciting things. They are not done infrequently because they are important to us, but because they are unimportant to us.

7) We will do what is commanded.

Nadab and Abihu, the sons of the high priest Aaron in that happy picture above, tried their hand at innovative and exciting worship by their own preferences. God killed them for it. (Lev 10, Num 26). Today, we think God has changed his mind. Today, God does not care how we personally choose to worship Him. Let us hope that the Church does not need the severity of the lesson of Nadab and Abihu to change our minds. Perhaps only the severity of God causing sickness among the Corinthians when they abused the Supper in worship (1 Cor 11). God gave His Scriptures to teach and guide His people (2 Tim 3:16). We ignore it at our peril. Therefore, if our preferences contradict what God commands, then we worship at our peril and in our sin.

Confessionalism in Matt 16?

Some say the church is people. Not traditions or doctrines or confessions, but people. I would like to say that this idea denies the very biblical foundational nature of the church. So first we must ask the question:

What is the nature or essence of the Church? By nature, I mean, what makes a church a church and not merely a Christian social gathering. What makes a church God-ordained?

The best description of what the nature of the church is at its essence, may be found in the text that explains the means by which Christ builds his Church. Here, Christ asks the disciples an important question:

Mat 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
Mat 16:14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
Mat 16:15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The passage has several movements. First, Christ asks what others say about Him and the disciples answer him. Then Jesus asks Who they say He is, personally. Peter answers Him: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then Jesus gives a short monologue about the church.

The words from 16:17-19 become highly debated, especially verse 18. Typically, there are two camps that debate this verse in what Jesus is talking about when He says “on this rock.” Is it Peter? Or is it Peter's confession?

To answer this question, we should do two things. One, we ought to leave some prejudices behind. Two, we ought to make this align with the rest of the canon.

We must leave behind some prejudices. We think that Protestants say confession of faith (Peter saying “you are the Christ”), and Catholics say Peter. Let's first look at what the language of the text suggests and then reconcile that to the rest of the canon.

The language of the text. Jesus replies after Peter has answered “And I tell you, you are Peter (Πέτρος), and on this rock (πέτρᾳ) I will build my church” One cannot ignore in honesty the play on words that occurs in this passage. Peter or “Petros” is compared to rock or “petra.” This comparison in which would have been “Cephas” in Aramaic, Peter is the one referred to as the rock. Yet, how can this be?

Does this reconcile to the rest of the canon? Does this deny a Protestant doctrine, that Jesus is the only foundation ala:

1 Cor 3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Yet, we indeed find such a thing said elsewhere in Paul's letters:

Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,

Indeed, the church is build on and uses people, as well as on Christ. They are not mutually exclusive. But these are not any people, given authority and raw power to do with as they please. The church is not merely build on a man (Peter) but on a man with a confession. A few verses later Jesus will call Peter "Satan" as Peter tries to deny Christ His mission on the cross. Though the church is built on people with a confession, when the people lose that confession, they cease to be the church.

A confession without people is no church. Jesus does not build a church on a mere document of beliefs. Yet, a people without a confession is no church either. The church is not a voluntary association of people with like interests and desires for potlucks, but the people God has given his message and who confess His message and doctrine.

So Matthew 16 refers both to Peter and His confession. Both are required for the church to be the church as it does what Christ commands it to do in proclaiming that confession in word and sacrament (Matt 28:19). The nature of the church is made up of people and confession. This is what is meant by saying the church is, by its very nature, confessional.

Why Evangelicals don’t understand (or like) Confessionalists

I don’t just read people who agree with me. I consume, and sometimes even enjoy, books, blogs, podcasts and conversations with many Christians of different traditions. I find myself most days at a seminary of mostly Baptists and independent church Christians. My favorite listening fodder is put out by some conservative Lutherans. I even read, *gasp*, Catholics and Orthodox writers from time to time. I find in all of that interaction, I receive the most friction, on the most subjects, from more broadly evangelical Christians. Recently, I have been hearing many voice sentiments similar to the frustrations of Scot McKnight. McKnight is frustrated with “neo-Reformed” types because he believes they (1) attempt to capture evangelicalism, (2) redefine evangelicalism by Reformed doctrines and (3) kick all of the non-Reformed off the village green of evangelicalism. McKnight believes that this is because Reformed folk believe you are not truly evangelical unless you are Reformed. Much of this was repeated in a post on the internet monk.

I do get this same sort of picture described sometimes from other evangelicals. I think this might be due to one of two factors:

1) They’ve met a cage Calvinist

This is what Reformed folk call those usually in their first year of discovery of the doctrines of grace. A cage Calvinist is one who should be put in a cage so they don’t harm themselves or others with their new found zeal and heresy-detector. I also believe there are a few Calvinists that never leave that stage. John MacArthur and his school seem to produce a lot of these types (the permanant cage Calvinist). These guys bulldoze anyone that disagrees with even the most minor point of doctine, and have little room for “speak the truth in love” in their Bibles.

But the vast majority of Reformed Christians are not cage Calvinists. This leads me to my second theory of why evangelicals feal this frustration:

2) They don’t understand Confessionalism.

Some Calvinists (like the MacArthur variety) are not Confessionalists. But those of an historic denomination (like the Dutch Reformed, German Reformed and Presbyterian variety) are. Many times when Confessional priniciples are put forward, evangelicals feel like they are being bullied.

There are two main analogies for what evangelicalism is, in its best sense. One is a hallway. This is C.S. Lewis’ image of a “Mere Christianity” where Christianity is a hallway that contains many rooms. Another image, propogated by Michael Horton and accepted by McKnight, is a village green, where people can gather to talk and interact.

When the Reformed (and for that matter Lutherans and Anglicans) come to the villiage green, they often are disturbed by what they find. Instead of a meeting ground, they see pitched tents, and people living on the villiage green. The whole image of a villiage green and a hallway were created by Confessionalists defending the idea of interaction with other traditions with fidelity to their own tradition, but have found that the concept has left them dissatisfied with the arrangment. No good Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican or even confessional Baptist thinks the current situation, especially in America, is healthy (as Horton pointed out in his analogy). The villiage contains houses, with kitchens to prepare food and fire by which to get warm and beds where one can rest comfortably. Instead, many evangelicals are on the green either starving or scavenging through other people’s homes, taking what they want but leaving the house behind. These are Christians either bouncing from church to church or Christians in churches with no confessional identity, merely claiming to be "mere Christians."

You see, Confessionalists believe their own tradition and confession of faith provides a means of sustaining their spiritual lives in feeding their souls on shared truths about salvation, community and the God they worship. They rest on certain promises and an understanding of Scripture and learn together by a common understanding. Occasionally, they do come to the villiage green and kindly ask the people trying to live on the green to find a home and invite them to theirs.

Some take offense, thinking that they are taking away their villiage green. However, they want to do nothing of the sort. What Confessionalists that come to the villiage green want is a group of Christians coming together from their traditions in order to interact, rather than piece-meal robbing from many traditions in order to never have a theological resting place. The Reformed do not want to redefine evangelicalism. Rather, they want evangelicals to find a home (a church with a confession - particularly a Reformation informed one), so the villiage green might be meaningful.

There’s a growing antipathy about evangelicalism in confessional circles. Most Lutherans will not show up. Others are visiting less often as well, as D.G. Hart, a conservative Presbyterian has suggested, perhaps these "neo-Reformed" bullies, (the permanent cage Calvinists) can be distinguished from paleo-Reformed since "Neo-Reformed care about being evangelical; Paleos don’t." If every time a Confessionalist shows up and tells those on the villiage green what they prefer about their home, the Scot McKnights on the green get mad and think they are being judged and having the mean kid kick sand in their face, Confessionalists will just give up on coming to the green.

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

Athanasian Creed

The Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius, but is a good summary of Christological and Trinitarian theology that comes from the first Four Ecumenical Councils. I post these creeds (other than not having much time for original posts) because the more I study theology, the more I find Christology and Theology Proper to be essential to the coherence of the gospel. The Early Church knew the gospel was a story of the Person and Work of Christ. Soteriology flows from Christology. Without the theology of the creeds, we cannot rightly communicate the gospel:

Whoever wants to be saved should above all cling to the catholic faith.

Whoever does not guard it whole and inviolable will doubtless perish eternally.

Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.

For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.

But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.

What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Uncreated is the Father; uncreated is the Son; uncreated is the Spirit.

The Father is infinite; the Son is infinite; the Holy Spirit is infinite.

Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.

Almighty is the Father; almighty is the Son; almighty is the Spirit: And yet there are not three almighty beings, but one who is almighty.

Thus the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God: And yet there are not three gods, but one God.

Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.

As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords.

The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten; the Son was neither made nor created, but was alone begotten of the Father; the Spirit was neither made nor created, but is proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Thus there is one Father, not three fathers; one Son, not three sons; one Holy Spirit, not three spirits.

And in this Trinity, no one is before or after, greater or less than the other; but all three persons are in themselves, coeternal and coequal; and so we must worship the Trinity in unity and the one God in three persons.

Whoever wants to be saved should think thus about the Trinity.

It is necessary for eternal salvation that one also faithfully believe that our Lord Jesus Christ became flesh.

For this is the true faith that we believe and confess: That our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son, is both God and man.

He is God, begotten before all worlds from the being of the Father, and he is man, born in the world from the being of his mother -- existing fully as God, and fully as man with a rational soul and a human body; equal to the Father in divinity, subordinate to the Father in humanity.

Although he is God and man, he is not divided, but is one Christ.

He is united because God has taken humanity into himself; he does not transform deity into humanity.

He is completely one in the unity of his person, without confusing his natures.

For as the rational soul and body are one person, so the one Christ is God and man.

He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

At his coming all people shall rise bodily to give an account of their own deeds.

Those who have done good will enter eternal life, those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.

This is the catholic faith.

One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.

The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Perhaps fewer Christian know the Chalcedonian Definition. Yet, it is extremely important in distinguishing right Christology:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.

Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The Apostles' Creed

.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

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)

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.

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."



.

Tradition Quiz

Whoohoo! I'm in the right church! (at least according to this quiz). My quiz results are below. And, yep, the rest of the top four (Anglican, Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox) are my favorite traditions to learn from. I am a little purturbed that it called me 6% Anabaptist and 31% non-Calvinist (heretical) Fundamentalist Baptist. I suppose it shows I have more sanctification ahead of me...

(100%) 1: Presbyterian/Reformed
(94%) 2: Anglican/Episcopal/Church of England
(89%) 3: Eastern Orthodox
(87%) 4: Lutheran
(78%) 5: Congregational/United Church of Christ
(71%) 6: Baptist (Reformed/Particular/Calvinistic)
(66%) 7: Roman Catholic
(54%) 8: Church of Christ/Campbellite
(40%) 9: Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene
(31%) 10: Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist
(23%) 11: Pentecostal/Charismatic/Assemblies of God
(23%) 12: Seventh-Day Adventist
(6%) 13: Anabaptist (Mennonite/Quaker etc.)

Danger!: Baptists teaching the Bible!

Christianity Today has a story about Baptist pastor Joe Elam complaining about the rise of Calvinism in Southern Baptist seminaries. In the story, Elam reported this shocking story:

Though forbidden to do so, a former youth pastor at his church secretly taught predestination to teens, Elam said, sowing seeds of lingering division among several families.

How dare a pastor teach the biblical doctrine of predestination! What next? Will justification be secretly taught?

Do these pastors not even know the traditional teaching of the Baptist churches? In their 1689 confession, Baptists confessed that:

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass

In the story, the SBC President Page goes on to worry...

...that extremists could undermine the SBC's emphasis on outreach. He isn't impressed by arguments that most convention founders embraced Reformed ideas.

Sounds about right, the worst extremist neglectors of missions have to be those frozen chosen Calvinists like William Carry, and Adoniram Judson, and Calvinistic preachers like Spurgeon and James Boyce barely ever preached the gospel.

The Southern Baptists would be well advised to be conservative about their founding principles, rather than think the last 50 years of drift from their roots is actually their heritage. Word is that Al Mohler, a Calvinistic Baptist, was put up as a potential candidate for SBC president. Might be an interesting year for the SBC.

Page ends the article on the most mind-numbing note:

"The totality of history shows the vast majority of Baptists have not been [Calvinists], so why go back to the founders?" Page said. "I think we need to go back to the Bible."

That's the point.