big words in the trinitarian debate

Wayne Grudem’s definition of the Trinity, and the alternatives:

“There is one God…”

v. pluralism

“… in three persons…”

v. modalism (Sabellius)

“…who are all fully God.”

v. subordinationism/Arianism, or adoptionism (Paul of Samosata) 

athanasius ‘on the incarnation’: a summary

The Church Fathers, pt (iii).  Taken from ‘On The Incarnation’ by Athanasius.  

See ‘Athanasius: the most important gospel defence ever’  for the historical background to his argument.

1. Creation and the Fall

Man was created by God in his image: 

For God is good—or rather, of all goodness He is Fountainhead, and it is impossible for one who is good to be mean or grudging about anything. Grudging existence to none therefore, He made all things out of nothing through His own Word.

Man was given one place and one rule:

But since the will of man could turn either way, God secured this grace that He had given by making it conditional from the first upon two things—namely, a law and a place. He set them in His own paradise, and laid upon them a single prohibition. 

Man through rebellion was corrupted, to return to non-existence:

For the transgression of the commandment was making them turn back again according to their nature; and as they had at the beginning come into being out of non-existence, so were they now on the way to returning, through corruption, to non-existence again. 

 

2. The Divine Dilemma.  3 problems:

(i) Man wasn’t created for corruption and non-existence.  But God couldn’t go back on his word of judgement.  What was the solution?  Not mere repentance.  Only the Word of God.

athanasius: the most important gospel defence ever

The Church Fathers, pt (ii).  From ‘The Story of Christian Theology’ by Olson.  

Athanasius (the “Black Dwarf”) succeeded his teacher Alexander as Bishop of Alexandria.  He was controversial in his time, and Luther’s axiom could be applied to him: “Peace if possible, but truth at any cost!”

The Council of Nicaea in 325 meant to end the Arian controversy, but was a catalyst for more dispute.  The ambiguous language of its Creed led to various sides claiming it a victory for themselves.  In particular, a controversial subject was the use of the word homoousios (meaning ‘cosubstantial’) to describe the relationship and divinity of the Father and Son.  

Constantius (son and successor of Constantine), desiring of peace, seeked a compromise by suggesting replacing the word with homoiousios, meaning ‘of a similar substance’, ie. not identical (to combat Sabellianism) but possibly not the same (to appease the Arians).  This was acceptable to many.  Athanasius, however, refused.  

Despite the difference in the words being only one letter, Athanasius knew that the theological difference was huge; one meant the Son was God, the other meant the Son was like God.  Athanasius saw that, for the sake of salvation, the Son needs to be God and not just be like God.  As a result, Athanasius suffered 5 exiles – 17 years out of his 46 as bishop; but he stood his ground, in possibly the most important defence of the gospel ever.  

arius v. alexander: a fight for the gospel

The Church Fathers, pt (i).  From ‘The Story of Christian Theology’ by Olson (IVP).  

In the 4th century, the dispute between the world’s two major theological schools (Alexandria and Antioch) started to simmer.  The dispute originated over Origen, who was in two minds about the nature of Jesus: on the one hand, he believed Jesus was equal with the Father, but on the other hand subordinate to the Father.  Alexandrians and Antiochenes both claimed to be in true agreement with Origen, but emphasised different sides (equality/divinity and subordination/humanity respectively).  There was, however, agreement over the nature of God’s immutability, which stemmed from Greek philosophical thought.  

Arius, educated in Antioch but teaching in Alexandria, challenged Bishop Alexander on his teaching of the divinity of the Logos (the Son of God, who took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ).  Arius accused Alexander of promoting Sabellianism and denying Jesus’ humanity.  Arius captured the public imagination and the dispute led to public marches (with banners stating ‘There was when the Son was not!’) folk songs and even riots on the street, with mobs on his side who probably didn’t understand the theological issues at stake.  

The two key elements of Arius’ thought about God and the Logos are these: First, God is by nature removed from creatureliness, and if the Logos became human in Jesus Christ, he must be a creature.  Second, salvation is a process of being joined with God by grace and free will, and if Jesus communicates salvation to us, it must be something he accomplished by grace and free will in a manner we can emulate; and if he was God, then salvation would not be something he could accomplish.

Alexander needed to respond, and did so with a Synod in 318 (where 100 bishops condemned Arius’ stance), and in argument.  He argued along the line of immutability, and thus undermined one of the main Arian arguments; he argued that if there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time that the Father was not a father, and so by claiming this you are undermining God’s immutability.  

Arianism was such an issue to Alexander because he saw how important the deity of Christ was to salvation.  Only if Jesus is fully God and fully man are we saved, and Arianism was denying the former.  

The dispute was also, however, an issue to the Emperor Constantine.  He hoped that Christianity would be the glue to hold his shaky Empire together, and yet its leaders were divided.  So he sought to solve it and stepped in, by arranging the first ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325.  Arguably it caused more dispute than it resolved, and resulted in Athanasius making what has been described as the most important defence of the gospel in the history of the world…

the original jesus

‘The Original Jesus, or How the New Testament bears witness to him’

A Christological Survey & Summary of the New Testament, taught by John Stott at The London Lectures in Contemporary Christianity, 2000

Regardless of whatever people may think of him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in Western culture for almost 20 centuries. 3 particular ways we can notice his dominance:

(i) He is the centre of human history.  One third of world claims to be Christian, split history into BC/AD

(ii) He is the focus of Scripture.  Jerome: “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ, because the Scriptures are full of Christ.”

(iii) He is the heart of mission.  Why do Christians cross continents and cultures as missionaries?  To commend a person, Jesus Christ.

In this lecture, Stott considers the New Testament evidence for the Original Jesus, in general, except for the book of Revelation which he considers in a later lecture.  He summarises each New Testament book and in particular considers their teaching on Jesus Christ.  He proposes that the lecture series is appropriately called ‘The Incomparable Christ’, for there is nobody – past, present, or future – like Jesus. 

the doctrine of revelation

Part 2 of 3 on the Doctrine of Revelation, taught by Mike Reeves on UCCF Summer School with the South massive.  Listen to it here.

 

In particular, a doctrine of Scripture, but not just about Scripture!

 

Often this is seen as a prologue to real theology.  However, this attitude leads to treating it in a non-Christian way.  So in the last 200 years it has been seen as a theistic and not a Christian theology.  Abstractly, the classic question has been: is it possible for God to make himself known?  That depends on the God!  Instead, the better question to ask is: how has God revealed himself? 

how to be a heretic: an introduction to 5th century christology

Part 1 of 3 on the Doctrine of Revelation, taught by Mike Reeves on UCCF Summer School with the South massive.  Listen to it here.

In church history, around the 4th-5th century AD, there was a big debate in Christology (the study of how Jesus could be God and man).  This is a crucial subject as it affects all other doctrine, as we shall see when we consider the doctrine of revelation and Scripture (to follow).  

calvin’s institutes, book 1, chapter 9

 

 

 

Chapter 9: The subverted piety of replacing Scripture with revelations

(follows from previous post)

 

A fantastic chapter on the divine marriage of Word and Spirit, where Calvin tackles a heresy of his day in the teaching of the Libertines.  

calvin’s institutes: book 1, chapter 6

 

Ch 6: The need of Scripture, as a guide and teacher, of God as Creator.  

(follows from previous post)

 

We need more than the heavens and earth to guide us properly to God.  So, to this God added the light of his Word, to make himself known unto salvation.  

He bestowed this privilege on the elect.  “For, seeing how the minds of men were carried to and fro and found no resting place, he chose the Jews for a peculiar people, and then hedged them in that they might not, like others, go astray.”  In the same way he retains us in his knowledge – if he didn’t, even those who appear the strongest among us might fall away.  

 

The Scriptures work like spectacles.

calvin’s institutes: book 1, chapter 5

 

Ch 5: Knowledge of God – in creation and governance of the world.

(follows from previous post)

 

True blessedness is found in knowing God.  So, that none may be excluded, God has been pleased “to daily place himself in our view, that we cannot open our eyes without being compelled to behold him.”

“His essence indeed is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on each of his works his glory is engraven in characters so bright, distinct, and illustrious that none, however dull & illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse.”  (see Romans 1:20).  The heavens and the earth (and the human body, as a “miniature world” in this respect) give innumerable proofs for even “the most illiterate peasant”, indeed for anyone with the gift of sight!  

But if, in order to apprehend God, we need not look further than even our own human bodies, “what excuse can there be for the sloth of any man who will not take the trouble of descending into himself that he may find him?”