Were the earliest Christians Trinitarians? This seems like a great place to start as the doctrine of the Trinity is a central tenant of the Christian faith. In fact, the line of demarcation or the proverbial line is the sand would be; if you are not a Trinitarian or you deny this doctrine, then you are not Christian. So to deny this pillar of the faith would be to deny the full measure and weight of the Church, the Bible and most importantly—God himself.
Clearly all people that place their faith and trust in the God of Israel are strict monotheists, worshiping one God. This is very clear going all the way back to the Shema, “Hear, oh Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.”—Deut. 6:4 (NIV). Of course, there is a multitude of other passages from both testaments to buttress this notion of the singularity of God, but this verse carries the most weight and will suffice for this study. But if the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, then using simple mathematical terms that a four-year-old could perform, there are three god’s. This is the mysterious nature of God as revealed in Scripture that has baffled the greatest minds throughout Church history, how can all three be “Almighty”? If anything more than one being is Almighty then it is not “Almighty”, because Almighty is not Almighty if equal power exists. This is where definitions are important, and we'll touch on that later. I should add that while there is a mystery to the Trinity, it is not a contradiction—properly defined. As it has rightly been stated, although we cannot fully ‘comprehend’ the Trinity, we can ‘apprehend’ it, and as finite beings, we simply bow before an infinite God. Obviously, this is an enormous subject, and all I'm doing in this first part is laying the historical groundwork from the inception of the Church and up to the point where the Trinity became an official doctrine of the Church. It has been widely understood that for the first Christians, the Triune nature of God would have been a category error, because they simply didn’t think in terms or language that you and I do. In other words, if you would have asked them if Jesus and God were equal, they wouldn’t have known how to respond. It seems to me, they would have said that because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and vindicated him, God the Father demands that Jesus be worshipped, and we are simply following the dictates and commands of God. Some Scripture support for this can be found in Acts of the Apostles where Saint Paul while finishing up a message in Pisidia Antioch says, “We tell you the good news: What God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”—Acts 13:32-33. Again, in his letter to the Church of Rome, Saint Paul says, “Concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection of the dead.”—Romans 1:4. So while the early Church didn’t understand the ousia or essence of the Triune nature of God, they shared the belief that God demanded the worship of Jesus. This is also demonstrated through early forms of worship that were normally reserved for YHWH only. As the late Larry Hurtado pointed out in his fine work, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity the earliest Christians going back to within months of the resurrection were praying to Jesus, baptizing in the name of Jesus and celebrating the Passover (weekly or more) in the name of Jesus. And we know the earliest Christians were performing these acts of worship-based Saint Paul’s own words. While testifying before Agrippa in Acts of the Apostles, Saint Paul said, “Many a time I went from on Synagogue to another to have them punished, and I tried to force them to blaspheme. I was obsessed with persecuting them that I even hunted them down in foreign cities.”—Acts 26: 11. At the time, Saul of Tarsus was trying to get his fellow countrymen and others whom he perceived as engaging in false worship of God to deny Jesus. So the earliest believers, while not holding to a strict understanding or doctrine of the Trinity could at minimum be accused of belief in ditheism (that Jesus and the Father were both worshipped). In the ensuing centuries to follow, Scripture began to coagulate into a more formal canon and ideas began to develop regarding the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. While examining Scripture, certain places seemed to point to a distinction between God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, while seeing them as One. For example, earlier the most frequently cited verse in Scripture to affirm the oneness of YHWH was the Shema; but Saint Paul seems to have taken the Shema and sort of baptized it with a new revelation. In his letter to the Church of Corinth, Saint Paul says, “There is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and from whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”—1 Cor. 8:5-6. While this isn’t strictly a “Trinitarian” passage, it demonstrates a new revelation that Jesus is Kyrios. To tie together some verses that use a Trinitarian formula I will briefly mention a few. While making plans to travel north into Phrygia and Galatia, Saint Paul is stopped. We read, “Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them. So they passed Mysia and went down to Troas.”—Acts 16:6-7. Again, there is no explicit use of the word Trinity, but it is certainly implicit in the text. And many other places (Matthew 28:19; John 1:1-3; John 10:30; Heb. 1:3). So the early Church really did grapple with the Trinity. In some early circles, you had people debating was Jesus truly a divine being that appeared to be human? This is where the early heresy Docetism sprang into existence. This was the idea that Jesus was truly God and he only ‘seemed’ to be a human. But this view was deemed as heretical because if Jesus didn’t possess a human nature, then he couldn’t die for our sins. There were other heresies, but the most prominent prior to the adoption of the Trinity was Sabellianism. This view was actually widely accepted and accepted by many as the standard view. We know it today as ‘modalism’ but the idea is, God exists in three different modes. He is at once the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Much like I am the son of Mark Norbie, the brother of Nate Norbie and the dad of Gwen Norbie (son, brother and dad). Of course, this didn’t work because if you’re the father of a son, you can’t be the son that you’re the father of. Not to mention that Jesus prayed to the Father (He wasn’t praying to himself). Needless to say, while these ideas were interesting, they didn’t correspond with divine revelation. Tertullian, one of the early Church Fathers coined the term, “The Trinity”. This term codifies that three ‘separate’ persons are all God (The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). While not appearing anywhere in Scripture, the implicit teaching is that while God is One, he exists eternally as three persons. There is always a danger of many Christian’s holding to Modalism or a type of Unitarianism, and this is where precision is important. And to a degree, this is understandable because within Scripture there are places where Binitarianism is explicit and where Trinitarianism is explicit. But the Church has been forced to go to the direction of Trinitarianism, even though it hasn’t been easy. This direction carries the weight of the ecumenical councils and the Bible. By releasing this revelation if you will, has opened up deep levels of this doctrine in many other places including the Old Testament.
0 Comments
In part one of this blog, I spoke about some of the different views the Church has believed about eternal conscious torment (hell) throughout its long history. I briefly discussed the traditional or dominant view which supposes that when we draw our last breath there are two alternatives, everlasting life or everlasting conscious torment. I also discussed the possibility of divine reconciliation where upon death, those who are not in Christ have the opportunity to repent once they encounter Jesus and will eventually be saved. And the third view and probably the most persuasive is, annihilationism, or the view that after the proper punishment has been rendered, the individual will cease to exist. For example, Adolf Hitler will endure far more punishment than an old lady that lived a quiet peaceful life but never believed in Jesus. Now the last position is the view that I would affirm; and part of the reason for that is predicated on the belief that immortality is not given to those who are not in Christ or that just because you exist does not mean you’re eternal. I will address that in this blog and I will also address some of the most popular passages with regard to eternal conscious torment and define some of the Hebrew and Greek words that are used in these passages and their meanings.
What is immortality? Within Greek philosophy it was commonly understood that man is immortal. Of course, as the logic goes, all men are mortal, Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates died. But that’s not what is meant by all men are immortal. This simply means that the human soul cannot be destroyed and therefore, man is immortal in that sense (at least that’s how I understand it). So this idea or concept of all mankind being immortal was adopted by the Church to mean that when you physically die, all souls will continue to exist for eternity. This as I said, was adopted by the Church and is found in some of the confessions such as, The Westminster Confession and the Belgic Confession, affirming the immortality of all human beings. But what happens when we throw out Greek philosophy (especially when it conflicts with Scripture) and look to see what the Bible says about immortality. It could rightly be said that our first parents, Adam and Eve were created immortal provided they remained within God’s outlined parameters, namely do not eat the forbidden fruit or else death would ensue. However, Adam and Eve disobeyed by eating the fruit, and they became mortal. So in the same way that the tree of life provided immortality or life for Adam and Eve, so too does the tree of life (Christ) provides those in him with immortality. Perhaps the most famous of all verses in the Bible that could provide some insight into immortality is John 3:16. Here we read, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have everlasting life.” It doesn’t get much clearer than this regarding immortality. If you believe in Jesus Christ you will not perish, meaning you will possess eternal life as long as you abide in him. There is a conditional offer here: on the one hand you have eternal life which would consist of immortality and on the other you have perish which means to no longer exist. Elsewhere, Jesus warned to not fear those that possessed the power to destroy the body but not the soul. Rather, Jesus said, fear God who has the power to do both--Matt. 10:28. It seems to me that God has the power to give both immortality (eternal life) and destroy the soul as well. As Greg Boyd correctly stated, “God will do to the soul of the wicked what humans do to the body when they kill it.” In the epistles, Saint Paul categorically states that God alone possesses immortality when he said, “Who alone is immortal and lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and glory forever. Amen.”--1 Tim. 6:16. Here, Saint Paul says that God alone possesses immortality. Lastly, Saint Paul writes, “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, and immortality, he will give eternal life.”--Rom. 2:7. If immortality was the default position as some claim, then why does Saint Paul equate it to something being sought after to obtain? So if immortality is not given to human beings by default, then it is a gift from God for those that partake in eternal salvation this would then make annihilationism a viable option. Before we examine some of the popular passages from the New Testament that deal with eternal conscious torment, perhaps it should be notated that the Old Testament is completely and utterly silent on this doctrine, which is somewhat alarming considering the weight eternal conscious torment carries if it is indeed eternal. Of all the passages and warnings about the human condition ranging from Sodom and Gomorrah, to the Egyptians and even the unrepentant Israelites, no warnings of eternal conscious torment are delivered. In other words, God never instructed a single prophet to tell the people that if they persisted in disobedience that eternal conscious torment or hell awaited them. The closest passage to this doctrine is located in Daniel 12:2 where the prophet says, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.” Knowing some Aramaic or consulting lexicons does help in better understanding this verse. First, this is the only OT passage that refers to everlasting life. Second, scholars are not sure this is an entirely eschatological verse in the sense of final judgment, because Daniel says, “many will rise” whereas that is juxtaposed with John 5:28 where referring to the final judgment Jesus says, “all who are in the graves will rise.” Finally, the word for everlasting or olam in Aramaic does not always mean everlasting in the sense of eternal, and contempt properly translated is abhorrence as seen in Isaiah 66:24 referring to corpses and a corpse does not possess conscious awareness. But I would be remised if I didn’t say there are some NT passages that seem to argue very strongly that the duration of hell is eternal and conscious. Matthew 25:41 says, “Then he will also say to those on his left hand, ‘depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”’ Strictly speaking, eternal suffering is not mentioned in this verse. As Steve Gregg correctly pointed out, “We are told that the fire is eternal, but not that all things thrown into it are equally eternal.” Jesus says the fires of hell were not originally intended for human beings, rather for Satan and his minions. It would be an exegetical error for those that hold to the traditional view to say this verse has the same fate for humans as it does for Satan; when it doesn’t say that. Later on, in the same passage, Jesus says, “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”--Matt. 25:46. The argument here for the traditional view is much stronger as one can easily deduce that if on the one hand you have eternal life than the opposite must be eternal damnation. This is what Saint Augustine argued that the duration of eternal life is juxtaposed with eternal conscious torment, but if I say two things in the same sentence it does not mean that both are equal. For example, if I told you that I enjoy and unbreakable everlasting friendship with two friends, you would be unjustified to say or assume that I have known both for the same amount of time. Now, without going into super deep details, the key to understanding this passage, particularly the last verse is to understand what is meant by the use of ‘everlasting’ or the Greek word aionios. While I admit the Greek word aionios is the most common translation for eternal; however, the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic makes this much more difficult to answer. The Hebrew/Aramaic word for eternal or everlasting is as I said is olam, but is doesn’t actually mean eternal or everlasting as Hebrew scholars often refer to the word as having no end in sight or the vanishing point. An example of this is found in Isaiah 34:10 where olam is used for generation to generation, or in Isaiah 60:15 olam is used for the joy of generations. So olam or eternal can be used to denote a lengthy period of time which likely means that Jesus did not have eternal conscious torment in view here. Keep in mind too that we made a strong case that immortality is limited to those in Christ, so not everyone possesses immortality. Another passage used to support the traditional view of eternal conscious torment which is very persuasive is Revelation 14:10-11 which says, “He himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of his indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” While this passage sounds very persuasive to the traditional view, it is actually very problematic in its support for hell. First, almost the entirety of this letter is apocalyptic in nature which means that most of the language is highly symbolic, but this seems to be ignored by some that hold to a traditional view of this passage. However, the language in this passage is strong as we read words such as, ‘torment’, ‘fire and brimstone’ and ‘forever and ever’. But is it possible these words mean something completely different from eternal conscious torment and hell? A closer examination might reveal that. The use of the phrase fire and brimstone is not unique to Saint John’s letter as its use is abundant in the OT to signify judgment, but not eternal conscious torment. So while fire and brimstone sounds hellish, Saint John is almost certainly using OT imagery to drive home a point. When we look back to the OT, this type of language originates with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:24). Moses actually warned the Israelites not to violate God’s covenant, and if they did, judgment would visit them in the form of fire and brimstone (Deut. 29:23). In the Psalms, David used the same imagery of God judging the wicked (Ps. 11:6). Other prophets including Isaiah and Ezekiel used fire and brimstone to describe God’s wrath upon certain people and nations. So being almost all of Saint John’s epistle is derived from the OT, it would seem that the use of fire and brimstone is likely referencing something other than hell. It is also logical that the smoke that rises from Babylon ‘forever and ever’ (Rev. 19:3) should not cause someone to believe that Babylon is hell and that the smoke from Babylon rises forever and ever. That is why there is a growing number of scholars and exegetes that believe this passage is actually a reference to Rome and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and has nothing to do with hell and the final judgment. Next time, we will visit Jesus’s parable of Lazarus and the Rich man found in Luke 16, while exploring a few more passages and discussing Greek words that could be defined such as: Gehenna, Hades, aionios, and olam. Wouldn’t it be great if everybody put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and became good Christian citizens? I mean could you imagine what the world would possibly look like. It would be amazing. Unfortunately, that just isn’t the case, but why? Why do so many come to Christ while others do not? Is it because God chose to save some, “the elect” and damn others, “the reprobate”? I think many would be abhorred by such a notion that God chose you but elected to damn your child or friend. So what about the possibility that people have the freedom to choose, but they won’t choose because of certain doctrines or teachings found within the Christian faith? I certainly think that’s a viable option as I would say the two most dominant reasons for disbelief in God and Christianity are (1) the problem of evil and (2) the doctrine of eternal conscious torment a.k.a. hell. In a previous audio blog, I discussed and answered the problem of evil, so I won’t be addressing that here, but I do want to spend some time discussing the doctrine of hell. I plan to do this in multiple stages as this is a lengthy subject with a lot of history. So in this lesson, I will introduce the earliest positions on the doctrine and then add some philosophical arguments as to why I don’t believe hell is eternal conscious punishment (key word conscious) and in another lesson I will layout the biblical case for rejecting eternal conscious torment.
But I want to begin with a few powerful quotes from some spiritual giants affirming eternal conscious torment and doubters about their thoughts on hell, and why some very intellectual people reject Christianity because of eternal conscious torment. I would also caution you to refrain from saying that these people reject Christianity because of the hardness of their hearts or because they simply hate God, unless of course you are a determinist or one that believes God has foreordained these people to hell. There is no doctrine I would more willingly remove from Christianity than hell, if it lay in my power . . .I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully: “All will be saved.”—C.S. Lewis “No Evangelical, I think, need hesitate to admit that in his heart of hearts he would like universalism to be true. Who can take pleasure in the thought of people being eternally lost? If you want to see folk damned, there is something wrong with you.”—J.I. Packer “I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show us that the men who do not believe, and this would include my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this doctrine is damnable.”—Charles Darwin Well, eternal conscious torment hasn’t always been the dominant view in the Church. In fact, this doctrine is one of the most debated and unsettled teachings of the Church as it has never gained universal agreement. Going back to the earliest teachings of the Church there was much disagreement regarding the extent of hell and whether or not God would eventually reconcile all mankind back to himself. One of the earliest positions for the traditional view of eternal conscious torment was affirmed by Tertullian of Carthage (155-220). Tertullian had a very peculiar way of discussing this as he imagined the saved person gazing from the precipice of heaven looking down to hell; and upon seeing his family burning, Tertullian cheered on as he was grateful God saved him while having no remorse that his family rejected Christ, as they would be eternally tormented. Another view from the early writings and fathers suggests that those that were not saved were annihilated—ceasing to exist after a certain extent of time. The language in the Shepherd of Hermas (90-110) says, “Sinners shall be consumed because they sinned and did not repent.” Now consumed does not entail eternal conscious punishment, because if something is consumed it ceases to exist. Hermas also spoke of “death” as an end to the sinner’s punishment. These positions also have a basis found in Scripture. For example, Saint Paul says, “The wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23). And in his letter to the Church of Thessalonica, Saint Paul said, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (2 Thess. 1:9). So the references to ‘death’ and ‘eternal destruction’ seem to imply non-existence, because when something is destroyed, it no longer exists. A third view that was proposed and believed by perhaps some of the greatest minds of the early Church was, “Universal Reconciliation” or the idea of innate immortality of human beings. Clement of Alexandria was under the belief that the souls lost here on earth could be reformed or purged in hell because of God’s great love. This idea was furthered by Origen who believed that God would eventually save all people. He appealed to Saint Paul’s verse in Philippians 2 where ‘every’ knee will bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord, and by ‘every’ This means everybody will worship Jesus as Lord. He also appealed to Jesus’s parable about the hundred sheep and the one that strayed. Jesus taught that if one of those sheep strays, he will do whatever it takes to retrieve that lost sheep and bring him back into the fold. Now don’t misunderstand this to be universalism or the idea that all religions are true and everybody gets to heaven depending on the path they take. These men all affirmed that faith in Christ alone was the only way to eternal salvation, but that reconciliation could be attained in the afterlife. The final view that garnered the most traction after these proposed theories and became the traditionalist view of eternal conscious torment was adopted by Saint Augustine. As mentioned already, there were others whom preceded Saint Augustine that held to this doctrine, but the idea of eternal ongoing torment was really cemented by Saint Augustine. What’s interesting to note, is that although Augustine was adamant about this doctrine, he never regarded those that held to differing views such as, annihilationism or universal reconciliation to be heretical ideas, rather he simply stated that these men just got it wrong. According to Augustine in his great work, the City of God, there were many in his day that held to these views. Saint Augustine said, “I must now, I see, enter the lists of amicable controversy with those tender-hearted Christians who decline to believe that any, or all of those whom the infallibly just Judge may pronounce worthy of the punishment of hell, shall suffer eternally, and who suppose that they shall be delivered after a fixed term of punishment, longer or shorter according to the amount of each man’s sin.” So while admitting the differing views about hell, Augustine did not condemn them as heretics, he simply felt they were in error. Now that we have given a broad overview regarding what the earliest teachers of the Church believed, lets discuss the philosophical component of eternal conscious torment. Perhaps one of the largest stumbling blocks for sensitive unbelievers becoming Christian is the idea of eternal torment for finite sins. For many of these people there is a strong dichotomy between a God that universally loves, and a God that will eternally torment the very creation he loves. I mean what if those who preach eternal torment to unbelievers are actually incorrect regarding their interpretation of Scripture and are causing resistance to people that may otherwise come to Christ. Could it be that we are creating a stumbling block for people? Jesus said it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the sea than to cause others to stumble (Matt. 18:6). Not to mention that Jesus tells us to love our enemies and do good to them, and to be merciful as your heavenly Father is merciful (Luke 6:35-36). Jesus, the very image of God was also a friend of sinners and tax collectors (Matt. 11:19). And finally, how does punishing someone endlessly resolve the problem of sin? In what manner does casting people into eternal conscious torment for eternity rid the universe from sin if they are constantly sinning and hurling insults towards God. It seems to me, that a just punishment and annihilation would suffice to resolve the problem of sin, or perhaps divine reconciliation. Origen as I spoke about earlier believed Jesus died for everybody, and if Jesus died for everybody, then He should get everybody He died for. But being not everybody believes in Jesus, perhaps when they meet him, they will believe and bow before him. Next time we will examine the texts often cited to support eternal conscious torment and the verses that seem to support annihilation. A few months back on social media, I posited the question, “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?” Needless to say, the question was answered by many with a resounding, no! While I understand the knee-jerk reaction to such a question, namely because of the major tensions between these two great monotheistic world religions; and their seemingly irreconcilable differences on major issues such as the Trinity and Jesus as the second person of the Godhead—there are, however, similarities. For example, when one goes back to the original source, or genesis if you will regarding these belief systems; there are as I said, striking similarities between Christianity and Islam. For example, both believe in one supreme God who created all things, both agree he is the uncaused first cause, and that he is the God of Abraham and Moses. Beyond that, Muslims affirm that Jesus was indeed born of a virgin and that He will return a second time to judge the world. These are all important commonalities between these two belief systems. Of course, when one thinks in those terms, Islam sounds more like a Christian heresy like Arianism or Oneness Pentecostalism than a totally different belief system such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
But what if we add a third major monotheistic world religion to the argument, Judaism. If I ask the same question slightly differently, “Do Christians and Jews worship the same God?” I am sure to get a different response, namely, yes! But why? Christianity and Judaism have as much or maybe less commonality than Christianity and Islam. Yes, like Islam, Judaism affirms the oneness of God, that he alone is the creator and sustainer of all things, that God is the un-caused first cause and all other things are contingent. But like Islam, Judaism readily affirms Jesus is not God, he has not eternally existed, the Trinity is false and many other key features. In fact, while Judaism rejects the virgin birth of Jesus and that he will return a second time—Islam affirms this. Now please don’t misunderstand what I am saying here, please. I am not advocating religious relativism or the idea that all three paths provide salvation because they believe in the same God, or that these belief systems are somehow equal. As a Christian that abides by the word of God (the Bible) that would be acting in direct opposition to historic Christianity and deemed heretical. Scripture is unequivocal that salvation is not found apart from Jesus Christ; and any other attempt to circumvent or change that is anathema. So why do this then? I believe, that in order to truly worship God, we must have a correct understanding of him (I’m not referring to trivialities or secondary issues) because within Christianity there is an overlap as you have Protestants, Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, Open Theists and so on, but we would all agree that while there are big differences, we worship the same God. So when we talk about Islam and Judaism, we have to ask, how much overlap do we share with these of other belief systems; and how can Muslims and Jews be put into a right relationship with God to have eternal life? So I’m talking about major fundamental differences to the faith such as, Jesus as God, rising from the dead, Jesus making propitiation for our sins and the Trinity. And while Judaism and Islam are close to worshiping God as he desires, they hold false ‘beliefs’ about God, thus preventing them from entering the truest sense of worship and denying what God has commanded his creation to do. Allow me to give a few examples of what I mean when I refer to all three world religions worshiping the same God, but some in a false manner. As a young adult, I became fascinated with astronomy and looking deep into the night sky at the planets and galaxies and bright stars. One of the most notable and brightest lights in the sky other than the moon is the planet Venus. If fact, it’s called the morning star because it can be seen as a bright light in the morning sky. But this planet is also visible in the night sky. Perhaps a good comparison to help understand the similarities between Islam and Christianity is to use Venus as an example. Suppose 3500 years ago there was an Egyptian named, Amun. Amun loves looking into the night sky at a particular star that he sees in the morning and in the evening. As Amun studies this star, he comes to belief that the two stars are different because one appears at night and the other in the morning. But the truth is, it’s not even really a star (it’s a planet), and it’s actually the same planet that appears at different times in the sky. The star (planet) is one thing, and even though Amun has different senses about it, the fact is it is the same thing. The same comparison could be said about the great basketball player Kareen Abdul-Jabbar. I remember watching him as a young boy and talking about his great hook shot that I often tried to mimic—it was a great move. But one day on ESPN I was watching a highlight reel of a young guy doing this hook shot that looked similar to Abdul-Jabbar’s, and he looked like him too. The commentator then said it was a man by the name of Lou Alcindor Jr. I later came to find out it was Abdul Jabbar and that he had changed his name when he became a Muslim. So in my mind, I had beliefs about Abdul-Jabbar that were not true of Alcindor Jr., but in reality it was the same person. These two illustrations, while not theological, demonstrate that while Amun and myself had different ‘senses’ about the same thing and were believing at first they were different, they were in fact the same things. The same is true with Islam and Judaism when talking about Christianity. We are talking about the same God, but Muslims and Jews are using different or false reference points about God and his true nature. But there is a counter argument to the points that I just made. If Jews and Muslims believe in the same God as Christians do but reject the message or fundamental truths of God’s progressive revelation (the Trinity and incarnation) then they are rejecting the very nature of God having now been properly informed; so, they actually are not worshiping the same God. There is as Christian philosopher, Jerry Walls who uses the example of the ‘order of being and knowing’ to make this distinction. For example, God has always been triune in his ‘being’ but this was not always known. For example, the Old Testament Jews did not know of the triune nature of God. It was only later ‘known’ through progressive revelation that his being consisted of three persons, the Trinity. Now this is an important distinction and I think the argument for rejecting the Trinity properly understood could be a disqualifier in that Muslims and Jews do not worship the same God, but only if this is made ‘known’ to them. But here’s the problem with that argument. Suppose for a moment that an atheist is watching a video on YouTube about the moral argument and the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God and becomes convinced that there is only one true God. However, later on, he begins watching more videos about Jesus and the resurrection, but is not convinced that these claims are true, while still holding belief in the existence of the one true and almighty God--who is perfect in every way. Now let’s say five years pass by and more convincing evidence is presented to this man about Jesus and the resurrection which in turn convinces him that Jesus really did rise from the dead. The question is, did he believe in a different God or the same God? It would be my understanding that this individual did not change god’s when he first became a theist, rather he had incomplete knowledge about him. The same would be true for Saul of Tarsus prior to meeting the risen Jesus. When Saul met Jesus on the Damascus road it would be false to say that Saul ‘converted’ to Christianity, abandoned Judaism and believed in a different God, rather Saul had a false belief about God that was revealed through Jesus. Now there are several differing views about this subject that Christians debate over. Some Christians believe that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all worship different Gods (which is a viable option). There is also a position that while Christians and Jews worship the same God, Muslims do not on the basis that Jews do not differ substantially. But Islam and Judaism both share false beliefs about God. I personally have a difficult time agreeing with those that believe Christians and Jews worship the same God while Muslims do not. If Muslims are not pagans who worship one God, the God of Abraham and Moses, its makes me wonder why people reject this argument brought forward other than the emotional attachments they may have about Islam. Today we’re going to be discussing a doctrine of Reformed theology known as ‘Perseverance of the Saints’ or perhaps better known by some as eternal security. And before we dive into this discussion, it should be understood that there are two positions or views in which the Protestant Church understands this teaching. And I’m going to briefly present both positions with scriptural citations that are viewed as texts to prove the position being defended, and then I will present the position the Church has historically held. This is only fair because if you listen to 99% of teachers today, or even in the past for that matter, more often than not they will supply you with ‘so-called proof texts’ to better support their position while either ignoring or not addressing the other sides position. So all I ask is that you seriously consider all the passages and arguments being discussed as viable options for what the biblical authors meant when they said these things.
So I mentioned the Church has some derivatives or differing views regarding eternal security. The first of those variations I will address is, once saved always saved (OSAS). This is by far the least popular of the two positions but nonetheless remains to have popularity within certain circles of Christianity. This doctrine teaches that if you make a profession of faith in Jesus Christ at any moment in time and genuinely meant it—you cannot under any circumstance lose that salvation. Even if years later you come to a belief that God does not exist, your salvation will still be preserved. Or suppose your spiritual way of life has so deteriorated that you no longer practice any spiritual disciplines or the sacraments and you walk away from the faith renouncing it—within this theological grid you cannot lose your salvation. Now a lot of folks, particularly parents or perhaps grandparents who are good Christian people have children that were reared in the faith and their children made professions of faith in Jesus but later recanted denying the faith. Many times, these parents have a tendency of clinging to OSAS because of its emotional attachments. In other words, it gives them comfort to know that their loved one cannot lose their gift of salvation. The most prominent proponent of this position is Baptist Pastor, Dr Charles Stanley who has a very large following of people. And Dr Stanley justifies his position that you cannot under any circumstance lose your salvation because God justifies sinners solely by faith, and our moral conduct has absolutely no bearing on our justification. Now, I should qualify that Dr Stanley believes that willful sin and rejection of God is not ‘normative’ behavior for the believer. In other words, the normal Christian will repent and be sorrowful if he/she commits serious sins. But even if they don’t repent and they die, according to Stanley they are still forgiven and saved. Now as a consequence, the believer may lose some rewards, but their salvation is still intact because it cannot be lost. The verse that is often used to support this position is, 2 Timothy 2:13 which says, “If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot disown himself.” This is understood to mean that if I lose my faith, God remains faithful and will not forsake me. But I don’t understand the reasoning here because there are millions of people that are faithless, yet God is faithful. I couldn’t understand this in other way to mean if I am faithless, then I am lost. In other words, it isn’t God who dropped the ball rather it was me. And to compound matters, there isn’t one single verse in all of Scripture to support the idea that if we live in sin and die in our sin, even if we made a profession of faith that we will be saved. But as I stated this is somewhat of a minority position, and dare I say a possible heretical position. I say that because of its anti-nomian overtones or a view against the Law that is sadly somewhat prolific in our society in that if I say a prayer and mean it, when I sin it is always forgiven and being that my salvation is a ‘gift’ it cannot be taken away. Now a much more balanced and nuanced view of eternal security that has some commonality with what the Church has historically held to is ‘Perseverance of the Saints’. While this view is rejected by many denominations and the Church historically, it does have some valid points. But before we look at scriptural support for this doctrine, lets give a basic definition. The doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is part of a larger group of ideas found in Calvinism that believes that once you sincerely put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ you are eternally secure for all time and God will keep you strong to the end. But this doctrine really hinges on other doctrines such as Unconditional-election. This is where I personally get confused with a variety of Protestant camps or certain people that reject specific tenants of Calvinistic teachings but believe in Perseverance of the Saints. In other words, how can you reject Unconditional election or the idea that from the foundation of the world you were ‘elect’ or chosen while others are damned and still cling to Perseverance of the Saints? If you are not ‘chosen or elect’ and have free-will then that would not guarantee that you will persevere to the end in the first place. Thomas Schreiner a prominent scholar at Southern Baptist Seminary and Calvinist said, “If I were not convinced of unconditional election, I would surely be an Arminian. The writing passages are so strong that I can understand why many think believers can lose their salvation. What is interesting to me is that there are so many believers today who reject unconditional election and yet they hold on to eternal security.” This is so true because many, many Protestants today will outright reject the notion that God chooses some and rejects others, all the while ignoring the explicit passages that warn against apostasy, but believing that they themselves cannot lose their salvation—unless of course they’re ‘elect’. So for the five-point Calvinist this is not a problem because God has chosen them so their election is secure. So what scriptural support is there for this position? There are a number of passages that Calvinists will point to in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, but we’ll deal with the most prominent. Philippians 1:6 “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” 2 Corinthians 1:22 “And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” Ephesians 1:13-14 “In him also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Jude 1:24 “Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy.” 1 John 5:13 “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 5:24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” John 10:27-28 “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one can snatch them from my hand.” These are some of the more popular and prominently cited passages to support the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints. Obviously, there isn’t enough time to thoroughly exegete these passages, but we’ll look at a few and provide a different stream of argumentation with passages that clearly warn about apostasy. In John 10:27-28 Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one can snatch them from my hand.” But its interesting as D.L. Moody pointed out some people read this passage as if it says, “My sheep ‘heard’ my voice, and I ‘knew’ them, and they ‘followed’ me, and I ‘gave’ them eternal life.” But as Moody correctly argues the verbs indicate a continuous ongoing action and not something that happened at a single moment in the past. In the Pauline epistles one must ask, if Saint Paul believed in Perseverance of the Saints then why did he warn against apostasy? Interestingly enough at times in the same letter that Saint Paul seems to advocate for Perseverance of the Saints, he warns his constituents that they must be careful so as to not disqualify themselves from eternal life. In Philippians 1:6 Saint Paul said, “Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.” Of course this is a classic verse to support perseverance of the Saints as Saint Paul says God will keep us strong to the end implying that we cannot lose salvation. But the language in the letter also suggests he was directing this to the Philippians. For example, Saint Paul says, he is “sure” or “persuaded” that God will finish his good work in them because of the monetary gifts they provided him with while in prison. Secondly, if Saint Paul is a believer in Perseverance of the Saints why is it that just a chapter later, he warns them to, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Php. 2:12. If one needs to work out their salvation that would be indicative that it can be lost. Finally, in chapter 3 Saint Paul warns them to follow his example and not walk in the pattern as some have which led to their destruction. Lastly in his letter to the Ephesians, Saint Paul says, “In him also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” Eph. 1:13-14. The defender of Perseverance of the Saints assumes that if you are sealed that that seal cannot be broken, but Saint Paul warns them not to grieve the Holy Spirit in Eph. 4:30. Saint Paul also goes on to say in Ephesians 5 that “immoral or impure” men have no inheritance in Christ. The late F.F. Bruce said, “The fact that they have to be warned against such vices shows how strong the pagan environment was, and there was temptation to indulge in them even after conversion.” It seems strange if Jesus, Saint Paul and Saint John were adherents of this doctrine that they would warn of the possibility of apostasy. Again, while there are many passages to cite regarding the potential of apostasy of the believer in Scripture, we will visit a few. In Saint Paul’s letter to the Church in Corinth he says, “No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” 1 Cor. 9:27. What makes this verse so powerful and persuasive is because the word ‘disqualified’ in Greek is the word reprobate (adokimos). The word reprobate in Calvinism means ‘not elect’ or predestined to damnation. How could Saint Paul be reprobate or possibly reprobate if Perseverance of the Saints is true? In Romans 1:28 Saint Paul says, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” again the same word used in 1 Cor. 9:27. Furthermore in 2 Corinthians 13:5 we read, “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Or do you not recognize yourselves that Christ Jesus is in you, unless you are reprobate.” The whole point here is Saint Paul has a desire to finish the race and not become reprobate. This even circles back to the beginning of our conversation when I mentioned unconditional election. How does Saint Paul believe in this teaching if he doesn’t even know if he is part of the so-called elect? Saint Paul speaks directly of people like Hymenaeus and Alexander who shipwrecked their faith 1 Tim. 1:19. He likewise warned the Corinthians to “not be deceived” 1 Cor. 15:33. And that, “neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 6:9-10. Only at the end of Saint Paul’s life is where he knows his salvation is secure when he says, “The time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race; I have kept the faith.” 2 Tim. 4:6-7 Martin Luther once said, “Our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun, because it sends its rays into the sewer.” There is also a legendary story that when Luther said these things, snow began to fall, and the dung disappeared as it was covered by the fresh new snow. Luther allegedly said, “That is how God sees us in His Son, Jesus Christ.” In other words, when God sees us, while we are yet full of sin, (dung) we are clothed in Christ’s righteousness and are therefore acceptable to God.
John Calvin who was also a legendary Reformed thinker said, “Everyone who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own.” I get what Calvin is saying here, but I personally have never heard a conversion story of an individual who took credit for their salvation based on their own merit or righteousness. But aside from that, the Reformers taught God covers sins with Christ’s righteousness, and this justification is received by Sola fide or faith alone—which to this day is the rally cry for Protestants. Another important element that needs to be brought up before we proceed is how Protestants describe the act of justification. This is often analogous to a court room setting where the word “forensic” is used to describe the “legal” act of God declaring a sinner to be righteous or not guilty. A key feature when discussing this is to understand that while you are declared righteous, there is no intrinsic transformation that takes place. To go back to Luther’s quote, “The rays of the sun do not change the dung they shine on.” However, they do change the sinner’s position and relationship with God. This is what Protestants refer to as the “imputation” of Christ’s righteousness that again covers sin. We’ll discuss the Orthodox/Catholic and certain Protestant denominations position in more depth in a moment, but we understand that rather than merely being covered, we are infused with or injected like a shot with a needle with Christ’s righteousness that blots out and removes the stain of sin. Now don’t have a knee-jerk reaction and say, are you saying you’re sin free or fully sanctified? No, we’re not saying that. We believe like most Protestants that sanctification or our increasing holiness grows as we develop in our relationship with God. However, we would disagree sharply with people like John MacArthur who say, “Justification is a onetime event; sanctification is an ongoing process. Justification frees us from the guilt of sin, sanctification from the pollution of sin.” The key point of this entire debate is largely based on a misunderstanding by many Protestants. For example, it is not uncommon to hear Protestants say, we believe in justification by faith alone, while Catholics believe in justification based on faith and works, which harkens back to Calvin and his statement that said, “Everyone who would obtain the righteousness of Christ must renounce his own.” This is where some imply that Catholic’s are trying to earn God’s favor while seeking to be justified. However, if you read the magisterial documents such as, The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent, the language does not allude to or say Catholics are justified by faith plus works. Rather like the great Protestant scholar NT Wright says, we must look closely at what justification and sanctification mean and distinguish that initial moment between the two. For Catholics/ Orthodox and some Protestants we look at the process of justification as a process that continues throughout our lives, and this is where works do become important. Catholic apologist Trent Horn gives a fantastic analogy regarding how this works. Imagine a group of malnourished, fifthly street kids who are one day approached by a wealthy person and given the opportunity to be adopted into the family. Some of the children reject this offer on the basis that they don’t want to abandon their current lifestyle and conditions they’ve grown accustomed to. Others, however, accept this offer and are then adopted into the persons family. The person takes these children home and washes them clean from the filth of their former way of life. He then instructs them on how to live and become good citizens. The children who rejected the wealthy persons gift would be likened to people who reject God’s offer and gift of forgiveness and are never justified. In contrast, the children who accept the persons offer would be like believers who accept God’s free gift of salvation accept it, and are then (cleaned) baptized so they can live out their new life in Christ. Notice the children did nothing to earn any of this person’s free gift of adoption, rather they chose to accept it, and embrace it or reject it. The children that said, yes, obeyed the person in accordance with the free gift of adoption. So now that we made a plausible argument for the Catholic/Orthodox and some Protestant positions regarding justification, what did Jesus say? In Matthew 12:36-37 we read, “On the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Cleary Jesus knows of a justification that will take place on the day of judgment and all people will be justified based on their works vis-à-vis and their eternal destiny. Again, Jesus says in Revelation 2:23, I am He who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each as your works deserve.” Clearly Jesus looks at both mind and heart as a basis for salvation. But what about the Pharisee and the Tax collector in Luke 18. John Calvin absolutely loved this parable seizing upon it as a fatal blow to anyone who sought to undermine justification by faith alone. If you’re not familiar with this parable there are two individuals involved a Pharisee and a tax collector total opposite ends of the socio and spiritual spectrum. The Pharisee while having a good prayer of things he has done, is clearly not humble, rather is boastful. While the tax collector (a despised citizen) beats his breast begging for God to have mercy on him went home justified. Protestant scholar and expert on Luke/Acts Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary sees this not as a basis to justify the tax collector in the sense that he is now saved—where is there any faith in Jesus? Rather, Bock contends that in a Jewish setting, this man’s sins we forgiven and he was justified that day—not in an eternal sense. But even if that’s not true, when Jesus explains the meaning of this, he says, “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” This indicates the humility of the tax collector that all people should exercise. Also, in the following chapter we read about Zacchaeus another tax collector who repents and declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded. To which Jesus replies, “Today salvation has come to this house.” Luke 19:9. One final example is the rich young ruler in Matthew 19:6 who approaches Jesus seeking what he must do to inherit eternal salvation. Jesus replies, if you want to inherit eternal life, keep the commandments. This doesn’t mean Jesus denied faith and the part it plays in our justification. Many more examples could be given, but the point is faith and works act together synergistically and justification isn’t a single act, rather it is faith co-operating with works. So Catholics/Orthodox and some Protestants believe that, while yes, God does declare us to be righteous, justification is not a single legal act, rather we are restored and empowered to works of faith, love and charity which cannot be done unless you are justified. Pope Benedict XVI said, Luther’s phrase faith alone is true so long as it is not opposed to faith in charity and love. When reading any piece of literature, specifically the Bible or a book of the Bible, it has come to my attention that when I learn something new or different which I deem as relevant regarding a specific pattern or word, it suddenly appears everywhere and seemingly leaps off the pages as I read; and I’m instantly struck by the fact that I missed that key feature in previous readings. This could be likened to someone who buys a new car that is a specific color, make, year and model, then while driving, they suddenly notice many other vehicles like their own all over the roads and highways—but never noticed them before. Now it wasn’t because those vehicles weren’t there, its just that you weren’t looking for them and now it’s blatantly obvious just how many people drive this vehicle. I have read the Gospel of John many times and like many other people, I have missed some important key features that were always there, but were hidden in plain sight. So for centuries, the Church has attributed authorship of the gospel of John to the son of Zebedee, a Galilean fisherman and close disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. However, some modern scholars who are both conservative and liberal have challenged John the son of Zebedee’s authorship in place of another John, John “the Elder” who also later reportedly lived in Ephesus, Asia Minor. And the evidence for this claim could perhaps be right on the pages of the gospel itself; but so many times we aren’t looking for these subtle words or phrases which give us clues that someone other than John son of Zebedee may have written this beautiful gospel. So we will examine both internal and external evidence for this claim to see if it is persuasive enough to conclude that there is a high degree of probability that John “the Elder” wrote this gospel.
The gospel of John is very different from the synoptic gospels, (Matthew, Mark and Luke) but why? One ancient proposed theory was given by the greatest Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea who stated that the synoptic gospels came into the hands of John the son of Zebedee; and he concurred regarding their accuracy, however, he stated they left out parts of the beginning of Jesus’s ministry. While there may be some accuracy to that claim, the gospel of John is almost entirely different from the synoptic gospels. Not in the sense that it contradicts the other gospels, because it actually dove tails the synoptic gospels quite nicely. It is different in the sense that the material provided in it is different or all together missing from the other gospels. For example, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus, no last Supper, (although it describes the events surrounding it) no miracles, no transfiguration and no parables. It is also different in that there are many characters and events otherwise unknown to the synoptic gospels. For example, the woman at the well, the wedding at Cana, Lazarus (re-animating him), Nicodemus, Malchus and the disciple whom Jesus loved—to name a few. These differences make sense if John possessed copies of these gospels and there was material the other evangelists omitted because of space or memory lapse, in which case John felt it necessary to mention. Of course, John was using hyperbole when he said, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25) NIV. Here is good evidence to state that while on earth, Jesus did many tremendous things that aren’t contained in the synoptic gospels (because there were so many) but were picked up and added by John. This is also likely an illusion to Jesus’s infinite and uncontainable knowledge. So one of the questions we have to ask when we read John’s gospel is, why is it so different? In the opening of the gospel of John like the synoptic gospels, John the Baptist is the forerunner of Jesus and is calling upon the people of God to repent and be baptized. Although Jesus’s baptism is not mentioned, after the Holy Spirit descends upon Him, two of John the Baptist’s disciples follow Jesus (Andrew and an unnamed disciple) while Peter is added shortly thereafter; then we meet Philip and Nathaniel. What is striking about this unnamed disciple if you’re not paying attention is, he sort of disappears from the gospel after chapter one. So here you have one of Jesus’s first disciples to be called, who is unnamed, and easily forgotten about if you’re not paying close attention. However, as the narrative goes on and you get deeper into the gospel, an individual is introduced as the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’. This could be none other than the unnamed disciple that was with Andrew at the beginning of the gospel. Of course he couldn’t be the disciple whom Jesus loved at the beginning of the gospel, that wouldn’t make sense because Jesus didn’t yet know him. But by John 15 during the Last Supper discourse, this unnamed disciple or the disciple whom Jesus loved must have been there from the beginning (1) because he was at the Last Supper (2) it would be strange for this disciple to claim witness to the events of Jesus’s ministry and include himself as one of the disciples if he wasn’t there from the beginning because Jesus said, “And you must also bear witness, because you have been with Me from the beginning.” (John 15:27) ESV. I was recently in a dialogue with a hardcore Reformed individual, and the topic being discussed was, total depravity. This is a fundamental doctrine within Reformed circles which states that because of the sin of Adam in the Garden of Eden, and the fall of mankind, all human beings are stained or marred by sin in such a manner that we are utterly incapable of doing anything good or from a pure motive. In the words of John Piper, “If you have a son, and you want him to do something. . . and he does, ‘the thing’ like unbelievers usually don’t kill people. So they’re obeying the Commandment, do not kill. But, why are they doing that? Are they doing it for the Fathers honor? Is God being magnified in what they do?” No! They are doing it for selfish reasons that are not glorifying God. “So, they are sinning for obeying.” So within this theological grid, there is nothing the unbeliever can do that is good, everything, literally everything they do is a sin before God—even when they do good. That is the doctrine of total depravity. I’ll address this teaching in further depth momentarily, but how far does this teaching go back? The individual I was in a dialogue with today made the appeal that this teaching of Reformed theology has been taught from the beginning, but was officially accepted by the Church during the second synod of Orange in 529.
Now in case you are not familiar with this, the second synod of Orange 529 A.D. was by and large a document containing 25 canons that were derived mainly from the teachings of Saint Augustine of Hippo (which do have some Reformed aspects to them). But the actual reason for the synod was to extinguish semi-Pelagianism (Pelagianism was formally condemned at the Council of Carthage in 418). Originally Introduced by Pelagius (a condemned heretic) was the idea that man is not tainted by original sin, and that grace is only needed to help the will do what it already can (apart from God). In the fifth century, Saint Augustine challenged this teaching stating that all humanity was in fact tainted by original sin and it is wholly by God’s grace alone that we come to Him. While not as extreme, semi-Pelagianism took a softer approach believing that faith was something that a person could achieve on their own, and the grace man receives from God could be merited by human effort (which the Church condemned). However, some Reformed groups have appealed to this synod to accuse the Catholic Church of embracing Semi-Pelagianism, especially those of the Reformed tradition. They look back at the synod of Orange in 529 A.D. by stating that Catholics are trying to earn their salvation apart from God’s grace alone. But this is simply not true, while the Catholic Church speaks about and affirms God’s grace alone; meaning God, by His grace, initiates salvation, and as free agents we respond to that grace in cooperation with it. In other words, unlike semi-Pelagianism, which teaches you can achieve God’s grace by human effort apart from God’s grace, the Church rejects that by saying we work in cooperation with God freely (it takes two to tango). Now was this synod a proto-type of the Reformation? No, it wasn’t. The Reformation came a thousand years later. Now I will admit, certain aspects of Calvinism are visible in the synod of Orange and in Augustianism, but Calvinism is a “package” that came much, much later. Is sola gratia (grace alone) affirmed at the synod of Orange? Absolutely! However, the big difference between Reformed theology and most churches today is, Calvinism denies all ability to do good in the unregenerate man, and the differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists couldn’t be more blunt. For non-Calvinists, yes, man was severely injured by the sin of Adam, and all are fallen because of his sin, but the image of God was not entirely wiped out, meaning man can still do a measure of good by the grace of God, but he cannot save himself apart from God’s grace. And the synod of Orange agrees with the non-Calvinists or Catholics on this. In canon 8 it says, “free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man . . .” This is very straightforward and agrees with the non-Calvinist. Interestingly enough, this was Augustine’s position as well. And while Augustine held to predestination, it was rejected by the Church. The synod discusses other matters as well such as infant baptism regeneration, (which the Church and Augustine affirmed) predestination (which was also rejected) and free will as we discussed. Fast forward to our present state, Calvinism would not have any adherents if there were not at least some precedence for it found in the scriptures that seemed to affirm the doctrine of total depravity. I readily admit that there are certain passages, that on the surface, seem to imply the teaching of total depravity. But if one simply highlights a few passages and ignores all the counter-evidence i.e. (the Church, the Fathers and Scripture) then you can see why Calvinists get so mad at Catholics and non-Calvinists who disagree with them. But if you take a step back and read these passages, especially in their context, and ask questions, you will come to a much different conclusion. I don’t know where this quote originates from, but it is worth its weight in gold. A text without a context, is just a pretext for whatever you want it to be. This goes right back to my previous statement; we must not isolate a passage or ‘proof text’ by simply dropping a verse—like a mic drop. Up until fairly recent times, the vast majority of the world was illiterate. Even today, some data suggests that over fifty percent of the world’s population is illiterate. So for moderns today, reading and writing are simply things we take for granted, especially in the western world. But if we go back in antiquity to say the first century AD, to the world that Saint Paul dwelt in—those numbers were even greater as only small portions of society could read and write. Many people could write their names and do basic things such as write a bill of sale, but to compose a letter such as Galatians or Romans took the special skills of a scribe.
What’s exceedingly interesting as well, even though many of the ancients couldn’t read and write—they loved receiving letters from friends and family. Now someone might ask, if they couldn’t read or write, then why would they look forward to receiving mail? The answer is, they would find a family member or someone in the community as a reader for them. And many times, these letters were brief containing 80-100 words that began with a short greeting, a quick hello, and how they were doing. Naturally the sender would eagerly wait in anticipation for a response from the person receiving the mail—so this process went back and forth. Somewhat like Saint Paul’s letters to the Corinthian Church. Initially, the Church wrote to Saint Paul and he responded back with a letter (which is now lost) and when the Church was confused about some points he made in that letter, they in turn wrote back to him which prompted Paul to write what we now call 1 Corinthians and so on. While writing simple letters such as 2 & 3 John from the New Testament contain similar features of letters from antiquity, to compose something like Romans or Galatians took the great skills of an amanuensis or professional scribe. And when the person seeking to write a letter such as Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, we know that it was not written by Saint Paul. In fact, the scribe of the letter (Tertius) identifies himself and sort of says, hi to the audience in Rome—perhaps because he knew some of the people there. The same is true for Saint Paul’s letter to the Churches of Galatia. At the end of the letter Saint Paul signs off, or signs it, by telling the Church, “See what large letters I use when I write with my own hand.” (Gal. 6:11). Writing a small greeting at the end of a letter was likened to signing a letter in modern times. So for all of Saint Paul’s letters, he did not write any with his own hand, rather he dictated them to a scribe. Now scribes, especially well-trained scribes, were capable of doing many things. Some scribes were trained in shorthand, meaning they could listen to the author speak at conversational speed and keep up with him. However, in many cases certain scribes were not trained in shorthand, so they listened for each and every word as the author dictated very slowly to them—naturally this also dictated the style of the scribe as well. Another fascinating feature regarding this is that scholars who have studied Saint Paul’s letters, have discovered areas where these methods are actually seen (I’ll touch on that in a moment). But scribes would also make recommendations or suggestions to an author such as Saint Paul as to what he should say or how he should phrase something. The setting for the writing of a letter was also much different than you or I might imagine. As I type out this blog, it’s relatively quiet and I’m typing exactly what comes to my mind. But when Saint Paul prepared for his letters, he was, as I already stated, speaking out loud to a scribe what he wanted to say as others in the room listened (Silas and Timothy) perhaps making suggestions. A good example of this from one of Saint Paul’s letters to the Corinthians when he says that he baptized only a few of the Corinthians while he was in Corinth, but suddenly he says, “and the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 16:17) as if Stephanas was in the room reminding Saint Paul as he dictated to the scribe. After the letter was dictated, a copy was made for the sender (Saint Paul) to review before being sent to the addressees. Saint Paul would then look at the final copy checking it over for errors or areas he might perhaps want to change; and if he wasn’t satisfied, he would have the scribe make corrections. When he was satisfied with the letter, he would sign off on it and have it delivered via a courier or someone that was present when the letter was dictated who possessed full knowledge of what questions may arise as the letter was being read and how to answer them Romans is particularly fascinating. This letter was dictated and written by Tertius the scribe while a certain lady who was likely in the room with Saint Paul, Phoebe. Here we have a woman delivering perhaps one of Saint Paul’s most intense and longest letters. But Phoebe was not only delivering it to the house churches in Rome, she also read it aloud, answered questions and clarified points that surly came up as the letter was read. Some other letters Saint Paul sent where the deliverer is known are: Ephesians, Colossians and Philemon which were delivered and read by a man named, Tychicus. The New Testament is permeated with many subtle hints regarding who wrote the letters and who delivered them. Saint Paul was the example I choose to use because letter wise, he had the most material. Many questions arise when this subject of dictation is brought up, namely, if Saint Paul was guided by the Holy Spirit, but he didn’t "actually" write the letter, then who was inspired, Saint Paul or the scribe? Also, while Saint Paul verbally spoke the words and the scribe may have missed some of them, or thought he heard one thing but wasn’t sure and he just kept writing, is that an inspired text? Does this challenge the doctrine of inspiration? Let’s remember, Saint Paul would always look over the content of the letter, sign off on it, seal it and then send it—meaning when it left his hands and was dispatched, that became the inspired text. Within the gospel accounts, we read about the authority of Jesus and how He exercised that authority. In the gospel of Saint Mark, some of the Scribes and teachers of the Law were astonished by the way He taught, “For He taught them as one who had authority, and not as the Scribes.” (Mark 1:22). And Jesus would also say things such as, “You have heard it said, but I say to you.” (Matt. 5:27-28). Unlike the teachers of Jesus’s day who would quote rabbi so and so to strengthen their claim; Jesus acted on His own authority. This was a very unique key feature in Jesus’s ministry and also in that epic of time in that it demonstrated His authority over man and even others interpretations of the Word of God--the Old Testament (Matt. 5-7). Naturally, if you didn’t know who Jesus was at that point in time, you would likely have challenged His authority much like people do today when someone from the Catholic faith uses authority or the weight of the Church to determine if something is within the pale of orthodoxy.
Today, like then, some people are put off by the notion of authority, ‘who do you think you are to tell me.’ You see, we live in an age where almost everything is challenged; and with the rise of individualism in the twentieth century, there has been what is known as sort of an anti-authoritarian view regarding authority. But the irony of it all is, we form beliefs and submit to authority based on what people tell us every single day, and we use what they say (if they’re reputable) as a source of authority. Let me give you a super simple example of what I mean. If you are at work in an office surrounded by cubicles and a coworker comes over and tells you its pouring rain outside. Well, you’ll probably take him at his word and not go running to a window to check unless the guy lies about everything. So, in a simplistic way, this would be a form of authority on the basis that you have adopted a belief about something he said. This person like a teacher is telling you something you didn’t previously know, but now you do. And this is true with almost every single aspect of our lives, we believe what someone tells us or what we have been taught by them on the basis of authority. If you went to public school, or even home school, you were taught things by a teacher, and then you went home and told your parents or friends what you learned because you trusted your teacher as an authority based on their credentials. The point here is, if we lived without authority or in a constant state of skepticism, our lives would be miserable. But authority gets more complex, especially in an advanced civilized society like our own. Let’s use the United States of America as an example. When the nation began, government was much smaller, and not much authority was exercised over people, but as the nation grew, so too did authority. Of course as growth took place, there were Mayors, Governors, Congressman, Senators, and so on—with the President acting as the highest office of authority. The same is true and has been true in Christianity. As you read through the New Testament, you can see the formation of a governing body or authority developing right from the start. In the gospels, Jesus formed a unique community or a Church, and as the leader of the Church He exercised authority and teaching over the Apostles and those that followed Him. But Jesus shared this unique authority with His closest followers, even during His earthly ministry giving them authority to do certain things, “And He called to Him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and infirmity.” (Matt. 10:1). Jesus continues, “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16) That’s a lot of authority. Later in the gospels, Jesus gives Saint Peter the authority to govern His Church. In the famous passage of Matthew 16, Jesus gave Saint Peter the ability to “bind or loose” (Matt. 16:19). A few passages later Jesus shared this privilege with the other Apostles. (Matt. 18:18). So very early on within the newly founded Church there was authority bestowed upon Jesus’s followers. But did it end there? No. When Saint Paul had to resolve specific problems within the Church, he did so by authority. You can see this authority being exercised in the churches he founded. Saint Paul also says, “God has appointed in the Church first Apostles, second prophets and third teachers.” (1 Cor. 12:28). Even the writer of Hebrews says, “obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give an account.” (Heb. 13:17). Clearly there is authority given to those that knew Christ and were entrusted with furthering the gospel and the Church. When the last of the original Apostles passed from life to death to life, their role of teaching and exercising authority didn’t end, rather the baton was passed from them to bishops, as bishops are those that succeeded the Apostles. Now I could ramble on about the perfectly documented succession of those that proceeded the Apostles and Saint Peter as an unbroken chain of succession in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches, but I want to place my focus on authority and where it resides. Many modern Protestant Christians echo the words of Martin Luther, in that every person should have access to the Word of God and be able to read it, thus coming to an understanding of its basic meaning (the main and plain things). However, as much of an advocate as I am for people having access to the Word of God, this plan or idea backfired. Even in Luther’s day, different denominations, foreign beliefs and competing churches were springing up everywhere. Alistar McGrath, a Protestant Christian theologian and others, are at least honest enough to confess how problematic this is. However, McGrath seems to believe that a Pope or authority is still not necessary. McGrath views the Protestant church as a movement that sort of builds on a consensus of beliefs and comes together in agreement about them--this is a very democratic way of thinking about this. But how could you take 40,000 plus denominations of Protestantism and get them to agree? It would be like our current President, Donald J Trump and Bernie Sanders and all the other Democrats coming together in unanimous agreement. That is how wide and divided the Protestant church is when it comes to agreement without an authority. Jesus said, “I pray that they (the Church) will be one, just as you and I are one…” (John 17:21). How exactly is this verse or teaching being applied in the Protestant Church today? Within Protestant sects, there is division on abortion, women pastors, homosexuality, music, modes of worship, same-sex marriage and on and on. There was a Protestant Anglican named John Henry Newman, who later in life became a Catholic, and one of the main reasons was, for Newman, the Protestant Church lacked a voice. For Newman, at the end of the day, he said there needed to be a living voice (authority) that can determine things when the Church is divided. In closing, many Protestants despise these words, ‘tradition’ and ‘authority’. Although Protestants practice tradition and authority in every aspect of their lives without even knowing it from, the happy birthday song to what their denomination believes. Maybe next time I’m at a birthday party, I could stop everyone in the middle of singing happy birthday and ask them why they sing that and where they got that song from? Most people would look at me strangely and say, it’s our tradition—that’s why! Well, the Church has tradition too, and it is a tradition that is thoroughly anchored in Scripture. Some might say fine, maybe your traditions are found in Scripture, but don’t act like some authority over me—I don’t need the Church to tell me what the final authority is—I have the Bible. Well, if I could liken that type of thinking to the sports realm. The authority of the Church and papacy would be likened to an umpire or referee. Most people don’t always like the referee or the umpire, but they respect the umpire as an authority. And people also recognize that without the umpire, or a living voice, the game would simply devolve into bickering and chaos. We need someone to call a strike a strike or a ball a ball. It's not an authority that is domineering or oppressive, but referring authority. So if you love the game and you want the game to continue, you have a sense of reverence for that umpire or authority. |
|