Scripture and Tradition

For the next few blog posts, I am honoured to be in dialogue with Alexis, a good friend and president of the university Christian Orthodox society. He regularly blogs about theological issues, which you can find at http://alexis-florides.blogspot.co.uk/. In these ensuing discussions, we will attempt to explain and defend our positions on various topics, in some sense articulating what our denomination holds to be true of Christianity. We hope that through this process we and you will grow in faith, understanding and the ability to listen to views contrary to our/your own. It should be an interesting experiment, and I hope you enjoy it as much as we will. (Nathan Hood )

God is categorically distinct from the world. That means that the categories we use to understand creation cannot be applied to God without them being radically redefined in relation to Him. God is not just different from objects and beings, but is has an uncompromisingly different existence, as God is not only the source of our being but the fullness of being itself. Language breaks down in application to the divine, as it is stretched beyond its capacity when used to refer to that which is other to the concepts we know from our worldly environment. This entails that created objects by themselves cannot by their very existence reveal the glory, holiness and majesty of God, as they have a fundamentally different character to the one and unique God. Moreover, as our cognitive and emotional capacities have been corrupted by evil, sin and suffering, they are unable to perceive the presence of Yahweh within the world without change. Thus, due to the categorical difference and effects of creation’s falleness, there is a gap between God and humanity.

This void was broken and bridged by the Word of God. The eternal Word, creator and sovereign over all creation, held nothing for himself before the Father, taking on human flesh and dwelling among us. He did this to save the world, bringing light to darkness, overthrowing the power of death through His life, death and resurrection. He has come to transform the creation to how it ought to be: glorifying and enjoying God. We can participate in this dramatic change by confessing Jesus, the Word, is Lord. In doing so, we are opened to His radical, dynamic and pulsing love, overhauling our past selves to live in union with Him. In being united to Christ, we partake in His death to sin and victory over death in the resurrection, thus giving us eternal life. Moreover, this restores the relationship between us and God, as our sin is paid for in full by the blood of Jesus, the only innocent human. This is the gap between God and humanity bridged; Jesus is ‘God with us’, the new temple, and in His saving action and union with us the fullness of God is brought forth into our lives. It is only in the gift of Himself do we have a) knowledge of God b) a right relationship with God.

Yet we are still created beings, who cannot listen to God without mediation (indeed, the ancient Jews were so terrified of the presence of God they tied a rope to the high priest when he would enter the inner sanctum, in case he died from touching the ark of the covenant by accident!). Whilst the human nature of Jesus has ascended to heaven to receive all due honour and glory until the parousia/end times, we are brought into union with Him by the activity of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit draws us into this relationship through various instruments. One such gift is the Scriptures. We call them the Word of God because they are witnesses to the life giving Word, Jesus. They have no value in themselves: their purpose is to testify to the glory of God and pointing to the salvation found in Christ, communicated by faith. They are inspired by the Spirit for this purpose. As such, they possess authority on all Christian life, as they reveal the Word sufficiently to humanity. Authored by God, they guide us into salvation, and in doing so transform our lives in uniting us to the Word. As such, the Scriptures have a key role within the life of the Church, as the not only communicate to us the wonder of Christ, but are a dialogue between us and God, an address which calls us to even greater union with Jesus in the dynamism of the Holy Spirit which inevitably gives us new life.

‘Tradition’ is the corpus of the covenant community’s experience and reflection upon the upturning grace of the Word. It is also a gift of the Spirit, who guides the body of Christ into greater truth and love in their walk with God. This means that tradition is an interpretative practice: it is not the revelation (the Word) nor a witness to the Word (Scripture) but an interpretation of that witness. It offers us a hermeneutic for approaching the ineffable yet immanent God. It is guided by the Spirit, such as at the Council of Nicea (325 C.E.) where bishops from all over the Roman Empire gathered to clarify whether Christ was divine or not. Led by the Spirit, the assembly favoured the interpretation that Jesus is God, and that He is of one substance with the Father.

However, tradition is human interpretation of the witness the Scriptures provide of the Word. It may be guided by the grace of the Spirit, but it is still the categorisation of revelation by fallible human minds. And as its source is non-divine, it does not derive the same authority as Scripture, for the precisely the fact that human tradition can err and not testify to the Word. Whilst Scripture was also written by humans with minds prone to sin, the Holy Spirit breathed their words, providing the circumstances and context for the author to witness to Christ. By contrast, tradition is a response: whilst it may be guided by the Spirit, this guiding is not equivalent to the inspiration of biblical texts, as it is an interpretation of that already given. Jesus actions affirm this: whilst He would not alter one iota of the Law and prophets, recognising that they were an address from God, He continually reprimanded the Pharisees for displacing faith in God for adherence to human regulations and tradition. Their interpretation of how to respond to God was misplaced, and hence did not honour Yahweh. Hence, Scripture must be normative of tradition, as it cannot fall into sin, and it is only that which further enables the preaching of the Word which is valid tradition. Thus, it is an interpretative matrix, not the Word itself – that title belongs to Christ, and the instrument He uses, the Scriptures.

- Nathan Hood

It is with great pleasure that my good friend (fellow theology student, and devout & active member of the Presbyterian church) Nathan, and I will be sharing a series of joint blog posts, discussing certain theological, and in particular ecclesiological matters. (Our first one being Scripture and Tradition) We hope they are of interest, and will enforce a better understanding and appreciation of each others traditions. Nathan and I both actively, and humbly give much of our time to our churches, and this is a great opportunity to share and discuss the ways in which we grow within our Christian communities and spiritual lives, following Christ: our Way, Truth and Life (John 14:6) in dialogue and love. (1 John 4:8) 

Please visit Nathan's blog at:

http://solumjesum.blogspot.co.uk/

'Divine revelation is spread among men and preserved in the Church by two channels - Holy Tradition, and Holy Scripture.' (Catechism of St Philaret of Moscow)

Holy Tradition is the doctrine of faith, the law of God, the sacraments, and the ritual that is handed down by the true believers and worshippers of God, by word and example from one to another - from generation to generation.

The Church of the Living God, as 'the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) is the sure repository of Holy Tradition. All believers are united by the Holy Tradition of faith, and form the 'body of Christ' (1 Cor 12:12). St Irenaeus highlights that the truth can only be found within the Church, and it is Holy Tradition that guarantees this truth and validity:

'We ought not to seek among others the truth, which we may have for asking from the Church; for in her, as in a rich treasure-house, the Apostles have laid up in its fullness all that pertains to the truth, so that whosoever seeketh may receive from her the food of life. She is the door of life.'

Holy Scripture is books written by the Spirit of God through men, sanctified by God, called Prophets and Apostles. These books are commonly termed 'the Bible' (Βίβλος), signifying that these sacred books deserve attention before all others. 

Which is more ancient, Holy Tradition or Holy Scripture?

The original, and most ancient instrument for spreading divine revelation is Holy Tradition. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself delivered His divine doctrine and ordinances to His disciples by word and example - not by writing. The same method was followed by the Apostles at first, spreading the faith and establishing the Church of Christ. This emphasises the necessity of Tradition. Books can be made available to a small part of mankind, but tradition to all. 

'So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word or mouth or by letter.' (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Through the Holy Scriptures, divine revelation is preserved. We read the words of the Prophets and the Apostles, as if we were living and listening with them. 

Why is tradition necessary?

Holy Tradition is what acts as our guide to the right understanding of the Scriptures, and is needed for the right ministration of the Sacraments and the preservation of the sacred rites and liturgical life of the Church.

'Of the doctrines and injunctions kept by the Church, some we have from written instruction, but some we have received from apostolical tradition, by succession...For instance let us mention before all else the very first and commonest act of Christians, that they who trust in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should sign themselves with the sign of the Cross.. to turn to the east in prayer..the words of invocation in the change of the Eucharistic bread and of the cup of blessing..Are they not all from this unpublished and private teaching, which our Fathers kept..'   

Saint Basil the Great here highlights the importance of Holy Tradition, passed down from Christ's apostles on Pentecost (Acts 2) , to the Church's fathers and teachers; preserving the orthodox apostolic teaching, worship and practice. 

The fullness of the true faith and doctrine is much too vast to be held in the consciousness of isolated members of the Church. Nathan argues that tradition is 'human interpretation of the witness of Scriptures', however it is clear from the Church's history that the Holy Spirit has been deposited from generation to generation, safeguarding and preserving the true orthodox faith and apostolic teaching - what the Orthodox Church refers to as Holy Tradition. This is not human interpretation; but rather the  very act of the Holy Spirit through time. 

Does Scripture oppose Tradition?

The Holy Scriptures are one of the sources of Tradition. The problem lies in the fact that at the time of the reformation, the western church tried to oppose and separate scripture to tradition. No such opposition should exist! Scripture and tradition belong to the one life of the Church, moved by the same Holy,  Life-Giving and guiding Spirit. It is important to remember that the canon of holy books, which affirms their inspired character is established by Tradition. The inspired nature of Scripture can only be established and guaranteed by our Mother Church. Saint Cyprian of Carthage boldly states 'he can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.' 

The Bible cannot be separate from the Church. The Holy Spirit guides the life of the Church, with its councils - declaring truth. Tradition is both the past and present - it is the never ending work of the Spirit, revealed to the Prophets of the Old Testament, consecrated through the incarnation of the Logos, and remains active in the purification, illumination and theosis of the faithful within Christ's body. The Scriptures are divinely inspired and infallible, not because they are historically or scientifically accurate, but because they are theologically true; and it is through the living Tradition of the Church that we understand these theological truths, and the correct meanings of the texts. This is why the Orthodox Church emphasises the importance of reading the Scriptures within the eucharistic body of Christ. Even though they are divinely inspired, the interpretive operation of the Holy Spirit is lost when one cuts themselves off from the Church and its tradition. It is within the Church, as a loving communion, that we are led to truth, and unity with Christ. Without this tradition, which has preserved, and continues to preserve the faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, protecting Christ's body from heretical teaching, granting us the fruits of the Holy Spirit through the sacramental work of the Church, a pure and loving relationship with God would be unattainable. 

The Filioque

In this essay, I will argue that the filioque insertion should be retained, as it provides the most appropriate account, grammar, of the Spirit’s origin. I shall do this by analysing the teaching of Scripture, and from this contend that the work of Christ and the Spirit points towards the origin of the Spirit in Christ. Moreover, it will be argued the filioque secures the uniqueness of each divine person.

The filioque was introduced into Christian theology by the Roman Church at the Third Council of Toledo (589), without the approval of a recognised ecumenical council. As such, it has become a contentious issue, between Western and Eastern churches. The clause concerns the inner-Trinitarian relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, affirming that the Paraclete proceeds not just from the Father, but also the Son. To critically evaluate whether the filioque insertion was justified, I will employ the following criteria: 1) Does the teaching of Scripture motivate an account of the Trinity where the filioque provides the most appropriate grammar for Christian language; 2) Does the filioque violate the uniqueness of the divine persons as affirmed by Nicene Christianity? If the answer is ‘yes’ to (1) and ‘no’ to (2), then the filioque should be maintained as a guide to speaking about God.^[1]

In pursuing an analysis of the filioque, an immediate problem arises in how to interpret the clause. The term ‘proceeds’ is ambiguous in the relation to God, with a multiplicity of possible definitions for ‘divine procession’ (Stylianopoulos, 1979, p.25). However, the term will denote an ontological origination in this paper. That is, to say x proceeds from y is to say that y is the source of x’s existence. Procession refers to the source of the Spirit’s existence as a hypostasis who receives their substance from an Other; it denotes the movement of logical priority within the Godhead (Moltmann, 1980, p.183). On this reading, to say the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son is to contend that the Spirit’s existence is grounded in the persons of the Father and the Son.

To begin this evaluation, it is helpful to uncover why Nicene churches ascribe to the Spirit the property of proceeding from the Father. This doctrine is driven by the recognition that the Spirit is sent by the Father out of love, in order to empower Christ’s earthly ministry and the inauguration of the Kingdom of God. Jesus was conceived by the Spirit (Lk 1:35), baptised in the Spirit (Mt 3:16), lived by the Spirit (Lk 10:21; 1Pe 3:18), his human nature was empowered by the Spirit as seen in his preaching (Lk 4:18; Mt 12:18), miracle working (Ac 10:38), and his vindication (Ro 1:4). Incarnated, Jesus was assisted in his human nature through the reception of the Spirit in order to complete his instantiation of the Kingdom, with the Spirit sent by the Father as an expression of the Father’s love for the obedient and dutiful Son.

Furthermore, the Creed identifies that the Father sends the Spirit to the community of faith after the exaltation of Christ, so as to bring God’s people into the divine life. Christ tells the disciples that they shall receive a ‘comforter’, who will be sent by the Father to dwell with them on Earth forever (Jn 14:16). The Spirit will guide believers into all truth, directing their lives so as to draw them into the communion of the Trinity (Jn 16:13). The Spirit will indwell the Christian, sanctifying them in the desire to do God’s will, predisposed to behave in ways which glorify and enjoy the Lord (2Th 2:13; 1Pe 1:2) (Lewis, 1979, p.61). Thus, the Father is understood to be sending the Spirit to transform the world through those who are in Christ. If this is God’s self-revelation, it follows that the pattern of the Father sending the Spirit to Christ and the Church reflects the inner life of the Trinity. That is, the Father must breathe forth the Spirit within the divine life, being the origin of the Paraclete’s existence. Thus, the relationship of the Father to the Spirit in Scripture, suggests that the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

It is my contention that we observe a similar sending of the Spirit from the Son in Scripture.  The love between the Father and Son is the source of spiration (Augustine, 2012, 15.17.27–18.32). On the one hand, the Father’s love for the Son is shown in the gift of the Spirit, to empower Christ’s ministry.  On the other, Christ’s love for the Father is expressed in his self-offering through the Spirit, which manifests itself in the revelation of the Father and the redeeming of the world. All of his doings were intended to proclaim the glory of the Father (Jn 14:9). As the High Priest, ‘He offers to the Father that worship, that obedience, that life of love in unbroken intimate communion, which we cannot offer’ (Torrance, 1996, p.37). Furthermore, Christ offers himself as a sacrifice to fulfil the love of God for the world (Lk 22:42), climaxing in his crucifixion (Lk 23:46). Jesus’ works reciprocate the love of the Father; his intercessions to the Father for the world are made in the Spirit. Indeed, if God is love (1 Jn 4:8), then one would expect the communion of the Father and Son to be shared love, as expressed in the mutual sending of the Spirit (Barth, 1936, p.557). Thus, as we identified the Spirit’s procession from the Father with the Father’s expressed love for the Son, by implication we should identify the Spirit’s origin also with the Son, as the Spirit enables Christ to express his love for the Father.

Furthermore, the continuing activity of Christ in the community of faith indicates that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. As has been said, the Father sends the Spirit to God’s people in the aftermath of the ascension to make them citizens of heaven. The question arises as to how this process is enacted (Athanasius, 2012, ch.54). To be in the Spirit means one is made a ‘partaker’ in the divine life, where one is assumed into a ‘sphere of the direct and immediate activity of God’ (Torrance, 1975, p.234-5). This indwelling is only possible because of the incarnation; when the Son took on a human nature, ‘the self-sanctification of Christ through his own Spirit’ enabled humanity to receive the Spirit (Ibid.) That is, the ‘radical liberty and creativity’ found in Jesus’ reconstruction of the human being and its identity is witnessed by the Church in the activity of the Holy Spirit (Williams, 2000, p.140). The Church’s experience of renewal by the indwelling presence of God’s love (Eph 1), initiated by the incarnation and continued by the Paraclete, leads to the conclusion that there is a mutual intimacy of the Son and Spirit in the immanent Trinity (Gal 4:6). Moreover, the Son sends the Spirit into the world to continue the instantiation of God’s Kingdom (Jn 1:33b; Acts 2:33). Thus, the salvific work of Christ, as continued by the Spirit, suggests that the most appropriate grammar for describing this event is by inserting the filioque clause. Therefore, the Son’s love for the Father and Jesus’ prolonged presence in the community of faith through the Spirit motivates the use of the filioque when using language about God.

One objection to this clause is that it undermines the uniqueness of the three persons, which is essential in Nicene Christianity. In particular, it can be said to compromise the individuality of the Father. As both Father and Son are affirmed to be the source of Paraclete’s procession by the filioque, it follows on this interpretation that they are both the origin of the Spirit’s divine existence. This indicates that there is a ‘double procession’ within God: that from the Father, and that from the Son. Yet this diminishes the distinguishing features of the Father. The individual properties in terms of ontological origin determine the distinctness of each divine person. The Father is understood to be ‘unbegotten’ or uncaused, the Son is ‘begotten’ or generated, and the Spirit ‘proceeds’. Thus, the Father is to be understood as the unique source of the divine existence, as the origin of the other two persons (Stylianopoulos, 1979, p.26). This is ‘his hypostatic distinguishing quality’, that which makes Him different (Ritschl, 1979, p.12). If we affirm that the Son is also the source of the Spirit’s being, then we compromise the Father’s unique role as the sole cause of existence within the Godhead. By making the Son an origin like the Father, the filioque degrades the movement of direction within God of moving out from the Father towards the Son (Fiddes, 2000, p.80). Hence, it is argued the filioque is inappropriate theologically as it violates the uniqueness of the Father, a mark of Nicene Christianity.

However, I will contend that the filioque actually secures the uniqueness of the Father, Son and Spirit. Leibniz’s Law of the Identity of Indiscernibles states that:

For any P, Q; if P has exactly all the same properties as Q, then P is identical with Q. That is, P and Q are the same substance. (Leibniz, 1969)

The allegation made against the filioque is it makes the Father the same person as the Son, and thus violates the distinctiveness of the persons as affirmed at Nicea. However, utilising Leibniz’s Law one can refute this claim: the Father cannot be the Son because He is unbegotten, and the Son cannot be the Father because He is begotten. That means they do not share all the same properties, and so are unique persons. Furthermore, the Spirit is not identical with the Father or the Son; whereas the Spirit possesses the property of proceeding from the Father and the Son, neither the Father nor the Son retains this property. Thus, each person’s hypostatic distinguishing qualities are maintained, and thus the uniqueness of the persons is secured by the filioque.

By contrast, the neglect of the filioque undermines the distinction of the Son and Spirit. For if the Son is generated by the Father, and the Spirit is generated from the Father, then there is no property to distinguish the persons: they are the same hypostasis. Proponents of this position often appeal to the ‘logical priority’ of the Son over the Spirit, contending whereas the Son is begotten of the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father (Nazianzus, 1994, 5.25). That is, the mode of generation is different in that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds. However, since the generation of the Son and Spirit is prior to creation, there is no method to distinguish begetting and procession. For if the generation of the Son and Spirit is simultaneous, their origins are existentially identical, entailing their ontological origination is the same. Nevertheless, if the Father and the Son are the source of the Spirit’s existence, we can differentiate being begotten from proceeding in relation to God; being begotten denotes generation solely from the Father, whereas procession refers to the derivation from both the Father and the Son. Given this, the Son is begotten, whereas the Spirit must proceed. Therefore, the filioque ensures the uniqueness of the divine persons, and as such does not violate individuality of the divine persons.

In conclusion, I have argued that the filioque should be affirmed as the most appropriate grammar for speaking about the Spirit’s origin. I contended that the teachings of Scripture motivate us to employ the filioque due to the communion of Father and Son as expressed in the sending and utilising of the Spirit in the life of Christ and the close activity of the Son and Spirit in redemptive activity. The objection was raised that the filioque may compromise the individuality of the Father, thus violating a teaching of Nicene theology. Yet it was demonstrated that the clause secures the distinct reality of the divine persons, in contrast to opposing views. Therefore, because the filioque is motivated by Scripture and does not compromise the distinctness of the persons, it follows it should be regarded as the best conceptual framework for describing the source of the Spirit.

Bibliography

Athanasius, On the Incarnation, translated by Behr, J., New York: USA, St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 2012

Augustine, On the Trinity, editors. Boer, P. A. and Shedd, W., translated by Haddan, A. W., Veratitis Splendor Publications, 2012

Barth, Church Dogmatics: 1/1, Edinburgh: UK, T. & T. Clark, 1936

Bolotov, V., The Comforter, translated by Jakim, B., Michigan: USA, Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004

Fiddes, P., Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity, London: UK, Darton, Longman and Todd, 2000

Leibniz, G., Philosophical Papers and Letters, edited and translated by Loemker, L., Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1969

Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, Glasgow: UK, William Collins Son & Co Ltd., 1952

Moltmann, J., The Trinity and the Kingdom of God, translated by Kohl, M., London: UK, SCM Press, 1980

Nazianzus, G., ‘Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit’, in Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers volume 2.7, edited by Schaff, P., translated by Browne, C. G., and Swallow, J. E., Hendrickson Publishers, 1994

Rahner, K., The Trinity, translated by Donceel, J., London: UK, Herder and Herder, 1970

Ratzinger, J., Jesus of Nazareth, London: UK, Bloomsbury, 2007

Ritschl, D., ‘The History of the Filioque Controversy’, in Conflicts about the Spirit, edited by Kung, H. and Moltmann, J., New York: USA, Seabury Press, 1979

The English Standard Version Bible, New York: USA, Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Stylianopoulos, T., ‘The Orthodox Position’, in Conflicts about the Spirit, edited by Kung, H. and Moltmann, J., New York: USA, Seabury Press, 1979

Torrance, J. B., Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, Carlisle: UK, Paternoster, 1996

Torrance, T. F., Theology in Reconciliation, London: UK, Geoffrey Chapman Publishers, 1975

Williams, R., On Christian Theology, Oxford: UK, Blackwell Publishing, 2000

---

[1] This paper includes assumptions which are beyond the scope of this essay to defend:

·         The Scriptures alone are authoritative, supreme and sufficient for Christian faith and praxis.

·         The Economic Trinity is the Immanent Trinity (Barth, 1936, p.548; Rahner, 1970, p.22).

Theology Football Squad

This world cup I have really enjoyed. The games are exciting, the teams tend to have an attacking philosophy and there have been lots of goals. Given the joy it has brought, I have decided to combine it with my studies to come up with a theology football squad. So without further ado, here it is.

Theologians United: Starting Eleven

Defence

Goalkeeper – Athanasius of Alexandria

A world class keeper, Athanasius is a stalwart shot stopper. This was vicariously demonstrated at the Nicene Cup, where he saved attempt after attempt from the talented playmaker Arius. With a determined yet composed mind-set, this boy’s courage in the face of adversity makes him the first name on the team sheet.

 

Right-back – Anselm of Canterbury

This player will never settle for anything less than the greatest conceivable result. Always to be relied upon, Anselm will not be satisfied with his performance without a complete sacrifice on his part, as demonstrated by his excellent marshalling of inform striker Guanilo last week.

Centre-back – Thomas Aquinas

Coached by Aristotle, it is no shock that he is at the heart of the defence. Don’t be fooled by his analogical interviewing style – this man is the real deal. Aquinas’ natural ability manifests itself in working with the players around him up towards the desired victory. His athleticism, ability to read the game, strength, speed and his prolific goal-scoring from set plays are just five proofs of why he should be in the team.

 Centre-back – Augustine of Hippo

Following a disastrous move from city to city and his latest off-pitch confession, it is a real surprise Augustine has made the starting line-up. Having overcome his original sins, it was thought he had turned a corner, but recent events suggest otherwise. However, his past record of being able to ascend to lofty heights from even the darkest moments of his career may have inspired the manager to choose him, knowing that a bit of grace is what this player needs to shine.

Left-back – N. T. Wright

This lad has offered a fresh, new perspective on how to be a left back, causing a division of opinion amongst commentators and players alike. Having had his techniques undermined and exploited by strikers Piper and Carson, in recent seasons Wright has had to reign in his novel approach and has begun to incorporate more traditional elements to his game. Nevertheless, with a tremendous output, jovial attitude and vast experience, the opposition must be wary of his prowess.

Midfield

Right Midfield – John Wesley

Something of a perfectionist, this winger has developed his game to a high standard. Having been ridiculed for his training methods, his play has silenced the critics with its sublime organisation combined with exuberant performances. His roaming attacks strangely warm the heart, igniting a spirit of attacking football.

Central Midfield – John Calvin (Captain)

Having instituted a reformation in the fortunes of Geneva United, it was predestined that Calvin would have his name on the team sheet. Having had triple honours at club level, it is now time for him to make his mark on the world stage. Emphasising simplicity, this man’s ability to dictate play and allow others to build upon his work is impeccable.

Central Midfield – Karl Barth

A revelation of late, this dogmatic midfielder plays off Calvin and gets stuck into the action. Following the manager’s word, he is a reliable, yet visceral player, enforcing his side’s dominance. However, this abrasive style can often cause dialectical dischord between him and his fellow teammates.

Left Midfield – Cornelius Van Til

It was presupposed before this column that Van Til would be selected, as his skill is truly transcendental! Through this one man, many other players are united through his excellent distribution of the ball, electric movement and game management. One risk with his selection may be his long time feud with Barth, ignited by Van Til calling him irrational after a club match.

Attack

Forward – Martin Luther

The manager’s faith in Luther has been fully justified as he has had some stunning performances of late. Only he can grace the pitch with such speed, aggression and skill. A great communicator, Luther leads by example and inspires others to get the best out of their attributes. However, he does not see the coach as the final authority on tactical matters, which could prove a problem if he disagrees with the manager’s interpretation on how to win the game.

Forward – Soren Kierkegaard

Whilst his form is objectively uncertain, this player’s subjective commitment to the cause is unquestionable. Modelling his style on the father of football, Abraham, Kierkegaard is a classic centre forward. Regardless of the guise he has assumed, he always pops up in the right position to score. However, with his fragile temperament, it was a leap of faith on the manager’s part to pick him for this important match.

Tactical View

Substitutes and Management

Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa all find themselves on the bench today. Whilst these three persons have a perichoretic chemistry, the nature of team does not suit their ticci-tacca style. However, if the team needs a change, these top players of Cappadocia F.C. all have a lot to give.

Also substitutes are Gustavo Gutierrez and Leonardo Boff. A liberating presence on the team, these two attackers can open up oppressive defences to great effect. However, the beautiful game requires a revolution before they truly have a place in football.

Duns Scotus may make his debut today. This lad’s nominal quality is far exceeding most others, with his precision passing a delight to observe. His presence on the park is universal, and his ability to formally distinguish the flaws in the opposition is a marvel to behold.

In form striker Francis of Assisi is on the bench. Whilst he spends his time with lots of birds, this man’s charity on the ball is to be admired. Moreover, his work ethic is to be praised, carrying on even when he is faced with stigmatic injuries.

Manager – Paul of Tarsus

No one else could manage a side with so many big names. Having been a world class player, being an extremely zealous footballer, Paul has brought that ethic into his management, encouraging his players to unite in spirit. Moreover, he has successfully coached Thessalonica F.C., Corinthians, Ephesus United among other clubs. Recognising that a team is like a body, he has a good balance to his squad’s. Yet most importantly, he engenders a philosophy within his players to be living sacrifices for each other.

Do you agree with this selection? Who would you choose? Leave your comments below, and thanks for reading.

Thanks to my father for contributing to some of the selections.

Confessions of a Modern Day Pharisee

I am a righteous man. Or at least that is what I like to believe. I go to church, praise the Lord, I help where I can. I condemn those who do morally wrong (just see my old blog!), exhort the Mosaic Law and rigorously defend truth. Along with the great spiritual masters I stand, defending the faith, glorifying God through my actions for all to see. Indeed, even this article of mine shows how much I love God.

And that is why I am a sinner. In my younger years, I zealously tried to enforce the Biblical teachings, reprimanding those who endorsed false doctrine and rebuking they that sinned against God. And despite His grace, I am still tempted daily by such activities. Little do I know that I fall into both camps.

The good news is that through Jesus of Nazareth, God has provided salvation for us on condition of faith (2 Corinthians 5:19). That is, the grounds of our right standing before God are the life, death and resurrection of Christ, which is communicated to us by the gift of faith (John 3:16). This is a momentous message! To be free of the shackles of wrongdoing, enslavement to evil and fearing God’s holy justice (which all deserve for doing that which is erroneous), one cannot do anything. Mired in our own folly, we are unable to give to God what he is owed, having done that which is contrary to the good, and thus are servants of evil and deserve death. There is no action on our part, no set of commands or any formulae which can get one out of this mess. However, out of his grace, God has provided in the sacrifice and representation of Jesus all that one needs to be restored to relationship with him. This is achieved through participation in his righteous life, death and resurrection, by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and the atonement of our sins through Jesus death (Romans 8:1). This not only pays for our transgressions before God, but exacts a transformation of the sinner. No longer are we bound by sin, addicted to misdeeds and evil actions centred on humanity. Rather, we are regenerated to focus on God, not by our own power but by the Spirit (Romans 8:2). Thus, the Gospel proclaims that liberation from the destruction of sin comes through Christ alone, mediated by faith, not our own lack of works or merit.

By contrast, the Pharisaic trite I have propounded is a false gospel. I have argued that one can be their own saviour, implying Jesus died in vain! (Galatians 2:21) You see, what I have done is claim that your standing with God depends on what you do. In the past, I have condemned those who have premarital sex, those who engage in homosexual relationships, those who reject classical and traditional forms of worship, those who lie, those who reject the truth and so on. I justified this by claiming that God detests such behaviour, ranting and raving about how great a sin they were committing. Such a tack was a false gospel: by making the behaviour of a person the deciding factor in how they relate to God, I failed to realise I was removing Jesus from salvation. Christ tells us that he is the way, the truth and the life, and that no person may come to the Father but by him (John 14:6). As we are unable to break free of our transgressions and the power of evil, then we cannot save ourselves. As Jesus rose from the dead, which confers the blessing of God upon him and victory over the power of death, the wages of sin (Romans 6:23), it follows He has, through his actions, enabled others to be reconciled with God. Thus, only through him can we be saved. By putting such emphasis on one’s behaviour, I failed to acknowledge that our deeds have no bearing on our salvation: only the love of Jesus does. So such exhortations were just plainly wrong, as they denied that Jesus was the only grounds of salvation, and that nothing can be added or subtracted from this message without it being a false message.

Moreover, not only have I preached a false gospel, but I have been a hypocrite. Whilst I judged others to be disobeying God, little did I see that I was just a culpable. I too lusted, I too was lazy, I too have born false witness, I too have taught falsity and so on. How I could condemn by brothers and sisters without seeing the gaping big sin and evil in my own life is ridiculous. Indeed, as Jesus challenged the hypocrites of his day, ‘How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye?’ (Luke 6:42). Whilst I recognised others needed Jesus, I failed to see that I did too. And so, without realising it, I perpetuated a life of self-righteousness, pleased with myself and pitying others.

These struggles still afflict me. I am still tempted to judge, placing worldly standards in front of spiritual ones. Living in a world still caught in the grip of the old ways, we are all confronted by dark evils. But thanks to the grace of God, those who are justified by faith no longer live according to the power of sin (Romans 5:1-2). Rather, those who are drawn into Jesus’ righteousness live not by the influence of evil but under the sphere of Christ through the Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17). As such, thanks to what God has done in my life, two things have changed.

Firstly, through the gift of faith afforded by the Spirit, I now can see my own sin. That is, when those who live in union with Jesus stray from the path, the Holy Spirit enables them to recognise they have committed a heinous act. Through this, he reveals our utter dependence upon Jesus (John 16:8). Our failure to serve God as we ought is drawn out by the fact we sin, and points to the glory of Christ who does righteously love the Father. Thus, it contrasts our ineptitude with Jesus’ holiness. As such, it clarifies the nascent fact that we utterly owe everything to Jesus in sustaining our relationship with the Father, glorifying him even more by our weaknesses (2 Corinthians 12:9). Thus, rather than believing I am righteous according to my own merit, the grace of the Lord changes people through faith to see that they are pretty pathetic in comparison to Jesus, and as such live with him at the centre of their identity thanks to the gift of his Spirit. The gift of God to recognise the sinfulness of the self redirects us to Christ, whom through a relationship of love on his part we can be restored to be worshippers of God.

Secondly, through the gift of faith afforded by the Spirit, I now see that Christ is the only means of salvation. The prior paragraph alluded to this, recognising that the identification of one’s own sin often refocuses us back to Christ. However, it is not only through our own sin we can receive such a wonderful truth. Through the transforming effects of the Holy Spirit, we are freed from notions that anything else can save humanity and the universe other than Jesus. Whilst confronted with temptations and malignant forces attempting to draw us from this truth, the power of the Spirit will always bring us back to Christ, helping us to see that it is His relationship with the Father which counts, not ours, for our standing. The vindication we have before God is not on our account – not even on the faith we have. No, it is grounded in the righteousness of Jesus, which we participate in through faith. This teaches us not to be self-righteous, judge, or demand any extra requirement for salvation. Rather, despite our failings, at the heart of our confession, worship and witness should always be Jesus, the heart of who we are and the cosmos. The transformation wrought by God in those who are saved is to place Christ at the centre of who they are, even if they fail often to appreciate this. And so the evidence of him and his key place in salvation is to be perceived by those living in the Spirit.

So this Pharisee, who is still tempted by the villainies of pride, confesses he is not all he often wants to be, and that ultimately even if he gets it wrong, his, and all salvation, is not acquired by human merit or worthiness, but by Jesus alone on condition of faith. Hence, all the glory and praise should be God’s alone, as our sin testifies too. Thus, this Pharisee asks for your forgiveness, and hopes that his folly will be an example of the glory, mercy and love of God.

How can God be both three and one? The logic of the Trinity

‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.’ (Deuteronomy 6:4). This is the uncompromising confession at the heart of Jewish, Christian and Muslim faith. There is only one God worthy of worship, as there is only one who is the ‘greatest conceivable being’ (Anselm, Proslogion). Thus, we are to ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.’ (Deuteronomy 6:5). This is because God is ‘the Good’, and as it is right to love what is good, we should seek to adore the source of all goodness (Plato, Republic, Bk. VII). Thus, as opposed to polytheistic religions which claim there are lots of gods, pantheism which claims the world is god, and atheists who say there is no God, monotheists profess there is but one God of everything.

‘Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19). This is the ‘great commission’ of Christianity, a command from Jesus after His resurrection to His followers to bring all peoples into the Kingdom of God. Baptism is the ritual of being submerged in water and rising out of it, a response to the grace of God in committing to turn away from one’s previous way of life and following the way of God (Matthew 4:6). Thus, one would only be baptised in name of God, as God is the one who enables such a change to take place in a person’s life (Romans 7:4-6). Yet this entails a quandary, for although God is one, the Christian is baptised under three names: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The question is, how can God be both three and one?

Last week, I sought to try and articulate the Gospel in a form which is both relevant to a secular context and faithful to the salvation God has wrought in Jesus. I did this by focussing on Paul’s lecture to the Athenians (Acts 17:16-34), which involved dissecting and briefly exploring the different segments of what he proclaimed. At the beginning of his presentation, he argued that there is but one God, which we saw meant there is only one meaning of life, which is to worship the true God. Yet undoubtedly, one will eventually have to say who this true God is – if we are to love Him, we ought to have some idea who the Lord is. The Christian recognises that God has revealed Himself as totally one, yet also as Father, Son and Spirit, and so concludes that God is Triune. Thus, as the heart of the Gospel message is the Trinity, the one God, who has called us away from sin in light of his oncoming judgement. As such, we as a Church ought to give an account of who God is as the Trinity if the question should arise (1 Peter 3:15).

However, this is no easy task. Generations of people have wrestled with the notion that God is three and one, coming to all sorts of conclusions and positions. By its very nature, the concept of being triune seems strange to us, and anyone who seeks to understand more often finds by the end of their quest they know a lot less! Hence, this article will try and offer some reflections on how one might approach the doctrine of the Trinity, why we should believe it is the best account of how God has revealed God’s self and how it is best to be a witness to God as Triune.

1)      What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity was officially stated at the council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., and later refined at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. Amongst other issues, the attendees of these meetings sought to identify what it is precisely the Christian community believes about who God is, in light of the ‘Arian Controversy’. Arius believed that God’s nature precludes any change. From this he noted that if God were to become human, as He would have to if Jesus were God, then God would have to change, by taking on the property of being a man. As such, Arius argued Jesus could not be God, because if God’s nature does not allow for change, then He cannot become a man (Letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia). Moreover, the Holy Spirit also could not be God, because the Spirit works within the world, and as everything in the world is subject to change, that must mean the Spirit is subject to change. However, as God cannot change, God cannot be in the world. Thus, Arius concluded neither the Word (Jesus) nor the Spirit is divine, with only the Father being Holy.

This position caused a great deal of controversy within the Church, causing a great theological split. Hence, the council of Nicaea was convened to decide whether Arius was right to claim on the Father was divine. The result did not go Arius’s way, with the council concluding the Father, Son and Spirit are all God (for reasons we shall examine later). But how exactly did they define the relationship between the oneness of God and the Threeness within God?

The Nicene-Constantinople Creed states the following: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ‘consubstantial’, yet three distinct ‘hypostases’. Consubstantial means to be of one substance. Hypostases is defined as an ontologically real and distinct person. So the council argued that God is one nature with three persons, or three persons with one nature (whichever way round works for you). You will notice this is primarily a negative definition: it states what cannot be left out of an account of who God is. This is in line with apophatic tradition, which claims at best we can say only what God is not, for as God is beyond human comprehension, we can only say God is not like the things we observe. So for example, if a person says there is more than one God, then they violate the fact that God is a being with one nature, and it cannot be shared across beings. Moreover, if one claims that God is really just one person who plays different roles, that person has made a mistake because any adequate account of God must keep distinct the reality of the three persons. This makes sense, as the council is responding to the Arian Controversy, and was seeking to define the boundaries of what it is appropriate to say about God. However, it does mean that it is not specified how God is three and one (as later theologians tried to do). Rather, it just secures the doctrine of God as being one in terms of nature, and three in terms of persons/centres of agency.

2)      Why should we think that God is Triune?

The doctrine of the Trinity is a response to the revelation of God and trying to understand what God has revealed about God’s self. As we saw at the beginning of this article, Yahweh is revealed as being unique and one (Deuteronomy 6:4), yet as also being three persons (Matthew 28:19). In the life of Jesus of Nazareth we see this most clearly. As an orthodox Jew, Jesus upheld the truth that there is only one God (Matthew 22:36-40).  However, at the same time we observe that there are three, simultaneously coexistening agents who are integral to the acquisition of human salvation: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Luke 3:21-22). Indeed, if we take the baptism of Jesus as a microcosm of the whole soteriological process, we can see the inner differentiation within the one God. In His baptism, Jesus identified with sinners and stood with them, taking upon himself their sin and bondage to evil as a precursor for His crucifixion, which would atone for their transgressions and free them from the power of darkness (Romans 6:1-4). And in rising out of the water, we see a foreshadowing of the resurrection, where new life, transformed life, free from death and suffering is drawn out. In this act of ultimate salvation, we see the Father’s vindication, blessing and exaltation (Luke 3:22), the Son’s obedience and sacrifice to the Father on behalf of humanity (v.21) and the Spirit descending upon Him in order to further His ministry and conquest of evil on behalf of the Father (v.22). Thus, we can see in this event the whole story of the Gospel, which revolves around the interplay of the Father, Son and Spirit. This requires their coexistence as the one God.

Indeed, this example of the Father, Son and Spirit’s simultaneous existence delivers an insight into why the Church understood them to be the one, divine God. Of first importance, we should remember that God is uniquely one – there is no other who is worthy of worship. Yet God is also categorically distinct from the world, as God is fundamentally different to the objects and beings we are familiar with. For example, when we say God is one, we do not mean God is like one finger, or one table. We primarily mean there is nothing else like Yahweh, no one else is Holy like Him. Moreover, God is the only one can save humanity and restore us to a right standing before Him (Psalm 62:1). For the Scripture states all have sinned, that no one is perfect and all have done wrong against God (Romans 3:23), which entails that only God can forgive that which is done against Him (Mark 2:7). Hence, only the one, true God can save humanity from its enslavement to sin and the punishment it deserves.

At the same time, we observe that the Father, Son and Spirit are all revealed as being integral to single operation of salvation, performing different functions in the process. All the actions of God find their origin in the Father, they proceed through the Son and are perfected by the Holy Spirit (Gregory of Nyssa, A letter to Abalius). For example, the Father ordains from before the creation who will be saved (1 Peter 1:2), the Son is the one who brings this to fruition through His life, death and resurrection (John 6:35) and the Spirit brings us into participation with the Trinity (Ephesians 3:19). Thus, the Father, Son and Spirit perform the one operation, salvation, whilst taking upon themselves different functions in accordance with their personage.

This leads to the startling conclusion that the three persons of Father, Son and Spirit are the one God. For if we ask what makes it possible that one can save humanity, the answer is that one only has sufficient powers to be the source of salvation if one has a divine nature (is God). Thus, the Father can only save if and only if He is God. Likewise, the Son can only save if and only if He is God. And the Holy Spirit can only save if and only if He is God. Thus, the Father, Son and Spirit must all be God. Yet as there is only one God, the Father, Son and Spirit must not be multiple deities, but the unique, categorically distinct one divine nature. As such, the Church has discerned that because one can only save if one is God, that there is one God and that the Father, Son and Spirit save, it follows the one God is triune. Thus, in virtue of the saving activity of God, we can know who God is. We can summarise this argument in a logically valid form (that is, if the premises are all true the conclusion cannot be false):

1)      There is only one God.

2)      God alone can save.

3)      The Father saves.

4)      The Son saves.

5)      The Holy Spirit saves.

6)      Therefore, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the one God.

This argument reveals why we should think of God as Triune. For if God saves as according to the Bible, then we can only make sense of what the Father, Son and Spirit do if we understand them as divine. This should be the pillar of our evangelism when witnessing to who God is, that the ‘economic’ activity of God reflects His ‘immanent’ nature (Barth, Church Dogmatics Vol.1). For whilst we may offer pithy analogies and more positive accounts of how the three can be one, ultimately this goes beyond the doctrine, and can often lead to theological difficulty. Rather, if we ask what is required for one to save, and then show how the one God is revealed as saving in the simultaneously existing Father, Jesus and the Spirit, we can see the inner logic of faith that God must be Triune. This is faithful to the Scripture, whilst also recognising the negative nature of the doctrine: Scripture does not provide an in depth study of how God can be three and one, nor does the Nicene Creed and neither should we, as such thought is mere speculation. Instead, we should affirm that any account of God which does not recognise God is one divine nature with three distinct persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, is inadequate as a response to God’s revelation. So affirm the essentials in accordance with Scripture, for the Trinity explains how God saves the way God chose to save.