Katechismus

Question 24 & 25

In the Holy Trinity there is a subordination of the Persons as to the mode of subsistence and operation. Hodge, Systematic. The person are not subordinate the one to the other in their essential being. It may be said, however, that in order of existence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third, and this order also reflects itself in the work of creation and redemption. Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine

Divisions of the creed: God the Father Creator, Christ the Redeemer, Holy Spirit Sanctifier

1. The Father is not the only Person involved in creation – He exercised His creative power through the Son (John 1:1-3); by Him, through Him, for Him (Colossians 1:16-17). Likewise, the Spirit was involved in creation – hovering over the face of the waters (Genesis 1:2), when He sends forth His Spirit things are created (Psalm 104:30).

2. The Son is not the only Person involved in redemption – the Son purchases redemption for those whom the Father has chosen and predestined (Ephesians 1:3-5), the very ones the Spirit has regenerated (John 3:3, 5; Titus 3:5)

3. The Holy Spirit is not the only Person involved in sanctification – He uses the means of the written Word given by the Father through the prophets (John 17:17), exemplified and taught by the Son and bringing that truth to our remembrance (John 14:26, 15:26) speaking only the truths that are given to Him by the Father and the Son (John 16:13-14)

Define yourself!! You talk of essence, person, hypostasis, trinity, substance, subsistence, words that I can't find in my Bible. What's the story?

“When it is affirmed, therefore, that there is no "division of nature (the complex of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine a person's characteristic actions and reactions), essence (something that exists, esp. a spiritual or immaterial entity), or being (the state or fact of existing)," all that is meant is simply that there is but one God; that such is the divine nature that it cannot be multiplied, or divided, or distributed, any more than God can be thus divided in his omnipresence with all things. The divine nature is so possessed, by each of the persons in the Trinity, that neither has his own separate divine nature, but each subsists (to have existence) in one divine nature, common to the three. Otherwise the three persons would be three Gods. So also, in that divine nature, its essential quality is not divided in its relation through the nature to the persons. Were this so, there would be three separate parts of the divine nature. But that this cannot be, is manifest from the identity in God of nature and essence. That it is not so, is declared by the Scriptures, when they teach that there is but one God. In God there is also but one divine being, because there is but one divine essence and nature. There is but one that can have actuality of existence. The being of person (any of the three hypostases or modes of being in the Trinity, namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.), not being identical with that of nature, a fact which is true of all natures, created or uncreated, the unity of the nature, and of the essence does not forbid plurality of persons. The threeness of the persons, therefore, does not destroy the unity of the nature or essence, and consequently, not that of the being of God. (hypostasis: one of the three real and distinct substances in the one undivided substance or essence of God; substance: something that exists by itself and in which accidents or attributes inhere)

The Scriptures teach everywhere the unity of God explicitly and emphatically. There can be no doubt that they reveal a God that is exclusively one. But their other statements, which we have been examining, should assure us that they also teach that there are three divine persons. It is this peculiar twofold teaching, which is expressed by the word "trinity." The revelation to us, is not that of tritheism or three Gods; nor of triplicity, which is threefoldness, and would involve composition, and be contrary to the simplicity of God; nor of mere manifestation of one person in three forms, which is opposed to the revealed individuality of the persons; but it is well expressed by the word trinity, which is declarative, not simply of threeness, but of three-oneness. That this word is not found in Scripture is no objection to it, when the doctrine, expressed by it, is so clearly set forth.”

James Petigru Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology (definitions added, Ed.)

“The proposition, God is incomprehensible, is simple and intelligible, and our faith embraces it. God is the subject of this proposition; and, if a full understanding of the subject were necessary to faith, a belief of this proposition would be impossible. Though we do not comprehend God, we comprehend the meaning of the proposition; and this is what we believe. So the doctrine of the Trinity, as an object of our faith, may be expressed in propositions, each one of which is intelligible, notwithstanding the incomprehensibility of the subject.

The view which has been presented, is important, to strengthen our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity. So long as we imagine that a full comprehension of the subject is necessary to the exercise of faith, we must embrace the truth feebly. But let us examine the propositions, in which the doctrine may be expressed, and we shall find each one of them perfectly intelligible. The Father is God;--the Son is God;--the Holy Ghost is God;--there is but one God. All these propositions, we may understand, and receive with unwavering faith; while we are well assured that our understandings fall infinitely short of comprehending the great subject, and that, in harmonizing the last proposition with the preceding three, there is a difficulty which finite intelligence cannot explain.”

J. L. Dagg, Manual of Theology

God is incomprehensible and at the same time knowable. Simply because we cannot fully comprehend and explain Trinitarian doctrine does not make it impossible.

“We must accept, however, that despite all attempts at a philosophical interpretation, the doctrine of the Trinity is entirely a matter of revelation, and to our understanding largely a mystery, but, notwithstanding, a mystery that helps to explain many other mysteries. It is a biblical doctrine for which the Bible as a whole must be studied, and though we recognise the doctrine in the Old Testament, we do so only when we read the text under the illumination of the New Testament revelation.

The two considerations requiring careful definition are the Unity of God and the Diversity in that Unity.

The Unity of God

The difficulty confronting the Church has ever been to preserve both the Unity and the Diversity within the Trinitarian Doctrine, the Unity within the Diversity. It is well known that Polytheism attributed a plurality of powers to deity, but separated them and worshipped each of them in isolation. Thus it was that there were altars put up to healing, fertility, prowess in battle, and so on. This emphasises the difficulty of conceiving of diversity in unity.

There is unity of nature or essence

The word used is substance: 'Three Persons in one substance' - substance here being non-material and incapable of partition or distribution. The divine nature is possessed alike and equally in all three Persons. Thus we do not have three individuals living independently of one another, even when they possess the same nature. With us, to take an example, we have a case of identical twins sharing the same nature, but they are two individuals. But with regard to God this is not a case of merely possessing the same nature, but the one nature, the one divine essence. Whatever we can predicate of God's nature exists equally in each Person.

There is unity of character

The nature contains all attributes of the character in such a way that they belong to the very essence of God's nature, and God would not be God without them. Since each Person shares in the fullness of God and therefore of His attributes, then each attribute is a true and full manifestation of God. Thus there can be no division, let alone conflict, between the revealed attributes [So much has been written about the 'attributes' of God, and so much confusion has ensued, that one is inclined to agree with John Calvin that the divine attributes should have been left unclassified. While it is true that since God's character is moral it must be distinguished by certain attributes which belong to moral character wherever it exists, it has to be borne in mind that God's nature is infinite, and that, therefore, His character does not permit of definition in terms of certain attributes. God is infinitely more than the sum of all His attributes. and His whole nature is present in each of the qualities that may justly be attributed to Him. Perhaps it would be better to understand the attributes of God as the special manifestation of God in each situation He is dealing with. In the presence of wrong He manifests Himself as just; in the presence of wickedness righteous. It must be remembered that God in the entire plenitude of His infinite nature is present in each manifestation He gives, so that we cannot say that His greater than His justice, or His righteousness is greater than His mercy. Where God is, He is all there. His mind, His heart, His will.] of God, nor can any attribute be weaker or stronger than another. There is a full expression of God in each.

There is unity of will.

The unity of God means that there is in God one will and everything in the universe is derived from the personal will of God. It animates the universe, throbs at the heart of every atom, and every form of life. Thus there can be no dualism in the universe, for there is but one mind, one purpose, and one self-expression This will of God is the final ground of existence and of everything that happens: He either brings it to pass, or permits it to come to pass.

The Diversity in the Unity of God

It is quite consistent with the unity of God's will that there should be diversity in the expression of that will.

There is Diversity of Persons

The word 'person', first used by Tertullian, is not altogether self-explanatory. In the case of mankind a person is an individual in his own right, distinguishable from every other individual. Person in our case is the individual substance of a rational nature, possessing self-existence as well as self-consciousness. But 'person' applied to the Trinity does not mean individual self-existence. The three Persons rather suggest a three-fold existence, a three-fold self-distinction within the divine Being, and these distinctions are personal, so that there is an 'I-Thou-He' relationship, constituting fellowship, a genuine communion, and authentic love. In our worship we are taught to address God in His personal distinctions as Father, Son and Spirit.

There is a Diversity of Properties

This means that the Persons are not only distinct, but that they differ from one another in regard to their particular properties and their eternal relations, the Father begetting the Son, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding from Father and Son.

It Means that there is Diversity of Operations.

It is said that the Father originates: He is the source of all there is.

The Son, coming forth from the Father, is the Word who communicates the divine thought. He is eternal rationality, 'the Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world' (John 1:9).

The Spirit is the quickener and life-bringer, the executor of the divine will who puts it into operation. He is the Holy Spirit who conveys the radiance of God's holiness to the moral universe.”

R. A. Finlayson, God In Three Persons

Sura 4:171ff; Sura 5:72ff Denial of Trinity, deity of Christ

Sura 6:101 For Christ to be Son, God must have had consort

Sura 4:47 The crime of shirk (by association) is unforgivable

Sura 9:5 Kill the idolaters

The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity by Benjamin B. Warfield

An Unpublished Essay on the Trinity by Jonathan Edwards

God In Three Persons by R. A. Finlayson

// posted by sundoulos @ 8:22 PM 0 comments

Consider how the focus narrows as we work from general terms down to the specifics.

1. Who is in need of deliverance? All men

2. Who will be delivered? Some men

3. Which some of all men will be delivered? Those with faith

4. What sort of faith delivers? True faith

5. What is true faith? Knowledge of and confidence in the truth of the Bible

6. What truth in the Bible is necessary to know and believe? Everything contained in the Gospel
   In other words, what are the non-negotiable essentials?

7. What is contained in the Gospel? The articles of the Creed

We are not Universalists, #'s 1-2.

We are not Existentialists, #'s 3-4.

We are not Deists, # 5.

We are Christians who believe a well-defined body of truth. Our certainty of deliverance is based on more than a feeling, it is based on an objective reality. It is on the basis of the Creed that we divide, cease to have fellowship with an individual or church.

1. The source of our faith is God. Ephesians 2:8-10

2. Our faith is personal and objective. We own it even though it is given by God, its object is Christ as revealed to us in Scripture. John 17:3, 17; Hebrews 11:1-3

3. It is the evidence of our salvation, not the means or basis of it.

What kinds of faith are there?

1. Historical faith – “to know and believe that every word of God is true which is divinely delivered and revealed, ...by any method of revelation by which the divine will is made known unto us, upon the authority and declaration of God himself. ...it is merely a knowledge of those things which God is said to have done, or now does, or will hereafter do.” Ursinus, Commentary
   
   “mere assent to a known truth. If you would ask such an historical believer whether he believes what the Bible says, he would surely answer affirmatively, for he holds God's Word to be the truth.” G. H. Kersten
   
   Acts 26:27 “King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you do believe”

2. Temporary faith – “he receives the truth with some outward joy, the word has taste for him. In Matth. 13 the Lord compares the temporary believer to the seed sown in stony ground. But he lacks the inward sincere delight in the truth of God that is the portion of all God's children. He knows nothing of the opening of the Scriptures for the poor, lost sinner, because the seed of the Word had no root in him to show him his misery and he had no true sorrow for sin, as an affront against the holy Majesty of God. Temporary faith does not yield fruit.” G. H. Kersten

3. Faith of miracles – “strong conviction that a miracle shall be wrought on us or by us. It can be exercised by God's people, as, for example, the apostles, who wrought miracles, or the leper who returned to Christ. But it is very different from saving faith. Consider those ten lepers. They all had faith; they showed it, else they would not at the Lord's command have departed to show themselves to the priest. What could they, lepers, do by the priest? They had to go to the priest only after they had been cleansed. Still they went without contradiction upon the command of Christ; for they all believed; they all had that strong feeling that He would work a miracle of healing in them. That was all the nine had. The Lord Jesus was to them a miracle-doctor. G. H. Kersten

4. Justifying faith – it is what is defined in the catechism, but we must be careful to distinguish between the grace of faith and the act or exercise of faith. The grace is what God gives to us, the act or exercise is what flows out of that grace and shows varying degrees of defectiveness. Remember the father of the demon-possessed boy whom Jesus healed – Mark 9:24 Immediately the father of the boy cried out, "I do believe! Help my unbelief."

Aristotelian logic:

• the material cause is the stuff from which the thing is made;

• the formal cause is the pattern or structure it has;

• the efficient cause is the agent that imposed this form on that matter; and

• the final cause is the purpose for the thing.

The material cause of faith in general is the Word of God (Romans 10:17) The formal cause is the certain knowledge of all God has revealed and confidence wrought in the heart. The efficient cause is God (Ephesians 2:8-9) The final cause is the glory of God and our salvation.

How much must one know/believe in order to be saved? Ursinus says “the man who truly believes experiences these things and can explain them to others:

1. He believes that everything which the Scriptures contain is true and from God.

2. He feels himself constrained firmly to believe and embrace these things; for if we confess that they are true and from God, it is proper that we should assent to them.

3. He sees, embraces, and applies particularly to himself, the promise of grace, or the free remission of sins, righteousness and eternal life, by and for the sake of Christ.

4. He trusts and rejoices in the present grace of God, and ...concludes in reference to future good [based on God's character and my present state].

5. Joy arises in the heart in view of such benefits.

6. He has a will and earnest desire to obey all the commands of God and is willing to endure patiently whatever God may send upon him.

This justifying faith is peculiar to the elect and them alone.

The creed which bears this name is undoubtedly a gradual growth. We have it in two forms.

History of the Apostle's Creed, etc.

The earlier form as found in old manuscripts, is much shorter and may possibly go back to the third or even the second century. It was probably imported from the East, or grew in Rome, and is substantially identical with the Greek creed of Marcellus of Ancyra (about 340), inserted in his letter to Pope Julius I. to prove his orthodoxy, and with that contained in the Psalter of King Aethelstan. Greek was the ruling language of the Roman Church and literature down to the third century.

The longer form of the Roman symbol, or the present received text, does not appear before the sixth or seventh century. It has several important clauses which were wanting in the former, as “he descended into hades,” the predicate “catholic” after ecclesiam, “the communion of saints,” and “the life everlasting.” These additions were gathered from the provincial versions (Gallican and North African) and incorporated into the older form.

The Apostles’ Creed then, in its present shape, is post-apostolic; but, in its contents and spirit, truly apostolic. It embodies the faith of the ante-Nicene church, and is the product of a secondary inspiration, like the Gloria in Excelsis and the Te deum, which embody the devotions of the same age, and which likewise cannot be traced to an individual author or authors. It follows the historical order of revelation of the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, beginning with the creation and ending with the resurrection and life eternal. It clusters around Christ as the central article of our faith. It sets forth living facts, not abstract dogmas and speaks in the language of the people, not of the theological school. It confines itself to the fundamental truths, is simple, brief, and yet comprehensive, and admirably adapted for catechetical and liturgical use. It still forms a living bond of union between the different ages and branches of orthodox Christendom, however widely they differ from each other, and can never be superseded by longer and fuller creeds, however necessary these are in their place. It has the authority of antiquity and the dew of perennial youth, beyond any other document of post-apostolic times. It is the only strictly ecumenical Creed of the West, as the Nicene Creed is the only ecumenical Creed of the East. It is the Creed of creeds, as the Lord’s Prayer is the Prayer of prayers.

Schaff's History of the Christian Church

At the same time, it must be admitted that the very simplicity and brevity of this Creed, which so admirably adapt it for all classes of Christians and for public worship, make it insufficient as a regulator of public doctrine for a more advanced stage of theological knowledge. As it is confined to the fundamental articles, and expresses them in plain Scripture terms, it admits of an indefinite expansion by the scientific mind of the Church. Thus the Nicene Creed gives clearer and stronger expression to the doctrine of Christ's divinity against the Arians, the Athanasian Creed to the whole doctrine of the Trinity and of Christ's person against the various heresies of the post-Nicene age. The Reformation Creeds are more explicit on the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures and the doctrines of sin and grace, which are either passed by or merely implied in the Apostles' Creed

Among these, again, the Roman formula gradually gained general acceptance in the West for its intrinsic excellence, and on account of the commanding position of the Church of Rome. We know the Latin text from Rufinus (390), and the Greek from Marcellus of Ancyra (336–341). The Greek text is usually regarded as a translation, but is probably older than the Latin, and may date from the second century, when the Greek language prevailed in the Roman congregation.

This Roman creed was gradually enlarged by several clauses from older or contemporaneous forms, viz., the article 'descended into Hades' (taken from the Creed of Aquileja), the predicate 'catholic' or 'general,' in the article on the Church (borrowed from Oriental creeds), 'the communion of saints' (from Gallican sources), and the concluding 'life everlasting' (probably from the symbols of the churches of Ravenna and Antioch). These additional clauses were no doubt part of the general faith, since they are taught in the Scriptures, but they were first expressed in local creeds, and it was some time before they found a place in the authorized formula. If we regard, then, the present text of the Apostles' Creed as a complete whole, we can hardly trace it beyond the sixth, certainly not beyond the close of the fifth century, and its triumph over all the other forms in the Latin Church was not completed till the eighth century, or about the time when the bishops of Rome strenuously endeavored to conform the liturgies of the Western churches to the Roman order. But if we look at the several articles of the Creed separately, they are all of Nicene or ante-Nicene origin, while its kernel goes back to the apostolic age.

Schaff's Creeds of Christendom

• 1. First Council of Nicaea, (325); repudiated Arianism (God the Father and the Son were not co-eternal, seeing the pre-incarnate Jesus as a divine being but nonetheless created by (and consequently inferior to) the Father at some point, before which the Son did not exist), adopted the Nicene Creed. This and all subsequent councils are not recognized by nontrinitarian churches: Arians, Unitarians, and Jehovah's Witnesses et al.

• 2. First Council of Constantinople, (381); revised the Nicene Creed into present form used in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches and prohibited any further alteration of the Creed without the assent of an Ecumenical Council.

• 3. Council of Ephesus, (431); repudiated Nestorianism (the Christian doctrine that Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, rather than as a unified person), proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Mother of God (Greek, Η Θεοτόκος;). This and all following councils are not recognized by Assyrian Church.

• 4. Council of Chalcedon, (451); repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism (the Christological position that Christ has only one nature, as opposed to the Chalcedonian position which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human), described and delineated the two natures of Christ, human and divine; adopted the Chalcedonian Creed. This and all following councils are not recognized by Oriental Orthodox Communion.

• 5. Second Council of Constantinople, (553); reaffirmed decisions and doctrines explicated by previous Councils, condemned new Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite writings.

• 6. Third Council of Constantinople, (680–681); repudiated Monothelitism (the Christological doctrine that Jesus had one will but two natures, divine and human), affirmed that Christ had both human and Divine wills.

// posted by sundoulos @ 3:38 PM 0 comments

Question 3 – How do you know your misery? Out of the Law of God.

Question 19 – How do you know your deliverance? Out of the Gospel of God.

gospel (Gk., lit., Good News) 1. Good News of the salvation of mankind through the redemptive work of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the cross, or glad tidings of peace and goodwill, announced by the angels to the shepherds at Jerusalem. 2. The first four books of the New Testament written by the four evangelists: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 3. Part of a liturgical service when portions of the four Gospels are read. 4. Gospel music. (Nelson's New Christian Dictionary)

gospel the doctrine which the Son of God, our Mediator, revealed from heaven in Paradise, immediately after the fall, and which he brought from the bosom of the Eternal Father; which promises, and announces, in view of the free grace and mercy of God, to all those who repent and believe, deliverance from sin, death, condemnation, and the wrath of God. ...the doctrine which God revealed first in Paradise, and afterwards published by the Patriarchs and Prophets, which he was pleased to represent by the shadows of sacrifices and the other ceremonies of the law, and which he has accomplished by his only begotten Son. (Ursinus' Commentary)

Luke 24:25-27 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. (ESV)

This our Catechism tells us: Christ is to be known by the light of the Spirit, through the Gospel only. The more our soul is exercised in the Word of God, the more brightly that heavenly light shines upon us, the clearer our knowledge shall be of Christ, the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace; while leaning upon felt impressions darkens the knowledge and we are tortured with many doubts, with unbelief and despair, and Satan's attacks, which causes God's people to deny God's grace whenever they lose the actual sense of God's nearness, all that God has wrought in their soul, and thus they grieve the Spirit and minimize God's love. (G.H. Kersten, Late Minister of the Netherlands Reformed Congregation, Rotterdam, Holland. 1968 )

Genesis 3:15 promise of a Person who would defeat Satan (Adam)

Genesis 22:18 promise of a Seed (not seeds, Galatians 3:16) who would bless the world (Abraham)

Genesis 49:10 promise of a royal descendant of Judah who would rule the world (Jacob)

Exodus 12:21ff promise of deliverance through sacrifice – the Passover Lamb

Leviticus 1-7 system of sacrifice showing the high cost of sin, foreshadowing Christ

Numbers 21:8-9 God's instrument of healing foreshadows Christ; cf.. John 3:14-16)

Deuteronomy18:15 promise of a Prophet whom His people would hear

Joshua 5:13-15 the Commander-in-Chief who wins the battle

Ruth 3:9ff Boaz as the kinsman-redeemer

2 Samuel 7:12-16 promise of a son of David who would have an eternal throne

Job 16:19, 19:25 anticipated a divine-human Redeemer

Psalm 2 Christ, the Son of David and the Son of God

Joel 2:27-29 promise of God in their midst and the Holy Spirit

Hosea 1:10 restatement of the promise to Abraham

Isaiah 7:14, 9:6, etc. son of a virgin, God with us, divine-human King, Servant

Micah 5:2 the divine, eternal Ruler out of Bethlehem

Zephaniah 3:15-17 the King in their midst who would save

Jeremiah 23:5-6 the Messiah who is the righteousness of His people

Ezekiel 34:23-24 promise of David's descendant, the Shepherd-Ruler

Daniel 9:26 promise of the Messiah who would be cut off but not for Himself

Zechariah 6:13 promise of the King-Priest

Malachi 3:1 promise of the Messenger-Mediator who would come

// posted by sundoulos @ 3:34 PM 0 comments

Rom 3:26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Question 12

This is the cry of one who has been awakened to his state, is aware of the misery of his present condition, and cries out for deliverance from the punishment he justly deserves. Romans 7:24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (HCSB)

1. Deliverance is relative – from something to something. Deliverance is from sin and death to a full restoration of righteousness, holiness and life. It is also from the punishment and misery due a sinner to the blessings bestowed on the righteous.

2. Deliverance is possible because of God's attributes – His goodness would not allow the entire race to perish; His knowledge suffices to devise a plan to bring it about; His power is adequate to the task. Human reason and natural revelation are insufficient to provide knowledge of the possibility of deliverance; the promises of God as contained in the Gospel are necessary for our enlightenment.

3. Deliverance as promised by God is complete, begun in this life and consummated in the next. Philippians 1:6 I am sure of this, that He who started a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. (ESV) Partial deliverance from an infinite debt is no deliverance at all.

4. Deliverance is accomplished by providing full satisfaction for sin (not by providing a sacrifice that God graciously accepts as a substitute for full payment, per Arminius) and by renewing our nature enabling us to forsake sin.

Question 13

Satisfaction for God's justice can only be made in two ways – by obedience or by punishment.

Regarding obedience:

1. God's standard for obedience is perfection.

2. Since we cannot obey perfectly, we cannot even “keep up” with our present obligation.

3. Since we cannot keep up with our obligation, we certainly cannot make up for previous obligations.

4. On the basis of obedience our debt is increasing daily.

5. We are daily getting further away from the goal of satisfaction.

Regarding punishment:

1. Our sin is against an infinite God.

2. Sin against an infinite Being requires an infinite punishment.

3. The only way our punishment can be infinite is to be eternal.

4. If our punishment is eternal we cannot be delivered from it.

5. On the basis of punishment, either we satisfy God or are delivered from it, not both.

Bottom line – if God is to be satisfied and we are to be delivered from sin and death, it must be accomplished by someone else.

Question 14

“The exclusive particle mere is added in this question, that the negative answer may be true; for it was necessary that a creature should make satisfaction for the creature's sin, but not such an one as was merely or only a creature, because such an one could not make the satisfaction which was required.”

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Hebrews 10:1-4 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

1. No creature except man can satisfy for man.

2. No creature can withstand a finite punishment equivalent to what is necessary for an infinite insult. The creature would be consumed before satisfaction could be made – cf animal sacrifice. Thus there can be no just proportion between sin and its punishment in another creature.

3. No creature has equal dignity to that of man. Therefore the punishment of a creature is not a price of sufficient dignity and value for the redemption of man.

4. No mere creature has the power or ability to change man's nature. A renewed and sanctified nature is a necessary condition for our deliverance from sin.

Question 15

Here's our dilemma:

1. We cannot save ourselves.

2. We need another to save us.

3. A mere creature is incapable of saving us.

4. Mere God cannot satisfy God because God didn't sin. Neither can God die in the way He meant as part of the curse.

5. We must then look for one who is man, because it was man who sinned, and at the same time is God, because only God has the necessary qualifications to be able to make proper satisfaction.

What confidence do we have that we will find such a deliverer?

1. God's immense goodness and mercy that would not allow the entire race to perish.

2. God's infinite wisdom that makes Him able to devise a means of showing mercy and satisfying justice.

3. God's power, sufficient to create man in His own image, also sufficient to restore him from the ruins of the fall.

4. God's promises that He will do just that and provide a Deliverer for His people.
   

// posted by sundoulos @ 3:33 PM 0 comments

Question 9

He who requires what is impossible is unjust, unless he first gave the ability to perform what he requires.

1. Man as created had the ability for himself and his posterity to perform God's requirements.

2. That ability was lost for him and his posterity in the fall.

3. The fault was man's, not God's.

4. God has not lost His right to require obedience to His law from all His creation..

5. If imputation of the First Adam's sin isn't fair, neither is imputation of the Second Adam's righteousness.

He who requires what is impossible commands in vain, unless he first gave the ability to perform what he requires if obedience is His only aim. But there are other ends in view:

-For the righteous

1. “By the law is the knowledge of sin”; recognize our weakness and inability.

2. Know what we were pre-fall

3. Know what we need to ask of God – a renewed nature

4. Understand what Christ has done in making satisfaction for us.

5. Know how to act toward God

-For the unrighteous

1. That they may be justly condemned (Rom. 3:19)

2. To preserve the fabric of society

Give me the grace to do as you command, and command me to do what you will.
(Augustine, Confessions, BOOK 10, CHAPTER 29, Paragraph 40)

Question 10

Important point:
Justice demands that sin be punished only once.

Two consequences:
Temporal is but the beginning of eternal punishment for the reprobate, several parts of one and the same punishment. Sin is punished either in the guilty or someone else, not both. If our sin was punished in Christ, God would be unjust to punish sin again in us; therefore afflictions we suffer in this life have another purpose than punishment or satisfaction for sin.

Question 11

Every crime deserves punishment in proportion to the majesty of him against whom it is committed. God is merciful but He is at the same time just, perfectly so, and one attribute must not be compromised by another. God can show mercy in two ways – deferring punishment on the reprobate; transferring punishment to a substitute for the elect.

So what are the purposes of temporal affliction?

1. To correct and improve our character.

2. To teach us to hate sin, the devil, and the world.

3. To develop faith, hope, patience, prayer and obedience in us

4. To show us God's displeasure with our sinful behavior

5. To bring glory to God by His delivering us out of affliction

6. That we may identify with our Savior – the fellowship of His suffering
   
   
   

What will comfort and encourage us in affliction?

1. The assurance of forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God.

2. He is a good Father and worthy of our trust and obedience.

3. True obedience is a true virtue and great blessing from God, especially under great affliction.

4. A good conscience in knowing God is pleased with us.

5. The ends of affliction are God's glory, our good, and the conversion of others.

6. A little temporal affliction is far better than eternal punishment.

7. The hope of reward both now and later

8. The example of Christ and other believers

9. The presence and help of God – “I will not leave you comfortless”

10. Complete and final deliverance

// posted by sundoulos @ 3:32 PM 0 comments

This question is proposed:

1. That it may be manifest that God created man without sin, and is therefore not the author of sin, or of our corruption and misery.

   1. God cannot be blamed for sin – He made us perfect.

   2. Our sinfulness is the result of willful disobedience.

2. That we may see from what a height of dignity, to what a depth of misery we have fallen by sin, that we may thus acknowledge the mercy of God, who has deigned to extricate and deliver us from this wretchedness.

   1. Our misery is not so great that deliverance is impossible.

3. That we may acknowledge the greatness of the benefits which we have received, and our unworthiness of being made the recipients of such favors.

4. That we may the more earnestly desire, and seek in Christ, the recovery of that dignity and happiness which we have lost.

5. That we may be thankful to God for this restoration.
   
   

The Day Boy and the Night Girl, George MacDonald (1882)

``Come, come, dear!'' said Nycteris, ``you must not go on this way. You must be a brave girl, and --''

``A girl!'' shouted Photogen, and started to his feet in wrath. ``If you were a man, I should kill you.''

``A man?'' repeated Nycteris. ``What is that? How could I be that? We are both girls -- are we not?''

``No, I am not a girl,'' he answered; ``-- although,'' he added, changing his tone, and casting himself on the ground at her feet, ``I have given you too good reason to call me one.''

``Oh, I see!'' returned Nycteris. ``No, of course! -- you can't be a girl: girls are not afraid -- without reason. I understand now: it is because you are not a girl that you are so frightened.''

Photogen twisted and writhed upon the grass.

``No, it is not,'' he said sulkily; ``it is this horrible darkness that creeps into me, goes all through me, into the very marrow of my bones -- that is what makes me behave like a girl. If only the sun would rise!''

``The sun! what is it?'' cried Nycteris, now in her turn conceiving a vague fear.

Then Photogen broke into a rhapsody, in which he vainly sought to forget his.

``It is the soul, the life, the heart, the glory of the universe,'' he said. ``The worlds dance like motes in his beams. The heart of man is strong and brave in his light, and when it departs his courage goes from him -- goes with the sun, and he becomes such as you see me now.''

``Then that is not the sun?'' said Nycteris, thoughtfully, pointing up to the moon.

``That!'' cried Photogen, with utter scorn. ``I know nothing about that, except that it is ugly and horrible. At best it can be only the ghost of a dead sun. Yes, that is it! That is what makes it look so frightful.''

Why did God permit sin?

1. to show the weakness of the creature when left to himself and not preserved in original righteousness by his Creator.

2. That by this occasion God might display His goodness, mercy, and grace, in saving, through Christ, all them that believe; and manifest His justice and power in punishing the wicked and reprobate for their sins.

What are the effects of sin?

1. Original sin, or the depravity of the entire nature of man, or the destruction of the image of God in man is the effect of the fall.

2. All actual sins are the effects of original sin.

3. All subsequent actual sins are the effects of preceding ones and an increase of them.

4. An evil conscience and a fear of the judgment of God invariably follow the commission of sin.

5. All the various calamities of this life together with temporal death itself are the effects of sin.

6. Eternal death is the last and most extreme consequence of sin.

It is necessary to know what ability man possessed before the fall, and what he has since, that, having a correct knowledge of the effects of the first sin, we may be the more excited to humility, and to an earnest desire for divine grace and guidance; and also true gratitude to God. For this doctrine of the liberty of the will, brings us to a consideration, not of the ability and excellence of man, but of his weakness and misery.

What kind of liberty of will does man have?

1. Before the fall, a mind enlightened with perfect knowledge of God, yielding entire obedience to God by its own voluntary act and inclination; and yet not so confirmed in this knowledge and obedience, but that it might fall by its own free exercise – free to choose good and evil

2. Born of corrupt parents and unregenerated, the will acts freely but is disposed and inclined only to that which is evil and can do nothing but sin since the fall was followed by a privation of the knowledge of God and of all inclinations to obedience.

3. Man as regenerated but not yet perfected and glorified wills to do both good and evil in part, because the mind and will are not fully and perfectly renewed in this life. There is a proneness to the good because the mind and will are renewed but a proneness to the evil because that renewal is incomplete.

4. Man in a state of glorification will be free to choose only the good and not the evil because he is so fully established in righteousness and conformity to God under the constant governance of the Holy Spirit that it will be impossible to will anything evil.

A CATECHISM OF CREATION

An Episcopal Understanding

First Edition, Revised

June, 2005

Are the creation stories in Genesis, chapters 1 and 2, meant to convey how God originated the universe?

These majestic stories should not be understood as historical and scientific accounts of origins but as proclamations of basic theological truths about creation. “Creation” in Holy Scripture refers to and describes the relationship between God and all God’s wonderful works.

What evidence is there that human beings are also evolved creatures?

Fossil discoveries show that human beings and monkeys, chimpanzees, and other primates can trace their lineage to a common ancestor living seven millions years ago. We humans share almost identical DNA and key protein molecules with chimpanzees. We also are the most recent descendants of a line of hominid creatures now extinct. The earliest fossils of our human-like ancestors are about 6.7 million years old. The first modern humans appeared 100,000 and 200,000 years ago.

Does this picture of human evolution conflict with the biblical statement that we humans are made in the image and likeness of God?

In Genesis, “image of God” is a theological notion. It refers to our ability to enter into an intimate relationship and communion with God, other human beings and the whole of creation. Theologians have interpreted it to refer also to those divine gifts of unconditional love and compassion, our intellectual and moral reasoning and imagination, our freedom, or our creativity. To think that these gifts may have been bestowed through the evolutionary process does not conflict with biblical and theological notions that God acts in creation.

If evolution is said to have taken billions of years, how is this consistent with the biblical six days of creation?

Early Church theologians like Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) and Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) said that the six days should not be understood as scientific chronology. Rather, they provide a literary framework that the inspired writer used to organize and present the various elements of the creation. They express a topical not a temporal order. Most biblical scholars now recognize that the six days also perform an important symbolic function: they convey that the commandment for a Sabbath day of rest was established at the very beginning of creation.

// posted by sundoulos @ 3:25 PM 0 comments