Mstcj 19
description
Transcript of Mstcj 19
-
Piety by Virtue
Copyright 2014 Melbourne School of Theology
ABN 58 004 265 016 CRICOS Provider Code: 02650E
Melbourne School of Theology is authorised to deliver courses for the Australian College of Theology.
9 7 7 1 8 3 9 1 9 7 0 0 1
I SSN 1 8 3 9 - 1 9 7 4
A: 5 Burwood Highway, Wantirna VIC 3152, PO Box 6257 Vermont South VIC 3133 Australia
T: 03 9881 7850 F: 03 9800 0121 E: [email protected] W: chinese.mst.edu.au Theology and Spiritual Formation
2014 11
SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19
-
Piety by Virtue
Contents
A Word from the Editor Mei Chung
i
Piety by Virtue Mei Chung
1
The Piety of Christ King She
13
JONATHAN EDWARDS EASTERN
TRINITARIANISM?
Peter Tie
31
Godly Living from Wesleys Theological Perspective
Yuk Liong
60
Felix Chung 69
Caleb Nip
86
-
Meiju Lee 102
141-157To Eat or Not to Eat: Christlike Conviction from Romans
14:1-15:7
Peter Tie
113
Ye Liong 128
19 SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19
Theology and Spiritual Formation
Piety by Virtue Chief Editor : Mei Chung
/ Cover Design & Layout : Will Wu
Publisher : MST Press
ISSN 1839-19742014 11
Copyright 2014 Melbourne School of Theology
ABN 58 004 265 016 CRICOS Provider Code: 02650E
Melbourne School of Theology is authorised to deliver courses for the Australian College of Theology.
-
i
globalisation
privatisationspirituality
-
ii
mutual love
-
iii
good works
Alan Andersen
-
iv
-
1
Dr Mei Chung
312 212
47
11
416-18
-
2
1
2
312 2
12 47
[godly] 312
[godliness] 35
3 4
5 15
4
6 47-8 216353
12
1 2001
p.60 2 2008p.68-69 19811998 []p.107.
3 p.174 15
4 2005 p.182. 5 p.166. 6 1991 2013p.17-18 105 p.175
-
3
412
66-117
8 9
10
47
11
12 13
7 p.243-244 8 p.175 9 p.76 10 p.39 11 19961997[]p.214 12 p.167 13 43
-
4
14
1516
17
46
35
18 312
316
19
2001p.169
14 p.39 15 p.42 16 p.174 17 p.211 18 p.182 19 John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion ebook ed. Seedbox, 2013, p.11.
-
5
20
21
22
23
24
121-2
20 John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion ebook ed.Seedbox, 2013, p.11. 21 p.26 22 p.26 23
http://wellsofgrace.com/messages/edwards/qinggang-index.htm 12/10/2014
24 1994p.88
-
6
118-11
11
19
25 22
12 411-12
26 27
416-18
2210-13
28
25 12-50p.108 26 2009
p.180 27 p.24 28 2008p.70
-
7
29
18
30
31
32
33
34
134-5
35
36
29 p.74 30 p.106-7 31 2008 []p.87 p.74
32 p.87 33 p.89 34 12-50 2007p.44 35 2003 p.40 36 p.75
-
8
11
37
38
39
22240
37 p.74 38 p.90
39 p.175177 40 p.114116
-
9
41
11
14
1242
43
44
45 46
41 p.250 42 2008p.1086
43 p.1090 44 p.1091 45 p.293 46 p.175
-
10
47
48
49
11
29
313-14
50
51
220
47 p.69 48 p.166-7 49 p.116 50 2009p.149
51 2009180
-
11
52
53
48
52 p.48 53 2099 21032004 11 4 12 12 Calvin: Christian Piety Christian Weekly Nov 4 to Dec 12 04http://bbs.creaders.net/rainbow/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=256673&language=big51/10/2014
-
12
54
55
312
23
54 p.436-8 55 p.440
-
13
316
Auctor1
572
Auctor
3
1 Auctor
2 CNV2010 316
Auctor 7 15 312 223164786356611
35 11 1367311 2 571228 LXX 171311
112326 2224 2814
3 7 F. Blass and A. Debrunner,
-
14
4
5
out of death6
7
16211723
A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 210. 4 J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews (Dallas, TX: Summer
Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 169-70. 5
(Heb 5:7). 6 J. Dwight Pentecost, A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to
the Real Issues of Life (Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992), 97. 7 William L. Lane, Hebrews 18, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A.
Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 47A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 120.
-
15
20192632
Davidson 7
[]8
Bruce
9
Auctor
10 2
14
915
Auctor 314 11
8 A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Handbooks for Bible Classes and
Private Students, ed. Alexander Whyte, and James Moffatt (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1882; reprint, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1959), 112 9 Greenlee, Hebrews, 170; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New
International Commentary on the New Testament , ed. Gordon D. Fee, rev. ed.
(Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 128-29. 10 NET
experience 64 91 852 11 Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek
-
16
2426
12
Bruce
Auctor
Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary , ed. I. Howard Marshall
and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1993), 288. 12 King L. She, The Use of Exodus in Hebrews, Studies in Biblical Literature,
ed. Hemchand Gossai, vol. 142 (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 5.
-
17
Auctor13
14
Auctor
Auctor
13 She, Hebrews, 171. 14 She, Hebrews, 69-86.
201311
-
18
Auctor
Auctor
= =
= =
=
=
=
915
Auctor
-
19
[] 1228
Auctor 7
Auctor
214
()
()
()
-
20
3
Auctor
-
21
instantaneous present
Auctor
12 27
()
()
-
22
15
43
19
19
16
17
15 201245-58
16 2009277 17 200911-18
-
23
Auctor
()
= =
=
1228 57
-
24
Kitchens
forfeiture
18
1920
[]
[][]
21
22
23
18 James A. Kitchens, The Death of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Th.D.
diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1964), 119. 19 120 20 120 21 Pentecost, Hebrews, 99. 22 121 23 122
-
25
Joslin 14
24
14
25
7
14
1018
24 Barry Clyde Joslin, The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:110:18
(Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005), 282-83. 25 Kitchens, The Death of Jesus, 98.
-
26
-
27
434519
858
11-2
11
823 12
26
27
1930
30
26 supernaturenature. 27 high/ontological Christology. She,
Hebrews, 159; L. D. Hurst, The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2, in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George
Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst, and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 163.
-
28
5
Auctor
914
14
7
-
29
28
1436
1539
2746
7
2639 1436 2242
28 low/functional Christology.
-
30
1436
57
1018
-
31
31
JONATHAN EDWARDS EASTERN
TRINITARIANISM?
Peter Tie
Introduction
Jonathan Edwards Trinitarianism faces many accusations.
Some charge Edwards with Arianism, Sabellianism, and
Pelagianism.1 Some accuse Edwards of Unitarianism and Tritheism.2
On the other hand, some see sound orthodoxy in Edwards Trinity.
Robert Jenson, a Lutheran Systematic Theologian, claims Edwards
Trinity to be orthodox. It, however, is not orthodox in the Western,
but Eastern sense of the word. Like other contemporary
theologians on the Trinity, Jenson unquestionably uses the modern
threeness-oneness paradigm initiated by the nineteenth-century
French theologian Theodore de Rgnon to categorize and interpret
the theological history of Trinitarinism.3 De Rgnon divided the
history of Trinitarianism into the patristic period represented by
the Cappadocians and the scholastic period initiated by Augustine
1 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Sang Hyun Lee, vol. 21,
Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 111. 2 John H. Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards: A Mini Theology (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo
Gloria, 1996), 124; chapter 3, footnote 1. 3 See Theodore De Rgnon, tudes de thologie positive sur la Sainte trinit, 4 vol.
(Paris: Victor Retaux, 1898).
-
32
32
of Hippo; the former supposedly emphasized the divine persons, and
the latter emphasized the divine nature.4
Studebaker rightly points out that Robert Jenson is apparently
the first theologian to apply (in published form) the Augustinian-
Cappadocian paradigm to Edwardss Trinitarian theology.5
Studebaker summarizes Jensons perspective: [Jenson] criticizes
Western and Augustinian trinitarianism for introducing an artificial
distinction between the immanent and the economic trinity. He
argues that the Eastern tradition and the Cappadocians rightly
understood these as undifferentiated.6
Jenson is convinced that Edwards Trinity belongs to the
Eastern-Cappadocian theology, rather than to the Western-
Augustinian tradition. This paper, therefore, examines Jensons claim
of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism. The first part of this paper
briefly explains Jensons perspective on Edwards Trinity. It is to
display Jensons Eastern interpretation of Edwards Trinitariansim.
Then, the second part analyzes Edwards Discourse on the Trinity7
vis--vis Augustines The Trinity.8 A comparison between Edwards
4 Steve Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism,"
Scottish Journal of Theology 56 (2003): 274. 5 Ibid., 269; footnote one. 6 Ibid. 7 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," in Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 21, 109-
44. 8 Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1991).
-
33
33
and Augustines teachings on the Trinity serves to assess whether
Edwards truly departed from the Western-Augustinian tradition, as
claimed by Jenson.9
Jensons Claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism
Jenson rightly observes that, for Edwards, the vision of God as
the Trinity is the supreme Harmony of all.10 Furthermore, Jenson
perceives that the God of Edwards was the triune God of
christological faith.11 Edwards views of God are specifically
christological-trinitarian apprehensions of God.12 In Edwards view
of predestination, Jenson notes, The predestining God is the
Trinity; . . . and what he predestinates is Christ.13 According to
Jenson, Edwards idea of Christ as the head of election and the
pattern of all other elections, a concept which was later developed
9 Readers are to be reminded of two issues: First, either a comparison between
Edwards and Cappadocians Trinitarianism or between Edwards and Augustines Trinitarianism is feasible to assess the validity of Jensons claim. For the sake of page restriction, this writer attempts to achieve the latter. Second,
whether the Western-Eastern (or oneness-threeness) categorization is appropriate
for understanding the theological history of Trinitarianism lies outside the scope
of this paper. See Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian
Trinitarianism," 274-75, for a discussion on this paradigm. 10 Robert Jenson, Americas Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards
(New York: Oxford University, 1988), 91. See Amy Plantinga Pauw, The
Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), for a fuller explanation on Edwards Trinity as the supreme Harmony of all.
11 Jenson, Americas Theologian, 18-19. Italics original. 12 Ibid., 19. 13 Ibid., 106.
-
34
34
by Karl Barth, was an intimation that Edwards was surrendering
traditional Calvinism, while moving closer to Luthers thought.14 As
Jenson observes, Edwards stated, There was, [as] it were, an eternal
society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of person. It seems to
be Gods design to admit the church into the divine family as his
sons wife.15 For Edwards, the election of the saints was by means
of union between believers and Christ through the indwelling of the
Spirit.16 Jenson sees Edwards moving away from the Calvinist
tradition to embrace the Eastern view of Christology: His
[Edwards] technical christological achievement . . . is that he
achieved an Alexandrian mutual interpretation of God and Jesus.17
Jenson is further convinced that Edwards departed from the
Western concept of the Trinity and adhered to Eastern Trinitarianism
for the following reason. Western theology, especially since
Augustine, restricts and mitigates the early interpretation
formulated at the Council of Nicea (325), interpreted by the
Cappadocian fathers, and affirmed at the Council of Constantinople
(381), that is, the historical, economic understanding of the
divine action by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Western
theology, however, undoes the original point of trinitarianism by
14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 43. 16 Ibid., 119-20. 17 Ibid., 119.
-
35
35
constructing a metaphysical, ontological view of God, the
immanent Trinity.18 In Western theology, Jenson comments, The
triunity of God himself becomes sheerly the necessarily postulated
presupposition in God of the triune character of Gods work, and is
not itself to be further conceived.19 Consequently, the Trinity of the
Western tradition became a mystery:
Our inability to think about God in a way appropriate to the
gospel is then baptized by calling Gods unthought triunity a
mystery; the pious are to recite God is one and three but never ask
what this says. The triunity of God himself is thereby deprived of
function in actual religious life; and it is unsurprising that Trinitarian
patterns of piety and interpretation gradually lost importance in
medieval and most Reformation-era theology, finally to be explicitly
renounced by the Enlightenment. Remarkably, there is in Edwards
thought no trace of any of this.20
For Edwards, notes Jenson, the mystery of the Trinity has
been revealed in Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Trinity ad intra
overflows ad extra, that is, an undifferentiated, intimate relation of
the immanent Trinity and the historical (economic) Trinity.21 Hence,
the doctrine of the Trinity is not an irrelevant mystery, but the
18 Ibid., 93. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 94.
-
36
36
absolute sine qua non to life. Jenson, therefore, argues that Edwards
Trinitarianism suggests no affinity with Augustinian Trinitarianism,
a metaphysical, mysterious, and mitigating view of God, which
differentiates the immanent and economic Trinity.
Furthermore, Jenson unreservedly points out Edwards
difference from the standard Western teaching and consent to
Eastern patristic teaching with regard to the relation of the
immanent and economic Trinity.22 He explains:
All orthodox trinitarianism has affirmed the axiom: the
Trinitys externally-directed works are undivided. The purpose of
the maxim is plain: if the Son can do externally, that is on the
creation, a work that is his work and not the Fathers work, then he
and the Father are two gods; and so for the Father and the Spirit.23
Jenson further explicates, As the Greek-speaking fathers
adopted the axiom, it meant that in every creative work of God the
three persons have each their essential role.24 In contrast, for the
Western fathers, It meant that once the persons emerge into
relationship with the creature, they are no longer really
distinguishable.25 Jenson unhesitatingly rejects the Western
meaning because it implies that the Father and the Spirit could have
22 Ibid., 94-5. 23 Ibid., 95. 24 Ibid. Emphasis original.
-
37
37
become incarnate, although it was appropriate for the son to do so.
Jenson, therefore, claims:
Edwards choice between East and West is explicit: there is an
order constituted [immanently] among the persons of the Trinity
with respect to their operations and actions ad extra. Therefore the
persons indivisibility ad extra is that all the persons of the Trinity
do concur (Jensons emphasis) in all acts ad extra. Thus Edwards is
able to draw rigorously conclusions back and forth between inner-
trinitarian relations and the relations established in evangelical
history, as standard Western theology could not.26
Jensons thesis is clear; Edwards Trinitarianism is essentially
of the Eastern tradition for a twofold reason. Jenson argues that
Edwards Trinitarianism showed no distinction between the
immanent and the economic Trinity, and yet it displayed the
distinctive external roles of the three persons of the Trinity;
therefore, Jenson claims that Edwards had departed from the
Augustinian tradition which obscures the external and essential roles
of the Trinity.
To reiterate, the goal of this research paper is to examine
Jensons claim that Edwards explicitly chose to diverge from
Western Trinitarianism and hold to the Eastern tradition of the
________________________
25 Ibid., 95. 26 Ibid.
-
38
38
Trinity. The question to be explored is: Did Edwards explicitly
choose to depart from the Western and adhere to the Eastern view of
the Trinity? In order to answer this question, this writer in the next
section attempts to lay out thematically Edwards Discourse of the
Trinity27 vis--vis Augustines The Trinity, of which the latter was
often seen as the most mature and final expression of the Western
tradition.28 By comparing Edwards major Trinitarian themes,
namely, of idea, love, and relation, with Augustines teachings
on the Triune God, this paper is to show whether Edwards
Trinitarianism had decisively moved away from the Augustinian or
Western views of the Trinity.
The Theme of Idea
The first part of Edwards Discourse is the perfect idea of
God, which is engendered by Gods infinite self-contemplation.
Edwards stated, It must be supposed that God perpetually and
eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image
and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view.29
When God beholds himself infinitely and perfectly, he must become
27 The Discourse on the Trinity was Edwards most mature and detailed statement on the Trinity. Robert W. Caldwell, Communion in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 20, 28. Caldwell provides a succinct outline of
Edwards Discourse on the Trinity (28-33). 28 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2007), 271. 29 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 113.
-
39
39
his own object: there must be a duplicity.30 The Deity is repeated
by this perfect self-reflection. Gods idea, the second person, is the
perfect image of God himself: Gods idea of himself is absolutely
perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of him, exactly
like him in every respect.31 Put simply, the absolute idea of God has
of himself is God himself again.32 Edwards asserted, So that by
Gods thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated.
Hereby there is another person begotten; there is another infinite,
eternal, almighty, and most holy and the same God, the very same
divine nature.33
Edwards, then, supported the concept of Gods idea, that is, the
second person in the Trinity, the only begotten and dearly beloved
Son of God by scriptural proofs.34 Scripture depicts the Son as the
image or face (Exod 33:14) of God who is the most immediate
representation of the Godhead, viz. the idea of God.35 Edwards
argued that seeing the perfect idea of a thing is equivalent to seeing
the thing.36 Similarly, seeing the perfect image or face of God is
the same as seeing God himself (John 12:45; 14:7-9; 15:22-24).
30 Ibid., 114. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., 116. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., 117. 35 Ibid., 117-18. 36 Ibid., 118.
-
40
40
Christ is also called brightness, effulgence or shining forth of Gods
glory.37 The understanding or knowledge of God most properly
represented as light or brightness originally proceeds from [Gods]
mind itself and is derived from no other.38 Edwards further
demonstrated that the perfect idea of God is Gods Word as seen in
the terms of Gods wisdom (1 Cor 1:24; Luke 11:49; Matt 23:34;
Prov 8:22-31), logos, and Amen. Edwards emphatically
concluded that nothing but the perfect idea or knowledge of God is
able to reveal God himself.
Edwards concept of idea as the second person was not at all
original in view of Augustines Trinity. Although Augustine never
actually used the term idea to describe the second person of the
Godhead, this does not mean that Edward departed from Augustine.
Edwards, in fact, started his Trinitarian discourse by briefly
mentioning a human soul analogy. Edwards stated, Though the
divine nature be vastly different from that of created spirits, yet our
souls are made in the image of God: we have understanding and will,
idea and love, as God hath, and the difference is only in the
perfection of degree and manner.39 Close to the end of the
discourse, although briefly, Edwards again mentioned the human
37 Ibid., 119. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 113.
-
41
41
soul analogy to illustrate the persons of the Trinity.40 What Edwards
did was unequivocal; he attempted to use the human soul analogy to
elucidate the inner reality of the Trinity. Caldwell also argues that
Edwards psychological analogy of the human self as knowing and
loving . . . aids his trinitarian reflection.41 In fact, this human soul
analogy rightly belonged to Augustine.
Kelly observes that Augustines use of analogies drawn from
the structure of the human soul is probably [the] most original
contribution to Trinitarian theology,42 namely, the triad of being
(esse), knowing (nosse), and willing (velle). In spite of the absence of
the term idea in Augustines teachings of the second person, his
psychological illustrations of nosse in the forms of knowledge,43
understanding,44 and knowing45 seem to be the foundation of
Edwards use of idea for the second person of the Trinity. In
Augustines psychological analogy, Studebaker observes, The
Father is the mind or memory who, by an eternal self-reflection,
40 Ibid., 138. 41 Caldwell, Communion in the Spirit, 28, 29. 42 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 276. Although rarely, the Cappadocians did use
some psychological analogies for the Trinity; see Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.,
"Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity," The Thomist 50
(1986): 340. 43 Augustine, The Trinity, IX: 1-18. Augustines first mental/psychological triad
concerns the mind, the minds knowledge of itself, and the minds love of itself. 44 Ibid., X:1-19. The second metal triad is the mind remembering, understanding,
and willing/loving itself. 45 Ibid., XIV:11-26. The third triad, Augustines most preferred mental analogy,
-
42
42
generates the Son according to knowledge.46 It is noteworthy that
Edwards following Augustine identified the second person
(hypostasis) of the Trinity with the divine quality or attribute,
namely, knowledge or understanding, unlike the Cappadocian fathers
who ascribed the three divine hypotheseis to the one Divine essence
or nature of the Holy Trinity.47 In this manner, Edwards concurred
with Augustine that the Son as Gods knowledge or
understanding is generated from Gods infinite and perfect self-
reflection.
Furthermore, Edwards scriptural proofs of Gods perfect idea
in terms of image, word and wisdom are not dissimilar to
Augustines scriptural concepts of form/image/likeness of God,48
wisdom of God49 and word of God.50 For example, Augustine
stated:
And while any knowledge has a likeness to the thing it knows,
that is to the thing it is the knowledge of, this knowledge by which
the knowing mind is known has a perfect and equal likeness. And the
reason it is both image and word, is that it is expressed from the
________________________
deals with the mind as remembering, knowing, loving God himself. 46 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 271. 47 Alexei Fokin, "St Augustine's Doctrine of the Trinity in the Light of Orthodox
Triadology of the Fourth Century," in The Trinity: East/West Dialogue, ed.
Melville Y. Stewart (The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2003), 131. 48 Augustine, The Trinity, I:22, 24; II:4; VII:5, IX:16. 49 Ibid., VII:4; XV:29, 31.
-
43
43
mind when it is made equal to it by knowing it; and what is begotten
is equal to the begetter.51
For Augustine, the knowing mind and the knowledge of the
mind are perfectly equal; the image and word are equal to the mind
which express them; the begotten (image and word) is equal to the
begetter (the mind). Like Edwards, Augustine believed that the mind
(i.e., God) begets the image, word, or knowledge (i.e., the Son), but
the former and the latter are equal in essence. The basic concept of
the begotten knowledge and the begetting mind is a close parallel
with Edwards concept of Gods eternally and perfectly begotten
idea. Thus, contrary to Jensons claim, there is no indication that
Edwards departed from Augustines view regarding the concept of
idea (i.e., the begotten Son of God).
The Theme of Love
Edwards was right to point out the prevailing negligence of the
person and role the Holy Spirit; therefore, he endeavored to
accentuate the distinction and equality of the Spirit in relation to the
Father and the Son. Edwards began his Trinitarian discourse by first
presupposing that, in Gods infinite happiness, he perfectly beholds
and infinitely loves his own essence and perfection. Edwards, then,
presupposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect
________________________
50 Ibid., I:9, 26; VI:3; XV:23, 25, 29.
-
44
44
idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of
himself ever before him and in actual view,52 viz., the eternally
generated second person of the Trinity as expounded in The Theme
of Idea. Edwards further contends, And from hence arises a most
pure and perfect energy in the Godhead, which is the divine
love . . .53 There exists a mutual love between the Father and the
Son. Edwards stated, There proceeds a most pure act, and an
infinitely holy and sweet energy arises between the Father and the
Son: for their love and joy is mutual, in mutually loving and
delighting in each other.54 Edwards continued, The divine essence
itself flows out as it were breathed forth in love . . . and there
proceeds the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz. the
Deity in act: for there is no other act but the act of the will.55
Edwards again used Scripture to confirm the Holy Spirit as the
love of the Godhead by creatively exegeting and comparing First
John 4:8, 12-13, 16. Stated simply, the love of the Godhead is the
Spirit who is also God.56 The Spirit as love not only binds intimately
the Father and the Son, but also quickens, enlivens, beautifies, and
________________________
51 Ibid., IX:16. Emphasis added. 52 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 113. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 121. Edwards mutual love concept is to be expounded in the next section,
The Theme of Relation. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid.
-
45
45
sanctifies Gods creation, as well as comforts Gods people.57
Edwards further explained the Spirit as love by using biblical
images, such as dove, a symbol of love. He also used the types of oil,
water, fire, breath, wind, wine, and a river to explicate the Spirit as
flowing out or breathing forth.58
Finally, Edwards forcefully argued that the Holy Spirit is Gods
love because the Spirit is the communion between God and
believers, and among believers. Believers commune with God and
others by partaking of the Spirit, who is the very love and grace of
the Father and the Son. As indicated in his benediction, the Apostle
Paul always mentioned the love and grace of the Father and the Son,
and the communion of the Holy Ghost (2 Cor 13:14). In addition,
the Spirit is not mentioned in the thirteen greetings of Paul because,
as Edwards argued, the Spirit is the blessing of the Father and the
Son given to believers. Edwards rightly observed and contended that
there is never any account of the Holy Ghosts loving either the
Father or the Son, or of the Sons or Fathers loving the Holy Ghost,
or of the Holy Ghosts loving the saints.59 Thus, Edwards concluded
that the Spirit is the Deity subsisting in the divine essence flowing
out and breathed forth in Gods infinite love of himself.60 The Spirit
57 Ibid., 123-26. 58 Ibid., 126-29. 59 Ibid., 131, 140. 60 Ibid., 131.
-
46
46
is Gods love.
Edwards concept of the Spirit as divine love was not radical
theologically. It is quite obvious that more than a thousand years ago
Augustine already expounded the notion of the Holy Spirit as Gods
love. Studebaker summarizes, in Augustines psychological analogy,
the Holy Spirit is illustrated as proceeding as the minds self-love
(the act of will) of its self-knowledge.61 It is noteworthy that,
however, both Edwards and Augustine established the distinct status
of the Spirit, not based on a psychological analogy, but on First John
4:8, 12-13, 16.
Augustine recognized that Scripture did not say explicitly: The
Holy Spirit is love, but God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). It left it
uncertain whether the Father, the Son, the Spirit, or simply the
Triune God is love.62 Augustine then argued, I do not know why
Father and Son and Holy Spirit should not be called love and all
together be one love. Augustine seemed to leave, as Jenson claims,
the essential role of each of the three persons undifferentiated.
Augustine, however, later argued decisively with regard to the
inseparable essence of the three persons and their distinctive roles:
What is meant is that while in that supremely simple nature
substance is not one thing or love another, but substance is love and
61 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 271. 62 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:27.
-
47
47
love is substance, whether in the Father or in the Son or in the Holy
Spirit, yet all the same the Holy Spirit is distinctively named love. 63
Later, Augustine asked rhetorically, If the love by which the Father
loves the Son and the Son loves the Father inexpressibly shows forth
the communion of them both, what more suitable than he who is the
common Spirit of them both should be distinctively called love?64
Bromiley warns, One must not conclude, however, that Christ as the
Son of Gods love is the Son of the Spirit. He is Son of Gods
substance, just as, being Son by Gods will, he is Son of Gods
nature (XV:37-38).65 It is, therefore, possible to argue that
Augustine did not leave the essential role of each of the three persons
indistinguishable, as Jenson claims.
Augustine did not leave the essential role of the Holy Spirit
ambiguous. Like what Edwards did, Augustine then ably appealed to
First John 4: 7, 8, 10, 13, 16 to support his thesis that the Spirit is
love: So it is the Holy Spirit of which he has given us that makes us
abide in God and him in us. But this is precisely what love does, He
[the Spirit] is the gift of God who is love.66 In short, Gods Spirit is
Gods love. Thus, contrary to Jensons claim, there is still no
indication that Edwards departed from Augustines view regarding
63 Ibid., XV:29. Emphasis added. 64 Ibid., XV:37. 65 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978), 92.
-
48
48
the concept of love (i.e., the Spirit of God).
The Theme of Relation
After expounding the idea of God (the Son) and the love of God
(the Spirit) in relation to God the Father, Edwards summarized:
The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, and unoriginated
and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The
son is the Deity generated by Gods understanding, or having an idea
of himself, and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Spirit is the Deity
subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed
forth, in Gods infinite love to and delight in himself. And I believe
the whole divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the
divine idea and divine love, and that therefore each of them are
properly distinct persons.67
Edwards understood the Deity in terms of God, idea of God,
and love of God. There are no other real distinction in God but
these three distinct real things in God; whatsoever else can be
mentioned in God are nothing but mere modes or relations of
existence.68 Edwards supported his statement scripturally, We find
no other attributes of which it is said that they are God in Scripture,
or that God is they, but Logoj and Agape, the reason and the love
________________________
66 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:31. 67 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 131.
-
49
49
of God (John 1:1 and 1 John 4:8, 16).69
In this section, this writer will conduct a comparison of
Edwards and Augustines teachings on the Trinitarian relation in
terms of fountain of Deity, mutual love and filioque. While
comparing their salient thoughts on the relation of the Trinity, this
writer will deal specifically with Jensons claim of Edwards
Eastern Trinitarianism.
For Edwards, God the Father is the fountain of the Godhead.70
In the economy of the persons of the Trinity, the Father is to
sustain the dignity of the Deity; the Father should have it as his
office to uphold and maintain the rights of the Godhead, and should
be God, not only by essence, but as it were by his economical
office.71 Subsequently, Edwards explicated that the economical
office of the Father necessarily implies the filioque scheme in the
doctrine of the Trinity. He unequivocally stated that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from both the Father and the Son: It is possible for the Son
to be begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit to proceed from the
Father and Son, and yet that all the persons should be co-eternal.72
Although all three persons have their distinct offices, they are
________________________
68 Ibid. 69 Ibid., 132. 70 Ibid., 135. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.
-
50
50
co-essential and co-equal. They all have equal, and yet peculiar,
honor and glory in their essence and distinct works of redemption. In
their essence, The Fathers honor is that he is as it were the author
of perfect and infinite wisdom. The Sons honor is that he is that
perfect and divine wisdom itself But the honor of the Holy Ghost
is equal, for he is [the] divine excellency and beauty itself, arisen
and proceeded from the infinite excellency of the Father and the
Son.73 Edwards emphatically stated again that the Father is the
fountain of the Deity from whom proceed both divine wisdom and
excellency which have equal honor with the Father.74
In the works of redemption, there is equality in all the three
persons of the Trinity. All the persons receive equal glory: Glory
belongs to the Father and the Son, that they so greatly loved the
world: the Father so loved that he gave his only begotten Son; the
Son so loved the world as to give up himself. But there is equal glory
due to the Holy Ghost, for he is that love of the Father and the Son to
the world.75 All believers are to depend equally on each person of
the Trinity in redemption. The Father appoints and provides the
Redeemer. The Redeemer pays the price by offering up himself and
provides the object purchased. The purchased is the Holy Spirit, who
is the sum of all good things; the purchased possession and
73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., 136.
-
51
51
inheritance of all believers.76
In Edwards view of the Trinitarian relation, the three person of
the Trinity are equal in essence, honor, and glory, but each has its
distinct role. The Father is the fountain of the Son and the Spirit.
Edwards recapitulated the fountainhead of the Father, How many
respects the Father first in order, fountain of Godhead, sustains
dignity of Deity, sends forth the other two. All is from him, all is in
him originally.77
For Edwards, the distinct role and office of the Father does not
suggest subordinationism in the Trinity. Edwards recognized that in
one respect the Father has the superiority over the Son: He is the
fountain of Deity, and he begets the beloved Son.78 In other respect,
the Son has the superiority because he is the very object of the
Fathers love: The beloved has as it were the superiority over the
lover, and reigns over him.79 In another respect, the Holy Spirit as
the divine love has the superiority in the Trinitarian relation: the
divine love is the principle that as it were reigns over the Godhead
and governs his heart, and wholly influences both the Father and the
Son in all they do.80 In spite of Edwards emphasis on the distinct,
76 Ibid., 136-37, 147. 77 Ibid., 143. 78 Ibid., 147. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid.
-
52
52
peculiar role and office of each of the three persons, he nonetheless
highlighted their equality by using the concept of mutual love. It is
noteworthy that Edwards in fact referred, or at least alluded, to
Augustines analogy of mutual love, namely the paradigm of
lover-beloved-love.
Augustines mutual love model is a variation of his
psychological or human soul model.81 He stated, Now love means
someone loving and something loved with love. There you are with
three, the lover, what is being loved, and love.82 Studebaker argues
that Edwards use of the Augustinian mutual love model reflects his
continuity with the dominant Western Augustinian Trinitarian
tradition and early Enlightenment apologetics for the traditional
doctrine of the Trinity.83 In Augustines mutual love, the Holy Spirit
is depicted as the bond of love uniting the Father and the Son.84 This
is exactly what Edwards perceived in the conclusion of his discourse
with regard to the Spirit, namely, for the Spirit is the bond of union
and that by which Christ in his saints and the Father in him.85
Edwards, following the Western-Augustinian tradition, argued
that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Edwards
81 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 272. 82 Augustine, The Trinity, VIII:14. 83 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 268. 84 Ibid., 272. 85 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 144. Emphasis added.
-
53
53
made a delicate distinction between the Trinitarian relations: And
even ad intra, though the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father
and the Son, yet he proceeds from the Father mediately by the Son,
viz. by the Fathers beholding himself in the Son. But he proceeds
from the Son immediately by himself by beholding the Father in
himself.86 Put otherwise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father
originally and primarily, and from the Son secondarily.87 Augustine
also made a similar argument by appealing to Scripture:
By saying then, Whom I will send you from the Father (Jn
15:26), the Lord showed that the Spirit is both the Fathers and the
Sons. Elsewhere too, when he said, whom the Father will send, he
added, in my name (Jn 14:26). He did not however say, whom the
Father will send from me as he had said whom I will send from the
Father (Jn 15:26), and thereby he indicated that the source of all
godhead, or if you prefer it, of all deity, is the Father. So the Spirit
who proceeds from the Father and the Son is traced back, on both
counts, to him of whom the Son is born.88
Although the concept of the fount of the Deity was akin to
Cappadocian Trinitarianism,89 Augustine was in total agreement with
86 Ibid., 143. 87 Ibid. 88 Augustine, The Trinity, IV:29. Emphasis added for source of all godhead, or if
you prefer it, of all deity, is the Father. 89 Plantinga, "Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity," 340.
-
54
54
the notion of the Father as the fountain of the Godhead. In light of
this notion, Augustine in the meantime held to the concept of the
filioque. Augustine later repeated, According to the holy scriptures
this Holy Spirit is not just the Fathers alone nor the Sons alone, but
the Spirit of them both, and thus he suggests to us the common
charity [or love] by which the Father and the Son love each other.90
Apparently, both Augustine and Edwards concurred in these two
matters: first, the Father as the source or fountain of the Godhead;
and second, the filioque.
Concerning the external relation of the Trinity, Jenson claims
that Edwards, concurring with the Eastern fathers saw that in every
inseparable external act of God the three persons have each their
essential role.91 For the Western fathers, however, in the inseparable
external work of God, the three persons of the Godhead are no longer
distinguishable. In other words, for Jenson, the Western perspective
of the Trinity implies that there are no distinct external roles of the
Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Jenson then concluded that Edwards
teaching of the Trinity showed no trace of the Western tradition.
Augustine did seem to undifferentiate the three persons of the
Trinity in his statement: [T]he trinity which is God cannot just be
read off from those three things which have pointed out in the trinity
90 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:27, 47. 91 Jenson, Americas Theologian, 95. Emphasis original.
-
55
55
of our mind, in such a way that that the Father is taken as the
memory of all three, and the Son as the understanding of all three,
and the Holy Spirit as the love of all three.92 He then added, It is
rather that all and each of them has all three things each in his own
nature.93 Based on this statement alone, Jenson would be correct in
claming that the Western-Augustinian tradition makes the external
essential roles of the Trinity undistinguishable; therefore, Edwards
had departed from this very Western tradition.
By briefly examining Augustines view concerning the external
inseparable operation of the Trinity, one is able to determine whether
Jensons claim is valid or not. Augustine stated, I will say however
with absolute confidence that [the] Father and Son and Holy Spirit,
God the creator, of one and the same substance, the almighty three,
act inseparably.94 This inseparability of act as illustrated in
Augustines human soul analogy of the mental triad, however, does
not necessarily imply the undistinguishable roles of the three persons
or an undifferentiated unity of essence, but rather, to show how one
divine person can be named singly in a divine act, as for example the
Son in the incarnation, yet in that event the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit operate inseparably.95 In contrast to Jensons claim, for
92 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:28. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid., IV:30. 95 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 278.
-
56
56
Augustine, the indivisibility or inseparability of the Trinitarian
operation ad extra does not suggest obscurity or ambiguity of the
essential role of each person the Trinity. Augustine explained by
using the example of Jesus baptism in which the voice, the body,
and the dove have proper and distinct reference to each person of the
Trinity: Well, at least the example helps us to see how this three,
inseparable in itself, is manifested separately thought visible
creatures, and how the three are inseparable at work in each of the
things which are mentioned as having the proper function of
manifesting the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.96 In short, in
contrast to Jensons interpretation, Augustine did not intend to
obscure the proper function of the three divine persons. Each person
has his distinct and essential role, although the three persons are
inseparable in all acts. In this manner, there is no clear indication that
Edwards was deviating from Augustines view of the Trinitarian
relation. Thus, Jensons claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism
is found wanting.
Conclusion
Jenson is probably correct to say that Edwards Trinitarianism is
Christological in perspective, but he is inaccurate when claiming that
Edwards had departed from the Western-Augustinian understanding
96 Augustine, The Trinity, IV:30.
-
57
57
of the Trinity. A thematic comparison of Edwards and Augustines
teachings on the Trinity demonstrates that the former and the latter
resonate in the concepts of idea, love, and relation.
For both Edwards and Augustine, the infinite and perfect self-
reflection of God generates the perfect and eternal idea of God.
Although Augustine did not explicitly use the term idea as did
Edwards, both Augustine and Edwards agreed that the second person
of the Trinity is Gods knowledge, understanding, or image as
generated from Gods perfect self-contemplation. This begotten idea,
which is the dearly loved Son of God, is Gods image in exactness.
The begotten and the begetter are equal in essence. Apparently,
Edwards, based on Augustines human soul analogy, perceived the
Son as Gods knowledge or understanding. Thus, in the theme
of idea, there is an obvious intimation that Edwards followed
closely the traditional Augustinian view of the Trinity.
Regarding the theme of love, Edwards was in total agreement
with Augustine that the Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the
Son. The reciprocal delight between the Father and the Son flows
out, breaths forth, or proceeds the third distinct person, the
divine love. The Spirit as love is the act of the divine will. At times,
Augustine appeared to leave the essential role of each the three
persons undifferentiated, but he later did argue for the distinct role of
the Spirit as love in particular. Both Augustine and Edwards used
First John 4:8-16 as the foundation of their teaching that the Spirit is
-
58
58
the love of the Godhead and the Spirit is also God. Hence, in the
theme of love, Edwards followed Augustine closely with regard to
the distinct role of the Spirit, the mutual love between the Father and
the Son.
In the theme of relation, one may see more clearly that
Jensons claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism is found most
wanting. For both Augustine and Edwards, in the Trinitarian
immanent order, the Father is the fountain of the Godhead from
whom generated the idea and proceeded the love of God. The
two distinct persons have the equal honor, glory, and essence with
the source of the Deity. Nonetheless, each of the three persons has
his distinct role as manifested in the mutual love model (lover-
beloved-love), a model properly initiated by Augustine. In this
Trinitarian relation, Edwards held explicitly to Augustines stance on
the filioque; namely, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the
Son without relinquishing the Father as the fountain of the Deity.
Finally, in the Trinitarian relation, both Edwards and Augustine
concurred on the fact that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are
inseparable in their external operation, but each has his
distinguishable, distinct, and proper role to play. Essentially, Jenson
is inaccurate to claim that Edwards had moved to the Eastern view
of the Trinity.
The question asked at the beginning of the paper is, Did
Edwards explicitly choose to depart from the Western and adhere to
-
59
59
the Eastern view of the Trinity? Through a thematic comparison
between the teachings of Edwards and Augustine, the answer is
NO!, although tentatively.97 That Edwards Trinitarianism has no
trace of the Western-Augustinian tradition of the Trinity is a rather
bold, but unfounded claim. Edwards approach to the Trinity by
means of psychological triad (mind-Father, idea-Son, love-Spirit)
and in terms fountain of the Deity, mutual love, and filioque
was straight from Augustines work.98 Based on the comparative
analysis of the major Trinitarian themes of Edwards and Augustine,
it is safe to conclude that Edwards remained in close affinity with the
Western-Augustinian concept of the Trinity.
97 The reason of the tentativeness is as follows: this paper essentially deals with the
first part of the question (i.e., whether Edwards departed from Western-
Augustinian Trinitarianism). The second part of the question (i.e., whether
Edwards adhered to the Eastern-Cappadocian tradition of the Trinity) hinges upon
another comparative study on Trinitarianism of Edwards and the "Eastern"
fathers. 98 Stephen R. Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory: An Account of the Theology
of Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69.
-
60
Godly Living from the Wesleys Theological
Perspective
/
-
61
Christian Perfection
a man of one
book
548
K. C.
Kinghorn
partake significantly
-
62
sins guilt
sins grip
612221
2
61
315
1 John Wesley , A Plain Account of Christian Perfection: A
Transcription in Modern English with Scripture References and Annotations by
Kenneth Cain Kinghorn, (Lexington: Emeth Press, 2012), preface x-xii. 2
1994162-163John Wesley , A Plain Account of Christian Perfection170-171
-
63
418
516
purity of intention
-
64
3
V. I. Campell
[]
5484
dynamic
5
3 Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection176-177. W. Stanley
Johnson, Christian Perfection as Love for God, Wesleyan Theological Journal,
Volume 18, 1 Spring 1983: 50-60 4 Victoria l. Campbell, Understanding Christian Perfection and its Struggle with
Antinomianism, The Asbury Journal 68/2:58-77 5 Steve Harper
2002 56-60
-
65
works of piety works of mercy
6
6 Sermon XCII (92): On Zeal, Works, ed. Thomas Jackson,
7: 60.
-
66
7
8
9
1011
12
7 Sermon XXVI: Sermon on the Mount VI, Works, ed. Thomas Jackson, 5: 329. 8 Journal, February 9-10, 1753, Works, 2: 279-280; Journal, February 21, 1753,
Works, 2: 281; Journal, February 8, 1753, Works, 2: 279; Letter to a Member of the Society, June 9, 1775, Works, 12: 300.
9 Journal, January 4, 1785, Works, 4: 295Journal, September 26, 1783,
Works, 4: 261 Journal, September 28, 1783, Works, 4: 261. 10 Journal, January 17, 1748, Works, 2: 81, 2: 17-18; A Plain Account of the
People called Methodists, Works, 8: 267. 11 Journal, December 4, 1746, Works, 2: 39 A Plain Account of the People
Called Methodists, Works, 8: 263-265. Charles Yrigoyen, Jr. John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 61-62.
12 Theodore W. Jr. Jennings, Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Nashville: Abingdon Press 1990), 62.
-
67
13
141516
1718 19
13 The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works, 9: 233; The Doctrine of Original Sin,
Works, 9: 228. 14 The Use of Money, Works, 6: 129. 15 On the Use of Money, Works, 6: 129 Preface to Primitive Physick, Works,
14: 313 16 A Father Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Works, 8: 165-166. 17 The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works, 9: 221-222. 18 Journal, February 23, 1776, Works, 4: 68; Journal, November 13, 1776,
Works, 4: 89; The Mystery of Iniquity, Works, 6: 265 19 Journal, February 12, 1772, Works, 3: 453; Thought s Upon Slavery, Works,
11: 59-79; Journal, March 3, 1788, Works, 4: 408; Letter to Mr. Thomas Funnell, November 24, 1787, Works, 12: 507; Letter to a Friend [Wilberforce], February 26, 1791, Works, 13: 153; A Seasonal Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, Works, 11: 125-126.
-
68
-
69
Alan Anderson1876-1959
Peace 1996 Tucker 1999 1
Isley 1999
Steffen & Douglas 2008 63-69
Steffen & Douglas 2008 72-82
Taylor & Taylor 2009
2 20 50
Shenk 1996
1 missionary biography
( http://missionarybiographies.com/index.html) Wholesome Words Christian
biography resources (http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/bio.html) Stephen Ross; Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity by
BDCC ( http://www.bdcconline.net/en). 2 E Standley Jones
, Demaray & Johnson, 2007.
-
70
Bosch 1999423-425 3
109-18
Tucker 1999429
Lonergan 1971179
19
3 , Bob Davey The
Power to Save: A History of the Gospel in China (PA; Carlisle: EP Books, 2011).
-
71
4
Anderson
1955 1Roxborogh 2012
5
4 Edward Band, Working His Purpose Out: The History of the English Presbyterian
Mission, 1847-19471948London: Church of England, 1948
John Henderson The Service in Malaya and Singapore of the Reverend Alan S. Moore Anderson, " The Presbyterian Church in Singapore and Malaysia.
90th Anniversary of the Church and 70th Anniversary of the Synod,
Commemoration Volume1970
Alan Anderson Random ReminiscencesLondon: Albert Clark, 1955
A Dictionary of Asian Christianity , by Scott W. SunquistGrand Rapids:Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001 Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity http://www.bdcconline.net/en
2011
Random Reminiscences1955
5 My grandfather was a Presbyterian Elder, but during (or just after) the Irish revival of 1859/ 1860, my fathers elder brother, Sir Samuel , and his sisters all found their spiritual home with the Plymouth Brethren. My father youngest sister, however, came back into the Presbyterian. My mother was brought up in the Church of England, in which her grandfather had been a minister. (Anderson 1955: 1)
-
72
Rodolfo R Girn
Girn 199731 Girn
6
Austin 2000645Kane 197527-28
6 Perhaps one might recall here an incident of ones early boyhood . During a
summer in Ireland when I was eight years old my fathers youngest sister (Aunt Fanny to us) took me with her to hear a talk by a CIM missionary who was a distant cousin of my mother. He spoke very earnestly about China and the needs
and opportunities, and his message started an intense interest in China in my
young imagination. If I had had to decide then on my life work, China would have
got me. Later, at school and college, ones thoughts were naturally occupied with work and other calls nearer home, but a special interest in China never quite left one(Anderson 1955: 5).
-
73
4 1
101-822-23
131-3 7
Isley
19993008 i
ii
7 , Stefeen & Douglas, Encountering
Missionary Life and Work (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 55-61. 8 , William L. Isley Jr. the
characteristics of a missionary spirituality are: 1. The sense of being called out
from the familiar or normal; 2. The conviction of being sent to a particular place
or people; 3. A highly intentional lifestyle; and 4. Most important and overarching the whole, an eschatological orientation (1999: 300).
-
74
132 iii
iv
Thomas Austins
Austin 2000645-46
Kane 197528-
30Michael Griffiths 8
Griffiths 199223-30
3
Richard Peace
Peace 1996109
9 : what distinguishes a spiritual autobiography from an ordinary
autobiography is the lens focuses on the aspects that reveal to us the activity of God (Peace 1996: 10).
-
75
John Dettoni 4
19 2819 128-29
Dettoni 199415-16
122 318
Dettoni 199415
336 113
27 439 1143-44
317-19 127-12 412 13
1225 1415-31
152627 165-16 81-2710
10 PTC: Pastoral Care Group Study
Material 7 (Melbourne: PTC, 2014).
-
76
109-16
1047-48
1118
10
9-25cf. Gal 115
1026-30
1896
John R Mott
-
77
11
Austin 2000645
Isley 1999300
29-10 31-8
11 In 1896 my younger brother Graham and I attended the big missionary
conference at Liverpool and heard the many inspiring messages from Dr John R
Mott and other well-known Christian leaders. My brother made a decision then to give his life to Overseas Mission work. One faced the call prayerfully oneself but
did not feel able to sign any pledge. And then during 1897, ones last year at Cambridge, One was facing the claims of the ministry whether for work at home
or abroad. As the call did not yet sound quite clear, one spent a year teaching at a
small country school, which, incidentally, was quite a useful experience: and during the year the call to the ministry sounded clear. (Anderson 1955: 15)
-
78
1900
12
12 Towards the end of ones last term at Westminster the Rev C Campbell Brown,
home on leave from Chuanchow, paid us a visit and put the claims of China very
earnestly before us. In personal conversation with me he stressed the special need of a Boy s School in Chuanchow, and told how the city pastors, when they came to say their final goodbye, had knelt in prayer with him that God would send a
man for that work.
Towards the end of ones last term at Westminster the Rev C Campbell Brown, home on leave from Chuanchow, paid us a visit and put the claims of China very
earnestly before us. In personal conversation with me he stressed the special need
of a Boy s School in Chuanchow, and told how the city pastors, when they came to say their final goodbye, had knelt in prayer with him that God would send a man for that work.
-
79
Stamoolis 20025
Stamoolis 20026
13
M
13 In the autumn of 1898, I entered our Presbyterian theological college, then in
Queens square, London. I lived at home and went by bicycle to lectures. One had chosen a little school in the country hoping to get back to full health, and the hope
was fulfilled. Not only was one able to play some serious Rugby in the winter of 1898, as already mentioned, but was able to help organize games as part of the
College life of Westminster, Cambridge, when we moved there in the autumn of
1899 (Alan 1955: 5).
-
80
Robert Mulholland
Mulholland 201315
Mulholland 201315
920-221119-26
115
113-15
-
81
Dettoni 199415-1614
Bishop Taylor Smith
Alan 195510 Isley
highly intentional
lifestyle1999 300
14 Back again to Cambridge days, whether as an undergraduate or at Westminster,
ones main outside interest was with the movement then called universities camps for public schools. For seven years part of every August was spent with one or other of these camps, mostly at a seaside place, where cricket and other
games and bathing and boating gave the boys a fine holiday; and where morning
and evening Prayers in the big marquee, as well as personal talks with individual
boys, led to many a changed life and many a surrendered hearts. Among many
helpful speakers at Daily Prayers, one remembers Bishop Taylor Smith; as perhaps the best (Anderson 1955: 5).
-
82
Bishop Taylor Smith
Mr. BrownAlan 195510
John Nevius
Nevius 2003
Mr Brown
15
15 I had already promised to be assistant at Marylebone for one year, but Mr Brown
was willing to wait.15 I promised to pray about it and to let him know as soon as
possible. I had to start work in Marylebone in the middle of June, straight down from Westminster, because the minister, Rev. George Hanson, DD was leaving
for a six months visit to some Australian churches. Within a month two other calls came. First, a letter from Rev Sir George Adam Smith asked me if I would
accept an appointment for three years as minister of the Scotch Free Church in
Bombay. Then the elderly minister of our Bournemouth church paid me a visit to say that he and his session wished me to be his colleague and successor. Would I accept a call?
One knew that decisions must be made soon, and more vividly than ever before, one realized that one had just one life to live and that only one thing mattered
-
83
2819-20
Ekstrm1997 188
Thomas Kimber 2012
Kimber 2012 21616
1997
Taylor199799
Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do ? I soon felt able to say no to Bournemouth, and to decline Bombay also. But the call to China was accepted as
from God (Anderson 1959: 8). 16 , (Kimber 2012:216).
-
84
17
17 Those two years at Westminster were very happy. There were eight of us in my
year, all of us good pals. And we did not do badly as regards Foreign Mission
work!(Anderson 1959: 5)
-
85
//
/
-
86
1
2
John Wesley, 1703-1791
Charles Grandison Finney, 1792-1875
34
1
2
1997313 3 Lian Xi () 1930 50
Lian Xi, Reedemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China. New Haven: Yale University Press 2010, 10
4 3142006 http://120.102.246.2/bulletin2006/5-
1.pdf 2012 5 7
-
87
1901Methodist Episcopal
Church, North5
61920
7
8
9
5
20028798-103 6 1909 ()
199729 Leslie T. Lyall (), Biography of John Sung: Flame
For God In The Far East, 4th Ed. London: China Inland Mission. 1961, 9 7
195654-56
8 86:31 9 Leslie T. Lyall 54, 823 1, 199 40
Lyall, Biography of John Sung,
97
-
88
1944
10
George Whitefield, 1714-1770
D. L. Moody, 1837-1899
11
12
10 40 1995
2006
20061932 8 29
122
164 11 111999
105 12 207
192
-
89
131932-2014
14
1.
15
16
17
18
19
13 1988378
14 xix-xxiii 15 xix 16 17 181937
2013 9 3
http://www.cclife.org/View/Article/2152014 9 24 18 7 1992 4146
19 xx
-
90
2.
20
21
22
192723
20 415 21 130 22 Charles Grandison Finney 1982121-131
23 34John Sung
My Teacher198542
-
91
2425
26
27
3.
28
1
24
203 25
141 26 xix 27 xx-xxi 28 101
-
92
2[
]3
[]29
30
31
32
33
29 72101[ ]
30 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 144. 31 115
32 95 33 390
-
93
4.
34
35
3637
38
39
34 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 147
(1934-35)
35 126 36 141 37 142
38 325 39 393
-
94
1900
progressive efforts
40
41
42
43
40 Cf Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 8. 41 19171920 Lian,
Reedemed by Fire, 8-10 42 18 2002159 43 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 8-9.
-
95
44
45
46
47
Edwin Joshua Dukes
1885
48 50
44 101-102109162171207 239
45 181-182 46 xvi 47 237-238 48 14-15
-
96
49
G. W. Doyle
Popular Christianity
50
51
52
53
49 328 50 Doyle, G. Wright. 2010. How Dangerous Are Chinese House Churches? A
Review of Lian Xi, Reedemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in
Modern China, Global China Center, 03/08/2010, http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/christianity -in-china/how-dangerous-
are-chinese-house-churches.php, Accessed on 26/09/2014. 51 ix 52 203 53 Berkeley, CA
181
-
97
54
55
Alister McGrath
seperatism
56
57
58
54 1743 55 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 146. 56 200426
571847-1947 1948
115-1156
2013 8 8 9
58 87-88 127
-
98
59
60
61
62
63
59 , 316 60 63 61 53 62 173 63 ()
337
-
99
64
1831
65
66
4767
68
69
64 338 65 ()
()69 66 338 67 Cf Simon J. DeVries,World Biblical Commentary, Volume 12, 1 Kings. Waco,
Texas: Word Books, 1985, 229. 68 317 69 2005 http://120.102.246.2/bulletin2005/4-1.pdf 2012
5 7
-
100
70
71
72
73
70 314 71 53 72
73
-
101
74
74 9
-
102
1
1 John Stott2012038
-
103
2
3
4 Abraham Heschel
5
2
14 200919 3 Alister McGrath2004137
4 04/ 5/20129
5 51 No.5 2009/9108-9Abraham Heschel1907-1972
-
104
41-11
6
7
8
41-2 135631 918 14
13 612
2636-46
65-159
6 04/ 5/20124
7 08/ 3/20123
8 199587-90
9 1
-
105
10 J. I. Packer
Preoccupied
11
12
13
14
10 50 No.2 2008/3438
11 1998201-202
12 5-7 13 Richard J. Foster 1993127-128
14 Richard J. Foster 1993 V
-
106
15
16
158-917
18
15 26/ 4/2012412345
16 201055
17 Alister McGrath144 1102009196-197Richard Baxter1615-1691
18 James M. Houston199598-99
-
107
19
20
21
22
1
Richard Baxter
23
163
19 2005180-181 20 195 21 202 22 Alister McGrath144-145
23 203
-
108
1232
24
25
26
27
28
52
41229
24 20 11 69
25 2011183 26 D. M. Lloyd-Jones1993258
27 John Stott2012106-109
28 John Stott 085 29 199371
-
109
2
30
517
618 46
1117
30 15/ 3/20122
-
110
31
32
33
34
31 1993150-151 32 191
33 04/ 5/20122
34 Donald S. Whitney (K. O. Gangel) J. C. Wilhoit2011208
-
111
35
36
221
35 200276
36 19/ 4/20121
-
112
7872
-
113
14:1-15:7
To Eat or Not to Eat: Christlike Conviction
from Romans 14:1-15:7
Peter Tie
1
15
151
1 C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T&T
Clark, 1979), 2:695.
-
114
157-1113-21
141
142 151
6 14
11-3
absolute
adiaphora
-
115
/adiaphora
absolute
2
2 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on
the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 882-4; Thomas R.
Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1998), 736.
-
116
-
117
conviction 15
57 14three
aspects of conviction
First Aspect of Conviction: Faith 14:1-4
141-
2
faith
3
3 The weak in faith (Romans 14:1) does not mean the weakness in the basic
Christian faith. Here, faith may refer to the weaks felt conviction, a kind of conviction that unable to marshal clear-cut arguments in its defence as to why not to eat (Cranfield, Romans, 2:696).
-
118
15
81-2
3
keep our mouth shut
1422
keep it to
yourself before God 144
12
-
119
accepted by God
accountable to God
Second Aspect of Conviction: Fully Convinced
14:5-9
5
fully convinced 6
8
149
-
120
146for/to the Lord
3 8 2
for/to the
Lord
fully
convinced
20
-
121
61-3
517 55-6
adiaphora
absolute
-
122
Third Aspect of Conviction: Convinced;
Determined 14:13-14
1413
88
4
5 14
15 14
20
1420
sin evil
4 Concerning the statement But to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it
is unclean (Rom 14:14b), eating or not eating the food does not affect people objectively, but to those who doubt it affects them subjectively. This subjective
doubt in ones conviction begins to brother ones conscience, which in turn leads to ones loss of focusfor the Lord.
5 Pauls language suggests the seriousness of the acts, the ones that cause people to eternal destruction (Schreiner, Romans, 734).
-
123
1421
1417-186
6 Schreiner paraphrases the first part this way, The kingdom of god does not
consist in the right to eat and drink what one pleases (Schreiner, 740; emphasis added). Those who experience being justified by grace through Christ, reconciled
to God through Christ, filled with joy by the Holy Spirit (namely, those who truly
belong to the kingdom of God) are called to serve Christ and please God, to do
what is right in Gods sight (Romans 14:18), not what is the right in their own might.
-
124
14
P
Pleasing
Peace
Preaching
Pleasing 151-2
3
-
125
7
8
Peace 1419
155-6
25
7 To please neighbors as Christ did who did not please himself (Romans 15:2-
3) is a loving act that fulfills the law of Christ (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 6:2). The weak
submitted to the strong is culturally pervasive then and now, but the strong help,
support, carry the weaknesses of the weak is countercultural. Colin G. Kruse,
Pauls Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 527.
8 Since we have belonged to Christ, we do all to serve Christ for Gods glory, whether we live or die (Romans 14:6, 18; well-pleasing to God). In this manner, we may explain Pauls statement, Whatever is not from faith is sin (14:23b), that anything we do that do not in Christ or for Christ (faith) is not going to attain to the glory of God (sin). If we eat or do not eat without for Christ, we cannot glorify God, that is, falling short of the target (sin).
-
126
Preaching
1417
2323 14
-
127
9
rights 9
Adiaphora
9 Moo, Romans, 856.
-
128
POWERPOINT
-
129
70
-
130
-
Piety by Virtue
Copyright 2014 Melbourne School of Theology
ABN 58 004 265 016 CRICOS Provider Code: 02650E
Melbourne School of Theology is authorised to deliver courses for the Australian College of Theology.
9 7 7 1 8 3 9 1 9 7 0 0 1
I SSN 1 8 3 9 - 1 9 7 4
A: 5 Burwood Highway, Wantirna VIC 3152, PO Box 6257 Vermont South VIC 3133 Australia
T: 03 9881 7850 F: 03 9800 0121 E: [email protected] W: chinese.mst.edu.au Theology and Spiritual Formation
2014 11
SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19