Eastern OrthodoxyAnd

Reformed TheologyA Comparison

MAT092

A Study Guide for MINTS Students

Rev. Dr. Julian Michael ZuggCovenant PCA, Houston, Texas

Email: Jzugg@mac.com , Web: www.zugg.org

MINTS International Seminary,14401 Old Cutler Road Miami, Florida 33158 USA

Tel. 786-573-7001, www.mints.edu

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

OUTLINE

PREFACE INTRODUCTION

LESSON ONE: The First Six Ecumenical Councils LESSON TWO: The Fathers, Icons, and Augustine LESSON THREE: Scripture, Tradition, Inspiration, and Canon LESSON FOUR: Worship I ~ Worship and Icons LESSON FIVE: Worship II ~ The Mysteries and the Sacraments LESSON SIX: The Eastern and Western Understanding of the Trinity LESSON SEVEN: Man, Image and Likeness, Original Sin, and God’s

Sovereignty LESSON EIGHT: Salvation, Effectual Calling, Justification, and Deification

BIBLIOGRAPHY BIOGRAPHYINSTRUCTOR'S MANUAL

2 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

PREFACE For the last four years I have been working with my brothers in Bulgaria teaching Reformed theology. Traditionally this has been taught against the background of the Reformation and in opposition to Catholicism. But as Bulgaria is a stronghold of Orthodoxy, it seemed right to contrast Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformed faith.

INTRODUCTIONThe purpose of this course is to help students understand the theology of Eastern Orthodoxy in the light of the Reformed faith. As a comparative theology, I have selected certain key texts topics that illustrate both the similarities and differences of these two faiths, and explored these comparisons over eight lessons. This is not exhaustive; it is merely a beginning. This is a Master’s level course. When doing this comparison, there was the initial issue of defining what are the teachings that lie under the headings of ‘Orthodoxy’ and ‘Reformed?’ Due to the fact that in Orthodoxy there is a lack of a central system of dogma with which to aide us, it was nearly impossible. In order to overcome this we will use on the writings of Timothy Ware, Leonid Ouspensky, and Vladimir Lossky as tools to understand the teachings and beliefs of Orthodoxy. When examining Reformed theology, we will focus on the teachings of Calvin as a representative of the early Reformation thinking and the Westminster Confession as an example of type of teachings found in the later Reformation.

COURSE CONTENTThe course is divided into eight lessons. The first two lessons focus on many of the similarities between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformed Faith, while following the history of the early life of the church. In the latter six lessons, we will focus on the differences between the two systems. In each case, we will first introduce the Eastern Orthodox position and then contrast it with the Reformed understanding.

COURSE OBJECTIVESTo study and compare Eastern Orthodoxy and Reformed theology;

To acquire an introductory knowledge of Eastern Orthodoxy and Reformed theology in its history and its practical application;

To grow in our understanding of what both systems have in common and in what distinguishes them both; COURSE MATERIALSThe lecture notes are a full exposition of the course. In addition, the students are required to read either Robert Letham’s book, Through Western Eyes or 600 pages of original

3 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

source materials found on the Internet. These include designated works by Athanasius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

STRUCTURE OF THE COURSEThis course has been organized into eight consecutive modules. The modules should be studied in order.

COURSE REQUIREMENTS1. Students will attend sixteen hours of class time. 2. Students will do sixteen hours of extra reading outside of class. Although this is a Master’s level course, students can read 300 pages at Bachelor’s level. At Master’s Level students must either read Robert Letham’s book, Through Western Eyes, or 600 pages from the assigned Internet reading.

Internet Reading

Athanasius: On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei). 22 Jan 2015 http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm.

Augustine:Anti-Pelagian Writings. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol 5. Ed. Philip Schaff. 22 Jan 2015. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.html.

St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ npnf102.html.

On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.html.

Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol 5. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.html.

Calvin, John: Institutes of the Christian Religion, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

Westminster Confession of Faith:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/anonymous/westminster3

3. Students will complete all lesson questions.

4. There will be an exam at the end of the course.

4 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

5. An essay will be required to be turned according to the instructor’s directions.

COURSE EVALUATION1. Student Participation (15%): One point will be given for each class hour attended.

2. Student Homework (25%): Three points will be given for each homework assignment completed for the eight lessons. Homework involves answering all the questions at the end of each lesson. If all homework assignments are completed, an extra point is awarded at the end of the course.

3. Student Readings (25%): Although this is a Master’s level course, students can read 300 pages at Bachelor’s level. At Master’s Level students must either read Robert Letham’s book, Through Western Eyes, or 600 pages from the assigned Internet reading.

4. Essay: (25%): An essay will be required to be turned according to the instructor’s directions.

5. Student Exam (10%): The student will demonstrate his/her understanding of the main concepts and content of the course materials. There will be an exam at the end of the course. A suggested exam is found in the Instructor’s Manual.

BENEFITS OF THIS COURSEThis course will show how to properly understand Orthodox theology and compare it to the teachings of both historic and current Reformed theology.

5 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson One: The First Six Ecumenical Councils

The Orthodox Church is called the ‘Church of the Seven Councils.’ The Reformed Church recognizes the first six of these seven councils, but not the seventh. In this lesson we will begin with a short history of the early church and then consider the teachings of the first six councils.

1. The History of the Early Church1

Our study begins at the end of the book of Acts. At this point, the Gospel had been established in Rome, and its rapid spread meant that church membership was comprised more of Greek speaking gentiles than Jews. As the church spread into new gentile areas, two languages dominated: everyday Greek and administrative Latin. The fact that there were two gentile languages is important to note. As time went on, the two branches of the church developed their theology using different languages; the West developed its theology using Latin, while the theology of the East was developed in Greek. Over time, fewer and fewer people spoke both languages, and the separation in both the language and the thought patterns that followed (and so theology) caused the two arms of the now mainly gentile church to separate.

In addition, the one church developed localized church centers in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. Each center faced its own unique challenges, and therefore each center developed differently. For example, Alexandria was forced to engage with the Neo-platonic Greek culture. As a result, Clement of Alexandria (150-215)2 and Origen3

(185-254)4 tried to integrate Christianity with Neo-Platonism, the dominate thought of the day.5 These threats and responses did not occur in the other centers, and consequently Alexandria’s theology developed in a unique way.

Initially the church, as a Jewish sect, was protected under Roman law because the Jews had freedom of religion. This changed during the Jewish-Roman War (66-73)6 as the Jews became enemies of Rome. In addition, although local religions were allowed in the empire, as Christianity spread and became international, it began to pose a visible threat to the empire. The international growth of Christianity led to periods of local persecution, which increased and decreased in severity as time went on. Two major periods of

1 In writing this lesson much use was made of the following books: Letham’s, Through Western Eyes, Eastern Orthodoxy, a Reformed Perspective and Ware’s The Orthodox Church. 2 Clement of Alexandria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_of_Alexandria, 02/28/20153 Origen was one of the most important biblical scholars of the early Greek Church. His most famous work, Hexapla, is a synopsis of the six versions of the Old Testament.4 Origen, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen 02/28/20155 Letham, TWE 216Jewish-Roman wars, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_wars 02/28/2015

6 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

international persecutions can be noted. Emperor Decius (201-251)7 imposed a worldwide mandate on all Romans to worship the imperial deities, and Diocletian (284-305) tried to impose a single Roman religion throughout the empire.

The situation changed dramatically with the conversion of the Emperor Constantine and the subsequent passing of the Edict of Milan in 313, which granted religious freedom throughout the empire. In fifty years’ time, this led to Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire. In addition, Constantine founded the city of Constantinople. The coming First Council of Nicaea consolidated the church’s position in the empire. From this time forward the peace of the empire was linked to the peace of the church. The link between church and state led directly to the Age of the Great Ecumenical Councils, and it was through these councils that the doctrines of Christianity were imposed on the whole church.

Terminology: Throughout these lectures, we will use the terms ‘Eastern’ or ‘Orthodox Church’ to describe church until the time of the Great Schism. Even before the schism occurred the western branch of the church was developing separately, and so we will call this separate branch the ‘Western Branch of the Church’ or ‘Western Church.’ After the time of the Great Schism, the separate branches will be denoted using the terms ‘Roman Catholic Church’ and the ‘Orthodox Church.’

In the Western Catholic Church a further split occurred during the Reformation, in the 1500’s. Therefore, from the 1500 AD onward, there is a distinction between Reformed Christianity and Roman Catholic Christianity. Students must accept that these are broad categories which summarize various movements.

2. The Ecumenical Councils

The basis of the church’s power flowed from its structure. In its structure, the church stressed both its unity and the authority of the bishops.

In the first two centuries, a threefold system of government evolved utilizing the office of deacon, presbyter, and bishop. In the early church, the bishop was the teacher. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (d. 107),8 stressed the primacy of the office of bishop. In the church, each bishop “presides in the place of God ... Let no one do any of the things that concern the Church without the bishop…Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”9 The church was found in the local community, but at the same time Cyprian (d. 258)10 “saw all bishops as sharing in the one episcopate, yet sharing in such a way that each possesses not a part but the whole.” He continued: “There are many churches but only one Church; many episcopi, 7 Decius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decius 02/28/20158 Patriarch of Antioch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decius 02/28/20159 Ware 1310 Cyprian, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprian 02/28/2015

7 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

but only one episcopate.”11 A bishop has both local authority and general authority as he is also recognized as a bishop throughout the entire church.

The authority and unity of bishops is demonstrated in the ecumenical councils. From time to time the bishops would meet together to discuss common issues. These church councils were important because “the council is the chief organ whereby God has chosen to guide His people, and it regards the Catholic Church as essentially a conciliar church.”12 Stressing the importance of Acts 15, Ware notes: “An isolated individual may well hesitate to say, ‘It seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to me;’ but when gathered in council, the members of the Church can together claim an authority which individually none of them possesses.”13

What is an ecumenical council? Letham, citing Percival states, “It was not necessary that these councils be large, nor representative of the whole world, nor even that they were summoned with the intention of being ecumenical. What makes them ecumenical is that their decisions are universally accepted afterwards.”14As the church was not yet divided into the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, these councils were accepted throughout Christendom.

We also need to make a distinction between the councils and the writings of the church fathers. Even though individual men, like Athanasius of Alexandria, made huge contributions to the church, because they were mere men and not a council, their writings did not carry the authority that the councils did. The Seven Councils alone represent the orthodox teachings of the church.

The theology of the Orthodox Church reflects these councils, focusing on the Trinity and the Incarnation. Ware notes: “The councils did not look upon themselves as an introduction to anything new, but rather as reaffirming the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” They placed a defense around the mystery.15

The early councils are extremely important for all branches of the church. Although they concerned the nature of God, the ultimate issue of each council was nothing less than salvation itself. If a person makes a mistake in his understanding of Christ’s nature and work, with respect to either His godhead or His humanity, he cannot be saved, nor could Christ or the Spirit be properly worshipped. With regard to Christ, if Christ is not Himself fully God, He cannot deify the believer,16 and if He is not fully human, there is no bridge 11 Ware 1412 Ware 1513 Ware 1614 qtd. in Letham, TWE 2315 Ware 25-2816 In the Orthodox Church, the way that salvation is understood is ‘deification.’ God became man in order that man might become God. “He has become man in order that he might deify us in himself” (Athanasius, qtd. in Letham, TWE 87).

8 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

to humanity. He has to be both fully God and fully man in order to save. The first six councils affirmed this.

On the other hand the Orthodox Church failed to develop a number of other doctrines that the Reformed church deems very important. Because these issues did not arise in quite the same way, the church was not forced to wrestle with them. This failure becomes extremely important when discussing man, the nature of the Fall, sin and grace. It is in these areas that huge differences have opened up between the Eastern and Reformed churches. These differences will be discussed in later lectures.

The nature of these councils will drive our study of them. We will approach the six councils in pairs, because typically a council would formulate a position on an issue and then a subsequent council would be called to clarify any resulting confusion. Hopefully our approach will make it easier for the students to understand the often-difficult debates. The debates that preceded the councils were complex, and a great deal of confusion was caused because the debaters themselves did not have a clear set of terms with which to discuss the issues and often used the same words but with different intended meanings. In order to simplify our discussion, we will use the English words ‘person’ and ‘nature.’ The nature of Christ is His human nature, which included a reasonable soul and body.

The first two councils discussed the divinity of Christ and the divinity of the Spirit. The First Council of Nicaea affirmed that Christ was God. The second, Constantinople I, expanded the doctrine of Nicaea and also focused on the deity of the Spirit.

1. Nicaea I (325) 2. Constantinople I (381)

Once the divinity of Christ had been established, the next logical focus was the relationship between Christ’s humanity and His divinity. The ensuing two councils established both the full divinity and full humanity of Christ.

3. Ephesus (431) 4. Chalcedon (425)

The last two councils focused on the nature of the union, namely that the one person of Christ is the one eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, and is the one who takes on human flesh. He is one divine person, from heaven, with two natures and two wills, working in perfect harmony.

5. Constantinople II (553)Constantinople III (680-681)

2.1. Nicaea I (325)

9 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.1.1. The Background

An ascetic17 Christian presbyter and priest in Alexandria named Arius (256-336)18

claimed that the Son of God was created. He stressed God’s unity and the uniqueness of the Father, which led him to say that the Son was created out of nothing. Arius claimed that God was not always the Father; that the Son was created along with everything else. When God wanted to create, He made the Son, who then created the world for Him. As a created being, Christ chooses to obey the Father, which means that He might chose not to obey the Father at some future point. Arius claimed that the Father is the origin of the Son, and that the Son is the origin of the Spirit. He believed that each member of the Trinity has a different substance. Arius also rejected the eternal nature of the Son, because he felt that if the Son was not fully human then Christ could not be our Savior.

Arius’s biggest opponent was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius (c. 296-373).19

Athanasius pointed out that if Jesus was not also God, then He could not save. In his desire to make Jesus human, Arius had severed the Son from being the eternal pre-existent God. The battle raged for a time, and Constantine I summoned a church council. He did not participate, but he did confirm the decision.

During the meeting, the council realized that they couldn’t merely repeat simple biblical language, because Arius could use that same simple biblical language to teach his doctrine. For instance if the council agreed to simply call the Son ‘the Son,’ as it says in Scripture, then Arius could use this that language to argue that the Son had a beginning, as all human sons have beginnings. As the members of the council debated, they had to finds words that excluded all possibility of an Arian interpretation, words which asserted that the Son was also God.

2.1.2. The Nicene Creed (325)20

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

And in the Holy Ghost.

17 An ascetic believed in a life marked by the absence of worldly pleasures in order to obtain spiritual goals.18 Arius, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius 02/28/201519 Athanasius of Alexandria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria 02/28/201520 Nicene Creed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed 02/28/2015

10 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Anathema: [But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

Assessment : The council decreed that Jesus was fully God. The key texts in the manuscript (underlined above) include the phrase God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God. Jesus is specifically called begotten of the Father; He is said to be begotten not made, meaning not created. When considering Christ’s nature, the council stated that He is one substance with the Father. Christ shares the Father’s essence.

The creed was a major step forward. Arius was defeated. Unfortunately, though, this did not bring all issues to an end, because there was a lack of consensus concerning what certain key terms meant in the Greek. A vital one was the phrase one substance. At this time there was no clear distinction in Greek between what Christians in English today call God’s essence and His nature. 2.2. Constantinople I (381)21

The issue of Jesus’ nature was still unclear following the Council of Nicaea. As the debate continued, Athanasius recognized that it was not the precise Greek words that mattered, but what was meant by those terms; how the terms were defined. What was needed was a way to distinguish between the one substance of God and the three individual persons of the Trinity.

21 First Council of Constantinople, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed 02/28/201511 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.2.1. Basil the Great (330-379)22

Basil, the Greek bishop of Caesarea Mazaca in Cappadocia, Asia Minor, argued that there are no theological terms adequate to capture all the truth that surrounds God. Language is too weak to capture the whole reality. He suggested a separation between ousia, ‘substance,’ and hypostasis, ‘person.’ Ousia is that which is common to all the divine godhead, while hypostasis is specific to each person of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Spirit. By defining the language in this way, it allowed key distinctions to be made. God was one ousia (substance), while existing in three hypostasi (persons).

It was at this time that the Macedonians claimed that the Spirit was not a divine person. A second council was called in 381, in Constantinople. There were only a few men present, and none from the West. Even so, by 550 this council was regarded as ecumenical by later councils. It interpreted and expanded the Council of Nicaea.

a. The Council of Constantinople proclaimed Constantinople, the new Rome, second only to Rome. This followed the political changes in the empire and the ascendancy of the city of Constantinople.

b. The council affirmed the original Nicene Creed of Faith as far as it went, but it expanded the discussion on the Holy Spirit in order to combat heresies. The creed is now known as the "Nicene Creed of 381" or the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from that of the First Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.).23

In the table below both the first Nicene Creed and its later expanded version of 381 are written out. I have used italics and underlined any additional words that expanded the first Nicaea Creed.

First Council of Nicaea (325) First Council of Constantinople (381)

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten   Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made;

22 Basil of Caesarea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Caesarea 02/28/201523 First Council of Nicaea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea 02/28/2015

12 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary , and was made man;

He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended, into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;

whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

In one holy catholic and apostolic church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

2.2.2. Assessment

Omissions: In the later creed two key phrases of the original creed, developed during the First Council of Nicaea, were omitted: ‘from the same substance of the Father’ and ‘God of God.’ It is unclear why. Because the creed affirmed Nicaea, the omissions were not considered a change in theology. If anything, the phrases may have been left out because they were thought to be redundant.24

24 Letham notes that the creed was used in the liturgy and because of the rhythmical flow, it might not have been necessary to repeat those phrases (TWE 34).

13 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Additions: The creed expanded the original Nicene Creed throughout. It introduced some new wording, namely ‘whose kingdom shall have no end.’ In a major addition they also added a fuller section on the Spirit, thus stating that the Holy Spirit is ‘the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.’ The council rejected the Macedonians’ argument that the Spirit was a creature and so should not be worshiped. The Creed taught the deity of the Spirit. He is called Lord, a title for God Himself, and He is to be worshipped and glorified as are the other two members. The monarchy of the Father is stressed; the Spirit comes from the Father. The personality of the Spirit is also implied, as the creed mentions that He speaks through the person of the Son. In addition the Spirit is, along with the Son, the source of creation and life. Salvation flows from the Trinity, and all three are active in all that is made.

Subsequent Events: Even though the Spirit was not called ‘of the same substance’ in 381, that exact wording was applied to the Spirit in the following year in a synodic letter. “There is one Godhead, Power and Substance (ousia), of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost…in three perfect hypostases, i.e. three perfect persons.”25

2.3. Ephesus (431)26

In the first two councils, the deity of both the Son and the Spirit was affirmed. In the next century, the focus became the nature of the Son, as fully God and fully man. The question that the members of the council sought to answer was: If Jesus was fully God, was He also fully man? This battle was fought over a number of years.

Apollinaris (c315-before 392):27 Apollinaris was the Bishop of Laodicea. He taught that the divine Logos28 took the place of the human soul in the Incarnation. This meant that Jesus was not fully human, because He had no soul.

Nestorius Bishop of Constantiople: A further dispute arose concerning the word ‘theotokos.’ The word means literally ‘God-bearer,’ a common name for Mary, Jesus’ mother. Nestorius wanted to distinguish between Jesus’ divinity and His humanity. He argued that Mary could only be called the mother of the man Jesus, or the Christokos, meaning the ‘Christ-bearer.’ Nestorius was clear about the unity of Jesus’ human and divine natures, but he feared that the term ‘God-bearer’ implied that Christ was a mere creature. He wanted to make sure there was no mixture in Christ’s deity and humanity. Due to this he did not use the phrase ‘union of nature.’

25 Percival, qtd. in Letham, TWE 3626 Council of Ephesus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Ephesus 02/28/201527 Letham, TWE 4028 The divine Logos was the description of the Son before the Incarnation, given in the John’s prologue to gospel.

14 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444)29 opposed him. As the Patriarch of Alexandria, Cyril was concerned that Nestorius’s focus on the distinctiveness of Christ’s humanity would lead him to deny the unity of Christ’s two natures. He felt that Nestorius had failed to describe the idea of a union of Christ’s human and divine nature. Cyril wrote a number of letters to Nestorius, the most important being the second and third letters. To Cyril, the way Nestorius described Christ’s two natures was more like “two pieces of board held together by glue.”30

Cyril started with the union of Christ’s person. “The word united himself …flesh enlivened by a rational soul, and in this way became a human being. There is an unspeakable and unutterable convergence into unity, one Christ and one son out of two.” 31 “We do not worship a human being in conjunction with the Logos, lest the appearance of a division creep in. … No, we worship one and the same, because the body of the Logos is not alien to him but accompanies him even as he is enthroned with the Father.” 32

The Virgin Mary is theotokos since the Logos united Himself to a human body and soul. To Cyril, the eternal Christ assumed union with the human nature of Christ.

The Third Letter: In this letter Cyril affirmed that the two natures come together in union, and that the Word and man are not worshiped separately, but are jointly given one act of worship. It is the Word who suffered, was crucified, and died according to the flesh. Letham notes that Cyril’s union “excludes division but does not eliminate difference.”33

The Council of 431 affirmed Cyril’s second letter, but failed to affirm his third, a decision which had lingering effects upon the church, which was later forced to address the issue of how the two natures come together in union during the Fifth and Sixth Councils.

29 Cyril of Alexandria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_of_Alexandria 02/28/201530 qtd. in Letham, TWE 4131 Letham, TWE 41,4232 Letham, TWE 4233 qtd. in Letham, TWE 42

15 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.4. Chalcedon (451)34 – Fourth Council

2.4.1. The Background

The church was quickly faced with the opposite error. While Nestorius sought to maintain the distinctiveness of each nature, Eutyches (380-456)35 a presbyter and head of a monastery from Constantinople, was so intent upon seeking the unity of Christ’s person that he blurred the distinctive nature of Christ’s person. The implication of his teaching was the Christ’s humanity was swamped by His divinity.

The issue, like Apollinaire’s before him, this heresy strikes at the heart of salvation, because if “Christ was not truly and fully man, we could not be saved, only a second Adam could undo the damage caused by the first.”36

2.4.2. Chalcedon

Chalcedon affirmed the three previous councils as general Ecumenical Councils. It affirmed the Second Letter to Nestorius and Pope Leo’s Tome, and it distinguished between the person and nature of Christ. The text of Chalcedon follows:

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.37

34 Council of Chalcedon, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon 02/28/201535 Eutyches, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutyches 02/28/201536 Letham, TWE 4537 www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html

16 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Assessment:

a. Christ is fully God, one substance with the Father, and fully man, one substance with manhood.

b. In opposition to Apollinaris’s teachings, Chalcedon stated that the human Christ had a reasonable soul and body.

c. Mary is theotokos. Christ was begotten of the Virgin Mary, the God-bearer. d. The Christ, the Son and Lord, has two complete natures, and the distinctiveness of

natures is in no way annulled by the union. The Son possesses two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.

e. The four expressions in the statement above (without confusion, without change, without division, without separation) are key adverbial phrases. Christ’s humanity is not changed or absorbed into His divinity, although the two natures cannot be divided or separated, because a division would destroy His person. We cannot focus on one nature in such a way as it undermines His union.

Letham notes there were a number of things that the council did not address.38 One of those was the nature of Christ’s death. This issue was dealt with by Cyril in his Third Letter to Nestorius, but was not affirmed by the council.

More importantly, the council did not link the union of Christ’s person with the pre–existent Logos, as Cyril had done. This omission would lead to two more councils, in the next century, to address this concern.

In addition, the council produced thirty disciplinary canons. Canons 9 and 17 gave Constantinople the function of a court of appeal. Cannon 28 put Constantinople on the same level as Rome, which placed the city above Alexandria. Rome was the first among equals in honor, but Chalcedon stated that all bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople. At this point the five great patriarchies (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were established. The elevation of Constantinople above Alexandria created tension and began the split between Rome (in the west) and Constantinople (in the east).39

2.5. Constantinople (553)40 (Monosphytes) The Fifth Council

The councils following Chalcedon dealt with two related debates. The Fifth Council discussed the issue of monophytes (single nature) while the Sixth Council dealt with the monothelitism (single will) argument. The word ‘mono’ in Greek means one, and proponents of the monophytes/monothelitism argument claimed that in the person of Christ there was only one nature/will. 38 TWE 49-51 39 Ware 26ff 40 Second Council of Constantinople, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Council_of_Constantinople 02/28/2015

17 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.5.1. Background to Monophystes Argument

Many felt that because Chalcedon left out the any statement concerning the person of the Logos and the pre-existent Son in the Trinity, the expression of union was still Nestorian, thus undermining the unity of Christ’s person.

The key issue was Christ’s unity, and particularly how it was related to His personal intra-Trinitarian pre-existent Logos. Cyril’s statement, “The one incarnate nature of the Word made flesh,” was read by the monophystes to mean that that Christ only had one nature.41 The failure to deal with this issue in Nicaea meant that many felt that Council of Chalcedon did not safe guard the church against this error.

Monophysitism believed that there was a unity of the person of Christ and the pre-incarnate Logos. In contrast, the followers of the Council of Chalcedon were scared of separating His humanity from His deity and falling into the error of believing that His manhood was merely a state of the Logos.

In some respects this was both a question of approach and a question concerning the exact nature of the union. In union there was only one countable entity. Only after that fact had been agreed upon, could one speak of two natures.

Severus (465-538),42 the last non-Chalcedonian patriarch to reside in Antioch, wanted any analysis of Christ to begin with a statement of His deity and His oneness with the Father. Only then, Severus thought, should Christ’s humanity be considered. It was the Word who became flesh (John 1:14). Any attempt that approached Christ from the position of His humanity was difficult. Jesus was both divine and human, but the two natures were in union with one another in such a way that His divinity had the priority.

Deity humanity

In contrast, Leo’s Tome43 spoke of merely two activities: deity and humanity without giving any priority to either or to the person. Letham notes that three people were instrumental in solving this issue.

Leontius of Byzantium: Leonitus, in order to justify Chalcedon, began his argument with the Christ, not the eternal Logos. Christ was one (osia) being. He stressed that “the divinity communicates itself to the humanity and vice versa, in unmediated reciprocity.”44

41 Letham, TWE 56

42 Severus of Antioch, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severus_of_Antioch 02/28/201543 Leo’s Tome is the name given to the letters written by Pope Leo and sent to the Council of Chalcedon clarifying the Papacy’s position on a number of theological issues.44 Letham, TWE 59

18 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

At the same time he emphasized the primacy of the Logos’ nature, “… The mutual communication occurs from the side of the Logos rather than vice versa.”45

Leontius of Jerusalem: The other Leontius insisted on the complete identity of the prosopon (person). “… of the person, of the subject before and after the incarnation. The pre-existent hypostasis (person) of the Logos himself is the subject of the incarnation who assumes a human nature, which does not have its own prosopon.”46

Justinian I : In the debates, Justinian made a clear distinction between hypostasis (the underlying person) and nature. He clarified the terminology once and for all. Justinian taught that the pre-existent hypostasis, the person of Christ, is the divine Word.

In The Edict on the True Faith 551, Justinian explained his thinking and provided the theoretical foundation for the council. He stated: “We confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Divine Logos of God who was incarnate and became man.”47

“…The one hypostasis of the three divine hypostases, is not united to a man who has his own hypostasis before [the union], but that in the womb of the Holy Virgin the divine Logos made for Himself, in his own hypostasis, flesh that was taken from her and that was endowed with a reasonable and intellectual soul, i.e. human nature.”48

Justinian asserted that there was one hypostatis (person) and a union of two natures in that person. The Logos of God was united to human nature, not to a particular hypostasis person. As such the human nature of Christ began to exist in the hypostasis person of the Logos at the incarnation. After the union, there remained remain two natures, divine and human. “The divine hypostasis created this spiritually ensouled human nature for himself, so as to be hypostasis for it, and to exist humanly in it as divine hypostasis.” 49

In contrast to the simple formula developed by the Council of Chalcedon, Justinian stressed that the two natures come together to form one Christ, the hypostasis person is the divine Logos who takes flesh.The council confessed the faith of Nicene Creed, its interpretation in Constantinople, and the council of Ephesus and Chalcedon, thus affirming their status as Ecumenical Councils.

It passed a number of Cannons, which are positive assertions of the truth.

45 Letham, TWE 59, 6046 Letham, TWE 6147 39, 6348 6349 Supra

19 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Canon 2:There were two births of the Logos, one from eternity from the Father, without time and without body, and the other his being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, mother of God. Canon 3: It was the person of the Logos who became flesh and a human being. Canon 5: There is one substance or person.Canon 8: Both natures remain as they were. Canon 9:The worship of Christ is one act of worship directed toward the incarnate God, Logos, with His flesh.

2.6. Constantinople III (680-681)50 The Sixth Ecumenical Council

The issue debated in the fifth council concentrated on one person and two natures, and the issue in the sixth council was: Did Christ have two wills or one?

Some argued that there was only one will, that of the incarnate Word. All the action was given to the person of Christ, not to His nature. There is one Christ; and so one will, His human nature was merely docile with no personal initiative.

Maximus the Confessor (580-662), a Christian monk and scholar, said that Christ had two natures, operations and will. His will proceeds from both His divine and human natures.

The key issue was expressed in a letter from Pope Agatho to Emperor Constantine. It was addressed in the council’s fourth session:

This then is the status [and the regular tradition(1)] of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith, to wit, that as we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and substance or essence, so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory. And whatever is said of the same Holy Trinity essentially in singular number we understand to refer to the one nature of the three consubstantial Persons, having been so taught by canonical logic. But when we make a confession concerning one of the same three Persons of that Holy Trinity, of the Son of God, or God the Word, and of the mystery of his adorable dispensation according to the flesh, we assert that all things are double in the one arm the same our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Evangelical tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the divine and the human, of which and in which he, even after the wonderful and inseparable union, subsists. And we confess that each of his natures has its own natural propriety, and that the divine, has all filings that are divine, without any sin. And we recognize that each one (of the two natures) of the one and the same incarnated, that is, humanated (humanati) Word of God is in him unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence alone discerning a unity, to avoid the

50 Third Council of Constantinople, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severus_of_Antioch 02/28/201520 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

error of confusion. For we equally detest the blasphemy of division and of commixture. For when we confess two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we do not assert that they are contrary or opposed one to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the apostolic tradition of doing. Far be this impiety from the hearts of the faithful!), nor as though separated (per se separated) in two persons or subsistences, but we say that as the same our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures so also he has two natural wills and operations, to wit, the divine and the human: the divine will and operation he has in common with the coessential Father from all eternity: the human, he has received from us, taken with our nature in time. This is the apostolic and evangelic tradition, which the spiritual mother of your most felicitous empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, holds. This is the pure expression of piety. This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles.51

The council accepted the assertion that the two wills act in harmony; there was a distinct human will in Jesus, but it acted in harmony with the divine will. In addition the council noted, “The human will follows…. as subject to his divine and omnipotent will.”52

This teaching was followed by the church.

“For as his most holy immaculate animated soul was not destroyed, because it was deified, but continued in its own measure and order,… so also his human will, though deified was not suppressed but rather preserved.”53 “So close was the harmony in which the natures acted together that the human will willed of its own free will those things that the divine will willed it to will.”54 The two wills do not work in parallel; there is harmony and synthesis, both agreeing in the one person of Jesus Christ. 2.7. Nicaea II 787 The Seventh Council

This council met over the issue of icons, and we will discuss it in more detail in subsequent lessons.

3. Conclusion

The Orthodox Church, as do all main branches of the Christian faith, holds to the teachings of the Six Councils. In the case of the Orthodox Church, these six councils plus the seventh council have a unique status. “All profess that there are seven holy and Ecumenical Councils, and these are the seven pillars of the faith of the Divine Word, one which He erected on His holy maintain, the Catholic and Ecumenical church. (John II, 51 www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.asp52 Davis Councils, qtd. in Letham, TWE 71 53 Sellers, qtd. in Letham, TWE 7154 John of Damascus qtd. in Letham, TWE 71

21 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Metropolitan of Russian (1080-89).”55 In Reformed churches the teachings of the Six Councils are accepted but not as pillars; rather, they are accepted on the authority of councils, which is a lesser authority than the Scriptures (WCF 31,iii, iv).56 It is this subtle difference in the understanding of authority to which we will next turn.

Lesson One Questions

1. Explain the importance of Greek and Latin in the church.2. Each localized church center developed differently. Give an example.3. Explain the term conciliar. Why is it important in Eastern Orthodoxy?4. What makes a council ecumenical, not merely local? 5. Explain the Arius verse Athanasius debate. Who won?6. Explain the importance of the following words from the Nicaea creed:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

7. Explain Basil the Great’s contribution to the Trinitarian debate.8. How did the First Council of Constantinople (381) expand the doctrine of the

Holy Spirit? 9. Explain the words used to explain Christ’s divinity and His humanity.10. What four words describe the relationship between Christ’s human nature and His

divine nature?11. What did Canon 28 of Chalcedon say?12. Explain Justinian’s ascertain of the two natures of Christ in the Fifth Ecumenical

Council.

55 Ware 1856 WCF 31.III. It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word.IV. All synods or councils, since the apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.

22 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Two: The Fathers, Icons, and Augustine57

This lesson will address three major topics: the Church Fathers, the Eastern Orthodox Church’s teaching on icons, and the role Augustine played in shaping the theology of the Western Church including his focus on original sin and God’s grace.

The Church Fathers have provided a vital source of authority for the Orthodox Church. Although the writings of the individual Fathers have a lesser authority than that of the creeds and Scripture, their teachings have shaped the direction of the church. In fact, the Fathers have been hugely influential in both Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches, For the Eastern Orthodox Church, the writings of the Fathers, in the 4 th century, are considered foundational.

The lesson will also consider the teachings of the Seventh Ecumenical Council on icons and the rationale for the Iconography of John of Damascus. In the Orthodox Church, the Seventh Council is considered to be infallible and binding; it pronounces an anathema on those who reject icons in worship. This anathema falls on all true Protestant and Reformed churches that see icons as idolatry. Finally, we will consider the influence of Augustine in shaping the theology of the Western Church. Augustine guided the Western Church’s approach to the Trinity by stressing the unity of God ahead of an emphasis on the three persons. He also developed the Doctrines of Original Sin and Grace during his dispute with Pelagius. Augustine’s theology had a huge impact on the teaching of the Western Church, although his teaching has been ignored in the East.

1. The Early Church Fathers

1.1. Athanasius of Alexandria

Athanasius was a mighty church father who influenced the church in a number of crucial ways. One of his greatest contributions came during his battle with Arius over the divine nature of Christ (previously considered in this course). We have a summary of Athanasius’s work in De Incarnatione, translated as On the Incarnation, the Purpose, the Necessity and the Truth of the Incarnation. 58 The following extracts are designed to give the reader a sampling of his work.

God made creation from nothing and God is “the Designer and Maker of all.”59 The creation “was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-

57 Letham, TWE 81; RTS lecture notes 58Available in print (English) at www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.pdf. Available in audio at www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation/mp3.59 Chapter 1

23 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

existence, absolute and utter, God brought it into being through the Word.”60 “He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these, His earthly creatures.”61

“In order to save us, he was both and manifested in a human body; the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God entered our world. In salvation he- the Word- perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body that He had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word's indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all.”62

“For by the sacrifice of His own body He did two things: He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; the Word made Man has destroyed death and life raised up anew.”63

“He, indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.”64

We will consider the Eastern Church’s understanding of deification in a later lecture.

60 Chapter 1 61 Chapter 162 Chapter 963 Chapter 1664 Chapter 54

24 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1.2. The Cappadocian Fathers

There are three great Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great (330-379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395),65 and Gregory of Nazianzen - The Theologian (c. 330-391).66 Through their battles and defense of the faith, they made huge contributions to the church’s understanding of the Trinity during the 4th century.

These men led the fight against Eunomius (d. 393),67 the leader of the Anomoean movement, who advocated advanced rationalism and the use of logic to explore every aspect of the Godhead. Eunomis trusted in the complete ability of man, who could, he believed, by reason, fully understand God. He argued that the Father and Son are human constructs, and that these constructs can be put onto the Godhead. He stated that the only the Father is absolute; the Son is created, just as humans are created. This thinking was another form of Arianism.68 Eunomius also claimed that the Holy Spirit is a mere power; He is not a person/member of the Trinity and therefore not divine.

1.2.1. Basil the Great

Although the Council of Nicaea had defended the eternal Godhead of Christ, the language that the council used led to confusion with reference to the distinction between the oneness of God and the three persons. The problem developed through the use of the words ousia and hypostasis. There no clear religious definitions for these words, and they were being used differently by the philosophy of the day. In response, Basil argued that it was not essential to use the words as they were defined by the then current philosophy; rather, in Christian discussion, these words could be redefined and given new biblical and theological context. According to Basil, ousia (essence) must be used for the one being of God, while the word hypostasis should designate the way in which God is three. By using this line of thinking, Basil freed the church from being bound by the philosophical meaning of the words, while at the same time allowing the church to distinguish between the One and the Three within the Trinity.

Basil, in De Spiritu Sancto, argued for the deity of the Spirit. In his writings, he never actually calls the Spirit God, but because he sees the Spirit as so powerful throughout, it is hard to think that he did not consider the person of the Spirit divine. Basil was a strong pastoral man, who stressed love for the poor.

65 Gregory of Nyssa, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa 02/28/201566 Gregory of Nazianzus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nazianzus, 02/28/201567 Eunomius of Cyzicus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eunomius_of_Cyzicus68 This was a belief that Jesus Christ was a created being and therefore subordinate to God the Father. This type of thinking was deemed heretical by the First Council of Nicaea.

25 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1.2.2. Gregory of Nyssa

Gregory of Nyssa was the most brilliant of the Three Fathers. “In regard to the Trinity,” he stated, “God is one in essence, three in persons, divided without separation, and united without confusion. In essence he is incomprehensible, and impossible to circumscribe.”69

In response to extreme rationalism, Gregory wrote the book, Against Eunomuis, in which he stressed that God is beyond all men. He cannot be defined by men. Men can only respond by faith, and that to which they must respond is God’s own revelation of Himself.

In opposing Eunomius Rationalism, Basil (discussed above) made a vital distinction between the incomprehensibility of God in His being and His actions in this world (the things about God that can be seen). This idea was further advanced by his brother, Gregory of Nyssa. This thinking led to the establishment of the Apophatic Approach, by Gregory Palamas (1296-1359),7071 which became a central characteristic of Eastern theology. This teaching states that God cannot be known through positive affirmations, but is known through a process of negation (what He is not), prayer, and contemplation. Gregory of Nyssa stressed that man’s ultimate end is deification, with our bodies being transformed into the body of Christ, by coming into contact with eternal life, in Christ, through the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, man is united to Christ, and so shares in His incorruptibility and immortality. “It is not an absorption of humanity into God but its partaking of bodily humanity.”72

1.2.3. Gregory Nazianzen: The Theologian

Gregory Nazianzen’s theology flowed out of worship, and his major contribution was his writings on the person of the Spirit in Theological Orations.73

He followed the other Cappadocians’ stress on the incomprehensibility of God, which stood in opposition to the ideas of the rationalists. “We can only speak in negatives. It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility.”74 He felt that there is true knowledge but not direct knowledge.75

This Gregory taught that the monarchy of God is not limited to the Father but is possessed by the entire Trinity. The persons of the Trinity are numerically distinct, and yet there is no severance of essence. “The Father is the begetter and the emitter, the Son 69 Letham, THT 15470 Gregory Palamas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Palamas 02/28/2015 71 Letham, TWE 91; This will be considered in Lesson Six.72 Letham, TWE 9273 www.newadvent.org/fathers/3102.htm74 Letham, TWE 9575 Ibid.

26 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

is begotten, and the Holy Spirit, the emission, but this is so in the context of equality of nature, a union of mind, and identity of motion.”76 All of what is described above took place before time, so there was never a time when the Trinity was not. The very act of begetting, of being begotten, is a property of and includes their very persons.

With reference to the Holy Spirit, Gregory argued that the reason for the reticence of the revelation of the Spirit is due to the historical and progressive outworking of Scripture. The Old Testament showed the Father clearly, but obscured the Son. The New Testament made manifest the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. “For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further … with the Holy Spirit (5:26). Now worship and baptism establish the Spirit’s deity for we worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three persons, one Godhead, undivided in honor and glory…”77

1.3. John Chrysostom (c. 349-407)78

John Chrysostom, the archbishop of Constantinople, was reputed to be one of the greatest preachers in Christianity. Throughout his ministry, he used an exegetical approach to preaching, teaching consecutively through the books of the Bible, while following the literal hermeneutic of the school of Antioch. On occasion, he also included topical preaching as well.

1.4. John of Damascus (c.675 - c.749)79

He followed the Apophatic approach to God, meaning that he believed that God in His essence was incomprehensible.

When discussing God, in his work The Orthodox Faith, he begins with God and then moves immediately to consider that God is Trinity.80 God is not apprehended in the abstract of His essence, as is common in Western theology;81 rather, God is always approached through the three persons.John maintains the essence-energy distinction of the Eastern fathers and asserts that God, in His nature, is unknowable. To explain the essence of God, one must use positive terms, a task that is impossible with regard to God. He argues that what is known of God is not His nature, but the qualities of His nature: His goodness, His justice, etc.

76 Letham, TWE 9577 Gregory the Nazarene, Theological Orations, cited by Letham, TWE 9878 John Chrysostom, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom 02/28/201579 John of Damascus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus 02/28/201580 Letham, TWE 10981 Berkhof, in his work Systematic Theology, begins with God, His names, nature, and attributes before he discusses the Trinity.

27 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

John is the first to use the Greek term perichoresis, which means the mutual indwelling of the three persons in the being of God. The substance of each member of the Trinity (or persons) is in each other, and although they are in one another, they do not comingle but cleave to one another.

John was also the main defender of icons, a topic which shall be considered shortly.

1.5. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359)

Gregory’s great contribution to Eastern thought was to clearly distinguish between God’s one unoriginal and eternal essence, and His energies.82 Gregory suggested that although some of God’s divine powers and works have no beginning; they are not identical with His essence. In this respect, God even transcends His uncreated works. He even transcends His own uncreated goodness, holiness, and virtue. God is entirely present in each of these eternal energies. We will consider Gregory’s theology in later lessons.

1.6. Final Thoughts

We note that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not stress the teachings of either Ambrose of Milan or Augustine of Hippo, two great Western theologians. Both of these men stressed the doctrine of God’s grace, a doctrine about which F.F. Bruce says, “The biblical doctrine of grace seems almost to go underground in the post-apostolic age, to reappear only with Augustine.” Because the Eastern Church follows neither the teachings of Ambrose nor Augustine, they do not align with this western and biblical focus.

2. The Iconoclastic Controversy The issue of the use of icons in worship came to a head during the eighth century. The troubles ended with the seventh and final ecumenical council of the church in 787 AD, which allowed the use of images to assist worship in the church. In the early church, from the second century, pictures were used as an aid to worship. It is unclear how widespread the practice was. Initially pictures were considered, the “books” of the unlearned, and were used as a means to communicate information to the many who could not read.83 Later, it was argued that just as the Eucharist and Baptism used certain objects as means, in sacramental way, to represent the presence of Christ, the washing of sin, and union, so other material things could then become vehicles by which true worship took place. This rationale became of the basis for the use of icons. In the 4th and 5th centuries there was a proliferation of pictures of Jesus, Mary, and the other saints. At this time they went beyond a mere teaching aid, as they “were believed to possess links to the spiritual world,

82 Letham, TWE 11283 Letham, TWE 145

28 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

offering aid and protection.”84 It was then that the icons, which had been on the walls of the church, were now beginning to be found in individual homes as well.

Emperor Leo III (717-741) sparked the iconoclastic controversy in 726 by pulling down the image of Christ at the gate of the Imperial Palace at Constantinople, claiming it was idolatrous. This action led to a riot, with monks and common people arguing that the icons of Christ were consistent with the teachings of Chalcedon. If Christ was human, why couldn’t He be represented as a man?

A major proponent of icons was John of Damascus. In The Fountain of Knowledge or Fountain of Wisdom, John claimed a distinction between the adoration due to God alone, and veneration. He states that the icons are not to be adored, but they must be venerated. According to John, in veneration, worship passes beyond the object being venerated to God Himself.

In response, Emperor Constantine V enacted iconoclastic policies and persecuted those who venerated icons. He convened an iconoclastic council in 754. The council affirmed:

a. The only images allowed were the bread and wine in the Eucharist.This was a significant exception. These, the council stated, are not images of God or Christ, but God did command that these sacramental elements should be used in Communion.

b. Prayers can be made to saints but not through pictures.

As a result, churches were raided by troops, who destroyed all the icons that had not been concealed.

This iconoclastic position was overturned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council convened at Nicaea 787. At Nicaea the decrees of 754 were annulled and the use of images in worship was sanctioned.

. The use of icons in worship is one of the greatest practical and theological divisions between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. In the East, the Seventh Great Ecumenical Council is seen as infallible, and it pronounced an anathema on any who forbade the use of icons. The Reformed churches in the West have never followed the Orthodox Church on this teaching and regard any image of God, including images of Christ, to be a breach of the second commandment. As the issue is so important, the course will return to the issue of icons in Lesson Four.

3. Augustine (354-430)85 and the Development of Western Theology86

84 Letham, TWE 7385 Augustine of Hippo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo 02/25/201586 Hoffecker, Early Church History, Lectures 20-23, RTS 2001

29 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Augustine of Hippo, a prominent theologian in the early church, had a huge influence on the Western Church, one which continued until the time of the Reformation. He was born in North Africa and tried to satisfy a longing within himself through hedonism, philosophy, and many other religions. He was eventually converted to Christianity in 386 and was ordained priest in Carthage in 391. He was consecrated the Bishop of Hippo in 396, and there he spent his remaining years pastoring and writing. One of his most famous works is Confessions,87 wherein he explains sin and grace. He also wrote the City of God which provides a theological justification for the fall of Rome.

Augustine had an introspective nature, and he often wrestled with the sinfulness of his inner being, something that would become a vital part of his theology.

This section will consider three of his great contributions and the effect they had upon the development of the Eastern Church. We will look at his understanding of the Trinity, his understanding of Christ as the Mediator, and his understanding of the sinfulness of man and election and grace.

3.1. The Trinity

Augustine wrote on the Trinity throughout his entire life. His work, De Trinitate, finished in 419, set the direction for the Western Church. In this work, we find the following affirmations:

The Unity of the Divine Nature : Unlike the early creeds and the other Eastern Fathers, Augustine began with the divine nature itself, the unity of Trinity, rather than the three persons. Augustine’s main focus has two implications:

a. Subordination of any kind is thereby precluded.b. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three in the same way that three humans

are all of one species; rather, all three are identical with one divine substance.88

Holy Spirit : Augustine taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This thinking becomes known as the double procession, or the filioque clause. The 2nd

Council at Constantinople (381) had previously stated that the procession was only from the Father.

The Procession of the Spirit : The debate between single procession from the Father alone, the monarchy of the Father, and double procession from Father and Son become a major point of controversy between the West and East, and it was an important factor in the split between the two branches of the church in 1054.87 www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/confess88 For criticism and the practical outworking of Augustine’s Trinity, see Letham 223.

30 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Regarding the Trinity, Augustine’s analogies tended to depersonalize the person Holy Spirit. He once used an illustration of a lover (the Father), a loved (the Son), and the love between themselves (the Holy Spirit). “Augustine considered the Holy Spirit to be the bond of love between the Father and the Son.”89

Augustine’s most original contribution was the idea that there are vestiges of the Trinity everywhere, and that these analogies help man to understand the Trinity. He found many of these analogies within man. He considered man’s ability to love, to perceive, and to know (the three most closely united elements) as a reflection of the Trinity.

3.2. Christology, Christ as Mediator, the Atonement and Grace

3.2.1. The Person of the Mediator As mediator, Christ’s humanity was absolutely real and complete; His deity, likewise, is to be fully affirmed (1 Tim. 2:5). The two natures are united in one person. As God, Christ is equal with God.

3.2.2. The Work of Christ the Mediator

Augustine also made a number of contributions regarding the work of Christ, not merely His person. Eastern Orthodoxy has often focused on the person of God and Christ, rather than His works. In contrast, Augustine focused on Christ’s works, and so offered a fuller understanding of substitutionary and vicarious atonement than is common in the East. Augustine’s emphasis continued in the West with Calvin, who developed both the person and the work of Christ in The Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, The later Reformers also advance this line of thinking in the development of the major Reformed creeds.

3.2.2.1. AtonementAugustine taught that atonement had an element of ransom in it. The idea of ransom was originally developed by Origen, but Origen suggested that God had to pay Satan to release the captive sinners. This gave an inappropriate role to Satan. In contrast, Augustine claimed that the ransom is paid to satisfy the justice of God. The devil had no right to man; rather, man sold himself to the devil through sin. When Satan had the arrogance to seize Christ, he was penalized and forced to give Him up. Augustine argued that Christ was an expiatory and propitiatory sacrifice. As expiation, His role was to atone, to make amends, to pay penalty for the wrong done by God’s people. Augustine also spoke of propitiation, meaning that Christ turned away/appeased the wrath of God. Augustine had a broad understanding of the nature of the atonement. He cited Paul’s text in 2 Corinthians 5:21: For our sake he made him to be 89 Letham, TWE 222

31 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. He saw Christ as both the priest and the offered sacrifice.

3.2.2.2. Exemplary ElementAugustine also saw an exemplary element to Christ’s sacrifice. He demonstrated through His sacrifice God’s wisdom and love. Christ’s willingness to die incites believers to love Him in return. Jesus’ divine humility breaks His people’s pride. In his teachings, Augustine includes, in addition to the clear objective work of atonement, a subjective response on the part of those whom God calls.

Augustine’s focus on Christ’s death as both propitiation and sacrifice has been reflected in the teachings of the Western Church, while the Eastern Church has tended to focus mainly on the Incarnation and the resurrection.

3.3. Sin and Grace Augustine’s theology of sin and of grace was developed during his dispute with Pelagius. This became a particularly western dispute, one not followed in the Eastern Church. Augustine’s teaching was further developed by the Reformers, and it represents a vital part of the Reformed understanding of man, the fall in Adam, human nature, and election. This emphasis, essential to the Reformed faith, serves as some of the greatest contrasts been the Orthodox and Reformed understandings of salvation. The Eastern Orthodox Church has never had as negative of a view of Adam’s fall or the corruption of his nature, and so has tended to elevate free will and correspondingly deny the need and the doctrine of election.

32 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3.3.1. Augustine and Pelagius: Sin, Works, and Grace

Pelagius was born, circa 390, in Britain but later settled in Rome. He was scandalized by the low moral life of the Romans. He argued that the reason for this low moral state was that people were using the teachings of the Church as an excuse for bad behavior. He claimed that the Church’s teachings on original sin and the corruption of man’s nature denied any human responsibility by man’s crippled moral will. Pelagius argued that to assume that God has commanded the impossible would make God out to be unrighteous and cruel. To Pelagius, God seemed to be seeking man’s punishment rather than his salvation. He argued that God would not condemn man for what he could not help. Pelagius reacted strongly to Augustine’s statement in Confessions: “I have no hope but in thy great mercy,”90 and Augustine’s assertion: “Grant what you command and command what you will.”91

3.3.1.1. Human Nature Pelagius viewed human nature as possessing the capacity to achieve moral perfection. He believed that man has the natural ability to please God and that man has the capacity to make free choices. Pelagius’s desire was a good one. He wanted every Christian to possess continence (self-restraint), chastity, and poverty so that collectively the Church could become spotless society. Although we know that a spotless society on earth is impossible this side of the second coming, Pelagius’s underlying principle was that man did have the ability to do just that. He based everything upon that premise. He saw man as a radical individualist whose individual responsibility was the basis of moral reform.

3.3.1.2. Pelagius’ Denial of Augustine’s Doctrine of Original SinPelagius claimed, “Everything good and evil… is done by us, not born with us. There is no state of evil, inherited or imputed. We are not born in our full development, but with a capacity for good and evil. We are begotten without virtue and without vice.”92 He believed that there was only that which arose from our own choices.

3.3.2. Caelestius Caelestius was an avid follower of Pelagius, and in fact, it was the attempt to have Caelestius ordained in Carthage that led directly to the Pelagian controversy. He was rejected for the office, and the six reasons offered for rejecting Caelestius are listed below. Caelestius believed that:

a. Adam was created morally good but mortal. Adam would have died even if he had not sinned. This is counter to Augustine’s view that pre-Fall, Adam would not

90 Confessions, Book X, www.sacred-texts.com/chr/augconf/aug10.htm91 Translated as “Give what Thou enjoinest, and enjoin what Thou wilt;” Ibid. 92 Bettenson 53

33 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

have died. Physical death is seen by Caelestius to be a natural aspect of human nature.

b. Adam’s sin only affected Adam. It had no effect on the rest of the human race other than serving as a bad example. As a moralist, he too, held to rigid individualism. His beliefs had no room for a sense of corporate solidarity.

c. All infants born after Adam are in same state as Adam before the Fall. There is no Doctrine of Original Sin and no imputation of Adam’s death.

d. It is not through Adam that all men die, and likewise, it is not by the resurrection of Christ that men are raised. Adam and Christ are merely exemplary in their effects on rest of human race.

e. The Law as well as the Gospel leads to the Kingdom of God. The purpose of the Law is not to point out man’s sin or make man run to Christ for grace, but the Law’s purpose is to lead man directly to eternal life.

f. Even before Christ there were some sinless men. This last point is the logical conclusion of the above steps.

As a result of the teachings above, Caelestius was denied ordination at the Synod of Carthage in 411. The controversy then caused Augustine to dispute Pelagianism, while at the same time it became the impetus for the development of Augustine’s own theology. By 415, Augustine argued that Pelagius’s and Caelestius’s ideas constituted a system of thought (a theodicy), specifically an understanding of the Fall and human nature, that was alien to the Gospel.

3.4. Augustine’s Response

Augustine argued that Pelagius’s view makes grace necessary only under certain limited circumstances: If a person sinned, he needed grace. Pelagius argued that man needs grace in order to cooperate with God. Augustine argued that the denial of original sin resulted in affirming the human power of perfection and the capacity to choose either good over evil.

In contrast, Augustine taught the absolute indispensability of God’s sovereign, redeeming grace. He believed that grace is wholly undeserved, wholly free, wholly necessary, and that it is irresistible. God gives grace to whom He so chooses.

Augustine argued for a fourfold-state of human nature.

At Creation (Adam): posse peccare et posse non peccare (possible to sin, possible not to sin) and posse mori posse non mori (able to die, able to not die).

After the Fall: People after Adam inherit original sin (non posse non peccare: not possible to not sin). This state is what Augustine called the Severe State of Original Sin.He taught that the will is inclined to evil, and apart from God’s grace, it will always do what is evil. His theology was rooted in Psalm 51 and Romans 7.

34 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

To Augustine, the mechanism by which sin is transmitted is unclear. “Augustine is not quite sure how that works. It was possibly through a representative idea, that Adam was viewed by God as standing for the whole race and so God treats the race as He treated Adam, who sinned for us. Or it was possibly a kind of realism, in which we are implicitly in Adam as he is the biological head of the race. He is the root and we are the branch from that root. Augustine sets forth both views, as Calvin does, and he does not decide on one view or the other. In the same way, Calvin also taught both but he leaned more toward the federal headship view. In some way, Adam’s sin is passed down to us. So we are not born neutral. We are born sinners. This world does not start over every time a baby is born. It just goes on. So we are born sinners and therefore we sin.” 93 94

Because of original sin, one needs God’s irresistible grace. In this regard, the true purpose of the Law is to point out man’s sin, not to be a means of salvation. Redemption: In redemption a new third state begins. Man is now posse peccare et posse non peccare (it is possible for man to sin and possible for man not to sin). In redemption the believer returns to a position with regard to sin, like Adam’s. In the new life, there is a struggle between new and old man, a struggle with sin that will remain, in this life.

The Final State: This occurs with Christ’s Second Coming/at man’s death. At that time, the elect man will be non posse peccare and non posse mori. He will not be able to sin and not be able to die. The final inability to sin is the ultimate freedom possible.

The true conception of freedom was bound up within this controversy. Augustine, citing Psalm 119:133 stated, “The will is least free when it is enslaved to evil.” God’s sovereign grace is necessary because human nature is dead in trespasses and sins.

Pelagianism was officially condemned at 3rd Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431.

93 Calhoun 11994 Augustine’s realistic position seems to be based on traducianism, (Latin, tradux shoot, sprout). Not only are our physical bodies the fruit of union of our parents, but also our soul and the state of the soul is inherited from our parents. Both Tertullian and Cyprian held to Traducianism. At the same time, it can be noted that in order for one to hold to original sin, one does not have to be a traducianist as both Calvin and Pelagius were creationists, teaching that every soul is directly created through God’s own action.

35 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3.5. The Rise of Semi-Pelagiansim95

Although condemned after the 3rd Ecumenical Council, Pelagianism continued in a new form. This new form focused on the question of whether or not man’s will can initiate the process of salvation. Semi-Pelagianism also had an effect on the view of predestination.

Jerome (347-420),96 a Latin Christian priest best known for translating the Latin Vulgate, attempted a compromise between Pelagius and Augustine. He accepted the universal corruption of sin (Augustine), but taught that the human will had freedom (Pelagianism); man could choose and respond to the offer of God’s grace. He also outlined a conditional view of predestination stating that God’s predestination is based on foreknowledge of man’s acceptance of grace. This teaching would come up again during the great Reformed dispute with Arminius in Holland, which led to the Synod of Dort. This synod defined the teaching of the Reformed Church in this matter, rejecting conditional predestination. This will be considered in later lectures.

John Cassian of Gaul97 (c. 360-435) advocated Semi-Pelagianism. He argued that man is merely sick, not dead. He drew his theology from the parables, showing that individuals respond freely to call of Christ, just like the prodigal son and Zacchaeus. On the other hand, he admitted that God’s will also draws men, and he points to the call of Matthew and Paul. His solution to this apparent conflict was that God’s grace comes as reciprocation, as a part of a mutual exchange. The seeds of goodness are planted in every soul and bear fruit when quickened by God. Salvation comes from both God and men because all men have this ‘seed’ in them. This is a modified form of Pelagianism.At the Synod of Orange (529)98 in southern Gaul, the Western Roman Church condemned Semi-Pelagianism. The council accepted a diluted version of Augustine’s theology which included:

a. The Affirmation of Augustinian Elements: i. Only by the work of Holy Spirit can men be saved. This ‘work’ is not

man’s own, but it is God’s work regenerating man. ii. The very desire for salvation is the result of grace. Augustine’s view of

original sin is affirmed. b. The Denials of Augustinianism:

i. Human beings can resist the Holy Spirit. This is inconsistent with an understanding of original sin.

ii. There was no predestination to damnation; this is a rejection of double predestination.99

95 Hoffecker, Early Church History, Lecture 22 Augustine, RTS 2001 96 Jerome, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome 02/28/201597 John Cassian was a monk who is most remembered for bringing the practices of Egyptian monasticism to the Western church.98 Council of Orange (529), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Orange_%28529%29 02/28/201599 Hoffecker, Early Church History, Lectures 20-23, RTS 2001

36 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The council set the direction for the Western and Catholic theologies. The Catholic Church followed a more Semi-Pelagian route, while the Reformers followed Augustine completely. The Eastern Orthodox Church was never influenced by these debates.

c. Grace Tied to Baptism: The Synod also said that grace is received through Baptism; therefore, all baptized have the power and duty to perform all things that pertain to soul’s salvation. That reflects a part of Augustine’s view because he had a high view of baptism but the relationship between baptism and original sin was not debated at the synod.

Later Reformed theologians did not agree with Augustine’s theology of Baptism. Zwingli, Calvin, and the Westminster Confession developed a covenantal understanding of Baptism.

Lesson Two Questions

1. Explain Athanasius’ understanding of creation from nothing. 2. Why did Christ take a human body?3. What two things did Christ accomplish by the sacrifice of His own body?4. Explain Basil the Great’s contribution regarding the language of ousia (essence)

and hypostasis.5. Explain Gregory Nazianzen’s contribution with regard to the monarchy of the

Father. 6. Explain Gregory Nazianzen’s contribution concerning the revelation of the deity

of the Spirit in Scripture. 7. Explain John of Damascus’ use of the Greek term perichoresis.8. Where did Augustine begin when considering the Trinity? What contribution did

Augustine make concerning the double procession, or the filioque clause?9. Explain Augustine’s stress on Christ the as the Mediator, and how it differs from

Eastern Orthodox Fathers. Who developed this approach in the Reformation?10. Explain the great debate between Augustine and Pelagius.

37 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Three: Scripture, Tradition, Inspiration, and Canon

This lesson will consider the issues of Scripture, Tradition, Inspiration, and Canon. It is a deliberately broad heading, as each area overlaps with the other. The lesson will discuss the Orthodox position before comparing it with the historical Reformed one.

1. The Orthodox Tradition

Central to Orthodoxy is the Tradition of the church. The concept of Tradition includes the idea that the teachings of the church, as well as its life and worship, come directly from the original apostles. Orthodoxy teaches that Tradition is a living continuity; it is “the faith and practice that Jesus Christ imparted to the Apostles, and which since the Apostle’s time has been handed down from generation to generation in the Church.”100 A synonymous term for Tradition is Orthodox, which is understood as a body of truth passed down within the church. “All local Orthodox churches are conscious of existing within one Tradition.”101 Letham describes the Orthodox Tradition as “a living continuity wider than the Bible alone.”102 “We do not content ourselves with what was reported in Acts and in the Epistles, and in the Gospels; but both before and after reading them, we add other doctrines, received from oral teaching and carrying much weight in the mystery.”103 Lossky roots Tradition in the Incarnation of Christ in the church, wherein the church is included in His fullness and where the ongoing work of the Spirit enables the church to receive this truth.104 In Christ, Tradition is living and flowing from the church’s union with His fullness and the continuing revelation of the Holy Spirit. Orthodoxy makes the closest link between dogma and the Spirit and between experience and dogma. These cannot be separated. Tradition is “transmitted and received in the Holy Spirit, who is the power for expressing the truth, whether in intelligible definitions or in sensible images and symbols.”105 The Holy Spirit is the means through which this Tradition is revealed in the church, and it only exists within the church. In contrast to the Roman Catholic view of Tradition (which is the communication of an external set of authoritative rules), the Orthodox Church stresses the actual communication of grace in Tradition.106 Reformed theologians hold to a very different definition of Tradition.

100 Ware 196101 Binns, qtd.in Letham, TWE 193 102 Letham, TWE 177103 Basil, cited in Letham, TWE 177104 Ouspensky and Lossky 14105 Letham, TWE 178 106 Letham, TWE 193

38 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1.1 The Tradition Defined

The Tradition is best broadly defined. It includes the whole teaching of the church. To an Orthodox Christian “it means the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons -- in fact the whole system of doctrine, Church government, worship, spirituality, and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages.” 107

The Tradition of the Orthodox Church is wide-ranging and flexible. Although we can distinguish various aspects of the Tradition, we must not separate them. Lossky notes that in the debates between the Reformed Church and the Catholic Church sharp divisions were made; the Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture took on a negative meaning, being set against traditions of the Catholic Church. That same debate has never taken place within Orthodoxy itself, which argues that Scripture and Tradition are two modes of the same fullness, “[There are] two modalities of one and the same fullness of Revelation communicated to the Church.”108 To Lossky, a distinction that separates or divides is never perfect or sufficiently radical. When one separates Scripture and Tradition, one element is then contrasted with the other, and through this process scripture must lend one of its characteristics to Tradition and vice versa. Lossky believed that when scripture is juxtaposed with Tradition, then the properties of Sripture are incorrectly applied to Tradition. This leads to a stark division between the Scriptures and the Tradition of the church.

In addition, “The Tradition of the church can be divided into several sources of Revelation of unequal value: acts of Oecumenical [Ecumenical] or local Councils, writings of the Fathers, canonical institutions, liturgy, iconography, devotional practices, etc.”109 Although some would say that these separations could be more accurately described as traditions rather than the Tradition, Lossky argues that Orthodoxy claims only one Tradition, one that includes Scripture. In a similar way, Ware argues that scripture exists within the Tradition of the church, not independently or apart from it. Any attempt to separate and contrast the two is to impoverish the idea of both.110 The scriptures can only be read within the church; therefore, Scripture and Tradition cannot be separated.

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that only the church itself can interpret the Scripture with authority, and that there is great danger in any claim to personal interpretation. The usual charge against the Western Church, and particularly current American Protestantism, is the abstraction of the Word from the church through academia or subjectively personalizing it, thus reducing it to a mere individual

107 Ware 196108 Ouspensky and Lossky 11109 Ibid. 110 Ware 197

39 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

interpretation. Although this is a valid charge against many churches today, as we shall see, this is not the traditional Reformed understanding of Scripture, which links the scriptures with the church and also has an important but subsidiary place for Tradition.

To Lossky, Tradition cannot be reduced to the mere teaching of the church through the written word, because the oral preached word preceded the written word. Any claim that the written word is superior is incorrect, because the spoken word existed in the church before the written word, and the written word flowed out of the oral word in the church. In this definition the Tradition of the church precedes Scripture and so is greater than Scripture itself.111

Tradition has also been described as something secret and given to the church as they participate in the sacraments. Preaching stands in contrast to the Tradition and is considered an open and public debate to the uninitiated.112 As such, the Tradition is something kept secret, not recorded in writing, and therefore considered a mystery of the church. “In effect, the revealed truth is not a dead letter but a living Word: it can be attained only in the Church, through initiation by the ‘mysteries’ or the sacraments into the mystery that have been hid from ages to generation, but is now manifest to his saints (Col. 1:26).”113 “There is participation in the revealed mystery through the fact of sacramental initiation.”114 In the Tradition of the mystery of the sacraments one receives grace. The existence of the Tradition within the church is based on the Incarnation and on entering into the living communion with Christ. In application, the words of the Savior and Apostles are communicated with the Tradition, “the communication of the Holy Spirit, which opens to the members of the Church an infinite perspective of mystery in each word of revealed Truth.”115

What then is the Word of God? Is it merely an objective archive of knowledge? Lossky, quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch, argues that the Scriptures are, “For me, my archives, they are Jesus Christ; my inviolable archives are His Cross and His Death, and His Resurrection, and the Faith which comes from Him…He is the Door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the prophets and the Apostles the Church.”116 The Scriptures are the Truth’s “living body, the scriptures can be possessed only within the church, which is the unique body of Christ.”117

To Lossky, Scripture is sufficient: “This sufficiency …of Scripture does not exclude any other expression of the same truth that the church can produce. This is in parallel with the teaching of the fullness of Christ, the head of the church. His fullness does not 111 Ouspensky and Lossky12112 Ibid.113 Ibid. 13114 Ibid. 13115 Ibid. 13116 Ouspensky and Lossky 14117 Ibid.

40 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

exclude the church, which is the compliment of His glorious humanity.”118 One expression of truth is the use of icons, because icons are based on the very Incarnation of Christ. “Icons, as well as the Scriptures, are expressions the inexpressible, and have become possible thanks to the revelation of God, which was accomplished in the Incarnation of the Son.”119 As such, the Bible should be seen as the verbal icon of Christ, and so the Seventh Ecumenical Council commanded that the Holy Icons and the books of the Gospel should be venerated in the same way. As a result, the faithful kiss and prostrate themselves before Scripture.120 The fullness of Christ in the church means that the authoritative Tradition of the church includes the dogmatic definitions, exegesis, and liturgy of the church, as they are all expressions of Christ. This is so that the church of Christ can partake of the same fullness of the Word contained in the Scriptures without being limited by or reduced to them. If all that the authoritative Tradition included were expressed in written form, that expression would become more than all the books of the world could contain.121

As a result the Eastern Orthodox Church does not distinguish between Scripture and the Tradition; any differentiation noted is there only to stress their indivisible unity as the revelation given to the church in all its fullness. Within Tradition there are differing modes of expression of the truth. The bedrock of Tradition is the Incarnation, in which the church shares in Christ’s fullness.

The Orthodox understanding of the origin of scripture is dynamic. God deals with persons, patriarchs, prophets, priests, and with Christ Himself. As such the Scriptures come from within the church. Further, authority was not accorded the scriptures, the actual books of the Bible, when they were written; rather, authority was given over the centuries that followed. In this sense, the church created the Scriptures, and so the Scriptures live within the church. Thus the dynamic oral tradition comes before the tradition of Scripture.122

At the same time, the Orthodox Church claims that the church is the standard by which all truths are gauged. Truth is the sacred deposit that she must guard (2 Tim. 1:14). This means that the church has ultimate authority over the Scriptures.

Within the Tradition there is a hierarchy: the Bible, the creeds, and the doctrinal definitions of the ecumenical councils. These carry greater weight than other local creeds. For example, the writings of Athanasius do not carry the same weight as John’s Gospel.123 On joining the church a convert promises: “I will accept and understand Holy

118 Ibid. 119 Ibid. 120 Ware 201121 Ouspensky and Lossky 14122 Stenopoulos, cited in Letham, TWE 179123 Ware 197

41 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother.”124 The Orthodox Christian of today sees himself as the heir and guardian to a great inheritance, received from the past, and he believes that it is his duty to transmit this inheritance unimpaired to the future.125

1.2 The Spirit’s Work in the Orthodox Tradition

The Tradition is vitally linked to the ongoing work of the Spirit. “It is almost true to say that the Holy Spirit, the Christian Church, and the Tradition are phrases which refer to the same reality and, in practice, mean the same.”126 “Tradition is not only kept by the Church - it lives in the Church, it is the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.” 127 It is a living, ongoing, Spirit-driven, objective, and subjective understanding. Tradition includes a unique mode of receiving the truth. “The pure notion of Tradition can then be defined by saying it is the life of the Holy Spirit, in the Church, communicating to each member of the Body of Christ the faculty of hearing, of receiving, of knowing the Truth in the Light which belongs to it, and not according to the light of human reason.”128 This knowledge comes directly from above, and is considered true human knowledge. “One cannot know the truth, nor understand the words of the Revelation without having received the Holy Spirit.”129 Tradition includes this true knowledge.

In this regard, the Tradition “does not consist uniquely in visible and verbal transmission of the teachings, the rules, institutions and rites: it is at the same time an invisible and actual communication of grace and of sanctification.”130 We cannot separate these two aspects: “Every transmission of a truth of faith implies then a communication of the grace of the Holy Spirit.”131 This co-ordination of the Spirit and truth gives “the possibility of judging and of discerning between true and false in the Light of the Holy Spirit, [as it is said in Acts] it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15: 28).”132 Tradition is the receiving of the truth, and the unique work of the Spirit in the church, “which renders the church apt to know the Incarnate Word in its relationship with the Father… as well as the mysteries of the divine economy, from the creation of heaven and earth of Genesis, to the new heaven and earth of the apocalypse.”

2. The Role of Tradition in the Life of the Church

124 Ware 200125 Ouspensky and Lossky 14126 Binns, cited in Letham 193127 Ware 198128 Ouspensky and Lossky 15129 Ibid. 15130 Philaret of Moscow, qtd. in Ouspensky and Lossky 16131 Ouspensky and Lossky 16132 Ouspensky and Lossky 16

42 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Having laid down the theory of Tradition, Lossky goes on to apply it in various ways.

2.1. Inspiration

Only in the church will one be able recognize the unity and inspiration of Scripture. Tradition can only be known in the church, as the church alone possesses the knowledge of the Holy Spirit, of the Word Incarnate. In this way, the creation of the Canon comes about through the Spirit’s infallible judgment, through the process of the active judgment of the church. The Scriptures are persevered by the Tradition of the church.133

2.2. The Septuagint: The Alexandrian or Jewish Old Testament Canon

A related issue is that of the accepted Canon of Scripture. The Orthodox Canon follows Septuagint, the LXX, and claims that, “The changes in the Septuagint from the Old Masoretic134 text are authoritative because the changes in the Septuagint were made under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the church, and are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.”135 In contrast, Protestants have followed the Jewish and Masoretic texts (which excluded the Apocrypha), although not exclusively. Protestants view only the original autographs as authoritative, and regard the Septuagint as a translation. Their position is more complex though, because they do recognize as authoritative the parts of the Septuagint cited in the New Testament.

The Orthodox Church’s Old Testament Canon is different; it includes the Jewish Old Testament and the Apocryphal literature. It follows the Alexandrian Canon.136 In Orthodoxy, the Apocrypha is considered a lesser authority. “Most Orthodox scholars at the present day, following the opinion of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Duetero-Canonical Books, although part of the Bible, stand on a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.”137 The church accepted the Apocrapha, its heterodox origin, and separated it from the scriptural canon, but Lossky argues that it should not be totally rejected. He suggests that the church will be able to extract from these books elements, which can either illustrate or complete events in which the scriptures are silent. In the process, the Tradition of the church recognizes them as true.138 “One will use then apocryphal sources, with judgment and moderation, to the extent to which they may represent corrupted apostolic traditions.”139 These corrupted elements can be purified. As the church considers the legitimacy of each element, some she will reject, and some she will receive, based not on historical evidence but solely on the Tradition of the church.

133 Ibid. 17134 The Masoretic text is the Hebrew text of the Old Testament.135 Ware 200 136 The Canon or books of Scripture used in Egyptian Alexandria and considered authoritative.137 Ware 200138 Ouspensky and Lossky 18139 Ibid.

43 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

As the Spirit works in the church, through priests and councils, the union of the Holy Spirit with the church gives the priest an objective character independent of particular personal intentions. The sacraments and rights have two simultaneous wills or operations: the concurrence of the words of the priests and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. This concept is seen in the Jerusalem Council’s letter to the gentiles: It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15:28).140 This means that the seven ecumenical councils are abiding and irrevocable as the whole church follows them. In contrast, the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed have less authority because an ecumenical council of the church never proclaimed them. Local councils are always subject to error, unless they are validated by the whole church afterward. In a similar way, the Patristic Fathers must be evaluated because their writings contain both wheat and chaff. Also, the ‘Fathers’ are not be limited to the first five centuries. To say that there are no more Fathers is to suggest that the Holy Spirit has deserted the church. Just as the Spirit continues to work in the church, there also continues to be valid writings of the church fathers.

In conclusion, the Tradition of the church is an inner tradition, a mystery. The same Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture, the icons, the Fathers, and church councils. Together they make up a whole, each part being understood in the light of the rest. Doctrine must be lived; theology without action is the theology of demons.

3. Later Councils, the Bishops, and Authority

Ware makes the flowing points about authority in the Catholic Church.141

a. While the first seven ecumenical councils are infallible, the two other creeds used by the Western Church (the Apostles’ Creed and the Athanasian Creed) do not have the same authority.

b. The formulation of Orthodox doctrine did not end with the Seventh Council.142

The church has continued to express her mind in local councils, letters, and statements of faith by individual bishops. Even these local councils, which are considered to be liable to error, if they are affirmed by the whole church, can come to acquire ecumenical authority.143

c. Ware lists the following chief Orthodox statements.144

i. The Encyclical Letter of St. Photius (867).ii. The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054).iii. The Decision of the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the

Heyschast Controversy.iv. The Encyclical Letter of St. Mark of Ephesus (1440-1).

140 Lossky , cited in Letham, TWE 193141 Ware 202142 Ware 202143 Ibid. 203144 Ibid.

44 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

v. The Confession of Faith by Gennaduis, Patriach of Constantinople (1455-6).vi. The Replies of Jeremias II to the Lutherans (1573-81).vii. The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625).viii. The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Mogila in its revised form (ratified by

the Council of Jassy, 1642).ix. The Confessions of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672). x. The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723).xi. The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX (1848).xii. The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo XIII (1895).xiii. The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarch of Constantinople on Christian unity

and the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952).

4. Reformation Principles of Authority and Tradition

The Reformers clearly distinguished between Scripture, the authority of the church, and Tradition, although they saw a vital connection between the three. At the most fundamental level, Reformed theology links the Scriptures and Christ. Both are considered the ‘Word,’ and the church flows from the work of Christ and the Spirit, who revealed His truth in the church. In this relationship, the Scriptures reflect Christ as prophet, and so bear ultimate authority, and the church seeks to conform herself to scripture. As the church speaks the Word, she is the pillar and ground of the truth, bearing witness of the truth to the world. The Reformers did value tradition, but never as a separate source of authority. They understood that tradition plays an important role in interpretation. The Reformers also saw the closest link between the work of the Spirit, the Word, and the interpretation of the Scripture.

In summary, the Reformers taught:

a. In the process of the creation of Scripture, Christ initially spoke infallibly through His church. On the completion of the Canon of Scripture however, the Word is now wholly committed to writing.

b. There is a primacy of the Word, meaning nothing must be added to or removed from Scripture (WCF. Ch. 1).

c. The holding to the Jewish Old Testament Canon, with the exclusion of the Apocrypha (WCF Ch.1.II, III).

d. The church is not equal in authority with Scripture; although, she is the pillar and the ground of the truth. She is a witness to Christ in the world as she teaches the truth of the scriptures to the world.

e. Councils are to be given honor in the church, but they are not infallible (WCF Ch. 31).

5. The Relationship between Scripture and the Church in Redemptive History

45 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

We begin our examination of the relationship between Scripture and the church by considering God’s revelation in redemptive history. In speaking to men, God revealed Himself over time in a stream of redemptive history. Through this process, the Reformers taught that there is a separation between the origin of the Scriptures and God’s maintaining and preserving of His revelation. In the initial, formative stage of God’s revelation there was a dynamic interaction between the Spirit, the Word, and the church. God used the church to create scripture. However, after the completion of Canon, the church no longer created Scripture; rather, her charge now is to guard what has been committed to her. This distinction is not made in Orthodoxy.

The Initial Stage : In the initial foundational stage of redemptive history, God called men, separated them to Himself, and through them He revealed His will to all mankind. In this stage, He accomplished His revelation in and through His church (although not always). God spoke through Moses, the prophets, and the apostles. In some cases, this speaking took the form of direct revelation, as it did when God through Moses wrote Genesis. This same type of direct revelation is found in the Prophets (both in the Old and New Testament). In other places He revealed Himself in and through the history of the church. The books of 1&2 Samuel, the Gospels, Acts, and Paul’s letters are part of this dynamic process where the Lord acts through the Spirit in and through His church. The New Testament Canon follows the same creation process, with a close interaction between Spirit and the infallible revelation of God, in and through the church.

The Subsequent Stage: In the second stage, once the apostolic foundation had been laid, and the initial period of redemptive history was completed through the process of collecting the apostolic words in writing to form an authoritative Word, then the foundation was laid and the Canon of Scripture was complete. This separated the Canon of Scripture from the church. The church recognized that the ultimate authority and foundation is now found in the Scriptures, as revealed to the early church. During this period, the church is to guard the written deposit of truth once given to the saints. Today, the church no longer creates the Scriptures; she recognizes and guards their authority.

The Foundation of All Authority: Behind both of these two stages is Christ. The Scriptures are God-breathed, and it is Christ, as Prophet, who sends the Spirit to men in the church. It is Christ, as Prophet and King, who though His providence and Spirit watches over the completed Word, guides the church to recognize His Word, and provides her with the ability to maintain it. As the risen Lord, He continues to act as a Prophet in His church, and through His Spirit, He equips His ministers to preach and teach the Word already revealed.145

This two-fold nature of God’s revelation in the stream of redemptive history is affirmed in Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I.2,3.

145 Institutes II.15.ii46 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church (WCF I.2.).

Afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased (WCF I.3.).

In the second stage, the Reformed church recognizes that the revealed will of God is complete, and it has committed the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary. The Orthodox Church fails to distinguish between these two positions giving a continuous and ultimate authority to the church and to Tradition, even over scripture. On the completion of the canon, it can still be said that the apostles created scripture, and that the church is bound by the rule of faith given by Christ and the apostles. On the death of the apostles, the canon was complete. The apostolic tradition is now found in the scriptures. Vitally, the church only has authority in so far as she faithfully maintains the apostolic tradition as contained in the Scriptures. Now Christ, as Prophet, speaks through His Scriptures, not in addition to them.

47 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

6. The Unique Nature and Sufficiency of Scripture

The Reformers taught the unique nature and sufficiency of Scripture as distinct from any other source of tradition. This section of the lesson will consider three of the primary arguments the Reformers used to substantiate their position: first, the testimony of the Scripture concerning the Scriptures’ own authority; second, the testimony of the Scripture as to the nature of Tradition; and third, the witness of the early church as to the unique nature of the foundational revelation.

Later sections of this lecture will consider the ongoing work of Christ in the church, the true meaning of His fullness indwelling the church, as well as the ongoing work of the Spirit. We will also consider the correct role of Tradition within the church and that the whole of the church is the guardian of Tradition. Finally these issues will naturally lead us to consider the issue of the Canon of Scripture.

6.1. The Testimony of Scripture about Itself

What is the witness of Scripture to its own authority? What is the testimony of Scripture about itself? Do the written Scriptures have some unique authority? Scripture makes a unique claim about its own authority by claiming a unique inspiration by God, its own inerrancy, and its own sufficiency. This authority is never transferred to the church itself.

6.1.1. The Unique Nature of the Word: Inspiration and Expiration

In Reformed theology there are a number of unique theological terms that have been applied to scripture. These include the older term inspiration and the more modern term, expiration.

Inspiration: 146 The word comes from the Latin and is found four to five times in vulgate147 and in the Latin theology. The word is used as both a noun (inspiration) and a verb (to inspire). Theologically, ‘inspired’ has the following connotations: a) The books of the Bible are the divinely inspired products of inspired men as they wrote under the direct understanding of the Spirit so that b) the product of their activities transcends the human and becomes divinely authoritative. c) Because there was a supernatural influence, exerted upon the writers, by the Spirit of God, their writings are given a divine trustworthiness. The use of the term inspiration was very popular in theology one hundred years ago.

146 The word inspiration has disappeared from the English language today, and it has also disappeared from most Bibles. For a discussion of the theology of inspiration see Warfield’s work, The Inspiration of the Bible,www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_inspirationbible.html or John Murray’s work, The Inspiration of Scripture, Westminster Theological Journal 2 (1939): n. pag. Print

147 This is the fourth century Latin translation of the Scriptures by Jerome. 48 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Expiration: In Greek, the word means spiring or inspiring.148 In this case, the focus is not that God breathed into men in order that they would be inspired; rather, the idea is that God Himself breathes out Scripture; literally the Scripture is God-breathed. The Scriptures are in themselves a divine product. They are His creative words, and they reflect His power. In Psalm 33:6 we are told: By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth. This gives unique creative power to God’s Word. When Paul states that the Scriptures are God-breathed, he is stressing the divine nature of the process. The Scriptures are uniquely God’s work from beginning to end. Although they come through the church, they are uniquely His words.

In the two key passages pertaining to expiration, 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and 2 Peter 1:16-21, Paul and Peter both affirm the unique nature of the written word, even in the light of their own apostolic ministry. In both passages, it is clear that the teaching of the Gospel is truth, even when it comes from men. It is the Gospel that Paul taught, and anyone who deviated from this Gospel is anathema (Gal. 1:8,9). As men echo the Gospel message, so they speak God’s Word. At the same time, Paul places special weight on the authority of the prior written Scripture, as does Peter. Paul teaches that the Scriptures, the Old Testament, are sufficient. In them men can become complete. This claim is never made of the church. Peter stresses that even though he was an eyewitness to the truth, yet the written word is superior even to his own clear testimony. To both Peter and Paul, the written word holds unique authority, even in the light of his own living apostolic witness.

2 Timothy 3:14-17 is Paul’s classic statement about the nature and sufficiency of Scripture.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it (15) and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (16) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

Paul reminds Timothy that he has learned the Gospel promises through his beloved mother Lois and his grandmother Eunice. He had also received the truth from his closest friend, the Apostle Paul. Each instance included the living witness of the church bearing witness to the truth. In addition, Paul points Timothy to the sacred writings as another source of the truth.

The Sacred Writings: Among Greek-speaking Jews, the Jewish Scriptures were often referred to as hieros grammata or ‘the sacred writings.’ The phrase sacred writings is a technical term and a hapexlogomina, meaning it is only used once in the scriptures. It refers to a body of authoritative books, namely the Old Testament scriptures. In using this phrase here, Paul shows that the Old Testament is clearly a part of scripture, and it must be treated as sacred. These words echo Jesus’ own words that the Old Testament scriptures clearly taught of His coming, His person, and His work (Luke 24:25–27, 44–

148 English Standard Version Translation 49 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

47; John 5:39, 46).

Breathed out by God: The sacred writings are breathed out by God. The Greek word theopnuestos is a compound word, Theo means ‘God’ and pneustos means ‘breath’, so literally God-breathed.149 The Scriptures, although written by men, are ultimately from God. Through God’s sovereign power, He divinely superintended the accurate recording of His divinely-breathed truth by His divinely chosen men. In this supernatural way, God provided His divine Scriptures in human words. Although the Word of God comes through human instruments, God is its ultimate author and source (cp. Heb. 3:7; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). He gives us His own Word, in His own words.

All Scripture: In this context this is a direct and immediate reference to the both the Old and New Testament. Interpreters note that in 3:15, Paul spoke about the hieros grammata (sacred writings), which was a clear reference to the Old Testament, which Timothy had been taught from childhood. In 3:16 however, Paul speaks of scripture (graphe). In the early church, the terms writings or scripture were used for both Old Testament and also of God’s newly revealed word, in what came to be called the New Testament. The apostolic writers themselves understood that both the Old and what would become the New Testament were inspired. The Apostle Peter includes Paul’s writings as authoritative and on the same level as all the other Scriptures (graphe) in 2 Peter 3:15,16.

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Paul also insists that his own writings be read (1 Thess. 5:27), exchanged, shared (Col. 4:16), and obeyed (1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Thess. 2:15). The word of his message were words taught by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13), indicating that Paul regarded his own teaching and therefore his letters as authoritative and indeed Scripture. So, when he says, All Scripture is God-breathed, he is including the apostolic writings.

Sufficient: In 2 Timothy 3:15 Paul stresses that the Scriptures can make Timothy wise for salvation. In verse 16 he states all of Scripture is profitable. In verse 17 he says that the man of God can be complete, thoroughly furnished, for every good work. With these claims, Paul makes the Word the single complete tool, given by God to men, which can accomplish all that God desires. 2 Peter 1:16-21 is the second classic passage on the authority of Scripture.

For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. (17) For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” (18) we ourselves heard this very voice

149 So, ESV, contra the older versions of the KJV, NASB, and NRSV that use the word inspired.50 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. (19) And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, (20) knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. (21) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

In this passage Peter warns the church against those who argue that the message of Christ’s coming was a mere fable. He defends the Gospel message, referring first to his own eyewitness account. As an apostle, Peter was an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Christ. Second, Peter stressed that the prophecies in the Old Testament were fulfilled, which was even greater than his eyewitness account. This is the prophetic word, a word more fully confirmed, and so it should be listened to. Peter goes on to develop the idea of the nature and authority of the prophetic word.

Every Prophecy of Scripture: Although Peter seems to be referring the prophetic portion of the Scripture, the whole of the Scripture is prophetic, so we should be careful not to limit this phrase to the prophets.

The Prophetic Word: The scriptures contained in the Old Testament are not of private interpretation nor are they from men. Peter supports his assertion by arguing from the negative to the positive. Negatively, the prophetic word does not own its origin to human nature. While positively, the true source of the prophetic word is God, through the work of the Holy Spirit.

Carried Along: The prophets were carried by the Holy Spirit. In the Greek, this idea is brought forward in the sentence for stress. The Greek also includes the idea of being borne or brought. The Holy Spirit brought the writings and so the prophets spoke. The prophets were under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, and so the things that they spoke were not from men, but from God.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 there was an assertion as to the divine origin of the Scriptures: they were God-breathed. In 2 Peter, we are told that the Holy Spirit came upon men, it bore them and they wrote. In a miraculous and unique manner, the Holy Spirit was the agent that produced the writing, acting upon the writer, initiating, and doing God’s will by his choosing so that the things that they wrote were His things, not theirs. Due to this, the prophetic word is sure and trustworthy, even more trustworthy than the eyewitness accounts of Peter and the others. These Scriptures are the written word of God to men. In each case the prophetic word is unique, and a unique source of authority.

Through Paul’s interaction with the Bereans, we also see the uniqueness of the scriptures. In Acts 17, Paul commends the Bereans for checking his message, by comparing it with the Scriptures. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so (Acts 17:11). Although Paul spoke with his unique apostolic authority, the

51 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

ultimate test of Paul’s message rested on the Scriptures. The testimony of Scripture is sure. Although the apostles spoke with God’s own authority, even their word was subject to what was already considered to be Scripture, the Word of God written. As God’s revelation continued in the New Testament, the writings of the apostles were also considered Scripture, with equal standing to the writings of the Old Testament. It is to the Scriptures of both the Old and New Testaments that the teaching of the church is to be subject.

Inerrancy: This concept is closely linked to the God-breathed nature of Scripture. Because Scripture is God-breathed it must naturally also be infallible and inerrant. The Scriptures proclaim their own inerrancy.

a. God does not lie (Heb.6:18; Tit. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:13; Num. 23:19).b. God is not ignorant (Heb. 4:13; Ps. 33:13-15).c. Scripture is His Word; it is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). d. Therefore, Scripture is an inerrant infallible guide to God’s will.

According to 2 Timothy 2:17, the Scriptures are God-breathed, infallible, and inerrant, and they are also sufficient for the church.

6.3. Scripture’s Witness Concerning Tradition

If Scripture gives unique authority to itself, it also clearly warns the church of the danger of substituting the tradition of men in its place. In Mark 7:5-13, Jesus clearly warns the Jews, the church of the Old Testament, about going beyond the Scriptures, and so they must lay aside or reject the traditions of men. Ironically, the Jews sought to put a fence around the Law, so it would not be broken, but by adding to God’s word, they ultimately undermined it.

The exhortation to not add or take away from Scripture though human tradition continues throughout the Scriptures, from Deuteronomy (the closure of the Pentateuch) to Revelation (the last book of Scripture). In both Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 Moses warns:

You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you (Deut. 4:2).

The warning concerning adding or subtracting from God’s Word is repeated in Revelation 22:18,19.

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, (19) and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

52 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Throughout the Scriptures there is a clear warning not to add to or take away from the revelation of God in the Word.

But do the Scriptures themselves teach us to hold on to the Tradition of the church? Does this not validate the Tradition of the church? There are clear commands given in Scripture to follow the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15), the pattern of sound words, (2 Tim. 1:13), or the things that you have heard from me (2 Tim. 2:2). The question is then, what are those traditions, pattern of sounds, words, and things they have heard? By God’s sovereign design the answers to these questions are never directly spelled out by Paul.

From Paul’s letters we see the following:

a. Paul is referring to the gospels and New Testament which were given to them; b. With the closure of the canon, no new doctrine can be proven to be apostolic,

and anything not apostolic needs to be rejected. If something is not apostolic then it should not be added to the canon.

c. The content of the apostolic Tradition reflects the very Gospel now encapsulated in the Scriptures themselves. In context of 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the tradition that Paul is alluding to is the tradition of the coming of Christ So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter (2 Thess. 2:15).

For these reasons, the Reformed church has rejected any tradition as having authority, other than those of the Gospel itself, which is now written down.

6.4. The Historic Testimony of the Early Church Regarding Tradition

In claiming that the Word has a unique position, distinct from the ongoing authority of the church today, the Reformers followed those teachings of the early church that clearly made a differentiation between the Scriptures, the witness of God though His prophets and apostles, and the later church writers. The early Church Father, Polycarp (AD 80 – 167), the disciple of the Apostle John, when writing to the Philippians said; “Certainly neither I nor anyone like me can follow the wisdom of the blessed and glorious Paul who taught you accurately and firmly the Word of truth.” Polycarp continues: “This is a pastoral letter, but it is not on the same level with the letter you received from Paul. That is the Word of truth. This is my sermon, my advice, my counsel to you.”150

The distinction between the initial formation, subsequent recognition of the Word, and an unwillingness to add to the Word can also be seen in the process of recognizing a canon of Scripture. When identifying a book as canonical, the early church identified two key aspects: a. external authorship (Was it written by the apostles or one of the apostolic company?) and 2. internal consistency (Did it teach the same truth as the rest of Scripture? Did it maintain the apostolic tradition?). Both of these principles were applied 150 Calhoun 43,44

53 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

when considering whether the second century book, The Shepherd of Hermas should have been included in the canon. Some of the early church fathers, Irenaeus (c. AD 202) and Clement of Alexandria (c.150 – c.215), considered it as a canonical book. However, eventually the larger church rejected this work as part of the canon because an apostle did not write it. It was written by Hermas who lived in Rome during the second century. Also problematic, as the wider church read The Shepherd of Hermas, many people realized that this book was mainly concerned with penance, repentance, and how many times a person can be forgiven of a major sin. In neither its emphasis nor in its teachings did the work fit with the teaching of the rest of the Bible. The church also saw that there were some dubious teachings about the Trinity that were not at all in line with what the church eventually came to accept as truth concerning the Trinity at the Council of Nicaea, in the fourth century. On both the external and internal evidence, the church rejected The Shepherd of Hermas.151

In conclusion, in the stream of redemptive history, the Reformers followed the early church in distinguishing between the writings of the apostles as the authoritative Word of God and the works of the Early Church Fathers and the councils, even though they saw value in them. The Reformers did not claim that the Spirit was still working in the early church in the same authoritative manner.

7. The Fullness of Christ in the Church, and the Ongoing Role of the Spirit

But what about the claim that Christ lives in His church, in His fullness, by the Spirit thus making the church infallible? In the Reformed tradition, Christ, the Mediator, is united to His church, and she is His fullness. As Prophet, “Christ was anointed by the Spirit to be the herald and the witness of the Father’s grace.”152 Christ exercised this ministry during His earthly ministry. Calvin asserts that Christ exercised this office of prophet while on earth. “The perfect doctrine He has brought has made an end to all prophecies.”153 Calvin also taught that the risen Christ continues to be a Prophet in the church; He continues to teach through His ministers. Calvin says, “He received the anointing as Prophet, not only for Himself that He might carry out the office of teaching, but for His whole body that the power of the Spirit might be present in the continuing preaching of the Gospel.”154 As we listen to sermons, or as we preach, Christ is involved in that. In commenting on Matthew 17:5, the Father said, Listen to Him, thus recalling the church to its unique teacher, Christ. Christ now preaches through the mouths of His servants who proclaim His Word. His office of Prophet continues. It is in this way that the church partakes of Christ’s fullness. Christ does not bring a new Word; rather, through the faithful witness of His ministers as He guides them through the Spirit, He preaches the same written Word to the congregation.

151 Calhoun 43,44152 Institutes II.15.ii153 Institutes II.15.ii154 Ibid.

54 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The Reformed church does agree that it is only the church that can accept or interpret Scripture, and it is only through the Spirit that the church accepts or understands the Word. Calvin notes, the church bears witness to the fact that Scripture is the Word of God, but it is not the action or declaration of the church that gives the Bible its authority nor is it the reason for the Bible’s authority. The church accepts the Scripture as true through the inward regeneration by the Holy Spirit which convinces men of the truth of the Spirit’s work in the Word. “That Scripture……owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.”155 It is sealed upon our hearts through the Spirit. We know the Bible is the Word of God because the of the testimony of the Spirit, which bears witness to the truth of the Bible in our hearts, allowing to see and receive the Bible as the authoritative Word of God. Today, Christ speaks though His ministers, and the Holy Spirit is powerful to illumine and write the work of God on the heart. Paul makes this point in 2 Corinthians 3.

When discussing the topic, it is useful to make the following distinctions concerning the gift of God’s Word.

a. General revelation in history is the story of salvation, now complete and contained in the Scriptures until Christ returns.

b. Inspiration is the process by which the Holy Spirit came upon the authors to ensure that the things they wrote were God’s thoughts. Both of these are completed acts.

c. Illumination is an ongoing work of the Spirit wherein He leads His people into a true understanding of the Scriptures.

In regard to the ecumenical creeds, the Reformers agreed with the first six ecumenical councils, as they were a true reflection of the truth of the Scripture in the situations in which they were written. The six accurately apply the Scriptures into the local context, but they are not true merely because the church teaches them. They have no independent authority apart from the original Scriptures. In the same way, in the Second Helvetic Confession of Faith, the Reformers claimed that the preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God so long as it accurately reflects the Scriptures. The Scripture is the final authority. In the transient period, the apostles were used to spread the message; they were the foundation of the church. Even during this time, the apostles referred to the Scriptures as the final authority and the faithful witnesses.

8. The Positive/True Role of Tradition in Reformed Tradition

Does Tradition have a role in Reformed theology, or does the idea of sola scriptura, by Scripture alone, preclude all Tradition? In these discussions the Reformers have always maintained a strong link between Tradition, the church, and Scripture, with the vital distinction that always gave primacy to the Scriptures. In this way, the church could

155 Institutes I.7.v 55 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

affirm the first six ecumenical councils, and yet reject the seventh, because it was beyond Scripture.

In the early medieval Western Roman church there was agreement that on all essential elements clearly put forward in Scripture, the Scriptures were the single rule of conduct. In contrast, on matters that the Scriptures did not expressly address, the church was to work out an implication from the principles laid down in Scripture. These church decrees, though, were subordinate to the Scriptures, themselves. This practice/belief changed over time, and by the end of the Middle Ages, the role of Tradition had greatly increased. At that time, Tradition was understood quite differently by the Reformers and the Roman Catholics. The Radical Reformation would reject all sources of Tradition in any form.

McGrath156 summaries the three positions as follows:

Tradition0: The Radical Reformation ~ This was the rejection of all Tradition.Tradition1: The Magisterial Reformation ~ There is one source of authority, but

Traditions aid the interpretation of scriptural truth. Tradition2: The Council of Trent ~ There are two sources of authority: Scripture and

Tradition.

Tradition 1 ~ Tradition as an Interpretive Aid to Scripture: In order to defend against errors and heresies in the early church, Irenaeus developed a standard or an authorized way of interpreting certain texts. In the debates that followed, all parties agreed that the Scriptures were the sole authority, but they differed radically on how the same text was to be interpreted. The early Gnostic interpreters chose to interpret the Scriptures in a completely different way than they had been interpreted before. In his rebuttal, Ireneaus proposed a standard way of understanding the texts, an Orthodox tradition that went back to the apostles. “Scripture could not be interpreted in a random way; it must be interpreted within the context of the historical continuity of the Christian Church.”157

McGrath calls this Tradition 1.158

Tradition 2 ~ Tradition as a Separate Source in Addition to Scripture: In the western church during the 14th and 15th centuries the idea of Tradition changed. Tradition became a separate source of authority in addition to the Scriptures. The church argued that where the Scriptures were silent, the church could provide a second source of authority going back to the apostles. Over time this developed into a dual-source theory. Authority flowed from Scripture and from the collective wisdom of the church. This became the standard Roman Catholic position and was affirmed by the Council of Trent in 1546. This position is similar to the Eastern Orthodox position.

156 Reformation Thought 154,155157 Reformation Thought 146158 Ibid.

56 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The Reformers ~ Tradition 1: The Reformers argued that the church’s sole authority is Scripture which is the very Word of God. When Scripture spoke, God spoke. As such the Scriptures are over the church. Bullinger’s position was that the scriptural authorities are absolute and autonomous; they can pass judgment over the all, including the church. This provided a model for the new Reformed church. He also taught that the Scriptures have authority over both popes and councils.

As a framework of interpretation, the Reformers taught that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of the Tradition of the early church fathers, particularly Augustine. By doing this, they did not reject Tradition but relegated it to an interpretive role rather than an authoritarian one. Calvin states: “For although we hold that the Word of God alone lies beyond the sphere of our judgment, and the fathers and councils are authorities only in so far as they agree with the rule of the Word, we still give to councils the fathers such rank an honor as it is appropriate for them to under Christ.”159

As such the Reformers claimed the Scriptures to be the sole authority, but they also stated that there was a legitimate interpretive function to tradition. Tradition 0 ~ A Rejection of all Tradition: The Radical Reformers offered a third approach to Tradition. They claimed that the Scriptures alone were sufficient; therefore, they rejected the authority of any tradition. This meant that they rejected both the Catholic dual-source theory as well as the Reformed principle of interpreting the Scriptures through the lens of Tradition. They claimed that all men, as they were led by the Spirit, could interpret the Scriptures. In this radical individualism, they affirmed the right of private judgment above that of the Tradition and history of the church.

Consequences : The Radical Reformers claimed that everyone had the right to interpret Scripture, and this interpretation was subject only to the personal leading of the Spirit. A practical consequence flowing from this belief was the rejection of any doctrines that were not easily understood from the Scripture. This included infant baptism, the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ. The Radical Reformers rejected all the early church fathers and deemed them heretics. “Foolish Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory- of whom not one even knew the Lord, so help me God, nor was sent by God to teach. Rather they were all apostles of the antichrist.”160 The insistence of private judgment quickly led to anarchy, and the Anabaptists movement soon disintegrated into chaos.

As the debate about Tradition developed, the Reformers claimed the middle ground. They rejected both the extreme Catholic dual-source theory, as they would have rejected the Orthodox idea that Tradition within the church is infallible. They rejected the idea that all personal private judgments operate over the corporate, historical Tradition of the church, a position often advocated today in American churches under a false understanding of sola scriptura. During this early period of the Reformation, they sought to follow the 159 Olin 92 160 Reformation Thought 156

57 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

interpretive tradition of the early church fathers, who in their turn claimed to be following the apostles. The claims that Reformed tradition of sola scriptura is the radical Anabaptist tradition is incorrect. In fact the slogan sola scriptura was only coined later; it was not one that the Reformers used themselves.161 If the doctrine is taught in a way that follows the Anabaptist tradition it violates the Reformers’ regard to Tradition.

9. Canon

As we have already noted, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Reformers have a Canon of Scripture. The Orthodox Church follows the Alexandrian canon, which includes the Greek translation, the Septuagint and to some degree, the Apocrypha. In contrast, the Reformers rejected the broader Alexandrian-Greek canon and only included the Jewish Old Testament, as this was accepted by the Jews and explicitly referred to by Christ.

In 230 BC the Jewish church translated the Old Testament into Greek, called the Septuagint (or LXX) version. In certain places, the Septuagint differs from the Jewish Old Testament that is commonly used today. In fact, we do not have the Jewish Old Testament scriptures. The earliest complete text, which is most commonly used today, is the Masoretic text of AD 600. The recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the Masoretic text is identical to these older texts. In the battle between the original Jewish text and the Septuagint, the Eastern Orthodox Church has said the Septuagint has final authority, because it is inspired. In contrast, the Reformers argued that the original autographs are the Jewish Old Testament scriptures, and the Septuagint is a helpful translation of the original. The Reformers argued that Jesus used the Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts, and made reference to them. The position is complicated by the fact that the apostles in the New Testament sometimes cite the Septuagint, even when it differs from the Hebrew Old Testament we have today. As a solution, the Reformed church has suggested that where the apostles cite the Septuagint, it should be accepted, but where they do not, we should follow the Older Hebrew text. This follows the example of Paul who cites Greek philosophers in his defense, but he does not validate their entire work (Acts 17). In addition, in a number of places the quotes from the Old Testament are not simply one version or the other, they are often complex quotes in which a number of passages are linked together in a new way.

Also, the Alexandrian Canon of the Old Testament is different, as it includes the Apocrypha. In Orthodoxy these books are considered a lesser authority. “Most present day Orthodox scholars, following the opinions of Athanasius and Jerome, consider that the Duetero-Canonical books, although part of the Bible, stand at a lower footing than the rest of the Old Testament.”162 Although it is not explicitly proclaimed as dogma, the Apocrypha has been included in the Eastern Orthodox Church over time. It is considered an inner tradition, a mystery. It is believed that the same Holy Spirit speaks through all, and together they make up a whole, each part being understood in the light of the rest. In 161 Letham 197 162 Ware 200

58 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

contrast, the Reformers explicitly rejected the Apocrypha, and kept to the Jewish Old Testament canon of Jesus’ day. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.3 says: “The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.”

There are a number of factors that point to the validity of the Jewish Old Testament Canon over the Alexandrian Canon.

a. The three Jewish schools of interpretation all essentially agreed about the canon.b. There was no wider Alexandrian (Greek) canon that accepted the Apocrypha, and

even if there had been a distinct Alexandrian Canon, it is the Jewish Palestinian Canon that would have had the greater claim on Christians.

c. The Pseudepigrapha were placed in a separate category from canon.d. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were only included later by gentile Christians,

and not in an agreed way, but after the church's breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.

e. There is a general correspondence between the Christian canon and the Jewish. Christian evidence from New Testament endorses the Jewish titles for canon, their three-fold structure, the traditional Jewish order, and possibly one or two standard Jewish numerations of the books.

f. On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative.

g. In addition Letham cites recent studies by Beckwith,163 who argues that the Old Testament was accepted as canonical in mid second century BC, not in Jumnia in AD 90. If this is so, then the canon was already complete before any of the Apocrypha was written.164

Lesson Three Questions

1. Where does Lossky find the source of Tradition in the Church?2. What is included in Ware’s definition of the “Tradition” of the Church? 3. What does the Eastern Orthodox Church claim about interpretation? What did the

Reformers teach?4. In what way does Lossky claim the sufficiency of Scripture?5. Explain the Eastern Orthodox rational for the authority of Apocrypha. Why did

the Reformers not include the Apocrypha?6. From the Westminster Confession, explain the Reformed distinction between the

work of the church in the creation of Scripture and in its maintenance.7. Identify the three primary arguments for the unique nature and sufficiency of

Scripture.8. Explain the word ‘expiration’ and name two key passages where it is used.

163 Beckworth, cited in Lethem 182164 Beckworth, cited in Letham, TWE 183

59 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

9. Explain the Reformed view of the fullness of Christ’s prophetic ministry, both in His life and in the church.

10. List four factors that point to the validity of the Jewish Old Testament Canon over the Alexandrian Canon.

60 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Four: Worship I ~ Worship and Icons The theology of the Orthodox Church is best approached though its liturgy and worship, and so, the next two lessons will consider the worship of the church, icons, and a comparison of the nature and administration of the sacraments of both the Eastern Orthodox and Reformed churches.

1. The Nature of Worship

In Orthodox worship there is a deliberate focus on the visual beauty of worship coupled with a belief that there is a bridge between the glory of heaven and earth.165 Through worship there is “this power of perceiving the beauty of the spiritual world, and expressing that celestial beauty in their worship.”166 The Holy Liturgy embraces two worlds at once, because in both heaven and earth, the liturgy is one and the same, with one altar, one sacrifice, and one presence. Believers “are taken up into the ‘heavenly places;’ in every place of worship when the Holy Sacrifice is offered, not merely the local congregation is present, but the Church universal, -- the saints, angels, the Mother of God, and Christ himself … This we know that God dwells there among humans.”167 In worship the earthly church is directly linked to the things in heaven.

The worship area of an Orthodox church is divided into two parts: the sanctuary, representing heaven and another area for the congregation, representing the earth. The division is made through the iconostasis, which is a dividing wall or a screen that runs across the whole church. Initially, it was only half-height, allowing the participants to see both parts, but more recently, the tendency has been to create full size iconostases, thus completely dividing the sanctuary and the congregation. Because the sanctuary represents the eternal world, only the clergy are allowed into the sanctuary and women may not enter.168 The congregation remains on the other side of the iconostasis. The division is symbolic; the sanctuary represents the spiritual immaterial world, and so the great ceremony takes place behind the screen in the heavenly realm, with the priests. The congregation is excluded. All of the decorations in the church are considered one holy icon, and each individual icon creates a point of meeting between heaven and earth. The altar, namely the holy table and throne, is kept in the center of the sanctuary, behind the iconostasis. The bishop’s throne is at the very back. The iconostasis has three doors. These are closed except during worship. In the center of the iconostasis is the royal door, which allows access to the clergy alone. The priest celebrates the Sacraments in the sanctuary, and then he walks through the royal door, an action which symbolizes the

165 Ware 264166 Ware 264, 265167 Liturgy of the Presanctified, qtd. in Ware 265168 Letham, TWE 143

61 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

King of Glory coming to feed the congregation with His body and blood. The open door can also symbolize the entry into paradise, into heaven.

The second door, the diakonikon, was originally the place where the holy books were kept along with the relics. Depicted on the iconostasis are the stories of the saints, presented in a defined order so to tell the story of the Gospel. These decorations often include the Old Testament patriarchs, the Old Testament prophets, and the feasts. Iconostases also frequently portray John the Baptist and the Mary, the mother of God, in prayer before the icon of Christ on His throne, together with the angels. All of these illustrations point to the Incarnation of Christ and to the intercession of the church. The icons are the great cloud of witnesses pointing to the reality of eternity. The priest censes, or burns incense, in front of the icons, thus honoring the image of God and uniting heaven and earth. In fact, the whole building is filled with icons in order to give meaning to the whole church. 1.1. The Reformed Critique

The Reformers also believed that worship and theology could not be separated and that the theology of the church was seen in its worship. As this lesson considers worship, it will consider both the areas of agreement and disagreement. The Reformed Church agrees that true worship is not merely a human event; rather, in true worship there is a joining of heaven and earth. In worship, the church is surrounded by angels and joins with the worship of the glorified church in heaven, the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 12:1ff who praise God. Reformed theology believes that in the worship of the Old Testament there was a clear division between God and man. Israel came to the earthly mountain, which was roped-off so as to make a distinction between the mountain the people. This principle of separation of the people from God’s presence is also seen in the tabernacle and the temple, where the earthly outer courts were separated from the more intimate heavenly places. These heavenly places were reserved for the priest, and even the high priest could only enter once a year. With the coming of Christ this emphasis on separation changed. Hebrews states that Christ is the high priest who passed through the heavens (4:14), His was the true sacrifice of the true heavenly tabernacle (8:2), and therefore, in worship, believers actively join with Him and the heavenly realm. Through union with Christ, the barrier into the spiritual realm is removed. The reality of New Testament worship is found in Hebrews 12:18-24.

For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire and darkness and gloom and a tempest (19) and the sound of a trumpet and a voice whose words made the hearers beg that no further messages be spoken to them. (20) For they could not endure the order that was given,  “If even a beast touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” (21) Indeed, so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” (22) But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the

62 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, (23) and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, (24) and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.

These verses show the immediate link between heaven and earth. In Christ there is no more separation between the two realms. Through union with Him, the church is already seated in the heavenly places (Eph. 2:5). In Him, we already join in heavenly worship, and so any separation between the heavenly realm and the earthly is a denial of Christ’s mediatorial work. The Reformers rejected any barriers in worship; they also rejected the use of iconostasis, because, in Christ, there is direct access into the spiritual world for all. For the Reformed, the aim of all worship is toward simplicity and the unity of the congregation, thus reflecting the spiritual dimension of worship. All images and distractions are to be avoided, as true worship is in Spirit and truth (John 4:24).

Further, in the New Covenant there is no longer a distinction between the priest and the congregation. In the Hebrews 12 quote (above) the whole congregation enters into worship along with the heavenly community. The priests are not separated out because Christ is the only high priest who mediates for His people. Reformed church worship is led by elders and ministers, who act as representatives of the people. They do so, not because of any special holiness or greater access to God; rather, they lead due to their specific calling. As representatives, they are all one in the Lord and have no specific mediatory function. The two offices of elder and deacon are never separated from the congregation; rather, they are part of the one body of Christ’s church, but with a separate office or duty. They have no more access into God’s place than the rest of the laity. This is part of the great doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, developed by both Luther and Calvin. In Christ, all Christians have direct access into His presence. The Reformers never tried to illustrate or show the spiritual realm due to man’s lack of understanding of it, making him unable to represent its glory accurately. This is important when considering icons and the iconostasis. In John 4:22-24, Jesus clearly states that God is spirit and that worship is no longer linked to any specific place. In this respect, the church building serves only as an assembly point, and there is no holiness about the building itself. As God is spirit, what believers know of God is taught to them very carefully, and Reformers such as Calvin warned that to try to imitate God is to steal from His glory. To try to depict the spiritual realm is to venture into mysteries not yet revealed to man. Paul says, What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined what God has prepared for those who love him (1 Cor. 2:9). This does not mean that the Reformers are anti-material. The Scriptures clearly look forward to a new heaven and new earth, and yet the nature of the new heavens will be very different. There are mysteries into which the church has not yet been initiated. Calvinism separated art from the church, allowing for the development of art in the broader culture. Calvinists clearly rejected any form of idols in worship, but in the earthly realm the glory of God was to be fully praised, and art could and should reflect God’s

63 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

glory in the broader creation. At the same time, the Reformers always stressed the Word in worship, not art. In contrast, the Orthodox desire to worship through the liturgy has confined the expressing of God’s glory to a more limited sphere and linked it to a particular icon style, one with its own rules.

2. Icons

The use of images and portraits of the Savior has been practiced from the earliest time in the church. Eusebius, who was strongly against icons notes: “I have seen a great many portraits of the Savior, of Peter and of Paul, which have been preserved up to our times.”169 The use of icons has also always been controversial, and in the early church, icons were considered idolatry. The 700’s were a time of a series of great icon battles within the Orthodox Church. These battles eventually led to the allowance of icons and then further led to the actual prescription of the use of icons in the church. Today, icons are the central part of the worship and theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox believer, icons represent and link the church with the spiritual world; icons allow the congregation to see through to the invisible world.

Lesson Two considered the history of icons, and this section will examine the nature and the use of icons in general and then focus more specifically to Christ as the Icon of God in Orthodox theology. In Orthodoxy, the theological foundation for all icons is the coming of the Son in the flesh.

2.1. The Theological Validity and Necessity of Icons in Eastern Orthodoxy

In the early stages of religious art, Christ was symbolized as the Lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. The Orthodox Church took the position that the Old Testament shadows had been fulfilled in Christ, so the time to see Him in those older symbols was over. In the time of fulfillment, believers are now to see Him in His human form. The Eastern Church Fathers made a distinction between God, who Himself cannot be represented by any icon as He is Spirit, and Christ. John of Damascus argued that it was impossible to depict God, who is a Spirit, in any physical form. In contrast, he also argued that since Christ had come, it was necessary to depict Christ in His human nature. “Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. While God cannot be represented in His eternal nature ("...no man has seen God" John 1:18), Christ can be depicted simply because He "became human and took

169 Eusebius, cited in Ouspensky and Lossky 25; Contra Calvin, who argued that the church, in the first 500 years, did not use icons and was far stronger spiritually then than she was in the 700’s. He wrote, “Are we to suppose that those holy fathers, if they had judged the thing to be useful and salutary, would have allowed the Church to be so long without it? Undoubtedly, because they saw very little or no advantage, and the greatest danger in it, they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness. This is clearly attested by Augustine in these words (Ep. 49. See also De Civit. Dei, lib 4 c. 31) “When images are thus placed aloft in seats of honour, to be beheld by those who are praying or sacrificing, though they have neither sense nor life, yet from appearing as if they had both, they affect weak minds just as if they lived and breathed” (Book I,11, xiii).

64 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

flesh.” Of Him who took a material body, material images can be made. In so taking a material body, God proved that matter can be redeemed. He deified matter, making it spirit-bearing, and so if flesh can be a medium for the Spirit, so can wood or paint, although in a different fashion.”170

The theological significance of icons is developed in the “82nd Rule of the Trullan Council,” and in the liturgy of the Kontakion, the Triumph of Orthodoxy.171 In the 82nd

Rule, there is a clear identification of ‘The Icon’ with the truth of the divine Incarnation, and a clear development of theology from the Old to the New Testament, with the symbols of the Old being transferred into the greater symbol of the New. 172 The reality of the Incarnation now demands a physical representation of Christ.

“Certain holy icons have the image of the Lamb; at which is pointing the image of the forerunner this lamb is taken as the image of grace, representing the true lamb, Christ our God whom the law foreshadowed. Thus accepting with love the ancient image and shadows as prefiguration’s and symbols of truth transmitted to the church, we prefer grace and truth receiving it as the fulfillment of the law. Thus in order to make plane for all eyes to see, if only by means of pictures, we ordain that from henceforth icons should represent, instead of the lamb… upon himself the sins of the world, Christ our God, so that though this we may perceive the height of the abasement of God the word and be led to remember His life in the flesh, his passion and death for our salvation and the ensuing redemption of the world.”173

John of Damascus is the great theologian and proponent of icons in the church.174 In his discussion, he defines the term ‘icons’ very broadly:

a. The Son is the natural and identical image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15, Heb. 1:3). He is the exact impress of the Father. The Holy Spirit is the image of the Son (1 Cor. 12:13), and as such they are both images and icons of the Father.

b. God’s eternal image is also seen in the operation of His divine plan. c. Man is an icon of God, as the mind, Word, and Holy Spirit are one in God, so also

the mind, logos, and Word are one in man.175 John argues that the classic verses, Genesis 1:26-28, can be interpreted to mean that man mirrors the Holy Trinity.

170 http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council171 Lossky and Ouspensky 29172 Protestants would agree with the movement from the type to the reality; the types and shadows of the past are now taken up in the full image of the Son. But in Jesus’ words, there is now a greater spiritual dimension, and this cannot be reflected in any image173 82nd rule of the Trullan Council174 Letham correctly notes that being in exile he played a far lesser role in the establishment of Icons than he is credited with.175 Letham, TWE 149

65 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

John states clearly, “Venerating icons, having them in churches and homes, is what the Church teaches. They are open books to remind us of God.”176 “Those who lack the time or learning to study theology need only to enter a church to see the mysteries of the Christian religion unfolded before them.”177 He went on to say, “I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation... St. John of Damascus”178

To the Orthodox Christian, Christ is the image (icon) of God.179 According to John, “Christianity is the revelation of the God-Man, not only of the Word of God, but also of the Image of God.” Orthodoxy argues that in the Incarnation, “the image, not only does not contradict the essence of Christianity but, being its basic truth, is inalienably connected with it.”180 To John of Damascus, man lies between both worlds; he is both material and spiritual, and he can grasp invisible spiritual realities through material signs. Subsequently, the Eastern Church made icons a necessary means of communication in the spiritual world.

Eastern Orthodoxy recognizes that icons are not a full rendition because man cannot see the spiritual realm. Yet, God uses these things to guide His people toward spiritual knowledge.181 In an icon, there is both a similarity and dissimilarity. The image is a guide to knowledge; it makes things known for the benefit of mankind. Because man is a physical creature, to whom the spiritual world is a mystery, icons provide a window to this world. Orthodox theology states that icons have a real role in explaining and developing the mystery of the hidden spiritual realm.

2.2. Icons as Canon Icons are also considered Canon, that is, they possess an authority in the church because they truly reflect scriptural realities. There must be a true connection between the icon and the Holy Scriptures in order for there to be correspondence between them.182 In this process, the Creator “uses images and forms drawn from the material world to transmit the revelation of the divine world, making this world accessible to understanding and contemplation.”183 The Trullan Council also said that in the image there is a complete correspondence between the verbal image and the visible image. The visible image makes clear the written image and vice versa. “As the Word of the Holy Scriptures is an image, so the image is also a word.”184 This means that, to the Eastern Orthodox believer, 176 http://orthodoxwiki.org/Seventh_Ecumenical_Council177 Ibid.178 Ibid.179 Ouspensky and Lossky 25180 Ibid. 25181 Letham, TWE 150182 Ouspensky and Lossky 30183 Ibid. 184 Ibid.

66 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

icons have the same level of revelation as the Holy Scripture. The Orthodox Church claims that in the preaching of Christ to the world, she has always used both word and image.185

The Kontakion, The Triumph of Orthodoxy contains a prayer addressed to Mary, as she is the human mother of Christ. No image can be made of the Father, because the Father is Spirit, but since Christ is born of Mary, He has a representation that corresponds with His mother. Once the Son became man, it was necessary to represent Him as a man. Osprey rejects the idea that only the human nature of Christ is seen in the icon. Calvin’s challenge concerning icons is that, at best, they reflect only Christ’s human nature, and do not reflect His divine nature. Ouspensky asserts that the icon does “not depict either His Divine or his human nature, but His person in which both of these natures are incomprehensibly combined.”186This must be so as “essence has no independent existence.”187

2.3. The Connection of the Icon to the Original

Orthodox belief states that there is a connection between Christ and the icon because the icon depicts His person and bears His name. As such it can offer communion and knowledge of Him. The interpenetration goes further in that, “Homage paid to the icon is transferred to the original,” 188 although the two are essentially different; there exists between them a known connection, a certain participation of the one with the other. Icons are stylized, and the Orthodox believer would reject the term ‘symbolic,’ arguing that they are not merely symbols; rather, there is a real connection between the icon and the archetype. Icons are made through a wide variety of physical medium, and with the making of icons there are strict guidelines or formulas. They are to be composed in an ethos of prayer and supplication. The dominant idea is the archetype takes the initiative as opposed to the human craftsman. There are even stories of the icon completing its own making. All of this is due to the fact that Orthodoxy believes that the archetype communicates with the congregation through the icon. The idea of separation and yet connection in an icon is drawn from the nature of the Trinity. “Thus God the Word, the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, describable neither by word nor by image, assumes the nature of man, is born of the Virgin Mother of God; while remaining perfect God, becomes perfect Man; becomes visible, tangible and therefore discernable. In this wise, the very fact of the existence of the icon is based on the Divine Incarnation.”189 A denial of the icon is a denial of Christ’s becoming man and also of the whole divine Incarnation. 2.4 Worship and Veneration185 Letham, TWE 151186 Ouspensky and Lossky 32187 John of Damascus, cited in Ouspensky and Lossky 32188 Basil the Great, qtd. in Ouspensky and Lossky 32189 Ouspensky and Lossy 34

67 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The Eastern Church affirms that true worship is only addressed to God. In worship, the believer glories in God’s nature, with thanksgiving for all the good things He has done for His people and in acknowledgment that without His power, nothing would be made nor could there be made anything good. At the same time, icons, the saints, and the cross are to be venerated as an essential aspect of worship. To guard against idolatry, the Orthodox Church has made a clear distinction between worship and veneration. Worship can only be given to God, and what mankind is to offer the saints is vernation. This distinction is clearly made in the Second Council of Nicaea. The writings of John of Damascus specified that there was a difference between the icon and the thing signified. Because icons are not originals, “Orthodox do not worship them but reverence or venerate them.”190

Veneration includes bowing down in prostration. Although, the act of bowing down can be either in worship or veneration, it cannot be assumed that it is always done in worship. Jacob bowed down to his brother out of respect, but this was not considered worship. There is a relative honor conferred to icons, but true worship is given to God alone. In support of this, the Eastern Church notes that in the Old Testament, the tabernacle was to be venerated but not worshiped. Orthodoxy also argues that to not venerate human icons is an attack on matter. An omission such as this implies that matter is evil, and yet in the New Covenant, God united Himself with matter. In support for the veneration of icons, it is pointed out that Psalm 19 and Romans 1 both show that the power of God is not seen in speech, but rather found in things that are seen. Gregory of Nyssa argued, “The visible revelation of God in creation is superior to a verbal declaration by God’s voice. This is because ‘we are not told that God is the creator of words, but of things made know to us by the significance of our words.’”191 Gregory thought language was ambiguous, and that it was not an appropriate means to describe God.

In further support Orthodox theologians argue that: a. In the Old Testament the creation of both cherubs and the temple were icons and

did not contradict the Second Commandment. b. The Incarnation mandates images, because Christ is the Icon of God; He takes

man beyond the Old Testament types. c. To oppose icons is docetic, which is a belief that His matter, His humanity, was/is

not permanent and eternally real. d. Icons are on par with the Scriptures and the cross as a form of God’s revelation.

They are windows into the eternal world and show that man will be deified.

At the Second Council of Nicaea, the church affirmed that icons were not to be worshiped. But in keeping with the belief that icons are to be venerated, Nicaea II also passed the following anathemas: 192

190 Ware 32191 Gregory of Nyssa, qtd. in Letham, TWE 152192 http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum07.htm#Anathemas concerning holy images

68 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

a. If anyone does not confess that Christ our God can be represented in His humanity, let him be anathema.

b. If anyone does not accept representation in art of evangelical scenes, let him be anathema.

c. If anyone does not salute such representations as standing for the Lord and His saints, let him be anathema.

d. If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.

2.5. The Reformed Response to Icons

The Reformed Church also sees a clear correlation between the heavenly realm and the earthly realm. Calvin notes: “Hence, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews elegantly describes the visible worlds as images of the invisible (Heb. 11:3), the elegant structure of the world serving us as a kind of mirror, in which we may behold God, though otherwise invisible. For the same reason, the Psalmist attributes language to celestial objects, a language which all nations understand (Psalm 19:1), the manifestation of the Godhead being too clear to escape the notice of any people, however obtuse. The apostle Paul, stating this still more clearly, says, “That which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:20).”193 Adam was clearly made in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27).

At the same time, Calvin rejected the teaching of the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Calvin offers two reasons for not giving any visible shape to God, “…because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory.”194 Calvin cites Isaiah and Paul as two biblical examples of men who rejected images (Isa. 40:18; 41:7, 29; 45:9; 46:5). Isaiah clearly shows that the majesty of God is defiled by images, “When he who is incorporeal is assimilated to corporeal matter; he who is invisible to a visible image; he who is a spirit to an inanimate object; and he who fills all space to a bit of paltry wood, or stone, or gold.” 195 Paul reasons in the same way. Forasmuch, then, as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device (Acts 17:29). Hence it is manifest that whatever statues are set up or pictures painted to represent God, are utterly displeasing to him, as a kind of insults to his majesty.”196

Calvin concluded that any human attempt to give a visible shape to God is vanity and lies.197 He quotes Augustine: “Those who first introduced images of the god, both took

193 Institutes I.5.i194 Institutes I.9.xii195 Institutes I.9.ii196 Institutes I.9.ii197 Institutes I.9.ii

69 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

away fear and brought in error.”198 To Calvin, all images are merely idols from the mind, and “the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols.” 199

In the same way, the answer to Westminster Larger Catechism Question 109 also rejects idols. “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it.” 200

Letham writes that, “The proof text given by the Westminster Assembly uniformly refers to Israel’s worship of false gods by means of material objects.”201 It is interesting to note that neither Calvin nor the Reformers explicitly address the making of images of Christ or the specific arguments regarding the Incarnation advocated by the Eastern Church. The closest direct reference to those is found in the section in which Calvin states that whenever God reveals Himself in the revelation of God, He also includes “plain intimation of his incomprehensible essence. For the cloud, and smoke, and flame, though they were symbols of heavenly glory (Deut. 4:11), curbed men’s minds as with a bridle, that they might not attempt to penetrate farther.”202 He notes: “God sometimes appeared in the form of a man, but this was in anticipation of the future revelation in Christ, and, therefore, did not give the Jews the least pretext for setting up a symbol of Deity under the human form.”203

The Reformers noted that Scripture is deliberately silent when describing the human appearance of Christ. In God’s wisdom, there are no descriptions of Christ by the apostles. It was said that He was in the very midst of the people, and yet the people did not know him. Isaiah says Christ had no form or special look he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him (Isa. 53:2). When speaking of the resurrection body, again there is a great mystery, as the Scriptures are likewise silent with regard to its exact nature. It is described as a glorified human body, incorruptible and undefined, but the reader is given no further indication as to what Christ’s resurrected body looks like. The silence of Scripture shows that Christ’s human appearance is not necessary nor is it helpful. It is, in fact, impossible to make any sort of meaningful representation. The representations that are made are only a highly stylized art, and bear no true relationship to the reality. In regard to the argument that idols are teaching aids of the unlearned, as advocated by the Eastern Church, it should be noted that icons are useless as teaching aides without the Word, and in practice they often supplant the Word and are separated from it. We can illustrate this as follows: I once saw

198 Institutes I.9.xi199 Institutes I.11.vii200 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wlc_w_proofs/201 157202 Institutes I.11.iii203 Institutes I.11.iii

70 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

a mime of the crucifixion. I watched as man opened his arms. As I already knew the story of the cross, I could follow it, but if I had not, the actions of the mime would have made no sense. One of the great contributions of the Reformers was their stress on the superiority of the Word for instruction. Calvin says true instruction should be through “the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments.”204 Calvin goes on to note that the only icons or images that Christ has given to His church, for use in worship, are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. In both of these cases, the sacramental images are to be clearly explained by the Word.205 The bread and wine are clearly symbolic; they must never be separated from the Word, and Christ directly commands them. In the negative, there are no icons commanded by Christ, to claim such is a mere construct of the church.

3. Calvin on Dulia and Latria:

Calvin rejects any distinction between dulia (honor due men) and latria (worship that is due to God alone). He states that those who claim that their worship of idols and saints is merely dulia, and deny that it is lateria, fool themselves. Man cannot offer dulia to statues and pictures in any way that does not insult God. Calvin notes: “They think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the worshippers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve.”206 Calvin continues: “For as a murderer or an adulterer will not escape conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters whom they themselves are forced to condemn.”207 Calvin believed that the distinction made between dulia and latria was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honors to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. He taught that when men venerate idols and the dead it is no different from the worship of God.208

Calvin illustrates the lack of distinction between ‘dulia’ and ‘latria’ using the stories of the Temptation of Christ, John’s bowing down to the angel, and Cornelius, who bowed down before Peter. In each case, there was no distinction between ‘dulia’ and ‘lateria,’ and in each case, the undue worship was forbidden. Jesus rebuts Satan’s offer to give Him the kingdoms of the world if Christ would just fall down and worship me. Christ stated, It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only (Matt. 4:10). There was no question of latria. For all that Satan asked was προσκὺνεσις (obeisance).209

204 Institutes I.11.vii205 Institutes I.11.vii206 Institutes I.11.xi207 Institutes I.11.xi208 Institutes I.12.ii209 Institutes I.12.iii

71 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

In the same way the angel rebuked John for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9). Calvin says: “We ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honor due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savor somewhat of divine worship, he could not προσκύνει̂ν (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God.” 210

In the discussion above, Calvin distinguished between religious and civil honor. Believers are called to offer civil honor to those who have gone before, but never religious honor, because if they do, they will soon fall into idolatry. The Scriptures themselves clearly reject the idea that any form of religious honor can be paid to men or angels, no matter how glorious they are. In Acts 10:25, Cornelius bows down to reverence Peter in his office as apostle. Clearly he does not think that Peter is God; rather, he had asked his servants to go and find Peter and bring him to him, and yet when he bows down to the apostle, Peter quickly rebukes him (Acts 10:25). When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. (26) But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man” (Acts 10:25,26). Calvin notes that Peter forbade him as “….men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God.”211

4. The Christological/Theological Arguments Regarding Icons

The Eastern Orthodox theological argument for images, and particularly the images of Christ, is based on Christ’s human nature, His attitude to matter, and the meaning of Christian redemption. The Iconodules (those promoting icons) say that icons are absolutely necessary in order to safeguard a full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation. Although God cannot be represented in His eternal nature, No one has seen God at any time (John 1:18), “but now that God has appeared in the flesh and lived among humans, I make an image of the God who can be seen. I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter affected my salvation. I will not cease from worshiping the matter through which my salvation has been affected.”212 Ware asserts that those who disagree: “They fell as so many puritans have done, into a kind of dualism. Regarding matter as defilement, they wanted a religion freed from all contact with what is material; for they thought what is spiritual must be non-material.”213

The iconoclastic controversy is linked to the other disputes about Christology and the nature of Christ and of salvation. “God took a material body, thereby proving that matter

210 Institutes I.12.iii211 Institutes I.12.iii212 John of Damascus, qtd. in Ware 33 213 Ware 33

72 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

can be redeemed: ‘The Word made flesh has deified the flesh,’ said John of Damascus. ‘God has deified matter, making it ‘spirit-bearing,’ and if flesh has become a vehicle of the Spirit, then so - though in a different way - can word and paint.’”214

In addition Ware quotes Nicolas Zernov (1898-1980):215 “They were dynamic manifestation of man’s spiritual power to redeem creation through beauty and art. …. The artistic perfect of an icon was not only a reflection of the celestial glory - it was a concrete example of matter restored to its original harmony and beauty, serving as a vehicle of the Spirit.”216

In response we affirm the Reformed position is not dualistic. The charge that to deny icons is to be anti-matter and thus causing a divergence between the matter and spirit is incorrect. That is not the Reformed position. Christ did become man in order to save humanity, and yet the Reformers noted: 1) There was a general prohibition against any material representation of God. 2) In the New Testament there is no change in the use of icons after Christ had come. 3) The New Testament is very careful in the way that it describes Christ; it does not give us any physical description capable of being reproduced. None of His particular visual characteristics are reproduced. 4) Any physical reproduction cannot encompass both natures, a presentation of a human, without more, would fail to comprehend His extra calvanisticm (this is the teaching that although Christ’s human nature is present in one location, His divine nature continues to exist as God, and so is omnipresent). To only show His humanity is to teach Nestorianism, which believes in a division of the two natures. In truth, the union of Christ’s human nature with His divine nature cannot be divided. 5) Finally, if the representation is of His divine person, Ouspensky states, then we are now making an image of the spiritual nature of Christ. This means the person of the one God, with both natures, must appear on the image. This means we must make an image of Christ in the Spirit.217

Because the Old Testament’s prohibitions were not reversed in the New Testament the Reformers have reason to claim that the mystery of whom Christ is in total is too great to be reduced to mere two dimensional art.

In addition, icons do not accurately represent Christ’s true humanity. In reality they are merely stylized art, with no true likeness to the image. Ironically, it was the Protestant Dutch realist painters who began to draw men and women with accuracy and not as golden saints with halos around their heads.

5. The Greater Issue of the Teaching through the Word

214 John of Damascus, qtd. in Ware 33215 Nicholas Zernov, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Zernov 03/03/2015216 Ware 35217 Ouspensky and Lossky 36

73 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

One of the great contributions of Reformed Theology was a focus on the Word of God, not the Sacraments or other visible representations in worship and teaching. The key emphasis in the Reformed Church is the preached Word; God reveals Himself in His Word, by the Holy Spirit. The focus on the taught and preached Word is reflected throughout the New Testament, and particularly in the Pastoral Epistles. Paul exhorts Timothy to: Preach the word, in season and out of season (2 Tim. 4:2). The centrality of the Word can also be seen in the link between the Spirit and the Word. The Spirit inspires the Word, the Spirit accompanies the preached Word, and the Spirit enlightens the believer to understand the preached Word. Christ is present in the Word and the Sacraments; the former is directed to the believer’s ears, while the latter is directed to the eyes. In Ephesians 2:17 Paul notes: And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. In this context, the word ‘he’ is referring to Christ. Even though Christ had never been to Ephesus, yet through Paul’s preaching, Paul can say that Christ preached to them. The Second Helvetic Confession states the same idea, asserting that “the preaching of Word of God is the Word of God.”218At the heart of Calvinism and the Reformation is the ‘Great Hermeneutical Reformation,’ with its focus on the Word. Calvin and the Reformers, in general, stressed that God reveals Himself in the Word, in visual form.219 John’s gospel displays the intertrinitarian-communication, and it is in that same gospel that the Son is called the ‘Word.’ It is always through the Word that God communicates to His people. God called His Word to be inscripturated, and God caused the Gospel to be preached (Rom. 10:13ff, 1 Cor. 1:18ff). This, and the prohibition on visible idols, means that there is a central focus on the Word rather than any visible forms.

Lesson Four Questions

1. Explain why the church building is divided into two? Who can enter each part and what does each part symbolize?

2. Where do all the great ceremonies of the church take place? Why?3. Explain the Reformers’ position on the joining of heaven and earth? What does

this mean about Iconostasis dividing the sanctuary?4. Do the Reformers try to show or illustrate the spiritual realm? Why not?5. Explain the Eastern Orthodox’s distinction between icons of God and icons of

Christ? Cite John of Damascus.6. Explain what we mean by ‘Icons as Canon.’7. According to Orthodoxy, why does paying homage to the icon honor the original?8. According to Orthodoxy, what is the difference between worship and veneration?9. What two reasons does Calvin give for rejecting icons? Do the Scriptures

describe Jesus’ physical appearance? Use Isaiah 53 in your answer.10. On what basis and scriptural texts does Calvin reject dulia (honor) and latria

(worship)? 218 Shaff, qtd. by Letham 219219 Letham 217

74 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

11. Explain the Reformers’ unique stress on the preached word of God with texts. Explain the Second Helvetic Confession on the authority of preaching.

75 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Five: Worship II - The Mysteries and the Sacraments

1. The Mysteries ~ The Sacraments

In the Greek Orthodoxy the sacraments are called ‘mysteries.’ “‘It is called a mystery,’ writes St. John Chrysostom of the Eucharist, ‘because what we believe is not the same as what we see, but we see one thing and believe another.’”220 There is a two-fold or double character to the sacraments. There is both an inward and outward aspect, a combination of the outward visible sign and an inward spiritual grace. “At Baptism, the Christian undergoes an outward washing in water and is at the same time being cleansed inwardly from sin; at the Eucharist he or she receives what appears from the visible point of view to be bread and wine but in reality is the Body and Blood of Christ.”221

In the Incarnation, Christ took on material flesh in order to redeem it. Much in the same way, the material elements of the sacraments look back to the Incarnation and anticipate the future redemption of matter. The Orthodox Church teaches that baptism is by immersion, “and leavened bread is used, not just wafers; at Confession the celebrant does not confer absolution from a distance, but lays hand on the head of the penitent…”222 The commitment to the physical elements in Orthodoxy is a full commitment to materialism and its redemption.

The Orthodox Church has seven sacraments. Initially, there was not fixed number. John of Damascus suggested that there were two sacraments. Dionysius, the Areoagite, said six, and some have even held to a total of fifteen sacraments. By the seventh century, the Orthodox Church had settled on seven.

Baptism,Chrismation (Confirmation in the West),

The Eucharist,Repentance or Confession,

Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony,

The Anointing of the Sick

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not regard all the seven sacraments as equal; the most important are the Eucharist and baptism. They are at the heart of Christian life and experience while the anointing of the sick is not. The three key sacraments are linked: Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and the Eucharist (First Communion). In Baptism, one is confirmed, takes full communion, and so receives the full privilege of membership

220 St John of Christensom, qtd. in Ware 274221 Ware 274222 Ware 275

76 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

in the church. Orthodox children also partake of this triad of sacraments. They are baptized and confirmed in infancy and so receive communion. Throughout the church there is also a wider definition of a sacrament, which includes the entirety of worship in the church. The whole of life is one great sacrament, or mystery. Each sacrament conveys a special sacramental grace, which is unique to that sacrament. This is true in Roman Catholic theology as well as in the Orthodox Church.

Ultimately, in the administration of the sacraments, the action is performed not by the priest, but by Christ Himself: “The priest merely lends his tongue and provides his hands.”223

1.1. Baptism

Orthodoxy teaches that there are two essential aspects to Baptism. Baptism must be in the name of the Trinity, and it must be a full threefold immersion, dunking once after each name. The exception being if the person is ill, then water may be poured over the forehead. Immersion is essential in order to maintain the correspondence of the outward sign and the inward meaning. A failure to immerse breaks the symbolism of death and resurrection in Christ. In Baptism there is the full forgiveness of sins, original and actual. At Baptism one puts on Christ and becomes a member of His body, the church. A cross is worn by Orthodox believers to remind them of their baptism. A priest or anyone can baptize, as long as the person baptizing has himself been baptized.

1.2. Chrismation (Confirmation)

Confirmation is given to all Christians, even youngsters. It is done through the anointing with special oil, as a seal of the Holy Spirit. The forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, chest, hands, and feet are anointed, all marked with the sign of the cross. By incorporation in Christ through Baptism, the Orthodox believer is given the gift of the Spirit and becomes a full member of the body. The Chrismation is an extension of Pentecost: the same Spirit, who descended then, descends on the newly baptized invisibly, but with no less reality and power. In this act, all the members are prophets, and all share in the royal priesthood of Christ. They are a conscious witness to the truth. You have been anointed [charisma] by the Holy One, and you have all knowledge (1 John 2:20).

The Charisma, or anointment, must be administered and blessed by the priest. Mere Chrismation is enough for those who have apostatized and who return to the faith; therefore, they do not need to be baptized. If a convert comes to the church from other Christian denomination, Protestant or Catholic, they are received by simple Chrismation, as returning apostates.

223 Homilies of John, qtd. by Ware 27777 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1.3. The Eucharist

After Baptism and Chrismation comes the Eucharist. In Orthodoxy, there is a strong sense of coming to meet their God and King. Preparations are taken which include fasting and abstaining from sexual relations. After consecration the bread and the wine become the very body and blood of Christ; not mere symbols but the reality. The Orthodox Church, although, has not specified the manner of the change. In 1672, Jerusalem councils used the word ‘transubstantiation,’ noting a distinction between substance and accents. At the same time they also said it was a mystery and was always incomprehensible.224

The word transubstantiation is still used in Orthodoxy today, with the following limits:

a. There are other words that can be used, and the word transubstantiation has no primacy nor does it commit them to the Aristotelian philosophical concepts of the Roman Catholic Church. 225

b. Ware notes the following words in the Longer Catechism, authorized by the Russian church in 1839. “Question: How are we to understand the word transubstantiation? Answer: The word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and the Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only this much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord.”226 “… If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit ... we know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable.”227 In summary, Orthodox theology claims that only God knows how this happens.

The Sacrifice is a true sacrifice; it is not merely a bread sacrifice, but the true body of Christ. The Lamb of God was sacrificed only once, for all time. The sacrifice of the Eucharist consists, not in the real and bloody immolation of the Lamb, but in the transfiguration of the bread into the sacrificed Lamb.228

Christ’s sacrifice is a propitiatory sacrifice, offered on behalf of all, the living and the dead. The Eucharist is not a new sacrifice, a repetition, or a sacrifice at all because the Lamb was sacrificed once. Rather in the Eucharist, “The events of Christ’s sacrifice – the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Ascension -- are not 224 Ware 284225 For the Roman Doctrine of Transubstantiation, see Berkhof, 715.226 Larger Catechism written by St Philaret, qtd. in Ware 285227 John of Damascus, qtd. in Ware 285228 Nicolus Cabasilas, cited in Ware 286,287

78 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

repeated in the Eucharist, but they are made present.”229 The word ‘sacrifice’ is also a symbol for the whole mystery of Christ’s redemptive work. In the liturgy, in the sacrifice’s divine power we find the point where eternity cuts into time, “and at this point we become true contemporaries with the events which we commemorate.”230 “All the Holy Suppers of the Church are nothing else than one eternal and unique Supper, that of Christ in the Upper Room. The same divine act, both takes place at a specific moment in history, and is offered always in the sacrament.”231

The Supper is offered to God as propitiation. The liturgy states: “Your own from your own…He offered Himself…He is both victim and priest…You are both the one who offers and the one offered.”232 The Eucharist is offered to the Trinity, by Christ, to all three persons of the Godhead: the Father, Christ Himself, and the Spirit. Christ receives His own sacrifice in union with the other members of the Trinity, because the Godhead is undivided.233 Finally, the Eucharist is offered for all, both the living and the dead.234

After the liturgy, the Orthodox congregation receives the bread and wine together in a spoon. The great objective of this sacrament is that “thenEucharist sanctifies the faithful, turning us towards God and obtaining pardon of our sins.”235

1.4. Repentance/ Penitence/Confession

Children are baptized as infants, and when they are old enough to know right from wrong, they then take the Sacrament of Repentance, also known as Penitence or Confession. In the Sacrament of Repentance, post-baptismal sins are forgiven, and apostates are restored. It is often called the ‘second baptism.’ It is done directly with the priest, normally before the icons, the cross, or Scripture, and it is done in confidence, although not through a screen as the Catholics practice.

The role of the priest is to act as a witness. He says the following to the one confessing:

“Behold, my child Christ stands here invisibly and receives your confession. Therefore do not be ashamed or afraid; conceal nothing from me, but tell me without hesitation everything you have done, and so you shall have pardon from Our Lord Jesus Christ. See, His holy icon is before us: and I am merely a witness, bearing testimony before Him of all the things which you have to say to me. But

229 Ware 287230 Ibid.231 Evdokimov, qtd. by Ware 287 232 Qtd.by Ware 286 233 Ibid. 234 Ibid.235 Cabasilas, qtd. by Letham, TWE 215

79 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

if you conceal anything from me, you shall have greater sin. Take care, therefore, lest having come to a physician’s you depart unhealed.”236

After confession, the priest offers advice, places the stole on the penitent’s head, lays his hands on the stole, and says the prayer of absolution. In Greek, the prayer is in the third person, “May God forgive…”

The priest says, “Whatever you have said to my humble person, and whatever you have failed to say, whether though ignorance or forgetfulness, whatever it may be, may God forgive you in this world and the next…Have no further anxiety; go in peace.”237

The Slavic prayer of absolution uses the first person, “And I, an unworthy priest, through the power given me by Him, forgive and absolve you from all your sins.”238 In the switch from third to first person, Ware argues that this is a break from the traditional liturgy, because the first person is never used in any other place in the liturgy.239

1.5. Holy Orders

Although considered a sacrament by the Eastern Orthodox Church, this course will consider the topic of Holy Orders during the lecture covering the Doctrine of the Church.

1.6. Holy Matrimony

Marriage is considered a sacrament, a means of grace: “Just as God blessed the first family, commanding Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, so the Church today gives its blessing to the union of man and a woman. Marriage is not only a state of nature but a state of grace. Married life, no less than the life of a monk, is a special vocation, requiring a particular gift or charisma from the Holy Spirit; and this gift is conferred in the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.”240

During the marriage service the husband and wife are crowned. This is an outward and visible sign of the sacrament, signifying the special grace that the couple receives from the Holy Spirit, before they set out to found a new family or domestic church. It is a crown of joy and a crown of martyrdom in self-surrender. They drink from one cup, reminding them of Cana, and of the fact that they are now one body.

The Orthodox Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. Contraception can be used in marriage. Abortion is not allowed.

236 Ware 289237 Ibid. 238 Ibid.239 Ware 290240 Ware 294

80 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

In this respect the Reformed and Orthodox understandings of marriage are very similar. Although, the Reformed Church rejects marriage as a sacrament, they affirm, along with the Orthodox Church, that it does require grace. At the same time, the Reformers also recognized, with Paul, that there is a greater need for grace in singleness.

1.7. Anointing the Sick

This sacrament is based on James 5:14,15. It seeks the restoration of the body and forgiveness of sin. These two things are related; there is a union between the body and the soul, between sin and death. This is a sacrament for all. It is not similar to the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Extreme Unction. Bulgakov notes that the sacrament “has two faces; one turns towards healing, the other towards the liberation from illness by death.”241

2. The Sacraments in Reformed Theology

In contrast to both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, Reformed churches have developed a very different understanding of the sacraments. This discussion will first consider the traditional and historical Reformed understanding of the nature and number of the sacraments. Although much of the Reformers’ theology was developed in opposition to Roman Catholic sacramentalism, much of what the Reformers criticized can also be applied to Eastern Orthodoxy. This section will also consider the more recent relational Reformed model offered by Ridderbos. Following the thoughts of Ridderbos, this lesson will focus on an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, one of the two major texts regarding the Lord’s Supper in the New Covenant. The Reformers attacked the sacramental system in a number of ways.

a. The principal Reformed contribution to this debate was the recovering of the centrality of the Word of God in worship. This challenged the Medieval Catholic Church’s focus on sacramental religion and images. Many of these criticisms also apply to the Eastern Orthodox focus on sacraments and icons.

b. The Reformers claimed there were only two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

c. They claimed that the efficacy of the sacrament was not linked to any change in the substance of the elements, or through the anointing of the priest; rather, as with the Word, the sacraments must be received by an active faith and the power of the Holy Spirit. There is no automatic grace confirmed by the sacraments.

d. They saw the sacraments as visible promises, offering the same promises and grace as the Word. The Word and the sacraments were closely related.

2.1. The Centrality of the Word

The Reformers’ stress on the centrality of the Word was dealt with in the preceding

241 qtd. in Ware81 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

lesson. In this section, the focus will be on the specific relationship between the Word and the sacrament. In the administration of both sacraments, the Reformers always linked the Word and the sacraments, never separating them. “The Word of God may never be separated from the sacraments, but must always accompany them, since they are virtually only a visible representation of the truth that is conveyed to us by the Word. In the Church of Rome the Word retires into the background as having only preparatory significance, while the sacraments, considered apart from the Word, are regarded as the real means of grace.” 242 The Words of Institution clearly explain the sacraments, and the sacraments are to be understood and received by faith. They do not work automatically.

In addition, the Reformers taught that the sacraments are visible promises, containing not a new promise, but the same promises as defined in the Word. Augustine calls a sacrament a visible word243 because it represents the promises of God in a picture and places them in our view in a graphic bodily form.244 Calvin following Augustine’s argument stated that the sacrament “is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences His promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself, and before angels as well as men.” Calvin also notes: “There never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it.245 The Word is adapted to the ear, and the sacraments to the eye. “While the Word can exist and is also complete without the sacraments, the sacraments are never complete without the Word.”246 The idea that the sacraments are a visible picture runs throughout the writings of the Reformers. When the Words of Institution are read, the Gospel is put forward; in the breaking of bread and the drinking of the cup, the same Gospel is taught. There are not two Gospels, one in the Word and one in the sacrament. There are not two ways of blessing, one by faith and the Spirit and one that is automatic. The grace received and the manner in which is it received is the same though both the Word and the sacraments.

The same criticism leveled at sacramentalism in the Roman Church can be leveled against the Eastern Orthodox Church. The sacraments are often divorced from the clear Word of God; they seem to work automatically, without understanding or faith.

2.2. The Nature and Number of the Sacraments

Luther in his tract, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) was the first to reject seven as the number of sacraments and the first to reject the general sacrametalism found in the Roman Church. Both Luther and Calvin held to two sacraments, rejecting the 242 Institutes IV.4.iv243 Augustine, qtd. in Institutes IV.14.vi 244 Augustine, qtd. in Institutes IV.14.vi 245 Institutes IV.14.iii246 Berkhof 683

82 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

additional five.247 Calvin noted that in the ancient church, the term sacrament was not fixed theologically and the early church did not profess a fixed number. Augustine was another who contended that there were only two sacraments.248

In order to qualify as a sacrament, Calvin argued that the sacrament had to have an external sign, a corresponding grace or word of promise, plus a clear sign of institution. Although marriage and other things, claimed as sacraments by the Eastern Orthodox Church, are blessings, they were never instituted as a sacrament. Calvin says: “All external actions that bring grace are not sacraments.”249 He notes: “The apostles prayed on their bended knees; therefore our knees may not be bent without a sacrament (Acts 9:20; 20:36). The disciples are said to have prayed toward the east; thus looking at the east is a sacrament. Paul would have men in every place to lift up pure hands (1 Tim. 2:8); and it is repeatedly stated that the saints prayed with uplifted hands, let the outstretching, therefore, of hands also become a sacrament; in short, let all the gestures of saints pass into sacraments.”250

All the Reformers believed that the Scriptures taught that there were only two sacraments. The Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that there are two sacraments.

There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained (WCF 27:IV).

On the change between circumcision and Passover in Old Testament and baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the New, Berkhof notes: “In the old dispensation, circumcision and Passover were bloody sacrifices. Circumcision symbolized the excision of the guilt and pollution of sin, and obliging the people to let the principle of the grace of God penetrate their entire life. In the Passover, the Israelites escaped the doom of the Egyptians by substituting a sacrifice, which was a type of Christ (John 1:29, 36; 1 Cor. 5:7). The saved family ate the lamb that was slain, symbolizing the appropriating act of faith, very much as the eating of the bread in the Lord’s Supper.”251 Orthodoxy also sees a similar type to fulfillment in the two sacraments.

2.3. The Necessity of the Sacraments

The Catholic Church teaches that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, and that

247 For Calvin’s refutation of the five sacraments, see the Institutes, IV.19. The chapter is divided into two parts. The first section discusses sacraments in general, while the second part contains individual refutations of the additional five sacraments. 248 Augustine, cited in Institutes IV.19.ii249 On The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Babylonian_Captivity_of_the_Church 03/03/2015250 Institutes IV.19.ii251 Berkhoff 687

83 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

penance is necessary for those who have committed mortal sins, but the remaining five are “necessary only in the sense that they have been commanded and are eminently helpful.”252 As has been discussed, the Eastern Orthodox Church affirms that all the sacraments are not equal. In contrast, the Reformers taught that although they are commanded and helpful, the two sacraments are not absolutely necessary. The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 paragraph V says:

Although it is a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Berkhof offers the following arguments to prove that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation.

a. In the New Testament age, the work of the Spirit is not limited to physical means (John 4:21, 23).

b. We are saved by faith alone; it needs no support (John 5:24 6:29). c. The sacraments flow from faith, but they do not create it.d. There are many who were saved without the sacraments, like Abraham (Gen.

15,17; Rom. 4) and the thief on the cross.253

2.4. The Relationship between the External Sign and the Actual Grace Conveyed

In the early church the external elements of the sacraments were seen to administer grace automatically. They did not merely signify or point to something; they actually affected it. “Ambrose argued that in baptism of the Holy Spirit ‘coming upon the font or upon those who are to be baptized, effect the reality of regeneration.’”254 Later, the medieval theologian Duns Scotus (1266-1308)255 spoke of grace as a thing, a substance, and so argued that the sacraments actually conveyed grace.256 If you had the sacrament, then you had the substance. In Aristotelian thought there could be an inward change in the body and blood of the Lord, even though the outward aspects remained the same. In transubstantiation there was an actual change. Eastern Orthodoxy takes this same position, but the stress on the material sign of the sacrament is so strong that it is seen to work automatically, irrespective of faith. The administration of baptism, chrismation, and communion makes a person a full member of the church, including the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This confused the sign from the reality it pointed to. In both cases, there is a strong focus on the sacrament, rather than the relationship between Christ and the believer.

252 Berkhoff 685253 Berkhof 686254 McGrath, Christian Theology 407 255 Duns Scotus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus 03/03/2015256 Or more properly said, God acted directly through the sign to give grace.

84 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The Reformers rejected any idea that the sacraments directly gave grace. They were careful to distinguish between the outward element of the sacrament and the grace given in them. They did not consider the sacrament itself mystical. For Calvin there was a “distinction, if properly understood, repeatedly made by Augustine, between the sacrament and the matter of the sacrament. For he does not mean merely that the figure and truth are therein contained, but that they do not so cohere as not to be separable, and that in this connection it is always necessary to distinguish the thing from the sign, so as not to transfer to the one what belongs to the other.”257 As an example of those who had the sacraments, but not the benefits, Calvin points to the Jews in the Old Testament and Judas in the New Testament. With regard to the Jews, Calvin states: “Though the sacraments were common to all, the grace was not common: yet grace is the virtue of the sacraments.”258 He quotes Augustine again, “…Why is it that many partake of the altar and die, and die by partaking? For even the cup of the Lord was poison to Judas, not because he received what was evil, but being wicked he wickedly received what was good.”259 The nature of the blessing of the sacrament will be considered later. The Vital Nature of Faith: As previously discussed, the Reformers taught that all of the promises of the covenant were to be received by faith. Paul notes that Abraham believed, and he was considered righteous. Paul refers to Abraham in Romans 4, emphasizing the point that Abraham received the blessing through faith. As a believer takes the Supper by faith, the blessings of Christ’s actual life, death, and the resurrection (the obedience of Christ) flow to the believer by faith. Christ then applies these blessings through the Holy Spirit to believers. The sacraments “must be apprehended by faith”260 in order to be effective.

The Westminster Confession clarified the Reformed position, focusing on the work of the Holy Spirit. It is through the Spirit that all other graces flow.

The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers (WCF 27. III).

The Lord’s Supper is only effective through the Word, the Words of Institution, and the work of the Spirit, who takes the things promised in the sacrament and applies them to the believers. In the case of the Lord’s Supper, there must be faithful examination on the part of the believer in order to partake. 257 Institutes IV.14.xv258 Institutes IV.14.xv259 Augustine, qtd. in Institutes IV.14.xv260 Institutes IV.14.xv

85 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.5. The Sacraments and Children in the Covenant In Eastern Orthodoxy, the children of believers have the right to baptism and the Eucharist. These sacraments are seen to work automatically. In contrast, the Reformers made a distinction between the baptism, which is for all covenant children, with or without faith, and the Lord’s Supper, which must be taken in faith. Although there are two sacraments in the Old Testament and two in the New, they are different and unique sacraments. They are not identical. In baptism, a person is brought into the covenant. It is an initial rite and is administered once. The Lord’s Supper is an ongoing feeding by Christ of one already in the covenant by faith; it is to be done often. As a continuing obligation, the Lord’s Supper requires ongoing testing and examination. The demand for discernment and repeated self-examination means that before a person can participate in the Lord’s Supper, he/she must have faith. To take the Supper without faith is to fall into sacramentalism.

In the Reformed faith, a person is baptized into the Covenant and one is a member of the church, but not a full communing member, thus that person is fenced from the table. A person can only take communion once he/she has made a clear profession of faith. Similarly, Reformed believers do not presume that their children are already regenerate. In the Old Testament each child was exhorted to believe and trust in the promises shown by circumcision. The same is true of the church in the New Covenant. Christians must exhort their children to believe in the reality that the sign symbolizes, remind them of the privilege they have, exhort them to believe the promises that God has made to them and take up the full blessings of the Gospel, and then continue in the faith that they have seen and heard from their fathers. Dr. Pipa offers two main reasons why it is unbiblical not to require faith before children can participate in the Lord’s Supper. “First, it assumes a wrong view of the membership of our children in the covenant. It confuses membership in the covenant with the right and privilege of coming to the Lord’s Table. A child of at least one professing parent is a member of the church and by his baptism is inducted into that membership. As such, he is an heir of the covenant promises: I am your God and you are my children, including the promise of remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. When I say he is an heir of the promises, I distinguish him from those who are heirs of salvation. Only those born again by the Holy Spirit are heirs of salvation.  We do not teach that baptism makes a child an heir of salvation. The child might already be born again, but that is not the reason we baptize him. As members of the church and heirs of the promises, our children are legally part of the administration of the Covenant of Grace. In order to become communicant members of the covenant community, they must take the step of owning the covenant for themselves by consciously entering into the covenant. God speaks in Psalm 50:5, Gather My godly ones to Me, Those who have made a covenant with Me by sacrifice (NASB). An older person entering the covenant publicly covenants taking Christ for himself by profession of faith.

86 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

A baptized infant is brought into the covenant but has not by that act personally entered into covenant. He does that by solemnly vowing that he takes God as his God. He must make covenant with God. The covenant meal is for those who have made covenant with God.”261

Dr. Pipa also notes: “For one to benefit from the Lord’s Supper, one must understand the meaning and promises (thus the necessity of the Word being preached and promises read). Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32. Otherwise, we practice a superstitious observance of the Supper, claiming that there are blessings apart from faith. Such an observance is contrary to Reformed church practice and Scripture.”262

The Half-Way Covenant: An issue, which arose in Reformed circles, is called the Half-Way Covenant, namely whether one can extend baptism to children of parents who have not actively professed faith. For instance if the grandparents are believers and baptized the parents, but the parents do not believe, can the parents baptize their children? The Reformed position notes that even though the promise applies to parents and children and children’s children, even to the thousandth generation (Ps. 105:7-10; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:39), only children of believing parents are the proper subjects of infant baptism, because in baptism the parents undertake certain key obligations to train up their children in the faith. If they cannot, then there are no grounds for baptism. In contrast, where baptism is seen to automatically confer grace, as in Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, there is a tendency to baptize the children even if the parents are not believers, making the status of the parents immaterial. Further, in the Roman Catholic Church it is essential to baptize all children, because without it they can never reach heaven. In Orthodoxy, because the grace works automatically, and as there is often the closest link between Orthodox faith and nationalism, all children should be baptized.

2.6. The Real Presence in Reformed Thinking

The issue of ‘the real presence’ in the Lord’s Super is focused on Christ’s words, This is my body. It was particularly significant at the time of the Reformation due to the dominance of the Mass. The Roman Church taught that, in the Mass, through a process of transubstantiation, in some way the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. The participants therefore literally eat the actual body and blood of Christ. The change to the elements was defined through the Aristotelian idea of transubstantiation. In Eastern Orthodoxy, the elements do change, but the church is unclear as to the means of the change, and thus is labeled a mystery.

Luther rejected transubstantiation. For Luther, “The bread and wine remain what they are, but there is in the Lord’s Supper nevertheless a mysterious and miraculous real presence of the whole person of Christ, body and blood, in, under, and along with, the 261 For a current statement on the issue, see Pipa, http://byfaithonline.com/paedocommunion-a-wrong-view-of-membership-a-wrong-view-of-the-sacrament/262 Ibid.

87 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

elements. He and his followers maintain the local presence of the physical body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.”263 God is not merely behind the sacraments; He is in them as well.264 Luther based this on his interpretation of Jesus’ words: This is my body (Matt. 26:26), arguing that Christ’s body was really present.

2.6.1. Zwingli ~ The Mere Memorial View

Zwingli followed Luther in rejecting the seven sacraments and claimed the sacraments were efficacies, as a sign of God’s faithfulness, to be received by faith. In the early stages of his faith, Zwingli saw the sacraments as God’s promise to men, but in 1525, he changed his position. He began to see them as man’s pledge of loyalty and obedience to God, along with being a declaration of loyalty to a community. Zwingli saw the sacrament as that “by which someone proves to the church that he either intends to be, or already is, a soldier of Christ, and which informs the whole church, rather than himself, of his faith.”265 In Zwingli’s thinking, baptism was the initial pledge, by the saint, to the community. The Lord’s Supper was a demonstration of his public loyalty. The differences between the teachings of Luther and Zwingli on ‘the real presence,’ led to a split between the two wings of the Magisterial Reformers. It is unclear if this was Zwingli’s final position, but this teaching continues and has been called the Memorial View.

2.6.2. Calvin and the Real Presence

With reference to the relationship between the sign and the reality, Calvin claimed that the sign and the reality can be distinguished, but they cannot be separated because God has joined them both together. This idea of things being joined together by God so that distinction can be made but not separation occurs throughout Calvin’s thinking. The Incarnation provides the key paradigm. There is unity between God and man in the Incarnation, but the two natures are not confused. The human and divine, are distinguished but not separated. They are different but inseparable.266 In taking the sacrament, the grace of the sacrament and the physical element are linked but not the same. This can be illustrated in the context of circumcision and Lord’s Supper. Jesus said, This is my body, thus linking the sign and the sacrament; therefore, they cannot be separated. We have Him as we partake by faith. If we have the one, we have both. If we have the sign, we also have the thing signified. The Westminster Confession follows a similar line of thinking. With regard to the union between the sacrament and the reality signified, it notes:

263 Berkhof 723264 McGrath, Reformation Thought 179265 McGrath, Reformation Thought 180266 Calvin applies this approach throughout the Institutes, to his theology on God, to the Word, to preaching, to the relationship between the believer and Christ in justification, to the relationship between secular and spiritual powers, to the relationship between Christ and the church, between God and His Word and God’s grace and the sacraments (McGrath, Reformation Thought 192).

88 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. WCF 27: II.

In modern Reformed thinking, Ridderbos does not stress the nature of the change in the sacrament but the fact that the meal is one of covenant fellowship between Christ and the believer. Christ, the mediator, acts as a living host at His own table, feeding His people through His mediatorial work. It emphasizes a living relationship between the two parties.

3. Exegetic Support – Ridderbos and Recent Reformed Understanding In Paul, an Outline of His Theology, Ridderbos considers the nature of the Lord’s Supper. In the New Testament there are two main passages dealing with this sacrament: Luke 22:14ff, which stresses the inauguration of the Lord’s Supper, and 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, which deals with abuses in the Supper. Ridderbos does not focus on the elements; rather, he focuses on the reality that in the Supper, the risen Christ is there, acting as our host. Ridderbos says, “There is no other gift in the sacrament than from the hand of the Giver, nor are the elements in themselves either for blessing or for judgment, but it is the living presence of Christ, in accordance with the arrangement established in His own Words of Institution, which in the elements affect communication with the sacrifice once made by him and which can transform the gift in the supper into judgment and the blessing into curse.”267 It is Christ, as host, who brings either grace or judgment in the Supper. Luke 22:14-23 is the passage in which Jesus institutes the Supper. In these verses He stresses the following:

a. The Supper is a covenantal meal. With this first meal the New Covenant is inaugurated and in the subsequent meals, the blessings of the New Covenant are central.

b. The link between the Passover and the Lord’s Supper is clearly made. c. Christ institutes the Supper; it is His delight to eat with His people. The Supper

prefigures the coming marriage of Lamb. His commitment to believers becomes the central focus.

In 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, Paul writes to correct abuses regarding the Supper. He stresses the following thoughts:

3.1. The Supper is a Relational Meal. In it Believers Eat before Christ, Who Feeds Them.The central idea of this passage is that in the Supper, Christ sits as a living host. It is His Supper, founded on His work, and made effective due to His presence through the Spirit. 267 Ridderbos, Paul, An Outline of his Theology 423

89 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

As Christ, the Mediator, He inaugurates the Supper. As host, He administers the spiritual blessings that flow from it. The risen Lord acts as host while bringing both reconciliation and peace and at the same time, mediating ongoing spiritual food and drink in the Supper. In the Supper, through the cup of blessing and the bread, the church participates in Christ and His work. He does this now through his minsters, who do this in His name. In the Supper, believers enter into fellowship with the Lord. Through the eating the bread, they participate in Christ’s death in redemptive history. His death is the basis for His ongoing presence with the elect. In His resurrection, God’s people continue in fellowship with Him.

In the Supper, Christ is not re-sacrificed, neither is the believer sacrificed with Christ. Paul talks of the Lord’s Table, not His altar. The focus is not on the elements; the focus is on Christ’s work on the cross and His resurrection in Golgotha. At the Supper, Christ is a living host. It is His Supper, founded on His work, and made effective due to His presence through the Spirit. The Supper illustrates the nature of the believers’ fellowship with Christ. By eating and drinking, they confess their need and humility, and they affirm that they too will follow Him in humility and death.

Remembrance: In the Supper, believers are called to look back on Christ’s death and resurrection. Throughout the Old Testament, God called Israel back to the Exodus, as the foundational event in Israel’s history. Jesus calls the church to look back to the source, the foundation of her greater salvation. To ‘remember’ is not just to call to mind; it is to keep something central in one’s life.268 During the act of remembrance, the church proclaims Christ’s death until He comes again (1 Cor. 11:26), being an objective visible witness to the world. The church is to do this often, even until Christ returns at the end of the age.

3.2. By Sharing One Supper, Believers Commit to Living for One Another.

Because there is one-bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor. 10:17).

Through the sharing of the one bread, believers confess they are all one body. In partaking of the one bread of Christ, they show that they have fellowship with the Lord, and that they covenant to live with one another. Paul says that by one Spirit, we are all baptized into one body, so as we eat, we profess that we all feed of one Lord.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, (2) with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, (3) eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. (4) There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—(5) one Lord, one faith, one

268 Thiselton notes: “‘To remember God’s mighty acts’ ” ….is not simply to call them to mind but to assign to them an active role within one’s ‘world.’ ‘To remember’ God (cf. Deut 8:18; Judg 8:34; Ps 22:7) is to engage in worship, trust, and obedience; just as ‘to forget; God is to turn one’s back on him. Failure to remember is not absent-mindedness but unfaithfulness to the covenant and disobedience” (879).

90 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

baptism (Eph. 4:1-5).

By taking the Supper believers remind themselves of that unity. Ridderbos notes: “The unity that begins in baptism, as we are all baptized into Christ, so we are to be constantly experienced, manifest and reinforced in the supper.”269

3.3. The Nature of Living with One Another

As the nature of the meal focuses on Christ’s sacrifice, when believers take it, they also promise to live sacrificially with one another. The unity of the Supper is to be manifest and developed as Christians live with one another in a humble and sacrificial way. The Corinthian church was not doing this; they were violating the very nature of their fellowship. Paul records the following examples.

For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. (22) What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not (1 Cor. 11:21,22).

The actions in Corinth did not fulfill the unity and sacrificial nature of the Supper; rather, they promoted division and thus were directly opposed to the real meaning of the Supper and the fellowship in Christ. In Corinth, the abuses negated its very meaning: When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper that you eat (I Cor. 11:20).

3.4. Self-Examination

When taking the Supper, church members are to examine themselves before eating.

Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. (29) For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. (30) That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. (31) But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. (32) But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 11:28-32).

They are to examine themselves, to see if they are living in a way that is consistent with fellowship with Christ. If they fail to examine themselves or if they find that they are living with unrepentant sin, then they should refrain from coming to the Table. The idea of examining oneself also occurs in other passages that stress the need for general self-testing (2 Cor. 13:5). In Galatians, Paul states: But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor (Gal. 6:4).

In this specific context, the event of the Supper should focus a believer to examine his own life to see if he needs to repent of any sins. Reformed churches remind believers in

269 Ridderbos 42491 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

advance that the Supper will be celebrated in order to give their members a time for reflection. The warning, the command to examine oneself, and the warning that if one has no faith or is in open sin, one must not come, together are called ‘fencing the table.’

3.5. The Nature of the Test

It is unclear if the there is one test or two before one partakes. In interpreting the verses in 1 Corinthians 11; 27-29 some say there is a call to examine yourself to see if you discern the body and a separate call to consider to see if you are eating worthily. In the former all are challenged to determine whether or not they have faith. The latter test challenges believers to discover if their lives reflect the true meaning of the Supper. In fact, both calls reflect the same truth, if a person is to eat with Christ, that person would need to believe in Him and in faith walk as He has called him. The Old King James Version calls men to be ‘worthy,’ though it is not the best interpretation because all men are sinners, all men eat and drink unworthily. Under this test no one would be able to eat from the Supper, and it would be in direct contradiction to the very nature of the Supper which is a reminder of the atonement for sin, and the fellowship believers have in Christ even though all are unworthy. This interpretation is common in some Netherland Reformed Churches, where very few eat the Supper because no one feels they are worthy to eat with the Lord. These churches must be reminded that Christ’s desire to eat with His people is central to the Supper, not a Christian’s desire or worthiness to eat with Him.

Discern the Body: In verse I Corinthians 11: 29 Paul says, we must “discern the body.” For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 

The Greek word ‘discern’ only occurs once in the New Testament, making it difficult to interpret. Berkhof limits his interpretation to mean that “the elements used in the supper and ordinary bread and wine, by recognizing those elements as symbols of the body and blood of Christ.”270 It is better to consider a far fuller meaning based on an ongoing living relationship with Christ. In the context of 1 Corinthians 10 and 11, to discern Christ’s body includes Berkhof’s idea but joins it with the understanding of the true nature of Christ’s work. The question/test becomes: Do those who eat and drink also understand the following:

a. The nature and function of the table (are the Supper and the Word always linked) b. That Christ is present; He is the Host of the meal c. The need for Christ’s sacrifice d. That believers have an ongoing and living relationship with Him, one in which

Christ provides spiritual food for His people based on His atonement

If a person eats without examining himself with regard to all of these aspects, then he will be liable of sinning against Jesus, by disregarding His sacrifice and the benefits of the New Covenant. That person sins against Christ, His sacrifice, and covenant.

270 Berkhof 72892 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3.6. The Personal Nature of the Supper

Through the eating, Christians actually eat and drink in Christ’s presence. Paul warns believers that if they do not do so properly then they provoke the Lord to jealousy (1 Cor. 10:22). In the Old Testament God is seen as a jealous husband (Jer. 31:32; Hos. 2:1–13). In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul warns the church that Israel provoked the Lord to jealousy in the wilderness and was judged during the incident with the golden calf. The church must likewise not provoke the Lord as they sit at His table.

The phrase ‘to provoke Him’ stresses the relationship between the parties. The sin is defiling the relationship, and the so the offence and the judgment are personal. In these verses, Paul focuses on our living relationship with Christ, not on the elements. In the opening section of 1 Corinthians 10, Paul warns the Corinthian church that if they participate in sacrifices to demons, they have fellowship with them. Paul stresses the personal relationship again in 1 Corinthians 10:22. Using very simplistic relational terms, Paul warns the church that if they come to the Supper with unrepentant sin, He will enter into judgment against her, and they should fear this because He is stronger than they are. Paul simply asks, Are we stronger than he?

4. Warning Passages

Paul’s warning flows from the covenantal nature of the Supper. Both the Old and New Covenant contained blessings as well as obligations and warnings. In the New Covenant, chastening is linked to sonship. As a son in the New Testament all believers come under fatherly chastening leading to holiness. All sons are chastened (Heb. 12:8) for growth and in order to restrain sin. If believers partake of the Supper with known sin, they open themselves up to chastening.

1 Corinthians stresses the severe nature of the judgment. The sinful and idolatrous conduct of believers in Corinth had led to many being sick and some had died (1 Cor. 11:30). If we approach the Supper in a careless way or with open rebellion and unrepentant sin out hearts, we will come under judgment.

Paul specifies the reason for judgment. Because the judgment is for one forgiven in the New Covenant, a son, the reason for judgment or chastening is in order that the sons might not be finally condemned with the world. Paul says: But when the Lord judges us, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world (1 Cor. 10:32). Paul stresses that these are temporal judgments, not the final judgment. They are warnings for the members of God’s church.

a. The judgments that have fallen on some are examples to the whole the church, so that the church can see God’s rebuke, that they might repent and that they might not be condemned along with the world.

93 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

b. At the same time, the judgments point to and are related to the final judgment. Paul makes it clear that God brings His judgment to the church now in order that we might not be judged with the world in the final judgment.

5. Paul’s Exhortation in Order to Eat

With the severity of the warning, a believer might be tempted not to eat at all, which would indicate a complete misunderstanding of the point Paul was trying to make. It is Christ’s desire to eat with His people that is paramount (Luke 22:15), not our desire to eat with Him. Not coming also misses the exhortation to repentance. God’s people are to examine themselves and repent in order that they might come to the Table in the right manner. Paul makes this point expressly stating that the object of self-examining and self-judgment is not to stop one coming to the Table, it is not to condemn; rather, Paul commands self-examination in order that believers may come to the Table in a suitable manner. The examination is undertaken so that one may test oneself and then eat. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup (28). In these words, to eat and drink are imperatives, a command.

So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another— (34) if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come (1 Cor. 11:33,34). Paul desires that the whole church eat, and eat in a way fitting of Christ with self-surrender, sacrifice, and death, as well as His ongoing presence. He desires that the church see the saving significance of the Supper, and that she eat in the presence of her Lord.

Lesson Five Questions

1. Name the sacraments recognized in Eastern Orthodoxy.2. What three sacraments allow a child into full church membership?3. What does the Eastern Orthodox Church teach about the change in the bread and

wine?4. In Eastern Orthodoxy, what does the post-baptismal sign of penance accomplish?5. Explain what the Reformers meant when they said that the sacraments were

‘visible promises.’6. How many sacraments does Reformed theology claim? What was Calvin’s

justification for rejection the others?7. Are the sacraments necessary in Reformed thinking?8. What illustration does Calvin give of those who had the sign, but not the thing

signified? 9. Explain the vital nature of faith and the Holy Spirit in order to receive a blessing.10. What are Dr. Pipa’s two reasons for denying children who have not made a

formal profession of faith the Lord’s Supper? 11. Explain Ridderbos’ focus on the Lord’s Supper?

94 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

12. Why must we examine ourselves before eating?

95 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Six: The Eastern and Western Understanding of the TrinityThe Eastern and Western Churches developed differing concepts of the Trinity as both parts of the Church rose to the challenge of explaining God to the world. The question which faced the early church was how to preserve biblical monotheism and yet reflect the fuller revelation of the three persons: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Historically, this began with the need to assert the divinity of the Son, followed closely by the need to assert the divinity of the Spirit.

The issue of the divinity of Jesus is central to Christianity. We know the Father through the Son; therefore, if the Son is not God, then we do not know the Father and there is no salvation. From the beginning, the early church worshiped Jesus as God.

“… for the early Church, ‘God’ was an appropriate name for Jesus. The oldest surviving sermon of the Christian church after the New Testament opened with the words ‘Brethren,’ we ought to think of Jesus Christ as of God, as of the judge of the living and the dead. And we ought not to belittle our salvation; for when we belittle him we expect also to receive little.’ The oldest surviving account of the death of a Christian martyr contained the declaration: ‘It will be impossible for us to forsake Christ … or to worship any other. For him, being the Son of God, we adore, but the martyrs… we cherish.” The oldest surviving pagan report about the church described Christians as gathering before sunrise and ‘singing a hymn to Christ as though as to [a] God.’ The oldest surviving liturgical prayer of the church was a prayer addressed to Christ: ‘Our Lord come!’… amid all the varieties of the response to the Gnostic systems, Christians were sure that the Redeemer did not belong to some lower order of divine reality, but was God himself.”271

In our analysis of how East and West developed their own understanding of God’s nature, we will begin with the (1) Ante-Nicene Fathers, then focus on (2) Nicaea, Athanasius, and the Cappadocian Fathers, before considering (3) Augustine and the Western tradition.(4) Finally, we will consider the position of the Reformers, Calvin, and that of the Westminster Confession. 1. Ante-Nicene Fathers (3rd Century)

In order to understand the differences between the East and the West, we need to begin with Origen and Tertullian, the Ante-Nicene Fathers. The Early Church was forced to explain how Jewish Monotheism was to be understood in the light of the fuller revelation of Father, Son, and Spirit. During this process, the Church quickly moved toward an unbiblical form of Unitarianism, either in the style of Emanation or Modalism. This Unitarian tendency was only corrected through great strides in the 4th century.272

271 Jaroslav Pelikan qtd. in Kelly 449272 Bray 198

96 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1.1. Origen (185-254) and Platonic Emanation in the Eastern Tradition By developing a type of Platonic Emanation theology, Origen stands at the fountainhead of the tradition of the Eastern Church.273 Origen argued that in God there were three hypostases (the church would later call this the persons). These hypostases were three distinct beings and fully God in their own right. The first hypostasis, the Father, is the true God; He is the beginning, source, or cause of the other two hypostases. Origen taught that only the Father is Autotheos; the Son and Spirit have a beginning. They owe their first cause to the Father.

Origen set the classical formulation of three hypostases in one ousia (essence), and yet he taught that only the Father hyspostasis to be considered Autotheos. Although the East has modified some of Origen’s teachings, the idea of the hypostasis of the Father being first cause remains in Eastern Orthodoxy. His line of thinking would also be modified later by Arius, who denied the full divinity of Christ, arguing that it was caused or created by the Father, and so was not of the same substance.

1.2. Tertullian (160-220), Monotheism, and the Western Tradition

A second approach was taken by Tertullian. Although he made great strides in the development of an explanation of the Trinity, and it is to him we actually owe the term ‘Trinity,’ he also fell into a type of Modalism. In Modalism one tends “to obscure the distinctions to the point where the names persons of the Trinity were no more than functional designations of a single divine nature.”274

Tertullian wrote in opposition to Praxeas, who “taught the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity were not real, that the three names of God had some valve in explaining the pattern or redemption, but they did not correspond to any distinction within the Godhead. The name Father emphasized God’s role as creator; the name Son, his role as Redeemer; the name Holy Spirit, his role as sanctifier. But in real terms the agent of all of these was the one god of the Jewish Scriptures.”275 This is a picture of classic Monotheism. Tertullian rejected Monotheism. He argued that the Son and Spirit are fully divine, like the Father, yet distinct. They “share his essence and are bound inextricably to him.” 276

Although this was a major step forward, Tertullian’s understanding still contained major weaknesses. Namely, he maintained that in some way the Father was still always distinct from the three, and he said the other two persons were ‘portions’ of the Father.

273 Bray 198274 Bray 126275 Bray 130276 Bray 130

97 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Positively, the idea of a shared essence between the three persons becomes an essential tool to understanding the Trinity in the West. Further, Tertullian also made a crucial distinction that the inferiority of the Son and Spirit is one of status, not one of grades of divinity.

The church took Tertullian’s ideas and developed them in certain key ways:

1. If there is an equality of grades, there is also an identity of essence.2. If the grades are equal, then the idea of portions is no longer an issue. 3. The different status allowed for a difference in persons, not natures or attributes.

Bray summarizes Christology in the third century in the following manner:

1. God was an object, which could be analyzed and contrasted with human beings. This human to Divine analysis made understanding the Trinity very hard.

2. The attributes belong to His nature, and this points to Unitarianism, rather than to any sharing between equals.

3. The other two members of the Trinity had power somehow delegated from the Father.

4. Personhood was most often seen as an attribute of the divine nature.

The idea that personhood was merely an attribute of the divine essences prevented a clear development of the Trinity. Bray notes: “Classical Trinatarian theology came into its own when the concept of person was detached from its place as one of the attributes of God, and made into a principle in its own right.”277

2. 4th Century - Athanasius, Nicaea, and the Cappadocian Fathers

The 4th century saw massive developments in the Doctrine of the Trinity, while at the same time the grounds for the major split between the Eastern and Western Church were laid. In this section, we will consider developments in the Eastern Church by discussing Arius, Athanasius and the Nicene Creed, and the three Cappadocian Fathers.

2.1. Arius, Nicaea, and Athanasius

Arius (256-336) was an ascetic Christian who developed Origen’s thought, but rejected the idea that each hypostasis (H/P) could include exactly the same ousia (essence). He argued that as each person of the Trinity had a different name, each also had a different ousia. Arius taught that the three persons do not share in the same divine essence. He argued that because the Son was called begotten, He must have been created. The Father created the Son and the Spirit when He began to create the world, and both the Son and

277 Bray 154-15598 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

the Spirit would continue to endure until the final consummation, when the Son gives all things back to His Father and is reabsorbed by Him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28).

The dispute with Aruis led to the formulation Nicene Creed, in which the Church rejected Arius, using the word ‘homoousian,’ meaning of the same substance, and so affirming that the Son was of the same substance as the Father.

The Church also affirmed that in the Incarnation God revealed Himself, and that revelation matches how God works within the Trinity itself, as God is in Himself in his own internal being.278

Arius’ theology was rejected by the Church in the Nicene Creed in 325, and again at Constantinople in 381. Key sections of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed read as follows:

We note the following points: 1. In structure, the creed begins with an emphasis on the three persons, not on God’s

essence. 2. The unity of the persons is mainly stressed through the repetition of the word

‘one:’ one God, the Father Almighty, and one Lord Jesus Christ. This follows the biblical language of 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6. The creed also expressly mentions that the Son is of one substance with the Father. Further, each of the persons is described as God though their titles, the Father is before all worlds, the Son is Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; and the Spirit is called the Lord and Giver of life.

3. The diversity of the three persons is stressed through the overall structure above and the unique properties of each person. The Father begets, the Son is the only-begotten Son of God, and the Spirit, is said to proceed from the Father.

278 We call this split today the Economic and Ontological Trinities. The former is what God is as He has revealed Himself to men, in His acts towards us, and the latter speaks of how God acts within Himself, It is a foundational principle in Reformed Theology that the way that God has revealed Himself in His works (economically) reflects back to the way that He IS in His nature (ontologically).

99 | P a g e

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

by whom all things were made;

…And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

4. The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, but not the Son. 5. The Holy Spirit is not expressly called homoousia with the Father, but the idea of

His Godhead is stressed.

In Athanasius’s lifelong battle against Arius, he affirmed that the Son is the same substance with the Father. In his writing, Contra Arianos, Athanasius states that Christ is homoousia with the Father…

“We are allowed to know the Son in the Father, because the whole Being of the Son is proper to the Father’s being...For whereas the Form of the Godhead of the Father is in the being of the Son, it follows that the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son.”279

And, “The Godhead of the Son is in the Father’s, whence also it is indivisible; and thus there is one God and none other but he. And so, since they are one, and the Godhead himself is one, the same things that are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except his being said to be Father.”280

In the Letters on the Holy Spirit to Serapionem, Athanasius argued that the evidence of the Scriptures show that the Holy Spirit is also homoosuis with the Son and so the entire Trinity is homoousia, of one substance.

2.2. The Cappadocian Fathers

2.2.1. The Doctrine of Perichorisis, Circumincessio, and Mutual IndwellingIn the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the church asserted that God is both one in being or ousia, and yet there are also three distinct persons. This formulation challenged the church to find a way to describe something that was clearly outside all natural or human illustrations, as there is nothing on earth to compare to it. A solution to this struggle was offered by the Cappadocian Fathers in the Doctrine of Perichorisis (Greek), Circumincessio (Latin), and Mutual Indwelling (English). The Greek word perichorisis comes from chora, meaning space or room or chorein which means to contain something, thus offering the idea of co indwelling. The three persons of the Godhead mutually indwell one another while still retaining their distinctiveness. The doctrine was followed by John of Damascus who stated: “The subsistence [i.e. Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. They are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but clinging to each other.”281

279 Athanasius qtd. in Kelly 448280 Athanasius qtd. in Kelly 448-9281 John of Damascus qtd. in Kelly 489

100 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Where one is, all the others are. What one does, so all the others do. Kelly notes: “[T]he whole undivided essence ( ousia ) of God belongs equally to each of the three Persons. That is, the divine essence (or substance) is not ‘divided’ among the three Persons, but is wholly in all its perfection in each one of the Persons so that they have a numerical unity of essence or being. And yet, they are three conscious Persons, not just one Person.”282

This means that God’s substance inherently involves personal relationships with co-equals within the same substance.

In summary the Cappadocians made the following distinctions:

1. The hypostasis (person) of the Father was clearly separated from the absolute word ‘God.’

2. They rejected any form of emanations, arguing that the one and the three exist in different levels in the Trinity.

3. The full unity of God in His ousia/essence is manifest in His hypostases, and the second and third persons are not reproductions of the Father, as there is a single simple essence that cannot be divided.

4. The Father does not cause in time, the deity of the other members. They are never caused, ex nilo, as they are co-eternal with the Father. They are eternally generated.

5. The distinction within the hypostases could no longer be made in relationship to absolute being; rather, the distinctions were made as distinctions to each other within the absolute being.

6. All three occupy the same divine space and every divine attribute is applied equally to all three hypostases.283

In formulating this advance, there was an important division within the three Cappadocian Fathers. Basil and Gregory of Nyssa developed the role of the Father in a slightly different way than did Gregory of Nazianzus. This would end up being one of the causes of the split between the East and the West.

There are three major sources of division between the two parts of the church, and to some degree they all flow from a different understanding of the source of the Godhead. They divisions are:

1. The Source of the Godhead2. The Filioque Clause 3. Apophatic Theology

2.2.2. The Source of the Oneness of God/and the Role of the Father

One cause of the split between the East and West is the source of the Godhead. The major question being: is there a place where the oneness of the being of God is anchored. Is it in

282 Kelly 491283 Bray 158

101 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

the person of the Father or His being or does the fact that each person of the Trinity is fully God in His own right make the source of the Godhead anchored in all three. Basil and Gregory Nyssa’s argument followed the train of thought that began with Origen, and so they saw the Father as the first in a series of three: Father, then Son, then Holy Spirit. This made the Father the direct source of both the Son and the Spirit. To Basil and Gregory, the Father’s person is the location of the deity of the Son and the Spirit. He is the ‘cause’ of the deity of the Son , and the Spirit. This ‘cause’ distinguished one from another; the Father has power, as He is without generation or origination in Himself.

John of Damascus followed this approach, while still maintaining that this does not allow any precedence in time or superiority in nature of the Father over the Son. Kelly notes: “[I]n differentiating the Persons of the Holy Trinity, they cast the internal relations between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit into the consecutive structure of a causal series or a ‘chain’ of dependence ‘through the Son,’ instead of conceiving them more, like Athanasius, in terms of their coinheritance and undivided wholeness, in which each Person is ‘whole of the whole.’”284

In contrast, Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzus understood the unity to be found in the being of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of all three. Athanasius argued, “Since they are one, and the Godhead itself is one, the same things are said of the Son as are said of the Father, except His being said to be Father.”285 In the same way Gregory of Nazianzus taught that each of the persons is fully God in Himself (Autotheis).

1. He refused to use the word ‘origin.’2. He warned that any subordination would overthrow the Trinity and destroy the

whole.286

3. The unity of the Godhead is complete, not just in the person of the Father, but in each person.

4. The monarchy is not limited to one person, that is not to the Father alone, but to the whole being of the Trinity. In this he followed the teachings of Athanasius.

5. In rejecting ‘cause’ he preferred to see the three as ‘relations,’ subsisting beyond all time, origin, and cause.

Gregory of Nazianzus was followed by Cyril of Alexandria who in his work, Thesaurus de Trinitate, rejected the idea that the Father is any way a ‘cause.’ He argued that this idea of cause leads to tri-theism. He preferred the idea that the whole undivided being of God is in each person. He said the Father can be held to be greater than the Son only economically, and thus excluded any ontological subordination. In his critique, Bray 284 T.F. Torrance qtd. in Kelly 542285 Athanasius qtd. in Kelly 448-449286 Kelly 543

102 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

argues that this shows a latent tendency to regard the ousia as more fundamental than the hypostasis.287

John Calvin would later follow Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril, arguing that the Son and the Spirit are both Autousia, that is, fully God in themselves. “The Father has nothing of himself which the Son does not have of himself.”288 Calvin argued that the only ground of distinction lies, not in the single essence, but in the persons. The priority of the Father is never in terms of their common essence; it is only in terms of their ‘order of relations’ as persons between themselves.

2.2.3. The Filioque Clause

The second ground for distinction flows from the single procession of the Father. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed asserts that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, a clause that implies a single procession.

The Orthodox Church argues from John 15:26. Here Jesus says: But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.

In Orthodoxy, the Son sends the Spirit in the economic Trinity,289 but the Spirit proceeds from the Father as a unique ontological attribute of the Father. In the economic Trinity, the Spirit is sent by the Son, or even comes through the Son, but Orthodoxy insists that, “The Spirit derives His eternal being, His personal identity, not from the Son but from the Father alone. The Father is the unique origin, source and cause of the Godhead.”290 To illustrate this principle Ware speaks of two births. The Son has two births, an eternal birth (generation) and a temporal birth (Incarnation). In a similar way the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, but is temporally sent by the Son.291 In contrast, Augustine, Calvin, and the West added the phrase and the Son, which taught a double procession, meaning that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. The main argument against any double procession, from the Father and from the Son, as in the West, is that the Trinity is held together by the (single) monarchy of the Father. It is the monarchy of the Father which allows the Church to speak of One God and yet three persons. In the single procession, the Son and Spirit trace their origin and relationship back to the Father. “As the sole source of being within the Trinity, the Father constitutes in this way the principle or ground of unity within the Godhead as whole.”292 It is argued 287 Bray 163288 Cyril qtd. Kelly 545289 The economic aspect of the Trinity stresses how God is revealed in His works (Greek ergo), while the ontological Trinity stresses how God is revealed in His essential being. 290 Ware 213291 Supra292 Ware 214

103 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

that if double procession was introduced then ditheism (two gods) would occur or there would be a danger of merging or confusing the unique natures of the Son and the Father. In Orthodoxy, the way in which the Spirit proceeds from the Father is not identical to the way that the Spirit proceeds from the Son. The Holy Spirit can never be an alternative mediator between God and men. Gregory of Nazianzus argued that it is not possible to describe procession using human terms. It is a mystery, and so we cannot just say that the generation of the son and procession of the Spirit are simply different words for the same thing.

2.2.4. Apophatic Theology or the Theology of Negation- Essence and Energy

A third major difference between the East and West is that the East teaches Apophatic Theology, which is the theology of negation. The roots of this approach flow from the Early Church’s defense against Eunomius’s rationalism (see Lesson One). Eunomius argued that man can have a complete rational understanding of God. In response Gregory of Nyssa argued that is impossible to fully understand God. Gregory contended that language is ambiguous, and therefore man cannot fully know God by words. He believed that God’s revelation of Himself in creation provided a clearer revelation than did God’s revelation in words.

Gregory’s response raises several important questions including:

1. To what extent can man truly know God? 2. What is the relative value of general and special revelation? 3. To what extent can man trust Scripture? 4. How can man worship all three persons?

Gregory argued that man knows God in terms of what He is not (apophasis) rather than presuming to be able to describe what God is. It is a negative theology. He maintained that man can never truly define God in words because words themselves are ambiguous. This means that God’s nature can best be seen from creation, rather than Scripture, thus elevating creation to a position over Scripture. Because words cannot communicate God, this raises serious issues as to the trustworthiness of Scripture.

Later John of Damascus, Gregory Palamas and Vladimir Lossky would argue that the essence of God is unknowable, and that only God’s energies and operations have been revealed. This means that God does not show His nature, only the qualities of His nature. In this process, the Spirit of God is “the companion of the Word and the revealer of His energy…proceeding from the Father and resting in the Word, and showing forth the Word.” 293 Describing God using words such as ‘true,’ ‘good,’ and ‘wise,’ although accurate, cannot describe the inner nature of the deity. Ware continues, “That there is a God is clear; but what He is by essence and nature; this is altogether beyond

293 John of Damascus qtd. in Letham, THT 210104 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

comprehension and knowledge.”294 In summary, God’s being is transcendent, and only His energies are imminent. “God’s essence remains unapproachable, but His energies come down to us.”295 In this way God’s inner life is separated from His works in history, creating a major gap between the inner life of God, the ontological Trinity, and His revelation (the economic Trinity). If extrapolated, as Lossky does, we quickly move into Agnosticism, irrationality and mysticism.296

294 Ware 209 295 Ware 209 296 See Letham, The Holy Trinity, 237-51 and 338-48 for a fuller discussion of Lossky or Lossky’s work The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church.

105 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3. Augustine of Hippo (354-430) and the Western Approach A major development in Trinitarian theology occurred with Augustine, and his new approach became the standard form of Trinitarian thought in the West.297 Augustine followed the teachings of Tertullian, and he thought of God primarily as a single being, in whom there were three persons. The primacy of the essence over the persons (or of the one over the three) was to become a remaining characteristic of the Western tradition, and it is one of the main features distinguishing Western thought from its Eastern counterpart.298 Since the time of Augustine, as a general rule, the Western church has begun discussions concerning the Trinity with an emphasis on the essence of God before focusing on His persons.

To Tertullian the persons were modes of being within the Godhead. Augustine used the idea, but vitally he affirmed that the modes of being were as absolute as the divine essence. Augustine taught that there is “one God, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. [Each of the persons is] equal and co-eternal, and absolutely of one nature… an inseparable trinity, yet…a trinity … in inseparable union … distinctively and in mutual relation to each other ... presenting the three to our attention separately … but in no wise separated.” 299 “As the three are one in being, they are indivisible in their person and work. Because the Father and the Son are not two gods, therefore their works are inseparable.”300 Augustine used the technique of distinguishing but not separating, a common method used by the Cappadocians and Calvin when discussing the Trinity. Augustine went on to say that each work of the Trinity can be appropriately applied to one of the persons. In particular, the Son alone is subject of the Incarnation, and yet as God’s works are one, the Father, Son, and Spirit are all involved. 3.1. The Single Essence and the Three Relationships

Augustine distinguished between substance and persons in the Godhead. In his response to Arius he noted:

1. The Son is of the same substance as the Father.2. In Scripture, some texts speak of the substance of God while other texts speak of

God in a relational way. For instance there are texts that speak of the Father sending and the Son being sent. In these passages, the Scriptures are speaking of the relationship between the persons, not the essence or substance.

297 Bray 167298 Bray 167299 Augustine cited in Letham, THT 186 300 Supra

106 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3. In substance each person is as great as the other, fully, completely, and identically God.301

4. As God is one, when one person acts, they all act. The three persons are inseparable.

5. Concerning the relationship between the three, each person of the Trinity has unique properties, not shared by the others.

6. No person of the Godhead exists alone; they only exist in relationship to one another.

Vitally the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit now focus on their internal relationships, those not to essential deity. “But since the Father is only called so because he has a Son, and the Son is only call so because He has a Father, these things are not said substance wise, as neither is said in reference to itself but only with reference to the other…Therefore, although being Father and Son, there is no difference in substance, because they are not called these substance-wise but relationship-wise..”302

The reformulation of the description of the Trinity distinguished the work of God to the outside world from with the works or the persons of God within Himself. “Whatever is said about God is said about each person and about the trinity. All other things are said relatively, about the persons and their relations with each other.”303

3.2. The Double Procession of the Spirit

With reference to the debate on the procession of the Spirit, Augustine followed the essence/personal relationship line of thinking, and he argued that the person of the Spirit is consubstantially, fully, and equally God. In this Augustine introduced something new, that the Spirit’s essence flows from both the Father and the Son (double procession). It is important to understand exactly how Augustine formulated this idea.

1. The Holy Spirit originally precedes from God the Father as the source of the persons.

2. He also proceeds from the Son. In begetting the Son, the Father gives the Son all that the Father is, including the gift of the Spirit’s procession.

3. As such the Spirit proceeds from the Father in principle, but in common from both the Father and the Son.

4. It can be said that the Father and the Son give the Holy Spirit eternally together.304

In developing the concept of double procession, Augustine went beyond the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which only spoke of a single procession. Even so, the emphasis is on the Father’s giving of Himself to the Son, which in turn has the Spirit 301 Shedd qtd. in Letham, THT 192302 Augustine qtd. Kelly 448303 Supra304 Letham THT, 189

107 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

flowing from the Son as a gift from the Father. This formulation is similar to the Creedal formula and the Cappadocian’s stress on the monarchy of the Father as the authority of the Godhead. The double procession is a feature of the Western church, which was developed in its defense against western Arians in Spain. It was included in the Council of Toledo (589), whose participants inserted the Filioque into the Latin text of the Nicene Creed. In response, Eastern theologians argued that it was not done formally at an Ecumenical Church council and is therefore incorrect. In response, Western theologians note that it was the Patriarch Photius of Constantinople (c810-c.893) who added the word alone, and it became a standard feature, even though the word ‘alone’ had never received any canonical approval, and it was not found in the Nicene Creed itself. Calvin and the Reformers also assert the double procession of the Spirit, but for different reasons.

3.3. Augustine’s Trinitarian Illustrations

In another development Augustine claimed to find footprints of the Trinity in creation and in man. Although the illustrations were developed to show the Trinity, they are all modalistic in nature, a charge that Augustine himself recognized, noting that they were far removed from God and imperfect at best.305 Augustine discussed these in a sermon on Matthew 3:13, saying that although he saw the limitations, he was looking for something which “three things which are separately exhibited whose operation is yet inseparable.” 306 Later Calvin would refuse to develop this line of thinking.

3.4. Augustine’s Western Legacy

Augustine was within the Nicene-Constantinopolitan I formula (with the exception of the double procession). His new way of analyzing the Trinity and his claim to double procession was followed in the Western Church. As a rule, the West tends to develop its understanding of the Trinity with the essence/being of God as primary, thus making it difficult to think about God in three persons. Augustine himself admitted that his beginning with a focus on God’s one essence led to problems in his ability to think of the three.

3.5 Thomas Aquinas and High Medieval Theology

The high point of the development of Augustine’s analysis of the Trinity occurred in the writings and teachings of Aquinas. He clearly began with the essence of God and developed a highly logical abstract and philosophical approach to the Trinity, based on the singularity of the divine essence. This led to all sorts of logical and abstract proofs for God’s beginning with His single abstract essence.

305 Supra 198306 Supra 198

108 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

4. Calvin and the Reformers

At the time of the Reformation, huge strides were made by Calvin and the other Reformers in the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

4.1. Calvin

Commentators debate whether Calvin was traditionally Orthodox or more of a radical innovator. What is clear is that Calvin did not follow the approach of the late medieval theologians with their speculation and abstract philosophical focus. In his approach, Calvin used great care never to go beyond Scripture, although he does use some of the technical language from the creeds. Warfield notes: “…Calvin’s conception of the Trinity is simplification, clarification, and equalization.”307 He tried to describe God simply using biblical language, he sought to clarify the relationship of the three persons, and he stressed the equality three persons. Following a practical/biblical approach, Calvin considered the knowledge of God in creation along with the knowledge of God in Scripture. He noted that in the revelation of Scripture, far more is revealed about God than is in creation.308 Scripture gives believers the ‘lens’ through which they can properly see the world around them.309

By rejecting speculation, Calvin rejected the abstract, philosophical, medieval question, “What is God?” in order to focus on the practical question raised by Scripture: “What kind of God is He?” In the revelation of Himself in Scripture, God is shown to us not as He is in Himself (ontologically) but as He is toward us (economically).310 Calvin followed Scripture, and so he spoke very little about God’s essence, because God rarely, if ever, is revealed as He is in Himself. We have limited knowledge, and it is a knowledge that we cannot go beyond. At the same time, Calvin insisted that what is revealed of God is truly real, and there is a consistency between God’s revelation and His essence. All knowledge we have from God is practical. “Recognition of Him consists more in living experience than in vain and high-flown speculation.”311 “Knowledge of God in Scripture invites us first to fear God and then to trust in Him.” 312

Essence: Calvin has a limited discussion of God’s essence based on Exodus 34:6-7 and Psalm 145. In both cases he focuses on God’s eternity and God’s self- existence.313 This 307 Warfield qtd. by Calhoun, Institutes I.10.ii, courses.Mints.edu308 Contra Gregory, 309 Institutes I.4.i310 We can speak of God’s works in much the same way. His works within the Trinity are His works ad intra, while His work that He does toward man are His works ad extra.311 Institutes. I.10.ii 312 Institutes I.10.ii313 Contra Berkhof, who follows a later Scholastic tradition, which has an extended discussion of the attributes of God, in absence from the persons.

109 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

is a central Reformed principle. They accepted the essence but would not speculate any further.

Three Persons and their Roles: Then Calvin turns immediately to the revelation of God as Triune. This is central to Calvin’s teaching, as the Doctrine of the Trinity is another special mark distinguishing God more precisely from idols.314 If we do not know that God is Trinity, then we do not know God. It is only through His self-revelation as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that we learn what God’s true nature is.

Although Calvin wanted to focus on Scripture alone, he did use the terminology of the creeds and early Church Fathers, ‘person’ and ‘substance,’ as these had a place in their context and in theological discussion. Through his method Calvin follows Basil the Great, developing his doctrine from the church’s baptismal formula: the Father adopts us in His Son and through the Spirit we are re-formed in righteousness.315

Although Calvin generally followed Augustine, he rejected Augustine’s use of illustrations as speculative and problematic.

Calvin sought to establish God as One while maintaining the distinctions, but not divisions, within the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvin argued that the only ground of distinction lies, not in the single essence, but only in the persons. The priority of the Father is never in terms of their common essence; it is only in terms of their ‘order of relations’ as persons.316 Within the Godhead there is a disposition or economy in the persons that does not in any way affect the oneness of His being. Calvin recognized that this defies human analysis or comprehension. A Christian has to believe in the one God, not three gods.Following the baptismal formula, Calvin began with the Father and then considered the deity of the Son and the Spirit. Calvin was very clear that the Son does not derive His deity from the Father. The Son is God of Himself (auto-theos), not just God from the Father. He is the Son of the Father, but He does not get His deity from the Father. The Son is God of Himself as the Holy Spirit is God of Himself. The One God is one and indivisible, and so the Son and the Spirit are both autotheosis, God in their own right. In this section of his Institutes , Calvin is speaking of Christ’s essence, not His person. Because each one is God, neither the Son nor the Spirit receives their essence from the Father, nor do they get their deity from the Father. For Calvin there is no graduation in the Godhead. Calvin clearly taught the mutual indwelling, or perichoresis of the persons. Using John 14:10 Calvin taught the Father is wholly in the Son, and the Son is wholly in the Father.317 Each person is fully God. To Calvin, anyone who tried to separate Christ from the divinity of the Father did not truly know God.

314 Institutes, I,13.ii315 Letham, THT 254316 Kelly 545 317 Institutes I:13.i

110 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Calvin’s approach followed both that of Gregory of Nazianzus and Augustine in arguing that the creedal phrases of Nicaea and Constantinople I (below) emphasized the persons, not the essence.

the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;318

The singular essence of God is simple and indivisible, and yet the person of the Father differs in some special property from the Son, and the Son from the Spirit. 319 As the creeds say, the Son is begotten of the Father. The distinct role of each person leads to order within the persons (i.e. the Father’s generating the person of the Son and the person of the Son being generated by the Father). The person of the Father is the origin, “the beginning of activity and the fountain and the wellspring of all things; assigning to the Son, wisdom, council, and the ordered disposition of all things; but assigning to the Spirit, power and efficacy of that activity.” 320 In all their works, the three work together and reflect a prior relational order.321 In this way, the three are distinguished and still remain in one essence. Where the name of God is mentioned, so there is also the Son and the Spirit. Nothing can obscure the unity of the Godhead, but at the same time, it is not fitting to suppress these distinctions, which Calvin thinks are made by Scripture.

As Christ is the center of Calvin’s theology, the works of God in the Incarnation become his main illustrative tool when developing his Doctrine of the Trinity.

When discussing the Spirit, Calvin described the unity of the Spirit in both economic and ontological terms. He says: “[The Spirit] is sometimes referred to as the Spirit of God the Father, and sometimes as the Spirit of Christ without distinction. This is not only as his whole fullness is poured out on God the Father without distinction, so that each one of us might receive from his own portion [Irenaeus] but also because the same Spirit is common to the Father and the Son. [Augustine language]… who have one essence, and the same eternal deity.”322 In this formulation, Calvin follows both the Eastern and Western Church, and by adopting Augustine’s teachings, Calvin affirms the double procession of the Spirit.

In this asymmetrical way, distinguishing ‘persons’ from ‘essence,’ Calvin bases his analysis clearly on Scripture, and yet he is clearly within the tradition of the creeds, the early Church Fathers (East), and Augustine. His stance on the one essence meant he was committed to the filioque clause.

318 Nicene-Constantinopolitan I319 Institutes I.13.ii320 Calvin qtd. in Letham, THT 260321 Letham, THT 261322 Note that there are criticisms of Calvin.

111 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

4.2. Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Confession follows Calvin and in trying to avoid speculation uses only biblical language. It has three short sections on the Trinity, the first two dealing with attributes, while the third (below) deals expressly with the persons. On the persons it states:

2.III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Several things can be noted about this portion of the Confession:

1. The initial stress and main focus is the unity of the Godhead. Within the Godhead the three are all equally and fully God.

2. The Divines moved from the one to the three and then back to the one. The language of essence is used sparingly. They refused to speculate on the nature of the essence, only mentioning one substance. The other two words that speak of the substance are biblical words: ‘power’ and ‘glory.’

3. It also follows Nicaea in stressing the eternal generation and the eternal procession of the Spirit as unique interpersonal attributes of each of the three persons.

4. It affirms the Western understanding of the eternal procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son.

5. It affirms that the revelation of God in the Economic Trinity is a true reflection of the revelation of God in His ontology.

Lesson Six Questions

1. Name three differences between the Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity?

2. Explain how the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed developed the Trinity? 3. Explain the idea of the monarchy of the Father as the cause of the Trinity.4. Do all the Eastern theologians hold the same view on monarchy of the Father?5. Explain the Doctrine of Perichosises. 6. What is Apophatic Theology? 7. What is the great problem with Apophatic Theology?8. Explain the nature and import of the filioque clause. Explain Augustine’s thinking. 9. Calvin was careful to never go beyond Scripture. Explain his method when discussing

the Trinity? Does he use non-scriptural terms? 10. What did Calvin mean by autotheosis?

112 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

113 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson 7: Man, Image and Likeness, Original Sin, and God’s SovereigntyIt is foundational to the Christian faith that God has made man in His image and for His glory. Men are made for God. Augustine says: “You have made us from yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.”323 When creating man God said, Let Us make man in Our image (Gen. 1:26, 28). During the creation of mankind, all of the three persons of the Trinity are operational; man’s image and likeness is a Trinitarian likeness. Ware notes: “In the language of the Church, God created Adam according to His image and likeness, and set him in Paradise. [God made us for fellowship with him.324] Humans everywhere repudiate that fellowship; in the language of the Church, Adam fell, and his fall – his original sin’- has affected all humankind.”325

Orthodoxy distinguishes between image and likeness. To John of Damascus, ‘image’ represents “rationality and freedom, while the expression according to the likeness indicates assimilation to God through virtue.”326 These are the essential aspects that separate man from the animals. In Reformed theology there is no difference between the words ‘image’ and ‘likeness;’ they are synonymous.

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that after the Fall, salvation occurs through a personal and mystical union with Christ. Salvation is called ‘deification,’ which is the great hope of mankind. According to Athanasius, God became man in order that man might become God. In contrast, the Reformers followed the thinking of Augustine, Calvin, and others, who developed Christology from its initial focus on the Incarnation, and pushed it forward so that the emphasis was no longer just on the state of Christ and His becoming man, but there was also priority given to His mediatorial work in salvation, including the legal benefits of the New Covenant in which there is a clear distinction made between justification and sanctification. In theological terms they explored both Christ’s person and His work. This additional focus in western theology led to a very different emphasis on the Doctrine of Salvation. This lesson will begin by considering the nature of the image of God, as the nature of the image directly affects the consequences of the Fall. As each aspect of the Fall has an impact on the nature of salvation, Lesson Eight will go on to consider the difference in salvation.323 Confessions, 1.i.324 Ware Footnote 2, p 218 notes: “The opening chapters of Genesis are of course concerned with certain religious truths, and are not to be taken as literal history. Fifteen centuries before modern Biblical criticism, Greek Fathers were already interpreting the Creation and Paradise stories symbolically rather than literally.” 325 Ware 218326 John of Damascus, cited in Ware 219

114 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1. The Image and Likeness of Man in Creation

Eastern Orthodoxy distinguishes between the words ‘image’ and ‘likeness.’ To many of the early church fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and John of Damascus) the image of God denoted the characteristics of man as man, and the word ‘likeness’ expressed qualities which are not essential to man, but may be cultivated or lost.327 Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that in the Fall, man retained God’s image, but lost His likeness. The Reformers rejected any distinction between image and likeness. They pointed out that the words are used interchangeably in Scripture. In the initial creation of man, in Genesis 1:26, both words image and likeness are used. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1:26). After the Fall, the words continued to be used interchangeably. In Genesis 5:1-3 states When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. (2) Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. (3) When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The word image is used in Genesis 9:6, and again in Colossians 3:10. The combination of the words ‘image’ and ‘glory’ is recorded in 1 Corinthians 11:7. Because of this the Reformers stated:

a. There is no distinction between the words ‘image’ or ‘likeness.’ b. Both the image and likeness of man continued after the Fall, in Genesis 3 (see also

Gen. 9:6; I Cor. 11:7; Jas. 3:9). The Fall did not only affect the likeness.

Berkhof notes that the word ‘likeness’ was added to the word ‘image’ to express the idea that the image was most like, a perfect image.328

1.1. The Nature of the Image ~ Free Will

The exact nature of the image is important as this defines man’s nature and his relationship with God; it is also closely related to the effects of the Fall.

In Orthodoxy, all men are made in the image of God; they are like God, and this distinguishes men from all other creatures. Although is not clearly understood exactly what the image of God entails, the dominant idea is that the central part “consists of human free will, our reason and a sense of moral responsibility.”329 Many of the early church fathers reflect this view. 330 The image connects man with God. As those made in His image, men can have communication with Him. As this communion occurs, man enters into the process of deification or salvation. The idea of freedom is a fundamental axiom; Orthodoxy will not allow any doctrine that seems to undermine this doctrine. This

327 Berkhof 219328 Ibid. 170329 Ware 219330 Berkhof 221

115 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

accounts for Orthodoxy’s rejection of the Doctrine of Divine Sovereignty. Because Divine Sovereignty overrules human freedom, it is therefore incompatible with Orthodoxy’s system of beliefs.

According to Orthodoxy, Adam’s original state was one of innocence, with the potential to reach moral perfection. It was the righteousness of a child, simple, not that of a full-grown man. The Eastern Church teaches that man is made in innocence, and is created with potential. He is to realize his potential through his own efforts, assisted by God’s grace. At creation man was made with the potential to do good; he was not created perfect. Simply, man was called to acquire the likeness in his own effort. “He was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected.” says Irenuas.331 According to Ware, there is a dynamic relationship between Adam and God in which “God set Adam on the right path, but Adam had in front of him a long road to traverse in order to reach his final goal.”332 The work of God builds Adam’s childlike potential and God works with him; it is a joint cooperative/synergistic relationship. The idea of a synergistic joint relationship between God and man is important in Orthodoxy both before the Fall and after it. This idea of the ‘image of God’ includes the whole man, body and soul. This means that “the human person is a microcosm, a bridge and point of meeting for the whole of God’s creation.”333

As His image, man is God’s chief icon. Ware cites Paul’s words, We are his offspring (Acts 18:28). As an icon of God, all members of the human race, even the greatest sinner, remain in the image of God. “When you see your brother or sister...you see God.”334

“After God, we must count every man as God Himself.”335 Although there is a gulf between God and man, the image of God in man means that this gulf is not impassable. As those in His image, we can have communion with Him.336 If we make proper use of this faculty to communication, then we can become gods like Him. To acquire the likeness is to be deified; it is to become a ‘second god’, a ‘god by grace.’ In support, the Orthodox focus on Jesus’ words: I said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High (psalm lxxxi:6; c.f. John 10: 34-5).337

In Orthodoxy there is little or no stress on a Covenant of Works, which is counter to the stress found in Reformed thinking. This means that in Orthodoxy, sin is seen as a rejection of nature, without any legal overtones. 1.2. The Reformed Concept of Image and Likeness 331 qtd. Ware 220332 Ware 220333 Ibid.334 Clement of Alexandria, qtd. by Ware 221335 Evagrius, qtd. by Ware 220336 Ware 219337 Ware 219; When quoting the Psalms, the number of the Septuagint is followed.

116 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

The Reformers understood the terms ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ to be synonymous. Calvin held that the image was anything in which the nature of man surpassed the animals.338

This includes both men’s natural and spiritual qualities. It also includes true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. As a rule, the Reformers stressed that man was created in relative perfection. He is not an unformed child; he was created upright. In the Fall, the image of God was corrupted but still maintained. Through salvation, the image of God is renewed and also developed, as now Adam is renewed into the image of Christ, an image he had before the Fall (Eph.4:24; Col. 3:10; Rom. 8:30).

Following the teachings of Augustine, many of the Reformed confessions affirm that man was made upright. As an example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 4:2 states:

After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;   having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it; and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;   which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

The Confession stresses man’s original moral nature, his free will with regard to salvation, his obligations under the covenant, and his duty to take dominion. Each of these aspects reflects his initial nature in creation. The Confession generally spells these elements out in far greater detail. A crucial distinction of Reformed theology is the Covenant of Works;339 man’s relationship to God is regulated through a covenant. Because Reformed theology has a more complex understanding of image, it has a more complex understanding of the effects of the Fall. There is also a greater and more complex understanding of the benefits of salvation though Christ’s Incarnation, union, and the New Covenant.

The Reformers accepted that the image in man is corrupted, but did not teach it was destroyed in the Fall. For instance, in Genesis 9, the reason for the death penalty in cases of murder is that man is still made in God’s image. He is also still called to take dominion over the creation, to work, rest, and marry. All these things continue after the Fall. The

338 Institutes I.15.iii 339 The concept of the Covenant of Works dates back to Augustine. It is implied by Calvin and the Swiss Magisterial Reformers and by Zacharias Ursinus in the Netherlands. Over time, the concept was defined by the name, ‘Covenant of Works.’ The first confession to formalize the name was the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 7.2 states: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”

117 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

problem, according to Reformed theology, is that because man is fallen, the image of God is perverted in man, and he now uses these things for his own glory, not for God’s. In salvation, God is restoring His true image in man. Through this restoration, man is not merely retuning to Adam’s original image or to the garden; rather, he is now being renewed into the greater image of Christ. Adam was the first type; Christ is the antitype. In Romans 8:28, 29 Paul says:

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. (29) For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

These verses also stress the sovereign nature of the restoration of the image. Throughout chapter 8 and specifically in these verses, Paul stresses that it is God who works all things for man, and in the golden chain of salvation, found in Romans 8:30, it is God’s work from beginning to end. This makes salvation sure for those whom He has chosen. The great object of salvation is that believers might be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers (Rom. 8:29). Since the Incarnation, the true image of God is found in Christ, the firstborn.

1.3. The Fall and Corruption of Man

The difference in the way that the image and obligations of man is expressed by the Eastern Orthodox and reformed churched leads to a difference in the very nature of salvation.

Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that God gave Adam freewill, the power to follow God or to reject Him. Adam refused, turned aside and disobeyed Him. In the Fall, Adam set his own will against the will of God, and by so doing separated himself from God. In the Fall, Adam disobeyed the will of God, disease and death entered the world, and a new form of existence came into creation.

The Personal Effects: In Orthodoxy, the Fall affects men personally, physically, and spiritually. With the entrance of sin, spiritual corruption means that it is difficult now to have communion with God. This has affected both man’s nature and his will. By nature man is corrupted, and so now it is easy to sin. In the Fall, the image is distorted, not destroyed. Adam fell from a position of undeveloped simplicity. His mind was darkened, and he was cut off from God, but he was still capable of receiving God’s grace, and he is not depraved in every faculty of his being. Letham notes, “Orthodoxy, holding as it does a less exalted view of man’s state before he fell, is also less severe than the west in its view on the consequences of the fall.”340

340 245118 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

In Orthodoxy, the Fall is seen as being contrary to nature, not a sin against a command with a promise within a covenantal structure. The Orthodox liturgy 341 has never seen sin as a breach of the Law of God, or as disobedience to a set of external rules. They have always resisted this, rejecting it as western legalism and one in which salvation has not dealt with “Adam’s original destiny, as a dynamic transformation of man and world as union with God, but as a simple escape from sin. [In this stress] …The church forgets her ontological bounds with the world.” 342 Because of Adam’s sin a new existence was brought into the world, one of sin and death. God is immortality and life, but sin, being contrary to nature, led to the inevitable disintegration of man’s being, and eventually to physical death. In Reformed thinking, the development of the Covenant of Works became a crucial distinction and a central framework. The inclusion of a legal covenant framework sets man’s fall, not merely against nature but in a legal context as well. The covenantal framework also includes the idea that Adam was the first representative, and so his sin affects all men though the covenant. Due to the terms of the covenant, there is a complete break between God and man due to the entrance of death. By breaking the covenant man is under the sentence of death. In many ways the Reformers framed sin and salvation around the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The Westminster Confession is bi-covenantal, with a clear division between the two covenants. This is clearly stated in Westminster Confession of Faith 7.I-III.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

Free Will: In Orthodoxy, even though man is fallen, the ability of man to freely choose is maintained. This is due to their belief that image of God is based on free choice, and any

341 See Letham, TWE 247342 Nessa, qtd. in Letham, TWE 247

119 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

loss of free choice would destroy the image. In contrast, the idea that man is in God’s ‘likeness’ depends on man’s moral choices, his virtue. This is destroyed by sin.

Ware notes that “Adam fell not from a great high of knowledge and perfection,”343 but fell only from a state of undeveloped simplicity; he is not to be judged too harshly for his error.344 Additionally, due to the effects of the Fall, his human mind become darkened, and his will became corrupted; therefore, man can no longer hope to obtain the original image without some assistance by God. There is still a claim to freewill, although sin restricts its scope. At the same time, they reject the Reformed understanding of total, or Calvin’s radical, depravity. They also reject claim that man is now totally unable to have any good desires or that his human freewill is affected.

All people inherit a corrupt nature, but there is no inheritance of Adam’s guilt.345 Guilt is only a consequence of the actual sins that men commit. We participate in the guilt of Adam’s sin through our own acts, not imputation or representation.346 There is an acknowledgement of sin and corruption, but not guilt.

All of Creation: Adam’s fall affects all of creation. Adam’s new condition is also extended to all of his descendants. By virtue of the unity of the human race, if one suffers, the whole suffers. “In virtue of this mysterious unity of the human race, not only Adam but all humankind became the subject to mortality. Nor was the disintegration that followed from the fall merely physical. Cut off from God, Adam and his descendants passed under the dominion of sin and the devil, his descendants passed under the dominion of sin and devil. Each new human being is born into a world where sin prevails everywhere, a world in which is it easy to do evil and hard to do good. Our will is weakened and enfeebled by what the Greeks call ‘desire’ and the Latins ‘concupiscence.’ We are all subject to this, the spiritual effects of original sin.”347

Salvation: In this fallen state, there is a clear barrier between humanity and God, and man cannot cross that barrier. “Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, he came to us.”348 Before the Fall, man worked co-operatively with God, although fallen, man must still play a part in his salvation. He must respond to God’s promises by his own faith, and then God will assist him. In the fallen state, Orthodox theology also allows for good works.

1.4. Free Will, Synergy, and Divine Providence

343 Ware 223344 Ibid.345 Letham, TWE 246346 Ibid.347 Ware 223348 Ibid. 225

120 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Central to the Orthodox claim of being made in the divine image is that man has free will. Ware argues: “God wanted sons and daughters, not slaves. The Orthodox church rejects any doctrine of grace which might seem to infringe upon human freedom.”349 This belief applies to both before and after the Fall.

Orthodoxy claims co-operation or synergy between grace and freedom, based on 1 Corinthians 3:9 where Paul writes, We are fellow workers with God. In order to achieve fellowship with God we must have His assistance, and we must play our part.350 Both God and man work together, and yet what God does is of far greater value. It is “the co-operation of two unequal, but equally necessary forces; divine grace and human will.”351

The main exegetical justification for this belief is Revelation 3:20: Jesus says: behold I stay at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in . God knocks but He waits for you to open the door. He does not break it down. The chief illustration of this is Mary, the mother of God. In Orthodox theology, Mary is honored as theotokos and panagia, all holy. She is the perfect representative of synergy. God made her all these promises, and promised the Incarnation of the Messiah, but she had to agree, “He waited for her voluntary response, Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be as you have said (Luke 1:38). Mary could have refused; she was not merely passive, but an active participant in the mystery.”352

“The Incarnation was not only the work of the Father, of His power and His Spirit….. but it was also the work of the will and faith of the Virgin….Just as God became incarnate voluntarily, so He wished that His Mother should bear him freely and with her full consent.”353

The classic text used to support the idea of cooperation and synergy is Revelation 3:20. The Reformers believed that this is a call to the church, not to unbelievers. The church is already called and regenerated, in union with Christ; therefore, she has received God’s grace. It is a call to repentance after chastening; it is not a call to regeneration or conversion. When reading the narrative of Mary, it must be noted that the story this does not concern salvation nor the issue of co-operation between God and man. God worked in her to grant faith, and she responded in that faith.

2. The Reformed Response: Man in Sin.

2.1. The Covenant and Man Corruption in Reformed Theology

Covenant of Works: The Fall of man is directly linked to the breaking of the Covenant of Works. By breaking this covenant, sin and death entered into the creation (Gen. 2:17; 349 Ibid. 221350 Ibid.351 Ibid. 222352 Ware 258, 259353 Nicolus Cabasilas, qtd.by Ware 259

121 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Rom. 5:12-14). The entrance of sin and death via the covenant created a complete break in man’s position. Because the Covenant of Works is ended, man can no longer earn his salvation. Another covenant had to be entered into in order to bring salvation. In Romans 5:12-20, Paul stresses the grace of God in Christ, in the New Covenant. There is a clear focus on legal covenantal obligations, not merely natural relationships, in both covenants.

The radical consequences of Adam’s sin are developed in Romans 5:12-14. Through Adam, sin entered and death reigns. In Romans 6-8, sin is described as a force and a power, holding man captive. The reign of death is seen in Genesis 5. All three passages illustrate the full effect of sin.

Although both Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformers hold to original sin, each defines the term differently. The Fathers, who linked sin in the world to Adam’s fall, were the first to use the term ‘original sin.’ The idea was developed in the Augustine-Pelagius debates, where it was linked it to the total corruption of man. At this stage Augustine focused on the total corruption of human nature; he did not develop the federal legal aspects of sin. Berkhof comments that it is called original “(1) because it is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) because it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) because it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man.”354 In the early Reformation period, Calvin offered two grounds upon which sin is transmitted. “First, Adam is the root of human nature. Second, he is the head of the human race. These are the two views in systematic theology that are known as the realistic view and the representative view. Calvin does not seem to feel constrained to choose between the two. Generally, theologians will accept one and reject the other. Calvin uses them both and thinks both are true. However, his preference seems to be on the side of representation.”355 As Reformed theology developed, the idea of Adam as the federal representative became stronger, leading to a clear division between the representative transmission of the guilt of Adam’s sin to all and the actual internal pollution of that same transgression. Berkhof speaks of the pollution and the guilt of sin and states that the federal theology of the latter Reformation meant: “Without denying that our native corruption also constitutes guilt in the sight of God, federal theology stressed the fact that there is an ‘immediate’ imputation of Adam’s guilt to those whom he represented as the head of the covenant.”356

2.2. Radical Corruption/Total Depravity

Original sin leads to the radical internal corruption of all men. Calvin called this ‘radical’ corruption, meaning that every part of man’s nature is defiled, 357 every aspect of man’s nature is tainted, and it affects every person, from child to adult. Although all men are

354 Berkhof 268355 Calhoun need page number356 Berkhof 262357 Institutes II.1.viii

122 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

infected with this radical depravity, God restrains the sinfulness in people, not allowing each person to manifest every possible sinful trait. Further, those sins that are manifested are not allowed to go to their full sinful expression. In this regard, it is true that people can do ‘good’ and help their neighbors out, but at the root of their actions is self. The works are done for self, to feel good about oneself or to be seen by and gain glory from others. The works are not done out of a love and thankfulness for God or for His glory.

Throughout Reformed circles today, it is common to speak of ‘total depravity.’ This is due in large part to the use of the English acrostic ‘Tulip,’ that serves as a quick summary of Calvinist doctrine and Reformed teaching. During the end of Netherlands Reformation, a synod was called in Dort to decide on a debate between the Dutch church and the followers of Jacob Arminius. At Dort a large number of issues were discussed, and in the late eighteenth century their decision was summarized as the ‘Five Points of Calvinism’ or ‘Tulip.’

123 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

T = Total DepravityU = Unconditional Election: A believer’s election is not based on the foreknowledge

of who will believe.L = Limited Atonement: Christ only died for the elect. I = Irresistible Grace: God’s work in man cannot ultimately be resisted. P = Perseverance of the Saints:358 Those who are truly Christians will continue in faith

until the end.

Although these principles are clearly taught in Scripture, care must be exercised when using Tulip because the English acrostic Tulip is not a true summary of Calvin’s theology. His theology was far broader. The five points are in fact just a response to five points put forward by the followers of Arminius. The actual English acrostic Tulip was invented later to describe these five points, and today we do not know who actually began the phrase. The word ‘total’ can be misleading. Some use the word total to include every manifestation of man’s nature. In fact, this does need to be qualified as the idea is that man is totally depraved in every aspect of our nature, but this depravity is not fully manifested in each person. Calvin’s word ’radical’ or ‘root’ depravity is a better summary of man in sin. The idea of total depravity is one in extent, but not in degree. Berkhof states that discrimination is needed when using this word: “Negatively, it does not imply: (1) that every man is as thoroughly depraved as he can possibly become; (2) that the sinner has no innate knowledge of the will of God, nor a conscience that discriminates between good and evil; (3) that sinful man does not often admire virtuous character and actions in others, or is incapable of disinterested affections and actions in his relations with his fellow-men; nor (4) that every unregenerate man will, in virtue of his inherent sinfulness, indulge in every form of sin; it often happens that one form excludes the other. Positively, it does indicate: (1) that the inherent corruption extends to every part of man’s nature, to all the faculties and powers of both soul and body; and (2) that there is no spiritual good, that is, good in relation to God, in the sinner at all, but only perversion.”359 Total depravity is also linked to total inability. Bekhof describes this as: ‘(1) [the fact] that the unrenewed sinner cannot do any act, however insignificant, which fundamentally meets with God’s approval and answers to the demands of God’s Holy Law; and (2) that he cannot change his fundamental preference for sin and self to love for God, nor even make an approach to such a change. In a word, he is unable to do any spiritual good.”360

Due to the utter corruption of his nature, man needs a monergistic, sovereign act of God in order to serve God. Theologically this means to be born again, effectively called (Westminster Confession of Faith), or regenerated.

2.3. The Absolute Sovereignty of God358 For a statement on this doctrine see Westminster Confession of Faith, XVII, available athttp://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/359 Berkhof 270, 271360 271

124 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Central to Reformed thinking is God’s controlling hand over all things: His absolute sovereignty. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects this teaching that is so central to the Reformed faith, which is often called God’s providence. The word ‘providence’ is not found in Scripture, it is from the Latin providential, a word that initially meant foresight, but in time it acquired a scriptural meaning of God administering His eternal decree in the world.

Augustine was the first to clearly argue for God’s absolute care and control over His creation. In contrast to luck or fate, he stressed, “All things are preserved and governed by the sovereign, wise, and beneficent will of God.”361 He included good and evil, and he safeguarded the holiness of God by upholding the responsibility of man. To Augustine all things were under God’s control, yet man still makes his own choices. Calvin and the Reformers had a similar understanding. The idea of the absolute and specific sovereignty of God over all creation is a ground for all comfort, hope and blessings. Reformed theology rejects superstition, luck, or chance. At the same time, the understanding of providence is also linked to Scripture. It needs to be remembered that God revealed Himself in Scripture. Man is to humble himself under God’s revealed will, while taking comfort in His secret councils.

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law (Deut. 29:29).

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter V (Of Providence) includes the following truths:

I. God the great Creator of all things does uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, He orders them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

III. God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure.

Scripture teaches both the sovereignty of God and man’s freedom and responsibility. Holding both in tension, the Scriptures do not allow a break from either one of them. According to Scripture, God is absolutely sovereign, yet the Bible also teaches the freedom of man and that he is responsible for his own actions. All men are called to

361 All things are preserved and governed by the sovereign, wise, and beneficent will of God.125 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

repent and believe, if they respond to the call, they will be blessed, but persistence in unbelief will be judged for failing to heed the call. One can’t be denied to affirm the other.

The relationship between both aspects is difficult to define, as there are real limits to our understanding. This concept can be illustrated by imagining railroad tracks. A train runs successfully and safely along the track as long as both rails are present and running side by side. Each rail is necessary and important. If we try to remove a rail the train crashes…if we try to ingrate the rails by bringing them together the train also crashes. It is when we try to bring the two rails together that we get into trouble. The Bible clearly teaches both principles, God is sovereign but has as well as given man responsibility for his actions. Some texts focus on God’s sovereignty; others focus on man’s responsibility. We, as mere men, cannot put them together.

At the same time, the dominant track is God’s sovereignty. His will begins before our will, from all eternity. His plans always work out, and His plans are far greater than ours in the establishment of the Kingdom. Ridderbos notes: “Here we are confronted with a relationship that is not fathomable by human understanding, namely, the relationship between the all-embracing (including human action) divine work of salvation and human responsibility with respect to salvation. Jesus’ preaching leaves both aspects of this relationship intact and does not formulate a reflective observation about it. Yet we must not view the two aspects of this relationship, the divine work of sovereign grace and human responsibility, as two equivalent entities that correspond to each other; God’s work of sovereign grace is totally pre-eminent, it permeates the human aspect of responsibility, bringing the aspect of faith and commitment into being and bringing it to fruition. Indeed, for the carrying out of the imperatives of the divine will, Jesus points His disciples to the grace of God, not to themselves.”362

2.4. Election and Reprobation Augustine during his dispute with Pelagius, developed the Doctrine of Election. This theological strand matured further throughout the Reformation. It is not an overstatement to say that a defining characteristic of Reformed theology is election, or the Doctrine of Free Grace. By way of contrast, in Orthodoxy, if a person wants to join the Orthodox Church, there must be a formal repudiation of predestination, before chrismation can occur. The form of the repudiation is seen below.

“Bishop: Dost thou renounce the false doctrine, that the predestination of men to their salvation, or their rejection, is not in accordance with the Divine foreknowledge of the faith and good works of the former, or of the unbelief and evil deeds of the latter; but in accordance with some arbitrary destiny, by reason

362 Ridderbos, The Coming Kingdom 251126 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

of which faith and virtue are robbed of their merit, and God is accountable for the perdition of sinners.”363

Letham argues that the problem with this is not the Reformed Doctrine of Election itself but the way this statement is worded, noting that what they are asked to renounce is a caricature.364 All serious Reformed theologians would also reject any teaching of election as it is stated above.

a. Election is not an arbitrary choice by God. “The triune God who works all things according to the council of his will, is just, good and faithful.”365

b. His sovereignty is compatible with human freedom. c. God is not responsible for sin and perdition of sinners; they bear their own

responsibility. The Westminster Confession confirms that the reprobate is condemned for his own sin.

d. Letham notes that this is the greatest difference between the Reformed and Orthodox teachings. “While eternal election is a decree of sheer grace, made in Christ, underserved by the recipients, eternal reprobation is grounded in divine justice and takes human sin fully into account.” 366

Although it is often claimed that this is the heart of Calvin’s theology, it is not. Calvin does have a clear statement of both predestination and reprobation. To Calvin predestination is absolute, particular, and in reality double. It is absolute because it’s not conditional on any action of man. Calvin taught a kind of general election. “There is a kind of general election, represented by Israel. Those who are part of that election are not necessarily eternally saved, because they can cut themselves off.”367 Calvin wrote in Book III, chapter 21, section 7, “...a kind of middle way between the rejection of mankind and the election of a small number of the godly.” There is also a particular kind of election and that is one that is unto salvation. This is the election of the godly within Israel. It is particular because, Calvin taught, God has chosen a set number of elect, before time, unto everlasting life. The specific election of those within has now been replaced by the specific election of believers throughout the world. Finally, election is double because not only are some elected to everlasting life; some are marked for eternal death. These are the reprobate.

Reprobation: Augustine believed that only the elect were the subject of God’s provision, and that God drew them from the masses, while the rest were just left to go their own way, due to their sin. Calvin rejected this approach, “Election would be inconsistent if it were not placed in opposition to reprobation. All things happen according to the council

363 Service Book, qtd. by Letham, TWE 264364 264365 Letham, TWE 264, 265366 Letham, TWE 265367 Institutes III.21.vii.

127 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

of God’s decree.”368 Calvin called the decree ‘dreadful.’369 This title was not an indication that Calvin was blaming God; rather, he just did not rejoice in the decree.

Calvin taught that election and reprobation are not precisely parallel. Election has ultimate cause, God, but no proximate cause. A believer has no merit in salvation. God’s good pleasure is also the cause and ground of reprobation, but Calvin insisted, there is a proximate cause to reprobation: our sin. The proximate cause, though, is not the cause of reprobation; it is the cause of man’s condemnation.

For Calvin, the doctrine of election should be approached from a practical perspective rather than an abstract speculation. Believers ought never to speculate on the doctrine, but instead a proper understanding of the doctrine should humble, encourage to perseverance, and provide the confidence to pray for the salvation of the whole world.

The later Reformers followed in Calvin’s footsteps doctrinally. This lesson will close by considering the statement given in the Westminster Confession. To understand the Confession’s teaching on God’s sovereignty, we must consider three chapters, the Decree of God (chapter 3), Human Freedom (chapter 9), and Effectual Calling (chapter 10) which we will deal with in Lesson Eight. If we were to only consider the decree without considering human freedom, then we have false doctrine. A careful study of the wording of these sections will show that the Westminster Divines, like Calvin, never speculated; rather, they tended to use the exact Scriptures so that they would neither omit nor misunderstand what God had said in His Word.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 3: The Decree of God

I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

368 Institutes III.22.i369 Institutes III.23.viii

128 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

Section I demonstrates that everything is fully in God’s plan, and yet at the same time, the Confession claims that God cannot be seen as the author of sin, and He does not violate man’s will nor does He ignore second causes. The second section instructs us that God does not do anything based on what men might foresee. The Confession, in Section III teaches double predestination, or predestination and reprobation. In Section IV, the Confession states that God has not only elected some to life, but has also appointed the means through which the decree would come to pass, namely that the elect would come to Christ in due time and receive all His benefits. With regard to reprobation in Section VII, the Confession is very careful to use language as close to Scripture as possible. It offers the following reason for reprobation: It shows the glory of His sovereign power, they are ordained to dishonor for their sin and it is all “to the praise of His glorious justice.” The Confession does not treat these things lightly. The doctrines are to “be

129 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

handled with special prudence and care.” The object of the decree is to provide assurance, consolation and praise to God, as well as humility in men.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 9: Of Free Will

I. God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he does not perfectly, or only, will that which is good, but does also will that which is evil.

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only

Section I teaches that man has free will. Before the Fall, man had the freedom and power to do what was pleasing to God, but after the fall man “lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength to convert himself.” In coveting sinners, God frees them from their natural bondage, so they can now freely will and do what is spiritually good.

The Westminster Confession discusses regeneration under the heading of Effectual Calling.

Lesson Seven Questions

1. How does Eastern Orthodoxy distinguish between ‘image’ and ‘likeness?’ 2. What is the essence of the Image of God in man? 3. Contrast the different ways that Adam, as a man, is seen in Orthodoxy and

Reformed thinking.4. What effect does the Covenant of Works have according to Reformed Theology,

an effect which is not seen in Eastern Orthodoxy?

130 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

5. Contrast how Reformed theology sees the nature of the Fall verses how Orthodoxy sees it.

6. Explain the way that sin is transferred in Orthodoxy. 7. Explain how Revelation 3:20 is used in Orthodoxy. What is the Reformed

response? 8. How does Berkhof (Reformed theology) define original sin? 9. Explain the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin. 10. Explain the use that the Doctrine of Election is to have in our lives according to

the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3.

131 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Lesson Eight: Salvation, Effectual Calling, Justification, and Deification

Orthodoxy teaches that the main focus of salvation is the Incarnation and Resurrection. This reflects the debates had in the early church that focused on Christ’s nature, or His ontology, rather than His work. The Western Church, in contrast, followed Augustine, and developed a theology that centered on the distinct mediatorial role of Christ. Reformed thinking looks at Christ functionally, stressing both His person and His work. This was accomplished though a covenantal framework, which has been at the root of some of the major differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Reformed theology. In addition, Orthodox followers believe that deification comes though the coming of the Holy Spirit to man at Pentecost. Again, the focus is on union with Christ’s person, His ontology, and this focus is reflected in the very way of salvation, which in Orthodoxy is described as deification. 1. The Grace of God

Because the Fall of man was so severe, the only way man can be saved is through the grace of God. The grace of God manifests itself in a number of ways.

First, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Reformers both saw God’s grace in the free gift of His Son, Jesus Christ, who brings salvation to all. In the Fall, man lost all rights and privileges, but God, in His great mercy, freely and voluntary chose to send a savior. Orthodox theology states that in the Incarnation, Christ entered into mankind, sharing in man’s humanity, healing it from within, and that through the Resurrection, He brought humankind to its climax in the conquest of death. This is said to be the Christus Victor motif, where Christ’s death and resurrection are seen to defeat all the evil powers that held mankind in slavery.

Building on an earlier distinction, grace was a major part of Augustine’s thinking. He developed the ideas of total depravity, and the corresponding need for regeneration and election. Augustine’s ideas highly influenced the Reformers who developed this stress on grace in two distinct ways: 1) with a focus on the mediator and the Doctrine of Election and 2) with a focus on the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone.

God’s Sovereignty in Election: God’s decrees, freedom, and election have already been considered in Lesson Seven. The focus of these doctrines shows the grace of God. This lesson will continue to consider these teachings while focusing on the Reformed Doctrines of Effectual Calling and Regeneration.Justification by Faith Alone: Due to the radical nature of man’s internal corruption, Augustine taught that it is impossible for man to earn his salvation. He has no good works. By grace, God has provided all the righteous works man needs, and nothing can

132 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

be or needs to be added to God’s work. In fact, man is given Christ’s own righteous. It is imputed to him.

2. Effectual Calling and Regeneration

Lesson Seven considered the Doctrine of Election, which leads very naturally to the related Doctrine of Effectual Calling or Regeneration. Through effectual calling the eternal decrees of God are actually applied to men bound by sin. The classic Reformed statement about effectual calling is found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Certain sections from Chapter 10 (found below) of the Westminster Confession have been underlined in order to highlight certain key aspects.

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 10 -- Effectual Calling

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ: enlightening their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from any thing at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

III. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

IV. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come to Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the law of that religion they do profess; and to assert and maintain that they may is without warrant of the Word of God

As noted, the effectual calling and regeneration flow from election or predestination (see paragraph I, above), and they are the beginning of the work of God in the soul. The later Reformers taught that God’s grace and power flowed through the Doctrine of Effectual Calling. In seventeenth century, effectual calling and regeneration were often identified

133 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

as one, or if not entirely identified, then at least in so far that regeneration is regarded as included in the calling. The Westminster Confession, as with many of the Reformed Confessions, combines the two doctrines. The Confession teaches believers are effectually so called, and that the calling is through the Word and the Spirit. Effectual calling is completely a work of God in the soul, as man is in a state of sin and death.

The Confession then goes on to describe how effectual calling works in man, using terms that we would place under the heading of regeneration today. It enlighten[s] their minds, spiritually and savingly, to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good (paragraph I).

The Confession does see effectual calling working without the Word, in the case of elect infants, and those incapable of being outwardly called (paragraph III). Children can be regenerated, even from the womb, as was John the Baptist. According to this doctrine, elect children, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit. Election, effectual calling, and regeneration are the only grounds for hope in these cases, because children dying in infancy can never have faith in the traditional way.

Later Reformed theologians tended to separate the two doctrines. Berkhof discusses both under the same heading, but makes a clear distinction effectual calling and regeneration.

2.1. The Doctrine of Regeneration

In his book Systematic Theology, Berkhof proves the Doctrine of Regeneration as follows:

The word ‘regeneration’ is found only in Matthew 19:28 and Titus 3:5; and “only in the last named passage does it refer to the beginning of the new life in the individual Christian;”370 in the Matthew passage it refers to the renewal of the whole creation. Ridderbos does not accept Berkhof’s definition of the word ‘regeneration’ in Titus 3:5 and sees its meaning as the beginning or entrance into a new creation there as well. The idea of regeneration is actually found in a clutch of words which indicate being born again, being created again, and being a new creation.

a. to beget, to beget again, or to bear or give birth. This wording is used in John 1:13; 3:3,4,5,6,7,8; I Pet. 1:23; and I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

b. Being Created: We are created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10). We are also made alive with (or quickened) with Christ (Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:13).

c. The fruit of the above events is that we are now new creation (II Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) and a new man (Eph. 4:24).

Berkhof notes the following implications:

370 Berkhof 515134 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

“(a) Regeneration is a creative work of God, and is therefore a work in which man is purely passive, and in which there is no place for human co-operation. This is a very important point, since it stresses the fact that salvation is wholly of God.

(b) The creative work of God produces a new life, by virtue of which man, made alive with Christ, shares the resurrection life, and can be called a new creature, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).

(c) Two elements must be distinguished in regeneration, namely, generation or the begetting of the new life, and bearing or bringing forth, by which the new life is brought forth out of its hidden depths. Generation implants the principle of the new life in the soul, and the new birth causes this principle to begin to assert itself in action. This distinction is of great importance for a proper understanding of regeneration.”371

Berkhof stresses that regeneration is an instantaneous change, a singular work of God in the subconscious life of man that affects his whole man in puts into him a principle of new life.372 This is all accomplished though the work of the Holy Spirit. “Regeneration is that act of God by which the principle of the new life is implanted in man, and the governing disposition of the soul is made holy… and the first holy exercise of this new disposition is secured.”373

2.2. The Relationship between the Effectual Calling and Regeneration

In regeneration, there is a subconscious work of God in man, internally changing him from a condition of spiritual death into a condition of spiritual life. In this restrictive sense, it is an inward change alone that is focused on an inner principle of new life that is placed in man.374 Effectual calling addresses the mind, and so it can be said to work from without. When referring to children, we speak of regeneration rather than calling.375

371 515372 Berkhof 519373 Ibid.374 Berkhof 521375 Ibid. 521

135 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

2.3. The Necessity and Cause of Regeneration

The need for regeneration is clearly spelled out in John 3:3 and 1 Corinthians 2:14. In John’s gospel, Nicodemus, who possessed the best Jewish credentials possible, was told that he must be born again in order to enter the kingdom of God. Without begin born again, no one can enter the kingdom of God.

The cause of regeneration is the work of the Spirit. That same passage teaches that we must be born of water and the Spirit, and Jesus goes on to say the Spirit blows where it will; man cannot control Him. From this we can learn that regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit directly and exclusively (Ezek. 11:19; John 1:13; Acts 16:14; Rom. 9:16; Phil. 2:13). Regeneration then, is conceived monergistically, meaning that it is God alone works, and the sinner has no part in it whatsoever.

2.4. Election and the Work of the Spirit in the Old Testament

Orthodoxy does not see the Spirit working in the Old Testament, thus separating the work of God into separate phases (Old and New Testament) and denying that the Doctrine of Regeneration can be found in both testaments.

Reformed theology teaches that the doctrines are revealed progressively throughout revelation. Things that are implied in the Old are made explicit in the New. The fact that something is not fully explained in the New Testament does not mean that it did not exist in the Old. The truth is, it often did, but in a way that was hidden or typical and which is only then manifest in the New Testament.

First, with a focus on the exegetical, the Doctrine of Regeneration is taught through the sign of circumcision. Moses speaks of the need to circumcise the heart in the Old Testament (Deut. 10:16) and the promise that God will circumcise the heart (Deut. 30:6). There is a focus on a new heart in Ezekiel 11:19. Circumcision points to the inward work of the spirit.

In the New Testament, the idea of the inward work of the Spirit in circumcision is developed as the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit (Phil. 3:2,3; Col. 2:11-13). As both point to the inward work of the spirit, circumcision has been replaced by Baptism. both through the Spirit as the type is replaced by the antitype.

Second, speaking theologically, the Doctrine of Original Sin and man’s depravity is clearly taught in the Old Testament in Genesis 6, 8. As such, the only way that man can overcome total depravity is through the sovereign regenerating work of the Spirit of God. This is just as true in the Old Testament as it is in the New Testament.

136 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

3. The Creation of a Defined Ordo Salutis

Through the debates with both the Lutherans and Catholics, the Reformers continued to create a defined Ordo Salutis. The Ordo is a systematic description and theological order of the various parts of God’s work in salvation. A simplified Ordo Salutis can be seen in following John Murray article.376

A key text used in building the Ordo is Romans 8:29, 30. Paul offers a shorter version of the Ordo in common with his main theme in Romans, explaining how the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation. In the Gospel, believers are called by God, a theme which Paul develops in chapters 9-11, justified (see Romans 3,5), which then leads to a certain glorification. The Reformers added additional texts to create a fuller systematic theological expression.377

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.  (30) And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (Rom. 8:29,30).

From the text above we can make the following assertions. Salvation begins with:

1. Foreknowledge (God’s knowing and loving His people before creation) 2. Predestination (God’s plan for His own people)

Both of these happen before time, before creation, and before the Christian’s birth. The next link is calling, when the decree is applied to the believer in life.

3. Calling (this is effectual calling, not general calling)4. Justification (this is the full forgiveness of sin)5. Glorification (this is the final part of the process)

The Reformers then added the following elements:

Regeneration: This is linked to effectual calling in John 3. As this is God’s direct work in the soul, it must precede any response from man. Conversion: After regeneration, man responds by faith and repentance. We call this conversion, when men repent and believe. Repentance and faith are the two sides of the same coin. Adoption: Once justified, we are then adopted. We become sons; this is clear from Galatians 4:4-7.

376 http://www.reformedliterature.com/murray-the-order-of-application.php377 Murray and others argue that Romans 8:30 is a “broad outline of the order in the application of redemption” (Redemption Accomplished and Applied 84).

137 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Sanctification: The Scriptures also speak of sanctification. There is the idea of positional sanctification, which is the act of being set apart by God for Himself. This concept is seen in Paul’s writings when he says that believers are ‘saints’ and the ‘holy ones’ in Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). There is also progressive sanctification, the ongoing work of God’s Spirit in man that produces holiness over time (Rom. 6). Both aspects must occur after justification, and before glorification, which is the final step.

From the above, we can now build a complete Reformed Ordo Salutis,

1. Foreknowledge 2. Predestination [before time] 3. Calling/Regeneration 4. Conversion (4.1. Repentance and 4.2. Faith) 5. Justification 6. Adoption 7.1. Positional Sanctification 7.2. Progressive Sanctification, and 8. Glorification [after time]. 378

4. The Atonement and Justification

The second main development stemming from an emphasis on grace was the stress on the Atonement. The Reformers, following Augustine and Anselm of Canterbury placed a far greater weight on the mediatoral work of Christ in the Atonement than did the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church’s stress on Incarnation and Resurrection has led to weakness with regard to the Atonement. The main Orthodox theology of the Atonement was developed by Athanasius in his work, Christus Victor. Commenting on the Orthodox position Ware notes: “Where Orthodoxy sees chiefly Christ as the victor, the late medieval and post-medieval West sees chiefly Christ the victim. While Orthodoxy interprets the Crucifixion primarily as an act of triumphant victory over the powers of evil, the west, particularly since the time of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109),379 has tended rather to think of the Cross in penal an jurisdiction terms, as an act of satisfaction of substitution designed to propitiates the wrath of an angry Father.”380 He goes on to suggest that the two are not absolute or incompatible ideas, but each just has a different stress.381 There is some justification for Ware’s critique. During the great battles between the Reformed and Catholic churches, there was a great stress on the means of forgiveness of sin. Over time this became a general focus, with the glory of the Resurrection being developed, but not with a focus on the Atonement but in the context of Jesus’ return. In

378 For a full discussion of the Ordo Salutis in reformed theology see Allen Van Der Pol, The Doctrine of Salvation, course.mints.edu379 Anselm of Canterbury, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury 03/04/2015380 Ware 234381 Letham notes that within Orthodoxy there are other strands or thinking on the atonement. He notes the Orthodox scholar Nicholas Cabasilas who promotes a Doctrine of the Atonement very similar to Anselm. “Sin is a gross insult to God. A person who wants to make amends must not only repay the debt he owes but also add some compensation for the wrong done to the besmirched honor of the injured party. No one could do this simply by offering his own righteousness. Christ alone as able to offer to the Father the honor due him by his life, and with his death to plead on our behalf with regard to the insult. This was due to him leading a life free from sin, since he kept the law of God in every detail. He cites John 3:16 in support. Thus the body of Christ sacrificed on the cross is the only remedy for sin, and his blood is the only means of pardoning for sin” (TWE 253).

138 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

the last 100 years authors such as Vos, Gaffin and Ridderbos have put a greater stress on Christ’s resurrection in the Atonement, thus linking the Resurrection with the an already realized new creation. Through His death, Christ brings in the end of the old creation, and in His resurrection, He brings in the New. 4.1. Justification

At the time of the Reformation the Catholic medieval system argued that in legal justification there was cooperation between faith and works. The Roman Church taught that the first thing a person must do in order to merit or gain grounds for being worthy of God’s grace was good works. Once he/she had those works, then God would be gracious to that person. Works were mixed with grace. In contrast, following Augustine and his thinking concerning total depravity, Luther realized that there was nothing man could offer God. Mankind had no grounds upon which they could even merit God’s initial favor. In time, Luther saw that the revelation of the righteousness of God in Romans 1 and 3 is not the standard by which God judges man, but it is the gift that God gives to men which is to be received by faith. God gives His own righteousness to men so that they, who have no righteousness, can be righteous before Him in the judgment. God freely gives what His people need. Men have only to receive it by faith. This signaled a return to Augustinian teaching on the nature of the grace of the Gospel. Luther stressed it is impossible for us to offer any works to God, and this created a system in which justification was by faith alone. In contrast, in the East, which rejected any stress on the Law of God, the idea of being justified before the Law was never formally developed. The Eastern Church never had the same debates and so never developed the same doctrine. Letham notes that although this doctrine was never fully developed in the East, it was anticipated by the Church Fathers. There are clear indications that many of the Church Fathers held to similar teachings, even though they are not expressed with any clarity: “All we bring to grace is our faith, But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler...even when we had come to believe, [God] did not require from us purity of life, but approving mere faith.”382 Both Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria affirm that we are not justified by works but by grace. Chrysostom states that faith trusts the person of Christ alone.383

Letham also notes that St. Symeon, The New Theologian (949-1022), writes in his Treaties On Faith: “Brethren and fathers, it is good that we make God’s mercy known to all and speak to those close to us of the compassion and inexpressible bounty he has shown us. For as you know, I neither fasted, not kept vigils, nor slept on bare ground, but – to borrow the Psalmists words- “I humbled myself’ and, in short, ‘The Lord saved me.” Or to put it even more briefly, I did no more than believe and the Lord accepted me. (cf. Ps 116:6,10;27:10 LXX)”384 He then claimed that “faith is a gift of God. Moreover, he says, through repentance the filth of our foul actions is washed away and we 382 Ogden 44383 Oden, cited by Letham 250384 St. Symeon, qtd. in Letham 250

139 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

participate in the Holy Spirit through faith.” 385 In the same way St. Mark the Ascetic states, “On those who think they are made righteous by works … the kingdom of heaven is not a reward for works, but a gift of grace, citing Luke 17:10, the parable of the unworthy servants. He stresses that a faithful servant is one who obeys Christ’s commandments, and that true knowledge is established by works. However, some without fulfilling the commandments think that they possess true faith. Others fulfill the commands and then expect the kingdom as a reward due to them. Both are mistaken.’ In fact Christ through his own word redeems him who is dead in sin and there are some who teach that we cannot do good unless we actively receive the grace of the Holy Spirit.”386

4.2. The Development of the Atonement

At the time of the Reformation, the main focus with regard to the Atonement was on justification due to the Protestant-Catholic debates. Subsequently, Reformed theology has developed other aspects of the Atonement, expanding the doctrine. Ridderbos notes that while justification is central to Reformed thinking, that in the single event of Christ’s death on the cross, He accomplished justification for sin, redemption from the captivity of sin, and death, reconciliation between men and God, and propitiation, or the taking away of wrath. 387

Each redemptive facet occurred simultaneously in Jesus’ death, and each is also linked to Christ’s resurrection. In the resurrection, Jesus was justified (1 Tim. 3:16). He paid the ransom and was declared and raised as a son (Rom.1:4). We join Him as sons in His resurrection (Gal. 4:4-6). His resurrection demonstrated that the propitiation of God’s wrath is complete (Rom. 3:25), and the cosmos is reconciled. By the blood of His cross, Jesus made peace for His people (Rom. 5:10), and in His resurrection He now lives to make intercession. The Resurrection makes each facet of the Atonement complete at the same time.

385 Ibid.386 St. Mark the Ascetic, qtd. in Letham 251387 Ridderbos XX

140 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Also, it is true that older Reformed theology mainly linked the Resurrection to the second coming of Christ. More recent Reformed theology focuses on the coming of the new creation in the resurrection of Christ. In Adam, man is linked to the old creation, which was the place of condemnation, the curse, sin’s power, death’s reign, God’s wrath, and angelic hostility. Christ, the second Adam, died to the old creation, and by His resurrection, Christ brings in the new creation, one established in righteousness, rulership, spiritual life, sonship, and inheritance, with authority over all spiritual powers. Since believers are united to Christ in His resurrection, each of His accomplishments is applied to His people. It is in Christ that we are justified, reconciled, propitiated, and raised as sons. Through our union with Christ, the Cross delivers us from the old creation under judgment, and brings us into the new creation in Christ. Christ accomplished each aspect of Atonement in a single great event, and because of our union with Christ each of the blessings flows to us in a single great event as well. All of the benefits of the Cross flowed to Him (and us) at once. Current Reformed circles benefit from a far fuller understanding of the Atonement.

4.3. Deification – Theosis Theology

In the Eastern Church, the great aim of the Incarnation and Pentecost is deification, the process by which man becomes God. Athanasius is famous for the words, “God became man in order that man might become God.”388 Key verses used to support this idea include:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, (4) by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire (2 Peter 1:3,4).

…that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me (John 17:21).

The Orthodox Church also states that this idea is seen in the ‘in Christ’ language used by Paul.

Concerning the development of this theology, Ware comments: “Such, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, is the final goal at which every Christian must aim; to become god, to attain theosis, deification or divinization.”389 As the three persons dwell in one another in an unceasing movement of love, so we humans, made in the image of the Trinity, are called to dwell in the Trinitarian God. Noting the nature of union, Ware makes a crucial distinction between God’s essence and His energies: “Union with God means union with the divine energies, not the divine essence; the Orthodox Church, while

388 The Incarnation 389 Ware 231

141 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

speaking of deification and union, rejects all forms of Pantheism.”390 It is a true union; yet in this union creature and creator do not become fused into a single being.

Cabasilas states that “union with Christ is closer than any other union which man can possibly imagine and does not lend itself to any exact comparisons. This is why, he says, Scripture does not confine itself to one illustration but provides a wide range of examples; a house and its occupants, wedlock, limbs and the head. Indeed it is not even possible to form an accurate picture should we take all these metaphors together…. This union is closer that what joins a man to himself.”391

Union is with both body and soul, and both are glorified. As a rule the full glorification of the body waits until the resurrection on the Last Day. At this stage the present life of glory of the saints is an inward splendor, a splendor of the soul alone. “At the day of Resurrection the glory of the Holy Spirit comes out from within, decking and covering the bodies of the saints - the glory which they had before, but hidden within their souls. What a person has now will come forth externally in the body.”392

According to Ware there are already some who have experienced the viable first fruits of glory.393 Due to the idea of glorification of both the body and the soul, Ware remarks: “The grace of god present in their bodies remains active in the relics when they have died, and that God uses these relics as a challenge of divine power and an instrument of healing.”394 Ware argues that this is not based on ignorance or superstition; rather, it is based on a highly developed theology of the body. 395 The change in the human body is reflected by a change in the whole of creation. Icons are the first fruits of the redemption of matter. The Reformers categorically reject any form of that idea. They do assert that the first fruits of the new creation are found in Christ’s resurrection, and that the creation is currently groaning, awaiting the revelation of the sons of God which will allow its own recreation into glory.

The aim of Orthodox Christianity is to become deified; it is the normal goal for every Christian, although it is more realized in some than others. Through the process, a believer is not made perfect; rather, deification always presupposes a continuous act of repentance. All saints will continue with the prayer, “Have mercy upon me a sinner.” An Orthodox follower asks, “How can I become God?” The answer is very simple: go to church, receive the sacraments regularly, pray to God in spirit and truth, read the gospels, and follow the commandments. The last of these items, follow the commandments, can

390 Ware 232391 Cabasilas, qtd. by Letham, TWE 261392 Ware 233393 Ibid.394 Ware 234395 Ibid.

142 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

never be forgotten. Orthodoxy, no less than western Christianity, firmly rejects the kind of mysticism that seeks to dispense with moral rules.396

4.4. The Reformed Tradition of Union

To Reformed Christians the very concept of deification is problematic. The idea of Christians becoming God is idolatry, reflecting the very temptation had in the garden. The temptation being that they would be like God. There is also a concern that this blurs the creature/creator separation. In fairness to the Orthodox Church’s assertion, they are careful never to cross over into pantheism or to confuse the temporal with the divine. Although many today, in the Reformed tradition, focus on justification and ignore union, the union with Christ is central to Reformed thinking. We focus on Calvin’s doctrine of union, as described in the Institutes.

396 Ware 236143 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

4.4.1. Calvin and Union with Christ

For Calvin, union with Christ played a central, if not, the central role in his theology. He saw Christ’s union with humanity as solving two fundamental problems: the gap between God and the creature/creation and the gap between God and man in salvation. Both issues are solved through incarnational union, the union between men and God in salvation.

Incarnational Union: In Calvin’s theology there is a complete gap between God and man, a complete break between the creator and the creature. God as creator is so far above the creation that normally there can be no bridge between them.

It is only through the Incarnation that the gap is bridged. In union, the Son, the second person of the Trinity is united to mankind in the Incarnation. In Christ, there is one person, with both a divine and human nature. As Mediator, the two natures of Jesus Christ are joined in one person, and so God and humanity are drawn together, the divine and human without any mixing in one person. By His coming, the Son becomes one with us. The eternal Son was joined to human nature, becoming the divine man, both human and divine without confusion, separation, division, or mixture.397 In doing so, it is vital to note the Christ did not blend humanity into something new; He maintained His divinity and added His humanity. In this respect Christ became man, and humanity is forever united to God in personal union. To bring us the blessings from the Father, He must become ours and dwell within us.

As Mediator, he can impart to His people all that is needed from God. He can both represent God to us and us to God. Calvin clearly explains the work of Christ, the Mediator, in bringing salvation to the human race. Calvin develops the work of Christ in the Old Testament showing that it reaches its climax in the Incarnation in the New Testament and through Christ’s workings as the prophet, priest, and king.

Salvific Union : Building on incarnational union, Calvin goes on to speak of the vital need for salvific union. He then states clearly that the only way individual men benefit from Christ is through a living union with Him. Salvation is though union with a living personal Christ. In Christ, God is brought close to us, in a wonderful way. “As long as Christ remains outside of us, all He has done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”398

“I do not see how anyone can trust that he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in his death, unless he relies chiefly upon a true participation in Christ himself. For those benefits would not come to us unless Christ first made himself ours.” In union with Christ we are adopted; we are grafted into Him. As we put on Christ, He is called our head, the firstborn amongst the brethren, and we become the sons of the

397 Council of Chalcedon 451 AD398 Institutes III.1.i

144 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Father. Union in Christ is by faith. Calvin taught that the God’s Spirit works faith in us, and that faith unites us to Christ.

It is important to properly contrast the union in the Incarnation of the Son with the union that is affected through the indwelling of the Spirit in believers. “The Son was united with a single human nature, while with the Spirit countless human persons are involved. With the Son there is a personal union, whereas the Spirit pervades or indwells us.”399

Even so, Wendal suggests that the Holy Spirit also plays the part of a Mediator. As the Father’s blessings are mediated to us through the Son, so the Son’s blessings are mediated to us through the Spirit. 400

The substance of union should be seen in a trinitarian context. The Trinity created men with the capacity to live in Him, as creatures, and yet in and with our creator. In this union, we do not lose our humanity; it is preserved and enhanced, brought into a new and greater state than ever before. In union with Christ, believers receive a double grace.401

This double grace includes both justification and sanctification; they cannot be separated. By Christ’s Spirit we may have sanctification of life. In union with Christ we are reconciled to God through Christ’s graciousness. We do not have a judge but a gracious Father; we are adopted into His family.

The separation between God and man is finally resolved in the full manifestation of the kingdom of God. The finality of salvation has already been accomplished. On that Last Day, God will be all in all, and so Christ will no longer be Mediator (1 Cor.15: 24).402

The kingship of Christ has neither beginning nor end, but there is a new state. “Christ will yield to the Father His name and crown of glory, whatever He has received from the Father, is given to His hand that He might govern us. In new creation, when God becomes all in all, all the separation between God and man will then be ended.” 403

Calvin also stresses three main illustrations: participation and union from John 15, union in death and resurrection from Romans 6, and adoption found in Romans 8:13-17. In John 15, Calvin stresses union with Christ and the engrafting of the believer into the true vine. Life comes from Christ, and we have life as we are engrafted into Him and have a power which is new. All aspects of life, physical and spiritual, flow from the living in the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Outside of Him, we are unfruitful. No man has the nature of a vine.

In short, Calvin also focuses on the union between God and man and yet he was careful to develop the doctrine in ways that protected against any confusion between God and man. In addition, the tools the Reformers had (justification, adoption, and sanctification) 399 Letham, TWE 259400 Needs citing.401 Institutes III.11.i402 InstitutesII.14.iii403 Wells, audio lectures

145 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

allowed the Doctrine of Union to be developed in far greater detail. There was a clear distinction developed, by the later Reformers, between justification, adoption, and sanctification, leading to glorification. In union with Christ, all aspect of His work in life, on the cross, and by His Resurrection are immediately applied to the believer, although in different ways. In justification, the Christian’s sins are paid for. In adoption, the believer becomes a son of God. It is a new status, and in sanctification he is both immediately set apart unto God and also is progressively made more holy.

Lesson Eight Questions

1. According to Orthodoxy, what is the main focus of the cross? Contrast that to Reformed thinking.

2. What does Eastern Orthodoxy understand with regard to grace? 3. How does healing, salvation and victory occur in Eastern Orthodoxy?4. Does the Reformed tradition include Christus Victor? What other aspects does it

include? 5. Explain the Doctrine of Effectual Calling, according to the Westminster

Confession of Faith. 6. In what way is the Reformed Doctrine of Election the only hope for infants and

others incapable of being ordinarily being called? 7. What is the Golden Chain of Salvation? What is the key text? 8. What does Ware says that the final goal is for the Eastern Orthodox believer? 9. What does Calvin say about the need for union in salvation?10. What do we mean by the duplex gratia?

146 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

BIBLIOGRAPHYAugustine. Confessions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print. World Classics

Series.

Bettenson, Henry. Ed. Documents of the Christian Church. 1st Edition. Oxford: Oxford Press, 1963. Print.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014. Electronic.

Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine of God. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993. Print. The Contours of God 1.

Calhoun, David. Ancient Church History, www.courses.MINTS.edu . Web.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham: Logos Bible Software, 1997. Print.

Hoffecker. Early Church History. RTS Lectures 2001. Audio.

Kelly, Douglas. Systematic Theology Volume 1. Fern: Christian Focus Publications, 2008. Print.

Knight, George. “The Lord’s Supper.” Children and the Lord’s Supper. Eds. Guy Waters and Ligon Duncan. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications, 2011. Print.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Phillipsburg, P&R Publishing, 2004. Print.

---. Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy, a Reformed Perspective. Ross-Shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2007. Print.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. 3rd edition Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991. Print.

McGrath, Alister. Reformation Thought 3rd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. Print.

Ogden, T.C. The Justification Reader. Grand Rapid: Eerdmans, 2002. Print.

Olin, John C., Ed. A Reformation Debate, Sadoleto’s Letters to the Genevians and Calvin’s Reply. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976. Print.

147 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Ouspensky, Leonid and Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989. Print.

Pratt, Richard L. Jr. I & II Corinthians. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2000. Print. Holman New Testament Commentary.

Ridderbos, Herman. The Coming of the Kingdom. Zorn, R. ed. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1962. Print.

---Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Print.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 2000. Print. New International Greek Commentary

Van Der Pol, Allen, The Doctrine of Salvation, course.mints.edu. Web

Ware, Timothy. The Orthodox Church. London: Penguin Books, 1997. Print.

Westminster Confession of Faith. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics. Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, 2014. Web. 03/05/2015.

Useful Websites

Athanasius: On the Incarnation (De Incarnatione Verbi Dei). 22 Jan 2015 http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/history/ath-inc.htm.

Augustine:Anti-Pelagian Writings. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol 5. Ed. Philip Schaff. 22 Jan 2015. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.html.St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 2. Ed. Philip Schaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/ npnf102.html.On the Holy Trinity; Doctrinal Treatises; Moral Treatises. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.html.

Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, Etc. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol 5. Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.html.

Calvin, John: Institutes of the Christian Religion, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

148 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Biography

Julian Zugg was born in England and raised in South Africa. In 1986, he moved back to England. He read Law and qualified as a Barrister (US trial lawyer). He taught Law at Buckingham University for eight years and was involved in two Reformed Churches and a mission work to Eastern Europe.

In 2001, he graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary (MDiv. Jackson) and worked as an assistant/associate minster involved in all areas of pastoral ministry in the Presbyterian Church in America from 2002-2008. In 2008, he was called as the Director of Theology at Belize Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Belize, preparing candidates for pastoral ministry in the Presbyterian Church and other denominations. He is currently the International English Director for Miami International Seminary, where his duties include teaching, writing, developing, and supporting MINTS centers in eleven countries.

He has written the following courses for MINTS, available at http://courses.mints.edu/Acts, Apologetics, Introduction to the Scripture, the Doctrine of the Church, Covenant Theology, Eschatology, Jonah, Pauline Theology, 1 Timothy, Biblical Principles of Mission, the Synoptic Gospels, Colossians, Reformed Worship, 1,2,3 John, Reformation History, and The Book of Revelation.

149 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Instructor’s Manual

Lesson One Questions and Answers

1. Explain the importance of Greek and Latin in the church. As the church spread into new gentile areas, two languages dominated: everyday Greek and administrative Latin. The fact that there were two gentile languages was important. As time went on, the two branches of the church developed their theology using different languages; the West developed its theology using Latin, while the theology of the East was developed in Greek. Over time, fewer and fewer people spoke both languages, and the separation in language and thought patterns (and so theology) that followed caused the two arms of the now mainly gentile church to separate.

2. Each localized church center developed differently. Give an example. For example, Alexandria was forced to engage with the Neo-platonic Greek culture. As a result, Clement of Alexandria (150-215) and Origen (185-254) tried to integrate Christianity with Neo-Platonism, the dominate thought of the day. These threats and responses did not occur in the other centers, and consequently Alexandria’s theology developed in a unique way.

3. Explain the term conciliar. Why is it important in Eastern Orthodoxy? “The council is the chief organ whereby God has chosen to guide his people. An isolated individual may well hesitate to say, ‘It seems right to the Holy Spirit and to me;’ but when gathered in a council, the members of the council can together claim an authority which individually none of them possess.

4. What makes a council ecumenical, not merely local? “It is not necessary that these councils be large, nor representative of the whole world, nor even that they were summoned with the intention of being ecumenical, what makes them ecumenical is that their decisions are universally accepted afterwards.

5. Explain the Arius verse Athanasius debate. Who won? Arius rejected the eternal nature of the Son, because he felt that if the Son was not fully human then Christ could not be our Savior. Athanasius pointed out that if Jesus was not also God, then He could not save. In his desire to make Jesus human, Arius had severed the Son from being the eternal pre-existent God.

6. Explain the importance of the following words from the Nicaea creed: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth;

He is said to be begotten not made, meaning not created. When considering Christ’s nature, the council stated that He is one substance with the Father. Christ shares the Father’s essence.

150 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

7. Explain Basil the Great’s contribution to the Trinitarian debate. There are no theological terms adequate to capture all the truth that surrounds God. Language is too weak to capture the whole reality. He suggested a separation between ousia, ‘substance,’ and hypostasis, ‘person.’ Ousia is that which is common to all the divine godhead, while hypostasis is specific to each person of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Spirit. By defining the language in this way, it allowed key distinctions to be made. God was one Ousia (substance), while existing in three hypostasi (persons).

8. How did the First Council of Constantinople (381) expand the doctrine of the Holy Spirit? In the First Council in 381 it just says. And in the Holy Ghost. In 381 it says expands this “And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.

9. Explain the words used to explain Christ’s divinity and His humanity.Jesus is at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin.

10. What four words describe the relationship between Christ’s human nature and His divine nature?The Son possesses two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation.

11. What did Canon 28 of Chalcedon say?Cannon 28 put Constantinople on the same level as Rome, which placed the city above Alexandria. Rome was the first among equals in honor, but Chalcedon stated that all bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishop of Constantinople.

12. Explain Justinian’s ascertain of the two natures of Christ in the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The Logos of God was united to human nature, not to a particular hypostasis person. As such the human nature of Christ began to exist in the hypostasis person of the Logos at the incarnation. After the union, there remained remain two natures, divine and human.

Lesson Two Questions and Answers

1. Explain Athanasius’ understanding of creation from nothing. God made creation from nothing and God is “the Designer and Maker of all.” The creation “was not made from pre-existent matter, but out of nothing and out of non-existence, absolute and utter, God brought it into being through the Word” “He made all things out of nothing through His own Word, our Lord Jesus Christ and of all these, His earthly creatures.”

2. Why did Christ take a human body?He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son, was such as could

151 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection.

3. What two things did Christ accomplish by the sacrifice of His own body?He put an end to the law of death which barred our way; and He made a new beginning of life for us, by giving us the hope of resurrection. By man death has gained its power over men; the Word that made man has destroyed death, and life is raised up anew.

4. Explain Basil the Great’s contribution regarding the language of ousia (essence) and hypostasis.Before Basil, the language at Nicaea had been defined in the then current philosophical terms. Basil redefined ousia (essence) saying that the term must be used for the one being of God, while the word hypostasis should designate the way in which God is three. This allowed the church to distinguish between the One and the Three within the Trinity.

5. Explain Gregory Nazianzen’s contribution with regard to the monarchy of the Father. The monarchy of God is not limited to the Father but is possessed by the entire Trinity.

6. Explain Gregory Nazianzen’s contribution concerning the revelation of the deity of the Spirit in Scripture. The reason for the reticence of the revelation of the Spirit is due to the historical and progressive outworking of Scripture. The Old Testament showed the Father clearly, but obscured the Son. The New Testament made manifest the Son, and suggested the deity of the Spirit. “For it was not safe, when he godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to acknowledge the son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further … with the Holy Spirit (5:26). Now worship and baptism establish the Spirits deity for we worship God the father, God the son and God the Holy Spirit, three persons, one godhead, undivided in honor and glory…”

7. Explain John of Damascus’ use of the Greek term perichoresis.This means the mutual indwelling of the three persons in the one being of God. The substance of each member of the Trinity (or persons) is in each other, and although they are in one another, they do not comingle but cleave to one another.

8. Where did Augustine begin when considering the Trinity? What contribution did Augustine make concerning the double procession, or the filioque clause?Augustine began with the divine nature itself, the unity of Trinity, rather than the three persons. The Holy Spirit proceeds, not from the monarchy of the Father alone, rather it proceeds from the Father and the Son in a double procession, or the filioque clause.

9. Explain Augustine’s stress on Christ the as the Mediator, and how it differs from Eastern Orthodox Fathers. Who developed this approach in the Reformation?

152 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Eastern Orthodoxy has often focused on the person of God and Christ, rather than His works. In contrast, Augustine focused on Christ’s works, and so offered a fuller understanding of substitutionary and vicarious atonement than is common in the East. Calvin developed both the person and the work of Christ in the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

10. Explain the great debate between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius saw man as a radical individualist whose individual responsibility was the basis of moral reform. In contrast, Augustine taught original sin came from Adam to all men and in order to be saved, he and taught the absolute indispensability of God’s sovereign, redeeming grace. He believed that grace is wholly undeserved, wholly free, wholly necessary, and that it is irresistible. God gives grace to whom He so chooses.

Lesson Three Questions and Answers

1. Where does Lossky find the source of Tradition in the Church? He finds the source of Tradition in the Church in the Incarnation of Christ, in the church, wherein the church is included in His fullness and where the ongoing work of the Spirit enables the church to receive this truth.

2. What is included in Ware’s definition of the “Tradition” of the Church? “[T]o an Orthodox Christian … it means the books of the Bible; it means the creeds; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the service books, the Holy Icons -- in fact the whole system of doctrine, church government, worship, and art which Orthodoxy has articulated over the ages.”

3. What does the Eastern Orthodox Church claim about interpretation? What did the Reformers teach?The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that only the church itself can interpret the Scriptures with authority, and that there is great danger in any claim to personal interpretation. The Reformers believe that tradition is very important in interpreting Scripture, but interpretation and authority it is always ultimately subject toSscripture itself.

4. In what way does Lossky claim the sufficiency of Scripture?“This sufficiency …of Scripture does not exclude any other expression of the same truth that the church can produce. This is in parallel with the teaching of the fullness of Christ, the head of the church. His fullness does not exclude the church, which is the compliment of His glorious humanity.”

5. Explain the Eastern Orthodox rational for the authority of Apocrypha? Why did the Reformers not include the Apocrypha?The Orthodox Canon follows Septuagint, the LXX, and claims that, “The changes in the Septuagint from the Old Masoretic text are authoritative because the changes in the Septuagint were made under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the church, and so they are to be accepted as part of God’s continuing revelation.” In contrast, Protestants have followed the Jewish and Masoretic texts.

153 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

6. From the Westminster Confession, explain the Reformed distinction between the work of the church in the creation of Scripture and in its maintenance. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church (WCF I.2.).Afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary, those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased (WCF I.3.).

7. Identify the three primary arguments for the unique nature and sufficiency of Scripture. First, the testimony of the Scripture concerning the Scriptures’ own authority; second, the testimony of the Scripture as to the nature of Tradition; and third, the witness of the early church as to the unique nature of the foundational revelation.

8. Explain the word ‘expiration’ and name two key passages where it is used. God Himself breathes out Scripture; literally the Scripture is God-breathed. The Scriptures are in themselves a divine product. They are His creative word, and they reflect His power. Two key passages are 2 Timothy 3:14-16 and 2 Peter 1:16-21.

9. Explain the Reformed view of the fullness of Christ’s prophetic ministry, both in His life and in the church.As prophet on earth, “Christ was anointed by the Spirit to be the herald and the witness of the Father’s grace.” “The perfect doctrine He has brought has made an end to all prophecies.” The risen Christ continues to be a Prophet in the church; He continues to teach through His ministers.

10. List four factors that point to the validity of the Jewish Old Testament Canon over the Alexandrian Canon.Any four from below should be counted as correct.a. The three Jewish schools of interpretation all essentially agreed about the

canon.b. There was no wider Alexandrian (Greek) canon that accepted the Apocrypha,

and even if there had been a distinct Alexandrian Canon, it is the Jewish Palestinian Canon that would have had the greater claim on Christians.

c. The Pseudepigrapha were placed in a separate category from canon.d. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha were only included later by gentile

Christians, and not in an agreed way, but after the church's breach with the synagogue, among those whose knowledge of the primitive Christian canon was becoming blurred.

e. There is a general correspondence between the Christian canon and the Jewish. Christian evidence from New Testament endorses the Jewish titles for canon, their three-fold structure, the traditional Jewish order, and possibly one or two standard Jewish numerations of the books.

154 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

f. On the question of the canonicity of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha the truly primitive Christian evidence is negative.

g. In addition Letham cites recent studies by Beckwith, who argues that the Old Testament was accepted as canonical in mid second century BC, not in Jumnia in AD 90. If this is so, then the canon was already complete before any of the Apocrypha was written.

Lesson Four Questions and Answers

1. Explain why the church building is divided into two? Who can enter each part and what does each part symbolize? The sanctuary, representing heaven, was for the clergy. The other area, for the congregation, represents the earth.

2. Where do all the great ceremonies of the church take place? Why? In the sanctuary, because it represents the spiritual immaterial world, the great ceremonies take place behind the screen in the heavenly realm with the priests.

3. Explain the Reformers’ position on the joining of heaven and earth? What does this mean about Iconostasis dividing the sanctuary? In true worship there is a joining of heaven and earth. During worship, the church is surrounded by angels and joins with the worship of the glorified church in heaven, the great cloud of witnesses mentioned in Hebrews 12:1ff, who praise God. The Reformers rejected any barriers in worship; they also rejected the use of Iconostasis, because, in Christ, there is direct access into the spiritual world for all.

4. Do the Reformers try to show or illustrate the spiritual realm? Why not?The Reformers never tried to illustrate or show the spiritual realm due to man’s lack of understanding of it, making him unable to represent its glory accurately.

5. Explain the Eastern Orthodox’s distinction between icons of God and icons of Christ? Cite John of Damascus. The Eastern Church fathers made a distinction between God, who Himself cannot be represented by any icon as He is Spirit, and Christ. John of Damascus argued that it was impossible to depict God, who is a spirit, in any physical form. In contrast, he also argued that since Christ had come, it was necessary to depict Christ in His human nature. “Icons are necessary and essential because they protect the full and proper doctrine of the Incarnation.”

6. Explain what we mean by ‘Icons as Canon.’ They possess an authority in the church because they truly reflect scriptural realities. They truly reflect the spiritual realities, and so icons have the same level of revelation as the Holy Scripture.

7. According to Orthodoxy, why does paying homage to the icon honor the original? “Homage paid to the icon is transferred to the original although the two are essentially different; there exists between them a known connection, a certain participation of the one with the other.”

155 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

8. According to Orthodoxy, what is the difference between worship and veneration? To guard against idolatry, the Orthodox Church has made a clear distinction between worship and veneration. Worship can only be given to God, and all that mankind is to offer the saints is vernation.

9. What two reasons does Calvin give for rejecting icons? Do the Scriptures describe Jesus’ physical appearance? Use Isaiah 53 in your answer. “…because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory.” In Isaiah, the Scriptures do not describe Him and they say that He had no particular appearance that made Him stand out.

10. On what basis and scriptural texts does Calvin reject dulia (honor) and latria (worship)? He said calling them something different was not change the substance. He uses the Temptation of Christ, John’s bowing down to the angel, and Cornelius, who bowed down before Peter. In each case, there was no distinction between dulia or lateria, and in each case, the undue worship was forbidden.

11. Explain the Reformers’ unique stress on the preached word of God with texts. Explain the Second Helvetic Confession on the authority of preaching.The preached Word: God reveals Himself in His Word, by the Holy Spirit. The focus on the taught and preached Word is reflected throughout the New Testament, and particularly in the Pastoral Epistles (2 Tim. 4:2, Eph. 2:17).The preached Word of God is the Word of God.

Lesson Five Questions and Answers

1. Name the sacraments recognized in Eastern Orthodoxy. The seven recognized sacraments are: Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation in the West), the Eucharist, Repentance or Confession, Holy Orders, Holy Matrimony, and the Anointing of the Sick.

2. What three sacraments allow a child into full church membership?The three allowing a child into full church membership are: Baptism, Chrismation (Confirmation), and the Eucharist (First Communion). In baptism, one is confirmed, takes full communion, and so receives the full privilege of membership in the church.

3. What does the Eastern Orthodox Church teach about the change in the bread and wine?The bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. If you enquire how this happens, it is enough for you to learn that it is through the Holy Spirit. We know nothing more than this, that the word of God is true, active, and omnipotent, but in its manner of operation unsearchable.

4. In Eastern Orthodoxy, what does the post-baptismal sign of Penance accomplish?In Penance, post-baptismal sins are forgiven, and apostates are restored. It is often called the ‘second baptism.’

156 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

5. Explain what the Reformers meant when they said that the sacraments were ‘visible promises.’The Reformers believed that the sacraments represent the promises of God from His Word in a picture and place them in our view in a graphic earthly form.

6. How many sacraments does Reformed theology claim? What was Calvin’s justification for rejection the others?Reformed theology teaches that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the only two sacraments. Calvin believed that to be a sacrament there must be an external sign with a corresponding grace or word of promise, plus a clear sign of institution. He says: “All external actions that bring grace are not sacraments.”

7. Are the sacraments necessary in Reformed thinking? The Reformers rejected the idea that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are absolutely necessary for salvation, although they are commanded and helpful (WCF Chapter 28).

8. What illustration does Calvin give of those who had the sign, but not the thing signified? Calvin points to the Jews in the Old Testament and Judas in the New Testament. With regard to the Jews, Calvin states: “Though the sacraments were common to all, the grace was not common.”

9. Explain the vital nature of faith and the Holy Spirit in order to receive a blessing.As a believer takes the Supper by faith, the blessings of Christ’s actual life, death, and the Resurrection (the obedience of Christ) flow to the believer by faith. Christ then applies these blessings through the Holy Spirit to believers.

10. What are Dr. Pipa’s two reasons for denying children who have not made a formal profession of faith the Lord’s Supper? A) It confuses membership in the covenant with the right and privilege of coming to the Lord’s Table. B) “For one to benefit from the Lord’s Supper, one must understand the meaning and promises (thus the necessity of the Word being preached and promises read). Paul makes this clear in 1 Corinthians 11:23-32. Otherwise, we practice a superstitious observance of the Supper, claiming that there are blessings apart from faith. Such an observance is contrary to Reformed church practice and Scripture.

11. Explain Ridderbos’ focus on the Lord’s Supper? Ridderbos does not focus on the Elements, he focuses on the relationship between the believers who eat in the presence of God at Jesus’ own table, and Jesus who feeds them directly.

12. Why must we examine ourselves? We must examine ourselves because we are eating in Christ’s very presence, from His table. We must come in a way that is consistent with His will. To not do this is to mock Him at His table.

157 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Six Questions and Answers

1. Name three differences between the Eastern and Western understanding of the Trinity? The three differences are: the filioque clause, the monarchy of the Father, and the need to begin discussion of the Trinity with the persons of God, not His essence.

2. Explain how the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed developed the Trinity? In structure, the creed begins with the three persons. The Son is called One Lord and it is noted that He is of the same substance as the Father. The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father.

3. Explain the idea of the monarchy of the Father as the cause of the Trinity. The monarchy of the Father asserts that the Father’s person is the location of the deity of the Son and the Spirit. He is the ‘cause.’ The Father’s person is the cause of the deity of the Son and the Spirit.

4. Do all the Eastern theologians hold the same view on monarchy of the Father? No, Basil and Gregory of Nyssa taught it, but Gregory of Nazianzus said that the monarchy is within the whole Trinity.

5. Explain the Doctrine of Perichosises. In the Doctrine of Perichosises each of the three persons is fully God and mutually indwells one another. There is a consubstantial nature of the three persons.

6. What is Apophatic theology? Apophatic theology is a negative theology. It teaches that the essence of God is unknowable, and only God’s energies and operations can be revealed. God does not show His nature, only the qualities of His nature. Words like God is ‘true,’ ‘good,’ and ‘wise’ are accurate but they cannot describe the inner nature of the deity.

7. What is the great problem with Apophatic Theology?It creates separation between God’s acts and His essence, so that we cannot truly know God as He is.

8. Explain the nature and import of the filioque clause. Explain Augustine’s thinking. The Eastern Church teaches the single procession of the Spirit, meaning that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. The West, since Augustine, has taught the double procession, meaning that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Augustine taught the fullness of the person of the Father is given to the Son, and in that act the Son also has the capacity to give the Spirit. The Father is still the principal source of the Spirit, but in this modified sense, the Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

9. Calvin was careful to never go beyond Scripture. Explain his method when discussing the Trinity? Does he use non-scriptural terms?

158 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

Calvin began with the baptismal formulation, following Basil. He did not try to enquire into the essence of God; rather, he focused on the persons. Calvin tried to use only scriptural terms but he did use technical terms, such as ‘Trinity,’ ‘essence,’ and ‘substance’ as these have a legitimate place within the historical theology of the church.

10. What did Calvin mean by autotheosis? Each member of the Trinity is God in Himself; each is as much and fully God as the other. There are no grades within the Godhead.

Lesson Seven Questions and Answers

1. How does Eastern Orthodoxy distinguish between ‘image’ and ‘likeness?’ The image of God denoted the characteristics of man as man, and the word ’likeness’ expressed qualities which are not essential to man, but may be cultivated or lost. Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that in the Fall, man retained God’s image, but lost His likeness.

2. What is the essence of the Image of God in man? It consists of free will, reason and a sense of moral authority.

3. Contrast the different ways that Adam, as a man, is seen in Orthodoxy and Reformed thinking.At creation man was made with the potential to do good; he was not created perfect. Simply, man was called to acquire the likeness in his own effort. “He was a child, not yet having his understanding perfected.” says Irenuas. The Reformers stressed that man was created in relative perfection. He is not an unformed child; he was created upright.

4. What effect does the Covenant of Works have according to Reformed Theology, an effect which is not seen in Eastern Orthodoxy?In Reformed theology man’s relationship to God is regulated through a covenant. This creates an additional legal framework for both sin and salvation.

5. Contrast how Reformed theology sees the nature of the Fall verses how Orthodoxy sees it. In Orthodoxy, the Fall is seen as being contrary to nature, not a sin against a command with a promise within a covenantal structure. The inclusion of a legal covenant framework sets man’s fall, not merely against nature but in a legal context as well.

6. Explain the way that sin is transferred in Orthodoxy. All people inherit the corruption of the nature, but there is no inheritance of Adam’s guilt. Guilt is only a consequence of the actual sins that men commit. We participate in the guilt of Adam’s sin through our own acts, not imputation or representation.

7. Explain how Revelation 3:20 is used in Orthodoxy. What is the Reformed response?

159 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

In Orthodoxy God knocks but He waits for you to open the door. He does not break it down. In Reformed thinking this is a call to the church, not to unbelievers.

8. How does Berkhof (Reformed theology) define original sin? (1) It is derived from the original root of the human race; (2) it is present in the life of every individual from the time of his birth, and therefore cannot be regarded as the result of imitation; and (3) it is the inward root of all the actual sins that defile the life of man.

9. Explain the guilt of sin and the pollution of sin. The guilt refers to the legal transfer; the pollution refers to inward and actual corruption.

10. Explain the use that the Doctrine of Election is to have in our lives according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 3. The doctrines are to “be handled with special prudence and care.” The object of the decree is to provide assurance, consolation and praise to God, as well as humility in men.

Lesson Eight Questions and Answers

1. According to Orthodoxy, what is the main focus of the cross? Contrast that to Reformed thinking. In Orthodoxy the main focus of the cross is the Incarnation and Resurrection. Reformed theology focus on the death and nature of the atonement of Christ.

2. What does Eastern Orthodoxy understand with regard to grace? The Eastern Orthodox saw God’s grace in the free gift of His Son, Jesus Christ who brings salvation to all. In the Fall, man lost all rights and privileges, but God in His great mercy, freely and voluntary chose to send a Savior.

3. How does healing, salvation and victory occur in Eastern Orthodoxy?In the Incarnation, Christ entered into mankind, sharing in man’s humanity, healing it from within, and through the Resurrection, He brought humankind to its climax in the conquest of death.

4. Does the Reformed tradition include Christus Victor? What other aspects does it include? Yes it does include Christus Victor, and it is also includes justification, reconciliation, propitiation, redemption.

5. Explain the Doctrine of Effectual Calling, according to the Westminster Confession of Faith. God effectually calls, by His Word and Spirit, man out of his natural state of sin and death.

6. In what way is the Reformed Doctrine of Election the only hope for infants and others incapable of being ordinarily being called. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where and how he pleaseth.

7. What is the Golden Chain of Salvation? What is the key text?

160 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

1. Foreknowledge, 2. Predestination, [before time] 3. Effectual Calling/Regeneration, 4. Conversion (4.1. Repentance and 4.2. Faith), 5. Justification, 6. Adoption 7.1. Positional Sanctification, 7.2. Progressive Sanctification, 8. Glorification [after time]. The key verse Romans 8:29,30.

8. What does Ware says that the final goal is for the Eastern Orthodox believer? The final goal at which every Christian must aim is to become God, to attain theosis, deification or divinization.

9. What does Calvin say about the need for union in salvation?“As long as Christ remains outside of us, all He has done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us.”

10. What do we mean by the duplex gratia? We are untied to God by a double grace includes both justification and sanctification.

FINAL EXAM

1. What makes a council ecumenical, not merely local? 2. Explain the Arius verse Athanasius debate. Who won?3. How did the First Council of Constantinople (381) expand the doctrine of the

Holy Spirit? 4. What four words describe the relationship between Christ’s human nature and His

divine nature?5. Explain John of Damascus’ use of the Greek term perichoresis.6. Where did Augustine begin when considering the Trinity? What contribution did

Augustine make concerning the double procession, or the filioque clause?7. Explain the Reformed view of the fullness of Christ’s prophetic ministry, both in

His life and in the church.8. List four factors that point to the validity of the Jewish Old Testament Canon over

the Alexandrian Canon.9. What two reasons does Calvin give for rejecting icons? Do the Scriptures

describe Jesus’ physical appearance? Use Isaiah 53 in your answer.10. Explain the Reformers’ unique stress on the preached word of God with texts.

Explain the Second Helvetic Confession on the authority of preaching.11. How many sacraments does Reformed theology claim? What was Calvin’s

justification for rejection the others?12. Explain what the Reformers meant when they said that the sacraments were

‘visible promises.’13. Explain Ridderbos’ focus on the Lord’s Supper?14. What is the great problem with Apophatic Theology?15. What did Calvin mean by autotheosis?

16. What effect does the Covenant of Works have according to Reformed Theology, an effect which is not seen in Eastern Orthodoxy?

161 | P a g e

Eastern Orthodoxy Julian Zugg

17. Explain how Revelation 3:20 is used in Orthodoxy. What is the Reformed response?

18. How does healing, salvation and victory occur in Eastern Orthodoxy?19. What is the Golden Chain of Salvation? What is the key text?20. What does Calvin say about the need for union in salvation?

162 | P a g e