Theodore Zachariades's Blog, page 8

Augustine on Glory to God

Augustine on the need to glorify God in everything.

St. Augustine was a pastor in the tradition of Ambrose of Milan, who was instrumental in teaching the African father the truths of Scripture and especially the Christo-centric reading of the Bible. In Augustine’s letters, which, breathe the air of the Scriptures, one gains a sense of the ultimate goal to love and glorify God. This is why we were created. So whatever we do, let us do it heartily and unto God’s Glory through Christ in the power of the Spirit.

Likewise, when you do anything with vigour and fervour and are unweariedly labouring in prayer or in fasting or in almsgiving or bestowing something on the needy or forgiving injuries, ” as God also for Christ’s sake hath forgiven us,” ‘ or subduing evil habits and ” chastening the body and bringing it into subjection,” or bearing tribulation and (before anything else) ” bearing one another in love “—for what can he endure, who does not endure his brother ?—or looking out for the craftiness and guile of the tempter and ” with the shield of faith ” averting and ” quenching his fiery darts,”  or ” singing and making melody to the Lord in your heart ”  or with voices in harmony with your heart : “ do all to the glory of God, who worketh all in all,”  and be so ” fervent in spirit ” that ” your soul may make her boast in the Lord” (emphasis added).

St. Augustine, (Ep. XLVIII).

James Houston Baxter, ed. St. Augustine: Select Letters with an English Translation. (New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1930), 115.

 

 

 

Aquinas on God’s Immutability

God’s Immutability according To Aquinas.

“It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6). _I answer that,_ From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable. First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable. Secondly, because everything which is moved, remains as it was in part, and passes away in part; as what is moved from whiteness to blackness, remains the same as to substance; thus in everything which is moved, there is some kind of composition to be found. But it has been shown above (Q. 3, A. 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved. Thirdly, because everything which is moved acquires something by its movement, and attains to what it had not attained previously. But since God is infinite, comprehending in Himself all the plenitude of perfection of all being, He cannot acquire anything new, nor extend Himself to anything whereto He was not extended previously. Hence movement in no way belongs to Him. So, some of the ancients, constrained, as it were, by the truth, decided that the first principle was immovable.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Part I., FIRST ARTICLE [I, Q. 9, Art. 1, answer 3].

We notice here in Aquinas that he links together threads of theology proper into a tapestry that points to a supreme God. He is perfection itself. There is no composition in God thus we see Aquinas defending God’s simplicity. He cannot improve or grow in any sense as He is being itself and perfect, This God does not have potentiality as if some act was preceded by its possibility, hence Aquinas argues that immutability is necessary as God is pure act. Potentialities need to change to become actualities. This is not befitting for the Supreme God who declares, “I the Lord Change Not!!!” This is classic theology at its best. Note te Velde’s observation:

“The truth of God, in this sense, is not wholly untouched by and unrelated to how people actually think of God. What Thomas is after in his theological inquiry is not finding something previously unknown; his intention is not to provide new information

about God. To give an example: when he argues that God must be ‘immutable’, Thomas quotes a passage from the Bible in which it is said that God does not change (Mal. 3,6: Ego Deus, et non mutor). This passage is, as such, not part of the argument but, rather, the argument aims to clarify the truth hinted at in this text, by showing

that the being of God (what it is to be God) must be understood as excluding the possibility of any change. The ontological truth of the immutabilitas of God need not be part of how religious consciousness, expressing itself in this kind of biblical statement

of faith, may explain and interpret itself, since the hermeneutical selfinterpretationof (biblical) faith remains within the phenomenological objectivity of the ‘God of faith’. The divine attribute of immutabilitas, as a defi ning feature of the reality of God, does not stand on the same level as the language of faith in which the believer is intentionally directed to God; it is rather a part of the concept of God, of what it means to be God.”

Rudi te Velde, Aquinas on God

The ‘Divine Science’ of the Summa Theologiae, (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company,) 2.

Christ Almighty According to Athanasius

In recent weeks our book club has been slowly working through On the Incarnation by St. Athanasius. As C.S. Lewis once quipped, “this book is a classic.”

Here is a sampling where Athanasius discusses Christ in His incarnation:

“For he was not enclosed in the body, nor was he in the body but not elsewhere. Nor while he moved that [body] was the universe left void of his activity and providence. But, what is most marvelous, being the Word, he was not contained by anyone, but rather himself contained everything. And, as being in all creation, he is in essence outside everything but inside everything by his own power, arranging everything, and unfolding his own providence in everything to all things, and giving life to each thing and to all things together, containing the universe and not being contained, but being wholly, in every respect, in his own Father alone.”

Sect. 17.

Trans. John Behr.

What we see here is the teaching of Athanasius that advocates what was later to be dubbed the extra calvinisticum, (lit. the calvinist extra/beyond) as the Lutherans were fond of calling this distinctive teaching that the Word incarnate had an existence beyond the body of Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, it was not an invention from Calvin’s mind but was identified in earliest times by those theologians like Athanasius that were sensitive to the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ.  That Christ is the Creator and that He remains in His divine nature transcendent to the created order is of paramount significance. This is why it is claimed that He contains all but is contained by none. His transcendence is the ground for His immanence or closeness/presence with all things. But this presence must not swallow up the Word’s continued transcendence and therefore His distinction from all that is made. Christ, indeed, is Almighty.

Hope

Hope for the World

There are many voices in the wind. Messages of hope abound today. They promise the solution to our troubles or the prospect of a coming Utopia where troubles will cease. Amidst the cacophony of noisy heralds one may get confused. It is always wise to check the credentials of the one making the promise. Hucksters and charlatans are a dime a dozen! No doubt, we are aware of schemers that have preyed on desperate folk, and use troubled times as an arena for selfish gain. We may have actually succumbed to the mirage of false expectation and are victims in recovery bitterly disappointed. Confidence tricksters often emerge in the podium in Washington, in the Pulpit in the chapel, or in the lectern in the classroom. They speak with their silver tongues ala Demosthenes, and their words inspire hope. But can they deliver? What we need is not mere words, not even words that move us but a true voice that is real and can bring about the desired outcome. One who can put ‘his money where his mouth is.’ We long for the individual that will buck the trends and forsake the well-worn paths of empty promise.

One voice among the many is really different. One voice rises far above all others. Indeed, it is a voice we may have heard before. It is a sound from the one that knows us best and loves us the most. Yes, it is a word from God Himself!

‘Come to me,’ he urges. ‘The one who comes to me, I will no wise cast out,’ he assures us. Maybe it is time we returned to Lord God who uttered this warm invitation. It is a general call that is nondiscriminatory. In fact it is universal. We ought to heed the call, and return to the Lord our God. He alone is our true hope!

In the book of Psalms a declaration of God’s final triumph is heard. It is the culmination of God’s redemptive program: ‘All Nations whom you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord, and shall glorify your name. For you are great, and do wonderful things; you alone are God’ (Psalm 86:9-10).

Why not come to the Lord in faithful submission? Come to him acknowledging your absolute dependence on him. Come and find the reason you were created: to have fellowship and communion with your maker. Find peace for your soul as God grants you forgiveness full and free because of the sacrifice of Christ. Entrust your eternal wellbeing into his hands. They are the only hands that hold the future. They are the only hands that determine all outcomes. In a steadfast walk with God, his promises will be manifest and true. His greatest word of encouragement is simply this: Come ‘seek me and live’ (Amos 5:4). That is true hope. Without God, we will face an hopeless end; with him and endless hope!

Theodore Zachariades

SDG.

The Son of God Beyond the Flesh

Ten years after graduating with a PhD in theology, I finally see some recognition for my scholarship in a book published today in electronic format. The Son of God Beyond the Flesh is available from Amazon as a kindle download: http://www.amazon.com/Son-God-Beyond-Flesh-Calvinisticum-ebook/dp/B00L7TEPOU/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid=

Andrew McGinnis is a Freelance Editor living in Michican. This work is superb, and deals with an issue dear to my heart. Though McGinnis does not deal directly with John Calvin, as I did in my work, he spends time on three major theologians that have articulated in their own way, the so-called extra calvinisticum (lit. the calvinist extra or beyond). This is the doctrine that Jesus Christ the Son of God has existence beyond the humanity or beyond the flesh. Cyril of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, and Zacharias Ursinus are the subjects that are the main focus of McGinnis’s book.

You can see immediately why I am enthused about his proposal for it is directly linked to the issue of Christ’s transcendence beyond the material body, and so a grounding for His omnipresence. Deo Volente, my own book, The Omnipresence of Jesus Christ, the one to be published by Paternoster UK should be out in 2015. In the mean time to whet your appetite, read McGinnis!

It is an honor indeed to be mentioned in this highly skilled work and I recommend McGinnis’s study for those serious students of historical and systematic theology.

tz

sdg.

The Great Exchange

Some comments from a discussion with a dear friend:

 

The “symmetry” is found in Paul, in a text used by Vincent, namely 2 Corinthians 5:21. It is the classic text on the great exchange, our sin upon Christ for His righteousness. Look at it and ask the question again, I did not intend to suggest that Christ was defiled by contact with sinners, in fact, that whole matter is irrelevant to this discussion about justification/righteous before God. I fear I was not clear in my response. I meant that there is a judicial or forensic reckoning in both directions based on Paul’s understanding of Justification: Our sin is imputed to Christ without Him being constituted a sinner, and His righteousness is imputed to the elect without them becoming actually righteous. The declaration is true, not a legal fiction as otherwise the wrath could not fall on the Son, and so he is sinless yet imputed guilt is upon Him to die for our sins. Hence the reverse is true, we are not actually made righteous in justification but are truly accounted /reckoned righteous, and that in itself prepares us for heaven, so to speak.

 

Check it out!

Amazon.com: The Omnipresence of Jesus Christ: A Neglected Aspect of Evangelical Christology eBook: Theodore Zachariades, Michael A. G. Haykin: Kindle Store

More is more.

When Less is not More.

The old adage “Less is More” is nowhere absolutely untrue than in Theology, especially Christology. Virtually axiomatic is the post-Enlightenment mentality of reducing Jesus Christ to a mere man with the drastic result that his person is indeed, lessened. This breakthrough in abandoning the old doctrinal constraints that gave us persecution and bloodshed in favor of a rational religion was hailed as a high water mark in the history of ideas. Yet, those of us who are struggling with our sins and recognize our need for a savior are finding that the Man Christ Jesus, that is nothing more than a man, and hence less than fully God, will just not do. Either Christ is the true living God or we are hopeless. Either the Bible rings true in its presentation of the Word that became Flesh as God the Son took on a human nature and came to die for His people or we are left dead in our sins. Either Jesus Christ is “I am, before Abraham was” or we are doomed to the eternal darkness rather than to Abraham’s bosom. Of course, there is a host of voices clamoring for attention speaking ever so eloquently of Jesus as Savior: the moral example, the religious teacher, the wise mystic, or the radical rebel all have been championed as advancing an understanding of Jesus that keeps him close and relevant to our times. However, we need more than instruction. We are not to be raised from the dead because we had deep insight into a spirituality above all others. And we are never going to enter the heavenly kingdom as a result of our own practice of religious teaching however noble. We need a Savior big enough to take God’s punishment in our place. We need a Savior that is a substitute and a sacrifice big enough to satisfy God’s wrath. We need Christ the Son of God, God the Son,  dying on a cross and conquering death in the resurrection that brings in the new order. We need God! And Christ is He. When it comes to Jesus, less is definitely not more. More is more!

God, not Fate!

“Yet since the sluggishness of our mind lies far beneath the height of God’s providence, we must employ a distinction to lift it up. Therefore I shall put it this way: however all things may be ordained by God’s plan, according to a sure dispensation, for us they are fortuitous. Not that we think that fortune rules the world and men, tumbling all things at random up and down, for it is fitting that this folly be absent from the Christian’s breast! But since the order, reason, end, and necessity of those things which happen for the most part lie hidden in God’s purpose, and are not apprehended by human opinion, those things, which it is certain take place by God’s will, are in a sense fortuitous. For they bear on the face of them no other appearance, whether they are considered in their own nature or weighed according to our knowledge and judgment. Let us imagine, for example, a merchant who, entering a wood with a company of faithful men, unwisely wanders away from his companions, and in his wandering comes upon a robber’s den, falls among thieves, and is slain. His death was not only foreseen by God’s eye, but also determined by his decree.

For it is not said that he foresaw how long the life of each man would extend, but that he determined and fixed the bounds that men cannot pass [Job14:5]. Yet as far as the capacity of our mind is concerned, all things therein seem fortuitous. What will a Christian think at this point? Just this: whatever happened in a death of this sort he will regard as fortuitous by nature, as it is; yet he will not doubt that God’s providence exercised authority over fortune in directing its end. The same reckoning applies to the contingency of future events. As all future events are uncertain to us, so we hold them in suspense, as if they might incline to one side or the other. Yet in our hearts it nonetheless remains fixed that nothing will take place that the Lord has not previously foreseen.

In this sense the term “fate” is often repeated in Ecclesiastes[chs. 2:14-15; 3:19; 9:2-3, 11], because at first glance men do not penetrate to the first cause, which is deeply hidden. And yet what is set forth in Scripture concerning God’s secret providence was never so extinguished from men’s hearts without some sparks always glowing in the darkness. Thus the soothsayers of the Philistines, although they wavered in doubt, yet attributed their adverse fate partly to God, partly to fortune. If the Ark, they say, shall pass through that way, we shall know that it is God who has struck us; but if it passes through another way, then it has happened to us by chance [1 Samuel 6:9]. Foolishly indeed, where their divination deceived them, they took refuge in fortune. Meanwhile we see them constrained from daring to think simply fortuitous what had happened unfavorably to them. But how God by the bridle of his providence turns every event whatever way he wills, will be clear from this remarkable example. At the very moment of time in which David was trapped in the wilderness of Maon, the Philistines invaded the land, and Saul was compelled to depart [1 Samuel 23:26-27]. If God, intending to provide for his servant’s safety, cast this hindrance in Saul’s way, surely, although the Philistines took up arms suddenly and above all human expectation, yet we will not say that this took place by chance; but what for us seems a contingency, faith recognizes to have been a secret impulse from God.

Not always does a like reason appear, but we ought undoubtedly to hold that whatever changes are discerned in the world are produced from the secret stirring of God’s hand. But what God has determined must necessarily so take place, even though it is neither unconditionally, nor of its own peculiar nature, necessary. A familiar example presents itself in the bones of Christ. When he took upon himself a body like our own, no sane man will deny that his bones were fragile; yet it was impossible to break them [John 19:33, 36]. Whence again we see that distinctions concerning relative necessity and absolute necessity, likewise of consequent and consequence, were not recklessly invented in schools, when God subjected to fragility the bones of his Son, which he had exempted from being broken, and thus restricted to the necessity of his own plan what could have happened naturally”

John Calvin, Institutes, 1 xvi 9.

 

Omnipresence

Omnipresence at lowest Price to date for softcover:

 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=omnipresence+of+jesus