Charles Lee Irons's Blog, page 4

�� in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 5

The Biblical Warrant for Eternal Generation According to the Church Fathers

We have seen that Giles is wrong when he claims that �� meant ��unique�� and not ��only begotten�� in the writings of the fourth-century Greek-speaking fathers and in the Nicene Creed. But Giles makes another claim as well. He claims the Greek-speaking fathers ��do not use [��] or the texts in which it is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son�� (The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 81 n44).

In this post, which will be my last in this series, I want to show that the church fathers frequently quoted John 1:14 (��glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father��) and 1:18 (��the only begotten God/Son who is in the Father��s bosom��) as proof that the Son is begotten of the Father. For example, in one of his works, Athanasius is arguing against the Arians with the classic distinction that the Son is ��begotten, not made.�� Athanasius sees a massive distinction between a creature made by God and an offspring eternally begotten of God��s own essence. In the course of his argument, Athanasius quotes the three standard OT proof texts that the Son is begotten��Ps 110:3 (109:3 LXX); Ps 2:7; Prov 8:25��and then right after these he concludes by quoting John 1:18 (Defense of the Nicene Definition ��13; NPNF2 4.158). Cyril of Jerusalem does much the same thing, quoting Ps 2:7 and 110:3, followed immediately by three of the �� passages in John��s Gospel (3:16, 18; 1:14) (Catechetical Lectures 11.5-6; NPNF2 7.65-66).

I fully acknowledge that the church fathers didn��t hang eternal generation solely on the Johannine ��. I��ve already mentioned the three OT verses (in the Old Greek) that were important to them because they occur in Christologically significant passages and use the verb �� (��beget��) (Pss 2:7; 110:3 [109:3 LXX]; Prov 8:25). There were also several New Testament texts outside of the Johannine �� texts that the church fathers appealed to, most notably the following: ��As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself�� (John 5:26 ESV); ��All that the Father has is mine�� (John 16:15 ESV); and ��He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature�� (Heb 1:3 ESV). The second one (John 16:15) was used especially by Athanasius, who reasoned that the Father has everlastingness, eternity, and immortality, and if the Father has given ��all�� that he has to the Son, then the Son must possess these things as well (In Illud: Omnia, etc. [NPNF2 4.87-90]; Against the Arians 3.35-36 [NPNF2 4.413]). Among modern exegetes who believe in eternal generation, John 5:26 is rightly viewed as having probative force, but it wasn��t frequently quoted by the church fathers. Of the NT passages outside of the Johannine �� texts, Heb 1:3 is by far the most commonly quoted, and is the basis for the Nicene Creed��s language, ��Light of Light.��

Having acknowledged the importance of these other proof texts, both OT and NT, I claim that texts in which �� is found were in fact used by the church fathers in support of eternal generation. In particular, it would appear that John 1:14, 18 outstrip all the other proof texts in frequency of quotation, except for Heb 1:3. Here is a table showing the number of times each verse is quoted according to the Scripture index of the standard English translations of each author:

Ps
2:7

Ps
110:3

Prov
8:25

John
1:14

John
1:18

John
5:26

John
16:15

Heb
1:3

Athanasius

4

7

8

31

18

2

9

14

Basil of Caesarea

1

2

1

2

5

1

2*

9

Gregory Nazianzen

0

1

2

1

0

2

Gregory of Nyssa

0

2

5

7

1

4

14

TOTAL

5

10

12

40

31

4

17

39

*FoC 122 incorrectly cites one of these as John 17:10 (p. 118).

The Scripture indexes consulted for Athanasius and the two Gregories were those provided in NPNF2 (vols. 4, 5, 7). For Basil, I consulted the Scripture indexes of NPNF2 vol. 8 and Against Eunomius, translated by Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (The Fathers of the Church [FoC] 122; Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011).

It should be noted that Basil speaks of ��the glory of the Only-Begotten�� at least five times (Against Eunomius 1.1, 17, 23, 26; 2.33), and while the phrase isn��t part of a quotation of John 1:14, it does appear to be an allusion to it.

Now I have to be honest and admit that I did not take the time to look up all of these passages in Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. I looked up many of them, but not all. So it is certainly possible that in some cases the verse is quoted to make a totally unrelated point that has nothing to do with eternal generation. There are also cases where it is a judgment call. For example, if a church father quotes John 1:18 but only comments on ��who is in the Father��s bosom�� does that count as using this verse as a proof text for eternal generation? So perhaps these stats can be questioned and refined.

Nevertheless, even though I have not looked up every single quotation, I am confident that it is simply not true to say that the church fathers ��do not use �� the texts in which [��] is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son.��

Why is this important? Because it affects how one views the epistemological basis and status of the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. Giles views it primarily as a theological deduction from the correlative names ��Father�� and ��Son�� (The Eternal Generation of the Son, pp. 82-83). He argues against a ��Bible-alone�� view of doing theology. He writes that ��no doctrine springs directly from the pages of Scripture�� and that the Scriptures are insufficient for doing theology because they ��do not speak univocally on most topics�� and on some topics they say ��nothing specific at all�� (p. 43). Instead, he argues that ��every doctrine �� ultimately represents a theological affirmation predicated on a synthetic apprehension of what is given in Scripture�� (p. 46). In relation to eternal generation, Giles cites Robert Letham favorably. Letham, he says, ��accepts that there is no text that actually says the Son is eternally generated or begotten but nevertheless finds much in Scripture that suggests this idea and nothing that excludes it�� (p. 42).

But I maintain that the doctrine of the two processions (the eternal generation of the Son and the eternal procession of the Spirit) is not a synthetic apprehension or a theological deduction. It is actually just saying as much as Scripture says and no more��the Son is ��begotten�� of the Father and the Spirit ��proceeds�� from the Father and the Son. That is what Scripture expressly teaches, in those very words, about the personal distinctions peculiar to each of the persons of the Trinity. The church fathers believed and taught these things, not because they deduced them theologically but because the Scripture itself says these things in those very words (��begotten,�� proceeds��).

Now I want to be clear. I��m not saying we should never engage in ��synthetic apprehension�� or ��theological deduction.�� The Westminster Confession affirms that ��the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man��s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture�� (WCF I.6). Often we do need to look at a large number of passages and make theological deductions. This is exactly what we are doing when we construct the doctrine of the Trinity. We are looking at everything Scripture teaches and putting the pieces of the puzzle together to form a coherent doctrine of God. The doctrine of the Trinity is biblically warranted, but the entire doctrine is not stated in one verse or even one passage.

What I am denying is that the biblical warrant for eternal generation is of the same character as the biblical warrant for the doctrine of the Trinity. As I read the church fathers, the Son��s being begotten of the Father is actually one of the constituent building blocks that is explicitly taught in Scripture, with chapter and verse to back it up. It is one of the things ��expressly set down in Scripture�� not one of the things that ��by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.�� The church fathers viewed the Son��s being eternally begotten of the Father as one of the givens of Scripture, one of the pieces of the puzzle, one of the revealed facts that we must reckon with, not as a theological deduction after all the pieces of the puzzle are put together into a whole.

I think a large part of the problem is that many (perhaps including Giles) think of eternal generation as a big, fat, complex doctrine, like the Trinity. They speak of ��the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son,�� and then ask, ��What is the biblical warrant for this doctrine?�� But this way of speaking gives it too much heft. Actually, it isn��t really a ��doctrine�� at all in that meaty sense. All it is, is the biblical answer to the question, ��What distinguishes the three persons of the Trinity?�� According to the church fathers, in order to answer that question we have to follow the exact words of Scripture, and no more. According to the church fathers, all the Scripture reveals is that the Son is ��begotten�� (Ps 2:7; 110:3; Prov 8:25; the five �� verses in the Johannine literature) and the Spirit ��proceeds�� (John 15:26). Of course, technically we have to get a little theological and add that these terms ��begotten�� and ��proceeds�� are eternal or timeless actions appropriate to the impassible nature of God. But that is about it. That is the ��doctrine�� of eternal generation.

The five Johannine passages that apply the word �� to Jesus Christ have particular importance because they provide prime New Testament evidence for saying the Son is ��begotten.�� The three Old Testament texts are very strong, but they aren��t completely free of doubts for the modern exegete. Psalm 2:7 (��You are my Son; today I have begotten you��) could be understood as a reference to the resurrection of Christ (as quoted in Acts 13:33). Psalm 110:3 (109:3 LXX) is so different in the Old Greek that we as Protestants worry if it is a correct translation of the Hebrew. And Proverbs 8:25 is about the shadowy figure of ��Wisdom,�� and some may not be convinced that Wisdom is the pre-incarnate Christ. I actually think there are good responses to all of these doubts and I firmly agree with the church fathers�� exegesis of these three OT (LXX) verses.

But if �� means ��only begotten,�� then we have five clear New Testament texts that aren��t hampered by these doubts. Indeed, we have John 1:1-18 which uses the term twice (vv 14, 18). This is such an extraordinary passage that goes a long way toward our Trinitarian synthesis. There is no doubt that these verses are about the pre-incarnate Son in his immanent ontological identity ��in the Father��s bosom�� before creation. True, we also have John 5:26 and Heb 1:3��texts that the church fathers also appealed to. Thank God for those wonderful verses! I could hang the whole doctrine of eternal generation on them if I had to. But they don��t use the language of ��begetting,�� which is what we really need in order to be able to point to scriptural language that says, ��See, the Scripture says the Son is begotten,�� just as the church fathers pointed to John 15:26 and said, ��See, the Scripture says the Spirit proceeds.��

Finally, it��s important to get the meaning of �� right because it plays such an important theological role in the Nicene Creed as providing the exegetical anchor for the claim that the Son is ��begotten, not made�� (see previous post).

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 01, 2017 21:50

�� in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 4

The Meaning of Monogen ��s in the Nicene Creed

Giles not only argues that the Greek-speaking church fathers understood �� to mean ��unique�� and applied it to the Son ��to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,�� he also argues that ��unique�� is the meaning of the term as used in the Nicene Creed. In his Jesus Creed post responding to me he wrote that he is convinced the Nicene Creed makes ��a clear and sharp distinction between the words �� and ��.�� In his 2016 ETS paper, he stated: ��The Nicene Creed says, ��We [Christians] believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only (��) Son of God�� . Again, we all know that the word �� means ��only�� in the sense of ��unique��; ��one of a kind.��

In this post, I want to challenge Giles��s interpretation of �� in the Nicene Creed. The word is used in both the 325 and the 381 version, but in the 381 version it was moved to a different location a few words earlier. Here are the two versions side by side, both in the original Greek and in English translation. I am only quoting the second article about the Son, and only the beginning portion of that article, up through the famous homoousion. The main verb ��we believe�� is to be understood from the first article.

The Creed of Nicaea (325)

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381)

�� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , ��

�� , �� , �� , �� , �� , �� , ��

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, 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 ages, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

What were the changes in the 381 version relative to the 325 version? One change is that the phrase ��God of God�� is deleted since ��very God of very God�� was felt to be sufficient. This is a minor stylistic edit. But the next three changes are more significant:

The phrase ��that is, of the essence of the Father�� was deleted.
The prepositional phrase ��before all ages�� was added.
As mentioned, ��only begotten�� was moved up from after ��begotten of the Father�� to go with the initial clause, ��And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God.��

325: �� , ��
381: �� , ��

In 325, �� is a pr��cising term modifying the aorist passive participle ��, ��begotten of the Father as only-begotten.�� Oskar Skarsaune argued this in his helpful article, ��A neglected detail in the creed of Nicaea (325),�� Vigiliae christianae (1987): 34-54. He writes:

��If one takes monogenes��as it now stands in the creed [of 325]��not as an asyndetic apposition to the foregoing phrase, but as a precision to ��: ��begotten as only-begotten��, one gets a sentence which seems perfectly adapted to the following precision: ��that is, from the substance of the Father�� . In its present position, the word [monogenes] serves as a first precision of the meaning of �� , closely followed by the further precision: �� (pp. 36, 44).

In 381, �� is in a different position and functions as an adjectival description of the Son, with �� now functioning as the precision of ��, ��the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages�� (�� , �� ).

Either way, �� plays a major role explicating the meaning of �� in the Creed, whether �� is a precision of ��, or vice versa. Giles argues the presence of �� actually suggests �� does not mean ��only begotten,�� since the ��begotten�� segment of meaning (were it really present) would then be repeated in ��: ��only-begotten �� begotten of the Father�� (381). This ��introduces repetition that makes little sense,�� Giles says. But linguists say redundancy is a common feature of human communication because it reinforces the intended meaning. Contrary to Giles, a redundant interpretation is in fact more likely than a non-redundant one. If anything, the Nicene Creed is a master class in rhythmic redundancy: ��God of God �� very God of very God�� (325), and ��begotten �� begotten, not made�� (�� ) (325 and 381).

Corroborating this interpretation of �� as ��only begotten�� is a very helpful contemporary document, the Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, dated 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea. Alexander��s reasoning against the views of his heretical presbyter Arius is a powerful, early statement of the orthodox position. He uses the term �� of the Son seven times in the letter, but I will only quote three of them. In these three instances it is instructive to see how the verb �� is used in collocation with ��only begotten,�� just as in the Nicene Creed. For example, here is a quote where he says the Father ��begat the only-begotten Son��:

�� the Father is always Father. And He is Father from the continual presence of the Son, on account of whom He is called Father. And the Son being ever present with him [which Alexander had earlier proved from John 1:18, ��the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father��], the Father is ever perfect, wanting in no good thing, for He did not beget His only-begotten Son (�� ) in time, or in any interval of time, nor out of that which had no previous existence�� (apud Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.3; NPNF2 3.37 modified).

In the next quote, Alexander speaks of ��the only-begotten nature�� of the Word, who ��was begotten of the self-existent Father,�� which he supports with a quotation from 1 John 5:1 which also uses the perfect participle ��begotten��:

��In their [referring to Arius and his followers] ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is unbegotten (��), and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature (�� ) of Him who is the Word of God, by whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father (�� ), as the Lord Himself testified when He said, ��Every one that loveth the Father, loveth the Son that is begotten of Him (�� )�� [1 John 5:1]�� (NPNF2 3.39 modified).

In his quotation of 1 John 5:1, Alexander has inserted �� in front of the phrase �� to make clear that he takes it as a reference to the Son begotten of the Father. Modern commentators see ��the one begotten of Him�� as referring to the believer rather than the Son. But the point is that Alexander interprets the �� (��the only-begotten nature��) of the Son as his being begotten of the Father, which sets the Son apart from things created out of the non-existent.

The third passage I want to quote where Alexander uses the word �� is highly significant because it foreshadows the language of the Nicene Creed itself.

��We believe, as is taught by the apostolical Church, in an only unbegotten Father (�� ), who of His being hath no cause, immutable and invariable �� and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten not out of that which is not, but of the Father who is (�� , �� ); yet not after the manner of material bodies, by severance or emanation �� but in an inexpressible and inexplicable manner, according to the saying which we quoted above, ��Who shall declare His generation?�� [Isa 53:8]�� (NPNF2 3.39 modified).

Skarsaune notes that ��These passages [in Alexander��s letter] clearly imply a specific exegesis of monogenes, viz. that the word means the only one who has been born, begotten�� (p. 43). He recognizes that modern scholars think the -�� stem means ��kind�� and he follows them in thinking the word originally meant ��only one of its kind.�� However, Skarsaune argues, Alexander is deliberately connecting �� and ��, a connection he thinks Alexander got from Origen.

The language is so similar to the Nicene Creed, particularly the use of �� in connection with ��, it strongly suggests that Alexander had a hand in the original draft of the Creed of Nicaea in 325. We know he attended the Council, with the young Athanasius as his assistant. There can be little doubt that Alexander thinks �� means ��only begotten,�� and he likes it because it is an important biblical term��as John said: ��The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father�� (John 1:18). This provides scriptural justification in Alexander��s mind for the notion that the Son is ��begotten�� from the bosom or �� of the Father, not made out of nothing as the creatures.

Skarsaune writes: ��The Son being born monogenes means that he derives his existence �� ! I thus conclude that for Alexander the term monogenes was thought to be a strong weapon against the Arians, because he read the Origenistic concept of eternal begetting into it�� (p. 44).

Returning to the Creed of Nicaea, Skarsaune has argued that the similarities between Alexander��s letter and the actual text of the Creed suggest that Alexander and his circle were the ones who drafted the Creed. Since �� is a Scriptural term and since it is used in John 1:18 to signify the Son��s origin as begotten from the Father, not being a creature made from the things that do not exist, it seems that this term �� was specifically inserted into the Creed to provide the exegetical ground of the phrase ��begotten, not made,�� a key phrase in the Creed that functions as a trumpet blast against the Arians who said the Son was a creature made by God.

In the 381 version, decades later, the arrangement of words was changed somewhat, but the theology is the same. In fact, the 381 version underscores how the whole argument rests on the biblical word ��. The word �� is the anchor and the rest of the anti-Arian portion of the Creed is a cascade of expository phrases fleshing out what that means with ever-increasing clarity until the climactic homoousion is reached:

�� ��,

�� �� �� ,

�� , �� ,

�� �� ,

��

The Son��s being begotten of the Father provides the ultimate theological ground for the homoousion. Just as human fathers beget sons that are the same in substance, that is, fully human, so the divine Father begets a Son who is the same in substance with him, that is, fully divine. The intervening phrases, ��Light of Light, very God of very God,�� make this logic clear. All of this rich theology is anchored in the affirmation that Jesus Christ is the Father��s ��only begotten�� Son. By denying that that is what �� means in the Nicene Creed, Giles misses an important element of the Creed��s scriptural logic.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 31, 2016 22:06

�� in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 3

What Monogen��s Meant as Applied to the Son��According to the Church Fathers

Giles claims that when the church fathers applied the term �� to the Son, they only intended ��to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ�� and not to affirm that he is ��only begotten.�� Giles would grant that what makes the Son unique is that he is eternally begotten, but I take him to be saying this was something the fathers stated synthetically and theologically, that is, not analytically inferring ��begottenness�� as a predicate contained in the word �� itself. I think this is demonstrably untrue. Here is some evidence showing that the church fathers did indeed apply the term to the Son with the understanding that it positively affirms the Son is ��only begotten.��

The church fathers often used �� substantivally (or absolutely as they would say) as a name or title of the Son lifted from John 1:14 (��glory as of the Only Begotten from the Father��) but without quoting the verse. This usage suggests they interpreted the word to mean ��only begotten.�� Otherwise, we would have to translate the substantival use as ��the Only One,�� which hardly has any significance, or ��the Unique One.�� This translation problem was noted by the modern translators of Basil��s work, Against Eunomius, Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz (The Fathers of the Church [FoC], vol. 122). Giles himself says he wrote to Mark DelCogliano asking him about their decision to render �� as ��only begotten.�� This was Dr. DelCogliano��s reply:

��I remember when beginning the project we toyed with translating the term as ��only�� or ��unique,�� in line with modern biblical translations. This led to what seemed to us odd substantive usages such as ��Only One,�� but at least it was accurate, we thought. But the more we thought about it, we thought that Basil (as well as others) really understood the term in the sense of ��only offspring of the Father��what we here in the states would call an ��only child�� (see Contra Eunomius 2.20-21). And we thought that this understanding of the term accorded well with the traditional translation ��Only-Begotten�� (quoted by Giles, The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 145 n124).

This absolute, substantival use occurs about 95 times in Basil��s Against Eunomius. I literally counted each occurrence of ��the Only-Begotten�� by hand in the recent (2011) English translation by DelCogliano and Radde-Gallwitz. I say ��about 95�� because I may have missed a few, and a couple of times it was Eunomius who used the term. (Basil quotes Eunomius throughout and refutes him point by point.) I would even go so far as to say ��the Only-Begotten�� seems to be Basil��s preferred way of referring to the second person of the Trinity. As Basil��s translators pointed out, it would result in a rather odd translation to render all 95 of these as ��the Only One.�� It seemed to the translators that Basil took the word in the sense ��only offspring�� or ��only child,�� and that therefore the best translation was the traditional one, ��the Only-Begotten.��

Not only do we have the frequent substantival use, �� (��the Only-Begotten��), but the church fathers explicitly asked why the Son is called �� and gave a clear answer.

Athanasius says the Son is called �� because of his generation from the Father�� (�� ). And he immediately adds: ��One should say that the attribute of being only-begotten has justly the preference in the instance of the Word, in that there is no other Word, or other Wisdom, but He alone is very Son of the Father .... The Son is the Father��s ��Only begotten,�� because He alone is from Him�� (Against the Arians 2.62, 64; NPNF2 4.382-83).

Basil said the Son is called �� because he is ��the only one begotten�� (�� ) (Against Eunomius 2.21; PG 29.617; FoC 122, p. 161), and repeatedly speaks of ��the begetting (or generation) of the Only-Begotten�� (Against Eunomius 2.3, 14, 15, 17).

Cyril of Jerusalem said: ��This is the reason why He is called ��, because in the dignity of the Godhead, and His generation from the Father, He has no brother�� (Catechetical Lectures 11.2; NPNF2 7.64).

Gregory Nazianzen argued that ��He is called Only-Begotten, not only because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies ... on account of His passionless generation�� (Fourth Theological Oration ��20; NPNF2 7.316 modified).

The church fathers explicitly ask why the Son is called ��. The answer they gave was not because he is ��unique�� or ��the only one of his kind,�� but because he alone is begotten of the Father. They agree that the term �� tells us something about his ��generation�� or ��begetting�� (his ��).

Additionally, if the church fathers thought �� meant ��unique�� without any notion of begetting, they could not have used the term as a peculiar name for the Son when they wanted to identify the Son as a particular person within the Trinity distinct from the other two persons. But they did use the term this way. For the church fathers, the term �� is a descriptor applicable only to the Son and not to any other person of the Trinity, because only the Son is begotten. But it would be applicable to all three persons of the Trinity if they thought the term only meant ��unique.�� The title ��unique,�� paradoxically, says nothing unique to distinguish the Son from the Father or the Spirit. But the descriptor ��only begotten�� does. They made this argument in particular when they discussed the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. They repeatedly said the Holy Spirit, though derived from the Father, is not ��only begotten,�� because that is the distinguishing property of the Son. Here are some quotes to that effect:

Gregory Nazianzen: ��Nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is one�� (�� , �� ) (Fifth Theological Oration ��9; NPNF2 7.320). In other words, just because the Spirit is ��of God�� doesn��t make him God��s Son, for there is only one who is ��the Only-Begotten.��

Gregory of Nyssa said the Holy Spirit��s ��most peculiar characteristic is that He is neither of those things which we contemplate in the Father and the Son respectively. He exists simply, neither as ungenerate (�� ), nor as only-begotten (�� ): this it is that constitutes His chief peculiarity. Joined to the Father by His uncreatedness, He is disjoined from Him again by not being ��Father.�� United to the Son by the bond of uncreatedness, and of deriving His existence from the Supreme, He is parted again from Him by the characteristic of not subsisting as only-begotten from the Father (�� )�� (Against Eunomius 1.22; NPNF2 5.61 modified).

Basil of Caesarea is succinct and direct: ��Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten (��), for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only-Begotten (�� )�� (Letter 125; NPNF2 8.195).

Try rendering �� as ��only�� or ��unique�� in any of these statements, and the argument would fall apart. Consider especially the last quote, the one by Basil: ��Nor do we speak of the Holy Ghost as begotten, for by the tradition of faith we have been taught one Only One (or one Unique One).�� Such a translation makes nonsense of Basil��s argument and would in fact be heretical, because the Son is not the only one or the only unique one (the Father and the Spirit are unique as well). But if we render �� as ��Only Begotten,�� it makes perfect sense. Basil is saying we do not speak of the Holy Spirit as ��begotten�� because there is only one ��Only Begotten,�� the Son. Neither the Father nor the Spirit is begotten. Only the Son is begotten.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 31, 2016 11:04

�� in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 2

The Meaning of Monogen��s as an Ordinary Greek Word��According to the Church Fathers

I begin by observing that Giles says the church fathers took �� to mean ��unique�� as we would expect if modern discussion on the meaning of this word are correct.�� But as Giles acknowledges, this is ��modern discussion.�� Why would we expect the church fathers to follow a modern scholarly assessment of an ancient Greek word? It wasn��t until the late 19th century (B. F. Westcott) and mid-20th century (Francis Marion Warden and Dale Moody) that scholars began to question the translation ��only begotten�� in the New Testament. More recently Gerard Pendrick has done so in a significant 1995 article published in New Testament Studies. Prior to the late 19th century, at least since the time of Jerome and even earlier, the term in its five Johannine instances was rendered into Latin as unigenitus (��only begotten��). Even the revisionist scholars (Westcott, Warden, and Moody) admitted that at least in the fourth-century church fathers, if not by the Council of Nicaea (325) definitely by the First Council of Constantinople (381), the term �� began to take on the meaning ��only begotten�� in Greek patristic literature. Pendrick thinks the shift from ��unique�� to ��only begotten�� began much earlier, in the writings of the second century apologists. Just because most modern scholars think �� meant ��unique�� in extra-biblical Greek prior to the New Testament and in the New Testament itself, that does not warrant the assumption that that is what it meant for Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. This is just an initial observation that doesn��t prove Giles wrong, but it throws doubt on his working assumption.

But let��s dig in and see what the Greek-speaking church fathers actually said they believed was the meaning of ��. We don��t have to speculate. They explicitly addressed the question. Now, they may be wrong in their own assessment of their language. That��s not out of the realm of possibility. Native speakers sometimes misunderstand their own language, especially if they have an agenda, and the church fathers certainly had an agenda. But we aren��t addressing the meaning of �� in Greek. We are addressing what the church fathers thought it meant.

Well, the Greek-speaking church fathers routinely defined the term as meaning ��only begotten�� with the implication of having no siblings. When they said this, they even made it clear that they were referring to ��common usage�� apart from its specialized use in Trinitarian discourse. For example, here is what Basil of Caesarea says about the term:

��In common usage �� does not designate the one who comes from only one person [as the Arian Eunomius wanted to argue], but the one who is the only one begotten (�� ) ��. If your [Eunomius��s] opinions were to prevail, it would be necessary for the entire world to re-learn this term, that the name ��only-begotten�� does not indicate a lack of siblings but the absence of a pair of procreators�� (Basil, Against Eunomius 2.20-21; PG 29.616-17; FoC 122, pp. 159, 161).

It should not go unnoticed that Basil and Eunomius agreed that the -�� stem means ��begotten.�� Their disagreement was over the meaning of the ��- stem. Eunomius wanted to take it to mean ��of one�� so that �� would then mean ��begotten from only one person.�� But Basil said ��the entire world�� knows �� means ��the only one begotten,�� with the implication that the person so designated has no siblings.

The church fathers understood the word ��, as an ordinary Greek word, as involving notions of ��begetting,�� procreation,�� and ��offspring.�� It didn��t just mean ��unique�� but ��only child.�� This can be seen in their analysis of two contrasting biblical titles for Christ, �� (��only begotten��) and �� (��firstborn��). The church fathers thought �� carried the implication of not having any siblings, and as therefore contradictory with the term ��, which does imply siblings because the firstborn is first in a series. The two terms are contradictory because you can��t be both ��only begotten�� and ��firstborn.�� If you are the firstborn, that means you have siblings, and therefore you aren��t an only child. Here are two quotes where the church fathers say just that:

��The term �� is used where there are no brethren, but �� because of brethren�� (Athanasius, Against the Arians 2.62; NPNF2 4.382).

��Who does not know how great is the difference in signification between the term �� and ��? For �� implies brethren, and �� implies that there are no other brethren. Thus the �� is not ��, for certainly �� is the first-born among brethren, while he who is �� has no brother; for if he were numbered among brethren he would not be only-begotten�� (Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius 2.7-8; NPNF2 5.112; Refutatio confessionis Eunomii ��76 in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 2, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1960]).

Of course, the New Testament does apply both terms to Christ, so the church fathers had to deal with this apparent contradiction. They resolved it by arguing that the term �� (��only begotten��) is applicable to the Son absolutely, as he is in himself, apart from creation and new creation, while the title �� (��firstborn��) is applicable to the Son relatively, as the ��firstborn of all creation�� (Col 1:15), ��the firstborn from the dead�� (Col 1:18), ��the firstborn among many brethren�� (Rom 8:29), that is, as he exists, not absolutely and immanently, but in relation to creation and new creation. This argument is made by Athanasius (Against the Arians 2.62-64; NPNF2 4.382-83) and Gregory of Nyssa (On Christian Perfection to the Monk Olympios, in Gregorii Nysseni Opera, vol. 8.1, ed. Jaeger [Leiden: Brill, 1963], pp. 200-202).

But the point at present is not how they resolved the apparent contradiction, but the fact that they thought it was an apparent contradiction in the first place. The apparent contradiction arose from what to them were the lexical realities of the meanings of these two words: �� (��only begotten��) and �� (��firstborn��).

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 30, 2016 16:08

�� in the Church Fathers: A Response to Kevin Giles, Part 1

Introduction

As the title suggests, I��m beginning a series of blog posts interacting with Kevin Giles on the topic of ��, a Greek word that is used five times in the New Testament with reference to Christ (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and has traditionally been rendered ��only begotten.�� Significantly, the original Creed of Nicaea (325) uses the word: ��We believe �� in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father.�� The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (381) also uses the word, but places it in a different location. The term is also applied to the Son hundreds upon hundreds of times in the writings of the Greek-speaking church fathers. Here are the results of performing searches on the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) database on a number of ecclesiastical writers, ranked by the number of times the word occurs in their writings:

Ecclesiastical Writer

��

Dates

TLG #

Cyril of Alexandria

981

d. 444

4090

Gregory of Nyssa

643

c. 330��395

2017

John Chrysostom

465

c. 347��407

2062

Theodoret of Cyrrhus

351

c. 393��460

4089

Didymus the Blind

346

c. 313��398

2102

Eusebius of Caesarea

340

c. 260��340

2018

Epiphanius of Salamis

304

c. 315��403

2021

Athanasius

287

c. 296��373

2035

Basil of Caesarea

281

c. 330��379

2040

Origen

126

c. 185��254

2042

Cyril of Jerusalem

89

c. 315��387

2110

Gregory Nazianzen

27

329��389

2022

Dates from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.)
TLG # = the TLG author # (an arbitrary 4-digit unique identifier for each author)
The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae is based at the University of California, Irvine, and is a database of literary Greek from Homer to the fall of Constantinople (www.tlg.uci.edu).

The current scholarly consensus is that the term, as used in extra-biblical Greek and in the New Testament, simply means ��unique�� or ��only one of his kind,�� and does not mean ��only begotten.�� I am currently engaged in detailed research that would suggest that this is not entirely correct. I argue that while it is used with the meaning ��unique�� in certain contexts, the most basic meaning is ��only begotten�� in extra-biblical Greek. I further believe that ��only begotten�� is the best rendering of the word in the five Johannine passages. Dr. Giles disagrees with me on this point, being convinced of the scholarly consensus with respect to the New Testament usage.

However, that is not the point I am engaging here. In this series of blog posts, I want to interact with his claim that ��unique�� is also the meaning of the term as used by the church fathers (primarily Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers��Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, and Gregory of Nyssa) and in the Nicene Creed. It is one thing to say �� means ��unique�� in the New Testament. That claim is widely accepted, and I completely understand why Dr. Giles believes it, even though I am currently engaging in scholarship to call it into question. But it is another thing to say �� means ��unique�� in the fourth-century church fathers as well. This incredible claim demands a response.

Dr. Giles is an Anglican minister in Australia, who has written a couple of books expounding the orthodox, classical doctrine of the Trinity and critiquing ��eternal functional subordination�� (EFS) as advocated by men like Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware: The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate (IVP, 2002), and Jesus and the Father: Modern Evangelicals Reinvent the Doctrine of the Trinity (Zondervan, 2006). I share his discomfort with EFS or ��eternal relations of authority and submission�� (ERAS) in the immanent Trinity (although I don��t share his perspective that EFS is heretical). More recently, he has also written a defense of the historic belief that the Father eternally begets (or generates) the Son in a book titled The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology (IVP Academic, 2012). Chapter 8 of this more recent book includes a critique of EFS.

Where does ��only begotten�� come in? Well, at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in San Antonio, Grudem and Ware publicly announced to a very large audience that they now affirm the eternal generation (EG) of the Son. (It isn��t too often you hear a scholar publicly say they were wrong in views they had previously published and that they��re planning to revise their books. That takes humility, courage, and integrity!) This occurred on the first day of ETS, Tuesday, November 15, 2016. There was a panel of four speakers: two opposed to EFS (Giles and Millard Erickson) and two in favor (Grudem and Ware). Grudem held up a paper I had written defending the traditional rendering of �� as ��only begotten�� and said it played a role in changing his mind on EG. My paper is set to be published in a forthcoming multi-author book edited by Fred Sanders and Scott Swain titled Retrieving Eternal Generation (Zondervan, 2017).

Since many were inquiring about that paper, I wanted to make the substance of the argument available prior to its official publication. So I wrote a brief pr��cis titled ��Let��s Go Back to ��Only Begotten�� (published by the Gospel Coalition on November 23, 2016). This sparked a response by Giles that he published on Scot McKnight��s Jesus Creed blog on December 13.

In response to me, Giles argues that

��the word �� is not the biblical basis for the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son, and for this reason how the word �� is translated into English is, as far as the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son is concerned, of little importance.��

He adds:

��In preparing to write my book, The Eternal Generation of the Son: Maintaining Orthodoxy in Trinitarian Theology, I read carefully Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers who developed the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son in opposition to the teaching of the ��Arians�� of various kinds. I discovered that the Nicene fathers used the word, ��, to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, making the point that what made him unique above all else was that he was eternally begotten. They never appeal to this word as the basis for their doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son. The Nicene Creed of 381 reflects exactly the same thing.��

This is consistent with his book, where he stated that the Greek-speaking fathers

��do not use [��] or the texts in which it is found as textual support for the eternal generation of the Son. For them, as we would expect if modern discussions on the meaning of this word are correct, the word was understood to mean ��unique�� or ��only�� (The Eternal Generation of the Son, p. 81 n44).

To summarize, Giles makes a number of related claims:

The consensus of modern New Testament scholarship is that �� means ��unique,�� not ��only begotten,�� and this modern interpretation is correct not only for the New Testament but also for the Greek-speaking church fathers.
Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers used the word ��to speak of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ,�� not to affirm that he is the ��only begotten�� Son.
They never appealed to this word, or to the texts in which it is found in the New Testament, to provide exegetical support for EG. Their biblical warrant for EG lay elsewhere.
Even in the Nicene Creed, the word �� means ��unique,�� not ��only begotten.��

I disagree with each of these points. The focus of this series of blog posts is not to engage the debate over �� in extra-biblical Greek or in the New Testament. My concern is with the fourth-century Greek-speaking fathers, especially Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers. In the series of posts to follow, I will provide plenty of evidence from their writings showing that Giles is simply wrong to read the modern consensus of New Testament scholarship that �� means ��unique�� back into the fourth century.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on December 30, 2016 08:02

My SBL Paper on November 24, 2105

Next week, I will be giving a paper at the SBL Annual Meeting in Atlanta. It will be in the Greek Bible Section titled The Afterlives of Greek Isaiah on Tuesday, November 24, 2015. Here is the title and abstract:

��Israel��s Justification in Greek Isaiah and Paul��s Doctrine of Justification in Romans��

It is well known that Paul made significant use of Isaiah in his Epistle to the Romans. Depending on the criteria, there are about 23 marked or unmarked quotations of Isaiah in Romans. Several major monographs have explored Paul��s use of Isaiah in Romans in depth, especially those by Florian Wilk and J. Ross Wagner. Wagner especially has shown that Paul��s use of Isaiah is particularly based on Greek Isaiah. While there are a number of Isaianic themes of importance to Paul (e.g., the language of ��good news,�� the inclusion of the Gentiles), my interest in this paper is the theme of Israel��s justification. ��Righteousness�� words (dikaiosyne, dikaios, adikos, adikia, dikaio��, to dikaion, and dikai��s) occur 95 times in Greek Isaiah, and many of the occurrences are in connection with the theme of the eschatological restoration and justification of Israel. It was Israel��s lack of righteousness that triggered the Babylonian captivity. As a result, Israel was put to shame in the sight of the nations. But God promises that he will comfort his people, remove their disgrace, restore them to the land, and cause them to become again a righteous people. The vindication or justification of Israel will take place by a judicial act that includes both God��s judgment upon the nations that oppressed them and God��s causing the righteousness of his people to shine forth. Then shame will be turned into glory. In this paper, I survey that theme, and show that it is the backdrop of several passages in Greek Isaiah quoted by Paul in Romans in connection with his teaching on the justification of the ungodly: Isa 28:16 + 8:14 (Rom 9:33; 10:11); Isa 45:23 (Rom 14:11); Isa 50:8 (Rom 8:33-34); Isa 53:11-12 (Rom 4:25); Isa 59:7-8 (Rom 3:15-17); Isa 59:20-21 + 27:9 (Rom 11:26-27). This suggests that Paul��s reading of Greek Isaiah informed his doctrine of justification in Romans.

After submitting the abstract and actually writing the paper, I realized I had to narrow it a bit, so I focus on Paul��s use of Isa 45:23-25; 50:8; 53:11-12; and 59:7-8. The first three passages are crucial because they use the verb dikaio�� (��to justify��). ��By the Lord shall they be justified, and all the offspring of the sons of Israel shall be glorified in God�� (Isa 45:25, not quoted by Paul, but he does quote v 23 a few verses earlier).

Occurrences of ��- Words in Greek Isaiah

Lemma

Part of Speech

#

��

Noun

52

��

Adjective

14

��

Adjective

8

��

Noun

8

��*

Verb

8

��

Substantival adjective

4

��

Adverb

1

TOTAL

95

*Focus of this paper: Isa 45:25; 50:8; 53:11

LXX Isa 59:7-8 �� Rom 3:15-17

Greek Isaiah

Romans

Isa 59:7-8 �� , �� . 8 �� .

Rom 3:15-17 �� , 16 �� , 17 �� .

LXX Isa 53:11-12 �� Rom 4:25

Greek Isaiah

Romans

Isa 53:11-12 �� , �� , �� , �� . 12 �� , �� , �� .

Rom 4:25 ... �� , 25 �� .

LXX Isa 50:8 �� Rom 8:33-34

Greek Isaiah

Romans

Isa 50:7-8 �� , �� , �� . 8 �� .

Rom 8:33-34 �� 34 �� [��] �� , �� , �� , �� .

LXX Isa 45:23 + 49:18 �� Rom 14:11

Greek Isaiah

Romans

Isa 45:23 �� , �� 24 �� , �� 25 �� , �� .

Isa 49:18 �� , �� ...

Rom 14:10-11 �� ; �� ; �� , 11 �� , �� , �� , �� , �� .

Bibliography

Ekblad, Eugene Robert, Jr. Isaiah��s Servant Poems According to the Septuagint: An Exegetical and Theological Study. CBET 23. Leuven: Peeters, 1999.

Silva, Mois��s. ��Esaias.�� Pages 823��75 in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Vorm-Croughs, Mirjam van der. The Old Greek of Isaiah: An Analysis of Its Pluses and Minuses. SBLSCS 61 Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014.

Wagner, J. Ross. Heralds of the Good News: Isaiah and Paul ��in Concert�� in the Letter to the Romans. NovTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Wilk, Florian. Die Bedeutung des Jesajabuches f��r Paulus. FRLANT 179. G��ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998.

Ziegler, Joseph. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum XIV: Isaias. G��ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on November 19, 2015 12:58

Response to Mark Jones on Faith as a ��Condition�� of Justification

Mark Jones has come to the defense of John Piper, chiding me for taking issue with Piper for what I consider to be Piper��s imprecise and confusing language regarding justification. Piper wrote in the foreword to Schreiner��s new book Faith Alone, that faith is the sole ��condition�� for ��entering a right relationship to God��Piper��s non-standard phrase for justification. He goes on to say that there are other conditions, besides faith, for attaining heaven. My post was not a ��nasty�� attack on Piper, but an expression of brotherly concern about the importance of using precise language with respect to the heart of the gospel��justification by faith alone. Jones doesn��t see any problem with Piper��s language and thinks it��s ��perfectly within the Reformed tradition.�� I am not as cocksure as Jones on this point.

I wish that Jones had linked to my original post so that readers of his blog post could be directed to my post in order to read it in full (I note that he has belatedly added the link). It makes a difference to read the one paragraph he quotes in the larger context of my entire post. In my post, after quoting Piper, I explain that, in my view, Piper��s use of confusing and non-standard language is the culprit that leads him to make these confusing statements that can, at the very least, be taken the wrong way. While it is possible to put an orthodox construction on his language, it is also possible that it betrays a sloppiness of thought and articulation that is dangerous since it relates to the heart of the gospel and the foundation of our assurance. I conclude my post by writing, ��I am confident that the intent of what Piper wrote is not far from the doctrine as the Westminster Confession articulates it, but I wish he had been more precise and clear in his terminology.��

I argued that the confusing terminology is in three areas, not just the word ��condition��: (1) Piper��s unfortunate rewording of justification as ��entering a right relationship to God,�� (2) his explanation of the role of faith in justification as that of being ��the sole condition,�� and (3) his additional statement that, while faith is the sole condition of entering a right relationship to God, there are other conditions for attaining heaven��such as perseverance and evangelical obedience.

All three of these points that I made ought to be taken together. I see them as interconnected. The first terminological modification (changing ��justification�� to ��entering a right relationship to God��) is the ��original sin�� that opens the door to the other two. If Piper had stuck to the traditional definition of justification as the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ��s righteousness (per the Westminster Confession and Catechisms), then it would have helped him to see that faith is not best understood as a ��condition�� of justification but as the means or instrument of justification. Why is that? Because if justification is the pardoning of our sins and the ��accounting and accepting�� of our persons ��as righteous ... for Christ��s sake alone�� (WCF XI.1), then it is becomes instantly clear that faith��s role in justification is simply instrumental and receptive. Faith is simply accepting, receiving, and resting in Christ and his righteousness as the righteousness by which we are accounted as righteous in the sight of God. It is not a ��condition�� in the sense of being something in us that qualifies us for justification, as evangelical obedience (apparently) qualifies us for heaven.

This, then, throws a bright light on Piper��s the third linguistic mistake (I��m trying to be as charitable as I can here!) in which he implies that, although faith is the sole condition for entering a right relationship to God, it is not the sole condition for attaining heaven. If Piper had stuck to the traditional definition of justification, this third error could have been avoided as well. For if we are accounted and accepted as righteous for Christ��s sake alone, then we are righteous, and being righteous means we are legally entitled to the reward of righteousness, namely, eternal life. To say that we need to add other conditions or qualifications would be to deny the sufficiency of Christ��s righteousness. It is to imply that Christ��s righteousness is not sufficient to qualify us to attain heaven. I am confident that Piper would disavow that implication with vehemence. My point is that his language is unclear and that he would have been able to avoid that lack of clarity if he hadn��t gotten off on the wrong track by glossing justification as ��entering a right relationship to God.�� That bad gloss is what allowed him to separate justification from being qualified to attain heaven and to imply that it is not Christ��s righteousness but our evangelical obedience that is the condition for attaining heaven.

But all of this broader context is left out in the post by Jones. Jones ignores the broader context of my post and lifts out one sentence of mine, dealing with the second terminological point: ��Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions.�� Jones is ��flabbergasted�� at this claim, and says it is ��simply false.�� He goes on quote John Owen, Stephen Charnock, Thomas Manton, and John Flavel.

To begin with, it should be pointed out that I did not claim, ��No Reformed author has ever called faith a condition of justification.�� What I said is that faith is never ��viewed,�� i.e., treated, understood, and defined, as a condition of justification. I stand by that claim. If you look at the treatment of the doctrine of justification in all of the major Reformed confessional documents, they all address the question, ��How does faith justify us in the sight of God?�� And you will find that the uniform answer they give is that faith justifies, not because of any inherent value of faith, but only as it is a receptive means or instrument. We are accounted as righteous in God sight for Christ��s sake alone, and faith is the means by which we lay hold of Christ. Here are some quotes from the principal confessions and catechisms:

��Why do you say that you are righteous by faith alone? Not because I please God by virtue of the worthiness of my faith, but because the satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ alone are my righteousness before God, and because I can accept it and make it mine in no other way than by faith alone�� (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 61).

��We do not mean, properly speaking, that it is faith itself that justifies us��for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness�� (Belgic Confession XXII).

��Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification�� (Westminster Confession XI.2).

��How doth faith justify a sinner in the sight of God? Faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God ... only as it is an instrument, by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness�� (Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 73).

��Because faith receives Christ our righteousness and attributes everything to the grace of God in Christ, on that account justification is attributed to faith, chiefly because of Christ and not therefore because it is our work�� (Second Helvetic Confession XV).

Conspicuously, in the above quotes, faith is never said to have efficacy to justify on the ground that it is a condition of justification. The term ��condition�� is not even used, at least not when the article of justification is being discussed. (Admittedly, the term ��condition�� is used when dealing with the topic of the covenant of grace [e.g., WLC #32], but that is a separate issue. If someone wishes to make the argument, ��Faith is a condition of the covenant of grace; justification is one of the blessings of the covenant of grace; therefore, faith is a condition of justification,�� they will need to explain to me why repentance, perseverance, and evangelical obedience are not also conditions of justification.)

Nor did I say that faith could never be called a ��condition�� of justification in an orthodox sense. I think it could be, as long as it simply means that one must believe in order to be justified (e.g., ��we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ,�� Gal 2:16). I am not surprised that Jones can pull out some quotes where orthodox Reformed theologians use the language of condition, but if they are orthodox, they explain it and make clear that what they mean by ��condition�� is nothing more than the necessity of faith in order to be justified.

I want to deal now with the Flavel quotes. Jones fails to mention this, but the treatise by Flavel that he cites was Vindiciarum Vindex, or, A Refutation of the Weak and Impertinent Rejoinder of Mr. Philip Cary. It wasn��t a treatise on justification but was part of a debate over paedobaptism. Philip Cary, the credobaptist, had argued that the new covenant or the gospel covenant is absolute or unconditional��a position that was even held by some paedobaptists, most notably John Owen. Flavel disagrees and argues that the gospel covenant is conditional upon faith. I happen to agree with the paedobaptist (Flavel) against the credobaptist (Cary) in this particular debate. Flavel��s entire discussion of the various meanings of the word ��condition�� has to do with paedo- vs. credo-baptist debates over covenant theology, e.g., questions like whether the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision was the same in substance with the new or gospel covenant, and whether the new or gospel covenant is conditional. The precise question of the role of faith (instrumental vs. conditional) in justification is not directly in view (although justification is mentioned several times and Flavel even attaches an appendix critiquing the hyper-Calvinist doctrine of eternal justification, but, again, only to argue that faith is a condition in the obvious sense that it is necessary for justification).

So much for Flavel. What about the other quotes? The Charnock quote is one isolated sentence in a sermon on the holiness of God; the topic of justification is not at hand. Charnock provides no elaboration, so one cannot be sure what he intended. I could not locate the Manton quote. That leaves the Owen quote. And guess what? In the context, Owen is not really endorsing the position that faith is best defined as the condition of justification. The sentence in bold in the block quote below is the one quoted by Jones. But Jones takes that sentence out of context against the drift of Owen��s whole argument, which is that faith is best viewed as the instrument rather than the condition of justification. We receive the righteousness of Christ by the instrumentality of faith. Faith is the merely that by which we receive, apprehend, lay hold of, and appropriate Christ��s imputed righteousness.

��Some do plead that faith is the condition of our justification, and that otherwise it is not to be conceived of. As I said before, so I say again, I shall not contend with any man about words, terms, or expressions, so long as what is intended by them, is agreed upon. And there is an obvious sense wherein faith may be called the condition of our justification. For no more may be intended thereby, but that it is the duty on our part which God requireth, that we may be justified. And this the whole scripture beareth witness unto. Yet this hindereth not, but that as unto its use, it may be the instrument whereby we apprehend or receive Christ and his righteousness. But to assert it the condition of our justification, or that we are justified by it as the condition of the new covenant, so as from a pre-conceived signification of that word, to give it another use in justification exclusive of that pleaded for, as the instrumental cause thereof, is not easily to be admitted; because it supposeth an alteration in the substance of the doctrine itself.

��The word is no where used in the scripture in this matter; which I argue no farther, but that we have no certain rule or standard to try and measure its signification by. Wherefore it cannot first be introduced in what sense men please, and then that sense turned into argument for other ends. For thus on a supposed concession, that it is the condition of our justification, some heighten it into a subordinate righteousness, imputed unto us, antecedently as I suppose, unto the imputation of the righteousness of Christ in any sense, whereof it is the condition. And some who pretend to lessen its efficiency or dignity in the use of it in our justification say, it is only causa sine qua non, which leaves us at as great an uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this condition as we were before. Nor is the true sense of things at all illustrated, but rather darkened by such notions�� (The Works of John Owen, vol. 5, p. 113).

The terminology of ��condition�� is clearly problematic for Owen. He��s not comfortable with it. He��s squirming all over the place. He allows that it can be used in a harmless sense, but he points out that the word ��condition�� is nowhere used in Scripture in relation to justification. The term does not help but rather darkens understanding. Once you speak of faith as a condition of justification, faith can all too easily be heightened into a subordinate righteousness. Those who try to soften the term condition by saying it is only a causa sine qua non do not add clarity but only leave us with just as much uncertainty as to the nature and efficacy of this so-called condition. He��ll allow someone to say faith is the ��condition�� of justification, but only if ��condition�� is understood as synonymous with ��instrument��!

All of that is to say, the best of the Reformed tradition generally thinks it is better and safer to define faith as the instrument of justification rather than as the condition of justification. The fact that faith is the instrument of justification follows from the reality of what justification is��not entering a right relationship to God, but receiving the gift of the imputed righteousness of Christ, as Owen argued:

��Whereas therefore the righteousness wherewith we are justified is the gift of God, which is tendered unto us in the promise of the gospel, the use and office of faith being to receive, apprehend, or lay hold of and appropriate this righteousness, I know not how it can be better expressed than by an instrument, nor by what notion of it more light of understanding may be conveyed unto our minds .... If we are justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which faith alone apprehends and receives, it will not be denied but that it is rightly enough placed as the instrumental cause of our justification�� (Ibid., p. 112).

I am willing to grant that Jones is right on the narrow point that some Reformed theologians did on occasion use the language of faith as a ��condition�� of justification. But that doesn��t contradict my claim in context. My claim in context was that Reformed theology never ��viewed�� (i.e., defined) faith as a condition in Piper��s sense, as one condition that can be numbered along with other conditions including evangelical obedience, with faith being the sole condition for entering a right relationship to God and evangelical obedience being the condition for attaining heaven. That is the larger context that I was dealing with in my original post.

I also grant that Jones is entirely correct that the term ��condition�� can be used in a variety of senses (antecedent, consequent, sine qua non, essential, organic, and I am sure the scholastics could come up with more!), and that, depending on which sense is in view, the statement ��faith is the condition of justification�� can be intended in an orthodox sense. But I would urge people, if they use it, to immediately clarify the sense in which they are using it. Preferably, we should not use it at all. It��s too ambiguous, as Owen said. We should use instrument instead��just as the Westminster Confession does. Besides, if faith is an instrument, then it is in some sense a condition. But not every condition is a mere instrument. So ��instrument�� is better because it is more precise.

I��d like to conclude with another quote from Owen on why it is dangerous to ascribe to faith the efficiency of a condition with respect to justification, if that conditionality is not clearly defined and circumscribed in purely instrumental terms:

��For we ascribe the efficiency of an instrument herein unto our own faith; when they say only that it is a condition, or causa sine qua non, of our justification. But I judge that grave and wise men ought not to give so much to the defense of the cause they have undertaken, seeing they cannot but know indeed the contrary. For after they have given the specious name of a condition, and a causa sine qua non, unto faith, they immediately take all other graces and works of obedience into the same state with it, and the same use in justification; and after this seeming gold hath been cast for a while into the fire of disputation, there comes out the calf of a personal inherent righteousness, whereby men are justified before God, virtute foederis evangelici, for as for the righteousness of Christ to be imputed unto us, it is gone into heaven, and they know not what is become of it�� (Ibid., p. 106).

In no way am I claiming that Piper is guilty of denying the imputed righteousness of Christ, but it is worrisome that his faulty gloss of justification as ��entering a right relationship to God�� fails to mention it.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 16, 2015 12:58

The Unbreakable Golden Chain of Salvation

... according to the Westminster Confession of Faith, based on the teaching of Scripture, especially Romans 8:28-30 and Ephesians 1:3-14. ��I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ�� (Philippians 1:6). Such comfort, such assurance.

III.6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath 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.

VIII.1. It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, his only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Savior of his church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom he did from all eternity give a people, to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.

X.1. 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 ....

XI.1. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone ....

XII.1. All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption ..., are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by him, as by a father: yet never cast off, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation.

XIII.1. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ��s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them ....

XVII.1. They, whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.

XVII.2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father; upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ, the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them, and the nature of the covenant of grace: from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 13, 2015 20:57

Faith Alone: John Owen and John Murray

I love these two quotes articulating with power and absolute clarity the wonderful truth that we, as sinners, are justified (reckoned as righteous in the sight of God) by faith alone.

John Owen

The first quote, by John Owen, could have been written today. It certainly needs to be heard today. He points out that many, out of pious anti-antimomian motives, err when they include works in the definition of the faith by which we are justified. Watch out for that venomous snake in the grass! We are not justified by ��obedient faith,�� as Norman Shepherd would say, but by faith alone. In its role as the instrument by which we are justified, faith excludes even the good works that are the necessary fruit of faith. Let that sink in.

��It hath been said, that faith is the receiving of Christ as a priest, and a lord, to be saved by him, and ruled by him. This sounds excellent well. Who is so vile that, endeavoring to believe, is not willing to be ruled by Christ, as well as saved by him? A faith that would not have Christ to be Lord to rule us, is that faith alone which James rejects. He that would be saved by Christ, and not ruled by him, shall not be saved by him at all. We are to receive a whole Christ, not by halves;��in regard of all his offices, not one or another. This sounds well, makes a fair show, and there is, in some regard, truth in what is spoken; but ��Latet anguis in herba�� [a snake is hiding in the grass],��Let men explain themselves, and it is this: The receiving of Christ as a king, is the yielding obedience to him. But that subjection is not a fruit of the faith whereby we are justified, but an essential part of it; so that there is no difference between faith and works or obedience, in the business of justification, both being alike a condition of it �� Others at length mince the matter, and say, that faith and works have the same respects to our justification that shall be public and solemn at the last day, at the day of judgment �� How they will justify themselves at the day of judgment for troubling the peace of the saints of God, and shaking the great fundamental articles of the Reformation, I know not �� It is true, then, we acknowledge, that faith receives Christ as a lord, as a king; and it is no true faith that will not, doth not do so, and put the soul upon all that obedience which he, as the captain of our salvation, requires at our hands. But faith, as it justifies (in its concurrence, whatever it be, thereunto), closeth with Christ for righteousness and acceptation with God only. And, give me leave to say, it is in that act no less exclusive of good works than of sin. It closeth with Christ in and for that, on account whereof he is our righteousness, and for and by which we are justified�� (John Owen, ��The Strength of Faith,�� Works, vol. IX, pp. 24-26)

John Murray

The second quote, by John Murray, passionately spells out exactly why it is that we are justified by faith alone. Other graces or fruits of faith do not have that unique quality of being utterly receptive and extraspective, looking away from ourselves to Christ and his righteousness. Beware of cutting the throat of the sinner��s confidence by inserting works into the definition of faith!

��The differentiating quality of faith is that the nature and function of faith is to rest completely upon another. It is this resting, confiding, entrusting quality of faith that makes it appropriate to and indeed exhibitive of the nature of justification. It is consonant with its source as the free grace of God, with its nature as a forensic act, and with its ground as the righteousness of Christ. Faith terminates upon Christ and his righteousness and it makes mention of his righteousness and of his only. This is the Saviour��s specific identity in the matter of justification��he is the Lord our righteousness. And in resting upon him alone for salvation it is faith that perfectly dovetails justification in him and his righteousness. Other graces or fruits of the Spirit have their own specific functions in the application of redemption, but only faith has as its specific quality the receiving and resting of self-abandonment and totality of self-commitment. This is both the stumbling-block and the irresistible appeal of the gospel. It is the stumbling-block to self-righteousness and self-righteousness is the arch-demon of antithesis to grace. It is the glory of the gospel for the contrite and brokenhearted��if we put any other exercise of the human spirit in the place of faith, then we cut the throat of the only confidence a sinner conscious of his lost and helpless condition can entertain. Justification by faith is the jubilee trumpet of the gospel because it proclaims the gospel to the poor and destitute whose only door of hope is to roll themselves in total helplessness upon the grace and power and righteousness of the Redeemer of the lost. In the words of one, ��cast out your anchor into the ocean of the Redeemer��s merits.�� Faith is always joined with repentance, love, and hope. A faith severed from these is not the faith of the contrite and therefore it is not the faith that justifies. But it is faith alone that justifies because its specific quality is to find our all in Christ and his righteousness�� (John Murray, Collected Writings, vol. 2, pp. 216-17).

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 09, 2015 14:40

Faith Alone and the Importance of Precise Terminology

John Piper��s foreword to Tom Schreiner��s new book Faith Alone (which looks like an outstanding book, by the way), has been making waves, mainly because he (Piper) wrote:

The stunning Christian answer [to the question, ��How can a person be right with God?��] is: sola fide��faith alone. But be sure you hear this carefully and precisely: He says right with God by faith alone, not attain heaven by faith alone. There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.

The main problem, as I see it, is that Piper is using confusing and non-standard language, and this leads to lack of clarity.

The first confusing terminology is his language of ��entering a right relationship with God.�� From the context, Piper seems to be using this phrase as a gloss for ��justification.�� But as a gloss for justification it is not very helpful. It leads to confusion and mixing things with justification that are distinct from it. Justification is simply the forgiveness of sins (negative removal of guilt) and the imputation of Christ��s righteousness (positive reckoning as righteous). Entering into a right relationship with God is not part of it. Entering into a right relationship with God is a consequence of being forgiven and reckoned as righteous. In traditional terminology, we would speak of this right relationship as our adoption as God��s children and reconciliation with God (or peace with God). Justification is a purely forensic verdict in which we are freed from guilt and are reckoned as righteous before God. To be sure, there is a relational dimension to salvation, but it is the result or consequence of justification, not to be confused with justification itself. Paul made that distinction when he wrote, ��Having therefore been justified (dikai��thentes, aorist participle) by faith, we have peace with God�� (Rom 5:1).

The second confusing terminology is his use of the word ��conditions.�� He wants to say that faith is the sole condition of entering into a right relationship with God. But if we replace ��entering into a right relationship with God�� with ��being justified,�� then it is not true that faith is the sole condition, since faith is related to justification not as a condition but as a means. Faith has never been viewed as a condition of justification in Reformed theology or in the Reformed confessions. Paul himself never uses the prepositional phrase dia + accusative, ��justified because of faith.�� Instead he uses dia + genitive or ek + genitive, ��justified by faith.�� Faith is not the ground of justification, but the means by which we are justified, by which we rest upon Christ and receive the gift of his imputed righteousness. Faith is a purely passive and receptive instrument. It is an open hand that receives the gift. In this it is the exclusive means or instrument by which we are justified, since we do not receive the righteousness of Christ by works of obedience, even by Spirit-wrought works of obedience. And even faith itself is a sovereign gift of God. So it is simply wrong to say that faith is the condition of justification.

Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (The Westminster Confession of Faith [WCF] XI.1).

Piper goes on to say, ��There are other conditions for attaining heaven, but no others for entering a right relationship to God. In fact, one must already be in a right relationship with God by faith alone in order to meet the other conditions.��

This is terribly confusing. If we have been justified by faith, we are righteous in God��s sight and therefore entitled to heaven. Christ��s righteousness is sufficient. We do not need to meet any other conditions for attaining heaven. If we have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, then we are legally righteous in the eyes of God and qualified to attain heaven. ��Those whom he justified, he also glorified�� (Rom 8:30). If not, then we would be saying that Christ��s righteousness does not merit heaven.

I think what Piper is attempting to say is that faith is the sole instrument of receiving the righteousness of Christ, and if we have true faith, that faith will manifest itself in a changed life as we bring forth fruits of evangelical obedience. If that is what he is trying to say, then I fully agree. The Westminster Confession, again, says it well:

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love (WCF XI.2).

In this sense, it is true to say that no one who enters heaven will be devoid of good works and evangelical obedience. But these things have no role to play as means or conditions of attaining heaven. They are the fruit and evidence of saving faith. We do not attain heaven by means of or on the condition of producing the fruit of faith. We attain heaven by being reckoned as righteous in Christ by faith. But faith is never alone ��in the person�� who is justified, ��but is ever accompanied�� with its fruits.

It is important to be precise and clear when explaining the gospel. I am confident that the intent of what Piper wrote is not far from the doctrine as the Westminster Confession articulates it, but I wish he had been more precise and clear in his terminology.

View more on Charles Lee Irons's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 09, 2015 14:12