Tomorrow, 25 November, is the feast of St Catherine the Great Martyr of Alexandria (ἡ Ἁγία Αἰκατερίνη ἡ Μεγαλομάρτυς της Ἀλεξάνδρειας, hē Hagia Aikaterinē hē Megalomartys tēs Alexandreias). It is also the commemoration of Isaac Watts, famous hymnwriter, in the Church of England calendar (and surely those of other churches too).

13th-century icon of St Catherine from Mt Sinai

Popularly, Catherine is associated with her eponymous wheel that makes it gyratory appearance at fireworks displays, symbolising the first attempted means of her martyrdom. Her legend tells of a young virgin woman who contended in dialogue with the pagan Emperor Maximinus Daia (308–13), successfully converting to Christianity his wife and courtiers, countering their philosophical arguments. The frustrated emperor ordered her tortured to death on the breaking wheel, which broke when she touched it, and so she was beheaded. Angels carried her body to Mt Sinai, where her tomb now lies.

The Catherine legend is problematic for a number of reasons. Although that does not mean that there is no real woman behind the legend, almost none of legend seems to be substantial. Maximinus is a hate figure in Christian history, being ruler of Syria and Egypt and accused of restarting the persecutions against Christians after Galerius, his adoptive uncle, had put an end to Diocletian’s persecutions. Maximinus was also part of the post-Diocletianic struggle for power opposing the party of Constantine (considered the victor of Christendom). It makes sense to see the Catherine legend in this political atmosphere. Surely, there must have been martyrdoms in Alexandria in this period.

Poster for Alejandro Amenábar's 'Agora'

However, the legend seems to have accreted another similar, yet quite opposite, legend: the legend of Hypatia (Ὑπατία). Hypatia lived in Alexandria from the late fourth century, dying in 415. She was a brilliant philosopher of the Neoplatonic tradition, skilled in logic, maths and astronomy. She taught in Alexandria, numbering a future bishop as one of her students. Problematically for the Christian community of the city, she was a pagan. A power struggle for the city was taking place between its bishop Cyril and its prefect Orestes. A mob of monks from the Nitrian Desert had previously attacked Orestes, injuring him. Hypatia was believed to be using her influence as a highly respected professor in favour of Orestes. Believing this, the Nitrian monks, led by Peter the Reader, surrounded Hypatia’s carriage, pulled her out, stripped her and dragged her through the streets. Accounts of her death at the hands of the monks have been variously dramatised in disturbingly sadistic detail. Socrates Scholasticus, a Christian historian of the fifth century, has a sympathetic account of her brutal murder, clearly dismayed by the action of his coreligionists. The legend of Hypatia, however, became powerful anti-Christian propaganda in the hands of the dwindling old Graeco-Roman aristocracy and educated elite. She has remained an icon of reason against the assaults of intolerance and religious extremism. The end of the GW Bush regime in the United States was perhaps as good a time as any to revisit Hypatia, as done in film Ágora by Alejandro Amenábar, with Rachel Weisz as our 21st-century Hypatia.

I can understand the Catherine legend having much to do with guilt-fuelled counter-propaganda against the embarrassing Hypatia legend. It is certainly a disgusting blot on the church if we are guilty of rewriting history to turn our shame into a symbol of our suffering under persecution. Perhaps more sad is the daily severe discrimination met by today’s Christian community in Egypt, the Copts.

I don’t know if it counts for anything, but 25 November is also 29 Hathor in the Coptic calendar, and the height of the month named for the goddess Hathor.

Isaac Watts

The story of Isaac Watts is over a millennium away from the stories of Catherine and Hypatia. Born in another great port city, Southampton, in 1674, his father was twice imprisoned for holding to nonconformist religious practices: he was not a member of the state church, the Church of England. The Act of Uniformity of 1662 had put severe constraints on those who chose to worship in manner not in accordance with that of the state church. Although showing great academic promise, Watts was unable to study at Oxbridge due to his refusal to accept the rules of the state church. Instead he went to an academy in Stoke Newington, that was set up for the benefit of nonconformists. Many others would have submitted in name alone to the state religion in order to progress in life, but Isaac Watts was steadfast in the independence of his belief.

Watts became a dissenting minister in Stoke Newington. While there he wrote a hugely influential work on logic, which became the official text on the matter in the Oxbridge universities that had denied him on religious grounds. He opposed the imposition of trinitarian doctrine on dissenting ministers by the movement’s conservative wing, upholding their right of each to formulate their doctrine in accord with their reason. This has lead to thoughts that he was a unitarian, something that is not apparent from his writings. Shunned and opposed in life, Isaac Watts is the Father of English Hymnody. The hundreds of hymns he wrote are a unity of passionate faith commingled with doctrinal clarity, unsurprising for a great logician perhaps. However, few in the Church of England who gladly sing When I survey the wondrous Cross or Jesus shall reign where’er the sun realise the radical man behind those words and the intolerant hatred of him and those like him by our church.

So, tomorrow, let’s celebrate Catherine and Isaac, for there is plenty to celebrate. But let us also contemplate Hypatia and Watts the rejected dissenter, better to understand our place in the history of religious intolerance.

Introduction: N. T. Wright’s New Testament Foundations for Ecclesiology

The starting point, the a priori, for any ecclesiology must be an understanding of the Church as the people of God, an eschatological community that exists for the sake of those not yet apart of said community. N.T. Wright lays out the three primary criteria that defined the church in its first few decades, it was essentially baptismal, Eucharistic and disciplined.[1] Wright continues, “The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part-time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries.”[2] The question then becomes what are the boundaries that define the people of God? How should the church understand itself and what would a definitively “charismatic” ecclesiology look like? These are the questions that will be attempted to be addressed in a brief and admittedly shallow treatment, for the sake of space.  Perhaps the two major theological voices in modern ecclesiology and ecumenism are Volf and Küng. By synthesizing these voices into a duet perhaps a definitive and constructive “charismatic” ecclesiology can be ascertained and thus expressed.  The most pressing issue to face the church over the next hundred, or so, years will most likely not be issues of morality or politics but of ecumenism and the church’s self-understanding.[3]

Volf’s Participatory Ecclesiology

Primarily, Volf wants to equate the church with the expression of charisms, “Wherever the Spirit of Christ, which as the eschatological gift anticipates God’s new creation in history, is present in it ecclesially constitutive activity, there is the church.”[4] While this does not necessarily validate the expression or it’s experiential interpretation, it does make room for otherness inside of the community (which is an idea to be explored later). Volf will go on to try and transcend the disagreement between Free Church and Episcopal models of ecclesial criteria for what constitutes a church, unfortunately his definition borders on the overly subjective and begins to side more with the Free Church suppositions.[5] He states directly, “the presence of Christ is not attested merely by the institution of office, but rather through the multidimensional confession of the entire assembly.”[6] The consequence of this statement is the striping of any Sacramentology to the foundation of mere communal confession of faith, not an objective reality.[7] While Volf’s experiment in ecclesiology is right minded and often correct in its aims, the way in which he answers key issues is at the expense of history and ecumenism for the higher church traditions. What is needed is an understanding of the activity of the Spirit that is not objective solely or subjective merely.

Acknowledging the objectivity of the Spirit’s work within the subjective experience and expression is imperative. Room must be made for the work of the Spirit to communicate objectively through otherwise subjective means. Ultimately these experiences and expressions will be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misappropriated, but that does not mean we discard or devalue them. Volf’s disdain for Episcopal authority is directly related to his witnessing its abuse in the Balkans during the late eighties and nineties.[8] What is needed, in order balance Volf, is to embrace theological otherness within the community as a charism. Ecclesiological self-understanding as the community that embodies the objectively subjective work of the Spirit is a priori to a healthy ecumenism and view of the universal as well as local church.

Hans Küng’s Pneumatological Ecclesiology

Kärkkäinen makes an observation about Küng’s ecclesiology that is important. “As a real church, the faith community is composed of sinful men and women and it exists for sinful men and women. Küng’s view comes close to that of Luther, who regarded the church as the community of sinners. Therefore, the communio sanctorum as communio peccatorum is always in need of forgiveness…”[9] This self-perception on the part of the church is essential in that it requires self-criticism, self-criticism that lends itself to a more open ecclesiology, one that makes room for otherness inside of the community. Otherness inside of the Christian community is not only a self-evident fact of the current state of world Christianity as Volf points out[10], but can also be understood as a virtue, which Küng is rightly advocating.[11] When otherness is embraced in ecclesiology, not simply in a vague superficial manner but as ontologically legitimate otherness, it demonstrates two things. First, its mimics and reveals the identity of the church as the image of the Trinity, which is the argument of Ware[12], Lossky[13] and Zizioulas[14]. Second, it shows the church in her glory as the redemptive community that accepts and embraces the strangeness of the other.  Küng argues that without this ability to embrace the otherness that exists inside of the universal church in a real way there is a loss of legitimacy, or genuineness, in the ability to embrace the otherness outside the boundaries of the community.[15]

The natural consequence of accepting otherness as ontologically legitimate in ecclesiology is the ability to not only co-exist but also to enter into dialogue through common language, dialogue that leads toward communion. The goal of any ecclesiology with any legitimacy is not simply the defense of one’s theological system or traditions, as is all too often the case[16], but toward real familial communion that recognizes one Lord and one Baptism.

Küng, not unlike Volf, is explicitly interested in defining the church in terms of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[17] Kärkkäinen notes, “Küng. . . emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God who indwells the church is no ‘obscure and nameless power’. . . but is the concrete presence of God in Christ and derivatively in the church. . . the Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”[18] Küng goes onto to exposit the “charismatic structure of the church” paying much attention to issues of ecclesiastical authority and the tension between the laity and hierarchy. [19][20] The pertinent portions of Küng’s treatment lie in his persistence toward the oneness of the Church.[21] By placing his definition of the church in strictly Pneumatological terminology, Küng proves himself light years ahead of much of his ecclesiastical colleagues, He also provides the linguistic framework for a holistic charismatic ecclesiology, one that, hopefully, places the charismatic-Pentecostal understanding of the charisms within the linguistic traditions of the historical, sacramental church.

A Proposal for a Charismatic Ecclesiology

The cardinal issue in defining a distinctly charismatic ecclesiology will be with the definition of what constitutes a charism. Charisms, almost without exception, have essentially been hijacked by the Pentecostal tradition and its subsequent offspring in the last century. Rather then accept a rather narrow definition of charismata the definition must be broadened, to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the expression of the Church that is pointing to an eschatological reality.  This understanding of charismata is supported not only by Küng[22] and Volf[23], but also Moltmann[24], Stronstad[25] and even Barth.[26] If considered seriously and examined thoroughly the broadened language defining what a charism is, and by consequence what it means, lends itself towards a mutual vocabulary between the sacramental and charismatic churches.

That which defines the meaning of a sacrament and that which defines a charism are not mutually exclusive. Both only hold meaning in an eschatological sense, and if understood as being objective within their subjective contexts because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as explored earlier), the two have a tremendous amount in common. Ultimately the classical argument about the distinction between the two has to do with the effects of each. With the sacrament being a means of grace conferred for the personal sanctification[27] of the participant and the charism being a means of grace by which the Spirit effects the work of the church through but not necessarily in the life of the participant.[28] The difference, in reality, between the two understandings? Semantics.  The commonality between the two definitions is uncanny; both are the activity of the spirit in the life of the church for salvific purposes that point toward an eschatological hope and reality caught between the “already” and “not yet.”  If the commonality is truly present between the two realities then the ecclesiological consequence is that the sacraments are to be understood as charisms and the charisms, conversely, become sacramental; the barriers between ecumenical belief, rhetoric and praxis breakdown.

Last, the church must be understood as “for the sake of the non-elect.”[29] A church ceases to be The Church when it’s charismatic/sacramental expression loses its missional presupposition and purpose.  A church is only The Church in so much that its primary self-understanding and orientation is focused on the culture and community in which it is particularly located.[30] Once this breaks down it becomes just another cult among the plethora offering personal spiritual salvation in the history of Greco-Roman mysticism.[31]

[2] Ibid. 448.

[3] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231.

[4] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. While such a definition of the church is valid, what is needed is a more thorough and yet broad understanding of a charism then Volf seems willing to consent to, which will be explored later.

[5] Ibid. 133-135.  Volf defines the ecclesiality of a church it terms of Matthew 18:20, while ideal and true, it does not constitute a complete definition of the church as it does not seem to acknowledge any sense of objectivity in the activity or experience of the community.

[6] Ibid. 152.

[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 137.

[8] Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. (New York, Anchor Books, 2002), 56.

[9] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 105.

[10] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 140-141

[11] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 230.

[12] Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 308.

[13] Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 176-177.

[14] Zizioulas, Being as Communion. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 15.  Interesting to note that all three contemporary Orthodox theologians embrace a view that theirs is the true church and yet have the ability, seeming theological mandate, to embrace those not inside the eastern church in a way beyond the typical ecumenism in the west. See Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and communion.  The Moscow statement of 1976, the Dublin statement in 1984, and the Cyprus agreed statement presented at Lambeth 2008 as “The Church of the Triune God.” Also see Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue by Kallistos Ware.

[15] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 169.

[16] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231-232.

[17]  Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 215-18.

[18] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 109.

[19] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 239-247.

[20] Ibid, The Church: Mandated in truth. Trans. Edward Quinn, (New York; The Seabury Press, 1979), 50-51.  This passage particularly deals with the interaction between the Magisterium and laity and tries to lay out a possible future interaction. An interesting read but not overly pertinent to the current discussion.

[21] Ibid, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 353.

[22] Ibid, 215-18.

[23] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129.

[24] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Trans. Margaret Kohl.  Munich: Fortress Press, 1993.  294.

[25] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 81-82

[26] O’Grady, The Church in the theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968.  250-268.

[27] The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Image Books, 2^nd edition , 1995.

[28] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 73. Stronstad makes a strong and clear argument for the purely vocational understanding of the “baptism of the Spirit.”

[29] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 334, 447.

[30] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141-147.

[31] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 152-166.

For those of you who might be interested, the video of today’s episode of Ask the Pastor is now online.  Ask the Pastor is a local show with area pastors who answer questions from callers in a panel format.

1. Audio from the main sessions of Acts 29 recent boot camp in Louisville. The theme was centered around Ambition.
2. Winfield Bevins on Letting God speak to you. For many of us, the reason we don’t hear from God is because of things we are doing.
3. 7 reasons Christians should twitter. It’s official, Jesus wants you to twitter. (Just kidding)
4. Thoughts on your life as a story. Cody is a new revolutionary and new at blogging. Give him some love and check him out. By the way, he is a really good writer. (That’s two who think so Cody)
5. Some thoughts on understanding the doctrine of the Trinity.
6. Men, lead your family well. I just discovered Dustin Neeley but have gotten so much from what he has written. He says 2 things every pastor needs to hear:  “Your church can get a new pastor, but your kids have one dad and your wife has one husband.”

We had the pleasure of photographing this beautiful baby girl who is only 4 weeks old.

With Mom & Dad we were able to capture some really special photos.

Here is just a few from their shoot:

Cathy’s class of Young Learners had fun last week learning about animals and, as we know that you are more likely to remember vocabulary if you DO something, they made these very nice pigs: 

Singing songs is another good way to learn a language. We hope you all have fun with this one:

Lyrics
Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a cow
E-I-E-I-O
With a moo moo here
And a moo moo there
Here a moo, there a moo
Everywhere a moo moo
Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-O

Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a pig
E-I-E-I-O
With a oink oink here
And a oink oink there
Here a oink, there a oink
Everywhere a oink oink
Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-O

Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a duck
E-I-E-I-O
With a quack quack here
And a quack quack there
Here a quack, there a quack
Everywhere a quack quack
Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-O

Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a horse
E-I-E-I-O
With a neigh neigh here
And a neigh neigh there
Here a neigh, there a neigh
Everywhere a neigh neigh
Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-O

Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had a lamb
E-I-E-I-O
With a baa baa here
And a baa baa there
Here a baa, there a baa
Everywhere a baa baa
Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-O

Old MACDONALD had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
And on his farm he had some chickens
E-I-E-I-O
With a cluck cluck here
And a cluck cluck there
Here a cluck, there a cluck
Everywhere a cluck cluck
With a baa baa here
And a baa baa there
Here a baa, there a baa
Everywhere a baa baa
With a neigh neigh here
And a neigh neigh there
Here a neigh, there a neigh
Everywhere a neigh neigh
With a quack quack here
And a quack quack there
Here a quack, there a quack
Everywhere a quack quack
With a oink oink here
And a oink oink there
Here a oink, there a oink
Everywhere a oink oink
With a moo moo here
And a moo moo there
Here a moo, there a moo
Everywhere a moo moo

Old MacDonald had a farm
E-I-E-I-OOOOOOO………

At EIS we believe that the best age to start learning English is 4. These pupils can expect to achieve Trinity Speaking Level 1 at age 8.

I remember the confusion I experienced understanding salvation when I first read the Bible. I had heard that whoever believes in Jesus was saved and forgiven for all their sins. But two passages of Scripture confused me as I made my way through the New Testament, the first concerned blaspheming the Holy Spirit, and the second addressed falling away.

I found this note in the Life Application Study Bible on 1John 1:9 very helpful:

1:9 Confession is supposed to free us to enjoy fellowship with Christ. It should ease our consciences and lighten our cares. But some Christians do not understand how it works. They feel so guilty that they confess the same sins over and over, and then they wonder if they might have forgotten something. Other Christians believe God forgives them when they confess, but if they died with unconfessed sins, they would be forever lost. These Christians do not understand that God wants to forgive us. He allowed his beloved Son to die just so he could pardon us. When we come to Christ, he forgives all the sins we have committed or will ever commit. We don’t need to fear that he will cast us out if we don’t keep our slate perfectly clean (John 6:37). Of course we want to continue to confess our sins, but not because we think failure to do so will make us lose our salvation. Our relationship with Christ is secure (John 6:47). Instead, we confess so we can enjoy maximum fellowship and joy with him.

True confession also involves a commitment not to continue in sin. We are not genuinely confessing our sins before God if we plan to commit the sin again and just want temporary forgiveness. We must pray for strength to defeat the temptation the next time it appears.

In addition, the following article from the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible explains that God forgives all who repent for blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Indeed God forgives all people for all sin if they repent and believe in Jesus Christ (1John 1:7). And the subsequent excerpt from the section titled The Interpreter of John Bunyan’s The Pilgrim’s Progress, looks at falling away, and explains that it is only unrepentance that prevents people from receiving God’s forgiveness. Lastly, three passages from Holy Scripture close the article.

From the note on Mark 3:28,29 of the Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible:

3:28-29 This important saying of our Lord referring to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit occurs also in Mt. 12:31,32 and Lk. 12:10. It speaks of God’s willingness and ability to forgive anyone of any sin and of all their sins put together. It is to be noted that these words of the Lord were spoken immediately after the accusation was made against Him that the works He was doing were done by the power of Beelzebul, the chief of the demons (see Mt. 12:22-30; Mk. 3:20-27). In Lk. 12:10 the Lord’s saying about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is separated from the context of the discussion concerning Jesus and Beelzebul which is given in Lk. 11:14-23. The words of Christ become far more understandable if we examine what occasioned them. What the Lord wanted to teach after this discussion regarding the activity of the devil among men was this: The devil is really not the countertype of the Lord Jesus in the plan of man’s salvation, but he is the countertype of the Holy Spirit who’s function is to convict unto repentance or reprove the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment (Jn.16:8-15). The devil counteracts this conviction. The verb that is translated as “convict” in Jn. 16:8 is elegxei which means “to bring under conviction.” The Holy Spirit here is presented as the one who brings judgment upon the devil. The two are counteracting each other. The first statement that is made by Christ is that each sin (hamartia, 266), all sins together (pasa, 3956) and blasphemy (blasphemia, 988) shall be forgiven. Mark 3:28, instead of saying every sin and blasphemy, says panta, “all sins,” the neuter plural of pas (3956). The word “blasphemies” means to say something which hurts a person. Hamartia is the inclusive name of all kinds of sins, missing the mark of any kind which God has set for man’s goal. What is stated in this first word is that God is both ready and able to forgive anything. In order to comprehend this, we must first understand the meaning of the word “forgiven,” (aphiemi, 863). It means to send away, to remove the sin from the sinner, so that he is free from it in order that the sin can never be found and charged against him before the judgment seat of God. It is not overlooking the sin, paresis(3929), but removing the sin from the sinner, aphesis (859). In this connection see note on Rom. 3:25. Secondly, observe that this verb is in the passive voice, which means any and all sins will be removed by God. God must be understood at the agent who removes the sin from the sinner. This is particularly the function of Jesus Christ who took upon Himself man’s sin. We must remember however, that no personality of the triune God acts independently, but always in complete and united agreement and cooperation with the other personalities of the Trinity. Thus the agent of “shall be forgiven,” (aphethesetai), must be understood to be God in general and Christ in particular. Thirdly, this verb “shall be forgiven” is in the punctiliar future which means that it will be taken away each time that it is necessary to do so, and it will be done repetitively. It indicates that the forgiveness which man experiences from God is available whenever man asks for it in true repentance. The objects of this forgiveness are “the sons of men” (Mk. 3:28), “men” (Mt. 12:31) and “him” (Lk. 12:10).

In Mk. 3:28 we have panta ta hamartemata, “all the sins.” The word for “sins” here is hamartemata (265) and not hamartia as in Mt. 12:31. Hamartema (singular), as all nouns ending in ma, indicates the result of an action. In this instance, hamartemata(plural) indicates sins as individual acts or the bad reputation resulting from them. The comprehensiveness of the forgiveness which God can give to the sinner is made very clear here. Not only all sin (hamartia) or sinfulness in itself, but also the individual acts of sin, as well as their ill repute brought upon the sinner, are removed. This forgiveness, however, we know from other Scriptures is not automatic, but depends on our true repentance. Every sin is forgiven by God consequent to man’s repentance, and man’s repentance is consequent to the activity of the Holy Spirit in a man’s life. If man resists that activity of the Holy Spirit, he will be unconvicted of either his sinfulness in general or his sin in particular and its ill repute; if man is unconvicted by the Holy Spirit, he will not repent. Consequently, God will not remove that sin or its effects.

Mark adds something which the other two evangelists do not in this first statement about God’s readiness and ability to forgive all sin and blasphemy: “Whatever blasphemies they may utter.” More literally this should be translated: “and blasphemies, (the reports that men will give which will hurt God’s reputation among men) whatever these blasphemies may be if they shall blaspheme.” The verb blasphemesosin, “will blaspheme,” is in the punctiliar future which means at one time and not continuously as a perpetual and uninterrupted mode of life. The Lord is here declaring that no matter how careful we are, we can never live in such a perfect way as to always cause others to believe all that they should about our God whom we represent among them. Our actions portray a different God than what our mouths proclaim. Many times we give the wrong impression to others about our Lord whom we profess to follow. These wrong reputations of God, blasphemiai, will be forgiven. We who love Him allow His Holy Spirit to convict us of our shortcomings in adequately representing God among others. As a result of that conviction, there is the removal of the harm which we have done to the testimony of God.

For a more complete understanding of what these blasphemies are which are generally spoken of by Mark, we must go to Mt. 12:32. Jesus said, “And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him.” The Son of Man here is Jesus Christ. In order for a sinner to appropriate Christ he must repent of his sin (Rom. 10:9; Jn 1:12). But, in order that we may be convicted of our sin, it is necessary for us to allow the Holy Spirit to work in us. In other words, any sin that we confess to the Lord Jesus Christ He will forgive, being able and ready to remove it from us. But, if an individual has not been convicted of sin, how can he confess Christ? And this is what makes the next statement of our Lord in Mt. 12:32 understandable: “But whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.” In Mk. 3:29 is says, “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness.” And in Lk. 12:10 we read, “But he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him.” The verb in Mt. 12:32 is eipe, the subjunctive aorist of lego (3004), which is, “to say at one particular time with full understanding of what one says.” In Mk. 3:29 it is blasphemese the aorist subjunctive of blasphemeo. In Lk. 12:10 it is blasphemesanti. This is a participial noun in the aorist, meaning the one having blasphemed in the past at one particular time or repetitively. It is used as a supposition, meaning that if at any time in the past he did blaspheme. Both words eipe, “say,” and blasphemesanti (being an aorist participle), “having blasphemed,” are indicative of the fact that this saying or blasphemy is a one-time blasphemy either once or on different occasions, and not a continuous life of blasphemy, i.e., constantly attacking the person and work of the Holy Spirit and His reputation among men. This refers first to the resistance against the Holy Spirit for His conviction unto salvation, the initial repentance of man. The declaration is that no one who resists the convicting power of the Holy Spirit can be saved. The secondary meaning is that no one, not even the believer, will be able to escape the consequence of his willful sin (hamartema) if he does not allow the Holy Spirit to convict him of these specific sins, or sinfulness in general, which has hurt God’s reputation among men (Heb. 10:26,27).

As to the relationship of the sin of blasphemy to the Holy Spirit in Mt. 12:32, we have it thus, “But whoever shall speak against (Kata, 2596) the Holy Spirit.” In Mark 3:29 we have, “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit.” In Greek it does not say “against” but “unto” (eis, 1519), which means “unto or in the face of.” In Lk. 12:10 the same preposition is used. Actually the use of this preposition, eis, makes the blasphemy worse. With kata, “against,” we may understand that the blasphemy is spoken against the Holy Sprit to others, but with the prepositioneis we may understand that the blasphemy is hurled directly in the face of the Holy Spirit. It is as if man is defying the Holy Spirit and saying, “There is nothing you can do to divert me from my present sinful course. I am going to have my own way regardless of the shame brought upon the name of Christ.” The remarks of all three evangelists differ in the last statement concerning the impossibility of forgiveness here and in the hereafter in the absence of man’s acknowledgement of his sin, and consequent convicting of the Holy Spirit. Mt. 12:32 says, “It shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come.” The verbouk aphethesetai, translated “shall not be forgiven,” is in the passive punctiliar future, which means it shall not be forgiven by God, and in particular by Jesus Christ, at any specific time in the future. Matthew says, “shall not be forgiven him,” (auto), meaning, “will not be removed from him.” Put positively, it means it will be counted against him, either in hindering him from entrance into heaven if he only had a false repentance. Mk. 3:29 says, “never has forgiveness.” A more literal translation of the Greek text is, “does not have remission unto the aeon.” Luke simply says, “shall not be forgiven” (ouk aphethesetai). Matthew, however, is the most explicit in saying, “either in this age, or in the age to come.” This is proof that the fate of man as it is determined in this age cannot be altered in the next age. If one does not submit to the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and repent, in the future, God is not going to grant that person exemption from the consequences of his failure to repent during his earthly life. The bed that one makes in his life will be the one he must lie in for eternity!

Only Mark 3:29 has the concluding phrase, “But is guilty of an eternal sin.” The Greek text says, “But guilty is he of eternal judgment.” “Guilty” in Greek is enochos (1777), from the verbenecho and enechomai (1758), “to be held fast, bound, obligated.”

Therefore, enochos means guilty and deserving of the punishment to which he is subject, as also in Mt. 26:66; Mk. 3:29; 14:64. Observe that the verb estin (eimi, 1510) is in the present tense. He is guilty right now, not will be guilty. This guilt is always upon the man who does not recognize the Holy Spirit’s conviction. There is no chance of repenting in the hereafter. If he would recognize it and seek forgiveness here, then he would not be liable at the eternal judgment.

Eternal judgment is based upon the judgment of sin on this earth. In eternity God is going to respect our will which we have exercised in the here and now. If we chose to defy God here and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit, then God is going to defy us in eternity and let us reap the results of the choice which we made. The last phrase of Mk. 3:29 in the Textus Receptus isaionibu kriseos, “eternal judgment or condemnation.” In other manuscripts, instead of kriseos, “judgment,” we havehamartematos, “individual sin or the result of sin,” which agrees with hamartemata in v. 28 in the phrase “all sins…whatever blasphemies.” Both words, krisis and hamartema, would fit perfectly. If it is krisis (2920), it refers to the ultimate judgment of God which means separating or sifting the good from the evil (Mt. 13:41-43; 49-50), but it also includes the punishment for the evil. If we take it as hamartematos, it would refer to the consequence or the result of our unconfessed and unredeemed sin on earth. The adjective aioniou (166) refers to the eternal judgment, that judgment that will have an effect upon us in the future aeon, “generation” or “age.” Since Matthew speaks both of the present generation and the future generation, this must refer to the future generation when we will be judged as to whether we believed on the Lord unto salvation and also for our walk of the life of faith. The phrase aionios krisis, “eternal judgment,” never occurs anywhere else in the N.T. The closest to it we have is in II Thess. 1:9 where it speaks of “everlasting destruction” (olethron, 3639, aioniou); and in Jude 7, “the vengeance of eternal fire,” which in Greek is “of fire,” puros (4442), “eternal,” aioniou in the genitive, “vengeance or judgment,” diken (1349), as a synonym of krisis.

As far as aionion hamartema, “eternal result of sin,” we find it nowhere else in the N.T.

This excerpt is taken from John Bunyan’s legendary classic The Pilgrim’s Progress, from the chapter titled The Interpreter:

So he took him by the hand again, and led him into a very dark room, where there sat a man in an iron cage.

Now, the man seemed very sad to look on. He sat with his eyes looking down to the ground; his hands folded together; and he sighed as if he would break his heart. Then CHRISTIAN asked, “What does this mean?” At which the INTERPRETER bid him talk with the man.

Christian. Then CHRISTIAN said to the man, “What are you?”

Backslider. The man answered, “I am what I was not once.”

Chr. What were you once?

Back. The man said, “I was once a fair and flourishing professor, both in my own eyes and also in the eyes of others: I once was, as I thought, right for the Celestial City, and even had joy at the thought that I should get there.”

“But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.” Luke 8:13

Chr. Well, but what are you now?

Back. I am now a man of despair, and am shut up in it, as in this iron cage. I cannot get out; oh now, I cannot!

Chr. But how did you come to be in this condition?

Back. I stopped watching over my soul; I laid the reins upon the neck of my lusts; I sinned against the Light of the World, and the goodness of God. I have grieved the Spirit, and he is gone. I tempted the devil, and he has come to me. I have provoked God to anger, and he has left me. I have so hardened my heart, that I cannot repent.

Then CHRISTIAN asked the INTERPRETER, “But is there no hope for such a man as this?” “Ask him,” said the INTERPRETER.

Chr. Then said CHRISTIAN, “Is there no hope. Must you be kept in the iron cage of despair?”

Back. No, none at all!

Chr. Why? The Son of the Blessed is very pitiful.

Back. I have crucified him to myself afresh;

“if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” Hebrews 6:6
I have despised his person;

“But his citizens hated him, and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We will not have this man to reign over us.’” Luke 19:14
I have despised his righteousness; I have counted his blood an unholy thing; I have done despite to the Spirit of grace:

“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:26-29
Therefore I have shut myself out of all the promises, and there now remains for me nothing but threatenings–dreadful threatenings –fearful threatenings, of certain judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour me as an adversary.

Chr. For what did you bring yourself into this condition?

Back. For the lusts, pleasures, and profits of this world; in the enjoyment of which I promised myself much delight; but now everyone of those things bites me and gnaws me like a burning worm.

Chr. But can’t you not now repent and turn?

Back. God has denied me repentance. His Word gives me no encouragement to believe: yes, he himself has shut me up in this iron cage; nor can all the men in the world let me out. Oh, eternity! eternity! how shall I grapple with the misery that I must meet with in eternity?

Inter. Then the INTERPRETER said to CHRISTIAN, “Let this man’s misery be remembered by you, and be an everlasting caution to you.”

Revelation 21:8 warns us, “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

And Ezekiel 33:10-20 informs us concerning death:

10 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the house of Israel: ‘Thus you say, “If our transgressions and our sins lie upon us, and we pine away in them, how can we then live?”’
11 “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’
12 “Therefore you, O son of man, say to the children of your people: ‘The righteousness of the righteous man shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression; as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall because of it in the day that he turns from his wickedness; nor shall the righteous be able to live because of his righteousness in the day that he sins.’
13 “When I say to the righteous that he shall surely live, but he trusts in his own righteousness and commits iniquity, none of his righteous works shall be remembered; but because of the iniquity that he has committed, he shall die.
14 “Again, when I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ if he turns from his sin and does what is lawful and right,
15 “if the wicked restores the pledge, gives back what he has stolen, and walks in the statutes of life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
16 “None of his sins which he has committed shall be remembered against him; he has done what is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
17 “Yet the children of your people say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ But it is their way which is not fair!
18 “When the righteous turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, he shall die because of it.
19 “But when the wicked turns from his wickedness and does what is lawful and right, he shall live because of it.
20 “Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not fair.’ O house of Israel, I will judge every one of you according to his own ways.”

Finally, 1John 1:7 blesses us with these words, “But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Jesus is this sort of map.

A map shows some details of the destination in mind. If you look at a country or state map it might give certain distances between each destination or place. If you look closer it might give you highways or interstates. Some maps might even give you restaurants or places of entertainment depending on the genre and style of the map. The map can only give you so much though, a map doesn’t show you the people, cars or houses, or the tv’s in the house, or maybe even what’s on the television. It doesn’t make the map any less of a map, because it is the map being the map; giving you details of the destination or goal.

Jesus, in more ways than one, points us back to God. In several places he uses the phrase “Kingdom of God”, not kingdom of Jesus. In another place he says something like this, “I am here to do the will of Him who sent me” and so on. Jesus came here to show us God in skin. Show us how to be God in our skin. How to embrace the divine within. To introduce a new way to be human. To show us how to connect with God. To be the ultimate example of God on earth for all of mankind.

Jesus essentially draws us into the circle with God. Like the Rublev’s Trinity fresco we can all come and commune with the Divine Three.

The map shows us how to get to the destination. If we spend all our time worshipping the map, and spending all of our time dissecting the map, then we might never get to the destination. Especially when the “map” is telling us to look towards the destination. Don’t get me wrong, Jesus is important. He is divine. But, in his own words, he is not the point. He leads us to the point.

Too many times people remove the phrase “I am the way, the truth, and the life” out of its context and so it seems as if Jesus was mandating some kind of magical process whereby only some can walk through this door to connect with God or receive salvation. Some stand in front of abortion clinics proclaiming this, others stand in pulpits and assert the same thing. Yet, if you begin looking at this phrase from the point of Jesus in light of the context (being a conversation between himself and Thomas) than a different message might appear that is different to the one we have been taught for so long. Again, I need to reiterate that Jesus is important and we can learn oodles of information and how to live, be and breath. He is God in skin, but his being here doesn’t end there. He was here to show us that we too could be like him in every way. Every way.

John 4:12: I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father

The Jews believed/believe everything is connected. We are all connected. Now, Jesus would have known this, He might have even filtered his words through this reality. And if this is true, then Jesus is essentially inviting everyone to also join in on the connection with God. That people could, if they wanted to, join in on the movement of love and grace and peace and so many other things that God is about and we can go to Jesus to find out what some of those things are, the journey should take us onward and closer to God…but if we want to get to the destination we should grab some friends and enjoy the journey on our way to God. If we see God as the destination as a now and not yet, then we can experience him, be like him (not just Jesus) and also meet him in his own fullness one day when…but till then, we can endorse who He is and what he stands for while we live and breath here on earth in each moment…

Yesterday I wrote a response to a Oneness Pentecostal theologian who placed emphasis on the lack of “Father-Son terminology” in the OT (see here). After I posted my thoughts I begin to ponder the hermeneutical approach to the OT exemplified both by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. Here are some of the ideas that crossed my mind that I would like to place here in order to hear responses from others:

(1) The ‘Son of God’ terminology in the OT referred primarily to a human. It was usually used of the Davidic king, but it could also be used of Israel in general. Yet Christianity, especially Johannine Christianity, placed special emphasis on ‘Son of God’ as a category of deity rather than mere humanity. Did the NT authors and the early church fathers abuse the original terminology to prove their a priori conclusions or did they recognize the sensus plenior of this statement thereby recognizing that the true ‘Son of God’ must be deity?

(2) If we allow for the NT authors and the church fathers to read back into the OT using a Christocentric hermeneutic why can we not allow for this same approach when we reinterpret the OT in regards to the Trinity? For instance, in the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Colossians it is obvious that there is a sense in which Genesis 1:1-3 has been reread through Christology. In John 1:1-3 the “Word” which was with God as well as being God is clearly derived from Genesis 1:3 where God speaks creation into existence. Furthermore, in Colossians 1:16-17 we see the transference of the wisdom of God–which Jewish literature depicts as God’s creative agent–to Christ. If Christ is the agent of creation he is understood to be the Word/Wisdom of God that was from the beginning.

(3) Equally, the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:1-28 us depicted as the agent of new creation. The Holy Spirit is redeeming the “sons of God”. In vv. 19-25 it becomes obvious that part of the Holy Spirit’s creative activity is new creation, or recreating. The whole cosmos groan and patiently wait for the children of God to be redeemed. Inherent in this text is the idea of resurrection. Christ is the “firstborn” from the dead; those who rise again to glorification are his siblings. The whole creation awaits this latter half because at that time it will be released from its own current bondage (hence, newly created itself).

It appears pretty obvious to me that the Apostle Paul understands the Holy Spirit as having a role in recreation. It is likely that the Holy Spirit as creator derives from Genesis 1:2 (at least). There the Spirit hovers over the face of the waters.

(4) If we maintain the hermeneutical approach of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, thereby closing off the OT to any discussion regarding the Triune nature of God, we cut off a hermeneutical approach shared by the NT authors as well as the early church fathers. If these people could see God as Creator, Word, and Spirit in Genesis 1:1-3 and then apply these attributes to the personified expressions Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit, why can’t we do the same?

(5) Although it is true that the NT writers never used the word “Trinity” it is not true that the concept was not there. It is admitted by Oneness Pentecostals that there is some “personal” distinction between the Father and Son. The Father is understood to be God-transcendent; the Son as God-incarnate. But the Spirit is equally personified by Paul in Romans 8:26-28. The Spirit intercedes for us. Oneness theologians often used the incarnation to explain the prayers of Jesus (which is partially true since prayer was needed because of his incarnate state), thereby making the body/flesh pray to the transcendent Deity (often falling into Nestorianism). But what do we do of the Spirit’s intercession on behalf of Christians to the Father because the Spirit knows the will of the Father?

Usually Oneness theologians do a bit of exegetical gymnastics here. I have heard “The Spirit knows the will of the Father because the Spirit is the Father”. Ok, why didn’t Paul just say that? It would have cleared up a lot of confusion!

(5) Finally, I want to throw this out there although it is somewhat unrelated. Why do Oneness Pentecostals argue that the Trinity is an “extra-biblical development” (as if all theology isn’t?) yet affirm the Protestant canon? Let us be clear about this: the canon is equally a later development as the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostals rightly affirm that the Scriptures that became canon where already canonical but had to be recognized. Yes, and I say the Trinity was proto-orthodox, it just had to be clarified.

Anyways, those are my five thesis. I am not Martin Luther. But I hope for some feedback if anyone has any thoughts on these matters.

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. 

Lowell is so predictable.  How many times can I write about the same stories about the same douchebags?  This isn’t the Lowell Sun.  I don’t see the usefulness of pointing out the obvious for the sake of having a current post.  This blog isn’t about me.  It’s about what’s right.  There’s a lot wrong here… so now for my 2¢.

The recent elections prove that our city is tired of business as usual, but how much can this new council really make things change?  certainly the council’s decisions and process could become more transparent.  This would be a welcome change.  However, unless the new council does some firing and hiring there isn’t much that can happen.  Addition by subtraction?  Perhaps, but that’s not nearly enough.

I stand by my original thesis that Bernie Lynch is only marginally better than John Cox.  We got rid of one set of inbred troglodytes and traded them for a bunch of numb uninspired “professionals” with neither the aptitude nor creativity necessary to understand the difference between good and great.  In fact, Lowell’s version of great is mediocre at best.  This is the fundamental problem with the redevelopment of Lowell.  A lack of vision, an unwillingness to embrace new ideas, and the inability to distinguish between average and extraordinary. 

Some examples:

LZ Nunn and the marketing of Lowell: Alive. Unique. Inspiring.  Really?  Hiring a company like Single Source Marketing.  A total waste of time and money.  If you have to work so hard to come up with this crap, maybe you should step aside.  Ms. Congeniality.

Adam Baacke and The Hamilton Canal District: Boring, formulaic, uninspired, and a rouse.  Trinity Financial is a political juggernaut who has produced nothing of significance.  ICON architecture, is a regional big box walmart of architecture.  Jim Keefe is a talentless traveling doctor selling miracle tonics to commoners.  Promises of an expanded trolley line, and theater in the development will never be attained, just as he intended. Of course if the NPS wanted to pick up the tab and enhance the area, they would surely take a cut.  Adam Baacke: you’re the luckiest tool in the city.  You caught the wave at just the right time, riding it to mediocrity on the coattails of Keefe.  You’re about as potent as a Ken doll.

Bernie Lynch and the Early Garage: What are you doing?!  Take a good idea to redevelop an area and then totally disregard its intent or the consequences when leasing space to the RMV.  Gridlock.  Remember when the RMV was located downtown and why it moved out?  One step forward, two giant steps back.  Douche.  How do those hairy balls taste?

I’m getting of topic, but another great example of mediocrity are the inbred elitists of the Lowell Plan.  Hey, let’s get a bunch of rich people with no taste in a room together, close the door, and declare the plan for Lowell.  The best part is… THERE IS NO PLAN.  Snobby fucks.

Left in Lowell and Lynne.  Sometimes I feel so sorry for you.  Please don’t subject yourself to Sun articles about energy conservation.  You obviously know very little about the subject and who really gives fuck about what you think anyway?  The Sun has taken shot after shot at you, then you let them take bad pictures in your home.  Seriously.  Get off your self indulgent high horse.  What’s next?  Posts about your cat?

Anyway… this is all obvious.  How often do I have to point out the same shit repeating time and time again? 

I don’t see myself writing much for a while… if at all.  Maybe I’ll catch a plane with Kendall Wallace and go to Florida.  Perhaps some art projects instead.  Peace out.

For over 1,500 years the Church has spoken of the Father as “unorginate”, the Son as “begotten”, and the Holy Spirit as “proceeding” from the Father.

The meaning and use of these terms to describe the persons of the Trinity recently came up in an online class called “The Practice of Ministry” that I am teaching for Grace Communion Seminary. The questions about these terms came from our use of the book Ministry in the Image of God: The Trinitarian Shape of Christian Service by Stephen Seamands. In the book Seamands uses these terms to talk about who God is as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and what that has to do with our ministries.

I thought many of you might be interested in peaking into our class discussion, so I decided to post some of what I had to say in today’s blog post.

Perhaps it will even whet your appetite to take one of the classes. For the spring semester, starting this January, I will be teaching Church History from 70 A.D. – 1054 A.D.

To understand how theology uses these words such as “unorginate” and “begotten” we have to go back to the early Church’s effort to remain faithful to the Bible and the teaching of the apostles regarding who Jesus is. The Bible describes Jesus as the “Word” who is God and was in the beginning with God (John 1:1-2) now living in the flesh as a man (John 1:14). The teaching of the apostles, handed down along with the Biblical books, established that this language means that the Son (the Word) has no beginning in time. He is fully God and therefore eternal, without beginning or end.

This means that the Son has always been the Father’s Son.

The Father did not exist first and then bring the Son into existence. God has eternally, without a beginning point in time, been Triune. This was the issue that was settled at the Council of Nicea in 325.

The early Christians were searching for language to describe this eternal relationship between the persons of the Triune God. In their struggle they settled on the words “unorginate” and “begotten.” Perhaps we can even have faith to say that the Holy Spirit helped them choose these words.

To understand how these words were used we might think of this analogy:

Suppose three books are sitting on my desk: Book A, Book B, and Book C. If I wanted to I could describe the position of each book based on where it is in relation to the other two books. I could say “Book A is to the left of Book B.” Or I could say “Book B is between Book A and Book C.”

In describing who the persons of the Trinity are, the early Church took an approach that is similar to what I have just described with the books. They chose to describe each person of the Trinity in terms of who he is in relationship to the other persons. Why? Because there is nothing outside of, greater than, or other than God by which we can describe him. Since God is loving relationship as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the best way to describe each of the three persons is by describing who they are in relationship to each other.

So, who is God the Father? He is the person of God from whom the Son is beggotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Since the Father is not begotten of another person of the Trinity, nor does he proceed from another person of the Trinity, we can also describe him as the person of God who is “unbegotten” or “unoriginate.” Who is God the Son? He is the person of God who is begotten of the Father and through whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Who is God the Holy Spirit? He is the person of God who proceeds from the Father through the Son. As Semands points out (p. 119), these two words (begotten and proceed) were taken by the early Christians directly from the Bible (John 1:14, 18, 15:26.)

Can you also see how these descriptions of the persons of the Trinity are relational?

The definition of the Father is based on his relationship to the Son and Spirit. The Son is defined in terms of his relationship to the Father and Spirit and the Spirit is defined in terms of his relationship the Father and Son.

In the same way that I might describe Book B based on its relationship to Book A by saying “Book B is to the right of Book A” so also I define the Son based on his relationship to the Father and the Spirit by saying that “the Son is begotten of the Father and the one through whom the Holy Spirit proceeds.”

But there is one very important difference between my analogy of the books and the Trinity.

We all know that there was a time when Books A, B, and C were not next to one another. First came the desk, then I acquired the books, and then I placed them on the desk in the order A, B, C. With regard to the Trinity there is no point in time in which the three persons began to relate to each other in the way they do. They have always been in this relationship with each other.

The Son has always, without a beginning in time, been begotten of the Father. The Father has always been the unbegotten one who begets the Son and the unorginate one from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds. Understanding this “timelessness” is vital to understanding what the early Church meant when they said the Son is begotten and the Father is unbegotten. Orginally, in Greek, the word for “begotten” just meant “born at a particular time” the way a baby is born. But when the early Church took the word “begotten” and began to use it in theology to describe the Son they gave it a particular, technical, theological meaning. In Trinitarian theology “begotten” means “always born of the Father without a beginning point in time.”

So, when theologians use the word “begotten” they are not saying “the Father pre-existed the Son.” They are using the term in its theological sense. They are saying “the Son has always been the begotten Son of the Father and the Father has always been the one who has no begetter, that is, the Father has always been the unbegotten one or the unorginate one.” The Father and Son have always existed in a relationship with each other in which the Father begets the Son. And the Holy Spirit has always existed in a relationship in which he proceeds from the Father through the Son.

At this point you may be thinking “who cares?”

Well, if there was a time when the Father existed and then he brought the Son and Spirit into existence then the Son and Spirit are not fully God. They are creations of God. But the Bible makes it clear that the Son and Spirit are God. Also, if we say that there is no difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit – if we say, for example, that those are just three different ways God acts – then that is not Biblical either because the Bible says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. For example, the Son is distinctly and uniquely the one begotten of the Father and the Spirit is distinctly and uniquely the one who proceeds from the Father through the Son. These distinct differences must be taken into account in our description of God just as much as the communion that the three persons have as One God.

So, to have a Biblical description of God we need a description that says that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all One God together without losing the distinctive nature of each person of God. God is One because the Father, Son, and Spirit, never exist apart from each other. In fact, you cannot define who they are apart from each other. The only way we know the Father’s identity is by defining him in relationship to the Son and the Spirit. But the Oneness of God does not destroy the distinct character of the Three persons. The Father is not Son because the Son is begotten and the Father is unbegotten. So, the three persons of God live in an inseparable communion as One God. Yet there is no loss of distinction in this communion because each person still remains distinctly himself.

For the last 1,700 years Christians have accepted that the Holy Spirit inspired the early Christians to choose correctly which books would be in the Bible. In a similar way we have accepted that the Holy Spirit inspired the early Christians to take words from the Bible like “begotten” and “proceed,” give those words technical definitions in the context of theology, and correctly hand those words on to us as the best way for our human language to talk about God’s Triune Life.

Knowing the theological use of these words helps us understand who the Trinity is.

The Trinity is the unorginate Father who begets the Son, and the Son who is begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son. The Trinity is these three persons living in their eternal relationship to each other as One God.

~ Jonathan Stepp

Holy Saturday

The first service belonging to Holy Saturday — called in the Church the Blessed Sabbath — is the Vespers of Good Friday. It is usually celebrated in the mid-afternoon to commemorate the burial of Jesus.

Before the service begins, a “tomb” is erected in the middle of the church building and is decorated with flowers. Also a special icon which is painted on cloth (in Greek, epitaphios; in Slavonic, plaschanitsa) depicting the dead Saviour is placed on the altar table. In English this icon is often called the winding-sheet.

Vespers begin as usual with hymns about the suffering and death of Christ. After the entrance with the Gospel Book and the singing of Gladsome Light, selections from Exodus, Job, and Isaiah 52 are read. An epistle reading from First Corinthians (1:18-31) is added, and the Gospel is read once more with selections from each of the four accounts of Christ’s crucifixion and burial. The prokeimena and alleluia verses are psalm lines, heard often already in the Good Friday services, prophetic in their meaning:

They divided my garments among them and for my raiment they cast lots (Psalm 22:18).

My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me (Ps 22:1).

Thou hast put me in the depths of the Pit, in the regions dark and deep (Ps 88:6).

After more hymns glorifying the death of Christ, while the choir sings the dismissal song of St Simeon, the priest vests fully in his dark-colored robes and incenses the winding-sheet which still lies upon the altar table. Then, after the Our Father, while the people sing the troparion of the day, the priest circles the altar table with the winding-sheet carried above his head and places it into the tomb for veneration by the faithful.

The noble Joseph, when he had taken down Thy most pure body from the Tree, wrapped it in fine linen and anointed it with spices, and placed it in a new tomb (Troparion of Holy Saturday).

The Matins of Holy Saturday are usually celebrated on Friday night. They begin in the normal way with the singing of God is the Lord, the troparion The Noble Joseph, and the following troparia:

When Thou didst descend to death 0 Life Immortal, Thou didst slay hell with the splendor of Thy Godhead! And when from the depths Thou didst raise the dead, all the powers of heaven cried out: O Giver of Life! Christ our God! Glory to Thee!

The angel standing by the grave cried out to the women: Myrrh is proper for the dead, but Christ has shown himself a stranger to corruption.

In place of the regular psalm reading the entire Psalm 119 is read with a verse praising the dead Saviour chanted between each of its lines. This particular psalm is the verbal icon of Jesus, the righteous man whose life is in the hands of God and who, therefore, cannot remain dead. The Praises, as the verses are called, glorify God as “the Resurrection and the Life,” and marvel at his humble condescension into death.

There is in the person of Jesus Christ the perfect unification of the perfect love of man toward God and the perfect love of God toward man. It is this divine human love which is contemplated and praised over the tomb of the Savior. As the reading progresses the Praises become shorter, and gradually more concentrated on the final victory of the Lord, thus coming to their proper conclusion:

I long for Thy salvation, 0 Lord, Thy law is my delight (Ps 119:174).

The mind is affrighted at Thy dread and strange burial.

Let me live, that I may praise Thee, and let Thy ordinances help me (119:175).

The women with spices came early at dawn to anoint Thee.

I have gone astray like a lost sheep, seek Thy servant, for I do not forget Thy commandments (119:176).

By Thy resurrection grant peace to the Church and salvation to Thy people!

After the final glorification of the Trinity, the church building is lighted and the first announcement of the women coming to the tomb resounds through the congregation as the celebrant censes the entire church. Here for the first time comes the clear proclamation of the good news of salvation in Christ’s resurrection.

The canon song of Matins continues to praise Christ’s victory over death by his own death, and uses each of the Old Testamental canticles as a prefigurative image of man’s final salvation through Jesus. Here for the first time there emerges the indication that this Sabbath this particular Saturday on which Christ lay dead — is truly the most blessed seventh day that ever existed. This is the day when Christ rests from his work of recreating the world. This is the day when the Word of God “through whom all things were made” (Jn 1:3) rests as a dead man in the grave, saving the world of his own creation and opening the graves:

This is the most blessed Sabbath on which Christ sleeps, but to rise again on the third day (Kontakion and Oikos).

Again, the canon ends on the final note of the victory of Christ.

Lament not for me, Mother, beholding me in the grave, the son whom you have born in seedless conception, for I will arise and be glorified, and will exalt with glory, unceasingly as God, all those who with faith and love glorify you (Ninth Ode of the Canon).

As more verses of praise are sung, the celebrant again vests fully in his somber vestments and, as the great doxology is chanted, he once more censes the tomb of the Savior. Then, while the congregation with lighted candles continually repeats the song of the Thrice Holy, the faithful — led by their pastor carrying the Gospel Book with the winding-sheet of Christ held over his head — go in procession around the outside of the church building. This procession bears witness to the total victory of Christ over the powers of darkness and death. The whole universe is cleansed, redeemed and re stored by the entrance of the Life of the World into death.

As the procession returns to the church building, the troparia are sung once again, and the prophecy of Ezekiel about the “dry bones” of Israel is chanted with great solemnity:

And you shall know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves, 0 my people. And I will put my spirit within you and you shall live. … (Ezek 37:1-14).

With the victorious lines of the psalms calling God to arise, to lift up his hands, to scatter his enemies and to let the righteous rejoice; and with the repeated singing of Alleluia, the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians is read: “Christ our paschal lamb has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:6-8). The Gospel about the sealing of the tomb is read once more, and the service is ended with intercession and benediction.

The Vespers and Matins of the Blessed Sabbath, together with the Divine Liturgy which follows, form a masterpiece of the Orthodox liturgical tradition. These services are not at all a dramatic re-enactment of the historical death and burial of Christ. Neither are they a kind of ritual reproduction of scenes of the Gospel. They are, rather, the deepest spiritual and liturgical penetration into the eternal meaning of the saving events of Christ, viewed and praised already with the full knowledge of their divine significance and power.

The Church does not pretend, as it were, that it does not know what will happen with the crucified Jesus. It does not sorrow and mourn over the Lord as if the Church itself were not the very creation which has been produced from his wounded sides and from the depths of his tomb. All through the services the victory of Christ is contemplated and the resurrection is proclaimed. For it is indeed only in the light of the victorious resurrection that the deepest divine and eternal meaning of the events of Christ’s passion and death can be genuinely grasped, adequately appreciated and properly glorified and praised.

On Holy Saturday itself, Vespers are served with the Divine Liturgy of St Basil the Great. This service already belongs to the Passover Sunday. It begins in the normal way with the evening psalm, the litany, the hymns following the evening Psalm 141 and the entrance with the singing of the vesperal hymn, Gladsome Light. The celebrant stands at the tomb in which lies the winding-sheet with the image of the Savior in the sleep of death.

Following the evening entrance which is made with the Book of the Gospels, fifteen readings from the Old Testament scriptures are read, all of which relate to God’s work of creation and salvation which has been summed up and fulfilled in the coming of the predicted Messiah. Besides the readings in Genesis about creation, and the passover-exodus of the Israelites in the days of Moses in Exodus, there are selections from the prophecies of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zephaniah, and Jonah as well as from Joshua and the Books of Kings, the Canticles of Moses, and of the Three Youths found in Daniel are chanted as well. After the Old Testament readings the celebrant intones the normal liturgical exclamation for the singing of the Thrice-Holy Hymn, but in its place the baptismal verse from Galatians is sung: As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Alleluia (Gal 3:27). As usual in the Divine Liturgy the epistle reading follows at this point. It is the normal baptismal selection of the Orthodox Church (Rom 6:3-11). If we have been united with him in a death like his we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (Rom 6:5).

At this time the royal gates are closed, and the celebrants and altar servers change their robes from the dark vestments of the passion into the bright vestments of Christ’s victory over death. At this time all vestings of the church appointments are also changed into the color signifying Christ’s triumph over sin, the devil and death. This revesting takes place while the people sing the verses of Psalm 82: Arise O Lord and judge the earth, for to Thee belong all the nations.

After the solemn chanting of the psalm verses, to which are often added the hymn glorifying Christ as the New Passover, the Living Sacrifice who is slain, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world; the celebrants emerge from the altar to announce over the tomb of Christ the glad tidings of his victorious triumph over death and his command to the apostles: “Make disciples of all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded. …” (Mt 28:1.20). This Gospel text is also the reading of the baptismal ceremony of the Orthodox Church.

The Divine Liturgy then continues in the brilliance of Christ’s destruction of death. The following song replaces the Cherubic Hymn of the offertory:

Let all mortal flesh keep silent and in fear and trembling stand, pondering nothing earthly-minded. For the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords comes to be slain, to give himself as food to the faithful.

Before him go the ranks of angels: all the principalities and powers, the many-eyed cherubim and the six-winged seraphim, covering their faces, singing the hymn: Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!

In place of the Hymn to the Theotokos, the ninth ode of the matinal canon is sung once again: “Lament not for me, Mother … for I will arise” (see above). The communion hymn is the line of the psalm: The Lord awoke as one asleep, and arose saving us (Ps 78:65)

The Divine Liturgy is fulfilled in the communion with him who lies dead in his human body, and yet is enthroned eternally with God the Father; the one who, as the Creator and Life of the World, destroys death by his lifeÄcreating death. His tomb — which still stands in the center of the church — is shown to be, as the Liturgy calls it: the fountain of our resurrection.

Originally this Liturgy was the Easter baptismal liturgy of Christians. It remains today as the annual experience for every Christian of his own dying and rising with the Lord.

But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him (Rom 6:8-9).

Christ lies dead, yet he is alive. He is in the tomb, but already he is “trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.” There is nothing more to do now but to live through the evening of the Blessed Sabbath on which Christ sleeps, awaiting the midnight hour when the Day of our Lord will begin to dawn upon us, and the night full of light will come when we will proclaim with the angel: “He is risen, he is not here; see the tomb where they laid him” (Mk 16:6).

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=75

For several years, I had difficulty understanding the concept of the “Trinity”, until recently when I was told by one minister that it’s  the  three- in- one concept, which is  simply the father, son and the holy ghost. Well, I should say, I understood that much, however, I still did not understand how  could Jesus  possibly represent three persons at the same time.  According to his explanation, when Jesus was being baptized  by John The Baptist, after he was submerged in the river Jordon by John, he emerged filled with the holy ghost. At that same moment, God the father spoke from heaven above in a loud voice, saying ”This is my begotten son in whom I am well pleased.”  He said three things occurred at that particular moment; While the son— Jesus— was going through that transformation, receiving the holy ghost, the father— God— was speaking out of heaven giving him his blessing.  As a result, this is how the concept of the trinity came about.