I have often said that it is easier to tell when someone is a true Christian than to tell when they are not. In other words, some people wear their convictions on their sleeve. The power of the Holy Spirit could not be more clearly visible. With these people, their passion, understanding, grace, humility, and faith are clearly evident in everything they do. I know and can state with a great degree of confidence that they trust in Christ and are saved. They are in the race and they are running. For others, however, it is more difficult to tell. They may say they are saved, but I do not have the same degree of confidence. They may be convinced, but I am not. I am not asserting they are not saved. I just don’t know. Some people live in a perpetual state of doubt, failure, and terrible sin. They may be in the race, but they are not running. However, even when they are at their worst, I cannot confidently say that they are not saved any more than I can say that the previous individuals are saved.
Many people contact me, because they are overwhelmed with the fear that they are not saved. They seek assurance from me that God has saved them. My background, training, and tradition all push me to reassure them in the attempt to alleviate their doubts and fears to the end that they are secure in their salvation and can never lose this security. After all, I believe that without security, we have never really embraced the fullness of the Gospel message.
However, there is a flip side to this coin. And it is this other side that I wish to address.
I have someone who I can’t figure out. Conversations with him are always very frustrating. I just want to crack his head open and see what is inside. I want to gaze where only God can see. I want to know if he really knows Christ. My heart says, “I hope!” but my mind says, “I don’t know. I doubt it.”
If you were to look at the life of this friend, you would not suspect that he has ever approached the throne room of God. You would not suspect that he has ever bowed humbly at the cross, understood his own condition, or asked the Lord for mercy. I have never seen him read his Bible, and I have never heard him honor Christ with his words. His life appears to be a never-ending pursuit of what the world has to offer. Moreover, this attitude shows evidence of trying to maintain complete control over his emotional state. Comforting him with spiritual talk is a seemingly futile exercise, especially when I receive a ridiculing gaze and awkward silence when I attempt to discuss the issue with him.
Yet, when push comes to shove, this guy will give me his testimony. Every once in a while he will tell me why I don’t need to be worried about his spiritual condition. He will confidently tell me of the time when he was twelve years old and walked the aisle at Church to accept the Gospel. Once his tale is complete, he has exhausted his ability to have a spiritual conversation and an awkward silence ensues.
Is this guy saved? Can it be that he sincerely walked the aisle so long ago, yet has not flexed a spiritual muscle since? Why is he so secure in his salvation?
In his office, there is one spiritual relic. It is an old piece of paper that hangs prominently by his desk entitled “The Believer’s Security.” On it are listed all of the passages of Scripture that give assurance that a believer cannot lose their salvation. This unqualified doctrine was something that he was taught immediately after his saving experience. This is what he banks on every day.
I have changed quite a bit over the years with regards to the doctrine often called “eternal security” or “once saved, always saved.” Don’t start squirming, fellow Calvinists, there are not many things I believe in more strongly than the ultimate security of salvation. But I do believe there are some people who may need to squirm. I believe there are some people whose eternal destiny depends on their own insecurity.
I am going to tell the “Parable of the Race.” You may have heard it before, but I am going to modify it somewhat for our purposes.
“In a town of ultimate boredom called Mundane, there was a great announcement. It was the announcement of a race. A great race that all could enter. A race that would rescue them from boredom. Most people did not believe that such an event would be held in Mundane so they scoffed. Others immediately prepared with great enthusiasm and joy.
Both the scoffers and the enthusiasts arrived at the appointed place on the day of the race. The scoffers sat and watched while the others prepared to run by stretching and making sure their shoes were tied. They lined up, looking ahead with the intensity, fear, and excitement that accompanied such an event.
The gun sounded and off they went. Yet something very curious and unexplainable happened. They all stopped running after they had passed the starting line. Not only this, but they acted very peculiar. One person fell on his knees crying, thanking God that he crossed the starting line. Others gave each other high fives and hugs, as they shouted, “Hooray, we are now race runners, we are now race runners.” Some shook hands and congratulated each other. One group relaxed and complemented one another on how well they crossed the starting line. Five or six others all gathered together and formed a prayer circle. They prayed that others would cross the starting line as they had.
Many others wanted to experience this joy so they decided to start the race as well. They were immediately stopped by the well-wishers who had started before them. They decided to stay as well. After a few days, there were people handing out pamphlets along with a certificate to all those who crossed the starting line. The pamphlet told them that once they had started the race they were guaranteed to finish. The certificate was to recognize their achievement in finishing the race even before they finished. It became very high on the agenda of all the race runners to make sure that people who had started knew of their assurance of completion. So much so that there was a printing press built right at the starting gate which produced millions of the pamphlets.
After a few months, there were so many who had crossed the starting line that they decided to build a town right there. They called this town “Starting Line Village.”
The spectators were confused. “I thought a race had to be finished,” they said to one another. They interviewed the people of Starting Line Village. “Why did you start the race and not continue?” they would ask. This made the people of Starting Line Village very uncomfortable. They would immediately show their certificate saying that they were guaranteed to finish. When people would encourage them to run the rest of the race, they would be ridiculed for not trusting the pamphlet. They were called legalists and were accused of trusting too much in their own ability to finish the race rather than the words on the pamphlet.
Finally, many of the watchers in the crowd became fed up with those in Starting Line Village and decided to run the race themselves with the intent to finish. They refused the certificates and left the people of Starting Line Village to hand out the pamphlets alone.”
This parable illustrates a problem that we have in the church today. There are many people who are very comfortable in the profession of faith they made so long ago. So comfortable, in fact, that they never make any further moves in their walk with God. Like my friend, they rely upon the “once saved, always saved” doctrine that they were taught immediately upon conversion. They have crossed the starting line, but are definitely not running the race.
I don’t have a problem with teaching “once saved, always saved,” but I think we need to qualify it a great deal. I know, qualifying our own security seems very counterproductive. Let me be plain and clear. The doctrine of God’s grace is radical. It is absolutely radical. It is unbelievably radical. God gives us an unspeakable gift free of charge. We don’t owe God anything for it. It is not on layaway. In fact, it would be very offensive to God for us to even try to pay for it. It is priceless. Yet this gift, from a human point of view, is received by faith. Faith is the evidence of our salvation. It is the instrumental cause of our salvation. Faith is the evidence that we have entered the race. But what we fail to emphasize is often more destructive to the Christian faith than not telling the Gospel at all. We fail to tell people that there is a false kind of faith. There is a faith that crosses the starting line, but never completes the race. There is a faith that does not save.
Paul encourages the Corinthians:
“Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you– unless indeed you fail the test?” (2 Cor. 13:5)
The author of Hebrews says:
“Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us fear lest any of you should seem to have failed to reach it.” (Heb. 4:1)
In Revelation, only those who overcome are promised eternal life:
“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Rev. 2:7; emphasis mine)
James speaks about a faith that does not save:
“What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” (Jam. 2:14)
Remember in the parable of the soils in Matthew 13, there are three types of seeds that sprout (start the race), but only one truly takes root (finishes the race).
And time will fail us if we try to recount all the false prophets of false hope in the Old Testament. These are the ones who were continually telling the Israelites of their own security when destruction was right around the corner.
I believe that once a person is truly saved, he or she will never lose that salvation. Yet I think we need to warn people that not all faith is true faith.
If you have crossed the starting line, great! Bravo, hooray, and congrats. But from a human point of view, this does not guarantee that you will cross the finish line. I am sorry, but I do no service to you by trying to immediately tell you that your faith is true. I don’t know if it is. The doctrine is not really called “Once Saved, Always Saved,” but is more accurately described as “Perseverance of the Saints.” I think we need to get away from calling it “once saved, always saved.” I don’t like it. From God’s point of view, your salvation is protected. You are his child, elect of God, and nothing can change that. But from our perspective, you are his child if you are trusting in him. Is your faith persevering? It is not about whether you can recount a time in the past when you trusted him once. It is about whether or not you are in his family and are trusting him now. We are called believers, not because we believed, but because we believe.
We all need to question whether or not our faith is the kind of faith that saves. We do a great disservice to the Gospel when we make it our top priority to immediately alleviate any anxiety or doubt of salvation in those who profess faith. We may be giving them a false sense of security that they will take to their grave. This may be what happens to my friend. I fear the worst. On the day of judgment, will he say “Lord, Lord, didn’t I cross the starting line? Wasn’t I a race runner?” only to hear Jesus respond, “Depart from me. I never knew you.”
There is a healthy tension concerning our salvation that should follow us our entire Christian walk.
If you are saved, part of the Gospel message is that you can be assured of your salvation (1 John 5:13). God wants you to know it. However, I don’t want anyone to be assured of something that is not true. Unfortunately, I believe there are a lot of people who are.
154 replies to "This Calvinist’s Problem with “Once Saved, Always Saved”"
Fr. Robert, I guess that all depends on which version of the trinity doctrine you mean. Personally, I agree with the Council of Ephesus forbidding any changes to the Creed of 381 A.D. (the one that came out of Constantinople, which expanded the Nicene Creed beyond “And we believe in the Holy Spirit”). While I do think Cyril was a spawn of Satan who wrongly used hypostasis the way Nestorius used prosopon (I say Cyril wrongly used it because I consider the way it is used in Hebrews 1:3 to be the correct way to use it), the Council of Ephesus, which he convened, was right in forbidding any changes to the Creed of 381 A.D.
http://www.amazon.com/We-Believe-Commentary-Nicene-Constantinopolitan-Creed/dp/1630001309/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378195397&sr=8-1&keywords=We+Believe%3A+A+Commentary+on+the+Nicene-Constantinopolitan+Creed+of+381+A.D.
@Chancellor: I am generally in support of the EO on both the Trinity of God, and the “filioque”. However, it seems that in John chapters 14 thru 16, that it is at least “through” the Son, by God the Father. (See btw too, Robert Letham’s book: The Holy Trinity, etc. and chapter 3, ‘The Holy Spirit and Triadic Patterns’. Note too the following chapter, and “Excursus”: Ternary Patterns in Ephesians. This book is THE Book today on the Holy Trinity of God to my mind! And Letham is both Reformed and a Brit! 🙂 See too, T.F. Torrance’s classic book: The Trinitarian Faith, The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church.
I have friends who are Egyptian or Coptic (Alexandrian) EO and Orthodox. Thus they are with Cyril of Alexandria, and ‘Miaphysite’ – ‘one incarnate nature of God the Logos. Simply Christ has one united nature out of two: divinity and humanity. They live in Israel. (I lived and taught in Israel in the latter half of the 90s). I think it is interesting that the Pope John Paul II, had contact with these EO Brethren (80’s?), and he and the Roman Church and theologians did not consider them, or their doctrine as heresy. But another way of looking at the mystery of the Holy Trinity. (Allowing both the Antiochene and the Alexandrian traditions). Indeed the Councils Nicaea I and Constantinople I are but a fence around the great doctrine and mystery of the Holy Trinity!
And btw, note “The Formula of Union” from Maximian, sent to Cyril (in the Council of Ephesus), I won’t quote the whole, but Cyril responded with great joy! He accepted John of Antioch…who wrote: “For two natures a union has been made. For this cause we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.”
Sadly Neostorianism itself had a long future ahead of it!
@Steve: Of course my metaphor was NOT connected to literally killing the Anabaptists, but to the “theology”, or lack thereof in many Anabaptist positions! Surely looking at Zwingli’s history and problems with Anabaptists, as too Luther and Calvin speaks for itself!
I knew some Mennonites in England, and for the most part, they have become liberals, sadly! Though there are always exceptions, like the onetime conservative biblical & exegetical scholar: D. Edmond Hiebert (Mennonite Brethren)… RIP!
When you guys get the Trinity figured out, please let me know. During the meantime, I shall continue to worship the One true God as expressed in the Nicene Creed as follows:We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.” And, that’s good enough for me. 🙂 Oh, by-the-way, I’m Assemblies of God and had to recite this from memory during ministerial training.
Woops! Think I enter the above in the wrong blog column. Sorry. 🙁
I can be neither a true Calvinist or Armininist, I am a follower of the Lord Jesus. I believe that it is through grace that we are saved I also believe that we have been given free will. I believe that what we as Christians fight most viciously over is not what we are exhorted to do. Since I do not have the mind of God, I cannot do anything but trust that He alone knows how this makes sense, freewill and grace (as defined by the reformed position) All I want to know is Christ crucified and His work, I know that is what the Gospel is not a scholastic position that promotes the dogma of either position but rather that of Love and Compassion. Matthew 9:11-13 (KJV)
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. I stand with Joshua “As for me and my house we will follow the Lord.” I am going to preach the Gospel of Love and Mercy, the message of Grace and the Blessed Hope as best as I can and let God rather than man judge my actions, words and intents. I much rather His mercy, understanding and love than any one thought of the collective of man. My brothers and sisters I love you all for your teachings but in the end it is all about Jesus our Lord (as in master) and Savior, so even when we express our differences it must be with the attitude, mind and heart of Jesus
@James-the-lesser: Well as an Anglican, the Nicene Creed, with the Athansius’s and the Apostles Creed is #VIII in the Anglican Thirty-nine Articles. And note too Luther was always a Nicene Creed guy most certainly. And I certainly see the whole of the Nicene “homoousios” as most orthodox!
Note, I don’t personally follow the Miaphysite, but I don’t see it, nor Cyril Of A. as heretical either! Note btw, it was Cyril of Alexandria that defined or elaborated the hypostatic union, and it was incorporated in the Definition of Chalcedon.
Btw, this wiki piece might be helpful on the Miaphysite and history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miaphysitism
Fr. Robert, Nestorius was greatly misunderstood and Cyril, that spawn of Satan, was responsible for Nestorius’ demise. In the correspondence between Cyril and Nestorius, it’s fairly clear Nestorius held that Christ had a dual nature (dyophysite). Much of the debate between Cyril and Nestorius, however, was seemingly more over words. Cyril was (wrongly) using hypostasis the way Nestorius was using prosopon. Though what I really think enraged Cyril so much against Nestorius wasn’t this, but Nestorius’ objection to calling Mary the theotokos (the God-bearer), which is what started the whole matter. Ultimately, the Council at Chalcedon affirmed the dyophysite nature of Christ and, to some extent, unknowingly vindicated Nestorius.
John of Antioch was a defender of Nestorius (who wasn’t allowed to attend the proceedings at the Council of Ephesus, which was started without waiting for Eastern bishops to arrive; thus, it was basically a kangaroo court). John eventually signed a compromise document in which his friend and teacher Nestorius stood condemned; however, many of his fellow bishops in the east considered him to have fallen from the faith at that point and broke fellowship with him. This was the start of what could be called the Nestorian Church. In the end, John Antioch was a traitor who threw his longtime friend under the bus for the sake of making peace with the heretics in Alexandria.
As for the filioque, I reject it first because Jesus never said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (that word “proceeds” is very important) and, if anything, the original Creeds of Nicea and Constantinople sought to be true to scripture. Second, I reject it because I reject any changes to the Creed following the expansion of the Nicene Creed at Constantinople in 381.
As for the whole Antioch-Alexandria thing, I’m very much in the Antioch camp.
James the Lesser, the Creed you quoted wasn’t the Nicene Creed. It was the Creed that came out of Constantinople in 381 A.D. or, more accurately, the corrupted version (because you included the filioque clause that wasn’t in the original, but was added centuries later). The original Nicene Creed (of 325 A.D.) stopped after “And we believe in the Holy Spirit.” At Constantinople in 381, the Nicene Creed was expanded to include everything that came after “And we believe in the Holy Spirit” (there were also some minor textual changes to the original Nicene Creed).
The trinity doctrine in much of the Church today is not the doctrine of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds. What is communicated as the trinity doctrine in many churches today – particularly the ones that came along after the Protestant Reformation – is essentially tritheism because “persons” is used in the modern sense as synonymous with “beings.”
Perhaps the only thing the Council at Ephesus got right was to prohibit any changes to the Creed following the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D.
@Chancellor: I can appreciate your zeal, knowing that you came out of the Oneness mess. But surely the long road to the great Trinitarian doctrine and truth (note through the Second and third century heresy of Monarchianism), the Dynamic version which is where the Oneness of today follow for the most part. This should humble us surely, for the great doctrine of the Trinity was too a long and proper theological development, but again took the church much time. See JND Kelly’s classic book: Early Christian Doctrines on this subject.
We cannot go into the whole history here, but most certainly Nestorius was in error in many places, most especially his denial of Mary as the Theotokos, which as you agree really was the main place of the error for Nestorius. Myself I cannot follow the idea that Cyril was the “spawn” of Satan. Very unfortunate language indeed! And one that should be stowed in my opinion, and history has born out the greatness of so-called, St. Cyril! And there have been more books written on this whole subject than one could even want to read! But generally the Orthodox or EO are the people to read here. Btw, I would recommend John McGuckin’s book here: St. Cyril of Alexandria & the Christological Controversy. He gives both sides, but certainly in the end Cyril’s became the Orthodox norm, at least on Christology. As we can see in his great doctrine of the Hypostatic Union of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ!
*We should also read the great Athanasius here, and the inspiration for the Athanasian Creed (which btw was composed in Latin. But it deals with both the Trinity and the Incarnation…”For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, and Man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world: Perfect God, and Perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father,…
Fr. Robert, I’m not sure you fully understood what I wrote. First, I agree with Nestorius’ objection to referring to Mary as the theotokos. I’m not entirely comfortable with his compromise language of Christokos (preferring the anthropokos language with which he was apparently uncomfortable), but I can accept it.
I’m familiar with J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines and found it to be an excellent resource.
If you object to my referring to Cyril as the spawn of Satan, you would have really objected to the kinds of things Cyril was reported to have said about Nestorius. Further, the way he went about having the Council convened and having Nestorius condemned without an opportunity to defend himself is just plain evil.
I really struggled with the Trinity doctrine after I came out of Oneness Pentecostalism, and it wasn’t easy for me to accept even the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds. Having thoroughly researched the doctrine all the way down to modern times, I find that I just can’t accept the developments in the doctrine following the Creed of 381 A.D. (the specific issue of Christology might be a separate one, but if you want to include it in the larger trinity issue, then I agree with Nestorius regarding Christ’s dyophysite nature in prosopic union and I agree with the Synod of Mar Aqaq (486 A.D.) opposing the commingling or intermixing of Christ’s two natures. I really can’t bring myself to go beyond that point and I particularly object to the use of “persons.”
Sorry, you’re just not going to convince me to side with Cyril or with the Alexandrian School in general.
@Chancellor: There has been way too much heat on the subject of the “Filioque” (Latin, and from the Son). And we should simply note that Augustine held to the so-called Double Procession of the Holy Spirit, well before the question creedally. See Augustine’s work: ‘De Trinitate’. Augustine it appears got some of his thought about the generation of the Son, from Tertullian… the act of thinking on the part of the Father for/about the Son, and later Augustine’s explanation of the Holy Spirit as the mutual love of the Father and the Son, this was also later called the ‘psychological theory of the Trinity’. Which was of course later developed by the medieval Scholasticism. Noting of course too Thomas Aquinas here.
But, generally I would agree that the Father is the eternal source of the Godhead (Himself, the “monarchy” in the Godhead, as even Augustine agreed). The Father is the “regal” and “First”… from Whom the Son is begotten eternally, and also from Whom the Holy Spirit “proceeds” eternally.
But the question remains, is the “sending of the Son”, in John 14 thru chapters 15 and 16, the “work” or economy of the Holy Spirit in the plan of redemption? Or is it His eternal relationship within the Godhead? This is still a fair question, theologically and certainly exegetically! And this “through the Son” in time.
@Chancellor: Well I am not really seeking to change your position, but we simply MUST understand that even within the Councils and Creeds, we have but as I said, a sort of fence around the Trinity, but not so with the Incarnation, and here is more where Cyril of Alexandria great statements lie about the Hypostatic Union.
And btw I am sure you know the Council of Ephesus declared Mary as the Theotokos (God-bearer). Yes, picking and choosing within the Councils and Creeds, is a tough road! And one that should be done only with exegesis and too the historical. That is why I quoted the Athanasian Creed! But the loss of Mary as the Theotokos, for Nestorius of course tends to, and expresses, not only the distinction, but the separation of the human and the divine nature of our Lord. This is the grave error here, and of course the heresy! So for the “unity” of Christ the Church found it necessary to insist that Mary was not only “Christotokos”, the Mother of Christ, but the “Theotokos”, the Mother of God (Incarnation). And it is here btw, the EO most certainly place Mary! (Even too the Miaphysite EO, the Cyrillian!)
“He being one Son, dual in nature, not dual in Person. Wherefore, we do confess, preaching the truth that Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man.” (Troparion of the Resurrection on the Feast of the Holy Forefathers)
Btw, what people say in the heat of theological debate, is always questionable! Here we can note too our Luther, and even Calvin! 😉
Indeed Mary is forever, the Mother of the Incarnate Christ! Can I get an Amen? THIS is orthodoxy for the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, both on earth, and in heaven! And from here comes our Salvation-History of God! Btw, “to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Gentiles)”, (Rom. 1: 16 ; 15: 8-9).
Fr. Robert, one need not agree with the use of theotokos to believe in the dual nature of Christ. Nestorius certainly didn’t. Of course, he understood theotokos as meaning that Mary somehow contributed to Christ’s deity and that’s why he objected to it and his objection in that regard does make sense. As for the Council of Ephesus, there were reasons why I said earlier that the only thing I think it got right was to prohibit any further changes to the Creed following those made at Constantinople in 381. Sorry, I just can’t go along with you or the Council at Ephesus regarding Mary as the theotokos. She did not contribute anything to Christ’s deity/divinity. While I would have still preferred anthropokos, I can tolerate Nestorius compromise Christokos.
I think it’s important to distinguish between sending and proceeding (the terms are not really synonymous) and I’m not really sure this distinction has ever really been made clear in the various historical debates regarding the Holy Spirit. For that matter, I’m not fully settled on it myself. Then there’s the matter of whether it’s Jesus sending the Holy Spirit “from the Father” or the Father sending the Holy Spirit in Jesus’ name (by His authority).
It’s really unfortunate that the Reformers didn’t do a lot to address the trinity/Christology issue. Worse, John Calvin said that Christ was “autotheotes” (God of Himself), which causes problems all its own.
Surely “Mary” as the Theotokos, was meant to include the great mystery of the Incarnation, that a human woman was part of this historical mystery of GOD Incarnating Himself as a Man, and most fully so! (Gal. 4: 4-6) Certainly Mary does not share in the saving grace itself (of the Redeemed), but she does share in the historical mystery and reality of the Incarnation! There can be really no other conclusion for the historic church itself! (Matt. 1: 23)
I agree that Calvin is oftentimes problematic on the Trinity of God! But not so Luther… He called Jesus: “The Crucified Creator”! I so love Luther, especially on Christology and the Crucifixion, note his great doctrine of the “theologia crucis”!
Agreed on the difference of “sending” and “proceeding”! Note I see the latter also in Matt. 11: 27, and this presses me closer to the position of the EO or Orthodox.
This is from the Wiki on Nestorius…
‘Nestorius believed that no union between the human and divine was possible. If such a union of human and divine occurred, Nestorius believed that Christ could not truly be con-substantial with God and con-substantial with us because he would grow, mature, suffer and die (which he said God cannot do) and also would possess the power of God that would separate him from being equal to humans.’
Here’s the Orthodox Wiki on Nestorius…
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Nestorius
I give these just to give those that don’t know much about the subject, some context.
And btw Chancellor, the position of Christ’s Two-Natures, is much more than “two”, but the what, and the how of the context. I still maintain that Nestorius believed in the complete separation of Christ’s two-natures! And again, THIS is the heresy!
And btw, Calvin wrote (in his Inst.) that, Nestorius “devised a double Christ!” Again, this is THE issue… TWO PERSONS, separate in the One Christ!
Sorry, Fr. Robert, as soon as you mentioned Wikipedia (the various Wikis are all ultimately connected to Wikipedia), I automatically dismissed what you wrote out of hand. Wikipedia is NOT a credible source for anything and must never be referred to in any serious discussion.
Further, those who wrote the Wiki were clearly followers of Cyril (or at least agree with Cyril) and, therefore, cannot credibly write about someone who was so badly and falsely maligned by Cyril as Nestorius was. Nestorius taught a prosopic union between the divine and human natures of Christ. If you look closely at what Cyril and Nestorius were arguing, they were largely saying the same thing, but using different terminology. (As I said earlier, Cyril wrongly used hypostasis the way Nestorius used prosopon, while the only correct usage of hypostasis in the context of Christian theology is the way hypostasis is used in Hebrews 1:3).
There are, of course, alternative versions of history: http://www.nestorian.org/the_lynching_of__nestorius.html
http://www.nestorian.org/nestorius.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/409867/Nestorius
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/people/nestorius.htm
As for Mary, I think it is absolutely heretical to suggest she contributed anything whatsoever to Christ’s divinity, which is what calling her “mother of God” suggests – no matter how much you or Cyril or others might want to deny it. Keep in mind also, that the Roman Catholics consider Mary to be the co-redemptrix with Christ and the “Queen of Heaven” (a title once given to a pagan female deity). In one of their prayers to her, the Roman Catholics say “none can withstand your power.”
@Chancellor: Of course the Wiki’s must be checked, as any resource! But, there are good points of historical statements and reference, especially the Orthodox wiki. I gave these few for someone wrote to me, and asked for some historical context.
Btw, you are simply DEAD wrong about the historical context of Mary being some kind of “goddess”, especially in the EO statements and belief! And note I was raised Irish Roman Catholic in Ireland (1950’s and early 60’s). In fact my first degree was a BA in Philosophy from a Roman Catholic College (way back in my 20’s). So no need to talk to me about “Catholicism”… Thank You!
Now we have “fleshed” you out a bit more, and we can see that your pressing your “own” views and use here, and certainly not any historical EO or Orthodoxy, save perhaps in the dating and of the Council of Constantinople I, 381, itself. For one thing is very certain with the Eastern Orthodox, and that is Nestorius taught: Two separate natures in the One Christ, which is certain heresy to the whole Creedal nature of the true Christ, as taught by both the East and West in classic Christendom!
Btw, I noted you said nothing to the Text of Matt. 1: 23? The point is not Mary, as is the miracle and mystery of the Incarnation itself! But Mary is a willing vessel of grace for sure! Made such by the grace & glory of God! She is not just a “womb” or go-between alone for the use of God, but again herself the place of the “Theotokos”, herself the person and place of being the “God-bearer”, for the Son of God into time, and the place of the historical itself of God en-fleshed, and now forever!
Fr. Robert,
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
And thank you for your Godly defense of the Truth and orthodox Christianity!
Btw, we can note the place that Mary had for the top-tier Reformers too. She was ‘Mary Ever-Virgin’, herself! And all of this is most certainly a position/positions of “Faith”! But a “biblical-theological” faith itself. Note Luther, Calvin and Bullinger here also!
And btw too, we should note here too, that it was Menno Simons, the Anabaptist who actually held a Valentinian gnostic position on the flesh and birth of Christ!
Thanks Pete, this does hit close to home for us who believe in the fullness of the historical Christian Faith and Church/churches! To God be the Glory!
Fr. Robert, I was referring to the Roman Catholics in more recent times when I mentioned her seeming deification. I wasn’t referring to the Eastern Orthodox or to Christianity prior to the Great Schism that created the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I don’t know what Roman Catholics in Ireland are teaching, but in the States Mary is often referred to as “Queen of Heaven” (even in the names of some churches) and as a co-redemptrix with Christ. Also, in a Roman Catholic prayer to Mary used in the States there is the line “and none can withstand your power.” So, excuse me if I interpret this as ascribing a certain amount of deity to Mary.
Getting back to Nestorius, the Creeds, etc., I adhere to the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D. (without the filioque clause). I reject in its entirety, the Eastern Orthodox version of events regarding Nestorius and of his being branded a heretic. Further, I agree with Nestorius that Christ’s divinity and humanity should not be commingled or mixed together. If that makes me a heretic in your eyes, so be it. I spent more than four years researching the history of the Trinity doctrine and I did quite a bit of research into the controversy between Nestorius and Cyril, which is a microcosm of the controversy between Antiochene and Alexandrian Christianity (the Eastern Orthodox Church, even though it did rise out of Constantinople, is most certainly in the Alexandrian camp along with the Western Church). That the Eastern Orthodox and Western Churches have branded Nestorius a heretic is based on Cyril’s bearing false witness against Nestorius and that in itself is sufficient basis to reject the branding. What is now called the “Eastern Orthodox Church” ceased to be truly eastern with the rise of the Nestorian and other Churches in Antioch and eastward. So, for me, eastern Christianity doesn’t refer to the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I didn’t comment on Matthew 1:23. It doesn’t support the…
@Chancellor: Thanks to share a bit more of just what you believe and where your coming from, and where your going! I am myself just too close and familiar with the EO to allow you to go unchecked here, at least historically. And as we can see now, you are indeed just “untilizing” the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, into your own place and belief! But with this whole Nestorius/Nestorianism also. Btw, I am sure your Reformed Brethren are not following you here! 😉
Again, how you can go negative with Cyril, the man who actually elaborated and defined the great and profound Hypostatic Union, and follow rather Nestorius? It is quite beyond me! Btw, I remember one time talking to a Oneness guy, and he was hung-up too on Heb. 1: 3…making it the only place of a biblical use of hypostasis! Which of course is not the full issue. For surely the Divine Trinity comprises three hypostases in one ousia! And this is a theological construct and application itself.
But again, the “Two” natures are simply always separate for Nestorius! And this is the issue!
Btw, getting back to this post, I wonder how Nestorianism reflects upon the conviction of being saved, and having the assurance of salvation being present? When our Mediator has a split-personality, I mean which is it for Christ, God Or Man? Again how do I approach such a being? Is HE for me, or against me? And does He even feel my pain and woes? Yes, indeed this whole thing matters both theologically and practically!
Before we leave this subject of Nestorius and Nestorianism, we should look at a piece that Chancellor has given in the second link, it will surely reveal the breakdown of the Unity of the Person of Christ, as both God & Man!
“Although Nestorius never spoke of the human Jesus and the divine Jesus as “two sons,” he did not consider him simply as a man. However, differing from Cyril of Alexandria, who posited one sole nature (mia physis) in Christ, Nestorius defined a nature in the sense of ousia, “substance,” and distinguished precisely between the human nature and the divine nature, applying in his Christology the distinction between nature (ousia) and person (hypostasis). Nestorius refused to attribute to the divine nature the human acts and sufferings of Jesus. This last statement underlines the ultimate difference between Nestorius and Cyril. Nestorius distinguished between the logos (the “divine nature”) and Christ (the Son, the Lord), which he saw as a result of the union of the divine nature and the human nature.”
Yes, Fr. Robert, Nestorius distinguished between the Logos and the Christ, between the divine and the human, and taught that they were joined in prosopic union. He did not, despite the false witness Cyril bore against him, ever teach that Christ was two persons. He did certainly teach that Christ was fully God and fully man, not a God-man half-breed. Much of the debate between Nestorius and Cyril really was one of words, though there were substantive differences as well – one need only to read some of the letters the two bishops exchanged to see this.
As for me, I adhere to the original (and, I believe, orthodox) version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D. (the one without the filioque clause). I agree with Nestorius’ opposition to referring to Mary as the theotokos, though I’m not really comfortable with his compromise term Christokos (I would have preferred the anthropokos that some in churches under him used, but I can accept Christokos). I agree with Nestorius that those things pertaining to Christ’s deity/divinity do not pertain to His humanity and those things pertaining to His humanity do not pertain to His deity/divinity. I agree with Nestorius that Christ has two natures – one divine, one human – in prosopic union.
Finally, I agree with the Synod of Mar Aqaq (486 A.D.) that there is to be no commingling or intermixing or confusing Christ’s two natures (though I don’t quite understand the Synod’s use of the phrase “copies of their natures”).
I don’t claim to be in the Eastern Orthodox camp except with regard to their version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Further, I would consider myself to be squarely in the Antiochene camp (as opposed to the Alexandrian camp). However, I also consider myself “Reformed” or “Calvinist” in that I adhere to the “doctrines of grace” (TULIP, the Five Points of Calvinism) and the Reformed version of the ordo salutis (the order of salvation).
@Chancellor: Well its been awhile since I have run into a living Nestorian! But, though it is certainly in error, and even heresy, it is better than the Oneness heresy! Indeed you have quite defined the radical aspect of eclecticism, and I say this as myself one that has a wee-bit of an eclectic mind, but thankfully I hope it is historically orthodox, at least that is always my desire! For I thankfully submit to the Church Catholic, & Historical (and Reformed, i.e. “Ecclesia semper reformada), which as an Anglican must always include, at least for me, the first five Ecumenical Councils. But, by all historical definition, and even your proud admission you are a Nestorian! Again interesting, but again most certainly not within Christian historical orthodoxy!
And your connection with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is also eclectic, for this is most surely on EO or Orthodox ground!
And being “Reformed”, well that too we can only take on your statement itself, but being Reformed myself, you would certainly NOT survive any Reformed Creedal standards I know of? Sorry to be so blunt, but I am also a “historical” churchman myself, as an Anglican presbyter, and onetime theological member of the Christian Academy. As I said, I taught philosophy and theology in Israel, living and teaching there in the latter 90’s.
Btw, of course “prosopo” is from “prosoptic” a Greek combining form, from “prosopon”: meaning face or countenance. But who knows what this means in Nestorianism? Save as it appears “one divine”, “one human”, but two separate natures and faces? As even Nestorius maintains!
“I agree with Nestorius that those things pertaining to Christ’s deity/divinity do not pertain to His humanity and those things pertaining to His humanity do not pertain to His deity/divinity. I agree with Nestorius that Christ has two natures – one divine, one human – in prosopic union.” Of course quoting you!
Btw, “a God-man half-breed”? Ugh! This too is quite offensive, and actually really pushes you into a quite unorthodox position! Wow! This is just bad theological thinking, from top to bottom! Sorry mate, but we are told to expose error, and Christological error especially!
Btw, as I have noted when dealing with many unorthodox Christians (so-called) on Bible & Theology, one does not need to quickly reel off orthodoxy itself, but let the others define themselves, and then look at it next to orthodoxy. And doing this, we can easily see that Nestorianism is quite ill! But, I am always amazed at the lack of the historical aspect often times. And it is here that I would ask Christians to look at the Council of Chalcedon, 451. And noting too Eutyches, and Apolinaris besides Nestorius.
Fr. Robert, you’re writing from the typical Eurocentric view that Western Christianity is orthodox and Eastern Christianity (by which I do not mean the Eastern Orthodox Church, which I consider as much Western as the Roman Church) is heretical.
Yes, I wrote “a God-man half-breed,” which is essentially what you have in some parts of the Western Church today and is the logical consequence of Cyril’s commingling, intermixing, confusing, etc. Christ’s divinity and His humanity – as if to say that God could suffer or hunger or thirst or die. And I won’t even get into the oxymoron “eternally begotten.” (I would suggest that Christ’s deity is eternal, but that it’s His humanity that was begotten, that had a beginning).
Yes, Christ’s two natures are indeed distinct (or, if you prefer, “separate”). I thought that would have been clear when I summarized Nestorius’ belief by saying those things applying to Christ’s divinity do not apply to His humanity and that those things applying to His humanity do not apply to His divinity, and when I said that Nestorius believed Christ to be fully God and fully man (which even most of the Western Church affirms).
Yes, there are aspects of Reformed theology with which I disagree (like baby-dipping aka infant baptism; I agree with John MacArthur on that one). But since the main doctrines defining “Calvinism” are “the doctrines of grace,” the “ordo salutis” (though the Arminians/semi-Pelagians have their version) and the “five solas,” and since I do adhere to those, that makes me, by definition, a Calvinist (as opposed to being an Arminian or semi-Pelagian).
I refuse to allow Western tyranny dictate my orthodoxy!
Fr. Robert, you wrote: “Btw, getting back to this post, I wonder how Nestorianism reflects upon the conviction of being saved, and having the assurance of salvation being present? When our Mediator has a split-personality, I mean which is it for Christ, God Or Man?”
Split personality? Now you are just being mean! Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone for God’s glory alone. The assurance of salvation is in the propitiatory work of Christ on the cross and the justification that God grants as a result. That I reject Cyril’s heresy of a God that suffers, hungers, thirsts, and dies has no bearing on Christ’s work of penal substitution on the cross or on God choosing to apply that work to His elect or to God causing His elect to persevere (or be preserved) to the end.
@Chancellor: Indeed where do we begin with someone like yourself? But first, historically, YOU are very confused for just who is this other Eastern Church? Certainly not the Orthodox Christianity which has inhabited the ground for centuries! And YOU say, you adhere to the N-C Creed, but reject the church and people who by God’s purpose and grace wrote it? Again, strange.. and just more misuse of both history and theology! Sad! Perhaps I misspoke (about Oneness being worse), for this Netorianism of Christological heresy indeed goes from bad to worse, especially as we look at the God-Man of the revelation of Holy Scripture, and it is a rejection of the true and proper theological Hypostatic Union: the union of the divine and human natures in the person of Jesus Christ! Which most certainly the profound Cyril of Alexandria has so beautifully written and defined, as we see in the Definition of Chalcedon. “He exists in two natures without confusion, without conversion, without severance, and without division, the distinction of natures being in no wise abolished by their union, but the peculiarity of each nature maintained, and both concurring in one person (prosopon) and hypostasis.” Of course this was incorporated into the Definition of Chalcedon from Cyril’s work.
Btw, it is sad that you seem to renew this whole division in some personal way between Cyril and Nestorius? And I used the point of being “separate” as a theological negative in Nestorius, to the two natures of Christ. And now you call “Cyril” the heretic? Sadly, again this division of natures was pressed by Nestorius!
Finally, bringing in John MacArthur does not help anything in the Reformed camp, I can remember when Mac taught against the Eternal Sonship of Christ! Not to mention his overt Lordship doctrine also! Reformed Baptists should stay close to the London Baptist Confession of 1689, at least on Christ, the Trinity, and soteriology (salvation). Note I am myself a Historical…
Btw, when I used the term “split-personality”, I was of course speaking theologically. The problems simply mount for someone like yourself who has taken on the grave problems of Nestorianism, especially when we look at Jesus in Gethsemane, (Mk. 14: 34-36, etc.) And too when He was on the cross and cried quoting Ps. 22:1, (Matt. 27: 26)…”My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
Btw, we should note the churches of the Miaphysite Orthodox (Oriental, Coptic, Syriac). All rejected Chalcedon for other reasons, but just as Cyril who stated that Christ has One United Nature, out of Two: Divinity & Humanity, and they are not “mixed”, but are together: The one incarnate nature of God the Logos! Here btw, we are always peering into God’s Mystery! As the Holy Trinity is three “unconfused” and distinct divine persons (hypostases), who share one divine essence (ousia) – uncreated, immaterial and eternal. “The essence of God being that which is beyond human comprehension and can not be defined and or approached by human understanding.” (Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church, (1957).
For me also, this Miaphysite (mia, means one in opposition to many) is profoundly biblical also. Indeed the great Mystery of God Triune can surely hold the Miaphysite doctrine too! That Christ has one united nature out of two: divinity and humanity.
“The eternal and immutable God has been revealed in three co-eternal Persons. The Father is the first Person, i.e. the first hypostasis of the one God, the Son is the second Person begotten of the only Father, the Spirit is the third hypostasis who proceeds from the only Father whom He has as the cause of his own eternal existence. The Spirit is called Spirit because he breathes and is moved of the Father and rests in the Son. He is wholly pure, shining, undefiled, holy, purifying and illuminating and sanctifying the other intellectual and spiritual beings. The dogma of the three separate Persons is inseparable from the dogma of the one God.”
Btw, here’s a wiki on Chalcedon, it looks helpful for both the historical, and other EO groups. Note, I am certainly pro Council of Chalcedon, myself. But I don’t have a problem with todays Miaphysite’s in general.
Again, I give this at the request of someone to be helpful!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Christianity
Here’s the whole Creed of Chalcedon…
Chalcedonian Creed (451 A.D.)
This creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.
________________________
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
Fr. Robert, there really isn’t much in what Chalcedon decreed that Nestorius would have objected to, except that whole “mother of God” thing. Chalcedon, like Nestorius, set forth that Christ has two natures (one divine, one human) in one Christ. You might want to read Nestorius’ The Bazaar of Heracleides (you can find an English translation online here: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/#Nestorius). You might also read about what he believed from a non-Western perspective, particularly since much of the disagreement between Nestorius and Cyril was one of language: http://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/becoming-nestorian/
@Chancellor: Of course what Nestorius did or didn’t think about Chalcedon is really a guess and mute question, but we can see what he did say and believe about the “Two Natures of Christ”. And as we can easily see theologically, that his Christological Christ completely separated the natures of God and Man, and as I have noted we will surely have grave problems with the biblical Jesus the Christ, and thus connecting as Melanchthon said: “To know Christ [as the God-Man] is to know His benefits.” And here proper soteriology (salvation) enters. It is just as simple as that! So who would follow, or would want to follow Nestorius? I really find that a most important question myself! Man always has a proclivity and downward pull to sin and error! WE should both understand that as Reformed and Calvinist Christians!
I have the Tertullian site myself of the many fathers and theolog’s. Myself let me again recommend the Orthodox Fr. John Anthony McGuckin’s book: St. Cyril of Alexandria & the Christological Controvery, (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press). This book is historically quite fair, and covers both sides and arguments. And btw McGuckin is an Anglo-Irishman, who has become Eastern Orthodox (Romanian Orthodox Church). See too his fine book: The Orthodox Church, An Introduction to its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture, (2008 Wiley-Blackwell, 457 pages). I mention the latter, because the general ignorance of the west and Western Christians toward the EO is just too embarrassing!
I should say and note Fr. McGuckin has been around in the EO for some time. I think he is in his mid 50’s somewhere? And again his latter book is a most comprehensive study of Eastern Orthodoxy, and he himself has become one of the leading Orthodox theolog’s in the English speaking world! A must read for any that would approach anything EO! Aye, that’s a challenge mate! 😉
You are wrong about James. That was belief that there is one God, not the gospel. Also, it states that demons believe the monotheistic truth which clearly is not the gospel and clearly Christ did not die for demons any his so no matter what they believe it would not save them.
Your use of the parable of the sower fails also. Jesus specifically says only the first did not believe as was not saved. The other 3 are contrasted by their levels of growth or maturity after (phuo/sumphuo) coming to life.
Sloppy.
Most poignantly you interchange getting saved and Christ’s guarantee of its perfect and unalterable state as synonymous with running the race. The end of the race is not a reward of salvation, that has already been given by way of Christ having run the race for that, though indeed its fullness will come in future eternity. The reward of the race are the rewards received for a faithful life, hence the entire parable used errs.
But…as to your friend and the point of all of this which is still valid…he appears to be lawyerly trusting in something he did with guarantees from Scripture with which he can force God to oblige him salvation rather than trusting in what Christ did for him.
Michael- We need to clarify here what is meant by “crossing the starting line.” If it means “only” that I have made a profession of faith, then certainly there is no real assurance in that.
But if the expression means that we are genuinely converted, “born again” as we used to say, then let’s celebrate every way we can think of, that we started the race. And such will finish, though many of us (actually all of us) will have to be carried across the finish line.
Wouldn’t you say taht it really isn’t so much about the perseverance of the saints, as it is about the perseverance of our Lord? But yes, I think also a lot of “professors” are not “possessors,” yet if we take the emphasis off a proper start (true regeneration), and place it on persevering, I fear an offshoot of that might be a reliance on works.
Maybe we’ll get up to Credo House one of these days.
Brother Stumblefoot