This blog has moved

 I decided to move my work unto another url, this is because due to much more study I would like to reform much of how these articles are written.

You can find it here:
https://freegracetheologycentral.blogspot.com/

Eternal Generation And Eternal Procession In Classical Trinitarianism

In this article I will defend an important aspect of classical trinitarianism.

Classical Trinitarianism is the view of the trinity that was held by the council of Nicaea. Classical Trinitarians believe that the Son is eternally begotten from the Father. Eternal Generation or procession do not make the Son and the Holy Spirit less God, in fact they are fully God. This is what eternal generation means:

“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”

While generation is through intellect, procession is through the will. 

Does The Bible Teach That Procession And Generation Exist?

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son

John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57, As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Hebrews 1:3:  He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Colossians 1:15: He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

John 15:26: But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father

2 Corinthians 4:4: so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Does The Spirit Proceed From The Father Only?

The Spirit does not proceed from the Father only, there are biblical texts which seem to imply that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son.

Rom. 8:9, “However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.”

Galatians 4:6, “Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

Philippians 1:19, “for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”

1 Peter 1:11, “seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.”

Revelation 21:1 seems to be a representation of the trinity. Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of the water of life "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", now this text describes a literal river, yet the river is meant to represent the Holy Spirit (as water is commonly used to symbolise the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)), Who "flows" from the Father and the Son.

How Do We Know That The Son is Eternally Generated by Means of Intellect And The Holy Spirit By Means of The Will?

The scriptures identify Christ as "logos" which means "word" or "thought" in Greek thinking, Christ is also called the "image of the invisible God" and the "wisdom of God". This communication of essence to the Son is an act of intellect. Christ the wisdom, knowledge, truth and image of God. As a result of God knowing Himself and thinking of Himself - that thought lacking nothing - He produces an image of Himself which is perfectly like Him in every respect except Fatherhood (Col. 1:15, 19). Christ cannot be the Father for the reason being that He does not beget or generate anyone.

The Holy Spirit on the other hand is identified with love in the scriptures, when He left Saul, the scriptures said in 2 Samuel 7:15: "but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you."

Compare this to 1 Samuel 16:14:

Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul

The are also New Testament references, the bible always speaks of the love of God being poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit:

Romans 5:5

<5> and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

Romans 15:30

<30> I appeal to you, brothers, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God on my behalf,

The Holy Spirit is also symbolised with the dove (Luke 3:22), which is a symbol of love in a Jewish context (Song of Solomon 5:2).

If we apply the same logic as previously to the Son, we can explain this special connection to love, as the Holy Ghost being the love of the Father and Son, the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son by their mutual love.

The Early Martin Luther Opposed Lordship Salvation

Martin Luther

 Thus you see how rich a Christian is, that is, one who has been baptized! Even if he would, he could not lose his salvation, however much he sinned, unless he refused to believe. For no sin can condemn him save unbelief alone. (The Babylonian Captivity) 

Amsdorf also said contrary to Major (who taught a kind of Lordship like view):

“All those who teach and write that good works are necessary for salvation are going directly against Luther, yes, directly against themselves."

now, Luther in his quote does mention baptismal regeneration, however Luther's system of baptismal regeneration is not the same as commonly held by many groups today, for Luther Baptism regenerates because God gives faith during Baptism to infants, he viewed it as a way to "preach the gospel" to infants. It is admittedly weird, however it is not equally bad as many modern forms. Yet, this quote shows that Martin Luther in his early days taught that faith alone is truly sufficient.

Biblical Motivations To Obey God

If we confess our sins, He is faithful
and just to forgive us our
sins and to cleanse us
 from all unrighteousness.
1 John 1:9

 Many today try to use the fear of hell to make people obey, saying things such as "you are going to the lake of fire if you do not fight lust". However, biblically as we are eternally secure, we should not fear hell.

Eternal rewards

We can earn eternal rewards by obeying God, this is affirmed in multiple biblical texts such as Matthew 6:19-20, which says:
Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

It is also explicitly mentioned in 1 Corinthians 3, which says:

9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Thankfulness

We cannot obey God unless we love him, when we are thankful to God about the things he has done, it naturally should lead into love for God. 

James says that every good gift is from God (James 1:17), by remembering that every good thing, including our daily things such as food, housing, nature, beauty and many other things are gifts of God that we in no wise deserve, we naturally become thankful. However, by remembering what Christ did for us in the cross, we can also learn great thankfulness. Seeing Christ suffer in the cross for your sins, should motivate you to obey. 

Titus 2:11-12 King James Version

 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world

Divine chastisement

We may get temporary judgements upon ourselves if we disobey, as Hebrews 12:7 says:

If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?

This is why we should have a fear for the Lord, and be afraid to sin, as we may bring harsh temporal judgements upon ourselves. 

Fellowship

Close fellowship with God requires obedience, and as God is our only joy, we will feel great gladness when we are close to the Lord, David noted this when he sinned greatly against the Lord, stating:  "Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.". When David fell, he lost the JOY of his salvation (not his salvation) but the joy thereof.

Christ is the greatest joy, no sin can provide us better joy or fulfillment.

Being also distant from God, we may have our prayers hindered:

1 Peter 3:7

7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

The rapture

The rapture may come at any moment, and being caught in sin while it happens would be a great shame, we can never know when the rapture happens so we should be ready:

Titus 2:13:
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

Natural consequences for sin

Even the unbeliever experiences natural consequences for sin, even many unbelievers try to avoid sins such as drug addiction, due to their adverse effects. If we choose to disobey, we may destroy our own lives through sin,

Robert Sandeman (1718 - 1771) An Early Free Grace Theologian

Portrait of Sandeman

 Robert Sandeman was a non-conformist theologian in the 18th century, he started the "Sandemanian" movement, which was often called "antinomian" (as an insult) due to his belief that faith alone, not love nor sorrow are necessary for salvation. Sandeman said that he believed "bare" faith is sufficient to be saved, this might be to distinguish his view from the classical Reformed view of "sola fide", but I do not know. 

Sandeman however defined faith as mere persuasion of the gospel, while some in the Free Grace camp would agree with that (Wilkins, Hodges), many do not, holding that faith is trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ (including me). Despite that, both can agree that Sandeman being clear that turning from sin, love for God and good works cannot be asserted into the gospel is commendable.

Quotes from Sandeman on Free Grace

No, we must either take the one side or the other. Either Christ has done everything God requires to procure acceptance with Him and relieve the wretched conscience of its guilt, or He has not. This is why my plea with Aspasio in this respect proceeds upon this cardinal question: what is the turning point from despair toward hope?

The popular preachers are not so insensible that the absurdity would appear too glaring should they directly oppose the apostolic order; therefore, instead of plainly establishing the reverse, they choose rather to throw the apostolic order into confusion and cover it with mist, so as the cheat may not readily be discerned. For they always do their business most successfully in the dark.  They so confound the distinction betwixt faith and love that it is difficult to say what fixed uniform notion they have of either. 

In vain shall we consult catechisms, confessions, and other publicly authorized standards of doctrine for direction here. These are framed by the wisdom of the scribes, and disputers of this world. We can receive no true light about this matter, but from the fountainhead of true knowledge, the sacred oracles of divine revelation.... Thence it will appear, that justification comes from bare faith. As a Christian, What’s his faith, the spring of all his hope? And he answers you in a word, The blood of Christ.2

Charles Stanley on Eternal Security

 Stanley died recently on the 18th day of this month, so I wrote this short article for his memory. Stanley was very well known among Free Grace advocates due to his book on eternal security. Stanley was one of the most well known Free Grace Baptist theologian, however later around the 21st century, he began to teach more Lordship-like views. Here are magnificent quotes from his book:

“Look at that verse [John 3:18] and answer this question: According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual ‘believe in’ Him”

The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand

You can read the whole book, it is named: "Eternal Security: Can You Be Sure?"

The Significance of The Blood of Christ

 The blood of Christ is a central theme in the New Testament and the typology was also placed in the Old Testament. 

It all begins with sin, as when Adam and Eve sinned God sacrificed the first animal and made clothes of it for them (Genesis 3:21). Later, the bible would remind us many times that in order for there to be forgiveness, there must be blood (Exodus 23:18), (Leviticus 17:11).  In the Mosaic dispensation, the Jews had to make animal sacrifices the blood of which was necessary to make them clean, however these animal sacrifices themselves were not sufficient to ultimately forgive a person and served as a type of a greater sacrifice (Hebrews 9:22).  

This was fulfilled when Christ died in the cross, shedding His blood, as is said in Matthew 26:27-28:
Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

We are forgiven by the blood of Christ literally. However, a new point has been put out by some such as John McArthur who wish to make the blood merely a "symbol" of the death of Christ, denying that it itself saves.  According to book of Matthew the blood is literally shed for the remission of sins, being itself what covers our sins. The bible states this many times:

Hebrews 9:22 

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

Ephesians 1:7 

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Ephesians 2:13

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Acts 20:28  

Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Leviticus 17:11 

For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Colossians 1:20 

And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Revelation 7:14 

I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

Hebrews 10:19 

Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,

Hebrews 13:12  

So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

Luke 22:20  

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

Revelation 5:9 

And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

Romans 5:9

Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

1 Peter 1:18-19 

Knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

John 1:29  

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Classical Theism Examined And Defended Using Scripture

Classical theism means the views of God held by most western Christians since the very earliest of times. While I do not hold that the argument "it is early, therefore true", holds much weight, yet this article will discuss if it is a biblical idea. 

classical theism in essence views God as much greater than any created thing, the doctrine also seeks to view God as unable to be hurt by creation. 

classical theism in todays Christianity however has been endlessly criticized and modified, being often replaced by theistic personalism. 

classical theists believe that God is impassible, without potential and divinely simple, what these terms mean will be explained later on.

I do not think this issue is an issue over life and death, nor do I think that theistic personalists are going to the lake of fire. I believe it is possible to serve God and have a great reward in heaven without believing in classical theism, this is an issue of detail and not of life. However, I do think that the bible supports the classical views of God.

Divine Simplicity

Divine simplicity is the doctrine that every attribute of God is identical to Himself, having no parts. This means that God is not merely loving, but that He is love literally. 

1 John 4:16 says: "And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him."

Here we see John saying that God is identical to love, thus God is not made partially out of love but is love. A similar statement was made elsewhere in John's writings, as he says in 1 John 1:5 "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

God is not merely "bright" but He is Light.

In Exodus 3:14  God is called the "I AM", this verse shows that God exists by Himself, He just "is", nothing caused God, God is "being" itself. However, if God was composed of many parts, those parts would cause God, thus God would not be self existent, which contradicts Exodus 3:14.  God is truly "one" as Deuteronomy 6:4 says. The traditional doctrine of the trinity says that "God is three in persons, yet one in essence", what Deuteronomy 6:4 affirms is that God is one in His essence, but if God is made out of many parts, that would mean that God's essence is not "one" but many.

Romans 11:36 says "For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things", this verse identifies God as the creator and cause of all things, however if God is made out of parts, that would mean God created his own parts. Though Paul did not have divine simplicity in mind while saying this, assuming that Paul did not believe divine simplicity, this wouldn't make much sense.

A less clear text that may be applied secondarily is Hebrews 12:29, which says "For our God is a consuming fire", Now if the words "consuming fire" refer to His perfect justice, the verse may be paraphrased as "God is justice", however I acknowledge this as a weak prooftext, however I may still lay it out there. Historically, some have argued that Jeremiah 23:6 identifies God with righteousness as the Hebrew literally says "YAHWEH our righteousness", however this too is not the most clear text.

God also does not have body parts, this is because "God is spirit" (John 4:24). When the bible mentions "the face of God", it's not a literal face but a reference to His presence. Same as when it mentions the "hands of God", it's an anthropomorphistic reference to His providence.

Pure Act

This is a theological term to mean God has no potentiality. This means that God is not potentially more loving tomorrow and less today, or potentially less just tomorrow. This is just a more detailed way to say that God does not change (Malachi 3:6). This means that God is always merciful, loving, kind, wise etc and does not go from being potentially kind to actually kind.

Theistic personalists have a more "loose" sense of what it means God cannot change, as they believe God does have potential to be more loving in one moment and less in another.

Divine timelessness

God is outside time, this is affirmed by the majority of Christians, however this has been denied by some theistic personalists such as William Lane Craig. The bible explicitly teaches this:

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day (2 Peter 3:8).

For thus says the high and lofty one who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy (Isaiah 57:15).

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13).

Impassability

Now, here comes the most controversial part. The ones previously mentioned do not seem to cause much protest among Christians. Impassability means God is not subject to passions, thus He does not change his emotions due to what His creatures do. This doctrine thus means that God does not feel literal sorrow, anger, pain or empathy, but the mentions of these in the scriptures are anthropomorphistic.  This doctrine is necessary to protect the fact that God cannot be hurt by anyone.

Now, even though this is an unpopular doctrine, we must stay faithful to the clear testimony of scripture. However, this doctrine does not make God a stoic, non-caring God and non-personal, in fact divine impassability never denied God's love, kindness, mercy, goodness, but instead says that God is equally loving at all times, never changing but always perfectly loving. However, individuals can stop experiencing His love by going away from Him. 

Biblical evidence

Firstly when the Greeks in the book of Acts thought that Paul was divine, Paul objected by saying "we are men of like passions". Thus Paul's comment means something along the lines of: "do not worship us, because we have passions!", this means that Paul did not think the real God has passions:

Acts 14:15 

And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein:

Wayne Grudem objected to the doctrine by saying that the Greek word "ὁμοιοπαθής" used here, may simply mean "of a like nature", however the word is defined by Strong's concordance as meaning "subject to like passions", and it comes from two Greek words "homiois" (like) and pascho (passion, suffering). Thus the point stands, Paul is explicitly saying that he is not to be worshipped because he has passions. James 5:17 similarly, seems to identify passions as something that belongs to humans (using the same Greek word) specifically, though not as clearly.

The Book of Hebrews also states that Christ's empathy is a property of His human nature, meaning that the reason why Christ feels empathy is because He is a man. This again shows clearly that the author of Hebrews believed that God in His divine nature does not have passions:

Hebrews 2:18

For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Hebrews 4:15

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin

There is also contextual evidence that the "feelings" of God mentioned in the Old Testament are anthropomorphistic, Numbers 23 states:

19 “God is not a man, that He should lie,

Nor a son of man, that He should repent.

Has He said, and will He not do?

Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?

20 Behold, I have received a command to bless;

He has blessed, and I cannot reverse it.

Now, Numbers 23 states that "God does not repent (change his mind)", but in other scriptures it says God "repented" (Jonah 3:10)? This is an anthropomorphism (or anthropopathism), God does not literally change his mind, but it looks like that in our perspective. The concept of "change of feelings" is similar to the concept of "changing one's mind", and it logically follows that the feelings described are analogous. This also shows that the biblical writers used anthropomorphistic language, and thus we can by using the contextual-historical hermeneutic argue that the biblical writers used this figure of speech when describing divine feelings. 

Also, when the bible says God "regretted" making man (Genesis 6:6), it seems to also contextually necessities viewing it as an anthropopathism, because otherwise that would mean that God created something he did not ultimately want. 

There are also other biblical arguments for impassability, which follow from other conclusions. For example, if God does not have potentiality and does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17), He does not change his mood either. If God knows the future and is outside time (Isaiah 57:15), wouldn't God be sorrowful all the time, as He always sees the evil deeds of people? If God can have literal sorrow, would that mean God merely saves us to take away his own pain from seeing us sin? Also, divine simplicity by necessity leads towards impassability, because if God is literally "being", He can have no potentiality, and as a change of feelings is going from potential to actuality, He is impassible. Thus, if we accept the arguments for divine simplicity, we must accept impassability. This is why William Lane Craig, Mullins and others deny this formation of divine simplicity, modifying it, this modified form of the doctrine would say: "Though God is not made of many parts, He is not literally identical to love, light, justice, righteousness, and John was not speaking literally by saying God is love".

Classical trinitarianism

Classical trinitarianism as opposed to social trinitarianism is a necessary result of the other classical doctrines, however it is possible to hold to a classical view of the trinity without believing in classical theism. 

Social trinitarianism is a new form of trinitarianism, which has became more and more popular overtime. In this article I seek to establish the biblical basis for the classical trinitarian view, and as a result I critique the social trinitarian view. Social trinitarians often believe that God has three minds, three wills, three centers of emotion and of consciousness, having a more loose sense of the unity of God. While I see social trinitarianism as intellectually tempting due to it being much easier to comprehend, we should not decide doctrines on the basis of which one is easier to understand.

God has one mind

The scriptures also speak of God's mind and will in the singular, implying only one mind within God, such as Paul in Romans 11:34 says “For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor?  There are also many texts which speak of one will in God (Romans 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, John 7:17). Yet as we are not unitarian, we can say that the one divine will and mind is "operated" by three agents (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit), God having one mind doesn't deny the trinity.

Because there is only one will in God, it would mean that there is no submission. The verses which speak of submission should be interpreted as Christ in his human nature (Christ had two natures, one human one divine and as will is an aspect of nature, he had two wills). Thus Christ submits to the Father in His human will but not in His divine will. This is affirmed by Paul in Philippians 2:8:

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

If Christ "became" obedient, it means there was a time where no subordination existed.

Three persons

The trinity means that there is one God, yet three persons. The word "person" might be slightly misleading, as its semantic meaning has changed overtime, which is why some theologians want to change the word to "subsistence" (which is literal translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" used in the Nicean creed), however the word "subsistence" does not mean much to the average English speaker and may sound too "fancy". The problem is that human language often is problematic in describing divine truths. A very short description of the word "person" or "subsistence" would mean is "who", or "I" (self distinctions), there are three "I"s in one God.  We see in the bible clearly that there are three persons, for example the Father "sends" the Son (1 John 4:14), in a modalist system that would make no sense. Yet, to go into detail, the Bible teaches that the three persons are distinguished by relations of origin (a theological concept to describe begetting and spiration).  

The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. This is a hard doctrine to understand, yet it is clearly affirmed in the bible. To get an idea of what the doctrine means, here is a quote from A.A Hodge, from His "Outlines of Theology":

“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”

 There are multiple texts which affirm this doctrine. Firstly, the mere fact of being called the "Son" implies begetting, yet as Christ has been eternally the Son, He must have been eternally begotten. Now, opponents of classical trinitarianism often argue that Christ became the Son by becoming a human, however as Christ is called "Son" prior to the incarnation in the Old Testament (Proverbs 30:4), we can safely say that Christ's sonhood is not grounded in the incarnation. However, there are explicit texts to affirm this doctrine:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57-58, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”

Another text to explicitly affirm this doctrine is Hebrews 1:3 which says:

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Sam Shamoun comments on this text: "There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."

A similar point is made in Colossians 1:15, which calls the Son the "image" of God.

Another text that is more ambiguous is Proverbs 8, which describing wisdom says: "I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.", some believe that Paul the apostle connected this text to Jesus by saying that Jesus is the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), yet I believe this to be a bit ambiguous and not the strongest text to use. 

Similarly, the Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, as John 15:26 states:

But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Most theologians in the west also believe that He proceeds from the Son as well, as the scriptures call the Holy Spirit "The Spirit of Christ" (the genitive "of" often means "from" in Greek). Jesus also "breathes forth" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent "in the name of the Son" John 14:26. Commentators have also noticed that Revelation 21:1 seems to be a representation of the trinity. Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of the water of life "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", now this text describes a literal river, yet the river is meant to represent the Holy Spirit (as water is commonly used to symbolize the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)), Who "flows" from the Father and the Son.

Theologians have also often asked "how do generation and spiration work", some have argued from the fact that Christ is called the "logos" (word, thought) and the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and the "image of God" in Colossians, the eternal generation of the Son is by means of intellect. Meaning, the eternal generation of the Son happens through the Father knowing himself, meaning he has the perfect idea or image of himself. From the same logic, it has been argued that since there seems to be a special identification with the Holy Spirit and love ( 2 Samuel 7:15, Rom 5:5, Romans 15:30) along with the Holy Spirit being compared with the dove (Luke 3:22), the dove being used in Jewish contexts for love (Song of Solomon 5:2), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Now, while I think this may be the best way to explains these two concepts, I do not think it is so clear that we should make it dogmatic. However, the reasoning behind these seems possible, and I would accept it as true.

The reason why eternal generation and eternal procession are important is because if we deny those and we ask "how do we tell the persons apart", we will have no answer, yet eternal generation and procession gives us this answer. 

The three persons are distinguished by relations, not by difference in will or mind.

It is not borrowed from Greek philosophy

William Lane Craig has argued that this doctrine is borrowed from Greek philosophy, however this is untrue. While some advocates of the doctrine like Thomas Aquinas (1225 –  1274), may have relied too much on Aristotle and Greek philosophers, the fact is that Aquinas did not invent classical theism and is not the only representative of it. The doctrine was affirmed by Christians as early as Irenaeus (130 – 202), Augustine (4-5th centuries), Athenagoras (133 - 190ad), Origen (184-253ad), Hilary of Poitiers (310-367ad), Ambrose of Milan (340-397ad) along with many others. It is also affirmed among the Jews, by Philo (20 – 50ad), Maimonides (1138–1204) and others.

Just because Aquinas may have relied too much on Greek concepts to defend the doctrine, does not mean it is entirely derived from Greek philosophy. This is one of the worst forms of the genetic fallacy, even worse when it did not begin with Aquinas. 

Who Is Jesus Christ? The Biblical Understanding Of Christology

 

This article seeks to answer from the bible one of the most important questions, "Who is Jesus Christ".  This question has caused many divisions within Christianity, however only one position is biblical. Today, 3 positions on the nature of Christ are common, these are:
Unitarianism (Christ is created)
Classical Chalcedonianism (Christ is one person in two natures)
Neo-Apollinarianism (Modified form of Chalcedonianism)

This article will show that the biblical evidence supports the Chalcedonian position.

Christ is God 

This is one important aspect in understanding Christology, Jesus Christ is God himself. This is affirmed in multiple biblical texts:

John 1:1 ESV

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 8:58 ESV 

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

John 20:28 ESV 

Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

Colossians 2:9 ESV 

For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

Matthew 1:23 ESV 

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).

Hebrews 1:3 ESV

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

It is highly important to understand that Jesus Christ is God for the atonement, as Christ had to be the perfect God in order to properly atone for our sins. There passages together show that the unitarian position is unbiblical, and it is inherently dangerous.

Jesus Christ is a man

The bible says "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.", this means that Christ was also fully human. This is also necessary for the atonement, as God cannot die in His divine nature. The Gnostics of old taught a doctrine called "docetism", which means Christ only appeared to be a man. Docetism was called by John a doctrine of the antichrist, sating in 1 John 4:3: and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Jesus Christ is one person

The two natures (human and divine) are united in His one person, John 1 says that the eternal Word united a full human nature to himself, meaning God the Son united a full human nature to himself so that he can dwell on the earth as a human. Due to being one person, there is only one Christ and we cannot separate "the man Jesus Christ" and "the God Jesus Christ" because that would mean there are two persons. This means that we cannot separate any work of Christ as being done "by the man Jesus Christ" or "by the God Jesus Christ", anything Christ does in his human nature can be attributed to the divine person of the Son, thus as Christ is one person, we can say that "God died as a man", this is similar language as what Paul used when stating in 1 Corinthians 2:8: "which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

The only way you can crucify the "Lord of glory" is if He has become incarnate. Similarly, the blood of Christ is called the blood of God in the bible, showing that Christ is one and there are not two Christs:

Acts 20:28

Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

Dyothelitism

Now, this is where the difference between the Classical Chalcedonian view and the Neo-Apollinarian view comes in. Neo-Apollinarianism is a modified form of Apollinarianism (which was a doctrine born in the 4th century which argued that Christ had no human mind or will, and that the human mind of God was replaced by the divine mind, the doctrine was later condemned as heresy by the council of Constantinople).

Apollinaris of Laodicea taught that
Christ had no human will.

 Neo-Apollinarianism, however does not use the language of the divine mind of Christ "replacing" the human mind (unlike the Apollinarians did), instead neo-Apollinarianism argues that "person" is a synonym with "mind", thus when they say "one person, two natures", they mean "One mind, two natures". In the classical Chalcedonian/Constantinopolitan view, Christ has two wills and minds (human and divine), however the human mind is ordered to be in unity with the divine mind, thus there is no schizophrenia in Christ. In the classical view, the one person of Christ has two minds, without there being two Christs nor self-contradiction. The Neo-Apollinarian however teaches "monothelitism", that Christ has one will (this position was also condemned as heretical in church history). 

In my view, it seems biblically abundantly clear that Christ had a human will, for example Christ was tempted by Satan, but God cannot be tempted (James 1:13) which shows that Christ had a human will and Jesus in His human will submits to the Father (John 6:38, Matthew 26:39). 

Jesus is also said to be "in every way like us" (Hebrews 2:17), this would include a will and a mind:

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

More reading

What is Monothelitism (Gotquestions)

"Thy Will Be Done": A Dogmatic Defense of Dyothelitism in Light of Recent Monothelite Proposals

 (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

Charles Henry Mackintosh (1820 – 1896) On Assurance

 Charles Henry Mackintosh was a Plymouth writer, however he is notable due to foreshadowing many Free Grace teachings around 130 years prior to the controversy.

Miscellaneous Writings of C. H. Mackintosh

 They are looking for what they can never find. They are seeking for a ground of peace in a sanctified nature instead of in a perfect sacrifice— in a progressive work of holiness instead of in a finished work of atonement.

A Shocking Discovery! The Early Calvinists Did Not Teach Lordship Salvation

This article shows that many early Calvinists did not teach Lordship salvation. Though the majority of people mentioned here cannot be called Free Grace either, they show points of agreement. Many early Calvinists believed that though repentance was a turning from sin, it is not a pre-condition of salvation, while McArthur holds it to be a pre-condition of justification.

 John Calvin 1509 – 1564 

John Calvin was the first Calvinist and basically the founder of the movement, however John Calvin denied that turning from sin is a necessary pre-requisite of salvation. Though John Calvin defined repentance as an "inner turning from sin", he denied it to be a condition of receiving eternal life. 

To salvation Paul seems to make repentance the ground of salvation. Were it so, it would follow, that we are justified by works. I answer, that we must observe what Paul here treats of, for he is not inquiring as to the ground of salvation, but simply commending repentance from the fruit which it produces

- John Calvin, commentary on 2 Corinthians 7:10

Calvin also said this in his institutes:

There are some, however, who suppose that repentance precedes faith, rather than flows from it, or is produced by it as fruit from a tree. Such persons have never known the power of repentance, and are moved to feel this way by an unduly slight argument.

Calvin's position is not Free Grace, however it contains similarities with Free Grace theologians. Calvin taught that turning from sin is a result of being saved. This is similar to the view of Zane Hodges who taught repentance (him defining it as an inner turning from sin) usually comes after salvation. Though there exists a real difference in these positions, Calvin taught repentance to always follow from faith, while Zane said it may follow from faith. Most Free Grace theologians define repentance as a change of mind, however what brings Calvin close to the Free Grace view, is that he taught mere faith is sufficient to be saved, and that repentance is a good work that is not a pre-requisite of salvation. Though most Free Grace theologians do not believe that every believer will as a result of faith in sorrow turn internally from their sin, unlike Calvin did.

John Calvin also attacked any doctrine which would undermine assurance by putting the focus on the individual instead of Christ:

we do not thus accept that most pestilent philosophy which certain half-papists are furtively beginning to fashion today. For because they cannot defend that rude doubt which has been handed down in the schools, they take refuge in another fiction: that they may make an assurance mingled with unbelief. Whenever we look upon Christ, they confess that we find full occasion for good hope in him. But because we are always unworthy of all those benefits which are offered to us in Christ, they would have us waver and hesitate at the sight of our unworthiness (Institutes 3.2.24)

Thomas Boston 1676 – 1732

Boston similarly denied that repentance from sin is a pre-condition of eternal life, arguing that it cannot be necessary for receiving Christ but following out of being in Christ.

Thomas Boston

Though the patrons of the doctrine of the necessity of repentance in order to the obtaining of the pardon of sin, do not aim at any encroachment on the doctrine of free pardon; yet, with all deference to those learned men, I conceive, that such doctrine is injurious to the grace of God, and doth much darken the free pardon offered in the gospel, in regard the pardon is promised immediately to those that believe, Acts 10:43. “Through his name, whosoever believeth in him, shall receive remission of sins.” But they require, that believers bring something with them, if they would obtain it, even that they bring repentance along with them.  THOMAS BOSTON, The Whole Works of Thomas Boston: Sermons and Discourses on Several Important Subjects in Divinity

 John Colquhoun (1748-1827)

John Colquhuon also defined repentance as an inner turning from sin (in contrast to most Free Grace theologians who view it as a change of mind), however John denied it as a condition of being justified. 

How then can his repentance atone for his iniquities, or entitle him to the favour of God and to the happiness of heaven? How can that evangelical repentance, which he is incapable of exercising till after his sins be all forgiven on the ground of an infinite atonement imputed to him, make atonement for them? How can that true repentance, which he cannot exercise until in justification he be already entitled to eternal life, entitle him to eternal life? Does not the consummate righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed for justification, entitle the believer fully to it? What need is there, then, that his repentance should entitle him? John Colquhoun, Evangelical Repentance

Others

Auchterarder creed (1717ad): It is not sound and orthodox to teach that we must forsake sin in order to our coming to Christ

John Cotton (1585 –  1652): Trulie it is hard to perceive [between a temporary believer and a true believer] when men differ, and therefore it is not an easie matter to make such use of sanctification, as by it to beare witnesse unto justification

Case for The Pretribulational Rapture

Scofield popularized the pretribulational
rapture doctrine in the US.

 This article is a biblical case for the pretribulational rapture. The doctrine was most clearly articulated by Darby, however it was earlier taught by Fra Dolcino in the 12th century. 

Argument 1: Paul affirmed the pretribulation rapture

There are multiple explicit text used to defend the pretribulational rapture, these include:

1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

9 For they themselves declare concerning us what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 5:9

"For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,"

2 Thessalonians 2:7

"For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way."

Now, contextually it appears that 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is not referring to eternal wrath but to the end times, thus the wrath refers to the 7 year tribulation period. This is further shown from the quote in 1 Thessalonians which says that this wrath is "to come", however hell is a present reality, showing that the wrath Paul is referring to is the tribulation period. These two texts show that the church will not go through the tribulation.

John Nelson Darby

When Paul refers to the one "who now restrains", this likely refers to the church, as if the post-tribulational view is correct (that it refers to the Holy Spirit) that would indicate that He is not present in the tribulation at all, which would be a hard claim to make. 

Argument 2: The silence of the Book of Revelation

Chapters 1 to 3 in Revelation talk about the church, yet as soon as chapter 4 starts the church is never mentioned again, instead only "Israel" is mentioned. It is thus implied that the church will not be in the tribulation period, as during that time God's focus is on Israel.

Argument 3: God in the Old Testament saved his people out of tribulation

When God judges a people in the Old Testament in a total way, He saved His people out of it. For example God took Noah out of the flood instead of protecting them in the flood. God also took Lot out of judgement instead of protecting him in judgement. It should follow that God will take the church out of judgement.

Argument 4: Separation of church and Israel

If passages such as Isaiah 60 are to be taken literally, it necessitates the view that there are two peoples of God, Israel and the church. Now, if the tribulation is for Israel (Revelation 7), then there is no reason for the church to be around during that time period, thus logically leading to a pretribulational rapture.

Grace Is Not An Excuse To Sin

 Some people take eternal security as an excuse to sin freely, radical ones even claim that to claim otherwise is "self righteousness" or "phariseic", yet no major Free Grace theologian has taught license. There are many biblical consequences to sin.

One of the first lies Satan used was "thou shalt not die", Satan wants us to think that one can sin freely without consequences, this article seeks to grow people in discipleship.

Loss of rewards

Christ commanded us to gather rewards, and if we fail to obey we will certainly lose eternal rewards.

The bible describes it in this way in 1 Corinthians 3 (NKJV):

Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Jesus also affirms this in Matthew 5:11-12:

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” 

Lack of fellowship

The book of 1 John is written as a guide for fellowship with God, as is stated in the intro:

1 John 1:5-7 (NKJV)

"This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 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."

John calls the readers to do good works, confess their sins and turn from their sins in order to maintain their fellowship with God.

1 John 4:8 (NIV)

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Loss of joy

As a consequence of losing fellowship, we may also lose our joy, this is seen in Psalm 51:12, which states: "Restore to me the joy of Your salvation, And uphold me by Your generous Spirit."

Natural consequences to sin

Sin also has natural consequences everyone will suffer, both believer and unbeliever alike. This is why Paul in Galatians 6:7 declares: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap."

Chastisement

We may be directly chastised by God as a result of our sin, sometimes it might be very extreme or even physical death:

Hebrews 12:6-11 (NKJV)

6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens,

And scourges every son whom He receives.”

7 If[a] you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no [b]chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Psalm 89:30-33: If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness.

20 Biblical Verses To Teach Eternal Security

1. 

   Eternal security is that
   work of God which guarantees
    that the gift of salvation,
    once received, is possessed
    forever and cannot
   be lost - Charles Ryrie

   John 10:27-29: My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
2. John 6:37: All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.
3. John 10:28:  I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
4. John 5:24: Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
5. Romans 11:29: For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
6. Romans 8:38-39: For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
7. 1 John 5:13: I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
8. 2 Corinthians 1:22: And who has also put his seal on us and given us his Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee
9. Ephesians 4:30: And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.
10. Hebrews 10:14: For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
11. Ephesians 1:13: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
12. Romans 8:34: Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
13. Hebrews 13:5: Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”
14. John 6:40: For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
15. Hebrews 7:25: Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.
16. Ephesians 1:13-14: In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
17. John 6:39: And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
18. Psalm 89:30-33: If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules, if they violate my statutes and do not keep my commandments, then I will punish their transgression with the rod and their iniquity with stripes, but I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to my faithfulness.
19. 2 Timothy 2:13: If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
20. John 4:14: but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

The Early Christians Did Not Pray To Saints

This article presents quotes from early Christians to show that praying to saints as the Catholic and Orthodox churches do, was not done by the earliest of Christians.

On the Trinity, Novatian c. 200–258 

If Christ is only man, how is He present wherever He is called upon; when it is not the nature of man, but of God, that it can be present in every place? If Christ is only man, why is a man invoked in prayers as a Mediator, when the invocation of a man to afford salvation is condemned as ineffectual?

Tertullian

Apology (Tertullian) 155 AD – c. 220 AD

And if we speak of Paradise, the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as by a sort of enclosure

Against Heresies (Book II, Chapter 32), Irenaeus 130 – c. 202 AD

5. Nor does she perform anything by means of angelic invocations, or by incantations, or by any other wicked curious art; but, directing her prayers to the Lord, who made all things, in a pure, sincere, and straightforward spirit, and calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, she has been accustomed to work miracles for the advantage of mankind, and not to lead them into error. If, therefore, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ even now confers benefits [upon men], and cures thoroughly and effectively all who anywhere believe in Him, but not that of Simon, or Menander, or Carpocrates, or of any other man whatever, it is manifest that, when He was made man, He held fellowship with His own creation, and did all things truly through the power of God, according to the will of the Father of all, as the prophets had foretold. But what these things were, shall be described in dealing with the proofs to be found in the prophetical writings.

Origen 185–254ad

We judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them.” (Against Celsus, Book V, Chap. XI) 

Lactantius (c. 250 – c. 325)

"They [pagans] ought therefore to have understood from the mysteries and ceremonies themselves, that they were offering prayers to dead men." (The Divine Institutes, 1:21)

"But if it appears that these religious rites are vain in so many ways as I have shown, it is manifest that those who either make prayers to the dead, or venerate the earth, or make over their souls to unclean spirits, do not act as becomes men, and that they will suffer punishment for their impiety and guilt, who, rebelling against God, the Father of the human race, have undertaken inexpiable rites, and violated every sacred law." (2:18)

 

The Early Christians Did Not Believe In The Papacy

This article will show many quotes from early Christians to show that the papacy did not exist then:

Cyprian 210 – 14 September 258 AD 

For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had previously been a persecutor of the Church

Cyprian letter 70

For no one of us  has set himself up to be bishop of bishops, or attempted with tyrannical dread to force his colleagues to obedience to him, since every bishop has, for the license of liberty and power, his own will, and as he cannot be judged by another, so neither can he judge another. But we await the judgment of our universal Lord, our Lord Jesus Christ, who one and alone has the power, both of advancing us in the governance of his Church, and of judging of our actions in that position.

Cyprian, council of Carthage

Tertullian 155 AD – c. 220 AD

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?  

Origen 185 – c. 253

And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail

(St. Basil of Caesarea) Letter 214

and therefore I congratulate those who have received the letter from Rome. And, although it is a grand testimony in their favour, I only hope it is true and confirmed by facts. But I shall never be able to persuade myself on these grounds to ignore Meletius, or to forget the Church which is under him, or to treat as small, and of little importance to the true religion, the questions which originated the division. I shall never consent to give in, merely because somebody is very much elated at receiving a letter from men. Even if it had come down from heaven itself, but he does not agree with the sound doctrine of the faith, I cannot look upon him as in communion with the saints. 

Polycrates of Ephesus 130 – 196, writing against Pope Victorinus

Moreover I also, Polycrates, who am the least of you all, in accordance with the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have succeeded-seven of my relatives were bishops, and I am the eighth, and my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven-I myself, brethren, I say, who am sixty-five years old in the Lord, and have fallen in with the brethren in all parts of the world, and have read through all Holy Scripture, am not frightened at the things which are said to terrify us. For those who are greater than I have said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Council of Chalcedon  451 AD

Canon 28

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.

(the authority of Rome came from politics and not by being the infallible magisterium) 

Firmillian: died c. 269

that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make; breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles, as if the very men delivered this who in their epistles execrated heretics, and warned us to avoid them. Whence it appears that this tradition is of men which maintains heretics, and asserts that they have baptism, which belongs to the Church alone.

Rufinus 344/345–411ad

The ancient custom in Alexandria and the city of Rome is to be maintained whereby [the bishop of the former] has charge of Egypt, while [the bishop of the latter] has charge of the suburbicarian (= local) churchese Church of Christ.

Quinisext Council

Date    692

Canon 36

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Canon 55

Since we understand that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent they fast on the Saturdays, contrary to the ecclesiastical observance which is traditional, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canon shall immovably stands fast which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on a Sunday or Saturday (except on one occasion only) he is to be deposed; and if he is a layman he shall be cut off.

Canon 13

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time.

The Canons of the Council of Constantinople (381) 

Canon 2

The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.

Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) epistle of the African synod to Pope Celestine

especially since whosoever thinks himself wronged by any judgment may appeal to the council of his Province, or even to a General Council [i.e. of Africa] unless it be imagined that God can inspire a single individual with justice, and refuse it to an innumerable multitude of bishops (sacerdotum) assembled in council. And how shall we be able to rely on a sentence passed beyond the sea, since it will not be possible to send there the necessary witnesses, whether from the weakness of sex, or advanced age, or any other impediment?

Pope Gregory I 540 – 12 March 604

Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.

Book VII, Letter 33 

Maximus the Confessor Died    13 August 662

And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached" [Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p 23].

28 August 2022

Claudius of Turin (fl. 810–827)

Apology of Claudius

Because of these words spoken by the Lord, the race of ignorant men, having disregarded the understanding of all spiritual things, wish to go to Rome in order to acquire eternal life.

Second Council of Constantinople 553ad, writing against the Pope

But if your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them. And when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei the Subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the aforesaid most religious and glorious men, the before-named subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: We invited him (you) to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and other religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters; if you have condemned them, in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?

Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)

Similarly, there is a canon of the regional synod of Gangra which anathematises those who do not recognise married priests. This was confirmed by the holy Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which condemned those who require that priests and deacons cease to cohabit with their lawful wives after their ordination. Such a custom was being introduced even then by the Church of Old Rome. That Synod reminded the Church of Old Rome of the evangelical teaching and of the canon and polity of the Apostles, and ordered it not to insult the holy institution of Christian marriage established by God Himself.

From the Italian region, we have received a synodal letter citing many grave matters against the bishop of Old Rome. Accordingly, the Orthodox there ask us to free them from his great tyranny, for in that area sacred law is being scorned and Church order trampled. We were told this earlier by monks who came to us from there, and now we have received many letters stating frightening news about that region and asking us to relay their message to all the bishops and to the Apostolic Patriarchs as well. For that reason, I communicate to you their request by way of this epistle. Once a holy and ecumenical Christian synod has been assembled, it will fall upon us together to resolve all these matters with the help of God and according to the rules of previous Synods, that in so doing, a deep peace may again prevail in th

An Explanation of the Trinity

Introduction

Every Christian is familiar with the trinity, it is generally summarized as this:

1. There is only one God
2. The Father is God
   
3. The Son is God
4. The Holy Spirit is God
5. Yet each is not the other

It has also been summarized as: "God is three in persons but one in essence". Scripture most clearly says that there is only one God (Exodus 20:3), yet there are still three persons. The Son is able to call the Father "you" and prays to the Father, which shows a distinction of persons. John writes "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God."

The Nicene creed describes the trinity thus:

We believe in one God,

the Father, the Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth,

of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,

eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light,

true God from true God,

begotten, not made,

of one being with the Father;

through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation

he came down from heaven:

was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

and became truly human.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;

he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again

in accordance with the Scriptures;

he ascended into heaven

and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],

who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,

who has spoken through the prophets.

This article will favor the classical trinitarian view, and offers a critique to the social trinitarian view.

Misconceptions

In the modern day there exists some confusion about the trinity. Many people believe that there are three centers of the will and three minds in God, I believe that this concept of the trinity is not biblical. Many people who hold to this view, hold to it without knowing the other views, though the ones who hold to it, are called "social trinitarians". Though, I do not want to be unfair, there are major theologians and scholars who defend this view, but I hold that the scriptural data aligns with the classical view of the trinity (which was affirmed in Nicea).

My problem with identifying "will" and "mind" as being the concept of what "person" means is that it would imply that because Christ was only one person, He would have had only one mind and one will (as the Bible teaches that Christ has two natures, human and divine yet being one person). Yet, if Christ had no human mind, we fall into problems with Hebrews 2:17, which states that Christ was like us in "every way": Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. It is thus implied that Christ had a human mind, being able to feel human emotions and feel pain as a human.

The scriptures also speak of God's mind in the singular, implying only one mind within God, such as Paul in Romans 11:34, and texts which speak of the will in the singular (Romans 12:2, 1 Thessalonians 5:18, John 7:17). 

Yet as there are three persons, we can say that the one divine will and mind is "operated" by three distinct and co-existant agents (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

In conclusion, these texts together mean that "will" and "mind" are not properties of  what "personhood" means, but are properties of nature, thus as Christ had two natures He had two wills, and as there is only one nature in God, God has one will. However, the two minds are united, so the human mind of Christ is in unity with the divine. 

What does "person" mean then?

The word "person" might be misleading, as its semantic meaning has changed overtime, which is why some theologians want to change the word to "subsistence" (which is literal translation of the Greek word "hypostasis" used in the Nicean creed), however the word "subsistence" does not mean much to the average English speaker and may sound too "fancy". The problem is that human language often is problematic in describing divine truths. A very short description of the word "person" or "subsistence" would mean is "who", or "I", there are three "I"s (self distinctions) within the Divine essence. We can see the distinction of persons in multiple places, for example the Father loves the Son (John 5:20), the Father sent the Son (1 John 4:14), the Son "breathes" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent from the Son (John 15:26). Thus we clearly see there being a distinction, biblically the distinction of the persons is one of relations.

Yet, to go into detail, the Bible teaches that the three persons are distinguished by relations of origin (a theological concept to describe begetting and spiration). 

The Son is eternally begotten from the Father. This is a hard doctrine to understand, yet it is clearly affirmed in the bible. To get an idea of what the doctrine means, here is a quote from A.A Hodge, from His "Outlines of Theology":
“The eternal generation of the Son is commonly defined to be an eternal personal act of the Father, wherein by necessity of nature, not by choice of will, he generates the person (not the essence) of the Son, by communicating to him the whole indivisible substance of the Godhead, without division, alienation, or change, so that the Son is the express image of His Father’s person, and eternally continues, not from the Father, but in the Father, and the Father in the Son.”

 There are multiple texts which affirm this doctrine. Firstly, the mere fact of being called the "Son" implies begetting, yet as Christ has been eternally the Son, He must have been eternally begotten. Now, opponents of classical trinitarianism often argue that Christ became the Son by becoming a human, however as Christ is called "Son" prior to the incarnation in the Old Testament (Proverbs 30:4), we can safely say that Christ's sonhood is not grounded in the incarnation. However, there are explicit texts to affirm this doctrine:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 5:26, “For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself.”

John 6:57-58, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate, and died, he who eats this bread shall live forever.”

Another text to explicitly affirm this doctrine is Hebrews 1:3 which says:

3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Sam Shamoun comments on this text: "There are several points which we can glean from this very crucial text. The first point is that Jesus is the very exact imprint, the very exact copy, the perfect reflection of God’s own substance, nature, essence etc. That is the meaning of the Greek word charakter, that Jesus is the precise and perfect imprint left by the Original or the Source. The author of Hebrews is basically saying that the Father is the underived Source of all Deity with the Son being the perfect duplicate of that Deity. If God’s substance is eternal, then Christ must be eternal also since he is the exact imprint. If God’s substance is infinite, then Christ must also be infinite seeing that he is the exact copy of it."

A similar point is made in Colossians 1:15.

Another text that is more ambiguous is Proverbs 8, which describing wisdom says: "I have been established from everlasting, From the beginning, before there was ever an earth.", some believe that Paul the apostle connected this text to Jesus by saying that Jesus is the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24), yet I believe this to be a bit ambiguous and not the strongest text to use. 

Similarly, the Holy Spirit eternally "proceeds" from the Father and the Son, as John 15:26 states:

But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.

Most theologians in the west also believe that He proceeds from the Son as well, as the scriptures call the Holy Spirit "The Spirit of Christ" (the genitive "of" often means "from" in Greek). Jesus also "breathes forth" the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and the Holy Spirit is sent "in the name of the Son" John 14:26. Commentators have also noticed that Revelation 21:1 seems to be a representation of the trinity. Revelation 22:1 talks about a river of the water of life "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", now this text describes a literal river, yet the river is meant to represent the Holy Spirit (as water is commonly used to symbolize the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5)), Who "flows" from the Father and the Son.

Thus the persons are distinct from each other by these properties, the Father is unbegotten, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit is spirated. We also see that the persons work scripturally in the same order, as we see the Father sending the Son and never other way around. 

Theologians have also often asked "how do generation and spiration work", some have argued from the fact that Christ is called the "logos" (word, thought) and the "Wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24) and the "image of God" in Colossians, the eternal generation of the Son is by means of intellect. Meaning, the eternal generation of the Son happens through the Father knowing himself, meaning he has the perfect idea or image of himself. From the same logic, it has been argued that since there seems to be a special identification with the Holy Spirit and love ( 2 Samuel 7:15, Rom 5:5, Romans 15:30) along with the Holy Spirit being symbolized with the dove (Luke 3:22), the dove being used in Jewish contexts for love (Song of Solomon 5:2), that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the mutual love of the Father and the Son. Now, while I think this may be the best way to explains these two concepts, I do not think it is so clear that we should make it dogmatic. However, the reasoning behind these seems possible, and I would accept it as true.

Answering objections

The doctrines of eternal begetting and spiration have been opposed by many of those who social trinitarianism, these are often strawmen (such as eternal generation promoting the subordination of the Son). Additionally, I would like to use caution in denying a doctrine only because it is incomprehensible. The main biblical argument used against eternal generation comes from Luke 1:35 which is argued to show that Christ was not the Son in eternity, the text reads: "And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.", However there exists a really simple explanation of this verse, the text merely says that Christ will be "called" or recognized by men as the Son, not that He was not yet the Son. So this text is not saying that Christ became the Son in time, but that Christ will be understood as being the Son by men due to becoming incarnate.

Some also point to Psalm 2:7 which says: "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You". However, this text was not applied by the New Testament to the incarnation. In ancient Jewish custom, when  king was anointed, he was said to be "begotten" by God, this is why Solomon for example is called God's son (2 Samuel 7:14). Thus Psalm is not saying that Christ became the Son in the incarnation, but refers to his anointing as king. This text was applied to the resurrection by Peter (Acts 13:33), however it will have its ultimate fulfilment in the millennium.

Inseparable operations

Due to having one will, the three persons work as one. This is affirmed in John 5:19 which says:

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

We see in the Bible that all three persons work as one, for example all three persons are involved in the resurrection. Theologians have often explained the biblical data by saying "All three persons work indivisibly yet not indistinctly). As we see in the incarnation, each person of the trinity works in the incarnation, but not indistinctly as only the Son became incarnate.

Is there submission in the trinity?

Because there is only one will in God, it would mean that there is no submission of the will. The verses which speak of submission of the will should be interpreted as Christ in his human nature (Christ had two natures, one human one divine and as will is an aspect of nature, he had two wills). Thus Christ submits to the Father in His human will but not in His divine will. This is affirmed by Paul in Philippians 2:8:

And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

If Christ "became" obedient, it means there was a time where no subordination existed.

Now, it should still be noted that there is a certain order in which the members of the trinity work, it's always coming from the Father through the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, as there is one will, the Son does not in that sense submit His will to the Father, though as a human He did.