An Athanasian Statement of Faith

1. We believe in one Unbegotten God, Father Almighty, maker of all things both visible and invisible, that hath His being from Himself. And in one Only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, begotten of the Father without beginning and eternally; word not pronounced nor mental, nor an effluence of the Perfect, nor a dividing of the impassible Essence, nor an issue (Gr. προβολή); but absolutely perfect Son, living and powerful (Heb. iv. 12), the true Image of the Father, equal in honour and glory. For this, he says, ‘is the will of the Father, that as they honour the Father, so they may honour the Son also’ (Joh. v. 23): very God of very God, as John says in his general Epistles, ‘And we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and everlasting life’ (1 Joh. v. 20): Almighty of Almighty. For all things which the Father rules and sways, the Son rules and sways likewise: wholly from the Whole, being like the Father as the Lord says, ‘he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father’ (Joh. xiv. 9). But He was begotten ineffably and incomprehensibly, for ‘who shall declare his generation?’ (Isa. liii. 8), in other words, no one can. Who, when at the consummation of the ages (Heb. ix. 26), He had descended from the bosom of the Father, took from the undefiled Virgin Mary our humanity (ἄνθρωπον), Christ Jesus, whom He delivered of His own will to suffer for us, as the Lord saith: ‘No man taketh My life from Me. I have power to lay it down, and have power to take it again’ (Joh. x. 18). In which humanity He was crucified and died for us, and rose from the dead, and was taken up into the heavens, having been created as the beginning of ways for us (Prov. viii. 22), when on earth He shewed us light from out of darkness, salvation from error, life from the dead, an entrance to paradise, from which Adam was cast out, and into which he again entered by means of the thief, as the Lord said, ‘This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise’ (Luke xxiii. 43), into which Paul also once entered. [He shewed us] also a way up to the heavens, whither the humanity of the Lord (ὁ κυριακὸς ἄνθρωπος) in which He will judge the quick and the dead, entered as precursor for us. We believe, likewise, also in the Holy Spirit that searcheth all things, even the deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), and we anathematise doctrines contrary to this.

2. For neither do we hold a Son-Father, as do the Sabellians, calling Him of one but not of the same (μονοούσιον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοούσιον) essence, and thus destroying the existence of the Son. Neither do we ascribe the passible body which He bore for the salvation of the whole world to the Father. Neither can we imagine three Subsistences separated from each other, as results from their bodily nature in the case of men, lest we hold a plurality of gods like the heathen. But just as a river, produced from a well, is not separate, and yet there are in fact two visible objects and two names. For neither is the Father the Son, nor the Son the Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the Son, Son of the Father. For like as the well is not a river, nor the river a well, but both are one and the same water which is conveyed in a channel from the well to the river, so the Father’s deity passes into the Son without flow and without division. For the Lord says, ‘I came out from the Father and am come’ (Joh. xvi. 28). But He is ever with the Father, for He is in the bosom of the Father, nor was ever the bosom of the Father void of the deity of the Son. For He says, ‘I was by Him as one setting in order’ (Prov. viii. 30). But we do not regard God the Creator of all, the Son of God, as a creature, or thing made, or as made out of nothing, for He is truly existent from Him who exists, alone existing from Him who alone exists, in as much as the like glory and power was eternally and conjointly begotten of the Father. For ‘He that hath seen’ the Son ‘hath seen the Father (Joh. xiv. 9). All things to wit were made through the Son; but He Himself is not a creature, as Paul says of the Lord: ‘In Him were all things created, and He is before all’ (Col. i. 16). Now He says not, ‘was created’ before all things, but ‘is’ before all things. To be created, namely, is applicable to all things, but ‘is before all’ applies to the Son only.

3. He is then by nature an Offspring, perfect from the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25), that is before every rational and intelligent essence, as Paul also in another place calls Him ‘first-born of all creation’ (Col. i. 15). But by calling Him First-born, He shews that He is not a Creature, but Offspring of the Father. For it would be inconsistent with His deity for Him to be called a creature. For all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone was eternally begotten from the Father, whence God the Word is ‘first-born of all creation,’ unchangeable from unchangeable. However, the body which He wore for our sakes is a creature: concerning which Jeremiah says, according to the edition of the seventy translators ‘The Lord created for us for a planting a new salvation, in which salvation men shall go about:’ but according to Aquila the same text runs: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman.’ Now the salvation created for us for a planting, which is new, not old, and for us, not before us, is Jesus, Who in respect of the Saviour was made man, and whose name is translated in one place Salvation, in another Saviour. But salvation proceeds from the Saviour, just as illumination does from the light. The salvation, then, which was from the Saviour, being created new, did, as Jeremiah says, ‘create for us a new salvation,’ and as Aquila renders: ‘The Lord created a new thing in woman,’ that is in Mary. For nothing new was created in woman, save the Lord’s body, born of the Virgin Mary without intercourse, as also it says in the Proverbs in the person of Jesus: ‘The Lord created me, a beginning of His ways for His works’ (Prov. viii. 22). Now He does not say, ‘created me before His works,’ lest any should take the text of the deity of the Word.

4. Each text then which refers to the creature is written with reference to Jesus in a bodily sense. For the Lord’s Humanity was created as ‘a beginning of ways,’ and He manifested it to us for our salvation. For by it we have our access to the Father. For He is the way (Joh. xiv. 6) which leads us back to the Father. And a way is a corporeal visible thing, such as is the Lord’s humanity. Well, then, the Word of God created all things, not being a creature, but an offspring. For He created none of the created things equal or like unto Himself. But it is the part of a Father to beget, while it is a workman’s part to create. Accordingly, that body is a thing made and created, which the Lord bore for us, which was begotten for us, as Paul says, ‘wisdom from God, and sanctification and righteousness, and redemption;’ while yet the Word was before us and before all Creation, and is, the Wisdom of the Father. But the Holy Spirit, being that which proceeds from the Father, is ever in the hands of the Father Who sends and of the Son Who conveys Him, by Whose means He filled all things. The Father, possessing His existence from Himself, begat the Son, as we said, and did not create Him, as a river from a well and as a branch from a root, and as brightness from a light, things which nature knows to be indivisible; through whom to the Father be glory and power and greatness before all ages, and unto all the ages of the ages. Amen.

From Volume 4, Second Series of the NPNF

The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture Pt 2

Our previous post looked at the inspiration of Scripture. We will now make some observations on the subject of Scripture’s Authority

The question of the Scripture’s authority is not in regard to the canonical authority, but to the authority attached to the writings that are acknowledged to be canonical Scriptures. The following point addresses itself to this issue: If the Scriptures have been proved to be divinely inspired, then their divine authority goes without saying. If they are His Word, they must be absolutely authoritative with regard to all the matters they treat. The Bible is the last word on doctrinal and ethical matters and all theological and moral disputes must be brought before the bar of the written Word. This is the orthodox Protestant position.

The Protestant holds the authority of Scripture to be exclusive in the sphere of religion. That is to say that there is no other authority in matters concerning the Church’s doctrine and practice. This has to be true unless it can be shown that God designed them to be restricted in the scope of their influence – in other words, that there is some other revelation of God’s will possessing the same authority as Scripture. Plenary inspiration must be proven then of this other revelation. There are several reasons why this cannot be proved:
• The Bible claims to address all men. It recognizes no rival revelation of God’s will.
• If the Bible is inspired this claim to worldwide authority must be true and exclusive. This exclusivity is unavoidable because each would limit and condition the other, which would be contradictory to the supremacy of either. Just as two sovereigns cannot reign in the political realm, so two sovereigns cannot reign in the spiritual realm.
• No other revelation has been established by clear and unimpeachable miracles.
• No other revelation provides for the redemption of man from guilt, depravity and destruction.
• The world needs a revelation that is characterized by unity, which is consistent with itself. The idea of several revelations that are incompatible with each other at certain points is completely absurd.

This principle of the exclusivity of authority of the Bible, known to the Reformers as sola Scriptura, is not new however to the Church. This principle is stated explicitly and implicitly by the Fathers.

The clearest proof token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible.
That the Fathers were firm believers in the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid fourth century. He wrote what are known as the Catechetical Lectures. This is an extensive series of lectures given to catechumens expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture and there is not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral Apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture. He states frankly that if he presented any teaching that could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it.

The following are some of his statements from the Lectures on the final authority of Scripture: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture-proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.” (The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.17)

“But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture… For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith… Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.” (Lecture 5.12)

Notice that Cyril says that these catechumens are receiving “Tradition” and he exhorts them to hold to these traditions. Yet these traditions are not the “oral traditions” of Roman Catholicism; they are synonymous with Scripturally based doctrine. The Teaching or Tradition or Revelation of God that was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church is now accessible in Scripture alone. It is also quite significant that Cyril, who is communicating the entire faith to these catechumens as a recognized authority on the subject, did not make a single appeal to an oral Tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

This principle is also articulated by Gregory of Nyssa. “We make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet (dogma); we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings.” (On the Soul And the Resurrection).

Athanasius, while speaking on other subjects makes many indirect references to the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture. In the first paragraph of his Contra Gentes, he declares, “the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the truth.”

Basil the Great, bishop of Caesarea from 370 to 379 A.D., testifies to his belief in the all-sufficient nature of the Scriptures in these words taken from a letter he wrote to a widow: “Enjoying as you do the consolation of the Holy Scriptures, you stand in need neither of my assistance nor of that of anybody else to help you comprehend your duty. You have the all-sufficient counsel and guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead you to what is right.” (Letter CCLXXXIII)

These fathers are simply representative of the fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Firmilian, Augustine are just a few of the fathers that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura, in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola scriptura and it was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church.

The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

• Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from @ 130 to 202 A.D. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.

• Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 A.D. He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.

• Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 A.D. He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.

• Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 A.D. he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.

By the end of the third century the entire New Testament (short of about 11 verses) could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church fathers. B.F. Westcott sums up the position of the New Testament Scriptures in the early Church with these words: "The first hundred years of the existence of the 27 books of the New Testament reveal that virtually every one of them was quoted as authoritative and recognized as canonical by men who were themselves the younger contemporaries of the apostolic age." (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament)

Scripture has authority as all evangelical Protestants will agree because it is the Word of God. But Scripture is not the Word of God merely because the Church says so. Scripture’s authority comes from its intrinsic nature as a communication from God to man, in other words, it has an authority independent of the Church.

The basis on which Christians accept the inspiration of Scripture is the fact already argued that the Scriptures themselves make this claim. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. He is referring specifically to the Old Testament since the New Testament canon was not complete at the time he wrote, but the New Testament must also be covered by this statement for in 2 Peter 3:16. Peter refers to Paul’s writings (including this epistle to Timothy) as Scripture. The word used for ‘inspired’ literally means ‘God-breathed’.

The first century Jewish historian, Josephus, tells us that the Hebrew canon consisted of twenty-two books and did not include the Apocrypha. Josephus categorically rejects the Apocrypha as being truly inspired. Even the Roman Catholic Church affirms the fact that the Jews did not accept the Apocrypha, in that it was not part of the Hebrew canon, and acknowledges that the Protestant Church follows the canon of the Jews. For the Old Testament, however, Protestants follow the Jewish canon; they have only the Old Testament books that are in the Hebrew Bible.

The first list of the Old Testament canon given to us by a Christian writer is from Melito of Sardis. His list is preserved in the writings of Eusebius, the Church historian. Origen also names twenty-two books in his list of the Hebrew canon. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jerome’s teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon. The books that were considered inspired and authoritative for the establishing of doctrine held a proto-canonical status.

Augustine held a kind of two-fold canonicity. Clearly, Augustine believed that the Church held the Apocrypha to be canonical in the broad sense that these writings provided a good example and an inspiration to perseverance in the faith. However, it is equally clear from Augustine’s writings that he did hold the Apocrypha to be canonical in the same sense as the canon of the Old and New Testaments.

The Councils of Hippo and Carthage did not establish the canon of the Scriptures, for their decrees on the Old Testament were unsupported by the Church’s earlier testimony and were not accepted afterwards. It was not until the mid-sixteenth century at Trent did the Roman Catholic Church approve the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. St Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. He refused to translate them for his Latin Vulgate, and they were only added literally over his dead body. The situation remained unclear in the following centuries.

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. Here is an authoritative Roman Catholic source affirming the fact that it was not until the sixteenth century that the Roman Catholic Church established the canon of the Old Testament. The Apocrypha was not considered to be part of the Old Testament canon. But at least it is honest enough to give an accurate picture of when the Old Testament canon was truly and authoritatively determined by the Roman Church.

The Protestant Church is continually charged with upholding dogmas which first appeared very late in the history of the Church. As we have seen, it is a ruling contrary to the testimony of the Jews to the canon of Scripture, to the general patristic witness of the Church and to the overall consensus of the Church right down to the time of the Reformation. Louis Gaussen summarizes this well when he writes, “With the single exception of Theodore of Mopsuestia [c. 400]…it has been impossible to produce, in the long course of the eight first centuries of Christianity, a single doctor who has disowned the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, unless it be in the bosom of the most violent heresies that have tormented the Christian Church.” (Theopneustia pp. 139-140)

In conclusion then, we sum up all the forgoing arguments by saying that the Bible claims to be breathed by God i.e., inspired. This inspiration is plenary, in other words, full; it applies to all of Scripture. This inspiration guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of all of the Bible’s contents. This inspiration therefore makes the Bible authoritative in all areas of our spiritual life. Every issue we face as spiritual beings is, at bottom, a theological issue and as such is addressed and regulated by Scripture. The authority of the Scripture is the authority of God Himself. In Romans 9:17, St. Paul represents Scripture as addressing Pharaoh! Surely this is a strange way of speaking? This demonstrates that in St. Paul’s mind the authority of God and the utterances of His Word are inseparable. For the Scripture to say anything is for God to say it. David says in Psalm 138:2 that God has magnified His Word above His name! However lofty God’s name is, at least for the present state of affairs (discounting what things may be like in the Eternal State), God has made His Word, the Bible, the Supreme Authority in the universe on all spiritual, doctrinal, ethical, moral and theological issues. Not only is the Bible the supreme authority, there are no subordinate authorities to which appeal may be made. It is God’s Word and it is the Final Word.

What's in a name?

Those unfamiliar with Church history may not recognize the allusion made by my blog's title. It is a reference to the great theologian and defender of orthodoxy, Athanasius. At one point in his life, almost the whole Christian world was in the throes of Arianism, a sect that denied Christ's deity. Athanasius stood nearly alone, amidst compromise and political pressure. Hence was born the Latin phrase Athanasius Contra Mundum - Athanasius against the world.

There is an interesting fact about the whole Arian controversy that many critics of Christianity overlook. It is frequently asserted that Christianity only grew and prospered because it became the official religion of Rome during the reign of Constantine. However, the curious fact is that it was the corrupt form of Christianity taught by Arius that actually gained state support. Athanasius stood virtually alone against the flood of heresy and government pressure at the risk of his health and indeed, his very life. When all the world went astray after a false Christ, Athanasius, a model for us all, stood loyal to his Lord.

This is my first entry in this blog, so hopefully, I can be forgiven for rambling. My choice of Athanasius as a model or mentor for this blog is not due to any delusions of grandeur on my part. I don't see myself as a lone voice for the truth amid compromise and error. But, I do desire and will strive, to stand for the truth, even if it means standing alone.

Thankfully, as I survey the 'blogosphere' I see that there are many other Christian brothers and sisters who believe, as B.B. Warfield put it, "The world should realize with increased clearness that Evangelicalism stands or falls with Calvinism."

My entries from here on will be a mix of doctrinal and practical discussions and observations. Brevity is not usually one of my strong points, but I seemed to have succeded.