Credo By Tami Jelinek (updated and expanded, May 2103)

Introduction This Credo is a constructive I believe statement articulating my current understanding of the Christian faith, informed by my study of the Scripture, in conjunction with, and occasionally in opposition to or in tension1 with the historical Christian faith as taught by the early church fathers, the Creed2 of the church, and theologians throughout history. While my own understanding of the Christian faith does not always fall within the bounds of church orthodoxy, neither did the understanding and teaching of many reformers throughout church history. John Calvin, for example, would have been anathematized by most if not all of the early church fathers for his views on the Eucharist,3 but few modern theologians would place him outside of the Christian faith for those views. Furthermore, reformed theologians today almost universally deny the salvific efficacy of water baptism, placing them outside of orthodoxy as defined by the Creed,4 and yet few theologians today would consider their faith other than Christian. In cases where my own understanding breaks with church tradition, or would be considered heterodox by creedal standards, my appeal is to Scripture, which I cite extensively.
See Tami Jelinek, The Creed vs. The Scripture: Living with the Tension, For Heavens Sake, http://www.4heavenssake.org/2/post/2012/10/the-creed-vs-the-scripture-living-with-the-tension.html (accessed May 1, 2013).
2 3 1

The Creed is used here as a singular reference the collective creeds of the church throughout history.

See Ward Fenley, The Eucharist: The Church Fathers vs. John Calvin (Different Views or Damnable Heresy?) New Creation Ministries International, http://www.newcreationministries.tv/church-fathers-vs-calvin-on-theeucharist.html (accessed May 1, 2013). For example, The Nicene Creed acknowledges one baptism for the remission of sins and this has commonly been understood throughout church history as a reference to water baptism.
4

With that said, this statement represents my currentand may it be always reforming understanding of the Christian faith, a faith I share with all those who are pursuing the glory of God through his Son Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Spirit. The question may arise, what then is heresy? Is there such a thing? If the early church fathers who taught that the only way to guard against heresy was to submit to the authority of church tradition in their own time (a standard by which all reformers from the 16th century forward would have been damned, as well as all Protestants today),5 then what is our standard for determining what is Christian? In his discussion of Orthodoxy and Heresy, Alister McGrath quotes F.D.E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834), who argues in his Christian Faith that since Christianity is based upon the belief that redemption is found only in Christ, there will be two ways in which heresy can arise...either human nature will be so defined that redemption in the strict case cannot be accomplished or the Redeemer will be defined in such a way that he cannot accomplish redemption. In other words, McGrath summarizes: it is essential that the Christian understanding of God, Christ, and humanity is consistent with the principle of redemption through Christ alone.6 I deeply appreciate Schleiermachers position here. When I consider what distinguishes the Christian faith from all other religions, it is its central focus on the person and work of Jesus Christand the Mercy promised to Israels fathers and performed by the cross, which the apostle Paul said was his only glory.7

Irenaeus (130-200) writes, There is no need to look anywhere else for the truth which we can easily obtain from the church. See Alister E. McGrath, ed., The Christian Theology Reader, 3rd ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2006), 79.
6 7 5

Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 5th ed. (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 114. Cf. Luke 1:72; Galatians 6:14

God/The Trinity I believe in one Almighty God, who eternally existed before all that is, and created all that is (Colossians 1:16-17). Scripture says, I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God (Isaiah 45:5). He is one God, yet mysteriously exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is called God and Creator (Philippians 1:2; Isaiah 64:8); the Son is called God and Creator (John 1:1,14; Colossians 1:15-17); and the Spirit is called God and Creator (Acts 5:3-4; Job 33:4). Father, Son, and Spirit are everywhere present (1 Kings 8:27; Matthew 28:20; Psalm 139:7-10); and Father, Son and Spirit are all-knowing (1 John 3:20; John 16:30; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11). Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity, which I see as the Christian theologians noble yet beggarly attempt to define the nature of the inimitable, transcendent God, McGrath appropriately states, the general consensus within Christian theology is that the doctrine cannot be demonstrated or established on the basis of pure reason, even though the doctrine can be shown to be reasonable once it has been established by reflection on revelation.8 I believe that God is sovereign over all his creation. He completely owns his creation (Psalm 50:10-12), and he completely controls his creation (Job 26:12-14). God has created all things and he controls all things for his own purposes and his own pleasure (Revelation 4:11; Psalm 135:6).9 God is also sovereign over the will and the actions of all people (Psalm 110:3; Proverbs 20:24).
8 9

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 246.

The sovereignty of God is hotly debated in theological circles. Specifically, it is rejected by process theologians who would say such things as, God does not cause natural disasters, nor is he able to prevent them. This begs the question however, if God is unable to interfere with the laws of nature, or force nature to obey him; how is it that he commanded the wind and the waves to obey him? Are not all miracles in the Bible essentially Gods interference in the natural order of things? What are the implications of process theology toward ones view of the miracles recorded in the Bible? Could process thought lead to a denial of miracles altogether? Could it also have implications toward our view of God as the Creator of the natural world? The strongest evidence I see in Scripture that God created the universe (even if that creation was through evolution) is his sovereign control over it. Therefore, to posit that God does not control the natural world removes a primary biblical argument for God as the Creator of that world.

God has ordained the eternal destiny of all people. He has chosen some to be adopted as his children and caused them to believe the Gospel (Ephesians 1:4-11; Acts 13:48), and he has ordained the judgment of the Gospel to be a savor of death to those who do not believe (2 Corinthians 2:16). God is love, and he loves His children (1 John 3:1; 4:8-10). Contrary to what some early theologians taught, God is not impassible.10 He can and does experience suffering. As Jurgen Moltmann (b. 1926) writes, If God were really incapable of suffering, he would also be as incapable of loving as the God of Aristotle, who was loved by all, but could not love. Whoever is capable of love is also capable of suffering, because he is open to the suffering that love brings with it.11 Or as the Christ hymn of Philippians states, He humbled Himself and became obedient to deatheven the death of the cross (Philippians 2:8). To grasp the depth of the agony Christ endured on the cross is to grasp the depth of his love for his people, for it was for the joy set before Him (Hebrews 12:2) that he endured such agony. God now experiences joy in his redeemed people (Zephaniah 3:17; Psalm 137:6), and desires to dwell with them (Psalm 132:13). Every gift we have comes from him (James 1:17) and he loves to give good gifts to his children (Matthew 7:11). Gods love for his children is more enduring than a womans love for her nursing child (Isaiah 49:15), and he tenderly comforts and cares for them (Isaiah 49:15; 54:8). He is a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness (Psalm 86:15). These things I believe about God.

Impassibility is a Greek concept closely related to the doctrine of the Logos. Early Christian apologists, eager to prove Christianity reasonable, adopted both of these. However they ultimately led to the Arian controversy to which the Nicene Creed of 325 AD was a response. See Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed. (New York: Harper One, 2010), 182-184.
11 10

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 227.

Whereas process theology attempts to deal with the so-called problem of evil by denying Gods sovereignty over his creation;12 a theology that submits to Gods revelation of himself through the witness of Scripture,13 as all-powerful and all-knowing, and as the Creator of all things including evil (Isaiah 45:7), is what allows us as believers to be at rest in his love, and experience the joy of his presence that can never be lost because it depends wholly upon his word which can never fail.

Jesus Christ I believe that Jesus Christ isalways was, and always will beYahweh, Jehovah (Jeremiah 23:5-6).14 When he walked this earth as a man He was God manifested in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and became God with us (Isaiah 7:14). As McGrath states, the conviction that Jesus Christ reveals God to mankind is distinctive to Christianity and has been central to mainstream Christianity down the ages. And as Karl Barth (1886-1968) writes, when Holy Scripture speaks of God...from first to last [it] directs us to the name of Jesus Christ.15 Further emphasizing the exclusive and unique nature of Gods revelation of himself to humankind in the person and work of Jesus Christ for the purpose of our redemption, Donald G. Bloesch (b.1928)
Where the traditional free-will defense of moral evil argues that human beings are free to disobey or ignore God, process theology argues that the individual components of the world are likewise free to ignore divine attempts to influence or persuade them. They are not bound to respond to God. God is thus absolved of responsibility for both moral and natural evil. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 214-15. Karl Barth taught that the Bible itself is not revelation, but rather a witness to revelation. Protestants have found some difficulty with Barths emphatic assertion that Scripture itself is not to be directly identified with divine revelation...Yet [he] also insists that revelation does not bypass this witness. This witness becomes revelation when God speaks through it. See McGrath, Christian Theology: an Introduction, 129,155.
13 12

The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD established Christs deity as an essential tenet of the Christian faith, asserting that the Son of God is of one substance with the Father, against the heresy of Arianism, which denied the eternal existence of the Son and proclaimed, there was when he was not. See Tami Jelinek, A Case for the Worship of the Son of God: Reflecting on the Nicene Creed, For Heavens Sake, http://www.4heavenssake.org/the-nicenecreed.html (accessed May 1, 2013).
15

14

McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 267.

advocates a Christological hermeneutic through which to interpret the witness of Scripture to that revelation: God reveals himself fully and definitively only in one time and place, viz., in the life history of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the primary witness to this event or series of events. This revelation was anticipated in the Old Testament and remembered and proclaimed in the New Testament.... The Word of God is neither the text nor the psychological disposition of the author behind the text but is instead its salvific significance seen in the light of the cross of Christ.16 And Barth continues in this vein, defending a Christological approach to specifically the Old Testament: "Whether we like it or not, the Christ of the New Testament is the Christ of the Old Testament, the Christ of Israel. The man who will not accept this merely shows in fact he has already substituted another Christ for the Christ of the New Testament."17 Regarding the significance of divine revelation toward our faith response to Jesus Christ through the preaching of the Gospel, Martin Kahler (1835-1912) critiques the quest for the historical Jesus by arguing from the lives of the apostles themselves that the historical Jesus of their own gospel accounts would not have alone convinced them of his identity without the Spirit revealing it to them. It was only after he appeared to them in his state of fulfillment18 that they recognized him as the Messiah. If indeed faith via divine revelation is required for anyone to believe the Gospel today, then Kahler and others were right to point out the fruitlessness of any quest which tries to provide an iron clad argument for faith in Christ from historical proof alone when by definition faith is the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). As Kahler proclaims,
Robert K. Johnston, ed., The Use of the Bible in Theology/Evangelical Options. (Wipf & Stock Pub, 1985), chapter 5. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics - Volume 1, Part 2 - The Doctrine of the Word of God, Reprint ed. (T. & T. Clark, 1988), 488-499.
18
17 16

McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 304-305.

the real Christ is the preached Christ.19 Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was one who regarded the entire enterprise of the historical reconstruction of Jesus as something of a dead end...For Bultmann, the cross and the resurrection are indeed historical phenomena (in that they took place within human history), but they must be discerned by faith as divine acts.20 Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Savior anticipated by Israels prophets, and according to those prophets, this Savior could be none other than God (Isaiah 43:3; 45:21; Hosea 13:4). It is therefore not possible to call Jesus Christ Savior without also calling him God. Both God and Jesus Christ are called Savior (Jude 1:25; Titus 2:13); the King of Kings (Daniel 2:47; 1 Timothy 6:14-15); the Lord of Lords (Deuteronomy 10:17; Revelation 17:14); I AM (Exodus 3:14; John 8:58); the Holy One (Isaiah 43:15; Acts 3:14-15); and the first and last (Isaiah 44:6; Revelation 2:8). God alone is to be worshipped (Exodus 34:14; Matthew 4:9-10); neither men nor angels are to be worshiped (Acts 10:25-26; Revelation 22:8-9); yet Jesus Christ receives the worship of both men and angels (John 9:35-38; Hebrews 1:6). The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the Fathers only Son, full of grace and truth (John 1:14). This we call the incarnation, when Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary (Isaiah 7:14; Luke 1:35). He was made like us (believers, his brothers and sisters) so that He would be a merciful high priest who is able to identify with us in every way, having been tempted in all the same ways that we are. Yet He was without sin (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15). He offered Himself willingly as the one sacrifice that has perfected his people forever. His priesthood on our behalf continues forever and he ever lives to make intercession for us (Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 7:24-27; 10:14). These things I believe about Jesus Christ.
19 20

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 304-305. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 305.

The person and work of Jesus Christ are the foundation upon which Christianity, and all Christian principles are based. Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957), writing on Christology and Dogma, suggests that Christianity and Christian doctrine would become arbitrary, baseless and irrelevant if not grounded in the relevance of both Christs humanity and divinity, and His claims to be the only God and Savior, which are certainties according to the doctrine of the incarnation.21 Jesus question to His disciples, Who do you say that I am? (Mark 16:15) is a question of paramount significance for all generations, for if anyone does not believe that he is I AM, they will die in their sins (John 8:24). It is not enough to merely acknowledge Jesus as a way to God, for He claims, I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no one comes to the Father, except through me (John 14:6).

The Holy Spirit I believe that the Holy Spirit is one of three members22 of the Trinity (One God mysteriously existing in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and isalways was, and always will be-Yahweh, the Almighty and Eternal God. In Scripture, the Holy Spirits names and attributes confirm His divinity. He is called both God (Acts 5:3-4) and Lord (2 Corinthians 3:18). He is eternal (Hebrews 9:14), all-powerful (Luke 1:35), and every-where present (Psalm 139:7-10). He speaks for God (Acts 8:29; 13:2). The Holy Spirit is symbolized and physically manifested in Scripture by a dove (Matthew 3:16), wind (Acts 2:1-4), and fire (Acts 2:3). As Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) argues for the divinity of the Spirit, Capable of perfecting others, the Spirit himself lacks nothing. He is not a being who needs to restore his strength, but
21 22

McGrath, Christian Theology Reader, 318-320. I have chosen to abandon the traditional language of third person because of the subordination it suggests.

himself supplies life.23 The Holy Spirit fills (Acts 2:4), indwells (Romans 8:9-14) and intercedes for believers (Romans 8:26). The Holy Spirit within us bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God and gives us assurance of our faith (Romans 8:15-16). The Holy Spirit saves and sanctifies believers (Titus 3:5; Romans 15:16). He is also called the Spirit of Truth because he testifies about Jesus, who is the Truth (John 14:6; 15:26). The Holy Spirit inspired, or breathed the words of the Scripture (2 Peter 1:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16). Jesus calls him the Comforter (John 14:16), as he is our assurance that God is present with us, just as God the Father is called the God of all comfort (2 Corinthians 1:3). These things I believe about the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit of God, and of Christ, who unifies the churchby unifying all believers one with another, as each believer is indwelled by this same Spirit. As Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) writes, He binds together the spirit of each and every one of us, and makes us all appear as one in Him...the one and undivided Spirit of God who dwells in us all, leads us all into spiritual unity.24 Our unity as the body of Christ therefore depends on, and is guaranteed by, the divinity (specifically the life-giving power and omnipresence) of the Holy Spirit. Creation My own creation creed finds a comfortable affinity with artists like Michelangelo who is often quoted thus, My soul can find no staircase to heaven unless it be through earths loveliness; and with poets like Elizabeth Barrett Browning who writes, Earths crammed with heaven, and every common bush afire with God; but only he who sees, takes off his shoes...25

23 24

McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 229. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 205-206.

Or even with the Russian novelist Theodore Dostoyevsky, whose famous character Father Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov eloquently entreats, Love all Gods creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it. Love every leaf, every ray of Gods light. Love the animals, love the plants, love everything. If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things. Once you perceive it, you will begin to comprehend it better every day. And you will come at last to love the whole world with an all-embracing love.26 In all of these reverent reflections on the beauty and wonder of Gods creation, its mysterious and subliminal treasures of knowledge awaiting discovery are in the minds eye of the adoring worshiper. However a literal understanding of the Biblical creation story in Genesis is not. I do believe that God created the physical universe (nothing and no one exists apart from him, cf. Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28); but I do not believe that the Bible describes how He did it in scientific terms. Natural theology27 looks to the material creation to inherently prove Gods existence apart from the witness of Scripture; and fundamentalism appeals to a literal interpretation of Genesis and other creation texts to prove that God created the literal heavens and earth, and asserts that the heavens themselves declare this. But Scripture is clear that no one seeks God (Romans 3:11), and that the natural man or woman cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). It is only by divine revelation and God-given faith therefore, that the material creation becomes the revelation of God for the one to whom faith has been granted. In other words, the natural world confirms and assures the faith of the believer, to whom God has supernaturally revealed himself;
Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Aurora Lee, Bartleby.com: Great Books Online, http://www.bartleby.com/236/86.html (accessed May 1, 2013). Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazof, Bartleby.com: Great Books Online, http://www.bartleby.com/97/354.html (accessed May 1, 2013). For an analysis of Karl Barths rejection of natural theology, see Tami Jelinek, Nein! Karl Barths Answer to Emil Brunners Nature and Grace, For Heavens Sake, http://www.4heavenssake.org/natural-theology.html (accessed May 1, 2013).
27 26 25

10

but apart from that revelation, the natural world does not inherently contain proof for natural, unregenerate human beings of either Gods existence or his actions in the universe. And most significantly, the material, physical, cosmological creation does not inherently reveal Gods redemptive plan or acts to humankind. I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) is a reference to the beginning of Gods covenant with His people, and the first man and woman he took from the dust of humanity (cf. Genesis 2:7, 1 Corinthians 15:45-47) and brought into covenant relationship with himself, and to whom he gave the promise of eternal life in his presence. The first (or old) heavens and earth is a metaphorical reference to the natural mans or womans guilty conscience under the first law, or covenant (Deuteronomy 4:26; 30:19; Matthew 5:18; Hebrews 1:10-12; 8:13); and the new heavens and new earth is a metaphorical reference to the spiritual mans or womans redeemed and perfected conscience under the new law, or new covenant in the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20; 2 Peter 3:13; Hebrews 12:22-24). From creation to consummation, the Bible tells one story. Genesis and Revelation are the beginning and the end of that story. In other words, I understand that Genesis creation is the same in nature as Revelations new creation. They are covenantal counterparts. And so I conclude that Genesis speaks of a covenantal, rather than a cosmological creation. Therefore, I view the language of the Genesis creation story according to the Old Testament prophets who employ it to speak of the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:17), and according to the New Testament apostles who employ it to speak synonymously of the new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17; Revelation 21:1-5). Genesis tells the beginning of the Bibles story, which is redemptions story, and Revelation proclaims redemptions climactic fulfillment. We are therefore free to explore the material world through science, and need not view modern scientific discovery as 11

incompatible with a reverence for the authority of Gods word. These things I believe about creation. A more open view of creation is becoming increasingly significant in our post-Christian era, and offers a much-needed alternative to the false dichotomy created between the Bible and science by fundamentalist creationist dogma.28 Human Nature and Sin I believe that all human beings are by nature sinners; that is, they naturally transgress Gods law (sin is the transgression of the law, cf. 1 John 3:4) but it is not until Gods law is revealed to them that they are aware of our transgression and judged guilty by the law (in other words, sin is imputed to them), thus becoming guilty in their conscience toward God (Romans 5:13; 7:7-10). The bible describes the natural man or woman, or man from the dust, as mortal and corruptible. Outside of Christ and his imputed righteousness,29 all human beings bear the mortal and corruptible image of this earthly man. But in Christ, having been clothed with his righteousness, we become part of the resurrected body of Christ, and bear the incorruptible and immortal image of the heavenly man, having put on the incorruptibility and immortality of Christs heavenly body (1 Corinthians 15:44-49). This means that Adam was mortal and corruptible from his creation (Gods initiation of a covenant relationship with him). In his nakedness before Goda reference to the absence of the garments of salvation, or righteousness of Christ (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Revelation 3:17-18)Adam was innocent and was not
Alister McGrath makes this very important point: The natural sciences, including the various Darwinian paradigms, are patient of atheist, theist, and agnostic interpretations and accommodationsbut demand and necessitate none of them...Darwinism has been prematurely and unnecessarily branded as atheist on the left by writers such as Richard Dawkins and on the right by various American creationist individuals and organizations. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 374. Imputed righteousness, or imputed justice, is the view of justification, typical of much of the Lutheran tradition, that holds that in justification God does not make sinners objectively just, but declares them to be soin the case of most theologians holding to this doctrine by imputing the justice of Christ to sinners. See Justo L. Gonzalez, Essential Theological Terms (Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), 91.
29 28

12

ashamed, as his conscience had not yet been convicted of sin by the law. But when Adam transgressed the revealed law of God, and attempted to justify himself by his own works of that law (as seen in the image of his fig leaf covering, cf. Genesis 3:7; Isaiah 59:6), he died (returned to the dust, cf. Genesis 3:19; Romans 7:9), or became separated from fellowship with God. The death Adam died that day in the garden was not a physical death,30 but rather a fellowship, or covenant death, from which he would only be raised in Christ. As the prophet proclaims, Your dead will live, LORD; [together with your dead body, cf. KJV] their bodies will rise-- let those who dwell in the dust wake up and shout for joy--your dew is like the dew of the morning; you will make it fall on the spirits of the dead (Isaiah 26:19 TNIV; cf. Isaiah 60:1; Ephesians 5:14). I believe this same death, and this same resurrection, occur for all those who have been judged guilty by the Gospel and respond with faith in Christs atoning sacrifice on their behalf: for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22). I believe this resurrection is the fulfillment of the Imago Dei prophesied in the Genesis creation story. As McGrath summarizes, for many of the patristics, the doctrine of creation in the image of God was seen as being directly related to the doctrine of redemption...Redemption involved bringing the image of God to its fulfillment, in a perfect relation with God, culminating in immortality.31
Conversely, the view that physical death was a result of sin, and that Adam and Eve were physically immortal in their natural, pre-fallen state in is common in Christian theology, even today, especially among those who read the Genesis account of creation and the fall literally. However I dont see this position as biblically tenable, nor do I see physical mortality as that from which Christs death and resurrection redeems us. John Calvin (1509-1564) premises his discussion of redemption in Christ with the statement, the first man was created by God with an immortal soul and an immortal body. From this premise his doctrine of redemption is developed which equates sin death with physical death, rather than with the loss of Gods fellowship and presence, which is the paradise the garden scene pictures, and is in fact the state to which we have been restored in Christand more, in that now, covered in Christs righteousness, we are no longer naked, and will never again be separated from Gods presence by the guilt of our sin. While I disagree with Calvin regarding the nature of the death Adam died that day in the garden, I appreciate McGraths observation that Calvin affirms the quality of the redeemed life exceeds that of the innocent life. See McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 364.
31 30

McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 349.

13

In other words, I agree with the suggestion of those church fathers that the image of God is synonymous with the image of Christ. Therefore, the creation of human beings in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) is prophetic32 of man being made a new creation in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17), and not a description of mans natural, mortal and corruptible condition apart from Christ. But just as it is not humankinds nature to obey Gods law, but to transgress it, it is not our nature to seek God (Romans 3:11). God speaks the truth about our nature and hopeless condition through His prophets: There is no one who calls on your name, or attempts to take hold of you; for you have hidden your face from us, and have delivered us into the hand of our iniquity (Isaiah 64:7). These things I believe about human nature. A truthful understanding of human nature is essential to a truthful understanding of the Gospel. For example, the popular, unbiblical belief that man is basically good, or even various views on the Pelagian33 spectrum within professing Christendom that man naturally possesses the innate ability to choose faith and obedience to God, effectually diminish the preeminence of Gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16). There is salvation only in Christ (Acts 4:12). And yet, no one can come to Christ unless the Father drags (draws by inward power, Gr: Helkuo, cf. John 6:44) him or her. We are saved by grace, through faith, and that faith is not from within ourselves but it is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-10). As Ambrose of Milan
This statement by Origen (185-254) approaches a prophetic view of Genesis 1:26: The fulfillment of the likeness [of God] is reserved for the final consummation... See McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 408. Pelagius (355-435) suggests it is not conceivable that God would give His people commandments that they were unable to bear. See McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 419-420. However, this contradicts the very purpose of the law, which was to bring Israel to Christ, by giving them the knowledge of their sin (Galatians 3:24, Romans 3:20). Pelagius even borrows the language straight from Peter, who stood up before the council at Jerusalem and asked the Judaizers why they were trying to impose a law on Gentile believers that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10). In fact, Scripture is clear that the law could not be borne by anyone and no one could be justified by it (Galatians 2:16,5:1). Pelagius claims it would be ascribing unrighteousness to God by asserting he commanded the impossible, when in fact, he did command the impossible! So that, as Martin Luther finally realized, the righteousness of God apart from the law would be revealed by the gospel (Romans 1:17,3:21).
33 32

14

(339-397) writes, O man, you did not dare to raise your face to heaven; you lowered your eyes to the earthand suddenly you have received the grace of Christ, and all your sins have been forgiven!...And do not suppose that his is due to any action on you part; it is due to the grace of Christ.34 Not only is the true Gospel rejected by the belief that humankind has the innate ability to believe, or choose Christ of their own volition; but there is also the belief within some professing Christian denominations that ones salvation can be lost, through his lack of performance of good works, which amounts to what the apostle Paul calls another gospel (Galatians 1:6f; 3:2-5). If we did nothingbecause by nature we could do nothing--to gain our salvation, then we could do nothing to lose it. But to suggest that we could do something to lose our salvation amounts to a claim that we did something to gain it in the first place. But the true Gospelthe good newsinvites us to rest in Christs all-sufficient, finished work, and trust Gods promise that nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:38-39)not even our own faithlessness, because our relationship with Godour restoration to His presence--began and is forever maintained by the faithfulness of Christ. To this Kathryn Tanner (b. 1957) speaks most poignantly: God sets us in and upholds our position in relation to God, whatever we do, whatever happens to us. Despite the fact of human failing, faithlessness and death, we are alive in God.35 Salvation (Justification and Sanctification)

34 35

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 410-411. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 681.

15

I believe that salvation36 is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Christs death on the cross satisfied, or appeased (Gr: Hilasmos, cf. 1 John 2:2) God, who had decreed that without the shedding of blood there could be no forgiveness of sins (Hebrews 9:22; Leviticus 17:11). Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is particularly strong in his defense of Anselms37 view of the sacrifice that satisfied God. Aquinas beautifully articulates, ...because of the worth of the life he laid down for a satisfaction, which was the life of God and a human being...[and] because of the comprehensiveness of his passion and the greatness of the sorrow which he took upon himself...therefore the passion of Christ was not only sufficient but a superabundant satisfaction.38 Christs death as the substitutionary sacrifice39 for the sins of His people was prophesied by Isaiah: The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities (Isaiah 53:11); and Paul records the fulfillment of this prophecy: For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). This is the glorious comfort of the Gospel: Forgiveness is granted to all who simply believe on the name of Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-11; John 1:12); but as Paul makes clear, even our faith is a gift of God: by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is
According to Justo Gonzales, salvation has to do, not only with ones eternal destiny, but with everything that stands in the way of Gods purposes of communion with creationand specifically with the human creature. Thus salvation includes both justification and sanctification. See Gonzales, Essential Theological Terms, 162. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) is well-known for his treatise Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God-Man?), which scholars have paralleled with Romans 3, and specifically Pauls view of the atonement as satisfaction (Gr. Hilasterion). See Tami Jelinek, Why God Became a Man: A Conversation with Anselm's Cur Deus Homo, For Heavens Sake, http://www.4heavenssake.org/why-god-became-a-man.html (accessed May 1, 2013).
38 37 36

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 363.

Substitutionary atonement, or penal substitution, while it is the view I currently espouse, is not the only view of the atonement in Christian theology. Other views, sometimes called theories of the atonement, include the moral influence view, and the Christus Victor view. For a succinct summary of these views and how they differ, see Gonzales, Essential Theological Terms, 20-23.

39

16

not your own doing; it is the gift of Godnot the result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). I believe that we are justified (declared righteousGr: Dikaioo) solely by the redemption that is through Christs blood, and not at all by our own works (Romans 3:24,28; 5:1,9). Furthermore, we are sanctified (purified, cleansed, consecrated, dedicatedGr: Hagiazo) through Christs substitutionary offering once and for all (Hebrews 10:10,14). I believe that both our justification and sanctification are inseparable from our salvation, which has been completely and irrevocably accomplished for those who are in Christ.40 As John Calvin (1509-64) states, To be justified in Gods sight is to be reckoned as righteous in Gods judgment and to be accepted on account of that righteousness...having been clothed in [Christs righteousness, we appear] in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as a righteous person...Our righteousness is not in us, but in Christ. We possess it only because we participate in Christ; in fact, with him, we possess all his riches.41 These things I believe about salvationjustification and sanctification. Because Christs sacrifice satisfied God, He does not deal with us according to our sins, nor repay us according to our iniquities. He has removed our sins from us as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:10,12). We who have been reconciled to God through the death of His son
During the Reformation debates over the doctrines of grace (debates that continue today) dealt with the nature of both salvation by grace and justification by faith, as well as the distinction between imputed or imparted righteousness by which justification of the believer is accomplished. Whereas the Reformers taught a forensic justification through the righteousness of Christ being imputed to the believer, so that, as Calvin states, believers are not righteous in themselves, but on the account of the communication of the righteousness of Christ through imputation...our righteousness is not in us, but in Christ; the Council of Trent (1545-1563) declared that justification is the result of an ongoing process of sanctification in the life of the believer, during which righteousness is imparted, and even went so far as to suggest that there had to be something within individuals which could allow God to justify them. See McGrath, Christian Theology: And Introduction, 362-363. One obvious problem with any process view applied to justification is its ambiguity. The question for any theologian positing a progressive sanctification which leads to a not yet accomplished justification is: at what point, short of outward moral perfection, is anyone ever justified? And since no one would suggest that anyone ever achieves outward (let alone inward) moral perfection in this life, then on what basis does any Christian believe himself to be justified before God, if indeed Christs imputed righteousness is an insufficient basis for this assurance?
41 40

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 449.

17

(Romans 5:10) are now holy and blameless in his sight (Colossians 1:22). We are now found in him, not having a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ (Philippians 3:9). This understanding of the extent of Gods mercy toward us has tremendous ramifications upon how we live with one another as members of His body. We who have been reconciled to God are given the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18). To love one another as He has loved us, in obedience to Christs command, is to view one another as He views us: as clothed in the righteousness of Christ. And when we begin to see one another this way, it will change the way we treat one another, even as it changes the way we see ourselves, because we are looking at one who appears before God exactly as we doholy and blameless before Him in love (Ephesians 1:4).

The Church and Sacraments I believe in one universal church of Jesus Christ, metaphorically pictured in Scripture as both His bride (Romans 7:4; Ephesians 5:31-32; Revelation 21:22) and His body (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:18,24). The church is also pictured in Scripture by the heavenly city, or the New Jerusalem (Ephesians 2:20-22; Galatians 4:26; Hebrews 12:22-24; Revelation 21:2,9-10,14). While the New Testament writers often speak of the church or churches in terms of local assemblies, they also speak of one universal church over which Christ is the head (Ephesians 3:21; Colossians 1:18,24), to which all believers (in all times and places) have come (Hebrews 12:23). The First Helvetic Confession (1536) gives this definition of the church: A holy, universal Church is, we affirm, built and gathered together from living stones built upon this living rock [Christ].42 I especially appreciate that this statement employs the New Testament
42

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 509.

18

image of us as Gods people being living stones built together as a spiritual house (1 Peter 2:5noting that Peter himself does not claim any special stoneship43), and also the image of the church being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (noting again, that no apostle is singled out) with Christ being the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20; cf. Isaiah 28:16). The church did not replace Israel;44 rather, the church is the embodiment of the all Israel to whom the Deliverer was promised (cf. Romans 11:26). In the church, both Jew and Gentile have been reconciled to God through Christ, and are now members of the same householdGods own temple, to which He has come to dwell (Ephesians 2:11-22). Therefore the church is the fulfillment of Johns apocalyptic vision: "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God (Revelation 21:3). I believe that whenever believers gather physically, the church is gathered physically. I also believe that at all times and at all places, even when physically absent from one another, we are spiritually present with all believers even as we are present with Christ. Christ dwells with His church in a perfectly consummated and inseverable union; and we are likewise joined with one another in Him. We could no more cut ourselves off from one another than we could cut
Apostolic succession throughout history and even today has retained its traditional meaning of an uninterrupted line of bishops going back to the apostles. See Gonzalez, Essential Theological Terms, 15. According to McGrath, the consensus of the early church fathers included the idea that the church replaces Israel as the people of God in the world. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 377. I would strongly disagree with this consensus, as it implies that God did not keep all of his promises to Israel. The church can only trust the promises of God to her on the basis that he was first true to his word to Israel. Rather than viewing herself as a replacement for Israel, the church needs to view herself as the beneficiary of all the promises of God spoken by Israels prophets (2 Corinthians 1:20) and also of Gods covenant with Abrahamwhich is the gospel of Christ (Galatians 3:8).
44 43

19

ourselves off from Christ. We are one in Him (Galatians 3:28). And we as the church, in our practice of communion with one another, are Christs flesh and bones (Ephesians 5:30). We are the tangible, experiential presence of Christ to one another. To the degree that the practice of sacraments, such as the Eucharist (which is a carry-over from the Passover that Christ celebrated with His disciples, and that He fulfilled, cf. Matthew 26:26-28), heightens our awareness of our communion with all the saints, and draws our hearts toward adoring remembrance, and a worshipful reflection upon the mercy Christ performed by his cross, this practice may be seen as an integral part of our fellowship with other believers. Let each one follow their conscience45 in this. However I break with church tradition which views the sacraments as efficacious toward salvation,46 or as making Christ present47 with His church. Christ has married His bride, and is always and forever present with her. The practice of the sacraments may call His presence into our remembrance, but that practice does not call His
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) stressed that sacraments were primarily a gracious divine accommodation to human weakness, and that signs are the means by which we may be both reminded and reassured of the word of faith, and that these signs (which he stresses are just that: signs) were given to give assurance to your conscience if it doubts Gods grace or benevolence toward you. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 408. I can appreciate this much more readily than the ideas of others that sacraments are in some way efficacious toward salvation. It may be appropriate to apply Melanchthons idea of assurance to the conscience to the one who is weak in conscience (cf. Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8) or to Pauls statement that he would become weak to those who are weak (1 Corinthians 9:22). Melanchthons statement that the sacraments accommodate human weakness seems to bear a resemblance to Paul on this point. Many theologians throughout church history (and continuing and today) advocate a type of sacramental regeneration. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) declared that the Eucharist was the medicine of immortality and an antidote, so that we should not die, but live for ever in Jesus Christ; and Ambrose of Milan (c. 337-97) argued that in baptism the Holy Spirit coming upon the font or upon those who are to be baptized, effects the reality of regeneration. On the other hand, I greatly appreciate the boldness of Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562), who wrote that Augustine had grievously erred in this doctrine, in ascribing too much to baptism. He does not acknowledge that it is merely an outward symbol of regeneration, but holds that, by the very act of being baptized, we are regenerated and adopted, and enter into the family of Christ. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 407. The term real presence is an affirmation of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Such real presence may be physical, as in the case of transubstantiation or consubstantiation, or it may be spiritual, as in Calvins virtualism. The term is most commonly used to exclude the view that the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic is merely symbolic, that Christ is present simply because of the Eucharistic symbols bring him to mind. See Gonzalez, Essential Theological Terms, 145.
47 46 45

20

presence into being. God is eternally at rest in His love, Zion, Jerusalem, His chief joy (Zephaniah 3:17; Psalm 132:13,14; 137:6). These things I believe about the church and sacraments. What one believes about the union of Christ with His churchwhether it is an accomplished and ever present union, which cannot be diminished, or increased, but is already perfect; or whether it is a union which is being progressively accomplished through the practice of certain rituals, and could be diminished or even lost by the absence of those ritualsis directly related to how one views the cross of Christ and whether or not it really accomplished the redemption of His people. If the sacraments must be practiced to either complete our redemption, or to somehow keep us in it, then the cross is diminished in our eyes. And we cannot say that in fact we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our sins, according to the riches of His grace (Ephesians 1:7); or that Christ truly did enter the most Holy Place once for all, securing our eternal redemption (Hebrews 9:12). But if we believe that by His one sacrifice He has perfected us forever (Hebrews 10:14), then we can truly experience the joy and peace of our accomplished salvation and be thankful that it is not by works of righteousness we have done, but by his mercy that he has saved us (Titus 3:5).

Eschatology (Last Things) I believe the last days of which Jesus and the apostles speak are the last days of the Old Covenant age,48 the old order of things (cf. Revelation 21:4), which was passing away even as
McGrath appropriately states that Paul clearly sees Christs resurrection as an event which enables believers to live in the knowledge that deatha dominant feature of the present agehas been overcome, insomuch as the death of the then present, Old Covenant age was in the process of being overcome, and as Hebrews makes plain, the Old Covenant itself was ready to vanish away (Hebrews 8:13). But then McGrath goes on to say Paul looks forward to the future coming of Jesus Christ in judgment at the end of time, confirming the new life of believers and their triumph over sin and death. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 446. The Bible however does not speak of the end of time, but only of the end of the age. It is therefore of paramount importance that a study
48

21

the apostles were writing. As Rudolf Bultmann (1887-1976) writes, According to the New Testament, Jesus Christ is the eschatological event, the action of God by which God has set an end to the old world.49 The Gospels are full of statements made by Jesus that He would come in His kingdom to fulfill everything that was written in that generation (Matthew 24:34; Luke 21:22); and the apostles all taught that his parousia (the fulfillment of His eternal presence) was imminent, because that is what Jesus had told them (1 John 2:18; Hebrews 10:37; 2 Peter 3:12). I believe that what was immediately future to them in the first century, and imminently expected, was indeed fulfilled in the generation of some who were standing there (Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27). There is no dispute, even among Christians today who hold to a futurist eschatology, that Jesus taught the time was fulfilled, and that His kingdom was near and at hand (Mark 1:15; Luke 10:9; Matthew 4:17). There is not even any dispute that the book of Revelation opens and closes by stating that the things written there must shortly take place (Revelation 1:1; 22:6). The dispute is regarding whether Jesus and the apostles were mistaken about the timing of his kingdom. Sadly, many have followed the claim that they were mistaken50 into agnosticism because of what that claim suggests about the authority of the Scriptures. If the words of Christ and His apostles recorded there are not to be believed, then on what basis do we trust the authority of any of it?
of eschatology includes a definition of that age that was in the process of passing away at the time Paul was writing, so that a term like this present evil age (cf. Galatians 1:4) doesnt get extended forward out of its context, 2000 years and counting. These considerations beg the question: Why does McGrath never mention that Paul and the other apostles believed the end of the age (not the end of time) was imminent? It seems undeniable that their credibility is a stake if we are suggesting their expectationswhich were based on what Jesus told them-- were not fulfilled.
49 50

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 666.

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) is said to have rediscovered the apocalyptic character of the preaching of Jesus, and argued forcefully that the kingdom of God was an eschatological notion. Jesus was not to be seen as the moral educator of humanity, but as the proclaimer of the imminent coming of the eschatological kingdom of God. See McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction, 452. (And Schweitzer was right on the money.)

22

I believe Jesus kept His word, and fulfilled everything that had been written about Him in Moses, the psalms and the prophets (Luke 24:44). I believe He is eternally present with His people, and that presence is heaven. Heaven has come to earth, but too many Christians are missing the joy of it, because they are looking to escape this fallen physical world in search of a sensual experience of the kingdom they deem greater than the eternal presence of Christ in Mt. Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem (Hebrews 12:22). Kathryn Tanner (b. 1957), in Jesus, Humanity and the Trinity, is entirely delightful in her discussion of eternal life: There is a life in the Triune God that we possess now and after death, in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit. Ante and post mortem do not mark any crucial difference with respect to it. Death makes no difference to that life in God in the sense that, despite our deaths, God maintains a relationship with us that continues to be the source of all life-giving benefit.51 Yes! Our life in Christ is the same life both now and after death! And one major implication of this affirmation must not be overlooked: We are not waiting for our eternal life to start! We are not waiting to get to heaven (the presence of God) because we are there now! I also appreciate the way she defines death as separation from Christ. Which means of course that life is nothing short of presence with Christ. And here she affirms the security of the believer by her biblical understanding of the nature and source of eternal life: Eternal life means a deepened affirmation that ones relation with God is not conditional; it is not conditioned even by biological death or the cessation of community and cosmos. The Bible maintains that God remains the God of Israel and the church,52 remains the God of the world that God creates and of all the individuals in it, whatever happens; the idea of eternal life is simply a way of continuing this affirmation of Gods loving and steadfast faithfulness across the fact of
51 52

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 680. I would offer the qualification that in the New Covenant, Israel and the Church are not separate entities.

23

death.53 Finally, she is unapologetically diametrically opposed to the all too popular idea of progressive salvation (or progressive sanctification) which has believers waiting to be forgiven of their sins, and waiting for their redemption, and I applaud her with joy: With eternal life it becomes clear how relation with God as the source of all benefit cannot be broken by either sin or death (in all its senses including the biological); relations with a life-giving God are maintained unconditionally from Gods side....The relationship is also unconditional, then, in that what we should be in itthe image of Gods own relationship with usis maintained or shored up from Gods side (in virtue of the free favor and mercy of God in Christ) despite our own failings, sufferings, and sin. In the relationship of eternal life, God sets us in and upholds our position in relation to God, whatever we do, whatever happens to us. Despite the fact of human failing, faithlessness and death, we are alive in God.54 In other words, Kathryn Tanner really believes this: If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation! Not will be, when animals stop eating each other.55 But Is a new creation in Christwho has made all things new!56

53 54 55

McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 681. McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 681.

John Wesley (1703-1791) espoused a yet unfulfilled view of Revelation 21:5 (Behold, I make all things new). Conversely, 2 Corinthians 5:17 states, If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. Old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. It certainly sounds to me that Revelation 21:5 is fulfilled for anyone who is in Christ! Wesley also held to a hyper-literalism in Isaiah 11, glaringly revealed in his statement, No rage will be found in any creature, no fierceness, no cruelty, or thirst for blood, as if carnivorousness in animals is indicative of something in need of redemption. As McGrath summarizes, Wesley clearly sees redemption in terms of the final restoration of the [material] creation. See McGrath, The Christian Theology Reader, 664-665. This suggests that Christ came to restore the material creation (suggesting also that it somehow neededand still needs!--restoring); whereas the Bible states plainly that Christ came to save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21).
56

Cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17; Revelation 21:5

24

Bibliography Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics - Volume 1, Part 2 - The Doctrine of the Word of God, Reprint ed. T. & T. Clark, 1988. Gonzalez, Justo L. Essential Theological Terms. Westminster John Knox Press, 2005. Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Rev. and updated [ed.], 2nd ed. Harper One, 2010. Johnston, Robert K., ed. The Use of the Bible in Theology/Evangelical Options. Wipf & Stock, 1985. McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 5th ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. McGrath, Alister E., ed. The Christian Theology Reader. 3rd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, 2006.

Theologians Cited
Ambrose of Milan (339-397) Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Karl Barth (1886-1968) Donald G. Bloesch (b. 1928) Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1912) Basil of Caesarea (c. 330-379) John Calvin (1509-1564) Council of Trent (1545-1563) Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50-117) The First Helvetic Confession (1536) Irenaeus (130-200) Martin Kahler (1835-1912) Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) Alister E. McGrath (b. 1953) Jurgen Moltmann (b. 1926) The Nicene Creed (325) Origen (185-254) Pelagius (355-435) Dorothy L. Sayers (1893-1957) F.D.E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) Kathryn Tanner (b. 1957) Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499-1562) John Wesley (1703-1791)

25