The Trinity and Knowability

The Trinity is a mystery that is dogma and must be believed for one to call themselves a Christian.  This is a leap of faith, because though we know it is true, we are not able to understand everything about it.  Do we need to understand everything about it in order to believe?  Some would say that to believe we must have absolute knowledge of the subject.  To not have this knowability is a contradiction in eyes of many.

There are many things that we have knowledge of, but we do not know absolutely.  The medical field is constantly changing and filled with new advances, but just a few decades ago the damage of cigarettes on the human body was not well known.  Is this a contradiction in the medical field?  Do we not adhere to the advice of our doctor because we do not have an absolute knowledge of his field?  To have that line of thinking borders on insanity.

There is no tension between the trinity and its knowability.  The Trinity was revealed very slowly in scripture because to reveal it right away would lead Israel into Tritheism.  They simply would not have understood it.  The members of the Trinity were together at one time at the baptism of Christ, and Christ mentioned all three.  For those who have issues believing the Trinity, St. Augustine asks a very interesting question.  Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead though you have never seen anyone else do the same (Augustine 7.5)?  We love the Lord Jesus though we have never seen him, and we love the other members of the Trinity as well.  We see the handiwork of the Trinity all around us.  The Trinity is one God with three persons, and we love them because they are God.  It does take an element of faith like most things in life.  That illumination that faith provides assists in understanding it a bit more.  If we fully understand everything there is to know about God, then he ceases being God.

 

Works Cited

Augustine of Hippo. Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm&gt;, accessed November 11, 2018.

Advertisements

St. Augustine and the Trinity

The Trinity is a doctrine that some have had issue with since the earliest days of Christianity.  The great church father, St. Augustine, was not immune to having to deal with Christological heresies.  Though the heresies are Christological, they deal with the Trinity because Christ is the second person of the Trinity.  If a there is a false understanding of who Christ is, then there is a false understanding of what the Trinity is.  In discussing these various heresies, St. Augustine wrote treatise titled On the Trinity.  This has become known as one of his most difficult works and it took him sixteen years to complete (Augnet 2135).  His work is gift to all of us and shows various arguments supporting the equality of divine persons against Christological heresies.

In chapter one, St. Augustine warns the reader of those who commit heresy through the misuse of reason.  They fall into error by misinterpreting the sacred text through crude love of reason (Augustine Ch.1).  By doing so they miss the point of the text and somehow twist scripture to mean something it does not intend.  In all fairness, this is still something that happens today regarding the Trinity.  In chapter five, Augustine speaks of the unity of the divine persons.  He does this specifically by describing how the three persons are one, how they have individua work, and yet work together.  Augustine states in regard to their work, “Father does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others” (Augustine Ch.5.8).  The Holy Spirit is the spirit of both the Father and the Son and was not begotten.  Just like the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit has no beginning or end.

In Chapter six Augustine seems to be teaching against a type of modalism that was going around.  Some were saying that God was not immortal because he changed into the Son and Holy Spirit through time, or that somehow Christ was less that the Father.  Augustine brilliantly answers with scripture.  This is still a method that is effective today.  He quotes John 1:1 to show that Christ has always existed, and that the scriptures call Him God (Augustine Ch. 6.9).  He then alludes to the baptism of Christ in Matthew chapter 3 to show the unity and equality of the three.  Jesus is present, it was the Father’s voice that spoke, and it was the Holy Spirit that was present in the dove.  This shows that they all exist at the same time, in unity, equality, and that it is not one form changing to another.

In proving his case of equality among the Trinitarian persons, St. Augustine looks to 1 Corinthians 8:6 which states, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (NRSV).  This verse affirms the divinity of Christ by mentioning him in the same sentence as God.  Notice also how all things exist through the Father and the Son?  Each person of the Trinity has a clause, or duty, assigned.  One is not more important than the other, but they all work together for our redemption and salvation (Augustine 6.12).

Some may say that the verse mentioned above makes sense, but what of the Holy Spirit?  In Chapter 6, St. Augustine goes to great lengths to show that the Holy Spirit is equal to the Father and the Son.  The Holy Spirit is not something that had a point of origin.  In other words, he is not a creature that had a beginning and that will have an ultimate end.  The Holy Spirit is equal, coeternal, and of the same essence.  Regarding the Holy Spirit St. Paul writes in Philippians 3:3, “For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh” (NRSV).  Also in 1 Corinthians 6:9, St. Paul specifically mentions that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit.  We serve, worship, and ask the Holy Spirit for things just as we would the Father and the Son.  That is because they are coequal and God.

Image result for augustine and the trinity

Works Cited

Augustine. On the Trinity From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 3. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1887.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130101.htm&gt;, accessed October 14, 2018.

Augustinians Australia. http://www.augnet.org/en/works-of-augustine/writings-of-augustine/2135-on-the-trinity/, accessed October 14, 2018.

What is Pelagianism?

Many Protestant Christians say that the Catholic church teaches Pelagianism, or at the very least semi-Pelagianism.  This line of reasoning shows a fundamental misunderstanding of not only what the church teaches, but what Pelagianism is.  Pelagianism is a heresy that was condemned by the church and is superfluous for beatitude.

What is Pelagianism?  It is a system that relies on the sufficiency of man’s will (Hardon).  Pelagianism was started by a Bishop named Julian who had been a friend of St. Augustine.  It would later become more popular by a British theologian by the name of Pelagius.  At the heart of the movement were two issues:  the denial “for the need of divine grace and the doctrine of the generative transmission of original sin” (Ireland 38).

As noted above, Pelagianism teaches that original sin does not exist and that Adam left us a bad example.  Since his sin was merely a bad example, our nature is not corrupted, and we acquire the penalty of sin by our misdeeds.  This has huge ramifications when it comes to the concept of grace.  At its root it teaches the unrealistic thought that we can get to heaven by what we do, without the help of God.  Regarding this John Hardon writes, “We can always will and do good, even when de facto we will and do otherwise, depending entirely on our own moral strength” (Hardon).

Since we can do it on our own it lends to the ineffectiveness of sacraments, particularly that of baptism.  In this system baptism becomes a public declaration of faith and an incorporation into the church.  In fact, this is eerily similar to most Protestant denominations today.  Pelagianism makes grace superfluous to beatitude because it removes the need for grace.  If one can do it himself what is the need for God to be involved.  It makes Jesus into a wise moral teacher instead of the divine Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world.

Image result for pelagianism

Works Cited

Hardon, John.  History and Theology of Grace.  Ann Arbor, MI:  Sapientia Press, 2005.

Ireland, Patricia.  Guardian of a Pure Heart: St. Augustine on the Path to Heaven.  Staten Island:  St. Pauls/Alba House, 2009.

Eucharist: Body and Blood of Christ or a Symbol

When Christians discuss Christianity, it is common to ask where one goes to church.  One person may say they go to a Baptist church, another the Methodist church, and yet another will say the Roman Catholic Church.  Protestants and Catholics believe in the incarnation, the virgin birth, the crucifixion, and resurrection.  This is great, and they must be believed, but when it comes to the Eucharist the tide of the conversation shifts.  There are questions as to what the Eucharist is, and why the catholic church will not allow non-Catholics to partake of it.

Though we are all Christians, there is a line in the sand between Catholics and Protestants as to what the Eucharist is. Catholics hold that a miracle takes place and the bread and wine become the real body and blood of Christ.  Many Protestants look at the elements as a symbol, and a memorial meal for us to remember the last supper.  If the Catholic church is correct, then Protestants are missing a crucial aspect of Christian worship.  If Protestants are right, then Catholics are guilty of the horrible sin of idolotry.

In this paper the church teaching of the Eucharist will be looked at in detail.  This detail will include looking at sacred scripture, the catechism, the writings of early church fathers, church councils, and the first eucharistic controversies.  Through it all this paper will shatter the myth that says that the catholic church started believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist after the Forth Lateran Council in 1215.  The research will show that, not only is the Eucharist the real body and blood of Christ, but it was a constant teaching of the church since the time of the Apostles.

 

WHAT IS THE EUCHARIST?

When the liturgy of the Eucharist is happening every Christian, regardless of denominational affiliation, will recognize the words spoken by the priest.  These words are scriptural and can be found in many places.  One such place in Luke 22:19-20 which states, “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’  And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (NRSV).  The word Eucharist comes from the Greek word Eucharista which means thanksgiving.

The catholic church states that the bread and wine present on the altar become the real body and blood of our lord Jesus Christ.  It is our participation in worship that is happening in heave, and our participation in the heavenly banquet on earth.  As such the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the Eucharist as “The source and summit of our faith” (CCC 1324).  It contains Christ himself and it his efficacious sign to be with us until the end of time and allows us to maintain unity with his people and church.

As previously states, Catholics believe that a miracle takes place when the bread and wine are consecrated.  Within the Liturgy of the Eucharist this takes place in the section titled The Institution Narrative and Consecration (Liturgy of the Eucharist).  In this institution narrative the priest says the words uttered by Christ on that fateful night in the upper room.  Just as Christ gave his himself under the species of bread and wine the priest does the same in the liturgy of the Eucharist when he acts in persona Christi, or in the person of Christ.  Regarding this the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states, “that Sacrifice is effected which Christ himself instituted during the Last Supper, when he offered his Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine, gave them to the Apostles to eat and drink, and leaving with the latter the command to perpetuate this same mystery” (USCCB).

The quotation given above makes mention of the body and blood of Christ being offered under the species of bread and wine.  The church has always taught this, but thanks to Eucharistic controversies that were becoming prevalent, the church had to formally define this miraculous change.  At the Fourth Lateran Council the church formally defined this with a word known as transubstantiation, and this became a dogma and a definitive teaching that must be believed (Howell page 126).

Transubstantiation is the process by which the substance of the bread and wine vanishes in a way that makes room for the body and blood of Christ, and when this happens the appearance of bread and wine remains (Pohl & Preuss page 107).  Since the appearance of the bread and wine remain this allows us to consume the sacrament.  In short, the substance of the material has changed but the appearance stays the same.  This understanding grew over the years as Aristotelian language became more mainstream and understood in a deeper way.  In his magnificent work the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas started to define these terms even if the official word of transubstantiation had not yet been defined.  Regarding the change that occurs with the elements Aquinas writes “The presence of Christ’s true body and blood in this sacrament cannot be detected by sense, nor understanding, but by faith alone, which rests upon Divine authority” (STIII q.75 a.1 resp.).  He shows us his flesh, though it may be in an invisible manner, as a way to strengthen us for the journey of life and to perfect us in faith.

Though the word transubstantiation did not come about until 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council that does not mean that the church started teaching it then.  Some protestants believe this, but history shows another story.  Church history shows that from the time of the apostles until the ninth century that the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was unchallenged.

 

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EUCHARIST

Some claim that the doctrine of the Eucharist is not found in scripture, but this outlook is an indication of one reading scripture through a denominational lens.  The last supper narratives all describe Jesus as saying “this is my body, this is my blood” in Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-25, Luke 22:7-20, and John 13:1-30.  St, Paul also writes about the body and blood of Christ in the breaking of bread in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.  Perhaps the strongest biblical evidence is from Christ himself in John 6:22-59 which is known as the bread of life discourse.  In this discourse Christ loses follows because he is speaking literally about his body and blood.

To understand these verses fully we must look at some Old Testament passages because these New Testament verses employ a theological term known as typology.  Typology studies events and institution that foreshadow something greater that is to come.  Regarding this Dr. Scott Hahn writes, “The basis of such study is the belief that God, who providentially shapes and determines the course of human events, infuses those events with a prophetic and theological significance” (Catholic Bible Dictionary page 929).  Understanding typology helps us understand salvation history as something fluid, and not as periods that are broken up independent of each other.  God does not change, and the subtle clues that he gives us in the Old Testament find heir final fulfillment in the pages of the New Testament.  With that said we see the beginnings of the Eucharist in the pages of the Old Testament, and there are two items that are significant for our purposes here.  Those two things are the bread of the presence in the Temple and the manna in the desert.

The story of the manna in the desert takes place in the book of Exodus.  Moses, through the grace of God, led the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage.  Though they were in bondage in Egypt they ate well.  They roamed through the desert and they began to complain about how much better off they were in Egypt.  In Exodus 16:2 we read, “The whole congregation of the Israelites complained against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness” (NRSV).  They were understandably afraid and did not know where the next meal was coming from because it was always provided in Egypt.  Moses took their concerns before the Lord and the Lord responds.  The says to Moses in Exodus 16:4, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you, and each day the people shall go out and gather enough for that day. In that way I will test them, whether they will follow my instruction or not” (NRSV).  This miraculous bread was brought down from heaven every morning, and the Israelites were to pick as much as they needed for the day.  This is a foreshadowing of what Christ says in the Bread of life discourse in John chapter 6.  In that discourse Jesus says that he is the true manna that came down from Heaven (Barber 65).

The bread of life discourse takes up most of John 6, but only a few verses will be covered so the relations between the manna and the Eucharist can be established.  In John 6:32 Jesus tells the Jews that Moses was not the one that gave the bread from heaven, but the Father gives them “true bread” from heaven.  Jesus is using present tense verbs, and not past tense if he were simply discussing what Moses did.  The Jews long for the bread that Jesus describes, and he shifts the conversation from the manna that gave the Israelites life to the true bread.  Jesus says in John 6:35, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty” (NRSV).  In John 6:41 the Jews are complaining to Jesus because he said that he is the bread of life.  When Jesus is encountered the Jews could not understand that they would be feeding on the living God (Benedict XVI para 53). Both John 6:41 and Exodus 16:2 state that he Jews started complaining.  They both started complaining over something that they believed to be literal.  The manna in the desert was a real event as was Jesus saying that his flesh must be eaten.

Though the Jews were complaining, just like the Israelites in the wilderness, he repeats himself.  In John 6:51 Christ says, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” (NRSV).  It is interesting to note that the Jews not only complained but became indignant.  They asked among themselves How Christ could give his flesh to eat (John 6:52).  This leads to a very important question that is at the heart of this research.  If our Lord were speaking metaphorically why would the Jews take him literally?  The question they asked among themselves is literal in nature.

Jesus understood their confusion and raised the ante again.  In fact, with his next phrase he would erase all doubt and his audience would know exactly what he meant.  In John 6:53 Jesus states, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (NRSV).  In this verse Jesus uses a different Greek verb for the word “eat”.  The verb used by Christ is the Greek word trogo and it means “to gnaw, munch, crunch” (Thomas #5176).  This word is never meant as a literary metaphor in the Greek language and is always used in a literal fashion.  At this saying many of those who were following Jesus left.  They left because they knew what he meant, and that meaning was literal.  He then turned to the twelve disciples in John 6:61 and asked if they were offended and wanted to leave.  Many will say that Jesus also said that he was a door and a vine, and he did say those things.  However, he never willingly lost followers over those statements.  The comparison between Exodus 16 and John 6 shows that manna was a prefiguration of the Eucharist.  As Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI states, “The mystery of the Eucharist reveals the true manna, the true bread of heaven: it is God’s Logos made flesh, who gave himself up for us in the paschal mystery” (Verbum Domini para 54).

The bead of the presence is also a foreshadowing of the Eucharist in the Old Testament.  According to Exodus 25:30 this bread was to be continually before the Lord.  This bread stood as a reminder to al who saw it that God was continually present.  The bread was placed on a golden table outside of the Holy of Holies, and every Sabbath new bread would be placed, and priests would eat the old (Hahn 929).  Four times per year, on major feast days, the bread of the presence was shown to the people to remind them that God was with them.

The bread of the presence reaches its fulfillment in Christ who institutes it in the Eucharistic celebration as it is Christ who sustains our spiritual life.  The connection between the bread of the presence and is not lost on our Protestant brethren.  Protestant biblical scholar Paul Karleen states, “The specially made bread that lay on an ornate table in the Holy Place in the Tabernacle; pictures Christ as the one who sustains (spiritual) life” (Karleen 359).  The bread consisted of twelve loaves for the twelve tribes of Israel.  In the New Covenant Jesus has twelve disciples to represent the same.  As the Priests in the Old Testament lifted the bread to show the people that God was with them, Jesus does the same at the last supper.  Using the principles of typology and what Jesus stated in John chapter 6 we see Jesus, in his role as high priest, offer himself to be eaten by his disciples.  This is done every day in the celebration of the Eucharist at Holy Mass.

This far two Old Testament preludes to the Eucharist have been detailed, but what about the New Testament?  For this we will look to the last supper narratives in the New Testament, but specifically the Gospel of Matthew.  The sequence of events is familiar as Jesus takes the bread as says in Matthew 26:26 “Take, eat; this is my body” (NRSV).  The word “is” is a crucial component of the study of the Eucharist.  The Greek word used is esti which is a third person singular verb which means “to be” (Thomas #1510).  What is even more interesting, as far as this word is concerned, is its origins. The word esti has its root in the present infinitive Greek verb einai “to be, to exist, to be present” (Thomas #1510).  In Matthew 26:27 Jesus then states, “this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (NRSV).

A study of the Greek language is a good stating point, but it has a very real connection to Passover.  The Gospels are clear, and state that the Jesus and the disciples gathered to celebrate the Passover.  The Passover meal was done to remember the exodus event and was a sacrificial meal in its own right.  Prior to Passover a lamb would be slaughtered and the whole lamb had to be consumed.  The Passover was a community feast and parallels the gathering that we see with Jesus and the disciples.  During the meal the head of the table would make comments and was ritualistic in nature.  There was a formula that was followed.  Jesus did not follow the prescribed formula and said the words mentioned above in Matthew 26:26-27.  He also commanded the disciples to follow his lead and to do this act in the future.  There are a couple other ways in the which last supper deviate from the traditional Passover meal.  Conspicuous in its absence is the roasted lamb.  This is important because Jesus took the place of the Passover lamb (Zizoulas 5).  When Christ said the words of institution the bread and wine that were present became his body which was the sacrifice of the New Covenant given for the sins of the world.  Regarding the connection between the Passover and the Eucharist John Zizoulas writes, “To understand the remembrance in this way makes the Eucharist not only a re-presentation of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, but also a foretaste of the Kingdom to come” (Zizoulas 5).

 

EVIDENCE FROM THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

In the previous paragraphs a very brief look at scripture shows that Jesus was being literal, and that Christ is the Pasqual lamb that died for the sins of the word.  What did the earliest Christian followers believe?  Did the early church believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ?  To answer this question the writings of the following four early church fathers will be discussed:  St. Ignatius of Antioch who lived from approximately 35-108 A.D., St. Justin Martyr who lived from 100-165 A.D., St. Irenaeus who lived from 130-202 A.D., and St. Augustine who lived from 354-430 A.D.  There are many more who write about the subject, but this is a small sampling.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is an individua who has several distinctions in Church history.  He learned the faith directly from St. John, but he also was the second bishop of Antioch after St. Peter (Johnson 46).  While he was being led to Rome for his eventual martyrdom he wrote seven letters to a series of Christian communities.  At the time he wrote these letters there was a dangerous heresy known as Docetism that was gaining steam.  This dangerous error taught that Jesus was not really a human, and what people saw only seemed to be human.  In many ways it was similar to Gnosticism in it view of who Jesus was.  St. Ignatius warned against this false teaching in a very strong manner.  One of the ways he refuted this teaching was in the Eucharist.  In his letter to the Smyrneans St. Ignatius writes, “They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again” (Ignatius of Antioch 89).  To defend the orthodox teaching of who Christ is he states that the Eucharist is the body of Christ who suffered for our sins.  If it was a just a symbol, then this teaching on the Eucharist would have meant nothing to combat the Docetic heresy.

In his letter to the Philadelphians, St. Ignatius writes about the importance of unity.  He writes about union with the Bishop, avoiding schism, and how there is only one Eucharist.  Regarding the Eucharist St. Ignatius writes, “Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons” (Ignatius of Antioch 81).  Here we see a bold claim, at least in today’s world, that there is one true Christian church and that the Eucharist is at the center of its sacramental life (CCC 1407).  St. Ignatius also sees the Eucharist as not only the body and blood of Christ, but as a connection to him (Stone 73).  In addition to being the true body and blood of Christ, the Eucharist is a source of unity and strength to continue the Christian journey.  For St. Ignatius, the grace given through the God in the Eucharist helped him to proceed to his eventual martyrdom.  The sacramental worldview involves seeing God work through ordinary things, and through his grace the Eucharist becomes what Christ says it is and helps us through life.

Another church father that taught that the Eucharist is the real body and blood of Christ is St. Justin Martyr.  St. Justin was a philosopher by trade, and the first of the layman apologists.  In his First Apology, St. Justin writes to the emperor to defend Christianity from misconceptions that were spreading in the Roman empire (Kreider 233).  In this apology he lays out the order of mass in striking detail and addresses the charge of cannibalism that was often levied against Christians.  He states that no one can receive the Eucharist unless they believe what the church teaches and only after baptism.  Regarding the Eucharist St. Justin states, “For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh” (Justin Martyr 185).  The charge of cannibalism was serious offense on the Roman Empire, and Justin clarifies what the Eucharist is to eliminate doubt.  However, he still says that it is the flesh and blood of Jesus.

In the early church the Gnostic heresy was a big problem and had become popular.  St. Irenaeus of Lyons was concerned for the souls which he was responsible for.  He wrote an excellent treatise titled Against Heresies in which he took the teaching of Gnosticism to task.  The Gnostics taught that all matter was evil and that the true teaching of Christ was past down in secret, and salvation can only be attained by attaining this secret knowledge.  To combat this heresy, he said that all true churches have a rule of faith that was passed down via apostolic succession.  Essentially, he stated that all bishops can trace their lineage to the Apostles.  This is still the teaching of the Catholic church today.  Another was he defended the church was in relation to the Eucharist.  St. Irenaeus the sacrament allowed the Lord to shine through the follies of human weakness and strengthen us on the road to heaven, or immortality as he called it.  He argues that Jesus was real person with flesh and bones, and he gave his flesh to nourish the body and soul of his followers.  Regarding this St. Irenaeus writes, “He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones,—that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body” (Irenaeus 528).

The last church father to be discussed regarding the Eucharist is the great St. Augustine of Hippo.  St. Augustine was familiar with the gnostic movement as he was a member of the gnostic movement known as Manichaeism (Hitchcock 91).  He understood the gnostic movements teaching of all material matter being evil.  He probably had a deeper appreciation of the sacraments and of the sacramental worldview.  St. Augustine was a prolific writer and homilist, and as such he said and wrote much about the Eucharist.

In one of his sermons he was instructing a group that had just received the sacrament of baptism.  Augustine had promised to explain the nature of the Eucharist after they had been washed from the stain of original sin and received the seal of the Holy Spirit in confirmation.  Regarding the Eucharist St. Augustine states in sermon 227. “The bread you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in the chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ” (Akin 297).  Augustine goes on to say that our eyes see ordinary bread and wine, but when they are consecrated our faith obligates us to believe that they are the true body and blood of Christ.

St. Augustine wrote much more about the Eucharist, but from the quotation above we can deduce two things.  Firstly, he strongly believed that the Eucharist was the literal body and blood of Christ and it was something that must be believed.  Secondly, that the ordinary elements are transformed when God sanctifies them.  God uses ordinary elements, infuses his grace, and takes material things that cause us to sin and transforms them to become a cause for our sanctification.

 

WHEN DID THE TEACHING OF THE EUCHARIST BEGIN TO BE CHALLENGED?

Thus far we have seen the testimony of sacred scripture and four fathers of the church in regard to the Eucharist.  The language used by all the great early church theologians spoke in literal terms.  In fact, the teaching that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ would go unchallenged until the 9th century.  It was then that a monk by the name of Ratramnus wrote a book titled On the Body and Blood of the Lord, and in that book he wrote that Christ was present in the Eucharist only “in a spiritual sense to the faith of believers” (Schaff 550).  In the view of Ratramnus, the Eucharist is a spiritual reality and is not a physical one.  In doing so he was the first to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Ratramnus had a monk who was his superior by the name of St. Paschasius.  St. Paschasius also wrote a book titled On the Body and Blood of the Lord, and it was published before Ratramnus’s work.  St. Paschasius held to the orthodox teaching of the real presence and for a time the view of Ratramnus was no longer a threat. That us until Berengar of Tours revitalized the controversy in 1050.

Berengar of Tours was a skilled scholar who had real concerns about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the cases of sacrilege and automatic salvation (Radding & Newton 7).  Is it proper for Christ to pass through the digestive system?  What if a mouse got into the tabernacle and ate the consecrated hosts?  Berengar of Tours also had the false assumption that all one had to do was to consume the Eucharist and one would be automatically saved.  If this were the case, then there would be no need for faith.

Around this same time Aristotelian language was starting to be understood more, and this led to an opportunity for the church to clarify Eucharistic language.  The church works on the language at the regional Council of Vercelli in 1050.  It was here that the views of Berengar of Tours was condemned.  He did recant, but later fell back into his error (Thein 101).  In 1054 he signed another profession of faith in which he recanted of his error.  Berengar of Tours would pass to his eternal reward in communion with the church in 1088.

As is often the case, the church does not formally define something at a council until a controversy arises.  Though the error of Ratramnus and Berengar of Tours were handled correctly, the error regarding the Eucharist continued with other groups such the Waldensians, Albigensians, and Cathars.  The Fourth Lateran council met, and it was at this council that the word transubstantiation was used to describe what happened when the bread and wine are consecrated and does so in philosophical categories (Armstrong 54).  This formal definition answered the question how the bread and wine maintain its physical appearance and taste and how they can be transformed.

 

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of sacred scripture, we read about man be tempted with physical matter by Satan.  It was through material matter that sin entered the world, and through the longing for it that most problems in the world are present.  God knows that we are physical being and need to see things to comprehend and remember their significance.  In this regard he established the seven sacraments to infuse grace and help get us to heaven.  This where the sacramental worldview begins to take shape, especially in regard to the Eucharist.  At the words of consecration, the physical element of bread and wine are infused with the grace of God.

In the sacrament we are declaring are unity with each other, unity with the church, and that Christ is fully present in the sacrament.  It is something bigger than us and is a reminder about his death and resurrection that redeemed us all.  We consume Christ and he changes us from the inside out and conforms us more to his image.

The question being answered in this paper is if the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ or a mere symbol?  The conclusion is that that it has been the constant teaching of the church, since apostolic times, that the Eucharist is the body and blood or Christ.  This has been demonstrated using examples from writings of four church fathers.  There are several more quotations about the Eucharist from the fathers that were quoted.  However, there are many more writings from other fathers not mentioned that describe the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ.

Sacred scripture was also utilized to show how the manna in the desert and the bread of the presence prefigured the Eucharist.  The last supper was discussed, and scripture shows how Christ is the fulfillment of the Pasqual lamb.  Lastly the bread of life discourse in John chapter 6 was detailed.  In particular was the literal language that Christ used in the Greek.  Is the protestant view of the Eucharist being a symbol the view of the early church?  Not at all.  That view did not come about until the 9th century, and even then it was condemned.

              Image result for eucharist

 

Works Cited

Akin, Jimmy. The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2010. Print.

Armstrong, Dave. Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology. Dave Armstrong, 2011. Print.

Benedict XVI. Verbum Domini. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2010. Print.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000. Print.

Hahn, Scott, ed. Catholic Bible Dictionary 2009: n. pag. Print.

Hitchcock, James. History of the Catholic Church: From the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012. Print.

Howell, Kenneth J. The Eucharist for Beginners: Sacrament, Sacrifice, and Communion. San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2006. Print.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/

Ignatius of Antioch. “The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnæans.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Print. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Irenaeus of Lyons. “Irenæus against Heresies.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Print. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Johnson, Lawrence J. Worship in the Early Church: An Anthology of Historical Sources. Vol. 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009. Print.

Justin Martyr. “The First Apology of Justin.” The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. Ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885. Print. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.

Karleen, Paul S. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Print.

Kreider, Alan. The Origins of Christendom in the West. Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark, 2001. Print.

Pohle, Joseph, and Arthur Preuss. The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise. Vol. 2. St. Louis, MO; London: B. Herder, 1917. Print. Dogmatic Theology.

Radding, Charles, and Francis Newton, Theology, Rhetoric, and Politics in the Eucharistic Controversy, 1078-1079: Alberic of Monte Cassino Against Berengar of Tours. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.

Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910. Print.

Stone, Darwell. The Eucharistic Sacrifice. London; Milwaukee: R. Scott; Morehouse Pub. Co., 1920. Print. Handbooks of Catholic Faith and Practice.

Thein, John. Ecclesiastical Dictionary: Containing, in Concise Form, Information upon Ecclesiastical, Biblical, Archæological, and Historical Subjects 1900: n. pag. Print.

Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne. Print.

Thomas, Robert L. New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek dictionaries: updated edition 1998: n. pag. Print.

Zizioulas, John D. The Eucharistic Communion and the World. Ed. Luke Ben Tallon. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Print.

TULIP and its Origins

Since the beginning of its history the Christian church has evolved.  From its inception with Jesus and the Apostles it has morphed into many branches and theologies.  After the start of the Protestant Reformation Lutheranism got its start in Germany.  Meanwhile is Switzerland reformed theology was born on January 19, 1523 when, Ulrich Zwingli, issued sixty-seven articles which were the first code of the Swiss reformed church[1].

These codes would later be expanded upon by a lawyer turned theologian by the name of John Calvin.  Calvin himself was a former Roman Catholic who saw issues with what he saw were unbiblical teaching of the Church.  He would expand on these views by writing many essays that were collected into a volume known as the Institutes of the Christian Religion[2].  Many Christians today believe that the five points of Calvinism, known as TULIP, originated with Calvin himself.  Further investigation will show that the principles were described by Calvin, but were not totally defined.  This further defining would come in 1618 at the Synod of Dort when the reformed church would deal with what they considered to be the Arminian heresy[3].

 

WHAT IS TULIP?

To understand the history and origins of TULIP a step back must taken.  This step back will allow us to understand exactly what TULIP is and the biblical basis that the Swiss reformers had for the doctrines.  This journey will not be a critique on the theology, but an unbiased look at it.

TULIP is an acrostic that stands for Total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints[4].  It should be noted that the acrostic itself is fairly new in the context of Church History.  The Synod of Dort had a similar acronym of ULTIP[5].  The actual term TULIP was first coined by Loraine Boettner in his book The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination[6], though it may have been spoken of earlier and not recorded[7].

 

 

TOTAL DEPRAVITY

The concept of Total Depravity is not only the “T” in TULIP, but drawn on the earliest days of Christianity.  This point of doctrine is drawn from the book of Genesis and the fall of Adam.  Central to this is Genesis 3:6 which states, “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate[8].”  In the opinion of Calvinists that this corruption of our human nature was inherited from Adam and his actions in the garden[9].

Total Depravity does not mean that man is unable to do well to each other, but that man is unable to do good on his own in the sight of God[10].  We are in need of the grace of Christ to do any good in his name.  In Christendom this has been the prevailing thought as the Roman Catholic Church holds a similar view in its doctrine of original sin[11].  However Calvin said that the fathers of the church did not take Original sin far enough.  Calvin leaned on Job 14:4 and Psalm 51:5 in support of what he said was the “root of sin and the impure seed man is born from[12].

This doctrine would soon be attacked by the Arminians who claimed that man had free will.  In the Arminian remonstrance of 1610 the Arminians “were unwilling to say that man was unable to save himself[13].”  However by studying the Five Articles of the Remonstrants we can see what the Arminians were purporting.  In article three the Remonstrants state, “In his state of Apostasy and sin he can by himself and for himself think that nothing is good –nothing, that is, truly good, such as saving faith is above all else[14].”

The nature of the disagreement seems to be after one is saved, and such was the emphasis at the Synod of Dort.  The Calvinists were of the idea that man was incapable of free will and grace worked through him to achieve good.  While the Armninians were of the opinion that man could choose to do good but only by the grace bestowed on him by Christ.  The Synod echoed the conclusions of Calvin who wrote in his Institutes, “For our nature is not merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it cannot be inactive[15].”

This the history of Total Depravity has roots in scripture, developed further roots in Augustine, and was championed by Calvin.  However it did not get its formal name until the Synod of Dort you coined the term to suppress Free Will as preached by the Arminians.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION

 

Unconditional election is also commonly known as Predestination.      Predestination is the “The divine determination of human beings to eternal salvation or eternal damnation. The doctrine of predestination is a branch, so to speak, of the doctrine of election; God’s predestinating activity is a function of his existence as the electing God[16].”  A form of predestination is found in scripture.  In fact Romans 8:30 states, “And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified[17].”

To be certain predestination is something that has been argued about for several centuries.  Augustine wrote a scathing letter to the Pelagians about what he believed to be predestination.  Augustine wrote in his work De Anima, “that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined[18].”  During the Scholastic period the idea was reiterated by St. Anslem who held the view that all there would be a kingdom where a predetermined number of creatures would serve him[19].

 

In unconditional election the argument is that God chooses to give some people eternal life without looking for anything good in them as a condition.  Those in the Calvinist camp saw conditional election as God chooses to love those who first loved him.  This is once again at odds with the Arminian view that one must choose to accept to gain eternal life.  The views would once again come to a head at the Synod of Dort which stated, “Unconditional election and faith are a gift from God[20].”  Unconditional election and limited atonement are often used synonymously, but this is not the case.  Unconditional election means that God chooses to save his elect, while limited atonement means that his elect are limited.  A distinction must be made between the two.

 

UNLIMITED ATONEMENT

As previously stated there is a difference between unconditional election and limited atonement, and some of the confusion may lie in the fact that they are often used together in debate.  The definition of limited atonement is, “The view that sees the value of the cross-work of Christ as intended only for the elect, although sufficient for all[21].”  The sacrifice of Christ was the cause of salvation for the elect.  This is in contrast to the Arminian view of unlimited atonement which states that Christ death made salvation possible for all.  There are many passages of scripture that are used in the defense of the doctrine, and there we will start our historical analysis.  One common passage in Romans 9:13 which states, “As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated[22].”

Historically the first person to make an argument for Limited Atonement was Gottschalk of Orbais in the 9th century.  Gottschalk wrote, “Indeed, just as He [God] predestined all of the elect to life through the gratuity of the free grace of His kindness, as the pages of the Old and New Testaments very clearly, skillfully, and soberly show those seeking wisdom on this matter, so also He altogether predestined the reprobate to the punishment of eternal death[23].

The great theologian Thomas Aquinas spoke of a similar topic which Calvin saw as his endorsing of limited Atonement.  In his work the Summa Theologica Aquinas states, “But Christ’s passion could not touch all mankind.  Therefore it could not sufficiently bring about the salvation of all men[24].”  Calvin’s theology did have some scriptural and historical basis but in his writing he emphasized other points regarding the limited atonement.  In book twenty three of his Institutes Calvin states, “The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should; why he deemed it we know not[25].”

In the 1600’s a dispute arose between the followers of Arminius (i.e. Arminians) who said the atonement was for all of mankind, and not just the elect.  This is called Unlimited Atonement and states that Christ died so that all may be saved.  Those who subscribe to limited atonement stated that Christ died so that the elect will be saved.  The latter is what the Synod of Dort held to, and subsequently condemned the Arminian view of Unlimited Atonement though it has many adherents today.

 

IRRESISTABLE GRACE

The doctrine of irresistible grace is the fourth leaf of TULIP, and in some circles is known as efficacious grace.  Charles Hodge describes irresistible grace by stating, “It will of course be admitted that, if efficacious grace is the exercise of almighty power it is irresistible. That common grace, or that influence of the Spirit which is granted more or less to all men is often effectually resisted, is of course admitted[26].”  In contrast the Arminians were of the opinion that the grace of God could be rejected based on one’s free will[27].

The history of the doctrine come from Romans 8:28, 30 which states, “Those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified[28].”  The idea is that those whom God chooses can only resist his grace for a moment and will eventually do his will.  Throughout history the church, including the Roman Catholic Church and Martin Luther, rejected this view of grace.  Their view are similar to the Wesleyan view that God gives resistible prevenient grace to overcome the effects of the fall.  This grace would allow an individual to obey God’s command or not[29].  The Synod of Dort in article ten condemns this view and sealed its fate within the reformed churches.  In Article ten states, “Election is therefore unalterable: the elect cannot be cast away, nor their number diminished[30].”

 

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS

The perseverance of the saints has everything to do with everyday life.  If one is of the elect the he will persevere in the faith of trial and keep the faith.  The future is faced with confidence knowing that all has already been conquered[31].  The question of eternal security is also dealt with in this doctrine, and the believer is assured of his salvation.

The history of the doctrine can be complex and goes back to the church fathers.  If the previous paragraphs are any indication, it would seem that John Calvin was a fan of Augustine.  This doctrine is also traced back to the great theologian of Hippo.  R.E.O. White writes, “Augustine traced every thought and motion Godward to the operation of divine grace within those elected to salvation[32].”  The church father Origen held a similar view, but strayed by God willed all men to be saved but granted perseverance to a limited number.  The doctrine was dealt a blow at the Council of Trent in 1545 which stated that if anyone believes that he absolutely has the power to persevere then he shall be accursed[33].  Later on Calvin would state that the elect were regenerated and equipped with the ability to persevere.  This development was later affirmed by the Synod of Dort.

 

CONCLUSION

TULIP is a very important part of not only Christian theology, but church history.  The developments of the doctrines have some elements that can be traced back to the church fathers, and to scripture itself.  Having an understanding of how these doctrines grew to the state they are today is not only interesting, but will allow further dialogue between Calvinist and Arminian camps.  Two often the two sides are vitriolic towards each other, and this has the potential of hurting the whole body of Christ.

In terms of history the Synod of Dort, which affirmed the doctrines, in very influential.  For one it brought the controversies of the two sides into view, and it gave direction to the Reformed church in Holland for centuries.  Many other creeds and confessions, such as the Westminster confession, used Dort as a template for further explanation of reformed beliefs.

 

Check out the Theology Still Matters store at http://astore.amazon.com/theostilmatt-20

 

WORKS CITED

“Europe in the Age of Reformation.” Boise State University. Accessed May 1, 2015. eurpeanhistory.boisestate.edu/UnrichZwingli.

“Question 48:  The Efficiency of Christ’s Passion,” http://www.newadvent.org, accessed May 2, 2015, newadvent.org/summatheogica/question48.

“The Five Points of Calvinism,” accessed May 6, 2015, http://www.spurgeon.org.

. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Translated by Theodore Alois Buckley and B.A. London: UK: George Routledge And Co, 1851.

Berkouwer, G. C. Studies in Dogmatics:  Faith and Perseverance. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958.

———. C. Studies in Dogmatics:  Sin. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1971.

Bettenson, Henry, and Chris Maunder, eds. Documents of the Christian Church. 4th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Boettner, Loraine. The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. New York, NY: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1991.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge]. Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999.

———. Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge]. Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999.

———. Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge]. Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999.

Cross, F.L. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., s.v. “Synod of Dort.”

Fahlbusch, Erwin, Jan Milic Lochman, John Mbiti, Jaroslav Pelikan, and Lukas Vischer, eds. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. 4th ed. Vol. 4, P-Sh. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.

Genesis 3:6 (Revised Standard Version).

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology:  An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994.

Hippo, Augustine Of. A Treatise on the Soul and Its Origin. Edited by P. Schaff. Translated by P. Holmes. New York: NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Karleen, P.s. The Handbook to Bible Study:  with guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: NY: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Mueller, R.A. Reformed Confessions and Catechisms. Edited by T.a. Hart. Cumbria: UK: Paternoster Press, 2000.

Myers, A.c. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids:  MI: Eerdmans, 1987.

Orbais, Gottschalk Of. Gottschalk & A Medieval Predestination Controversy [Victor Genke, Francis Gumerlock]. Edited by Victor Genke and Francis Gumerlock. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010.

Romans 8:28, 30 (English Standard Version).

Romans 8:30 (New International Version).

Romans 9:13 (English Standard Version).

Shedd, William. Dogmatic Theology. Philipsburg, NJ: P&r Publishing, 2003.

Stewart, Ken. “The Points of Calvinism:  Retrospect and Prospect.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology. 26, no. 2 (2008, Summer): 187-203.

Taylor, Justin. The Gospel Coalition (blog). The gospelcoalition.org.

W.h.mare. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001.

Wiley, H. Orton. Christian Theology. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1949.

[1] “Europe in the Age of Reformation,” Boise State University, accessed May 1, 2015, eurpeanhistory.boisestate.edu/UnrichZwingli.

[2] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge] (Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999), i.

[3] F.l. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed., s.v. “Synod of Dort.”

[4] “The Five Points of Calvinism,” accessed May 6, 2015, http://www.spurgeon.org.

[5] Justin Taylor, “The Origin or Tulip,” The Gospel Coalition (blog), The Gospel Coalition, accessed July 7, 2009, the gospelcoalition.org.

[6] Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (New York, NY: Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Company, 1991), 21.

[7] Ken Stewart, “The Points of Calvinism:  Retrospect and Prospect,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 26, no. 2 (2008, Summer): 191.

[8] Genesis 3:6 (Revised Standard Version).

[9] W.h.mare, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 337.

[10] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology:  An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 497.

[11] H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1949), 134.

[12] G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics:  Sin (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1971), 479.

[13] W.h.mare, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd Ed, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 354.

[14] Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, eds., Documents of the Christian Church, 4th ed (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 272.

[15] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge] (Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999), 512.

[16] A.c. Myers, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids:  MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 847.

[17] Romans 8:30 (New International Version).

[18] Augustine Of Hippo, A Treatise on the Soul and Its Origin, ed. P. Schaff, trans. P. Holmes (New York: NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 348.

[19] Erwin Fahlbusch et al, ed., The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 4th ed, vol. 4, P-Sh, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 341.

[20] W.h.mare, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 355.

[21] P.s. Karleen, The Handbook to Bible Study:  with guide to the Scofield Study System (New York: NY: Oxford University Press, 1987), 342.

[22] Romans 9:13 (English Standard Version).

[23] Gottschalk of Orbais, Gottschalk & A Medieval Predestination Controversy [Victor Genke, Francis Gumerlock], ed. Victor Genke and Francis Gumerlock (Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press, 2010), 151.

[24] “Question 48:  The Efficiency of Christ’s Passion,” http://www.newadvent.org, accessed May 2, 2015, newadvent.org/summatheogica/question48.

[25] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion [Henry Beveridge] (Cambridge, MA: Hendrickson Books, 1999), 612.

[26] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 687.

[27] G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics:  Faith and Perseverance (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 44.

[28] Romans 8:28, 30 (English Standard Version).

[29] William Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Philipsburg, NJ: P&r Publishing, 2003), 348.

[30] R.a. Mueller, Reformed Confessions and Catechisms, ed. T.A. Hart (Cumbria: UK: Paternoster Press, 2000), 479.

[31] G. C. Berkouwer, Studies in Dogmatics:  Faith and Perseverance (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1958), 10.

[32] W.h.mare, Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 908.

[33] , The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, trans. Theodore Alois Buckley and B.a (London: uk: George Routledge And Co, 1851), 38.

Image result for synod of dordt

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑