Laymen's Guide to the Thirty-Nine Articles

Articles XIX through XXXI move us into “Corporate Religion”

ARTICLE XIX

Of the Church

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.

De Ecclesia

Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium, in quo verbum Dei purum praedicatur et sacramenta, quoad ea quae necessario exiguntur, iuxta Christi institutum recte administrantur. Sicut erravit Ecclesia Hierosolymitana, Alexandrina, et Antiochena: ita et erravit Ecclesia Romana, non solum quoad agenda et caeremoniarum ritus, verum in his etiam quae credenda sunt.

Fr. Laurence Wells

At this point the Articles move, rather seamlessly, into another department of doctrine.  Articles IX through XVIII deal with man’s need and God provision, the doctrine of salvation.  But at this point the concern shifts to the doctrine of the Church.  The progression is natural and smooth.  The Church is where salvation takes place.     

At its very beginning Article XIX alludes to (but does not dwell upon) a distinction unfamiliar and unpopular today, the distinction between the “visible” and “invisible” Church.  This distinction seems to imply that there are two Churches, as there are the two major Sacraments or the two natures of Christ.  I recall a devout lady, a faithful Churchwoman, who asked me in all sincerity, “Father, how may I join the invisible Church?”   That made me aware that my sermon on this topic had been less than clear and needed further teaching.  She was thinking that the “invisible Church” was a sort of advanced standing, somewhat like the Shriners within the Masonic Order.  Because of such an erroneous construction, many theologians have attempted to discard the distinction altogether.   

This distinction came to the fore in the 16^th century, which was a time of crisis not only for the doctrine of salvation but for the doctrine of the Church and sacraments as well.  But it was first developed by St Augustine of Hippo, whose theology was vigorously revived in that century in both Protestant and Roman camps.  Augustine elaborated the distinction as a corollary to his doctrine of Election, although the distinction works just as well for the semi-Pelagian and Arminian systems also.  Augustine wrote concerning the Church, “there are many sheep without and many wolves within.”   That truth became painfully obvious in the corrupt Church of the late Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Augustine and his 16^th century disciples grounded this distinction firmly in Scripture.  The locus classicus is the parable of the wheat and tares growing together in Matthew 13:24—30.  In the same chapter we also find the parable of the net which catches fish of every kind, some of which must be thrown away as worthless.  In John’s writings we have the parable of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  In John’s first Epistle we meet the sad statement, “they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us (1 John 2:19).  The Old Testament background on this point is the theme of the “remnant” of faithful Israelites, the 7,000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal, but submerged within a corrupt and apostate nation.        

Within the visible, earthly institution of the Church we find those who are genuine and sincere and along with them those who are false and hypocritical.  This is a commonsense observation.  There will be a final separation of sheep and goats, of wheat and tares, of good fish and worthless, of fruitful and unfruitful branches.  But the warning of Our Lord is that we are not to attempt this separation on our own before He comes.  To a certain extent the “antichristoi” of John’s Epistle will go their own way through schism and betrayal, but it is dangerous for us to undertake the separation on our own. Even Elijah did not know who were included in the 7,000.   Efforts to achieve a pure Church always turn out badly.        

The Church visible and invisible is not two separate Churches or two layers in a cake.  The visible Church is the Church visible to us here and now, the Church we discern through its marks of Word and Sacrament.   The Church invisible is invisible only to us, but is the Church visible to God.  This is the entire Body of the faithful (Augustine would say the entire Body of the elect), those who have gone before and are now with Christ in paradise, those still on their earthly pilgrimage, and those souls known only to God who are yet to be born.  This is the “multitude which no man can number” in Revelation, the “body of Christ” in Paul, “the fullness of him who fills all in all.”

We may well say that the distinction between the visible and invisible aspects of the Church are analogous to the “sign” and “thing signified” in a sacrament. We see the sign with natural eyesight, but the thing signified must be apprehended by faith. When we see the mixed body of believers, semi-believers, and unbelievers gathered around the means of grace, we see an outward and visible sign of something far greater.  The invisible Church is truly the communion of saints, the mystical Body of Christ, made visible to us sometimes in the humblest of ways:  the priest who stutters and stammers, the choir which sings off-key, the congregation which is lackadaisical in its obligations, but along with the member who joined to make business contacts but does not have a single work of grace in his heart.                 

One warning: This distinction should never be employed to denigrate or devalue the human, imperfect, sinful, error-prone empirical thing we call the “visible Church.”  There are statements in print stating that the invisible Church was founded by God but the visible Church was created by man.  Such a statement does not come to grips with the Biblical data introduced above, in which the wheat and tares grow in the same field, the fruitful and unfruitful branches on the same tree.   Whatever the faults or errors of the 16^th century Reformers, it cannot be justly alleged that they held any “low view of the Church.”  Calvin was emphatic that no one can have God as his Father who does not have the Church as his Mother.  When Calvin quoted this dictum from St Cyprian, he was speaking of the visible Church.     

The value of this distinction is that, rather than belittling the “congregation of faithful men,” it affirms that the visible Church is as much a Divine institution as any sacrament (dare I say, any other sacrament?) and holds an integral place in God’s work of saving sinners.

Fr. Robert Hart

The question of which is greater and more important, the ministry of God’s word or of His sacraments, is a false question. People in one party emphasize preaching the pure word of God as the sign of the Church, and people in another party emphasize the ministry of the sacraments as that sign. But, in the truly balanced and sober approach of Anglican Reason, we see that both are necessary. We need both, and we do not have any intellectually honest way to compare their worth and weigh them against each other. Furthermore, without the ministry of God’s word there can be no sacraments, just as, without the sacraments, the Ministry described and commanded in God’s word cannot take place.

Not only does Article XIX state this clearly, but so does the Ordering of Priests in our Ordinal: The Bishop says this, long after the prayers have begun, while his hands are placed upon the man he is ordaining: “Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands. Whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained. And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of his holy Sacraments; In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.” He then says, “Take thou Authority to preach the Word of God, and to minister the holy Sacraments in the Congregation, where thou shalt be lawfully appointed thereunto.” He does not emphasize one above the other.

The marks to look for are faith (“faithful men”, i.e. faithful human beings by the genuinely inclusive language of classical civilization), preaching of the pure word of God and the sacraments. If we are to accept the implications of the historical record, Book VII of Hooker’s “Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity” shows that Anglican practice and belief always included the Apostolic Succession of Bishops as part of both the ministry of God’s word and of His holy sacraments, and that this was instituted not by men, but by God through His Son; and carried on within the Church.

Some would argue that the marks to look for are those of the Nicene/ Constantinopolitan Creed: “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” Obviously, these describe the Church accurately. We say “I believe” to each of these.

But, how does a person see these things in his own hometown when looking for the Church? Can we see the Church as One? To avoid falling into the One True Church fallacy, we have to realize that no one can say to other parts of the Body, “I have no need of thee.” No one can, therefore, heal the political divisions of history as they affect the visible church in each locality. The mark of “One” does not apply, therefore, simply to one and only one congregation near you. Instead, it must speak of the broader unity that makes each true expression of the Church part of that One Church. Of the Apostolic churches, we alone understand that Oneness and essential unity of the Church, because Anglicans have never claimed to be the whole Church.

How does one see the Church as Holy? Obviously, not by finding a congregation in which no sin is ever manifest. For, that is simply impossible. To the best of our ability, we may discern where faith is present, and where hope and love appear to abide. We may see, however, Catholic and Apostolic in those visible ministries of the word and the sacraments.

We are told that “Catholic” means universal. The Church, we say in our major Creeds, is Catholic, and, according to the Creed named in honor of St. Athanasius, our Faith is Catholic. “Catholic” really means according to the whole (from the Greek word Katholikos). The Church is recognizable by teaching that whole doctrine that is universally agreed upon by the whole Church; that is, recognizable by teaching those things in the Creeds, all of which are revealed and recorded in the Scriptures, which have been known and recognized by the Church as the word of God. And, by both the teaching of God’s holy word and by the sacramental ministry of the Apostles continued in practice and visible in the life of a congregation, the Church is known, recognized and manifest.

Without “unchurching” other believers, we are nonetheless able to hold ourselves to the highest standard. Without presuming to cast judgment on how much grace is available in other Christian denominations and congregations, we may know, in a positive sense, what to look for in order to be confident that we are in the Church as Christ has ordained it.

The Biblical Basis of Eucharistic Sacrifice

This piece of apologetics was written specifically to explain the Catholic doctrine of the Mass and ministerial Priesthood to Protestants in the Free Church tradition.

Holy Communion and Sacrifice

Is there any evidence for a specific priestly aspect to the ministry of Christian Pastors?

Yes. See Romans 15:16 in the original Greek, or in the RSV and NIV. The ministry of the gospel is thus a priestly work, according to St Paul. And the name of “elder” (=presbyter) given to Christian pastors is also given to a group of priestly offerers of incense in Heaven in Revelation 5:8 (cp. Luke 1:8-9).

Why is the Leadership of the Celebration of the Lord's Supper the job of the Pastor?

Firstly, one can see that the first Celebrant of the Lord's Supper was the Lord! That is, to “do this” through the ages, it makes sense that we continue the pattern established at that Supper, with the leader leading. Also, we cannot avoid the implications of the fact that it is the job of the pastors (=shepherds) to feed the flock according to the Bible (see Psalm 23:1,2,5; John 21:15-17; 1 Peter 5:1,2). Whilst this feeding refers as much to ministry of the word as anything else, it obviously cannot exclude the very Sacrament where we are physically and spiritually fed from the Lord's Table! The fact that we know the pastors (Presbyters and Bishops) were in fact the ones who presided over the Eucharist throughout the Church's history from the earliest centuries clinches this common-sense-based interpretation. (The word Eucharist means “thanksgiving”, and is the name given to the Lord's Supper because the giving of thanks is an essential part of the rite, following Jesus' example at the Last Supper, e.g., Luke 22:19 & Matthew 26:27, compared with Matthew 26:26 and 1 Corinthians 10:16. The Communion is named after the blessing or thanksgiving itself by St Paul.)

Does the Lord's Supper itself have any aspect of Sacrifice? After all, the verses above from Romans and Revelation do not clearly connect the pastoral priesthood to the Eucharist. Showing the Pastor is a priest and presides at the Lord's Supper is not enough!

Quite true. But the precise wording of the Institution by our Lord of Holy Communion in the New Testament is very significant in this regard. The Greek word commonly translated as “remembrance” is anamnesis. It is used four times only in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which is the version constantly used by the New Testament writers. In two of those four occasions it has a manifestly sacrificial context. (The other two occurences, in the titles of Psalms 38 &70, are uncertain as to meaning, but evidence from the Targums – Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Scriptures – indicates they refer to memorial sacrifices as well.) Allow me to quote from another writer (source: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html):

Have Scripture interpret Scripture. If Scripture uses a word in one way throughout Scripture and not another way, it is best to interpret that specific way in which it is used when the issue is in dispute. Thus, in which way is the word anamnesis used throughout Scripture? Merely remembering something, or is it a memorial offering in sacrifice in Scripture? For arguments sake for the moment, let us leave aside the way it is used in the context of the Lord's institution of the Eucharist, since that is in dispute. Let us see how the word anamnesis is used. Now, in the Greek Septuagint, the word zakar is translated as anamnesis four times, ... Let us see the context and quotations.

Leviticus 24:7-9

And you shall put pure frankincense with each row, that it may go with the bread as a memorial (anamnesis) portion to be offered by fire to the LORD. 8 Every Sabbath day Aaron shall set it in order before the LORD continually on behalf of the people of Israel as a covenant for ever. 9 And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place, since it is for him a most holy portion out of the offerings by fire to the LORD, a perpetual due

First, we see a sacrifice of bread that is offered to God in sacrifice with incense. The very word anamnesis is used in this sacrificial offering.

In fact, we see that this bread is offered continually by Aaron. It is a holy offering to the Lord in sacrifice that Aaron and his sons are to eat in what is called a holy place. This is part of a lasting covenantal meal. Thus, this sacrificial offering to God is a holy meal. The parallels of this sacrifice to the New Covenant meal is striking. In the Catholic Church the Body and Blood of Christ are of course much more holy, but the fact that the holiness is stressed in even this sacrificial Old Testament meal is striking. Of course as we saw in 1 Corinthians 11, if one eats unworthily, one is profaning the actual Body and Blood of Christ. The offering in the New Covenant of course far surpasses that of the Old Covenant. We also see that on every Sabbath this bread that is a sacrificial offering is a covenantal offering to God. In the New Covenant, the Eucharist is a covenantal offering to God. This covenantal offering to God is celebrated every Sunday in the New Covenant: Acts 20:7: On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight. Besides all these similarities, a major point is that the word anamnesis that is used in the New Covenant institution is undoubtedly used of a sacrificial offering here in the Old Covenant. It is not merely about remembering something.

Numbers 10:9-10

9 And when you go to war in your land against the adversary who oppresses you, then you shall sound an alarm with the trumpets, that you may be remembered (anamninesko) before the LORD your God, and you shall be saved from your enemies. 10 On the day of your gladness also, and at your appointed feasts, and at the beginnings of your months, you shall blow the trumpets over your burnt offerings and over the sacrifices of your peace offerings; they shall serve you for remembrance (anamnesis) before your God: I am the LORD your God.

Notice that the word noted here in v.9 is a different word. Here the word to remember is not anamnesis but anamninesko. A different word is used, and it is not related to sacrifice, but only recalling. Here is where the focus is on God recalling his people. However, when we get to v. 10, the word used here for an offering is a sacrificial offering. The word that is translated as a sacrificial offering is anamnesis, here the English translation as remembrance. This again, happens to be the same Greek word that Paul uses in 1 Cor. 11:24 and 25, and Luke uses in Luke 22:19, in the institution of the Eucharist. It is not merely about remembering something.

But does the Memorial Offering at Holy Communion have anything to do with Christ's Priesthood and his Sacrifice of the Cross?

Well, Christ's priesthood is repeatedly said in Hebrews to be “according to the order of Melchizedek”. But virtually the first thing we are told in the Bible about the Melchizedek is that he “brought forth bread and wine” (Genesis 14:18)! So, we cannot separate Christ's Priesthood from the Eucharist, unless we are to ignore this not-so-subtle hint. And St Paul explicitly says that in this ceremonial rite we “proclaim (=kataggello in the Greek, meaning “announce”) the Lord's death till he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). In other words, this action represents publicly the Sacrifice of the Cross. But even Christ's Words of Institution make this clear: “[T]his is my body which is given for you … This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:19-20). Note that the body “is given”, present tense, not has been or will be given, “for” us, not merely “to” us as food. The blood “is”, not was or will be, “shed”, not supplied or provided as if mere drink poured into a cup or a mouth. The language undoubtedly refers to Christ's sacrificial, blood-shedding death for us, as well as to what is outwardly happening at the Meal, and treats the two as one, even as simultaneous in some sense. So, we can say that the Memorial and Announcement are more than mental or verbal acts about a past event. They bring into the present, spiritually and sacramentally, that event and its saving effects. Time kisses eternity, as is implied in these phrases from Hebrews:

“Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself” (9:14).

“[Christ] offered for all time (literally, 'perpetually' or 'to the perpetual') a single sacrifice for sins” (10:12).

In both cases an aorist tense version of the verb for “offer”, implying a point-in-time, past action, is combined with an adverbial phrase implying perpetuity. The sacrifice is finished and single, yet an eternal reality to draw upon.

Note also the strong connection between “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood” at the Last Supper and “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better” in Hebrews 8:6. Christ's priestly ministry therefore includes the Mediation of the Communion Sacrifice.

We could say much more on this subject. For example, the Old Covenant had sacrifices of bread (e.g., Leviticus 7:13), wine (e.g., Exodus 29:40), and lambs (e.g., Leviticus 3:7). And some of the the purposes of these sacrifices were blood-atonement (e.g., Exodus 30:10), thanksgiving (e.g., Leviticus 7:13) and memorial (see above and Leviticus 2:2 etc.). It is not much of a stretch to see that the Bread and Wine we share in communion (1 Corinthians 10:16-17), over which we give thanks as the Body given and Blood shed of the Lamb of God, in remembrance of his death, unites and transcends these sacrifices for the New Covenant!

Hang on a minute! What about what it says in Hebrews about Christ's Sacrifice being “once-for-all” and never to be repeated (e.g., 9:25-28, 10:10,18)?

The first thing to realise is that the Church does not claim that Christ's Sacrifice upon the Cross is repeated at all. That is not the relationship between the Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Cross. So, there is no contradiction with Hebrews 9:25. And Hebrews 10:18 can be properly translated “where there is remission of these, there is no further offering for sin.” Remember, the “where” is effectively located in the new “covenant” of verse 16, which is the Eucharist anyway. So, there is no question of denying the Eucharistic Sacrifice, but only of denying any additional sacrifice. (The whole point of Hebrews was to discourage Jewish Christians from going back to the sacrifices of Judaism, because they had everything they needed to deal with sin in the Church. That's why the last chapter says “We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat” (13:10). Clearly, the implication is that we do have the right to eat of this altar. It is absurd to pretend this has nothing to do with the Eucharist. We do have an altar.)

As noted above, a historically finished event is eternally “present” to us through its effects and the ongoing presence of the Sacrificed One at Communion and before God as our Eternal Advocate and Propitiation. We offer a memorial sacrifice through words and actions that unite us and our worship to Christ's once-for-all Sacrifice.

We see this in Hebrews 10:19-22, where we are encouraged to come near to God in “the house of God” through the torn “veil” of the broken “flesh”, and through the shed blood, which is “sprinkled” (cp. 9:21) on our hearts, of Christ the “High Priest”. It is impossible to exclude the Eucharist from our interpretation of this passage, especially since this entrance into “the Holiest” is said to be a “new and living way”, while the Eucharist, which also happens in the house of God, the Church, is called the “new covenant”.

That Christ remains the Atoning Sacrifice in himself is shown by the present tense in 1 John 2:2. That his mere presence before God as the Propitiating Sacrifice is significant is proved by the phrase “now to appear in the presence of God for us” in Hebrews 9:24.

Therefore, we can say that Christ's act of self-offering is over historically, but “present” eternally in his state as the everliving Priest and Sacrifice, mediating the New Covenant at every Eucharist. As comparison of Romans 12:1 shows us, there is a kind of offering, a “presenting” appropriate for living sacrifices, that is, Christians in this verse. And the same Greek root, paristemi, is used in Romans 6:13 for our self-offering of life out of death. But here it is said to be modelled on Christ being dead to sin but alive to God in verses 10 and 11. Therefore, our ongoing paristemi-offering is based on Christ's. Christ's prosphero-offering at the Cross, involving suffering and death, the one specifically described in Hebrews as “once-for-all”, has ceased. But he remains a self-presenting living sacrifice. His “appearing” (cp. Hebrews 9:24) before the face of God is of itself enough to make Him our immortal Sacrifice and Priest.

Lent 3 Sermon Notes (modified)

 [Scripture quotations from ESV]


“He that is not with me is against me” +

In the 12^th chapter of the Gospel according to St Matthew, the parallel passage to today's Gospel, the same accusation that Jesus works by an evil spirit ends with the same personal challenge “He who is not with me is against me ...” But then it is immediately followed by this:

31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 

 

Now this seems to say that this sin is different to and worse than the sin just mentioned before, being “against” Jesus. And so many Christians have greatly feared this mysterious sin, wondering whether even as Christ's followers they could commit it and lose all the hope given in Him. Yet the use of the word “therefore” at the beginning of these verses implies that the statement about the “unforgivable sin” is the natural consequence of the teaching about our response to Jesus, and its decisive nature. And Jesus makes clear elsewhere that rejecting or deliberately ignoring Him is enough to condemn. For example, in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, it is precisely our treatment of Jesus in the needy that determines our eternal destiny. And he constantly implicitly tells the Pharisees and others that their rejection of Him simply is rejection of God. Indeed, this is the message in the very next chapter of St Luke's Gospel (succeeding today's 11^th). “He who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God.” Immediately after which we have Luke's record of Jesus' teaching on the unforgivable sin!

So, rather than seeing the unpardonable sin as being something separate or supplementary to rejecting Christ, or merely a particular spoken form of words about the Holy Spirit, we need to look more deeply at the context of Jesus' teaching. 

 

In John 8 we have yet another example of this principle. Again, Jesus is accused of acting under the influence of an evil spirit. And he responds in verse 49 with “I do not have a demon; but I honour my Father and you dishonour me … if anyone keeps my word he shall never see death”. His opponents reply, “Who do you make yourself out to be?” Jesus reply is worth reading in full [vv. 54-59]:

  Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’
  But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word.
  Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
  So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”
  Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
  So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. 

When Jesus says "I am" rather than "I was", it is not bad grammar, but a claim of eternity and divinity, as the name of God revealed to Moses was "I AM". Thus definitively to say no to Jesus truly revealed to us, is to definitively say no to the Father. It is to hate God.

Now, this whole discussion ended as it started. Earlier we had this: [vv. 21-25]

“I am going away, and you will seek me, and you will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come.”
  So the Jews said, “Will he kill himself, since he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come’?”
  He said to them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
  I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am [he] you will die in your sins.”
  So they said to him, “Who are you?” Jesus said to them, “Just what I have been telling you from the beginning."

Clearly, having known Jesus, heard what he taught and seen what he did, necessitated a choice. And to then choose to say that Christ was demonic, an expression of evil, was in fact to meet God and his manifest goodness and call them evil. In other words, this deliberate, whole-hearted opposition to the Light was in itself the total embrace of the Darkness, and its verbal expression a sign of that final commitment to evil. That is why Jesus follows the “unpardonable sin” passage in Matthew with this:

33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.

34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

35 The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

The unpardonable sin is therefore not a sin that can be committed by the one who has faith in Christ, nor just by an accidental mis-statement about the Holy Spirit or about a work of his unrecognised. It is an unreserved opposition to and rejection of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God the Father and as the one infinitely filled with God the Holy Spirit [cp. John 3:34]. It is to turn away from God in Christ, not just to Jesus as a man. That is perhaps why He says that “whoever speaks a word [not “blasphemes”] against the Son of Man [not “the son of God”]” can be forgiven."

 

So, it is not that what we believe and say about Jesus is less important. No, once we have had a proper chance to know and respond to Him as He truly is, what we say and do is our response to God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, the passage in question does not say that every other sin can be forgiven upon repentance, but that it “will” be forgiven. That “whoever” speaks against the Son of Man “will” be forgiven. It is almost as if Jesus is teaching that the Cross will annul absolutely all sin without exception, except for the ultimate sin of refusing the forgiveness and grace proceeding from Christ and Him crucified. For this is the sin that epitomises and retains all the others.

Another interesting fact about our Lord's statement on the unforgivable sin is that he stops short of saying that his accusers had in fact committed it and were permanently beyond salvation. In John 8 he does say they will die in their sins, but then later adds the qualification "unless you believe". Given that Jesus sometimes used hyperbole to shake up his listeners, and that someone like St Paul may have said many wicked things about Christians and their spiritual source before his conversion, we must be cautious in our practical application of this passage.

Let us then not live in servile fear of this sin or any other, nor look to God as if to a harsh and unrelenting judge. Instead, let us rejoice in the promise that through accepting and receiving Christ by grace, in prayer, word and sacrament, we possess the Triune God, and are eternally loved and kept by Him. +

Third Sunday in Lent

 Spiritual Warfare

(Deut. 6:1-9, 20-25, Psalm 25, Eph. 5:1-14, Luke 11:14-28)

The Scriptures and the Collect for this Sunday draw our attention to the fact of spiritual warfare, a very important theme all year long, not only in Lent. The essence of spiritual warfare, and of the greatest need of every human being, is summed up in the words of Jesus that we have heard already as the Gospel was read: “He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” The real question for every individual is this: Who is your king? Is Jesus Christ your king, or do you obey the prince of this world?        

When I was learning Hebrew at the Baltimore Hebrew College (now the Baltimore Hebrew University), and learning it the way that Jewish people are taught it (Sephardic Hebrew in fact), I found that a verse from the Book of Isaiah is used in basic instruction as an important tool because of how it rhymes. (I will stick to the Jewish tradition of using Adonai whenever the original contains the Name, YHVH.)

כִּי יְהוָה שֹׁפְטֵנוּ, יְהוָה מְחֹקְקֵנוּ; יְהוָה מַלְכֵּנוּ, הוּא יוֹשִׁיעֵנוּ.

Kee Adonai Shoph’tenu
Adonai Makakenu
Adonai Malkenu
Hu Yeshienu

“For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he is our Salvation.” Isaiah 33:22

This is the essence of what Jesus said in today’s Gospel. We need him as our only Salvation; so we must acknowledge him to be our Judge, our Lawgiver and our King. In the word for our Salvation, do you see his name? Yeshienu, the plural possessive of Yeshua-or Jesus. He is our Judge, he is our Lawgiver, He is our King, and therefore, he is our Salvation. We gather with him, our only Salvation, or we scatter, lost forever.       

The collect today speaks of God as “the defence against our enemies”. What is meant by the use of the word enemies? Classically, Christians have known there are three enemies: The world, the flesh and the devil.

The image we are given in the Gospel reading is that of the strong man being overcome by One even stronger than he. The devil has dominated the world, and subjected mankind to his will since the Fall. But, when Christ came into the world, He overcame the strong man and spoiled his goods. However, we have yet to see our complete liberation, which will be at Christ’s second coming. At that time even death itself will be destroyed. What we are told is that we who belong to Christ have been set free from the domination of Satan, but that for now our freedom must be completed by enduring a battle. This battle is a defensive fight against the world, the flesh and the devil.    

There is also an offensive fight, one in which the Church attacks, and Satan is forced to be on the defensive. That is another subject, the subject of mission, of evangelism.

To answer one obvious and confusing question, what is the world; that is in the sense in which it is an enemy? St. John tells us to love not the world, nor to love the things in it: Those things are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life (I John 2:15f). The world, in this sense, is defined in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, which we hear often. Speaking of Christ, it says : “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.” That verse tells of a great tragedy, namely the Fall of Man into sin and death, the state from which Christ redeems us. Because Man is the head of this created order, the fall is the Fall of the whole world. And the definition of “the world” as an enemy, a force that opposes us as Christians if we try to live a holy life, is found in these words: “the world knew Him not.” The world does not know Christ.        

To attack us, the world makes use of our flesh, assaulting us with desires of the flesh, and of the eyes, and with that deadly sin of pride, whereby we place ourselves upon the throne of God. Imagining ourselves upon His throne, in our conceits, we demand and expect a life to which we are not entitled; we think it an injustice when life is not kind to us. We forget that if justice were served, we would be in hell; that what evils befall us are less than we deserve. We forget to be thankful, and instead complain against God. We refuse, indeed despise, the cross.

This is what the world, acting as our enemy, does to us through our senses and through our conceits. It is to this that St. Paul speaks in the Epistle reading. And he does so with direct words about the dangers that surround us, as well as those that come from within our own hearts. Yet all the while he does so with words that give us hope. That hope is because of the fact that we ourselves, though once a part of the very darkness of sin and death itself, are now part of the light of life, because we are in Christ.        

And, we are given practical help in the Old Testament commandment from Deuteronomy, to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This commandment contains the most revered statement in Jewish liturgy, the Sh’mai: Sh’mai Israel, Adonai Elehenu, Adonai echod.  “Hear O’ Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” 

Sh’mai is a very important word in Hebrew. It means two things when translated into English. Depending upon how it is used, it translates as “hear” or as “obey.” The first thing to obey is the great commandment itself. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”  

This is very practical. Consider this simple fact. None of us here will be sinless, that is free of the full dangers and lures of sin and temptation, until we are made perfect either after death or at Christ’s coming again- whichever happens first. We remain in need of God’s grace all the time. We will not achieve sinless perfection in this life. But, we can, nonetheless, practice obedience. And obedience, though it includes saying “no" to worldly desires, that is that it has its "no" (because of God’s commandments that use the phrase “thou shalt not”), has, as well, it’s “yes”. Obedience says both “no” and “yes”. No, to the world, no to the flesh, no to the devil. But, all of these “nos” amount to a far greater and single “yes” to God. And that “yes” is a yes to many things. To charity with its demands and inconveniences, to prayer, to fasting and repentance, and also to the taking up of the cross. Yes to taking up your cross is itself the big “No” to the world, the flesh and the devil. It is the great “Yes” of love to God.       

Jesus did not carry the cross only upon one Friday. He carried it every day, living always to do the Father’s will rather than His own. We say no to the world and yes to God when we give our time to Him, when we give our strength to Him, instead of wasting it upon many pleasure and cares. The world will drain all of our strength, if we give ourselves to every fruitless activity that comes along; or if we destroy our bodies-which are God’s- through drugs, alcohol or immorality, or even through seemingly innocent things. Some people are inordinate about, for example, shopping (we have heard the phrase “shop till you drop”). Our strength must be yielded to God in love, not wasted and spent foolishly.    

What does it mean to love God with all thy mind? For example, in the Grocery stores, I cannot cease to be amazed at how much paper and ink are wasted by tabloids that report news, or perhaps create fiction, or perhaps a combination of the two, about the private lives of celebrities, or something equally meaningless. Remember the slogan of the United Negro College Fund: “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”       

We owe God the love of giving Him our minds. When some people use the word “theology” as if it were a dirty word, it tells me that they are afraid to love God with their minds, and in fact that they despise those who try to so love Him. Remember a collect from Advent. Love God and give your mind to Him as you “read, mark, learn and inwardly digest” the scriptures. 

And, the Lesson from Deuteronomy (at Morning Prayer) commands us to teach our children, to inform their minds in the truth of God’s word. Those who want their children to decide it all for themselves, to come to their own conclusions about religion, sin by neglecting the religious education of children entrusted to their care by God. The scriptures do not give parents the right to neglect the spiritual formation and education of their children. The modern idea that the children should figure it all out for themselves is not an enlightened idea. Failure to teach them the true Faith is a sin. They must be taught God’s word and raised in the Church; for having had them baptized, Christian parents have brought them out of Satan’s bondage into Christ’s kingdom; they do not belong to their parents, nor to themselves. They are God’s children, and parents are entrusted (as stewards) with their care and their godly upbringing. Furthermore, it is not enough that they are taught in just any old church (or new); but that what they are taught is the truth of God’s word.

We must, with God’s grace by His Holy Spirit, withstand these three enemies: The world, the flesh and the devil, because we belong, body, soul and strength, to God. 

The word that fits here is the word “asceticism.” This is a Lenten theme too. Now, if we want to be good modern people, we must react negatively to this word. We must conjure up images of sleeping on desert sands, fasting until we look like skeletons, perhaps of sleeping like Hindus upon a bed of nails. The negative reaction must include a bigoted rejection of the whole monastic life.    But, as followers of the Catholic Tradition, especially the English Catholic Tradition, the word “asceticism” must be understood in a practical way. We say “no” to those things that inhibit prayer and the growth of the virtues, not simply to obvious and gross sin. For example, we should not fit the normal American pattern of watching six hours of T.V. a day every day. I hope that our “yes” to God’s call upon our time for prayer, upon our mind in learning His word, and to serving Him in whatever good works He prepares for us to walk in, simply does not leave us with enough time for inordinate and intemperate, though seemingly innocent, misuse of time. 

This practical saying of “yes” to God, and taking up the cross of Christ, dying to our desires, withstanding the world, the flesh and the devil, is true Christian asceticism. It is also to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and strength. We ought to clutter our lives with the presence of the Holy Spirit so fully that the evil one can have no place in us to call home. These are practical ways to live as people who gather with Christ, and therefore are not scattered.

Let us learn it in Lent. Let us live it always.

St. Thomas Aquinas March 7

St. Thomas Aquinas painted by Fra Bartolomeo

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) is remembered for his intellectual rigor more than for anything else. His devotion and humility often are overlooked because of the sheer weight of his achievements as both a theologian and philosopher. It is normal to think of sanctification as something unrelated to the mind. But, on this day it may be wise to speak of the mind as something we are commanded to use, to develop and to feed.

St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome:

"I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect."1

In order to practice spiritual worship, as living sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving in a never ending liturgy of daily life, we must renew our minds by feeding them the revealed truth of God's holy word. Only in that way can we know the will of God, and so live a life that aspires to "what is good and acceptable and perfect." So, we are commanded, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy...mind." 

The saintly figure of Thomas Aquinas presents a challenge to us, that we renew our minds, and that we see that no one can love God with a lazy mind. Not everyone has equal intellectual capacity, and very few have intellectual capacity that could begin to equal that of St. Thomas. But, as in the parable, we each have talents to invest for gain, and one of those is the mind. 

St. Thomas does not stand in history as a figure of infallibility. Not all of his ideas have been embraced as the teaching of the Universal Church. But, he provides an example of using Reason, of taking time to learn and think, and to apply logic. He represents the virtuous wisdom mentioned often in Holy Scripture. 

We live in a time when every issue that affects real life, whether political, social or religious, is narrowed down to sound bites. We live in a time when emotional bleating, slogans, mantras and jingles are employed in public discourse. We live in a time of vilification of all opponents instead of debate. Public discourse has become ugly and hostile, venomous and malicious. The use of what C.S. Lewis called "Bulverism" has replaced reasoned argument. The use of all such methods is employed always to one end: To stop the mind from engaging in actual thought. The purpose is to keep people cheering for some sort of party line. 

Contrasted against that stands the method used by Thomas Aquinas. In his great Summa Theologica Thomas presented all sides of every argument. He presented every side with care and diligence, exercising patience. Whether one comes off agreeing with Thomas' own position or not, on any of the issues and subjects about which he wrote, certainly the mind has been engaged and all sides have been treated fairly.

That alone is in line with loving God and renewing the mind. It stands in sharp contrast to the approved and barbaric methods of public discourse in our own age.

1. Romans 12:1,2 quoted from the RSV

Second Sunday in Lent

I Thessalonians 4:1-8 * Matthew 15:21-28

The will of God, St. Paul tells us in today’s Epistle, is your sanctification. He repeats this, saying it a second time this way: “For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” The will of God is treated by many like a problem, like a mathematical problem so complex in nature that it requires endless work and a thousand chalk boards. Others treat the will of God as a matter that requires special revelation about their own futures, a kind of direction either from his very mouth, or by dreams and visions or by signs. Often this causes sincere Christians to be behave much too much like unbelievers who commit the sin of going to fortune tellers (strictly forbidden in scripture), being obsessed with answers about the future, and very much for selfish motives. Still others treat the will of God as a matter to be neglected by its very nature, a complete mystery not to be solved. This last category is not unlike the common misreading of the prophet Isaiah, where a famous passage is often taken to mean the very opposite of what it truly says:

"Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." 1

In that text the prophet contrasts the ways and thoughts of the unrighteous and wicked against the ways and thoughts of God, too high for the wicked and unrighteous man to grasp. But, God’s ways and thoughts come down from heaven like the rain and snow, coming down in the revelation of His word. Therefore, the wicked and unrighteous man can repent, and can learn to renew his mind. 2 The ways and thoughts of God that are revealed speak to the mind of man. So said the prophet Moses to the whole people of Israel: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” 3 It may be comforting to treat the will of God only as those secret things of Providence, hidden mysteries beyond human thought. Indeed, more of God’s wisdom remains hidden to human view than what is seen. But, the will of God does not belong exclusively in these categories: It is not a problem to work on endlessly, nor is it likely that most individuals will be guided in every decision of life by signs and dreams, nor is the will of God too lofty a subject for our consideration. For, as Moses and Isaiah spoke long ago, it is the task of the believer to pay heed to what God has, in fact, revealed. And why? As Moses said, to do what God has commanded, and as Isaiah said, to repent, to abandon all wicked ways and unrighteous thoughts, so to learn God’s ways and thoughts.

The Will of God – Saint You

Therefore, in that light we repeat what St. Paul wrote: “This is the will of God, even your sanctification…For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.” I want to quote two other passages by the Apostle that help clarify this even more. In the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans he addressed the Christians there as “all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints.”4 He opened another Epistle in similar fashion: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.” Whatever else the will of God may mean in your own life, this is clear: You are called to be a saint. That is what is meant by the words: “For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.”6

The word “holy” is related to the words “sanctify,” “sanctification,” “santos” and “saint.” Since the will of God is your sanctification, the will of God is your sainthood. Some people are sure that saints are not ordinary people at all, but special people like the comic book superheroes. They can leap tall buildings at a single bound: They came from Krypton, or were bitten by a radioactive spider. They have an advantage over regular people. Only a fool, they figure, thinks he can become a saint. Others assume that Paul says that the Christians are all called saints because we have already arrived. But, the word “called” does not mean labeled, as in tagged and designated. A nominal sainthood, a merely titular sanctification, or even one somehow completely imputed by grace alone, is not his meaning. Rather, the word “called” appears, as in all those who are “called saints,” to speak of a calling. Whatever you do in life, all Christians have a common vocation to become saints. Some of us have been called to the ordained ministry, and others have been called to various ministries in the Church as laity. But, all of us who are baptized into Christ have been called to become saints.

Most of us began like the Gentile woman in today’s story. That is, in purely numeric terms, most of us were born as Gentiles, which means that in addition to being born in sin we were also, in the words of St. Paul, “in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.” 7 I do not see how the human condition can get any worse this side of Hell. If you believe that Paul was rough on the Gentiles, remember that in today’s Gospel, the Lord, that is, Jesus the Lover of mankind, “all compassion, holy unbounded love” Himself, referred to Gentiles by the flattering title, “the dogs.” We need to pay attention carefully in order to learn the point that Jesus was making, and to understand we must learn some Biblical theology. So, we proceed.

Father Abraham

The story of this Gentile woman is related very much to the Epistle today, for in it we heard, “that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor; not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God.” St. Paul makes the same distinction here that he made elsewhere when addressing converts to Christianity from among the Gentiles. “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led,” 8 he writes to the Corinthians. In the passage I quoted earlier he began with the words, “remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles.” Note the past tense in these words. “You were Gentiles…In time past Gentiles.” In the Epistle to the Ephesians Paul wrote: “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ…Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” 9

Whatever ethnic pride you may have from whatever background, in Christ you are part of Israel. When my Celtic ancestors were painting themselves blue and offering human sacrifice, the Jews were worshiping the living God in His temple at Jerusalem. But, I say these things not only to condemn anti-Semitism (though I do point out that if you hate the Jews you have to hate Jesus Christ, and His mother and all the Apostles). I say these things to make you aware of how your sanctification begins. In the Gospel today we do not see the woman become angry or offended. Why not? She was just called, along with all her people, a dog.          

She came for help because of what her daughter needed, and here this Jewish holy man ignores her at first, and when pressed seems to respond with an insult. But, she continued to press for his help, and in her persistence faith took the form of humility. Indeed, as all the virtues are related and finally summed up in charity, this woman’s faith was expressed by humility in that she continued to plead for His help. “And she said. Truth Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.” At this point the Lord turns to face her, and in so doing reveals His will for all the nations of mankind whom He had come to save from sin and death.

The Amen of Abraham 

“Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt.” This is why we need the Biblical theology I mentioned. What does faith, as mentioned by our Lord, indicate for us? Again, we turn to St. Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. 10 In the fourth chapter of his Epistle to the Church in Rome, the Apostle made a very important point about the faith of Abraham. First, that faith was counted to him for righteousness. 11 This was important to Paul, for in his conversion he learned that it is by faith that we receive salvation; that grace is something we cannot receive by the Law. The importance of this faith is the essence both of his Epistle to the Romans and his Epistle to the Galatians. And, he tells the Ephesians, “For by grace are ye saved through faith.” 12 Now, in the fourth chapter of Romans, as I mentioned, Paul develops this teaching about faith, and reminds us that at the time that Abraham’s faith was counted to him, or to Abram as he was still named (God would change his name later to Abraham), he was not yet circumcised. The meaning of this is that the same faith that was counted to Abram for righteousness is the faith that also is counted as righteousness to all those who were in time past called Gentiles.

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”13

We are taught by Paul that the uncircumcised Abram, that is Abraham, is the father of all believers, even those who were Gentiles in times past. When our Lord says of the woman that “great is her faith,” He welcomes her into the family of Abraham, which is the household of God. So too, He welcomes you.

“He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”14

And, what is the faith that Abraham had? Look at the actual revelation he received from God:

“And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This (i.e. his servant) shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”15

If we look at this in light of all that would follow, we can say that Abraham believed the Gospel. How so? Because the promises made to Abraham were about the land his people would have, and about his seed. Immediately, that promise about his seed makes us think of Isaac. But, once again it is Paul who takes it to its logical end: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” 16 The history that unfolded takes us from Isaac the son of Abraham to Mary the Virgin, centuries later. In all its history, God would neither scatter Israel nor allow them to be lost in idolatry. He did not allow them to be destroyed like so many other nations who were taken captive by powerful kings, but He let them suffer when they needed to be purified. “Salvation is of the Jews,” 17 said our Lord. So, the revelation given to Abraham was about more than simply the son that Sarah would bear. It was about the Son that Mary would bear.

The revelation given to Abraham was to unfold among the people of Israel in coming centuries, as it would be clarified by prophets, such as Jeremiah who told of the New Covenant that Christ spoke of, on the night in which he was betrayed, as the new Covenant in his own blood. It would be clarified by Isaiah who spoke of the Servant of the Lord, especially the Suffering Servant who would take away the sins of the whole world: “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” 18 The prophets foretold all, and so it came to pass. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, 19 and He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, 20 until the day came that He was crucified as the one true sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. And the words of the prophets were fulfilled again when He rose the third day from the dead, that is, the third day before any corruption could begin. 21

The faith that Abraham had was belief that what God had revealed is true. The word “believed” as it appears in the original in that verse, where we see that Abram believed, is a very interesting Hebrew word. You say that word quite often, usually at the end of prayers. People tell us it means, “so be it.” But, it really means, very simply, “true.” That word is “amen.” The word amen is from the word emet, which means truth. What is the faith of Abraham; that faith that makes you a child of God, and that you need in order to begin to become a saint?

The extent to which Abraham would see is a mystery to us, and it is only partly unfolded by what Jesus said. “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.” 22 We know this, however: Abraham believed the truth fully to the extent that God revealed it to him. We see, on this side of salvation history, that God has revealed to the Church the fullness of the Gospel. It is given to us to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. 23 We have been given the revelation that Jesus Christ is God of God, light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made. We know that He is fully God and fully man, born of a Virgin. We know that He died to take away our sins and give us His righteousness, and rose to give us His own immortality. We were taught by the Risen Christ the true name of God: “The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” 24

We said the words of that great Creed of the Church, and we affirmed our belief in everything that God has revealed. Each of you said, “I believe.” In that Creed you spoke of the God who has called you to be holy as He is holy, and you have spoken of the great love He revealed in giving you salvation through His Son. You confessed your faith in the Son Who is one with the Father as God, and one with us as a man begotten by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. You said “I believe” about his atoning death and victorious resurrection. You said “I believe in the Holy Spirit,” God in our very midst Who gives grace and makes us holy as we participate in the life He gives. You are a child of Abraham, and when you said “Amen” it was the faith of Abraham. On this side of God’s revelation, you said the “Amen” of your father Abraham.

1. Isaiah 55:7-11
   2. Romans 12:1,2
   3. Deuteronomy 29:29
   4. Romans 1:7
   5. I Corinthians 1:2
   6. Leviticus 11:45
   7. Ephesians 2: 12
   8. I Corinthians 12:2
   9. Ephesians 2:13, 19, 20
   10. Not only does Paul use this as a personal title, but it is the clear meaning of the words spoken to him by Jesus Christ: “for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” Acts 26:16-18
   11. Genesis 15:6
   12. See Ephesians 2:8-12
   13. Romans 4:11,12
   14. Galatians 3:5-9
   15. Genesis 15:4-6
   16. Galatians 3:16
   17. John 4:22
   18. Isaiah 53:5,6
   19. John 1:14
   20. Acts 10:38
   21. Psalm 16:10
   22. John 8:56
   23. Matthew 13:11

     24 Matthew 28:19