Revelation itself comes from the word “apocalypsus,” or unveiling. It is this idea that God in His divine wisdom has chosen to make some things known to humanity. Revelation is three fold; it is for everyone, its not a small scale epiphany like in your Bible study, and it is not just a prophetic word brought forth in a worship service. Ultimately the entire world benefits from a revelation. There are two divisions to revelation, and I'm going to deal with them each in turn. Revelation exists as an indirect and indiscriminate revelation of God, or general revelation. This most often happens in nature and in the inner searching of the human psyche. It is placed within the reach of all human beings and is able to be discovered. “It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings (Proverbs 25:2, NIV)” One may learn about God by observation, and contemplation. A more profound way revelation is understood is in the method of special revelation. Special revelation is both discriminant and direct in nature. It is pin point focused on events, and direct insertions of God in time. This form of revelation is seen most often in the context of history, the Bible, and the Christ event. The church is in turn charged with the propagation of special revelation.
Scripture I believe that because God directly appealed to man through the writers of the Scriptures that they are very special in nature. I believe that Scripture is authoritative. That it is a piece of literature above all others both in its content and nature. It has a specific power granted it by the Holy Spirit, and is in fact so full of the anointing of God that it is a means of grace for those that hear it. Grace is the “unmerited work of God through us, in us, and for us [Bounds]“ Theology is in fact one of the primary means by which God administers grace “it is the balm, the healing salve that works to heal the soul [Bounds].” We, as Christians, deeply revere the Scriptures because we believe the words to be those of God Himself, dynamically inspiring the writers of the Text. We know that the authority of Scripture comes from God. There is little value in trying to prove the validity of Scripture, what we must rely on is the “testimoium internum Spiritus Sancti,” or the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. I also believe that the Scriptures are plenary in nature, and that every word is equally as inspired as the next. It has been the practice of the Church to focus on those verses that most resonate with the current world, but we know that regardless of the apparent relevance, or highlighter-worthiness of a passage, God is equally present in every word. I believe in the Primacy of Scripture. Scripture is the final source of authority on all matters of faith and practice [Bounds]. We believe Scripture to be unique and unrepeatable, that it is unlike any other source text. We see in the Canon the purposeful preservation by God of the worldview, and vocabulary of the writers. For instance in the Pauline Epistles we see a higher form of Greek than in that of Peter's writings. While maintaining the fact that Scripture is without error, we as readers cannot demand of scripture what it does not offer; we call this Irenic Inerrancy. One must allow the Scriptures to speak to the discrepancies within itself. One must not ask of Scripture what it doesn't ask of itself. I believe that “Scripture itself must determine according to its intent the scope of that inerrancy [Bounds].”
I have chosen for, this paper, to operate under the methodology laid out for me in my Theology course. Founding all of my understanding on the Holy Scriptures, knowing it is not only enough, but is in fact beyond sufficient for all pursuits of knowledge. Yet it is apparent upon the study of Scripture to discover that it is in fact not as clear as we would like it to be. I describe the tools for understanding this way. The Canon is the foundation, solid and unshakable, fully sufficient. Upon that is the work of those great saints that have gone before us. It is said that “if we are able to see further than those that have predated us it is simply because of the work they built for us to stand on [Bounds].” Thus we see this great Tradition laid for us of the Consensual theology of the Church, that which is understood everywhere, always, and by all. We look to the past on the basis of the law of “proximal authority,” that is those authors living closest to the days of the Apostles must hold the chief weight of our understanding. Next is the communal convictions of my denominational conviction, or my “small t” tradition. This tradition is found in the teachings of the Wesleyan church, and greatly influences the things I do. These traditions in a sense frame a cognitive house upon the foundation of scripture. I then rely on the logical reasoning of my mental facility, which adds walls and windows to this house. Lastly there is this personal experience, different for every person, which gives the personal nature to every home. All of the other elements can almost be arrived at apart from a person, but it is the experience that really finishes off this analogy. You cannot have understanding without each of these pieces, but I believe that the order is what is essential. It is not any individual point, but the whole process, which I believe if deviated from can have devastating consequences. For instance, if experience is what was foundational, you may arrive at the heresy that all roads lead to God because a family member is not following Christianity, a conclusion that is sorely mistaken. Or if you were to focus on tradition you would be the type of person Jesus preaches against in every message against the lives of the Pharisees. There is an order and a rhythm to understanding that we must learn. This rhythm is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, and is the hierarchical ordering of these four pieces of methodology. The Apostles' Creed is the principal Tradition text that I will be working with.
The Apostle's Creed I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, and buried. He descended to the dead. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen
The Creed creates the framework for Tradition, and grants a call to create a comprehensive coherent account of the Christian faith [Bounds]. As traditionally explained the Apostles' Creed is split into twelve articles. Each one has been systematized and will be addressed accordingly. There is a very specific order to the Creed. For instance, God is referred to as the “Father Almighty.” The word Father is the principal modifier to His being almighty, that is, He is first father, and then omnipotent. God's character informs His will. God cannot act against the character of God. We call this “Divine Command Theory,” His character limits His will. The understanding that His power is qualified by His identification as Father, is essential to many of the understandings that will be dealt with, thus we see that the exact wording is important. The history of theology can in many ways be traced back to the widespread memorization, recitation, and examination of the Apostles' Creed. It allows even the most uneducated of people to succinctly communicate orthodox Christian beliefs. While the Creed does not concretely establish the deity of Christ, the full understanding of the Trinity comes to us eventually, and the Apostles' Creed is still the foundational theological text. There are a number of disciplines of Systematic Theology that will be defined as well, although great detail will only be paid to that of Theodicy as it pertains to the understanding of the work of God, bearing in mind that every discipline mentioned is deserving of an entire paper, perhaps later in my life. All of this however, is of naught if not for the call of theology to change the Christian's life, to apply Christian Faith to contemporary life [Bounds]. On that note, it must be understood that the Truth is meant to be interpreted in the context of of community, implying a Christian's right relationship to the Church as essential to their growth.
Theism: monotheistic belief that “conceives of God as personal and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism which contended that God — though transcendent and supreme — did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation [Orr, English Deism: Its Roots and Its Fruits, p. 234].”
Amid the anti-denominational war we see a cry from the post-modern everyman; we want to understand transcendent universal truth. Post-moderns want to know what has been true across the vastness of the Christian tradition, and not the petty doctrinal disputes between sects. We want to be a part of something that makes a difference and that is bigger than ourselves. We want to be a part of something authentic. Where people aren't involved in scandal, or where nobody is fleecing us for our “own good.” Post-moderns can see a fake a mile off, we know when somebody is insincere, and we have no patience for us. There is this attitude I feel in every group of post-modern adolescents that screams for sincerity. Out of this we hear a call, a plea for teachers of good Orthodox theology. We want to know the truth, beyond the opinion. We are a part of the swing of the pendulum back to that which is held the most dear by the Church. We discover this brilliant teaching from Vincentius, a Gaul, wrote a treatise outlining the problems with Augustine's view of predestination called “the Commonitory.” He outlines an operating principal for the acquisition of theological understanding that I will embrace for all of my future academic pursuits. In order for us to fortify our minds against heresy and pop-theology we must look first to Scripture, and next to the Tradition of the Church; that which is universal, has been held by antiquity, and is consensual among believers. I will endeavor to delve into the vast pool of theology and to portray my understanding of its nature to the best of my ability. One of the more interesting parts of my theological journey is simply the early years of my interest. I started my reading in my bedroom, apart from society. Whenever I would try to talk about it I was met with a consistent lack of interest. So frustrated I became with this that I internalized all of my thoughts. Untempered by society, and uncorrected by people of superior intellect my understandings remained narrow, and shallow. It wasn't until my time at Indiana Wesleyan that I finally felt encouraged, being able to discuss and ask deep questions. It has served as an invaluable part of my understanding of what it means to wrestle with theology. I have come to the understanding that theology is meant to be discovered in the context of community. That it is supposed to be discussed and corrected if one is to really learn and excel. With these understandings I would like to state my intent for this paper. I am departing on a literary journey to accomplish four ends. First, to participate in the great conversation of theology, thus creating a framework by which to both teach those of lesser understanding, and to seek correction and guidance from those of higher understanding. Secondly, to create a reference point to steer my future theological pursuits. Thirdly, I aim to bring clarity to my systematic understanding, to be able to clearly convey the principles of theology in a coherent manor, and to create stock verbiage to use in my local church ministry. Lastly, but most importantly is to bring more strength and love to my relationship with God, the author and perfecter of our faith.
We find ourselves today in a world torn between two approaches to truth; modernity and post-modernity. My parents generation was part of an epic struggle to refute all the things of the Great Generation, from morality, to their approach on all things scientific and philosophical. They thew out church liturgy, music, and everything else that echoed of old. My generation now finds itself in a precarious scenario; we have no history, nor direction. See in the midst of burning everything that has formed society over the generations, the modernists threw out everything that gave value to culture. My generation is left with the aftermath of the decisions of the modernists. Thus we, the post-moderns, have been scattered in every direction, having no semblance of connection. The ramifications of this are evident on the front page of every newspaper, and in the captions of every newscast. The fascinating thing about this is that in trying to create a world for their children, free of the tyrannies of past generations, the modernists have made children that crave those very tyrannies. I find myself a part of a world that wants to belong to the vastness of history, a generation that longs to find truth, and to join in the time line of this world. In a way our parents never thought possible we are embracing hymns, and longing for the next arrangement of a classical song, updated in our chords, and dripping with theological strength. Churches everywhere are beginning “liturgical services,” because they provide us with stability. The linear approach of our parents is obsolete. A pastor that preaches “ten ways to get your life on track” will be thought trite and self-righteous. The students in today's world want pastors that will ask big questions, and stand in the muck and mire of this world with us. We want to know scripture, but not just the scriptures, we want to know the Hebrew, Greek, and context. I come from a worldview that thirsts to swim in the deep streams of life, and longs in all ways to make a true lasting difference.
I come from western Michigan, an area wrought by a homogenous religious culture. Five out of six congregations come from a Calvinistic background, and are so intrenched in tradition, that nobody understands the need and call for evangelism. This fact is interesting because my church has what I call hyper-evangelistic theology. I've spent most of my childhood learning how to reach my classmates for Christ, while never in fact learning much about Him. I am embarrassed to say that I came to school here with far less Biblical and theological understanding than I care to admit. You see, I was so well trained to win new followers, that I never really looked at what I was winning them to...
I also come from what I would call a hyper-conservative environment. A tradition of people that are trained to take everything at face value, to never doubt the pastor, and to take every letter of the Word as unquestionable truth. We explored in class the subject of innerancy, as a three divisions, but I would say I came from a place even more extreme, a scriptural view that the Bible is innerant, and our brains our too simple to understand any of it, and thus we should not even try to rationalize the apparent contradictions.
My generation also comes from a culture rife with pop-theology. Authors like John Piper, Brian MacLarren, and Joel Osting preach concepts that are enticing at first glance, but are horrendous in implication. Ideas that God wills people to hell, that God is not just, and that all God wants of us is our happiness. We need to know the truth, and to understand the true meaning of what it is to be a disciple of Christ.
“Then God said, 'let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.' So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
Genesis 1:26-27 [NIV]
The first two chapters of Genesis are loaded with symbolism, meaning, and the foundations of theology. For instance; by the second verse the discussion of the Trinity is begun (Genesis 1:2 “and the Rûwach of God” or the Spirit of God), by verse four we see the original state of creation (it was good), and we have the cosmological framework for time set up. The rest of this creation story is equally pregnant with essentials of the conversation of God's interaction with His creation. There are two events in the first five chapters of Genesis that are written about more than any other; the creation account, and the fall of humanity. Sandwiched, however, in the middle of these two principals is the story of the creation of man, that is mankind (the Hebrew word for man, adam is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam [Archaeological Study Bible, p.5]), but specifically the creation of woman, and her place in the created order. It is one of the most pressing issues in the life of the Church, and one that I believe is widely misconceived. It is the intent of this discourse to articulate the innate equality of women in the site of God in creation, the hierarchical consequences of the fall, and the plan of God on earth to reconcile creation from the moment of the fall all the way through the salvific Christological act. As a Christian, operating out of a Christocentric philosophy, we see the scripture in light of Christ's coming, and the teaching He delivered. In Matthew 22:36-40 Jesus says that the entirety of Scripture revolves around people; loving God, and loving each other. Scripture then in the eyes of Jesus is a redemption narrative, restoring His creation to right relationship with each other and Himself, at any cost. A compilation of verses from Deuteronomy and Numbers from the Torah is the most obvious source for Jesus' quotation, but we must look back further.
Jesus operated in what is known as a Talmudic interpretation [Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, p144] of scripture, which means that He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but also in the recorded rabbinic discussions of His day. One of the common practices of a Talmudic rabbi, like Jesus, was to look to the principal of first mention [Fergussen, Wright, Packer, New Dictionary of Theology, p44], which calls into question the first place in Scripture where a given principal or understanding is born. Where was the idea of the relationship between God and mankind formed, and how is mankind to interact? We look to the Genesis Creation Narrative to find the answers to this question. In Genesis 1:27 God creates mankind. Now, mankind was created very specifically last, and in a very special way. We learn that mankind was created in the image an likeness of God. An early heresy dispelled was that God exists as both male, and female, which is simply not true, but rather that the Godhead exists in community. The Godhead exists in trinity, and each person has infinite love toward both of the other persons. If God did not exist triunely His love would have been egocentric in nature, something we know not to be true. Thus we see, reflected in the relationship of the Godhead, the love meant by God in creation. The maleness and femaleness of the people, is a reflection of the image of the Godhead [Oden, The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume I, p.181]. We see this beautiful language set up in Genesis 2:24 where two whole people, become one whole person. While it is not a direct correlation, it is very symbolic of the distinction and oneness of God. There is this equality set up in the persons of mankind. Apart from one another they do not reflect the Godhead.
Its interesting to learn that Genesis is the only ancient creation narrative, of which there are many, that talks about the creation of woman. From its onset the one true God is wanting to communicate the equality of humanity “This is the only full account of the creation of woman in all of ancient Near East literature [ASB, p7].” We have this understanding that the God of the Old Testament is the only true God, not that He is greater than other gods, but that no other God exists. In the current of what is then the one true creation narrative we find that God created man and female equal. There is a thread in the scholastic communities that explains the creation of Eve. The etymology of the word rib in Hebrew is the same root of the word center, and they are often used interchangeable in the ancient world. Thus we note that in taking a rib of Adam's, God is symbolically showing that Eve is taken from the very center of what it is to be man. This thread of understanding states that it is important to realize that she was not made by man's head, the source of the man's power, that she might be ruled or lorded over by him. It is also important to see that she was not created from his feet, to be trampled by him [Walton, Matthews, Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament, p. 28]. In this teaching we see the intentionality of God. This is eventually expounded upon with verse 23 “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh [NIV].” Adam was not only saying that she was one with him, she was saying so much more. To a Jew bone was the strongest part of a person, and flesh, the weakest. Woman was man's strength, and his weakness. Back in verse 18 it says “I will make a helper suitable for him [NIV].” In his sermon titled “Sex by Design,” Peter Yoshonis points out that the word used for helper here is the word 'êzer, a word that is most often used to describe God (see Psalm 33:20 “Our soul waits for the LORD; He is our 'êzer and our shield [ESV].”). Woman was not meant to be man's petty servant, but in the likeness of God, was meant to be the strength of man. There is this sense, buried in the Genesis narrative, that mankind can only exist as male and female, that it would be incomplete and fragmented if either gender were to be missing, or unequal.
By the third chapter of Genesis however everything is about to change...
“Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.' "The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 3:1-5 [NASB]
The Genesis Fall is classically understood from two theological principals that we glean from St. Augustine of Hippo. He states first that because only good was created in Genesis that evil is in fact not created but rather a brokenness of the good, we call this notion privation of the good [Augustine, Enchiridion of Augustine]. We know that man was both created in the image and likeness of God, and is thus meant to be like God, as well as meant to appreciate beauty. We see the serpent of Genesis 3 using the way mankind was created to twist the good creation of God. This privation was accomplished by telling Eve that she would be like God, and by calling attention to the inherent beauty and utility of the fruit. The act of creation was change, because it had not previously existed (the dotrine of ex nihilo creation [Aug., Ench. p.35]), and thus because it was changed, it was able to be changed; which it was. One of the things that is interesting to note is that until the fall man and woman enjoyed a beautiful sense of equality. Enter the fall, we see a tragic repercussion; as a result of the fall a new hierarchy began within the life of humanity. “...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you [Genesis 3:16, NIV].” No longer was man and woman existing in a state of equality, but this divisive order had begun, that has continued into this day.
If one were to look at history, one would observe the lack of attention paid to women. They are not included in stories, not valued by political leaders, not regarded for opinion, and not allowed to be educated in almost every past civilization. They have no place in government, no position in the home, no property, no voice.
Yet there is this glimmer of hope. Immediately following what has become known as the Curse a radical turn is taken in the tone of God toward humanity; a tone that savors strongly of the first two chapters of Genesis. “The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them [Genesis 3:21].” It is impossible to define the nature of God – it is far too complex, and lofty for our minds. However we learn certain things of God from His word, among them is that God is immediately compelled to reconcile His creation to Himself once it has fallen. We entered into a sinful and depraved existence at birth, but part of the salvific act of Christ is that God longs to reconcile us to right relationship; made apparent from the foundations of time. We see this call to the restoration of gender equality from the very first story in the Bible. God was at work in the lives of women all throughout the Old Testament. The lives of Deborah, Ruth, and Esther prove that God left no room for women to remain at the bottom of the hierarchical system. All of these point to the eventual coming of the Messiah, where all things would be made right again. The belief of the Jews throughout the entirety of the Old Testament was that God would be at work in His creation, through His Messiah, restoring the world. It is also important to note that at the time when most of the Old Testament was written Jews had a very weak understanding of the afterlife. This concept grew over time to the current theological interpretation we have today, but to a Jew in the Old Testament, they expected the changes the Messiah brought to be for that point in history. That the redemption of creation was meant to happen in this lifetime, not in the next. Thus when many people argue that equality, and sanctification are only dreams, able only to be actualized in death, they are sorely mistaken, and in grievously poor exegesis of Scripture.
In conclusion it must be understood that from the beginning of creation - mankind was meant to exist in a state of equality, that inequality was merely a result of the fall, and that the restoration of Biblical gender equality is meant to be achieved in this lifetime. All persons must be doing their part to inform and propagate the equality of genders. This is accomplished by a personal commitment to reform your perception of gender, and by a fervent effort to reform that of others. Everyone must be at work in the act of redeeming and restoring the woman of the Church.
Reflection: I began this research paper as a look into God's design for sex, and it really morphed as I progressed. The Wesleyan Church has always taken a strong stance on the elevation of women to roles of pastoral leadership, and in the world at large. They architected, and actualized much of woman's suffrage and helped women to achieve the place they currently enjoy. The work is hardly over. I saw this deep need to research, and to portray the original respect of woman. One of the things that stuck out to me so intensely was that inequality was a result of the fall. Dr. Chris Bounds spoke in class one day about the fact that God, by nature, MUST in fact move to redeem. It is as though one component of who God is, is redemption. This paper helped to make the idea of woman in ministry that much more simple to me. A precedent was set in Genesis as to God's heart for woman, one that continues forever.
Works Cited:
“The Holy Bible: New International Version,” International Bible Society, copyright 1973,1978, 1984 a.d.
“New Dictionary of Theology”Sinclair B. Fergussen; David F Wright, J.I. Packer. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 1988 a.d.
“Archaeological Study Bible, an illustrated walk through Biblical History and culture.” Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers, 2005 a.d.
“Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” by James Strong. Madison, N.J. World Bible Publishers Inc. 1986 a.d.
“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament” by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 2000 a.d.
“Jesus the Jewish Theologian” by Brad Young. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995 a.d.
“The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume 1,” second edition. By Thomas Oden. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 2008 a.d.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates [NIV].”
Deuteronomy 6:4-9
This is the introductory text to what is known by Jews as “The Shema.” It is widely revered as the teaching that summarizes the most important ideas in the entire universe. It is the source text for Jesus' greatest commandment.
“Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Matthew 22:34-40
Essential to the understanding of Christianity is the full understanding of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is where we find the prophesies of Jesus, and is what Jesus uses in all of His teaching. It is also important to note, that while we must uphold the inerrancy of Scripture, when Paul sets up its inerrancy he is actually speaking of the Old Testament, not the New.
So we study the Old Testament, hoping to gain valuable insight into what it means to follow Christ. Now while all of the text is equally as inspired, or is plenary in nature [Oden, The Living God, p243], we also have come to know that some verses, and passages are more useful to our daily lives, and hold more weight in the context of our community. Jesus identifies this as one of those for us. In fact, He says, very plainly that it is the most important commandment in the Law. This was no new discovery, the Talmud had been teaching this for generations. So what then did the Jews believe about the Shema? I will answer this question in two ways. I will dissect the Shema itself, and will then work with the Talmudic application of the text.
“The Lord is One.” - The claim of a deity that He is alone in the heavenly realm is the claim of superiority of a given culture. For most of the cultures in the ancient near east, they were defined by their own god. So then to claim the invalidity of the other gods, was not only to draw attention to the supremacy of deity, but also to claim moral, and societal superiority over them. Now because we believe the Scriptures to be the words of God, and not the words of man, it would spear the God Himself is claiming that He is the only God that exists, and that His people are greater because of their relationship to Him.
“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” This really speaks to the entire person of the Jew. What has a person beside their eternal soul, mind, and body? So what this section was demanding was that a Jew commits all that they are to the love of God. They were called to total surrender, and total obedience; very similar to the calls of Christ.
“Bind them as symbols.” It was absolutely reprehensible for a Jew to make any graven idols. God was the one true God, and there could not be any distraction. Many people in other cultures would fasten amulets, and spells to their bodies to give them special blessings and protection. The Jews were so adverse to this that there is little to no Jewish art that carries in it recognizable forms. Art to Jews could be patterned, but should not be iconic. So then the phrasing symbol is critical to understanding what was being asked of these Jews. Not images of a god, but as symbols to remind them of God; as pointers to the one true way. “Israelite practice disapproved of amulets, but if used here they are converted to reminders of the law or, in other places, may contain prayers or blessings, such as the small silver scrolls that were found in a pre-exilic tomb just outside Jerusalem in 1979. These miniature scrolls contain the blessings of Numbers 6:24-26 and represent the oldest extant copy of any biblical text [Bible Background Commentary, p178].” We see that all things were to call a Jew to remember and think upon God.
“Door frames of your houses.” It’s easy to see why the doorframes of the home became synonymous with safety and protection; just as it was what welcomed people in, it also kept the bad out. We see in many Near East societies a propensity to adorn the frame of the front door, hoping to call down blessing and favor from on high. In the ruins of some Egyptian cities we see hieroglyphs on almost every doorway. Doorways served in two ways; they provided preserving grace for the home from those things that may come to defile it, and they provided protection from impending violent realities [Bruce, The International Bible Commentary, p.262].]
“So if you faithfully obey the commands I am giving you today—to love the LORD your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul- then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied.
Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. Then the LORD's anger will burn against you, and he will shut the heavens so that it will not rain and the ground will yield no produce, and you will soon perish from the good land the LORD is giving you. Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth [NIV].”
Deuteronomy 11:13-21
“Then I will send rain on your land in its season [NIV].” Israel was an agrarian society; that is to say, they planted crops and lived by the planting season. Much of what is understood in their lives are in pace with the seasons of rain. Often times shepherding is associated with the Jews because of the rich use of analogies in the Scriptures, but shepherding was of secondary employ. It was common practice to have the youngest son, the least capable, tend the flocks while the other sons would work the fields or do the family trade with their father (fishing, farming, carpentry, etc.). Due to the relative proximity of Israel to the equator winter was not a primary concern, effectively giving the Jews two growing seasons. “Israel has a rainy season and a dry season. The rainy season begins with the autumn rains and ends with the spring rains. These are important for what they contribute to the overall moisture levels in the earth and for softening the ground for plowing. Grain is harvested in the spring, and summer months are for threshing and winnowing. Grapes are harvested in the all, while the olive harvest stretches into the winter [BBC, p181].” So then rain was one of the greatest blessing God could send on Israel, providing them with dependable food for themselves and their families.
“Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them [NIV].” In the United States we have seen that prosperity bring ambivalence toward God. We saw it in the life of Solomon, and in the life of Samson. God knew that prosperity brings these tendencies and He wanted to warn His chosen people to avoid this at all costs.
“Teach them to your children [NIV].” The familial structure is entirely different in the context of today's world. Our family structures are rife with brokenness, and disregard. We often see a parental apathy toward the teaching and raising of their children; particularly in America, where Churches are responsible for teaching our children about God, and schools are responsible for teaching academics. Parents forget that it is the role of the family first and foremost to train and educate their children. To a Jew all of their culture rested in the hands of their children. They felt great weight, and took great care to pass on the oral traditions of Judaism, and the trade skills their children would need to survive. I believe in this teaching of the Shema one of the most vital elements is that of the teaching of these values to our children.
“Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'Throughout the generations to come you are to make tassels on the corners of your garments, with a blue cord on each tassel. You will have these tassels to look at and so you will remember all the commands of the LORD, that you may obey them and not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes. Then you will remember to obey all my commands and will be consecrated to your God. I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt to be your God. I am the LORD your God [NIV].”
Numbers 15:37-41
“And not prostitute yourselves by going after the lusts of your own hearts and eyes [NIV].” There is a certain sense in which this is echoing back to the beginning of this teaching. This passage in numbers begs the question, what happens if I do not love the Lord my God with all my being? In context this verse is talking about the disobedience in the people’s lives during the postexilic period. “The last verse of the chapter, v. 41, strongly reaffirms God's relationship to the people after the trauma of the rebellion in chapters 13-14. In fact, the whole chapter functions in this way to provide reassurance to the new generation that God will indeed bring them into the land [Mays, Harper's Bible Commentary, p.193].”
The Talmud is a collection of the Jewish oral traditions. It is the theology, in some respects, of the Old Testament. It looks for symbolism, and teachings that it can pull out of the Scriptures and makes an effort to assemble several verses on a given topic to create a cohesive comprehensive account of a teaching or subject. The Talmud makes the case that the Shema has infinite implications into the life of the Jew, and by extension, the Christian. We must labor to live by this holistic submission to the Great God of the Universe. We look to the Old Testament as a basis of how to view our God. Central to the teachings of all of Scripture is the teachings of Jesus, and central to the teachings of Jesus, is the teachings of the Shema.
Works Cited:
“The Holy Bible: New International Version,” International Bible Society, copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 a.d.
“Harper's Bible Commentary,” James L. Mays, Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, California. Harper Collins Publishers 1988 a.d.
“New Dictionary of Theology” Sinclair B. Fergussen; David F Wright, J.I. Packer. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 1988 a.d.
“The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old Testament” by John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter Varsity Press. 2000 a.d.
“Archaeological Study Bible, an illustrated walk through Biblical History and culture.” Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers, 2005 a.d.
“Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” by James Strong. Madison, N.J. World Bible Publishers Inc. 1986 a.d.
“Jesus the Jewish Theologian” by Brad Young. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Hendrickson Publishers. 1995 a.d.
“The Living God, Systematic Theology: Volume 1,” second edition. By Thomas Oden. Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers Inc. 2008 a.d.
“The International Bible Commentary,” 2nd edition, F.F. Bruce, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Zondervan Publishers. 1979 a.d.
Few people in all of history have had more impact on the church than that of John Chrysostom. He was born during the most critical years of the Christian, years that shaped everything that we know today. He is respected for his role as Doctor of the Church one of only eight people to ever be elevated to this status. As I have pointed to in the past the earlier a doctrine emerges in Christian history the more we must look to it. We call this the Law of Proximal Authority, the closer an orthodox idea is to the time of Christ the more foundational it is to the Church (so for the doctrine of love we lean on Augustine, rather than on Calvin). Chrysostom was one of the Greek Fathers, and wrote extensively on theology. He is respected across denominations and traditions as the greatest preacher of the early church. He spurred on the monastic movement, and in many ways shaped the counsel of Constantinople in 381 ad. While this is not his principal teaching, he brings great clarity to a very prevalent issue in our modern church, the role of women in the Church. Great Christian leaders in the church today such as John Piper, and James MacDonald have a tragically poor, and distorted view on the subject, and my hope is to always encourage people to look back to what the Consensual thought has been from the Church over time. I must articulate that I do not doubt the love Piper and MacDonald have for Christ, or their role in furthering His kingdom, I lament at the fact that they were educated in a shallow tradition based on pop-theology, and passing trends, instead of looking to the great Tradition already laid by the Apostles and Fathers of the Church. Do not hear me wrong, they are making great contributions to the gospel, and are men of God. I just hope to show the history, and help to bring you to a faith rooted in scripture, and the teachings of those great Fathers of our faith.
Turn in your Bible to Genesis 1, we'll be using the first three chapters of Genesis to set up God's understanding of the sexes. Then God said,A)"> "Let us make mana]"> in our image,B)"> after our likeness. AndC)"> let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth (Genesis 1:26, ESV)." Notice if you will in the ESV Bible there is a foot note after the word man, it says that "The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam." We see here that God created them in His image, that without the reflection of man in woman there is not completion of the image of God. This echoes in the trinity, one God in three divine persons. In the tradition of Hebrew literataure, a Jewish author will repeat something when it must be made clear, it is a flag to really lean into the teaching. We see this countless time in the Old and New Testaments, and in the teachings of Jesus. God does this here through the author Moses. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." It was as if there must be a foundational understanding to move on. The image of God is reflected in man and woman. If you know this passage you know that it moves on to paint a beautiful picture of marriage, that she is now bone of my bone (bone was the strongest thing in a person), and flesh of my flesh (flesh was the weakest thing in a person), and so woman is now strength of my strength and weakness of my weakness. Everything good in a man was woman, she is even granted the prestigious title of "helper," a title most often used to describe God, our great helper, or our strength. "In order to fully appreciate the intended unity of male and female, it is important to notice the materials employed in their creation. The man comes from the ground. In Hebrew, the most common means of expressing the feminine gender is with a suffix, -ah. The word for “man” in most of chapter two is ‘adam. The ground from which the man is created in v. 7 is ‘adamah. Therefore, when God introduces the woman to the man, he cannot use the ‘adam/’adamah distinction, because ‘adamah has already been used as a word to mean something else. Instead, the man uses two new words, ‘ishah for woman, and ‘ish for man. Thus as the man (‘adam) was taken from the ground (‘adamah) and will return to it (Gen. 3:19), so the woman (‘ishah) was taken from the man (‘ish). However, here something happens that is unexpected. Instead of the woman returning to the man, and thus completing the circle, the man returns to the woman (Gen. 2:24). The man and woman together create “one flesh,” as was the case before the woman was created from the man. This picture reverses the expected means of reconnection. By doing so, it avoids any sense in which the woman is a derivative secondary figure who must find her way back to the man for completion. While the woman is taken from the man, the man returns to the woman to complete the picture of unity. This symmetry of activity emphasizes harmony rather than dependence. And indeed, the picture at the end of Genesis 2 is one of harmonious relations. The man and woman are naked and unashamed (v. 25), without any barrier between them" contests Richard Hess in his Evidence for Equality. So then we begin to gain clarity in that the intent was total equality between the persons of Adam and Eve. We also know that God meant for total unity between God, and mankind. In the fall all of this was shattered. The beautiful harmony of the Garden was shattered, and our relationship to God and each other wouldn't be restored until Christ. We see this hierarchy, not part of the original creation, but reality to most of history "What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come (Galatians 3:19, NIV)..." The beauty of the Christ event is that the wounds of sin were, in Christ, reconciled. The one blood sacrifice was made to bring us back into harmony with each other and God, and to relegate inequality to history. Paul says it so powerfully "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:27-29, NIV)." All is made new in Christ. So then we have this restorative tone to all of Christ teachings. God wants to restore His creation. We know that Christ had women disciples (Acts 9:36 Tabitha is called mathetria meaning disciple, Luke 8:1-3 where we see his male disciples financially dependent on female disciples who were likely financial independent, and in Luke 10:38 where we see Mary learning at the feet of Jesus). We know that women taught men, we learn this in Acts 18:24-28. We know of Aquilla as the great teacher of Ephesus, but it is unclear why Priscilla is mentioned. Several extraneous sources inform us that Priscilla was teaching in tandem with her husband. We find another example of this in the lives of Andronicus and Jounian. They are mentioned in the same short passage of scripture as Apostles, and Apostles of high respect. You can interpret Jounian two ways as it is a first declension Greek noun, making Jounia a teacher and Apostle, or you can read it Junianus, which because of the wording would make Andronicus homosexual, a very significant problem in light of the teaching of historic Christianity. We then can infer that Andronicus and Jounia were an Apostolic couple, with powerful ministry, much like Priscilla and Aquila, and that Paul was making two strong examples of exceptional ministry couples. We know that the New Testament has women prophets, Acts 21:19. We know that women were deacons in the church according to Paul Romans 16:1-2. For centuries the greatest minds in the Church have given Phoebe great acclaim on account of her office, John Calvin says "He (Paul) begins by commending Phoebe... first on account of her office, because she exercised a very honourable and holy ministry in the Church." Paul joins Jesus then in elevating the role of women in the Church. We then must look to the teachings of those people foundational to our faith to continue to build upon the Biblical case for gender equality. John Chrysostom wrote in regards to 1 Timothy "Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject. He is speaking to those who hold the rank of Deaconesses." Chrysostom says of Jounia "Greet Andronicus and Junia... who are outstanding among the apostles.’ To be an apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the apostles just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been, that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle." There is such an overwhelming tone in the vastness of scripture, with all passages leading to one direction, complete and irrevocable equality among the genders. And then we have a hitch. We have two, very specific passages with one very controversial line each, that seem to completely go against the grain of the Scriptures; that go against the current of the great reclamation of the created order to God. Rev. Dr. Kenneth E. Bailey says this "On the negative side are two critical texts. The first of these is 1 Cor.14:33-36 which tells the women to be silent in church. The second is 1 Tim. 2:11-15 which adds that they must not teach or ‘have authority’ over men. These two texts seem to affirm the exact opposite of all that we have thus far observed." Now there are two tendencies in response to these passages, both are wrong. One seeks to build an entire Biblical case on two passages that do not make any sense in light of the bigger story of Scripture, and the other, and equally as dangerous, direction would be to say that they are conflicting with the whole stream of the Canon, and must be a fault inserted over time, not found in the original autographs, and that we must throw them the way of the Apocrypha. I would say, boldly, that these are the only two responses that have any logic behind them if you do not look at the bigger picture of these two very controversial texts.
We know that 1st Corinthians 11-14 is a single treatise of Paul. Dr. Bailey brings great clarity to the teachings of 1st Corinthians 14:33-36 and has an incredible essay on this subject that you must read. I end with that rationalizing of the passage from Corinthians and hope and pray that you might begin to see the depths of the Scriptures, and to take part in the great movement that is the Tradition of the Church. If you are a pastor, I pray with all in me that you would begin a conversation with God about the implications of these teachings, that you would allow God to work in your heart, and that you would begin to see with new clarity the purposes of God in His creation, that you would not impose your views on God, but let His Holy Word speak for itself.
"In 11:4-5 the men and the women are prophesying. Thus the reader knows that the prophets who interrupt one another in chapter 14 are comprised of both men and
women. So when the women in 14:34-35 are told to be silent and listen to the prophets, it is clear that some of
those prophets are women. Also relevant is the fact that 14:26-36 lists three groups of people who are disturbing the worship. These are as follows:
1. The prophets are told: Don’t all talk at once. Be silent in the church.
2. The speakers in tongues are told: If there is no interpreter, be silent in the church.
3. Married women with Christian husbands (who attend) are told: Don’t ask questions during the worship and don’t chat. Ask your husbands at home and be silent in the church.
Each of these groups is told to be silent when it disturbs worship. Paul is not issuing a command for perpetual prophetic silence! In like manner when they disrupt public worship the women are asked to be quiet. Thus Paul is saying to the women: ‘Women, please keep silent in worship and listen to the female and male prophets. Don’t interrupt them with questions, and don’t talk/chat in church. If you can’t understand what is being said, ask your husbands at home. They understand more Greek than you do and will be able to explain things to you.’ The scene is easy to reconstruct. Corinth was a tough immoral town. Transportation workers, porters and metal workers made up a significant portion of the population. It is easy to assume that the inhabitants came from different places and spoke different languages. Their common language was Greek. The men were naturally ‘out and about’ more than the women and thus were more likely to be at ease in that common language. It follows that in church the women could perhaps not easily follow what was being said and so would begin to ask questions or lose interest and start ‘chatting’. A documented case of this phenomenon is recorded in a sermon of John Chrysostom, preached in the cathedral of Antioch in the latter part of the fourth century. Stenographers recorded Chrysostom as follows: Text: And if they (the women) will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Chrysostom: Then indeed the women, from such teaching keep silence; but now there is apt to be great noise among them, much clamour and talking, and nowhere so much as in this place (the cathedral). They may all be seen here talking more than in the market, or at the bath. For, as if they came hither for recreation, they are all engaged in conversing upon unprofitable subjects. Thus all is confusion, and they seem not to understand, that unless they are quiet, they cannot learn anything that is useful. For when our Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry Page 7 discourse strains against the talking, and no one minds what is said, what good can it do to them?20 If this was the scene in the cathedral of the great city of Antioch in the fourth century, what can we imagine for Corinth in the days of Paul? Corinth was, no doubt, even more disorderly. (The present writer has personally experienced Chrysostom’s predicament in isolated middle-eastern village churches!) The women of Corinth were told (when they disrupted worship) to be silent. Paul assumed that the readers remembered the women prophets of 11:5 when he wrote 14:35-36."
Dr. John Piper is among the most influential modern theologian, and while not solely responsible for, may be the biggest contributor to the revival of Calvinistic theology we are experiencing today.
Born in 1946 Piper has been in ministry at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota for longer than I have been alive. His book "Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist," came out the year after I was born, and has been without question Pipers' principle theological contribution. Some might say that all of his other books are in summed up in the teachings of Desiring God.
Dr. Piper is an interesting case study, he is a true Hyper-Calvinist, adhering to all five points of Calvin's teachings, but also adding two points of Edwardian Calvinism, making him what some might title a Seven Point Calvinist. Yet he affirms the teachings of justification by faith. He believes in Double Predestination, yet he is not a Dispensationalist. He asserts unconditional election, and perseverance of the believer. Some would argue that Dr. Piper does not know what he believes, but I am not so quick to throw my dear brother under the bus so to say.
Dr. Piper has made huge leaps in the understanding and explanation of the Sovereignty of God. His doctoral thesis "Love Your Enemies," while not his greatest literary accomplishment showed his theological chops. I believe that he truly loves God, and he is a brilliant writer. His work "Desiring God" spurred me on greatly in my Christian walk. I do want to point out some of the dangers in this doctrinal extreme where I believe Piper has missed the mark.
No person, of any intellectual position worth listening to, would ever contest the sovereignty of God. It is as much a part of the Godhead as water is a part of the man. It is an integral part of the omnipotence of the Trinity. If God is not sovereign, he is not all powerful. Yet if one were to look back on the history of the Church, one might find that, while God is sovereign, you hear other language used first. God is love, God is holy, God is father, God is... sovereign. It is as if the sovereignty of God is presumed, but the patristic literature says "God is sovereign... BUT GOD IS..." And this hierarchy is set up in relation to the divine attributes of God. Not that He is any less sovereignty, but if they could only use one word to sum up his deity, sovereignty would not be what exited the mouths of the Doctors of the Church.
So one might ask why? If the understanding of sovereignty is so essential to our understanding of omnipotence, why then is it not primary in the vernacular of those most important to architecting the theology of the Church? The answer is very simply this... Sovereignty is not a transcendent attribute of the Godhead.
Before time, before creation, God existed as the trinity (same yesterday today and forever). God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit... All God... See this God is only able to be that which He is. According to orthodox (right understanding, with a lower case "o") teaching, the Trinity, is equal, but distinct. There is no supremacy within the Trinity, and thus no person of the Trinity was sovereign, reigning, or presiding over any other person of the Trinity. Therefor before creation God... was not sovereign... Sovereignty then is temporary language, used in relation to the created order. God's sovereignty is secondary to His overall nature. So then my friends, why did I speak earlier of the dangers of Piper's theological extreme. It is simple... If we focus on a secondary attribute of God, one that is fleeting and only exists from tree to tree, we miss out on the fullness of theology. We create for ourselves a God that needs... A God that is understood on a foundation of sovereignty, who will not always be sovereign. He does not need us to be sovereign over. In fact the Bible asserts that after these things have come to pass, He will no longer be sovereign. He forfeits sovereignty to be in communion with us, only maintaining those things that are primary to His person. No longer judge, no longer king, no longer sovereign. We will then only use familial language, primary language, Father, Son Holy Spirit. See, if the extent of our understanding of theology is centered around sovereignty as our axis of theological interpretation, our understanding will never achieve depth. Worse yet, it will fail to give adequate importance to those characteristics that are both primary to His nature, and transcendent of time.
I am very slow to hang a theologian. Piper is a true man of God, his church is making a radical difference on the world. The tragedy is this, people of the Calvinist discipline are leaning so hard on the modern theology of Dr. Piper, without a deep broad understanding of the rest of theology. We must look to the earliest teachings of the Church. Thomas Oden brilliantly organizes what must be the focus of our time. 1 Canon (Bible), 2 Testaments (Old and New), 3 Creeds (Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian), 4 Councils (Niceae, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon), and the first 5 Centuries of the Church. That is the lens by which we must view what is important in theology. With so very few exceptions, everything outside of this is just a flash in the pan of theology.
Disclaimer: While this blog at no point claims to portray the express views of a source, much of it is drawn from the teachings of Dr. Albert Outler, Dr. Thomas Oden, and Dr. Chris Bounds. These are the opinions and findings of the Author; Zachary Aument and are only meant with the purist intentions. Taking any teaching to an extreme is dangerous, and one must seek to temper theological views within the context of the larger Christian community.
Vincentius (Vincent of Lérins) was an early church father who lived and wrote in Lérins, France. His contribution that deserves our attention is a work called the "Commonitory." It is often held that the Commonitory was a work by Vincentius meant to create a rubric where by the Christian might determine true Ecclesiastical Interpretation and Doctrine, from heresy. When one looks to address the Commonitory as a literary work it is by and large a refutation of Augustine's doctrine of Predestination. Most scholars would give a wide range of dates for the writing of the Commonitory, but the stream of thought that I want to present is that Vincentius wrote the Commonitory in 434, three years after the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.
Now even as I said that the primary goal and purpose of the Commonitory is to refute the Augustinian doctrine of Predestination, his stance and verbage on searching out heresy is exceptional, and has now formed the foundation by which I view doctrine.
Vincentius would contest that due to the highly interpretive nature of Scripture, while complete and sufficient of itself, must be read through the lens of the Ecclesiastical Tradition. My theology professor Dr. Chris Bounds points out the ease with which an Evangelical discards the Tradition of the Church over time. The urging of Vincentius is to embrace the work done for us by those that have predated us. Outside of the Tradition one can easily diverge from Orthodoxy. It is nearly impossible for a person, independent of community, to arrive at an Orthodox understanding of scripture. I do not recall who said these words, but the effect was that "if we by chance see further than those that have gone before us it is because we have the privilege of standing on their shoulders." Thus, the collective work of the founders of our faith gives strength to our understanding, apart from which we would fall into heresy.
Vincentius also sets up a series of beautiful tools by which the Christian can check the authority of a doctrine. He states that we must look to the Universality of a doctrine. To see if it is accepted by Christians everywhere. Assuming, as we must, that there is one and only one faith that is true for all. Secondly we look to the Antiquity of a doctrine. It begs of a doctrine its authority based on its age. This is HUGE! There is a law within the pursuit of theology called the law of "Proximal Authority." It states that the closer a thought is to the chronological date of Christ, as Christ is the insertion of the ultimate authority on theology into time, the more weight it must hold in our hearts. That something said by Jesus is chief, followed closely by His disciples, then the Apostolic Church Fathers, followed then by the Greek and Roman Fathers and on down the line to the theologians of our day. Thus we are presented with our third rule which is the position of the Doctors of our faith.
Consensus within the Church on a doctrine can be arrived at by looking to the past. One must see everything through the eye of Consensual Theology. What has been agreed on over time? We must take great care, looking to see if any general or Ecumenical councils have been assembled over, or have spoken to the issue at hand. If not one must look to the collective wisdom of the fathers of our faith. I, in my naivety, fail to truly appreciate the severity of the nuances of doctrine. A statement that would send shutters down the spine of a more learned wise man, is uttered with total apathy from my lips. I, and those like me, must, absolutely must lean into, and run with fervency toward understanding, lest we truncate the essence of our Lord.
I will leave you with an image that Vincentius uses to speak to the progression of understanding of doctrine. He compares the evolution of doctrinal understanding to the growth of the human body. Canon lays the foundation in the womb of our understanding. The general anatomy of doctrine is forged in the sacred Scriptures, and through time theologians of old have formed and nurtured it. Growing it into a more mature understanding. Taking great care not to change an element of it, because we believe that it holds within it the capacity to grow to it intended state. It is logical that when one begins with a boy, it will become a man. Theologians then form doctrine within the constructs of Scripture arriving, in time, at holistic understanding. Articulating elements that were unclear in the text, and emphasizing those areas that require assertion. So now when one takes the cumulative works of Canon and the texts of the Traditions, one is able to experience the fullness of the understanding of God, and to that end we strive.
