THE APOSTLE’S CREED-Parts 1&2
If it is not about Jesus, it’s not about anything (Motto
of the Fountain of Life) Part 1
SPS (Sermon Purpose Statement): Revisit foundational orthodox beliefs for
refreshment and the strengthening of the Faith.
Challenge: Examine
the beliefs; introduce philosophical and theological views and engage them in
the spirit of intramural debate among brothers, not as a sectarian diatribe
among enemies.
Guideline: “For
what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of
all the philosophers, if we live without grace and the love of God?” - Thomas
a’Kempis
Motto: All for the
glory of Christ, Jesus.
INTRODUCTION
Dear Friends and beloved in Christ Jesus, we begin a
series of messages concerning the Apostles’ Creed. The word creed is taken from the Latin word
“Credo”, which means, “I believe.” In
effect it is a statement of faith.
This creed is one
of the historical documents of the Christian Church and as such it does not
belong to any single denomination but is a shared orthodox confession of the
collective body of Christ. Therefore it
is a catholic
(universal) confession as opposed to being a Catholic
(one denomination) confession.
Looking toward the beginning of Church history there developed a number
of heresies which would confuse the brethren.
A practical need grew for a statement of faith which would help
believers to identify the most important doctrines of the Christian faith. The Apostle’s Creed does that. Although no single Apostle of Jesus wrote
this document, a reading of the New Testament shows that it accurately portrays
the collective teachings of the Apostles.
Church leaders from Tertullian in the mid Third Century
through Augustine in the early Fifth Century possessed slightly different
versions of it. The text of Pirminius
near A.D. 750 was accepted as the standard form. This date is significant that it lends
emphasis to the observation made above:
The Apostles’ Creed is a catholic document. It was accepted well before the 16th Century
Reformation and centuries before the Great Schism of 1054.
This creed belong
to us…collectively as the Body of Christ and as such it is worthy of study in
the spirit of brothers with brothers.
We have printed below a Protestant version of it and compared
it to a Roman Catholic version, which is found in the Catechism of the Catholic
Church.
The Apostle’s Creed
(As printed in the Grace Communion International’s
Statement of Beliefs) (Roman Catholic variations are shown in bold italics
enclosed in parenthesis ( ).) The slight variations show that it is truly the
same document.
"I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven
and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy
Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead (into hell). On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the
right hand of the Father.
He will come again
to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy all-embracing
Church (holy catholic Church), the communion of saints, the forgiveness of
sins, the resurrection of the body, andthe life everlasting. " Amen
THEOLOGIANS
Many theologians over the years have written expositions
on the Creed. Grace Communion
International is a Protestant denomination with a Trinitarian theological
background. This series of messages
presents the Creed following an outline used by Karl Barth, a Swiss theologian
from the mid-20th Century, who was a prime mover in a revival of interest in
Trinitarian thought. It is good to
provide counterpoint and insights from other traditions. Therefore these messages also include
thoughts from Catholic theologians such as Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas
Aquinas, the Protestant Reformed view through Martin Luther and others,
etc. Augustine and Aquinas should be
very acceptable to Protestants because they taught well before the
Reformation. And by including thoughts
from other theologians and philosophers, it is hoped that an understandable and
balanced view may be presented and faith strengthened.
The choice of Barth as our guide is also beneficial in
this respect. Every new generation seeks
a new explanation of things gone before, including religious beliefs. They revisit the Scriptures and define or
redefine a theological response to situations or threats which confront them in
their present day. The pressure upon
Barth and his generation was the threat of Nazism and, in his view, the
influence of liberal philosophy and liberal theology of the 19th Century.
At this point itis useful to introduce to you, brethren, some of Barth’s formative thoughts which underpin his writings.
At this point itis useful to introduce to you, brethren, some of Barth’s formative thoughts which underpin his writings.
Barth examines the Apostle’s Creed in a book entitled
“Dogmatics in Outline.” Certain elements
in Barth’s life appear to be the genesis of several reoccurring themes.
They are: 1st) His break with German Liberal theology
highlights his conviction that real life should mirror inner theology.
2nd) The Word of God in the Scriptures became the cornerstone of his theology.
3rd) Jesus Christ and obedience to Him reveals knowledge of God, not human systems of knowledge such as natural theology.
4th) In light of his break with the liberal church he publicly confessed his theological convictions against Nazism through pamphlets, through the German Confessing Church and the Barmen Declaration. (Brethren, read Rev. Todd Crouch’s post on Karl Barth and the Barmen Declaration on the Fountain of Life Blog: http://thefountainoflifechurch.blogspot.com.)
2nd) The Word of God in the Scriptures became the cornerstone of his theology.
3rd) Jesus Christ and obedience to Him reveals knowledge of God, not human systems of knowledge such as natural theology.
4th) In light of his break with the liberal church he publicly confessed his theological convictions against Nazism through pamphlets, through the German Confessing Church and the Barmen Declaration. (Brethren, read Rev. Todd Crouch’s post on Karl Barth and the Barmen Declaration on the Fountain of Life Blog: http://thefountainoflifechurch.blogspot.com.)
Dogmatics in Outline is from university lectures
delivered in the summer of 1946 in the semi-ruins of the Kurfusten Schloss
(Castle) in Bonn Germany. His students
began classes at seven A.M. They always
began with singing a psalm or a hymn to cheer them up. At eight they would hear the rattle of rebuilding
reverberating through the rubble wrought by World War II. Barth says that, “the subject of theology is
the history of the communion of God with man and of man with God and proclaimed
in the Old and New Testaments. The
message of the Church has its origins in this history. Dogmatic theology is concerned with proving
the truth of the message, which the Church has always proclaimed and must again
proclaim today.”
THE TASK
As a study of orthodox doctrine Barth writes, “Dogmatics
is the science in which the Church, in accordance with the state of its
knowledge at different times, takes account of the content of its proclamation
critically, that is, by the standard of Holy Scripture and under the guidance
of its Confessions.” Barth points out
that Scripture and the Confession are not on the same plain. The Confession consists of tradition and the
Church Fathers. In other words, he is
saying that the creeds, the confessions, the catechisms are not the Word of
God. They contain the Word of God; they
reflect the Word of God. That is an
important distinction. For example,
Augustine and Gregory Nazianzus are greatly respected as guides, but they do
not speak with the authority of Jeremiah or Paul or of Jesus.
Barth proceeds to
pursue dogmatics under the guidance of a classical text, the Apostles’ Creed.”
Martin Luther presented faith under three aspects.
"Noticia, assensus
and Judicia". That is the notice or
receiving the raw data presented in the Scriptures; the ascent to or
recognition of the truth in the notice; and finally the commitment to that
truth. Barth also presents faith under
three aspects as trust, knowledge, and confession.
1. FAITH AS TRUST
The creed begins with “I believe.” In Latin the first words are Credo in Unum
Deo: I believe in one God. “I believe,” means I trust. Specifically we rely in the faithfulness of
God; we trust that His promises hold.
Barth points out
that I no longer trust in myself, or justify, excuse, save or preserve
myself. That trust is in God, the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Barth says that faith does not challenge us to do or
accept something which is beyond our ability.
By this he means that faith is not blind or irrational. In other words, although we are not capable
of rationally creating faith, because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit we are
capable of rationally understanding faith.
Barth recognizes that our greatest challenge against faith is our own pride. We would rather not live by grace; we would
rather discover God on our own, with our own intellect. We prefer to find or make our own grace.
Barth says that the “Gospel and Law are not to be
separated; they are one…” He does not say this in opposition to grace. Barth clearly is not a legalist. He believes that we trust in nothing external
to God, that includes works of the law.
Barth presents the Law as a gift of love and guidance.
He presents four categories of trusting faith. They are:
1) belief, “in
spite of all that contradicts it;
2) once for all;
3) exclusively; and
4) entirely.” He develops these categories briefly.
2) once for all;
3) exclusively; and
4) entirely.” He develops these categories briefly.
1. Belief in
spite of everything: The sense of this
is
that faith is not of our cleverness or intellect. Our faith is not founded on dialectic or
astute observation, or exotic ideas.
Faith is not the stuff of clever sayings or ecstatic experiences. “Think of the men in the Bible.
They did not come
to faith by reason of any kind of proofs, but one day they were so placed that
they might believe and then had to believe in spite of everything.”
The sense of this
seems that they were placed in a crisis, (Greek: krisis) of faith and made a
decision.
(Brethren, in
these messages we will not explore the working of grace and free will in the
making of those
decisions.) Not
everybody’s crisis is as dramatic as that of Paul’s on the road to Damascus,
but that seems the sense of it. The ten
lepers, the Centurion from Capharnaum, blind Bartimaeus, the woman with the
hemorrhage and certainly Peter briefly walking on the water seem strongly to
indicate their belief in spite of everything.
2. A man who
believes once believes once for all.
True
faith is final; it is not an opinion replaced by another
opinion. This seems to reflect the
Reformed teaching on the Perseverance of the Saints.
3. We hold on to
God exclusively because God is the (only)
one who is faithful.
There is none other beside Him (Deuteronomy 4:35).
4. We hold
entirely to God’s word. Faith is
concerned
with the spiritual and bodily, the brightness and gloom
of life; it is concerned with the whole of living and the whole of dying. Faith encompasses our entirety and our
totality is invested in faith.
2. FAITH AS
KNOWLEDGE
Barth says, “Faith is knowledge; it is related to God’s
Logos, and is therefore a thoroughly logical matter.” He is consistent in showing that human reason
does not capture salvation, yet reason is not to be ignored. He writes, “Christian faith is the illumination
of the reason in which men become free to live in the truth of Jesus Christ and
thereby to become sure also of the meaning of their own existence and of the
ground and goal of all that happens.”
Barth quotes Mephistopheles from Johan Goethe’s two part tragedy,
“Faust.” The deceiving demon says,
“Despise only reason and science, man’s supremest power of all.”
Mephistopheles is Barth’s vehicle in the warning that the Church is ill advised to believe the lie that
they should be in opposition to reason.
Six centuries before John identified Jesus as the Logos,
the Word of God, Heraclitus introduced the term Logos as representing the
rational organizing principle of the universe.
The concept of Logos as rationality was recognized and understood by the
1st Century audience moreso than it is by a 21st Century audience. Christian faith is not irrational; truth is
involved. There is clear historical
evidence of Jesus. And there is the
clear evidence of the Word of God, the Scriptures. Barth says, “In a primary sense the Word
which the Church proclaims involves the Logos, and as such its truth is
demonstrated and revealed in human reason as truth that is to be learned.” This observation from Barth concerning reason
seems very much a support to Eusebuis’ record that Justin Martyr’s 2nd Century
conversion from rational Greek philosophy did not happen irrationally but was
the result of cool deliberation, (Eusebius by Paul Meyer page 141.)
“He (God) cannot be known by the powers of human
knowledge…Man is able to think this being; but he has not thereby thought
God. God is thought and known when in
His own freedom God makes Himself apprehensible.” This statement is not an indictment on the
rationality of the Church. Barth is
aware of scriptures such as Romans 1:20.
What he does, in
broad statements is to clearly separate faith in God from knowledge of
God. Let us attempt to illustrate his
distinction by borrowing from Martin Luther’s, “Bondage of the Will” and
Jonathan Edwards “Freedom of the Will.”
1. Faith in God
is from grace which yields regeneration
and faith and the knowledge of Christ. (Brethren, let us not technically argue here
about the sequence of these
events.) The grace
also leads to a redeemed healed nature, which receives the Liberty to accept
and desire truth. St. Augustine
differentiates freedom and Liberty.
He would refine
this action of grace upon the will and say that while carnal man has always had
the freedom to choose whatever he desires, grace restores to man the Liberty to
desire and accept and choose the things of God.
This knowledge is
generated from the gift of faith; it is rational thought through the oversight
of Jesus as The Logos through the healed nature; and through Christ it is
efficacious for the salvation process.
2. Knowledge of
God is from intellect. The devils have
direct knowledge of the true God and a fallen nature.
They are utterly
depraved. Man has inductive and
deductive knowledge of the concept of God generated though the tarnished
reasoning of a corrupt nature. Man is
totally depraved. Although he retains
vestiges of the “Image and likeness of God,” (Which vestige is I believe
through the ministry of the Holy Spirit upon all humanity) the corrupt nature
does not have the Liberty to desire or understand the things of the true
God. Edward refines this thought by
showing that the corrupt nature has the freedom to choose whatever it desires
and it chooses only what it desires. The
problem is that the corrupt nature does not desire God or the things of God and
it will never choose God even though man has knowledge of the concept of
God. Because he retains the image and
likeness of God, his knowledge is rational but it is not salvific; nevertheless
it is functional knowledge in the sense of Romans 1:20 so that the gainsayers
are without excuse.
Romans 1:20 reveals evidence of God outside of Scripture
and indicates that all men have some access to the knowledge of God. In this line of thought, Trinitarian
Theologian Baxter Kruger advises that God placed something of Himself in all
men and we very well might reach a man where he is in his understanding of God
even though it a natural understanding.
Hence the command for evangelism in Matthew 28:19
Looking to 1 John 4:2 we see that understanding the
mysteries of Christ’s incarnation, sacrifice and resurrection can only be
revealed by the Holy Spirit. Let us call
this spiritual knowledge the efficacious mysteries. What Barth says about a man not being able to
think those mysteries is true. By teaching
that man is able to think this being but has not thought God, Barth is
advocating that man remains humble and aware of his total dependency upon God
even in his knowledge of God.
Closing doxology:
"Hear oh nations, hear oh peoples; The LORD Jesus, our Christ is one,
yesterday, today and forever." AMEN
_______________________________________________________________
Apostles Creed-Part 2
SPS: Revisit
primary orthodox beliefs for refreshment and the strengthening of Faith.
Challenge: Examine
the beliefs; introduce philosophical and theological views and engage them in
the spirit of intramural debate among brothers, not as a sectarian diatribe
among enemies.
Guideline: “For
what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of
all the philosophers, if we live without grace and the love of God?” Thomas a’Kempis Motto: All for the
glory of Christ, Jesus.
Recurring Themes:
1st) Real life should mirror inner theology. 2nd) The Word of God in the Scriptures is the
cornerstone of theology. 3rd) Jesus
Christ and obedience to Him reveals knowledge of God, not human systems of
knowledge such as natural theology.
3. FAITH AS
CONFESSION
(I believe)
Barth teaches that, “Christian faith is the decision in
which men have the freedom to be publicly responsible for their trust in God’s
Word and for their knowledge of the truth of Jesus Christ, in the language of
the Church, but also in worldly attitudes and above all in their corresponding
actions and conduct.”
Prior to
Barth, Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche
 |
| Swiss Theologian Karl Barth |
Barth expands this
saying that, “God is not passive; not inactive, but that God the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit exist in an inner relationship and movement which very
well be described as a story.” (Baxter
Kruger uses the old Greek word perichoresis to describe this inner relationship
as much like a dance in his book “The Great Dance.”)
The language
of Canaan
“Faith without
this tendency to public life…has become in itself unbelief, wrong belief, superstition.”
“The language
of Canaan”: Karl Barth introduces this phraseto mean the language of the Church (the Promised Land if
you will) as it is spoken through its history; its terms; its faith, the
language of the Bible. His overarching
point is that the faith must be spoken in the public forum.
“One thing is
certain, that where the Christian Church does not venture to confess in its own language (and in
the public forum) it usually does not confess at all. Then it becomes
the fellowship of the quiet, whereby it is much to be hoped that is does not
become a community of dumb dogs.”
FOR the WORLD
The above
sounds like Barth’s commentary on the German Christian Churches who not only failed to oppose Nazism
in the public forum but who internally supported the State or Nazism. I think one paraphrase for 21st Century
Christians is: Preach the simple Word of
God as it is found in the Bible. Do not
conform the Gospel to the culture, thereby making the Gospel mild and palatable
and just another one of the many flavors of religion.
Blending into the
culture silences the Church as well as fear to speak out. Barth continues:
“The Church
exists for the sake of the world…”
“By the very
nature of the Christian Church there is only one task, to make the Confession heard in the sphere
of the world as well.” Barth uses the
example of the German Church and Nazism.
The German Church talked in the language of Canaan but not in the public
forum; the language the people; of the newspapers etc. Barth urges Evangelicals not to “gather among
themselves” and speak only in the language of the Church (Canaan) but speak
faith in the public forum.
THE GOSPEL
I think it
fair to say that, conforming the language of Canaan into the language of the culture does not mean
conforming the Gospel to the culture or making the Gospel “politically
correct.”
“What would it
avail a man, if he should speak and confess in most powerful language and had not love?” This is, I think, a most powerful insight
into Barth.
He sees beyond the language
of the Church and into the heart of God. It appears a
wonderful 20th Century equivalent to Thomas a’ Kempis’ 15th Century observation found in “The
Imitation of Christ,” “For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by
heart and the principles of all the philosophers, if we live without grace and
the love of God? Vanity of vanities and
all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.” Brethren, we must take the living person of
Jesus more seriously than we take our theologies about his person.
4. GOD IN THE
HIGHEST
Barth observes, “But now we are faced with the fact that
this word God, the concept of God, the idea of God, seems to be a reality that
is familiar in one way or another to all history of religion and
philosophy.”
Outside of Christian faith, when one speaks of God, of the divine nature or essence etc.; they mean the longing or “homesickness” of the spirit for meaning in life, the meaning of the world, a universal active desire for hope or peace. Some being controls those longings and that being is identified as the Supreme Being. This leads to an infinite variety of possible Gods, but not the Trinity.
Outside of Christian faith, when one speaks of God, of the divine nature or essence etc.; they mean the longing or “homesickness” of the spirit for meaning in life, the meaning of the world, a universal active desire for hope or peace. Some being controls those longings and that being is identified as the Supreme Being. This leads to an infinite variety of possible Gods, but not the Trinity.
He cautions that when we speak of God in the sense of
faith, God is not to be regarded as a concept or as religious ideas or of
attributes. Humanity has a natural
disposition to something that they sense as God and many believe in and confess
to that “something.” This god of
longings, or intuition, or concepts or attributes is not god.
In the written Word and in Jesus, the living Word, Barth
maintains that God proves Himself by presenting Himself to man in no uncertain
terms. God says to man, in so many
words, “Here I am. I live; I exist; this
is what I do; this is how I act. I am
real. It is silly to try to prove that I
exist” or conversely it is silly to try to prove that God does not exist. Man, it seems, is challenged to trust the
senses with which he was created. This harkens back
to Romans 1:20 and to Psalms 19:1 among
others: “the
invisible things of Him are clearly seen,” “The heavens declare His glory.”
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
It seems as though Barth is saying that we have feelings
and philosophies about god and then on the other hand we have God. Perhaps we may find a working analogy from
Yosemite and El Capitan. Brethren if I
may share a personal experience.
The
view of The Yosemite valley explodes upon your vision. It is surprising and breathtaking. I forgot what I was doing and stared at El
Capitan in spellbound wonder. My eyes
were completely off the road and not at all focused on driving. For this analogy let us imagine that we are
walking on a path through Monument Valley seeking to experience the supreme
magnificence of nature. And on the
stroll, you encounter El Cap in all its grandeur. You gasp in wonder. Your companion is wearing a wide brimmed hat
and dark sunglasses and is staring downward at the path so as not to stumble
and says to you, “Prove to me that El Cap exists.” You state that El Cap is the highest. It stands above all in the valley. You list attributes of size and shape. You list ontology of granite. You list its dominance of the valley and its
impassibility and stability. You
describe geological forces that formed the valley and the mountain. Your lists are accurate and exhaustive. Your friend refuses to look up yet thinks he
has a sound vivid understanding of El Cap.
But he does not possess even a vague understanding of El Cap presented
in all its power right before him.
 |
| Thomas Aquinas |
Barth continues to comment on the concept of God as
opposed to the reality of God. Barth
calls proofs of God, even the “five famous proofs”, humorous and fragile. He states that God needs no proof. Brethren, the five famous proofs are from the
Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas Part 1, question 2 on the existence of
God. They are as follows:
1. Motion: there has to be a prime unmoved mover.
2. Cause and
Effect: Why and how is there something instead of nothing?
3. Contingency: Not necessary. We are not contingent. TO BE demands
non-contingent or necessary being.
4. Scale of
Perfection: If there is good in the
world,
there is by definition something better. If there is something better, there is
something that is the BEST, which is the singular source of all good.
5. The order seen
in the world. This is argument by design. Design
required a designer.
RATIONAL
It may seem that Barth is proposing a contradiction in
that he supports rationality yet denigrates the rational proofs of Aquinas or
the findings of natural science. It is
not a contradiction. It is much more a
caution. His position here is a further
extension of his clear separation of faith in God versus knowledge of God. Human systems, even well-meaning ones, by
definition are human systems. That means
that their foundations are grounded upon the first reality which is man or upon
the first reality of the creation. This
makes man the measure of the first reality or makes the creation the first
reality and the foundation of all knowledge.
They then reason from this foundation of their first reality (evolution,
an old earth, or a new earth etc.) and reason toward knowledge including knowledge of God. Barth insists that the God is first
reality. He is not a derived reality.
GOD IS REALITY
He is not a
reasoned necessary being. The
foundational reality is God as revealed through His written word and through the Living Word, Jesus. Barth’s views on philosophy and natural science may seem harsh; however
Barth views in order combated the strong influence of 19th Century liberal
philosophy and theology and upheld the salvic exclusiveness and authority of
the Word of God found in the Bible.
It is true that neither a list of attributes found in
classical theology, nor “five famous proofs,” are God.
Nonetheless this
type of knowledge may be the point where God placed something of Himself in the
remnant of the image and likeness of Himself still located in corrupt man, and
it may be as Baxter Kruger indicates that the evangel may reach a man there,
even though it builds on a natural understanding.
A strong point is that Barth’s approach opposes the
dialectic of Hegel, which did not require revelation and was popular in the
public forum as well in the liberal church.
Barth teaches that the “God of the Christian Confession,”stands above all other gods. He is not discovered or invented by man. He does not need us. He can exist without us. Barth quotes St. Luke 2:14, “Glory to God in
the highest.” God stands above us,
“above our highest and deepest feelings, striving, intuitions, above the
products, even the most sublime, of the human spirit"
And in Jesus
Christ God becomes visible. “Jesus
Christ…who is at once the goal of the history of the nation Israel and the
beginning and starting point of the Church.”
Jesus is in history and is real.
He must not recede into the abstract and back into the world of ideas.
5. GOD AS FATHER
Sprinkled throughout this section is Barth’s correct
observation that God’s infinite and divine nature and attributes cannot be
understood or explained by finite man.
He bluntly confesses that, “…we don’t know what He is.” Here Barth introduces the concept of the
Trinity.
Close attending
any discussion of the Trinity is the concept of Person. In the 20th and 21st Century North American
mindset we tend to view person in a biological, social and legal context. To us the person is a biologically unique and
individual being; possessing a unique separate identity; possessing rights and
responsibilities in society. Although
operating within a society of individuals, a person is considered insular; in
no way bound-up or co-joined with the essence or nature of another person.
This understanding of a human person is the one which
most people superimpose on the concept of Divine Person in the Trinity. This colors our perception of Trinity with
human ideas of singleness, legal rights, and social responsibilities. Here Barth touches upon the concept of Person
and writes that, “The language of the early Church states that God is in three
persons…For in the Latin and in Greek usage person meant…‘way of being.’” Viewing the Trinity under the rubric of “way
of being,” aids in understanding the concept of Father.
GOD IS WHAT HE DOES
An observation from Theologian John McKenna will be
helpful in addressing the Father’s way of being. McKenna has written that “God is what God does.”
For example: You ask me an
ontological question: “What are
you?” I answer, “A human being.” The answer to this question is a static
direct object; a thing; me. Now we ask
the question, “What is the Father?” The answer from Barth in the Trinitarian sense is as follows: The Father is, “the source and origin of
another divine way of being, a second one which is distinct from the first and
which is yet His way of being and so is identical with Him in His divinity.” The
answer here,being a source, is an
ongoing activity, which is vital and directed outward,
that the Father is doing.
Barth does not interpret the words source and origin in
human terms of procreation and beginnings.
There never was a time when Jesus was not the Son of God. There never was a time when the Father was
not the Father. The Father and Son are
eternal therefore they can never be defined in conjunction with each other in
terms of generative power.
They are defined
by relationship. Being the Son is Jesus’
way of being because eternally there always was His Father. Conversely, the Father could not have been
the Father unless there was the Son existing eternally with Him. In other words, God’s way of being as source
and originator is called Father.
Barth points out that the Father, in His way of being as
source and originator, became creator of another, which is in distinction from
Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
That other is us. As our Creator
He is our maker, we are His creatures.
As our source and origin He is our Father and we are His children. God’s way of being Father in creation means
much more that He will be our Father; it has the profounder meaning that He,
“wills to be also our Father.” Barth
writes that as Creator on our behalf He has, “given us Himself in Jesus Christ
and that He has united us to Himself in the Holy Spirit; The One God is by nature
and in eternity the Father, the source of His Son and, in union with Him, the
source of the Holy Spirit. In virtue of
this way of being of His He is by grace the Father of all men, whom He calls in
time, in His Son and through His Spirit, to be His children.” Barth says we are His children by His free
work and mercy
Closing doxology:
Hear oh nations, hear oh peoples; The LORD Jesus, our Christ is one,
yesterday, today and forever. AMEN
Rev. George Relic, Assistant Pastor
Fountain of Life Church
A congregation of Grace Communion International
No comments:
Post a Comment