Update 2: Through the help of some blog friends I’ve revised this a bit to reflect what we should explicitly and implicitly take from these Creeds to inform our understanding of the Rule of Faith and minimums necessary for belief. Thanks Greg and Blake!
Update: In my haste I forgot the Holy Spirit! Oops đ I’ve made the revision below to the answer to my first question
Two questions have arisen a few times this week as I’ve waded waist deep in emerging church theological critique: 1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”; 2) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace? Am I simply replacing once camp with another?
1) What do I mean by “Rule of Faith”
First, in regards to The Rule of Faith, and I’m tipping my hand here, for me that is shorthand for historic Christian orthodoxy. I feel that’s become a loaded set of words, which is why I’ve swapped them for RoF. I realize I am opening myself up to the question, “Well WHOSE orthodoxy do we choose? The East, West? Catholicism or Protestantism? Calvinism or Arminianism? Who or what decides as orthodox?” I get the question, but find it to be an easy out for a conversation on basic Christian beliefs.
While I am well aware of the differences between West and East, between Catholic and Protestant, there are still some things at the base upon which the apostolic Church of Jesus Christ (EO, RC, P) is built. The Rule of Faith at its broadest point is the Apostles and Nicene Creeds. You could call it Nicene Christianity.
Everyone at minimum must agree with Nicene Christianity in order to be a Christian. That’s what I’m saying.
Look at the Apostles Creed for reference:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living 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 the life everlasting.
Amen.
Look at the Nicene Creed for reference:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Both Creeds explicitly affirm:
- Trinitarian theology.
- God as Creator who is distinct from creation.
- the Lordship of Jesus as exclusive Lord
- the deity of Christ; Jesus was/is very God
- physical incarnation of Jesus as a man in virgin birth; Jesus was/is very human
- the literal suffering, death of Jesus (more on this below)
- the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
- ascension and exaltation of Jesus Christ as Lord
- individual culpability, forgiveness and judgment of sin
- Jesus Christ will come as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who believe in Him.
- The Holy Spirit is an active member of the Trinity, who is co-worshiped with the Father and Son, the giver of life, and author of Textual Revelation.
While not explicitly spelled out, there is also an assumption of are four implicit ideas we could draw from these Creeds to inform the Rule:
- Holy Scriptures, as given and applied by the Holy Spirit, are the revelational authority for understanding these components of the Christian faith.
- Original Sin: while this cashes out differently in the West (a strong view) and east (a weak/different view) it is still assumed by both. Both Creeds assume something is wrong with us (Sin), which necessitated Christ’s death and resurrection, and need for forgiveness of those sins in the first place. This later translated into the belief in Original Sin, a belief affirmed by the apostolic Church which submitted to those Creeds. It seems as though this later affirmation can be said to be implicit in these Creeds, though admittedly this is taking theological interpretive license. It is a belief, however, that is necessary for confessing Christians.
- Substitution (not necessarily penal) has been a vital part of understanding the Event of the Cross. The Creeds explicitly draw attention to Christ’s suffering and death and to their significance for rescue. Implicit in Jesus’ sufferings and death is His “shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay (for sins) and reconciling them to God by his sacrificial death.” Implicit in the Creeds is a substitution on behalf of humanity. (i.e. How can you be a Christian and not believe that Christ died in your place?).
- Eternal Life(heaven on new earth) and Eternal Death (hell), the results of judgment. The Creeds affirm Jesus’ descent into Hell and that Jesus will stand as Judge, logical results of which is judgment. While the positive consequences for judgment are explicitly stated as “resurrection of the dead” and “the life of the world to come”/”everlasting life,” it is logical that the implicit negative consequences of judgment are “hell” (explicitly stated in Jesus need to descend there in his salvific death) and death.
In true Kuyperian form: Creation, Rebellion, Rescue, Re-Creation. This is how I believe God tells His Story of Rescue, as I outline in my first book. (Yes, shameless plug!) From my estimation, this is the Story to which both the Communion of Saints and the Spirit of God testify. Yes, I realize this is parsed-out and nuanced across the East/West and Catholic/Protestant lines of division. As far as historic orthodoxyâaka The Rule of Faithâgoes, though, this seems as basic as you get.
So the working definition for The Rule of Faith (as rooted in Tradition and Scripture):
- The Holy Scriptures are authoritative revelation for understanding Church/Christian life, practice and belief.
- God is Creator, who is both above/outside/separate from creation and intimately involved with it.
- Humanity is rebelliously fallen and individually sinful, in need of rescue. Theologically this is translated into Original Sin.
- Jesus Christ is both very God and very Human.
- Jesus Christ rescued us through substitution (not necessarily strictly penal) on the Cross; He took our place by suffering and dying.
- Jesus Christ physically arose from the dead and ascended to the exalted right hand of God.
- Jesus Christ will return as Judge, where resurrection of the body and the life to come in the glory of His Kingdom is given for those who confess Him as Lord and Messiah; eternal death are given for those who don’t.
- The Holy Spirit is active in the world, revealing, provoking, nourishing and sustaining a person in everlasting New Life in Christ.
So what do you think? Do you think this is fair? Do you think this is, at minimum, what it means to be a confessing Christian? Am I missing something? If so, what? Do I include too much? If so what?
1) If I am rejecting the theology that has come out of the Emergent conversation, what do I embrace?
As to the second question, I’ll let you read below if you have time. My answer is basically my blog’s “faith” section, which outlines my credo, what I believe. I think you’ll find it will be difficult to pin me to any theological tradition (sorry, no “young, restless, Reformer” here), though I am broadly protestant and perhaps more particularly evangelical.
I realize it is very long, overly detailed, and thoroughly systematic, so I am not expecting or insisting you engage or even read all of it. Perhaps there are pieces (like the Sin section) that would give more context to where I am confessionally, especially for the discussion at hand.
Enjoy!
On Revelation
Prolegomena
I believe the Nature of Revelation should be understood as divine self-disclosure. God, through his own will, decides to purposefully unveil Himself to Humanity. These God-revealed things belong to Humans, allowing them to understand what is real about God and His Works. (Deut. 29:29)
I believe we understand what is real about God and His Works through two sources: General Revelation and Special Revelation.
CreationâGeneral Revelation
I believe General Revelation is Godâs self-disclosure to all of Humanity through the Created Order in three purposeful acts of unveiling: Nature; an internal, created awareness of the Divine; and the participation of God in History. (Rom. 1:19)
I believe that God unveils Himself through all He Created in the Natural World, and it is a means by which Man can both know of and about Him. (Rom. 1:20)
I believe all of Humanity has access to the knowledge of and about God through an internal awareness of an âOtherâ that is beyond and above themselves. (Rom. 1:21)
I believe Godâs purposeful participation in History reveals a Creator who is intimately involved in the affairs of His Creation through deliberate acts of disclosure, human involvement, and redemption. (Ps. 140)
SinâEffect on Understanding of General Revelation
I believe, that despite Godâs purposeful act of self-disclosure, Humans struggle with properly understanding God and His Works. Though Humans are crafted after the Image of God and poses a limited understanding of Him, that Created Image is broken because of Sin; because Humans have consciously chosen the Way of Self over against the Way of God, Humans misread Godâs self-disclosure through nature, human conscience, and history. (John 12:40)
RedemptionâSpecial Revelation
I believe, while Godâs transcendence is disclosed through General Revelation and reveals a Creator who is over and above His Creation, Special Revelation helps us understand God as a Creator who is intimately involved with His Creation, a God of immanence.
Function of Special Revelation
I believe this second instance of Divine Unveiling corrects the distorted and misunderstood views of God broken Humans experience as the result of Sin; because Humans are holistically broken, they need a more complete unveiling to understand God and His Works. Furthermore, this second act of disclosure more fully unveils God in light of his partial disclosure through Creation. God is more fully unveiled through the Holy Scriptures, Jesus Christ, and continued acts of divine self-disclosure. (II Cor. 4:4)
Types of Special Revelation
I believe, while the ultimate standard for understanding God and His Works is found in Jesus and testified to by the Holy Scriptures, God, through the Holy Spirit, continues to aid Human understanding through continued acts of divine self-disclosure. Through lesser forms of unveilingâincluding visions and dreams, miracles, redemptive acts in History (such as the Exodus), prophecy, and personal encounters with the RedeemerâGod continues to reveal what is real about Himself and His Works. This understanding never conflicts with the Person of Jesus Christ nor does it stand over and against the Holy Scriptures.
I believe, through the climax of Special Revelation, God and His Reality is fully unveiled through Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Ultimately, the fullest expression of what is real about Godâs nature, character, intentions, desires, and Works are entirely revealed through the Person of Jesus, and only properly understood by observing, understanding, and listening to Him. Though we textually understand God and His Works through the Holy Scriptures, even this piece of revelation must be interpreted through the Teachings, Way and Person of Jesus Christ. (John 14:9; Heb. 1:3)
I believe one of Godâs primary acts of immanent unveiling is through the sacred writings of the children of Israel and apostles of Jesus. These collections of writings in their respective testaments are compiled in a Sacred Text we call the Bible. While it is not Godâs ultimate act of self-disclosure, the Holy Scriptures are the standard by which we measure our understanding of God and His Works. (II Tim. 3:16)
I believe the textual unveiling found in the Holy Scriptures is well preserved, proves and authenticates itself, and truthfully contains everything God desired to communicate to humans about Himself and His Works. Through this textual self-disclosure God beckons Humans to relationship and worship, calls them live according to a Way of Life, and restores them to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation. (II Pet. 1:23-25)
I believe the Sacred Text God gave to Humanity is composed of the 66 books of the Holy Scriptures. This Sacred Text includes the 27 historically recognized New Testament texts and 39 Hebrew texts of the Jewish Testament. God primarily authored these books through the full participation of human authors under the guidance of their Jewish Spiritual Traditions, Culture, and specific contexts.
Marks of the Holy Scriptures
I believe Godâs textual self-disclosure, as found in the Holy Scriptures, are marked by six distinctions: Authority, Power, Unity, Sufficiency, Perspicuity, and Contemporaniaty.
I believe the marks of the Holy Scriptures are understood by the following: it is authoritative on how to restore Humanity and Creation to God, and what it means to live restored in these relationships (Matt. 4:1-4, 7, and 10); it unveils the power of God to restore the God-Man relationship and Creation to the way He intended them to be at the beginning of creation (Rom. 1:16; Is. 55:11); it is an ancient document of great unity that reveals Godâs one continuous Story from beginning to end, and to properly understand God a reader and listener of this particular divine self-disclosure must sit in this grand, unified Redemptive Narrative, which includes four Acts: Creation, Rebellion, Redemption, and Consummation (Gen. 1:1, John 1:1, Rev. 21:1); it sufficiently testifies to everything we need in order to understand how the God-Man relationship and Creation is restored, and how to properly relate to God and others (II Pet. 1:3); it is perspicuous, meaning the Message of Restoration it carries is clear and can be plainly and simply understood by all Humans (Deut. 29:29, Ps. 119:105); finally it applies to contemporary problems and provides contemporary solutions, because while God was speaking to specific people at particular times, He was still speaking through the prophets and apostles to those people with us in mind, too (I Pet. 1:23-25).
On God
Prolegomena
I believe God is properly understood as balanced Transcendence and Immanence, both over and above creation and intimately involved with it.
Creator-God Over And Above Creation
I believe in one God, the Almighty and Creator of all that existed and still exists on Earth and in Heaven, both material and spiritual. As Creator, God stands over and above the creation; the creation has its origin in God and is dependent on and separate from Him.
I believe God is properly understood as existing in three Persons with one Essence; God is the Father, the Son (Word), and the Spirit, and unified through a mutual indwelling, interpenetrating dance that centers on one character. As such, God is a community of self-giving lovers who know, will, and act together and in each other in accordance with this Divine Character.
I believe, as the Creator of creation, God is entirely independent, is from Himself, and depends on no one or thing for His existence. Also, because God is entirely independent He needs nothing, including creatures; because God exits in an eternal interpenetrating dance, God needs no one and nothing.
I believe Godâs character is stable and unchanging, but Godâs actions are not; while the essence of God does not change, God does change His mind and responds to Humans dynamically.
I believe God is everlasting, meaning while God stands above and beyond time, He still experiences it along with His creation; though God never had a beginning nor will He have an end, He does move through the Sequence of Time with Humans.
I believe God knows all of the possible outcomes of yet-unexperienced Time, while not entirely knowing how the exact Sequence of Time will unfold. Because He created Humans as free creatures who can freely choose from a range of possible actions, God does not know exactly what those Free Creatures will choose. But though Humans can choose different options, thus shaping the Sequence of Time, God still knows how that Sequence could unfold and is endlessly resourceful to accomplish His will in the face of those choices.
I believe, while God is above and beyond Time, while still experiencing the Sequence of Time, the same is true for Godâs presence in created space: while God as Creator stands above and beyond created space, He still is intimately involved with that created space. Through Yahweh, we see God both experiencing Time with His people and standing above and beyond It.
I believe God the all powerful and fully capable of carrying through to completion the plans He established before the foundation of the world. While God fully participates in His Story and is affected by the choices of Humans, He also stands above and beyond It and actively accomplished His holy will.
Fall-Godâs Relationship To Evil In Creation
I believe, since God created Humans on purpose to be in relationship with Himself for eternity, He created them with the freedom to choose Him or not. This potential for relational rejection left allowed for sin and the presence of absolute evil. So while God did not create evil or sin, He allowed for the possibility, and still does. I do not believe God decrees nor does He desire evil and sin.
Redeemer-God Intimately Involved With Creation
I believe the fullest expression of the nature, character, and desires of God is found in the person of Jesus Christ, the God-with-us God. In Him, we see a hyper-relational, hyper-present God who fully participates in the Sequence of Time; God is intimately involvement with His creation through Jesus Christ as Redeemer.
I believe one of Godâs primary postures before Humanity is Love. As the God-with-us God Jesus Christ, He relates to Humanity as a Lover. The Cross
I believe God also relates to Humanity in holiness. While He is hyper-relational and relates to Humanity in love, Godâs essential characteristic is Holiness. Because God is holy, He demands that we be holy as He is holy; God designed us to choose Him and His holy Way
I believe Godâs Holiness includes wrath and judgement. God both has and will stand as judge over Humanity for their sinful choices. At the Cross God did judge the sins of the world through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and poured out His wrath upon him; at the End of the Age God will judge the sinful choices of each Human and render due punishment.
On Creation & Humanity
Creation
I believe the Creation event was a purposeful act of God to bring into existence a Reality for His glory, reflection, and interaction, a Reality that was formed from nothing; the universe and all that exists therein was created on purpose with purpose by the Creator. This act of creation was a real time-space event that set the universe and all its processes in motion through the Will and Word of God. (Gen. 1 & 2; Col, 1:15-17)
Humanity
I believe Humans should be understood by the term Eikon, a Greek word that means âimage bearer.â Man is the culmination of Godâs purposeful act of creation and is crafted after the image of God. This âreflection of the Creatorâ was originally created to enjoy, worship, and love Him forever in an eternal relationship with Him defined by mutual love. As Eikons made in the image of God, we are set apart from the rest of Creation not simply because we have a soul, but rather because we are fashioned after God Himself. (Gen. 1:27, 2:7, 9:6; Ps. 139:13-16; Jm. 3:9-10)
I believe as Eikons, our reflection of God is understood through our capacities and relationships. As Image Bearers, we have been given higher capacities, like free will, intelligence, and emotion. Additionally, we reflect God through our relationships with Creation, Others, and God; as God is a relational Being who exists in a community of self-giving lovers, so also we are relational and properly express our human nature in community. (Gen. 1:27-28; Ps. 8:3-8)
I believe Humans truly are earthlings, meaning earth is our home: We were created from the earth and created to exist on earth, and our eventual eternal destination will be on a fully restored earth. (Gen. 1:27-30; Rev. 21:1-4)
I believe Humans have two parts, Body and Soul, that were meant to function as an integrated whole. While Death causes those two parts to become separated, we were never supposed to realize that we have a soul separate from our body. Only Sin has opened our eyes to the distinction between Body and Soul. (Gen 2:15-17; 3:7)
I believe, because we are physical beings, the hope of the Believer is the resurrection of the Body and reunification of Body and Soul into a whole, functional unit. (1 Cor. 15)
Rebellion
I believe Sin is human rebellion against God and His Way. This intentional, personal rebellion results in a vandalism of shalom and death for individual humans. (Ps. 14:2-3; Rm. 3:23)
I believe the First Humans, by rebelling against God and His Way, disrupted the shalom of Creation, plunging all of it into disruption. (Gen. 3)
Adamâs Rebellion
I believe through Adamâs initial rebellion, Humans are born polluted by sin, receiving a distorted nature, and continue to rebel against God and His Way, resulting in Death. That pollution influences the free choices of all humans to choose relationship with God and follow in His Way. We are guilty of sin after we choose to disobey God and vandalize shalom. (Rm. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22; 1 Jn. 1:8-10)
I believe Sin ultimately is autonomy; Humans want to be independent agents who are free from the constrains of an Other outside his/herself. This autonomy was expressed by Adam and Eve when they wanted to be like God, knowing both Good and Evil. To this day, Humans continue to sin out of a selfish, autonomous heart. (Gen. 3; Matt. 15:18-20)
The Consequences of Rebellion
I believe the consequences of Human Rebellion are exhaustive and holistic, infecting every crevice of Creation; Human Rebellion caused a rippled effect beyond humans to all of Creation, which groans for ultimate restoration under its weight. (Rm. 8:20-22)
I believe, while still fundamentally Eikons of God, Humans are thoroughly broken, rebellious, and shaped by Sin. Through Adamâs initial rebellion we continue to rebel against God and His Way. As cracked Eikons, we are desperate for holistic restoration, a restoration we are incapable of providing on our own. (Is. 53:6a; Rm. 1:18-32)
I believe Human Culture is fallen and polluted by Sin. While human society is capable of producing much good through common grace, such as art and science, it is still broken and incapable of restoring itself to the way God intended it to be.
I believe the earth itself and the animal kingdom are also affected by the pollution of Sin and Human rebellion. Through this pollution natural evils occur, like tsunamis and hurricanes, and animals are affected so that they eat each other, resulting in death that should not be. (Rm. 8:20-22)
Common Grace Despite Rebellion
I believe, despite a full-scale, worldwide brokenness, God blankets His Creation with common grace, which protects His valued Creation and preserves it for the sake of Redemption.
I believe the common grace which God gives Creation provides natural blessings (e.g. rain and sun), restrains Sin (e.g. enables people to do moral good), and contributes to civic good (e.g. environmental clean-up projects or volunteers feeding the homeless), and cultural good (e.g. education, art, and science). So even while all of Creation groans in its brokenness, goodness still exists and flows from the gracious hand of God through the Holy Spirit. (Gen. 20:6; 1 Sam. 25:26; Matt. 5:45; Rm. 13:1-5; Heb. 1:2-3)
I believe the existence of common grace reflects a God who did not abandon His Creation and whose posture toward it is love and restoration. It is out of His love for all of Creation that He continues to preserve it and desires to restore it entirely, a restoration that is rooted in and accomplished through Jesus Christ. (Rm. 5:6-8)
On The Son
Prolegomena
I believe Godâs intention toward His good Creation is Rescue and Restoration, despite Human Rebellion; even when Humans were Rebels, God sent His Son Jesus Christ to die in order to rescue and restore. (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8)
God and Redemption
I believe God enacted His Redemptive Plan by invading the world as a human, by becoming like us; the Father willingly gave His one and only unique Son Jesus Christ to live the sinless life we could not, pay the penalty for sin, and defeat Death. (Jn. 1:10-14; 3:16-21)
Person of Jesus
I believe Jesus is one Person with two full Natures; Jesus is a single Person who is fully Divine and fully Human. As a Divine Being, Jesus possess all the attributes of God; as a Human Being, Jesus possesses all the attributes of Humanity, including Body and Soul. (Jn. 1:1, 14)
I believe you cannot give a positive statement regarding Jesusâ one person and two natures without underemphasizing either His oneness or two natures. Therefore, it is best to say that Jesusâ two natures are without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation; the natures of Jesus cannot be confused or changed, neither can they be divided or separated. (Council of Chalcedon)
I believe Jesus could sin, but would not because He had a strong moral will. Jesus chose to consciously operate as a full Human, which allowed for the possibility of sin, without using His Deity to cheat. Therefore, since He was really a Human and resisted the temptation to Sin all the way to the end, He could trace the steps of Human Rebellion and set things to rights for Humans and the World. (Heb. 2:14-18)
I believe, in His humanity, Jesus was finite, but not fallen; while Jesus was physically susceptible to the things in a fallen world that could hurt any human (e.g. sickness and disease, bruising from a fall, mistakes from the learning process, and death), Jesus could not suffer internally from guilt, corruption, or sin, nor from confusion or mental illness. (Jn. 1:14; Heb. 2:14-18)
Work of Jesus
I believe Jesus is the Victorious Obedient Substitute, and His Redemptive Act rescues and restores Creation in this way: Through His Life, Jesus obeyed God perfectly after the First Adam did not, while demonstrating how we are to live as Humans; through His Death, Jesus paid the final penalty to God for Rebellion on behalf of all Humans through a final sacrifice, thus restoring Humans to relationship with God; through His Resurrection, Jesus defeated the Dark Powers to liberate all Humanity from Satanâs control and free us from the bondage of Evil and Sin. (Heb. 4:14-15; 10:1-18; Rom. 6)
I believe through Jesusâ Life: His baptism commissioned Him for ministry and empowered Him by the Holy Spirit to retrace Adamâs steps, defeat the Dark Powers, and restore the God-Man relationship through His sacrifice; He perfectly obeyed Godâs moral law throughout His life, resisting the temptation to sin when Adam gave in and disobeyed Godâs Way; and His words and deeds taught Humanity how to obey the will of God, while actually defeating Evil. (Rom. 5:12-21)
I believe through Jesusâ Death, He bore the punishment and guilt for all Human Rebellion, making peace between God and Humans and leading to the adoption of people by God the Father as Sons and Daughters. (Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 4:4-8)
I believe through Jesusâ Resurrection, He triumphed over the Dark Powers, making a mockery of them, and revealed that the Father accepted His sacrifice on behalf of Humans. Furthermore, we are raised to New Life through His defeat of Death, and we are declared and made righteous before God. (Rom. 4:25; Col. 2:13-15; 1 Cor. 15)
I believe through Jesusâ Ascension, we have an enthroned Lord who is now ruling over the entire world and working on our behalf by empowering us to live the Way of God that Adam did not. (Heb. 2:1-18; 7:23-25)
I believe God intends to rescue and restore all of Humanity. Thus, in coming to Earth, Jesus intended to redeem all of Humanity through His Life, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. His Redemptive Act is sufficient for all Humans and effective for everyone who will eventually embrace Jesus as Lord. (1 Tim. 2:4-6, 4:9-10)
On The Holy Spirit
Person of the Holy Spirit
I believe the Holy Spirit should be thought of as a personal entity, because he refers to himself in personal language (i.e. I and me). (Acts 13:2)â¨I believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead, coequal with the Father and Son. (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2)
I believe the Holy Spirit possesses personal characteristics, such as intelligence, will and emotions. As an intelligent Being, He teaches humans all things; as a willful Being He gives gifts (spiritual and personal) as He wills; as an emotional Being, He can be grieved, lied to and blasphemed, and ministers to and convicts humans. (Jn. 14:26; 1 Cor. 12:11; Eph 4:30; Acts 5:3-4; Matt. 12:31; Mark 3:29; Rom. 8:26; Jn. 16:8)
I believe the Holy Spirit is identified as God, possesses the perfections of God, and does the works of God. The Holy Spirit is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal. (1 Cor. 2:10-11; Jn. 16:13; Luke 1:35; Rom. 15:19; Heb. 9:14)
Work of the Holy Spirit
I believe the Holy Spiritâs role is as Agent; by the Holy Spirit, the Godhead accomplishes their works in cooperation with the Father and the Son (e.g. Salvation is from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit).
I believe the Holy Spiritâs presence is found in the Old Testament through several movements: He acted with the Father and Son in the Creation Event; He has acted on behalf of Godâs people through acts of divine care; He empowered Old Testament civil leaders (e.g. the Kings and Judges), directed craftsmanship (e.g. The building of the Tabernacle), and anointed prophets (e.g. Isaiah and Ezekiel); and He helped accomplish certain salvific events (such as The Exodus). (Gen. 1:2; Ps, 104:29-30; 1 Sam. 16:13; Ex. 31:3-5; Ez. 2:2, 8:3, 11:1, 24)
I believe the Holy Spirit participated in the Redemptive Event of Jesus Christ. By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived, empowered at baptism, directed into the wilderness to be tempted, taught, performed miracles, offered Himself as a sacrifice, and resurrected. (Lk. 2:52; Matt. 3:16; 4:1; Lk. 4:14, 18-21; Matt. 12:25-32; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 3:18)
I believe at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit created a new people of God under a new covenantâspecifically the Churchâand imbues that community with new life, while commissioning them with a new mission. (1 Cor. 12:13; Rom. 8:1-4; Jn. 14:16-18, 26; Matt. 28:19-20)
I believe the Holy Spirit indwells individuals after salvation to bring spiritual rebirth, empower them to live the Churchâs mission, illuminate the Holy Scriptures, intercede for them, sanctify their life, seal them in relationship with God, and impart particular spiritual and sign gifts.â¨(Titus 3:5; Eph. 5:18; 1 Cor. 6:12-20; 2:10-16; Eph. 6:18; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 1:13-14; Eph. 4:11, Rom. 12:6-8, 1 Pet. 4:11, 1 Cor. 12:4-11, 28)
I believe the Holy Spirit is working to bring ultimate, cosmic restoration to the entire world as an agent applying Jesus Christâs work.
Doxology
Thanks be to God forever, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.













Speaking to your questions on the first part of this post…
I think that is a pretty solid rule of faith. The only thing that I think is missing is the role of the Holy Spirit in OUR lives. You mention what you believe about the Holy Spirit in the second part, and I agree with that… but I personally think that part of that role is a core part of the Rule of Faith.
Make sense? Agree? Disagree? I’m curious as to why you wouldn’t include that….
Thanks!
Dan King
For some reason a comment from @bibledude (http://www.bibledude.net) did not post. Here it is:
Speaking to your questions on the first part of this post…
I think that is a pretty solid rule of faith. The only thing that I think is missing is the role of the Holy Spirit in OUR lives. You mention what you believe about the Holy Spirit in the second part, and I agree with that… but I personally think that part of that role is a core part of the Rule of Faith.
Make sense? Agree? Disagree? I'm curious as to why you wouldn't include that….
Thanks!
Dan King
Thanks DAN! Oops đ I made the revisions. Thanks for the cat-like eyes!!
-jeremy
Thanks for adding the comment… I was reading this on my DROID earlier, and accessing this online didn't seem to open with your IntenseDebate comment system… so it must have defaulted to the WordPress system…
Anyway… Thanks for making the change! I wasn't trying to get you to change it, but I do like it much better with that piece in there!
for sure! The Holy Spirit's sort of an important part of the Rule đ Obviously in haste I overlooked it so thanks for pointing it out…how embarrassing!
-jeremy
Fantastic job here, Jeremy. Well done.
Hey Jeremy! I really appreciate the tone you've taken so far in all of these posts! You've kept everything very civil and calm, which seems to be making fruitful discussion possible! Thanks for that!
With all due respect, I think you're on [i]incredibly[/i] shaky ground when you start "assuming" things are implied in the creeds, and then giving those assumptions equal weight with the creeds themselves. If you'd like to make the Apostle's or Nicene Creed the benchmark for historic Christian faith, that's fine, but it means you get to use the creeds themselves, not something you see as "assumed" or "implied" or "not actually stated, but …"
I think 3 of your assumptions are questionable at best. The first one, on the Scriptures, I would not disagree with in its content, but certainly can be assumed to be part of the Apostle's Creed, given that the creed was likely written before the Scriptures were actually canonized. Early communities could easily have affirmed the Apostle's Creed while having lively disagreements over what should be considered canon.
Second, I frankly am at a complete loss over how original sin is "assumed" in the creeds. There is exactly one mention of the word "sin" in each of the creeds, "I believe … in the forgiveness of sins" in the Apostle's Creed and "We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins" in the Nicene. I'm baffled as to how that clearly implies the assumption that we inherent a sin nature from birth, for Augustine as part of the sperm, so that from the very moment of creation we are inherently sinful. If you'd like to assert it as, under your definition, a necessary part of orthodox Christian faith, that's fine, but it certainly isn't mentioned in the Creeds, and I have no idea how it can be considered "assumed".
For your third assumption, eternal death and hell, what do you do with all of the early Church fathers who affirmed some form of universalism, like Clement or Origin or Gregory of Nyssa? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gregory of Nyssa actually helped preside over the Council of Nicea? Surely you wouldn't assert Clement or Gregory were not real Christians?
Thanks Greg for your encouraging words and your push back! See my response below to Blake…
-jeremy
Jeremy, thanks for posting this clarification. First let me say that though I disagree with your conclusions theologically, I am glad that your are taking Emergent to task over its theology in a more academic manner than most. Like I mentioned in a previous thread, I've been disappointed that more of these sort of critiques haven't emerged (no pun intended) and, for what its worth, I wish more robust theological engagements were taking place on the other side as well. I think the lack of these has contributed to the fact that Emergent hasn't really created too many theologians. And that's unfortunate.
That being said, I tend to agree with Greg here. If you want to use the Creeds as the norm, that is fine. But once you start making assertions about what is "implied" or "affirmed" you are entering some pretty tenuous territory and make the shift from putting the Creeds forward to making constructive theological claims and interpretations about them. I think it is untenable to conflate the two, especially when we are talking about "rules" of the faith, because in so doing you are, once again, limiting yourself to a singular interpretation. Now that is fine if we are talking about theological claims in se, but perhaps a bit myopic if we are talking about the overall norm.
So I think my previous questions still stand. I myself affirm the historic creeds but I interpret them in a manner quite different than your claims above (substitutionary atonement and original sin being chief among them). But again, I am not Barthian nor am I neo-orthodox. For me, the umbrella under which we both sit is big enough for you, I, Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren and many other practitioners with whom I passionately agree and vehemently disagree. Here I find John Franke's (and others, to be sure) claim that our faith is inherently diverse pluriform to be quite compelling. I would want to affirm a Christian reality based upon plurality which is included, but certainly not limited to, your interpretation of the Creeds.
Again, it seems to me that this comes down to how we deal with and negotiate theological difference. Are our theological sources (Scripture, the tradition, etc.) repositories of timeless, eternal truths that static and fixed or are they more dynamic requiring, under the guidance and inspiration of the Spirit, new forms and interpretations for the ever-changing current situation? Put another way, can the tradition speak against itself? My reading of church history suggests that it not only can but should as we are being pulled closer and closer to God's future. Though it is far from perfect and deserves penetrating critiques like your own, I believe that Emergent is but one form among many that is seeking to accomplish this.
Blake and Greg,
Thanks for your kind words! I'm glad you sense a good spirit about all of this, and are also appreciate for what I am trying to do…
Also thanks for both of your push back and for your accountability đ
I'll quote an oft repeated maxim from my days on Capitol Hill: "I'd like to ask the Chair if I can be permitted to revise and extend my statements."
I get what you are saying and can understand your qualms. I guess I did take a bit of theological interpretive license with a few things so I've revised the post a bit but will say a few things to better explain myself:
1) Re: Scripture…while the formal cannonization process did not take place until the later 4th century, it merely affirmed what had been generally embraced for decades prior. The core of the NT, the gospels, was treated as main source by the end the 1st century. The Pauline Epistles, shorter Catholic epistles, Acts, and Revelations were much-cited sources within the church by the 2nd and 3rd centuries. In the 4th Athanasius's FESTAL LETTER 39 (367) is the first document to affirm the 27 books that were generally affirmed as authoritative anyway. Of course this is a simplification of a long process…my only point is that what WAS affirmed between the Nicene and Constantinople councils that gave us both creeds was already widely affirmed and embraced, forming the foundation for what was written, that it was the revelational authority for understanding the "pieces" behind the Creeds. So I'm going to stick to this inference. Are you suggesting it was not or there were other authorities behind their points?
2) Re: Original Sin…OK I grant I went too far outside the Creeds with this one, given the theologically charged nature of this term. But I do still affirm that both Creeds assume something is wrong with us, which necessitated Christ's death and resurrection, and need for forgiveness in the first place. So I will leave it at that, while still affirming the need to believe in Original Sin, a belief latter affirmed by the apostolic Church which submitted to those Creeds.
3) Re: eternal death and hell…I wonder why Jesus had to descend into Hell of there was not a literal one to which people went in the first place, and why was this affirmed? Also the Creeders did affirm that Jesus will stand as Judge, the logical result of which is judgment. Furthermore, while the positive consequences for judgment are explicitly stated as "resurrection of the dead" and "the life of the world to come"/"everlasting life," it is logical that the negative consequences of judgment are "hell" (explicitly stated in Jesus need to descend there in his salvific death) and death. Would this not at least be implicit in these Creeds? I will revise to reflect this explicit/implicit perspective.
4) Re: substitution…while atonement isn't explicitly stated in the Creed, what can be detected in them is the so-called "realist theory," which directed attention to Christ's sufferings and to their significance for rescue. Patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines, 1968) makes clear the realist theory, "pictured Christ as substituting himself for sinful men, shouldering the penalty which justice required them to pay, and reconciling them to God by his sacrificial death." (376) Even when the Greek Fathers embraced the so-called "physical theory" (Christ became man in order to restore us to the way God intended us to be as the Imago Dei), they acknowledged the necessity for Christ to offer himself as a sacrifice and his death to act as a substitute. (377) Again, implicit in Jesus' sufferings and death is substitution on behalf of humanity, which I will make more clear. Substitution isn't the only way we need to frame atonement (I frame it as the Victorious [Chritus Victor] Obedient [Recapitulation] Substitude), but again "How can one be a Christian if one does not believe Jesus did not die in their place?"
Anyway, thanks for helping see some areas where I did go a bit beyond the actual Creeds and what they explicitly stated. I will revise my original post to make it clear I believe these 4 items are implicit in this foundation for the Rule of Faith, while also being necessary points of belief.
Slight correction, I'm not saying ALL readings of Original Sin need go this far– but that they have at some points in my experience. I'm also personally hinting at where I stand, which leans towards Eastern Orthodox, and Jewish views of Creation-wide disorder/sinfulness that need not necessarily worry about details of "inherited" sin-natures with Augustine's precision. But I'm personally quite interested in learning about all positions more.
Sin is a reality for me… but how it is defined can be VERY crucial in the directions, and possible abuses a theology can take. Colonized peoples the world over have a good reason to critique a doctrine long used to justify their exploitation, and I consider the terrible consignment of unbaptized infants to hell a grave theological abuse that has gravely grieved many families for generations (and which the Catholic church has itself repented of somewhat in recent years).
Augustine, like any flawed human being was trying to explain a Mystery with the best language, philosophy and foresight of his time. Critiquing him need not abandon the importance of what he was trying to describe, but the presence of sin itself in our world means all possible doctrines can be taken to dangerous, and mistaken extremes.
Great post– going to take some time to digest it– and looks like you're already incorporating some critique constructively.
My question for Original Sin is, I suppose whether its necessary to see it as innately changing human NATURE from Birth, or a more complex process, disease model as one might say, that shows more nuance, and sees Sin as both personal AND across Creation, something all the universe is groaning for release from. My biggest problems with original sin are how its utter depravity is emphasized to obscure the Imagio Dei and original goodness of humanity. That original goodness may NEED God in Christ to be liberated from sin (I'm not fully "do it yourself" Palegian). But I consider an hyperinflated Original Sin is itself heretical in that it obscures the goodness of God's creation, tends towards an almost subtle neo-Gnostic hatred of the flesh/world, and has justified numerous "save their souls, their bodies be dammed– or exploited" colonial theologies.
But you clear value Imagio Dei, and I look forward to wrestling with this more and responding further in a bit.
Thank you! You have said it very well indeed! I thank you, for using the Creeds!!!! I speak not as one, who has been part of Emergent. I speak as one who has had it "visited" on them. Reading these posts & your interview w/Chris, is helping me understand what I saw & it's "other" rather than "different". Thank you Jeremy, & greetings from the other side of Michigan's Pond!
Response – part 1: While I personally agree with the content of the two creeds you picked as the doctrinal minimal common ground and with about 95 % of your more detailed personal confession, I still have difficulties understanding what role this "rule of faith" ought to play now. What do you do with a teaching that plainly rejects ANY of the statements made in the version of the creeds you chose?
For example, you deliberately chose to include the filioque phrase which was added to the original Nicene Creed in the late 6th century and caused the first great schism. Does that mean that the entire Eastern Orthodox church is heretical and un-Christian? Or to turn your own argument around – is everyone outside the Eastern Orthodox Church heretical for NOT sticking to the original version from the 4th century? How does this translate into Christian community and fellowship while this disagreement continues?
Response – part 2: The filioque debate may be seen by many as minor and possibly irrelevant. So let's talk about the concept of original sin. You portray this concept as assumed between the lines of the text. What if someone disagrees with that assumption? What if someone believes that we are all conceived and born into the universality of sin with all its consequences and because of THAT reality everyone is affected by it and in need of rescue (without necessarily assuming an inherited nature)? Just because Augustine and Pelagius had a disagreement and the official church authority went with Augustine does not mean IMHO that all of Augustine's opinions on the matter or Pelagius' opposing view are the only 2 options available to faithfully interpret the biblical references on this issue.
Response – part 3: I'd also like to discuss the role of doctrine in general and its relation to authentic Christianity. How significant – from a standpoint of taking seriously Jesus' own statements – is dogmatic correctness in comparison to drinking from the well of the Living Word (John 5:39-40), and practical obedience in comparison to correct doxology (Luke 6:46-49)? What do we do with the Lord's words concerning those who were welcome by him without even having known that they were serving him, in other words: seemed to lack that doctrinal foundation (Matthew 25:37-40)? And why would we want to narrow our understanding of salvation as a rescue from wrath, punishment and death when Jesus' own view was much more comprehensive than that (Luke 9:24; 19:8-9)?
Response – part 4: And since you probably don't mind some feedback regarding your personal creed: there are other possible interpretations of Romans 8:20-22 that make it quite possible to believe that were was both physical death and animals eating each other BEFORE the fall of mankind. I never thought of this possibility before because of the teaching I grew up with, but I've adjusted my interpretation of the text in the meantime and I commend you for being open for adjustments in general too.
This openness, I believe, is what the spirit of continuing conversations and willingness to listen to other voices than the ones agreeing with us already is all about.
P.S.: By the way, I see quite a bit of Greg Boyd and Open Theism included … apparently you're not afraid to be deviating from what many would consider "historical orthodoxy" yourself! đ
Yes, ironically, Augustine (who seems to be the standard-bearer for all things "orthodox") believed that death (of plants, animals) occurred prior to the "Fall" but not human death. I believe you can find this in last books of the Confessions when he's talking about Creation)
Appreciate your beginning with the creeds, which personally I have found surprisingly liberating in the breadth of theological diversity they capture. Look forward to discussing more specifics in a bit. My sense of the Creeds is that they try to capture a snapshot of the experience of the church in its first centuries, but leaving some freedom to flesh out the meaning and implications of that experience for different generation in fresh, helpful ways.
I think, respectfully that if you're going to make a broad creedal argument you have to at least include a footnote about the filloque. Its not a minor difference for many Orthodox folks today, and is still seen as a political play by the Western Church that led to the first great Schism of the Church, with some theological implications too. I see you're doing your very best to be sensitive, but this is something important to Orthodox folks, intentional or not it could feel you're excluding them.
A comment from Dana Ames that didnt take…
Jeremy, this is with regard to your comments on ”what is implicit” from the Creed. Again, my concern is that, with what will likely be a rather large audience, care will be taken with terms and definitions. I don’t comment much on blogs and am not trying to simply argue.
1. The Nicene creed implies that Scripture is important mainly because Jesus rose from the dead in accordance with it; this does not preclude other reasons, but since this is the only one stated, I think the sense is more of the flow of the history that points to God’s rescue- not our notions of ”inerrancy”. It’s interesting to me that in your list of what constitutes the rule of faith, you put the authority of Scripture as ”revelation for understanding Church/Christian life, practice and belief” above belief in the Creator God, the same as more than 90% of Protestant ”statements of faith” I’ve read. Yes, Holy Scripture was given as revelation. But without interpretation of some sort, as with any text, there is no way for it to have any meaning for our lives. ISTM that your differences with Doug/Emergent are about hermeneutics. I suggest that, for all Christians, Scripture is de facto not ”the authority”; the real
authority is, rather, whichever interpretation of Scripture makes the best sense to a person because of family culture, ethnic culture, church culture, or the interpretation held by whoever helps a person come to the Lord at conversion. Certainly the Holy Spirit could be involved in any or all of that; but when we get into a discussion of the how of that involvement, that’s Doctrine- which is interpretation yet again. I believe that because it is God-given and has authority behind it, Scripture is supposed to help us and point us to something beyond itself. But simply reading the words on the page is no guarantee of anything. The words/text must be interpreted.
2. ”The Creeds assume something wrong with us… which is later translated into Original Sin.” Well, yes, in the West. Again, in the East, the problem that is bigger than sin is Death, and that is described in the view of ”Ancestral Sin” and is in a very different category than Augustine’s views. Sin and Death do go together and feed each other, but what we need from God is the means to have life again, and the sin problem gets taken care of within that. If by ”apostolic” you mean the church/es derived from the teachings of the apostles and church fathers before the schism, the development of this view in the East must be addressed, and it can’t be done with Augustine alone.
3. Substitution wasn’t really talked about much in the East. The view of the atonement was overwhelmingly Christus Victor + Ransom right through the Patristic period, from the Apostolic Fathers on. Yes, Christ died for us on the cross, but that did not involve penalty or any sense of fulfilling ”justice”; those are post-Anselm, post-Reformation interpretations. Just one example of many to be found: ”Here, then, is the second reason why the Word dwelt among us, namely that having proved His Godhead by His works, he might offer the sacrifice on behalf of all, surrendering His own temple to death in place of all, to settle man’s account with death and free him from the primal transgression. In the same act also He showed Himself mightier than death, displaying His own body incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection.” Athanasius, Incarnation, section 20. The ”primal transgression” is the rebellion that caused mortality, not universal guilt. If you go back further, all the way to the first writings that interpret and give the Meaning for the Incarnation, Crucifixion and Resurrection, Jesus’ defeat of death is ubiquitous, and penal substitution is simply not to be found. Believe me, I’ve done this, fully expecting to find the Anselmian/Reformation interpretation- and that interpretation is not what I found.
4. This article might be helpful for the Eastern view on ”hell”: aggreen (dot) net (fslash) beliefs (fslash) heaven_hell Jesus had to descend to Hel (Anglo-Saxon translation of Heb. sheol & Gr. Hades, simply ”the abode of the dead”) by suffering death, in order to free those held captive by death up until the time he died. Willard talks about ”eternal life” being ”life that is *really* life”- much more a quality than a time period. Wright talks about the Jewish view of ”the age to come” and what ”the life of the age to come” meant to Jesus’ hearers- again, not so much connected to how long it will last, but what kind of life it is. Of course, if our life is hid with Christ in God, our existence will be never-ending, but that’s not the main point.
Once again, I plead for accuracy. Please don’t lump the Eastern view with the Western just because EO/RC are both ”ancient”. Thank you for taking the time to outline your personal confession, which I see as broadly Protestant and in the non-sacramental tradition.
Dana
Dana had posted a link but it needs an "html" to get there
4. This article might be helpful for the Eastern view on ”hell”:
aggreen (dot) net (fslash) beliefs (fslash) heaven_hell (dot) html
It's interesting to hear all of you debate this as if it is merely an intellectual argument. I don't think the first Christians were dying for the faith because they were convinced of its theological soundness. I think they died for it because they were convinced of their personal sin, of their need for forgiveness, of the reality of Christ and his love for them through his life, death on the Cross, and ressurrection. As for the truth of God's word, it's reasonable to believe that a God who can change water into wine and rise from the dead can preserve His intended meaning of His word. I take the Bible as truth without having to do all these mental gymnastics and as far as I know, so did all the gangbangers, drug addicts, and prostitutes whose lives I saw dramatically changed. Never heard a one of them giving credit to Augustine, or Palagius, or Aquinas as the reason for their changed lives. Without exception, they all realized their sin and need for redemption and the fact that Jesus was the only one that could do it for them.