Summary: Reform of the western church initiated by pious Henry III (1039-54) culminated in East-West division due to poor diplomacy (N130-33). However, fundamental differences between East and West existed from 96 AD In characteristic Roman Christianity we find no ecstasies, no miraculous gifts of the Sprit, no demonology, no preoccupation with an imminent Second Coming. The Church has settled down in the world and is going about its task soberly, discretely, and advisedly. (N134). Differences in the second century between Tertullian of Carthage (west) and Clement of Alexandria (east) illustrate the differences. Constantineís move to Constantinople from Rome, the Islamic overthrow of Rome, and the crusades further severed east from west. The 1054 event was the final straw.

East-West Division

1. Differences in temperament and intellectual disposition. Orthodox historian Timothy Ware (Noll 135)


The idea of a national or regional temperament

Tertullian of Carthage Clement of Alexandria

Latin Greek

Challenged pagan culture Sought aid

Coined new phrases ëTrinityí Meditated on truths

Lawyer Philosopher

Reasoned toward action Reasoned toward truth

2. Momentous historical events leading to East-West split of 1054

1. Constantineís moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople. The new Roman power evolves in climate of Greek language, intellect, and temperament. East-west understanding is thus more difficult.
2. Islam made contact between East and West more difficult because it took control of communications on the Mediterranean Sea
3. The West largely ignored eastern pleas for help against the Islamic Turks.


Rather, the West had developed its own alliances and obtained help from northern barbarian tribes

4. The crusades further divided East and West
5. There were concrete theological differences between East and West.

• Filioque clause. To this day, the Eastern Church remains astounded at the casualness with which the West added the word filioque to the Nicene Creed.

• Monothelite controversy. The issue is how to exercise of authority.

• Photian schism (Noll 139)

1. Western claims for papal supremacy were resented in the East

• Roman primacy (first among equals in the 5 patriarchates) Vs Roman monarchy. Nicetas quote in Noll (138)

Why? Crusaders were encouraged by the grant of indulgences and by the status of martyr in the event of death. (ODCC 362). Crusades and pilgrimages to the Holy Land are sometimes indistinguishable. Knights Templar grew up after 1118 to protect pilgrims (ODCC 1345).

Period One (1095-1204)

1. First Crusade (1095-). Succeeded in capturing Jerusalem. Crass military bluntness, slaughtering Jews and Arab Christians as well as Muslims. The armies stopped off at Constantinople on the way to Jerusalem and were troublesome guests (Noll 140)
2. Fourth Crusade (1202-4). "A special disaster that so deeply poisoned relations between East and West that it would be justified to see it, rather than the events of 1054, as the final breakÖ" (Noll 140)


"The sack of Constantinople is unparalleled in history" Runciman in Noll (141)

3. Second Crusade ( 1144). Preached by Bernard of Clairvaux and led by Louis VII of France and Emperor Conrad II, failed to ease the situation in the Frankish east.
4. Third Crusade (1189-1192). Frederick Barbarossa, Richard I of England and Philip II of France

1. Childrenís Crusade (1212) From France and W. Germany. Got as far as Italy; perished or sold to slavery. (ODCC 274)

Russia

1. Vladimir about 980 crowned prince of Kiev. His grandmother Olga had converted to Christianity. Russiaís unofficial animism and plurality of gods gave way to Christianity when Vladimir married the sister of the Byzantine Empire. A condition of the marriage, convert.

1. Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox 70 million
2. Four ancient patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem) 10 million

1. Romanian, Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, and Georgian (former Soviet) churches ó large numbers
2. Orthodox diaspora to Australia and the US.
3. Russia in the 1990ís

1. The incarnation, Christian faith and the gospel are a very empirical sort of thing, though not totally so. The Lord entered space and time and gave public evidence (resurrection, miracle, Exodus, fulfilled prophecy) that is available to the five senses. There is a large non-empirical component to Christian theology: no one has seen God, who can know that ways of the Spirit of God Ö. Nevertheless, we believe our Lord about the things that we cannot see because of the things that we can see. The empirical is the route we travel to the non-empirical. Faith is not a blind leap into the dark as the fidiest says.

1. Faith cometh through hearing and hearing from the word of God. Rom 10:7
2. How can they call on they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Rom 10:14
3. "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you, otherwise you have believed in vain. Öthat Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third dayÖ I Cor 15:2, 3.
4. "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futileÖ" I Cor 15: 17.
5. In Eph 2:8-10 saving faith is not the gift of God mentioned, rather salvation is the gift in this passage. We know this because the Greek word ëití does not match the voice of the word ëfaithí.
6. The gift of faith in I Cor 12:9, 13:2 is not saving faith but one of the spiritual gifts that not every Christian has. "Faith so as to remove mountains". In fact we are told that some miracle workers will not be in heaven.
7. The word ëfaithí (pistis) and the word ëbelieveí (pistuo) are the same Greek root. Some Christians mystify the unbeliever by uttering nonsense sentences like: "I believe it because of faith".
8. Saving faith involves intellectual assent plus personal trust in Jesus for salvation.
9. It would not damage faith, grace, or the gospel if we could prove that God exists. That still would not save. Demons believe and tremble. James x:x. They have no personal trust in Jesus for salvation. Some Christian theologians teach that grace would be harmed by proof of Godís existence or knowing something about Him apart from the gospel.
10. Christian teachers through the centuries have acknowledged both general revelation and special revelation (Scripture). General revelation is available to all men in general, without Scripture. The heavens declare the glory of God. General revelation leaves the heathen without excuse and in need of the gospel. Rom 1 and 2. They need a preacher and the gospel.
11. Christian missions stories of how prophets in heathen tribes were told to expect a man with a book who will tell them the truth about God. God would have revealed to them the gospel directly, but he did not.

1. Philosophers on Faith and Reason

1. Ancient philosophers like both Plato and Aristotle, use the term ëknowledgeí in a way slightly different from scripture. They reserve ëknowledgeí for apodictic certainty (mathematical truths, knowledge of the forms). They would not say that you know that you have $5.00 in the bank, that would be belief. The project of philosophy for them is about knowledge.
2. Modern philosophers in the scientific tradition have accepted the apodyctic certainty is not possible except for things that are true by definition. So for them the project of philosophy has changed.
3. Where does this leave ethics, aesthetics, etc and the things that belonged to ëImaginationí in Plato/Augustine? This was Dale Schaeferís concern express in prior lecture.
4. We need not rule out alternate ways of knowing (such as imagination), to effectively use knowledge/evidence from the 5 senses or to reason from one proposition to the next.
5. Various philosophers have used the terms ëknowledgeí, ëfaithí and ëreasoní in highly technical ways and in ways inconsistent (though not always contrary) to scripture.

1. Existential Theologians, Language and the Bible.

1. Existential theologians such as Bultmann, speak as if God could not communicate a truth through language (scripture) because to do so would require ancient Greek philosophies of language which they claim have been proven false. Their target is the philosophical view called essentialism which both Plato and Aristotle held. Sometimes uninitiated writers present this as a problem in Aristotle but not in Plato.
2. There are important differences in Plato and Aristotle, however they stand together in contrast to modern philosophy.

Some Philosophical Traditions Contrasted

A. Nominalism

Duns Scotus

William of Occam (Nominalism) à XXXX à Luther and Tubingen

B. Essentialism

Plato / Augustine Aristotle / Thomas Aquinas

Luther Melanchthon à John Gerhard (1582-1637)

Calvin Beza à Turretin (1623-1687)

Helvetic Consensus Formula

Puritans, James Usher Anglo-Catholics, John Owen

Peter Ramus

William Temple à Thomas Temple

Westminster Confession

Samuel Rutherford

Witness of the Spirit Jonathon Edwards

John Witherspoon, Thomas Reid

Archibald Alexander

America, Charles Augustus Briggs Charles Hodge

Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield

Dutch, Herman Bavinck (1854-1921)

Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920)

G. C. Berkouwer

Cornelius Van Til John Gerstner

Frances Schaefer
 
 
 
 

Historical Views of Adam's Sin

A. What All persons receive as a result of Adam's sin according to various Theologians

Rom 5: 12-14 death entered through Adam before there was law

Guilt Corruption Bondage of the Will

Augustine (Calvin) yes yes yes

Pelagius

Semi-Pelagian yes

Zwingli yes yes

Catholic yes yes

Guilty - because of Adam's sin.

Corruption - a corrupt or depraved nature that makes us tend to sin.

Bondage of the Will - we cannot choose to obey God because we do not want to.

The bondage of the will is the 'total' part of 'total depravity', every part depraved

TULIP

B. What each person receives as a result of ones own personal sin

Rom 5:12 death came to all men, because all sinned.

Eph 2:1,5 dead in our own trespasses and sins

Guilt - all sinners are guilty before God

Corruption - all sinners corrupt their nature by sinning

C. Some Observations about Adam's sin

What is the death that Adam brought? Physical death? Spiritual death? What is the metaphor?

Whatever, through no fault of their own, all men received through Adam is taken away by Christ from all men, through no merit of their own.

The 'death' metaphor in Paul is varied; dead in sin and dead to sin (Rom 6:1, 11). The latter is of course is incomplete and the metaphor cannot be pressed; what about the former?

Paul's focus is on the gospel of grace through faith. Why do we need grace according to Romans?

Paul establishes our need for grace in Rom 2, 3 based on personal, then moves on to justification (3,4).

It is not until chapter 5 that Adam comes in to the picture and even then along with personal sin.

Jer 31:29-34, Ezek 18:1-32 In the New Covenant each shall die for his own sin, not that of the fathers. Faith comes through hearing.

D. Some solutions to the problem: how do sinners come to faith if they are dead?

Solution 1: BOW and bite the bullet, sinners cannot have faith until God resurrects whomever he pleases.

You cannot please God without faith and you cannot obtain faith until it pleases God to give it.

Solution 2: BOW and prevenient grace (Wesley). God gives enough grace for the sinner to choose.

Solution 3: BOW and don't try to reconcile. (Simeon, Stott).

When preaching on bondage, preach bondage; when preaching on free will, preach free will.

Solution 4: Don't press the death metaphor so that it negates passages about sinners freely coming to faith.

Armenius was not really an Armenian. "In this state the free will of man towards the true good is not only

wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened, but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost."

E. Liberal solutions to sin and salvation (There is no sin, so there is no salvation)