(Greek aphthartos, “incorruptible”), a Christian heresy of the 6th century.
With Aphthartodocetism, the implications of Monophysitism (“Christ had but one nature and that divine”) were brought to a new extreme. This teaching claims that the body of Christ was divine, therefore incorruptible and imperishable. Still, Christ was free to will his sufferings and death voluntarily, which is also what he did.
The Aphthartodocetist doctrine was originally espoused by Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum, Turkey). His teaching was strongly opposed by Patriarch Severus of Antioch, who also was also a condemned Monophysite. Severus vigorously challenged Julian on the ground that the doctrine of salvation was meaningless unless Christ’s body was truly human. Their two parties emerged into a schism that would last until the 7th century.
Some historians believe the Byzantine emperor Justinian I proclaimed the new heresy in an edict of 564 and would have imposed it on the Eastern church but for his death the following year.
Aphthartodocetism found acceptance in the Armenian Church and was espoused by John Nelson Darby and other early dispensationalist writers in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
Adapted from the online Encyclopedia Britannica and LookLex Encyclopedia entries.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Quotation of the Day
Over at Blog and Mablog, an astute commenter named Alan had the following to say about Westminster Two Kingdoms (W2K) theology:
"At least the dispensationalists have the virtue of wishing Christ could be king right now-- while (conversely) the Hauerwas/Willimon types refuse the transformational impulse, but insist that though the gospel can't overcome the (evil) world, they're happy to die trying.
"The reformed dispensationalist approach-- c'est la vie-- seems oddly stuck between transforming and resisting the world. Their besetting temptation-- though doubtless not their goal-- is compromise with the world in the "already." Otherwise known as worldliness."
"At least the dispensationalists have the virtue of wishing Christ could be king right now-- while (conversely) the Hauerwas/Willimon types refuse the transformational impulse, but insist that though the gospel can't overcome the (evil) world, they're happy to die trying.
"The reformed dispensationalist approach-- c'est la vie-- seems oddly stuck between transforming and resisting the world. Their besetting temptation-- though doubtless not their goal-- is compromise with the world in the "already." Otherwise known as worldliness."
Discussing Norman Shepherd
For those interested in the on-going debate over justification," Darryl Hart's post "Easy Believism" provoked me to speak out in defense of Norman Shepherd in the comment section. Over the last few weeks, I have been carefully reading and listening to what Shepherd has to say. Consequently, I was able to present a fairly coherent picture of how Shepherd is able to remain true to Luther's insight of sola fide and the broad Reformed Tradition while expanding our understanding of faith and justification in light of biblical eschatology.
Look for a post in the upcoming days based on these comments.
While not following Shepherd in every respect, I believe he is as important as N.T. Wright as an insightful expositor of Scripture. I need to study more on the subject, but it presently appears that Shepherd has been even more successful in maintaining both realities of individual and corporate election/ justification.
In Shepherd's hands, the classical Protestant formulation of justification has been expanded in light of the fifth point of Calvinism, the Perseverance of the Saints, to read:
"Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the way of righteousness alone."
This is a monumental achievement and every bit as significant as Martin Luther's achievement 450 years ago. Perhaps Norman Shepherd is the forerunner of a new Reformation on the horizon. May God grant it!
Look for a post in the upcoming days based on these comments.
While not following Shepherd in every respect, I believe he is as important as N.T. Wright as an insightful expositor of Scripture. I need to study more on the subject, but it presently appears that Shepherd has been even more successful in maintaining both realities of individual and corporate election/ justification.
In Shepherd's hands, the classical Protestant formulation of justification has been expanded in light of the fifth point of Calvinism, the Perseverance of the Saints, to read:
"Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, in the way of righteousness alone."
This is a monumental achievement and every bit as significant as Martin Luther's achievement 450 years ago. Perhaps Norman Shepherd is the forerunner of a new Reformation on the horizon. May God grant it!
Tim Gallant Ponders the Land Promises to Israel
Back in July, Tim wrote a short post that asked some good questions:
1. We know that a whole host of Israelites have savingly believed God over the years, both before and after the advent of Christ.
2. We believe in the resurrection of the body, not an eternal state of disembodied “spirituality.”
3. Correspondingly, we believe in the renovation of the earth, just as we believe in the renovation of the body.
4. Surely a renovated earth would have geography, and since the renovation is a renovation of this earth, it seems at least plausible – nay, overwhelmingly likely – that the new earth will have the land of Canaan.
5. Since everyone has to live somewhere – why wouldn’t believing Israelites live in Palestine? Why should that be thought the least bit “strange”?
Check out Tim's article on the meaning of "all Israel" in Romans 11:26.
I would also add that national Israel is not reprobate. St. Paul makes clear that Israel "did not stumble so as to fall" (Rom. 11:11) and retains in an important sense "the adoption of sons, the covenants,...the promises, etc." (Rom. 9:4).
God's calling, election, and promises cannot fail.
Israel retains retains the title to all the promised blessings found in the OT. If they would pursue them by faith in their Messiah all the blessings would be granted.
As it is now, until Israel acknowledges her Lord Jesus she will never be secure in her own land.
I highly recommend historic premillennialist Barry Horner's fine book, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged (B&H Academic, 2007), for a thorough treatment of the subject.
1. We know that a whole host of Israelites have savingly believed God over the years, both before and after the advent of Christ.
2. We believe in the resurrection of the body, not an eternal state of disembodied “spirituality.”
3. Correspondingly, we believe in the renovation of the earth, just as we believe in the renovation of the body.
4. Surely a renovated earth would have geography, and since the renovation is a renovation of this earth, it seems at least plausible – nay, overwhelmingly likely – that the new earth will have the land of Canaan.
5. Since everyone has to live somewhere – why wouldn’t believing Israelites live in Palestine? Why should that be thought the least bit “strange”?
Check out Tim's article on the meaning of "all Israel" in Romans 11:26.
I would also add that national Israel is not reprobate. St. Paul makes clear that Israel "did not stumble so as to fall" (Rom. 11:11) and retains in an important sense "the adoption of sons, the covenants,...the promises, etc." (Rom. 9:4).
God's calling, election, and promises cannot fail.
Israel retains retains the title to all the promised blessings found in the OT. If they would pursue them by faith in their Messiah all the blessings would be granted.
As it is now, until Israel acknowledges her Lord Jesus she will never be secure in her own land.
I highly recommend historic premillennialist Barry Horner's fine book, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged (B&H Academic, 2007), for a thorough treatment of the subject.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Monarch as Supreme Judge
"There is a great difference between the 'form' and the 'content' -- or purpose -- of the State. The latter is its essential raison d'etre, its very soul. The former corresponds to the bodily form of a living being. The one can certainly not exist without the other; but in any sane hierarchy of values the soul occupies a higher place than the body.
"The essential purpose of the State, its 'content,' is rooted in natural law. The State is not an end in itself; it exists for the sake of its citizens. It is therefore not the source of all law (a claim that is still far too widely accepted), nor is it all-powerful. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields that are outside their free initiative. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Its task is to give practical effect to this law; nothing more.
"If the mission of the State is the practical realization of natural law, the form of government is a means by which the community attempts to achieve this aim. It is not an end in itself...
"There is one more point we must consider before we can answer the question of which form of government will best serve the community in the future. Generally speaking, democratic republics represent a regime dominated by the legislature, while authoritarian regimes are dominated by the executive. The judicial power has not had the primacy for a long time, as we have shown above. It found its earlier expression in the Christian monarchies. It is frequently forgotten that the true ruler has always been the guardian of law and justice. The most ancient monarchs -- the kings of the Bible -- came from the ranks of the judges. St. Louis of France regarded the administration of justice as his noblest task. The same principle can be seen in the many German "Palatinates," since the Count Palatine (Palatinus) was the guardian of law and justice delegated by the King- Emperor. The history of the great medieval monarchies shows that the legislative power of the king -- even of a king as powerful as Charles V -- was severely limited by local autonomies. The same is true of the ruler's executive function. He was not, in the first place, a law-giver or head of the executive; he was a judge. All other functions were subordinate, and were only exercised to the extent necessary to make his judicial function effective.
"The reason for this institutional arrangement is clear. The judge must interpret the meaning of law and justice, and to do this he must be independent. It is essential that he should not owe his position, his function, to any man. The highest judge, at least, must be in this position. This is only possible under a monarchy. For in a republic, even the highest guardian of the law derives his position from some other source, to which he is responsible and on which he remains dependent to some extent. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. His most important task is not to pass judgment in actual legal disputes, but to stand guard over the purpose of the State and natural law. Above all, it is the task of the supreme judge to see that all legislation is in accordance with the State's fundamental principles, that is, with natural law. The monarch's right to veto legislation passed by parliament is a remnant of this ancient function...
"The hereditary character of the monarchial function finds... [i]ts deepest justification... in the fact that the hereditary ruler owes his position not to one or another social group, but to the will of God alone. That is the true meaning of the frequently misunderstood words, 'by the grace of God,' which always signify a duty and a task. It would be wrong for the ruler by the grace of God to regard himself as an exceptional being. On the contrary, the words, 'by the grace of God,' should remind him that he does not owe his position to his own merits, but must prove his fitness by ceaseless efforts in the cause of justice."
-Archduke Otto von Habsburg, The Social Order of Tomorrow (London: Oswald Wolff, 1958)
Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before Thy face.
"The essential purpose of the State, its 'content,' is rooted in natural law. The State is not an end in itself; it exists for the sake of its citizens. It is therefore not the source of all law (a claim that is still far too widely accepted), nor is it all-powerful. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields that are outside their free initiative. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Its task is to give practical effect to this law; nothing more.
"If the mission of the State is the practical realization of natural law, the form of government is a means by which the community attempts to achieve this aim. It is not an end in itself...
"There is one more point we must consider before we can answer the question of which form of government will best serve the community in the future. Generally speaking, democratic republics represent a regime dominated by the legislature, while authoritarian regimes are dominated by the executive. The judicial power has not had the primacy for a long time, as we have shown above. It found its earlier expression in the Christian monarchies. It is frequently forgotten that the true ruler has always been the guardian of law and justice. The most ancient monarchs -- the kings of the Bible -- came from the ranks of the judges. St. Louis of France regarded the administration of justice as his noblest task. The same principle can be seen in the many German "Palatinates," since the Count Palatine (Palatinus) was the guardian of law and justice delegated by the King- Emperor. The history of the great medieval monarchies shows that the legislative power of the king -- even of a king as powerful as Charles V -- was severely limited by local autonomies. The same is true of the ruler's executive function. He was not, in the first place, a law-giver or head of the executive; he was a judge. All other functions were subordinate, and were only exercised to the extent necessary to make his judicial function effective.
"The reason for this institutional arrangement is clear. The judge must interpret the meaning of law and justice, and to do this he must be independent. It is essential that he should not owe his position, his function, to any man. The highest judge, at least, must be in this position. This is only possible under a monarchy. For in a republic, even the highest guardian of the law derives his position from some other source, to which he is responsible and on which he remains dependent to some extent. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs. His most important task is not to pass judgment in actual legal disputes, but to stand guard over the purpose of the State and natural law. Above all, it is the task of the supreme judge to see that all legislation is in accordance with the State's fundamental principles, that is, with natural law. The monarch's right to veto legislation passed by parliament is a remnant of this ancient function...
"The hereditary character of the monarchial function finds... [i]ts deepest justification... in the fact that the hereditary ruler owes his position not to one or another social group, but to the will of God alone. That is the true meaning of the frequently misunderstood words, 'by the grace of God,' which always signify a duty and a task. It would be wrong for the ruler by the grace of God to regard himself as an exceptional being. On the contrary, the words, 'by the grace of God,' should remind him that he does not owe his position to his own merits, but must prove his fitness by ceaseless efforts in the cause of justice."
-Archduke Otto von Habsburg, The Social Order of Tomorrow (London: Oswald Wolff, 1958)
Justice and judgment are the habitation of Thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before Thy face.
Psalm 89:14
Friday, May 15, 2009
Prominent Internet Monarchist Baptized into the Faith
For those who follow monarchy on the web, it is a great joy to note that Mr. Theodore Harvey of Dallas, Texas was baptized and confirmed into the faith on April 11, 2009. He is now a parishioner at the Church of the Incarnation in Dallas, one of the few remaining orthodox parishes in the Episcopal Church.
You may read Mr. Harvey's own announcement of the event here at his blog, Royal World.
Please join me in praying for Theodore's growth in grace as a Christian in the Anglican way.
Mr. Harvey's conversion leads me to consider the apologetic value of monarchism for Christianity. While the Christian faith is essentially trust in Christ and incorporation into His elect people, the Church, and is not necessarily tied to loyalty to an earthly monarch, I see preparatory value in acknowledging and submitting to the divinely-ordained authority of princes as a sign and exercise of godly humility.
The authority of kings does not derive from military might or the acclamation of the people; it rests upon God's sustaining favor alone.
In this day and age, when a man becomes convinced of the right of kings to rule, he is rejecting the primary theories of power that hold sway in our world. Majority rule (democracy) and force (dictatorship) can never establish right. Apart from faith these only signify the rebellious self-will of man.
Rule of law is touted in some sectors of Christianity as the legitimizing principle of government. This is an ahistorical anachronism perpetuated from the Enlightenment. Government preceded codified law. Instead, government exists wherever God has given a prince power and authority to rule. The existence of law implies the existence of a lawgiver and judge. Cosmically, this implies the rule of God. Temporally, it implies the existence of kings who propagate and ajudicate law under God in conformity with God's law.
A man who adopts the popular conceit that he is as much a ruler and judge as anyone else is a man who has not yet learned the humility of Christ. This is where the American spirit comes into direct conflict with the precepts of the Gospel and presents an actual obstacle to divine grace.
As St. Peter admonishes,
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
"For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
"Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."
(1 Pet. 2:13-25)
For these reasons I believe genuine submission to earthly authority is congruent and uniquely preparatory to genuine submission to Christ, "who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15).
You may read Mr. Harvey's own announcement of the event here at his blog, Royal World.
Please join me in praying for Theodore's growth in grace as a Christian in the Anglican way.
Mr. Harvey's conversion leads me to consider the apologetic value of monarchism for Christianity. While the Christian faith is essentially trust in Christ and incorporation into His elect people, the Church, and is not necessarily tied to loyalty to an earthly monarch, I see preparatory value in acknowledging and submitting to the divinely-ordained authority of princes as a sign and exercise of godly humility.
The authority of kings does not derive from military might or the acclamation of the people; it rests upon God's sustaining favor alone.
In this day and age, when a man becomes convinced of the right of kings to rule, he is rejecting the primary theories of power that hold sway in our world. Majority rule (democracy) and force (dictatorship) can never establish right. Apart from faith these only signify the rebellious self-will of man.
Rule of law is touted in some sectors of Christianity as the legitimizing principle of government. This is an ahistorical anachronism perpetuated from the Enlightenment. Government preceded codified law. Instead, government exists wherever God has given a prince power and authority to rule. The existence of law implies the existence of a lawgiver and judge. Cosmically, this implies the rule of God. Temporally, it implies the existence of kings who propagate and ajudicate law under God in conformity with God's law.
A man who adopts the popular conceit that he is as much a ruler and judge as anyone else is a man who has not yet learned the humility of Christ. This is where the American spirit comes into direct conflict with the precepts of the Gospel and presents an actual obstacle to divine grace.
As St. Peter admonishes,
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
"Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
"For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
"Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
"For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls."
(1 Pet. 2:13-25)
For these reasons I believe genuine submission to earthly authority is congruent and uniquely preparatory to genuine submission to Christ, "who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords" (1 Tim. 6:15).
Monday, March 30, 2009
De Regno Christi Returns
Dr. Bill Chellis has kindly invited me to continue as a contributor at his excellent group blog De Regno Christi that has recently been re-organized.
It is an honor to be included with several distinguished writers, historians, and theologians in this endeavor. So far, the list of contributors includes:
Be sure to check out the discussion as I believe we'll soon be systematically examining specific propositions that concern the relation of Christ to culture.
It is an honor to be included with several distinguished writers, historians, and theologians in this endeavor. So far, the list of contributors includes:
- Gregory Baus, a Reformed Dooyeweerdian philosopher and social thinker;
- Dr. Bradley Birzer, Russell Kirk Professor of American Studies History at Hillsdale College and a Roman Catholic; Pastor of Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church and co-editor of Semper Reformanda;
- Dr. Bill Chellis, an Attorney and an ordained Minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church;
- Dr. D.G. Hart, an author of many books on modern Protestant history in America,
- Davey Henreckson, a "high church Anglyterian" and author of the excellent Theopolitical blog; and
- Caleb Stegal, a country lawyer, writer, and former editor of the excellent The New Pantagruel.
Be sure to check out the discussion as I believe we'll soon be systematically examining specific propositions that concern the relation of Christ to culture.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Obama Frees Science from the Shackles of "Political Ideology"
On March 9th, at a ceremony in the Oval Office, President Obama signed an Executive Order reversing George W. Bush's 2001 ban on funding certain forms of stem cell research.
Here's how the Time article characterized it:
"The sigh of relief in labs across the country was almost audible. In Boston, Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, gathered his entire staff to listen to Obama's announcement and served cake in celebration. James Thomson, the University of Wisconsin scientist responsible for isolating the first human embryonic stem cells in 1998, flew to Washington at Obama's request to watch the signing in person.
"The President's decision does much more than expand funding for stem-cell research. It heralds a shift in the government's view of science, ushering in an era in which it promises to defend science — and the pursuit of useful treatments — against ideology. 'It is about ensuring that scientific data [are] never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology,' Obama said in his opening statement. (emphasis added)
"Without discounting the moral concerns that some Americans have about using embryos — which many consider to be fully realized human life — for scientific research, Obama said that moral values do not necessarily preclude the study of embryonic stem cells, particularly those obtained from the pool of 400,000 or so embryos currently stored in IVF clinics around the U.S., most of which would have been discarded. 'I believe we have been given the capacity and the will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly,' he said."
The article grudgingly admits that "New techniques in generating stem cells from skin cells may prove in coming years more efficient and reliable than using embryonic stem cells."
But the article goes on to say, "Monday's Executive Order is less about pitting the promise of one type of stem cell against another's and more about re-establishing the authority of science, of ensuring that any and every potentially useful avenue of research will be pursued to its end. As the President noted, the new policy will not guarantee stem-cell treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease. But it does guarantee a commitment to the kind of promising research that this Administration — and many people in the scientific community — believe must be followed." (emphasis added)
We should all be grateful for Time's impartial and "scientific" reporting of the facts.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Is a Constitutional Convention in the offing?
Back in December there was a World Net Daily article based on a warning issued by Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center. The article basically states that only two more states need to vote affirming the need for a Constitutional Convention and that our constitutional rights are threatened.
Well, I doubt it. Not that our constitutional rights are threatened--they are--but that the liberal majority would risk the trouble. Having an outdated constitution in place that is only selectively applied is a great asset to the ruling class. They can clothe themselves with the mantle of the venerability and authority of a hallowed system, claiming to be true to the internal logic of a living document, while moving the nation slowly and surely in a progressive direction. Why would liberals want to give this up? So far, it's worked very well for them.
Well, I doubt it. Not that our constitutional rights are threatened--they are--but that the liberal majority would risk the trouble. Having an outdated constitution in place that is only selectively applied is a great asset to the ruling class. They can clothe themselves with the mantle of the venerability and authority of a hallowed system, claiming to be true to the internal logic of a living document, while moving the nation slowly and surely in a progressive direction. Why would liberals want to give this up? So far, it's worked very well for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
