 | This articlemay betoo long to read and navigate comfortably. Considersplitting content into sub-articles,condensing it, or addingsubheadings. Please discuss this issue on the article'stalk page.(February 2025) |
| Part ofa series on |
| Christianity |
|---|
 |
Christian theology is thetheology – the systematic study of thedivine andreligion – ofChristian belief and practice.[1] It concentrates primarily upon the texts of theOld Testament and of theNew Testament, as well as onChristian tradition. Christian theologians use biblicalexegesis,rational analysis and argument. Theologians may undertake the study of Christian theology for a variety of reasons, such as in order to:
Christian theology varies significantly across the main branches of Christian tradition:Catholic,Orthodox andProtestant. Each of those traditions has its own unique approaches toseminaries and ministerial formation.
Revelation is the revealing or disclosing, or making something obvious through active or passive communication with God, and can originate directly fromGod or through an agent, such as anangel.[10] A person recognised as having experienced such contact is often called aprophet. Christianity generally considers theBible as divinely orsupernaturally revealed or inspired. Such revelation does not always require the presence of God or an angel. For instance, in the concept whichCatholics callinterior locution, supernatural revelation can include just aninner voice heard by the recipient.
Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) first described two types of revelation in Christianity:general revelation andspecial revelation.[11]
TheBible contains many passages in which the authors claim divine inspiration for their message or report the effects of such inspiration on others. Besides the direct accounts of writtenrevelation (such asMoses receiving theTen Commandments inscribed on tablets of stone), theProphets of theOld Testament frequently claimed that their message was of divine origin by prefacing the revelation using the following phrase: "Thus says the LORD" (for example,1 Kgs 12:22–24;1 Chr 17:3–4; Jer 35:13; Ezek 2:4; Zech 7:9; etc.). TheSecond Epistle of Peter claims that "no prophecy of Scripture ... was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"[12] The Second Epistle of Peter also implies that Paul's writings are inspired (2 Pet 3:16).
Many[quantify] Christians cite a verse in Paul's letter to Timothy, 2 Timothy 3:16–17, as evidence that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable ..." Here St. Paul is referring to the Old Testament, since the scriptures have been known by Timothy from "infancy" (verse 15). Others offer an alternative reading for the passage; for example, theologianC. H. Dodd suggests that it "is probably to be rendered" as: "Every inspired scripture is also useful..."[13] A similar translation appears in theNew English Bible, in theRevised English Bible, and (as a footnoted alternative) in theNew Revised Standard Version. The LatinVulgate can be so read.[14] Yet others defend the "traditional" interpretation;Daniel B. Wallace calls the alternative "probably not the best translation."[15]
Some modern English versions of the Bible renderstheopneustos with "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV), avoiding the wordinspiration, which has the Latin rootinspīrāre – "to blow or breathe into".[16]
Christianity generally regards theagreed collections of books known as theBible as authoritative and as written by human authors under the inspiration of theHoly Spirit. Some Christians believe that the Bible isinerrant (totally without error and free from contradiction, including the historical and scientific parts)[17] orinfallible (inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not necessarily on matters of history or science).[18][need quotation to verify][19][20][21][22]
Some Christians infer that the Bible cannot both refer to itself as being divinely inspired and also be errant or fallible. For if the Bible were divinely inspired, then the source of inspiration being divine, would not be subject to fallibility or error in that which is produced. For them, the doctrines of the divine inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy, are inseparably tied together. The idea of biblicalintegrity is a further concept of infallibility, by suggesting that current biblical text is complete and without error, and that the integrity of biblical text has never been corrupted or degraded.[17] Historians[which?] note, or claim, that the doctrine of the Bible's infallibility was adopted[when?] hundreds of years after the books of the Bible were written.[disputed (for: Reference misattribution) –discuss][23]
The authority of the Bible can also be linked to the principle ofsola scriptura, the claim that by scripture alone[24] that the authority of the Bible is more important than the authority of the Church.
The content of theProtestant Old Testament is the same as theHebrew Bible canon, with changes in the division and order of books, but theCatholic Old Testament contains additional texts, known as thedeuterocanonical books. Protestants recognize 39 books in their Old Testament canon, while Roman Catholic andEastern Rite Catholics recognize 46 books as canonical.[25] However, various Eastern Orthodox Churches have differing Old Testament canons. For example, Slavic traditions include the book of2 Esdras in their biblical canons.[26] Some churches, such as theGeorgian Orthodox Church, deem the book of4 Maccabees as "uncanonical", yet still include the book in the Bible; while others do not include the book at all.[27] Eastern Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants use the same 27-book New Testament canon.
Early Christians used theSeptuagint, aKoine Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. Christianity subsequently endorsed various additional writings that would become the New Testament. In the 4th century a series ofsynods, most notably theSynod of Hippo in AD 393, produced a list of texts equal to the 46-book canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use today (and the 27-book canon of the New Testament that all use). A definitive list did not come from anyearly ecumenical council.[28] Around 400,Jerome produced theVulgate, a definitive Latin edition of the Bible, the contents of which, at the insistence of theBishop of Rome, accorded with the decisions of the earlier synods. This process effectively set the New Testament canon, although examples exist of other canonical lists in use after this time.[citation needed]
During the 16th-centuryProtestant Reformation certain reformers proposed different canonical lists of the Old Testament. The texts which appear in the Septuagint but not in the Jewish canon fell out of favor, and eventually disappeared from Protestant canons. Catholic Bibles classify these texts asdeuterocanonical books, whereas Protestant contexts label them as theApocrypha.
InChristianity, God is thecreator and preserver of the universe. God is presented as a father figure to humanity. God is thesoleultimate power in the universe but is distinct from it. TheBible never speaks of God as impersonal. Instead, it refers to him inpersonal terms – who speaks, sees, hears, acts, and loves. God is understood to have awill and personality and is anall powerful,divine andbenevolent being. He is represented inScripture as being primarily concerned with people and their salvation.[29]
ManyReformed theologians distinguish between thecommunicable attributes (those that human beings can also have) and theincommunicable attributes (those which belong to God alone).[30]
Some attributes ascribed to God in Christian theology[31] are:
Some Christians believe that the God worshiped by the Hebrew people of the pre-Christian era had always revealed himself as he did throughJesus; but that this was never obvious until Jesus was born (seeJohn 1). Also, though theAngel of the Lord spoke to the Patriarchs, revealing God to them, some believe it has always been only through theSpirit of God granting them understanding, that men have been able to perceive later that God himself had visited them.
This belief gradually developed into the modern formulation of theTrinity, which is the doctrine that God is a single entity (Yahweh), but that there is a trinity in God's single being, the meaning of which has always been debated. This mysterious "Trinity" has been described ashypostases in theGreek language (subsistences inLatin), and "persons" in English. Nonetheless, Christians stress that they only believe in one God.
Most Christian churches teach the Trinity, as opposed to Unitarian monotheistic beliefs. Historically, most Christian churches have taught that the nature of God is amystery, something that must be revealed byspecial revelation rather than deduced throughgeneral revelation.
Christian orthodox traditions (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) follow this idea, which was codified in 381 and reached its full development through the work of theCappadocian Fathers. They consider God to be atriune entity, called the Trinity, comprising the three "Persons";God the Father,God the Son, andGod the Holy Spirit, described as being "of the same substance" (ὁμοούσιος). The true nature of an infinite God, however, is commonly described as beyond definition, and the word 'person' is an imperfect expression of the idea.
Some critics contend that because of the adoption of a tripartite conception of deity, Christianity is a form oftritheism orpolytheism. This concept dates fromArian teachings which claimed that Jesus, having appeared later in the Bible than his Father, had to be a secondary, lesser, and therefore distinct god. ForJews andMuslims, the idea of God as a trinity isheretical– it is considered akin topolytheism. Christians overwhelmingly assert that monotheism is central to the Christian faith, as the veryNicene Creed (among others) which gives the orthodox Christian definition of the Trinity does begin with: "I believe in one God".
In the 3rd century,Tertullian claimed that God exists as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—the three personae of one and the same substance.[36] To trinitarian Christians God the Father is not at all a separate god from God the Son (of whomJesus is the incarnation) and the Holy Spirit, the otherhypostases (Persons) of theChristian Godhead.[36] According to the Nicene Creed, the Son (Jesus Christ) is "eternally begotten of the Father", indicating that their divine Father-Son relationship is not tied to an event within time or human history.
InChristianity, thedoctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously andeternally, as amutual indwelling of three Persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus), and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). Since earliest Christianity, one's salvation has been very closely related to the concept of a triune God, although the Trinitarian doctrine was not formalized until the 4th century. At that time, theEmperor Constantine convoked theFirst Council of Nicaea, to which all bishops of the empire were invited to attend.Pope Sylvester I did not attend but sent hislegate. The council, among other things, decreed the original Nicene Creed.
For most Christians, beliefs about God are enshrined in the doctrine ofTrinitarianism, which holds that the three persons of God together form a single God. The Trinitarian view emphasizes that God has a will and thatGod the Son has two wills, divine and human, though these are never in conflict (seeHypostatic union). However, this point is disputed by Oriental Orthodox Christians, who hold thatGod the Son has only one will of unified divinity and humanity (seeMiaphysitism).
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches the unity ofFather,Son, andHoly Spirit as three persons inone Godhead.[37] The doctrine states thatGod is the Triune God, existing as threepersons, or in theGreekhypostases,[38] but one being.[39] Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."[40]: 185–186. To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."[40]: p.186 Eachperson is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Since the beginning of the3rd century[41] the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "the one God exists in three Persons andone substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."[42]
Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark ofCatholicism,Eastern andOriental Orthodoxy as well as other prominent Christian sects arising from theProtestant Reformation, such asAnglicanism,Methodism,Lutheranism,Baptist, andPresbyterianism.The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes the Trinity as "the central dogma of Christian theology".[42] This doctrine contrasts withNontrinitarian positions which includeUnitarianism,Oneness andModalism. A small minority of Christians hold non-trinitarian views, largely coming under the heading ofUnitarianism.
Most, if not all, Christians believe that God is spirit,[43] an uncreated,omnipotent, and eternal being, the creator and sustainer of all things, who works the redemption of the world through his Son, Jesus Christ. With this background, belief in thedivinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit is expressed as the doctrine of theTrinity,[44] which describes the single divineousia (substance) existing as three distinct and inseparablehypostases (persons): theFather, the Son (Jesus Christ theLogos), and theHoly Spirit.[45]
The Trinitarian doctrine is considered by most Christians to be a core tenet of their faith.Nontrinitarians typically hold that God, the Father, is supreme; that Jesus, although still divine Lord and Saviour, is theSon of God; and that the Holy Spirit is a phenomenon akin to God's will on Earth. The holy three are separate, yet the Son and the Holy Spirit are still seen as originating from God the Father.
TheNew Testament does not have the term "Trinity" and nowhere discusses the Trinity as such. Some emphasize, however, that the New Testament does repeatedly speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to "compel a trinitarian understanding of God."[46] The doctrine developed from the biblical language used in New Testament passages such as the baptismal formula inMatthew 28:19 and by the end of the4th century it was widely held in its present form.
In manymonotheist religions, God is addressed as the father, in part because of his active interest in human affairs, in the way that a father would take an interest in his children who are dependent on him and as a father, he will respond to humanity, his children, acting in their best interests.[47] In Christianity, God is called "Father" in a more literal sense, besides being the creator and nurturer of creation, and the provider for his children.[48] The Father is said to be in unique relationship with his only begotten (monogenes) son,Jesus Christ, which implies an exclusive and intimate familiarity: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."[49]
In Christianity, God the Father's relationship with humanity is as a father to children—in a previously unheard-of sense—and not just as the creator and nurturer of creation, and the provider for his children, his people. Thus, humans, in general, are sometimes calledchildren of God. To Christians, God the Father's relationship with humanity is that of Creator and created beings, and in that respect he is the father of all. The New Testament says, in this sense, that the very idea of family, wherever it appears, derives its name from God the Father,[50] and thus God himself is the model of the family.
However, there is a deeper "legal" sense in which Christians believe that they are made participants in the special relationship of Father and Son, through Jesus Christ as his spiritualbride. Christians call themselvesadopted children of God.[51]
In the New Testament, God the Father has a special role in his relationship with the person of the Son, where Jesus is believed to be his Son and his heir.[52] According to theNicene Creed, the Son (Jesus Christ) is "eternally begotten of the Father", indicating that their divine Father-Son relationship is not tied to an event within time or human history.SeeChristology. The Bible refers to Christ, called "The Word" as present at the beginning of God's creation.,[53] not a creation himself, but equal in the personhood of the Trinity.
InEastern Orthodox theology, God the Father is the "principium" (beginning), the "source" or "origin" of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, which gives intuitive emphasis to the threeness of persons; by comparison, Western theology explains the "origin" of all threehypostases or persons as being in the divine nature, which gives intuitive emphasis to theoneness of God's being.[citation needed]
Christology is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature, person, and works ofJesus Christ, held by Christians to be theSon of God. Christology is concerned with the meeting of the human (Son of Man) and divine (God the Son orWord of God) in the person ofJesus.
Primary considerations include theIncarnation, the relationship of Jesus's nature and person with the nature and person of God, and thesalvific work of Jesus. As such, Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus's life (what he did) or teaching than with who or what he is. There have been and are various perspectives by those who claim to be his followers since the church began after his ascension. The controversies ultimately focused on whether and how ahuman nature and adivine nature can co-exist in one person. The study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is one of the preoccupations of the majority tradition.
Teachings about Jesus and testimonies about what he accomplished during his three-year public ministry are found throughout theNew Testament. Core biblical teachings about the person of Jesus Christ may be summarized that Jesus Christ was and forever is fully God (divine) and fully human in one sinless person at the same time,[54] and that through the death andresurrection of Jesus,sinful humans can be reconciled to God and thereby are offered salvation and the promise ofeternal life via hisNew Covenant. While there have been theological disputes over the nature of Jesus, Christians believe that Jesus isGod incarnate and "true God and true man" (or both fully divine and fully human). Jesus, having become fully human in all respects, suffered the pains and temptations of a mortal man, yet he did not sin. As fully God, he defeated death and rose to life again. Scripture asserts that Jesus was conceived, by the Holy Spirit, andborn of hisvirgin mother Mary without a human father.[55] The biblical accounts of Jesus's ministry includemiracles,preaching, teaching, healing,Death, andresurrection. The apostle Peter, in what has become a famous proclamation of faith among Christians since the 1st century, said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."[56] Most Christians now wait for theSecond Coming of Christ when they believe he will fulfill the remainingMessianic prophecies.
Christ is the English term for theGreekΧριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one".[57] It is a translation of theHebrewמָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usuallytransliterated into English asMessiah. The word is often misunderstood to be thesurname ofJesus due to the numerous mentions ofJesus Christ in the ChristianBible. The word is in fact used as atitle, hence its common reciprocal useChrist Jesus, meaning Jesus the Anointed One or Jesus the Messiah. Followers of Jesus became known asChristians because they believed that Jesus was the Christ, or Messiah,prophesied about in theOld Testament, orTanakh.
The Christological controversies came to a head over the persons of theGodhead and their relationship with one another.Christology was a fundamental concern from theFirst Council of Nicaea (325) until theThird Council of Constantinople (680). In this time period, the Christological views of various groups within the broader Christian community led to accusations ofheresy, and, infrequently, subsequentreligious persecution. In some cases, a sect's unique Christology is its chief distinctive feature, in these cases it is common for the sect to be known by the name given to its Christology.
The decisions made atFirst Council of Nicaea and re-ratified at theFirst Council of Constantinople, after several decades of ongoing controversy during which the work of Athanasius and theCappadocian Fathers were influential. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular it was affirmed that the Son washomoousios (of one substance) with the Father. TheCreed of the Nicene Council made statements about the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus, thus preparing the way for discussion about how exactly the divine and human come together in the person of Christ (Christology).
Nicaea insisted that Jesus was fully divine and also human. What it did not do was make clear how one person could be both divine and human, and how the divine and human were related within that one person. This led to the Christological controversies of the4th and5th centuries of the Christian era.
TheChalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all Christological debate, but it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for all other Christologies. Most of the major branches of Christianity—Catholicism,Eastern Orthodoxy,Anglicanism,Lutheranism, andReformed—subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Eastern Christianity—Syrian Orthodoxy,Assyrian Church,Coptic Orthodoxy,Ethiopian Orthodoxy, andArmenian Apostolicism—reject it.
According to the Bible, the second Person of the Trinity, because of his eternal relation to the first Person (God as Father), is theSon of God. He is considered (by Trinitarians) to be coequal with the Father and Holy Spirit. He isall God and all human: the Son of God as to his divine nature, while as to his human nature he is from the lineage of David.[58][59] The core of Jesus's self-interpretation was his "filial consciousness", his relationship to God as child to parent in some unique sense[29] (seeFilioque controversy). Hismission on earth proved to be that of enabling people to know God as their Father, which Christians believe is the essence ofeternal life.[60]
God the Son is the second person of theTrinity in Christian theology. Thedoctrine of the Trinity identifiesJesus ofNazareth asGod the Son,united in essence but distinct in person with regard toGod the Father and God theHoly Spirit (the first and third persons of the Trinity). God the Son is co-eternal with God the Father (and the Holy Spirit), both before Creation and after the End (seeEschatology). So Jesus was always "God the Son", though notrevealed as such until he also becamethe "Son of God" throughincarnation. "Son of God" draws attention to his humanity, whereas "God the Son" refers more generally to his divinity, including his pre-incarnate existence. So, in Christian theology, Jesus was always God the Son,[61] though notrevealed as such until he also became theSon of God throughincarnation.
The exact phrase "God the Son" is not in the New Testament. Later theological use of this expression reflects what came to be standard interpretation of New Testament references, understood to imply Jesus's divinity, but the distinction of his person from that of the one God he called his Father. As such, the title is associated more with the development of the doctrine of the Trinity than with theChristological debates. There are over 40 places in the New Testament where Jesus is given the title "the Son of God", but scholars do not consider this to be an equivalent expression. "God the Son" is rejected byanti-trinitarians, who view this reversal of the most common term for Christ as a doctrinal perversion and as tending towardstritheism.
Matthew cites Jesus as saying, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God (5:9)." Thegospels go on to document a great deal of controversy over Jesus beingthe Son of God, in a unique way. The book of theActs of the Apostles and the letters of the New Testament, however, record the early teaching of the first Christians– those who believed Jesus to beboth the Son of God, the Messiah, a man appointed by God, as well as God himself. This is evident in many places, however, the early part of the book of Hebrews addresses the issue in a deliberate, sustained argument, citing the scriptures of the Hebrew Bible as authorities. For example, the author quotes Psalm 45:6 as addressed by the God of Israel to Jesus.
The author of Hebrews' description of Jesus as the exact representation of the divine Father has parallels in a passage inColossians.
John's gospel quotes Jesus at length regarding his relationship with his heavenly Father. It also contains two famous attributions of divinity to Jesus.
The most direct references to Jesus as God are found in various letters.
The biblical basis for later trinitarian statements in creeds is the early baptism formula found in Matthew 28.
Docetism (from the Greek verbto seem) taught that Jesus was fully divine, and his human body was only illusory. At a very early stage, various Docetic groups arose; in particular, thegnostic sects which flourished in the 2nd century AD tended to have Docetic theologies. Docetic teachings were attacked bySt. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century), and appear to be targeted in the canonicalEpistles of John (dates are disputed, but range from the late 1st century among traditionalist scholars to the late 2nd century among critical scholars).
The Council of Nicaea rejected theologies that entirely ruled out any humanity in Christ, affirming in theNicene Creed the doctrine of theIncarnation as a part of the doctrine of theTrinity. That is, that the second person of the Trinity became incarnate in the personJesus and was fully human.
The early centuries of Christian history also had groups at the other end of the spectrum, arguing that Jesus was an ordinary mortal. TheAdoptionists taught that Jesus was born fully human, and was adopted asGod's Son whenJohn the Baptist baptised him[62] because of thelife he lived. Another group, known as theEbionites, taught that Jesus was not God, but the humanMoshiach (messiah, anointed) prophet promised in theHebrew Bible.
Some of these views could be described asUnitarianism (although that is a modern term) in their insistence on the oneness of God. These views, which directly affected how one understood the Godhead, were declaredheresies by the Council of Nicaea. Throughout much of the rest of the ancient history of Christianity, Christologies that denied Christ's divinity ceased to have a major impact on the life of the church.
Arianism affirmed that Jesus was divine, but taught that he was nevertheless a created being (there was [a time] when he was not [in existence]), and was therefore less divine than God the Father. The matter boiled down to one iota; Arianism taughtHomoiousia—the belief that Jesus's divinity issimilar to that of God the Father—as opposed toHomoousia—the belief that Jesus's divinity is thesame as that of God the Father.Arius' opponents additionally included in the termArianism the belief that Jesus's divinity isdifferent from that of God the Father (Heteroousia).
Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicea, but remained popular in the northern and western provinces of the empire, and continued to be the majority view of western Europe well into the 6th century. Indeed, even the Christian legend of Constantine's death-bed baptism involves a bishop who, in recorded history, was an Arian.
In the modern era, a number of denominations have rejected the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, including theChristadelphians and theJehovah's Witnesses.[63]
The Christological debates following the Council of Nicaea sought to make sense of the interplay of the human and divine in the person of Christ while upholding the doctrine of the Trinity.Apollinaris of Laodicea (310–390) taught that in Jesus, the divine component took the place of the humannous (thinking– not to be confused withthelis, meaningintent). This however was seen as a denial of Jesus's true humanity, and the view was condemned at theFirst Council of Constantinople.
Subsequently,Nestorius of Constantinople (386–451) initiated a view that effectively separated Jesus into two persons—one divine and one human; the mechanism of this combination is known ashypostases, and contrasts withhypostasis—the view that there is no separation. Nestorius' theology was deemed heretical at theFirst Council of Ephesus (431). Though, as seen by the writings ofBabai the Great, the Christology of theChurch of the East is highly similar to that of Chalcedon, many orthodox Christians (particularly in the West) consider this group to be the perpetuation ofNestorianism; the modern Assyrian Church of the East has at times shunned this term, as it implies acceptance of the entire theology of Nestorius.
Various forms ofMonophysitism taught that Christ only had one nature: that the divine had either dissolved (Eutychianism), or that the divine joined with the human as one nature in the person of Christ (Miaphysitism). A notable monophysite theologian wasEutyches (c. 380 – c. 456).Monophysitism was rejected asheresy at theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451, which affirmed that Jesus Christ had two natures (divine and human) joined in one person, inhypostatic union (seeChalcedonian creed). While Eutychianism was suppressed into oblivion by the Chalcedonians and Miaphysites, the Miaphysite groups who dissented from the Chalcedonian formula have persisted as theOriental Orthodox Church.
As theologians continued to search for a compromise between the Chalcedonian definition and theMonophysites, other Christologies developed that partially rejected the full humanity of Christ.Monothelitism taught that in the one person of Jesus there were two natures, but only a divine will. Closely related to this isMonoenergism, which held to the same doctrine as the Monothelites, but with different terminology. These positions were declaredheresy by theThird Council of Constantinople (the SixthEcumenical Council, 680–681).
The Incarnation is the belief inChristianity that the second person in theChristian Godhead, also known asGod the Son or theLogos (Word), "became flesh" when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of theVirgin Mary. The word Incarnate derives fromLatin (in=in or into, caro, carnis=flesh) meaning "to make into flesh" or "to become flesh". The incarnation is a fundamentaltheological teaching oforthodox (Nicene) Christianity, based on its understanding of theNew Testament. The incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created secondhypostasis of thetriune God, took on a human body and nature and becameboth man and God. In theBible its clearest teaching is inJohn 1:14: "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."[64]
In the Incarnation, as traditionally defined, the divine nature of the Son was joined but not mixed with human nature[65] in one divine Person,Jesus Christ, who was both "truly God and truly man". The Incarnation is commemorated and celebrated each year atChristmas, and also reference can be made to the Feast of theAnnunciation; "different aspects of the mystery of the Incarnation" are celebrated at Christmas and the Annunciation.[66]
This is central to the traditional faith held by most Christians. Alternative views on the subject (SeeEbionites and theGospel according to the Hebrews) have been proposed throughout the centuries (see below), but all were rejected bymainstream Christian bodies.
In recent decades, an alternative doctrine known as "Oneness" has been espoused among variousPentecostal groups (see below), but has been rejected by the remainder ofChristendom.
In theearly Christian era, there was considerable disagreement amongst Christians regarding the nature of Christ's Incarnation. While all Christians believed that Jesus was indeed theSon of God, the exact nature of his Sonship was contested, together with the precise relationship of the "Father", "Son" and "Holy Ghost" referred to in the New Testament. Though Jesus was clearly the "Son", what exactly did this mean? Debate on this subject raged most especially during the first four centuries of Christianity, involvingJewish Christians,Gnostics, followers of the PresbyterArius of Alexandra, and adherents ofSt. Athanasius the Great, among others.
Eventually, the Christian Church accepted the teaching of St. Athanasius and his allies, that Christ was the incarnation of the eternal second person of theTrinity, who was fully God and fully a man simultaneously. All divergent beliefs were defined asheresies. This includedDocetism, which said that Jesus was a divine being that took on human appearance but not flesh;Arianism, which held that Christ was a created being; andNestorianism, which maintained that the Son of God and the man, Jesus, shared the same body but retainedtwo separate natures. TheOneness belief held by certain modernPentecostal churches is also seen as heretical by most mainstream Christian bodies.
The most widely accepted the early Christian Church made definitions of the Incarnation and the nature of Jesus at theFirst Council of Nicaea in 325, theCouncil of Ephesus in 431, and theCouncil of Chalcedon in 451. These councils declared that Jesus was both fully God: begotten from, but not created by the Father; and fully man: taking his flesh and human nature from theVirgin Mary. These two natures, human and divine, werehypostatically united into the one personhood of Jesus Christ.[67]
The link between the Incarnation and theAtonement within systematic theological thought is complex. Within traditional models of the Atonement, such asSubstitution,Satisfaction orChristus Victor, Christ must be Divine in order for the Sacrifice of the Cross to be efficacious, for human sins to be "removed" or "conquered". In his workThe Trinity and the Kingdom of God,Jurgen Moltmann differentiated between what he called a "fortuitous" and a "necessary" Incarnation. The latter gives a soteriological emphasis to the Incarnation: the Son of God became a man so that he could save us from our sins. The former, on the other hand, speaks of the Incarnation as a fulfilment of theLove of God, of his desire to be present and living amidst humanity, to "walk in the garden" with us.
Moltmann favours "fortuitous" incarnation primarily because he feels that to speak of an incarnation of "necessity" is to do an injustice to thelife of Christ. Moltmann's work, alongside other systematic theologians, opens up avenues of liberationChristology.
In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. This view is sometimes calledDyophysite (meaning two natures) by those who rejected it.
Hypostatic union (from the Greek for substance) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstreamChristology to describe the union of two natures, humanity and divinity, in Jesus Christ. A brief definition of the doctrine of two natures can be given as: "Jesus Christ, who is identical with the Son, is one person and one hypostasis in two natures: a human and a divine."[68]
TheFirst Council of Ephesus recognised this doctrine and affirmed its importance, stating that the humanity and divinity of Christ are made one according to nature and hypostasis in theLogos.
TheFirst Council of Nicaea declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal. This belief was expressed in the Nicene Creed.
Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand theIncarnation.[69] Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence– a single hypostasis.
The NestorianTheodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.[70]
TheChalcedonian Creed agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in theIncarnation. However, theCouncil of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius.
Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person.[71]
As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union".
TheOriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known asMonophysites because they would only accept a definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. TheChalcedonian "in two natures" formula was seen as derived from and akin to aNestorian Christology.[72] Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towardsEutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox have in modern ecumenical dialogue specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term "Miaphysite" to refer to themselves (a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene").
In recent times, leaders from theEastern Orthodox andOriental Orthodox Churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work towards reunification.
Although Christian orthodoxy holds that Jesus was fully human, theEpistle to the Hebrews, for example, states that Christ was 'holy and without evil' (7:26). The question concerning the sinlessness of Jesus Christ focuses on this seeming paradox. Does being fully human require that one participate inthe "fall" of Adam, or could Jesus exist in an "unfallen" status asAdam and Eve did before the "fall", according to Genesis 2–3?
Evangelical writerDonald Macleod suggests that the sinless nature of Jesus Christ involves two elements. "First, Christ was free of actual sin."[73] Studying the gospels there is no reference to Jesus praying for the forgiveness of sin, nor confessing sin. The assertion is that Jesus did not commit sin, nor could he be proven guilty of sin; he had no vices. In fact, he is quoted as asking, "Can any of you prove me guilty of sin?" in John 8:46. "Secondly, he was free from inherent sin ("original sin" or "ancestral sin")."[73]
The temptation of Christ shown in the gospels affirms that he was tempted. Indeed, the temptations were genuine and of a greater intensity than normally experienced by human beings.[74] He experienced all the frail weaknesses of humanity. Jesus was tempted through hunger and thirst, pain and the love of his friends. Thus, the human weaknesses could engender temptation.[75] Nevertheless, MacLeod notes that "one crucial respect in which Christ was not like us is that he was not tempted by anything within himself."[75]
The temptations Christ faced focused upon his person and identity as the incarnate Son of God. MacLeod writes, "Christ could be tempted through his sonship." The temptation in the wilderness and again in Gethsemane exemplifies thisarena of temptation. Regarding the temptation of performing a sign that would affirm his sonship by throwing himself from the pinnacle of the temple, MacLeod observes, "The sign was for himself: a temptation to seek reassurance, as if to say, 'the real question is my own sonship. I must forget all else and all others and all further service until that is clear.'"[76] MacLeod places this struggle in the context of the incarnation, "...he has become a man and must accept not only the appearance but the reality."[76]
The communion of attributes (Communicatio idiomatum) of Christ's divine and human natures is understood according to Chalcedonian theology to mean that they exist together with neither overriding the other. That is, both are preserved and coexist in one person. Christ hadall the properties of God and humanity. God did not stop being God and become man. Christ was not half-God and half-human. The two natures did not mix into a new third kind of nature. Although independent, they acted in complete accord; when one nature acted, so did the other. The natures did not commingle, merge, infuse each other, or replace each other. One was not converted into the other. They remained distinct (yet acted with one accord).
The Gospel according to Matthew and Gospel according to Luke suggest a virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Some now disregard or even argue against this "doctrine" to which mostdenominations of Christianity ascribe. This section looks at the Christological issues surrounding belief or disbelief in the virgin birth.
A non-virgin birth would seem to require some form ofadoptionism. This is because a human conception and birth would seem to yield a fully human Jesus, with some other mechanism required to make Jesus divine as well.
A non-virgin birth would seem to support the full humanity of Jesus. William Barclay: states, "The supreme problem of the virgin birth is that it does quite undeniably differentiate Jesus from all men; it does leave us with an incomplete incarnation."[77]
Barth speaks of the virgin birth as the divine sign "which accompanies and indicates the mystery of the incarnation of the Son."[78]
Donald MacLeod[79] gives several Christological implications of a virgin birth:
The discussion of whether the three distinct persons in the Godhead of the Trinity were of greater, equal, or lesser by comparison was also, like many other areas of early Christology, a subject of debate. InAthenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190) writings we find a very developed trinitarian doctrine.[80][81] On the one end of the spectrum wasmodalism, a doctrine stating that the three persons of the Trinity were equal to the point of erasing their differences and distinctions. On the other end of the spectrum weretritheism as well as some radicallysubordinationist views, the latter of which emphasized the primacy of the Father of Creation to the deity of Christ and Jesus's authority over the Holy Spirit. During the Council of Nicea, the modalist bishops of Rome and Alexandria aligned politically with Athanasius; whereas the bishops of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, and Jerusalem sided with the subordinationists as middle ground between Arius and Athanasius.
Theologians likeJurgen Moltmann and Walter Kasper have characterized Christologies as anthropological or cosmological. These are also termed 'Christology from below' and 'Christology from above' respectively. An anthropological Christology starts with the human person of Jesus and works from his life and ministry toward what it means for him to be divine; whereas, a cosmological Christology works in the opposite direction. Starting from the eternal Logos, a cosmological Christology works toward his humanity. Theologians typically begin on one side or the other and their choice inevitably colors their resultant Christology. As a starting point, these options represent "diverse yet complementary" approaches; each poses its own difficulties. Both Christologies 'from above' and 'from below' must come to terms with the two natures of Christ: human and divine. Just as light can be perceived as a wave or as a particle, so Jesus must be thought in terms of both his divinity and humanity. You cannot talk about "either or" but must talk about "both and".[82]
Christologies from above start with the Logos, the second Person of the Trinity, establish his eternality, his agency in creation, and his economic Sonship. Jesus's unity with God is established by the Incarnation as the divine Logos assumes a human nature. This approach was common in the early church—e.g., St. Paul and St. John in the Gospels. The attribution of full humanity to Jesus is resolved by stating that the two natures mutually share their properties (a concept termedcommunicatio idiomatum).[83]
Christologies from below start with the human being Jesus as the representative of the new humanity, not with the pre-existent Logos. Jesus lives an exemplary life, one to which we aspire in religious experience. This form of Christology lends itself to mysticism, and some of its roots go back to emergence of Christ mysticism in the 6th century East, but in the West it flourished between the 11th and 14th centuries. A recent theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg contends that the resurrected Jesus is the "eschatological fulfillment of human destiny to live in nearness to God."[84]
The Christian faith is inherently political because allegiance to Jesus as risen Lord relativises all earthly rule and authority. Jesus is called "Lord" over 230 times in Paul's epistles alone, and is thus the principal confession of faith in the Pauline epistles. Further, N.T. Wright argues that this Pauline confession is the core of the gospel of salvation. The Achilles' heel of this approach is the loss of eschatological tension between this present age and the future divine rule that is yet to come. This can happen when the state co-opts Christ's authority as was often the case in imperial Christology. Modern political Christologies seek to overcome imperialist ideologies.[85]
The resurrection is perhaps the most controversial aspect of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity hinges on this point of Christology, both as a response to a particular history and as a confessional response.[86] Some Christians claim that because he was resurrected, the future of the world was forever altered. Most Christians believe that Jesus's resurrection brings reconciliation with God (II Corinthians 5:18), the destruction of death (I Corinthians 15:26), and forgiveness of sins for followers of Jesus Christ.
After Jesus had died, and was buried, theNew Testament states that he appeared to others in bodily form. Some skeptics say his appearances were only perceived by his followers in mind or spirit. The gospels state that the disciples believed they witnessed Jesus's resurrected body and that led to the beginning of the faith. They had previously hid in fear of persecution after Jesus's death. After seeing Jesus they boldly proclaimed the message of Jesus Christ despite tremendous risk. They obeyed Jesus's mandate to be reconciled to God through repentance (Luke 24:47), baptism, and obedience (Matthew 28:19–20).
Jesus Christ, the Mediator of humankind, fulfills thethree offices of Prophet, Priest, and King.Eusebius of the early church worked out this threefold classification, which during the Reformation played a substantial role inscholastic Lutheran Christology and inJohn Calvin's[87] andJohn Wesley's Christology.[88]
Pneumatology is the study of theHoly Spirit.Pneuma (πνεῦμα) isGreek for "breath", which metaphorically describes a non-material being or influence. In Christian theology pneumatology refers to the study of theHoly Spirit. InChristianity, the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) is the Spirit ofGod. Within mainstream (Trinitarian) Christian beliefs he is the third person of theTrinity. As part of theGodhead, the Holy Spirit is equal withGod the Father and withGod the Son. The Christian theology of the Holy Spirit was the last piece of Trinitarian theology to be fully developed.
Within mainstream (Trinitarian) Christianity the Holy Spirit is one of the threepersons of theTrinity who make up the singlesubstance of God. As such the Holy Spirit is personal, and as part of theGodhead, he is fully God, co-equal and co-eternal withGod the Father andSon of God.[89][90][91] He is different from the Father and the Son in that heproceeds from the Father (orfrom the Father and the Son) as described in theNicene Creed.[90] Hissacredness is reflected in theNew Testament gospels[92] which proclaimblasphemy against the Holy Spirit asunforgivable.
The English word comes from two Greek words: πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and λογος (logos, teaching about). Pneumatology would normally include study of the person of the Holy Spirit, and the works of the Holy Spirit. This latter category would normally include Christian teachings onnew birth,spiritual gifts (charismata),Spirit-baptism,sanctification, theinspiration ofprophets, and the indwelling of the Holy Trinity (which in itself covers many different aspects). DifferentChristian denominations have different theological approaches.
Christians believe that the Holy Spirit leads people to faith in Jesus and gives them the ability to live aChristian lifestyle. The Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian, each one's body being his temple.[93] Jesus described the Holy Spirit[94] asparacletus inLatin, derived fromGreek. The word is variously translated asComforter, Counselor, Teacher, Advocate,[95] guiding people in the way of the truth. The Holy Spirit's action in one's life is believed to produce positive results, known as theFruit of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit enables Christians, who still experience the effects of sin, to do things they never could do on their own. These spiritual gifts are not innate abilities "unlocked" by the Holy Spirit, but entirely new abilities, such as the ability to cast outdemons or simply bold speech. Through the influence of the Holy Spirit, a person sees more clearly the world around him or her and can use his or her mind and body in ways that exceed his or her previous capacity. A list of gifts that may be bestowed include thecharismatic gifts ofprophecy,tongues, healing, and knowledge. Christians holding a view known ascessationism believe these gifts were given only in New Testament times. Christians almost universally agree that certain "spiritual gifts" are still in effect today, including the gifts of ministry, teaching, giving, leadership, and mercy.[96] The experience of the Holy Spirit is sometimes referred to as beinganointed.
After hisresurrection, Christ told his disciples that they would be "baptized with the Holy Spirit" and would receive power from this event,[97] a promise that was fulfilled in the events recounted in the second chapter of Acts. On the firstPentecost, Jesus's disciples were gathered inJerusalem when a mighty wind was heard and tongues of fire appeared over their heads. A multilingual crowd heard the disciples speaking, and each of them heard them speaking in his or her nativelanguage.
The Holy Spirit is believed to perform specific divine functions in the life of the Christian or the church. These include:
The Holy Spirit is also believed to be active especially in the life ofJesus Christ, enabling him to fulfill his work on earth. Particular actions of the Holy Spirit include:
Christians believe the "Fruit of the Spirit" consists of virtuous characteristics engendered in the Christian by the action of the Holy Spirit. They are those listed inGalatians 5:22–23: "But the fruit of the Spirit islove,joy,peace,patience,kindness,goodness,faithfulness,gentleness, andself-control."[104] TheRoman Catholic Church adds to this listgenerosity,modesty, andchastity.[105]
Christians believe that the Holy Spirit gives 'gifts' to Christians. These gifts consist of specific abilities granted to the individual Christian.[99] They are frequently known by the Greek word for gift,Charisma, from which the termcharismatic derives. The New Testament provides three different lists of such gifts which range from the supernatural (healing, prophecy,tongues) through those associated with specific callings (teaching) to those expected of all Christians in some degree (faith). Most consider these lists not to be exhaustive, and other have compiled their own lists. SaintAmbrose wrote of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit poured out on a believer at baptism: 1. Spirit of Wisdom; 2. Spirit of Understanding; 3. Spirit of Counsel; 4. Spirit of Strength; 5. Spirit of Knowledge; 6. Spirit of Godliness; 7. Spirit ofHoly Fear.[106]
It is over the nature and occurrence of these gifts, particularly the supernatural gifts (sometimes called charismatic gifts), that the greatest disagreement between Christians with regard to the Holy Spirit exists.
One view is that the supernatural gifts were a special dispensation for the apostolic ages, bestowed because of the unique conditions of the church at that time, and are extremely rarely bestowed in the present time.[107] This is the view of some in the Catholic Church[91] and many other mainstream Christian groups. The alternate view, espoused mainly by Pentecostal denominations and the charismatic movement, is that the absence of the supernatural gifts was due to the neglect of the Holy Spirit and his work by the church. Although some small groups, such as theMontanists, practiced the supernatural gifts they were rare until the growth of thePentecostal movement in the late 19th century.[107]
Believers in the relevance of the supernatural gifts sometimes speak of aBaptism of the Holy Spirit orFilling of the Holy Spirit which the Christian needs to experience in order to receive those gifts. Many churches hold that theBaptism of the Holy Spirit is identical with conversion, and that all Christians are by definition baptized in the Holy Spirit.[107]
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Genesis 1: 3–5
The variousauthors of theOld andNew Testament provide glimpses of their insight regardingcosmology. Thecosmos was created by God by divine command, in the best-known and most complete account in the Bible, that of Genesis 1.
Within this broad understanding, however, there are a number of views regarding exactly how this doctrine ought to be interpreted.
It is a tenet of Christian faith (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) that God is thecreator of all things from nothing, and has made human beings in theImage of God, who by direct inference is also the source of the humansoul. InChalcedonian Christology,Jesus is the Word of God, which was in the beginning and, thus, is uncreated, and henceis God, and consequently identical with the Creator of the worldex nihilo.
Roman Catholicism uses the phrase special creation to refer to the doctrine of immediate or special creation of each human soul. In 2004, the International Theological Commission, then under the presidency of CardinalJoseph Ratzinger, published a paper in which it accepts the current scientific accounts of the history of the universe commencing in the Big Bang about 15 billion years ago and of the evolution of all life on earth including humans from the micro organisms commencing about 4 billion years ago.[108] TheRoman Catholic Church allows for both aliteral andallegorical interpretation ofGenesis, so as to allow for the possibility of Creation by means of anevolutionary process over great spans of time, otherwise known astheistic evolution.[dubious –discuss] It believes that the creation of the world is a work of God through theLogos, the Word (idea, intelligence, reason and logic):
The New Testament claims that God created everything by the eternal Word, Jesus Christ his beloved Son. In him
Christian anthropology is the study ofhumanity, especially as it relates to the divine. Thistheological anthropology refers to the study of the human ("anthropology") as it relates toGod. It differs from thesocial science ofanthropology, which primarily deals with the comparative study of the physical and social characteristics of humanity across times and places.
One aspect studies the innate nature or constitution of the human, known as thenature of mankind. It is concerned with the relationship between notions such asbody,soul and spirit which together form a person, based on their descriptions in theBible. There are three traditional views of the human constitution–trichotomism,dichotomism andmonism (in the sense of anthropology).[110]
The semantic domain ofBiblical soul is based on theHebrew wordnepes, which presumably means "breath" or "breathing being".[111] This word never means an immortal soul[112] or an incorporeal part of the human being[113] that can survive death of the body as the spirit of dead.[114] This word usually designates the person as a whole[115] or its physical life. In theSeptuagintnepes is mostly translated aspsyche (ψυχή) and, exceptionally, in theBook of Joshua asempneon (ἔμπνεον), that is "breathing being".[116]
TheNew Testament follows the terminology of theSeptuagint, and thus uses the wordpsyche with the Hebrew semantic domain and not the Greek,[117] that is an invisible power (or ever more, forPlatonists, immortal and immaterial) that gives life and motion to the body and is responsible for its attributes.
InPatristic thought, towards the end of the 2nd centurypsyche was understood in more a Greek than a Hebrew way, and it was contrasted with the body. In the 3rd century, with the influence ofOrigen, there was the establishing of the doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul and its divine nature.[118] Origen also taught thetransmigration of the souls and their preexistence, but these views were officially rejected in 553 in theFifth Ecumenical Council. Inherent immortality of the soul was accepted among western and eastern theologians throughout themiddle ages, and after the Reformation, as evidenced by theWestminster Confession.
The spirit (Hebrewruach, Greekπνεῦμα,pneuma, which can also mean "breath") is likewise an immaterial component. It is often used interchangeably with "soul",psyche, although trichotomists believe that the spirit is distinct from the soul.
The body (Greekσῶμαsoma) is the corporeal or physical aspect of a human being. Christians have traditionally believed that the body will beresurrected at the end of the age.
Flesh (Greekσάρξ,sarx) is usually considered synonymous with "body", referring to the corporeal aspect of a human being. Theapostle Paul contrasts flesh and spirit inRomans 7–8.
TheBible teaches in the book ofGenesis the humans were created by God. Some Christians believe that this must have involved a miraculous creative act, while others are comfortable with the idea that God worked through theevolutionary process.
The book ofGenesis also teaches that human beings, male and female, were created in the image of God. The exact meaning of this has been debated throughout church history.
Christian anthropology has implications for beliefs aboutdeath and theafterlife. The Christian church has traditionally taught that the soul of each individual separates from the body at death, to be reunited at theresurrection. This is closely related to the doctrine of theimmortality of the soul. For example, theWestminster Confession (chapter XXXII) states:
The question then arises: where exactly does the disembodied soul "go" at death? Theologians refer to this subject as theintermediate state. TheOld Testament speaks of a place calledsheol where the spirits of the dead reside. In theNew Testament,hades, the classical Greek realm of the dead, takes the place ofsheol. In particular, Jesus teaches in Luke 16:19–31 (Lazarus and Dives) thathades consists of two separate "sections", one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. His teaching is consistent withintertestamental Jewish thought on the subject.[120]
Fully developed Christian theology goes a step further; on the basis of such texts as Luke 23:43 and Philippians 1:23, it has traditionally been taught that the souls of the dead are received immediately either into heaven or hell, where they will experience a foretaste of their eternal destiny prior to the resurrection. (Roman Catholicism teaches a third possible location,Purgatory, though this is denied byProtestants andEastern Orthodox.)
Some Christian groups which stress a monistic anthropology deny that the soul can exist consciously apart from the body. For example, theSeventh-day Adventist Church teaches that the intermediate state is anunconscious sleep; this teaching is informally known as "soul sleep".
In Christian belief, both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected at thelast judgment. The righteous will receive incorruptible, immortal bodies (1 Corinthians 15), while the unrighteous will be sent tohell. Traditionally, Christians have believed that hell will be a place of eternal physical and psychological punishment. In the last two centuries,annihilationism has become popular.
The study of theBlessed Virgin Mary, doctrines about her, and how she relates to the Church, Christ, and the individual Christian is called Mariology.Catholic Mariology is the Marian study specifically in the context of theCatholic Church. Examples of Mariology include the study of and doctrines regarding herPerpetual Virginity, herMotherhood of God (and by extension herMotherhood/Intercession for all Christians), herImmaculate Conception, and herAssumption into heaven.
Most descriptions of angels in the Bible describe them in military terms. For example, in terms such as encampment (Gen.32:1–2), command structure (Ps.91:11–12;Matt.13:41;Rev.7:2), and combat (Jdg.5:20;Job 19:12;Rev.12:7).
Its specific hierarchy differs slightly from theHierarchy of Angels as it surrounds more military services, whereas the Hierarchy of angels is a division of angels into non-military services to God.
Cherubim are depicted as accompanying God's chariot-throne (Ps.80:1).Exodus 25:18–22 refers to two Cherub statues placed on top of theArk of the Covenant, the two cherubim are usually interpreted as guarding the throne of God. Other guard-like duties include being posted in locations such as the gates of Eden (Gen.3:24). Cherubim were mythological winged bulls or other beasts that were part of ancient Near Eastern traditions.[121]
This angelic designation might be given to angels of various ranks. An example would beRaphael who is ranked variously as a Seraph, Cherub, and Archangel .[122] This is usually a result of conflicting schemes of hierarchies of angels.
It is not known how many angels there are but one figure given inRevelation 5:11 for the number of "many angels in a circle around the throne, as well as the living creatures and the elders" was "ten thousand times ten thousand", which would be 100 million.
In most ofChristianity, a fallen angel is anangel who has beenexiled or banished fromHeaven. Often such banishment is a punishment for disobeying or rebelling againstGod (seeWar in Heaven). The best-known fallen angel isLucifer. Lucifer is a name frequently given toSatan inChristian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in theBible (Isaiah 14:3–20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (inLatin,Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. TheGreek etymological synonym of Lucifer, Φωσφόρος (Phosphoros, "light-bearer").[123][124] is used of the morning star in2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no reference to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton'sParadise Lost (7.131–134, among others), because, according to Milton, Satan was "brighter once amidst the host of Angels, than that star the stars among."
Allegedly, fallen angels are those which have committed one of the seven deadly sins. Therefore, are banished from heaven and suffer in hell for all eternity. Demons from hell would punish the fallen angel by ripping out their wings as a sign of insignificance and low rank.[125]
Christianity has taught Heaven as a place ofeternal life, in that it is a shared plane to be attained by all the elect (rather than an abstract experience related to individual concepts of the ideal). The Christian Church has been divided over how people gain this eternal life. From the 16th to the late 19th century,Christendom was divided between theCatholic view, theEastern Orthodox view, theCoptic view, theJacobite view, theAbyssinian view andProtestant views. See alsoChristian denominations.
Heaven is the English name for atranscendental realm wherein human beings who have transcended human living live in anafterlife. in the Bible and in English, the term "heaven" may refer to the physical heavens, thesky or the seemingly endless expanse of theuniverse beyond, the traditional literal meaning of the term in English.
Christianity maintains that entry into Heaven awaits such time as, "When the form of this world has passed away." (*JPII) One view expressed in the Bible is that on the day Christ returns the righteous dead are resurrected first, and then those who are alive and judged righteous will be brought up to join them, to be taken to heaven. (I Thess 4:13–18)
Two related and often confused concepts of heaven in Christianity are better described as the"resurrection of the body", which is exclusively of biblical origin, as contrasted with the "immortality of the soul", which is also evident in the Greek tradition. In the first concept, the soul does not enter heaven until thelast judgement or the "end of time" when it (along with the body) is resurrected and judged. In the second concept, thesoul goes to a heaven on another plane such as theintermediate state immediately after death. These two concepts are generally combined in the doctrine of the double judgement where the soul is judged once at death and goes to a temporary heaven, while awaiting a second and final physical judgement at theend of the world.(*" JPII, also seeeschatology,afterlife)
One popular medieval view of Heaven was that it existed as a physical place above the clouds and that God and the Angels were physically above, watching over man. Heaven as a physical place survived in the concept that it was located far out into space, and that the stars were "lights shining through from heaven".
Many of today's biblical scholars, such asN. T. Wright, in tracing the concept of Heaven back to its Jewish roots, see Earth and Heaven as overlapping or interlocking. Heaven is known as God's space, his dimension, and is not a place that can be reached by human technology. This belief states that Heaven is where God lives and reigns whilst being active and working alongside people on Earth. One day when God restores all things, Heaven and Earth will be forever combined into theNew Heavens and New Earth[126] of theWorld to Come.
Religions that teach about heaven differ on how (and if) one gets into it, typically in theafterlife. In most, entrance to Heaven is conditional on having lived a "good life" (within the terms of the spiritual system). A notable exception to this is the 'sola fide' belief of many mainstream Protestants, which teaches that one does not have to live a perfectly "good life", but that one must acceptJesus Christ as one's Lord and Saviour, and then Jesus Christ will assume the guilt of one'ssins; believers are believed to be forgiven regardless of any good or bad "works" one has participated in.[127]
Many religions state that those who do not go to heaven will go to a place "without the presence of God",Hell, which is eternal (seeannihilationism). Some religions believe that other afterlives exist in addition to Heaven and Hell, such asPurgatory. One belief,universalism, believes that everyone will go to Heaven eventually, no matter what they have done or believed on earth. Some forms of Christianity believe Hell to be the termination of the soul.
Varioussaints have hadvisions of heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2–4). The Eastern Orthodox concept of life in heaven is described in one of theprayers for the dead: "...a place of light, a place of green pasture, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow and sighing are fled away."[128]
The Church bases its belief in Heaven on some main biblical passages in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) and collected church wisdom. Heaven is the Realm of the BlessedTrinity, theangels[129] and thesaints.[130]
The essential joy of heaven is called thebeatific vision, which is derived from the vision of God's essence. The soul rests perfectly in God, and does not, or cannot desire anything else than God. After theLast Judgment, when the soul is reunited with its body, the body participates in the happiness of the soul. It becomes incorruptible, glorious and perfect. Any physical defects the body may have laboured under are erased. Heaven is also known asparadise in some cases.The Great Gulf separates heaven fromhell.
Upon dying, each soul goes to what is called "theparticular judgement" where its own afterlife is decided (i.e. Heaven after Purgatory, straight to Heaven, orHell.) This is different from "the general judgement" also known as "theLast judgement" which will occur whenChrist returns to judge all the living and the dead.
The term Heaven (which differs from "TheKingdom of Heaven" see note below) is applied by the biblical authors to the realm in which God currently resides. Eternal life, by contrast, occurs in a renewed, unspoilt and perfect creation, which can be termed Heaven since God will choose to dwell there permanently with his people, as seen inRevelation 21:3. There will no longer be any separation between God and man. The believers themselves will exist in incorruptible, resurrected and new bodies; there will be no sickness, no death and no tears. Some teach that death itself is not a natural part of life, but was allowed to happen afterAdam and Eve disobeyedGod (seeoriginal sin) so that mankind would not live forever in a state ofsin and thus a state of separation from God.
Many evangelicals understand this future life to be divided into two distinct periods: first, theMillennial Reign of Christ (the one thousand years) on this earth, referred to inRevelation 20:1–10; secondly, theNew Heavens and New Earth, referred to in Revelation 21 and 22. This millennialism (or chiliasm) is a revival of a strong tradition in theEarly Church[131] that was dismissed by Saint Augustine of Hippo and the Roman Catholic Church after him.
Not only will the believers spend eternity with God, they will also spend it with each other. John's vision recorded in Revelation describes aNew Jerusalem which comes from Heaven to the New Earth, which is seen to be a symbolic reference to the people of God living in community with one another. 'Heaven' will be the place where life will be lived to the full, in the way that the designer planned, each believer 'loving the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul and with all their mind' and 'loving their neighbour as themselves' (adapted from Matthew 22:37–38, theGreat Commandment)—a place of great joy, without the negative aspects of earthly life. See alsoWorld to Come.
Purgatory is the condition or temporary punishment[37] in which, it is believed, thesouls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready forHeaven. This is a theological idea that has ancient roots and is well-attested inearly Christian literature, while the poetic conception of purgatory as a geographically situated place is largely the creation of medieval Christian piety and imagination.[37]
The notion of purgatory is associated particularly with theLatin Church of theCatholic Church (in theEastern Catholic Churches it is a doctrine, though often without using the name "Purgatory");Anglicans of theAnglo-Catholic tradition generally also hold to the belief.[citation needed]John Wesley, the founder ofMethodism, believed in anintermediate state between death and thefinal judgment and in the possibility of "continuing to grow in holiness there."[132][133] TheEastern Orthodox Churches believe in the possibility of a change of situation for the souls of the dead through the prayers of the living and the offering of theDivine Liturgy,[134] and many Eastern Orthodox, especially among ascetics, hope and pray for a generalapocatastasis.[135] A similar belief in at least the possibility of a final salvation for all is held byMormonism.[136]Judaism also believes in the possibility of after-death purification[137] and may even use the word "purgatory" to present its understanding of the meaning ofGehenna.[138] However, the concept of soul "purification" may be explicitly denied in these other faith traditions.
Hell inChristian beliefs, is a place or a state in which thesouls of the unsaved will suffer the consequences ofsin. The Christian doctrine of Hell derives from the teaching of theNew Testament, where Hell is typically described using the Greek wordsGehenna orTartarus. UnlikeHades,Sheol, orPurgatory it is eternal, and those damned to Hell are without hope. In theNew Testament, it is described as the place or state ofpunishment after death orlast judgment for those who have rejected Jesus.[139] In many classical and popular depictions it is also the abode ofSatan and of Demons.[140] Such is not the case in theBook of Revelation, where Satan is thrown into Hell only at the end of Christ's millennium long reign on this Earth.[141]
Hell is generally defined as the eternal fate of unrepentant sinners after this life.[142] Hell's character is inferred from biblical teaching, which has often been understood literally.[142] Souls are said to pass into Hell by God's irrevocable judgment, either immediately after death (particular judgment) or in thegeneral judgment.[142] Modern theologians generally describe Hell as the logical consequence of the soul using its free will to reject the will of God.[142] It is considered compatible with God's justice and mercy because God will not interfere with the soul's free choice.[142]
Only in the King James Version of the bible is the word "Hell" used to translate certain words, such assheol (Hebrew) and bothhades andGehenna (Greek). All other translations reserve Hell only for use whenGehenna is mentioned. It is generally agreed that bothsheol andhades do not typically refer to the place of eternal punishment, but to theunderworld or temporary abode of the dead.[143]
Traditionally, the majority of Protestants have held that Hell will be a place of unending conscious torment, both physical and spiritual,[144] although some recent writers (such asC. S. Lewis[145] andJ.P. Moreland[146]) have cast Hell in terms of "eternal separation" from God. Certain biblical texts have led some theologians to the conclusion that punishment in Hell, though eternal and irrevocable, will be proportional to the deeds of each soul (e.g.Matthew 10:15,Luke 12:46–48).[147]
Another area of debate is the fate of the unevangelized (i.e. those who have never had an opportunity to hear the Christian gospel), those who die in infancy, and intellectually disabled people. Some Protestants agree withAugustine that people in these categories will be damned to Hell fororiginal sin, while others believe that God will make an exception in these cases.[144]
A "significant minority" believe in the doctrine ofconditional immortality,[148] which teaches that those sent to Hell will not experience eternal conscious punishment, but instead will be extinguished orannihilated after a period of "limited conscious punishment".[149] Prominent evangelical theologians who have adopted conditionalist beliefs includeJohn Wenham,Edward Fudge,Clark Pinnock andJohn Stott (although the latter has described himself as an "agnostic" on the issue of annihilationism).[144] Conditionalists typically reject the traditional concept of the immortality of the soul.
Some Protestants (such asGeorge MacDonald,Karl Randall,Keith DeRose andThomas Talbott), also, however, in a minority, believe that after serving their sentence inGehenna, all souls are reconciled toGod and admitted to heaven, or ways are found at the time of death of drawing all souls to repentance so that no "hellish" suffering is experienced. This view is often calledChristian universalism—its conservative branch is more specifically called 'Biblical orTrinitarian Universalism'—and is not to be confused withUnitarian Universalism. Seeuniversal reconciliation,apocatastasis andthe problem of Hell.
Theodicy can be said to be defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil. Specifically, Theodicy is a specific branch oftheology andphilosophy which attempts to reconcile belief inGod with the perceived existence ofevil.[150] As such, theodicy can be said to attempt to justify the behaviour ofGod (at least insofar as God allows evil).
Responses to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified asdefenses ortheodicies. However, authors disagree on the exact definitions.[151][152][153] Generally, adefense attempts to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. A defense need not argue that this is a probable or plausible explanation, only that the defense is logically possible. A defense attempts to answer thelogical problem of evil.
A theodicy, on the other hand, is a more ambitious attempt to provide a plausible justification for the existence of evil. A theodicy attempts to answer theevidential problem of evil.[152]Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods, unless we know what they are, i.e., we have a successful theodicy.[154]
As an example, some authors see arguments includingdemons or thefall of man as not logically impossible but not very plausible considering our knowledge about the world. Thus they are seen as defenses but not good theodicies.[152]C. S. Lewis writes in his bookThe Problem of Pain:
We can, perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of this abuse of free will by His creatures at every moment: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when it was used as a weapon, and the air refused to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry lies or insults. But such a world would be one in which wrong actions were impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void; nay, if the principle were carried out to its logical conclusion, evil thoughts would be impossible, for the cerebral matter which we use in thinking would refuse its task when we attempted to frame them.[155]
Another possible answer is that the world is corrupted due to the sin of mankind. Some answer that because of sin, the world has fallen from the grace of God, and is not perfect. Therefore, evils and imperfections persist because the world is fallen.[citation needed]William A. Dembski argues that the effects of Adam's sin recorded in the Book of Genesis were 'back-dated' by God, and hence applied to the earlier history of the universe.[156]
Evil is sometimes seen as a test or trial for humans.Irenaeus of Lyons and more recentlyJohn Hick have argued that evil and suffering are necessary for spiritual growth. This is often combined with the free will argument by arguing that such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. A problem with this is that many evils do not seem to cause any kind of spiritual growth, or even permit it, as when a child is abused from birth and becomes, seemingly inevitably, a brutal adult.
The problem of evil is often phrased in the form:Why do bad things happen to good people?.Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful due to thefall of man andoriginal sin; for example,Calvinist theology follows a doctrine calledfederal headship, which argues that the first man,Adam, was the legal representative of the entire human race. A counterargument to the basic version of this principle is that an omniscient God would have predicted this, when he created the world, and an omnipotent God could have prevented it.
TheBook of Isaiah clearly claims that God is the source of at least some natural disasters, but Isaiah does not attempt to explain the motivation behind the creation of evil.[157] In contrast, theBook of Job is one of the most widely known formulations of the problem of evil in Western thought. In it, Satan challenges God regarding his servant Job, claiming that Job only serves God for the blessings and protection that he receives from him. God allows Satan to plague Job and his family in a number of ways, with the limitation that Satan may not take Job's life (but his children are killed). Job discusses this with three friends and questions God regarding his suffering which he finds to be unjust. God responds in a speech and then more than restores Job's prior health, wealth, and gives him new children.
Bart D. Ehrman argues that different parts of the Bible give different answers. One example is evil as punishment for sin or as a consequence of sin. Ehrman writes that this seems to be based on some notion of free will although this argument is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Another argument is that suffering ultimately achieves a greater good, possibly for persons other than the sufferer, that would not have been possible otherwise. The Book of Job offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; another that God in his might chooses not to reveal his reasons.Ecclesiastes sees suffering as beyond human abilities to comprehend.Apocalyptic parts, including theNew Testament, see suffering as due to cosmic evil forces, that God for mysterious reasons has given power over the world, but which will soon be defeated and things will be set right.[158]
The Greek word in theNew Testament that is translated in English as "sin" ishamartia, which literally meansmissing the target.1 John 3:4 states: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin islawlessness". Jesusclarified the law by defining its foundation: "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first andgreatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All theLaw and theProphets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36–40)
Hamartiology (Greek:ἁμαρτία,hamartia, "missing the mark", "sin", + -λογια,-logia, "sayings" or "discourse") is the branch ofChristian theology, more specifically,systematic theology, which is the study ofsin with a view to articulating a doctrine of it.
Substantial branches of hamartiological understanding subscribe to the doctrine oforiginal sin, which was taught by the Apostle Paul in Romans 5:12–19 and popularized bySaint Augustine. Augustine taught that all the descendants ofAdam and Eve are guilty of Adam's sin without their own personal choice.[159]
In contrast,Pelagius argued that humans enter life as essentiallytabulae rasae.The fall that occurred when Adam and Eve disobeyedGod was held by his group to have affected humankind only minimally. But few theologians continue to hold this hamartiological viewpoint.
A third branch of thinking takes an intermediate position, arguing that after the fall of Adam and Eve, humans are born impacted by sin such that they have very decided tendencies toward sinning (which by personal choice all accountable humans butJesus soon choose to indulge).
The degree to which a Christian believes humanity is impacted by either a literal or metaphorical "fall" determines their understanding of related theological concepts likesalvation,justification, andsanctification.
Christian views on sin are mostly understood as legal infraction or contract violation, and so salvation tends to be viewed in legal terms, similar to Jewish thinking.
Inreligion, sin is the concept of acts that violate arule of God. The term sin may also refer to thestate of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moralcode of conduct is decreed by a divine entity, i.e.Divine law.
Sin is often used to mean an action that is prohibited or considered wrong; in some religions (notably some sects ofChristianity), sin can refer not only to physical actions taken, but also to thoughts and internalized motivations and feelings. Colloquially, any thought, word, or act considered immoral,shameful, harmful, or alienating might be termed "sinful".
An elementary concept of "sin" regards such acts and elements of Earthly living that one cannot take with them intotranscendental living. Food, for example is not of transcendental living and therefore its excessive savoring is considered a sin. A more developed concept of "sin" deals with a distinction between sins ofdeath (mortal sin) and the sins of human living (venial sin). In that context, mortal sins are said to have the dire consequence ofmortal penalty, while sins of living (food, casual or informalsexuality,play,inebriation) may be regarded as essential spice for transcendental living, even though these may be destructive in the context of human living (obesity,infidelity).
Common ideas surrounding sin in various religions include:
InWestern Christianity, "sin islawlessness" (1 John 3:4) and so salvation tends to be understood in legal terms, similar to Jewish law. Sin alienates the sinner from God. It has damaged, and completely severed, the relationship of humanity to God. That relationship can only be restored through acceptance ofJesus Christ and his death on the cross as a sacrifice for mankind's sin (seeSalvation andSubstitutionary atonement).
InEastern Christianity, sin is viewed in terms of its effects on relationships, both among people and between people and God. Sin is seen as the refusal to follow God's plan, and the desire to be like God and thus in direct opposition to him (see the account ofAdam and Eve in theBook of Genesis). To sin is to want control of one's destiny in opposition to the will of God, to do some rigid beliefs.
In theRussian variant ofEastern Orthodox Christianity, sin sometimes is regarded as any mistake made by people in their life. From this point of view every person is sinful because every person makes mistakes during his life. When person accuses others in sins he always must remember that he is also sinner and so he must have mercy for others remembering that God is also merciful to him and to all humanity.
The fall of man or simply the fall refers inChristian doctrine to the transition of the first humans from a state of innocent obedience toGod, to a state of guilty disobedience to God. In theBook of Genesis chapter 2,Adam and Eve live at first with God in aparadise, but are then deceived or tempted by theserpent to eatfruit from theTree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which had been forbidden to them by God. After doing so they become ashamed of their nakedness, and God consequently expelled them fromparadise. The fall is not mentioned by name in theBible, but the story of disobedience and expulsion is recounted in both Testaments in different ways. The Fall can refer to the wider theological inferences for all humankind as a consequence of Eve and Adam'soriginal sin. Examples include the teachings ofPaul inRomans 5:12–19 and1 Cor. 15:21–22.
SomeChristian denominations believe the fall corrupted the entire natural world, including human nature, causing people to be born intooriginal sin, a state from which they cannot attaineternal life without thegracious intervention of God.Protestants hold thatJesus' death was a"ransom" by which humanity was offered freedom from the sin acquired at the fall. In other religions, such asJudaism,Islam, andGnosticism, the term "the fall" is not recognized and varying interpretations of the Eden narrative are presented.
Christianity interprets the fall in a number of ways. Traditional Christian theology accepts the teaching ofSt Paul in his letter to theRomans[160][better source needed] "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and ofSt John'sGospel that "God so loved the world that he sent his only son (Jesus Christ) that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life".[161][better source needed]
The doctrine oforiginal sin, as articulated byAugustine of Hippo's interpretation ofPaul of Tarsus, provides that the fall caused a fundamental change in human nature, so that all descendants of Adam are born insin, and can only be redeemed bydivine grace. Sacrifice was the only means by which humanity could be redeemed after the fall. Jesus, who was without sin, died on thecross as the ultimate redemption for the sin of humankind.
Thus, the moment Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree—which God had commanded them not to do—sinful death was born;it was an act of disobedience, thinking they could become like gods, that was the sin. Since Adam was the head of the human race, he is held responsible for the evil that took place, for which reason thefall of man is referred to as the "sin of Adam". This sin caused Adam and his descendants to lose unrestricted access to God Himself. The years of life were limited. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). In Christian theology, thedeath of Jesus on thecross is theatonement to the sin of Adam. "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22). As a result of that act of Christ, all who put their trust inChrist alone now have unrestricted access to God through prayer and in presence.
Original sin, which Eastern Christians usually refer to asancestral sin,[162] is, according to a doctrine proposed in Christian theology, humanity's state ofsin resulting from thefall of man.[163] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic astotal depravity or automatic guilt by all humans through collective guilt.[164]
Those who uphold the doctrine look to the teaching ofPaul the Apostle inRomans 5:12–21 and1 Corinthians 15:22 for itsscriptural base,[42] and see it as perhaps implied in Old Testament passages such asPsalm 51:5 andPsalm 58:3.
TheApostolic Fathers and theApologists mostly dealt with topics other than original sin.[42] The doctrine of original sin was first developed in 2nd-century Bishop of LyonIrenaeus's struggle againstGnosticism.[42] The Greek Fathers emphasized the cosmic dimension of the fall, namely that since Adam human beings are born into a fallen world, but held fast to belief that man, though fallen, is free.[42] It was in the West that precise definition of the doctrine arose.[42]Augustine of Hippo taught that original sin was both an act of foolishness (insipientia) and of pride and disobedience to the God of Adam and Eve. He thought it was a most subtle job to discern what came first: self-centeredness or failure in seeing truth.[165] The sin would not have taken place, if satan had not sown into their senses"the root of evil" (radix Mali).[166] The sin of Adam and Eve wounded their nature, affecting human intelligence and will, as well as affections and desires, including sexual desire. The consequences of the fall were transmitted to their descendants in the form ofconcupiscence, which is ametaphysical term, and not apsychological one.Thomas Aquinas explained Augustine's doctrine pointing out that thelibido (concupiscence), which makes the original sin pass from parents to children, is not alibido actualis, i.e. sexual lust, butlibido habitualis, i.e. a wound of the whole of human nature.[167] Augustine insisted that concupiscence was nota being butbad quality, the privation of good or a wound.[168] The bishop of Hippo admitted that sexual concupiscence (libido) might have been present in the perfect human nature in the paradise, and that only later it had become disobedient to human will as a result of the first couple's disobedience to God's will in the original sin.[169] The original sin have made humanity amassa damnata[42] (mass of perdition, condemned crowd). In Augustine's view (termed "Realism"), all of humanity was really present in Adam when he sinned, and therefore all have sinned. Original sin, according to Augustine, consists of the guilt of Adam which all humans inherit. As sinners, humans are utterly depraved in nature, lack the freedom to do good, and cannot respond to the will of God withoutdivine grace. Grace isirresistible, results in conversion, and leads toperseverance.[170]
Augustine's formulation of original sin was popular among Protestant reformers, such asMartin Luther andJohn Calvin, and also, within Roman Catholicism, in theJansenist movement, but this movement was declared heretical by the Catholic Church.[171] There are wide-ranging disagreements among Christian groups as to the exact understanding of the doctrine about a state of sinfulness or absence of holiness affecting all humans, even children, with some Christian groups denying it altogether.
The notion of original sin as interpreted byAugustine of Hippo was affirmed by theProtestant Reformer John Calvin.Calvin believed that humans inherit Adamic guilt and are in a state of sin from the moment of conception. This inherently sinful nature (the basis for theCalvinistic doctrine of "total depravity") results in a complete alienation from God and the total inability of humans to achieve reconciliation with God based on their own abilities. Not only do individuals inherit a sinful nature due to Adam's fall, but since he was the federal head and representative of the human race, all whom he represented inherit the guilt of his sin by imputation.
The scriptural basis for the doctrine is found in two New Testament books byPaul the Apostle,Romans 5:12–21 and1 Corinthians 15:22, in which he identifies Adam as the one man through whom death came into the world.[42][172]
Total depravity (also called absolute inability and total corruption) is a theologicaldoctrine that derives from theAugustinian concept oforiginal sin. It is the teaching that, as a consequence of thefall of man, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service ofsin and, apart from theefficacious orprevenient grace of God, is utterly unable to choose to followGod or choose to acceptsalvation as it is freely offered.
It is also advocated to various degrees by many Protestant confessions of faith and catechisms, including those ofLutheranism,[173]Arminianism,[174] andCalvinism.[175]
Total depravity is the fallen state of man as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are by nature not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather all are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and to reject the rule of God. Even religion andphilanthropy are wicked to God to the extent that these originate from a human imagination, passion, and will and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, inReformed theology, if God is to save anyone He mustpredestine, call, elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, indeed is incapable of choosing God.[176]
Total depravity does not mean, however, that people are as evil as possible. Rather, it means that even the good which a person may intend is faulty in its premise, false in its motive, and weak in its implementation; and there is no mere refinement of natural capacities that can correct this condition. Thus, even acts of generosity and altruism are in factegoist acts in disguise. All good, consequently, is derived from God alone, and in no way through man.[177]
This table summarizes three Protestant beliefs on depravity.
| Topic | Calvinism | Lutheranism | Arminianism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depravity and human will | ForCalvin, in Total Depravity[178] humanity possesses "free will",[179] but it is in bondage to sin,[180] until it is "transformed".[181] | ForLuther, in Total Depravity[182][183] humanity possesses free-will/free choice in regard to "goods and possessions", but regarding "salvation or damnation" people are in bondage either to God or Satan."[184] | ForArminius, in Depravity[185] humanity possesses freedom from necessity, but not "freedom from sin" unless enabled by "prevenient grace".[186] |
Christiansoteriology is the branch of Christian theology that deals with one'ssalvation.[187] It is derived from theGreeksōtērion (salvation) (fromsōtēr savior, preserver) + English-logy.[188]
Atonement is a doctrine that describes how human beings can be reconciled toGod. In Christian theology the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of one'ssin through the death ofJesus Christ bycrucifixion, which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation. Within Christianity there are three main theories for how such atonement might work: theransom theory, thesatisfaction theory and themoral influence theory. Christian soteriology is unlike and not to be confused withcollective salvation.
Christian soteriology traditionally focuses on how God ends the separation people have from him due tosin by reconciling them with himself. (Rom. 5:10–11). Many Christians believe they receive the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), life (Rom. 8:11), and salvation (1 Thess. 5:9) bought byJesus through his innocent suffering, death, and resurrection from the dead three days later (Matt. 28).
Christ's death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of theHoly Spirit, is calledThe Paschal Mystery. Christ's human birth is called theIncarnation. Either or both are considered in different versions of soteriology.
While not neglecting thePaschal Mystery, many Christians believe salvation is brought through theIncarnation itself, in which God took on human nature so that humans could partake in the divine nature (2 Peter 1.4). AsSt. Athanasius put it, God became human so that we might become divine (St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.). Thisgrace in Christ (1 Cor. 1:4) is received as a gift of God that cannot be merited by works done prior to one's conversion to Christianity (Eph. 2:8–9), which is brought about by hearing God's Word (Rom. 10:17) and harkening to it. This involves accepting Jesus Christ as the personal saviour and Lord over one's life.
Protestant teaching, originating withMartin Luther, teaches that salvation is received bygrace alone and that one's sole necessary response to this grace isfaith alone. Older Christian teaching, as found in Catholic and Orthodox theology, is that salvation is received bygrace alone, but that one's necessary response to this grace comprises both faith and works (James 2:24, 26; Rom 2:6–7; Gal 5:6).
Human beings exists because God wanted to share His life with them. In this sense, every human being is God's child. In a fuller sense, to come to salvation is to be reconciled to God through Christ and to be united with His divine Essence viaTheosis in thebeatific vision of the Godhead. The graces of Christ's passion, death, and resurrection are found in theseven sacraments of theCatholic Church.
| Protestant beliefs about salvation | |||
| This table summarizes the classical views of threeProtestant beliefs about salvation.[189] | |||
| Topic | Calvinism | Lutheranism | Arminianism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human will | Total depravity:[182] Humanity possesses "free will",[190] but it is in bondage to sin,[191] until it is "transformed".[192] | Total depravity:[182][193][194] Humanity possesses free will in regard to "goods and possessions", but is sinful by nature and unable to contribute to its own salvation.[195][196][197] | Total depravity: Humanity possesses freedom fromnecessity, but not "freedom from sin" unless enabled by "prevenient grace".[198] |
| Election | Unconditional election. | Unconditional election.[182][199] | Conditional election in view of foreseen faith or unbelief.[200] |
| Justification and atonement | Justification by faith alone. Various views regarding the extent of the atonement.[201] | Justification for all men,[202] completed at Christ's death and effective throughfaith alone.[203][204][205][206] | Justification madepossible for all through Christ's death, but only completed uponchoosing faith in Jesus.[207] |
| Conversion | Monergistic,[208] through the means of grace,irresistible. | Monergistic,[209][210] through themeans of grace,resistible.[211] | Synergistic, resistible due to the common grace of free will.[212][213] |
| Perseverance and apostasy | Perseverance of the saints: the eternally elect in Christ will certainly persevere in faith.[214] | Holy Spirit strengthens the faith of the believer through the proclamation of the Word and participation in thesacraments;[215][216]falling away is possible through loss of faith ormortal sin.[217][218][219][220] | Preservation is conditional upon continued faith in Christ; with the possibility of a finalapostasy.[221] |
Ecclesiology (fromGreekἐκκλησίᾱ,ekklēsiā, "congregation,church"; and-λογία,-logia) is the study of the theological understanding of theChristian church, including theinstitutional structure,sacraments and practices (especially theworship of God) thereof. Specific areas of concern include the church's role insalvation, its origin, its relationship to the historicalChrist, its discipline, itsdestiny, and itsleadership. Ecclesiology is, therefore, the study of the church as a thing in, and of, itself.
Different ecclesiologies give shape to very different institutions. Thus, in addition to describing a broad discipline of theology, ecclesiology may be used in the specific sense of a particular church or denomination's character, self-described or otherwise. This is the sense of the word in such phrases asRoman Catholic ecclesiology,Lutheran ecclesiology, andecumenical ecclesiology.
Ecclesiology asks the questions:
Ecclesiastical polity is the operational and governance structure of achurch orChristian denomination. It also denotes theministerial structure of the church and the authority relationships between churches. Polity is closely related toEcclesiology, the study of doctrine and theology relating to church organization.
Issues of church governance appear in the first chapters of theActs of the Apostles; the first act recorded after theascension is the election ofMatthias to replaceJudas Iscariot. Over the years a system of episcopal polity developed.
During theProtestant Reformation, arguments were made that theNew Testament prescribed structures quite different from that of theCatholic Church of the day, and different Protestant bodies used different types of polity. It was during this period thatRichard Hooker wroteOf the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity to defend the polity of theChurch of England against thePuritans.
Episcopal polity is used in several closely related senses. Most commonly it refers to the field of church governance in the abstract, but it also can refer to the governance of a particular Christian body. In this sense it is used as a term incivil law. "Polity" is sometimes used as a shorthand for the church governance structure itself.
Though each church or denomination has its own characteristic structure, there are three general types of polity.
Churches having episcopal polity are governed bybishops. The title bishop comes from the Greek wordepiskopos, which literally translates intooverseer.[222] In regard toCatholicism, bishops have authority over thediocese, which is both sacramental and political; as well as performingordinations,confirmations, andconsecrations, the bishop supervises theclergy of the diocese and represents the diocese both secularly and in the hierarchy of church governance.
Bishops in this system may be subject to higher ranking bishops (variously calledarchbishops,metropolitans orpatriarchs, depending upon the tradition;see alsoBishop for further explanation of the varieties of bishops.) They also meet in councils orsynods. These synods, subject to presidency by higher ranking bishops, may govern the dioceses which are represented in the council, though thesynod may also be purely advisory.
Note that the presence of the office of "bishop" within a church is not proof of episcopal polity. For example, inMormonism, the "bishop" occupies the office that in anAnglican church would be occupied by apriest.
Also, episcopal polity is not usually a simple chain of command.Instead, some authority may be held, not only by synods and colleges of bishops, but bylay andclerical councils. Further, patterns of authority are subject to a wide variety of historical rights and honors which may cut across simple lines of authority.
Episcopal polity is the predominant pattern inCatholic,Eastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox andAnglican churches. It is also common inMethodist andLutheran churches. Among churches with episcopal polity, different theories of autonomy are expressed. So inRoman Catholicism the church is viewed as a single polity headed by thepope, but inEastern Orthodoxy the various churches retain formalautonomy but are held to be unified by shared doctrine andconciliarity—that is, the authority of councils, such asecumenical councils,Holy Synods and the former standing council, theEndemusa Synod.
ManyReformed churches, notably those in thePresbyterian and Continental Reformed traditions, are governed by a hierarchy of councils. The lowest level council governs a single local church and is called thesession orconsistory; its members are calledelders. Theminister of the church (sometimes referred to as ateaching elder) is a member of and presides over the session; lay representatives (ruling elders or, informally, just elders) are elected by the congregation. The session sends representatives to the next level higher council, called thepresbytery orclassis. In some Presbyterian churches there are higher level councils (synods orgeneral assemblies). Each council has authority over its constituents, and the representatives at each level are expected to use their own judgment. Hence higher level councils act as courts of appeal for church trials and disputes, and it is not uncommon to see rulings and decisions overturned.
Presbyterian polity is, of course, the characteristic governance ofPresbyterian churches, and also of churches in the Continental Reformed tradition. Elements of presbyterian polity are also found in other churches. For example, in theEpiscopal Church in the United States of America governance by bishops is paralleled by a system of deputies, who are lay and clerical representatives elected by parishes and, at the national level, by the dioceses. Legislation in thegeneral convention requires the separate consent of the bishops and of the deputies.
Note that, in episcopal polity, apresbyter refers to apriest.
Congregationalist polity dispenses with titled positions such asbishop as a requirement of church structure. The local congregation rules itself, though local leaders and councils may be appointed.
Members may be sent from the congregation to associations that are sometimes identified with the church bodies formed byLutherans,Presbyterians,Anglicans, and other non-congregationalProtestants. The similarity is deceptive, however, because the congregationalist associations do not exercise control over their members (other than ending their membership in the association). Many congregationalist churches are completely independent in principle. One major exception isOrdination, where even congregationalist churches often invite members of thevicinage or association to ordain their called pastor.
It is a principle of congregationalism that ministers do not govern congregations by themselves. They may preside over the congregation, but it is the congregation which exerts its authority in the end.
Congregational polity is sometimes called "Baptist polity", as it is the characteristic polity ofBaptist churches.
Missiology is the interdisciplinary study of Christian mission history and methodology, emerging as an academic discipline in the 19th century. It examines the missionary work of various Christian denominations, focusing on themes likeinculturation, contextualization, andinterfaith relations, while engaging with social sciences.[223][224] Notable figures includeAlexander Duff andGustav Warneck, who were pivotal in establishing missiology as a formal field of study.
A sacrament, as defined in Hexam'sConcise Dictionary of Religion, is whatRoman Catholics believe to be "arite in whichGod is uniquely active".Augustine of Hippo defined aChristian sacrament as "a visible sign of an invisible reality". The AnglicanBook of Common Prayer speaks of them as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace." Examples of sacraments would be Baptism and theEucharist."[225] Therefore a sacrament is areligious symbol or often a rite which conveysdivine grace,blessing, orsanctity upon the believer who participates in it, or a tangible symbol which represents an intangible reality. As defined above, an example would bebaptism in water, representing (and conveying) thegrace of the gift of theHoly Spirit, theForgiveness of Sins, and membership into theChurch. Anointing withholy anointing oil is another example which is often synonymous with receiving theHoly Spirit and salvation. Another way of looking at Sacraments is that they are an external and physical sign of the conferral ofSanctifying Grace.[226]
Throughout the Christian faith, views concerning which rites are sacramental, that is conferring sanctifying grace, and what it means for an external act to be sacramental vary widely. Other religious traditions also have what might be called "sacraments" in a sense, though not necessarily according to the Christian meaning of the term.
In the majority of Western Christianity, the generally accepted definition of a sacrament is that it is an outward sign that conveys spiritualgrace through Christ. Christianchurches,denominations, andsects are divided regarding the number and operation of the sacraments. Sacraments are generally held to have been instituted byJesus Christ, although in some cases this point is debated. They are usually administered by theclergy to a recipient or recipients, and are generally understood to involve visible and invisible components. The invisible component (manifested inwardly) is understood to be brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit,God's grace working in the sacrament's participants, while the visible (or outward) component entails the use of such things as water, oil, and bread and wine that is blessed orconsecrated; the laying-on-of-hands; or a particularly significant covenant that is marked by a public benediction (such as with marriage or absolution of sin in the reconciliation of a penitent).
As defined by theRoman Catholic Church, recognised by theEastern Orthodox churches,Oriental Orthodox, (though these two do not categorically define the number), andIndependent Catholic andOld Catholic Church.
The Orthodox Churches (Eastern and Oriental) typically do not limit the number of sacraments, viewing all encounters with reality in life as sacramental in some sense, and their acknowledgement of the number of sacraments at seven as an innovation of convenience not found in theChurch Fathers. It came into use, although infrequently, later on from later encounters with the West and its Sacramental Theology.[227] Other denominations and traditions, both in eastern and western Christianity may affirm only Baptism and Eucharist as sacraments, these include many of theProtestant denominations and some of theOld Believers in the Orthodox communion, some of whom reject all sacraments except Baptism.
Since some post-Reformation denominations do not regard clergy as having a classicallysacerdotal or priestly function, they avoid the term "sacrament", preferring the terms "sacerdotal function", "ordinance", or "tradition". This belief invests the efficacy of theordinance in the obedience and participation of the believer and the witness of the presiding minister and the congregation. This view stems from a highly developed concept of thepriesthood of all believers. In this sense, the believer himself or herself performs the sacerdotal role[citation needed].
Eucharist, also called Communion, or the Lord's Supper, and other names, is a Christiansacrament orordinance, generally considered to be a re-enactment of theLast Supper, the final meal that JesusChrist shared with his disciples before his arrest and eventualcrucifixion. The consecration of bread and a cup within therite recalls the moment at the Last Supper whenJesus gave his disciples bread, saying, "This is my body", and wine, saying, "This is myblood".[37][228]
There are different interpretations of the significance of the Eucharist, but "there is more of a consensus among Christians about the meaning of the Eucharist than would appear from the confessional debates over the sacramental presence, the effects of the Eucharist, and the proper auspices under which it may be celebrated."[229]
The phrase "the Eucharist" may refer not only to the rite but also to the consecratedbread (leavened or unleavened) andwine (or, in someProtestant denominations, unfermentedgrape juice) used in the rite,[230] and, in this sense, communicants may speak of "receiving the Eucharist", as well as "celebrating the Eucharist".
Eucharist is fromGreek εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning thanksgiving. The verb εὐχαριστῶ, the usual word for "to thank" in theSeptuagint and theNew Testament, is found in the major texts concerning the Lord's Supper, including the earliest:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he hadgiven thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:23–24)
The Lord's Supper (Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον) derives from 1 Corinthians 11:20–21.
When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat, for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.
Communion is a translation; other translations are "participation", "sharing", "fellowship"[231] of the Greek κοινωνία (koinōnía) in1 Corinthians 10:16. TheKing James Version has:
The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not thecommunion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not thecommunion of the body of Christ?[232]
TheLast Supper appears in all threeSynoptic Gospels:Matthew,Mark, andLuke; and in theFirst Epistle to the Corinthians,[37][233][234] while the last-named of these also indicates something of how early Christians celebrated whatPaul the Apostle called the Lord's Supper. As well as the Eucharistic dialogue inJohn chapter 6.
In hisFirst Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 54–55),Paul the Apostle gives the earliest recorded description of Jesus'sLast Supper: "The Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is thenew covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me'."[235]
The synoptic gospels, first Mark,[236] and then Matthew[237] and Luke,[238] depict Jesus as presiding over the Last Supper. References to Jesus's body and blood foreshadow his crucifixion, and he identifies them as a new covenant.[239] In the gospel of John, the account of the Last Supper has no mention of Jesus taking bread and wine and speaking of them as his body and blood; instead it recounts his humble act of washing the disciples' feet, the prophecy of the betrayal, which set in motion the events that would lead to the cross, and his long discourse in response to some questions posed by his followers, in which he went on to speak of the importance of the unity of the disciples with him and each other.[239][240]
The expressionThe Lord's Supper, derived fromSt. Paul's usage in1 Corinthians 11:17–34, may have originally referred to theAgape feast, the sharedcommunal meal with which the Eucharist was originally associated.[241] The Agape feast is mentioned inJude 12. ButThe Lord's Supper is now commonly used in reference to a celebration involving no food other than the sacramental bread and wine.
TheDidache (Greek: teaching) is an early Church order, including, among other features, instructions forbaptism and the Eucharist. Most scholars date it to the early 2nd century,[242] and distinguish in it two separate Eucharistic traditions, the earlier tradition in chapter 10 and the later one preceding it in chapter 9.[243] The Eucharist is mentioned again in chapter 14.
Ignatius of Antioch, one of the Apostolic Fathers and a direct disciple of theApostle John, mentions the Eucharist as "the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ",[244] and Justin Martyr speaks of it as more than a meal: "the food over which the prayer of thanksgiving, the word received from Christ, has been said ... is the flesh and blood of this Jesus who became flesh ... and the deacons carry some to those who are absent."[245]
Many Christian denominations classify the Eucharist as asacrament.[246] SomeProtestants prefer to call it anordinance, viewing it not as a specific channel ofdivine grace but as an expression of faith and of obedience toChrist.
Most Christians, even those who deny that there is any real change in the elements used, recognize a special presence of Christ in this rite, though they differ about exactly how, where, and when Christ is present.[247]Roman Catholicism andEastern Orthodoxy teach that the consecrated elements truly become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.Transubstantiation is themetaphysical explanation given by Roman Catholics as to how this transformation occurs.Lutherans believe that the body and blood of Jesus are present "in, with and under" the forms of bread and wine, a concept known as thesacramental union. TheReformed churches, following the teachings ofJohn Calvin, believe in a spiritual (or "pneumatic")real presence of Christ by the power of theHoly Spirit and received by faith.Anglicans adhere toa range of views although the Anglican church officially teaches the real presence. Some Christians reject the concept of the real presence, believing that the Eucharist is only amemorial of the death of Christ.
TheBaptism, Eucharist and Ministry document of theWorld Council of Churches, attempting to present the common understanding of the Eucharist on the part of the generality of Christians, describes it as "essentially the sacrament of the gift which God makes to us in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit", "Thanksgiving to the Father", "Anamnesis or Memorial of Christ", "the sacrament of the unique sacrifice of Christ, who ever lives to make intercession for us", "the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, the sacrament of hisreal presence", "Invocation of the Spirit", "Communion of the Faithful", and "Meal of the Kingdom".
Eschatology (derived from the Greek roots ἔσχατος "last" and λογία "discourse", "study") is the study of the end of things, whether the end of an individual life, the end of the age, or the end of the world. Broadly speaking, it is the study of the destiny of man as revealed in theBible.[248]
Eschatology is concerned with theafterlife, beginning withdeath and the personaljudgment which follows the death of the individual, and which is followed by the destination ofheaven orhell. (In Catholic theology, heaven is sometimes preceded bypurgatory.) Eschatology also concerns itself with events which are said to happen at the end of this age: thereturn of Jesus, theresurrection of the dead, theRapture, theTribulation, and following these things, the Millennium, or thousand years of peace, which has been interpreted both literally and symbolically. Finally, eschatology concerns itself with theend of the world and its associated events: theLast Judgment; the banishment of Death, Hades, and Satan and his followers to the Lake of Fire; and the creation of a new heaven and earth.[249]
Eschatology is an ancient branch of study in Christian theology, with study of the "last things" and theSecond Coming of Christ first touched on byIgnatius of Antioch (c. 35 – c. 107 AD), then given more consideration by the Christian apologist in Rome,Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165).[250] Treatment of eschatology continued in the West in the teachings of the influential theologian of Roman North Africa,Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), and was given fuller reflection and speculation soon after in the East by the master theologian,Origen (c. 185 – c. 254).[251]
Martin Luther,John Calvin, and other 16th-century reformers wrote long tracts about the End Times, but interest in eschatology dwindled after the Reformation until the late 19th century, when it became popular in the Reformed, Pentecostal, and Evangelical sects. It was increasingly recognized as a formal division of theological study during the 20th century.[252]
The second coming of Christ is the central event in Christian eschatology. Most Christians believe that death and suffering will continue to exist until Christ's return. Others believe that suffering will gradually be eliminated prior to his coming, and that the elimination of injustice is our part in preparing for that event.[253]
Many scholars feel that the translation should be: 'Every inspired scripture is also profitable.' This is probably not the best translation, however, for the following reasons: (1) Contextually [...] (2) Grammatically [...]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link) - "107 The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.'"[...] the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible, a doctrine which, according to Mr. Ayre and his school, the apostles held and Christ sanctioned; which from the earliest times the Church has adopted, and which the plenary as well as the verbal inspirationists still maintain.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Purgatory is believed to be a place where the souls of the faithful dead endure a period of purification and cleansing, aided by the prayers of the living, prior to their entrance into heaven. Although John Wesley believed in an intermediate state between death and the final judgment, that idea is not formally affirmed in Methodist doctrine, which "reject the idea of purgatory but beyond that maintain silence on what lies between death and the last judgment." (Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials by Ted A. Campbell)
John Wesley believed in the intermediate state between death and the final judgment "where believers would share in the 'bosom of Abraham' or 'paradise,' even continuing to grow in holiness there," writes Ted Campbell, a professor at Perkins School of Theology, in his 1999 book Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials (Abingdon). That view has not been officially affirmed by the Church.
John Hick, for example, proposes a theodicy, whileAlvin Plantinga formulates a defense. The idea of human free will often appears in both of these strategies, but in different ways.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Forget, Jacques (1910)."Jansenius and Jansenism". In Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 8. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved8 August 2010.[Any person] can do outwardly good works, but these works come from a heart that hates God, and therefore fail to meet God's righteous standards.
"Total Depravity – Lutherans and Calvinists agree." Yes this is correct. Both agree on the devastating nature of the fall and that man by nature has no power to aid in his conversions...and that election to salvation is by grace. In Lutheranism the German term for election isGnadenwahl, election by grace--there is no other kind.
[P]eople by nature are dead in their transgressions and sin and therefore have no ability to decide of Christ (Ephesians 2:1, 5). We do not choose Christ, rather he chose us (John 15:16) We believe that human beings are purely passive in conversion.
Arminians accepts divine election, [but] they believe it is conditional.
Romans 3:23-24, 5:9, 18 are other passages that lead us to say that it is most appropriate and accurate to say that universal justification is a finished fact. God has forgiven the sins of the whole world whether people believe it or not. He has done more than "made forgiveness possible." All this is for the sake of the perfect substitutionary work of Jesus Christ.
We believe that God has justified all sinners, that is, he has declared them righteous for the sake of Christ. This is the central message of Scripture upon which the very existence of the church depends. It is a message relevant to people of all times and places, of all races and social levels, for "the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" (Romans 5:18]). All need forgiveness of sins before God, and Scripture proclaims that all have been justified, for "the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men" (Romans 5:18). We believe that individuals receive this free gift of forgiveness not on the basis of their own works, but only through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9). ... On the other hand, although Jesus died for all, Scripture says that "whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Unbelievers forfeit the forgiveness won for them by Christ (John 8:24).
Christ paid for all our sins. God the Father has therefore forgiven them. But to benefit from this verdict we need to hear about it and trust in it. If I deposit money in the bank for you, to benefit from it you need to hear about it and use it. Christ has paid for your sins, but to benefit from it you need to hear about it and believe in it. We need to have faith but we should not think of faith as our contribution. It is a gift of God which the Holy Spirit works in us.
Faith is a condition of justification
In full accord with Scripture the Lutheran Confessions teach monergism. "In this manner, too, the Holy Scriptures ascribe conversion, faith in Christ, regeneration, renewal and all the belongs to their efficacious beginning and completion, not to the human powers of the natural free will, neither entirely, nor half, nor in any, even the least or most inconsiderable part, but in solidum, that is, entirely, solely, to the divine working and the Holy Ghost" (Trigl. 891, F.C., Sol. Decl., II, 25).
Arminian synergism" refers to "evangelical synergism, which affirms the prevenience of grace.
[Arminius]' evangelical synergism reserves all the power, ability and efficacy in salvation to grace, but allows humans the God-granted ability to resist or not resist it. The only "contribution" humans make is nonresistance to grace.
We cannot contribute one speck to our salvation, but by our own arrogance or carelessness we can throw it away. Therefore, Scripture urges us repeatedly to fight the good fight of faith (Ephesians 6 and 2 Timothy 4 for example). My sins threaten and weaken my faith, but the Spirit through the gospel in word and sacraments strengthens and preserves my faith. That's why Lutherans typically speak of God's preservation of faith and not the perseverance of the saints. The key isnot our perseverance but the Spirit's preservation.
As to their effect, sins are divided into mortal sins and venial sins. Mortal sins are those which result in the death of the sinner. This term takes in all the sins of the unbelievers. In the case of the believers those sins are called mortal which force the Holy Spirit to depart from one's heart, which destroy faith. Venial sins are sins which, though they in themselves merit eternal death, are daily forgiven to the believer. They are also called sins of weakness. They do not drive the Holy Spirit from the heart, do not extinguish faith.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)"After a person has been justified by faith, a true living faith becomes 'active through love' (Gal. 5:6). Thus good works always follow justifying faith and are certainly to be found with it, since such faith is never alone but is always accompanied by love and hope." (FC, Epitome, Article III. Righteousness. Tappert p. 474) ... Our confessions therefore condemn the idea that malicious and persistent sins do not affect faith and the Spirit living with us: "We also reject and condemn the teaching that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are not lost through malicious sin, but that the holy ones and the elect retain the Holy Spirit even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist in them. (FC, Article IV, Good Works)"
It is, accordingly, necessary to know and to teach that when holy men, still having and feeling original sin, also daily repenting of and striving with it, happen to fall into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and blasphemy, that then faith and the Holy Ghost has departed from them [they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost]. For the Holy Ghost does not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be accomplished, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it wishes. But if it does what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are [certainly] not present. For St. John says, 1 John 3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin, … and he cannot sin. And yet it is also the truth when the same St. John says, 1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link)People can fall from faith. The Bible warns, "If you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall" (1 Corinthians 10:12). Some among the Galatians had believed for a while, but had fallen into soul-destroying error. Paul warned them, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace" (Galatians 5:4). In his explanation of the parable of the sower, Jesus says, "Those on the rock are the ones who receive the word with joy when they hear it, but they have no root. They believe for a while, but in time of testing they fall away" (Luke 8:13). According to Jesus a person can believe for a while and then fall away. While they believed they possessed eternal salvation, but when they fell from faith they lost God's gracious gift.
Many Arminians deny the doctrine of theperseverance of the saints.
{{citation}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)| Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundations | |||||||||
| History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
| Denominations (list,members) |
| ||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||
| Other features |
| ||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
