Wednesday with Wesley: On the Trinity

I have been trying to keep up with the Trinity debate over at the Parchment and Pen. The recent postings on the Holy Spirit are available.

• Bowman on the Holy Spirit
• Burke on the Holy Spirit

This week Dave and Rob will be posting on their overall theology regarding the Trinity. Since it is Wednesday and it has been awhile, I decided to post excerpts from John Wesley's sermon #55 regarding the Trinity along with some of my commentary.

It should be noted up front that there are points that Wesley raises that can be disputed in this sermon, for example his arguing for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum. That will not be dealt with in this post, but you can read more about it here. In addition I will be ignoring his  "rants" against Romanists (aka Catholics) and Calvinists. 

Wesley starts off acknowledging that even religious men hold opinions on religious matters some of which are wrong though that would not make them any less a Christian. However, he also holds that some issues are vital to get right - among them is the Trinity:

But there are some truths more important than others. It seems there are some which are of deep importance. I do not term them fundamental truths; because that is an ambiguous word: And hence there have been so many warm disputes about the number of fundamentals. But surely there are some which it nearly concerns us to know, as having a close connexion with vital religion. And doubtless we may rank among these that contained in the words above cited: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one.

While it is highly improbable that the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7) is part of the original inspired letter by John, it does capture the essence of the Trinitarian belief quite well: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one. I believe that one examines the Scriptures one would find the following facts (see debate entries for lots more details, it is not my intention to defend these facts here):

1. There is One God (Deut 6:4)
2. The Father is God (Matt 6:9)
3. The Son, Jesus Christ, is God (Heb 1:8)
4. The Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3,4)

However far more complicated is understanding how these facts can be described into a coherent theological definition. Wesley argues that

...all who endeavored to explain it at all, have utterly lost their way; have, above all other persons hurt the cause which they intended to promote; having only, as Job speaks, "darkened counsel by words without knowledge." It was in an evil hour that these explainers began their fruitless work I insist upon no explication at all; no, not even on the best I ever saw; I mean, that which is given us in the creed commonly ascribed to Athanasius.

Wesley has a point. The Trinity is an implicit doctrine, that is built precept upon precept. Having searched the Scriptures and discovered the facts as laid out above, one will certainly find that the Scriptures do not reveal how these facts all work together.

I dare not insist upon any one’s using the word Trinity, or Person. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better: But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? I cannot: Much less would I burn a man alive, and that with moist, green wood, for saying, Though I believe the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; yet I scruple using the words Trinity and Persons, because I do not find those terms in the Bible.”

Nor will one find the term substance. In fact there seemed to have been debate during the Council of Nicea regarding using terms that were not found in the Scriptures when composing the creed. (See Schaff for some details and Athanasius' De Decretis chapter 5 for his defense in use of the term "homousios"). However even if we don't understand the manner in which the Trinity is true, Wesley warns that:

Still I insist, the fact you believe, you cannot deny; but the manner you cannot comprehend.
...
To apply this to the case before us: There are three that bear record in heaven: And these three are One. I believe this fact also, (if I may use the expression,) that God is Three and One. But the manner how I do not comprehend and I do not believe it. Now in this, in the manner, lies the mystery; and so it may; I have no concern with it: It is no object of my faith: I believe just so much as God has revealed, and no more. But this, the manner, he has not revealed; therefore, I believe nothing about it. But would it not be absurd in me to deny the fact, because I do not understand the manner? That is, to reject what God has revealed, because I do not comprehend what he has not revealed.

Fair assessment - even if strongly worded. While I hold that the Nicene/Athanasian definitions are the best (and accepted as orthodox) attempt by man to describe and explain what the Scriptures present as fact, this may not be exactly right. These are man's attempt to explain the data but the Bible does not explain how the Trinity works. However as Athanasius explained using terms not found in the Scriptures (like Trinity, person, and substance) are useful in separating and explaining a position and contrasting that with other non-orthodox explanations including Arianism, Modalism, and Adoptionalism. Since these are man's best attempts to explain Biblical data (see the Trinity is like 3 in 1 shampoo), I don't see a Nicene understanding of the Trinity as required for salvation. I do think that the accepting what the Bible teaches regarding God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are essential. Rob Bowman said the same thing here

...what does the Bible tell us we need to know about the Trinity? Obviously, it does not tell us that we need to use words like Trinity or formulas like three persons in one God. These do not appear in the Bible. On the other hand, we are expected to make a faith commitment to the three persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as is evident from the injunction to make disciples by “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)

That leaves us with the following points to think through:

1. trying to describe the Trinity is difficult and often filled with lack of understanding
2. words used to describe the Trinity are not in the Bible. 
• Trinity, Person, Substance
3. belief in the facts not the illustrations is what is important

Wesley concluded with this:

I know not how any one can be a Christian believer till he “hath,” as St. John speaks, “the witness in himself;” till “the Spirit of God witnesses with his spirit, that he is a child of God;” that is, in effect, till God the holy Ghost witnesses that God the Father has accepted him through the merits of God the Son: And, having this witness, he honours the Son, and the blessed Spirit, “even as he honours the Father.”

Wednesday with Wesley: Disciplines, the Spirit, and Scripture

I am currently taking a class on Spiritual Formation. Some of the texts used in the class are Willard's Spirit of the Disciplines (SD) and Foster's Celebration of the Disciplines (CD).

In CD Foster says that the "great writers of the devotional life" range from "St. Augustine to St. Francis, from John Calvin to John Wesley, from Teresa of Avila to Juliana of Norwich". Other writers that heavily influence him include Thomas Merton and John of the Cross. This blog entry on Foster does a good job of outlining some of the background of Foster and his reliance on Merton and the contemplative disciplines.

The contemplative disciplines that Foster describes in CD are meditation, solitude, and silence. They are all closely aligned as noted in the footnote on page 32:

Two topics that closely impinge upon meditation will be discussed under the Discipline of solitude: the creative use of silence and the concept developeed by St. John of the Cross that he graphically calls "the dark night of the soul."

Foster asserts that spiritual formation requires the practice of silence and contemplative prayer (CD page 15):

If we hope to move beyond the superficialities of our culture, including our religious culture, we must be willing to go down into the recreating silences, into the inner world of contemplation. In their writings, all of the masters of meditation beckon us to be pioneers in this frontier of the Spirit. Though it may sound strange to modern ears, we should without shame enroll as apprentices in the school of the contemplative prayer.

In an interview of Foster recorded in an article in Christianity Today he cites solitude as a foundational discipline:

Evangelicals, among others, have been reading your book for 30 years. What is the discipline that you think we need to be exploring more at this point?

Solitude. It is the most foundational of the disciplines of abstinence, the via negativa. The evangelical passion for engagement with the world is good. But as Thomas à Kempis says, the only person who's safe to travel is the person who's free to stay at home. And Pascal said that we would solve the world's problems if we just learned to sit in our room alone. Solitude is essential for right engagement. ...

Willard in SD seems to agree with the importance of solitude (page 101):

Solitude is the most radical of the disciplines for life in the spirit. ... It is solitude and solitude alone that opens the possibility of a radical relationship to God that can withstand all external events up to and beyond death.

Where do these disciplines (meditation, solitude, and silence) that comprise contemplative prayer come from - they are rooted in the disciplines of the Quakers (CD page 22):

Historically, no group has stressed the need to enter into the listening silences more than the Quakers...

What is the recreating, listening silence? It is also called the "inner light". The blog entry here explores the history of this Quaker belief and its ties to Foster. It states that the:

[Inner Light can be] defined in a variety of ways, since Quakerism is very individualistic and non-creedal, but it refers to a divine presence and guidance in every man. There is an emphasis on being still and silent and passive in order to receive guidance from the inner light.

Is this what Foster is teaching? In a separate book,Prayer, Finding the Hearts True Home (page 158,159),

[Contemplative Prayer] is more an experience of the heart than of the head. But this stress upon the feelings disturbs us. We have been trained through out our lives to distrust our feelings, and the very idea that we could gain some knowledge of truth and reality by way of the feelings seems ludicrous.

We must not, however, be too quick to judge. In the first place the witnesses who encourage us are vast and reputable. Second they are dealing with something far deeper than mere emotions. In using the language of feeling, contemplatives are referring to a deep experienced sense of God - a kind of inner hearing, if you will.
...
What is the goal of Contemplative Prayer? To this question the old writers answer with one voice: union with God.

One of the "devotional masters" cited is John Wesley. John Wesley was certainly noted for his practice of the spiritual disciplines. Here was his list from Sermon 16

In the following discourse, I propose to examine at large, whether there are any means of grace.

By "means of grace" I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby he might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.

I use this expression, means of grace, because I know none better; and because it has been generally used in the Christian church for many ages; -- in particular by our own Church, which directs us to bless God both for the means of grace, and hope of glory; and teaches us, that a sacrament is "an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we receive the same."

The chief of these means are prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon); and receiving the Lord's Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him: And these we believe to be ordained of God, as the ordinary channels of conveying his grace to the souls of men.

Wesley advocates prayer and meditation on Scripture, however, he must not be confused as supporting or practicing the disciplines of listening silence. Wesley was very critical of this practice.

In "A Letter to a Person Lately Joined with the People Called Quaker", Wesley outlines the differences between Christianity and Quakerism. Early in the letter he focuses on the importance of Scripture over guidance from the Spirit. He starts by quoting a Quaker source (italics added to differentiate) and then responding.

" 2. It is by the Spirit alone that the true knowledge of God hath been, is, and can be, revealed. And these revelations, which are absolutely necessary for the building up of true faith, neither do, nor can, ever contradict right reason or the testimony of the Scriptures."

Thus far there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

"Yet these revelations are not to be subjected to the examination of the Scriptures as to a touchstone."

Here there is a difference. The Scriptures are the touchstone whereby Christians examine all, real or supposed, revelations. In all cases they appeal "to the law and to the testimony," and try every spirit thereby.

"3. From these revelations of the Spirit of God to the saints, have proceeded the Scriptures of truth."

In this there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

" Yet the Scriptures are not the principal ground of all truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners. Nevertheless, they are a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit. By him the saints are led into all truth. Therefore, the Spirit is the first and principal leader."

If by these words, " The Scriptures are not the principal ground of truth and knowledge, nor the adequate, primary rule of faith and manners," be only meant, that " the Spirit is our first and principal leader;" here is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity.

But there is great impropriety of expression. For, though the Spirit is our principal leader, yet he is not our rule at all; the Scriptures are the rule whereby he leads us into all truth. Therefore, only talk good English; call the Spirit our guide, which signifies an intelligent being, and the Scriptures our rule, which signifies something used by an intelligent being, and all is plain and clear.

Later Wesley directly addresses the discipline of silence:

" Silence is a principal part of God's worship; that is, men's sitting silent together, ceasing from all outwards, from their own words and actings, in the natural will and comprehension, and feeling after the inward seed of life."

In this there is a manifest difference between Quakerism and Christianity. This is will-worship, if there be any such thing under heaven. For there is neither command nor example for it in Scripture.
...

What was the importance of the disciplines Wesley listed? Are they required for God's grace to be given? In Sermon 16, Wesley goes on to say:

We know that there is no inherent power in the words that are spoken in prayer, in the letter of Scripture read, the sound thereof heard, or the bread and wine received in the Lord’s Supper; but that it is God alone who is the Giver of every good gift, the Author of all grace; that the whole power is of him, whereby, through any of these, there is any blessing conveyed to our soul. We know, likewise, that he is able to give the same grace, though there were no means on the face of the earth. In this sense, we may affirm, that, with regard to God, there is no such thing as means; seeing he is equally able to work whatsoever pleaseth him, by any, or by none at all.

Contrast that with Foster & Willard's belief in solitude as foundational. Wesley goes on to point out what really matters:

We allow farther, that the use of all means whatever will never atone for one sin; that it is the blood of Christ alone, whereby any sinner can be reconciled to God; there being no other propitiation for our sins, no other fountain for sin and uncleanness. Every believer in Christ is deeply convinced that there is no merit but in Him; that there is no merit in any of his own works; not in uttering the prayer, or searching the Scripture, or hearing the word of God, or eating of that bread and drinking of that cup.
...
Settle this in your heart, that the opus operatum, the mere work done, profiteth nothing; that there is no power to save, but in the Spirit of God, no merit, but in the blood of Christ; that, consequently, even what God ordains, conveys no grace to the soul, if you trust not in Him alone. On the other hand, he that does truly trust in Him, cannot fall short of the grace of God, even though he were cut off from every outward ordinance, though he were shut up in the centre of the earth.

Wednesday with Wesley: Unity and Schisms (the very Late Edition)

Ok, let me start of by saying I know it is Thursday not Wednesday. I had wanted to post this yesterday but just did not get the chance too. So if you will allow, I consider this the very late Wednesday edition.

Since I have been thinking about essentials and unity I thought it would be fitting to post portions of John Wesley's sermon On Schisms. Certainly Wesley having had to wrestle with the call by many to separate from the Church of England would have some insightful things to say on the subject.

Wesley starts off his sermon trying to define the word schism landing on the following definition "A causeless separation from a body of living Christians". He based his sermon on three passages in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor 1:10, 11:18, 12:24-25). Wesley than asks...

I shall be thankful to any one who will point to me any other place in the inspired writings, where this word “Schism” is to be found. I remember only these three.

With the aid of computer linked lexicons and concordances (that were lacking in the 18th century) we can quickly find a few more verses , but the meaning still remains clear, divisions are destructive.

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be destroyed. (Mark 2:21)

Wesley warns us to be on guard against schisms...

It is evil in itself. To separate ourselves from a body of living Christian, with whom we were before united, is a grievous breach of the law of love. It is the nature of love to unite us together; and the greater the love, the stricter the union. And while this continues in its strength, nothing can divide those whom love has united. It is only when our love grows could, that we can think of separating from our brethren. And this is certainly the case with any who willingly separate from their Christian brethren. The pretences for separation may be innumerable, but want of love is always the real cause; otherwise they would still hold the unity of he Spirit in the bound of peace. It is therefore contrary to all those commands of God, wherein brotherly love is enjoined: To that of St. Paul, “Let brotherly love continue:” — that of St. John, “My beloved children, love one another;” — and especially to that of our blessed Master, “This is my commandment, That ye love on another, as I have loved you” Yea, “By this,” saith he, “shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another.”

...I will make the case my own: I am now, and have been from my youth, a member and a Minister of the Church of England: And I have do desire no design to separate from it, till my soul separates from my body. Yet if I was not permitted to remain therein without omitting what God requires me to do, it would then become meet and right, and my bounden duty, to separate form it without delay. To be more particular: I know God has committed to me a dispensation of the gospel; yea, and my own salvation depends upon preaching it: “Woe is me if I preach not the gospel.” If then I could not remain in the Church without omitting this, without desisting from preaching the gospel I should be under a necessity of separating from it, or losing my own soul. In like manner, if I could not continue united to any smaller society, Church, or body of Christians, without committing sin, without lying and hypocrisy, without preaching to others doctrines which I did not myself believe, I should be under an absolute necessity of separating from that society. And in all these cases the sin of separation, with all the evils consequent upon it, would not lie upon it, would not lie upon me, but upon those who constrained me to make that separation, by requiring of me such terms of communion as I could not in conscience comply with. But, setting aside this case, suppose the Church or society to which I am now united does not require me to do anything which the Scripture forbids, or to omit anything which the Scripture enjoins, it is then my indispensable duty to continue therein. And if I separate from it without any such necessity, I am just chargeable (whether I foresaw them or not) with all the evils consequent upon that separation.

I have spoke the more explicitly upon this head, because it is so little understood; because so may of those who profess much religion, nay, and really enjoy a measure of it, have not the least conception of this matter, neither imagine such a separation to be any sin at all. They leave a Christian society with as much unconcern as they go out of one room into another. They give occasion to all this complicated mischief. and wipe their mouth, and say they have done no evil! Whereas they are justly chargeable, before God and man, both with an action that is evil in itself, and with all the evil consequences which may be expected to follow, to themselves, to their brethren, and to the world.

Wednesday with Wesley: Total Depravity

We read a biography on John Wesley with our kids recently and since then I have been reading through some of the writings and sermons of John Wesley trying to understand his theology.

In Sermon 44, entitled Original Sin, Wesley explains what is called "total depravity". In the sermon he starts off refuting the idea that man is basically good saying...

But, in the mean time, what must we do with our Bibles? — for they will never agree with this. These accounts, however pleasing to flesh and blood, are utterly irreconcilable with the scriptural.

Wesley, then compares the heart of man prior to the flood - using Gen 6:5 as the basis - with that of man after the flood coming to the conclusion that they are no different. Here is how Wesley describes the heart of man:

“God saw all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart;” — of his soul, his inward man, the spirit within him, the principle of all his inward and outward motions. He “saw all the imaginations:” It is not possible to find a word of a more extensive signification. It includes whatever is formed, made, fabricated within; all that is or passes in the soul; every inclination, affection, passion, appetite; every temper, design, thought. It must of consequence include every word and action, as naturally flowing from these fountains, and being either good or evil according to the fountain from which they severally flow.

Later he says this:

[Christianity] declares that all men are conceived in sin,” and “shapen in wickedness;” — that hence there is in every man a “carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to” his “law;” and which so infects the whole soul, that “there dwelleth in” him, “in his flesh,” in his natural state, “no good thing;” but “every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil,” only evil, and that “continually.”

He will explain that "by nature" we do not 1) know God, 2) love God, or 3) fear God and concludes that all men are "Atheists in the world".

But as soon as God opens the eyes of their understanding, they see the state they were in before; they are then deeply convinced, that “every man living,” themselves especially, are, by nature, “altogether vanity;” that is, folly and ignorance, sin and wickedness.

Only God can help the natural man understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14-15; John 16:7-11) including the very fact that he is a sinner, only God is righteous, and the coming judgment.

Indeed, if man were not thus fallen, there would be no need of all this. There would be no occasion for this work in the heart, this renewal in the spirit of our mind.
...
Keep to the plain, old faith, “once delivered to the saints,” and delivered by the Spirit of God to our hearts. Know your disease! Know your cure! Ye were born in sin: Therefore, “ye must be born again,” born of God. By nature ye are wholly corrupted. By grace ye shall be wholly renewed. In Adam ye all died: In the second Adam, in Christ, ye all are made alive.

In this sermon Wesley has laid out our need for Jesus as total - we are totally unable to come to Him, until God open our eyes and helps us understand that we are sinners and that we need Him to cure the otherwise incurable disease!

Quotes taken "Sermons on Several Occasions John Wesley" available online @ Christian Classics Ethereal Library