Pastor Steve Paulus

5.1 The Concept of Covenant

Covenant is a central concept of the Bible, so much so that our Scriptures are divided into the New Testament (Covenant) and the Old Testament (Covenant). The New Testament word for covenant is from Greek diatheke. Its root means, “to distribute, establish, separate, determine, dispose, set in a state or position.”(Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol ii, 104). It signifies a legal instrument whereby relationships are established, defined and regulated.

Some of the characteristics of Covenants are a meal (often a sacrificial meal), an exchange of articles, an oath or solemn commitment to stated behaviors which may include blessings for fulfillment and curses for breaking the covenant.

The Old Testament word for covenant is “to cut a covenant” (Heb. Karat berit) signifying the role of animal sacrifice in establishing a covenant. The sacrifice may become part of the covenant meal as well as a symbol of the curse to come upon the one who breaks the covenant. (Jeremiah 34:12-20; Gen. 15:7-21).

There many covenants in the Old Testament including God and Abraham, Isaac and Abimelech, Laban and Jacob, David and Jonathan, God and David, marriage is referred to as a covenant.

The New Covenant is found succinctly stated in Hebrews 8:10 ff. which is taken from the Old Testament book of Jeremiah.

Covenant is the central concept of the sacrament of communion. There is a meal (body and blood of Christ), a sacrifice (cross), a mutual relationship, and obligations. We declare His loyalty to us and by implication our commitment to him. A future inheritance is a central promise of the covenant as well as a new life, a new heart, and forgiveness

5.2 Christology

One of the concepts associated with covenant is that of mediator. In many Old Testament transaction there is a priest who mediates the covenant. This is done by offering the sacrifice and pronouncing the terms of blessing or curse. The Hebrew term for priest is kohayn from kun meaning “to stand” or “stand before.” The Greek word for priest is hierus from which we get the word hierarchy. The Old Testament concept of priesthood created a hierarchy of access to God. Many liturgical functions were limited to the priests. The entrance into the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies is an example.

The New Testament emphasizes the idea of a priesthood of believers. This does not mean that there is no order or leadership role in the New Testament, but it does mean that access to God is unrestricted by one’s standing in the community. There is ultimately one high priest, Jesus, who is the mediator of the covenant. While we do intercede for one another, we are not mediators in the sense that Jesus is. Every believer’s priestly role is based on the single high priesthood of Jesus.

The New Testament teaches that “There is one God and one mediator between God and Man, the man Jesus Christ”(I Tim. 2:5). Christ is the only mediator of our salvation. “There is not other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved”(Acts 4:12) This means that salvation is found exclusively in Christ. (Mediator, VIII, paragraph 1; co-equal, one substance, para. 2)

Christological controversies

The Christological Controversies: The Councils of Ephesus (3^rd Ecumenical, 431 A.D.) and Chalcedon (4^th Ecumenical, 451 A.D.)

The third through the fifth ecumenical councils address Christological questions. Specifically, how do the divine and human natures in Christ co-exist together in one person. Are the natures constant, changed, intermingled, or transformed by the hypostatic union?

Many proposed controversial theological constructs concerning the person of Christ. These included Appolinarianism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, and Monotheletism (these are defined below). Many of these controversies are resolved in what is known as the definition of Chalcedon, or the Tome of Leo, Bishop of Rome. Contemporary Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Protestant communions hold to the Chalcedonian definition. Though monophysite and Nestorian communities (see below) who differ on their Christology, did remain, especially in Egypt, Syria and the east.

The first great controversy concerning the person of Christ arose over the doctrine of his divinity, which pitted Arius and Athanasius, both of Alexandria, against each other. Their dispute was resolved doctrinally at Nicea, in 325. But the practice of Arianism was not eliminated from the church until almost a generation later.

How the human and divine natures of Christ united in one person was the subject of ongoing controversies addressed at the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).

The Christologies of Antioch and Alexandria

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Bishop from 392-428: Theodore’s Christology was typically Antiochian. Theologians of Antioch tended to emphasize the human nature of Christ. That is, His incarnation as a fully human being possessing mind, will, and emotions as well as a physical body. Christ’s sufferings and temptations were all emphasized in Antiochene Christology. Theodore tended to divide the natures of Christ, seemingly denying a hypostatic union of the natures after the incarnation.. He was a contemporary and forerunner of Nestorius. At 2nd Constantinople (553) he was condemned.

Cyril of Alexandria (?-444): Became bishop of Alexandria in 412. He was a leading figure in the opposition to Nestorius (below). He espoused that the divine and human natures in Christ became one after the union. That is, the human nature is transformed after being united with the divine after the incarnation. Cyril is by some accused of introducing monophysite (one nature after the union) Christology into the Egyptian church. Others saw him as laying the groundwork for the Chalcedonian definition to come later.

Cyril maintained an emphasis on the divinity of Christ and the union of the two natures in one prosopon (person). His theology is considered to be foundational for both the Chalcedonian definition and the monophysite doctrine. Cyril’s Christology is sufficiently incomplete to lead to both of these conclusions. His emphasis on Christ’s divinity counterbalances traditional Antiochene Christology emphasizing Christ’s humanity.

Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428-431: Nestorius was a monk, and later, presbyter, of Antioch. He was probably influenced by the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Reportedly he was an outstanding preacher. He was named patriarch of Constantinople in 428.

He was of the Antiochene school of Christology. Early in his patriarchate he made pronouncements and preached sermons opposing the use of the title "Mother of God" (theotokos) for Mary, preferring the term “Christ bearer” (christotokos). These pronouncements generated a controversy over his Christology. It seems that he held to a peculiar heterodox Christology, which appeared to make Christ two persons after the incarnation. Jesus appeared to be both Son of God and Son of Man in a way that denied the unity of personality. There is still disagreement over precisely what Nestorius taught concerning Jesus.

Some feel he was the victim of a power struggle between Alexandria and Constantinople. His teaching and rivalry with the bishop of Alexandria sparked tension between the two and led to Cyril's accusations against Nestorius as a heretic. This led to the council at Ephesus which deposed Nestorius in 431. His followers formed a church in the east which expanded through Persia, Arabia, Kurdestan, India and all the way to China by the end of the millennium. There is some evidence that Nestorian missionaries succeeded penetrating as far as Korea and Japan with their brand Christology, and a great emphasis on practical ministry including medical missions. The Nestorian church survived many centuries and its remnants are found in Iraq and Iran today.

Most of his writings were destroyed. The Bazaar of Heracleides discovered at the turn of the century is believed to have been his and is an explanation and defense of his Christology. A careful reading reveals a deficient Christology, never quite coming to a confession that there is a hypostatic union of the human and divine in Christ, making one new person, fully God and fully man after the incarnation. It resembles adoptionism in its approach.

Leo the Great (pope from 440-461) became bishop of Rome in a very difficult period. Old Rome was being overrun by barbarian tribes and the Christological controversies continued to rage within the church, particularly the Monophysite heresy. He was chiefly responsible for formulating the Chalcedonian formula. He met the invaders Attila (452) and Genseric (455) outside Rome to spare the city from the severity of an attack by their armies. Due to the disintegration of the civil administration, the temporal power of the Roman bishop increased greatly during his time. Much of this was due to the collapse of the western capital, and the transfer of political power to Constantinople (New Rome) and the incursions of barbarian (non-Roman) tribes. Much of Leo’s correspondence reflects disciplinary concerns of the western churches as well as such temporal matters as securing grain shipments from other provinces for the Roman populace.

Leo wrote many homilies, letters and his famous “Tome of Leo.” This latter was the basis of the Chalcedonian formula and addressed the monophysite and Nestorian controversies. The Chalcedonian definition, adopted at the fourth ecumenical council held at Chalcedon in 451, was Leo’s great contribution to theology. It continues today to be the emblem of orthodox Christology in all Catholic, Protestant and many Orthodox communions today.

We also teach that we apprehend this one and only Christ – Son, Lord, only-begotten – in two natures [duo physesin]; and we do this without confusing the two natures, without transmuting one nature into the other, without dividing them into two separate categories, without contrasting them according to area or function. The distinctiveness of each nature is not nullified by the union. Instead the ‘properties’ of each nature are conserved and both natures concur in one ‘person’ [prosopon] and in one hypostasis. They are not divided or cut into two prosopa , but are together the one and only and only-begotten Logos of God, the Lord Jesus Christ (The Definition of Chalcedon in Leith, p. 36).

Monophysitism teaches that their is only one incarnate nature in Christ after the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in Christ. This doctrine falls short of the Chalcedonian definition which clearly establishes two unconfused and unmixed natures (the human and the divine) in hypostatic union in the one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. The fifth council at Constantinople (553) “condemned conspicuous representatives of the theology of Antioch: Theodore of Mopsuestia, the anti-Cyrillian writing of Theodoret of Cyrus, and the letter of Ibas to Marius, the Perisan. It gave approval to the ‘hypostatic union’ that was so important to the Alexandrians…The council made possible an Alexandrian interpretation of Chalcedon, but it did not reject the Chalcedonian definition” (Leith, p.45-46). In some ways the fifth council has been seen as an appeasement of the Alexandrian faction which leaned toward monophysitism without violating Chalcedon.

The monophysites believed that Chalcedon did not properly define the unity of Christ’s person. The monophysites (meaning one nature) emphasized the divinity of Christ over his manhood – the opposite of Antiochene tendencies. According to George Giacumakis in “Monophysitism” in The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, monophysite teaching hearkens back to Egyptian and Syro-Palestinian monasticism. Their ascetic tradition emphasizes the complete suppression of human desire in order to gain union with the divine. Likewise, monophysites de-emphasize the place of the human in Christ’s person, while emphasizing his divinity. The monophysite controversy led to violent upheavals in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. It eventually led to schism which affects the eastern churches even today.

Another related controversy was monotheletism. If the divine and human so combine in Christ as to form one nature (physis), then it follows that Christ had one (mono) will (thelesis). The council of Constantinople (681) was called to deal with this issue and ruled in favor of diotheletism; i.e. Christ possessed a divine and a human will.

The belief that only one will (the divine) resided in the person of Christ after the incarnation, was rooted in monophysitism, and was thus considered a threat to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. The sixth ecumenical council held at Constantinople (681) addressed this heresy.

We also proclaim two natural willings or wills in him and two natural operations, without separation, without change, without partition, without confusion, according to the teaching of the Holy Fathers – and two natural wills not contrary to each other…but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will.”

(W)e declare that his two natures shine forth in one hypostasis, in which he displayed both the wonders and the sufferings through the whole course of his dispensation, not in phantasm, but truly… each nature wills and works what is proper to it, in communion with the other. On this principle we glorify two natural wills and operations combining with each other for the salvation of the human race (The Statement of Faith at the Third Council of Constantinople, Sixth Ecumenical, 681, Leith. Pp. 50-52).

Regardless of Christological controversies , one thing is clear, Protestants represented by the Westminster Confession viewed Christ the mediator, and his atoning death, as all-sufficient for the salvation of those who truly believe.

5.3 Saving Faith, Repentance, Good Works

The word church (Greek ekklesia) refers to those called or called out. The concept of effectual calling is referred to in Scripture, though it is only the term calling itself that is actually used. (Eph. 1, Rom. 8, John 6, I Thess. 1, II Thess. 2). The idea of effectual calling falls in line with the Reformed understanding of salvation. Many are called, but few are chosen. Therefore, it is only the effectually called who are actually saved. They are not saved against their will, but are made willing to come to Christ by the grace of God.

This addresses three categories of controversy. First, infants, then backsliders, and “good” non-Christians. These ideas are addressed in the following excerpts from the Confession:

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

4. Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men, not professing the Christian religion, be saved in any other way whatsoever, be they never so dilligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, and the laws of that religion they do profess. And to assert and maintain that they may, is very pernicious, and to be detested.

The word for repentance is metanoia which means a change of mind. Like its sister word metamorphosis, it indicates a complete and dramatic change, but in this case a change of mind as opposed to a change in body. The Confession makes clear that repentance is not a work of merit but of grace.

What does repentance look like? Article XV, paragraph 2 puts it aptly:

2. By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments.

Paragraph 4 makes clear that repentance is not a work of merit whereby we earn forgiveness. Confession of sins to others, including public confession is recognized as necessary to repentance in some cases (paragraph 6).

Faith: As described in the Confession faith is the work of the Spirit in the heart, is normally brought about by the ministry of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). And is the means of salvation. “But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.”

The issue of the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone as the basis of salvation was a cornerstone of Reformation belief. Luther and those after him insisted on the biblical statement, “The just shall live by faith.” I would ask faith in what? The Confession answers the question -- faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone.

This is contrasted with the Council of Trent which states that the following is anathema: “That justification once received is not preserved and even increased in the sight of God through good works; but that these same works are only fruits and signs of justification, not causes of its increase. (Eph. 2:8-9).

But the Confession states concerning good works:

These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life (XVI, para. 2).

Some Scripture references to works (Phil. 2:12-13; Titus 3:1, 14; I Cor. 3:11-15).

Adoption: Those saved by faith are partakers of the grace of adoption. “[They] are enabled to cry Abba, Father, are pitied, protected, provided for, and chastened by Him as by a Father: yet never castoff, but sealed to the day of redemption; and inherit the promises, as heirs of everlasting salvation” (Article XII).

5.4 The Old Testament Law

The concept of the Law inn biblical context has several meanings. First of all, there is the Torah, or teaching, which refers to the first five books of Moses, but also the moral law, or Ten Commandments given to Moses on Sinai. In addition, the confession recognizes two other forms of law. The first is the ceremonial law. This includes various dietary, cleanliness, sacrificial and liturgical practices (such as circumcision) required by Moses, but which actually point to the dispensation of Christ (Col. 2:16 ff.). The second is the civil (or judicial) law given specifically to the people of Israel as a means of ordering their civil affairs. These include such things as procedures for redeeming property, forgiving debts, valuing property, penalties for crimes such as theft, maiming, manslaughter or murder. When the New Testament refers to keeping the law, it may mean any of these three, though usually it refers to the moral law.

It is generally acknowledged that the moral law is of great use and authority to Christians, though keeping it is neither the cause nor the guarantee of salvation. The Confession states it this way:

Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet it is of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience (Chapter XIX, 6).

The apostle Paul speaks to the issue of the law repeatedly in his epistles. (Rom. 3:19-24; 7:13-4; 6:1-2,15; Gal. 2:15-16, 21; 3:21-25

Discussion Questions

How do we falsely view repentance in terms of gaining forgiveness?

Should we encourage the practice of confession? Why or why not?

Are good works required of Christians for salvation?

Should sins confessed and forgiven give immediate restoration to the penitent to privileges of worship? Of leadership?

Readings for Chapter Five

Calvin on Penitience

TWOT on Covenant

Chalcedonian Definition

Luther on Penance

Trent on Penance

Glossary

Adoption: The grace whereby we become children of God through adoption and joint heirs of God with Jesus Christ and enjoy all the privileges of sonship before Him.

Chalcedonian Definition: From the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon 451). The definition of the Christological question “How do the human and divine natures in Christ relate one to another after the incarnation?” Jesus full divinity and full humanity are affirmed in the definition.

Confession: The practice of confessing one’s sins to a priest in private to receive absolution (or forgiveness) from the priest in behalf of Christ. Usually a penance is assigned to bring about satisfaction for the sin. The Reformers recognized the value of confession of sin but not its sacramental character or the need for satisfaction which is found in the merit of the finished work of Christ alone.

Covenant: The means by which God orders and regulates His relationships with mankind.

Effectual Calling: The work of grace which brings a sinner out of their fallen, sinful state into a state of grace and justification before God through faith in the finished work of Christ’s atoning death.

Old Testament Law: The Law is the Torah of Moses (first five books). It is also the moral (ten commandments), ceremonial, and judicial or civil law contained therein.

Nestorius, Nestorianism: A deficient belief concerning the relationship of the human and divine natures in Christ so that they don’t truly form a single hupostasis or person, but seemingly two separate persons. Nestorius was a fifth century bishop of Constantinople and his followers founded a church which spread to the far east and exists in some middle eastern countries to this day.

Monophysite: The teaching that Jesus had one nature, the divine, after the incarnation, combining the human and divine in Christ.

Bibliography

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. MacDill AFB, FL: MacDonald

Publishing Co., n.d.

Daniel Clendenin. May Gods, Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.

John Dillenberger, ed. Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings, Edited with an Introduction. Garden City, NY: Doubledday, 1961.

Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1994.

J.N.D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2003, rpt. 1978.

John Leith. Creeds of the Churches. Atlanta: John Knoz Press, 1982.

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. Eusebius. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,

Second Series, Vol.1. (rpt. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

_____________________________ The Seven Ecumenical Councils, vol. 14.

J. Stevenson. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrating the History of the Church to AD 337. London: SPCK, 1987.

J. Rodman Williams. Renewal Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1988.

Pastor P. Steve Paulus D.min. ~ pastor@stauntongrace.org