Mstcj 19

Piety by Virtue

Copyright 2014 Melbourne School of Theology

ABN 58 004 265 016 CRICOS Provider Code: 02650E

Melbourne School of Theology is authorised to deliver courses for the Australian College of Theology.

9 7 7 1 8 3 9 1 9 7 0 0 1

I SSN 1 8 3 9 - 1 9 7 4

A: 5 Burwood Highway, Wantirna VIC 3152, PO Box 6257 Vermont South VIC 3133 Australia

T: 03 9881 7850 F: 03 9800 0121 E: [email protected] W: chinese.mst.edu.au Theology and Spiritual Formation

2014 11

SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19

Piety by Virtue

Contents

A Word from the Editor Mei Chung

i

Piety by Virtue Mei Chung

1

The Piety of Christ King She

13

JONATHAN EDWARDS EASTERN

TRINITARIANISM?

Peter Tie

31

Godly Living from Wesleys Theological Perspective

Yuk Liong

60

Felix Chung 69

Caleb Nip

86

Meiju Lee 102

141-157To Eat or Not to Eat: Christlike Conviction from Romans

14:1-15:7

Peter Tie

113

Ye Liong 128

19 SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19

Theology and Spiritual Formation

Piety by Virtue Chief Editor : Mei Chung

/ Cover Design & Layout : Will Wu

Publisher : MST Press

ISSN 1839-19742014 11




i

globalisation

privatisationspirituality

ii

mutual love

iii

good works

Alan Andersen

1

Dr Mei Chung

312 212

47

11

416-18

2

1

2

312 2

12 47

[godly] 312

[godliness] 35

3 4

5 15

4

6 47-8 216353

12

1 2001

p.60 2 2008p.68-69 19811998 []p.107.

3 p.174 15

4 2005 p.182. 5 p.166. 6 1991 2013p.17-18 105 p.175

3

412

66-117

8 9

10

47

11

12 13

7 p.243-244 8 p.175 9 p.76 10 p.39 11 19961997[]p.214 12 p.167 13 43

4

14

1516

17

46

35

18 312

316

19

2001p.169

14 p.39 15 p.42 16 p.174 17 p.211 18 p.182 19 John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion ebook ed. Seedbox, 2013, p.11.

5

20

21

22

23

24

121-2

20 John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion ebook ed.Seedbox, 2013, p.11. 21 p.26 22 p.26 23

http://wellsofgrace.com/messages/edwards/qinggang-index.htm 12/10/2014

24 1994p.88

6

118-11

11

19

25 22

12 411-12

26 27

416-18

2210-13

28

25 12-50p.108 26 2009

p.180 27 p.24 28 2008p.70

7

29

18

30

31

32

33

34

134-5

35

36

29 p.74 30 p.106-7 31 2008 []p.87 p.74

32 p.87 33 p.89 34 12-50 2007p.44 35 2003 p.40 36 p.75

8

11

37

38

39

22240

37 p.74 38 p.90

39 p.175177 40 p.114116

9

41

11

14

1242

43

44

45 46

41 p.250 42 2008p.1086

43 p.1090 44 p.1091 45 p.293 46 p.175

10

47

48

49

11

29

313-14

50

51

220

47 p.69 48 p.166-7 49 p.116 50 2009p.149

51 2009180

11

52

53

48

52 p.48 53 2099 21032004 11 4 12 12 Calvin: Christian Piety Christian Weekly Nov 4 to Dec 12 04http://bbs.creaders.net/rainbow/bbsviewer.php?trd_id=256673&language=big51/10/2014

12

54

55

312

23

54 p.436-8 55 p.440

13

316

Auctor1

572

Auctor

3

1 Auctor

2 CNV2010 316

Auctor 7 15 312 223164786356611

35 11 1367311 2 571228 LXX 171311

112326 2224 2814

3 7 F. Blass and A. Debrunner,

14

4

5

out of death6

7

16211723

A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), 210. 4 J. Harold Greenlee, An Exegetical Summary of Hebrews (Dallas, TX: Summer

Institute of Linguistics, 1998), 169-70. 5

(Heb 5:7). 6 J. Dwight Pentecost, A Faith That Endures: The Book of Hebrews Applied to

the Real Issues of Life (Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers, 1992), 97. 7 William L. Lane, Hebrews 18, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. David A.

Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker, vol. 47A (Dallas, TX: Word, 1991), 120.

15

20192632

Davidson 7

[]8

Bruce

9

Auctor

10 2

14

915

Auctor 314 11

8 A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Handbooks for Bible Classes and

Private Students, ed. Alexander Whyte, and James Moffatt (Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1882; reprint, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1959), 112 9 Greenlee, Hebrews, 170; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, New

International Commentary on the New Testament , ed. Gordon D. Fee, rev. ed.

(Grand Rapids: William. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 128-29. 10 NET

experience 64 91 852 11 Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek

16

2426

12

Bruce

Auctor

Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary , ed. I. Howard Marshall

and W. Ward Gasque (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,

1993), 288. 12 King L. She, The Use of Exodus in Hebrews, Studies in Biblical Literature,

ed. Hemchand Gossai, vol. 142 (New York: Peter Lang, 2011), 5.

17

Auctor13

14

Auctor

Auctor

13 She, Hebrews, 171. 14 She, Hebrews, 69-86.

201311

18

Auctor

Auctor

= =

= =

=

=

=

915

Auctor

19

[] 1228

Auctor 7

Auctor

214

()

()

()

20

3

Auctor

21

instantaneous present

Auctor

12 27

()

()

22

15

43

19

19

16

17

15 201245-58

16 2009277 17 200911-18

23

Auctor

()

= =

=

1228 57

24

Kitchens

forfeiture

18

1920

[]

[][]

21

22

23

18 James A. Kitchens, The Death of Jesus in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Th.D.

diss., New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, 1964), 119. 19 120 20 120 21 Pentecost, Hebrews, 99. 22 121 23 122

25

Joslin 14

24

14

25

7

14

1018

24 Barry Clyde Joslin, The Theology of the Mosaic Law in Hebrews 7:110:18

(Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005), 282-83. 25 Kitchens, The Death of Jesus, 98.

27

434519

858

11-2

11

823 12

26

27

1930

30

26 supernaturenature. 27 high/ontological Christology. She,

Hebrews, 159; L. D. Hurst, The Christology of Hebrews 1 and 2, in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament: Studies in Christology in Memory of George

Bradford Caird, ed. L. D. Hurst, and N. T. Wright (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 163.

28

5

Auctor

914

14

7

29

28

1436

1539

2746

7

2639 1436 2242

28 low/functional Christology.

30

1436

57

1018

31

31

JONATHAN EDWARDS EASTERN

TRINITARIANISM?

Peter Tie

Introduction

Jonathan Edwards Trinitarianism faces many accusations.

Some charge Edwards with Arianism, Sabellianism, and

Pelagianism.1 Some accuse Edwards of Unitarianism and Tritheism.2

On the other hand, some see sound orthodoxy in Edwards Trinity.

Robert Jenson, a Lutheran Systematic Theologian, claims Edwards

Trinity to be orthodox. It, however, is not orthodox in the Western,

but Eastern sense of the word. Like other contemporary

theologians on the Trinity, Jenson unquestionably uses the modern

threeness-oneness paradigm initiated by the nineteenth-century

French theologian Theodore de Rgnon to categorize and interpret

the theological history of Trinitarinism.3 De Rgnon divided the

history of Trinitarianism into the patristic period represented by

the Cappadocians and the scholastic period initiated by Augustine

1 Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Sang Hyun Lee, vol. 21,

Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith (New Haven: Yale, 2003), 111. 2 John H. Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards: A Mini Theology (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo

Gloria, 1996), 124; chapter 3, footnote 1. 3 See Theodore De Rgnon, tudes de thologie positive sur la Sainte trinit, 4 vol.

(Paris: Victor Retaux, 1898).

32

32

of Hippo; the former supposedly emphasized the divine persons, and

the latter emphasized the divine nature.4

Studebaker rightly points out that Robert Jenson is apparently

the first theologian to apply (in published form) the Augustinian-

Cappadocian paradigm to Edwardss Trinitarian theology.5

Studebaker summarizes Jensons perspective: [Jenson] criticizes

Western and Augustinian trinitarianism for introducing an artificial

distinction between the immanent and the economic trinity. He

argues that the Eastern tradition and the Cappadocians rightly

understood these as undifferentiated.6

Jenson is convinced that Edwards Trinity belongs to the

Eastern-Cappadocian theology, rather than to the Western-

Augustinian tradition. This paper, therefore, examines Jensons claim

of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism. The first part of this paper

briefly explains Jensons perspective on Edwards Trinity. It is to

display Jensons Eastern interpretation of Edwards Trinitariansim.

Then, the second part analyzes Edwards Discourse on the Trinity7

vis--vis Augustines The Trinity.8 A comparison between Edwards

4 Steve Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism,"

Scottish Journal of Theology 56 (2003): 274. 5 Ibid., 269; footnote one. 6 Ibid. 7 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," in Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 21, 109-

44. 8 Augustine, The Trinity, trans. Edmund Hill (Hyde Park, NY: New City, 1991).

33

33

and Augustines teachings on the Trinity serves to assess whether

Edwards truly departed from the Western-Augustinian tradition, as

claimed by Jenson.9

Jensons Claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism

Jenson rightly observes that, for Edwards, the vision of God as

the Trinity is the supreme Harmony of all.10 Furthermore, Jenson

perceives that the God of Edwards was the triune God of

christological faith.11 Edwards views of God are specifically

christological-trinitarian apprehensions of God.12 In Edwards view

of predestination, Jenson notes, The predestining God is the

Trinity; . . . and what he predestinates is Christ.13 According to

Jenson, Edwards idea of Christ as the head of election and the

pattern of all other elections, a concept which was later developed

9 Readers are to be reminded of two issues: First, either a comparison between

Edwards and Cappadocians Trinitarianism or between Edwards and Augustines Trinitarianism is feasible to assess the validity of Jensons claim. For the sake of page restriction, this writer attempts to achieve the latter. Second,

whether the Western-Eastern (or oneness-threeness) categorization is appropriate

for understanding the theological history of Trinitarianism lies outside the scope

of this paper. See Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian

Trinitarianism," 274-75, for a discussion on this paradigm. 10 Robert Jenson, Americas Theologian: A Recommendation of Jonathan Edwards

(New York: Oxford University, 1988), 91. See Amy Plantinga Pauw, The

Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), for a fuller explanation on Edwards Trinity as the supreme Harmony of all.

11 Jenson, Americas Theologian, 18-19. Italics original. 12 Ibid., 19. 13 Ibid., 106.

34

34

by Karl Barth, was an intimation that Edwards was surrendering

traditional Calvinism, while moving closer to Luthers thought.14 As

Jenson observes, Edwards stated, There was, [as] it were, an eternal

society or family in the Godhead, in the Trinity of person. It seems to

be Gods design to admit the church into the divine family as his

sons wife.15 For Edwards, the election of the saints was by means

of union between believers and Christ through the indwelling of the

Spirit.16 Jenson sees Edwards moving away from the Calvinist

tradition to embrace the Eastern view of Christology: His

[Edwards] technical christological achievement . . . is that he

achieved an Alexandrian mutual interpretation of God and Jesus.17

Jenson is further convinced that Edwards departed from the

Western concept of the Trinity and adhered to Eastern Trinitarianism

for the following reason. Western theology, especially since

Augustine, restricts and mitigates the early interpretation

formulated at the Council of Nicea (325), interpreted by the

Cappadocian fathers, and affirmed at the Council of Constantinople

(381), that is, the historical, economic understanding of the

divine action by the Father through the Son in the Spirit. Western

theology, however, undoes the original point of trinitarianism by

14 Ibid. 15 Ibid., 43. 16 Ibid., 119-20. 17 Ibid., 119.

35

35

constructing a metaphysical, ontological view of God, the

immanent Trinity.18 In Western theology, Jenson comments, The

triunity of God himself becomes sheerly the necessarily postulated

presupposition in God of the triune character of Gods work, and is

not itself to be further conceived.19 Consequently, the Trinity of the

Western tradition became a mystery:

Our inability to think about God in a way appropriate to the

gospel is then baptized by calling Gods unthought triunity a

mystery; the pious are to recite God is one and three but never ask

what this says. The triunity of God himself is thereby deprived of

function in actual religious life; and it is unsurprising that Trinitarian

patterns of piety and interpretation gradually lost importance in

medieval and most Reformation-era theology, finally to be explicitly

renounced by the Enlightenment. Remarkably, there is in Edwards

thought no trace of any of this.20

For Edwards, notes Jenson, the mystery of the Trinity has

been revealed in Christ through the Holy Spirit. The Trinity ad intra

overflows ad extra, that is, an undifferentiated, intimate relation of

the immanent Trinity and the historical (economic) Trinity.21 Hence,

the doctrine of the Trinity is not an irrelevant mystery, but the

18 Ibid., 93. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid., 94.

36

36

absolute sine qua non to life. Jenson, therefore, argues that Edwards

Trinitarianism suggests no affinity with Augustinian Trinitarianism,

a metaphysical, mysterious, and mitigating view of God, which

differentiates the immanent and economic Trinity.

Furthermore, Jenson unreservedly points out Edwards

difference from the standard Western teaching and consent to

Eastern patristic teaching with regard to the relation of the

immanent and economic Trinity.22 He explains:

All orthodox trinitarianism has affirmed the axiom: the

Trinitys externally-directed works are undivided. The purpose of

the maxim is plain: if the Son can do externally, that is on the

creation, a work that is his work and not the Fathers work, then he

and the Father are two gods; and so for the Father and the Spirit.23

Jenson further explicates, As the Greek-speaking fathers

adopted the axiom, it meant that in every creative work of God the

three persons have each their essential role.24 In contrast, for the

Western fathers, It meant that once the persons emerge into

relationship with the creature, they are no longer really

distinguishable.25 Jenson unhesitatingly rejects the Western

meaning because it implies that the Father and the Spirit could have

22 Ibid., 94-5. 23 Ibid., 95. 24 Ibid. Emphasis original.

37

37

become incarnate, although it was appropriate for the son to do so.

Jenson, therefore, claims:

Edwards choice between East and West is explicit: there is an

order constituted [immanently] among the persons of the Trinity

with respect to their operations and actions ad extra. Therefore the

persons indivisibility ad extra is that all the persons of the Trinity

do concur (Jensons emphasis) in all acts ad extra. Thus Edwards is

able to draw rigorously conclusions back and forth between inner-

trinitarian relations and the relations established in evangelical

history, as standard Western theology could not.26

Jensons thesis is clear; Edwards Trinitarianism is essentially

of the Eastern tradition for a twofold reason. Jenson argues that

Edwards Trinitarianism showed no distinction between the

immanent and the economic Trinity, and yet it displayed the

distinctive external roles of the three persons of the Trinity;

therefore, Jenson claims that Edwards had departed from the

Augustinian tradition which obscures the external and essential roles

of the Trinity.

To reiterate, the goal of this research paper is to examine

Jensons claim that Edwards explicitly chose to diverge from

Western Trinitarianism and hold to the Eastern tradition of the

________________________

25 Ibid., 95. 26 Ibid.

38

38

Trinity. The question to be explored is: Did Edwards explicitly

choose to depart from the Western and adhere to the Eastern view of

the Trinity? In order to answer this question, this writer in the next

section attempts to lay out thematically Edwards Discourse of the

Trinity27 vis--vis Augustines The Trinity, of which the latter was

often seen as the most mature and final expression of the Western

tradition.28 By comparing Edwards major Trinitarian themes,

namely, of idea, love, and relation, with Augustines teachings

on the Triune God, this paper is to show whether Edwards

Trinitarianism had decisively moved away from the Augustinian or

Western views of the Trinity.

The Theme of Idea

The first part of Edwards Discourse is the perfect idea of

God, which is engendered by Gods infinite self-contemplation.

Edwards stated, It must be supposed that God perpetually and

eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image

and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view.29

When God beholds himself infinitely and perfectly, he must become

27 The Discourse on the Trinity was Edwards most mature and detailed statement on the Trinity. Robert W. Caldwell, Communion in the Spirit: The Holy Spirit as the Bond of Union in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Eugene,

OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 20, 28. Caldwell provides a succinct outline of

Edwards Discourse on the Trinity (28-33). 28 J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Peabody, MA: Prince, 2007), 271. 29 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 113.

39

39

his own object: there must be a duplicity.30 The Deity is repeated

by this perfect self-reflection. Gods idea, the second person, is the

perfect image of God himself: Gods idea of himself is absolutely

perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of him, exactly

like him in every respect.31 Put simply, the absolute idea of God has

of himself is God himself again.32 Edwards asserted, So that by

Gods thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated.

Hereby there is another person begotten; there is another infinite,

eternal, almighty, and most holy and the same God, the very same

divine nature.33

Edwards, then, supported the concept of Gods idea, that is, the

second person in the Trinity, the only begotten and dearly beloved

Son of God by scriptural proofs.34 Scripture depicts the Son as the

image or face (Exod 33:14) of God who is the most immediate

representation of the Godhead, viz. the idea of God.35 Edwards

argued that seeing the perfect idea of a thing is equivalent to seeing

the thing.36 Similarly, seeing the perfect image or face of God is

the same as seeing God himself (John 12:45; 14:7-9; 15:22-24).

30 Ibid., 114. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid., 116. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid., 117. 35 Ibid., 117-18. 36 Ibid., 118.

40

40

Christ is also called brightness, effulgence or shining forth of Gods

glory.37 The understanding or knowledge of God most properly

represented as light or brightness originally proceeds from [Gods]

mind itself and is derived from no other.38 Edwards further

demonstrated that the perfect idea of God is Gods Word as seen in

the terms of Gods wisdom (1 Cor 1:24; Luke 11:49; Matt 23:34;

Prov 8:22-31), logos, and Amen. Edwards emphatically

concluded that nothing but the perfect idea or knowledge of God is

able to reveal God himself.

Edwards concept of idea as the second person was not at all

original in view of Augustines Trinity. Although Augustine never

actually used the term idea to describe the second person of the

Godhead, this does not mean that Edward departed from Augustine.

Edwards, in fact, started his Trinitarian discourse by briefly

mentioning a human soul analogy. Edwards stated, Though the

divine nature be vastly different from that of created spirits, yet our

souls are made in the image of God: we have understanding and will,

idea and love, as God hath, and the difference is only in the

perfection of degree and manner.39 Close to the end of the

discourse, although briefly, Edwards again mentioned the human

37 Ibid., 119. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 113.

41

41

soul analogy to illustrate the persons of the Trinity.40 What Edwards

did was unequivocal; he attempted to use the human soul analogy to

elucidate the inner reality of the Trinity. Caldwell also argues that

Edwards psychological analogy of the human self as knowing and

loving . . . aids his trinitarian reflection.41 In fact, this human soul

analogy rightly belonged to Augustine.

Kelly observes that Augustines use of analogies drawn from

the structure of the human soul is probably [the] most original

contribution to Trinitarian theology,42 namely, the triad of being

(esse), knowing (nosse), and willing (velle). In spite of the absence of

the term idea in Augustines teachings of the second person, his

psychological illustrations of nosse in the forms of knowledge,43

understanding,44 and knowing45 seem to be the foundation of

Edwards use of idea for the second person of the Trinity. In

Augustines psychological analogy, Studebaker observes, The

Father is the mind or memory who, by an eternal self-reflection,

40 Ibid., 138. 41 Caldwell, Communion in the Spirit, 28, 29. 42 Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 276. Although rarely, the Cappadocians did use

some psychological analogies for the Trinity; see Cornelius Plantinga, Jr.,

"Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity," The Thomist 50

(1986): 340. 43 Augustine, The Trinity, IX: 1-18. Augustines first mental/psychological triad

concerns the mind, the minds knowledge of itself, and the minds love of itself. 44 Ibid., X:1-19. The second metal triad is the mind remembering, understanding,

and willing/loving itself. 45 Ibid., XIV:11-26. The third triad, Augustines most preferred mental analogy,

42

42

generates the Son according to knowledge.46 It is noteworthy that

Edwards following Augustine identified the second person

(hypostasis) of the Trinity with the divine quality or attribute,

namely, knowledge or understanding, unlike the Cappadocian fathers

who ascribed the three divine hypotheseis to the one Divine essence

or nature of the Holy Trinity.47 In this manner, Edwards concurred

with Augustine that the Son as Gods knowledge or

understanding is generated from Gods infinite and perfect self-

reflection.

Furthermore, Edwards scriptural proofs of Gods perfect idea

in terms of image, word and wisdom are not dissimilar to

Augustines scriptural concepts of form/image/likeness of God,48

wisdom of God49 and word of God.50 For example, Augustine

stated:

And while any knowledge has a likeness to the thing it knows,

that is to the thing it is the knowledge of, this knowledge by which

the knowing mind is known has a perfect and equal likeness. And the

reason it is both image and word, is that it is expressed from the

________________________

deals with the mind as remembering, knowing, loving God himself. 46 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 271. 47 Alexei Fokin, "St Augustine's Doctrine of the Trinity in the Light of Orthodox

Triadology of the Fourth Century," in The Trinity: East/West Dialogue, ed.

Melville Y. Stewart (The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2003), 131. 48 Augustine, The Trinity, I:22, 24; II:4; VII:5, IX:16. 49 Ibid., VII:4; XV:29, 31.

43

43

mind when it is made equal to it by knowing it; and what is begotten

is equal to the begetter.51

For Augustine, the knowing mind and the knowledge of the

mind are perfectly equal; the image and word are equal to the mind

which express them; the begotten (image and word) is equal to the

begetter (the mind). Like Edwards, Augustine believed that the mind

(i.e., God) begets the image, word, or knowledge (i.e., the Son), but

the former and the latter are equal in essence. The basic concept of

the begotten knowledge and the begetting mind is a close parallel

with Edwards concept of Gods eternally and perfectly begotten

idea. Thus, contrary to Jensons claim, there is no indication that

Edwards departed from Augustines view regarding the concept of

idea (i.e., the begotten Son of God).

The Theme of Love

Edwards was right to point out the prevailing negligence of the

person and role the Holy Spirit; therefore, he endeavored to

accentuate the distinction and equality of the Spirit in relation to the

Father and the Son. Edwards began his Trinitarian discourse by first

presupposing that, in Gods infinite happiness, he perfectly beholds

and infinitely loves his own essence and perfection. Edwards, then,

presupposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect

________________________

50 Ibid., I:9, 26; VI:3; XV:23, 25, 29.

44

44

idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of

himself ever before him and in actual view,52 viz., the eternally

generated second person of the Trinity as expounded in The Theme

of Idea. Edwards further contends, And from hence arises a most

pure and perfect energy in the Godhead, which is the divine

love . . .53 There exists a mutual love between the Father and the

Son. Edwards stated, There proceeds a most pure act, and an

infinitely holy and sweet energy arises between the Father and the

Son: for their love and joy is mutual, in mutually loving and

delighting in each other.54 Edwards continued, The divine essence

itself flows out as it were breathed forth in love . . . and there

proceeds the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz. the

Deity in act: for there is no other act but the act of the will.55

Edwards again used Scripture to confirm the Holy Spirit as the

love of the Godhead by creatively exegeting and comparing First

John 4:8, 12-13, 16. Stated simply, the love of the Godhead is the

Spirit who is also God.56 The Spirit as love not only binds intimately

the Father and the Son, but also quickens, enlivens, beautifies, and

________________________

51 Ibid., IX:16. Emphasis added. 52 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 113. 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid., 121. Edwards mutual love concept is to be expounded in the next section,

The Theme of Relation. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid.

45

45

sanctifies Gods creation, as well as comforts Gods people.57

Edwards further explained the Spirit as love by using biblical

images, such as dove, a symbol of love. He also used the types of oil,

water, fire, breath, wind, wine, and a river to explicate the Spirit as

flowing out or breathing forth.58

Finally, Edwards forcefully argued that the Holy Spirit is Gods

love because the Spirit is the communion between God and

believers, and among believers. Believers commune with God and

others by partaking of the Spirit, who is the very love and grace of

the Father and the Son. As indicated in his benediction, the Apostle

Paul always mentioned the love and grace of the Father and the Son,

and the communion of the Holy Ghost (2 Cor 13:14). In addition,

the Spirit is not mentioned in the thirteen greetings of Paul because,

as Edwards argued, the Spirit is the blessing of the Father and the

Son given to believers. Edwards rightly observed and contended that

there is never any account of the Holy Ghosts loving either the

Father or the Son, or of the Sons or Fathers loving the Holy Ghost,

or of the Holy Ghosts loving the saints.59 Thus, Edwards concluded

that the Spirit is the Deity subsisting in the divine essence flowing

out and breathed forth in Gods infinite love of himself.60 The Spirit

57 Ibid., 123-26. 58 Ibid., 126-29. 59 Ibid., 131, 140. 60 Ibid., 131.

46

46

is Gods love.

Edwards concept of the Spirit as divine love was not radical

theologically. It is quite obvious that more than a thousand years ago

Augustine already expounded the notion of the Holy Spirit as Gods

love. Studebaker summarizes, in Augustines psychological analogy,

the Holy Spirit is illustrated as proceeding as the minds self-love

(the act of will) of its self-knowledge.61 It is noteworthy that,

however, both Edwards and Augustine established the distinct status

of the Spirit, not based on a psychological analogy, but on First John

4:8, 12-13, 16.

Augustine recognized that Scripture did not say explicitly: The

Holy Spirit is love, but God is love (1 John 4:8, 16). It left it

uncertain whether the Father, the Son, the Spirit, or simply the

Triune God is love.62 Augustine then argued, I do not know why

Father and Son and Holy Spirit should not be called love and all

together be one love. Augustine seemed to leave, as Jenson claims,

the essential role of each of the three persons undifferentiated.

Augustine, however, later argued decisively with regard to the

inseparable essence of the three persons and their distinctive roles:

What is meant is that while in that supremely simple nature

substance is not one thing or love another, but substance is love and

61 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 271. 62 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:27.

47

47

love is substance, whether in the Father or in the Son or in the Holy

Spirit, yet all the same the Holy Spirit is distinctively named love. 63

Later, Augustine asked rhetorically, If the love by which the Father

loves the Son and the Son loves the Father inexpressibly shows forth

the communion of them both, what more suitable than he who is the

common Spirit of them both should be distinctively called love?64

Bromiley warns, One must not conclude, however, that Christ as the

Son of Gods love is the Son of the Spirit. He is Son of Gods

substance, just as, being Son by Gods will, he is Son of Gods

nature (XV:37-38).65 It is, therefore, possible to argue that

Augustine did not leave the essential role of each of the three persons

indistinguishable, as Jenson claims.

Augustine did not leave the essential role of the Holy Spirit

ambiguous. Like what Edwards did, Augustine then ably appealed to

First John 4: 7, 8, 10, 13, 16 to support his thesis that the Spirit is

love: So it is the Holy Spirit of which he has given us that makes us

abide in God and him in us. But this is precisely what love does, He

[the Spirit] is the gift of God who is love.66 In short, Gods Spirit is

Gods love. Thus, contrary to Jensons claim, there is still no

indication that Edwards departed from Augustines view regarding

63 Ibid., XV:29. Emphasis added. 64 Ibid., XV:37. 65 Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Historical Theology: An Introduction (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1978), 92.

48

48

the concept of love (i.e., the Spirit of God).

The Theme of Relation

After expounding the idea of God (the Son) and the love of God

(the Spirit) in relation to God the Father, Edwards summarized:

The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, and unoriginated

and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The

son is the Deity generated by Gods understanding, or having an idea

of himself, and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Spirit is the Deity

subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed

forth, in Gods infinite love to and delight in himself. And I believe

the whole divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the

divine idea and divine love, and that therefore each of them are

properly distinct persons.67

Edwards understood the Deity in terms of God, idea of God,

and love of God. There are no other real distinction in God but

these three distinct real things in God; whatsoever else can be

mentioned in God are nothing but mere modes or relations of

existence.68 Edwards supported his statement scripturally, We find

no other attributes of which it is said that they are God in Scripture,

or that God is they, but Logoj and Agape, the reason and the love

________________________

66 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:31. 67 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 131.

49

49

of God (John 1:1 and 1 John 4:8, 16).69

In this section, this writer will conduct a comparison of

Edwards and Augustines teachings on the Trinitarian relation in

terms of fountain of Deity, mutual love and filioque. While

comparing their salient thoughts on the relation of the Trinity, this

writer will deal specifically with Jensons claim of Edwards

Eastern Trinitarianism.

For Edwards, God the Father is the fountain of the Godhead.70

In the economy of the persons of the Trinity, the Father is to

sustain the dignity of the Deity; the Father should have it as his

office to uphold and maintain the rights of the Godhead, and should

be God, not only by essence, but as it were by his economical

office.71 Subsequently, Edwards explicated that the economical

office of the Father necessarily implies the filioque scheme in the

doctrine of the Trinity. He unequivocally stated that the Holy Spirit

proceeds from both the Father and the Son: It is possible for the Son

to be begotten by the Father, and the Holy Spirit to proceed from the

Father and Son, and yet that all the persons should be co-eternal.72

Although all three persons have their distinct offices, they are

________________________

68 Ibid. 69 Ibid., 132. 70 Ibid., 135. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid.

50

50

co-essential and co-equal. They all have equal, and yet peculiar,

honor and glory in their essence and distinct works of redemption. In

their essence, The Fathers honor is that he is as it were the author

of perfect and infinite wisdom. The Sons honor is that he is that

perfect and divine wisdom itself But the honor of the Holy Ghost

is equal, for he is [the] divine excellency and beauty itself, arisen

and proceeded from the infinite excellency of the Father and the

Son.73 Edwards emphatically stated again that the Father is the

fountain of the Deity from whom proceed both divine wisdom and

excellency which have equal honor with the Father.74

In the works of redemption, there is equality in all the three

persons of the Trinity. All the persons receive equal glory: Glory

belongs to the Father and the Son, that they so greatly loved the

world: the Father so loved that he gave his only begotten Son; the

Son so loved the world as to give up himself. But there is equal glory

due to the Holy Ghost, for he is that love of the Father and the Son to

the world.75 All believers are to depend equally on each person of

the Trinity in redemption. The Father appoints and provides the

Redeemer. The Redeemer pays the price by offering up himself and

provides the object purchased. The purchased is the Holy Spirit, who

is the sum of all good things; the purchased possession and

73 Ibid. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid., 136.

51

51

inheritance of all believers.76

In Edwards view of the Trinitarian relation, the three person of

the Trinity are equal in essence, honor, and glory, but each has its

distinct role. The Father is the fountain of the Son and the Spirit.

Edwards recapitulated the fountainhead of the Father, How many

respects the Father first in order, fountain of Godhead, sustains

dignity of Deity, sends forth the other two. All is from him, all is in

him originally.77

For Edwards, the distinct role and office of the Father does not

suggest subordinationism in the Trinity. Edwards recognized that in

one respect the Father has the superiority over the Son: He is the

fountain of Deity, and he begets the beloved Son.78 In other respect,

the Son has the superiority because he is the very object of the

Fathers love: The beloved has as it were the superiority over the

lover, and reigns over him.79 In another respect, the Holy Spirit as

the divine love has the superiority in the Trinitarian relation: the

divine love is the principle that as it were reigns over the Godhead

and governs his heart, and wholly influences both the Father and the

Son in all they do.80 In spite of Edwards emphasis on the distinct,

76 Ibid., 136-37, 147. 77 Ibid., 143. 78 Ibid., 147. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid.

52

52

peculiar role and office of each of the three persons, he nonetheless

highlighted their equality by using the concept of mutual love. It is

noteworthy that Edwards in fact referred, or at least alluded, to

Augustines analogy of mutual love, namely the paradigm of

lover-beloved-love.

Augustines mutual love model is a variation of his

psychological or human soul model.81 He stated, Now love means

someone loving and something loved with love. There you are with

three, the lover, what is being loved, and love.82 Studebaker argues

that Edwards use of the Augustinian mutual love model reflects his

continuity with the dominant Western Augustinian Trinitarian

tradition and early Enlightenment apologetics for the traditional

doctrine of the Trinity.83 In Augustines mutual love, the Holy Spirit

is depicted as the bond of love uniting the Father and the Son.84 This

is exactly what Edwards perceived in the conclusion of his discourse

with regard to the Spirit, namely, for the Spirit is the bond of union

and that by which Christ in his saints and the Father in him.85

Edwards, following the Western-Augustinian tradition, argued

that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. Edwards

81 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 272. 82 Augustine, The Trinity, VIII:14. 83 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 268. 84 Ibid., 272. 85 Edwards, "Discourse on the Trinity," 144. Emphasis added.

53

53

made a delicate distinction between the Trinitarian relations: And

even ad intra, though the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father

and the Son, yet he proceeds from the Father mediately by the Son,

viz. by the Fathers beholding himself in the Son. But he proceeds

from the Son immediately by himself by beholding the Father in

himself.86 Put otherwise, the Spirit proceeds from the Father

originally and primarily, and from the Son secondarily.87 Augustine

also made a similar argument by appealing to Scripture:

By saying then, Whom I will send you from the Father (Jn

15:26), the Lord showed that the Spirit is both the Fathers and the

Sons. Elsewhere too, when he said, whom the Father will send, he

added, in my name (Jn 14:26). He did not however say, whom the

Father will send from me as he had said whom I will send from the

Father (Jn 15:26), and thereby he indicated that the source of all

godhead, or if you prefer it, of all deity, is the Father. So the Spirit

who proceeds from the Father and the Son is traced back, on both

counts, to him of whom the Son is born.88

Although the concept of the fount of the Deity was akin to

Cappadocian Trinitarianism,89 Augustine was in total agreement with

86 Ibid., 143. 87 Ibid. 88 Augustine, The Trinity, IV:29. Emphasis added for source of all godhead, or if

you prefer it, of all deity, is the Father. 89 Plantinga, "Gregory of Nyssa and the Social Analogy of the Trinity," 340.

54

54

the notion of the Father as the fountain of the Godhead. In light of

this notion, Augustine in the meantime held to the concept of the

filioque. Augustine later repeated, According to the holy scriptures

this Holy Spirit is not just the Fathers alone nor the Sons alone, but

the Spirit of them both, and thus he suggests to us the common

charity [or love] by which the Father and the Son love each other.90

Apparently, both Augustine and Edwards concurred in these two

matters: first, the Father as the source or fountain of the Godhead;

and second, the filioque.

Concerning the external relation of the Trinity, Jenson claims

that Edwards, concurring with the Eastern fathers saw that in every

inseparable external act of God the three persons have each their

essential role.91 For the Western fathers, however, in the inseparable

external work of God, the three persons of the Godhead are no longer

distinguishable. In other words, for Jenson, the Western perspective

of the Trinity implies that there are no distinct external roles of the

Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Jenson then concluded that Edwards

teaching of the Trinity showed no trace of the Western tradition.

Augustine did seem to undifferentiate the three persons of the

Trinity in his statement: [T]he trinity which is God cannot just be

read off from those three things which have pointed out in the trinity

90 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:27, 47. 91 Jenson, Americas Theologian, 95. Emphasis original.

55

55

of our mind, in such a way that that the Father is taken as the

memory of all three, and the Son as the understanding of all three,

and the Holy Spirit as the love of all three.92 He then added, It is

rather that all and each of them has all three things each in his own

nature.93 Based on this statement alone, Jenson would be correct in

claming that the Western-Augustinian tradition makes the external

essential roles of the Trinity undistinguishable; therefore, Edwards

had departed from this very Western tradition.

By briefly examining Augustines view concerning the external

inseparable operation of the Trinity, one is able to determine whether

Jensons claim is valid or not. Augustine stated, I will say however

with absolute confidence that [the] Father and Son and Holy Spirit,

God the creator, of one and the same substance, the almighty three,

act inseparably.94 This inseparability of act as illustrated in

Augustines human soul analogy of the mental triad, however, does

not necessarily imply the undistinguishable roles of the three persons

or an undifferentiated unity of essence, but rather, to show how one

divine person can be named singly in a divine act, as for example the

Son in the incarnation, yet in that event the Father, the Son, and the

Holy Spirit operate inseparably.95 In contrast to Jensons claim, for

92 Augustine, The Trinity, XV:28. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid., IV:30. 95 Studebaker, "Jonathan Edwards's Social Augustinian Trinitarianism," 278.

56

56

Augustine, the indivisibility or inseparability of the Trinitarian

operation ad extra does not suggest obscurity or ambiguity of the

essential role of each person the Trinity. Augustine explained by

using the example of Jesus baptism in which the voice, the body,

and the dove have proper and distinct reference to each person of the

Trinity: Well, at least the example helps us to see how this three,

inseparable in itself, is manifested separately thought visible

creatures, and how the three are inseparable at work in each of the

things which are mentioned as having the proper function of

manifesting the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit.96 In short, in

contrast to Jensons interpretation, Augustine did not intend to

obscure the proper function of the three divine persons. Each person

has his distinct and essential role, although the three persons are

inseparable in all acts. In this manner, there is no clear indication that

Edwards was deviating from Augustines view of the Trinitarian

relation. Thus, Jensons claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism

is found wanting.

Conclusion

Jenson is probably correct to say that Edwards Trinitarianism is

Christological in perspective, but he is inaccurate when claiming that

Edwards had departed from the Western-Augustinian understanding

96 Augustine, The Trinity, IV:30.

57

57

of the Trinity. A thematic comparison of Edwards and Augustines

teachings on the Trinity demonstrates that the former and the latter

resonate in the concepts of idea, love, and relation.

For both Edwards and Augustine, the infinite and perfect self-

reflection of God generates the perfect and eternal idea of God.

Although Augustine did not explicitly use the term idea as did

Edwards, both Augustine and Edwards agreed that the second person

of the Trinity is Gods knowledge, understanding, or image as

generated from Gods perfect self-contemplation. This begotten idea,

which is the dearly loved Son of God, is Gods image in exactness.

The begotten and the begetter are equal in essence. Apparently,

Edwards, based on Augustines human soul analogy, perceived the

Son as Gods knowledge or understanding. Thus, in the theme

of idea, there is an obvious intimation that Edwards followed

closely the traditional Augustinian view of the Trinity.

Regarding the theme of love, Edwards was in total agreement

with Augustine that the Spirit is the mutual love of the Father and the

Son. The reciprocal delight between the Father and the Son flows

out, breaths forth, or proceeds the third distinct person, the

divine love. The Spirit as love is the act of the divine will. At times,

Augustine appeared to leave the essential role of each the three

persons undifferentiated, but he later did argue for the distinct role of

the Spirit as love in particular. Both Augustine and Edwards used

First John 4:8-16 as the foundation of their teaching that the Spirit is

58

58

the love of the Godhead and the Spirit is also God. Hence, in the

theme of love, Edwards followed Augustine closely with regard to

the distinct role of the Spirit, the mutual love between the Father and

the Son.

In the theme of relation, one may see more clearly that

Jensons claim of Edwards Eastern Trinitarianism is found most

wanting. For both Augustine and Edwards, in the Trinitarian

immanent order, the Father is the fountain of the Godhead from

whom generated the idea and proceeded the love of God. The

two distinct persons have the equal honor, glory, and essence with

the source of the Deity. Nonetheless, each of the three persons has

his distinct role as manifested in the mutual love model (lover-

beloved-love), a model properly initiated by Augustine. In this

Trinitarian relation, Edwards held explicitly to Augustines stance on

the filioque; namely, the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the

Son without relinquishing the Father as the fountain of the Deity.

Finally, in the Trinitarian relation, both Edwards and Augustine

concurred on the fact that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are

inseparable in their external operation, but each has his

distinguishable, distinct, and proper role to play. Essentially, Jenson

is inaccurate to claim that Edwards had moved to the Eastern view

of the Trinity.

The question asked at the beginning of the paper is, Did

Edwards explicitly choose to depart from the Western and adhere to

59

59

the Eastern view of the Trinity? Through a thematic comparison

between the teachings of Edwards and Augustine, the answer is

NO!, although tentatively.97 That Edwards Trinitarianism has no

trace of the Western-Augustinian tradition of the Trinity is a rather

bold, but unfounded claim. Edwards approach to the Trinity by

means of psychological triad (mind-Father, idea-Son, love-Spirit)

and in terms fountain of the Deity, mutual love, and filioque

was straight from Augustines work.98 Based on the comparative

analysis of the major Trinitarian themes of Edwards and Augustine,

it is safe to conclude that Edwards remained in close affinity with the

Western-Augustinian concept of the Trinity.

97 The reason of the tentativeness is as follows: this paper essentially deals with the

first part of the question (i.e., whether Edwards departed from Western-

Augustinian Trinitarianism). The second part of the question (i.e., whether

Edwards adhered to the Eastern-Cappadocian tradition of the Trinity) hinges upon

another comparative study on Trinitarianism of Edwards and the "Eastern"

fathers. 98 Stephen R. Holmes, God of Grace and God of Glory: An Account of the Theology

of Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 69.

60

Godly Living from the Wesleys Theological

Perspective

/

61

Christian Perfection

a man of one

book

548

K. C.

Kinghorn

partake significantly

62

sins guilt

sins grip

612221

2

61

315

1 John Wesley , A Plain Account of Christian Perfection: A

Transcription in Modern English with Scripture References and Annotations by

Kenneth Cain Kinghorn, (Lexington: Emeth Press, 2012), preface x-xii. 2

1994162-163John Wesley , A Plain Account of Christian Perfection170-171

63

418

516

purity of intention

64

3

V. I. Campell

[]

5484

dynamic

5

3 Wesley, A Plain Account of Christian Perfection176-177. W. Stanley

Johnson, Christian Perfection as Love for God, Wesleyan Theological Journal,

Volume 18, 1 Spring 1983: 50-60 4 Victoria l. Campbell, Understanding Christian Perfection and its Struggle with

Antinomianism, The Asbury Journal 68/2:58-77 5 Steve Harper

2002 56-60

65

works of piety works of mercy

6

6 Sermon XCII (92): On Zeal, Works, ed. Thomas Jackson,

7: 60.

66

7

8

9

1011

12

7 Sermon XXVI: Sermon on the Mount VI, Works, ed. Thomas Jackson, 5: 329. 8 Journal, February 9-10, 1753, Works, 2: 279-280; Journal, February 21, 1753,

Works, 2: 281; Journal, February 8, 1753, Works, 2: 279; Letter to a Member of the Society, June 9, 1775, Works, 12: 300.

9 Journal, January 4, 1785, Works, 4: 295Journal, September 26, 1783,

Works, 4: 261 Journal, September 28, 1783, Works, 4: 261. 10 Journal, January 17, 1748, Works, 2: 81, 2: 17-18; A Plain Account of the

People called Methodists, Works, 8: 267. 11 Journal, December 4, 1746, Works, 2: 39 A Plain Account of the People

Called Methodists, Works, 8: 263-265. Charles Yrigoyen, Jr. John Wesley: Holiness of Heart and Life, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 61-62.

12 Theodore W. Jr. Jennings, Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Nashville: Abingdon Press 1990), 62.

67

13

141516

1718 19

13 The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works, 9: 233; The Doctrine of Original Sin,

Works, 9: 228. 14 The Use of Money, Works, 6: 129. 15 On the Use of Money, Works, 6: 129 Preface to Primitive Physick, Works,

14: 313 16 A Father Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, Works, 8: 165-166. 17 The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works, 9: 221-222. 18 Journal, February 23, 1776, Works, 4: 68; Journal, November 13, 1776,

Works, 4: 89; The Mystery of Iniquity, Works, 6: 265 19 Journal, February 12, 1772, Works, 3: 453; Thought s Upon Slavery, Works,

11: 59-79; Journal, March 3, 1788, Works, 4: 408; Letter to Mr. Thomas Funnell, November 24, 1787, Works, 12: 507; Letter to a Friend [Wilberforce], February 26, 1791, Works, 13: 153; A Seasonal Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain, Works, 11: 125-126.

69

Alan Anderson1876-1959

Peace 1996 Tucker 1999 1

Isley 1999

Steffen & Douglas 2008 63-69

Steffen & Douglas 2008 72-82

Taylor & Taylor 2009

2 20 50

Shenk 1996

1 missionary biography

( http://missionarybiographies.com/index.html) Wholesome Words Christian

biography resources (http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/bio.html) Stephen Ross; Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity by

BDCC ( http://www.bdcconline.net/en). 2 E Standley Jones

, Demaray & Johnson, 2007.

70

Bosch 1999423-425 3

109-18

Tucker 1999429

Lonergan 1971179

19

3 , Bob Davey The

Power to Save: A History of the Gospel in China (PA; Carlisle: EP Books, 2011).

71

4

Anderson

1955 1Roxborogh 2012

5

4 Edward Band, Working His Purpose Out: The History of the English Presbyterian

Mission, 1847-19471948London: Church of England, 1948

John Henderson The Service in Malaya and Singapore of the Reverend Alan S. Moore Anderson, " The Presbyterian Church in Singapore and Malaysia.

90th Anniversary of the Church and 70th Anniversary of the Synod,

Commemoration Volume1970

Alan Anderson Random ReminiscencesLondon: Albert Clark, 1955

A Dictionary of Asian Christianity , by Scott W. SunquistGrand Rapids:Wm.

B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2001 Biographical Dictionary of Chinese Christianity http://www.bdcconline.net/en

2011

Random Reminiscences1955

5 My grandfather was a Presbyterian Elder, but during (or just after) the Irish revival of 1859/ 1860, my fathers elder brother, Sir Samuel , and his sisters all found their spiritual home with the Plymouth Brethren. My father youngest sister, however, came back into the Presbyterian. My mother was brought up in the Church of England, in which her grandfather had been a minister. (Anderson 1955: 1)

72

Rodolfo R Girn

Girn 199731 Girn

6

Austin 2000645Kane 197527-28

6 Perhaps one might recall here an incident of ones early boyhood . During a

summer in Ireland when I was eight years old my fathers youngest sister (Aunt Fanny to us) took me with her to hear a talk by a CIM missionary who was a distant cousin of my mother. He spoke very earnestly about China and the needs

and opportunities, and his message started an intense interest in China in my

young imagination. If I had had to decide then on my life work, China would have

got me. Later, at school and college, ones thoughts were naturally occupied with work and other calls nearer home, but a special interest in China never quite left one(Anderson 1955: 5).

73

4 1

101-822-23

131-3 7

Isley

19993008 i

ii

7 , Stefeen & Douglas, Encountering

Missionary Life and Work (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 55-61. 8 , William L. Isley Jr. the

characteristics of a missionary spirituality are: 1. The sense of being called out

from the familiar or normal; 2. The conviction of being sent to a particular place

or people; 3. A highly intentional lifestyle; and 4. Most important and overarching the whole, an eschatological orientation (1999: 300).

74

132 iii

iv

Thomas Austins

Austin 2000645-46

Kane 197528-

30Michael Griffiths 8

Griffiths 199223-30

3

Richard Peace

Peace 1996109

9 : what distinguishes a spiritual autobiography from an ordinary

autobiography is the lens focuses on the aspects that reveal to us the activity of God (Peace 1996: 10).

75

John Dettoni 4

19 2819 128-29

Dettoni 199415-16

122 318

Dettoni 199415

336 113

27 439 1143-44

317-19 127-12 412 13

1225 1415-31

152627 165-16 81-2710

10 PTC: Pastoral Care Group Study

Material 7 (Melbourne: PTC, 2014).

76

109-16

1047-48

1118

10

9-25cf. Gal 115

1026-30

1896

John R Mott

77

11

Austin 2000645

Isley 1999300

29-10 31-8

11 In 1896 my younger brother Graham and I attended the big missionary

conference at Liverpool and heard the many inspiring messages from Dr John R

Mott and other well-known Christian leaders. My brother made a decision then to give his life to Overseas Mission work. One faced the call prayerfully oneself but

did not feel able to sign any pledge. And then during 1897, ones last year at Cambridge, One was facing the claims of the ministry whether for work at home

or abroad. As the call did not yet sound quite clear, one spent a year teaching at a

small country school, which, incidentally, was quite a useful experience: and during the year the call to the ministry sounded clear. (Anderson 1955: 15)

78

1900

12

12 Towards the end of ones last term at Westminster the Rev C Campbell Brown,

home on leave from Chuanchow, paid us a visit and put the claims of China very

earnestly before us. In personal conversation with me he stressed the special need of a Boy s School in Chuanchow, and told how the city pastors, when they came to say their final goodbye, had knelt in prayer with him that God would send a

man for that work.

Towards the end of ones last term at Westminster the Rev C Campbell Brown, home on leave from Chuanchow, paid us a visit and put the claims of China very

earnestly before us. In personal conversation with me he stressed the special need

of a Boy s School in Chuanchow, and told how the city pastors, when they came to say their final goodbye, had knelt in prayer with him that God would send a man for that work.

79

Stamoolis 20025

Stamoolis 20026

13

M

13 In the autumn of 1898, I entered our Presbyterian theological college, then in

Queens square, London. I lived at home and went by bicycle to lectures. One had chosen a little school in the country hoping to get back to full health, and the hope

was fulfilled. Not only was one able to play some serious Rugby in the winter of 1898, as already mentioned, but was able to help organize games as part of the

College life of Westminster, Cambridge, when we moved there in the autumn of

1899 (Alan 1955: 5).

80

Robert Mulholland

Mulholland 201315

Mulholland 201315

920-221119-26

115

113-15

81

Dettoni 199415-1614

Bishop Taylor Smith

Alan 195510 Isley

highly intentional

lifestyle1999 300

14 Back again to Cambridge days, whether as an undergraduate or at Westminster,

ones main outside interest was with the movement then called universities camps for public schools. For seven years part of every August was spent with one or other of these camps, mostly at a seaside place, where cricket and other

games and bathing and boating gave the boys a fine holiday; and where morning

and evening Prayers in the big marquee, as well as personal talks with individual

boys, led to many a changed life and many a surrendered hearts. Among many

helpful speakers at Daily Prayers, one remembers Bishop Taylor Smith; as perhaps the best (Anderson 1955: 5).

82

Bishop Taylor Smith

Mr. BrownAlan 195510

John Nevius

Nevius 2003

Mr Brown

15

15 I had already promised to be assistant at Marylebone for one year, but Mr Brown

was willing to wait.15 I promised to pray about it and to let him know as soon as

possible. I had to start work in Marylebone in the middle of June, straight down from Westminster, because the minister, Rev. George Hanson, DD was leaving

for a six months visit to some Australian churches. Within a month two other calls came. First, a letter from Rev Sir George Adam Smith asked me if I would

accept an appointment for three years as minister of the Scotch Free Church in

Bombay. Then the elderly minister of our Bournemouth church paid me a visit to say that he and his session wished me to be his colleague and successor. Would I accept a call?

One knew that decisions must be made soon, and more vividly than ever before, one realized that one had just one life to live and that only one thing mattered

83

2819-20

Ekstrm1997 188

Thomas Kimber 2012

Kimber 2012 21616

1997

Taylor199799

Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do ? I soon felt able to say no to Bournemouth, and to decline Bombay also. But the call to China was accepted as

from God (Anderson 1959: 8). 16 , (Kimber 2012:216).

84

17

17 Those two years at Westminster were very happy. There were eight of us in my

year, all of us good pals. And we did not do badly as regards Foreign Mission

work!(Anderson 1959: 5)

85

//

/

86

1

2

John Wesley, 1703-1791

Charles Grandison Finney, 1792-1875

34

1

2

1997313 3 Lian Xi () 1930 50

Lian Xi, Reedemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in Modern China. New Haven: Yale University Press 2010, 10

4 3142006 http://120.102.246.2/bulletin2006/5-

1.pdf 2012 5 7

87

1901Methodist Episcopal

Church, North5

61920

7

8

9

5

20028798-103 6 1909 ()

199729 Leslie T. Lyall (), Biography of John Sung: Flame

For God In The Far East, 4th Ed. London: China Inland Mission. 1961, 9 7

195654-56

8 86:31 9 Leslie T. Lyall 54, 823 1, 199 40

Lyall, Biography of John Sung,

97

88

1944

10

George Whitefield, 1714-1770

D. L. Moody, 1837-1899

11

12

10 40 1995

2006

20061932 8 29

122

164 11 111999

105 12 207

192

89

131932-2014

14

1.

15

16

17

18

19

13 1988378

14 xix-xxiii 15 xix 16 17 181937

2013 9 3

http://www.cclife.org/View/Article/2152014 9 24 18 7 1992 4146

19 xx

90

2.

20

21

22

192723

20 415 21 130 22 Charles Grandison Finney 1982121-131

23 34John Sung

My Teacher198542

91

2425

26

27

3.

28

1

24

203 25

141 26 xix 27 xx-xxi 28 101

92

2[

]3

[]29

30

31

32

33

29 72101[ ]

30 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 144. 31 115

32 95 33 390

93

4.

34

35

3637

38

39

34 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 147

(1934-35)

35 126 36 141 37 142

38 325 39 393

94

1900

progressive efforts

40

41

42

43

40 Cf Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 8. 41 19171920 Lian,

Reedemed by Fire, 8-10 42 18 2002159 43 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 8-9.

95

44

45

46

47

Edwin Joshua Dukes

1885

48 50

44 101-102109162171207 239

45 181-182 46 xvi 47 237-238 48 14-15

96

49

G. W. Doyle

Popular Christianity

50

51

52

53

49 328 50 Doyle, G. Wright. 2010. How Dangerous Are Chinese House Churches? A

Review of Lian Xi, Reedemed by Fire: The Rise of Popular Christianity in

Modern China, Global China Center, 03/08/2010, http://www.globalchinacenter.org/analysis/christianity -in-china/how-dangerous-

are-chinese-house-churches.php, Accessed on 26/09/2014. 51 ix 52 203 53 Berkeley, CA

181

97

54

55

Alister McGrath

seperatism

56

57

58

54 1743 55 Lian, Reedemed by Fire, 146. 56 200426

571847-1947 1948

115-1156

2013 8 8 9

58 87-88 127

98

59

60

61

62

63

59 , 316 60 63 61 53 62 173 63 ()

337

99

64

1831

65

66

4767

68

69

64 338 65 ()

()69 66 338 67 Cf Simon J. DeVries,World Biblical Commentary, Volume 12, 1 Kings. Waco,

Texas: Word Books, 1985, 229. 68 317 69 2005 http://120.102.246.2/bulletin2005/4-1.pdf 2012

5 7

100

70

71

72

73

70 314 71 53 72

73

101

74

74 9

102

1

1 John Stott2012038

103

2

3

4 Abraham Heschel

5

2

14 200919 3 Alister McGrath2004137

4 04/ 5/20129

5 51 No.5 2009/9108-9Abraham Heschel1907-1972

104

41-11

6

7

8

41-2 135631 918 14

13 612

2636-46

65-159

6 04/ 5/20124

7 08/ 3/20123

8 199587-90

9 1

105

10 J. I. Packer

Preoccupied

11

12

13

14

10 50 No.2 2008/3438

11 1998201-202

12 5-7 13 Richard J. Foster 1993127-128

14 Richard J. Foster 1993 V

106

15

16

158-917

18

15 26/ 4/2012412345

16 201055

17 Alister McGrath144 1102009196-197Richard Baxter1615-1691

18 James M. Houston199598-99

107

19

20

21

22

1

Richard Baxter

23

163

19 2005180-181 20 195 21 202 22 Alister McGrath144-145

23 203

108

1232

24

25

26

27

28

52

41229

24 20 11 69

25 2011183 26 D. M. Lloyd-Jones1993258

27 John Stott2012106-109

28 John Stott 085 29 199371

109

2

30

517

618 46

1117

30 15/ 3/20122

110

31

32

33

34

31 1993150-151 32 191

33 04/ 5/20122

34 Donald S. Whitney (K. O. Gangel) J. C. Wilhoit2011208

111

35

36

221

35 200276

36 19/ 4/20121

112

7872

113

14:1-15:7

To Eat or Not to Eat: Christlike Conviction

from Romans 14:1-15:7

Peter Tie

1

15

151

1 C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T&T

Clark, 1979), 2:695.

114

157-1113-21

141

142 151

6 14

11-3

absolute

adiaphora

115

/adiaphora

absolute

2

2 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on

the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 882-4; Thomas R.

Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand

Rapids: Baker, 1998), 736.

117

conviction 15

57 14three

aspects of conviction

First Aspect of Conviction: Faith 14:1-4

141-

2

faith

3

3 The weak in faith (Romans 14:1) does not mean the weakness in the basic

Christian faith. Here, faith may refer to the weaks felt conviction, a kind of conviction that unable to marshal clear-cut arguments in its defence as to why not to eat (Cranfield, Romans, 2:696).

118

15

81-2

3

keep our mouth shut

1422

keep it to

yourself before God 144

12

119

accepted by God

accountable to God

Second Aspect of Conviction: Fully Convinced

14:5-9

5

fully convinced 6

8

149

120

146for/to the Lord

3 8 2

for/to the

Lord

fully

convinced

20

121

61-3

517 55-6

adiaphora

absolute

122

Third Aspect of Conviction: Convinced;

Determined 14:13-14

1413

88

4

5 14

15 14

20

1420

sin evil

4 Concerning the statement But to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it

is unclean (Rom 14:14b), eating or not eating the food does not affect people objectively, but to those who doubt it affects them subjectively. This subjective

doubt in ones conviction begins to brother ones conscience, which in turn leads to ones loss of focusfor the Lord.

5 Pauls language suggests the seriousness of the acts, the ones that cause people to eternal destruction (Schreiner, Romans, 734).

123

1421

1417-186

6 Schreiner paraphrases the first part this way, The kingdom of god does not

consist in the right to eat and drink what one pleases (Schreiner, 740; emphasis added). Those who experience being justified by grace through Christ, reconciled

to God through Christ, filled with joy by the Holy Spirit (namely, those who truly

belong to the kingdom of God) are called to serve Christ and please God, to do

what is right in Gods sight (Romans 14:18), not what is the right in their own might.

124

14

P

Pleasing

Peace

Preaching

Pleasing 151-2

3

125

7

8

Peace 1419

155-6

25

7 To please neighbors as Christ did who did not please himself (Romans 15:2-

3) is a loving act that fulfills the law of Christ (Rom 13:8-10; Gal 6:2). The weak

submitted to the strong is culturally pervasive then and now, but the strong help,

support, carry the weaknesses of the weak is countercultural. Colin G. Kruse,

Pauls Letter to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 527.

8 Since we have belonged to Christ, we do all to serve Christ for Gods glory, whether we live or die (Romans 14:6, 18; well-pleasing to God). In this manner, we may explain Pauls statement, Whatever is not from faith is sin (14:23b), that anything we do that do not in Christ or for Christ (faith) is not going to attain to the glory of God (sin). If we eat or do not eat without for Christ, we cannot glorify God, that is, falling short of the target (sin).

126

Preaching

1417

2323 14

127

9

rights 9

Adiaphora

9 Moo, Romans, 856.

128

POWERPOINT

129

70

Piety by Virtue




9 7 7 1 8 3 9 1 9 7 0 0 1

I SSN 1 8 3 9 - 1 9 7 4

A: 5 Burwood Highway, Wantirna VIC 3152, PO Box 6257 Vermont South VIC 3133 Australia

T: 03 9881 7850 F: 03 9800 0121 E: [email protected] W: chinese.mst.edu.au Theology and Spiritual Formation

2014 11

SHEN XUE YU SHENG MING SU ZAO 19

Mstcj 19

Documents

Transcript of Mstcj 19