GALATIANS #20

GALATIANS # 20
1/17/11
No other Gospel
Paul’s Gospel defended (B)
Chapter 1: 11 – 16

11For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;

Paul repeats that he received the gospel he preaches as a direct revelation from God (v16), reiterating he did not learn it from any human; then in v 20 he dramatically swears that what he has just said is true, with an oath; no Jew would do such a dramatic thing lightly! Paul vehemently declares that he did not receive the gospel he is preaching from any man, he received it in a direct revelation from God

The controversy rages around the question; are we saved by Grace alone or a mix of Grace and works (such as circumcision)?

From the New American Commentary:

What is the true gospel Paul was so careful to distinguish from its counterfeit model? The word “gospel” itself was not uniquely Christian, being used in both classical Greek and the Septuagint to refer to good news of various sorts. Bruce has suggested that the specific background for the Christian adaptation of the word in the “glad tidings” of salvation and liberation scattered throughout Isa 40–66 (cf. Isa 40:9; 52:7; 60:6).26 However, only with the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies in the coming of Jesus Christ does “gospel” receive its full and potent meaning. Of all the New Testament writers, Paul used the word most frequently, sixty times to be exact. On occasion he summarized the content of the gospel in a pithy confessional statement, as in 1 Cor 15:3–4 and Rom 1:1–4. Paul offered no such definition in his Letter to the Galatians obviously because he assumed they were quite familiar with it already from his recent preaching campaign in their midst. Clearly it included a recital of God’s mighty act of deliverance through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the benefits
of which—including forgiveness of sins, a right standing with God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit—are appropriated only by grace through faith.27
.
Even though Paul was un-ambiguous in his message, his writings didn’t resolve the controversy. It all hinges on not only “who” Jesus was/is but “what” He is/was; God/man, this was a very difficult concept to comprehend then, just as it continues to be to this very day.

Soon after Paul’s death the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem and in 70 AD broke through into the city whereupon they sacked it and utterly demolished the temple. These events so closely followed Jesus prophecy that the Christians had fled and few of them were killed. Among these “Christians” were many of those who disagreed with Paul; they did not believe in the Deity of Christ. Their belief spread throughout the region, reinforcing the local “Judaizers” and adding to their numbers. In addition to this there were many Gnostic influenced Christians scattered throughout Christendom. Paul’s ministry and letters had not stopped the onslaught of the doctrine of works.

Twenty or thirty years after Paul’s death the Apostle john wrote his gospel in which he adamantly defines Christ as God (Jn1: 1…), even this didn’t settle the issue and during the next couple of hundred years the controversy continued to swirl, generating serious controversy within the church. In the early fourth century a man named Arius announced that since God on numerous occasions, defined Jesus as “His only begotten Son” then there was a time prior to His being “begotten” that he didn’t exist – this completely negates Christ’s capacity to save us ; if he isn’t something more than a man (even a perfect man) then He is unable to save us without some “work” on our part, completely negating Paul’s Gospel of Grace…

This caused a huge stir, bringing the controversy within the church to a head, with a significant number – in some regions the majority – of Christians falling away and following Arius’s teaching (known as the “Arian heresy”).Constantine had risen to power at this same time, endorsing the Christian Religion; all the discord over this and some other related issues prompted him to get all the church leaders together and settle the matter: the Council of Nicaea.

The key to the problem is how are we saved? Followed by Who/what is Jesus?

From Wikopedia concerning council Of Nicea:

Position of Arius (Arianism)

Arius maintained that the Son of God was a Creature, made from nothing; and that he was God's First Production, before all ages. And he argued that everything else was created through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had not existence. Arius believed the Son Jesus was capable of His own free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being,"[28] and was under God the Father. The Arians appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I", and also Colossians 1:15: "Firstborn of all creation."
[edit]

Position of St. Alexander (Homoiousianism)

Homoiousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. Homoiousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("I and the Father are one"; John 10:30). Further on it says "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me"; John 17:21.
[edit]


The Homoiousian compromise proposal

The Homoiousians proposed that God and the Son were alike, but not the same, in substance. This compromise position did not gain much support and eventually the idea was dropped.
[edit]
Result of the debate

The Council declared that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal, basing the declaration in the claim that this was a formulation of traditional Christian belief handed down from the Apostles. Under Constantine's influence,[29] this belief was expressed by the bishops in what would be known thereafter as the Nicene Creed.
[edit]

The Nicene Creed

Main article: Nicene Creed
One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council, including Arius. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. In the Council of Nicaea, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.[30]

1. Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God," proclaiming his divinity. When all light sources were natural, the essence of light was considered to be identical, regardless of its form.
2. Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting his co-eternalness with God, and confirming it by stating his role in the Creation. Basically, they were saying that Jesus was God, and God's son, not a creation of God.
3. He is said to be "from the substance of the Father," in direct opposition to Arianism. Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority.

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the homoousian and Arian parties, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated one which was unambiguous in the aspects touching upon the points of contention between these two positions, and one which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arians.

This doctrine that Christ is of “identical substance” as God the Father has been/is the dogma of orthodox Christianity.


Then a few years later at the Council of Chalcedon the “two natures “ of Christ were defined:
(from Wikipedia)

Confession of Chalcedon
Main article: Chalcedonian Creed

The Confession of Chalcedon provides a clear statement on the human and divine nature of Christ:[9]

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως - in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

With these dogmas established, orthodox Christianity had settled the issue once and for all – if you did/do not agree to these principles you are not a “Christian” according to these principals. Down through the ages this question has raged within Christendom and continues to this very day (Islam; Mormon: Jehovah witness; etc)

Paul’s gospel of Grace can only be valid if a being, 100% man and 100% God substitute himself in our place, willingly accept the punishment on our behalf– only God can pay the penalty we deserve and then for it to apply to humanity it must be paid by a perfect human… as Paul Puts it: Jesus Christ, and Him crucified (1 Cor 2: 2).



DISCUSSION
1. Where did Paul get his gospel?
2. What is different about the “another” gospel?
3. How did Paul portray Jesus?
4. Why was it necessary that John write his gospel?
5. What is the “Arian heresy”?
6. What is the orthodox dogma concerning the “two natures” of Christ?
7. Where was this established?
8. What is the difference between “dogma” and “doctrine”?
9. What is your perception of Christ?