"Judge Not": What Does This REALLY Mean?

"But there is one more thing that we should be said about this text, because it is often used against Christians (or anyone, really) who would say that there's a right and a wrong in the world. ... Or especially thinking about the Supreme Court decision on Friday, when we say that marriage is for family, a man and a woman bound up together until death, we hear that same response, the words of Jesus quoted back to us, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."  Or this question, "Who are you to judge my love?" 

Now I think it is a bit ironic this weekend that the 'judge not' folks are rejoicing in the judgment of five people called judges.  But when Jesus forbids judging, He does not intend to destroy the law.  He's not smashing the Ten Commandments, like Moses in the wilderness.  He's not declaring an end of right and wrong. 

And the answer, by the way, to the question, "Who are you to judge?" is: "I'm a human being."  It's the fundamental act of human society, of ethics, to judge the things that we love, the things that we want, and the things that we do, to see if they are good or if they are bad. ... Making a judgment about what I love and what I want is the fundamental act of humanity, and the more we forget this, then the more lawless and dangerous our culture will become. 

But look, when Jesus says "Judge not," what He is doing is reserving the final judgment for Himself.  Jesus knows that if we are the judge, there are only two judgments that are possible: either the prideful judgment of ourselves and each other, that we're all good, which is the dangerous delusion leading to hell--self-justification and self-righteousness; or the despairing judgment that we are sinners beyond the hope of redemption.  Those are the only two options when man is judge.  But when Jesus is judge, there is a third, and a correct, and blessed option.  He judges us guilty of our sin--all of them--but then, by His blood, by His death, by His resurrection, by His lovingkindness, and by His mercy, He judges us--He judges you--to be innocent, clean, guiltless, righteous, and holy.  So we judge not, because Jesus, who died and rose again, is our judge in mercy and kindness."

Pr. Bryan Wolfmueller

Full sermon audio can be found here--it is well worth the listen, as this was the end of the sermon.

Heresies of the Week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism, Dynmanic Monarchianism, and Sabellianism

Since I missed last week (bad way to start the New Year, no?), I thought I would give you a few "big", interrelated heresies this week: Monarchianism, Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism--similar, but slightly distinct) and Sabellianism (more commonly known as Modalism).

Monarchianism is a 2nd century heresy that emphasizes God as one person—the Father (antitrinitarian). It originally rose as an attempt to combat Tritheism by overemphasizing (to the point of diminishing and eliminating two persons of the Trinity) the singularity of God. There are two contradictory models of Monarchianism: Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism) and Sabellianism (or Modalism). Psilanthropism (and, by extension, Unitarianism) is considered an Adoptionism heresy, and Noeticism and Patripassianism are considered Sabellianism heresies (although Noeticism came first, historically).

Adoptionism is a 2nd century heresy of the Arianism family. It purports that Jesus was ‘adopted’ as the Son of God at either His baptism, His resurrection or His ascension (depending on which sect to whom you were speaking) because of His godly human life up until that point. Some historians have traced it all the way back to the time of Christ on earth. It was one of two main forms of Monarchianism (the other being Sabellianism, also known as Modalism). Adoptionism is also known as “Dynamic Monarchianism”, and denies the eternal pre-existence of Christ. Adoptionism was condemned as heretical by a decree from Pope Victor (who was Pope from 190-198). Samosatenism was a 3rd century adoptionist heresy that taught Jesus was a man who ‘kept’ himself sinless and ultimately achieved union with God (while considered closer to Adoptionism, it appears to not fit well with either branch of Monarchianism), after which it seemed to ‘die’ out. It reemerged in the 8th century in Spain (Spanish Adoptionism), teaching then that Christ was the Son of God with respect to His divine nature, but Jesus, as a man, was merely the adopted Son of God; and again from the 12th century on as “Neo-Adoptionism”. Psilanthropism was the 18th century Unitarianism take on Adoptionism.

Dynamic Monarchianism: see Adoptionism. This is a Monarchianism and Arianism heresy. The main distinction between Adoptionism and Dynamic Monarchianism (usually used interchangeably) is that they deny the Logos, or person of Christ, and teach that the Holy Ghost is simply a force of or the presence of the Father. They teach that Jesus was only a man. Unitarianism, known then as Psilanthropism, picked up on this heresy in the 19th century, still practicing it today, along with Christadelphianism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Sabellianism (also known as Modalism) is an antitrinitarian Monarchianism (the other branch being Adoptionism, or Dynamic Monarchianism) heresy that teaches the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are simply different modes or aspects of One God, perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in one Godhead. They do not deny the divinity or humanity of Jesus (and while they believe in a singular God, the “mode” of the Son was imbued in Jesus), like believers of Arianism or Monophysitism. There is no way for God to be all three modes simultaneously; He may only be one at a time. The United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches still teach Modalism today, saying that the mode of God is “Jesus only” now and that baptism is required for salvation (no unbaptized person will ever be “saved”). On the other hand, believers in Unitarianism teach that God simply is one person, with no distinct “modes”.

As mentioned in the descriptions, it is important to understand these heresies because they are still being practices in several "church" bodies.  So next time a Jehovah's Witness comes to your door or you run into a Unitarian, you have a conversation starter!

Heresy of the Week: Antidicomarianism

With Christmastide upon us (happy second day of Christmas and Feast Day of St. Stephen!), it seemed appropriate for this week's heresy to have something to do with the Nativity of Christ.  There are lots of "good" options, from denying the divinity of Christ to denying the virginal birth, etc., but my favorite heresy to say the name of won out.

Antidicomarianism is considered to be a sub-Apollinarianism heresy. By the 3rd century, it was considered an Orthodox teaching that Jesus’ siblings, mentioned in the Bible, were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage, or cousins. The Antidicomarianites, a word literally meaning “Adversaries of Mary”, taught that the brothers and sisters of Christ from the New Testament were actually the younger children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus. They were not, contrary to what the name implies, “against Mary”, but rather, were against the perpetual virginity of Mary. This thought was prevalent from the 3rd to 5th centuries and often considered a heresy, as it was found in the writings of known heretics Tertullian and Origen. Other Antidicomarianism heresies are Bonosianism, Helvidianism, and Jovinianism. Most protestant churches are Antidicomarianites, however in confessional Lutheranism, there seems to be a mix of Antidicomarianites and those who subscribe to the perpetual virginity of Mary.

A few brief notes on this one:

1. Until I started researching heresies earlier this year, I didn't actually know any Lutherans believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.  I knew Luther held to that belief, but I was surprised to find out that many confessional Lutherans do as well, particularly Pastors.  I honestly never gave it much thought previously.  I don't fall one way or the other on this, and since it is an issue of adiphoria (not of doctrinal consequence or having effect on one's salvation), I don't feel a particular need to worry about it.  I think I tend to lean on the side of the Antidicomarianites, but as one Pastor I spoke to about this put it... why on earth would we care about the sex life of the mother of our Savior?
2. Because it doesn't affect salvation and is an issue of adiphoria, I don't know if this can be considered a heresy other than loosely (heresy meaning anything that departs from orthodoxy), but because it was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church as one, I've included it in my listings.
3. What would be a heresy and would affect salvation to some degree would be denying the virginal birth.  To be clear, Antidicomarianism doesn't do that.  Other heresies do.

Bible Study Notes: God is...

I warned my Pastor that if I started coming to Bible Study regularly, I would ask obnoxious, obscure and time-consuming questions.  He learned today that I was not kidding.

While discussing the eternal union of Human and Divine in the Son, I had to ask how we describe that to other people (Christians and non-Christians), since we consider Jesus to retain His human body and nature even now (Divine and Human eternally joined), without anthropomorphizing the rest of the Godhead (the Father and the Spirit).  So, we spent at least half an hour on this (instead of studying Revelations...) and here is what we determined.  Interestingly, Pastor felt like he didn't answer my question, but he definitely did.  It just took me until the drive home to realize it.

The Trinity and who God is basic Christian doctrine that almost everyone, regardless of denomination, agrees upon (sans the heretics).  However, it is also unbelievably complex and not particularly logical in a mathematical sense, for example (Pastor said that after this discussion, we can all graduate Seminary because of the complexity of the topic we just discussed...).  It makes sense to me, but that is largely because of faith.  To be fair, from a human perspective, I can more than understand why a non-Christian would look at this and think we're nuts.

Pastor Wolfmueller's lovely illustration.

Edit: Thanks to Becki for a link the the image my Pastor was referencing here.

First, for clarity, the Persons of God within the Trinity are the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Each Person of the Trinity has the full Essence of God.  The Son has two Natures: fully God and fully Man, or both Divine and Human.  So that is what I mean by those terms when I use them below.

The Essence of God:

God is the Father.  The Father (A) is God (D).  (A = D)

God is the Son.  The Son (B) is God (D).  (B=D)

God is the Spirit.  The Spirit (C) is God (D).  (C=D)

However... the Persons of God within the Trinity:

The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father.  (A ≠ B and B ≠ A) 

The Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Son.  (B ≠ C and C ≠ B)

The Spirit is not the Father, and the Father is not the Spirit.  (C ≠ A and A ≠ C)

The Natures of God:

The Father is fully Divine in Nature.

The Son is both fully Divine and fully Human in Nature (Personal Union).

The Spirit is fully Divine in Nature.

God is fully Divine in Nature, joined through the Son to humanity.

Additionally, all Persons of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal (no one is above the others, and no one existed before the others).  However, we would say that the Father beget the Son (that both name are essential to the Persons of that member of the Trinity) and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father AND Son--while all three remain co-equal and co-eternal, always existing together and without "rank" in the Godhead.

All of which brings us to my question, which essentially is how to describe the Nature of the Son as being separate from the other Persons of the Trinity without being separate from Essence of God, which all three persons of the Trinity share in full.  

When the Son took the form of flesh (fully God and fully Man), did the essence of God change (since the Father, Son and Spirit are all fully God)?  No, because the Divine = the Flesh in the Son, but the Flesh ≠ the Divine in the Son.  This, by the by, was the answer to my question: because the Son is fully Divine, therefore fully God, God is joined into humanity in the Son, but since neither the Father nor Spirit are the same as the Person of the Son, they cannot be joined in humanity as well, even though both, like the Son, are also fully God.

This is also the reason we (meaning Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans) can, should, and do call Mary the Theotokos ("God-Bearer" or Mother of God) rather than those (all not listed above--basically, protestants and heretics--not implying that the two are the same) who would call her Christotokos ("Christ-Bearer" or Mother of Christ)--because Christ is fully Divine, and therefore fully God in Essence and Nature.  Nota Bene: the Council of Ephesus in 431 declared "Christotokos" to be heretical.

For more on how all this works, the Athanasian Creed (written to combat Arianism, which denies the Divinity of Jesus, as well as those accusing Christians of polytheism--the worship, in Christianity's case, of a Trinity of gods, instead of the Trinity in one God) does a beautiful job of explaining "one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity."  It's more lengthy than the Apostles' or Nicene-Constantinople Creeds, which is why the Lutheran Church at least only uses it on Trinity Sunday, but it is the most succinct, yet thorough, explanation of the Persons, Essence and Natures of God in the Trinity.

Finally, one of Pastor Wolfmueller's great observation was with regards to the question of "having a relationship with Jesus."  Technically speaking, everyone has a relationship with Jesus, some are just very bad ones (i.e. non-believers).  Christians don't really have a "relationship" with Jesus, though.  No.  Rather, through baptism, we are joined with Jesus, and we are one with Christ and become partakers of the Divine Nature (knows as the mystical union or mysterious union--2 Peter 1:2-4).  

Just like the "So when were you saved?" question I despise, the "Do you have a relationship with Jesus?" question is on my "hate list" for questions asked by well meaning, but theologically illiterate, Christians.  Both are totally the wrong question, a) because both emphasize your role in salvation (which is only to reject faith, but by emphasizing more than that, these questions are Arminianist, and therefore Synchronistic, and, consequently, heretical), and b) because the real questions are "When were you baptized?" and "Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?", respectively, if you must ask one of the two--although the latter here ("Has the Holy Ghost worked faith in you?") is often what is meant by the previous above ("So when were you saved?").