The ThirtyNine Articles: 1-5, the Trinity

The first five articles have to do with the Trinity.  They are direct historical refuting of the Arian heresy.  Article 3 is the most interesting on its own merit, and one to which I will take a contrary position.  But these 5 articles make a good start to the discussion.

I. Of faith in the holy Trinity.

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The first half seems straightforward on its surface.  But there is the common error of assuming that the one living and true God is the Father.  This is clearly NOT what is being said here.  The one true God is the Triune God, the Godhead being the Three in One.  The issue of one substance is very important and relates to the issue of Perichoresis that was discussed a couple of posts ago.  The main issue is that when we speak of One God, we are speaking of the Triune God, not specifically the Father unless the context of the passage in question demands such of the term.  This idea is of particular interest when applied to the Old Testament.  Often Christians will forget that Jesus, as Wholly God, was present and participated in all that transpired in that era of redemptive history.  He was, is and every will be fully God and fully part of the Trinity.

II. Of the word or son of God which was made very man.

The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal GOD, of one substance with the father; He took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very GOD and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, died, and was buried, to reconcile his father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

Right out of the gate, we are simultaneously at Genesis 1:1 and at John 1:1.  This section deals with the idea of hypostatic union, wherein Jesus is both fully God and fully man.  The importance of Jesus being born into mankind as an infant is sometimes lost.  By entering the world as an infant, Jesus became fully man, in all parts as man.  There is no part of the experience and reality that is to be human that Jesus missed.  Therefore, Jesus is able to be a completely sufficient sacrifice for man that redeems all parts of humanity.  It cannot be said that man’s will, or man’s childhood, or any part of the life of man, or of his being, is excluded from the sufficiency of Christ.  This is a huge point.  That is what is meant by the two whole and perfect natures.  Perfect means both that Jesus was perfect in His human nature, but also that Jesus was perfectly whole in His human nature.  Simultaneously, He was Wholly and Perfectly God.

The last portion talks about the atonement.  Notice that both parts of the propitiating atonement are specifically mentioned.  Never should an Anglican church that holds to these articles edit from the scripture the word propitiation.  The purpose of the resurrection was to reconcile His Father to us.  That idea is huge.  Jesus causes His Father to be reconciled to us.  Without a full understanding of original sin, perhaps the depth of that problem is not obvious.  Luckily, the 39 Articles will go into original sin later.  In addition to reconciliation, the resurrection is a sacrifice, not only for original guilt or original sin, but also for all actual sins of men.  This statement declares that we believe in the complete sufficiency of the resurrection for all sin.  Another absolutely huge doctrinal statement comes forth right out of the gate.  Although article 2 does not state it here explicitly, this is the idea of the perfect and sufficient sacrifice that is discussed elsewhere.

III. Of the going down of Christ into hell.

As Christ died for us, and was buried: so also it is to be believed that he went down into hell.

Here we will have to say that there is much disagreement.  Many Christians do actually believe the second half of this statement.  I, along with many of the reformed, do not agree that Christ ever entered Hell.  The idea that Christ would enter Hell does great damage to Christian theology, is unnecessary according to the scripture, and is counterintuitive.  Let’s go through the applicable passages of the Gospels.

Here are the passages from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  There is no mention of hell.  In fact, the comments made by Jesus repeatedly talk of death, but there is never talk of Hell.  The sign of Jonah that Jesus mentions is that like Jonah spent three days in the belly of the whale, He would spend three days in the belly of the earth.  But this is not Hell.  In any passage of the New Testament that deals with Hell, the reference to Jesus is always in terms of the One who passages judgment.  There is never a mention of His actually having gone there.

The descent that is discussed in the Nicene Creed is a descent or condescension of Jesus as God to become wholly man.  This descent is not required in any formation of theology to require His further descent into Hell.  The other two creeds, the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds, do specifically mention a descent into hell.  This point has been discussed in great detail over the centuries,

Calvin in his Institutes did specifically argue for the descent of Christ into Hell.  It is interesting that his arguments are actually from the creeds as opposed to from the scripture.  In this most unlike Calvin moment, he veers from his position of Sola Scriptura arguing a very Catholic argument that because it appears in some of the creeds, the word hell is an elaboration or explanation of the word death.  Theologically, not only is this not necessary, but I agree with others that this is counterintuitive. 

Calvin further argues that Christ’s descent into hell is required to fulfill the complete redemption of mankind.  Not only is this incorrect, this is a good springboard to a better conclusion.  The wage of sin is death to be sure, and all men will pay this price ultimately.  But this does not require that all men descend into hell in order to receive salvation.  On the contrary, as Christ was the Firstborn of the New Covenant in the Age to come, so too was he also not condemned to Hell.  He entered death and was resurrected, saving Himself and all whom He would elect from Hell into everlasting life.  Therefore, as we do not enter into Hell as believers, and because we follow Christ, not only figuratively, but quite literally, we should not expect that Jesus ever entered Hell.  We should, in fact, believe that Jesus’ victory over death was to deny Hell, not only of Himself, but also all of His elect.

IV. Of the Resurrection of Christ.

Christ did truly arise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith he ascended into heaven, and there sits, until he returns to judge all men at the last day.

We clearly get a glimpse at Christ’s resurrected body and its nature as citizen of the Age to Come.  Jesus sits down in the upper chamber with His Apostles and He eats food.  But while we believe that this is a real and resurrected Body, there are just as clearly aspects of this Body that are not human in nature.  We can begin with Its victory over death, a feat never accomplished by another human body.  Can we call the resurrected body of perfected humanity that we will inherit on the last day equivalent to this Body of Jesus revealed to the Apostles?  That, I believe is what is meant in this passage.

V. Of the Holy Ghost.

The Holy Ghost, proceeding from the father and the son, is of one substance, majesty, and glory, with the father and the son, very and eternal God.

Perichoresis and the relationship between the parts of the Trinity is exactly what is being described in this article.  Just as Jesus is One with the Father, the Holy Spirit is One with both the Father and the Son.  While each is distinct in their roles in redemptive history, each is of the same essence with the others.  We should never expect One person of the Trinity to act in a way that contradicts one of the other parts.  That would be to act in opposition to one’s self.  That idea would surely contradict our conception of the perfection and Holiness of God.

In the next post, I will discuss articles 6 and 7 concerning scripture, before returning to the Creeds.

--Troll--