The Hidden Flaw in Traditional Christianity: A Perversion of Monotheism

FRIEDRICH LOOFS

(church historian, 1858-1928)

“The Apologists [‘church fathers’ like Justin Martyr, mid-2nd century] laid the foundation for the perversion (Verkehrung) of Christianity into a revealed [philosophical] teaching. Specifically, their Christology affected the later development disastrously. By taking for granted the transfer of the concept of Son of God onto the preexisting Christ, they were the cause of the Christological problem of the 4th century. They caused a shift in the point of departure of Christological thinking — away from the historical Christ and onto the issue of preexistence. They thus shifted attention away from the historical life of Jesus, putting it into the shadow and promoting instead the Incarnation. They tied Christology to cosmology and could not tie it to soteriology. The Logos teaching is not a “higher” Christology than the customary one. It lags in fact far behind the genuine appreciation of Christ. According to their teaching it is no longer God who reveals Himself in Christ, but the Logos, the inferior God, a God who as God is subordinated to the Highest God (inferiorism or subordinationism).

“In addition the suppression of economic-trinitarian ideas by metaphysical-pluralistic concepts of the divine triad (trias) can be traced to the Apologists.”

(Friedrich Loofs, Leitfaden zum Studium des Dogmengeschichte [Manual for the Study of the History of Dogma] (1890), part 1 ch. 2, section 18: “Christianity as a Revealed Philosophy. The Greek Apologists,” Niemeyer Verlag, 1951, p. 97).

This disastrous development is reflected exactly in modern popular evangelism:

D. James Kennedy says:

“Many people today think that the essence of Christianity is Jesus’ teachings, but that is not so…Christianity centers not in the teachings of Jesus, but in the person of Jesus as Incarnate God who came into the world to take upon Himself our guilt and die in our place” (”How I Know Jesus Is God,” Truths That Transform,  Nov. 17th, 1989).

HOW GOD ANSWERS PRAYER

HOW GOD ANSWERS PRAYER

Let us give God the chance of putting His mind into us, and we shall never doubt the power of prayer again.

Did the Early Christians Teach/Believe a “Trinity” Doctrine?

Did the Early Christians Teach/Believe a “Trinity” Doctrine?

Although many Trinitarian’s readily admit to the fact that Scripture does not contain an actual clear-cut teaching of the Trinity, many still insist that there yet remains within the body of Scripture the framework for just such a teaching – that is, by the combination of one passage with another; or, as some would suggest, by the collective implication of such scriptures. And so, in order to avoid any accusation of having misquoted any of the sources below, it must be said that, before or after the portion we quote, a number of these had actually stated in their discussions of this subject just such thoughts, expressing just such a view.

On the other hand, there are also any number of scholars/historians who have interpreted the development of such events in a different way, and this would be that, no such belief was either taught, explained and/or defended within the New Testament or by any of the early Christians, but that the eventual development of this teaching/doctrine was evidence of a corruption which had taken place with regard to the true teachings of Jesus and his disciples. This would, no doubt, explain why it had taken some 300 years to find an actual expression of that particular perception and/or understanding of God – particularly as a statement of faith (often called a “confession”) – that is, by any of the early Christian writers, especially on the part of those who had made it their purpose to either explain and/or defend the Christian system of belief. And so, likewise, a number of scholars below have expressed this particular view as well.

(I do have a number of other references but, if readers of this document know of any others which express something similar to these, please, I’d appreciate your emailing me with that information: john1one@earthlink.net Thank you.)

1833 Norton, Andrews (b.1786-d.1853). A Statement of Reasons For Not Believing The Doctrines of Trinitarians, Concerning The Nature of God and The Person of Christ. Edited by Ezra Abbot (b.1819-d.1884), d.d, ll.d. (Cambridge: Brown, Shattuck, and Company; Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company, 1833), pp. 38, 39. BX9841 .N7 1833 / unk83-14874.

. . . the unbelieving Jews, in the time of the Apostles, opposed Christianity with the utmost bitterness and passion. They sought on every side for objections to it. There was much in its character to which the believing Jews could hardly be reconciled. The Epistles are full of statements, explanations, and controversy, relating to questions having their origin in Jewish prejudices and passions. With regard however to this doctrine [the Trinity], which if it had ever been taught, the believing Jews must have received with the utmost difficulty, and to which the unbelieving Jews would have manifested the most determined opposition,-with regard to this doctrine, there is not trace of any controversy. But, if it had ever been taught, it must have been the main point of attack and defense between those who assailed, and those who supported Christianity. There is nothing ever said in its explanation. But it must have required, far more than any other doctrine, to be explained, illustrated, and enforced; for it appears, not only irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Unity of God, but equally so with that of the humanity of our Saviour; and yet both these doctrines, it seems, were to be maintained in connexion with it. It must have been necessary, therefore, to state it as clearly as possible, to exhibit it in its relations, and carefully to guard against the misapprehensions to which it is so liable on every side. Especially must care have been taken to prevent the gross mistakes into which the Gentile converts from polytheism were likely to fall. Yet so far from any such clearness of statement and fulness of explanation, the whole language of the New Testament in relation to this subject is . . . a series of enigmas, upon the supposition of its truth. The doctrine, then, is never defended in the New Testament, though unquestionably it would have been the main object of attack, and the main difficulty in the Christian system. It is never explained, though no doctrine could have been so much in need of explanation. On the contrary, upon the supposition of its truth, the Apostles express themselves in such a manner, that it had been their purpose to darken and perplex the subject, they could not have done it more effectually. And still more, this doctrine is never insisted upon as a necessary article of faith; though it is now represented by its defenders as lying at the foundation of Christianity.

1845 Newman, John Henry (b.1801-d.1890), Cardinal. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. 2nd Edition (1st-1845). (London: J. Toovey, 1846), pp. 14-18, 40-42. BT21 .N5 1846 / 26-022128.

Let us allow that the whole circle of doctrines, of which our Lord is the subject, was consistently and uniformly confessed by the Primitive Church. . . .But it surely is otherwise with the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. I do not see in what sense it can be said that there is a consensus of primitive [Church authorities] in its favour. . . .the doctrine of our Lord’s divinity itself partly implies and partly recommends the doctrine of the Trinity. . . .the Creeds of that early day make no mention in their letter of the Catholic doctrine [of the Trinity] at all. They [the early Christian writings] make mention indeed of a Three; but that there is any mystery in the doctrine, that the Three are One, that They are coequal, coeternal, all increate [uncreated], all omnipotent, all incomprehensible, is not stated, and never could be gathered from them. Of course we believe that they imply it, or rather intend it.

1857 Ellis, George Edward (b.1814-d.1894). A Half-Century of the Unitarian Controversy, With Particular Reference to its Origin, its Course, and its Prominent Subjects Among the Congregationalists of Massachusetts. (Boston: Crosby, Nichols, and Company; Cambridge: Metcalf and Company, Printers to the University, 1857), Appendix VIII, “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” pp. 464, 465. BX9841 .E5 / 33-022268.

The doctrinal statement of the Trinity leads off the Orthodox creeds: no vague, inferential implication of the contents of the doctrine is thought to be satisfactory. Doubt about it is dangerous; a rejection of it is fatal. The doctrine is obtruded upon us in its stiffest literal terms, though, strange to say, many of its champions affirm that they dislike its terms, and wish that they could express it more adequately. Hered certainly is no backwardness, no hesitation, on the part of those who, believing the doctrine, think it ought to be reiterated and emphasized. Now, how comes it that Christ and his Apostles furnish us not one single announcement of it? If anything can be inferred with certainty as to the belief of the Jews concerning the mode of the Divine existence, it is that they knew nothing of the Orthodox dogma of the Trinity. Surely then we might expect that their first Christian teachers would have been at least as careful to declare it to them as a new revelation of truth, the basis of all Christian doctrine, as modern Christian teachers are to demand a faith in it from their pupils. It will not do to say that the Apostles left other essential Christian doctrines without any direct, explicit statement of them. It is not true. They had a commission from their Master, and they discharged it. Whatever they have not taught plainly, must be pronounced to be. no part of their teaching, however positively their successors may have taught it. Peter, who preached to the Jews the first Christian discourse after the Church had risen from the grave of its Founder, told them that “Jesus of Nazareth,” “whom they had put to death,” was “a man approved of God by works which God did by him,” and that God had raised him up. Words could not be more explicit. Yet not from them, and from no other words spoken by the Apostles to the Jews, as recorded, could they have gathered a plain statement of the Trinity. As to the Gentiles, we find traces, among a school of philosophic dreamers, of a sort of Trinitarian conception, far unlike that, however, which Christian divines now receive, though the dogma came into the Church by that channel. No direct announcement of the doctrine was made by the Apostles when they preached to Gentiles, who certainly were ignorant of it, and might claim to be distinctly informed about the first fundamental doctrine of the Gospel.

1860 Lamson, Alvan (b.1792-d.1864), d.d. The Church of the First Three Centuries. (London: British and Foreign Unitarian Association, 1860), pp. 52, 70, 71, 75, 76, 284, 341. BR165 .L3 1860 / unk81-037404.

We maintain that the doctrine of the Trinity was of gradual and comparatively late formation; that it had its origin in a source entirely foreign from that of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures; that it grew up, and was ingrafted on Christianity, through the hands of the Platonizing Fathers; that in the time of Justin, and long after, the distinct nature and inferiority of the Son were universally taught; and that only the first shadowy outline of the Trinity had then become visible. . . .The inferiority of the Son was generally, if not uniformly, asserted by the ante-Nicene Fathers. . . .That they viewed the Son as distinct from the Father is evident from the circumstance that they plainly assert his inferiority. . . . They considered him distinct and subordinate. . . .The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity . . . derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and prophetic or holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact. The doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by these Fathers, was essentially different from the modern doctrine. This we state as a fact as susceptible of proof as any fact in the history of human opinions. . . .They occasionally make use of a phraseology, which, in the mouth of a modern Trinitarian, would imply a belief that the Son is of one numerical essence with the Father. But this they never thought of asserting. The most they meant to affirm was that the Son, as begotten of God, partook in some sort of the specific nature (that is, a divine), just as an individual of our race partakes of the same nature or essence with the parent from whom he sprung (that is, a human). At the same time they taught that he was relatively inferior to the Father from whom he was derived, and entitled to only inferior homage. . . .We challenge any one to produce a single writer of any note, during the first three ages, who held this [Trinity] doctrine in the modern sense.

1883 Gibbon, Edward (b.1737-d.1794). History of Christianity: Comprising all that Relates to the Progress of the Christian Religion in “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” and A Vindication of Some Passages in the 15th and 16th Chapters, with a Life of the Author, Preface, and Notes by the Editor, Including Variorum Notes by Guizot, Wenck, Milman, “An English Churchman,” and Other Scholars. (New York: P. Eckler, 1883), preface. BR170 .G4 / 32-030333.

If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism [ftn. 1] of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief.

1896 Harnack, Adolf von (b.1851-d.1930). History of Dogma. 7 vols. Translated from the 3rd German Edition. vols. 1-2 , translation by Buchanan, Neil (b.?-?); v. 3, 5, translation by Millar, James (b.1857-?); v. 4, translation by Speirs, Ebenezer Brown (b.?-?) and Millar, J. (b.?-?); v. 6-7, translation by M’Gilchrist, William (b.?-?). Edited by Bruce, Alexander Balmain (b.1831-d.1899). (London: Williams & Norgate, 1896-99), vol. 3, pg. 135. BT21 .H33 / 23-015420.

The idea of the subordinate God is indeed as old as the theology of the Christian Church; even the Apologists shared it, and Origin, with all caution, adopted and justified it in working out his doctrine of the Son.

1957 Werner, Martin (b.1887-d.1964). The Formation of Christian Dogma; An Historical Study of its Problem. Rewritten in Shortened form by the Author from his Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas, and Translated, with an Introduction by S[amuel] G[eorge] F[rederrick] Brandon [b.1907-d.1971]. (New York: Harper, 1957), pp. 122, 125. BT23 .W413 / 57-010528.

In the Primitive Christian era [First Century] there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, . . .the Kingdom of God. . . .That relationship was understood unequivocally as being one of “subordination”, i.e. in the sense of the subordination of Christ to God. Wherever in the New Testament the relationship of Jesus to God, the Father, is brought into consideration, . . . it is conceived of and represented categorically as subordination. And the most decisive Subordinationist of the New Testament, according to the Synoptic record, was Jesus himself. . . .This original position, firm and manifest as it was, was able to maintain itself for a long time. All the great pre-Nicene theologians represented the subordination of the Logos to God.

1957 The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Based on the Third Edition of the Realencyklopäädie Founded by J. J. Herzog, and Edited by Albert Hauck, Prepared by More than Six Hundred Scholars and Specialists Under the Supervision of Samuel Macauley Jackson (editor-in-chief) with the assistance of Charles Colebrook Sherman and George William Gilmore (associate editors) and [others including: Herzog, Johann Jakob (b.1805-d.1882); Schaff, Philip (b.1819-d.1893); Hauck, Albert (b.1845-d.1918); Jackson, Samuel Macauley (b.1851-d.1912), editor; Sherman, Charles Colebrook (b.1860-d.1927), joint editor; Gilmore, George William (b.1858-d.1933), joint editor]. 13 vols. (New York; London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1908-c1914), vol IX (9), p. 91. BR95 .S43 / 08-020152.

The doctrines of the Logos and the Trinity received their shape from Greek Fathers, who. . .were much influenced, directly or indirectly, by the Platonic philosophy. . . .That errors and corruptions crept into the Church from this source can not be denied.

1963 Dictionary of the Bible. Hastings, James (b.1852-d.1922), Editor. Revised Edition by: Grant, Frederick Clifton (b.1891-d.1974) and Rowley, Harold Henry (b.1890-d.?). (New York: Scribner, 1963), pp. 337, 338. BS440 .H5 1963 / 62-021697.

Considering how strongly conscious the Jews were of their monotheism, it is interesting to note that as far as the N[ew] T[estament] evidence goes the Jewish opposition did not charge the Christians movement with tritheism or polytheism, a common Jewish criticism later.

1967 The New Catholic Encyclopedia. Prepared by an editorial staff at the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967-c1989), vol. XIV (14), p. 299 (italics theirs). BX841 .N44 1967 / 66-022292.

The formulation “one God in three Persons” was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.

1969 Henderson, Ian (b.1910-d.?), University of Glasgow. Encyclopedia International. 20 vols. (New York: Grolier, 1969), “Trinity,” p. 226. AE5 .E447 1968b / 69-010050.

The doctrine of the Trinity did not form part of the apostles’ preaching, as this is reported in the New Testament.

1969 Dawe, Donald G. (b.?-?). No Orthodoxy But the Truth, A Survey of Protestant Theology. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), p. 21. BX4805.2 .D34 / 69-10424.

In its finished form the Trinitarian doctrine went beyond the biblical materials in both form and content. It was deeply indebted, as indeed was the Christological dogma, to the philosophical and religious thought of Greco-Roman antiquity.

1971 Wilken, Robert Louis (b.1936-?). The Myth of Christian Beginnings; History’s Impact on Belief. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 177-183. BR145.2 .W5 / 71-123712.

From the very beginning, the Christian tradition had struggled with the question of Jesus’ relation to God . . . .Very early Christians tried to account for his extraordinary life and accomplishments and his Resurrection, and it was not long before he was called Son of God – then God. Even so, He was not God in the sense in which the Father was God – or was He? Was he creator, was he eternal, should he be addressed in prayer? These and other questions troubled thoughtful Christians for almost three centuries. During these years, most Christians vaguely thought of Jesus as God; yet they did not actually think of him in the same way that they thought of God the Father. They seldom addressed prayers to him, and thought of him somehow as second to God – divine, yes, but not fully God. . . .When the controversy over the relation of Jesus to God the Father broke out in the early fourth century, most Christians were “subordinationists,” i.e. they believed that Christ was God but not precisely the Same way that the Father was God.

1976 Boer, Harry R. (b.?-?). A Short History of the Early Church. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, c1976), pp. 108-110. BR165 .B645 / 75-025742.

The Apostolic Fathers: The Apostolic Fathers wrote between A.D. [c.e.] 90 and 140. Their discussion of the person of Jesus Christ simply repeated the teaching of the New Testament. None of the Apostolic Fathers presented a definite doctrine on this point. In this respect the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and the Apostles’ Creed stand in one line.

1978 Buckley, J. A. (b.?-?). Second Century Orthodoxy. (1978), pp. 114-15.

Up until the end of the second century at least, the universal Church remained united in one basic sense; they all accepted the supremacy of the Father. They all regarded God the Father Almighty as alone supreme, immutable, ineffable and without beginning. . . .With the passing of those second century writers and leaders, the Church found itself. . . .slipping slowly but inexorably toward that point. . . .where at the Council of Nicaea the culmination of all this piece-meal eroding of the original faith was reached. There, a small volatile minority, foisted its heresy upon an acquiescent majority, and with the political authorities behind it, coerced, cajoled and intimidated those who strove to maintain the pristine purity of their faith untarnished.

1979 Cupitt, Don (b.?-?), University Lecturer in Divinity and Dean of Emmanual College, Cambridge. The Debate About Christ. (London: SCM Press Limited, 1979), p. 108.

But Jewish faith in God rules out any arrangement of this kind [co-equal deity of Jesus with God]. It was held that God, the God of Israel, is absolutely sole in his power, cannot be divided or co-equally shared. The New Testament writers never questioned this principle nor think of themselves as possibly infringing upon it. They never distinguish co-equal persons within one God; the idea was unthinkable. It was also unthinkable to say Jesus was identical with one God. So it was very difficult to see how they could have entertained the ideas of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.

1980 The Trinitarian Controversy. From the series: Sources of Early Christian Thought. Rusch, William G. (b.?-?), Director of the Commission of Faith and Order, National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., translator and editor. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, c1980), introduction, pp. 2, 3. BT109 .T74 / 79-008889.

No doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament . . . .There is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the [writings of the] Apostolic Fathers, but the trinitarian formulas are apparent. The witness of this collection of writings to a Christian doctrine of God is slight and provides no advance in synthesis or theological construction beyond the biblical materials.

1980 Hanson, Anthony Tyrell (b.?-?) and Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (b.1916-d.?). Reasonable Belief, A Survey of the Christian Faith. (New York; Toronto; Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1980), chapter iv – “The Holy Trinity,” section 9 – “The Doctrine of the Trinity,” subsection a – “The Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” pp. 174, 175. BT77 .H264 / 80-40481.

[The adoption of the Trinity doctrine came as a result of] a process of theological exploration which lasted at least three hundred years. . . .it would be foolish to represent the doctrine of the Holy Trinity as having been achieved by any other way. . . .The Arian controversy in the fourth century tested, shook and altered [the] doctrinal tradition of the Son/Logos. This was a long, confused, process whereby different schools of thought in the Church worked out for themselves, and then tried to impose on others, their answers to the question, “How divine is Jesus Christ?” It is quite misleading to represent this controversy [of the Trinity] as a contest between self-confident, well-defined orthodoxy on the one hand and blind, perverse heresy on the other. At the beginning of the controversy nobody knew the right, most satisfactory answer. This is one reason why the controversy lasted more than sixty years and gradually involved every conceivable authority; general councils, Popes, Emperors, bishops alone or in parties, and the faithful at large (who tended to make their contribution in the for of riots). If ever there was a controversy decided by the method of trial and error, it was this one.

1984 Lindbeck, George A. (b.?-?), Professor of Historical Theology, Yale University. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Post Liberal Age. 1st Edition. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, c1984), p. 92. BT19 .L55 1984 / 83-027332.

In order to argue successfully for the unconditionality and permanence of the ancient Trinitarian Creeds, it is necessary to make a distinction between doctrines, on the one hand, and on the terminology and conceptuality in which they were formulated on the other. . . .Some of the crucial concepts employed by these creeds, such as “substance”, “person”, and “in two natures” are post biblical novelties. If these particular notions are essential, the doctrines of these creeds are clearly conditional, dependent on the late Hellenistic milieu.

1986 Grant, Robert McQueen (b.1917-d.?). Gods and the One God. 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, c1986), pp. 109, 156, 160. BL785 .G69 1986 / 85-011443.

The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist. The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament. . . .What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity. . . .Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist.

1987 The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Myers, Allen C. (b.1945-d.?), revision editor. John W. Simpson, John W., Jr. (b.?-?). . .[et al.], associate editors. Translation of: Bijbelse Encyclopedie. Revised Edition of 1975. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987), p. 1020. BS440 .G7613 1987 / 87-013239.

Triadic formulas in the New Testament are often regarded as implying a developed doctrine of the trinity, but this is to read too much into them. 1 Cor[inthians] 12:4-6; 2 Cor[inthians] 13:14 are implicitly subbordinationist since they use the formula “Lord (i.e., Christ)-Spirit-God,” differentiating the first two from God.

1988 Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (b.1916-d.?), Catholic Historian. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God:Tthe Arian Controversy 318-381. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, c1988), pp. xix, 64, 274. BT1350 .H36 1988 / 89-151990.

With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up the year 355; subordinationism might indeed, until the denouement of the controversy, have been described as accepted orthodoxy. . . .There is no theologian in the Eastern or Western church before the outbreak of the Arian controversy, who does not in some sense regard the son as subordinate to the Father. . . .Many. . .could not. . .abandon completely a subordinationism that had been hallowed by long tradition.

*****************************

FOOTNOTES:

1.) It must be pointed out that the work of which we quote was taken from this work:

Gibbon, Edward (b.1737-d.1794). The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New Edition. 12 vols. (London: W. Strahan [etc.] 1783-1790). DG311 .G42 / 04-03393.

Please keep in mind that, because Gibbon’s work was originally published in the 1700’s, in order to appreciate the way in which he would have used this term,
it is important to consider the meaning associated with its use
during the time period in which he wrote. Otherwise, according to the 1911 edition of the
Encyclopedia Britannica, this term, first and foremost, had this simple
meaning: “DEISM (Lat. deus, god), strictly the belief in one supreme God.” http://21.1911encyclopedia.org/D/DE/DEISM.htm

http://www.goodcompanionbooks.com/

ON PRAYER FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Oberlin Evangelist.May 23, 1855

ON PRAYER FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT

By PRESIDENT FINNEY.Reported by the Editor.

“If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or, if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”–Luke 11:11-13.

These verses form the concluding part of a very remarkable discourse of our Lord to his disciples on prayer. It was introduced by their request that he would teach them how to pray. In answer to this request, he gave them what we are wont to call the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a forcible illustration of the value of importunity, which he still further applied and enforced by renewing the general promise–”Ask and it shall be given you.” Then, to confirm their faith still more, he expands the idea that God is their Father, and should be approached in prayer as if he were an infinitely kind and loving parent. This constitutes the leading idea in the strong appeal made in our text. “If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or, if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or, if he shall ask an egg, will he give him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?”

1. Remarking upon this text, I first observe that when we rightly understand the matter, we shall see that the gift of the Holy Ghost comprehends all we need spiritually. It secures to us that union with God which is eternal life. It implies conversion which consists in the will’s being submitted to God’s control. Sanctification is (1.) this union of the will to God perfected and perpetuated; (2.) the ascendancy of this state of the will over the entire sensibilities, so that the whole mind is drawn into union and sympathy with the mind and heart of God.

2. It is supremely easy to obtain this gift from God. In other words, it is easy to obtain from God all spiritual blessings that we truly need. If this be not so, what shall we think of these words of Christ? How can we by any means explain them consistently with fair truthfulness? Surely, it is easy for children to get really good things from their father. Which of you, being a father, does not know it to be easy for your children to get good things from you? You know in your own experience that they obtain without difficulty, even from you, all the real good they need, provided it be in your power to give it. But you are sometimes “evil,” and Christ implies that, since God is never evil but always infinitely good, it is much more easy for one to get the Holy Spirit than even for your children to get bread from your hands. “Much more!” What words of meaning in such a connection as this! Every father knows there is nothing in the way of his children getting from him all the good things they really need and which he has to give. Every such parent values these good things for the sake of giving them to his children. For this, parents toil and plan for their children’s sake. Can they then be averse or even slow to give these things to their children?

Yet God is much more ready to give his Spirit. My language, therefore, is not at all too strong. If God is much more ready and willing to give his children good things than you are to give to yours, then surely it must be easy and not difficult to get spiritual blessings, even to the utmost extent of our wants.

Let this argument come home to the hearts of those of you who are parents. Surely, you must feel its force. Christ must be a false teacher if this be not so. It must be that this great gift, which in itself comprehends all spiritual gifts, is most easily obtained, and in any amount which our souls need.

3. How very injurious and dishonorable to God are the practical views of almost all men on this subject. The dependence of men on the Holy Spirit has come to be the standing apology for moral and spiritual delinquency. Men every where profess to want the Holy Spirit, and more or less, to feel their need and to be praying for this gift; but continually and every where they complain that they do not get it. These complaints assume, both directly and indirectly, that it is very difficult to get this gift;–that God keeps his children on [a] very low diet; and on the smallest possible amount even of that; that he deals out their spiritual bread and water in most stinted amount–as if he purposed to keep his children only an inch above starvation. Pass among the churches and hear what they say and how they pray;–and what would you think? How would you be shocked at the strange, may I not say, blasphemous assumptions which they make concerning God’s policy in giving, or rather not giving, the Holy Spirit to those that ask him! I can speak from experience and personal observation. When I began to attend prayer-meetings, this fact to which I have alluded struck me as very strange. I had never attended a prayer-meeting till I had come to manhood, for my situation in this respect was very unlike yours here. But after I came to manhood, and prayer-meetings were held in the place where I lived, I used to attend them very steadily. It was a matter of great interest to me, more than I can explain, or well express. I was filled with wonder to hear Christians pray, and the more so as I then began to read my Bible, and to find in it such things as we have in our text to-day. To read such promises, and then hear Christians talk was surprising. What they did say, coupled with what they seemed to mean, would run thus: I have a duty to perform at this meeting; I cannot go away without doing it. I want to testify that religion is a good thing–a very good thing–although I have not got much of it. I believe God is a hearer of prayer, and yet I don’t think he hears mine–certainly not to much purpose. I believe that prayer brings to us the Holy Spirit, and yet, though I have always been praying for this Spirit, I have scarcely ever received it.

Such seemed to be the strain of their talking and thinking, and I must say that it puzzled me greatly. I have reason to know that it has often puzzled others. Within a few years past, I have found this to be the standing objection of unconverted men. They say–”I cannot hold out if I should be converted–it is so difficult to get and to keep the Holy Spirit.” They appeal to professed Christians and say, Look at them; they are not engaged in religion; they are not doing their Master’s work in good earnest, and they confess it; they have not the Spirit, and they confess it; they bear a living testimony that these promises are of very little practical value.

Now, these are plain matters of fact, and should be deeply pondered by all professed Christians. The Christian life of multitudes is nothing less than a flat denial of the great truths of the Bible.

Often, when I am urging Christians to be filled with the Holy Ghost, I am asked–Do you really think this gift is for me? Do you think all can have it who will? If you tell them of instances, here and there, of persons who walk in the light, and are filled with the Spirit, they reply:–Are not those very special cases? Are they not the favored few, enjoying a blessing that only a few can hope to enjoy?

Here you should carefully observe, that the question is not whether few or many have this blessing; but–Is it practically within reach of all? Is it indeed available to all? Is the gift actually tendered to all in the fullest and highest sense? Is it easy to possess it? These being the real questions, we must see that the teachings of the text cannot be mistaken on this subject. Either Christ testified falsely of this matter, or this gift is available to all, and is easily obtained. For, of the meaning and scope of his language, there can be no doubt. No language can be plainer. No illustrations could be more clear, and none could easily be found that are stronger.

4. How shall we account for this impression, so extensively pervading the church, that the Holy Spirit can rarely be obtained in ample, satisfying fullness, and then only with the greatest difficulty?

This impression obviously grows out of the current experience of the church. In fact, but few seem to have this conscious communion with God through the Spirit; but few seem really to walk with God and be filled with his Spirit.

When I say few, I must explain myself to mean, few relatively to the whole number of professed Christians. Taken absolutely, the number is great and always has been. Sometimes, some have thought the number to be small, but they were mistaken. Elijah thought himself alone, but God gave him to understand that there were many–a host, spoken of as seven thousand–who had never bowed the knee to Baal. Ordinarily, such a use of the sacred number, seven, is to be taken for a large, indefinite sum, much larger than if taken definitely. It may be so here. Even then, in that exceedingly dark age, there were yet many who stood unflinchingly for God.

It is a curious fact that persons who have really the most piety are often supposed to have the least, so few there are who judge of piety as God does. Those who preach the real gospel are often refreshed to find some in almost every congregation who manifestly embrace it. You can judge by their very looks,–their eyes shine and their faces are all aglow–almost like the face of Moses, descended from the mount.

But theirs is not the common experience of professed Christians. The common one which has served to create the general impression as to the difficulty of obtaining the Holy Spirit, is indeed utterly unlike this. The great body of nominal Christians have not the Spirit, within the meaning of Romans 8th. They cannot say–”The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” It is not true of them that they “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Comparatively few of all, know in their own conscious experience that they live and abide in the Spirit.

Here is another fact. Many are praying–apparently–for the Spirit of God, but do not get it. If you go to a prayer-meeting, you hear every body pray for this gift. It is so, also, in the family, and probably in the closet also. Yet, strange to tell, they do not get it. This experience of much prayer for this blessing, and much failure to get it, is every where common. Churches have their prayer-meetings, years and years in succession, praying for the Spirit, but they do not get it. In view of this fact, we must conclude, either that the promise is not reliable, or that the prayer does not meet the conditions of the promise. I shall take up this alternative by and by; just now, my business is to account for the prevalent impression that the Spirit of God is hard to get and keep, even in answer to prayer,–a fact which obviously is accounted for by the current experience of nominal Christians.

It should also be said that the churches have been taught that God is a sovereign, in such a sense that his gift of the Spirit is only occasional, and is then given without any connection with apparent causes–not dependent, by any means, on the fulfilment of conditions on our part. The common idea of sovereignty excludes the idea that God holds this blessing free to all, on condition of real prayer for it. I say real prayer, for I must show you by and by that much of the apparent praying of the church for the Spirit is not real prayer. It is this spurious selfish praying that leads to so much misconception as to the bestowment of the Holy Spirit.

Some of you may remember that I have related to you my experience at one time, when my mind was greatly exercised on this promise,–how I told the Lord I could not believe it. It was contrary to my conscious experience, and I could not believe any thing which contradicted my conscious experience. At that time the Lord kindly and in great mercy rebuked my unbelief, and showed me that the fault was altogether mine and in no part his.

Multitudes pray for the Spirit as I had done, and are in like manner disappointed because they do not get it. They are not conscious of being hypocrites; but they do not thoroughly know their own spirits. They think they are ready to make any sacrifices to obtain it. They do not seem to know that the difficulty is all with them. They fail to realize how rich and full the promise is. It all seems to them quite unaccountable that their prayer should not be answered. Often they sweat with agony of mind in their efforts to solve this mystery. They cannot bear to say that God’s word is false, and they cannot see that it is true. It is apparently contradicted by their experience. This fact creates the agonizing perplexity.

5. In the next place, how can we reconcile this experience with Christ’s veracity? How can we explain this experience according to the facts in the case, and yet show that Christ’s teachings are to be taken in their obvious sense, and are strictly true?

I answer, what is here taught as to prayer must be taken in connection with what is taught elsewhere. For example, what is here said of asking must be taken in connection with what is said of praying in faith–with what is said by James of asking and not receiving because men ask amiss, that they may consume it upon their lusts. If any of you were to frame a will or a promissory note, binding yourself or your administrators to pay over certain moneys, on certain specified conditions, you would not think it necessary to state the conditions more than once. Having stated them distinctly once, you would go on to state in detail the promise; but you would not expect any body to separate the promise from the condition, and then claim the promise without having fulfilled the condition, and even perhaps accuse you of falsehood because you did not fulfil the promise when the conditions had not been met.

Now, the fact is that we find, scattered throughout the Bible, various revealed conditions of prayer. Whoever would pray acceptably must surely fulfil not merely a part, but all of these conditions. Yet in practice, the church, to a great extent, have overlooked, or at least has failed to meet these conditions. For example, they often pray for the Holy Spirit, for selfish reasons. This is fearfully common. The real motives are selfish. Yet they come before God and urge their request often and long,–perhaps with great importunity; yet they are selfish in their very prayers, and God cannot hear. They are not in their inmost souls ready to do or to suffer all God’s Holy will. God calls some of his children through long seasons of extremest suffering, obviously as a means of purifying their hearts; yet many pray for pure hearts and for the Spirit to purify their hearts, who would rebel at once if God should answer their prayers by means of such a course of providence. Or, God may see it necessary to crucify your love of reputation, and for this end may subject you to a course of trial which will blow your reputation to the winds of heaven. Are you ready to hail the blessings of a subdued, unselfish heart, even though it be given by means of such discipline?

Often your motive in asking for the Spirit is merely personal comfort and consolation–as if you would live all your spiritual life on sweet-meats. Others ask for it really as a matter of self-glorification. They would like to have their names emblazoned in the papers. It would be so gratifying to be held up as a miracle of grace–as a most remarkable Christian. Alas, how many in various forms of it, are only offering selfish prayers! Even a minister might pray for the Holy Spirit, from only sinister motives. He might wish to have it said that he is very spiritual, or a man of great spiritual power in his preaching or his praying; or he might wish to avoid that hard study to which a man who has not the Spirit must submit, since the Spirit does not teach him, nor give him unction. He might almost wish to be inspired, so easy would this gift make his preaching and his study. He might suppose that he really longed to be filled with the Spirit, while really he is only asking amiss, to consume it on some unhallowed desire. A student may pray for the Spirit to help him study, and yet only his ambition or his indolence may have inspired that prayer. Let it never be forgotten, we must sympathize with God’s reasons for our having the Spirit, as we would hope to pray acceptably. There is nothing mysterious about this matter. The great end of all God’s spiritual administrations towards us in providence or grace, is to divest us of selfishness, and to bring our hearts into harmony with his in the spirit of real love.

Persons often quench the Spirit even while they are praying for it. One prays for the Spirit, yet that very moment, fails to notice the Spirit’s monitions in his own breast, or refuses to do what the Spirit would lead and press him to do. Perhaps they even pray for the Spirit, that this gift may be a substitute for some self-denying duty to which the Spirit has long been urging them. This is no uncommon experience. Such persons will be very likely to think it very difficult to get the Spirit. A woman was going to a female prayer-meeting, and thought she wanted the Holy Spirit, and would make that her special errand at that meeting. Yet when there, the Spirit pressed her to pray audibly and she resisted, and excused herself.

It is common for persons to resist the Spirit in the very steps He chooses to take. They would make the Spirit yield to them; He would have them yield to him. They think only of having their blessings come in the way of their own choosing; He is wiser and will do it in his own way or not at all. If they cannot accept of his way, there can be no agreement. Often when persons pray for the Spirit, they have in their minds certain things which they would dictate to him as to the manner and circumstances. Such ought to know that if they would have the Spirit, they must accept Him in his own way. Let him lead, and consider that your business is to follow. Thus it not infrequently happens that professed Christians maintain a perpetual resistance against the Holy Spirit, even while they are ostensibly praying for his presence and power. When he would fain draw them, they are thinking of dictating to him, and refuse to be led by him in his way. When they come really to understand what is implied in being filled with the Spirit, they draw back. It is more and different from what they had thought. That is not what they wanted.

REMARKS.1. The difficulty is always and all of it, in us, not in God. You may write this down as a universal truth, from which there can be no exceptions.

2. The difficulty lies in our voluntary state of mind, and not in anything which is involuntary and beyond our control. Therefore, there is no excuse for our retaining it, and it should be at once given up.

There is no difficulty in our obtaining the Holy Spirit if we are willing to have it; but this implies a willingness to surrender ourselves to his direction and discretion.

3. We often mistake other states of mind for a willingness to have the Spirit of God. Nothing is more common than this. Men think they are willing to be filled with the Spirit, and to have that Spirit do all its own work in the soul; but they are really under a great mistake. To be willing to be wholly crucified to the world and the world unto us, is by no means common. Many think they have a sort of desire for this state, who would really shrink from it if they saw the reality near at hand. That persons do make continual mistakes and think themselves willing to be fully controlled by the Spirit, when they are not, is evident from their lives. The will governs the life, and therefore, the life must be an infallible index of the real state of the will. As is the life, so is the will, and therefore, when you see the life alien from God, you must infer that the will is not wholly consecrated to his service–is not wholly in sympathy with God’s will.

4. When the will is really on God’s altar, entirely yielded up to God’s will in all respects, one will not wait long ere he has the Spirit of God in the fullest measure. Indeed, this very consecration itself implies a large measure of the Spirit, yet not the largest measure. The mind may not be conscious of that deep union with God into which it may enter. The knowledge of God is a consciousness of God in the soul. You may certainly know that God’s Spirit is within you, and that his light illumines your mind. His presence becomes a conscious reality.

The manner in which spiritual agencies, other than human[,] manifest themselves in the mind of man, seems to some very mysterious. It is not necessary that we should know how those agencies get access to our minds; it suffices us to know beyond all question that they do. Christians sometimes know that the devil brings his own thoughts into the very chambers of their souls. Some of you have been painfully conscious of this. You have been certain that the devil has poured out his spirit upon you. Most horrid suggestions are thrust upon your mind–such as your inmost soul abhors, and such as could come from no other, and certainly from no better, source than the devil.

Now, if the devil can thus make us conscious of his presence and power, and can throw upon our souls his own horrid suggestions, may not the Spirit of God reveal his? Nay, if your heart is in sympathy with his suggestions and monitions, may he not do much more? Surely none can doubt that he can make his presence and agency a matter of positive consciousness. That must be a very imperfect and even false view of the case which supposes that we can be conscious of nothing but the operations of our own minds. Men are often conscious of Satan’s thoughts, as present to their minds;–a fact which Bunyan well illustrated where he supposes Christian to be alarmed by some one whispering in his ear behind him, and pouring horrid blasphemies into his mind. Cases often occur like the following. A man came to me in great distress, saying, “I am no Christian; I know of a certainty. My mind has been filled with awful thoughts of God.” But were those awful thoughts your own thoughts, and did you cherish them and give your assent to them? “No, indeed; nothing could have agonized me more.” That is the work of the devil, said I. “Well, said he, perhaps it is, and yet I had not thought of it so before.”

So God’s Spirit within us may become no less an object of our distinct consciousness. And if you do truly and earnestly wait on God, you shall be most abundantly supplied of his fullness.

5. To be filled with the Holy Ghost, so that he takes full possession of our souls, is what I mean by sanctification. This glorious work is wrought by the Spirit of God; and that Spirit never can take full and entire possession of our hearts without accomplishing this blessed work.

I do not wonder that those persons deny the existence of any such state as sanctification who do not know anything of being filled with the Holy Ghost. Ignoring his glorious agency, we need not wonder that they have no knowledge of his work in the soul.

6. Often the great difficulty in the way of Christian progress is an utter want of watchfulness. Some are so given to talking that they cannot hold communion with the Spirit of God. They have no leisure to listen to his “still small voice.” Some are so fond of laughter, it seems impossible that their minds should ever be in a really serious frame. In such a mind, how can the Spirit of God dwell? Often in our Theological discussions, I am pained to see how difficult it is for persons engaged in dispute and mutual discussion, to avoid being chafed. Some of them are watchful and prayerful against this temptation, yet sometimes, we see persons manifestly fall before this temptation. If Christians do not shut down the gate against all abuse of the tongue, and, indeed against every form of selfishness, there is no hope that they will resist the devil and the world so far as to be conquerors at last.

7. The Spirit of God troubles or comforts us, according as we resist or receive this great gift. The gospel scheme was purposed for the end of accomplishing this complete union and sympathy between our souls and God, so that the soul should enjoy God’s own peace, and should be in the utmost harmony with its Maker and Father. Hence, it is the great business of the Spirit to bring about this state. If we concur, and if our will harmonizes with his efforts, he comforts us; if we resist, he troubles us;–a struggle ensues:–if, in this struggle, we come to understand God, and submit, then his blessings come freely and our peace is as a river; but so long as we resist, there can be no fruit of the Spirit’s labor to us, but rebuke and trouble. To us he cannot be the author of peace and comfort.

8. How abominable to God it must be for the church to take ground in regard to the Spirit which practically denies the truth of this great promise in our text! How dreadful that Christians should hold and teach that it is a hard thing to be really religious! What abominable unbelief! How forcibly does the church thus testify against God before the world! You might as well burn your Bible as deny that it is the easiest thing in the world to get the gift of the Spirit. And yet, strange to tell, some hold that God is so sovereign, and is sovereign in such a sense, that few can get the Spirit at all, and those few only as it may happen, and not by any means as the result of provision freely made and promise reliably revealed on which any man’s faith may take hold. O, how does this notion of sovereignty contradict the Bible! How long shall it be so?

Do you, young people, really believe that your young hearts may be filled with the Spirit? Do you really believe, as our text says, that God is more willing to give his Spirit to those that ask him, than your own father or mother would be to give you good things? Many of you are here, far from your parents. But you know that even your widowed mother, much as she may need every cent of her means for herself, would gladly share the last one with you if you needed it. So would your earthly father. Do you really believe that God is as willing as they–as ready–as loving? Nay, is he not much more so? as much more as he is better than your father or your mother? And now, do you really need and desire this gift of the Spirit? And if you do, will you come and ask for it in full confidence that you have a real Father in heaven?

Do you find practical difficulties? Do you realize how much you dishonor God if you refuse to believe his word of promise? Some of you say–I am so poor and so much in debt, I must go away and work somewhere and get money. But you have a father who has money enough. Yes; but he will not help me. He loves his money more than he loves his son. Would not this be a great scandal to your father–a living disgrace to him? Surely, it would;–and you would be so keenly sensible of this that you would not say it if it were not very true, nor then unless some very strong circumstances seemed to require of you the painful testimony. If your mother, being amply able, yet would not help you in your education or in your sickness, you would hardly tell of it–so greatly would it discredit her character.

And now will you have the face to say–God don’t [sic.] love me; he don’t [sic.] want to educate me for heaven; he utterly refuses to give me the Holy Spirit although I often ask him and beseech him to do so? Will you even think this? And can you go even farther and act it out before all the world? O, why should you thus dishonor your own God and Father!

This file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity verification, its contents can be compared to the original file at www.GospelTruth.net or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA 92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be removed.