Following are some approaches to Chinese character formation:
1. Pictorial. It is the simplest and most basic method. The character is based on a pictogram or form. For example,
人 is human, the upper part is made of head and body and the lower part has the two legs.
口is mouth.
羊is sheep. The sheep character is seen with the two horns on its head, then face and feet.
馬is horse.
手is hand.
木is wood. When it is 林, it's woods. 森 means forest. Normally, forest can be written as 森林, i.e. combined with so many woods. Very interesting.
2. Action Based. These are based on some action. For example,
皿 is dish but something in the dish is blood 血.
男is man, which is a combination of 田 and 力, 田is field or farm. 力 is work force; meaning men need to work with energy as Adam.
婪is greedy, which is a combination of 林and 女. 林is forest, 女 is woman. She is greedy as Eve.
3. Combination of Symbols. Some characters are formed from symbols. For example,
一is one. 二is two. 三is three.
上is upper (human in the upper),下is lower (human in the lower).
4. Combination of Characters. Some words are combined of two characters: left and right or upper and lower. For example,
忙 is "busy": on the left hand side is heart and on the right hand side is death. You can explain that being busy will let our heart to death.
忘 means "to forget)" and is related to a heart that has died.
打(手+丁) is a verb. We use the hand 手 to beat something down (low). It can be read as "to beat" or "to fight."
5. Left-hand Characters. Some characters have meaning on left hand side only, but no meaning or no relative meaning on-the right side. The right side is used for pronunciation only. For example,
指(手+旨) is finger/fingers. Normally, we call 手指. I think this is quite difficult to recognize.
There are some characters that are not included in the above points. Some words cannot be explained except by specialists. We also need to memorize it compulsorily.
It's proper to understand the difference between "Philosphy of..." and "...philosophies". For instance, philosophy of religion refers to the philosophical study of the epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical aspects of the phenomenon and concept of religion, including questions raised by it; whereas a religious philosophy is a particular philosophical viewpoint of a particular religious tradition--examples include samkhya, yoga, advaita, shunyavada. There are religious philosophies in the same manner that there are secular philosophies. While the start point of the former is revelation, tradition, or faith, the start point of the latter is reason. Following are some examples of the above distinctions:
1. Philosophy of Religion - Existence of God, Essence of Divinity, Death and Afterlife, Knowlege of God, etc. Religious Philosophy - Calvinist Epistemology, Advaita, Yoga, Zen
2. Theology of Religion - Essence of Religion, Goal of Religion, Salvation Religious Theology - Catholic Theology, Hindu Doctrine of Rebirth, Sikh Theology Secular Theology - Panentheism, Deism, Existential Theology, Political Theology
3. Philosophy of Science - Epistemology of Scientific Method, Matter and Mind, Definition of Life Scientific Philosophy - Darwinism, Utopianism, Scientism
4. Philosophy of Medicine - Epistemology of Medical Research, Mind and Matter, Ethics of Medical Practice Medical Philosophy- Allopathy, Homeopathy, Taoist Medical Philosophy, Chi Philosophy, Ayurvedic Philosophy, Yoga
The Enlightenment thinkers felt that reason had come to age and elevated it above faith. But, mathematics is not the book of life. It is impossible to expel faith. As the wise sage Pascal observed, reason has to be find support on something, and that something can't be reason itself, to avoid circular reasoning. Reason is also based upon faith. Again, he showed that reason cannot irrefutably prove God, but it can neither disprove His existence. It proves nothing.
Spiritual skepticism is the willingness to concede that our minds cannot have certainty alone by themselves. This is not to deny certain certainties that are axiomatic and undeniable. For instance, one can't contradict the law of non-contradiction. However, it certainly means that one has no confidence in his own reasoning and wisdom. Only this form of skepticism regarding self can truly set us free to find our fullness and certainty only in Him.
Four Purposes 1. To recognize but not appoint the persons of God's choice 2. To set apart a person for a particular task or ministry 3. To endorse a person with authority 4. To equip, that is to transmit the spiritual gift or spiritual authority or whatever else is needed by the person to carry out his God-appointed task
"But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more." (Rom 5:20) ----------------------------------------------------- SUBTLETY OF SIN - Creeps undetected - Convinces of being received - Controls our thoughts, feelings, attitude - Cuts off our relationship with God
GENEROSITY OF GRACE - Abounds much more than our sin - Accepts us as we are - Administers unto us abundant gifts of forgiveness, healing, eternal life, ministry, enablements, strength, the Holy Spirit - Available always at the Throne of His Grace. He calls us to Draw near, Humble self, Submit, Receive.
Meaninglessness is a condition in which the soul has a loss of purpose. A meaningful existence has three ingredients: 1. Purpose 2. Prudence 3. Pursuit
One can also look these as 1. Worth - What one considers worth living for 2. Wisdom - What one knows about how to pursue what's worth for 3. Work - What one does in order to gain what's worth gaining
Also, 1. Love - Love is the strongest compeller. 2. Leading - Direction 3. Labor - Action
Again, 1. Motivation 2. Means and Methods 3. Ministry
On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"After he said this, he showed them his hands and side.... Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!"Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." (John 20:19-27)
Obviously, Jesus' body had the marks; for, if they were not there, then the other disciples would have told Thomas that the body they saw had no marks of the wounds. But, why did Jesus rise up in a body with marks?
I understand that some of the beloved saints have maintained that the martyrs will still carry the marks of their persecution in their resurrected bodies. With utmost respect and love for these beloved ones, however, I find this not very plausible. For instance, what about those whose bodies were mutilated and who were torn apart by lions? Obviously, the resurrection of saints will be in a body that is healed of all wounds. Also, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; therefore, the glorious transformation of the living saints and the glorious resurrection of those who slept in Christ is necessary. This body has to be saved. But, that was not the case certainly with Jesus. His body was holy.
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. (Lk.1:35) Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me" (Heb.10:5)
It is impossible to say of Jesus that mortality reigned over Him, for He was sinless and free of the effects of sin. One could not say of Him, "just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned." (Rom.5:12). Jesus never sinned. Jesus died for sins of the world not because of His sin, for He is sinless. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin; thus, He could be tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin.
On the other hand, Adam was only a type of Christ, the Second Man, from heaven. "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom.5:14, NKJ)
So, while sin came by Adam, through Christ came righteousness. "Therefore, as through one man's offense [judgment] came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act [the free gift came] to all men, resulting in justification of life." (Rom.5:18, NKJ) This couldn't be if Christ was an effect in the chain of sin.
Jesus could never have cried like Paul: "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells" (Rom.7:18) And, "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" (Rom.7:24)
Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He came to give life, and life more abundantly. He couldn't say all that if He was in the line of effects of Adam's sin. For, even before Abraham or before Adam, Christ IS. Therefore, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is so significant.
Also, there is certainly a reason for the prophetic pronouncement that not one of His bones would be broken (Ps.34:20) and the fulfillment thereof (Jn.19:33-36).
His transfiguration on the Mount gave a glimpse of who He was, the Glory of God tabernacled in flesh and blood. It is wrong to think that Christ became something greater in His resurrection. His greatness is always in the infinite superlative, without any comparison whatsoever. However, in the Incarnation, we are told that He emptied Himself and took the form of a servant (Phil.2:7). He was made a little lower than the angels.
The physical wound marks on His body, apparently, only signify His distinction as the One from Above, the Last Adam, the Second Man.
Certainly, it is not impossible for God the Creator to rise up with a body without wound marks. Also, after His resurrection He appears to His disciples no longer in the same way as before the resurrection. In addition, it was not always easy for them to recognize Him always. In His High Priestly prayer, He prayed the Father to grant Him the glory which He had with Him before the foundation of the world. John testified that in Christ they beheld the glory of the only begotten of God.
------------------------------- Last updated on June 7, 2016
There are at least three approaches to understanding Trinity. The Rational Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of Truth. Truth implies absoluteness of knowledge in a subject-object relationship, which would be groundless if God were a monad. Therefore, Trinity proves to be a solid ground for the possibility of knowledge. Similarly, personality finds its best explanation in the personal nature of God, whose existence as three persons (I-YOU-HE Sufficiency) in one Godhead is the ground of personhood.
The Moral Approach. It seeks to find in the doctrine of Trinity a rational ground for the absolute nature of moral virtues, such as love, goodness, and joy. If God didn’t eternally exist in a subject-object relationship, then He would be amoral and morality would not be absolute. The doctrine of Trinity provides a rational ground for any discussion of morality with respect to its absolute nature.
The Empirical Approach. Some have suggested the analogy of the Sun (Sun-Sunlight-Sunheat). Nathan Wood used the now popular 1x1x1=1 analogy with instances from space and time (e.g. Length x Breadth x Height = Space; Past x Present x Future = Time). Still others used more naturalistic analogies; however, these could lead to tri-partiatism or Sabellianism (e.g. these are not acceptable: Water-Steam-Ice; Three parts of humans, etc).
Whatever the method be, there is no arguing the fact that the Trinity is a mystery and attempts to try to explain God could only land one in absurdity. We don’t still understand the mystery of the universe so much, nor of the human mind as it is; how much more difficult to understand the being of God? It would be more disastrous than attempting to explain miracles in order to prove the possibility of miracles. This would be impossible. While we use metaphors like Bread of Life and Rock for God, the metaphors have their limits. To accept the Mystery is a step of faith.
As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead. Among these there are two which are particularly attractive, and have therefore been put forward again and again by speculative thinkers through all the Christian ages. These are derived from the implications, in the one case, of self-consciousness; in the other, of love. Both self-consciousness and love, it is said, demand for their very existence an object over against which the self stands as subject. If we conceive of God as self-conscious and loving, therefore, we cannot help conceiving of Him as embracing in His unity some form of plurality. From this general position both arguments have been elaborated, however, by various thinkers in very varied forms.
The former of them, for example, is developed by a great seventeenth century theologian -- Bartholomew Keckermann (1614) -- as follows: God is self-conscious thought: and God's thought must have a perfect object, existing eternally before it; this object to be perfect must be itself God; and as God is one, this object which is God must be the God that is one. It is essentially the same argument which is popularized in a famous paragraph (73) of Lessing's "The Education of the Human Race." Must not God have an absolutely perfect representation of Himself - that is, a representation in which everything that is in Him is found? And would everything that is in God be found in this representation if His necessary reality were not found in it? If everything, everything without exception, that is in God is to be found in this representation, it cannot, therefore, remain a mere empty image, but must be an actual duplication of God. It is obvious that arguments like this prove too much. If God's representation of Himself, to be perfect, must possess the same kind of reality that He Himself possesses, it does not seem easy to deny that His representations of everything else must possess objective reality. And this would be as much as to say that the eternal objective co-existence of all that God can conceive is given in the very idea of God; and that is open pantheism. The logical flaw lies in including in the perfection of a representation qualities which are not proper to representations, however perfect. A perfect representation must, of course, have all the reality proper to a representation; but objective reality is so little proper to a representation that a representation acquiring it would cease to be a representation. This fatal flaw is not transcended, but only covered up, when the argument is compressed, as it is in most of its modern presentations, in effect to the mere assertion that the condition of self-consciousness is a real distinction between the thinking subject and the thought object, which, in God's case, would be between the subject ego and the object ego. Why, however, we should deny to God the power of self-contemplation enjoyed by every finite spirit, save at the cost of the distinct hypostatizing of the contemplant and the contemplated self, it is hard to understand. Nor is it always clear that what we get is a distinct hypostatization rather than a distinct substantializing of the contemplant and contemplated ego: not two persons in the Godhead so much as two Gods. The discovery of the third hypostasis - the Holy Spirit -remains meanwhile, to all these attempts rationally to construct a Trinity in the Divine Being, a standing puzzle which finds only a very artificial solution.
The case is much the same with the argument derived from the nature of love. Our sympathies go out to that old Valentinian writer - possibly it was Valentinus himself - who reasoned - perhaps he was the first so to reason - that "God is all love," "but love is not love unless there be an object of love." And they go out more richly still to Augustine, when, seeking a basis, not for a theory of emanations, but for the doctrine of the Trinity, he analyzes this love which God is into the triple implication of "the lover," "the loved" and "the love itself," and sees in this trinary of love an analogue of the Triune God. It requires, however, only that the argument thus broadly suggested should be developed into its details for its artificiality to become apparent. Richard of St. Victor works it out as follows: It belongs to the nature of amor that it should turn to another as caritas. This other, in God's case, cannot be the world; since such love of the world would be inordinate. It can only be a person; and a person who is God's equal in eternity, power and wisdom. Since, however, there cannot be two Divine substances, these two Divine persons must form one and the same substance. The best love cannot, however, con-fine itself to these two persons; it must become condilectio by the desire that a third should be equally loved as they love one another. Thus love, when perfectly conceived, leads necessarily to the Trinity, and since God is all He can be, this Trinity must be real. Modern writers (Sartorius, Schoberlein, J. Muller, Liebner, most lately R. H. Griutzmacher) do not seem to have essentially improved upon such a statement as this. And after all is said, it does not appear clear that God's own all-perfect Being could not supply a satisfying object of His all-perfect love. To say that in its very nature love is self-communicative, and therefore implies an object other than self, seems an abuse of figurative language.
Perhaps the ontological proof of the Trinity is nowhere more attractively put than by Jonathan Edwards. The peculiarity of his presentation of it lies in an attempt to add plausibility to it by a doctrine of the nature of spiritual ideas or ideas of spiritual things, such as thought, love, fear, in general. Ideas of such things, he urges, are just repetitions of them, so that he who has an idea of any act of love, fear, anger or any other act or motion of the mind, simply so far repeats the motion in question; and if the idea be perfect and complete, the original motion of the mind is absolutely reduplicated. Edwards presses this so far that he is ready to contend that if a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that was in his mind at any past moment, he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was at that moment. And if he could perfectly contemplate all that is in his mind at any given moment, as it is and at the same time that it is there in its first and direct existence, he would really be two at that time, he would be twice at once: "The idea he has of himself would be himself again." This now is the case with the Divine Being. "God's idea of Himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of Him, exactly like Him in every respect. . . . But that which is the express, perfect image of God and in every respect like Him is God, to all intents and purposes, because there is nothing wanting: there is nothing in the Deity that renders it the Deity but what has something exactly answering to it in this image, which will therefore also render that the Deity." The Second Person of the Trinity being thus attained, the argument advances. "The Godhead being thus begotten of God's loving [having?] an idea of Himself and showing forth in a distinct Subsistence or Person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and the Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other. . . The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of Subsistence, and there proceeds the Third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will." The inconclusiveness of the reasoning lies on the surface. The mind does not consist in its states, and the repetition of its states would not, therefore, duplicate or triplicate it. If it did, we should have a plurality of Beings, not of Persons in one Being. Neither God's perfect idea of Himself nor His perfect love of Himself reproduces Himself. He differs from His idea and His love of Himself precisely by that which distinguishes His Being from His acts. When it is said, then, that there is nothing in the Deity which renders it the Deity but what has something answering to it in its image of itself, it is enough to respond - except the Deity itself. What is wanting to the image to make it a second Deity is just objective reality.
Inconclusive as all such reasoning is, however, considered as rational demonstration of the reality of the Trinity, it is very far from possessing no value. It carries home to us in a very suggestive way the superiority of the Trinitarian conception of God to the conception of Him as an abstract monad, and thus brings important rational support to the doctrine of the Trinity, when once that doctrine has been given us by revelation. If it is not quite possible to say that we cannot conceive of God as eternal self-consciousness and eternal love, without conceiving Him as a Trinity, it does seem quite necessary to say that when we conceive Him as a Trinity, new fullness, richness, force are given to our conception of Him as a self-conscious, loving Being, and therefore we conceive Him more adequately than as a monad, and no one who has ever once conceived Him as a Trinity can ever again satisfy himself with a monadistic conception of God. Reason thus not only performs the important negative service to faith in the Trinity, of showing the self-consistency of the doctrine and its consistency with other known truth, but brings this positive rational support to it of discovering in it the only adequate conception of God as self-conscious spirit and living love. Difficult, therefore, as the idea of the Trinity in itself is, it does not come to us as an added burden upon our intelligence; it brings us rather the solution of the deepest and most persistent difficulties in our conception of God as infinite moral Being, and illuminates, enriches and elevates all our thought of God.
“What profit has a man from all his labor under the sun?” (Eccl.1:3)
The Bible asks us to stop for a while and consider the purpose and profit of our pursuits in life.
God instituted that man should work for 6 days and rest on the seventh. Also, the Bible tells us that those who do not work for a living should not also eat.
“We gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2Thess 3:10)
Yet, it is important to understand that life and work is not just about filling our stomach and surviving in the world.
Psalm 90:10 tells us that our life is full of labor Psalm 104:23 tells us that man goes to his labor till evening
Yet, the wise king Solomon had this to say about all human labor:
Then I looked on all the works that my hands had done and on the labor in which I had toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind. There was no profit under the sun. (Eccl.2:11)
Therefore I turned my heart and despaired of all the labor in which I had toiled under the sun. (Eccl.2:20)
He exclaimed that all labor is vanity of vanities, meaningless, and a chasing after the wind. What he meant to say was that if work was only about worldly things, “under the sun”, and didn’t have the eternal in perspective (Eccl.3:11), then meaninglessness would be a result, because man is not just a beast or an advanced animal; humans are spiritual beings.
ETERNAL PERSPECTIVE OF HUMAN LABOR He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end. (Eccl.3:11)
I said in my heart, "Concerning the condition of the sons of men, God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals." For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity. All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth? (Eccl 3:18-21)
Remember your Creator before the silver cord is loosed, Or the golden bowl is broken, Or the pitcher shattered at the fountain, Or the wheel broken at the well. Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, And the spirit will return to God who gave it. (Eccl 12:6-7)
"And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, "so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us… (Acts 17:26-27)
Unless the LORD builds the house, They labor in vain who build it; Unless the LORD guards the city, The watchman stays awake in vain. (Psalm 127:1)
Blessed is every one who fears the LORD, Who walks in His ways. When you eat the labor of your hands, You shall be happy, and it shall be well with you. (Ps 128:1-2)
As for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, and given him power to eat of it, to receive his heritage and rejoice in his labor -- this is the gift of God. (Eccl 5:19)
The labor of the righteous leads to life, The wages of the wicked to sin. (Prov 10:16)
Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished, But he who gathers by labor will increase. (Prov 13:11)
In all labor there is profit, But idle chatter leads only to poverty. (Prov 14:23)
The desire of the lazy man kills him, For his hands refuse to labor. (Prov 21:25)
All the labor of man is for his mouth, And yet the soul is not satisfied. (Eccl 6:7)
Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. (1Cor 6:13)
"Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." (John 6:27)
LABORING FOR THE KINGDOM Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest." (Matt 9:37-38)
"I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' " (Acts 20:35)
Let him who stole steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands what is good, that he may have something to give him who has need. (Eph 4:28)
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, who have labored in the Lord. Greet the beloved Persis, who labored much in the Lord. (Rom 16:12)
Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. (1Cor 3:8)
But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1Cor 15:10)
To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily. (Col 1:29) Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. (1Cor 15:58)
Christ is the brightness of God's glory (Heb. 1:3). God's glory is incomparable with anything in creation.
"...the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory." (1Cor. 15:39)
Christ's glory far exceeds anything in creation. That Infinitely glorious one emptied Himself of holding on to that glorious form alone and took the form of man 2000 years ago.
"Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being." (Phil. 2:6-7, NLT)
"So the Word became human and made his home among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father's one and only Son." (John 1:14) --------------------------------
And that's not all.
The glory of the Son shines in our hearts through the Gospel.
"For God, who said, "Let there be light in the darkness," has made this light shine in our hearts so we could know the glory of God that is seen in the face of Jesus Christ." (2Cor.4:6, NLT)
We are transformed into that same image as we read God's Word.
"But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ....
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2Cor. 3:14,18)
And when He returns, He will transform our mortal bodies into the likeness of His glorious body.
"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself." (Phil. 3:20,21)
We look towards that glory.
"The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs--heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." (Rom. 8:15-21)
Whenever a new word enters the market, there are many who wish to grab it and use it to express or verbalize concepts that occur to them. However, it is important to avoid sporadic use of expressions without understanding them in their original usage. It can lead to confusion of language. Two terms that are becoming more popularly used, in addition to "mission", are "missions" and "missional", and they require proper definition. Let's look at some popular definitions of these terms: Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God's People --Mission is all that God is doing in his great purpose for the whole of creation and all that he calls us to do in cooperation with that purpose. (Analogy: Science) --Missions is the multitude of activities that God's people can engage in, by means of which they participate in God's mission. (Analogy: Sciences) --Missional is to have (Analogy: Scientific)
Ed Stetzer, Missions vs. Missional? --Mission is the reason the church exists and the church joins Jesus on mission. And, this mission is from everywhere to everywhere. --Missions refers to an international pursuit to preach the gospel to all the corners of the earth. --Being missional conveys the idea of living on a purposeful, Biblical mission.
David Wesley, The Church as Missionary, Missio Dei --Mission is the very nature of the church, seeking first God and his kingdom. It flows directly from God. A living relationship with the God of mission distinguishes the church as a living organism, as opposed to a mechanistic (and secular) organization. Because of this relationship, we truly can say that the church does not support a program of missions; rather, the church is the missionary. --The missional church begins with the idea that mission is God’s nature and God’s activity (the missio dei) and, furthermore, that the church is the missionary. By definition, the church is the sent church. The “business” of the church, then, is to train missionaries to go and to live out the gospel in their spheres of influence. The missional church, therefore, does not shape programs around consumerist Christian desires. The missional church designs ministries that equip people to show the gospel to the nonbeliever. The term "mission" is not found in the Bible. The Bible only talks of covenants, of commandments, and of calling and setting apart for some ministry. In fact, the very work of Gospel proclamation is called as the ministry of reconciliation (2Cor.5:18). The word "mission" comes from the Latin word mittere and missio meaning "to send". The New Testament Great Commission of Christ in the Gospels that commissions the disciples to "Go and preach the Gospel" to the uttermost parts of the earth played an important role in the development of the theology of mission. The plural "missions" began to be used for the varied works of mission that people engaged in. For some people, it includes works of charity, social justice, and assistance. However, it is very important for us to distinguish between the Great Commandment (to love our neighbor as ourselves) and the Great Commission (to preach the Gospel to all nations). The commission to "Go" is at the heart of mission. Thus, it includes both evangelization (to turn them from darkness to light), in whatever way possible, and discipleship (to walk in the fellowship of the Light).
Modern Period (19th & Early 20th Centuries) Post-Modern Period (Late 20th Century) Post-Postmodern Period (21st Century)
MODERN PERIOD (19TH & EARLY 20TH CENTURIES)
Rationalism
Scientific Temper
Utopianism
Secularism
Skepticism
Liberalism
POST-MODERN PERIOD (LATE 20TH CENTURY)
Mood Against Truth (No Absolutes)
Rejection of Reason
Emphasis on Style over Substance
Privatization of Morals (Morals are personal)
Pluralism
Image or Virtual Culture
Rejection of Metanarratives
POST-POSTMODERN AGE (21ST C)
Intense Globalization and Trans-nationalism
Intense Fundamentalism
Return to Modernism
Between Modernism and Post-modernism
Neo-romanticism (Attempting to turn finite into infinite)
Pseudo-modernism (Internet Culture of Clicks, Likes, and Downloads)
LIBERALISM Friedrich Schliermacher, Harold De Wolf
Rationalism and Scientific Temper
Genesis 1-11 as Mythological. Not Literal. No Original Sin.
Hyper Contextualization of Theology
Emphasis on Natural Theology (Natural Religion)
Anti-orthodoxy, Anti-traditionalism
Scientific Method
Emphasis on Experience or Empirical Research
Undermining of Sin
Division of Jesus of History from Christ of Faith
Rejection of Fundamentals such as Trinity, Original Sin, Virgin Birth, Inerrancy of Bible, Atonement, Second Coming
NEO-ORTHODOXY Karl Barth, Emil Brunner
Emphasis on Biblical Encounter Revelation (Barth called natural theology as demonic; Brunner accepted it)
Emphasis on the Transcendence of God. God is the “wholly other”
Emphasis on Regeneration by Grace from Original Sin
Personal Revelation, Not Propositional Revelation. Encountering Christ as the Word.
Christo-centric Theology
PROCESS THEOLOGY A.N.Whitehead, Teilhard De Chardin, Charles Hartshorne
God is mutable, temporal, and passible (i.e. affected by the world)
Everything, including God, is in process
Everything in nature has value, every living being is equally important. Eco-centric Theology
The world is in some sense part of God (Panentheism)
God is in some sense a physical or material being.
Emphasis on freewill
God feels how we feel without feeling as we feel (e.g. God feels our fear of death but He doesn’t fear death)
EXISTENTIAL THEOLOGY Soren Kierkegaard, Paul Tillich, Rudolf Bultmann
Existence precedes essence
Emphasis on Being
God as the Ground of Being (God Above God)
Christ is the manifestation of the New Being
Authentic Existence
Anthropo-centric Theology
Demythologization
SECULAR THEOLOGY Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox
Secularization as a Biblical Process in History
Emancipation of Church from State
Religionless Christianity
Church as Witness
Church as Transforming Factor
DEATH OF GOD SCHOOL Gabriel Vahanian, Paul Van Buren, William Hamilton, John A.T. Robinson, Thomas J. J. Altizer, John D. Caputo
Contemporary culture is godless
God is Dead Vs There is No God
Do-It-Yourself Religion (Don’t wait for God)
Anti-Traditional
Engagement with (not isolation from) the World
Churchless Christianity
LIBERATION THEOLOGY Martin Luther Jr. King, Desmond Tutu, Arvind Nirmal, V. Devasahayam, Mary Daly, Rosemary Radford Ruether.
Social Christianity
Justice & Equality
Black Liberation Theology
Feminist Liberation Theology
Dalit Liberation Theology
Palestinian Liberation Theology
DOMINION THEOLOGY R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, Peter Wagner
Christian Reconstructionism: Calvinism, Cessationism, Post-millenialism, Biblical Law
Kingdom Now Theology: Apostolic and Prophetic Movement, Restoration, Spiritual Warfare
7 Spheres: Mild Dominionism. Christians must ascend peaks of the mountains of cultural influence: Arts, Business, Church (Religion), Development and Media, Education, Family, Government, (Health).
1 Drachma was the daily wage of a skilled laborer (Greek Currency) 1 Denarius was the daily wage of an unskilled laborer (Roman Currency)
1 piece of silver (Tetradrachm) equaled 4 drachmas; thus, Judas' 30 tetradrachms equaled 120 drachmas or 4 months' (120 days') labor wages of a skilled laborer.
*According to Labor Dept of Delhi government, the minimum wages per day of a skilled laborer is Rs.423; of unskilled laborer, Rs.348, but could be higher than this minimum rate.
January is named after the Roman god Janus, the god of beginnings and transitions.
February is named after the Roman god Februus, the god of purification and the underworld.
March is named after the Roman god Mars, the god of war and also the agricultural guardian.
April seems to be derived from aperire, which means “to open”, probably since the buds opened in this month. However, it may also have come from the name of the goddess Aphrodite (Aphrusor Apru as in Etruscan),the Greek equivalent of Venus.
May is named after Maiesta, the Roman goddess of honor and reverence.
June is named after Juno, the Roman goddess of marriage and childbirth, the protector of the state, watcher of women, and the queen of the gods.
July is named after Julius Caesar as he was born in this month. Earlier, it was called Quintilis, meaning “fifth”, since it was the fifth month in an earlier 10-month calendar that began with March as the first month.
August is named after the Roman emperor Augustus Caesar. Earlier, it was called Sextilis, meaning “sixth”.
The saying, "Love is blind" is often quoted. But, the saying is not biblical. It was Shakespeare who in, Two Gentlemen of Verona stated "Love is blind."
Bible doesn’t call love blind but hatred as blind.
(1Jo 2:9-11 NKJ) 9 He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness until now. 10 He who loves his brother abides in the light, and there is no cause for stumbling in him. 11 But he who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.
But, lust is blind… as in all sinful violation of love.. carnal romance, adultery... Young people don’t be misguided by the songs that adulterers and fornicators write. Our present world has become so duped that it is lesbians and gays who are now writing the songs of love. What wickedness! They are not songs of true love. These are not models of love, but of those who have failed to know love through their multiple marriages and divorces. If you would like to see what true love is all about, then turn to the Book of Love, the Bible.
Marriage is a Covenant, not a contract… Contract of love is impossible for love is not a commercial property. When you make love a conditional property, it becomes harlotry. You fix a price. It is sin. You cannot make an agreement to love each other for a period of time or on some conditions. Love is not subject to any contract. Love is the fruit of the Spirit (not work of the flesh).
The salesman who smiles at you and the receptionist who salutes you may not be showing love; but merely fulfilling a contract.. to smile and to look genial.
Marital love is not a contract. It is a covenant. Because love is sacred. The Bible says God is Love.
God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. (1Jo 4:16 NKJ) When you enter the marital covenant of love, you make a commitment that is life-long.
Mal. 2:16: God hates divorce. In none of the symbolisms does God ever divorce His covenant people.
Bonhoeffer: It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on it is the marriage that sustains your love.
2. Marriage is a UNION of two bodies
When God brought Eve before Adam, he called her the flesh of his flesh and the bone of his bones.
The First Marital Declaration: Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24 NKJ)
"So, husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it." (Eph 5:28-29 NKJ)
This is an interesting mystery. The wife is not the other-half (it is not a biblical doctrine, but a non-biblical one). It is not a woman that makes the man complete or the man who makes the woman complete. They are both complete in themselves. If a man is unmarried, he is not incomplete. The Bible doesn’t say that the man is half-body until he marries a woman, then his body is complete and so his wife is the other-half body. You cannot make foolish extensions of a metaphor. A wifeless man is not a bodiless head walking around. In fact that symbolism doesn’t emerge as long as one is not married; it only emerges to describe a relationship. For, as soon as you enter the marital covenant of love, both of you assume responsibility towards each other through a oneness; this oneness is expressed in the metaphor of head and body, and of the union of flesh.
Again, the Bible never says that the woman is joined to the man. It says the man is joined to the woman. And, this joining is effected by a man leaving his parents; which is essential, because now he has a family of his own and he has become the head.
But, the head of the man is Christ. A man is incomplete as long as Christ is not his head. A man who tries to derive his strength from a woman will fail to provide leadership in his family. The man must derive his strength from his Head, Christ. In Him we are complete. Similarly, a woman who looks to derive her strength from her husband will fail to be a good wife, for she will fall with her husband when he falls like it happened with Adam and Eve; but, when she derives her strength from Christ, she becomes a good help meet. In all relationships, Christ comes in between. He is the Mediator. He is the Master. He is the Head. Christ is Head of both the man and the woman.
But, a man is not head of a family unless he is married to a wife. And so, the institution of marriage is given for the propagation of the human family as a social unit. God joins the two and makes them one because he seeks godly offspring (Mal.2:15).
“Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.” (Mal 2:15 NIV)
Now, a head is made for only one body. The husband is the head of his wife. The mother-in-law is not the head of the daughter-in-law and the father-in-law is not the head of the daughter-in-law. Of course, the woman also leaves. But, her leaving is not mentioned because in the event of leaving, the leading role belongs to the husband. And the leaving of the man doesn’t mean that he forsakes his parents; but, it means that he assumes the role of a head separate from them. 1Timothy 5:8: If anyone doesn’t provide for his own (parents esp), he is worse than an unbeliever.
BOOK OF RUTH. A story of relations. When the husband dies and Naomi has no one left, Ruth doesn’t leave her, because she knows that she was responsible towards her mother-in-law in the same way that her husband was. She didn’t say, “Well, now with his death, the contract is over and I am free.” But, there are deeper mysteries in that book which we can’t talk of now. The book is tremendously resourceful.
3. Marriage is a TYPE of the Relation between Christ and the Church
Type- Foreshadow. The Reality is the Eternal. Marriage is Temporal (Not temporary). Jesus said that in the resurrection there won’t be marriages. But, there is that eternal relationship between Christ the Bride and His Body, the Church.
For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph 5:30 NKJ)
Eph.5:22-33 Christ is Head – Husband is Head Church is subject – Wives must submit in all things Christ loved the Church and gave Himself – Husbands must so love their wives
It is not a thrill if you are married here in this shadow, but are not part of that Grand Marriage of the Lamb which is the reality. This is only a shadow of the real. And when you honor this, you honor that.
Also, to the congregation, we have a wedding banquet here today, but remember there is a greater banquet, the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Are you ready for that? Do you have the Wedding Garments on?
CUT – Covenant, Union, Type - Honor the Covenant - Love each other as self - Live the Eternal symbol
Rom 6-8 talkng about a root human problem that psychology alone cannot solve. The solution is the Law of the Spirit of Lifw
Rom. 7: One explanation: It is the state of the unredeemed. Another (Keswick Theology): It is the state of the Carnal Christian.
++++The Mind Loves the Law - I know that the Law is spiritual (Rom.7:14) - I agree that the Law is good (Rom.7:16) - I delight in the Law (Rom.7:22)
- No mind that loves the anti-law; it may hate that the Law is preventing it from doing certain things; but, it doesn't prefer something against the Law. For instance, no sane mind would like the following commands: 1. Thou shalt tell lie 2. Thou shalt murder 3. Thou shalt commit adultery 4. Thou shalt covet Because it knows that such laws are self-destructive. Immanuel Kant: Starry heavens above, and the moral law within. Rom. 2:14,15
But, a debased mind tries to create a system that would in someway justify sin. Rom.1: Bad Myths (Plato - Censor). Cultural customs, human invention, can be anti-Christian - Justify adultery, justify murder... , infant marriages...(Doctrines of men) Rom.1: God gave them up. Homosexuality... justified.. Laws that make it legal.
-But when mind is challenged rationally, it is stunned by its foolishness like a man who is living in a dark room on whom suddenly shines a bright light. E.G. Nathan to David (Sin with Bathsheba), The man who went to a brothel and found his own wife.
Children: They know what is just and unjust: School- If you don't discipline the bad guy but mistreat the good ones, it will create tension and anarchy. If you discipline the guy who did wrong, the others will recognize fairness and justice, there will be order.
++++++ So, the Mind Loves the Law ++++++But the Flesh Serves Sin "With the Flesh I" WHO? I... my will, intellect, (self-responsibility and freedom involved) Rom.8:5, 8
How does that happen? Rom.7:15 - I do not understand!!!!! But, at least I know two things: 1. It is not me (because my inner man - mind- loves the Law) (Rom.7:20). 2. It is sin that dwells in me
But, it is not like being possessed by some demon or something (in such no will involved) - What I hate that I do (Rom.7:15) - The evil that I will not to do, that I practice (Rom.7:19)
PROBLEM: I do not find how to perform the good (Rom.7:18) PROBLEM: Mind set on the flesh cannot fulfill the law of God.
Rom7:25 says that the mind serves the Law, but the flesh serves sin. But, the mind that is set on the flesh becomes a captive to sin as well (loses life and power) Rom.7:23 - Another law brings mind into captivity to the law of sin.
FREEDOM: Rom.8:2
IT IS LIKE: Eg. A Bird that is flying: Law of Aerodynamics Law of Gravity
Flies- When it got life (sensation, power) Falls- When it is dead
----------------------------
Rom.8:2 : the Law of the Spirit of Life has freed us.. (Not my life, but the Spirit of Life.. 1. Eternal Life is not like a candy that a mother gives to her son. (It is not gift in that sense.). 2. Eternal Life is Faith-Received (Not once saved forever saved, but according to the Spirit of Life). Eternal Life is not Apart from Christ. If you don't have Christ, you don't have life.. That's all...
(That is another big debate. One person asked, If we are born-again, how is possible to be unborn? Misunderstanding about the Life of God.) Jesus said that the Fountain of Living Water is the Spirit... (He who does not have the Spirit doesn't belong to Christ Read. Rom.8:10- Body dead, Spirit is Life)
It means that you lose faith, you stop living according to the Spirit, the moment the flesh is alive, you are dead (Rom.8:13)
Rom. 8:3-4
-------------------------- WHAT MUST I DO? 1. BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE SAVED (HELMET OF SALVATION) Rom.6:11 - Reckon Yourselves Dead to Sin.......... But ALIVE!!!!!! (Analogically, You are married to Christ, not to Sin!) 1Cor.6:19,20- Spirit in Temple Body (If Christ in You, body is dead.. You belong to Him).
2. MORTIFY THE DEEDS OF THE FLESH (Rom.8:13; Col.3:5) What does it mean???? I can fight an external enemy.. I can kill a snake.. But, how the deeds of the flesh???? Some say "STARVE IT" don't feed it (Rom.13:14)
ANSWER: FAITH: (THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH)
1. FLEEING FAITH ----Actually means... FLEE!!!!! (2Tim.2:22). You can only starve it by running away from it. As strength of temptation is in your being closer to the temptation. It loses power in distance and death. Married man communicating with other woman more than wife creates problems. Man whose flesh found pleasure in liquor is more in danger in times of tfouble near it.
Jesus taught, "Lead us not into temptation". Does your flesh like to indulge in a little "harmless pleasure"? That "harmless pleasure" is the logic of sin? It is very appealing and the mind becomes sooner blinded by it.
There is a plant in Himalays.. Smell even a few kms away cause death. very fatal.
You say, "How can I flee" Story of Gehazi... His mind went after..... Story of Joseph
RUN.. FLEE...
DANGER: Instinct is to run!!!! jump off!!!! If not.. SENSES NOT WORKING (HEB 5) Danger of Frog in the water that is boiling...
Conscience seared..... You can only flee when your conscience is pure. But, conscience is not enough. FEAR IS NEEDED (what kind of fear.. Fear of falling into sin.. Filial fear... Sin hurts God and your relationship with God).
2. TRUSTING FAITH ----FLY INTO HIS ARMS OF LOVE What composed the most intense moments of His life and where did He win the greatest battles... On His Knees. IT MEANS PAIN (Heb.5:7; 12:4)
SWEET HOUR OF PRAYER In seasons of distress and grief, My soul has often found relief And oft escaped the tempter’s snare By thy return, sweet hour of prayer!
----DRAW NEAR TO THE THRONE OF HIS GRACE (Heb.4:16) ----THROUGH THE SPIRIT: LIFE & POWER TO FLY (Rom.8:13,14). OF COURSE, YOU CAN'T DO IT THROUGH THE SPIRIT UNTIL YOU'RE FIRST LIVING IN THE SPIRIT, PRAYING IN THE SPIRIT, WALKING IN THE SPIRIT.
Praying in tongues.. In the Spirit. The Bible says, speaking in tongue edifies.
3. OBEYING FAITH. BEAR FRUIT TO GOD (Rom.7:4).. Yield your members to Christ as instruments of righteousness. Obedience of the Spirit. PRESS FORWARD. FOCUS ON THE FINISHING LINE, NOT ON THE CALLS OF THE WORLD AROUND. DON't LIVE FOR SELF, DON't LIVE FOR THE WORLD, LIVE FOR GOD.
DO YOU WANT TO LIVE OR TO DIE? IS SIN KILLING YOU DAY BY DAY AND YOU SENSE DEFEAT?
GAL.2:20... CRUCIFIED BUT ALIVE LIVING BUT NOT I BUT CHRIST LIVING IN ME LIVING BY FAITH...
In humans, the future exists as possibilities. The past exists as actualized (fulfilled) events. However, in God, the future is as real as the present and the past - as actualized; because, time is not independent of God, God holds all things together. But, while He holds all things together, He does not determine each thing; for to do that, He must exist prior to future; but, that is not the case because future, as both present and past, is coterminous with Him - "In Him we move, and live, and have our being." God is eternal. Therefore, God's foreknowledge is perfect and yet non-deterministic.
In humans, future is not out there. Future is what becomes of the world and us; but, it is yet not out there. Which means that the future is non-existent at the moment. Then, how does God foreknow the non-existent?
For God, the future is in Him because He holds space-time together in Him; but, He is neither determined by time nor determines it; God is not in the process of becoming (in opposition to Process Theology); God's being is complete and actualized. God is not in time, subject to the flux and possibilities of a future-anything. But, time is in God. Therefore, the future is not non-existent to God; in fact, the split of past, present, and future does not apply to divine fore-knowledge since He is trans-temporal.
The church is one and universal, and it confesses one and the same faith throughout the world. The common faith is confessed at baptism, at which one act the believer receives forgiveness of sins and the Holy Spirit.
“Canon of truth” referred to the “rule of faith”, the content of the apostolic preaching in summary form that served as a norm for interpreting Scripture and determining the apostolic faith.
Took church at Rome as the representative church in his argument for apostolic succession (from one teacher to the next; not, from ordainer to ordained). The apostolic faith was preserved at Rome.
Affirmed the reality of the physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Gnostic depreciation of material elements.
Mary, in reversing the disobedience of Eve, found a place in Irenaeus’s doctrine of recapitulation.
“For I myself, too, when I was delighting in the doctrines of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death … perceived that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure” (2Apol.12)
Significance • One of the first highly educated Gentiles to use his learning to defend Christianity even before the emperor himself.
o His writings use citations from Euripides, Xenophon, and above all Plato to strengthen his case for Christianity.
• Opposed rival teacher Marcion who taught that the New Testament contradicted the Old Testament. • Logos-theology: Even before the coming of Christ, the logos was manifested partially in such Greek philosophers as Socrates and Heraclitus, and in such Hebrews as Abraham, Ananias, Azarias, Misael, and Elijah (1st Apology). Plato’s truth was dependent on Moses (chs.59-60).
o The seed of God’s logos (logos spermatikos) was disseminated to all men in their God-given capacity to respond to truth. “Whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians” (2Apol. 13:4) o There were Christians before Christ, such as Socrates and Heraclitus (1Apol. 46:3) o All Theophanies in OT were Christophanies “For the ineffable Father and Lord of all neither comes to any place… but remains in His own place…” (Dial.127:2)
• Fullest Accounts of Christian Rituals including baptism and Eucharist (1st Apology 61-67) • On the basis of Isaiah 53:2 declared that Jesus was not of a comely appearance. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew) • Used the concept of typology in finding Christ prefigured in many other OT passages. (e.g. Noah’s ark – wood of the cross; Leah – synagogue; Rachel – church; Joshua – Jesus…) (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew)
According to an accurate account complies in the 3rd century, Justin was brought to trial with six other believers c.165. He answered his interrogator simply and went courageously to his death.
REFERENCES John D. Woodbridge (ed), Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988)
Fed to lions during the reign of Trajan (AD 98-117). Wrote 6 letters en route to Rome.
Significance: • First to use the word Christianismos (Christianity, Ign.Rom 3:3; Magn.10:3) • Opposed Docetism (Trallians 9;11-2; Smyr.1-3) • First to stress the concept of “monepiscopacy” (or monarchical episcopacy): a single bishop in a given city presides over the 3-fold ministry of (i) bishop (ii) presbyters (iii) deacons
o The bishop presides in the place of God (Magn.6:1; Tral.3:1) o Submission to bishop is necessary to achieve henosis (“unity,” Ign.Eph.5:1). o Even when a bishop is youthful as at Magnesia (Magn.3:1) or is silent as at Ephesus (Ign.Eph.5:1) or at Philadelphia (Philad.1:1), they are not to be despised, for silence is a characteristic of God Himself.
• First to use the word katholikos (“universal”) of the church (Smyr 8:2) “Set on unity” (Philad.8:1). Urges Polycarp (1:2) “care for unity your concern for there is nothing better”. • First to maintain that either the bishop or his authorized representative has to be present for a Eucharist to be valid (Smyr.8:1). He called the gathering of Christians to celebrate it the pharmakon athanasias, “the medicine of immortality” (Eph.20:2). He also began the association of the Eucharist with the concept of a sacrificial altar, thusiasterion (Magn.17:2; Philad.4:1) • He begged the Romans not to prevent his martyrdom (Ign.Rom.1:2, 2:1). He proclaimed: “Suffer me to be eaten by the beasts, through whom I can attain to God. I am God’s wheat, and I am ground by the teeth of wild beasts that I may be found pure bread of Christ.” (Ign.Rom.4:1).
We are informed of his martyrdom in Rome in the reign of Trajan (c. A.D. 108) by Polycarp, Ireneaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Later legendary accounts from the 4th and 5th centuries (the Martyrium Colbertinum and Antiochenum) relate that his bones were collected and brought bak to Antioch. These relics were later brought back to Rome in the 6th or 7th century.
REFERENCES John D. Woodbridge (ed), Great Leaders of the Christian Church (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988)
UNDERSTANDING THIS AGE
