Beacon dictionary of theology

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS. A

fourth-century collection of decisions made by earlier councils and leaders concerning Christian faith and church order. Its sources are the now lost Didascalia Apostolorum, a Greek manual on church order from early third-century Syria; the Didache, a Greek church order from the early second century; Hipollytus of Rome's Concerning Spiritual Gifts (now lost) and Apostolic Tradition from the early third century. Its familiarity with the worship patterns of Antioch (Syria) and its internal references and sources seem to place its origins in Syria about 380. The language with

APOSTOLIC DECREES

47

which it talks about Christ indicates that its compiler was not a strictly orthodox Christian but a moderate Arian (the difference then was not as clear as it later became) who nonetheless had no concern in this document to evangelize for or against any particular Christian positions.

Although its original title was "The Ordinances of the Holy Apostles Through Clement," there seems never to have been any inclination to accept the work as being authentically apostolic in origin. In the West, where the Roman church predominated, only the first 50 Apostolic Canons, which are found in VIII 47, were generally accepted as binding. The rest of the work, including the other 35 canons, varied in authority according to time and place. The canons themselves were taken from the Constitutions and the canons of councils at Antioch (341) and Laodicea (363). The last of the canons lists the biblical books accepted as canonical in the church of the 380s. It excludes Revelation but includes the Apostolic Constitutions and the two letters traditionally called the Epistles of Clement to the Corinthians.

The Constitutions is not an orderly book, but there is some coherence to each of its eight books (we would call them chapters). Book I is for the laity and is especially concerned to warn them about the kinds of association with pagans that would destroy their ethical sensitivities. Book II is for the clergy and presents the qualities of character, the prerogatives, and the duties belonging to each of the orders of clergy: bishops, presybters, and deacons. It also treats the question of penitential discipline. Book III considers widows and their special office in the church. A consideration of their limitations carries the author-compiler to a concern for the duties of deacons. And he also puts a small treatise on baptism in this book. Book IV talks about the Christian's concern for charitable works, especially for such persons as orphans. Book V moves from a discussion of the Christian's responsibility toward those suffering persecution to discussions of martyrdom and idolatry. Book VI offers a history of earlier schisms and heresies.

From the perspective of influence in the later church, Books VII and VIII are most important. Book VII, which has 49 chapters, is a manual on church order. Chapters 1—32, which are based on the Didache, talk of baptism and the Lord's Supper and of such practices as fasting; 33—38 is a collection of prayers of Jewish origin; 39—45 present the rites of baptism and a prototype of confirmation as they were practiced in Antioch;

46—49 are also liturgical materials. Book VIII, in 47 chapters, interweaves several concerns, including several liturgies and a section on the duties of various persons (16—46). The so-called Liturgy of St. Clement, for the consecration of a bishop, is especially valuable as it contains a complete Eucharistic service. It is in chaper 47 that one finds the Apostolic Canons as has been mentioned.

The Apostolic Constitutions and Canons were exceptionally important in the early and medieval church as guides to understanding the nature of the church and its worship.

See apostolic fathers.

For Further Reading: Witteick, A History of Christian Thought, 44-56; Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament.

Paul M. Bassett

APOSTOLIC DECREES. Apostolic refers to something traceable to the apostles. Decrees are resolutions proposed by the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem about a.d. 50 (Acts 15).

The Jerusalem Council convened to decide a critical issue that had arisen in connection with the spread of the gospel to the Gentiles and which threatened to divide the Early Church. The issue was: Shall Gentiles who convert to the Christian faith be required to accept the ritual for Gentile proselytes to the Jewish faith, especially circumcision? After debating pro and con, the council decided with Paul that salvation was by faith, not by works of the law such as circumcision.

Having settled this crucial theological issue, however, there remained a practical issue of table fellowship between Jewish and Gentile believers. It was difficult for a first-century Jew, even a Christian Jew, to eat at the same table with a Gentile, even a Christian Gentile. This difficulty was compounded if the Gentiles ate food which was abhorred by Jews. The council recommended, therefore, that Gentile Christians abstain from food and practices obnoxious to the Jews (Acts 15:20, 29).

There were four apostolic decrees according to the ancient Alexandrian text. The Gentiles were asked to abstain from (1) things associated with idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; and (4) blood. The later Western text omits "what is strangled" and regards the prohibitions as referring to the three cardinal sins: (1) idolatry; (2) fornication; and (3) murder. The Alexandrian text commands the strongest evidence and is preferred by most translations (cf. Acts 15:20).

48

APOSTOLIC FATHERS—APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

See circumcision, judaistic controversy, freedom, law and grace.

For Further Reading: Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text; Bruce, The Book of Acts, The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Mounce, "Apostolic Decree," Baker's DT, 59-60.

J. Wesley Adams

APOSTOLIC FATHERS. The title Apostolic Fathers is given to a group of second-generation Christian writers who are believed to be (and in many cases were) immediate followers of the original 12 apostles and whose theology is in harmony with those original apostles. The adjective "apostolic" is applied therefore, either to the fact that they were disciples of the apostles, or that their theology is orthodox.

Strictly speaking, the name can be given to only three (or perhaps four) personalities in the Early Church: Ignatius (c. a.d. 35-107), bishop of the church in Antioch in Syria, and author of six letters to churches in Asia Minor and one to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna; Polycarp himself (c. a.d. 69-155), bishop of Smyrna and author of an epistle to the church at Philippi; and Clement, bishop of Rome (flourished around a.d. 95), who wrote a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of the Roman community. There are also fragments of the writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, extant, but they do not give us a great deal of information regarding the personality of their author.

Other writings which are included among the Apostolic Fathers while, in many cases bearing the names of well-known personalities in the Church, are, in fact, anonymous. These writings are: the epistle of Barnabas; the "second" epistle of Clement; the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (known as the Didache); the Shepherd of Her-mas; and the epistle of Diognetus. All of these writings are dated between the end of the first and the beginning of the second centuries a.d. and are extremely important sources of information on the expansion and inner development of Christianity in the period immediately prior to the earliest Christian historians and apologists.

In four areas the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are of particular value for the student of Christian origins:

1. In the first place they give crucial information on the status of the writings which were later collected to form the NT. They are the only link we possess between the autographs and the church's canon. Rarely do the Fathers quote the NT as such; but their allusions are a tantalizing challenge to the scholar in reconstructing the way to the canon of the NT, and demonstrate that the idea, if not the fact, of a canon was already in existence.

2. 
   The second area of importance is the development of the idea of the Christian ministry and church government. This is particularly true of the epistles of Ignatius with their strong promotion of the office of the bishop. We must be careful, however, not to seek in Ignatius early evidence for the later episcopal system. For Ignatius, the bishop has an exclusively local function and is therefore equivalent to a modern pastor. (Interestingly, in his epistle to the Romans he makes no mention of a bishop there!) There is not the slightest hint of a bishop standing in succession to an apostle, nor are there any sacerdotal functions associated with the office.
   
3. 
   The fathers are also a valuable source of information on the developing liturgical practice of the Church. In the Didache, for example, information is given of the practice of baptism ("In running water ... and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then in warm" [Did. 7.2]) and of celebrating the Lord's Supper ('Let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving except those who have been baptized" [Did. 9.5]).
   
4. 
   Finally, the fathers are a valuable source for the study of the Christian understanding of the OT. The writer of the epistle of Barnabas has left us with one of the most valuable examples of a thoroughgoing Christian typological understanding of the OT. The OT is ransacked for "types" of events of the Christian era, and the claim is made that this Christianized reinterpretation is nothing less than the divine intention in the OT record. His interpretations are at once a fascinating and fantastic insight into the Christian use of the OT.
   

See apostolic succession, canon, antioch

(school of), allegorical interpretation.

For Further Reading: Lightfoot and Harmer, The

Apostolic Fathers. THOMAS FlNDLAY

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. Apostolic Succession is the dogma of the Catholic church by which it teaches that the mission and the sacred power to teach and rule that Christ conferred to His apostles are perpetuated in the church's college of bishops. Although the Catholic church recognizes the uniquenes of the role that the apostles had as eyewitnesses, and of having been personally chosen and sent by Christ to proclaim the kingdom of God and lay the foundation of the church, it believes that the apostles had successors in their pastoral mission, to whom their unique authority as overseers was transmitted. This doctrine has ecclesiastical but not scrip-


ARIANISM—ARK OF THE COVENANT

49

tural authority. Nowhere in the NT are found any words of Christ or the apostles teaching the doctrine of apostolic succession.

There is no clear evidence of the early development of the tradition of apostolic succession. It was not until the fifth century that historians began to trace a chain of Roman popes back to Peter. From this time on, the church claimed its bishops as the successors of the apostles. It was on the basis of this tradition that the Councils of Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II declared the bishops to have by divine right special apostolic authority. Vatican II further explained that it is the episcopal college that succeeds to the apostolic college; individual bishops, therefore, share in the apostolic succession by their membership in the episcopal body.

Protestants have had no problem in accepting the perpetuity of the apostolic office. In every generation God has raised up ministers and messengers who fulfilled the Great Commission in the apostolic spirit and in the power of the Holy Spirit, but not pretending to the special authority invested in the original Twelve. What Protestantism rejects is the doctrine which invalidates the ordination of men whose ordination is not by hands authorized by bishops in an approved Roman line of succession, as if the stream of power and authority flowed through this narrow stream and no other.

See church government, apostle, clergy, ordain (ordination).

For Further Reading: Brown, Apostolical Succession in the Light of History and Fact; Enrardt, The Apostolic Succession in the First Ttvo Centuries of the Church; Ralston, Elements of Divinity, 866-71. ISMAEL E. AMAYA

ARIANISM. This is the anti-Trinitarianism of Ar-ius, which held that Christ was not eternal; that He was made "out of nothing"; that His substance or nature was not the same as that of the Father, but quite different, a lower kind of nature—neither divine nor human, but a third kind, in between deity and humanity.

Arius, a presbyter at Alexandria, conflicted with his bishop in about a.d. 318 over this kind of teaching, and the first Ecumenical Council was convened in a.d. 325 at Nicea to discuss the matter. Bishops numbering 318, from both the East and the West, came together, and Emperor Constantine presided. They voted overwhelmingly against the Arian view—there being only about 20 bishops in all who were either Arian (saying Christ's nature was unlike that of the Father), or in agreement with Eusebius, who said

Christ's nature was like that of the Father (homoi-ousios).

Since the view voted as orthodox, that Christ's nature was the same as that of the Father, homo-ousios (without the i), Historian Gibbon later made light of the matter by saying that it was a huge squabble merely over a diphthong. Yet most historians of doctrine would agree that it was indeed a gravely significant issue. Not only was it significant because the orthodox teaching came to be that Christ was fully divine instead of less than divine, but because, of all the Chris-tological heresies, Arianism came to be believed the most widely and the most persistently in the West. Sometimes, during the 50 years after Nicea, it was Athanasius who was sent into exile, while Arianism was given status. And still later, many peoples, especially among the barbarians who helped to make up the Roman Empire, were Arian. Besides, it has been revived in modern times in Socinianism and Unitarianism.

See unitarianism, socinianism, athanasian creed, christology, hypostasis.

For Further Reading: Athanasius, "Discourse I Against the Arians," A Library of Fathers of the Catholic Church, vol. 18; Leith, Creeds of the Churches; MacGre-gor, The Nicene Creed; Orr, The Progress of Dogma.

J. Kenneth Grider

ARK OF THE COVENANT. The central object of the Tabernacle was the ark of the covenant, sometimes referred to as the "ark of the testimony," "ark of God," and "ark of the Lord." The phrase "ark of the covenant" implies two theological truths relating to law and grace. Law may be seen in the contents of the chest, while grace can be seen in its lid called the "mercy seat," a pure gold cover (Exod. 25:17) surrounded by two antithetically-placed cherubim with outspread wings. These heavenly figures were not detached but were sculptured into the pure gold mercy seat itself.

As is usually the case in biblical presentations, God gave Moses very specific instructions as to how to construct the ark with a somewhat limited explanation as to its purpose. At a later date when the ark was pressed into the religious service of the nation, its purpose would become clear (Num. 10:33-36). The Bible's minimal use of explanation and maximal use of affirmation (and command) is in deference to man's freedom to choose. True choice implies man's ability to make decisions while not fully understanding why. Were it not for this specific biblical procedure, decision making would require very little faith.

God's precise instruction was to make a rectan


50

ARMAGEDDON

gular box of acacia wood measuring 2V-2 by IV2 by 1V2 cubits (i.e., 3³A by 2V4 by 2^]A feet), covered both inside and outside with gold, to be carried (when the camp moved) on poles inserted in rings located at the four lower corners. Bezaleel made the ark at Sinai according to God's exact instruction to Moses. Upon completion it became the receptacle for the two tablets of the Decalogue (Exod. 25:16, 21; 40:20; Deut. 10:1-5): and Heb. 9:4-5 indicates that it contained also the golden pot of manna (Exod. 16:33-34), and Aaron's rod which budded (Num. 17:10). Its especially designated place was in the holy of holies.

When the moment arrived for the congregation to leave Sinai, the ark of the covenant "went before them" (Num. 10:33). It played a significant role at the crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3—4) and the fall of Jericho (chap. 6); but it was to be carried into battle only with God's specific command. Years later when it was carried into battle against the Philistines without God's orders (1 Sam. 4:3-4), tragedy occurred and the ark was captured. The ark was permanently deposited at Shiloh by Joshua and still resided there at the close of the period of the judges (1 Sam. 1:9; 3:3).

It was God's obvious intention that the ark should symbolize His very presence in the midst of Israel. The people readily grasped this meaning from their early experience at Sinai and never deviated from it. Although many times they fell into idolatry, the ark was never idolized. The Decalogue gave them guidance for the development of interpersonal, divine-personal, and social relationships as they evolved into a unified nation. It taught them that without law there can be neither personal nor interpersonal stability. Aaron's rod was a constant reminder that God demands accountability to His elected leadership and to himself. The golden pot of manna perpetuated the concept that God is the Provider of human necessities. The mercy seat with its heavenly representations helped them never to forget that mercy and forgiveness are not earthborn but heaven-sent.

In NT concepts, according to the writer to the Hebrews (6:18-20; 8:1-2; 9:8-12, 23-26), the ark of the covenant, together wtih its contents and mercy seat, prefigured the work of Christ on the Cross where He brought man to God, and God to man (the mercy seat). Power dispensed at Pentecost makes possible through the Spirit the achievement of the ethical standards of the Decalogue (Rom. 8:1-4); and in the figurative language of Revelation (2:17) the manna represents special strength made available to Christians during times of great distress.

See type (typology), temple. mosaic law, pentateuch, mercy seat, propitiation, covenant, decalogue, holy of holies.

For Further Reading: IDB, 222-26; NBD, 82; Living-

ston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, 153-62;
Talbot, Christ in the Tabernacle, 224-57; Wood, Pen-
tecostal Grace. floyd J. perkins

ARMAGEDDON. This word occurs only once in the Bible, in Rev. 16:16, and literally means the "Mount of Megiddo." Megiddo is a promontory on the south side of the plain of Jezreel, and an ancient military stronghold (Josh. 12:21; 17:11; Judg. 1:27; 5:19; 2 Kings 23:29; etc.). In the Revelation (16:16), Armageddon represents the last great battle between Christ and the Antichrist. From this biblical background, the word has become a very familiar term designating the final holocaust resulting from the struggle between good and evil.

The basic theme of the Revelation is the struggle between Christ and Antichrist. Chapter 12 pictures the struggle which is being waged behind the scenes of history. A great red dragon appears, so huge that when he wagged his tail, he swept a third of the stars from heaven. His opponent is a heavenly woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet. (She is the symbolic representation in Gal. 4:26 of the heavenly Jerusalem, our mother.) The nations of men line up on either side—on the one side the Church, symbolically portrayed as Israel, sealed by God that they may be delivered from His wrath which He is about to pour out (Rev. 7:9); and on the other the pagan nations of the earth who follow and worship the Antichrist, and who are sealed with his seal (13:16ff). Armageddon is the last great battle on the day of God the Almighty (16:14). The battle itself is not described. Christ's victory is portrayed in chapter 19, where He is pictured riding a white battle horse, with His garments stained in blood. He is accompanied by the armies of heaven who are also garbed in white, but who do not participate in the battle. The carnage wrought by Christ's victory is described in vivid terms of a battlefield covered by corpses (19:18), which many feel will be literally fulfilled. And Christ then consummates His victory by destroying first the Antichrist, then Satan himself.

See tribulation.

For Further Reading: Biederwolf, The Millennium Bi-

ble, 662. George Eldon Ladd


ARMINIANISM

51

ARMINIANISM. This refers to the kind of Protestant theology taught by James Arminius (c. 1560-1609), and by others who have agreed with him in basic ways. It stresses human freedom, but not in a Pelagian sense. It teaches predestination, but not of the unconditional sort. It emphasizes God's grace, but opposes the view that grace is irresistible. It emphasizes our being spiritually secure in Christ, but it opposes eternal security in favor of the view that believers will lose their regeneration if they cease to be believers and wilfully disobey God.

James Arminius, the ablest exponent of this kind of teaching in his time, opposed the Calvinism of his day which emphasized God's absolute sovereignty. Arminius' teacher at Calvin's school at Geneva, Calvin's son-in-law, Theodore Beza, was a supralapsarian. That is, Beza believed that even Adam's first and racially crucial sin was not free, but was unconditionally determined by God. In fact, he believed that the first decree of God, before the decree to create man, was the decree to predestinate some individuals to be saved and other individuals to be damned. Francis Gomarus, Arminius' colleague on the faculty of the University of Leiden, was also a supralapsarian. Augustine and Luther had only been sublapsarians—teaching that Adam's first sin was done freely, but that after that time, that is, after the Fall, the eternal destiny of every other person was decreed by God. And it cannot be definitely determined whether or not John Calvin himself was sublapsarian or supralapsarian.

Arminius, however, opposed both of those unconditional predestination views, giving 20 arguments against them in his Declaration of Sentiments—delivered by him before the governmental authorities at The Hague in 1608. He said that all 20 arguments boil down to this: that they make God the author of sin.

In that treatise, Arminius presents his own understanding of what he calls the divine decrees. He says that (1) the first decree was to send Christ to redeem sinful people; (2) the second decree was to receive into favor the ones who would repent and believe; (3) the third decree was to grant prevenient grace to help people to repent and believe; and (4) the fourth decree was to save and damn individuals according to His foreknowledge of the way in which they would freely respond to or reject the offer of grace through Christ.

It is important to note that Arminius, there-1 fore, did believe that some individuals are predestinated to be damned, before they are ever

born—but that this is based solely on God's fore- \ knowledge of the way individuals will freely de-/ cide, about Christ, in their lifetime. Some Arminian evangelicals, today, disagree with Arminius as to this fourth decree. They say that God does not foreknow free acts—because that would prevent their being free. The "regular" Ar-minians, however, understand that God does foreknow free acts. They quote, in support, e.g., where Paul says, "Whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son" (Rom. 8:29, nasb). They also wonder how biblical prophecy could otherwise be fulfilled—such as that in Zechariah about Jesus' betrayal, and what would be done with the 30 pieces of silver. Surely Jesus' enemies, Judas and the ones who later received the silver, were not setting out to fulfill biblical prophecy.

One matter pointed out in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark Pinnock, is that the predestination, in Scripture, is never to heaven or to hell. Pinnock writes, "There is no predestination to salva-" tion or to damnation in the Bible. There is only a predestination for those who are already children of God with respect to certain privileges out ahead of them" (18). >

Something else pointed out in this symposium, written largely by scholars who have been widely associated with the Calvinistic position, is that classical Calvinism twists the meaning of numerous Scripture passages in order to teach that Christ died only to save some—the elect. Donald M. Lake, a professor at Wheaton College, in his chapter on "He Died for All," writes, "It is a fact that these redemptive events in the life of Jesus provided a salvation so extensive, so broad as to potentially include the whole of humanity past, present and future!" (31). He shows that while Christ had said, '"I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself" (John 12:32, rsv), John Calvin had commented, "When He says all it must be referred to the children of God, who are His flock" (Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: St, John Part Two, 11-21, and I John, 43). Lake comments, "The critical judgment remains: has Calvin been consistent with the text and its obvious meaning? Personally, I cannot help but give a negative answer to this question" (ibid., 37). According to classical Calvinism, the atonement of Christ was only efficacious for the ones God had previously predestinated to be saved. Its adherents, e.g., John Owen, have usually understood that the passages which say that Christ died for all (e.g., 2 Cor. 5:15), mean "all of the elect." Ar-minianism has always taught an unlimited atonement: that anyone at all who repents and

52

ASCENSION, THE—ASCETICISM

believes may be saved through Christ's atonement.

After 42 followers of Arminius drew up a document called the Remonstrance in 1610, which outlined their differences with the Calvinists, it was responded to by the Calvinists, and the controversy became a serious matter in the United Netherlands. Prince Maurice, who favored Calvinism, arranged for a national synod to meet at Dort; and that synod, with its official Calvinist delegates, drew up the Canons of Dort, a most official Calvinistic creed.

Arminianism was outlawed in the United Netherlands until 1623; but it never did die out in that country. Later it spread to England where it was basically espoused by John Wesley (1703-91) and the Methodists—Methodism being sometimes called "Arminianism on fire." It was through Methodism—and the Holiness movement generally—that Arminianism has been widely disseminated in America.

See canons of dort, calvinism, predestination, foreknowledge, infralapsarianism, wesleyanism.