People You’ve Probably Never Heard of But Should: Basil the Great

This must be a pretty cool cat to not only have a spice named after him but also to get away with calling himself “the Great”. Actually basil the spice doesn’t derive it’s name from this guy. And neither did he call himself great. But that name was conferred upon him later. So what him so great?

Basil lived in the mid-300’s dying on New Year’s day of 379. He is most noted for his work in fighting Arian and Apollonarian heresies. With his homeboy’s Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa (Basil’s brother) they formed a powerful trio known as the Cappadocian Fathers. While not selling a ton of their rap albums they did dispel the Trinitarian heresies of their day.

It was in west Caesarea that Basil was born and raised. In his grandma’s house is where he spent most of his days. Reading books and getting educated, when all of a sudden his life got flipped turned upside down. If you wait just a minute and sit right there I’ll tell you how Basil became known as the Great Hierarch.

It happened in 357 due to the influence of a cool cat named Eustathius of Sebaste. It appears that Basil had a profound encounter with Christ. As he would later write:

I had wasted much time on follies and spent nearly all of my youth in vain labors, and devotion to the teachings of a wisdom that God had made foolish. Suddenly, I awoke as out of a deep sleep. I beheld the wonderful light of the Gospel truth, and I recognized the nothingness of the wisdom of the princes of this world.

Basil was baptized and pursued an aesthetic life. But it held little appeal to him. Eventually he would leave and begin his own band of merry men. Eventually he became a leader in the church at Caeserea where he would eventually die in 379. Here he wrote a good amount of his extant writings.

Why You Should Know Him?

There are really two main reasons to know Basil and one somewhat secondary reason. The first concerns his monastic work. He is known as the Father of Eastern Monasticism. Though he himself was only a monk for five years his work in this area endured.

His form of monasticism seemed to be more concerned with matters of the heart. It was more concerned with “loving obedience” and had “less harsh discipline”. Basil empahsised more communal activities. In community the monks would do work (both intellectual and manual). If this sounds like the monasticism that you are familiar with there is a reason for that; Basilian monkery (if that’s a word) is the basis for most monasticism practiced in Eastern Orthodox churches even to our day. (Benedict of Nursia did something similar for the Western churches).

But why should we 21st century Protestants care about some dude establishing a monastery in the 4th century? Mainly because it was in many of these monasteries that the gospel was preserved. Basil’s emphasis on loving obedience planted significant seeds that is sprouting fruit even in our day.

Secondly, you should know Basil because of his work on Trinitarian theology. There were some that found it politically expedient to compromise with the Arians. The Cappadocian Fathers boldly refused. Who knows what history would look like if they had not refused. He also did a great amount of work on showing the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

And lastly it would do the reader good to read some of Basil’s letters. They are not only historically interesting but also occasionally devotional. Furthermore, there are some excellent quotes from Basil concerning the early churches views on things like abortion.

A Sample:

Here are but a few quotes to give you an idea of the heart and mind of Basil:

When someone steals another’s clothes, we call them a thief. Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does not? The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.

Do not measure your loss by itself; if you do, it will seem intolerable; but if you will take all human affairs into account you will find that some comfort is to be derived from them.

There is still time for endurance, time for patience, time for healing, time for change. Have you slipped? Rise up. Have you sinned? Cease. Do not stand among sinners, but leap aside.

Further Reading:

You can read all of Basil’s works and letters here.

Gregory of Nyssa’s eulogy is also instructive.

Of course you can check out the Wikipedia article here.

Michael Haykin also has a great chapter on Basil in his book Rediscovering the Church Fathers.

Covering Up What Christ Has Already Covered

“But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to  his face, because he stood condemned…” Galatians 2:11

In other words, Peter was being a hypocrite and Paul called him out on it. Not so says John Chrysostom:

Many, on a superficial reading of this part of the Epistle, suppose that Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy. But this is not so, indeed it is not, far from it; we shall discover great wisdom, both of Paul and Peter, concealed herein for the benefit of their hearers…But when some came from Jerusalem who had heard the doctrine he delivered there, he no longer did so fearing to perplex them, but he changed his course, with two objects secretly in view, both to avoid offending those Jews, and to give Paul a reasonable pretext for rebuking him.

Looks like it was just a secret plan concocted by Peter and Paul and not a true rebuke. What would motivate Chrysostom to engage in what seems like textual gymnastics to keep it from being the apostle Peter? His argument was that it couldn’t have been as it reads because Peter showed great boldness elsewhere:

He who when scourged and bound would not [shrink a bit] in his courage, and this at the beginning of his mission, and in the heart of the chief city where there was so much danger—how could he, long afterwards in Antioch, where no danger was at hand, and his character had received lustre from the testimony of his actions, feel any apprehension of the believing Jews?

It’s unthinkable to Chrysostom that Peter could have engaged in such hypocrisy. But isn’t that Paul’s point? Why the rush to defend Peter and come up with an intricate behind the scenes plan that is no where evident in the text?

Do We Do This Today?

I laughed at Chrysostom for a couple of minutes. Then I started to see myself in him. I find myself wanting to quickly come to the defense of some of the leaders that I greatly respect. Yes, even if they something stupid and wrong or do something hypocritical. When someone “opposes” one of the dudes that I look up to my first tendency is to come to their defense.

I actually think that is a good thing. It would be much better if our first response was to defend brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet this first instinct can quickly morph into something unhealthy. When Peter is wrong, he is wrong. No need to defend his hypocrisy or make up an imaginary scenario. To do so is verging on adopting a Corinthians mindset (“I follow Paul”, “I follow Cephas”). Peter’s identity—as is ours—is firmly wrapped up in Christ. He was being a hypocrite on this point. The gospel is big enough to cover that.

Let’s thank God that the blood of Jesus not only covers us but also the leaders that we revere. When they do something silly we don’t have to dismiss everything they have ever done or no longer respect them. We aren’t encouraged to tear 1 and 2 Peter out of our Bibles just because he was a hypocrite on this occasion. In the same way we hold our leaders in their proper place as dim reflectors of the splendor of Christ.

There is no need to spend our time trying to play cover up for sins that Christ has already covered. Let’s let the gospel rebuke our leaders. But let’s also be quick to remember that the gospel that rebukes is also the gospel that covers them. 

Why I Wouldn’t Want to Attend the John 3:16 Conference Even If I Weren’t Reformed


On March 21-22 the second John 3:16 Conference will be held. The purpose of this conference will be to inform local churches of the viewpoints of New Calvinism. It is to be part of the continued discussion on the Calvinist Resurgence within the SBC and broader evangelicalism. Those speaking will defend a non-Calvinistic (or a self-dubbed Tradiontalist viewpoint).

They will be discussing topics like limited atonement, inherited guilt, regeneration and faith, historical views of salvation, election, and the sinners prayer among other things. It looks like it could be an interesting conference. And I appreciate that Jerry Vines’ intention is that all the speakers be “irenic in tone, theologically well versed and evangelistic and missions minded.” Yet…

I have no desire to attend

And that has nothing to do with the fact that I am Calvinistic. I’m not up in arms that these men will be promoting a theology that is not my own. In fact if this were a conference led by Calvinists that had the same topics I would also not have a burning desire to attend. Why? I’m very similar to John Newton in that I like my Calvinism as I do my sugar:

‘I am more of a Calvinist than anything else; but I use my Calvinism in my writings and my preaching as I use this sugar’—taking a lump, and putting it into his tea-cup, and stirring it, adding, ‘I do not give it alone, and whole; but mixed and diluted.’

Conferences like this hold very little appeal to me because I think they are largely distracting. And if I had any counsel to give to the non-Calvinists among us I would say that it would be to their benefit to make their non-Calvinism like their sugar.

If your position is true then proclaim it as truth and stop spending so much time battling this New Calvinism. If it’s of the Lord then you’re battling Him. If it’s not of the Lord then it’ll eventually die and fizzle. Just keep proclaiming the truth as faithfully as you can. God’s is faithful to His gospel and He’ll lead His church into all truth.

Honestly I think this is part of the reason why Calvinism has seen a resurgence…

T4G

Fundamentally, I would argue that Calvinism is surging for God-ordained reasons. But even if you don’t care to agree with that, consider with me the practical reasons. You have to admit that there is a great movement among younger generations to focus on Christ and His gospel and not be tied down by a ton of controversy. I believe that is part of the appeal of Together for the Gospel for my generation.

Look at the 2006 conference. Yes, all the speakers were Calvinists. But that’s not the driving force in the conference. That year it was preaching. Their Calvinism was used like sugar; mixed and diluted. In 2008 the only message that was overtly Calvinistic was John MacArthur’s on the doctrine of absolute inability.

2010 and 2012 were the two that I have been able to attend. And I left those conferences without one thought about Calvinism. I left those conferences reinvigorated with a love for Jesus and a new drive to engage in Christ-honoring ministry. Why? Because though all the speakers are Calvinists and their Calvinism shapes everything it is “mixed and diluted”**.

And this is the way it ought to be. That’s why when I hear conferences like T4G being advertised I get excited and hope that I can attend. Sure it makes me comfortable knowing that these guys largely have the same theological leanings that I do. But at the end of the day what really drives me is a passion to see Jesus Christ the only boast of this generation.

This is also why I wouldn’t attend the John 3:16 Conference even if I weren’t Reformed. I’d likely stay away from a John 6:44 Conference as well. For me it depends on what the driving force is behind the conference. If it’s a get together to discuss theology and you hope that everybody leaves being informed about New Calvinism, Old Calvinism, Good Calvinism, Bad Calvinism, Ugly Calvinism, or anything of the sort I’ll stay home. As much as I like to discuss theology, I’ll save my limited conference money to go to some place where I’m going to walk away enthralled by the risen Savior.

I want to attend a conference whose aim is in some fashion to enjoy God and extend His glory.

—-

**Now those with an idea that we Calvinists are involved in some sort of vast conspiracy will turn that “mixed and diluted” phrase and say that they are hiding their Calvinism and that people are swallowing errant theology without even knowing it. I guess theoretically that could be what is happening. But as one being shaped by the Spirit’s use of this movement I believe it is something much different. These men aren’t obsessed with Calvinism. They are Calvinists and yes it impacts the way they see everything, but it’s not the driving force behind these conferences.