Why Do We Need Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Why do we need Creeds, Confessions and Catechisms? by Jacob Gerber _ original source: https://jacobgerber.org/why-do-we-need-creeds-confessions-and-catechisms/

By the grace of God, I grew up in churches that loved the Bible. I have vivid memories of hearing God’s word read, sung, and preached every week. I memorized a good portion of the Bible through AWANA. I still remember specific things I learned about the Bible in Vacation Bible School and Sunday School lessons. In high school, I was introduced to a regular Bible reading plan that I have used since 2000.

I cannot understate the importance of that biblical foundation. I would not be the man I am today without such regular, faithful, careful exposure to God’s word. Upon that foundation laid by my parents and the leaders in my churches, my love for the Bible has continued to grow to this day.

Biblical and Confessional Presbyterianism

In college, though, I met a group of Christians who loved the Bible as much as I did, but with an important difference. Where I had exclusively focused on the Bible, they made use of a specific set of tools from their tradition to assist their study of the Bible: the Westminster Standards, including the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

At first, this emphasis on man-made creeds and confessions troubled me. Wasn’t this precisely the sort of thing Jesus condemned when he warned us not to make void the word of God for the sake of human tradition (Matt. 15:1–9)? Haven’t Protestants pointed out time and again the Roman Catholics errors that have arisen from adding tradition to the word of God?

Eventually, I came to see the crucial difference. Roman Catholics cite their alleged oral tradition as an additional source of revelation beyond the written word of God. The tradition of Confessional Protestants (including the Westminster Standards for Presbyterians) limits itself simply to confessing and teaching what we believe the written word of God teaches.

The best creeds, confessions, and catechisms, then, do not add new information to supplement the Bible. Instead, they only seek to clarify what the Bible teaches. That is, they drive us back to the Bible, instead of beyond the Bible.

The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice (WCF 31.3). Our creeds, confessions, and catechisms are only secondary and subsidiary to the Bible. Thus, we do not put our confessional statements on the same level with the Bible; however, we hold to our confessional statements because we believe that they are thoroughly biblical.

Why Do We Need Creeds, Confessions, and Catechisms?

In this article, then, I want to offer nine reasons why Christians should use creeds, confessions, and catechisms. For a more in-depth discussion, I warmly commend Samuel Miller’s classic work, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions. Much of what I am writing here is drawn from Miller’s work.

1. Confession

To begin, we must recognize that the Bible commands us to confess our faith. As Miller observes, this means more than merely reading the Bible, but actually confessing the doctrines of the Bible in summary form. Creeds and confessions, then, do not violate the Scriptures. Rather, it is impossible to obey the Bible without using creeds and confessions!

Indeed, the Bible says that confessing certain doctrines is necessary for our salvation: that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 2:23; 4:15), that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (1 John 4:2), and that Jesus Christ is Lord (Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11).

Therefore, “let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful” (Heb. 10:23).

2. Clarity

Creeds and confessions give us clarity about what the Bible teaches. All Christians affirm that they believe the Bible in some sense, but Christians hold vastly different beliefs about what the Bible teaches.

A creed or confessional statement gives clear affirmations of what a church believes, and equally clear denials of what that church does not believe. Without this clarity, it is all too easy to sneak false teaching into the church, or to fail to give people the full counsel of God from the Scriptures.

3. Circumspection

Creeds and confessional statements help us to think about our beliefs carefully. Creeds and confessions are not written quickly, but through careful biblical exegesis, extended deliberation, and precise sharpening of language.

In an ongoing way, creeds and confessions help the church to give definition to our faith. Every individual Christian does not need to build his or her theology from scratch. Instead, believers can lean on the creeds and confessions of the church to add nuance, distinctions, and precision to their theology.

4. Catechesis

The creeds, confessions, and catechisms of the church form the core curriculum for teaching Christians the faith. Catechesis is a word that simply means teaching. Catechisms, however, are usually a specific format of teaching through questions and answers.

Children learn catechisms at an age where memorization is easy. Later in life, when young people ask lots of questions to work out their personal beliefs, catechisms help provide answers to their difficult questions. Then, as adults, high quality catechisms offer ongoing theological enrichment to continue growing deeper in the faith.

As a Presbyterian, I am grateful not only to have the Westminster Confession of Faith, but also for the Larger and Shorter Catechisms that come along with it. Each bears witness to the same biblical truth, but from different perspectives, and for different purposes.

5. Confirmation

Creeds and confessions help to confirm that other believers, pastors, and churches do indeed hold to the same faith. Miller gives the example of the ancient heretic Arius, who professed to believe all that the Scriptures teach about God the Son (Creeds and Confessions, p. 32–35).

The problem, of course, was that Arius twisted the meanings of those words to fit his theology. He understood that the Son was a created being who was not infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth (WSC 4). Thus, while he professed to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, he did not actually believe that Jesus was God.

The only way to evaluate and confirm what Arius really did or did not believe, then, was with a creed. While Arius could profess to believe the words of the Bible, he could not agree with the creed that defined how the Bible was using those words. The Nicene Creed did not go beyond the Bible, but simply clarified what the Bible teaches about the full divinity of the Son. In this way, Arius’s theology was exposed and rejected as heresy.

6. Consistency

Creeds and confessions offer consistency in the church. From church to church, creeds and confessions provide consistency in a shared doctrinal understanding. Congregations know where their leaders stand on important topics and issues.

Even from week to week, creeds and confessions make sure that pastors do not preach wildly different messages as they preach from different biblical passages. Because creeds and confessions carefully work through all the biblical material, they give nuance, depth, and boundaries that help avoid saying too much or too little from any particular passage of the Bible.

7. Concord

This high level of consistency allows for churches with the same confessional beliefs to enjoy true unity together. Two cannot really walk together unless they agree (Amos 3:3). Christians of divided mind may experience surface level agreement for a time, but only until deeper issues surface.

The Lutherans actually call their own confessional documents the Book of Concord—that is, the book of peaceful agreement. Creeds and confessions bring concord to a church.

8. Conscience

Creeds and confessions protect the consciences of both leaders and general members of a church. No one should be forced to join a particular church, and people should only join churches where they sufficiently agree with the doctrine.

How, though, can a Christian come to know everything that a church believes before joining? A thorough investigative process, from scratch, would take years. Should anyone really wait so long before joining a church?

Creeds and confessions, then, serve to protect the consciences of the church’s membership. By making a church’s confession clear and open, that church cannot bait-and-switch her members with surprises down the road that would violate someone’s conscience.

9. Correction

Creeds and confessions help with biblical, godly correction. When someone begins exploring bad theology, established creeds and confessions help to bring that person back to sound, healthy doctrine.

No, creeds and confessions cannot answer every question in advance. Good creeds and confessions, however, often help to navigate exactly what the Bible teaches on a matter. As such, they are cool, dispassionate resources in the midst of heated doctrinal disputes.

Conclusion

Creeds, confessions, and catechisms, then, are vital for upholding, teaching, defending, and maintaining the word of God. Without them, we are more easily distracted, deceived, and defeated in the faith once-for-all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

May we all grow increasingly into the mind of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the full counsel of God’s word. May our creeds, confessions, and catechisms be the unshakable foundation—although never the final word—of our doctrine.

Remember the word of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “[13] Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. [14] By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you” (2 Tim. 1:13–14).

Let us follow the sound words of the creeds, confessions, and catechisms handed down to us by our forefathers, insofar as they faithfully expound the good deposit given to us in the Scriptures.

Before you convert to Roman Catholicism

Posted on by
Reply

Repost from 8/9/2011

Roman Catholicism has a gospel that does not give peace, because it fundamentally violates the Scriptural teaching on how one is made right with God. Rome has a false gospel that cannot save, hence, I have no reason to abandon the peace I have with God through Christ’s perfect atonement for the treadmill of Rome’s sacramental system of salvation… the person who has embraced the gospel of grace has not only landed his boat on the far side [of the Tiber River], but has torn the boat apart to use the wood as a pulpit from which to proclaim freedom in Christ to those trapped on the other shore. – Dr. James White

At his blog at www.aomin.org, Dr. White also writes:

Last week I received the following e-mail, and I felt it would be best to share my response here on the blog.

Dear Mr. White, For someone considering converting to Catholicism, what questions would you put to them in order to discern whether or not they have examined their situation sufficiently? Say, a Top 10 list. Thanks.

TOP TEN LIST
When I posted this question in our chat channel a number of folks commented that it was in fact a great question, and we started to throw out some possible answers. Here is my “Top Ten List” in response to this fine inquiry.

10. Have you listened to both sides? That is, have you done more than read Rome Sweet Home and listen to a few emotion-tugging conversion stories? Have you actually taken the time to find sound, serious responses to Rome’s claims, those offered by writers ever since the Reformation, such as Goode, Whitaker, Salmon, and modern writers? I specifically exclude from this list anything by Jack Chick and Dave Hunt.

9. Have you read an objective history of the early church? I refer to one that would explain the great diversity of viewpoints to be found in the writings of the first centuries, and that accurately explains the controversies, struggles, successes and failures of those early believers?

8. Have you looked carefully at the claims of Rome in a historical light, specifically, have you examined her claims regarding the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers, and all the evidence that exists that stands contrary not only to the universal claims of the Papacy but especially to the concept of Papal Infallibility? How do you explain, consistently, the history of the early church in light of modern claims made by Rome? How do you explain such things as the Pornocracy and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church without assuming the truthfulness of the very system you are embracing?

7. Have you applied the same standards to the testing of Rome’s ultimate claims of authority that Roman Catholic apologists use to attack sola scriptura? How do you explain the fact that Rome’s answers to her own objections are circular? For example, if she claims you need the Church to establish an infallible canon, how does that actually answer the question, since you now have to ask how Rome comes to have this infallible knowledge. Or if it is argued that sola scriptura produces anarchy, why doesn’t Rome’s magisterium produce unanimity and harmony? And if someone claims there are 33,000 denominations due to sola scriptura, since that outrageous number has been debunked repeatedly (see Eric Svendsen’s Upon This Slippery Rock for full documentation), have you asked them why they are so dishonest and sloppy with their research?

6. Have you read the Papal Syllabus of Errors and Indulgentiarum Doctrina? Can anyone read the description of grace found in the latter document and pretend for even a moment that is the doctrine of grace Paul taught to the Romans?

5. Have you seriously considered the ramifications of Rome’s doctrine of sin, forgiveness, eternal and temporal punishments, purgatory, the treasury of merit, transubstantiation, sacramental priesthood, and indulgences? Have you seriously worked through compelling and relevant biblical texts like Ephesians 2, Romans 3-5, Galatians 1-2, Hebrews 7-10 and all of John 6, in light of Roman teaching?

Continue reading →

Objections to Church Discipline

Posted on by
Reply

Article: 7 Well-Meaning Objections to Church Discipline — And How Pastors Ought to Respond to Them by  Caleb Greggsen, Sam Emadi (original source: https://www.9marks.org/article/7-well-meaning-objections-to-church-discipline-and-how-pastors-ought-to-respond-to-them/ )

“You preached those sermons on church membership and discipline point by point through the Bible . . . and I hated it!”

The chairman of the deacons at North Possum Baptist Church (fake name) spoke those words to a former pastor of mine (Sam). He’d just finished a series of sermons on the doctrine of the church. The most astounding and, frankly, disturbing thing about this opposition to membership and discipline was his acknowledgement that these doctrines were, in fact, plainly taught in Scripture.

Over the years we’ve encountered dozens of people in churches who have opposed the concept of discipline—grimacing, scowling, or bristling at the bare mention of the word. But we “9Marks guys” need to beware that we don’t assume everyone who winces at the mention of discipline is opposed to Scripture and bent on corrupting the church. Not everyone who opposes discipline does so with such brazen disregard for Scripture, as the deacon chairman did above. In fact, as we reflect on the church contexts where we’ve served, many wonderful, godly Christians have opposed discipline (at least initially) for understandable, albeit uninformed, unbiblical, and misguided reasons. They’re opponents, but not wolves. They’re simply sheep who have sadly endured decades of bad shepherding.

To that end, pastors must introduce discipline to a church slowly and wisely, enabling its members over time to exercise this authority faithfully. Merely teaching about discipline is not enough. They must also teach the doctrines that provide the gospel framework to support church discipline: conversion, holiness, repentance, membership, discipleship, and love.

Again, not everyone who opposes discipline does so with nefarious motives. Many are simply confused sheep with well-meaning but misguided theological principles.

Below we want briefly consider some of the “good-faith” objections to discipline we’ve encountered and how we try to help church members understand the theological principles undergirding discipline.

1. “Pastor, we can’t judge someone’s heart, so how could we possibly say someone is not a Christian?”

Of course it’s true that no one has infallible knowledge of another person’s heart. At the same time, we need to qualify that statement a bit. Jesus indicates that we wear our heart on our sleeve, speaking and acting according to what’s inside (Matt. 12:34; 15:10­–20). We can’t know someone’s heart but actions and words typically reveal the state of someone’s heart. As Jesus said, good trees produce good fruit and bad trees produce bad fruit (Matt 7:17).

2. “Jesus never turned anyone away.”

True, Jesus never turned away a repentant sinner. But Jesus did drive out money changers from the temple and didn’t stop the rich young ruler from walking away. Besides, the clearest teaching on church discipline comes from the Lord Jesus himself (Matt. 18:15–20).

Furthermore, discipline is not “turning someone away.” The church never turns away a repentant sinner seeking grace and forgiveness. The church only disciplines the obstinately sinful—those who are unwilling to repent of their sins while professing the name of Christ. Discipline is not turning people away who want Jesus, but identifying those who want sin more than they want Jesus.

3. “Nobody’s perfect. People make mistakes.”

Church discipline doesn’t mean we demand an extra measure of holiness or that churches that practice discipline are out to “get” the ordinary, struggling Christian. No one should ever get disciplined for not living up to some standard of super holiness. The only requirement to remain in the covenant community is that you daily respond to the gospel with faith and repentance. Nobody gets excommunicated for sin, per se. Rather, the church enacts discipline for unrepentant sin.

4. “But they won’t hear the gospel if they’re not in church.”

Discipline doesn’t require barring the disciplined from corporate worship or other gatherings of the church. Of course we want lost people (including unrepentant sinners who claim to be Christians) to hear the preaching of the Word and experience the corporate witness of the gathering. But we want them to know, if they’re unrepentant, that they observe the fellowship of the church from the border, not the center.

Most disciplined folks will not choose to continue attending church, at least initially. But how much good was their attendance doing before being disciplined if they’re self-deceived about their standing with God?

Moreover, many Christians view the church building as the only place the lost can legitimately receive salvation—as if the gospel is a product you can only get at certain stores. In response, pastors should teach their people a biblical doctrine of conversion and remind them that people come to faith as they encounter the gospel around water coolers, during backyard cookouts, and in innumerable other contexts as Christians faithfully carry out the Great Commission.

5. “I’ve never heard of this before!”

Sometimes Christians are suspicious of new ideas because they don’t like change—especially if it disrupts their comfort. But it’s also the case that many Christians are (rightly) skeptical of novel ministry trends because they feel put off by the many pastors they’ve witnessed parade through their church claiming to have the “silver bullet” for ministry.

When discipline is seen as a new tactic, even your best members will be suspicious of it. For that reason, pastors should make every effort to show how church discipline is rooted in the explicit teachings of Scripture. Church history is also particularly helpful on this point. As your members learn that Christians before their grandparents also practiced church discipline, they’ll see that this isn’t just the latest pastor-fad, but a matter of biblical fidelity.

6. “If we practice discipline, it will hurt the church’s reputation.”

Scripture indicates that we should maintain a healthy sensitivity to how outsiders perceive our congregations (cf. 1 Cor. 14:16, 24; 1 Tim. 3:7). But we should never allow that sensitivity to slide over into a fearfulness that prevents us from obeying Jesus.

Some folks in our congregations may fear that practicing discipline will communicate to outsiders that our church is harsh or judgmental. But we must remind people that discipline is actually God’s way of maintaining the church’s credibility in a lost community. Jesus’ reputation is bound up with his church. If we tolerate sins even unbelievers find scandalous, we compromise our witness to the gospel’s power to transform lives.

7. “We never did this in better days, when our church was bigger.”

Pastors, especially new ones, need to understand their congregation’s history—particularly the history that still lives in the memory of older members. I (Sam) served in a church where many of the members longed for the “glory days” of the 1970s and 80s, when the church was large and the ministry programs were brimming with activity. In those halcyon days, the church never discussed membership, wouldn’t have dreamed of discipline, and prioritized catering their services to unbelievers. Discipline represented the opposite of every ministry intuition cultivated during the “best” days of the church.

In retrospect, I see that many members were motivated by a desire to see the church once again produce that kind of fruit (or at least what looked like fruit). For many, discipline represented a practice that placed the church in direct opposition to the “fruitful ministry” it had known in the past. As a result, people disliked discipline not because it seemed unloving or unbiblical; they disliked it because it’s simply not what the church did when it was bigger, more fruitful, more influential. They’d become well-catechized in the belief that bigger is always better.

In response, pastors should patiently teach their people to trust that God’s ways are better than ours, even if they seem counterintuitive. Second, pastors should teach their people to celebrate the fruit of faith in Christ and holy lives, not a church brimming with ministry programs. After all, on the last day, many will ask, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and run counseling centers in your name, and host VBS in your name?”

Of course, counseling centers and Vacation Bible Schools are good things, but they aren’t a sure sign of the Spirit’s work. If our baptism numbers and ministry programs today don’t translate to accepted servants on thatday, then what good are they? Pastors aren’t the only ones who need constant reminding that success in ministry is a matter of faithfulness and patience, not bigger budgets and packed pews. Care for your flock by teaching them that gospel growth and God’s blessing depend on faithfulness. And teach them that part of holding the gospel faithfully is helping others hold fast as well.

Chalcedon

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Truly God, Truly Man: The Council of Chalcedon by Nicholas Needham

Original source: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/truly-god-truly-man-council-chalcedon/

It’s hard enough to pronounce “Chalcedon.” Getting to grips with its theology can be even more daunting. But the effort will be very richly rewarded. For the past 1,500 years, right up to the present day, virtually all orthodox Christian theologians have defined their “orthodoxy” with reference to the Council of Chalcedon. That certainly includes the Reformed tradition. We may not think that the early ecumenical councils were infallible. But we have generally held that they were gloriously right in what they affirmed, and that Christians who take the church and its history seriously must reckon with these great councils as providential landmarks in the unfolding life story of God’s people.

What was Chalcedon all about? Basically it was trying to settle the aftermath of the Arian controversy in the fourth century. Biblical theologians had struggled successfully against Arianism to affirm the deity of Christ. But this led to further controversy. This time, the issue was the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ. Two tendencies quickly became prominent. One was associated with the church in Antioch. It wanted to protect the full reality of Christ’s deity and humanity. To do this, it tended to keep them as far apart as possible. The Antiochenes were afraid that any close blending of the two natures might mix them up. Christ’s human limitations might get applied to His deity — in which case He wasn’t fully God. Or His divine attributes might get applied to His humanity — in which case He wasn’t fully human. This was fine, as far as it went. The trouble was, Antiochenes sometimes separated Christ’s two natures so much, He seemed to end up as two persons: a human son of Mary indwelt by a divine Son of God. The most famous Antiochene thinker who took this line was Nestorius, a preacher who became patriarch (chief bishop) of Constantinople in 428. Nestorius was condemned by the third ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 (it also condemned Pelagianism as heresy).

The other tendency was associated with the church of Alexandria. Their main concern was to protect the divine person of the Son as the one single “subject” of the incarnation. In other words, there is in Christ only one “I,” only one personal agent, and this is the second person of the Trinity, God the Son. And again, this was fine as far as it went. The trouble was, Alexandrians sometimes became so zealous for Christ’s divine person, they could lose sight of His humanity. To the extremists of Alexandria, any sort of emphasis on Christ’s human nature seemed to threaten the sovereignty of His single divine person. Would Christ not break apart into two persons — the hated Nestorian heresy — if one insisted too much on the full reality of His manhood?

In the aftermath of Nestorius’ condemnation at Ephesus in 431, the Alexandrians made all the running. Their greatest thinker was Cyril of Alexandria. But when Cyril died in 444, a more extreme figure stepped into his place. This was Eutyches, a leading monk in Constantinople. Eutyches was so violent in his commitment to Christ’s single divine person, he could tolerate no rivalry (as it were) from His humanity. So in an infamous phrase, Eutyches taught that in the incarnation, Christ’s human nature had been swallowed up and lost in His divinity: “like a drop of wine in the sea.” This extreme Alexandrian view triumphed at another ecumenical council in Ephesus in 449. Its victory, however, was due less to theological argument and persuasion, and due more to gangs of unruly Alexandrian monks who terrorized the proceedings, supported by the troops of emperor Theodosius II, who favored Eutyches.

The council was condemned in the western, Latin-speaking half of the Roman Empire. Pope Leo the Great thundered against it as the “Robber Synod” (and the name stuck). After the death of emperor Theodosius, a new emperor, Marcian, called a new council at Chalcedon (in Asia Minor) in 451. This time, Eutyches and the extreme Alexandrians were defeated. The council skillfully wove together all that was good and true in the Antiochene and Alexandrian outlooks, producing a theological masterpiece on the person of Christ:

So, following the holy fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; of one essence with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same of one essence with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, the same born of Mary, the virgin God-bearer, as regards his humanity.

He is one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation. At no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being. He is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

Perhaps we can best appreciate what the Council of Chalcedon achieved by asking what the consequences would have been if either Nestorius or Eutyches had won the day. Let’s take Nestorianism first. If the incarnation is really a case of a human son of Mary being indwelt by a divine Son of God, then Christ is no different in principle from any holy human. Every sanctified man is indwelt by the Son. Was Christ merely the highest example of that? If so, no true incarnation has taken place at all. We cannot say “Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.” We can only say “Jesus of Nazareth had a relationship with the Son of God.” Think of what this does to our doctrine of the atonement. We would have to say we are saved by the sufferings of a merely human Jesus who happened to be indwelt by God (as all holy people are). Would that not inevitably lead to a belief that human suffering — perhaps our own — can atone for our sins? And think of what it would do to our worship. We would not be able to worship Jesus — only the divine Son by whom Jesus was indwelt. That would destroy Christian worship entirely.

But then, think what would have happened if Eutychianism had won out. If Christ’s humanity was lost and swallowed up in His deity “like a drop of wine in the sea,” then once again, no real incarnation has taken place. Rather than God becoming man, we have man being annihilated in God. One can see how this would easily have lent itself to all manner of humanity-denying mysticism. After all, if Christ is our pattern, shouldn’t we too seek for our own humanity to be lost and swallowed up in deity like a drop of wine in the sea?

The fathers at Chalcedon set themselves firmly against both of these unwholesome tendencies. They affirmed that Christ is indeed one single divine person, not some alliance of a divine and a human person, as in Nestorianism. The subject, the “I,” the personal agent whom we meet in Jesus Christ is singular, not plural; this person is “the Only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord” — the second person of the Godhead. Mary is therefore rightly called the “God-bearer,” a truth passionately rejected by Nestorius. The person whom Mary bore was precisely God the Son! Mary is the mother of God incarnate (although not, of course, the mother of the divine nature). The fathers of Chalcedon equally affirmed that this one person exists in two distinct natures, complete deity and complete humanity, thus rejecting the Eutychian absorption of one into the other. We see in Christ everything that it is to be human, and everything that it is to be divine, at one and the same time, without either being compromised by the other. We could say that in Christ, for the first time and the last, all the fullness of human being, and all the fullness of divine being, have come together and exist together in exactly the same way — as the Son of the Father and the Bearer of the Holy Spirit. Or to put it more simply, Christ is fully and truly man, fully and truly God, at the same time, in a single person.

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; 
Hail the incarnate deity! 
Pleased as Man with man to appear: 
Jesus, our Emmanuel here.

The fathers of Chalcedon did a fine job. In matters christological, we can perhaps only ever be dwarfs on their giant shoulders. We may be enabled to see even further, if we sit there. But if we climb off, I somehow doubt that we’ll see anything but Nestorian and Eutychian mud.

Reading the Bible for Personal Application

Posted on by
Reply

Article by David Powlison (1949–2019) – original source – https://www.crossway.org/articles/4-ways-to-read-the-bible-for-personal-application/

David was a teacher, a counselor, and the executive director of the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation for many years. He received his PhD from the University of Pennsylvania and was also the senior editor of the Journal of Biblical Counseling. He wrote a number of books, including How Does Sanctification Work?; Making All Things New; and God’s Grace in Your Suffering. God’s Word for You

It is a marvel how personally the Bible applies. The words pointedly address the concerns of long-ago people in faraway places, facing specific problems, many of which no longer exist. They had no difficulty seeing the application. Much of what they read was personal application to actual situations they were facing. But nothing in the Bible was written directly to you or specifically about what you face. We are reading someone else’s mail. Yet the Bible repeatedly affirms that these words are also written for us: “Whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction” (Rom. 15:4; cf. Deut. 29:29; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:15–17). Application today discovers ways in which the Spirit reapplies Scripture in a timely fashion.

Furthermore, the Bible is primarily about God, not you. The essential subject matter is the triune Redeemer Lord, culminating in Jesus Christ. When Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), he showed how everything written—creation, promises, commands, history, sacrificial system, psalms, proverbs—reveals him. We are reading someone else’s biography. Yet that very story demonstrates how he includes us within his story. Jesus is the Word of God applied, all-wisdom embodied. As his disciples, we learn to similarly apply the Bible, growing up into his image. Application today experiences how the Spirit “rescripts” our lives by teaching us who God is and what he is doing.

“Personal application” proves wise when you reckon with these marvels. The Bible was written to others—but speaks to you. The Bible is about God—but draws you in. Your challenge is always to reapply Scripture afresh, because God’s purpose is always to rescript your life. How can you expand your wisdom in personal application? The following four ways are suggested.

1. Consolidate What You Have Already Learned

Assuming that you have listened well to some parts of the Bible, consider these personal questions. What chunk of Scripture has made the most difference in your life? What verse or passage have you turned to most frequently? What makes these exact words frequently and immediately relevant? Your answer will likely embody four foundational truths about how to read the Bible for wise application.

First, this passage becomes your own because you listen. You remember what God says. He is saying this to you. You need these words. This promise, revelation, or command must be true. You must act on this call to faith and love. When you forget, you drift, stray, and flounder. When you remember and put it to work, bright truth rearranges your life. The foundation of application is always attentive listening to what God says.

Second, the passage and your life become fused. It is not simply a passage in the Bible. A specific word from God connects to some pointed struggle inside you and around you. These inner and outer troubles express your experience of the dual evil that plagues every human heart: sin and confusion from within; trouble and beguilement from without (1 Kings 8:37–39; Eccles. 9:3). But something God says invades your darkness with his light. He meets your actual need with his actual mercies. Your life and God’s words meet. Application depends on honesty about where you need help. Your kind of trouble is everywhere in the Bible.

Third, your appropriation of this passage reveals how God himself does the applying. He meets you before you meet him. The passage arrested you. God arranged your struggle with sin and suffering so that you would need this exact help. Without God’s initiative (“I will write it on their hearts,” Jer. 31:33) you would never make the connection. The Spirit chose to rewrite your inner script, pouring God’s love into your heart, inviting you to live in a new reality. He awakens your sense of need, gives you ears to hear, and freely gives necessary wisdom. Application is a gift, because wisdom is a gift.

Fourth, the application of beloved passages is usually quite straightforward. God states something in general terms. You insert your relevant particulars. For example:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me (Ps. 23:4).

What troubles are you facing? Who is with you?

All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all (Isa. 53:6).

What is your particular way of straying? How does the Lamb of God connect with your situation?

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God” (Phil. 4:6).

With what are you obsessed? What promises anchor your plea for help (Phil. 4:5, 7–9)?

Such words speak to common human experiences. A passage becomes personal when your details participate in what is said. The gap across centuries and between cultures seems almost to disappear. Your God is a very present help in trouble—this trouble. Application occurs in specifics.

2. Look for the Directly Applicable Passages

How do you widen your scope of application? Keep your eye out for straightforward passages. Typically they generalize or summarize in some manner, inviting personal appropriation. Consider the core promises of God, the joys and sorrows of many psalms, the moral divide in many proverbs, the call of many commands, the summary comment that interprets a story. As examples of the first, Exodus 34:6–7; Numbers 6:24–26; and Deuteronomy 31:6 state foundational promises that are repeatedly and variously applied throughout the rest of Scripture. Pay attention to how subsequent scriptures specifically reapply these statements, and to how the entire Bible illustrates them. Make such promises part of your repertoire of well-pondered truth. They are important for a reason. Get a feel for how these words come to a point in Jesus Christ and can rescript every life, including yours.

Consider how generalization occurs. In narratives, details make the story come to life. But psalms and proverbs adopt the opposite strategy. They intentionally flatten out specific references, so anyone can identify. David was troubled when he wrote Psalm 25—his emotions are clearly felt. But he left his own story at the door: “For your name’s sake, O Lord, pardon my guilt, for it is great. . . . Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins” (Ps. 25:11, 18). He gives no details. We are given a template flexible enough to embrace any one of us. As you reapply, your sins and sufferings make Psalm 25 come to life as it leads you to mercy.

In matters of obedience, the Bible often proclaims a general truth without mentioning any of the multitude of possible applications. When Jesus says, “You cannot serve God and money” (Luke 16:13), he leaves you to puzzle out the forms of money-worship particular to your personality and your culture. In such cases, the Bible speaks in large categories, addressing many different experiences, circumstances, and actions. Sorting out what it specifically means is far from being mechanical and automatic, but the application process follows a rather direct line.

If you have a favorite Bible passage, it is likely one of these parts of Scripture whose application is relatively direct. But our experience of immediate relevance can skew our expectations for how the rest of God’s revelation applies to our lives.

3. Recognize the Sorts of Passages where Personal Application Is Less Direct

Here is the core dilemma. Most of the Bible does not speak directly and personally to you. How do you “apply” the stories in Genesis? What about genealogies and census data? Leviticus? The life stories of Esther, Job, Samson, or Paul? The distribution of land and villages in Joshua? The history of Israel’s decline detailed through 1 and 2 Kings? The prophetic woes scorching Moab, Philistia, Egypt, and Babylon, fulfilled so long ago? The ruminations of Ecclesiastes? The Gospel stories showing Jesus in action? The New Testament’s frequent preoccupation with Jew-Gentile relations? The apocalyptic images in the Revelation?

The Bible’s stories, histories, and prophecies—even many of the commands, teachings, promises, and prayers—take thoughtful work in order to reapply with current relevance. If you receive them directly—as if they speak directly to you, about you, with your issues in view—you will misunderstand and misapply Scripture. For example, the angel’s command to Joseph, “take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt” (Matt. 2:13), is not a command to anyone today to buy a ticket to Egypt! Those who attempt to take the entire Bible as if it directly applies today end up distorting the Bible. It becomes an omni-relevant magic book teeming with private messages and meanings. God does not intend that his words function that way.

These passages do apply. But most of the Bible applies differently from the passages tilted toward immediate relevance. What you read applies by extension and analogy, not directly. Less sizzle, but quietly significant. In one sense, such passages apply exactly because they are not about you. Understood rightly, such passages give a changed perspective. They locate you on a bigger stage. They teach you to notice God and other people in their own right. They call you to understand yourself within a story—many stories—bigger than your personal history and immediate concerns. They locate you within a community far wider than your immediate network of relationships. And they remind you that you are always in God’s presence, under his eye, and part of his program.

4. Tackle the Application of Less-Direct Passages

Application is a lifelong process, seeking to expand and deepen wisdom. At the simplest level, simply read through the Bible in its larger chunks. The cumulative acquisition of wisdom is hard to quantify. A sense of what truth means and how truth works is overheard as well as heard. But also wrestle to work out the implications of specific passages.

Consider two examples. The first presents an extreme challenge to personal application: a genealogy or census. These are directly irrelevant to your life. Your name is not on the list. The reasons for the list disappeared long ago. You gain nothing by knowing that “Koz fathered Anub, Zobebah, and the clans of Aharhel” (1 Chron. 4:8). But when you learn to listen rightly, such lists intend many good things—and each list has a somewhat different purpose. Among the things taught are these:

The Lord writes down names in his book of life. Families and communities matter to him. God is faithful to his promises through long history. He enlists his people as troops in the redemptive reconquest of a world gone bad. All the promises of God find their “Yes” in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).

You “apply” a list of ancient names and numbers by extension, not directly. Your love for God grows surer and more intelligent when you ponder the kind of thing this is, rather than getting lost in the blizzard of names or numbers.

The second example presents a mid-level challenge. Psalms are often among the most directly relevant parts of Scripture. But what do you do when Psalm 21:1 says, “O Lord, in your strength the king rejoices”? The psalm is not talking about you, and it is not you talking—not directly. A train of connected truths apply this psalm to you, leading you out of yourself.

First, David lived and wrote these words, but Jesus Christ most fully lived—is now living, and will finally fulfill—this entire psalm. He is the greatest human king singing this song of deliverance; and he is also the divine Lord whose power delivers. We know from the perspective of NT fulfillment that this psalm is overtly by and about Jesus, not about any particular individual.

Second, you participate in the triumph of your King. You are caught up in all that the psalm describes, because you are in this Christ. So pay attention to his experience, because he includes you.

Third, your participation arises not as a solo individual but in company with countless brothers and sisters. You most directly apply this psalm by joining with fellow believers in a chorus of heartfelt gladness: “O Lord, we will sing and praise your power” (Ps. 21:13). The king’s opening joy in God’s power has become his people’s closing joy.

Finally, figuratively, you are also kingly in Christ. In this sense, Jesus’ experience of deliverance (the entire psalm) does apply to your life. Having walked through the psalm as an expression of the exultant triumph of Christ Jesus himself, you may now make it your experience too. You could even adapt Psalm 21 into the first person, inserting “I/me/my” in place of “the king” and “he/him/his.” It would be blasphemous to do that at first. It is fully proper and your exceeding joy to do this in the end. This is a song in which all heaven will join. As you grasp that your brothers and sisters share this same goal, you will love them and serve their joy more consistently.

God reveals himself and his purposes throughout Scripture. Wise application always starts there.

Conclusion

You started by identifying one passage that speaks persistently, directly, and relevantly into your life. You have seen how both the direct and the indirect passages intend to change you. Learning to wisely apply the harder, less relevant passages has a surprising benefit. Your whole Bible “applies personally.” This Lord is your God; this history is your history; these people are your people; this Savior has brought you in to participate in who he is and what he does. Venture out into the remotest regions of Scripture, seeking to know and love your God better.

Hopefully, you better understand why your most reliable passage so changed your life. Ponder those familiar words once more. You will notice that they also lift you out of self-preoccupation, out of the double evil of sin and misery. God brought his gracious care to you through that passage, and rearranged your life. You love him who first loved you, so you love his other children. And that is how the whole Bible, and each of its parts, applies personally.

He Descended into Hell?

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a series of resources discussing what is meant by the phrase “He Descended into Hell” found in the Apostles’ Creed:

“He Descended into Hades” Douglas Wilson

Sermon:

Audio teaching, from the series The Apostles’ Creed by R C Sproul:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/apostles-creed/descended-and-raised/?

From the ligonier website:

What does the Apostles’ Creed mean when it says that Jesus descended into hell?

The Apostles’ Creed is used as an integral form of worship in many Christian bodies. One of the more puzzling statements in that creed is: [Jesus] descended into hell.

First of all, we have to look at the creed from a historical perspective. We know that the Apostles’ Creed was not written by the apostles, but it’s called the Apostles’ Creed because it was the early Christian community’s attempt to give a summary of apostolic teaching. This, like other creeds in the church’s history, was partly a response to distorted teachings that were present in some communities; it was statement of orthodox belief. The earliest reference we can find to that “descent into hell” element of the Creed is around the middle of the third century. That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t in the original—we don’t know when the original was written—but it seems to be a later addition and has caused no small amount of controversy ever since. The reason for it is theological as well as biblical.

We see this problem: Jesus, when he’s on the cross in his dying agony, speaks to the thief next to him and assures him that “today you will be with me in paradise.” Now that statement from Jesus on the cross would seem to indicate that Jesus was planning to go to paradise, which is not to be confused with hell. So in some sense Jesus goes to paradise. We know that his body goes into the tomb. His soul apparently is in paradise. When does he go to hell? Or does he go to hell?

In 1 Peter 3:19, Peter talks about “this Jesus, who by the same spirit by which he is raised from the dead goes and preaches to the lost spirits in prison.” That text has been used as the principal proof text to say that Jesus, at some point after his death, generally believed to be between his death and his resurrection, went to hell. Some people say that he went into hell to experience the fullness of the magnitude of suffering—the full penalty for human sin—in order to give complete atonement for sin. That is regarded by some as a necessary element of Christ’s passion.

But most churches that believe in an actual descent of Jesus into hell do not see him going to hell for further suffering because Jesus declares on the cross, “It is finished.” Rather, he goes to hell to liberate those spirits who, from antiquity, have been held in prison. His task in hell then is one of triumph, liberating Old Testament saints. I personally think that the Bible is less than clear on that point because the lost spirits in prison could very well refer to lost people in this world. Peter doesn’t tell us who the lost spirits in prison are or where the prison is. People are making a lot of assumptions when they consider that this is a reference to hell and that Jesus went there between his death and his resurrection.

Taken from Now, That’s a Good Question! by R.C. Sproul.

Article #2:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/christs-descent-into-hell/

“About the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?’ that is, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’” (v. 46).- Matthew 27:45–46

Throughout the course of church history, many people have taught that Jesus’ spirit descended into hell after His death on the cross. Basing this idea on Ephesians 4:8–10 and 1 Peter 3:18–20, most of those who have taught that Jesus’ spirit went to hell after His death have said that He went there to proclaim judgment to sinners and/or rescue the saints of the Old Testament. Today, many in the heretical Word of Faith movement teach that the crucifixion was insufficient to atone for our sins and that Jesus also had to suffer three days of torment in hell.

Faithfulness to all of Scripture, however, requires us to deny that Jesus’ spirit went to hell after He died. First, Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross that he would be with Christ in Paradise on the same day of their crucifixion (Luke 23:39– 43). Second, nothing in Ephesians 4:8–10 says Jesus descended into hell; Paul means only that Christ descended into the grave. Third, 1 Peter 3:18–20likely refers to the Son of God preaching by the Holy Spirit through Noah to the people of Noah’s day. Finally, Jesus finished His atoning work on the cross. The New Testament speaks of propitiation, the turning away of the Lord’s wrath, only in relation to Jesus shedding His blood on the cross (Rom. 3:25; Heb. 2:17; 9:1–10:18; 1 John 2:2; 4:10; 5:6–11). Moreover, our Savior’s last words on the cross were “It is finished” (John 19:30). He saw His work as completed when He died.

Jesus’ spirit never went to hell, but on the cross He suffered the full wrath of God that is poured out in hell. True, the scourgings of the guards, the nails in Christ’s hands, and the other physical pains Jesus suffered manifested God’s wrath. Nevertheless, the most intense suffering Christ experienced was spiritual in nature, the hopelessness of losing the gaze of His Father’s blessing and the torment of experiencing God’s wrath for the sins of His people (Mark 15:34). John Calvin comments, “After explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price — that he bore in his soul the tortures of a condemned and ruined man” (Institutes 2.16.10).

Coram Deo

Sin against an infinite being demands an infinite punishment in hell. In a few hours, Jesus suffered and exhausted the infinite punishment that impenitent people cannot exhaust even after an eternity in hell. He could do this because, in His deity as the Son of God, He is an infinite being. This is a great mystery, but as the Heidelberg Catechism states, it does assure us that we are fully delivered from the anguish and torment of hell in Christ (Q&A 44).

Romans From 30,000 Feet

Posted on by
Reply

Part 1 – Chapters 1-3

A bird’s eye view of the first three chapters of Romans.

Do you want the good news or the bad news?

Well, before the Apostle Paul gives us the good news, he makes sure we fully grasp the harsh and stern reality of the bad news. The bad news is VERY bad, which makes the good news, exceedingly glorious!