Christ Our Substitute - Titus 2:14

INTRODUCTION (Read Titus 2:1-15)

The apostle Paul has instructed his younger apostolic ambassador Titus, as to the proper form and function of church leaders and church members on the island of Crete. He wants the young Titus and the Christians of Crete to know what their God desires of them both in outward behavior as well as inward faith. After teaching them that Jesus is the “great God and Savior of us” (Titus 2:13), the next important thing that Paul mentions immediately after the deity of Jesus is that He “gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.” We see in verse 14 that the divine Christ gave Himself for us for the purpose of redeeming and cleansing us from our sins so that we would be trophies of His grace, eager to do good things so as to bring great glory to Him!

The Scriptures leave no doubt that our faith is a soteric faith, which means that it is a religion of salvation. But salvation from what? The answer is that (1) we are saved from the damning effects of our own sin to a certain extent in this life and (2) we are saved from the wrath of God that metes out an exact and proportionate judgment on such sins. So, the heart of the Christian message is that God has promised to save some from certain judgment for their sins through the work of His Son, Jesus Christ. If you remove this essential aspect of Christianity you no longer have Christianity. This is because Biblical Christianity is more than just another perspective about reality, it’s more than just an ethical lifestyle, and it’s more than a social phenomenon and movement. At its core, it is a message of salvation from God’s wrath, focusing upon the historical person of Jesus.

Titus 2:13 calls Jesus Christ our Savior. Paul speaks of Him as “God our Savior” (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; Titus 1:3; 3:4); Peter refers to Him as “our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:11; 2:20). The very reason why God the Father sent His Son into the world is “that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:17). At His birth it was announced: “to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:11). His contemporaries testified: “This is indeed the Christ, the Savior of the world” (John 4:42). And His disciples, those who knew Him best of all, offered the same assessment: “We have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14).

Christianity then, is a proclamation of the gospel or the good news of salvation. But just what kind of salvation does this entail? It is evident from the epistle to the Galatians that individuals can talk about and propound a “gospel” which is not really the good news of God's saving grace in Christ, but a sick perversion of it (cf. Gal. 1:6-7). Throughout its history, as the church has encountered the world and taken the gospel to unconverted cultures, it has learned over and over again that there are many different conceptions of “salvation” held by unregenerate men which must be corrected lest they undermine and redefine God’s intention in the gospel message. Even within the church itself, God’s people have always found it necessary to defend the gospel against counterfeit and misleading interpretations of the precious words “Jesus saves.” Given this fact, we need to ask an all important question about verse 14: From what does Jesus save us, and how has He done so?

^NAU Titus 2:13-14 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, ¹⁴ who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

TEACHING/APPLICATION - Christ is our Penal Substitute (Titus 2:14a – “who gave Himself for us . . .”)

Verse 14 says that Christ gave Himself for us (o]j e;dwken e`auto.n u`pe.r h`mw/n). However, we need to look at (1) what it means for Christ to give Himself up for us and (2) we need to identify who the “us” is.

1. The reference to Christ’s giving of Himself is a wonderful Scriptural example of what has been called Christ’s penal, substitutionary, and satisfactory atonement. Penal means that Jesus suffered the penalty for sin, Substitutionary means that He suffered that penalty on behalf of sinners, and Satisfactory means that He satisfied God’s claims of justice against a sinful people. In other words, the sinner was found guilty and charged as a criminal for transgressing his own conscience and worse, Christ’s commandments. If you can think of it in a courtroom-like situation, it could go something like this:

• The sinner stands condemned to pay an eternal penalty for his own sins to satisfy the Divine Judge’s justice when lo and behold, the Son of the Divine Judge enters the courtroom, steps between the divine Judge and the condemned sinner, and agrees to pay the penalty of the condemned sinner even though the Son of the Divine Judge is Himself innocent.
• The Divine Judge agrees to this plan (as it was a plan that was enacted before the world was created), the Son has the penalty of the sinner’s lawless deeds placed on His records (despite the fact that He’s never committed a crime as He’s the Son of the Divine Judge), the Son then becomes a substitute in behalf of the condemned sinner so that the sinner doesn’t have to pay his own penalty (u`pe.r) and the Son then bears the punishment of the sinner.
• The Divine Judge accepts His Son’s substitutionary bearing of the sinner’s penalty because it satisfies the Judge’s claims against the previously condemned sinner. He did it by bearing it for us. So, when we think about the death of Christ, we think of it as a PENAL, SATISFACTION that was made by way of SUBSTITUTION. So, we have three things (1) He bore the PENALTY due us, (2) He SATISFIED the claims of God against us, and He does that by bearing them Himself as our (3) SUBSTITUTE. Those are the three things that are important in preaching/teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ (Penal, Satisfaction, by Substitution). There are folks that leave out the PENAL aspect of it, they leave out the SATISFACTION aspect of it, and then the SUBSTITUTIONARY aspect of it. So when we leave any of those things out when preaching the atonement of Christ is not the gospel of the NT but some other gospel!
• The word translated “for” in verse 14a is a Greek preposition (u`pe.r), that literally means “over” or “above” and can also be translated “in behalf of.” It literally has the idea of Christ coming in over the top of us and standing between the sword-like Judgment of God which laid over the top of our heads like the sword of Damocles. Are you familiar with the story of the Sword of Damocles? Here it is in it’s entirety,

There once was a king whose name was Dionysius. He was so unjust and cruel that he won himself the name of tyrant. He knew that almost everybody hated him, and so he was always in dread lest some one should take his life. But he was very rich, and he lived in a fine palace where there were many beautiful and costly things, and he was waited upon by a host of servants who were always ready to do his bidding. One day a friend of his, whose name was Damocles, said to him – “How happy you must be! You have here everything that any man could wish.” “Perhaps you would like to trade places with me,” said the tyrant. “No, not that, O king!” said Damocles; “but I think that, if I could only have your riches and your pleasures for one day, I should not want any greater happiness.” “Very well,” said the tyrant. “You shall have them.” And so, the next day, Damocles was led into the palace, and all the servants were bidden to treat him as their master. He sat down at a table in the banquet hall, and rich foods were placed before him. Nothing was wanting that could give him pleasure. There were costly wines, and beautiful flowers, and rare perfumes, and delightful music. He rested among soft cushions, and felt that he was the happiest man in all the world. Then he chanced to raise his eyes toward the ceiling. What was it that was dangling above him, with its point almost touching his head? It was a sharp sword, and it was hung by only a single horsehair. What if the hair should break? There was danger every moment that it would do so. The smile faded from the lips of Damocles. His face became very pale. His hands trembled. He wanted no more food; he could drink no more wine; he took no more delight in the music. He longed to be out of the palace, and away, he cared not where. “What is the matter?” said the tyrant. “That sword! That sword!” cried Damocles. He was so badly frightened that he dared not move. “Yes,” said Dionysius, “I know there is a sword above your head, and that it may fall at any moment. But why should that trouble you? I have a sword over my head all the time. I am every moment in dread lest something may cause me to lose my life.” “Let me go,” said Damocles. “I now see that I was mistaken, and that the rich and powerful are not so happy as they seem. Let me go back to my old home in the poor little cottage among the mountains.” And so long as he lived, he never again wanted to be rich, or to change places with the king.[1]

My friends, when we are sitting in the lap of luxury and comfort of sin, the Holy Spirit beckons us to look up and we too, like Damocles see the fierce sword of God’s wrath and justice hanging over our heads. By the convicting power of the Spirit, we envision God’s wrath dangling above us, as if hanging by only a single hair. We imagine what would happen if that wrath would break out against us and realize that there is danger every moment that it might do so. Like Damocles, our smile fades, our face becomes pale, our hands tremble, we want no food, no drink, and no carousing in the things of the world. All we can think about is how we long to be freed from our conviction of sin and the harder we try we think, “O’ the wrath of the great Judge that hangs over my head, I’m so frightened I dare not move.” However, when we taste the sweet fruit of the gospel, we see Christ moving in over us in between the top of our heads and the point of God’s perfect wrath and it is almost as if Jesus says, “I know that the great sword of my Father’s justice rests above your head, and that you are afraid that it will fall at any moment. But if you have faith in Me, you have no reason to fear, for I lost my life bearing your wrath. My Father’s justice was satisfied when I took your punishment and because of my scars, you are healed!”

Oh brothers and sisters, may we see the greatness of God’s impending wrath and appreciate the glorious penal, substitutionary, and satisfactory atonement of Christ on our behalf!

2. Paul says, “who gave Himself for US . . .” So, according to this verse, Paul is telling Titus and the Christians on the isle of Crete that Christ gave Himself for “us.” We have the Great God and Savior dying for us. The question is, who is the “us”? Does the “us” refer to only the people Paul was writing to? Does it refer to everyone who has ever been born or will be born? Or, does it refer to Christians only? There are a few things to consider. (1) Consider the fact that Christ bore the penalty of the sinners mentioned in verse 14 and that the divine Judge, God the Father, was satisfied in Christ’s work done in behalf of the sinner. Now, given that fact, if we are going to say that Jesus bore the penalty of everyone who has ever been born or will be born, then why do those who have never heard of Him go to hell? After all, Christ bore all of their sins (including the sin of unbelief), so why do they go to hell? Consider what the Bible says elsewhere in regard to the atonement,

^NAU Isaiah 53:5-6 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. ⁶ All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

The prophet goes on to say,

^NAU Isaiah 53:11-12 As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. ¹² Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors.

The words of the New Testament confirm the prophet Isaiah’s line of reasoning. The author of Hebrews says that Christ was manifested at the consummation of the ages, “to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” being “once offered up to bear the sins of many” (9:26, 28). By taking upon Himself the sins of His people, the elect, Christ bore the penalty of death which sin deserves. Jesus said it Himself when He referred to His coming death and interpreted it as “My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.” (Matt. 26:28). Peter writes that this “precious blood of Christ” was the means of our “redemption” (1 Peter 1:18-19). Redemption required that He die as our substitute. Thus Paul describes the Mediator as one who “gave Himself as a ransom on behalf of all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6), using a Greek word for “ransom” whose prefix gives it the literal sense of “substitute-payment.” This conspicuously mirrors the saying of Jesus Himself that He came “to give His life as a ransom [release-price] in the place of many” (Mark 10:45).

What else could Peter have meant other than the doctrine of penal substitution when he wrote to the believers in the church that the innocent Christ “Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed” (1 Peter 2:24). The substituting of the innocent in the place of the guilty, for the sake of rescuing the guilty from condemnation, comes out just a few verses later when Peter declares: “Christ also suffered for sins once, the just One for the unjust ones, in order that He might bring us to God” (3:18 -“the just u`pe.r the unjust ones.”).

Finally, what could be a clearer illustration of this point than to have Christ declare for whom He specifically died? He says, “I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” And “even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.” (John 10:11, 15).

The perspective of the prophets and apostles both being witness, is that One who was perfectly righteous stood in the place of those who are unrighteous in God’s sight, bearing the curse or penalty of their sin by dying in their place, in order to set them free from condemnation and secure their eternal benefit. There is no other way for sinners to be brought back to God. When it comes to correctly teaching and proclaiming the penal, substitutionary, and satisfactory nature of Jesus’ atonement, we must realize that this doctrine is a matter of infinite personal importance. It makes the self-conscious rejection of this doctrine a matter of dreadful, eternal consequence. “For we know Him who said ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay’ . . . It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:30-31). Our only hope is that Christ’s saving death is received by God precisely as a “sacrifice for sins” in behalf of our sins (cf. v. 26).

CONCLUSION We not only have greater reason to glory in the cross but more importantly, cause for rejoicing that Christ has died for all of us who believe the gospel! Oh what great joy is brought to us by the revelation of Christ’s gospel, especially when He says that He “did not come to be served, but to serve . . .” and how did He serve us? By giving his life as “a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). Brethren, if you are here and you believe, then you are one among that many and you can take joy in knowing that God the Father is satisfied in what Christ has done in your behalf!

---

[1] http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/2549/damocles.html

Shall We Muzzle the Dame?

Recently, we had a discussion regarding the propriety of women speaking in church in light of what the apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."

Several women confessed that sometimes they become so excited hearing the good news about what God has done, that they fear they are going to "shout out" during the middle of the service and violate Paul's command above. Other women suggested that they bring their own Duct Tape to church so that their husbands can lovingly assist them in being obedient to the Apostle Paul's command by taping their mouths shut during the church meeting. However, to avoid the nasty skin irritation associated with using Duct Tape on bare skin (especially for women with hairy lips), I lovingly recommend that we try the safety muzzle above.

**NOTICE: For those with absolutely NO sense of humor, the above is a JOKE!**

“Prayer” and the Postmodern Church - Part I

A Discerning Summary of Eastern Mysticism and the Book “A Time of Departing” by Ray Yungen” for the church body of Shepherd’s Fellowship of Greensboro, by Pastor Sterling VanDerwerker

Mainstream Christian Leadership is now slowly making its way under the authority of eastern mysticism in seemingly innocent, “christ-centered” skills and disciplines. New Age syncretism is systematically destroying the exclusive spiritual truth of salvation by Jesus Christ alone.[i]

“Religious syncretism—the combining of practices from previously distinct traditions is one of the keys to understanding religions that move by diasporas as well as religions carried by missionaries and pilgrims.”[ii]

The “Age of Aquarius”[iii] was the topic of the 1960 and 70s. The “pilgrims and missionaries” of the New age are the children of those decades. They are now exercising their influence in the Culture, Government, Schools and Homes of America. The ejection of the Christian worldview and Judaeo-Christian ethics are a result of the ushering in of the New Age Worldview by it’s missionaries. All perspectives, and of special note, all religions are believed to contain truth, since the New Age theological foundation is that “all is one, all is God” (pantheism) it stands in opposition to the three major religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Eastern religious skills that collectively find their fullness and function in panentheism (all is one, on death or spiritual promotion the individual is absorbed into the cosmic personality of God) have been promoted by the New Age movement to ‘compliment’ every religion and notably orthodox Christianity. The Jewish religious worldview has been infected by the resusitation of that ancient heresy of Kabbala, the Muslims have the heretical Bahai and even the heretical Roman Catholic church has the Opus Dei. The New Age is devastating the three major religions.

Christianity must examine carefully the New Age and the effects of it’s syncretistic methodology in order to stop the victimization of well intentioned Christians and those who they influence. Eastern Mysticism will not leave the future generations unaffected without the Bereans of the 21^st Century. Discernment is a Biblical process through which the believer in Jesus Christ measures the observation of error against the objective truth of the Word of God. The 21^stperpetrators Century Berean must know God’s Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit discern Truth from error. The first step is to know sound Bible doctrine. The second step in the process is to know the terminology, the perpetrators, and the consequences of the lies of the New Age. The third step is to sound the alarm to everyone!

2 Timothy 3:13(NASB)[iv]

¹³But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. ¹⁴You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, ¹⁵and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

The spiritually experienced who are raised in an existential, experimental culture are ready for the deception of the eastern mystic. Christians that desire for the “deeper life” allegedly motivated by a ‘holy spirit’ driven purpose, are seeking skills that provide a more intense “feeling” that is then associated with a “closer walk” with Jesus Christ. The claims of deeper life and ecstatic experience answer the desire for self gratification and pride in opposition to the sound process of Biblical sanctification of the believer via the meat of God’s Word, and the true dependency on His Grace.

The Issue: Contemplative Prayer

Contemplative Prayer is another term for contemplative meditation (going deep within your center, going beyond thought by the use of repeated words or phrases). This is a type of meditation being promoted in many mainline churches under the guise of prayer. The purpose of contemplative prayer is to enter an altered state of consciousness in order to find one's true self, thus finding God. This true self relates to the belief that man is basically good. Proponents of contemplative prayer teach that all human beings have a divine center and that all, not just born again believers, should practice contemplative prayer.

This practice is an extension of Eastern Mysticism and has infiltrated the church. It is to be rejected for sound doctrinal reasons.

The New Age Terminology

The ability of the Christian to discern truth from error rests in the sound foundation of God’s Word. The ability to identify error by knowledge of the terminology is important. The New Age Eastern Mystic attempts to make the error appealing by using language that is familiar to the Christian. The error is found within the definition of the eastern practices. The lie is perpetrated by the New Ager when deceiving with attractive words in which are poured mystic definitions. As follows a brief list of New Age and Eastern Mystic terms:

Alice Bailey: British-born occultist who wrote under the guidance of a familiar spirit and channeled nineteen books on the New Age. She also popularized the term.

Altered State of Consciousness: A meditative or drug induced non-ordinary state of mind.

Ancient Wisdom: The supposed laws of the Universe that, when mastered, enable one to see one's own divinity-another word for metaphysics or occultism.

Aquarius/Aquarian Age: Sign of the Zodiac represented by the water carrier, Earth Age, associated with this astrological sign. The term New Age refers to the coming Aquarian age which is in the process of replacing the Pisces age. According to astrologers, every 2,000 years constitutes an age. New Agers predict this Aquarian age will be a time of utopia.

Aura; an energy field that is held to emanate from a living being.

Biblical Meditation or Contemplation: A normal thinking process of reflecting on the things of God and biblical precepts.

Breath Prayer: a technique to silence the mind or supposedly to 'practice the presence.' Richard Foster also advocates breath prayers as a method to achieve the same purpose. Remember it is repetition that brings one into an altered state of consciousness. Breath prayers are just another way of using meaningless repetition to gain an altered state. The practitioners believe they will feel closer to God through this method."[i]

Buddhism: a religion of eastern and central Asia growing out of the teaching of Gautama Buddha that suffering is inherent in life and that one can be liberated from it by mental and moral self-purification.

Contemplative Prayer/Centering/Centering Prayer: Another term for contemplative meditation (going deep within your center, going beyond thought by the use of repeated words or phrases.). A type of meditation being promoted in many mainline churches under the guise of prayer.

Chakras: Believed by New Agers to be the seven energy centers in man which open up during the kundalini effect in meditation.

Christ consciousness: Taught by New Agers to be the state of awareness, reached in meditation, in which one realizes that one is divine and one with God and thereby becoming a Christ or an enlightened being.

Channeling: The act or practice of serving as a medium through which a spirit guide purportedly communicates with living persons.

Creative Visualization: Imaging in the mind, during meditation, what you want to occur and then expecting it to happen. In simple terms, you are creating your own reality.

Desert Fathers: Monks who lived as hermits beginning around the third century who first taught the practice of contemplative prayer.

Ecstasy: The hoped for outcome of contemplative prayer or mediation.

Existentialism: an atheistic philosophy in which everything is relative; there are no absolute truths.

False Self: ,.. is the ego or personality that is observable by others. One rids oneself of the false self to find the true self through mantra-meditation. New Agers would consider people like Buddha, Ghandi, and even Jesus Christ as examples of people who found their true self

Goddess / Gaia Worship: Gaia is a revival of Paganism that views the Christian faith as its only obstacle to a global religion centered on the uniting of all life forms around the goddess of "Mother Earth". A cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, and feminism.[ii]

Guru: Master of Metaphysics who teaches students how to attain their optimal spiritual level.

Hinduism: the dominant religion of India that emphasizes dharma with its resulting ritual and social observances and often mystical contemplation and ascetic practices.

Higher Self: Supposed God-self within that New Agers seek to connect with through meditation. Also called the Christ-self or True-self

Interspirituality: The view that all the world's religions are identical at the mystical level and therefore there should be solidarity among them.

Jesus Prayer: A popular version of this prayer is Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have merry on me, a sinner, often abbreviated to Jesus.

Kundalini: Powerful energy that is brought on through meditation, associated with the Chakras.

Labyrinth: is a single path or unicursal tool for personal, psychological and spiritual transformation through eastern mysticism and meditation. The Classical Seven Circuit Labyrinth in this example shows that you enter a labyrinth through the mouth and then walk on the paths or circuits. The walls keep you on the path. The goal is in the center of the labyrinth. When you reach it, you have gone half the distance – you now need to turn around and walk back out.

Lectio Divina: Means sacred reading. In today's contemplative movement, it often involves taking a single word or small phrase from Scripture and repeating the words over and over again.

Mantra: Word or words repeated either silently or verbally to induce an altered state of consciousness.

Meditation: is practiced by all major world religions and is often described as an essential discipline for spiritual growth. Yet, like mysticism, there is great diversity in the practice of meditation. While some see mediation as simply spending time thinking quietly about life or about God, others use meditation techniques to experience altered states of consciousness that allow them to have esoteric experiences. In addition, meditation is promoted in secular society for the personal benefits of health, relaxation, and improved productivity.

Metaphysical: Beyond the physical realm or pertaining to the supernatural.

Monism: The view in metaphysics that reality is a unified whole and that all existing things can be ascribed to or described by a single concept or system. 2. The doctrine that mind and matter are formed from, or reducible to, the same ultimate substance or principle of being. [iii]

Mysticism: A direct experience of the supernatural realm.

New Age: The Age of Aquarius, supposedly the Golden Age, when man becomes aware of his power and divinity.

New Age Occultism: the science of mystical evolution; it is the employment of the hidden (i.e., occult) mystical faculties of man to discern the hidden reality of nature; i.e., to see God as the all in all. [iv]

New Thought: A movement that tries to merge classic occult concepts with Christian terminology.

Occult/occultism: Kept secret or hidden; the practice of metaphysics throughout history.

Pantheism: God is all things. The universe and all life are connected in a sum. This sum is the total reality of God. Thus, man, animals, plants, and all physical matter are seen as equal. The assumption-all is one, therefore all is deity.

Panentheism: God is in all things. In panentheism God is both personal and is also in all of creation. It is a universal view that believes God is in all people and that someday all of God's creation will be saved and be one with Him.

Reiki: Spiritual energy that is channeled by one attuned to the Reiki power. Literally translated God energy.

Sacred Space: Either a physical spot where one goes to engage in a mystical practice or the actual silence or the state of being during the mystical experience.

Self-Realization: Full contact with the higher self resulting in knowing one's self to be God.

Shamanism: is an occult path claiming contact with supernatural entities for a variety of religious or, today, even secular purposes. Traditional shamanism is where the shaman functions as healer, spiritual leader, and mediator between the spirits and people. Shamanistic psychotherapy, a novel form of modern fringe psychology, is where shamanistic techniques are employed allegedly to produce "psychospiritual integration," explore the unconscious, contact one’s "higher self," and so on.

Spiritual Formation: The teaching and application of the spiritual disciplines.

The Silence: Absence of normal thought.

Spiritual Director: One who promotes or trains people in the spiritual disciplines including the silence.

Taizé: a unique style of worship music that reflects the meditative nature of the community that was founded in 1940 by Frère Roger (Brother Roger), who remained its Prior until his death on August 16, 2005 and is dedicated to “reconciliation” of the ecumenical community. Taize is made up of more than a hundred men from many nations representing Protestant and Roman Catholic branches of Christianity. Taizé music emphasizes simple phrases, usually lines from Psalms or other pieces of Scripture, repeated and sometimes also sung in canon. The repetition is intended to aid meditation and prayer and increasingly include chants and icons from the Eastern Orthodox tradition.

Theosophical Society: Organization founded by Helena P. Blavatsky in 1875, to spread the Ancient Wisdom (i.e. occultism) throughout Western society. The forerunner of the modern New Age movement.

The silence: Absence of normal thought.

Therapeutic touch: is an "alternative" medicine technique that claims to be able to detect a "human energy field" unknown to science and to "heal" people by "balancing" the “chakra” field.

Universalism: The belief that all humanity has or will ultimately have a positive connection and relationship with God.

Wicca: is a Neopagan religion and a religious movement influenced by pre-Christian beliefs and practices of western Europe that affirms the existence of supernatural power (as magic) and of both male and female deities who inhere in nature and that emphasizes ritual observance of seasonal and life cycles.

Yoga: a Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation.

---

[i] (Brian Flynn, Running Against the Wind, p. 199).

[ii] http://contenderministries.org/UN/gaia.php

[iii]American Heritage Dictionary

[iv] [O]ccultism [New Ageism] is defined as the science of mystical evolution; it is the employment of the hidden (i.e., occult) mystical faculties of man to discern the hidden reality of nature; i.e., to see God as the all in all" (emphasis mine) Richard Kirby, The Mission if Mysticism (London, UK: SPCK, 1979), p. 6.

---

[i] “Jesus said to him [Thomas], "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. (NASB)

[ii] http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/worldhistory/support/activities_7.pdf#search=%22examples%20of%20syncretism%22

[iii] The Age of Aquarius (c.2000 ) starts at the dawn of Satya Yuga. The beginning of this age was estimated by various calculations around the year 2000. Some astrologers believe that mankind will step out of the mystical age of Pisces right into the luminous age of Aquarius between 2000 and 2050, which means the end of superstitions and of dogmatic religions (apud Bruno Wurtz.) It is not without interest to go back to the Ahmadiya Movement of Islam speaking about Mahdi's appearance on the Earth. We shall quote here Gibb and Kramer (Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam, p.24): "To believe in His as the Second or the Promised Messiah is an article of faith, because first of all His coming early in the 14th century of the Hidjra was predicted by Muhammad." Or, Hidjra (Hegira), the starting point of the Muhammadan period was the 20th of September, 622 and that gives us the date close to the end of the year 1922 maybe the beginning of the year 1923 for the start of the new era. http://www.adishakti.org/age_of_aquarius.htm

[iv] All Bible references are taken from the New American Standard Bible Updated (NASB)

Latitudinarian Bigotry and Baptist Tradition.

Since the NC Baptist State Convention's decision to stake out a strong, enforced confessional stance on homosexuality, there has been much furor appealing to Baptist tradition, but “religious liberty” is irrelevant with respect to Baptist conduct of inter-church relations; it refers the church-state relationship, not matters of individual conscience; the priesthood of believers refers our intercessory ministry to the world and each other, not individualism. Strong arguments can be made that Baptist tradition here contradicts these objections. Baptist history is littered with examples of individuals and associations, including Charleston, Sandy Creek, Philadelphia, and Tuscaloosa, and SBC actions, refusing fellowship with churches or individual service to those not holding to their confessions or taking actions contrary to the majority’s stated positions. A better objection would be to note that, in June, a resolution calling on the SBC to repent for not practicing church discipline was shamefully defeated because the truant “members” of churches are “some of our best contacts for evangelism.” What about regenerate membership, “the” key Baptist principle? The NCBSC would not be in this position if its churches consistently practiced church discipline according to the New Testament pattern for every member. You reap what you sow on both sides of this issue.

Typically, the logic goes this way: Baptists do not believe in creeds. To exclude a Baptist church on the basis of a confession or majority opinion is a violation of religious liberty or the priesthood of believers or soul competency. Therefore, this is out of step with Baptist polity.

Let's explore this a bit, shall we.

The only CREEDS there are are the Nicene, the Apostle's, the Athanasian, and the Chalcedonian. It continues to amaze me that some Baptists will cry about creedalism but then will usually come back to these 4 and acknowledge them and say it is here we should gather, since they are "ecumenical," that is the whole church was involved in their writing.

A CONFESSION is more developed statement of faith that goes further than a creed, and it reflects the variances among different groups. The 39 Articles is similar on some points to the WCF, but they are not the same by any means. Some are more forgiving than others. What we are dealing with is not "creedalism" (a misnomer if ever there was); rather we are dealing with "confessionalism."

Confessions include: the Savoy Declaration, The NHC, the 1 and 2 LBCF, the BFM (any version), the Assemblies of God statement of faith, the 39 Articles of the Christian Religion, the Westminster Confession.

"Creedalism" is a 19th century perjorative word that was used by many Particular and General Baptists and New Light Congregationlists in response to their detractors with respect to the new methods. Those detractors, the "Old Lights" would often appeal to the methodological traditions of the past, not necessarily the confessions of the past. In response, they were deemed "creedalists, because they were perceived as imposing the authority of the ecumenical creeds (to which everybody generally stipulated anyway) on the New Lights, who were largely confessionalists anyway, in a negative and hypocritical manner. In turn, this carried over into Baptist thought among some groups who responded this way whenever their PRACTICES were questioned, and this has, in more recent times carried over into DOCTRINAL disagreement.

It is very true that Separate Baptists were often wary of “creedalism.” Why? Because they had experienced in their history, coming as they did from Congregationalism, a dead confessional tradition and churches that had, while lying in a state of dead orthodoxy, used those confessions against them. In short, the confessions had been used against them, but those who used them were “dead” and did not follow those confessions as they required of the New Lights. Their assent lacked any real commitment beyond the intellectual. This was what prompted the Separate Baptist distaste of confessions – not the confessions when used properly, but the confessions used this way. Why use them or hold to them if this is what you do? Yet they were confessional themselves. They were even known to reject overtures of union with Regular Baptists because the Regular Baptists that made the overtures were perceived as not holding to their confessional stance as closely as they professed. In short, the question was not so much authority or as it was hypocrisy in those traditions with which they had contact and the necessity to use them properly. They affirmed confessions of their own crafting or choosing, including, in many of their daughter churches and associations, the Philadelphia Confession. Basil Manly Sr., who was at one time secretary of the Sandy Creek Association, even argued that if a prospective member wanted to join your church, they had to agree to every part of the confession, which was, for him, the Second London/Charleston Confession. This is not the reason that some Southern Baptists today have questioned the use of the BFM, and it certainly is not the way Southern Baptists today treat the BFM.

When it came to doctrine, things were actually quite different among the earlier Baptists compared to today. The Philadelphia Association, for example, who had a strict policy of not entering into association with Baptists of non-Particular Baptist principles. They would, if allowed, disperse a General Baptist church and reconstitute it under Particular principles if necessary. In addition, you have James A. Boyce's and Basil Manly Jr's rationale for the Abstract of Principles in which they stated very plainly that it was written with the intention the faculty conform to it. You also have Basil Manly Sr., who called on the people of North River Association to abandon their heresy and errors--in this controversy Salem Church, in Tuscaloosa Association, voted out her articles of faith and the Association called her to repent. Indeed Dr. Furman was one to quiz the children of his church on the Charleston Confession and its catechism. We also have associational letters and sermons from those days, in which the pastors would write or preach on a point of doctrine in their associational confession; sometimes reminding their audience to be vigilant about them. Alabama Baptists would not accept churches until they had been found orderly and orthodox. Alexander Campbell's church was granted a pass on the Philadelphia Confession. That one mistake did wonders for the Campbellite Movement. In 1844, A query in Tuscaloosa Association asked specifically if it is consistent and proper for churches in the Association to call ministers who disagreed with the Associational Abstract of Principles. There was a one word answer, "No." Richard Furman stated the confessions and commitment to them was an essential practice for churches, though they should allow some leeway for those whose confessions were not as clear. "Let your lives adorn your faith, let your example adorn your creed. Above all live in Christ Jesus, and walk in Him, giving credence to no teaching but that which is manifestly approved of Him, and owned by the Holy Spirit. "Cleave fast to the Word of God which is here mapped out for you." C. H. Spurgeon (from the preface to the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith which his republished for use by his congregation). As far as the seminaries are concerned professors were asked to sign off on their confessional documents well before 1979. ""If a religious community agrees to specify some leading principles which they consider as derived from the Word of God, and judge the belief of them to be necessary in order to any person's becoming or continuing a member with them, it does not follow that those principles should be equally understood, or that all their brethren must have the same degree of knowledge, nor yet that they should understand and believe nothing else. The powers and capacities of different persons are various; one may comprehend more of the same truth than another, and have his views more enlarged by an exceedingly great variety of kindred ideas; and yet the substance of their belief may still be the same. The object of articles [of faith] is to keep at a distance, not those who are weak in the faith, but such as are its avowed enemies." Andrew Fuller, Works 5:222.

The "anti-creedal" Baptist stance is, relatively speaking, late development in Baptist history. It came along, because there were those that felt that there was a danger in elevating them to the level of Scripture. The question was not whether or not to have them or coalesce around them. Rather the question was "what is their proper place?" To some extent this is a concomitant of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura states that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice, but it goes on to state that we may use any other sources, like confessions, as long as they are not elevated over Scripture. The irony here is often that, in Baptist circles, those who cry most about creedalism are the mirror images of those they sometimes label as biblioaters. Why? Because they retreat from Sola Scriptura to the principle of Solo Scriptura in the process of leveling their objection. This is quite irrational on their part, particularly when they will sometimes run to the 4 creeds to say we should gather around those.

Generally, the cry about "the priesthood of the believer," but that principle is historically defined not as the absolute right to interpret Scripture as an individual, though we have historically defended that right within certain (undefined) boundaries, but the way we serve each other and the world as a kingdom of priests without a covenant mediator, eg. a class of priests. Thus, the term "priesthood of believers." It was never intended to infer absolute individualism. They appeal to "soul competency," but that merely refers to the necessity and obligation of every human being to deal with his relationship to God through Christ, and they appeal to "religious liberty," which refers not to the way we interpret Scripture or the way we cooperate with other churches, but the way we interact with the state.Shedd called such men "latitudinarian bigots," who in reality hate precision, not love liberty, and who desire to impose their latitudinarian bigotry on everyone, so their complaint goes both ways.

The real issue is not over those three principles, but between the way we define cooperation and the way we use a confession. In short, how does an association or convention balance the principle of local church autonomy and the right use of confessions. A few observations can be made:

First, local church autonomy, as noted by the examples above, is by no means considered, by Baptist tradition an absolute priniciple. Today, there are other Baptist groups, like ARBCA that coalesce around a particular confession with little problem. In Scripture, there is quite a good argument that the churches were connected in the Apostolic period. Indeed, one of the earliest post-Apostolic documents we have, 1 Clement, consists of a letter from Clement of Rome representing his whole church, exhorting the people of the Corinthian church and reminding them of the things Paul had taught them. This isnt' to say they had a Presbyterian form of government; rather it is to say that they recognized that the churches were not absolutely independent entities and that they were mutually responsible for each other.

Second: The General Baptists themselves added a third office, messenger, in their early days. Indeed, they were functional Presbyterians in their polity from the early days in England. I'd add that local church autonomny is generally considered a function of Particular, not General Baptist ecclesiology, so those that cry about "creedalism" are borrowing capital from the Particular Baptists (whose doctrines they may largely reject), when they likely have, doctrinally, more in common with the General Baptists. This tells me that those persons feel quite free to call on "historic Baptist principles" when it suits them while ignoring others. That should send up a red flag.

Third: One problem with the BFM is that it's like the 39 Articles. A Calvinist Anglican can read them and see his doctrine, and a Tractarian can read his. The result is chaos eventually. "How can two walk together if they are not agreed" at least on some fundamentals? That was, indeed, the purpose of The Fundamentals of the early 20th century.

If you compare the BFM to, say, the First London Confession, you see a striking difference. Namely, both are forgiving by 2LBCF standards, yet one basically says too much in too little and sometimes ambiguous language and leaves you wondering what it means, and the other says a lot but in very simple, mostly direct language, and you know what it means very well, particularly if you know anything about those for whom it was framed. The point is, the BFM tries to be everything to everybody. But there are doctrines it articulates over which there is disagreement, in large part, because the sheer size of the Convention as it is today was not conceived of in the minds of the framers of the Charter (who all, incidentally held to the Philadelphia Confession) or the framers of the BFM 25. There needs to be a way for the churches to collectively state that there is a set of "fundamentals," perhaps an Abstract version of the BFM, so questions like open/closed communion, a particular soteriological scheme, etc. are placed in a different category.

"A confession of our loyalty to the Bible is not enough. The most radical denials of biblical truth frequently coexist with a professed regard for the authority and testimony of the Bible. When men use the very words of the Bible to promote heresy, when the Word of truth is perverted to serve error, nothing less than a confession of Faith will serve publicly to draw the lines between truth and error. ...

The church is to "hold fast the form of sound words"(2 Tim. 1:13), to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints"(Jude 3), and to "stand fast with one spirit, with one soul striving for the faith of the gospel"(Phil. 1:27). In the fulfilment of this task, a confession is a useful tool for discriminating truth from error and for presenting in a small compass the central doctrines of the Bible in their integrity and due proportions. ..

Nevertheless, our confessions are not inherently sacrosanct or beyond revision and improvement; and, of course, church history did not stop in the seventeenth century (or any other). We are faced with errors today which those who drew up the great confessions were not faced with and which they did not explicitly address in the confessions, but it is a task to be undertaken with extreme caution. ...

A confession is a useful means for the public affirmation and defence of truth...(it) serves as a public standard of fellowship and discipline...(and it) serves as a concise standard by which to evaluate ministers of the Word." R. P. Martin in Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, (Evangelical Press, 1989), p9-23.

Finally, Miller, in The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions, rightly argues that to deny to a group of Christians the right to frame a confession and the right to subscribe to it and use it would be to deny to them true liberty of conscience:

"It will not, surely, be denied by any one, that a body of Christians have a right, in every free country, to associate and walk together upon such principles as they may choose to agree upon, not inconsistent with public order. They have a right to agree and declare how they understand the Scriptures; what articles found in Scripture they concur in considering as fundamental; and in what manner they will have their public preaching and polity conducted, for the edification of themselves and their children. They have no right, indeed, to decide or to judge for others, nor can they compel any man to join them. But it is surely their privilege to judge for themselves; to agree upon the plan of their own association; to determine upon what principles they will receive other members into their brotherhood; and to form a set of rules which will exclude from their body those with whom they cannot walk in harmony. The question is, not whether they make in all cases, a wise and scriptural use of this right to follow the dictates of conscience, but whether they possess the right at all? They are, indeed, accountable for the use which they make of it, and solemnly accountable, to their Master in heaven; but to man they surely cannot, and ought not, to be compelled to give any account. It is their own concern. Their fellow-men have nothing to do with it, as long as they commit no offense against the public peace. To decide otherwise, would indeed be an outrage on the right of private judgment."

The problem is that modern Christianity is awash in a flood of doctrinal relativity as well as areas of legitimate dispute. Baptists bought into the myth that a "39 Articles" approach was enough, but it has proven not to be enough not for the Anglican Communion and not for the SBC. You reap what you sow. By the same token, it is manifestly apparent we are beyond the days when Particular and General Baptists felt compelled to separate when cooperating.

A confession serves as a public standard of fellowship and discipline, and has been used that way in Baptist history in past generations already. Indeed that is most Scriptural, for Scripture is riddled with covenant renewals in the Old era and confessions of faith in the New era.We are to "mark them that are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them" (Romans 16:17). We are to cut off those who trouble the peace of the church by false doctrine: "A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject" (Titus 3:10).

So, the question isn't "should we be confessional?" but "how much of a denominational confession should be considered good and necessary for the cooperation of the churches of the SBC, a state convention, an association, or any other cooperative entity?"Jesus said, "Every house divided against itself cannot stand." (Matthew 12:25). WGT Shedd was right, those who differ with this principle are such men "latitudinarian bigots," who in reality hate precision, not love liberty, and who desire to impose their latitudinarian bigotry on everyone. (W.G.T. Shedd, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1893). pp. 167-68.)

Our Great God and Savior Part IV: Some Observations On The Practical Importance of Christ’s Deity

INTRODUCTION (Read Titus 2:1-15)

We thoroughly enjoy the time we spend together in fellowship with our families, friends, and Christian acquaintances. We eagerly look forward to each Lord’s Day as we know that we will once again learn more about our God and more about each other. We know that during the teaching time and after our teaching during the fellowship we will be challenged to be transformed more and more to the image of God by stimulating each other to good works, mutual accountability, righteousness, and repentance from sins. Hebrews 10:24-25 says,

^NAU Hebrews 10:24 and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, ²⁵ not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near.

When we commend our local fellowship to others, we are sort-of “showing off” our church to others because we know, by experience, that they are not only going to hear how to be a faithful follower of Jesus and they will receive warm-hearted biblical love, love that extends beyond fancy words and kind platitudes but a love that has feet, hammers, nails, shingles, boards, repentance, reconciliation, and most of all glory in it! Brothers and sisters, we can’t help but speak about God’s goodness experienced with our local fellowship because we are so grateful for the permanent and abiding change in our loves and we so desperately want them to know, experience, and understand the joy of being an incurable God-lover.

However, because many of us here are grateful for what we have in our church family, when that family is slandered, it is like slandering our own biological children. When someone in our local assembly is hurt by another, we take it personally, and so we should, for those are our brothers and sisters who are being hurt. However, we often are quick to want to return evil for evil and hurt the person that originally hurt our church family (Rom. 12:17; 1 Thess. 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9). However, brethren, we know that Jesus desires the opposite when He says through the apostle Peter,

^NAU 1 Peter 3:9 [We are] not [to be] returning evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing.

Now, consider the Triune God of Scripture. Most of us become very offended when our God is slandered. Some us may have sinned against the very God we are trying to defend when we become belligerent and nasty after encountering the atheist who mocks our God, the pagan who tries to mix our God with the rest of the pantheon of false deities, and the cultist who twists the Scriptures to such a point that it leads other well-meaning but deceived people into idolatry and eventually hell. We seek to defend our God but end up offending our consciences and our God to spite our faith! I can truly understand this sin. This is like the playground mentality that develops when a big-bully starts trash-talking Superman by saying that he can’t really have x-ray vision because his glasses are too thick, he can’t do all these amazing things because after all, he’s never *seen* Superman do these things! In an obviously greater and more serious way, you get upset when someone starts making trashy statements about your Jesus (i.e., atheists) and when someone purposefully misrepresents your God (i.e., cultists, etc.). So, instead of returning evil for evil, we should simply maintain our desire to show-off our God in all His majestic Glory!

• In the same way that we show off pictures of our family we also desire even more so to show off our Trinitarian God with its exalted Christ.
• In the same way that we eagerly long for sweet fellowship with our family each night at the dinner table so we long for that glorious day where we will sit and enjoy the eternal fellowship at the marriage supper of the Lamb (Rev. 19:9).
• In the same way that we become defensive when our spouses, children, and church are slandered, attacked, or harmed, so we also become defensive when our Triune God is slandered, attacked, or misrepresented.

So, we are naturally jealous that the truth of the God that we love would be made known accurately, fully, and faithfully to those who know Him not. Just as we are hurt when our church family and friends are lied about, so we also become angry and offended when our God is lied about, misrepresented, and when the Scriptures that He gave us are mistreated. If you believe that your fellow brother and sisters in Christ are worthy of assisting, loving, helping, and defending from those who would hurt them, how much more passionate and intense should our desire to see the truth of the Triune God go forth, the very God that makes worship, adoration, and praise of Him possible?

SERMON/APPLICATION

A. A Review of the Definition of God’s Being/Nature/Essence: Within the one Being that is God, there exists eternally three coequal and coeternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[1]

B. Some of the medieval theologians used the following 6 major propositions to teach others about the nature of God[2]:

The word Trinity can be called a “doctrinal model of God.” In the same way that an engineer might draw out a set of blueprints to show how a house is constructed, in the same way a theologian might draw the famous diagram seen on the walls of old European churches that you can still find in the front of some of your New King James Bibles called “the Triquetra.” That diagram visually shows the six basic propositions that make up the framework of the model of the Trinity. They are these:

1. The Father is Yahweh, }

2. The Son is Yahweh, and }> “The LORD is our God, the LORD is ONE!” (Deut 6:4).

3. The Holy Spirit is Yahweh.}

Those three statements outline what is meant by the Unity of God, which is the monotheistic conception found in the Bible which teaches that there is only “One God.” The technical term is that the three Persons are “of the same Substance,” meaning that these three persons make up the one, same, eternal being. The next three propositions are that,

4). The Father is not the Son, { . . . of the Father

5). The Son is not the Spirit, and, “In the Name . . . <{ . . . and of the Son

6). The Spirit is not the Father. { . . . and of the Holy Spirit” (Mat 28:19).

While there is only one God called Yahweh, we refer to Him “in the Name (singular)” of the three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person of the Godhead has the same authority (which is why the singular “name” is used), because each is Yahweh. But the text keeps the Persons within the being of Yahweh distinct from each other. With that in mind, our sermon will focus on two major points today:

I. Only God the Son as PART OF the Divine Trinity Makes Sense of The Way the World Is (Col. 1:15-17; 2:1-4).

II. Only God the Son HUMBLING Himself within the Divine Trinity Makes Sense of Denying Self to Gain All (Matt. 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11).

This brings us to point # 1.

I. Only God the Son as PART OF the Divine Trinity Makes Sense of The Way the World Is (Col. 1:17; 2:3).

^NAU Colossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. ¹⁶ For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. ¹⁷ He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

^NAU Colossians 2:2-4 that their hearts may be encouraged, having been knit together in love, and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding, resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ Himself, ³ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. ⁴ I say this so that no one will delude you with persuasive argument.

Now, those last three propositions outline the diversity of God, which means that there are three “Persons,” or centers of self-consciousness, within the one eternal being called Yahweh, each person is equal with the other and eternally distinct from the others. In the Scriptures, each divine person of the Trinity identifies itself as “I,” while thinking of the others as “Thou.” This is most clearly seen in the mind of Jesus, when in the Gospel of John when He promises to send the Spirit and also when He prays to His Father. However, even though Jesus and the Father both send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26), Jesus prays to His Father (John 17), and willingly submits to His Father’s will (John 15:10), He is also presented as truly and fully God not only to His disciples, but also to the world (Jn 1:1-3, 8:24, 8:57-58, 14:7 and 26, 16:7-14). As Dr. Wright says, “these biblical texts, like the believing Christian in the Athanasian Creed, ‘neither confuses the persons, nor divides the substance’ (Article 4).”[3]

There is a problem that has plagued the greatest minds of philosophy since Aristotle. It is called the problem of the “one and the many.”[4] The problem is basically defined as follows:

All human cultures in some way have to deal with accounting for the myriad of objects and phenomena surrounding them. We live in a world of infinite objects that are constantly changing, yet even in this imposing world of objects and change, there seems to be an underlying unity and stability. For instance, every human being begins as an infant and then grows into an adult. Every adult is a different object than they were as an infant—in fact, they are unrecognizable as being the same object. Yet we recognize that the are the same object, that something has remained the same even though the infant has changed into an object that is nowhere close to its original state. Likewise a corpse is nothing like the original living human being, but we still recognize that something has remained constant. We can see the same stability and constancy even across objects. While the world is full of trees, there is still some constancy and stability to “treeness” which never seems to change.

This observation of the world of phenomena leads many cultures to believe that the infinity of things and their changes can ultimately be related back to a single object, material, or idea. The problem of finding the one thing that lies behind all things in the universe is called the problem of the one and the many. Basically stated, the problem of the one and the many begins from the assumption that the universe is one thing. Because it is one thing, there must be one, unifying aspect behind everything. This aspect could be material, such as water, or air, or atoms. It could be an idea, such as number, or "mind." It could be divine, such as the Christian concept of God or the Chinese concept of Shang-ti, the "Lord on High." The problem, of course, is figuring out what that one, unifying idea is.[5]

However, according to our theology, this so-called problem is solved by studying the very nature of God as He has revealed Himself to us in the Scriptures. Describing God as a Trinity is to describe the Great and Eternal One-and-Many, or better said, that within God we find unity in the fact that His being is One God, yet we also have diversity in the fact that He is three separate and distinct persons. God’s unity and his threeness are equally “ultimate”, which means that neither “Substance” nor “Persons” cancels the other one out.[6] They both exist in perfect harmony together as the one God of the universe. And because man has a finite mind with limited rational faculties, the Trinity is said to be “incomprehensible”, which means that it cannot be fully understood and held together in the mind all at one time.

Now, here’s where this is important: We find that the universe only makes sense when properly understood through the interpretive grid of the Christian worldview. More importantly, we’ve seen that only through a proper understanding of the Trinity can we make sense of not only the problem of the one-and-many, but we can also find a rational reason to believe in things such as natural laws, logical laws, emotions, love, and absolute truth.

I’ve already mentioned that the apostle Paul stated that all things in creation are “held together” by Jesus Christ (Col. 1:17). Paul also said that it is only in Christ that we can find “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” (Col. 2:3) That doesn’t mean that a non-Christian medical doctor can’t understand anatomy, disease processes and so forth. It doesn’t mean that a mathematician can’t understand 2+2 = 4, nor does it mean that philosopher can’t understand the basic principles of logic. No, what Paul means when he says that all things are held together by Jesus and that all wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ is that (1) Christ, as Creator-God, makes things like logical laws, mathematical laws, emotion, and love possible. If it wasn’t for Him, none of those things would exist because they find their cohesiveness in Him (Col. 1:17). (2) Christ, as Creator-God provides a reason or warrant for man to believe that things like logical laws, mathematical laws, love, emotion, ethics, and absolute truth are going to continue forever into the future the same way they have in the past (Gen. 8:22). We know this because Jesus created the world in such a way to ensure that these things would keep on going and to show that not only can we learn about the world by thinking God’s thoughts after Him when we learn science, math, logic, reading, when we learn to love, etc., but we can also know why these things exist, which is ultimately for His glory! Now, let’s look at two practical examples of what happens when you deny the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the Christian worldview as a whole.

Islam: Unity Without Diversity – The Islamic doctrine of God, which is one person and one being within God, is a concept of God that provides unity because they believe in one God, but doesn’t leave any room for diversity because there is only one person in the being of God called Allah.[7] So, when it comes to Allah, the emphasis is on unity only. This leaves a God that has no room for love (because there is no interpersonal relationships within the being of God as with the Trinity), but instead, the Islamic concept of God must be focused on power and will because there is no way for the god of Islam to provide self-sacrificial love for sinners to return to Him because there is no diversity within Allah. However, with Christianity, we have God the Father electing sinners to redeem, the Son incarnating Himself with a loving plan to die in the place of sinners, and both the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to regenerate the hearts of sinners and turning them into incurable God-lovers! However, the Muslim concept of God, by its very nature cannot love. C. S. Lewis stated,

All sorts of people are fond of repeating the Christian statement that “God is love”. But they seem not to notice that the words “God is love” have no real meaning unless God contains at least two persons. Love is something that one person has for another person. If God was a single person [like the Muslim God Allah], then before the world was made, he was not love.[8]

Our Postmodern Culture: Diversity Without Unity – Postmodernism is a philosophical position that pervades our society today and basically says: no absolute truth, no absolute morality, and no absolute religion. Postmodernism flat out denies that there can be any scientific, philosophical, or religious truth which will explain everything for everybody. You can see that this type of philosophy is directly opposed to Christianity from the get-go (John 14:6). Of course, the problem with that position is that it cuts its own throat because if absolute truth doesn’t exist in any form, is that statement itself absolutely true? Also, if all we have is diversity of things with no unity, how can we make sense of things that we all take for granted like gravity, logical laws, and mathematical laws. I mean, what postmodern person is going to really going to put into practice what he supposedly believes when I tell him that his opinion that his paycheck goes to him is wrong and in my universe all of his money should go to me instead? I wonder if he’ll try to call me out and say, “Naw man, you’re wrong!” Really? If I’m wrong then where do you get your OBJECTIVE standard for measuring right or wrong if morality is constantly changing all the time? Maybe I just changed the moral ethic of our culture by saying that you don’t have the right to get the money you worked for, I do! So brethren, if we don’t understand the Trinity, and the fact that Jesus provides cohesiveness to atoms and molecules, to logical and mathematical laws, provides an absolute standard of right and wrong, an absolute standard for marriage, an absolute standard for child-rearing, and the like then ultimately, we can’t make sense of anything and we end up becoming skeptics! This now leads to point # 2.

II. Only God the Son HUMBLING Himself within the Divine Trinity Makes Sense of Denying Self to Gain All (Matt. 20:28; Phil. 2:5-11).

The Reformer John Calvin rightly said, “It is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he has previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself.”[9]

We see that Scripture says that a humble man gets God’s attention:

^NAU Isaiah 66:2b "But to this one I will look, To him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.

2 Chronicles 16:9 tells us that “ . . . the eyes of the LORD move to and fro throughout the earth that He may strongly support those whose heart is completely His.” The phrase “eyes of the LORD” refers not to physical eyes, but instead it signifies God’s omniscience, the fact that he not only sees the evil, but He also sees and then seeks the humble person. James tells us that “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (Jas. 4:6) and contrary to popular belief, its not those who help themselves that God helps, it’s those who humble themselves that God gives grace and mercy to.

The opposite of humility is pride, one of the seven deadly sins listed in Proverbs 6:17 (“Haughty eyes”). God hates the sin of pride because it was at the very heart of the first sin when Satan said in defiance to God, “But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north.’” (Isa. 14:13) and again speaking of the prideful nature of Satan’s sin, Ezekiel states, “Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor. [Therefore] I cast you to the ground . . . . .” (Ezek. 28:17) That God passionately hates the sin of pride is again echoed in Proverbs 8:13 where he states, “The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate” and again God reminds us, “Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.”

A prideful heart is one that ultimately mirrors the heart of Satan. Ultimately, because of his great beauty, Satan wanted to bring some glory to himself. In response to this kind of pride Calvin said, “God cannot bear with seeing his glory appropriated by the creature in even the smallest degree, so intolerable to him is the sacrilegious arrogance of those who, by praising themselves, obscure his glory as far as they can.”[10]

We even see some of the disciples falling prey to the sin of pride. Jesus questions them about this, “What were you discussing on the way?" ³⁴ But they kept silent, [because they were embarrassed for Jesus to know what they were arguing about] for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest. ³⁵ Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.” (Mk. 9:33-35) Jesus was redefining greatness for them, but apparently, they message of serving others for the glory of God as the way of obtaining greatness in the Kingdom of God didn’t sink through their thick skulls right yet.

All of us know that deep down we want to be like the disciples and develop some kind of sanctified pecking order. This is why we know that we need to continually study Christ as our ultimate example of humility and service. More than this, we should remind ourselves that Jesus’ humbling of Himself ultimately cost Him His life, the very life that we need! For He said,

^NAU Matthew 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Jesus here is showing his disciples the difference between His example and theirs. He is emphasizing (1) how His sacrificial death is unique, (2) He is showing them that greatness is achieved by following His example, but more importantly (3), He’s showing them that without His sacrifice, they can’t do anything for others. He enables them, later energizes them by the power of the Spirit, and sanctifies them to do these good works of service, love, and humility (Phil. 2:13). In other words, His humble service to His elect by laying down His life for their sins and by interceding for them before the Father in heaven eternally (Heb. 7:25) lays the necessary foundation for these humble works of service. This brings our attention to Philippians 2:5-11.

^NAU Philippians 2:5-11 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, although He existed [better translated “continued existing”] in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. ⁸ Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. ⁹ For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Oh brethren, what a wonderful example of His selfless giving of Himself in love for His people! He continued existing[11] in the form of God, but still emptied Himself of His Divine right to exercise authority over men and humbled Himself to become a man (vv. 6-7) and die for those whom the Father had given to Him (v. 8).

CONCLUSION

Brethren, Jesus is not only the one into whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, but He’s also the supreme example of humility and self-sacrificial service in behalf of others who didn’t even love Him. “At the source of all Christian service in the world is the crucified and risen Lord who died to liberate us into such service.”[12] Are we seeking not only to understand our world rightly through Him, and inculcate a passion in our children to do the same, but are we showing others Christ by serving like Christ? Brethren, I call you to lay down your fleshly passions and follow Christ so that you can not only bring the greatest joy to yourself and to others, but so that you can bring the maximum glory to our dear Jesus!

---

[1] Taken from James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity, (Bloomington, MINN: Bethany House, 1998), 26.

[2] Some of this information has been adapted from R. K. McGregor Wright, The Centrality of Trinitarianism (unpublished private essay for). This essay can be found on the web at http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2006/10/trinity-apologetics-and-evangelism.html

[3]http://graceinthetriad.blogspot.com/2006/10/trinity-apologetics-and-evangelism.html

[4] http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/ONEMANY.HTM

[5] Ibid.

[6] Better, neither the substance nor persons is more basic or more ultimate than the other.

[7] In philosophical circles this conception of God is called a “monad.”

[8] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), 174.

[9] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 38.

[10] Commentary on Psalm 9:1-3 in John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1963), n.p.

[11] “[A]lthough He existed in the form of God” is evn morfh/| qeou/ u`pa,rcwn with u`pa,rcwn being a present active participle, not a past tense as implied by the English translation found in the NAU. The KJV renders it more accurately, “Who, being in the form of God . . .” or my preferred translation is “Who continued existing in the form of God.”

[12] Donald English, The Message of Mark: The Mystery of Faith (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 182.