christianity – Page 4 – Believers Armed and Dangerous

Some Trinitarian Thoughts

1 John 4:7-8 (ESV) Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. ⁸Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love

Let me start by saying a teacher once told me I had the ability to make difficult concepts easier to understand. This blog may prove him wrong.

As the title says, this is a blog on Trinitarianism, so you might ask how these specific verses apply. It’s just the last three words of the passage I’d like to concentrate on, actually: “God is love.” I’d also like to establish early on that God’s love is perfect:

1 John 4:18 (ESV): There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love.

So, God is love means God is by nature, love. He’s not just loving but must by nature love. God is also an infinite being, so His love is infinite, and that love is perfect. The word for perfect in 1 John 4:18 is teleios and means “complete.” The Greek word for love in these verses is agape, unconditional love for someone else: man. Throughout the Bible, God’s love is directed at someone or something. My point is that love, at least perfect love, requires an object to be loved whether it’s man or righteousness or something else. Love isn’t love unless it is expressed toward something or someone.

Now, if God is love, is eternal, and prior to creation, was only one person, and was alone, He would not have had an “object” at which to direct His love. His love would then have been imperfect, so God would have been imperfect at least in His love nature. But, if there were a second person, the Eternal Word, say, at whom to direct His love, that love would have been more perfect. “But,” you say, “that only gives us two persons in the godhead,” and you would be right. We’re seeking perfect/complete love here. There is another requirement of love we need to include if we want perfect/complete love. That would be the practice of two loving individuals directing their common love at another, a third person. We see this in a family where parents will say they didn’t know what love was until they had a child. The communion between parents in their common love for a child, in this case, results in perfect love.

“But,” you say again, “why not just continue on with a fourth, fifth, sixth, person and so on?” This isn’t necessary since the common love shared by a first, second, and third person doesn’t require a fourth to be complete. It only adds objects, not features to perfect love. Three will make it perfect, and since God is perfect and perfect in love, three is enough.

So, to lay this out logically, it would go something like this:

God is love.
God’s love nature must be perfect and complete.
For God’s love to be perfect and compete, there must be an object for that love.
Adding one person or object to be loved still leaves open a need to love another together.
Adding that third person completes the perfection of love as it adds a shared communal love of two toward another.
An additional person, a fourth person, does nothing to perfect that love.
Therefore, if God is perfect, efficient, and eternal love He must be three divine persons.

Is the Trinity logical?

We’ve all heard poor explanations of what the Trinity is and how it can be explained like the egg example: shell, white, and yoke. As a child, my son had a book explaining the Trinity in a similar manner using an apple: peel, meat, core or seeds. Both of these explanations make God out to be three parts. God is a simple being not made of parts, so we need to find a better explanation. How about this one:

Mary is going to try out for the Rockettes, but when she shows up at Radio City Music hall for the audition, no one is there. She decides to run through her routine anyway. When she finishes, she slips into a time machine and goes back in time to one minute before her dance routine began and joins her other self. They both dance the same routine, and when they’re finished, Mary reenters the time machine again and goes back in time to one minute prior to the start of the dance routine and joins her other selves.

Now, is each of the three dancers the same Mary? Yes, they are all Mary. Can they be distinct from one another? Yes they can. We can have the Mary on the left, Mary on the right, and Mary in the center. They can communicate with one another, move independently, etc. So, what we have are three distinct dancers but only one Mary. This principle can be applied somewhat to God. We have one God but three distinct persons all sharing the same nature. Therefore, the statements “God is one God” and “God is three persons” are not contradictory any more than saying “There is one Mary but three dancers.”

Why is this important?

It is sometimes important to present philosophical answers to questions about our beliefs because not everyone will accept direct biblical answers.

Most of what I have presented here is taken from the chapter on the Trinity in An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology by Davis and Yang (2020, Zondervan Academic)

What if the Bible Never Existed?

2 Tim. 3:16-17 (ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

So, by what Paul says here, Scripture is our source for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. What do people do who either don’t have the Bible or have rejected the Bible as uninspired?

In their book, An Introduction to Christian Philosophical Theology, Davis and Yang give four probable outcomes of a society without the Bible should they wish to understand salvation and how to arrive at salvation without Scripture:

“Legalism: A religious system that consists only of a set of rules that must be stringently followed.

“Ritualism: A religious system that prescribes ceremonial practices, perhaps to placate the gods or to engage in a trade in goods or services – for example, sacrifices for plenty of rain and crops.

“Relativism: The view that no particular set of beliefs or practices is correct or privileged – as long as you are sincere in what you believe and how you live, you are doing well.

“Nihilism: There is no answer to the question or no way of knowing the answer, so there is no hope of salvation – it is merely wishful thinking.” (Davis and Yang, p. 29-30)

As most of you know, there are two divine sources for information about God: creation and the Bible. These are called general revelation and special revelation respectively. We can learn a lot about God through His creation: God is orderly, creative, logical, caring, greater than the universe He created, and so on. It is our dependence on God’s Word which teaches us about God’s chosen people, their interaction with Him throughout their history, and, of course, the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of His Son in order that we might be offered eternal life.

Special revelation is not necessarily Scripture, though. It can also be dreams, visions, any sort of direct communication from God to man. Of course, these communications must be compared with the Scriptures themselves and discarded if they do not align.

We do seem to have evidence of some direct divine contact with men as long ago as perhaps 3000 b.c. Some of the names found in the ruins of Ebla, a city which thrived between 3000 and 2000 b.c., contain the name Ya, perhaps Yahweh. Names such as mi-ka-ya (“Who is like Yah”) and ish-ma-ya (“Yah has heard”) were found on tablets in the ancient city and may point to a public knowledge of Yahweh. The abbreviation of God’s name, “Yah,” is used throughout the Bible in the term “Hallelujah” where the “j” is pronounced as a “y.”

This might indicate God had contacted us through some sort of special revelation prior to Moses in order to guide men in righteousness even then. It could also have been passed down to their descendants by Adam and Eve through word of mouth.

Why is this important?

We see the need for some sort of contact whether written, as in the case of the Bible, or some sort of direct communication from God in the form of dreams or visions, for us not to wander off into some of the errors listed above by Davis and Yang. Scripture is the standard, the one true and reliable source for our knowledge of God and His will in our lives. It tells us specifically what God has done for us and how we please Him through obedience and displease Him through sin.

If there were no Bible, so much of what we know of God and of ourselves might never been realized.

The Woman Caught in Adultery

John 8:1-11 (NASB) But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the midst, 4 they *said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” 6 And they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And when they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. 10 And straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 11 And she said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”

This story of the woman caught in adultery is an interesting passage of Scripture as are all passages of Scripture. This one is disputed as to whether it is actually Scripture, though. The story doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament but is possibly referred to by the Church Father, Papias (60 – 130 a.d.). Since it doesn’t appear in a New Testament Manuscript until the fifth century, many scholars believe it was not included in the original text. Greek Scholar, F. F. Bruce, doesn’t even include it in his commentary on the Gospel of John because of this belief.

Other scholars believe it appeared in the original autographs but was removed because the early church thought it treated adultery less severely than it should. Adultery was apparently a problem in the early church perhaps due to the Roman and Greek culture of having a wife and a mistress.

A third camp believes this is a not Scripture but is a true historical event in which Jesus did address the adulterous woman and her Pharisee accusers. They believe this because the story appears in early extrabiblical writings such as Papias (60-130 a.d.), Didascalia Apostolorum (c. 230 a.d.), Ambrose of Milan (c. 340-397 a.d.), and Augustine (354-439). It also appears in the Latin Vulgate translated in the late fourth Century. The earliest it appears in a New Testament manuscript is in one of our earliest full version of the New Testament, Codex Bezae (c. 400 a.d.) and Codex Washingtonianus dated about the same time and contains most of the four gospels.

The story doesn’t always appear in John chapter eight either. Sometimes it appears in chapter 21 and even in Luke. Again, this leads some to think either it was removed and copiests didn’t know where to reinsert the story, or it was a non-biblical but actual historical event which some copiests wanted to include in the gospel.

I’m going to take the view it is Scripture until proven otherwise. Now let’s look a little at the text. There are some fascinating points to make here.

In verses six and eight, Jesus writes in the dirt. This is the only place in the New Testament where Jesus writes anything. In Exodus 31:18, God (YHWH) uses His finger to write His Law in stone: (NASB) And when He had finished speaking with him upon Mount Sinai, He gave Moses the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written by the finger of God.

Leviticus 20:10 says the Pharisees in our story should have brought the man who was committing adultery as well, and they were both to be stoned: (NASB) “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

According to Deut. 17:7, the witnesses to the offense were to be the first to cast the stones:

(ESV) The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

So, legally, there was no one to pass judgment on the adulteress. Her accusers had left. Remember she was still under the Law. Jesus had not died and risen yet to bring on the New Testament Age. And, there was to be no divine judgment either since Jesus did not condemn her.

On a lighter note, the last sentence in the passage, “From now on sin no more,” bothered me. I asked Jesus several times in prayer why He would say that. The woman was born with a sin nature just as you and I were. She was going to sin again, maybe not commit adultery again, but she would sin.

I sometimes think my questions are Jesus’ current main source of laughter. He finally told me “Did you expect Me to say, ‘sin no more, and please cut back on the adultery?’” I got the point. Absolute holiness is our goal, and we can only achieve that through God’s forgiveness.

Why is this important?

We receive criticism from all sides as Christians. Many of these criticisms are directed at the reliability of Scripture. Some will say we have included disputed passages in our Bibles, and we need to have an answer for them. This is one.

Is Jesus Good?

Mark 10:17-18 (ESV) And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

The question, “Is Jesus good?” seems pretty elementary. Of course Jesus is good, but the question has some application to the above verse. Some would say Jesus is denying His deity here, but is He? If we see Jesus is good, then the question He asks is whether the man who knelt before Him recognized who Jesus truly was: God the Son. At the same time, it would be an admission of deity, godhood, by Jesus. Let’s see if Jesus is good.

Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus is without sin:

¹⁵For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

So, Jesus is without sin. If that doesn’t prove He is good, at least He isn’t bad, is He? But does Jesus ever claim directly to be good? Well, in the Gospel of John, He claims to be the good shepherd:

John 10:11 (ESV) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

This shows His love for his sheep (followers). That certainly points to His goodness, at least in His role as Shepherd. There is another passage that might demonstrate more clearly just who Jesus is:

Col. 2:8-9 (ESV) See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

This passage in Colossians would seem to present a major logical problem for those who would claim Jesus is denying His deity in Mark 10:17-18. Let’s look at the logic of it: If all the fullness of God dwells bodily in Jesus and God is eternally and infinitely good, then Jesus is eternally and infinitely good. If Jesus is eternally and infinitely good and the only being which is eternally and infinitely good is God, then Jesus is God. (If you’re into standard form categorical syllogisms, I’ve presented this argument in that form at the end of the post).

Why is this important?

I’m sure somewhere in the last couple of sentences, you might have said, “Boy, Mike, you’re sure getting nitpicky.” Well, sometimes we have to get nitpicky with those who can’t see the truth right in front of them. Jehovah’s Witnesses and others believe Mark 10:17-18 shows Jesus is denying that He is God. From what we have seen above, both biblically and logically, it’s obvious this is not what Mark is telling us Jesus is asking.

Going back to Mark 10:17-18, the traveler is simply being asked if he recognizes Jesus as God incarnate: (ESV) And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” ¹⁸And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

I agree with the psalmist:

Ps. 34:8 (ESV) Oh, taste and see that the LORD is good!

——————————————

Syllogisms

Premise #1a – In Jesus, all the fullness of deity dwells bodily
Premise #2a – Deity (God) is eternally and infinitely good.
Conclusion #1a – Therefore, Jesus is eternally and infinitely good.

Premise #1b – If Jesus is eternally and infinitely good and
Premise #2b – And the only being which is eternally and infinitely good is God,
Conclusion #1b – Then Jesus is God

Hell

There are four original language words in the Bible translated as the English term hell: Tartaroo (2 Peter 2:4), Sheol (Ps. 16:10), Hades (Matt. 11:23), and Gehenna – (Matt. 5:22)

Tartaroo is the Greek word which appears only in 2 Peter 2:4 in Scripture, however it does appear in Greek mythology as the subterranean abyss where demigods were punished. So, it speaks of punishment and imprisonment.

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;

This passage directly relates to the “everlasting” punishment given the fallen angels of Jude 6 (ESV) And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day;

So, the punishment/imprisonment is everlasting.

Sheol appears 65 times in the Old Testament, often as grave. An example of this appears in Genesis, when Jacob speaks of going down to Joseph’s grave;

Genesis 42:38 (ESV) But he said, “My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he is the only one left. If harm should happen to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol.”

However, in Deuteronomy 32:22, the meaning is a little different. In this passage, it wouldn’t make much sense to translate “sheol” as grave, so the translators use the word “hell:”

For a fire is kindled in My anger, and shall burn to the lowest hell; it shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Now we see hell is a particular place of everlasting punishment/imprisonment.

Because the word sheol can mean more than one thing and the context is often unclear, the translators of the ESV all but once transliterate it as simply Sheol and let the reader decide on the meaning.

Hades corresponds to sheol in the Old Testament. It appears ten times in the New Testament text, and the ESV, again, transliterates it as hades nine of those times. In the tenth, Matthew 16:18, grave hardly seems to fit:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Gehenna is the Greek word referring to the Valley of Hinnom or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom in the Old testament (2 kings 21:13-14) where Children were “passed through the fire” as a sacrifice to the gods Molech (2 Kings 23:10 ), and Baal (Jeremiah 32:35) and others. It was used by King Josiah as a place where bodies were burned. This points to a link with fire and the death of the wicked.

This would seem to add fire to this everlasting punishment/imprisonment of hell.

Why is this important?

Some might still think the evidence is slim. Maybe a little better picture of what the future of the wicked looks like could come from two other passages which don’t mention hell directly but speaks of punishment for the lost after death. The first is a statement by Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 where the rich man and Lazarus, a poor beggar in life, have died and are in a place I’ll call paradise although it isn’t what I would usually think of as paradise. Jesus described it as such to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43).

From what Jesus tells us, they have both died and we see Lazarus at Abraham’s side and the rich man in fiery torment. The rich man asks if Lazarus couldn’t dip his finger in water to cool the rich man’s tongue.

To escape the implications, many will discount this as a parable and not a true story, but I disagree for a few reasons. Firstly, Jesus never used proper names in parables while He did here. Secondly, Jesus usually identified parables as such; He didn’t here. Thirdly, even if it were a parable, Jesus never used unrealistic situations or fantasies in His parables. They were always common life experiences.

Another passage which supports eternal punishment for the lost is Jesus’ words recorded in Matt. 25:44-46 (ESV) Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ ⁴⁵Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ ⁴⁶And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

The Greek word for punishment here is kolasis and isn’t the go-stand-in-the-corner kind of punishment but torment.

So, no matter how we look at it, hell is not a pleasant place to be. Those who go there will be there forever, forever in torment and punishment. As Christians, we alone understand what hell looks like as we’ve been saved from it. We need to grasp this fully as an incentive to share Christ with the lost and save them from this terrible eternal agony.

Jude 22-23 (NKJV) And on some have compassion, making a distinction; ²³but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.

Being Refilled

Acts. 4:31 (ESV) And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness.

This passage used to really bother me. These are the disciples including Peter and John who are praying, so they are already filled with the Holy Spirit. Why, then, if they are filled with the Holy Spirit, why would they need to be refilled? Maybe I have an answer now. Let’s look at the word, filled, first.

Filled is used in several ways when it’s used to describing people. We can be filled with wrath (Luke 4:28), filled with fear (Luke 5:26), filled with madness (Luke 6:11). The word can even be used of a group such as in Acts 13:45 where the Jewish leaders were “filled with jealousy” or Acts 19:29 where a city is “filled with confusion.” In each of these passages, we see something, a powerful emotion in these cases, taking over a person or group and affecting their actions. In the same way, being filled with the power of the Holy Spirit should affect our actions, cause us to act in line with God’s will.

When we fill something like, say, a coffee cup with coffee, the coffee replaces the air that was in the cup. When an aircraft carrier floats in the sea, it displaces the water which would normally be there. So, filling doesn’t just add something; it reduces something else. When we are refilled with the Holy Spirit, I believe the Holy Spirit displaces much of what was there: our fleshly nature.

In our Christian life, we are truly filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of conversion. When we need a particular additional filling or empowering of the Spirit, a sort of shot in the arm of power, we can pray and the Holy Spirit will displace more of our own will or fear. Speaking of a similar passage in Acts 4:8, the Faithlife Study Bible says this: “In Acts, this term seems to denote a special empowering by the Holy Spirit that is in addition to His work of enabling believers to trust God and to live faithfully (e.g., Acts 2:4; 4:31; 9:17; 13:9).

Paul sees this too. In speaking to believers (who already have the Holy Spirit within them, of course), he tells us to be filled with the Holy Spirit:

Eph. 5:18-21 (ESV) And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, ²⁰giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, ²¹submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Interestingly, Paul here compares being filled with the Holy Spirit and being drunk with wine. Instead of being overwhelmed with “spirits,” we should seek to be overcome by the Spirit of God.

Why is this important?

Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California, used to say “If God guides, God provides.” This was often used in a financial sense such as “If God is telling us to purchase the Property on the corner of Fairview and Sunflower, He will provide the funds.” I think this motto also applies to any task God gives us and we need more power from Him to accomplish that task.

In Acts 4:31 above, John and Peter had just been warned not to preach Jesus in the streets of Jerusalem. They had been strongly threatened probably with death (Acts. 5:33), but they were released. A few days later, they were again brought before the council, and Gamaliel stepped in and said if what they were preaching was of God the council shouldn’t stand in their way. So, the Jewish leaders just had them beaten and threatened them again (Acts 5:40)

These were some of the least serious examples of persecution heaped upon the disciples, but because God the Holy Spirit filled them, they actually rejoiced they were worthy to suffer for Jesus’ name and continued to preach no matter the threat or consequences. (Acts. 5:41-42)

Isn’t this the sort of walk we want? Don’t we want God to fill us more strongly at times when we are filled with feelings of inadequacy or fear. The great advantage of being one of God’s children in times like these is the Holy Spirit has made Himself available to displace that inadequacy and/or fear in us. We need only ask Him.

Leadership

I was talking with a Jehovah’s Witness this week about the subject of leadership, elders in particular. His view was that elders “rule” the congregation, and I can see why he believed that. Jehovah’s Witness tend to be an oppressive group. Elders are the law in the local congregation and see their job as bosses of all. This is not the Biblical view, though, and I’d like to look at the Biblical Christian view of leadership in general, and eldership specifically, to see how God has laid out the church as His bride. I think concentrating on eldership will give us a clear guide to how all types of leadership should be exercised in the church.

First let me say the terms Elder, Pastor, Overseer, and Bishop are all interchangeable when applied to the office in the local church. The office of Christian elder is probably a carryover from the Jewish form of government. The elders were judges who sat at the gates of the city and decided legal matters as in the cities of refuge:

Josh 20:4 (ESV) [The man slayer] shall flee to one of these cities and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and explain his case to the elders of that city. Then they shall take him into the city and give him a place, and he shall remain with them.

In the New Testament, the role is a bit different. Remember the Old Testament was based on the Law of Moses, 633 separate laws. The New Testament is based on the grace of God, the law of the spirit of Christ Jesus:

Rom. 8:2 (NASB) For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death [the Law of Moses].

“But what about the Apostle Paul Timothy that elders should rule well?”

1 Tim. 5:17 (NKJV) Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Even the word rule here expresses care and concern for the flock, not for personal gain or pride. Elders are not to rule as the world does but as Christ’s example demonstrates:

Mark 10:42-45 (CSB) Jesus called them over and said to them, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. ⁴³But it is not so among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you will be your servant, ⁴⁴and whoever wants to be first among you will be a slave to all. ⁴⁵For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

All leadership in the church is to be approached in this manner. As leaders we are not to be the bosses but caretakers: shepherds who watch over the flock with care and love as servants to the flock.

Leaders in cults like Jehovah’s Witnesses can get away with this behavior because they have convinced their followers to leave the organization means severe punishment. They face shunning by all their friends and family within the organization. It’s suffer under the oppression of often prideful elders or suffer the solitude and loneliness of the outcast.

Why is this important?

God has given instruction for leaders in general and elders in particular.

1 Peter 5:1-4 (NIV) To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: ²Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; ³not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Elders are to be mature Christians, not necessarily older members of the congregation but men who know the faith and can defend it against all comers.

Acts 20:28-29 (ESV) Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. ²⁹I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

If we’re in a leadership role today or will be used by God in such a position in the future, we need to remember leaders are to be servants to those we lead just as Christ is the example for us. Worldly leaders are positioned at the top of the pyramid ruling over all below them. Godly leaders are at the bottom of an inverted pyramid serving all those above them.

Mark 9:35 (NKJV) And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”

Infallibility

2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV) All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I’ve been in a discussion about the infallibility of the Bible this week. Webster gives three definitions for the word infallible: “1: incapable of error 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :certain 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.” Traditional and historic Christianity would apply all three to the entire Bible, but I’m mostly going to refer to the New Testament here because I’m much more familiar with the evidence for the infallibility of that than the Old Testament.

First I’d like to look at the whole idea of a sacred text being fallible. Fallible is pretty much the opposite of infallible. Here’s Webster again: “1: liable to be erroneous 2: capable of making a mistake.” So, a fallible religious text can be in error and is capable of making mistakes in what it has to say. Let’s look at the philosophical concept for a minute.

If a sacred text is fallible, how would we know which parts to believe? What if some doctrine expressed in this sacred text is in error, expressed incorrectly? Fallibility is almost always blamed on the fact fallible man had some hand in its creation. But, what if this uncertainty applies to a doctrine we hang our hats on? If we can’t trust the text itself to tell us if that doctrine is true. We could not include God as the authority. He can’t be the final authority if fallible man can dilute or misrepresent God’s inspiration.

So we would need another authority. Maybe that authority is us. We could believe what we want to believe is true in the text and reject what we think is untrue. That would make truth subjective, though, subject to our own belief rather than our belief being subject to the sacred text.

Maybe we would need to turn to a pastor or a prophet to tell us which parts are true and which parts are not, but we would still have fallible man sifting what we agree began with God but was recast. To be real here, this leads to relativism: truth is subjective, what is true for you may not be true for me. “I believe something in the text is true but you don’t. Neither view has standing. So, I would conclude there is no way of knowing what a sacred text is saying if we believe fallible man was not just able to alter it but must have altered it.

Evidence

Is there evidence the Bible is accurate in its presentation of God’s leading? The Bible certainly claims this. In the book of 2 Peter, Peter writes those prophets who came before him were inspired.

2 Peter 1:16-21 (ESV) For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” ¹⁸we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. ¹⁹And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, ²⁰knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. ²¹For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Another evidence is that we have an exhaustive empirical demonstration of inspiration. We have 66 ancient documents written over a span of more than 1500 years agreeing with one another, quoting one another in recognition of their divine inspiration, and supporting one another doctrinally, morally, and epistemologically. I would challenge doubters to find a similar collection of ancient documents which would do the same.

Why is this important?

Ours is not a blind faith. Our Bible is not a fallible book due to its being passed from God through man to reach us. The question is often asked, “Couldn’t God protect His Word?” I think the greater question is “Did He?” In past blogs I’ve offered evidence of inspiration and of the trustworthyness of our Bible archaeologically , the authenticity of the Old and New Testament.

We can trust our Bibles to be accurate and inspired. They are the infallible Word of God not in translation, of course, or in copies of manuscripts, but in their original writing, the autographs. Trust in the Bible you hold in your hand as an excellent representation of God’s Word to you.

Is our God capable of passing His Word through the hands of man without man corrupting it. The evidence says “yes!” Ours is a God who could pass His Word through the hands of man infallibly despite the fallibility of man.

Christianity’s Essentials

The Five Essentials

I was asked the other day what test could be used to tell if someone was a heretic or just in error. I thought this would be a good topic to share here, so here goes.

There are five major doctrines the church has historically and generally used as a test of Christian organizations to see if they was not cultic: The Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, salvation by grace alone, and the vicarious atonement. Denial of any of these has historically put an organization in the cult category. Let’s look at these very briefly:

The Trinity: Belief in the Trinity is to believe the one true God chooses to exist in three distinct persons; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit: one being but three persons. These three are coequal and co-eternal. We see this in Scripture here:

The Father is God: Gal. 1:1 (ESV) Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

The Son is God: Titus 2:13 (ESV) waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ

The Holy Spirit is God: Acts 5:3-4 (ESV) But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? ⁴While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Yet there is only one true God: 1 Tim. 1:17 (ESV) To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Conclusion: The three persons are the one true God.

The Deity of Christ. This is the belief that Jesus is God the Son, in all ways equal in nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit:

John 5:18 (ESV) This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

The Bodily Resurrection of Christ. This is the belief that Jesus rose from the dead in the very body that died on the cross at Calvary.

Luke 24:36-39 (ESV) As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” ³⁷But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. ³⁸And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? ³⁹See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

Salvation by Grace Alone. This is the belief we are saved by God’s grace and not by anything we have done. Works have nothing to do with salvation.

Eph. 2:8-9 (ESV) For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, ⁹not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Vicarious Atonement. This is the belief that Jesus didn’t only die for the world corporately but for us as individuals as well. Vicarious just means “on behalf of another.” God is interested in all of mankind, but what about me, a lowly sinner. Is God interested in just me? In the Parable of the Lost Sheep, Jesus answers this for us:

Luke 15:3-7 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it?”

God is looking to save you and me. That’s why salvation is such a personal experience.

Why is this important?

For the individual Christian, it is enough to rely on Jesus for your salvation. The above five doctrines can be useful for a Christian to examine an organization before they become involved in it.

A second danger of not understanding these doctrines is a Christian may have relied on Christ for their salvation but now thinks works are necessary for salvation, or Jesus is inferior in nature to the Father, or the Holy Spirit is just a name for God’s power. When they share their faith, they are sharing it in error. Maybe they are sharing a faith that is not a saving faith. Maybe they tell a seeker that Jesus is the Archangel Michael or God is really not triune but one person who relates to us in three ways, or maybe we don’t really need to rely on Jesus at all to be saved, that works need to be performed first. Is that a saving faith?

We are responsible before God both for what we believe and what we share with others. One day we will stand before God, and we will have to explain why we didn’t study our faith deeply enough to be able to explain it clearly and completely to others. We are expected to be able to give a clear and accurate representation of the Truth when asked.

2 Tim. 2:24-26 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, ²⁵correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, ²⁶and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Another Jesus?

2 Cor. 11:3-4 (ESV) But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. ⁴For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.

For the first few centuries of the church, Christian theologians struggled with one major problem: what to do with Jesus. The New Testament writers said Jesus was God (Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 14, 5:18, 8:58, 20:28, etc.). The Apostolic Fathers (disciples of Jesus’ disciples) taught Jesus was God:

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit.” (Ignatius’ Letter to the Ephesians, cir. 110 a.d.) Ignatius was one of the Apostle John’s disciples.

So, how does this work? We know of God the Father, but now God the Son is presented to the followers of the faith. We also know there is only one God. How can the Father and Son both be God when there is only one? This was a major difficulty in the early church and by the end of the third century, was a common topic of conversation not just among church leaders but also among the average believer.

A lot of theories were proposed. Most of these centered around the nature and character of Jesus which indirectly affects Trinitarian doctrine. Let’s look at some of these:

The Judaizers These folks were around during the time of the apostles. They taught Jesus was just a man and, therefore, His sacrifice wasn’t enough to save. Christians needed to continue in the Jewish rituals to be saved. The Jerusalem Council was convened to deal with this error in Acts chapter 15.

Gnosticism was an early heresy and stated Jesus was not a man at all but a phantom. The Gnostics thought the material world was evil and only the spiritual was good. As a result of this belief, they taught Jesus was good and so was not physical. He only seemed to be. This false teaching was common even in New Testament times and survived for centuries thereafter. It has reappeared in the modern Christian Science and Unity schools. John the Apostle wrote against it:

1 John 1:1 – 2 (NASB) What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us

Modalism was another early heresy and was developed by a guy name Sabellius in the early third century. He taught Jesus was just a “face” or mode of God, that God is only one Person but wears three different “hats” as the Father, the Son, or the Spirit depending on the need of the Christian. The early church saw this was contradictory to the standard writings of the church. The Bible teaches the three persons of the trinity interacting with one another and not acting as one Person.

Patripassionianism is a form of Modalism which teaches that Jesus is both God and man but the God “part” is the Father who indwells the Son. Only the Father is God, Jesus is a human. The belief taught “as the Son suffered on the cross, so did the Father.” This is contrary to biblical teaching since we see Jesus, the Son, addressing the Father a number of times and indicating the Father is in heaven while the Son is on the earth as in the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9).

Tritheism was an errant doctrine developed in the early third century by Dionysius of Alexandria to combat Modalism, but he pushed things too far and ended up teaching Jesus was one of three Gods: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The church pointed this out to Dionysius, and he quickly turned back to the classical Trinitarian view.

Arianism is a teaching begun by Arius of Alexandria (256-336 a.d.). He said Jesus was created and not God at all: “There was when the Word was not” was a famous saying of his. His teaching became so dominant by the beginning of the fourth century the Council of Nicaea was called by Emperor Constantine (an Arian) to decide whether Arianism or classical Trinitarianism was biblical. About 300 bishops were called together and argued the evidence. The Trinitarian doctrine we hold today was defended against Arianism and stood the test. Arius was excommunicated and cursed by the church.

Why is this important?

To have the wrong Jesus is to stand before God at the judgment and be rejected:

Matt. 7:21-23 (ESV) “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ ²³And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

Paul taught us to check what we believe against Scripture, to test our beliefs to see that we are in the faith, that we have the true Jesus. Let’s do that.

2 Cor. 13:5 (NIV) Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?