Coram Deo

Why Study Doctrine?

1. To beware of the chauvinism of the past
2. To keep from reinventing the wheel
3. To keep from lapsing into heresy
4. For the purpose of cults apologetics
5. To learn and appreciate good theology

Dogma = command or precept; defines doctrine and normative; only 2 in Christendom – The Trinity and Christology

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say {correctly} that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
John 18:38 Pilate *said to Him, "What is truth?" ¶ And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and *said to them, "I find no guilt in Him.

Two-thousand years ago Pontius Pilate sarcastically sneered, “What is truth?” He was so convinced that it was impossible to know the real truth about anything, he didn’t even realize he was at that moment staring at truth itself!
Pilate had the incarnate, cosmic truth, standing right in front of him and he didn’t see it. How many of us today are like Pilate, in that we can’t see truth when it’s right in front of us, right in front of our noses.

John 14:6 Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.

For many decades now our society has been steadily moving away from honesty, morality, and logic. We have abandoned critical thinking skills and a quest for truth, and instead we have emphasized feelings and emotions.
Truth is no longer clear and firm. It is now relative and situational. “If it’s true for you, it’s true,” we hear far too often. “If it feels right, it must be right.” In today’s society, feelings equal facts and emotions equal evidence. When our President, not long ago, wagged his finger at us and quibbled over the meaning of the word “is,” we saw that truth is not an important concept anymore.
In society today, in our present culture and even within the Evangelical community, that question (what is truth?) is being asked by more people than ever before, - truth about religion, truth about God, truth about morals, and within the Christian community, truth about Jesus. A contemporary example of this is the “Jesus Seminars”, formed in 1985 to examine the sayings attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. Robert Funk, cofounder of the Jesus Seminars states, “ We want to liberate the people of the church from the dark ages of theological tyranny by liberating Jesus. The only Jesus most people know is the mythic one. They don’t want the real Jesus, they want the one they can worship. The cultic Jesus.” The “Jesus Seminar”, with 72 beads, has ruled out 82% of the red-letter words of scripture. (Read Jesus Under Fire by Wilkins and Moreland.) Are there such things as absolutes? Are there any absolute truths? Or is everything relative? After all shouldn’t we be tolerant of other religions and belief systems? The Bible is a good book, but really, the inspired word of God? Nobody really believes that stuff anymore, do they? And anyway who knows if it is true? Who really knows if it’s all true?
This question is not only being asked by pagans, but if the truth were known, most Christians have asked that very same question at some time in their lives.
Story: Martin Luther, the great reformer, and the one who started it all went to Rome on a pilgrimage in 1510. While he was there, he climbed the stairs of the Chapel of Scala Sancta at the Lateran Church, those stairs which are said to have been brought from Pilate’s Judgment Hall at Jerusalem, the very steps that Christ climbed when he was dragged before Pilate. He climbed them on his knees, saying Hail Marys (Ave Marias) and Our Fathers (Pater Nostres) and other appointed words along the way that reduced his stay in Purgatory by nine years a step. When he got to the top, he stopped, stood up and looking down the steps that he had just crawled on his knees, was reported to have said, “Who knows if it is true?” This was a time in the life of Luther when he could find no peace. His confessions could take up to 4 hours.
Pilate’s question was very similar to Luther’s. It was a question regarding the real state of affairs.

What is truth? Truth is that which represents the real state of affairs.
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or a standard.
5. Reality; actuality.**
6. Truth. Christian Science. God.
What is the truth about religion? Are all religions the same? Are they all equally true? Tape 1

Story: The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees us all the freedom to practice the religion of our choice. We have the legal right to participate in whatever religion we desire, and, as a result of this right, today much of America has embraced a philosophy of relativism. Q. Why is that? It’s because under the law everyone has an equal right to freely express whatever religion they want t hey desire. A concept of equal toleration exists. If all religions are equally legal, then they must, therefore, be equally true. Besides, in Christianity we are to love people regardless of their religion. Q. But because they are equally legal, is that the same thing as saying that all of them are equally true? If we have equal rights to embrace whatever religion we chose, does it necessarily follow that all religions are equally valid? The law in the United States gives us the legal right to be theologically wrong. (Repeat) In the United States we have the legal right to be theologically wrong, that’s toleration. And worse, no longer can we agree to disagree, but we are expected to condone and support that which we believe is wrong and often conflicts with the Word of God. Q. Should we, as Christians, be tolerant of other religions that we know without doubt, are going to jeopardize the soul of a person and send them into eternal perdition? But the bad news is, God never gives us that right. He doesn’t give us that option. In a recent pole taken in the US, 80-90% of people believes in some kind of God or Higher Power. When we hear statistics like this, does it really mean anything? The Devil believes in God, doesn’t he? He knows there is a higher power. The question is not whether there is a higher power or a God, the question is, Who Is God and what is He like?
Beloved, when someone says that all religions are the same, it should tell us one thing, that they really haven’t studied their theology. They truly don’t know what they are saying because there are a vast differences between the religions of the world, and especially between other religions and Christianity. These differences cut to the very heart and the very core of the gospel.
Mark 13:22 for false Christs and false prophets will arise, and will show signs and wonders, in order, if possible, to lead the elect astray.
Story: Have any of you ever been in love? How old do you have to be to fall in love? When I met Joan, my wife, she was 10 years old. People told me I couldn’t be in love because I was too young. They said it wasn’t real. They told me it was “puppy love,” not real love. Well I don’t know if it was real love 44 years ago, but I married that girl and I know it’s real love today! It was a question of reality and what was true.
Story: Have you ever been accused of something that wasn’t true? Doesn’t that anger you, when someone accuses you of something that you didn’t do or say? It does me. Here again, it’s a question of reality, the real state of affairs. (Classroom story – cheating on test)
*Story: (Clarence Thomas vs. Anita Hill and the sexual harassment accusations) Mr. Thomas said that he didn’t say something and Anita Hill said that he did. Next Anita Hill accused Judge Thomas of doing something and the Judge said that he didn’t. Then character witnesses said that Clarence Thomas would never say or do anything like that and then witnesses for Miss Hill said she would never lie, and they went around and around. Finally many of the Senators, including Senator Biden said, “I think they’re both telling the truth.” I about fell off my chair. Now I didn’t know who was telling the truth, but there was one thing I did know, and that was that they both couldn’t be telling the truth. It was impossible for both of them to be telling the truth. Because the question was about reality, what really happened. It is not about what either of them were feeling, but about whether or not Clarence Thomas actually said and did those things of which he was being accused. If he said them, he couldn’t possibly not have said them, and if he didn’t say them, he couldn’t possibly have said them in the same time and in the same relationship.

(1st law of logic, The Law of Non Contradiction - A can not be both A and non A in the same time and same relationship.)

This is why we have courts, to determine what is real, what is true, because that which isn’t real, isn’t true. However, this is the kind of thing that is happening in this country and in our culture every day. People are putting the brains in a jar and storing them on the shelf, especially when it comes to theology. People today are saying that opposites are both true.
Do we do that when we are dealing science? E.g. Mathematics 2 + 2 = 5? We however, do this in theology all the time. If we engage people about morality or ethics, this is what we say. We say it’s relative.
Story: Is it Ok to have an abortion? Answer: Well it may not be right for me, but it might be all right for someone else. If we ask, is it right for one to have an abortion for the purpose of gender selection? They say “that it’s not right for me, but if someone else wants to do it, it might be all right for them. Does that make sense? Truth here has become a matter of personal preference. Do you see that?
Tape 2
In the world we live in today, everything is relative. There are absolutely no absolutes, no absolute standards of right or wrong. This is a myth because it can’t possibly be true. (If there are no absolutes, then how can we vilify Hitler’s actions?) It is self-contradictory. Either relativism is wrong or it’s only relatively true. Even the statement, there are no absolutes, is an absolute statement. People can’t function in the real world without absolutes for five minutes without courting disaster. Story: Truck and crossing the highway.

Story: If someone says, “for you God may exist, but for me He doesn’t,” can that possibly be true for both people? When debating the question of whether God exists, people say, for you God exists if you believe that He does. If you enjoy praying, fellowshipping, going to church, and reading the Bible etc., if God has meaning for you, then for you, He exists. I don’t believe that stuff, so for me God doesn’t exist. Can you see the fallacy here? Whether God exists or not has nothing to do with how you or I feel about God or even think about God. It has nothing to do with yours or my religious experience. We are discussing whether, if in reality, there is in existence such a being that we call God – the real state of affairs. If in reality he doesn’t exist, then all my belief and praying and Bible study can’t conjure Him up . I can’t create Him. And if he does exists, apart from me and apart from you, all the denial, rejection, and disinterest of the idea of God won’t kill Him or make Him not exist.
So when people say that all religions are equally valid and true and God is who ever you want Him to be, that all religions are the same, these statements can not possibly be true. Consequently, all religions can not possibly be equally valid and true. Why? Because they don’t believe the same things and in many cases they believe contradictory things. No other religion believes that Jesus is God incarnate. I know of no other religion in which an Atonement is required or where a Trinity of the Godhead exists. These are not just insignificant differences. (Others say Jesus was a nice guy, a great moral teacher, etc., but not God.) In fact, every other major religion in the world considers Jesus Christ a prophet. Now whether we believe that He is God or not God, we must certainly realize that He can’t be both! He can not be both Divine and not Divine at the same time and in the same relationship.

Somebody is wrong. Either we are or the world is, but we can’t both be right because we hold opposite views. I believe Jesus is God, maybe I’m wrong, maybe Mohammed is right. But if I am right, then Mohammed is wrong, they both can’t be true. It would be nice if we both could be right. Religion divides people. Most people who don’t argue about religion do so because they don’t care. Those that do argue about religion do so because they care passionately. They understand that ultimate truth matters, ultimately!
Now before we get into the classical orthodox elements of what we believe and have believed historically, we first need to understand what we mean by the essentials, a kind of the “sine qua non” of Christianity, (that is without which none) without which Christianity does not exists. There are new religions coming along every day. We can’t possibly know and dissect them all, but, if we know what we as Christians, followers of Jesus, the Christ, are to believe, we will be able to defeat false teaching from capturing our minds and subsequently our hearts.

Paul said, in 2 Cor. 11:4 “For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear {this} beautifully.”
(In other words, you accept this easily, you fall for anything! Isn’t that what’s happening in many churches today?)

The world is integrating our churches, changing our orthodox theology to one of syncretistic theology. Beloved, it is the church, which is supposed to be salt and light. The church should not integrate with the world, it should not segregate from the world, but it should infiltrate into the world to be that salt and light it was commanded to be.
Gal. 1:6 ¶ I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
Gal. 1:7 which is {really} not another *(why? – because there is only one); only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal. 1:8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal. 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
Gal. 1:11 ¶ For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man.
Gal. 2:2 And it was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but {I did so} in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain. - (He went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James)

How then do we know when we are receiving another Gospel?
Beloved, there is only one way we are going to know if we are receiving another gospel, and that’s by knowing the correct one, the gospel of Christ, the Gospel that Paul, Peter and the rest of the Apostles preached.
Hos. 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

When we become Christians, we accept certain fundamental doctrines. It is not the end of our race, but the beginning, and in order to finish strongly we must continue to grow and learn. We can’t know anything in the heart, unless first our mind comprehends it. We were commanded to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, minds, souls, and strength.
Paul said to Timothy in 2 Tim. 2:2 “And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.”

In Deuteronomy 6:7 and following we are commanded to teach continually the things of God. If we are to teach, what do we teach? Which gospel is the true Gospel? Maybe we are wrong? Maybe some other religion is right. What is the truth?

• Titus 1:9 says, “ holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict”.

What is sound doctrine? This is the question that we are going to explore now and in the sessions ahead, so that as Paul said to Titus, “we can speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine.”
Let us begin by saying what Saint Augustine said, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” As Christians we don’t have to defend everything that’s out there, only the essentials.
How do we know that Jesus is the Truth? He said He was, but is that good enough? Maybe He was mistaken. Maybe He was disillusioned. How is it that we can know for sure that He was speaking the truth? There is only one way to know for sure, to validate His truth telling. Beloved, the only thing that can rid our hearts of doubt is the historical fact of the Resurrection. The Resurrection was God’s stamp of approval on Jesus.
The Scripture states:
Acts 2:22 ¶ "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know--
Acts 2:23 this {Man}, delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death.
Acts 2:24 "And God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.
NASB

Acts 17:31 because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead. "
Acts 17:32 ¶ Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some {began} to sneer, but others said, "We shall hear you again concerning this."
Acts 17:33 So Paul went out of their midst.
Acts 17:34 But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them. NASB

Rom. 1:3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,
Rom. 1:4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus
Christ our Lord. NASB

Pannenberg, a German theologian from Munich, an atheist, now a theist, said he became a Christian because it is easier to defend it than to refute it. Ladies and gentlemen, it all depends on the Resurrection. How do we know it’s true? E.g.:
The Deity of Christ? – because Jesus said so and God raised Him from the dead. John 10:36
The inspiration of Scripture? – because Jesus said so and God raised Him from the dead. Matt. 5:18
Salvation? – because Jesus said so and God raised Him from the dead. John 14:6

Is Jesus the only way to heaven? Jesus said so and God raised Him from the dead. In fact, God raised Jesus from the dead to confirm His teaching and the Kingdom of God, or Heaven, and this was His number one teaching. This is the only miracle that says if the Resurrection is true, then heaven (the Kingdom) is true..
Paul’s words on the matter of the Resurrection:
1 Cor. 15:14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
1 Cor. 15:15 Moreover we are even found {to be} false witnesses of God, because we witnessed against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
1 Cor. 15:16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
1 Cor. 15:17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
1 Cor. 15:18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
1 Cor. 15:19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.
1 Cor. 15:20 ¶ But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. NASB

As we have just seen, Paul said all of Christianity hangs on one fact alone - the Resurrection, but let’s get back to how we decide what the essentials of the Christian faith include. The essentials are those elements, that if they were to be denied, the result could not be called Christianity. The essentials are just that, essentials! They are necessary and sufficient for the historical Christian faith and are to be equated with the Gospel of the New Testament as preached by Christ and His apostles. There are at least six and arguably more.

1. Salvation comes by Grace alone, through faith alone, because of the work of Christ alone.
2. The vicarious (or penal substitutionary) Atonement
3. The bodily Resurrection
4. The unique Deity of Christ (and His humanity)
5. The Trinity
6. The Virgin Birth. (This is probably legitimate, however, I think it’s possible for someone to be confused about the Virgin Birth of Christ or not totally understand it and still get into heaven. For purposes of clarification, I believe totally in the Virgin Birth of Christ, and hold it as an important doctrine upon which one should not compromise.
Prologue: Why is this issue important?
Because God says it is. 1 Tim 4: 6,11,13,15-16; Deut 6:1-9; 8:3; 11:18-21.
1. 1 Tim. 4:6 ¶ In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, {constantly} nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
1 Tim. 4:11 Prescribe and teach these things.
1 Tim. 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the {public} reading {of Scripture,} to exhortation and teaching.
1 Tim. 4:15 Take pains with these things; be {absorbed} in them, so that your progress may be evident to all.
1 Tim. 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
2. Also - Deut. 6:1 "Now this is the commandment, the statutes and the judgments which the \Lord\ your God has commanded {me} to teach you, that you might do {them} in the land where you are going over to possess it,
Deut. 6:2 so that you and your son and your grandson might fear the \Lord\ your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments, which I command you, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged.
Deut. 6:3 "O Israel, you should listen and be careful to do {it}, that it may be well with you and that you may multiply greatly, just as the \Lord\, the God of your fathers, has promised you, {in} a land flowing with milk and honey.
Deut. 6:4 ¶ "Hear, O Israel! The \Lord\ is our God, the \Lord\ is one!
Deut. 6:5 "And you shall love the \Lord\ your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Deut. 6:6 "And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart;
Deut. 6:7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Deut. 6:8 "And you shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
Deut. 6:9 "And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Deut. 8:3 "And He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the \Lord.\

Deut. 11:18 ¶ "You shall therefore impress these words of mine on your heart and on your soul; and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
Deut. 11:19 "And you shall teach them to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.
Deut. 11:20 "And you shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates,
Deut. 11:21 so that your days and the days of your sons may be multiplied on the land which the \Lord\ swore to your fathers to give them, as long as the heavens {remain} above the earth.

Q. Do I have to believe? Do I have to believe in the right, as opposed to the wrong or false Jesus or Gospel? Does it really matter anyway? I mean, after all, all one has to do to get to heaven is die – right? WRONG!

1. It must be the right Gospel!

John 8:24 "I said therefore to you, that you shall die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am {He}, you shall die in your sins."

2. Some say they don’t need doctrine. “No creed but
Christ!” (Which by the way is a creed. Creed comes from the Latin verb “credo”, which means I believe.) But the question that rises to the top: Which Jesus? There are many out there today. **Is it the Jesus of the Mormons, the Spirit brother of Lucifer, one of many gods? Or is it the Jesus of the Christian Scientist, the human man, the Christ as the Divine idea? Or is it the Jesus of the New Age, (Heline Corinne) “The vehicle of the Master Jesus, the fairest and most perfect this earth could produce…”or (George Tevelvan) who sees Jesus as the human vehicle for the Cosmic Being of the Christ. Or is it the Jesus of the Muslims who see Jesus as nothing but a great man and prophet, albeit not the even the greatest prophet. Or is it the Jesus of the Eastern Religions who see Jesus as nothing more than a great moral teacher and maybe a prophet? Or is it the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who see Jesus as the first created being, the angel Gabriel. YES IT MATTERS WHICH JESUS!!
2 Cor. 11:3 But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity {of devotion} to Christ.
2 Cor. 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear {this} beautifully. [– you fall for it! (See Gal. 1:6)]

3. You hear some people say they just want to love Jesus, but which one? How can you love Jesus if you don’t really know who He is? Or even care who He really is? Or know what others think or say about Him?
4. Example: What if the question involved a spouse, or a boy or girl friend? Would it matter what people said or thought about them?
5. It is a false dilemma pitting the person (Jesus) against truths about Him (in this instance doctrines). Here it is NOT either/or, there is a tertium quid, and it’s both.
6. Do you believe in the Gospel? Which one?
Gal. 1:6 ¶ I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
Gal. 1:7 which is {really} not another; only there are some who are disturbing you, and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
Gal. 1:8 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
Gal. 1:9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

7. Finally, sound doctrine is essential! It is not optional unless one wishes to disobey God. 1 Tim 4:11,13,16; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:1-2; 4:1-5; Titus 1:9; 2:1
2 Tim. 2:1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim. 2:2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also.
2 Tim. 4:1 I solemnly charge {you} in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 Tim. 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season {and} out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;
2 Tim. 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.
2 Tim. 4:5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

Titus 1:9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

Titus 2:1 But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. NASB

Foundation: We need a standard!
1. We must have a standard, a measuring device, a rule or canon to measure and to judge. E.g. To build a building. (If we don’t have a standard, how can we know measurements etc.)
2. To build on shaky ground is foolish . Matt. 7:26
Matt. 7:26 "And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand.

3. One needs a standard or measuring method; otherwise one will make a mess of things. IT IS THE SAME WITH CHRISTIANITY!
4. Verses: 1 Cor 3:9-17; Eph 2:19-22; 2 Tim 3:16-4:5; Jude 3.
1 Cor. 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.
1 Cor. 3:10 ¶ According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it.
1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 3:12 Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
1 Cor. 3:13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is {to be} revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
1 Cor. 3:14 If any man's work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward.
1 Cor. 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.
1 Cor. 3:16 ¶ Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and {that} the Spirit of God dwells in you?
1 Cor. 3:17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.
Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household,
Eph. 2:20 having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone},
Eph. 2:21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together is growing into a holy temple in the Lord;
Eph. 2:22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
2 Tim. 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Tim. 3:17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2 Tim. 4:1 I solemnly charge {you} in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom:
2 Tim. 4:2 preach the word; be ready in season {and} out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.
2 Tim. 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but {wanting} to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;
2 Tim. 4:4 and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths.
2 Tim. 4:5 But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
Jude 1:3 ¶ Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. NASB

THE STANDARD IS THE SCRIPTURE - THE CANON (RULE)
Matt. 5:17 ¶ "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
Matt. 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
1 Thess. 2:13 ¶ And for this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted {it} not {as} the word of men, but {for} what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe.
1 Tim. 4:6 ¶ In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, {constantly} nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.
1 Tim. 4:11 Prescribe and teach these things.
1 Tim. 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the {public} reading {of Scripture,} to exhortation and teaching.
1 Tim. 4:15 Take pains with these things; be {absorbed} in them, so that your progress may be evident to all.
1 Tim. 4:16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things; for as you do this you will insure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
1 Tim. 4:10 For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.
2 Tim. 2:1 You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.
2 Tim. 2:2 And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. NASB

Gosepl:
The Euangelion – It is the good news, the Gospel (Evangel), the message of Salvation, eternal life, and all that it entails. John 3:16

Levels of Doctrines – There are at least 2 levels – the Essentials and the non-Essentials. (1 Cor 15:3) We will brake down the non-Essentials into 3 other levels or categories, making a total of 4.

BY ESSENTIAL DOCTRINES, HISTORICALLY WE MEAN THAT IF A PERSON DENIES ONE OR MORE OF THEM HE OR SHE IS NOT SAVED. (born again)
This is probably a good time to give you the classical definition of a cult. A cult is a people or group of people that claim to be Christian. They also claim to be the only way to God, but DENY one or more the Essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Give e.g. Islam = no; Hinduism = no; Buddhism = no; Judaism = no; Mormonism = yes; Jehovah’s Witness = yes; Christian Science = yes; etc. **I need to caution you here lest you think that only these well known cults are dangerous. Today in Christendom there are many false teachers. This is, in my opinion, the biggest threat to orthodox Christianity . It comes not from the outside, but from within the so-called visible Christian church. Many of our mainline denominations today have become very liberal, taking the Gospel and changing it into no Gospel at all – denying the Deity of Christ and or the Atonement. Some have changed their teaching from a Theocentric, or God centered Gospel found in the Scripture, to an Anthropocentric, or man centered gospel. (Schuller – He does not believe in original sin.) See attachment
SLIDE 9 – 1ST – 5TH CLICKS.

Salvation by Grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone!

The first essential is that Salvation comes by Grace alone, through Faith alone, because of Christ alone: The 3 principal parts to this essential are Grace, Faith, and Christ – all of which come from God. Mankind has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
SLIDE 2 – 5 CLICKS
Basically, these “solas”, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Solus Chirstus define something, what is it? Ans. Our Justification
In order to understand historically what Protestants believe, we have to go back to the Reformation and the beginning of Protestant theology. It all began with Martin Luther in the 16th century. Luther seemed to have a crises in his life about every 5 years or so. (1505 he had a crises on a road and was almost struck by lightening; in 1510 he went to Rome; his tower experience in 1515; in 1520, he came before the Diet of Worms)
It was his so-called tower experience in approximately 1515 where Luther finally understood what Augustine had realized years before when he read the following:

Rom. 1:17 “For in it {the} righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, " But the righteous {man} shall live by faith.”………………… NASB

He understood that it was not his own righteousness, but the righteousness of Christ that would save him. That it was Christ’s righteousness that was imputed to him. One must understand that before this time, Luther was counting on his own righteousness to save him and he could find no peace. Q. How to have peace with God was the question that haunted him. Does anyone know on what traditions Luther relied upon to gain peace?
Ans. Obeying the "Rule" (the rule of St. Augustine/ certain monastic orders had certain rules to live by. They regulated spiritual issues e.g. hours related to study, prayer, solitude, etc. Luther was a member of the observant Augustinian order (very strict). Pope Alexander in 586 instituted it as an order. This was a Mendicant order = absolute vows of poverty and depended on free will offerings (begging). They would also preach and teach and study and engage in spiritual disciplines. In Germany at that time there were 100 locations of Augustinian monasteries. They taught a strong veneration of Mary, and were strong on the Papal authority. There was a probation for 1 yr., took vows, submitted to absolute authority and poverty. Staupitz , Luther’s mentor and senior director, released Luther from vows and kicked him out of the order, but he remained a priest because the sacrament of Holy Orders are indelible. Luther tried to be a spiritually elite monk in order to be right with God, but it didn't work.
Penance - e.g. Hail Marys, works of satisfaction - giving alms etc.
= contrition, confession or absolution, and works of satisfaction

What were the results of keeping these traditions for Luther? (His conscience could never give him certainty.)
Luther's conscience was more weak
He was more uncertain
He became more troubled
(He actually became worse)
Why did Luther have these results?
Quantity of works? How much is enough?
Quality of works? Is it good enough? Was he contrite enough?
What are some evangelical indulgences? Buying off God through works. Gain security by something that we do.
Daily quiet time
Church attendance
Tithes
Bible study
So much time in prayer
Anything that works are involved to gain salvation or security.

Luther's solution: Justification as the free gift of God
Meaning = God's declaration of not guilty. We are declared righteous. A forensic, judicial proclamation.
Psychological implications for an unbeliever? For Luther - Great weight lifted off of us. God does all the work through Grace. He was set free, liberated, freeing from the bondage of sin. For some though, it is an offense.
For the believer? Justification by faith, central in our life, foundation belief. We can not stand before a Holy God on our own. When we think that our sin is the ultimate thing there is, i.e. so bad that God can't forgive it, then we are idolaters because it (the sin) is more powerful then God at that point. When in effect, God is more ultimate than our sin and He justifies us through the righteous work of Christ by our faith alone.

Luther finally realized that by the Grace of God alone, because of the work of Christ alone, that the gift of Faith alone saved the soul. At the Diet of Worms Luther was asked to recant. This is where the Reformation began and the Protestantism was born. Standing before Charles V, when asked to recant of his teaching on Justification by Faith alone he said,
SLIDE 4 – 1st CLICK
“ Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant. For my conscience is held captive by the Word of God and to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, God help me.” These words of Luther solidified the Reformation’s infancy. If he had recanted, the Reformation would probably have looked much different. The essential issue was Justification by Faith alone – “Sola Fide”. The Council of Trent, which was part of the Counter Reformation, spent the majority of their time debating this issue. They did so because it also had direct baring on an even broader issue, the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Sola Fide was based on Sola Scriptura – by the Scriptures alone and that left out the Pope, the Magesterium, and the Council of Cardinals.

The word for Justification comes from the word dikaioo in Greek. It doesn’t mean, as it does in English, to make Righteous, but rather to DECLARE one Righteous. It is a forensic word – a legal pronouncement. The Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as we are declared, accounted, or reckoned Righteous in the sight of God. If we were made Righteous, we would no longer sin. That is obviously not what happens.

Luther said it this way, that we are “Simul Justus et Peccator.” Simultaneously, or at the same time, just and sinner.”
Rome could not tolerate Luther’s dictum. One had to be either just or sinner, one could not be both at the same time. And this is the way Rome understands the doctrine of justification today. They haven’t changed.

Beloved, the Biblical Gospel stands or falls with the concept of imputation. Rome believes that it is the Righteousness of Christ that justifies us, but it’s not by imputation.

They believe that Christ’s Righteousness is infused into a person and when he cooperates with that Righteousness sufficiently, it becomes inherent in that person, and God then justifies him or her. In other words, Roman Catholics believe that one is declared Righteous by first being made Righteous! (This is analytical view of justification – nothing new is added. It is a Tautology, that is, it is true by definition.) There is nothing new in the predicate that isn’t already contained in the subject. E.g. A triangle has three sides or all bachelors are single.
Imputation on the other hand, is a transfer of Righteousness from Christ to us. Just as our sins are transferred or imputed to Him. Without the imputation of our sins to Christ, there is no Atonement. (This is a synthetic view of justification – something new is added.)

Phil. 3:8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ,
Phil. 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from {the} Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith,
Phil. 3:10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death. NASB

Rom. 4:9 Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, " \Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness."
Rom. 4:10 How then was it reckoned? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
Rom. 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them. NASB

Ro 4:11* And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Ro 4:22* And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Ro 5:13* (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Ga 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

Jas 2:23* And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. KJV

The definition of reckoned means: To consider as being; regarded as, counted, or computed.

Luther said this “is the doctrine on which the church stands for falls.” Why would he say that? Because it has to do with God’s plan for us, for eternity, i.e. how we are saved – how one gains Salvation. Therefore , it is vitally important. Can for instance, one be saved if his understanding of how one is saved is in error? At this point it is not a matter of pure intellectual discussion, but rather a practical matter of ultimate significance with eternal consequences.

*Can talk here about Catholicism. Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders, Penance, and the Lords Supper. Penance, according to Trent, was “the second plank of justification for those who had made shipwreck of the souls. “ i.e. committed a mortal sin. Penance consisted of contrition, sacerdotal (priestly) absolution (as in confession - James 5:16), and works of satisfaction to gain merit for Purgatory. Some was gained through indulgences. Since the Pope held the “keys of the Kingdom”, by supererogation of the Saints and their excess merit, stored in the great treasury of merit, he would give out so much merit for indulgences to reduce one’s time in Purgatory. Here the Roman Catholic Church is imputing excess merits of the saints to ordinary people to make up for their lack of merit. In other words, Christ’s merit and work on the cross was not enough. This is most repugnant to the Protestant belief. This merit must be attained through works of satisfaction in order for one to be rejustified once they have committed a mortal sin.

Faith: - is a radical self-commitment or reliance upon what one knows to be true. Faith = 1. The object of faith. 2. Trust in that object.
Saving faith is NOT synonymous with blind faith. Non-Christians think of our faith as blind faith .
Faith in the Greek is a noun - pistos
Faith = Belief = Trust - verb - pisteuo
Faith is thinking. Little faith is not thinking. Faith is not influenced by emotions.

Story: Faith in and of itself doesn’t justify us – it doesn’t in and of itself do anything. It serves as a way of obtaining, acquiring, or gaining the Righteousness of Christ. E.g. It’s kind of like a train. The locomotive is responsible for the train moving, but it won’t move the cars unless it is hooked up to those cars by the coupling. It is that coupling that allows the train to move and to connect to the power of the locomotive. In much the same way, faith allows us to hook up or to couple up to the Righteousness of Christ.
• It is not faith that saves, but Jesus Christ that saves through faith. Greek dia = means through or by means of, not because of or on account of as found in Eph 2:8 and Romans 3:28.
SLIDE 7 – 5TH CLICK Faith is the instrumental cause of Justification.
SLIDE 7 – 6TH CLICK Christ is the Meritorious cause of that Justification.
*Faith only has value if what you believe in has value.
5 Scenarios of Faith:
1) Don't hear - dies
2) Hears, but doesn't act - dies
3) Hears and believes, but doesn't act - dies
4) *Hears and believes and acts - i.e. gets saving medicine - lives (Christ's truth)
5) Hears, believes, and acts, but wrong medicine – dies, i.e. Cults, false religions, untruth
John 1: 13; John 6: 54 and 65; John 16: 8-11; Romans 3: 9-11; 1 Cor 4: 4; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:4-5

Faith is grounded in evidence and the Holy Spirit gives one the ability to see the evidence. Faith and reason are intimately intertwined, not separate and apart from each other. We don't argue or reason a person into the kingdom. ONLY the Holy Spirit can change the heart from stone to flesh, and then cause them to believe the evidence.

Saving Faith:
1. Notitia - 1st component - raw data or information
2. Assensus - Intellectual assent - Romans 10: 14 – 17; James 2:19
3. Fiducia - to appropriate what one knows to be true for themselves i.e. Committing to and trusting in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and Acting upon it.

Chair Story: Is this a chair?
Notitia = I see that it looks, feels, and tastes like a chair – data
Assensus = Do you believe that it is a chair? Yes! Intellectual assent
Fiducia = Are you sitting in it? No – Fiducia is to appropriate what we believe or to trust in what we believe to be true. Committing to it. Luther called it a “Fides viva” – a living faith. Just believing isn’t enough. Saving faith calls for an embracing this faith in our very lives and totally committing to it.

Alone: Here alone means Christ alone. Not justification by Christ and me, not justification by Christ and the Church, not justification by Christ and the faith of my fathers, it is by Christ alone, not faith and works but Christ alone.
Christian Formula = Faith produces justification which produces works. Catholic = Faith completed by works grants justification. If in the Christian formula, works do not follow justification immediately there is no justification, because there is no saving faith.
Martin Luther the great Reformer said, “Faith alone saves, but the Faith that saves is never alone.” This is what James 2 is saying. (James 2, count the number of times it says “say” vs. showing or displaying one’s faith by works. Justification here means “demonstrate or show to be righteous.” James is a wisdom book, a practical application genre, and just like in Luke 16:15 where Jesus says to the Pharisees, “You justify yourselves before men….”. In this sense He is describing their attempt “to show” others that they were righteous. ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED IN GENESIS 15 BY FAITH, before God, BUT DEMONSTRATED HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS BY WORKS IN GENESIS 22, before man, BY OFFERING UP ISAAC ON THE ALTER. IT IS HERE THAT ABRAHAM MANIFESTS THE REALITY OF HIS FAITH WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE GOOD WORK THAT COULD BE SEEN. HE’S JUSTIFIED BY VINDICATING A FAITH THAT WAS RECKONED TO HIM, THAT HE ALREADY HAD IN GENESIS 15.) DO YOU SEE THAT?
If a person has saving faith or justifying faith, inevitably works will follow. If there are no works present, that’s a clear indication there is no faith present, and if there is no faith present there is no justification.
(Note: that regeneration comes before faith, then justification, then sanctification in logical order, meaning one is logically dependent upon or prior to the other one. Temporally they are simultaneous, but logically this is the order. E.g. Lightening and thunder both happen at the same time, simultaneously, but we see the flash first and hear the thunder second because sound travels more slowly than light.)
We are justified apart from works. Eph 2:8,9; Rom 3:20, 26-28; Rom 3-6; Titus 3:7.
Ephesians 2: KJV
8* For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
9* Not of works, lest any man should boast
.
Romans 3: KJV
20* Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.
26* To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. KJV

Rom. 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. NASB

*THE BIBLE NEVER SAYS ALONE, LUTHER ADMITS THAT, BUT THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE STATED, IF IT IS IN FACT APART FROM THE WORKS OF THE LAW.
Romans 4:KJV PAUL BUILDS HIS CASE HERE HISTORICALLY
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6* Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

Titus 3:KJV
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

**Now that we understand that we are saved through faith, (by the meritorious work of Christ alone), what would you say if I told you that it is only by works that we are Saved? That without works there would be no hope of Salvation?

Beloved it is only through the work of Christ that we have any hope of Salvation. If it were not for the perfect work of Christ there would be no Atonement. The point here is that it is not our work, but Christ’s alone!!
**Galatians 2: 15* We [who are] Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
16* Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Vicarious Atonement

We may describe the Atonement as “the work Christ did in life and death to earn our Salvation.”

(1) Penal substitutionary Atonement- this is the historical Orthodox view. (2) Christ’s death was the penalty God demanded for the sins of mankind. He died in our place, for our sins, as our substitute. He was the sacrifice and substitute that reconciled or appeased God's justice. (3) The result of Christ’s propitiation was mankind’s reconciliation to God for all those who have saving faith. We were justified before God and the righteousness of Christ was imputed to those who believe.
Justification is the declaring of man, righteous, by God. It is external (outside of us), alien (man had nothing to do with it), AND IT IS FORENSIC (IT WAS A LEGAL DECREE/ DECLARATORY). IT IS NOT THE CAUSE OF OUR SALVATION BUT THE MEANS BY WHICH WE RECEIVE IT THROUGH FAITH. IT IS A GIFT FROM GOD. IT NOT ONLY SAYS THAT WE ARE NO LONGER GUILTY, BUT RIGHTEOUS. JUST AS IF WE HAD NEVER BROKEN THE LAW AND LIVED A PERFECT LIFE LIKE CHRIST. IT IS A DECLARATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNIVERSE - THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT. WE ARE NOT MADE RIGHTEOUS, BUT DECLARED RIGHTEOUS THROUGH THE ATONING WORK OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS.

Propitiation: means a sacrifice or substitute which reconciles or appeases. Rom. 3:25, “whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.”

Expiate: means to make amends or atone. To remove or take away sins.
In the Old Testament our sins were covered through sacrifices etc., in the New Testament our sins are removed. God pays the ransom to Himself. Jesus (or God) is paying the penalty to Himself. He is the only One who could.

Satisfaction: In that His death “satisfies “ God’s justice. It fulfills the requirement or the conditions needed, it meets the demands of God’s Holy Law.

Penal view: Christ bore the penalty on the cross that was rightly due us for our sins. Rom 6: 23 * For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Subsitution: Christ died for our sins, in our place, as our substitute. Vicarious just means the substitutional view.

Salvation: In order for this to occur it is manifestly important to have genuine acceptance of the work Christ did for us on the cross, but also the positive work of living a sinless life. Without the sinless life there is NO Atonement. It must not be mere academic knowledge, but we must have the right Jesus and the correct belief and acceptance of His work, not mere theoretical understanding.
Lets consider the Nature of the Atonement, and in that, let us consider 2 aspects of His work. First, Christ’s obedience for us, sometimes called “Active Obedience”, in which he obeyed the requirements of the law in our place and was perfectly obedient to the will of God the Father as our representative. Second, Christ’s sufferings, sometimes called “Passive Obedience”, in which he took the penalty due for our sins and as a result died for our sins.
If Christ had only earned forgiveness of sins for us that would not merit heaven. Our guilt would be removed, but we would only be in a state of moral neutrality – much the same as Adam and Eve before the fall. In order to gain righteousness, Christ had to live a life of perfect obedience to God. He had to obey the law perfectly for His entire life on our behalf so that His merits of perfect obedience would be counted to us, imputed if you will.
Phil. 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from {the} Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which {comes} from God on the basis of faith,

Paul realizes , as we should too, that it is not just a moral neutrality that is needed, but a positive moral righteousness, which we can’t achieve on our own, but only through Christ. If He had not lived this perfect life, He could not even be a sacrifice for Himself, let alone for anyone else. The positive aspect of Christ work is often overshadowed by His work on the cross.
In a broad sense, Christ bore the penalty of our sins in His sufferings throughout His life in both His body and soul. For a Holy God to live in a fallen world involved suffering. E.g. He endured tremendous suffering during the temptation in the wilderness. He suffered according to Heb. 12:3-4 in growing to maturity. He was a man of “sorrows and acquainted with grief.”

Was the Atonement necessary? First we should know that God was not obligated to save anyone, but once He decided in His mercy to save some, as a “consequence” of His decision, the Atonement was absolutely necessary. This is called the “consequent absolute necessity” view of the Atonement. Because of Matt. 26:39 (Jesus in the garden), we can be sure that there was no other way for Jesus to avoid the cross. In Luke 24:25-6, Christ said, “was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things…”
The Cross: (crux)
Christ suffered the pain of the cross. In Matt. 26:38 He said, ”My soul is very sorrowful, even to death.” Scripture teaches 4 different aspects of pain that Jesus experienced:

1.) Physical pain and death. It is a very slow death by suffocation. The chest cavity is pulled upward and outward, making it very difficult to exhale. To do that, he would have to push up with the feet. This would be extremely painful do to the body weight on the nails in the feet. An actual description of crucifixion is found in the JAMA 1986 written by physicians. It is an accurate and graphic account of death by crucifixion.

2.) Pain of bearing sin. Jesus endured the psychological pain of bearing the guilt of our sin. He was perfectly Holy. He hated sin with His entire being. Even the thought of evil contradicted everything in His character. Jesus took on Himself all the sins of those who would someday be saved. Taking all this on Himself created a deep revulsion in the center of His being. All that He hated most deeply was poured out fully upon Him. Isa. 53:6, “The Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.” “He bore the sins of many.” Isa 53:12. John1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”

2 Cor. 5:21 He (Father God) made Him (Jesus) who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

This passage indicates that it was God the Father who put our sins on Christ. In the same way in which Adam’s sins were imputed to us, so God imputed our sins to Christ. (He thought of them as belonging to Christ.) Does that mean that God thought Christ had committed them? Or that Christ had a sinful nature? No, but rather the guilt for our sins was thought of, by God, as belonging to Christ rather than to us. *See opposite page from John MacArthur

You hear the televangelists say that He took on a sinful nature, or even that He took on the very nature of the Satan.
Word Faith: Neo-Flacianism? Ken and Gloria Copeland, Benny Hinn, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar, Ken Hagin etc.
The Word Faith "Ordo Salutis": 1. Adam was plugged into God and had His nature (Adam was God manifest in flesh - Copeland) 2. Adam fell and plugged into Satan, taking his nature instead. (Flacius/ “Humans beget humans, not whales; Gods beget Gods” - Copeland; Adam fell because he committed an act of high treason and then Satan had the legal rights to man and God is on the outside looking in. Satan had a rightful claim/ this is the Ransom to Satan theory of Atonement - Copeland) 3. Jesus on the cross took on Satan's nature (Flacianism applied to Jesus; Jesus took in his own nature the very nature of Satan/ He Satanized Jesus) 4. Satan took Jesus into hell illegally. (Because Jesus had not really done any high treason, but takes Him into hell and Satan beats up on Jesus for three days. 5. But because he was there illegally, God causes Jesus to be born again in hell ( He then plugs back into God again and Jesus whips Satan in his own domain) 6. The born again Jesus got God's nature 7. Word-faith believers are also gods like Jesus. (We can create on faith like God did, and speak things into existence.)
The above is from the pit of hell and frank blasphemy!

Beloved if Christ took on a sinful nature on the cross, our sins have not been paid. It was only through His sinlessness that He was able or worthy of being our Savior. He would not have been able to make a propitiation for Himself, let alone, for our sins. Do you see that? Our guilt was transferred to Christ. Remember that Christ voluntarily took on Himself the guilt for our sins.
Now there is a difference between having a sin nature and a sinful nature. We must be careful here. Human beings have a human nature that is sinful, corrupt. This is a condition that we inherited from Adam, but not a sin nature. When you say sin nature, you make it a thing, (you reify it). You take away the human nature and change it to a sin nature. We have a human nature with the propensity to sin. Do you see that?

3.) Abandonment. This is another aspect of the cross that is vital to understand. Jesus faced the pain alone. “…Having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.” John 13:1 NASB He had done nothing but love them, in return, they all abandoned Him. But far worse than the human element was the Divine element. Jesus was deprived of the closeness to the Father that had been the deepest joy of His heart for all His earthly life. “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? Matt. 27:46 showed that he was finally cut off from the sweet fellowship with his heavenly Father. (cf. Psalm 22 – Possibly saying that the prophesy was being fulfilled.) The Father, who is “of purer eyes than to behold evil.” Hab. 1:13
Hab. 1:13 {Thine} eyes are too pure to approve evil, And Thou canst not look on wickedness {with favor.} Why dost Thou look with favor On those who deal treacherously? Why art Thou silent when the wicked swallow up Those more righteous than they?

Q. What was it that was broken or abandoned between Jesus and God on the cross? Fellowship, not the relationship in the sense of who He was. He was the Son before the cross, on the cross, and after the cross. There was never a time when He was not the Son. That should be crystal clear.

Q. Did God die on the cross? Your hear this all the time. A. Beloved, God can’t die. He is eternal. He is from all eternity past to eternity future. There was never a time when He did not exist because He alone has the power of Being. Without Him, nothing could exist. Jesus’ Divine nature, His Deity, did not die on the cross. His human body died on the cross. His human body is part of His human nature or humanness. Do you see that? Obviously, the whole Christ was on the cross. The Divine was now in union with a dead man, rather than an alive man. In other words, the Divine nature was still in union with the human nature, but the body which is part of our human nature was dead instead of being alive. The only thing that could die is the human body. The human soul doesn’t die, does it? Of course not.
If God died there would be nothing, because without His existence, nothing exists – THERE IS NOTHING! Do you see that?
Col. 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Q. If there was ever a time when there was nothing, what would there be now? Ans. Nothing! Not a little something, absolutely nothing. This is a good argument for the existence of God. Something must have the power of Being or existence or nothing could ever exist or have existed, there would never be something. That something with the power of Being is God.

4.) Bearing the wrath of God. Even more difficult was the pain of bearing the wrath of God upon Himself. Jesus became the object of the intense hatred of sin and vengeance against sin that God had patiently stored up since the beginning of the world. Many theologians outside of the evangelical world object because they see this as inconsistent with God’s love. But they forget about the other attributes of God such as He is Just. His Justice demands payment for sin. This is not an option for God!
1 This is a superlative as are all of God's attributes.
All good, All powerful, etc. The best, there is no higher. He is all just perfectly.

2 Yet all of His attributes are in complete harmony and do not compromise one at the expense of the other. IMPORTANT
Romans 3:21 - 26 E.g. Justice (for sin) vs. Love
In the human realm we sacrifice justice for mercy. (E.g. Mother and her misbehaving child) God doesn't do that. When we sin, His justice must be satisfied. Punishment must be rendered. E.g. The cross. God's justice had to be satisfied and God Himself provided the answer, with Christ’s death on the cross. (E.g. Judge pronounces us guilty, sentences us to death, and then gets down off the bench and takes our death sentence, that He has just given, upon Himself. Beloved, that is Grace!!)
Rom. 3:21 ¶ But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom. 3:22 even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction;
Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom. 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Rom. 3:25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
Rom. 3:26 for the demonstration, {I say,} of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

APART FROM THIS CENTRAL TRUTH, THE DEATH OF CHRIST REALLY CANNOT BE ADEQUATELY UNDERSTOOD.

Important Facts: 1. It was God’s justice that required the sin be paid for, and among the members of the Trinity, it was God the Father’s role to require payment. 2. The meaning of the blood of Christ is that His life blood was poured out when He died a sacrificial death to pay for our redemption, as clear outward evidence; 1 Peter 1:18-19. Our consciences are cleansed; Heb. 9: 14. We gain bold access to God in worship and prayer; Heb. 10:19. We are progressively cleansed from remaining sin; 1 John 1:7. We are able to conquer the accuser of the brethren; Rev. 12:10-11. We are rescued out of a sinful way of life; 1 Peter 1:18-19. 3. Christ death is a “Penal Subsitutionary Atonement. He bore a penalty when He died. He was a substitution for us when He died. AKA The vicarious atonement. A “vicar” is someone who stands in the place of another or represents another. Christ stood in our place and represented us.

We have 4 needs as sinners that were met by Christ’s death:
Sacrifice: Heb. 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Propitiation: 1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins.
Reconciliation: 2 Cor. 5:18 Now all {these} things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation,
2 Cor. 5:19 namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
Redemption: Mark 10:45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

False Theories / Heresies:

4. The Ransom to Satan Theory: Held by Origen 185-254 A.D., a theologian from Alexandria and later Caesarea. According to this view, the ransom Christ paid to redeem us was paid to Satan, in whose kingdom all people were, by virtue of sin. There is no support in Scripture. This view gives Satan more power than he actually has, i.e. to demand whatever he wants from God. It falsely thinks of Satan as the one who required that a payment be made for sin and thus completely neglects the demands of God’s justice with respect to sin. Nowhere does Scripture say that we owe anything to Satan, but it repeatedly states that God requires of us a payment for our sins. This view fails to deal with Christ’s death as propitiation offered to God the Father for our sins.

5. The Moral Influence Theory: Peter Abelard (1079-1142) a French theologian. This view holds that God did not require the payment of a penalty for sin, but that Christ’s death was simply a way in which God showed how much He loved human beings by identifying with their sufferings, even to the point of death. Christ death is a teaching tool to elicit gratification from us, so that in loving Him we are forgiven. This is simply contrary to Scripture. It robs the Atonement of its objective character, having no effect on God Himself. Finally, it has no way of dealing with guilt. If Christ didn’t die to pay for our sins, we have no right to trust in Him for forgiveness

6. The Socinian or Example Theory: Faustus Socinus (1539-1604), an Italian theologian who settled in Poland attracted a wide following. This view denies that God’s justice requires payment for sin; it says that Christ’s death simply provides us with an example of how we should trust and obey God perfectly. Where the Moral Influence Theory teaches how much God loves us, the Example Theory teaches us how we should live. Some support for this can be found in 1 Peter 2:21 however.
1 Pet. 2:21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,

The Example Theory fails to account for the many Scriptures that focus on Christ’s death as a payment for sin, that He bore our sins, that He was the propitiation for our sins. On these considerations alone, this theory must be rejected. This view really ends up saying that man can save himself by following Christ’s example. This is pure Pelagianism. It fails to show how the guilt of our sin is removed, because Christ paid no penalty or made any provision for our sin according to this theory.

7. The Governmental Theory: Taught by a Dutch theologian and jurist, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). This theory holds that God did not actually have to require payment for sin, but, since he was the omnipotent God, He could have set aside that requirement and simply forgiven sins without payment of a penalty. The purpose of Christ’s death was a demonstration that His laws had been broken, that He is the moral lawgiver and governor of the universe, and that some kind of penalty would be required whenever His laws were broken. Therefore, Christ did not pay for the sins of men, but simply suffered to show that when God’s laws are broken there must be a penalty paid. **This again, is not Scriptural. It doesn’t account for all the Scriptures placing our sins on Christ. It takes away the objective character of the Atonement by simply influencing us to realize that God’s laws must be kept. We cannot trust in Christ’s completed work for forgiveness because he has not actually made a payment for our sin. In this view has God already decided to forgive us without requiring any penalty from us, and then, punished Christ only to demonstrate that He is the moral governor of the universe. Finally, it destroys God’s justice and allows sin without penalty.

Q. Did Christ Descend into Hell? The phrase, “He descended into Hell” is not found in the Bible. It is found in the Apostles’ Creed. Does this mean that Christ suffered further after His death on the cross? The Apostles’ Creed was not written or approved by a single church council at one specific time. It took gradual shape from about 200 AD to 750 AD. The phrase ”He descended into Hell” was not found in any of the early versions of the Creed until it appeared in 1 of 2 versions from Rufinus in AD 390. This is according to Philip Schaff, who is a well-known church historian. It was not included again until 650 AD.

1 Peter 3:18-19; 4:4-6 and following speak to Christ’s preaching to the spirits in prison. Other scriptures noted Eph. 4:8-10 and 1 Tim 3:16. (Greek word for hades can mean just grave, not gehenna or hell the place of punishment. There are 4 explanations:

1. Christ was preaching to fallen angels or demonic spirits. (MacArthur)
2. Christ was proclaiming release to Old Testament saints.
3. Christ actually went to hell and preached to the lost.
4. Christ preached through the Spirit, through Noah to the hostile unbelievers of the day. This would be the pre-incarnate Christ. This is the one the Augustine thought was correct. (Sproul)
Flacianism - "The unregenerate are totally immersed in sin. Therefore, the image of God has been replaced by the true and living image of the devil. Consequently, original sin is the very nature of unregenerate man."
“Sin Nature"
1. Two nature theory: Before we are regenerated we have one nature, a sin nature. When we are regenerated we have a new nature.
NIV translates flesh as the sinful nature.
2. "Sin nature" implies a substance
3. Ambiguous use of the word "nature"
4. Sin as a privation or distortion of an existing substance or nature vs. a nature itself - Augustine Sin has no ontological existence. Sin can only distort something else.
5. More accurate: We have a human nature that is tainted by sin.
Hodge = We are obligated to obey God 100% and the second thing we know is that we can't do that!

Word Faith: Neo-Flacianism? Ken and Gloria Copeland, Benny Hinn, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar, Ken Hagin etc.
The Word Faith "Ordo Salutis": 1. Adam was plugged into God and had His nature (Adam was God manifest in flesh - Copeland) 2. Adam fell and plugged into Satan, taking his nature instead. (Flacius/ Humans beget humans, not whales; Gods beget Gods - Copeland; Adam fell because he committed an act of high treason and then Satan now has the legal rights to man and God is on the outside looking in. Satan has a rightful claim/ this is the Ransom to Satan theory of atonement - Copeland) 3. Jesus on the cross took on Satan's nature (Flacianism applied to Jesus; Jesus took in his own nature the nature of Satan/ He Satanized Jesus) 4. Satan took Jesus into hell illegally. (Because Jesus had not really done any high treason, but takes Him into hell and Satan beats up on Jesus for three days. 5. But because he was there illegally, God causes Jesus to be born again in hell ( He plugs back into God again and Jesus whips Satan in his own domain) 6. The born again Jesus got God's nature 7. Word-faith believers are also gods like Jesus. (We can create on faith like God did, and speak things into existence.)

Extent of the Atonement:
Q. When Christ died on the cross, did He pay for the sins of the entire human race or only for the sins of those who He knew would ultimately be saved? After all the Scripture says that He died for the whole world, for the sins of all men. Surely any idea of limited Atonement believed by the Reformers is out the window with statements like that. It couldn’t be any more clear. However, we must be careful here as to how we interpret the word – “world”. If the word “world” in the Bible means each and every person that ever lived, then the Doctrine of Limited Atonement has to go. But even those who do not believe in Limited Atonement agree that the word “world”, and the “all”, in the phrase “all men” does not mean each and every person. For example Luke 2:1 says, “Now it came about in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth”. NASB Luke 2:1 “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that ‘all the world’ should be taxed”. KJV Does that mean that every person in the entire world was supposed to be included in the census? No, just those within the kingdom of Caesar, which was called the “whole world”. That’s the way the term was used. In the book of Acts, the disciples were said to have “turned the world upside down.” (Ac 17:6* And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also) But the disciples hadn’t even been beyond Asia Minor, they hadn’t turned the world upside down, in the sense of each and every person in the entire world. What that meant is that they had turned a large portion, or that they had made quite a name for themselves in a large area. In John 1:10* He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. Does this mean that no one in the world knew Him? No, it means those that belong to the world, a particular kind of person, refused the light that came into the world. When we say Christ died for the world, we are saying that Christ’s death is with a view not simply to Israel, but that all nations are included in the benefits of the Atonement. This is the basic way this word is used throughout Scripture. So then, the death of Christ, in the Atonement, is not just for the Jews but for the world, the Jews and Gentiles – the “ethnoi”, as they were called. The ethnic groups, the nations. The same thing is meant in the term ”all men”. Really what is being said is that “all kinds” of men. E.g. 1Co 15:22* For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. If all here means each and every, then what do we have? Universal Salvation that flies in the face of clear teaching in Scripture. We know all men are not saved! We are told that when Jesus taught in Capernaum, that all, or the whole city, turned out to hear Him. What does that mean? Did every resident, each and every person in the city turn out to hear Him? No, here the Scripture is speaking in hyperbole. Which is perfectly legitimate. We do it all the time. “When the World Champs returned home the whole city turned out to welcome them.” Does that mean everyone in the entire city came out to greet them? Each and every person? No, only that a large number showed up. However, this is still a very meaningful way to communicate.
This is really a question of universal versus particular atonement.

Limited Atonement (Particular Satisfaction):
1. It is not limited in its inherent ability to save. It is sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect because God only gives Saving Faith to those He has chosen. (Who are the elect?)
2. "Atonement" is a theologically flabby word. (It doesn’t say how the Atonement accomplished.)

*It is better described as "Particular Satisfaction". This better describes Reformed thinking. This is more precise. Particular because it is aimed at specific or particular persons. (In terms of God's intent) Satisfaction tells us about a principle of redemption satisfying God's Divine Justice or Holiness. It describes the specific work of Christ.
This term describes what it actually is!
See Canons of Dort - taught in these
Corollary to the doctrine of election

Refers to God's intention to save - Limited in terms of God's intentionality. God knows that some will reject Him and He lets them. The means are subordinate to the ends or ultimate goal. God must be sovereign over the means as well as the ends. E.g. – "Jet to Australia" Analogy: God decrees that someone will be in Australia tomorrow. So there is only one way to get there in 24 hrs. - by plane = means. If God were not God there are all kinds of things that could mess up His plans. I.e. pilot strike; mechanical failure of aircraft, bad weather, etc. But if God guarantees the end, He must be able to guarantee the means as well. E.g. - God guarantees unconditional election; God must then find a way to take care of the sin problem; give someone faith etc., in other words, the means of that election which contains limited Atonement and even irresistible Grace, are part of those means.
The starting point should be from the human condition of sin and total depravity. (Anthropology and Hamartiology)

Some common objections to Limited Atonement - raised by Arminian and Lutheran theologians. (Lutherans agree on 99% of the doctrine of the Atonement with Reformed)

1. How can the offer of Salvation be genuine if Christ's work is not necessarily intended to save the person being evangelized? I.e. Universal offer; Ans. Since we don't know who is elect, we must offer it to all. The offer can still be genuine, but He knows that certain people are predisposed not to receive it because of their sinful condition and total depravity. 1. Limitation of the work arises from human depravity as the efficient cause. People reject Him because they want to reject Him. 2. God does not place additional barriers in front of unbelievers. 3. If unbelievers will believe, God will save them. So the offer is genuine.

(2nd causes are those that are freely chosen within the moral agents at their own discretion, but God is still sovereign even over those contingencies as well, but He doesn't decree them. E.g. God is Sovereign over our sin without excusing our sin)

2. Unlike with universal atonement, Calvinists can't necessarily tell the unsaved that Jesus paid for their sins, but neither can the Arminians . If one says that a debt is paid, then it's paid without any contingencies. Can one say great and then go on living with total disregard to the conditions of payment? Only Universalists can say this. (If all the sins of world are paid for, then God would be unjust to send anyone to Hell because everyone’s sin are paid for; if someone goes to Hell, does that mean that Christ's death not sufficient? I don't think so.) 3.) Universal atonement vs. particular redemption (Shedd) Aristotelian categories - a. Form or formally of Christ's work is for the sins of the whole world - sufficient; b. matter or materially only those to whom it is applied are redeemed.
4.) Gospel presentation is the same - i.e. a. Christ's work is the miracle cure for the disease of sin. (which is 100% fatal) b. It is sufficient to cure any and all who want to take it. c. Any who don't take it will die, but all who do will live. d. Therefore, take it and live. e. But leave it in the bottle and its healing powers do you no good.

Where do the Calvinists and Arminians disagree? The difference is in answering the following questions:
1. Why do some people reject the doctor and his medicine?
2. Why do other people trust the doctor and take his medicine?

The difference is in what extent God is involved.

They both agree that not all will be saved.

They both believe that His death has infinite merit and is sufficient for all.

Arminians believe it's the people's choice.

Reformers believe those that reject Christ’s offer, are responsible for their own decision, and those who do believe , that God is responsible, even though they themselves freely choose Him.

For non-believers, they don't want God and they reject Him freely.
For believers, they want to chose God and they do it freely.

Arminian view:
Prevenient Grace is that Grace that God gives to all people. That Grace is sufficient and necessary to allow us to accept or reject the Grace.

5 Points of Calvinism:
Statement of the Problem - Misunderstanding because of the labels given (labels are not well represented of Calvinism); Some points are misnomers; Go through tulip acronym and examine problems with it; suggest alternatives.

T = total depravity. It means that sin effects every part of the human being - mind, body, and soul. It doesn't mean that we are as bad as we can be. A better expression would be "radical depravity” This refers more to the "extent" of the depravity. "Pervasive depravity" could be used too.

U = unconditional election - Nothing wrong with this one; Election is unconditional in the sense that it is not conditioned on any inherent quality or property in us; Election is predicated solely on God's mercy and sovereign choice.

L = limited Atonement - Exceedingly misleading; "Limited" implies a defect in the work (note the sufficiency/efficiency distinction); "Atonement" is a theologically flabby word; "Satisfaction" is more precise; "Particular satisfaction" is a better way of describing it.

I = irresistible Grace - Implies coercion of the will; God transforms the sinner so he/she freely but necessarily chooses - Necessity (refers to the certainty of the outcome) and freedom (not under compulsion) are not opposites; Grace is efficacious - i.e. it always works!; "Efficacious Grace" is a better description.

P = perseverance of the Saints - This one is not bad; Not to be confused with "eternal security" - not just fire insurance; Sanctification is part of this, a package deal.

RUPEP would be better than TULIP! Holding to the 5 points are necessary but not sufficient to be reformed. One must hold to much broader confessional norms to truly be reformed.

Resurrection

Resurrection:

New Testament Evidence:
The Gospels contain abundant testimony to the Resurrection. E.g. Matt. 28:1-20; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24:1-53; John 20:1-21:25. Acts as well is a story of the apostles’ proclamation of the Resurrection of Christ. The Epistles depend entirely on the assumption that Jesus is a living, reigning Savior who is to be exalted, trusted, worshipped, and adored.

Nature of Christ’s Resurrection:
Christ’s resurrection was not simply a coming back from the dead. Lazarus did that in John 11:1-44. If that were all it was then Jesus would have to die again like all other human beings. When He rose from the dead, He was the “first fruits” of a new kind of human life, a life in which His body was made perfect, no longer subject to decay, suffering, or death. It was raised transformed. The fact that Jesus had a physical body is denied by some religions such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. They believe that he rose only Spiritually, but there was no bodily Resurrection. It is impossible to square that with Scripture. The facts that Jesus had a physical body that could be touched and handled after the Resurrection is seen throughout Scripture:

1. In that the disciples “took hold of his feet” in Matt. 28:9.
2. That He appeared to the disciples on the road to Emmaus to be just another traveler on the road in Luke 24:15-18,28-29.
3. That he took bread and broke it in Luke 24:30.
4. That He ate a piece of broiled fish to demonstrate clearly that He had a physical body and was not just a spirit.
5. That Mary thought Him to be a gardener in John 20:15.
6. That “He showed them His hands and His side” in John 20:20.
7. That He prepared breakfast for His disciples in John 21:12-13.
8. That He explicitly told them, “See My hand and My feet, that it is I Myself; handle Me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have in Luke 24:39.
9. Peter said that the disciples “ate and drank with Him after He rose from the dead” in Acts 10:41.
Jesus was apparently able to appear and disappear out of sight quite suddenly as found in Luke 24:31,36 and in John 20:19 and following. We should, however, be careful not to draw too many conclusions from this. When Jesus suddenly vanished from the sight of the disciples in Emmaus, this may have been a special miraculous occurrence, such as happened when “the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more.” Whether or not Jesus’ body could pass through walls or whether the locked door miraculously opened as in Acts 12:10,
(Acts 12:10 And when they had passed the first and second guard, they came to the iron gate that leads into the city, which opened for them by itself; and they went out and went along one street; and immediately the angel departed from him.) NASB

we do not know for sure. In Luke 24:31, all we can conclude is that the disciples no longer saw Jesus. Perhaps, the Spirit of the Lord took Him away as with Philip and the eunich, or perhaps He was just hidden from their sight as with the heavenly army around Elisha, in 2 Kings 6:17, or as with the apostles walking past the prison guards in Acts 5:19 and following. In any case we can not conclude that Jesus’ physical body became nonphysical, any more than we can conclude that the disciples bodies became nonphysical when they walked past the guards in Acts 5:23.
SLIDE 4
What were the physical appearances intended to teach the disciples if not that Jesus’ Resurrection body was definitely a physical body? If Jesus rose from the dead in the same physical body that he died, and if He repeatedly appeared to the disciples in that physical body, and it remained the same for 40 days, and He ascended to Heaven in that same physical body (Acts 1:9), and if the angel immediately told the disciples that “this Jesus, who was taken up from you into Heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into Heaven” (Acts 1:11), then Jesus was clearly teaching them that His Resurrection body was a PHYSICAL BODY.

If the conventional form of His Resurrection body was nonphysical, then He would have been guilty of misleading the disciples.

He did not say these are my “flesh and bones, as you see that I temporarily have.”
Finally, the physical Resurrection of Jesus, and His eternal possession of a physical Resurrection body, gives clear evidence of the goodness of the original material creation of God. We must not fall into thinking that somehow non-material existence is better that physical existence in a perfected body.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? Ans: The Trinity participated in the Resurrection: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all raise Jesus from the dead. – all members of the Godhead. There is only ONE (1) God – Deut. 6:4 *See cross page references to one God.

Father = 1 Thess. 1:9, “For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God,”
1 Thess. 1:10, “and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, {that is} Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.” NASB
(Other texts = Acts 2:24; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20.)

Son = John 2:19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."
John 2:20 The Jews therefore said, "It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?"
John 2:21 “But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” NASB
(Other texts = John 10:17-18 NIV)

Holy Spirit = Rom. 8:11, “But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you.” NASB

1 Peter 3: 18, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, thatHe might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.” KJV

Doctrinal Significance of the Resurrection:
1ST CLICK
1. Christ’s Resurrection Insures our Regeneration.
Peter says “we have been born anew to a living hope through the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Peter 1:3) Here he explicitly connects Jesus’ Resurrection with our regeneration or new birth. (Being born-again)
Thus, it is through His Resurrection that Christ earned for us the new kind of life we receive when we are born again. This is why Paul can say that God “made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him.” Eph. 2:5-6.

2. Christ’s Resurrection Insures our Justification.
Paul says, “Jesus was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” Rom. 4:25. By raising Christ from the dead, God the Father, was in effect saying that He approved of Christ’s work of suffering and dying for our sins, that His work was completed, and that Christ no longer had any need to remain dead. There was no penalty left to pay for sin, no more wrath of God to bear, no more guilt or punishment – all had been completely paid for. When God the Father in essence said to the Son, “All penalty is paid, you are not guilty but righteous in My sight”, He was thereby making the declaration that would also apply to us once we trusted in Christ for Salvation.

3. Christ’s Resurrection Insures our perfect bodily Resurrection.
1 Cor. 6:14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. NASB

2 Cor. 4:14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you. NASB

The most extensive discussion takes place in 1 Cor. 15:12-58. In 15:20, Paul says that Christ is the “first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.” Just as the first fruits or the first taste of the ripening crop show what the rest of the harvest will be like for that crop, so Christ as the “first fruits” shows what our resurrection bodies will be like when , in God’s final harvest, He raises us from the dead and brings us into His presence.
The scars from Jesus’ crucifixion are unique because they are an eternal reminder of His sufferings and death for us. The fact that He retains those scars does not necessarily mean that we shall retain ours.

Deity of Christ (and His Humanity)

Deity of Christ and His Humanity

1. Jesus is qualitatively different than the rest of humanity or any other entity. He never sinned and also has a Divine nature.

2. He is unique. He alone is the One and only Son. God the One and only Who is at the Fathers side. 1 John 4:9 - the word used here is the monogenes. John 1:14,18 says, He is God the Father’s One and only Son.
Monogenes meaning only unique, or only one of a kind, or only Son.

5. He alone is both fully God and fully Man, I.e. He alone is fully Divine and fully human, separate and unique from all that have, do, or will exist in the universe or possible universes. He is categorically unique and distinct from all the other beings in the universe.

Jesus' 2 Natures: Creed of Chalcedon - 451 AD. Q. Is this a contradiction by the way, to say that Jesus had 2 natures? Ans: No, only if we said He had 2 natures in 1 nature or 2 whats in 1 what. But we are saying that He had 2 whats in 1 who

Fully human and fully Divine. “Hypostatic union” (Gk. Hypostatis means subsistence or being) This phrase simply means the union of Christ’s human and Divine natures in one Person or Being. Jesus in Heb. 1:3 (also Col 1:15) is the exact duplicate of the nature of God, making Him exactly equal to God in every attribute. Moreover, he continually upholds the universe “by His word of power,” something that only God could do.
(Look up the communication of attributes [Roman Catholic doctrine] – term used to denote Divine attributes that are communicated to the human nature by the Divine nature and the fact that the 2 natures are inseparably connected, yet distinct. I.e. Omnipresence)

First His Human Nature.

Fully human = complete human nature; complete complex of attributes we call humanity.

He became human at a point in time, and continues to be human, and remains human in His incarnation to everlasting - forever and ever. Luke 2:4-7; John 1:14,18; Rom 1:3,4; Phil 2:7,8; Heb 2:14; Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:9-11. E.g. If one was taking a video of Jesus departing or ascending on from the Mt. of Olives, all one would have to do to see what it will be like when he returns is to play the video backwards.
3RD CLICK
The question is really not whether Jesus was fully human, but whether we are. He was not merely human as we are; He was more human than we are and we should define humanity by examining the human nature of Jesus, for He most fully reveals the true nature of humanity. He became fully human about 4 B.C. He took upon Himself a human nature at conception and continues to be human for everlasting.

1.Jesus had a human body. The fact that Jesus had a human body just like ours if found in many passages of Scripture. He was born as a baby and grew like other human children do. Luke 2:40; Luke 2:52. He got tired (John 4:6), thirsty (John 19:28), and hungry (Matt. 4:2) just like we do. His human body ceased to have life in it and ceased to function, just as ours does when we die. (Luke 23:46)

2. Jesus had a human mind. The fact that He “increased in wisdom” (Luke 2:52) says that He went through a learning process just as all other children do, i.e. He learned how to eat, talk, read and write. In Mark 13:32, He said He didn’t know the day or the hour of His return.

3. Jesus had a human soul (spirit) and human emotions. There are several indications for this in Scripture. In John 12:27, Jesus said, “Now is my soul troubled.” John writes in 13:21, “When Jesus had thus spoken, He was troubled in spirit.” The word troubled represents in the Greek tarasso, a word that is often used of people when they are anxious or suddenly very surprised by danger. In Matt. 26:28, Jesus knowing the suffering ahead said, ”My soul is very sorrowful, even to death”.
Jesus had a full range of emotions. He marveled at the faith of the Centurion in Matt. 8:10. He wept over Lazarus in John 11:35. In Hebrews 5:7, “He offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to Him who was able to save Him from death…” The author of Hebrews affirms that Jesus “in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin”. (Heb. 4:15) The fact that He faced temptation means that He had a genuine human nature that could be tempted, for Scripture tells clearly that “God cannot be tempted with evil..” (James 1:13)

People near Jesus saw Him only as a man. For 30 years He lived a human life, so normal and ordinary, that the people of Nazareth who knew Him best were amazed that He could teach with authority and work miracles. He, after all, was the carpenter’s son. John tells us “even his brothers did not believe Him.” (John 7:5)

It is important to note here, that even though He was fully human, He was without sin. This was one important difference between He and us in our humanness. We must remember that we, as humans, are now in an aberrant state. God did not create humans sinful, but holy and righteous. It was only after they rebelled against God that mankind inherited this sinful condition. In John 8:46, Jesus asked, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” and He received no answer. It is significant that when Jesus came to trial, Pilate, in spite of many false accusations, could find “no fault in Him.” (John 18:38) In the book of Acts, several times, Jesus is called the Holy One or the Righteous One. (Acts 2:27; 3:14; 4:30; 7:52; 13:35) Hebrews 7:26 says “He is a high priest who is Holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens”. 1 Peter 1:19 says He is a “lamb without blemish or spot.” 1 Peter 2:22 says He committed no sin; no guile was found on His lips”. Christ obeyed God in our place and as our representative, thus succeeding where Adam failed, where Israel failed, and where we failed.

Q. Could Jesus have sinned? Some argue for the impeccability of Christ, I.e. that He was “not able to sin”. (Latin – non passe peccare)

Ans. Because Jesus was fully human and fully God, we must answer the question in 2 parts. First, in His human nature, He was able to sin and be tempted. However in His Divine nature, He was not able to sin or to be tempted. As already stated James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted with evil. This is all we can say in terms of clear and explicit teachings from Scripture.

But we must remember that Jesus’ human nature never existed apart from union with His Divine nature. Some think, therefore, If He had sinned, it would have to involve both natures. But if that had happened then God Himself would have sinned. Therefore, it is argued that one must conclude that it was not possible for Jesus to sin because of the union between the 2 natures in one person prevented it.
In order for the temptations to be real, Jesus had to meet every temptation to sin, not by His Divine nature, but on the strength of His human nature alone. He did not rely on His Divine nature to make it easier for Him in the face of temptation.

Q. Why was Jesus’ full humanity necessary?
ANS:
1. To be our representative in obedience, He had to be one of us. Romans 5:18-19 *(Mankind was twice represented perfectly – Adam and Christ)

2. To be a substitute sacrifice. If Jesus had not been a man, he could not have died in our place and paid the penalty that was due us. Hebrews 2:16-17.

3. To be the One Mediator between God and man. 1 Tim. 2:5. We needed a Mediator who could represent us to God and who could represent God to us.

4. To be our example and pattern in life. 1 John 2:6 says we ought to walk in the same way in which He walked. “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.” 1 Peter 2:21.

5. To be a pattern for our redeemed bodies. We now have a physical body like Adam’s, but we will have one like Christ’s. “Just as we have born the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven”. 1 Cor. 15:49.
6TH CLICK
6. To sympathize as high priest. Hebrews 2:18 reminds us that “because He Himself has suffered and been tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted”.

Fully Divine. He has always been God, is God, and will always be God. He never ceased being God. There will never be a time when He is not God. He is God for all eternity past and all eternity future. Only someone who is the infinite God could bear the full penalty for all the sins of all those who would believe in Him. No finite creature could fill that bill. Only someone who was truly God could be the one Mediator between God and man. If Jesus is not fully God, we have no Salvation and ultimately no Christianity.

Jesus possessed attributes of Deity.

He demonstrated omnipotence when He stilled the waters with a word in Matt. 8:26-27, multiplied the loaves and fish in Matt. 14:19, and changed waster into wine in John 2:1 and following.

God is eternal. If God is eternal and Jesus is Yahweh, then He is eternal. Jesus has always been God, the 2nd person of the trinity. There was never a time when He was not God. Therefore He has always existed.
One of Gods attributes, His alone, is eternal existence. Nem 9:5; Psalms 90:2; 102:25-27; Rom 16:26; 1 Tim 6:15; Heb 1:10-12; Rev 4:8,9
Mica 5:2= Jesus or Messiah described in OT with regard to his eternality.
Mic. 5:2 "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {Too} little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

John 1:1 can be translated: Before the beginning began or when the beginning began.
Jesus asserts His eternity when He says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega” in Rev. 22:13.

John 17:5 "And now, glorify Thou Me together with Thyself, Father, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.
Does God share His own Personal glory with anyone? The glory of His inherent Being?
Is. 48:11 "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can {My name} be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Yet even though Yahweh doesn’t share is Glory with another in Is. 48:11, Jesus had it with the Father before the world was according to John 17:5!!

The omniscience of Jesus is demonstrated in His knowing people’s thoughts as in Mark 2:8 and seeing Nathaniel under the fig tree from far way in John 1:48, and knowing “from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray Him” in John 6:64. John explicitly says that Jesus “knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man” in John 2:25. The disciples said later, “Now we know that you know all things in John 16:30. After the resurrection Peter answered, “Lord, you know everything, you know that I love you in John 21:17.

He displayed His Divine sovereignty , a kind of authority possessed by God alone, in forgiving sins in Mark 2:5-7. Instead of using OT prophets words like “Thus says the Lord,” He could preface His statements with the phrase, but “I say to you…” Such is His authority that the future eternal state of everyone in the universe depends on whether they believe in Him or reject Him as stated in John 3:36.

He also possessed divine immortality, the inability to die. He had an active role in His own Resurrection. E.g. “Destroy this temple, and in 3 days, I will raise it up.” John 2:19. Hebrews 7:16 says Jesus has become a priest by the power of an “indestructible life.”

Also He was counted worthy to be worshipped, something that is true of no other being, including angels, (See Rev. 19:10) but God alone. Phil. 2:9-11 says every knee should bow and every tongue confess the Jesus Christ is Lord. In Hebrews 1:6 it says “Let all God’s angels worship Him”.

Jesus is called God by others: John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Col 2:9; Titus 1:3, 2:10; 2 Peter 1:1. OT – Isaiah 9:6 = “For unto us a child is born……and His name will be called ‘Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God…’”
Is 9:6 = ….Wonderful counselor, Mighty God – cf. Is. 10:21 = A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God. (not Mighty hero as some want to translate it)

a Jesus is Yahweh; He is fully God. i.e. 2nd person of the trinity.
Yahweh or Jehovah is the name of God given in the OT - Ex 3:4-7

b Yahweh is the one, the only true God. Is 43:10-13; 2 Chron 15:13; Jer. 10:10 = “But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation.“

c Jesus is Yahweh as are the Father and HS
Specific verses in OT applied to Jesus in NT
Ps 34: 8a to 1 Pet 2:3; Ps 45:6-7 to Heb. 1:8,9 and 10-12
Is. 6:6-10 to John12:37-41; Is 8:12-14 to 1 Pet 3:14-15
Is. 45:21-24 to Phil 2:9-11; Joel 2:32 to Rom 10:13 New Testament is Kyrios or Theos referring to Jesus.

(Kyrios = Lord = YHWH) Kyrios can also be Adonai. Hebrew word Adon means master (of respect) and it is an equivalent of Kyrios.

Adonai in the OT is only used for Yahweh. Adonai is never used for a human, only exclusively for Yahweh. Adon can be used for Yahweh or for a mere earthly ruler like Kyrios can.

Ps. 110:1 (A Psalm of David.) The \Lord\ (Yahweh) says to my Lord (Adonai): "Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet."

David says Adonai = The LORD (Yahweh) says to my Lord (Adonai) - essentially Yahweh said to my Yahweh, because Adonai is only used for Yahweh.

YHWH is a tetragramaton = Yahweh. **This should be consistent throughout the scriptures. Yahweh is a personal name. Elohim is a title, I.e. sir
YHWH leaves out the vowels.
(Isaiah 48:16 can see all three in trinity.)

Is. 48:11 "For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can {My name} be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another.
Is. 48:12 ¶ "Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called; I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
Is. 48:13 "Surely My hand founded the earth, And My right hand spread out the heavens; When I call to them, they stand together.
Is. 48:14 "Assemble, all of you, and listen! Who among them has declared these things? The \Lord\ loves him; he shall carry out His good pleasure on Babylon, And His arm {shall be against} the Chaldeans.
Is. 48:15 "I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him, I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
Is. 48:16 "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord \God\ has sent Me, and His Spirit." #
God the Father God the Son God the HS

Jesus claimed to be God in John 5:18, John 8:57-59; John 19:7; John 10:21-33 There is no doubt that He claimed to be God and that's why they wanted to kill Him.

These Show Jesus claimed to be God

**Strong claims = John 8:57 “You are not 50 years old, and have you seen Abraham?”

Here a sufficient response to prove Jesus’ eternity would have been, “Before Abraham was, I was”. But He didn’t say that. He said, “Before Abraham was, I am.” John 8:58

He combined 2 assertions. “Before something in the past happened (Abraham was), something in the present happened (I am).” The Jewish leaders knew at once He was repeating the very words of God used when He identified Himself to Moses as “I AM WHO I AM”. Jesus was claiming for Himself a title that God had claimed to designate Himself as the eternal existing One. the God who has the power of Being within Himself.

Another strong connection to Christ and Deity with the Father comes in Revelation.

Jesus’ statement at the end of Rev. 22:13 says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” And when combined with the statement of God the Father in Rev. 1:8, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” constitutes a strong claim to equal Deity with God the Father. (Also Rev. 1:17-18. “He who was dead and is alive again forever more.”)
John 1:1; John 5:17,18; John 8:24; Exod 3:14; John 19:7; John 20:28; John19:7.
Rom 9:5,6; 10:9 Lord here means God, that Christ is divine. Verse 13 of Rom. 10 “\Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved.\"
LORD refers to Yahweh referring to Christ.
Joel 2:32 "And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the \Lord\ Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the \Lord\ has said, Even among the survivors whom the \Lord\ calls.

(Phil 2:5-11; Col 2:9; Titus 2:13; 2Pet 1:1,2; all run together these next ones - Rev 1:8, 12-18; 2:8 4:8; 11:17; 21:6; 22:12,13; 22:16 cross reference with Is 41:4; 44:6 (Most of these are not variant readings)

Christ is the first and the last, the alpha and omega in Rev 22:13 with Is 41:4 in OT (Is. 41:4 "Who has performed and accomplished {it,} Calling forth the generations from the beginning? 'I, the \Lord\, am the first, and with the last. I am He.'") Mk 13:6; 14:62; Lk 21:8; John 8:28,58; 13:19.
And in NT Rev. 1:8 ¶ "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
Rev. 1:17 And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as a dead man. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying, "Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last,
Rev. 1:18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
.
John 1:1 Get an interlinear or parallel Bible
Theos does not have the direct article because it precedes the verb was. This is pristinely written. It's written the only way it could be written to say what John wanted to say. Bedrock passage for the Deity of Christ.
Argument with Jehovah’s Witness:
If Jesus is a God, then there are 2 Gods. But the Bible says there is only one true God. John 17:5; so Jesus must be a false God. Is He a false God? You said He is a true God. He can't be both true and false God. Is He the true or the false God?

Next point. John 1:3 Christ made all things. If Christ was made then He would have had to make Himself. He would both have to exist and not exist at the same time.
Christ has created all things that have been created. Heb 1:2,10; John 1:3; Psalms 102:25

1. Jesus Christ is God, God the Son
2. God is by nature always existed
3. Therefore Jesus Christ has always existed and always been God

JWs say "all things" refers only to inanimate objects. All here is the neuter pleural - panta. In Eph 1:10 "all things" here is panta too and in context is referring to angels and beings; Col 1:15-17 – “all things" here in vs. 16 is panta too, and in context is referring to beings and it can only mean this logically and exegetically in John1:1 and 1:3; vs. 17 is panta again; Eph 1:22 also - all things here (panta) refers to created beings.

Eph. 1:10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, {that is}, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth. In Him
Eph. 1:22 And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church,
Col. 1:15 And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.
Col. 1:16 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 by Him and for Him.
Col. 1:17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Expositers Commentary - especially the notes.
New International Commentary of the New Testament; John 1:1 NICNT - Leon Morris
KNOW THIS: a predicate nominative has the definite article when it follows a verb, it doesn't have the definite article when it precedes the verb. (This is called an anarthrous noun in the Greek)
In John 1:3 - He would have to have made Himself before He existed. It is an absurdity. He would have to exist in order to make Himself and not exist in order to be made or created.

Col 2:9 is another great passage.
Titus 2:13
Philippians 2: 3 and following 11 esp. vs. 6,7
Thoughts - Paradigm of the virtue of humility
Christ is the servant King

Phil. 2:3 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself;
Phil. 2:4 do not {merely} look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others.
Phil. 2:5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
Phil. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Phil. 2:7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, {and} being made in the likeness of men.
Phil. 2:8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Phil. 2:9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
Phil. 2:10 that at the name of Jesus \every knee should bow,\ of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth,
Phil. 2:11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

8 points of this passage:
1 Humility one of the main things being taught here
2 Huparchon= present participle (properties of noun and verbs)
I.e. ing words. Verbal adjective i.e. Running Bear; present participle shows that it is on going. vs. 6 Who being in very nature of God(synonym of being = existing, remaining, not ceasing, continuing, being) i.e. the idea keeps on going.
3 Nature - word here is morphem = form; has multiple meanings. Can mean outward form or appearance as as liberals claim. Another meaning is essence - ontological essence. Whatever appearance changes, He is still God.
JW's say He wasn't God, and didn't remain being God.
Even a mere angel people are fearful and fall over. Theophanies the same. Ex 19:9-25 - 20. Deut 9:19 and following Heb 12:18-21.
Isaiah 6:5-7; Heb 12:28,29; Deut 4:24

Point - People don't fall over like dead men when they see Jesus. If Jesus had remained God in outward form they would have fallen over dead. So this could not mean "outward form" of God. The passage makes no sense if you use this meaning. Jesus does not cease being God.
4 Isa - absolute sameness of nature; equal with God - John 5:17,18. (Equality = Isa)
5 Harpagmos - One meaning is to seize it, to go after it. (grasp) He does not cling to it. He can't steal something that is His. JW's say that He did not go after, clutch, sieze, grasp it. Because He didn't go after the equality with God that is why He is not God and why He is considered good.
6 Lesson -If one is not God, it makes no sense to be humble. If He is God then this passage is the paragon of humility. Then it makes sense. (2:6) If He isn't God, then the claim of His humility makes no sense. If we grant the JW's meaning of Harpagmos, then this statement makes no sense. They say He wasn't God, so He knew He wouldn't be able to get it, so He didn't grasp it. But how does that show humility? It would only be humility if it was His and He thought of it as something not to be held onto or prized and was willing to freely and voluntarily relinquish it. How can it be humility to give up what you don't already have? I.e. Deity - or rather limit Himself. He never gave up being Deity or God.
7 2:7 - emptied Himself, made Himself of no reputation; verb here is kennoo = limits Himself. JW's say that when He emptied Himself, He wasn't that anymore. He doesn't loose anything. He adds humanity. He laid a side His privileges or His divine prerogatives and took on the limitations of humanity. He takes upon Himself the complex of attributes called humanity and thereby humbles Himself.
Humble: 1) Becomes Human 2) Unto death 3) Death on the cross
He let them torture, humiliate, and kill Him, to the point of death on the cross. Is 45:21-24 / Phil 2:10-11 are references. Here He is called LORD or YHWH.
In (5), if He is not God, and He never claimed to be God - How could be humble? He is ultimately humble. If He is not God, then He can't give up His deity. If He is not God, how could He not attempt to grasp Deity? Liberals say this as well as JW's - They say that He wasn't God because He didn't try to grasp Deity.
If you're humble, you don't go after something that is yours. If He is not God, He couldn't humble Himself to give it up (i.e. His Deity/ some attributes),if He didn't have it to begin with. (How can you give up something that you don't have?)

Also in 6 if form means outward appearance, then, and in context it means, " Being in the nature of God - meaning continually being (continually existing as God); this is a direct contradiction to vs. 7 where He takes on the form of a human slave. He couldn't continually have the outward appearance of God and the outward appearance of a human slave at the same time.
This is a contradiction. It wouldn't make sense. Morphe must mean ontological essence and not outward form. Besides no one dropped over dead when the saw Him.

Phil. 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,(It was not a thing to be grasped, because if He did in fact grasp it, it would not be an act of humility.

Did Jesus give up some of His Divine attributes while on earth?

(The Kenosis Theory) Kenotic theology holds that Christ gave up some of His divine attributes while He was on earth as a man. Kenosis is taken from the Greek word kenoo, which generally means to “empty”.

In Phil. 2:7, it is translated “emptied Himself”. According to this theory, Christ emptied Himself of some of His divine attributes, such as omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, while He was on earth as a man. This is seen as a voluntary limitation on Christ’s part, which He carried out in order to fulfill His work of redemption. However, Scripture does not bear this out. Scripture describes what Jesus did in this emptying. He did not do it by giving up any of His attributes but rather by “taking the form of a servant,” that is, by coming to live as a man, and “being found in human form He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.” (Phil 2:8) Thus the emptying Himself translates in context to humbling Himself and taking on a lowly status.
Paul’s entire chapter is concerned with humility. His purpose has been to persuade the Philippians that they should “do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than themselves.” (Phil. 2:3) “Emptying” simply means that He set aside His glory and privilege for a time while He was on earth. He doesn't loose anything. He adds humanity. He laid a side His privileges or His Divine prerogatives and took on the limitations of humanity.
We must conclude that it is equality with God, not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied Himself. While He did not cease to be in nature what the Father was, He became functionally subordinated to the Father for the period of the incarnation. He did this for purposes of revealing God and redeeming man. By taking on human nature, He accepted certain limitations upon the functioning of His Divine attributes. These limitations were not the result of a loss of Divine attributes but of the addition of human attributes.

Picture this analogy:
You are the world’s fastest runner and you enter a 3-legged race. You must run with one leg tied to another person. Your physical capacity is not diminished, but the condition under which you exercise it, is!

Major Heresies:

Apollinarianism - Apollinarius, who became bishop in Laodicea about 361 AD. Apollinarius was a close friend and associate of Athanasius, the leading champion of orthodox Christology against Ariansim at the Council of Nicea. He taught that the 1 person of Christ had a human body but not a human soul. (Mind and spirit) Jesus took on genuine humanity, but not the whole of human nature. Jesus, he said, was a man physically, but not psychologically. He had a human body, but not a human soul. His soul was Divine. He said that Jesus did not have a human will. Consequently, He could not sin, for His person was fully controlled by His Divine soul. But the views of Apollinarius were rejected by the leaders of the church at that time, who realized that both the human body and the soul needed the redemptive work of Christ. Apollinarianism was rejected by several church councils, from the Council of Alexandria in 362 AD to the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. As orthodoxy saw its own Christology, however, Jesus did in fact consist of two parts humanity (a body and a soul) and one part Deity (a soul if you will), but the resulting formula is 2 + 1 = 2. This is of course a paradox, but one that the orthodox felt constrained to accept as a Divine truth beyond their human capacity to understand.

Nestorianism - Nestorius was a popular preacher of Antioch, and from 428 AD was bishop of Constantinople. Through a combination of several personal conflicts and a good deal of ecclesiastical politics, he was removed from his office of bishop and his teachings were condemned. His doctrine taught that there were 2 separate persons in Christ, a human person and a Divine person, a teaching that is distinct from the Biblical view that sees Jesus as 1 person. Nestorius preferred to think in terms of a “conjunction” between the 2 natures rather than a union. Nowhere in Scripture do we have an indication that the human nature of Christ, for example, is an independent person, deciding to do something contrary to the Divine nature of Christ. Rather, we have a consistent picture of a single person acting in wholeness and unity. Jesus always speaks as I not as we, though He can refer to Himself and the Father as We. The Bible speaks of Jesus as He not as they.

Monophysitism (Eutychianism) - A third heretical view is called monophysitism, the view that Christ had one nature only. (Gk monos, meaning one, and physis meaning nature) Eutyches lived from 378-454 AD. He was the leader of a monastery at Constantinople. He taught the opposite error from Nestorianism, for he denied that the human nature and Divine nature in Christ remained fully human and fully Divine. He held that the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the Divine nature, so that both natures were somewhat changed to a kind of 3rd nature. Like putting a drop of ink into a glass of water. Jesus then was a mixture of Divine and human elements modified to form a new nature and consequently was neither truly God or truly man.

Summary of the implications of the Humanity of Jesus.

1. The Atoning death of Jesus can truly avail for us. He was one of us, and thus could truly offer a sacrifice on our behalf.
2. Jesus can truly sympathize with and intercede for us. He experienced all that we might undergo.
3. Jesus manifests the true nature of humanity.
4. Jesus can be our example. The fact that Jesus found it necessary to pray and depend upon the Father is indication we must do the same.
5. Human nature is good. True human nature that is, as before the fall.
7. God is not only transcendent, but immanent in the world.

Summary of the implications of the Deity of Christ.
1. We can have real knowledge of God. Jesus said, “He who has seen me as seen the Father. (John 14:9)
2. Redemption is available to us. The death of Christ is sufficient for all sinners who have ever lived, for it was not merely a finite human, but an infinite God who somehow experienced death through the person of Christ without actually dying.
3. God and man have been reunited. God Himself crossed the chasm created by sin for our redemption. This is Grace!
4. Worship of Christ is appropriate. He is God in the same sense and to the same degree as the Father.

The Virgin Birth

The Virgin Birth:

The doctrinal importance of the virgin birth is seen in at least 3 areas:

1. It shows that Salvation must ultimately come from the Lord. The virgin birth of Christ is an unmistakable reminder that Salvation can never come through human effort, but must be the work of God Himself.

2. The virgin birth made possible the uniting of full Deity and full humanity in one person. This was the means by which God sent His Son into the world. Surely God could have done this another way, but it is difficult to see how Jesus could be fully human as we are, and also He wouldn’t be a part of the human race that physically descended from Adam. If He had two human parents it would be difficult for us to understand how He could be fully God, since His origin was like ours in every way.

3. The virgin birth also makes possible Christ’s true humanity without inherited sin.

All human beings have inherited legal guilt and a corrupt moral nature from their first father, Adam, and this is sometimes called “inherited sin” or “Original Sin”.

Because Jesus did not have a human father means that the line of descent of Adam is partially interrupted. Jesus did not descend from Adam in exactly the same way in which every other human being has descended from Adam. This helps us to understand why the legal guilt and moral corruption that belongs to all other human beings did not belong to Christ.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy offspring shall be called the Son of God.

We should not conclude here, that sin comes only from the father. We can say that, in this case, the unbroken line of descent from Adam was broken when Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Through the absence of a human father, Jesus was not fully descended from Adam, and that this break was a method God used to bring it about that Jesus was fully human , yet without inherited sin.

But why did Jesus not inherit a sinful nature from Mary?

There are 2 prominent explanations.

First is the “Immaculate Conception – what is it?” This doctrine does not refer to the conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb, but to the conception of Mary in her mother, Anna’s womb. It teaches that Mary was free from inherited sin. This is what the Roman Catholic believes. On December 8,1854, Pope Pius IX proclaimed, “The Most Holy Virgin Mary was, in the first moment of her conception…in view of the merits of Jesus Christ…preserved free from all stain or original sin.” In response we must say that the NT does highly honor Mary as one who has “found favor with God” and “Blessed… among women.” (Luke 1:42) However, it nowhere indicates in the Bible that Mary was without sin. Even if it were true, it doesn’t solve the problem of how Mary was born sinless and remained that way until the angel spoke to her. It merely pushes the question back one generation. The word translated “favor” in Luke 1:28 (Gk charitoo) is used to refer to all Christians in Eph. 1:6.

Secondly, a better solution is to say that the work of the Holy Spirit in Mary must have prevented not only the transmission of sin from Joseph, but also, in a miraculous way, the transmission of sin from Mary. In Luke 1:35 …therefore the child to be born will be called Holy. It reveals that this baby will be a special creation with His Father being God Himself.
We should believe in the virgin birth because the Scripture affirms it. Certainly such a miracle is not too difficult for God who created the world and the universe and everything in it.

Luke 1:37 "For nothing will be impossible with God."

Therefore, anyone who denies the virgin birth as “impossible” is just confessing his or her own unbelief in the God of the Bible. Those who do not believe in the virgin birth usually do not believe that Jesus is the true Son of God. Therefore, the virgin birth is a watershed doctrine separating orthodox Christians from those who do not believe in the Atonement or the Resurrection.

Summary:

1. The Bible plainly and unambiguously teaches the Virgin Birth.

2. The birth of Jesus from a woman points to His humanity and His appearance as the new or second Adam.

3. That Jesus was born apart from human fatherhood points to His Divine nature as the Son of God.

4. The denial of the Virgin Birth is usually linked to the denial of the supernatural or miraculous elements of Scripture - i.e. Deists. This became a litmus test of one’s position on the miraculous in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But even beyond that, it was a test on one’s World View , and specifically of one’s view of God’s relationship to the world. The fundamentalist would see the virgin birth as a sign of God’s miraculous working, whereas the liberal saw every birth as a miracle.
Catholics believe that Jesus simply passed through the wall of Mary’s uterus instead of through the birth canal and according to Catholic doctrine remained perpetually a virgin and at no point engaged in sexual intercourse so there were no natural sons and daughters born to Mary and Joseph. This does not square with Matt. 13:55.
Matt. 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

It’s interesting to note the strong tradition for this doctrine in the early church. A beginning point is the Apostles Creed. By shortly after the middle of the second century and early form was already in use, not only in Rome, but by Tertullian in North Africa and Irenaeus in Gaul and Asia Minor. One other important early testimony is that of Ignatius, bishop of Syrian Antioch, who was martyred not later than 117 AD. Arguing against Docetists, he produced summary of the chief facts about Christ or the “kerygma of Christ.” It included a reference to the virginity of Mary as one of the mysteries to be shouted about. It is important to also note there were early objections also by pagans and Jews, but it is significant that one can not find any denials by anyone who is of the orthodox Christian faith.

The Trinity

Trinity:
The doctrine of the Trinity is progressively revealed in Scripture.

Doctrine of Trinity – Describes a relationship not of 3 gods, but 1 God in 3 persons.

It literally means “tri-unity” or “three-in-oneness.” The term was coined by Tertullian in the 2nd century in Northern Africa.
Essential doctrine - not negotiable!

Definition: Within the nature of the one eternal God, there are 3 persons (persona- Latin) (prosopon - Greek); the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.

They are co-equal and co-eternal, with the same substance or essence and glory. I.e. their nature being Divine.

Modalism .... Monotheism......Tritheism, Polytheism

The church historically has rejected Modalism that denies the distinction of the persons within the Godhead, claiming that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are just ways in which God expresses Himself. The church also has rejected Tritheism that falsely declares that there are 3 beings Who together make up God.

The Doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God.

Rather, it sets boundaries outside of which, we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection.

It demands that we be faithful to the Biblical revelation that, in one sense God is one and in a different sense, He is 3.
One God, but three in person hood. Each one is self-reflexive (self-conscious) or aware of their own existence and that of the others.

Q. Is this a contradiction? Ans: No! The unity of the Godhead is affirmed in terms of essence or being, while the diversity of the Godhead is expressed in terms of person.

3 Whos and 1 What = i.e. 3 Persons and 1 God
The Trinity does not refer to parts of God or even to roles. Human analogies such as one man who is a father, son, and a husband fail to capture the mystery of the nature of God. There are other analogies such as water = liquid, ice, and steam, but this fails because no quantity of water is ever all 3 of these at the same time, and they have different properties; egg = shell, yolk, and albumin etc but they have different properties too, and are not of the same essence. The story of the man who is a husband, father, and son functions in different roles at different times and fails because it cannot deal with personal interaction among the members of the Trinity, and there is only one person doing these activities a different times. This is a form of modalism. Although these are helpful at an elementary level, they all turn out to be inadequate or misleading. Most analogies turn out to be parts of the whole, but in the Trinity each of the persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God. The best I have found is one of time. Time = past, present, and future. The other is space which is 3 dimensional – length, height, and width, but even these lack completeness.

Though the term Trinity is not found in the Bible,

the concept is clearly there. (Matt. 3:16 – at Jesus’ baptism) God eternally and necessarily exists as the Trinity. I.e. God the Father spoke powerful creative words that brought the universe into existence, God the Son was the Divine Agent who carried out these words (John 1:3), and God the Holy Spirit was active “moving over the face of the waters.” (Gen. 1:2).

Athanasius: We do not confound the persons (one extreme)....... nor do we divide the substance. (the other extreme).
5TH CLICK

They have essential equality or value, not personal identity. Deut 6:4; Is 48:16

Deut. 6:4 ¶ "Hear, O Israel! The \Lord\ is our God, the \Lord\ is one!
(The Shamah)

Is. 48:16 "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord \God\ has sent Me, and His Spirit."

2 Cor. 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (All three are given equal status in this Scripture)

1 Pet. 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure.
(All three given equal mention)

Jude 1:20 But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith; praying in the Holy Spirit;
Jude 1:21 keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life.

(Again all three mentioned and esteemed equally)
John 15:26; Matt. 3:16; Matt. 28:16; Luke 4:21 = Is. 61:1

These express the relationship among the 3 members of the God Head. They have an agape eternal love relationship, in the best sense possible. John 17:24 (It can not be paralleled in the real world)
John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, in order that they may behold My glory, which Thou hast given Me; for Thou didst love Me before the foundation of the world.

Ontologically they are one (essential essence) i.e. One God; one in purpose and will.
(Persona is a Latin legal term (i.e. corporation) for a party someone involved in a relationship with another.)

On the cross, the fellowship between God and the Son was broken; but not the relationship. Jesus could not cease being God.
God can not look on sin = God can never accept sin. He has never experienced sin.
Ps. 5:4 For Thou art not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness; No evil dwells with Thee.
Ps. 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity.
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.

Math 28:16 and following - by the name means by the power and authority. vs. 18 "All authority"..."therefore" vs. 19 ..."teaching" vs. 20
Acts 5: 3 Ananias and Sapphira - Holy Spirit equated with God
Elliptical statement - something is left out. He also lied to Peter and others too.
"We do not confound the person or divide the substance."
God can not change His essential properties or nature. God can change accidental properties I.e. Took on an added nature of a human being. Doesn't cease being God however. Accidental properties are what we look like, the number of arms and legs etc. Jesus doesn't lose His Divine properties, He just restricts their use temporarily or limits Himself, but remains being God.

Catholic means universal and orthodox

By the way one should not use:

1 John 5:7 in the KJV should not be used in apology for the Trinity.

It reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The problem here is that it is based on a small number of unreliable Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which comes from the 14th century AD.

No modern translation includes this KJV reading. All omit it, as do the vast majority of Greek manuscripts from all major text traditions. This includes some very reliable manuscripts from the 4th and 5th century AD and also quotations by church fathers such as Irenaeus (202 AD), Clement of Alexandria (212 AD), Tertullian (220 AD), and the great defender of the Trinity, Athanasius (373 AD).

Doctrine of Trinity is essential for Salvation.

If one denies the Trinity, they don't have the Spirit of Truth living within them. The Spirit will make them submissive to this doctrine. If we don't believe this we are not Christians. a fortiori - from minor to the greater. Is. 48:16,17; Math 28:16

Q. Why is the Doctrine of the Trinity an Essential Doctrine?

Ans: It is taught is Scripture.

It has to do with who God is.

1. Father, Son, and Spirit are all called God and the Old Test teaches that God is One;

Father = John 17:3

Son = John 1:1

Spirit = Acts 5: 3-4.

2. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, all raised Jesus from the dead.

Father = 1 Thes 1:10

Son = John 2:19-21; John 10:17-18

Holy Spirit = Rom 8:11,14; 1 Peter 3:19

*We’re told that God raised Jesus from the dead. Acts 2:24; 17:31

While the Holy Spirit

1. Glorifies the Father and the Son,

2. Bears witness of the Son, He knows who He is.

3. The Holy Spirit is humble. 1 John 4:2-6; John 16:14; John 15:26.

4. Spirit of truth 1 John 4:6

5. Holy Spirit is the believer of truth. 1John 2:20-27

6. Holy Spirit indwells all believers. 1 John 4:13; Rom. 8:11

7. Holy Spirit guides believers into truth never into falsehood. 1 John 2:19-21; John 16:13

How can a genuine believer who is indwelled by the Holy Spirit cling to a false doctrine?

I.e. like those who say they are Christians, but live in sin = Titus 1:16

Or who say they have not sinned =1 John 1:10

Or those who do not obey Jesus =1 John 3:24; 1 John 2:3-6

Or those who hate people = 1 John 2:9-11; 1 John 3:11; 1 John 4:20-21;I.e.

It’s like saying it's a wet dry day at the same time and sense. Anyone who denies the Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not saved and it can not be otherwise. Heresy is a bold, defiant, willful rejection of truth. Not quantitative, but qualitative.
Three Statements Summarize the Biblical Teaching:
1.God is three persons
2.Each person is fully God.
3.There is one God.

1. The fact that God is three persons means that the Father is not the Son; and the Father is not the Holy Spirit and visa versa. The Son is not the Holy Spirit etc. They are distinct persons. In John 1:1-2 the Word is with God, which shows a distinction from God the Father . John 17:24 speaks about “…My glory, the glory you have given Me….” Thus showing distinction of persons. In John 14:26, Jesus says “…the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, who the Father will send in My name…” this shows the distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, thus the Son and the Father are not the Holy Spirit.
One puzzling verse has been:

2 Cor. 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, {there} is liberty.

Interpreters often assume the “the Lord” here means Christ. But that is probably not the case here, for a good argument can be made from grammar and context to say that this verse is better translated with the Holy Spirit as the subject. So it reads, “Now the Spirit is the Lord…” In this case, Paul would be saying that the Holy Spirit is also “Yahweh”.

2. Each Person is Fully God. God the Father is clearly God. This is evident from the first verse of the Bible, where God created the heaven and the earth. See John 17:3 The Son is fully God seen in John 1:1-4; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Isaiah 9:6. The Holy Spirit is also fully God. This is seen in all the Trinitarian passages already mentioned, and specifically in Acts 5: 3-4. In Psalm 139:7-8, David asks “Where shall I go from you Spirit: Or Where shall I flee from your Presence?”

3. There is one God. Scripture is abundantly clear that there is one and only one God. The 3 different persons of the Trinity are one not only in purpose and in agreement on what they think, but they are one in essence, one in their essential nature. In other words, God is only one Being. Deut. 6:4-5; Ex. 15:11; Isa. 45:5-6; 44:6-8. Paul writes in 1 Tim. 2:5, “… there is one God…” Paul affirms that God is one in Romans 3:30. In 1 Cor. 8:6 Paul acknowledges “there is one God,…” James 2:19 says, “ You believe that God is one…”

If we deny statement 1, we lose the distinctness of the persons. They become just different names for the one God.

If we deny statement 2, we would be tempted to say that some of the persons are not fully God as is done by those who deny the full Deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, or any deity at all.

If we deny statement 3, it would result in 3 Gods or Tritheism that is clearly not taught in Scripture.

Modalism - one person with 3 modes or functions. Espoused by Sebellius who lived in Rome in the early 3rd century AD – Sebellianism, i.e. a father, a husband, and a brother.

Another term for modalism is “modalistic monarchianism” because this teaching not only says that God revealed Himself in different modes but it also says that there is only one supreme ruler (monarch) in the universe and that is God Himself. It gains supporters from its desire to emphasize only one God.

The fatality of modalism is the fact that it must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear everywhere in Scripture. It must deny the 3 separate persons at the Baptism of Christ and they must deny those instances where Jesus is praying to the Father as an illusion.

Ultimately modalism loses the heart of the Doctrine of the Atonement, that is, that God sent His Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, to bare our sins and the wrath of God, and that His wrath was satisfied.

The United Pentecostal Church is modalistic in its doctrinal position.

Arianism: Arius taught that God the Son was at one point created by God the Father and before that He, the Son, did not exist, nor did the Holy Spirit.

Arians depend heavily on the texts that call Christ “begotten”. In the Greek economy that word represents a biological creation, i.e. progeny from the progenitors. However, in Hebrew thought, it is more one of relationship, a relationship of dignity and obedience to the Father. It was easy for the Hebrew to think in terms of eternal begotteness.

The Nicene Creed of 325 AD. speaks of being “begotten not made”. It never began to happen, but is something that has been eternally true of the relationship between the Father and the Son, and in some sense the Father has eternally had a primacy in that relationship.

Nicene Creed: Arius wanted to use the term homoiousios rather than homoousios. The former meaning “like nature” and the later meaning “same nature”. Both Nicea and Constantinople rejected Arius and his teaching. The one letter, the iota, made a profound difference and its presence or absence really did mark the difference between Biblical Christianity and a heresy that did not accept the full Deity of Christ.

In connection with the Creed of Nicea was the “Filioque Clause” which was inserted into the Creed, in Toledo (now Spain) in 589 AD. In Latin, the term means “and from the Son”. When the phrase was added the Creed read, the “Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.”

This small, almost insignificant phrase split the Roman Catholic Church (Western Church) from the Greek Orthodox Church (Eastern Church), Russian Orthodox Church of today in 1054 AD.

Athanasius became the focal point of Arian attack, and he devoted his entire life to writing and teaching against the Arian heresy. He was exiled 5 times over 17 years and almost single handedly saved the Church from pagan intellectualism.

The Athanasius Creed, although not written by him, is a clear affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine, increasing its use in the Church from about 400 AD onward.

Subordinationism: Held that the Son was eternal and Divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes. Origen (185-254 AD) advocated this thought.

Adoptionism: This is a view that Jesus lived as an ordinary man until baptism, but then God “adopted” Him as His Son and conferred on Him supernatural powers by the formation of a strong moral union between Jesus and God the Father. Jesus took on the attribute of immutability that belongs only to God, and at least in some sense, became Deity.
Monarchianism - another form of modalism - means uniqueness of first principle. God is the chief, and single Being, in charge of the universe.
A form of Monarchianism/ Adoptionism = Theodotus - taught that Christ, a mere man, received dunamis (power) which descended upon Him at Baptism and was officially brought into Godhead at the Resurrection. Paul Somasata of Antioch believed this also.
Noetus of Smyrna was expelled from church, and taught that Christ was the Father and was born and suffered and died. He said the Father was incarnated.
Sebellius - 200AD – Taught that there are three rolls or modes, which one God successfully shows Himself to the world. Creator, then Redeemer, Sanctifier = Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
Praxeas - Denied any distinction between the Father and the Son; and used the term Son to mean the human Jesus. Father was incarnated.
(The United Pentecostals (UPCers) believe like Praxeas). Jesus is the name of the Father. Son refers to the human nature of Jesus and the Father refers to the Divine nature. Jesus is the name of the Father and the Son, but the Father is not the Son. The 2nd member of the Trinity did not exist before the incarnation. In the garden Jesus human nature was talking to his Divine nature.

Found in OT, but taught explicitly in the NT. It is a Progressive Revelation. The Trinity is implicit. It's there, but have to dig for it. Page 327,2829,30 –Erickson

Polytheism is the #1 problem for Jews. The primary title for God in singular Hebrew is EL. One true God is EL. Plurality of Gods (2 or more) is Eloah (few) Elohim is 3 or more Gods. (Several) Elohim is used 2,500 times in OT Eloah is used about 250 times. Gen1:1 is Elohim ; Exodus 20:3; Deut 32:15-17 Distinction between EL and Elohim. Hebackuk 3:3
Elohim is used for the one true God and for false gods.
Gen. 1:26 "Us" Gen. 3:22 "Us"; God says "Us"

Echad -Hebrew word for one, but not an absolute one. It has the idea of a composite. Gen. 2:24 = the two become one flesh. One here is Echad. E.g. One cluster of grapes. (Multiple grapes) as in Numbers 13:23, One here is Echad too. Ezra 2:64 whole and the Hebrew word here is Echad too.

Deut 6:4 (the Shamah) The Lord our God is One. God here is Elohim. One here is Echad. Yachid is the Hebrew word for absolute oneness, not pleural. E.g. Gen. 22:2,12 Judges 11:34 Yachid is translated one, only, or one and only. The NT counterpart is monogenes in Greek in some sense.
In the Shamah these pleural pronouns are used because we have a glimpse of the Trinity. (Jews try to get around this by saying that it refers to the pleural of majesty. I.e. figure of speech; or it's God in the heavenly court) However, only men are made in God's image, not angels or any other created beings. ALL THIS TO SHOW THAT THE TRINITY CAN BE FOUND IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
The “Angel of the Lord” in Gen. 18:1 - (The Lord here is Yahweh), in verse 3 lord (Adonai) verse 13, verse 19, verse 20; Chapter 19: 1,24 Shows Yahweh on earth has the Yahweh in heaven rain down brimstone. Gen. 19:24. They both are Yahweh. This is a Christophony.
Exodus 3: 2 is the “Angel of the Lord”; In verse 4 the Lord is in the bush and God is in bush too; in verse 6 and 7 the Lord is Yahweh; in verse 14 God is the only one in the bush. He is called the “Angel of the Lord” here. It is actually Christ in the bush - the 2nd member of the trinity.
Another place, in Joshua 5, the “Angel of the Lord” is worshiped. And one doesn’t worship angels. One only worships God- all else is idolatry!
No one (universal negative) has seen the Father. Reference: John 6:46:
John 6:46 "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father.

John 1:18 the monogenes has “declared Him”; John 5:37 – “you have never heard His voice, nor seen His form.” No one has seen God the Father. Moses, Abraham, and Joshua saw the 2nd person of the trinity, not God the Father.

So what is the importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity?

1. The Atonement is at stake. If Jesus is merely a created being, and not fully God, then it is hard to see how He, a creature, could bear the full wrath of God against all of our sins.

2. Justification by faith alone is threatened if we deny the full Deity of the Son. I.e. Jehovah’s Witnesses If Jesus is not fully God, can we trust Him to save us completely?

3. If He is not the infinite God, why should we worship Him? According to Scripture it would be idolatry to worship a created being.

4. If Christ were a created being, and our Savior, this would be antithetical to Scripture and would wrongfully exalt the creature rather than the Creator.

5. The independence and personal nature of God is at stake: If there is no Trinity, then there were no interpersonal relationships within the being of God before creation, and, without personal relationships, it is difficult to see how God could be genuinely personal. John 17:24

6. The unity of the universe is at stake: If there is not perfect plurality and perfect unity in God Himself, then we have no basis for thinking there can be any ultimate unity among the diverse elements of the universe either. Clearly in the Doctrine of the Trinity, the heart of the Christian faith is at stake.

Athanasius understood this better than any of his contemporaries. He said, “In the confession of the Trinity throbs the heart of the Christian religion: every error results from, or upon deeper reflection may be traced to, a wrong view of this doctrine.”
In the economy (ordering of activities) of the Trinity, the different members are found to have different functions or primary activities.

The only distinctions between the members of the Trinity are in the ways they relate to each other and to creation. In those relationships they carry out roles that are appropriate to each person. It can be summarized in the phrase “ontological equality, but economic subordination,” where the word ontological means being. I.e. Equal in being but subordinate in role.

Each person is completely and fully God; that is, each person has the whole fullness of God’s being in Himself. The Son is not partly God etc., but wholly and fully God, and so is the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others.

The persons are real and not just different ways of looking at the one being of God.

Each person is seen as relating to the others as and I, and a You, and a He. This can only be done if we see the distinctions between the persons as, not a difference in “being,” but a difference in relationships.

Finally, we should be warned by the errors that have been made in the past.

They have all come about through attempts to simplify the Doctrine of the Trinity and make it completely understandable, removing all mystery from it. This can not be done!

However, it is not correct to say that we cannot understand the Doctrine of the Trinity at all.

But our understanding is limited. God is far greater than anyone human can comprehend. This humbles us before God and draws us to worship Him without reservation.

The Athanasian Creed says, “The Father is incomprehensible, the Son is incomprehensible, the Holy Spirit is incomprehensible…and yet there are not three incomprehensibles, but one…”

Coram Deo

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Friday, February 27, 2009

Who Knows If It Is True?

Favorite Theology Links

Home Link

About the Blogger

Blog Archive

Visitor Location