In the Holy Spirit

-Looking at the Nicene Creed in celebration of it’s 1,701st birthday. But each week, we’re also looking at a different creed to see why we need to have creeds. I’m guessing you’ve seen this one before, there’s a house in my neighborhood that has it up:

Let’s think about what this is saying:

-Black lives matters. I agree! As the nursery rhyme that I still sing to my kids says: Jesus loves the little children of the world, red and yellow, black and white. But, we have to differentiate between this statement the organization Black Lives Matter. BLM as an organization has some major disagreements with Christian faith, but we as Christians can affirm that black lives do indeed matter! 

-Science is real: science is merely observation, this is as helpful as saying “science says…” science doesn’t “say” anything, scienTISTS can say things as they interpret data and observations.

-Love is love: we talked about that one last week.

-Kindness is everything: have you looked at gas prices? I can’t use kindness to fill up my tank! It’s a ridiculous platitude that’s meant to give warm fuzzies but doesn’t mean anything!

-And Christians can be guilty of doing the same thing: I’m “pan” millennial, we’ll see how it all “pans” out, I’m as Calvinist as the Bible says and as Arminian as the Bible says. Study these issues! Those are an excuse to be lazy, and God doesn’t call people to laziness! Friends, this is why we need creeds in our lives to help protect us from laziness or theological drift. A friend sent me this yard sign that if anyone wants to buy for me I will gladly stick in my front yard:

-I’m going to ask you to stand for the reading of God’s Word, but we’re going to do something a little bit different, I’m just going to read them to you and ask you to listen and not follow along in your Bibles quite yet because I want to read the primary texts that get to what we’re studying today.

Gen. 1:1-2; Luke 1:26-35, 4:1, 14-15, John 14:15-26, 16:12-15

  1. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed

-Technically, the creed we’ve been studying is referred to this way instead of just the Nicene Creed, because there are 2 editions of this. I shared at the beginning of this series that we’re celebrating 1700 years since this was written, but that’s only partially true. The conversation continued over the next decades, so in 381 they landed on the finalized version of the Nicene Creed that continues to be used through today.

-Now before we look at the biggest difference, I want to remind us where we’re starting and the reason this Creed even exists. God is the creator of everything, but there’s a hard line between God and creation, you’ve seen this each week. Arius worked hard to emphasize the one-ness of God and thus argued that Jesus has to go below the line. He argued that since Jesus was “begotten” then there had to have been a time when He was not. But the council, tracing what the Bible said, disagreed with that argument and said that Jesus Himself claimed to be one with the Father, therefore Jesus is above the line.

-The next question they had to work through gets us back to the beginning of last week’s section, where it said that Jesus’s work was “for us and for our salvation.” How do we bridge this divide? History traces humanity’s attempts at building a ladder to try to get up there, most specifically seen at Babel where humans did their best to reach the realm of the gods (in the heavens above), but despite humanity’s attempts, there is nothing that can bridge this gap. God exists completely outside of His creation, we can’t do anything to get up to Him, which means He has to come down to us, which just so happens to be the story we see in the Bible! Out of the overflow of God’s inner love comes the physical created world that is created to love God and love each other. But how can we be brought into that Trinitarian love? That’s where we need the Holy Spirit living in us, which the 325 edition of this creed didn’t articulate very much, here’s the comparison:

-The first edition made a basic statement that didn’t give much clarity, which meant guess which debate came next? Yeah, people trying to argue that the Holy Spirit was less than God. There was a group that called themselves the Pneumatomachi (side note, but if you’re going to create a heretical cult, this is a great name to use) which is Greek for “Spirit-fighters.” Just as Arius denied that Jesus was fully God, this group denied that the Holy Spirit was fully God, proposed by a guy name Macedonius. So how did the church respond? They convened another council to re-articulate and defend what the Bible says by fleshing out what they meant when they said “and in the Holy Spirit” previously.

-This takes place all the time, like you know how policies and laws always get created in response to something happening? That’s exactly what’s taking place here. At a previous church I was at, there was a policy in the wedding manual (but nowhere else) that banned Dungeons and Dragons, which means it could be played anytime EXCEPT when a wedding is going on! I would have LOVED to have known what happened that led to the banning of a board game because you know it was in response to some funny story!

-1 other big difference between these 2 editions is what is included after the section on the Holy Spirit: 

-This was removed in the 381 version because they wanted to use it as devotional and liturgical statement to be used in the church and by Christians.

-hypostasis and ousia are used as synonyms here (untranslated to be able to see what exactly is being said) and ensuring that Arius couldn’t use his preferred word and get away with it. Hypostatis refers to personhood or being, and ousia is the same thing (at this time). Eventually, hypostatis is the preferred term in referring to the persons of the Trinity, so what we looked at last week is what theologians call “the hypostatic union,” Jesus having 2 natures but 1 Being or essence. And if you’re already confused, then use that confusion to marvel at our God whose ways and thoughts are above anything we can ever imagine!

-So now let’s all recite the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed together again (and I hope some of you are taking the time to memorize it throughout the week! There are papers at the tables on your way out if you haven’t gotten one yet!)

-This last phrase I’m breaking up into 2 weeks, this week we’ll just look at the Holy Spirit, next week we’ll look at where He’s at work: in the church. 

  • The Life-Giver

-I intentionally pulled this word out even though it’s not the first word used to describe him because I love this summary of the Spirit’s work, and the Greek is 1 compound word “life-giver.” Have you ever thought of the Sprit as the one who gives life? We read Gen. 1 earlier which explicitly mentions the Spirit being involved in creation. We know from other passages in the NT that the Son is also involved in creation, so we see from the beginning the Trinitarian nature of God.

-This is intentionally mean to contrast with the dead. Think of what Rom. 8:11 says: the Holy Spirit’s role in salvation is literally to bring us from death to life spiritually. 

-And we also see the role of the Spirit in the act of creation twice. First in the verses we read earlier where the Spirit is involved in bringing life to the primordial chaos, but then we see His work implied when the text focuses on the creation of humans in Gen. 2: notice that it’s not until the man is giving breath that he becomes a living being, so the Spirit’s role is to give life.

-We read these verses earlier, too, but that theme comes up again in the new creation of Jesus inside Mary’s womb. Look at how both Luke and Matthew describe what happened.

-Back to the creed: the Lord, the same as Jesus, pointing to unity between Son & Spirit

-The ordering is both biblical & logical. We started with the Father, then talked about the Son, and now we’re getting to the Holy Spirit, and that’s the reason we refer to them as the first, second, and third persons of the Godhead. It’s not significance, it’s the way God reveals Himself to us. 

-What is “proceeds”? Another word theologians will use in reference to the Spirit is the word “spiration” which just means breath.

-They’re trying to answer the question: how do we talk about the distinctions within the godhead? How do we determine the difference between the Son & the Spirit? Last week we looked at the word “begotten” in relation to Son seen from John 3:16, proceeds is the word chosen to refer to the Spirit’s relation because of John 15:26 (remember, they’re working to define how the Bible reveals God to us) so we see that the Spirit proceeds from the Father, while the Son is begotten from the Father.

-we’ll talk about the part in brackets as the third point, so hold onto that

-The theme in this next section is the Greek word syn being used repeatedly in this section, it means “with” or “together.”

-a literal way of trying to translate this idea would make zero sense in English in most cases, but it appears 3 times: “with”, “co-worshipped” and “co-glorified” attempting to signify that we worship God as Father, Son, and Spirit.

-Something I’ve been mulling over for a few years that comes out of this: do we pray to the Spirit? And I at times struggle to land on some of this discussion because there’s so many excesses of conversation that we need to avoid, but that doesn’t mean we should stop thinking, studying, or learning about the HS, but if the HS is God, then shouldn’t we also pray to Him? 

-I also think emphasis matters, because the primary focus throughout Scripture is on the Father (think of the Lord’s Prayer, how does it begin?), the second emphasis is on the Son, and the third emphasis is on the Spirit, which means if we’re following the Bible our addressing of God should follow a similar pattern where we direct our prayers to our Father, addressing him through the Son, and we do so in the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. And even the work of the HS is meant to focus our minds in a specific direction: towards Jesus.

-I love what Charles Spurgeon said about this idea in one of his devotionals: Friends, part of the reason we struggle with sin is because we’re too busy looking at our sin or at ourselves instead of looking to Christ! Ask the Holy Spirit to focus your eyes on Jesus instead of yourself! 
-As always, because we’re in the realm of God, there’s more that could be said, but we don’t have time to dig into it today! I have plenty of books for you if you want to borrow them!

-The last phrase on the Holy Spirit gets to the realm of speaking. Have you ever considered the reality that our God speaks? And not just that God speaks, but sometimes God speaks through people! Where it says the prophets here, just replace it with “the Bible.” Anytime we see the Spirit speaking it’s going to drive us back to the Bible, and we see examples of that throughout Scripture:

-Look at what David says in 2 Sam. 23:2. Who is that spoke through David? The Spirit!

-Look how the author of Hebrews refers to the OT in 3:7. He’s quoting Psalm 95 there, but who does it say was speaking in Psalm 95? The HS!

-But it’s not just the OT the whole Bible is inspired by the same Spirit! 2 Tim. 3:16-17 tells us that ALL Scripture is “inspired by God” is trying to translate another compound Greek word made up of God + breath/Spirit, some translations have “God-breathed”, again inspired by the Spirit, and notice the goal of this inspiration: for us to be complete and ready for every good work (which comes about through the Spirit working in us)

-The last example of the Spirit speaking through Scripture: 2 Peter 1:21. I love the picture Peter paints here! “carried along” God working in them, but not leaving them off the hook, all this comes because the third person of the Trinity lives within us in some mysterious way through faith.

-Not let’s get into the most debated phrase of this whole thing: 

  • Filioque

-If you don’t know Latin, this word is Latin for “and the Son.”

-Let’s go back to the verse for the wording of this creed “proceeds” in John 15:26

-It sure looks like the Son is somehow involved in this process, right? And there’s other passages like John 14:16, once again Jesus is involved in the sending of the Spirit, even if the Spirit doesn’t “proceed” from the Son.

-The biggest debate about this whole creed is whether or not to include “and the Son” of for the procession of the HS. This is pointed to as the reason for the split of the church between the east and the west. The phrase wasn’t added to the creed until 589 (200 years later), at a Western council in Toledo, Spain

-And this wasn’t a trivial matter! One of the eastern bishops named Photius wrote in 866 (pardon the French): do you see how strongly he’s condemning the phrase?

-And he has a point! Notice the word ecumenical, we tend to view that word with at least skepticism today, if not outright dismissal as someone who pursues just the lowest common denominator in theology instead of taking a stance, in this case view it positively as something the whole church together affirms.

-We’re Western Christians, we’re products of affirming that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, but is that the best way to describe their relationship?

-Some terms theologians use to help us understand are in Latin: one refers to the mysterious inner workings of the Trinity that we can’t fully understand, the other refers to the external workings of the Trinity (and if you go digging into this further you’ll find that theologians will also refer to this distinction as the economic or the immanent Trinity, economic as the external workings, immanent as the internal)

-And if you just got more confused: we need a way of distinguishing between the work of God Himself versus the way we experience him in the history of salvation. For example, we can say that God lives in us from the moment we’re saved, but we can’t say the Son lives in us. Similarly we can say that Mary is the mother of God (another early church debate!), but we can’t say that Mary is the mother of the Father. Or one more example, we can say that God died, but we can’t say that the Father died.

-The phrase “and the Son” wasn’t in the original, so it shouldn’t be considered a marker of orthodoxy, but we do have to acknowledge some kind of relationship between the Son and the Spirit. Maximus the Confessor (another great name) said it should be proceeds from the Father through the Son.

-Words matter, definitions of words matter, and God’s revelation matters above all of them! And one of the joys of being a Protestant (that’s another church history issue for another time) is we can look at some of these debates as outside observers who continually go back to the Bible and try to defend what the Bible says. So a couple passages that I think help us get some more glimpses into the Trinity:

John 16 shows the Spirit obeying Jesus, and says that everything the Father has is also Jesus’s, which you could argue that if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, then He must also proceed from the Son.

-In contrast to that, Mark 1 tells the account of Jesus’s baptism where all 3 persons of the Trinity are glimpsed together, Jesus in the water, the Spirit like a dove, and the Father affirming His Son. But then what happens to Jesus? He obeys the Spirit. And once again, we’re left with a mystery as to how the Godhead works “ad intra” or internally. We experience the Trinity “ad extra” and the Spirit (through the Son) brings us into this loving relationship within the Trinity, but we will never completely understand how this relationship works. And each time we bring up this mystery, we need to fall on our face in worship of this God. 

-I want to end our study on the HS today in John 20. Because of what God has done for us through His Son and in the Spirit living in us, we have peace with God. But the Spirit living in us is also the reason we’re still here in the world. The Spirit living in us is the reason Jesus sends us out into the world to both show the world the love God has for them, and to live holy lives in the world as a picture of what it means to follow Jesus.

-There’s also a note in here about sins, which leads us into the Lord’s Table. The church is the place where we gather each week to remember what’s truly true: that we have been adopted into this family of God that comes from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. This family allows you to have your sins forgiven and together works towards ensuring the purity of Christ’s bride. 

In One Lord – Sermon Manuscript

-We’re spending 4 weeks looking at the Nicene Creed because it helps provide a foundation for what we as Christians need to affirm. It’s the 1 extra-biblical document affirmed by all branches of the church and helps us learn how we should talk about the God of the Bible. Today we have a special treat, though, because there’s 1 word in here that’s not found in the Bible, which we’ll get to in a little bit.
-Also, remember that this wasn’t written to determine the books of the Bible (I don’t like that terminology anyway, humans didn’t determine the books that God inspired, they affirmed them, feel free to ask me about that sometime if you want)
READ Col. 1
-But just like we had a bad creed last week, I have another really bad creed that went viral a few years ago during a livestream from a “church” in Edina (I won’t even mention the name of it), called “The Sparkle Creed,” and it is as bad as that makes it sound. Are you ready to hear it? DO NOT recite this one with me because it is horrible: 
-non-binary doesn’t work to a being that isn’t gendered, God is spirit so that’s a category mistake. Also, He always reveals Himself in the singular and masculine throughout the Bible, so why aren’t they using God’s preferred pronouns?
-I have no clue what fabulous tunic Jesus wore, Joseph wore a fabulous tunic in Genesis, but not Jesus (maybe they confused the 2 people?). Jesus also didn’t have 2 dads, this completely ignores the mother of Jesus, you can’t create a baby with 2 dads!
-And on and on the nonsense goes (what does an AIDS quilt have to do with Jesus? love is love is love?) What are they actually confessing to believe in and where is their unbelief here? This whole thing is merely a humanistic statement that aligns with all our modern culture’s little-g gods. I shared last week that it’s significant that the Nicene Creed begins with WE believe (although some manuscripts said I in terms of one being baptized), but look how this one begins. Friends, this is one of the biggest problems in our world today: excessive focus on the individual. Even for Christians in the West, we view our faith as something we pick and choose. We jump from church to church whenever we want, we run from commitment and complain when things don’t perfectly align with what we want. And in that world, Jesus offers us something radically different: an invitation into a relationship with the triune God, who has eternally existed in a loving relationship of 3 equally divine persons, and our job as Christians is to invite others into that relationship that happens from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit.
-The question before us today is point one in my outline:
Is Jesus God?
-Think back to last week, I said the primary question the early church was working to determine was in this world, where there’s God, then a HARD line that separates Him from His creation, where do you put Jesus? Arius (4th century pastor) argued that the Son has to go below the line because God is one, so he used the phrase “There was a time when the Son was not” as his motto. But is that what the Bible actually reveals about God? I alluded to this last week, but Dan Brown (who just used an argument from Bart Ehrman) in The da Vinci Code spun a funny story about the Nicaean council meeting to “create” the Bible that ostracized people and didn’t represent “true” Christianity. That’s nothing close to what happened! In fact, this debate pushed people back to the Bible, and many of the early church fathers had the entire Bible memorized! Their writings are dripping with quotes from the Bible, which is why the Nicaean creed is similarly dripping with the Bible.
-One of my favorite professors in seminary said he wished instead of asking “what do you believe” when talking about this creed, pastors would ask “In whom do you trust,” because this creed is focused on the God of the Bible, not in what we do. So I’m going to ask you to recite it with me again this week, and following my professor, church, in whom do you trust?
-I want to look at 2 passages from the Bible before we work our way through the creed that will help us answer this question and will help us hear where some of the wording from the creed comes from! 
-First, John 1. John begins by alluding to the creation account of Gen. 1, and then goes on to tell us that the Word (who John later reveals is Jesus) was in the beginning. And this Word was with God and was God. With and was, separate and together. And then we see our preposition that we got from Fred Sanders last week: through. From the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. He’s also described as the light (which is important for the creed)
-Second is what we read earlier, the Christ-hymn of Col. 1. Building up to this, Paul has been saying focusing on what we have in Jesus, then He bursts into this praise: the image of God, if you want to know what God looks like, look to Jesus. Firstborn (but not in terms of being created, this is priority) and we see that creation was THROUGH Him (visible and invisible). He is before and holding together everything, and He’s the head of the church. AND the Firstborn from the dead (pointing to another resurrection that we will experience). God has ALL his fullness dwell in him. How much is all? All! Nothing’s left out of God’s fullness dwelling in Him (that’s another way of saying He’s God). Jesus also provides the way to peace: through His blood. 
-I don’t know if you picked up on it from those passages, but those pretty clearly seem to be saying that Jesus is God, don’t they? And just in case we missed it, look at what Jesus says in John 10:30. And this is the point where the Jews know exactly what He’s saying and pick up rocks to kill Him! The question is: how do we talk about that? And that’s where the debate came from at Nicea:
-We’ll take this in 2 parts, the first is the divinity of Jesus, second is the work of the incarnate Jesus.
The Only-Begotten
-First thing to note is just as we confess one God, we also confess one Lord, but then it goes on to describe the HS as the Lord! That’s intentionally done so that we understand that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also united. This word has a wide range of meanings throughout the Bible: used in the Greek translation of the OT to translate the divine name (Yahweh). In the NT it can refer to Jesus as God, and in other places it can be a sign of respect (such as calling a ruler my lord). In this case, it’s referring to Him as His divine name.
-Jesus Christ, transliteration of Joshua, the one who led his people into the promised land, and Christ is the anointed one, the long-awaited Messiah from the OT.
-Now we get to the good stuff! The only-begotten. Taking language from John 3:16, the creed states that Jesus is the only one who was begotten from the Father, and that this “begetting” is eternal.
-This is where Arius got off, because it’s a category error to assume that God is exactly like us, and this is also where this is good news for us. Begetting is a way of referring to the relationships within the Trinity, it’s not the same way that we “beget” today. So even though the Father “begets” the Son, there was never a time where the Son wasn’t “begotten” from the Father. What that means is we can’t apply the limit of time to this relationship; God has forever existed as Father and Son (and we can add Spirit to that list).
-And what makes this good news for us is it’s because of this relationship that we’re here today. One of the realities about God that we read in 1 John 4:8 is that He is love, but love assumes that there is someone else to love, otherwise that love turns inward and becomes self-love, which is gross! Love requires there to be someone else that the love is directed towards (which is, as the EFCA SOF says, why God eternally existing as a loving unity of 3 equally divine persons is so significant). Contrast this with Muslims who believe that Allah has 99 names that describe Him, one of which is “the most loving.” But who has Allah been loving? Muslims emphasize the unity of God and call those who believe in the Trinity heretics, strong words about Christians! But who has Allah been loving for eternity? And the word is specifically supposed to refer to love of someone else. If that someone else means that Allah loves his creation, then suddenly he’s not a completely independent god, he’s reliant on his creation to allow him to be loving, that’s not the case with the Christian God. That’s why we can say that God didn’t need to create us, He is completely independent in himself, but out of the overflow of God’s perfect trinitarian love, He created everything to be brought into that pre-existing relationship, which means our purpose in existing is to love God, and then represent that love to the rest of creation (doesn’t that almost sound like what Jesus said is the summary of the law? Love God, and love your neighbor) And once again, we see the importance of the prepositions from Fred Sanders: from the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit.
-God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. Jesus is God, light, and the true God, and He’s also the Son who is sent from the Father: unity and diversity at the same time.
-They then clarify what they meant when they said begotten: not made, meaning that God’s begetting is different than a human begetting. This is another way of attacking Arius’s argument that Jesus was a created being.
-And now, finally, we’re at the one word that isn’t found in the Bible. One note: it’s not wrong to use extra-biblical words to attempt to describe things that are true about God, it helps us understand what we’re talking about! The Greek word they used is the word homoousios which is of the same essence (or Being as the translation we’ve been using says).
-And there’s a fantastic story that goes along with the choice of this word! The bishops kept attempting to use only words from the Bible, but Arius and his crew kept sitting in the corner chuckling to themselves as each word was proposed because they could use those same words with different dictionaries to stick with their perspective that Jesus was a created being. Here’s what Athanasius wrote about 20 years after the council:
-Dissimulation is a fancy word for hiding one’s internal thoughts and feelings to trick someone else. Arius and his followers (called Arians) were able to take the biblical words and twist them to mean what they wanted them to mean, which is why the council needed to come up with a word that couldn’t be twisted by them. And do you see how this discussion drove them back to the Bible to try to summarize what the Bible says in a way that can’t be debated?
-And the debate became which of these 2 words is the best description of the Bible’s definition of Jesus? And it’s been said that never has so much hinged on a single iota (the Greek letter i). The first word: homo (is a common word today, means “same”) the second word is ousia (“essence” or “being” or “substance”) some of the trick is in translation there isn’t always a 1 for 1 correlation, and words change meaning over time, so I like the way this translation has “Being” with the capital letter. The second proposed word changes the first word from “same” to “like”, which means Jesus is like the Father in essence, which Arius could have affirmed in his own way. And after much debate and discussion, the word homoousios became the orthodox way of referring to the Son, that is He is of the exact same essence or Being as the Father. Because of the unique relationship within the Trinity, people had to carefully determine how we would talk about it, which words adequately describe it, which words make it more difficult, and how can we all come to the same dictionary definition? You may remember this picture from last week, the 7 statements to describe God (which 1 book I read this week said is still not helpful because it looks like there are 4 instead of 3! Do you see why this is so difficult to discuss?) But what it’s trying to communicate is what we just talked about, which can be seen like this: The words they landed on to make sure that Arius couldn’t sneak by was “being” or “essence” which the three were referred to as “persons.” If you want to know about why they landed on persons, email me! 
-But that doesn’t get to everything that Jesus did, as we see in the next section:
Was Incarnate 
-What is the incarnation? We established from the first section that the Son is God, but then what about all the other stuff that He did, like taking on flesh and living as a human (like we saw in Colossians earlier). And it’s important for us to realize that even when the council that met at Nicaea was done, the debate wasn’t done. We heard from Athanasius earlier, who wasn’t even a bishop at the time, but spent his life defending the Nicene creed against misinterpretation. Then after Athanasius was another guy who continued refining what it was that the Bible revealed about Jesus, and here’s why we needed Jesus to become incarnate:
-Essentially, what he’s arguing is that if Jesus wasn’t completely human, then we can’t be completely saved. As an example, what if Jesus didn’t have a physical body (as some early cults tried to argue)? Then the only thing that could be saved is our immaterial parts, which is one of the things that this creed makes clear didn’t happen. Jesus was fully and completely human so that we could be fully and completely saved.
-It begins with the entire reason Jesus came: for our salvation. Did you notice that this is the first time it turns any attention to us? This is all focused on God and what He has done for us to bring us into relationship with Him. And then after mentioning us, it goes back to focusing on the second person of God:
-And I think it’s helpful for us to see the 10 verbs in this section that provide a summary of what Jesus did, and do you see how there’s what He did in the past, what He is currently doing, and what He will do in the future.
-First He came down from heaven, he humbled himself is the way Phil. 2 says it. Was incarnate comes from the Latin translation of this word, but the Greek word used is something like “was fleshified.” This is a unique term that describes something that only God could do. One author stated that this is different than embodied because “every living human being is embodied, but only Christ is God incarnate.” The Greek word emphasizes the fleshiness of this, the reality that Jesus entered into a fully human existence. This is a slight tangent, but I’m not a fan of people who say we as Christians are supposed to do “incarnational ministry.” I understand what people mean by that in that we’re supposed to represent Christ to the world, but I worry that it conflates what only Jesus could do with what we can do. We can witness and point to Him, only Jesus can be incarnate.
-And see how He became incarnate: from the HS and the Virgin Mary. We’ll look closer at the HS next week, but the first description of the HS in this creed is the life-giver. Just as the Spirit was hovering over the waters in the first creation, here He was involved in this special creation of the God-man, Jesus Christ, as Luke 1:35 tells us.
-And to make it explicit that Jesus was fully human, a literal translation of this next phrase is “in-humanized.” This is where Arius’s famous statement didn’t go far enough: there was a time when the Son was not human, but there was never a time when the Son was not existing. And friends, this is the craziest part of the whole story of Scripture. God eternal, who existed before time and space lowered himself down to our level by entering human history and being born as a baby. Again, I think Gregory of Nazianzus is helpful here: at no time during His earthly existence did He stop upholding the universe, but He also added humanity to what He was. Somehow and some way the eternal and invisible God added humanity to Himself, and with that said we’re at the mystery card again! Now, think of what the author of Hebrews says about Jesus: 
-I remember pondering this verse when I was in high school, and theologians love to debate: could Jesus have sinned? As if sin is inherent to being human. Unfortunately for the rest of us, it is. But that was not a part of God’s design of humans, sin actually is a marker that we’re not fully human, so Jesus was the most human person to ever walk the earth. 
-After ensuring that we understand Jesus’ humanity, we get to His work on the cross. He was crucified under Pilate, pointing to the historical reliability of this event as well as God’s sovereignty in guiding even a Roman governor! 
-Then it says he suffered death, but could the eternal and all-powerful God even suffer, much less die? One of the truths we confess about God is that he is immortal! I appreciated with Phillip Cary said about this: 
-And this creed goes even further in saying that He was buried. He died all the way, even facing the realm of the dead, which means when we die, we don’t need to be afraid, because Christ has already conquered that, too!
-And then we get to the reason to be a Christian: Jesus didn’t stay dead. On the third day He rose again! And this resurrection isn’t just for Jesus, this resurrection is the first fruits of death itself being undone! Jesus, in death, ensured that we never have to live apart from Him, so even when death comes for us (if the Jesus doesn’t come back before that day), we have nothing to fear! Jesus is with us here and there, and this was God’s plan “according to the Scriptures.”
-After 40 days, He ascended back into heaven, the place where He came down from. But now there’s something different about Him: He now has a body, forever. Jesus, the 1st century Jewish man, is now living in heaven as a fully incarnated human, which blows my mind! Now, heaven isn’t some place that we need to go into space to enter, it’s an invisible realm that we can’t see with our physical eyes right now, but somehow God can still see and interact with us here. And Jesus, the Son of God is currently sitting at the right hand of the Father, and a better way of thinking of sitting would be “is enthroned” as David describes in Psalm 110. While Jesus’ atoning work is done, the Bible tells us that He lives to constantly intercede on our behalf, to constantly lift us up before His Father.
-And lastly, this isn’t the end of the story. He has promised that He will return, the same way He left, in glory. This return won’t be humble, this return will be as the conquering King who will judge the living and the dead, which means no one is off the hook. And when He returns, that’s just the beginning of the end, because His kingdom will never end!
-And if we are in Christ, if we have been saved, if we have believed that Jesus is the Son of God, then we are brought up into this perfect trinitarian relationship because the of what Jesus has done for us.
-He came down, was incarnate, and was made man. He was crucified, he suffered, and was buried. Then he rose again, ascended into heaven, and is seated at His Father’s right hand, from where He will come again in glory, and all of this was: for us and for our salvation.
-This is the miracle of the Trinity, that God became a man to enable men and women to become children of God. I can’t think of any better news, of any better hope then trusting in this God of love.

EFCA Theology Conference 2014 Pre-Conference Part 2

The final part of the Pre-Conference from Dr. Fred Sanders

Tacit Trinitarianism

God has no unmet needs – there are no needs outside of the divine life

  1. Getting saved – an evangelical practice. The eternal son becomes the incarnate son to make others an adopted son bringing them into relationship with God.
  2. Knowing Jesus personally – generally trying to point to a deeper reality of communion with God. “ask Jesus into your heart” (Eph 3, being strengthened in your inner man) Puritans used that heart language, book My Heart, Christ’s Home. Jesus is present from heaven, it’s the Spirit who is indwelling. This means being indwelt by the Holy Spirit who makes Christ present here on earth being poured out from the right hand of the Father.
  3. Devotional Bible reading – this comes from a high view of Scripture, we know the Bible is God’s message to us.
  4. Understanding Scripture’s big story – the big story of Scripture is very evident, about how the Father sends the Son and the Spirit
  5. Conversational prayer –
  6. Evangelism –
  7. World mission –
  8. Daily spirituality –

EFCA Theology Conference 2014 Pre-Conference

The pre-conference at this years EFCA Theology Conference is on the doctrine of the Trinity and is done by Dr. Fred Sanders from Biola. Here are the first two lectures and links to the Prezi slides that were used.

Approaching the Doctrine of the Trinity

The Trinity-try to understand it and you’ll lose your mind, try to deny it and you’ll lose your soul.

  1. Teaching the Trinity as an inviting doctrine

The word of the Trinity is not far away, you don’t need to get advanced degrees to understand.

Trinity is primarily for categorization and building up the understanding of believers.

  1. The basic component of the doctrine

One being in three persons, we don’t say God is one person and three persons, or God is one person and three persons

  1. Three key texts

Trinity is not in the Old Testament because the OT was a time of promise, we don’t find the doctrine of the Trinity revealed in the OT, but we see shadows of it. Then the New Testament is the time of fulfillment, the Messiah and the Spirit already came. The revelation of the Trinity is in the events of the Father sending the Son and the Spirit.

  1. John 1:1-3 – takes you from the beginning of the Gospel to the beginning of the whole Bible. What we have in Jesus Christ shows us what happened before creation, which leaves us with God.
  2. Matt 28:18-20 – doctrine of the Trinity is in Scripture, even if the word itself is not. Trinity just means “threeness”
  3. 2 Cor 13:14 – the revealed character of these three persons (see also 1 John “our fellowship is with the Fathe rand the Son”

Overall idea: salvation is by & from & in & with the Triune God

  1. Heresies to avoid
    1. Tritheism – three gods (kind of Mormonism)
    2. Modalism – 1 god doing 3 things, manifests himself in 3 ways (oneness Pentecostalism)
    3. Subordinationism – 1 real god, a couple lesser gods (Arianism, Jehovah’s witness)
    4. Illustrations
      1. There’s nothing like God or God’s trinity
      2. Most illustrations are a little helpful, but mostly just show Trinitarian heresies
      3. The main things are the plain things: God the Father saved us by sending the Son and the Spirit.

The Trinity is not a distraction from the gospel, but a super-condensed explanation of it.

 

The Deep Things of God 

  1. Grace as God’s gift of himself

Grace as free forgiveness, grace as power for service (John 3:16, Gal 4:4-6, Eph 1:3-14)

  1. The two hands of God

The incarnation and atonement are the means to the end of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

  1. The economy of salvation

God gives himself as the gift of salvation

  1. The happy land of the Trinity

Once And For All

Passion is a wonderful conference that has exploded in recent years. Fueled by speakers like Louie Giglio and John Piper and music by Chris Tomlin and Matt Redman, people flock to this conference by the tens of thousands. I have a few friends that have gone to this conference in the past, and every year I buy the CD to hear some of the new songs that will be big in churches the following year. This year was no different-a wonderful conference with great music. I bought the CD the day it came out, and have begun doing some of the songs at the church in which I help lead music. One of my favorite songs from the album was ‘Once and For All’ done by Chris Tomlin. This past week, I was sent an e-mail with a discussion about some of the wording in the song, and led to this blog on the song. The lyrics in question are the first ones in the chorus “We believe our God is Jesus.” One of the most difficult concepts within Christianity is the idea that God is three persons yet one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If this line is true, then Jesus is the only person of the Godhead who is God. Wording in the songs we sing matters!

This is similar to a song I used to love in middle school by John Reuben titled ‘God Is Love.’ The chorus says, “Love is God and God is love.” Yes, God is love (1 John 4:8), but love is NOT God. Describing God as only love puts limits on many of his other characteristics.

So what do we do with a song like ‘Once and For All’ when the rest of the lyrics are theologically sound and speak to the truth of what Jesus has done on our behalf? The writer of the blog I pointed you to earlier suggested changing the words to “We believe our King is Jesus,” which I agree would be a big improvement on the song, and would keep the song theologically true. I continue to be grateful for the gift of Chris Tomlin and hope to sing this song soon at church, with the edited words.