New Podcast: The Geneva Mountain Boys

Rev. Hank Belfield, Minister at Providence OPC in Chilhowie, VA, Mr. Corey Paige, member of Neon Reformed and student at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, and I began a new podcast last November called the Geneva Mountain Boys. Our goal is to reach out to Applachia and beyond with the historic Christian, Protestant, and Reformed faith. We began with a series on the five solas of the Protestant Reformation. We're now doing a series on The Apostles' Creed. We'd love to have you subscribe to our feed and give us a listen. Here are the pertinent links:

Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/geneva-mountain-boys/id1355851273?mt=2
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/genevamountainboys/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/genevamountain
Email: genevamountainboys@gmail.com

The Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation

Episode 1: Sola Scriptura
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-1-sola-scriptura
Episode 2: Sola Gratia
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-2-sola-gratia
Episode 3: Sola Fide
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-3-sola-fide
Episode 4: Solus Christus
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-4-solus-christus
Episode 5: Soli Deo Gloria
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-5-soli-deo-gloria

The Apostles' Creed (current series at the time of this post)

Episode 6: The Apostles' Creed (Part 1): Origin and Use of the Creeds
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-6
Episode 7: The Apostles Creed (Part 2): Overview
https://soundcloud.com/genevamountainboys/ep-7-the-apostles-creed-pt-2-overview

The Apostles' Creed: The Origin and Use of the Apostles' Creed

The Origin of the Creed

The Apostles’ Creed gets its name from its supposed authorship. Legend says that the Apostles composed it ten days after the ascension of Christ when the Holy Spirit was poured out from heaven. The Roman Catholic Church has even claimed to know which Apostle wrote each part of the creed. But while Apostolic authorship has been summarily disproven, the creed is still appropriately named since it faithfully communicates the inspired Apostolic teaching of the NT.

Various phrases found in the Apostles’ Creed can be traced back to the Roman Symbol which developed as early as the late second century. This symbol was preserved in three subsequent formulations (cf. John Leith, Creeds of the Churches, 3rd ed., 23-24):

1. The Interrogatory Creed of Hippolytus (215 AD): Do you believe in God the Father all governing? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was begotten by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and died and was buried and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down on the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church, and in the resurrection of the body?
2. The Creed of Marcellus (340 AD): I believe in God, all governing. And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was begotten of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, who rose from the dead on the third day, ascending to the heavens and taking his seat at the Father’s right hand, whence he shall come to judge both living and dead. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, life everlasting.
3. The Creed of Rufinus (404 AD): I believe in God the Father almighty, invisible and impassible. And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit from Mary the Virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; he descended to hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead, he ascended to heaven, where he sits at the Father’s right hand and from whence he will come to judge both living and dead. And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy church, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of this flesh.

St. Augustine also preached a sermon on a North African variant of the symbol around 400 AD. Leith offers this reconstruction (Creeds of the Churches, 3rd ed., 25):

We believe in God the Father Almighty, creator of all things, ruler of the ages, immortal and invisible. We believe in Jesus Christ his Son, our Lord, born of the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead and buried, on the third day he rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father, thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead,. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, the life everlasting through the holy catholic church.

The Textus Receptus of the Creed

Leith writes, “The date and place of the origin of the present form of the Apostles’ Creed cannot be fixed with precision. There is considerable evidence for a date late in the sixth or seventh century somewhere in southwest France” (24). The Textus Receptus (i.e. received text) of the Apostles’ Creed dates to 710-24. It was adopted by Rome and became a common creed of the Western Church. It states:

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
And is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

The Use of the Creed

Historically, the church has used the Apostles’ Creed as a catechetical guide and profession of faith for new converts. It serves as a brief summary of the Christian faith, which, combined with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and the Athanasian Creed, defined Christian orthodoxy in the NT church up to the time of the Protestant Reformation. Since then that definition has also included the doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide. The Apostles’ Creed, therefore, helps us to recognize and avoid any inadequate or incomplete versions of Christianity that may arise today. It also reminds us that Christian identity is not simply a matter of subjective feelings. It is an objective reality based on the doctrines we profess to believe. Saving faith may involve more than knowing these doctrines but it never involves less. It may be true even while our knowledge is incomplete and inaccurate, but it cannot be true while we consciously reject the doctrines of the creed. Saving faith is not a matter of individual preference. It is to have one’s heart and voice joined with others in a common confession of faith about the triune God and his works. The Apostles’ Creed is useful to that end. It is a time-tested confession of faith suitable for the church’s life and liturgy. It is a towering monument and trustworthy guide to the Spirit’s work in his church over the last 2000 years.

The Apostles' Creed: The Origin and Use of Creeds in the Church

What is a creed?

The word “creed” comes from the Latin word credo, which is the first word in the Apostles’ Creed. It means “I believe.” Sometimes called a rule or symbol, a creed is a confession of the content of one’s faith. Confessions of faith can be any length, long like The Westminster Confession of Faith or short like the creeds. A creed is a short confession of faith which can be more easily memorized and recited.

What is creedalism?

In what has become the gold standard compendium of the Christian creeds, John Leith writes, “Christianity has always been a ‘creedal’ religion in that it has always been theological. It was rooted in the theological tradition of ancient Israel, which was unified by its historical credos and declaratory affirmations of the faith. No pretheological era has been discovered in the New Testament or in the history of the Christian community. From the beginning Christianity has been theological, involving men in theological reflection and calling them to declarations of the faith.” (Creeds of the Churches, 1). While some contemporary Christian denominations may eschew creeds in principle, they are nonetheless creedal in the broadest sense of the term. The short quip, “No creed but Christ,” or “No creed but the Bible,” is itself a creed—although a bad one to be sure! The moment a minister opens his mouth to interpret and apply the teaching of Scripture, he is declaring and encouraging those who hear him to share his belief (i.e. his creed). Our choice is not therefore between creedalism and non-creedalism but between good creeds and bad creeds. To reject a robust and self-conscious creedalism is really to prefer one’s own private creed over the public creeds that have time-tested pedigrees in the church. In his excellent book The Creedal Imperative Carl Trueman writes, “Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true” (15).

Oftentimes the use of creeds is rejected on the grounds that it undermines the Protestant tenet sola Scriptura (i.e. the Scriptures are our only infallible rule for faith and practice). But, ironically, the formal rejection of creedalism actually undermines that tenet. Sola Scriptura requires the creedal tradition of the church for its implementation. After all, the Scriptures teach that Christian faith and practice, including biblical interpretation, must be worked out in the context of Christian community.

Proper biblical interpretation cannot coexist with individualism. Christians need one another across the centuries as well as today, because the Holy Spirit didn’t begin his work of illumination in our time or with any single individual. Jaroslav Pelikan writes, “Christian doctrine is the business of the church. The history of doctrine is not to be equated with the history of theology or the history of Christian thought. If it is, the historian runs the danger of exaggerating the significance of the idiosyncratic thought of individual theologians at the expense of the common faith of the church. The private beliefs of theologians do belong to the history of doctrine, but not simply on their own terms. For one of the most decisive differences between a theologian and a philosopher is that the former understands himself as, in Origen’s classic phrase, ‘a man of the church,’ a spokesman for the Christian community” (The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1, 3). Creedalism recognizes and applies this truth by employing publicly received statements of faith from the past as authorities in the life of the church today.

No doubt, the Scriptures are the primary and only infallible authority for our theological reflection, answering the most basic question, viz. what has God revealed? But the creeds serve as secondary authorities, answering the less basic—but no less necessary—question about what we believe God’s revelation teaches. Every heretic has his proof text; therefore it is the second question that forms the line between orthodoxy and heterodoxy, between Christian doctrine and non-Christian doctrine.

What are some of these creeds? 

The Bible itself contains several creeds. The most ancient is the shema of Deut. 6:4. The text says, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” This text was recited each time the priest presided over Israel’s public worship. It is what set Israel apart from the pagan nations around her. Israel believed in the one true and living God; the nations believed in many gods. We find similar formulations in the NT. Most NT scholars believe that Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is a creedal formulation that was being used in the public worship of the church. The apostle writes, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” We see a similar kind of formulation in 1 Tim. 3:16. The text says, “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” This is most likely an example of the “words of the faith,” “good doctrine,” and “the teaching” that Paul charges the young Timothy to guard and faithfully set before the church in 1 Tim. 4:6-16.
In the time after the Apostles the church continued to produce and use creeds. Just as Israel’s shema was taken up in an apologetic context to distinguish her from the nations (i.e. those without) and the sound doctrine about which Paul wrote Timothy was taken up in an apologetic context to distinguish true teachers from false teachers (i.e. those within), so we find the post-apostolic church doing the same. Pelikan writes, “When the the church confessed what it believed and taught, it did so in answer to attacks from within and from without the Christian movement” (11). Leith agrees, writing, “Generally speaking, creeds have not been written in the quiet periods of history but in those moments of historical intensity when the Church has been engaged by foes from without, or when its mission or life has been endangered from within” (2).

In the late third and early fourth centuries one of the most ancient creeds was formulated in defense of the full deity of Christ. A teaching called Arianism, named after the north African presbyter Arius (256-336 AD), had arisen within the church. The Arians taught that the Son was not eternal like the Father. He was the first and highest creation of the Father but not his equal. Arius summarized his teaching by saying of the Son, “there was when he was not.” In 318 AD the church called an ecumenical (i.e. universal) council to decide the matter. In 325 AD that council produced the Nicene Creed, defending the full deity of the Son against the Arian detractors. The creed was later revised and updated at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. In its final form it states:

We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father; and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. 

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets; and we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

By the late fifth century several challenges had also arisen with respect to the nature of the Son’s incarnation. Some taught that Jesus was only divine (i.e. the docetists). Others taught he was only human (i.e. the adoptionists). Still others taught that his divine nature was complete but the human incomplete (i.e. the Apollynarians). Others taught that his divine and human natures combined to make a third nature that retained aspects of each but was neither fully (i.e. the Eutychians). Others taught that Jesus was both divine and human but never simultaneously (i.e. the Nestorians). An ecumenical council met at Chalcedon and in 451 AD and issued the creed known as the Definition of Chalcedon. It says:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. 

Along with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the Definition of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed and the Apostles’ Creed are typically considered the ecumenical creeds that established Christian orthodoxy in the early to medieval church (100-1500 AD).

How have creeds been used? 

In the early church creeds were used to train and identify recent converts. In his book “I Believe”: Exploring the Apostles’ Creed, Alistair McGrath notes that Jews who had already been trained in the Scriptures from birth were only required to recognize that Jesus was the promised Messiah before being baptized. This belief was formally professed through the simple creed: “Jesus is Lord” (Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9; 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3; 2 Cor. 4:5; Php. 2:11; Col. 2:6). But for Gentiles who had no such Scriptural foundation more was needed. The church produced more substantial creeds for that purpose. Such catechetical training typically lasted three years. After that time converts were required to profess their faith before the assembly by reciting the creed on Easter Sunday. Afterward they were baptized and received the Eucharist for the first time (11-12).

Creeds have also been used in the church’s liturgy. Christians not only need to make public profession of their faith in the interest of becoming members of the church. They need to continue to make such professions as an aspect of their collective identity as the church. Therefore, an element of the church's public worship is its common confession of faith. As the Apostle writes, “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4-6, emphasis added).

Beyond these two most basic uses, and because creeds are confessions of faith, we might apply to creeds some of the same uses Carl Trueman ascribes to confessions in his booklet Why Christians Need Confessions. Among them we should include: (1) Creeds delimit church power, (2) Creeds offer succinct summaries of the faith, (3) Creeds highlight that which is of importance, (4) Creeds relativize the present and connect us to the past, (5) Creeds represent the substance of our worship, and (6) Creeds fulfill a vital part of Paul’s plan for the post-apostolic church.

Apostles' Creed: Schedule

I recently taught a Sunday School series at Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church on the Apostles' Creed. I plan to post the lessons here over the next few weeks. The class schedule is as follows:

1. The Origin and Use of Creeds in the Church 
2. The Origin and Use of the Apostles’ Creed  
3. Overview of the Apostles’ Creed 
4. I Believe 
5. God the Father Almighty 
6. Maker of Heaven and Earth 
7. Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son, Our Lord 
8. Who Was Conceived by the Holy Spirit, and Born of the Virgin Mary 
9. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was Crucified, Died, Was Buried; He Descended into Hell 
10. The Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead. 
11. He Ascended into Heaven and Is Seated at the Right Hand of God the Father Almighty 
12. From There He Will Come to Judge the Living and the Dead 
13. The Holy Spirit 
14. The Holy Catholic Church 
15. The Communion of Saints 
16. The Forgiveness of Sins 
17. The Resurrection of the Body 
18. The Life Everlasting 

Apostles’ Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
       Maker of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ,
       His only begotten Son, our Lord,
       who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
       and born of the virgin Mary.
       He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
       was crucified, died, and was buried;
       he descended into hell.
       The third day he rose again from the dead.
       He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
       From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
       the holy catholic Church,
       the communion of saints,
       the forgiveness of sins,
       the resurrection of the body,
       and the life everlasting. Amen.

Suggested Reading

• Leith, John H., Creeds of the Churches: A Reader in Christian Doctrine from the Bible to the Present, Westminster John Knox Press, 1982. (Advanced)
• McGrath, Alister, “I Believe”: Exploring the Apostles’ Creed, InterVarsity Press, 1997. (Introductory) 
• Miller, Samuel, The Utility and Importance of Creeds and Confessions, Presbyterian Board of Education, 1839, Reprinted by A Press, 1991. (Advanced)
• Olevianus, Caspar, An Exposition of the Apostles Creed, Reformation Heritage Books, Trans. Lyle D. Bierma, 2009. (Intermediate)
• Packer, J.I., Affirming the Apostles’ Creed, Crossway, 2008. (Introductory)
• Pelikan, Jaroslav, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), The University of Chicago Press, 1971.(Advanced)
• Pelikan, Jaroslav, Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, Yale University Press, 2003. (Advanced)
• Trueman, Carl R., The Creedal Imperative, Crossway, 2012. (Intermediate)
• Trueman, Carl R., Why Christians Need Confessions, The Committee on Christian Education of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2013. (Introductory)
• Witsius, Herman, Sacred Dissertations on the Apostles’ Creed, vols. 1 and 2, Reformation Heritage Books, reprinted 2010. (Advanced)

Do You Hate Me?

Thus far in our series Engaging the Homosexual Movement we have looked at arguments/objections from nature, morality and authority that might be raised in the interest of normalizing the practice of homosexuality. And we have offered Christian answers to each objection. Last time we began addressing another argument/objection that differs from the first three while simultaneously touching upon each. It is not so much an argument for the normalization of the practice of homosexuality as it is an objection against the God who condemns it. Given the truthfulness of the previous three answers, one might ask, “Does your God hate me?” In other words, does God hate those who approve of the practice of homosexuality? We concluded that the Bible’s answer to that question is complex. God hates those who approve of the practice of homosexuality, because their sin is a personal offense against his infinite greatness and goodness. But he also loves them in at least two senses. First, he loves them in a general providential sense. God provides for their temporal needs. As Jesus teaches in his sermon on the mount in Matt. 5:45, “He makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Second, he loves them in a salvific sense in that he freely offers life and salvation to them if they will repent and believe in Jesus Christ, and for all those he has foreordained to eternal life, he loves them by actually saving them from their sin.

A further objection might arise after delivering such an answer, viz. “Do you hate me?” In other words, if there is some sense in which your God hates those who approve the practice of homosexuality, does that mean there is some sense in which you hate me as well? As we will see, the answer to this question is also complex.

The Bible describes the church as hating the wicked and vice versa. Prov. 29:27 says, “An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, but one whose way is straight is an abomination to the wicked.” Also, at least fifteen of the Psalms (5, 10, 17, 35, 58, 59, 69, 70, 79, 83, 109, 129, 137, 139, 140) are imprecatory prayers in which the psalmist calls out to God for the destruction of the wicked. Ps. 58:6-8 says, “O God, break the teeth in their mouths; tear out the fangs of the young lions, O LORD! Let them vanish like water that runs away; when he aims his arrows, let them be blunted. Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime, like the stillborn child who never sees the sun.” David also says in Psalm 139:21-22, “Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with complete hatred; I count them my enemies.” We see the same relationship between the church and the world in the New testament. Rom. 12:9b says, “Abhor (i.e. hate) what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” And 1 Jn 2:15-17 says, “Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.” James 4:4 is similar. The text says, “You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” But perhaps the most shocking example of this teaching comes from Jesus’ own public ministry. In Luke 14:26-28 he teaches his disciples, saying, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple. For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?” What does Jesus mean? He means that if we are to follow him we must learn to unreservedly love the things he loves and hate the things he hates regardless of our earthly relations. If we ever begin to treat any of our earthly relations, including our relation to self, as if it was more important, more foundational, than our relation to Christ, then we have left behind faithful Christian discipleship. So there is a sense, a very qualified sense, in which we are called to hate those who approve of the practice of sin, including ourselves when we discover ourselves sinning.

But the church is also called to love the world! Jesus teaches in Matt. 5:43-48, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?” And Rom. 12:14-21 says, “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

So how is the church to simultaneously hate and love those who approve the practice of evil? We get an important clue in Rom. 12:19. The text says, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’” Here we see how our hatred for those who approve of the practice of wickedness should differ from God’s hatred of the same. God knows the heart infallibly and has the authority and ability to exact vengeance with perfect righteousness. The church does not. Now, it’s important to recognize that at this stage in the Apostle’s argument in Romans he is speaking to the church as the church and the way it and its members should relate to the world when it comes to matters of faith and practice. He is not speaking to every possible relationship a Christian might have within the world. For example, when Paul says “Never avenge yourselves,” he is not teaching pacifism. Individual Christians most certainly have the right to seek to punish evil doers in the world for the purpose of exacting reparations in the right circumstances. For example, Christians can serve in the military, as police officers, and practice self-defense. But the church as the church should not. The church as the church never enacts discipline as a merely punitive measure in the interest of exacting reparations. The church enacts discipline through its councils at local and regional levels in the interest of repentance and reconciliation. Church discipline is restorative. Furthermore, church authority is never compulsory or legislative; it is ministerial and declarative. That means the church, and Christians within the church, should confront the wicked with a gentleness and humility that wins them by repentance rather than with a harshness and overconfidence that pushes them away with contempt.

So how should the church’s hatred for the wicked be expressed? It should be expressed as a simple yet unwavering disapproval, grief, revulsion, and godly separation from the wicked. Rather than approving the practice of sin, we should disapprove it. Rather than rejoicing in wrongdoing, we should grieve over it and be repulsed by it. Rather than joining ourselves with those who practice wrongdoing in order to fellowship with them as if nothing were wrong with their beliefs and practices, we should maintain a proper degree of separation. This is how our hatred should manifest itself. It should never manifest itself as contempt or vengeance.

But what about loving our enemies? How should the church simultaneously love those who approve of the practice of sin? Our love for the wicked should be expressed in the same way God’s love is expressed. Jesus bases his teaching about loving our enemies on the character of the Father in Matt. 5:45, saying, “For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” As we have seen, God loves the wicked in a general providential sense by providing for their needs. We should do the same. As Jesus says in Matt. 5:41-42, “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” In other words, the command to love our neighbors is not limited by a religious litmus test. We should be ready and willing to show hospitality and mercy to our neighbors, providing for their basic needs as we are able, regardless of whether they approve of the practice of sin or not. Moreover, as we have seen, God loves the wicked in a salvific sense through the free offer of the gospel. We should participate in that love as well by inviting those who practice sin to repent and to believe in Jesus Christ, standing ready and willing to welcome any who would come to him. After all, we cannot know whether today’s Saul/Paul the Pharisee may not be tomorrow’s Saul/Paul the Apostle. The secret things belong to the Lord. 

In conclusion we might answer the question, “Do you hate me?” by saying, “Yes (in a very qualified sense) but, even more fundamentally, no. I hate you in the sense that I disapprove of, am grieved by, am revulsed by, and must maintain an appropriate degree of separation from you as long as you approve the practice of any sin, including homosexuality. But I love you in the sense that I am ready to show you hospitality and mercy as my neighbor and to invite you to receive the free gift of forgiveness, reconciliation, and eternal life through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.”

God Made Me This Way! (Part 2)

Last time we considered this objection from the perspective of God’s original created design under two headings: (1) “Man’s Creation Male and Female” and (2) “The Image of God and the One Flesh Union.” Under the first heading we concluded that the Bible’s answer to the objection “God made me this way!” is to say, “No, that’s not true. In God’s finished good creation there was no homosexuality. Therefore, it must be a result of humanity’s fall into the estate of sin and misery. It is an unnatural and sinful perversion of what God made, including you.” Under the second we concluded that the Bible’s answer is to say, “No, that’s not true. The image of God in which humanity was created was expressed through the smaller husband and wife marriage community which was commanded to propagate an increasing community of offspring. Homosexuality runs contrary to this expression. Therefore it must be part of the perversion of the image of God that occurred in the fall.”

        

In this lesson, rather than thinking about the objection from the perspective of protology (i.e. doctrine of first things), we’ll think about it from the perspective of eschatology (i.e. doctrine of last things). In the eternal decree of God there is a parallel relationship between first things and last things. As Jonathan Edwards taught in his masterpiece The End for Which God Created the World, whatever God aims to achieve must be his highest reason for creating. In other words, the creation as originally designed (i.e. protology) must have God’s end goal (i.e. eschatology) embedded within it. Thus the claim "This is just who I am!" or "God made me this way!" is more than simply an appeal to God’s original design for his creation. It’s also an appeal to his goal for it.

As we saw last time, God created man male and female after his own image, and the two were united together as one flesh in a marriage covenant as husband and wife. These were their God-given identities. After the fall God determined to send a redeemer. “The seed of the woman” would come to “crush the head of the serpent" (Gen. 3:15). This redeemer would serve as a second Adam (Rom. 5; 1 Cor. 15), undoing what the first Adam did and doing what he failed to do. But how would the elect receive these benefits? SC 30 asks, “How does the Spirit apply to us the redemption purchased by Christ? A. The Spirit applies to us the redemption purchased by Christ, by working faith in us, and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.” The redemption we have is in Christ. It is ours through faith-union with him. And what is the nature of this union? LC 66 asks, “What is that union which the elect have with Christ? A. The union which the elect have with Christ is the work of God's grace, whereby they are spiritually and mystically, yet really and inseparably, joined to Christ as their head and husband; which is done in their effectual calling.” Our union with Christ is described as that of a wife to her husband.

Just as God originally created a wife for the first Adam, so he is creating a wife for the second. We read about the connection between marriage and God’s work of redemption in Eph. 5:22-33, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.”

We see two defining characteristics of marriage in this text: (1) The husband’s headship over his wife, and (2) The one flesh (or body) union between one man and one woman. These characteristics of the marriage relationship between husband and wife correspond to Christ’s relationship to his church. Just as Adam was the head of his wife, so Christ is the head of his church, and just as Adam and Eve were joined together in a covenant bond as one flesh, so Christ and his church are joined together in a covenant bond as one body. It is through this relationship of headship and union that sinners are saved.

As we think about this analogy in terms of the renewal of the image of God, we might also say, just as the image of God was expressed in the smaller marriage community of Adam and Eve propagating an increasing community of offspring, so it is being renewed through the marriage community of Christ and his church, which is propagating an increasing community of offspring by making disciples of all nations. Christ, in union with his church, is working to fulfill the original goal of being fruitful, multiplying, filling, subduing, and having dominion over the earth. We read about the consummation of this renewal in Rev. 19:6-9. The text says, “Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, ‘Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns. Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure’— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. And the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.’ And he said to me, ‘These are the true words of God.’” This is the final sanctifying act that Christ performs for his bride.

We may, therefore, evaluate homosexuality by testing its conformity to the headship and union that characterizes Christ's redemptive relationship with and goal for his church. When we overlay this biblical paradigm with the homosexual paradigm what do we see?

First, we see that homosexuality cannot achieve the headship that a husband should have relative to his wife, since homosexual partners can only be relational equals. This fails to conform to the analogy Paul draws to Christ’s headship over his church. That headship has two senses. First, as the Son of God, Christ is our natural head by virtue of his deity. The homosexual paradigm, therefore, effectively denies Jesus’ deity, which is blasphemy. Second, as the incarnate Mediator, Christ is our covenantal head. The homosexual paradigm, therefore, effectively denies Jesus’ covenantal authority over us. Both denials, paradigmatically speaking, deprive him of his ability to save, specifically with respect to his power, thus undermining the gospel.

Second, we see that homosexuality cannot achieve the one flesh union of husband and wife. Try as they may homosexual partners can only be two distinct individuals. This has massive implications for love. The Apostle clearly bases the love a husband should have for his wife on the fact that she is his body. While homosexual partners may love one another as individuals, they can never share the kind of love that is associated with the one flesh union. This fails to conform to the analogy Paul draws to Christ’s love for his church. Being unable to achieve the one flesh union, the homosexual paradigm effectively denies the same union between Christ and his church and therefore the basis of his love for her, viz. himself (she is his body). This, again, paradigmatically speaking, deprives Jesus of his ability to save, specifically with respect to his willingness (or love), thus undermining the gospel. 

Because the homosexual paradigm effectively denies Christ’s headship over and union with his church, it denies Jesus’ ability to save sinners both in terms of his power and willingness (or love), respectively. And because Jesus’ salvation of sinners is unto the renewal of the expression of the image of God in being fruitful, multiplying, filling, subduing, and having dominion over the earth, homosexuality also effectively denies this goal.

So, in answer to the objection, "God made me this way!” the Christian may also appeal to God’s goal for what he made. If homosexuality effectively denies that goal, then it cannot be true that God made anyone homosexual. Homosexuality effectively denies God’s goal for his creation by: (1) denying the headship of Christ over his church, both naturally and covenantally, thus depriving him of his power to save, (2) denying the one body union of Christ with his church, thus depriving him of his willingness (or love) to save. In other words, homosexuality effectively denies Jesus’ ability to renew the expression of the image of God in being fruitful, multiplying, filling, subduing, and having dominion over the earth.    

Engaging the Homosexual Movement

Last Summer I taught a six-part Sunday school series at Neon Reformed entitled Engaging the Homosexual Movement. The class schedule was as follows:

1. God Made Me This Way! (Part 1)
2. God Made Me This Way! (Part 2)
3. Jesus Never Condemned It!
4. Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged!
5. Does Your God Hate Me?
6. Do You Hate Me? 

In the interest of dusting off this old blog, I thought I might publish this and other short Sunday School series moving forward. Perhaps it will be a benefit to some.

Is Church Membership Important? (Part 4)

In part three we looked at the necessity of visible church membership for the reception of the Word and the sacraments. We learned that an individual might receive the benefit of the Word preached for a time without joining the church. But he cannot receive it in that condition perpetually, because the Word itself teaches the necessity of church membership. Therefore if one is benefiting from the Word read and preached, he will join the church. One way we see this is with regard to the sacraments. The Bible teaches that participation in the sacraments requires visible church membership.

In part four we will examine what the Bible teaches about church discipline and membership.

In 1 Cor. 11:27-31 we see church discipline connected with the reception of the Lord's Supper. The Apostle explains that there are worthy and unworthy manners of receiving the sacrament. Worthy reception amounts to the maintenance of the credibility of one's profession of faith (i.e. discerning the body). Therefore there are times when the Supper should be withheld from a person if the credibility of his profession is in question. This would constitute an act of church discipline. And since receiving the sacraments is dependent on visible church membership, therefore in this respect so is church discipline.  

Further in 1 Peter 5:1-5 we read, "So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."

In this text the Apostle Peter exhorts his fellow elders (presbuterous) to be proper shepherds over the flock (i.e. "those in your charge"). They are undershepherds of the chief Shepherd. Christ rules his church through these men (Matt. 16:19; 18:17-18; John 20:21-23, cf. WCF 30.2). Further he commands individual believers to submit to the government of elders who have charge over them, saying "be subject to the elders."

This relationship between elders and congregants is only possible for those that have voluntarily associated with one another (i.e. believers) or are under the headship of one who has (i.e. their children). The elders could have no charge over anyone apart from this, since their rule under Christ is declarative and ministerial rather than legislative and magisterial. They declare God's word in service to his people. They DO NOT legislate their own words or force obedience.

And what is the goal of church government? 1 Pet. 5:6-11 concludes, "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you. Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same kinds of suffering are being experienced by your brotherhood throughout the world. And after you have suffered a little while, the God of all grace, who has called you to his eternal glory in Christ, will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you. To him be the dominion forever and ever. Amen."

Through church discipline God protects his covenant people from evil so that they may continue to be nourished in the faith unto eternal life. Therefore visible church membership is of vital importance.

Conclusion

In Eph. 5:25-30 we read, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body."

The Lord Jesus Christ loves the visible church. It is his bride. It is his body. How can a person claim to be united to Christ, and not also be united to his body? Just as a man nourishes and cherishes his own body, so Jesus nourishes and cherishes his church. He does this through the Word, the sacraments, and church discipline.

Much more could be said about the importance of visible church membership, but my prayer is that these short articles will help orient us to the fundamentals of the Bible's teaching, and that having been so oriented we might better love her and participate ever more faithfully in her worship and service.

Is Church Membership Important? (Part 3)

In part two we set out the historic Protestant view of the three marks of the visible church, namely the Word, the sacraments, and church discipline. We also saw that while each mark is essential to the being of the church, there is a functional hierarchy among them. The Word is primary. The sacraments are secondary. Church discipline is tertiary. These are ordinary means whereby God creates and confirms saving faith in the hearts of his elect unto eternal life. Visible church membership is vitally important because the church is the place of the means of grace.

But couldn't a person just attend the church's worship services and get the same benefits without actually becoming a member? Is official membership really necessary?

One could indeed receive the benefit of the Word preached for a time without becoming a member. I say for a time because if he was truly benefiting from the Word preached he would recognize his obligation to receive the sacraments and church discipline, neither of which can be received apart from membership. Let's begin with the sacraments. What does the Bible teach about the sacraments and church membership? 

Westminster Larger Catechism Q/A. 162 offers this fine definition of a sacrament: "A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church, to signify, seal, and exhibit unto those that are within the covenant of grace, the benefits of his mediation; to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another; and to distinguish them from those that are without." 

Notice that it says a sacrament is an ordinance "instituted by Christ in his church" for the benefit of "those that are within the covenant of grace... to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces; to oblige them to obedience; to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another, and to distinguish them from those that are without." In other words, the sacraments are NOT given to individual believers, but to all those within the visible church.

The LORD gave the OT sacrament of circumcision not just to Abraham but to his children throughout their generations (Gen. 17:9-14). He gave the OT sacrament of Passover not just to Moses but to all Israel (Ex. 12). When Jesus instituted the NT sacrament of baptism, which replaces and perfects OT circumcision, he not only gave it to the disciples but to those who would become disciples in all nations (Matt. 28:19), because as Peter preaches to Israel, "the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the LORD our God calls to himself" (Acts 2:39). And when the Lord Jesus instituted the NT sacrament of the Lord's Supper in Matt. 26:26-28, he not only gave it to the disciples but he said of the cup, "this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." So the Apostle Paul will later write to the church in Corinth, "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you" (1 Cor. 11:23a).   

Clearly the sacraments belong to the visible church for the benefit of all those that are within the covenant of grace. They do not belong to any individual. Therefore by definition one must join the membership of the visible church in order to enjoy the benefits of the sacraments. 

Jesus has instituted two sacraments in the NT church: (1) Baptism and (2) The Lord's Supper (WLC 164).

Baptism is a rite of solemn admission into the membership of the visible church (WLC 165). Therefore if one is to receive it he must become a member, which happens by being born to believing parents or by conversion.

With respect to the Lord's Supper, the issue is a little more complex. While one must undoubtedly be a member of the visible church to partake, the necessary proximity of that membership is debated. Some churches practice closed communion, meaning only those who are members of that local church can receive the Supper there. In the branch of the visible church in which I minister, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, one need not be a member of the local church in order to receive the Supper there. But one must be a communing member in good standing of some local church where the gospel is preached in order to receive it.       

Jesus has instituted the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper in his church. They belong to the visible church as a whole, not to any individual. One must be a member in order to receive the sacraments by which God so graciously nourishes and strengthens us in the faith. Therefore visible church membership is vitally important. 

In part four we will take a look at membership and church discipline.     

Is Church Membership Important? (Part 2)

In part one we defined the church as the assembly set apart by God to be his treasured possession (Deut. 7:6). We also learned that the Bible speaks of the church in two different senses. Sometimes it refers to the whole company of the elect. This is what we call the invisible church. Other times it refers to those throughout the world who profess the true religion and their children. This is what we call the visible church. Not all members of the visible church are members of the invisible church, and not necessarily every member of the invisible church becomes a member of the visible church prior to his death. But while deathbed conversions may be possible, they are clearly extraordinary in God’s work of salvation. The visible church “is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2, emphasis added).

So what precisely is the visible church and why is it so important?

The historic Protestant tradition defines the visible church according to three marks:

1. The Word rightly administered. 
2. The sacraments rightly administered. 
3. Church discipline rightly administered. 

These three marks are comprehended in the Westminsterian term “the true religion” (WCF 25.2). They are defining characteristics of the church. All three are equally important, but there is a functional hierarchy among them. The Word is primary. The sacraments are secondary. Church discipline is tertiary. We see this hierarchy in both the historia salutis (i.e. the “history of salvation” or salvation accomplished) and the ordo salutis (i.e. the “order of salvation” or salvation applied).

In the historia salutis God has given his people sacraments as signs and seals of his covenant (i.e. his Word). Moreover, the actions God institutes as sacraments are prescribed as such in that same covenant. The sacraments are meaningless apart from what they signify and seal, namely the covenant promises, and they have no being apart from their institution. This is why their significance should be taught and words of institution should be read during their administration.

In the ordo salutis the covenant promises are applied to us by faith alone, and "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). Saving faith comes through the Word. It does not come through the sacraments (cf. Rom. 4:10-11). The sacraments are the means God uses to confirm the faith already created by the Word. [This doesn't mean the covenant sign can only be applied to believers. After all, Isaac was circumcised before faith. It means that the covenant sign only fulfills its function as a seal when it is joined to faith.]

With respect to church discipline, we see the same. Discipline is only rendered according to the Word, and it presupposes the prior covenant promises signified and sealed through the sacraments and received by faith alone.

Therefore looking at the three marks of the church through the lens of the historia salutis and the ordo salutis, we see a clear hierarchy among them. The Word is primary. The sacraments are secondary. Church discipline is tertiary. All three are necessary in their proper order.

The  visible church is the place of the means of grace whereby the triune God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—creates and confirms saving faith in the hearts of sinners unto eternal life. First, saving faith is created and confirmed by the administration of the Word. Second, it is further confirmed by the administration of the sacraments. Third, it is further confirmed by church discipline. Therefore church membership is of vital importance.

But can’t a person just attend the visible church and receive these benefits without becoming a member? In part three we will take a closer look at the first and second marks of the church, getting to the very heart of membership.

Is Church Membership Important? (Part 1)

It is a joyful time at Neon Reformed Presbyterian Church. We are about to receive four communing members and three noncommuning members into the fold. Praise God from whom all blessings flow!

Lately I’ve been thinking about church membership. Why is it important? Does Jesus want us to be members of his church? Would it be sinful to refuse membership in a local church? In considering these and other questions we first need to define the church.

“Church” is the English translation of the Greek word ekklesia, which means “assembly.” The church is the assembly set apart by God to be his treasured possession (Deut. 7:6). The Bible speaks of the church in two different senses. Sometimes “church” refers to the whole company of the elect. We call this the invisible church (WCF 25.1). Other times it refers to those who are assembling together in various locations under the same doctrinal confession. We call this the visible church (WCF 25.2). This distinction is clearly taught in Romans 9:6b, “For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.” In other words, not all members of the visible church (i.e. all those throughout the world who profess the true religion and their children) are members of the invisible church (i.e. the elect).

But what about the reverse? Must all members of the invisible church also be members of the visible church? Do the elect always enter into visible church membership before death? 

In response to this question many appeal to the thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43). Assuming the thief was converted from pagan idolatry just moments before his death, he would have been a member of the invisible church but never a member of the visible church. But the text does not tell us whether this man is a new convert from paganism or not. Here’s what we know from the text:

• He was a thief enduring the death sentence (v. 39).
• He feared God (v. 40).
• He understood his punishment at the hands of men was just (v. 41a).
• He understood Jesus’ punishment at the hands of men was unjust (v. 41b).
• He saw the kingdom of God by faith in Christ (i.e. he believed the gospel) (v. 42).
• He was elect (v. 43).  

We do not know the timing of his conversion or his involvement in the visible church up to this point. It is possible that he was a circumcised Hebrew, born to believing parents into the visible church. It is also possible he had already professed faith in Christ as a member of the visible church prior to his crucifixion. Is it really unthinkable that a true believer could commit such a crime? So while it is possible the thief is the only biblical example of a deathbed conversion, we cannot say that with certainty.

Nonetheless, we must at least acknowledge the theoretical possibility of such. God can save a man who is outside the visible church on his deathbed. This is beyond dispute. But even in acknowledging such a possibility we confess that the visible church “is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25.2, emphasis added). In other words, the ordinary experience of those whom God has chosen to save (i.e. the invisible church of the elect) includes membership in the visible church (i.e. being assembled with others who profess the true religion). To believe with one’s heart ordinarily includes confessing with one’s mouth and joining one’s voice with others of like confession (Rom. 10:10).

In part two we will define the visible church more precisely and begin to look at why membership in it is of such vital importance.