Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
Jeremy approaches Bible teaching with a passion for getting the basic doctrines explained so that the individual can understand them and then apply them to circumstances in their life. These basic and important lessons are nestled in a framework of history and progression of revelation from the Bible so the whole of Scripture can be applied to your physical and spiritual life.
Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas
NT Framework - The value of Creeds
A creed is a concise statement of a belief, religious or otherwise. So why did the early church spend so much time at various councils to develop, refine, and then teach a creed? Were they trying to mislead the believers or was there a better, more honorable goal?
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and our series on the New Testament Framework. Today, the full lesson from Jeremy Thomas. Here's a hint of what's to come.
Speaker 2:They're going to make statements related to the hypostatic union. By the way, the hypostatic union is the greatest theological conversation ever held. You know how long it took? 500 years.
Speaker 1:Although creeds are not the Bible, they are not doctrine, they are not inspired, they do serve a very useful purpose. They help to concisely state the foundational truths of the Bible and, at the same time, refute false teachings, to refute those perverted views of God, the Son, the Spirit, the relationship between God and the Church. These things are very useful aspects of a creed. It's why the early church spent so much time thinking about them, arguing about it and coming to as concise a statement as they possibly could, so that those who didn't have a Bible could understand falsehood when they heard it and could understand truth and therefore could honestly and sincerely worship God. Today we're going to look at some of those creeds and see their ramifications and implications for us and modern theologies.
Speaker 2:Okay, there's no title in the bulletin, but the titles I decided on was early creeds, because I'm going to through the lesson. There's going to be several things, but I guess what I came away with was I wanted to look at three early creeds so I could show you progression of thought about Trinity and about the hypostatic union. If you don't know what hypostatic union is, well, we're talking a little bit about that as we go along, but it relates to the two natures in Christ and how they are in his one person. He's not two people. So these are some complicated things. To get started, let's just remind ourselves a little bit of what we're trying to do.
Speaker 2:With each of the New Testament framework events. We're trying to first of all look at the event itself as a historical event. So what we've looked at is the virgin birth. We spent some time looking at prophecies about the virgin birth from the Old Testament, legal reasons and so forth. We also then looked at the responses. This is the second thing we'll do as we look at these New Testament events. We'll look at the responses.
Speaker 2:How did people respond? So how did the Jews respond? How did the Gentiles respond, and what was the proper response or the correct response. How should people have responded? So, as far as the virgin birth, the Jewish response was initially quite great. You know, the shepherds were very interested. They told other people. These other people were very interested but, as I highlighted, nobody seemed to follow the rest of the story. So much for that. Paul Harvey didn't come through there. You don't even read anything until he's 12 years old and the people at the temple are shocked that this young man, let's say, is asking such inquisitive and excellent and challenging questions, as well as his understanding and knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. And yet after that, did anybody pay attention? Nobody paid attention. Here he comes along, he's probably in his early 30s and that's when he goes to the river and is baptized by John and inducted into his ministry. So what was their response to the birth? The virgin birth? Not so good.
Speaker 2:What's interesting is the Gentile response was, in some cases you might even think better. You have the Magi in Matthew 2. They come from the east right and the story about the star and all that. These people traveled 800 miles. They were probably a very large caravan because it said it disturbed all of Jerusalem. Three people doesn't disturb all of Jerusalem. You know, we sing, we three kings of Orient, are based on that story. I think there's more than three guys, because all of Jerusalem was disturbed. So some have actually suggested the caravan was up to 600. So it was a large retinue of high-class people from the east who came and they were Gentile and they wanted to see this Jewish king, they wanted to worship the Jewish king. So it's a very interesting story and we traced and passed why they might have been looking for a specific star at a specific time and what it signified for them, which is what stimulated them to come. So they had an interesting response and that kind of plays out through the ministry of the king to both Jews and Gentiles.
Speaker 2:Jews increasingly negative response in the main, right To the point that they're saying you know, we'll have no king but Caesar right, and we want Barabbas crucify him. We'll take a murder. So that's not the best response. Gentiles on the other hand, there's some interesting responses in the Gospels People like the centurion who Jesus says I haven't seen faith like this in all Israel. And the Syrophoenician woman who said even the dogs eat the crumbs from the master's table. So there's a hunger among the Gentile people for righteousness from God. The Jewish people. We can do it ourselves. We'll just follow the Pharisees, we'll do oral law and somehow we'll just get righteous with God. We're good to go. We don't need a Christ, we don't need a Messiah. So that set the stage. And now we're in the church age and, of course, while the Jew and Gentile are one body, the prevailing group that responds to the gospel now is Gentile the world over. So there is a proper or correct response.
Speaker 2:If you think about the birth of the king, I mean, what would the response be? Well, I mean, if God came in the flesh in a baby, I mean his career ought to be followed like play by play. I mean, I'm serious, play by play, right. I mean like it's the most important person and the most important event in the history of the whole world and ever will be, and it ought to be followed play by play. I mean, give Mary some breathing space, but still, it should have been followed play by play, but it wasn't. So it's not a very good response to the birth of the king.
Speaker 2:Then we look at the doctrines, and that's kind of what we've been doing and I've been tracing through church history, the various attempts to explain the data attempts to explain what the Bible says about God. Because this is the first problem, right? The first problem is how many gods are there? Well, there's only one God. The first problem is how many gods are there? Well, there's only one God. But then we have Father, we have mention of the Son, we have mention of the Spirit. So how do Father, son and Spirit relate to this one God? Are they three separate gods?
Speaker 2:That's what Islam says. They say you Christians are trathletes, you believe in multiple gods, um, because they don't follow our doctrine of trinity. They don't understand what we're saying. I'm sure some do, but this is a typical general caricature from muslims of christians that we are. We worship multiple gods, um, but no, they're not. They're not three separate gods, there's only one God.
Speaker 2:But Islam is coming from a presupposition, right, islam is coming from the presupposition of a solitary monotheism, which we'll talk about that more today. A solitary monotheism meaning there's no diversity in God, there's just one God, whereas in Christianity we're saying, yeah, there is just one God, but there's a diversity of persons in that God. There's diversity of persons in that God. Three persons, right. So God in three persons, okay. So this took centuries to develop, though, and I'll show you some creeds, and really the Council of Chalcedon. The last creed I show you, ad 51, is where they articulated it most plainly. And all they're trying to do, you have to understand, all they're trying to do in the early creeds is reflect what the Scriptures say. They're just trying to get the Scriptures together, and so I want to walk you through some of this.
Speaker 2:And then the hypostatic union, again, that deals with just the second person in the Trinity right. When you look at these passages that say you know, I saw you under the fig tree, jesus said what do you mean? He saw him under the fig tree. He wasn't even there. How could you see him under the fig tree if he wasn't there? Well, because he's omniscient. Right or another occasion, you'll see him hungering or thirsting. What do you mean? You're hungry or thirsty? You're God, you don't need anything, you don't need any sustenance. Well, so you have these differing looks at him, and one of those looks is looking at his divine nature. The other is looking at his human nature, and the problem then began to be well, how do these relate to each other? How do these two natures relate? And we have two people going on here. Is this one person? Are the natures mixed? Are they separated? So there's so far that you have two people. What on here? Is this one person? Are the natures mixed? Are they separated? So far that you have two people? What's going on? So these became discussions and I'll walk through a little bit more of this with you.
Speaker 2:But I want to look at this creed at the top here, which is called the Apostles' Creed, probably about as early somewhere this language is coming into play around 8180. So there's a progression here in these creeds. Now we're not a creedal church. We're not like. We believe the Bible and the creeds are what we really believe and we just say the Bible teaches what the creeds teach. That's just a game. We only believe the Bible. I'm using these creeds there could be things in these creeds that aren't correct because they're not inspired by God but I'm using the creeds to show you that people were trying to articulate what the scriptures say, that people were trying to articulate what the Scriptures say, and you'll see as you go along that the statements get longer.
Speaker 2:See statement one, apostles' Creed, and then the second one, nicene Creed, and the same basic information, but it's expanded in the second one and certain phrases I'll highlight are added, and I'm trying to explain why. Why. Why did they add that phrase? Okay, so let's just look at the apostles creed. First one I believe in god, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in jesus christ, his only son, our lord, who was conceived of the holy spirit and born of the virgin mary, who suffered under pontius pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. Does anybody have a problem with any of that? I know you're like well, that sounds pretty good, it's good enough for me. I mean, that reflects pretty much what the Bible is saying. There's nothing really wrong there that I can see.
Speaker 2:Then we come, almost a couple hundred years later, to Nicene and note they say we believe in one god, very similar, father almighty, very similar, maker of heaven and earth, similar. And then there's a difference. Instead of saying it in jesus christ, they say and of he's maker of all things visible and invisible. So you'd want to ask yourself why did did they add that? Because they wanted to make sure that they were stating that he also created intermediary beings like angels. Well, why would you want to say that? Because certain people started saying that they were with God in the beginning and God created through angels. God used angels, okay. So they put a statement in there that said no, no, no, no, no. He made the angels. He didn't create through the angels, they're made too. They're visible things, visible and invisible. Let's get the angels in there, these invisible beings, okay, and in one, lord, jesus Christ.
Speaker 2:Now we're back on track with the Apostles' Creed, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father. And then it says before all world, before all world. They're trying to say he's not begotten in time, right, he's begotten before time, before creation. And then it gets really clear Jesus Christ, light of light, very God of very God, begotten. And then they define begotten. Because you're saying what does begotten mean? If I look begotten up in the dictionary, which I did just to make sure, it says born, born of someone, in a generation of someone. So that could confuse us. So they made very clear that begotten means what Not made, not made, okay, he's not a creation, okay.
Speaker 2:Now why would they want to say that? I mean, why would this be necessary to say that? Because Arius came along. Arianism, the ancient forerunner of modern Jehovah's Witnesses, it's basically the same view. There's nothing really that different between modern Jehovah's Witnesses and ancient Arianism.
Speaker 2:Arius came along and said that Jesus Christ was the first thing God created. So they're saying no, no, no, he's begotten, he's not made. First thing God created. So they're saying no, no, no, he's begotten, he's not made, he's not created. And he is very God of very God. So he's not a God, like ancient Arianism said and like Job's witness say. They say, well, he's a mighty God, he's just not the God. So in essence, he's just a creature, right, I mean he is because he was made, he's a creation. So they're X-ing that out, see, by putting very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.
Speaker 2:Here's another word we're like oh, we don't use that Consubstantial. What does that mean? It means of the same essence. When we talk about God, we talk about the essence of God. Right, we say he has certain characteristics he's sovereign, he's righteous, he's just loving, omniscient, omnipotent, present, immutable, eternal veracity, aseity, immensity. You know we have all these attributes of God. So when it says Christ is consubstantial with the Father, it means he shares those attributes. In other words, he doesn't have a different set of attributes Like Arianism or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Speaker 2:We have to say, because if he's not the one true god. He has a different essence than the one true god. You can't have the same essence if you're the creator as a creature, just by definition. The creator doesn't have a beginning, so he's eternal. All creatures have a beginning, so they're not eternal. A creator is infinite, but a creation is finite. So by definition, these are different from the start. They have different essence, they have a different substance.
Speaker 2:Okay, but they made very clear at nicene that no, no, no, he is consubstantial with the father. And notice by whom all things were made. They throw that in there. In other words, all things are made by Christ. So yes, at the first part of the Nicene Creed it says the Father Almighty is the maker of heaven and earth. But they also said that of the Son by whom all things were made. So they were already saying at Nicaea that the Father was the source of creation and the Son was the agent through whom the Father created.
Speaker 2:And were they reflecting the Bible when they did that? When we read John 1, 1, or just John 1,? Let's just look at John 1. We know verse 1, everybody knows that one right, you don't even have to have that as a memory verse. You've already memorized it In the beginning was the Word.
Speaker 2:The Word was with God and the Word was fully God, or that's the sense. He was in the beginning with God, and all things came into being through Him, okay, right Through Him, and that's what they're expressing here. By whom or through whom? In the Greek it'd be the same preposition, by whom or through whom all things were made. So see, they are actually totally reflecting what the scripture says there. Right, all things came into being through him and apart from him, nothing came into being. That has come into being. And that's also Genesis 1, right In in the beginning, god created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void, and darkness covered the surface of the deep.
Speaker 2:The spirit of god hovered over the surface of the water. And then it says then god said let there be light. He said words, right, speak. And here we are in John 1. Who was with him in the beginning? The word speak, and that's what that's reflecting. So they're just trying to reflect it. But my point is to show you that what they're trying to do, as they develop these creeds over time, as they write the Apostles' Creed, they say, oh, this is great, this is a great reflection of the Bible. And people come along and they start coming up with their little ideas, and so the church has to come back and they have to say we can't have angels being the intermediate beings that God created through. So we've got to put another statement in there, and so they add things visible and invisible, and so this is kind of the way that things took shape over the early centuries of the church.
Speaker 2:There were a lot of these different views and I've mentioned them. I didn't have this chart, but I used some handouts to show you some of the ancient heresies, the modern heresies. That corresponds to the ancient heresy there's nothing new under the sun and then the presupposition of those heresies. So I wanted to discuss again a little bit about presuppositions, because I didn't do it as much as I probably should have in the Old Testament framework, so last time I just spent. These are powerful. Presuppositions are where the issues are. I just defined a presupposition in sort of a simple way, as this is not just an assumption. Assumptions are less powerful.
Speaker 2:A presupposition is when you argue from a conclusion that hasn't been proven. You're arguing from a conclusion that hasn't been proven, and every one of these false views that I've taken you through so far argues from a conclusion that hasn't been proven. So they start. See, a presupposition is a starting point. Here's the question If you start in the wrong point, can you ever get to the right answer? That's the problem with presupposition they distract you. You can't get to the right answer because you started in the wrong place. Get to the right answer because you started in the wrong place, and then this shows you also the development. So let's look at some of these presuppositions. They're all in the right column.
Speaker 2:Remember modal monarchyism and oneness Pentecostalism. That's the modern counterpart today oneness Pentecostalism. They started with what presupposition? Solitary monotheism. Now it's actually true, monotheism is a true presupposition. Just because you have a presupposition doesn't mean it's wrong. Okay, it may be right or it could be wrong. It could be either way. It's just that it's something that's unverified. It's just a conclusion you start reasoning from. If you start from a monotheism but you say, well, it's a solitary monotheism, then you've locked yourself in. You've excluded certain options Like Jesus can't be God if there's a solitary monotheism, because there's only one God, that's the Father. So if you start with that presupposition, you won't even consider that Jesus can possibly be God, because that's not possible in your thinking.
Speaker 2:The next group adoptionists and Unitarians, modern Unitarians, judaism and Islam. As I mentioned, islam earlier. Again, they start with that exact same presupposition One God, but not just one God, a solitary one God, like there can be no diversity in this God. Well, again, this can lead to only this. Limits your conclusions. So the oneness, pentecostals, modal monarchism.
Speaker 2:These people said well, why do we see Father, son and Holy Spirit in the Bible? Oh, because these are three different masks. I wish I had some masks right now. I'm put on the Father mask in the Old Testament, I put on the Jesus mask in the Gospels, I put on the Holy Spirit in the Epistles. This is the way that they're looking at the Father, Son and Spirit. They're not three different persons in God, they're one God. Putting on different masks, do you see, because they're just different masks. So really, it is him being crucified.
Speaker 2:That's called patropostionism, but and it's a divergence off of one of those that ancient modal monarchianism. But you see, people get into some odd, maybe oddball things, but that's how they tried to explain. But the problem was what? The presupposition, their presupposition did not allow for any diversity in God, diversity of person in God, adoptionism. That's the idea that what we've got is God adopting Jesus and bestowing Godhood on him. He's not the god, though, because only again, only the Father is God. So he's just been bestowed godhood, whatever that means, but he's not God. See. So, again, the presupposition controls the next one Arianism, ancient Arianism, modern day Jehovah's Witnesses.
Speaker 2:They borrowed a presupposition from Greek philosophy, neoplatonism the idea that God is the pure ideal, that all he is is a projection of our mind. Like the Greeks thought about the form, they were smart, plato realized there's got to be a world of forms, there's got to be an ideas above everything, so we can have absolute. He wanted absolute, but in the end they were really just projections from man's mind, and they borrowed this presupposition of this other world, and they made God like Plato's form he's the pure ideal. Well, what's the sun then? Well, since the pure ideal is so far away from the real in Neoplatonism, these are so far away from one another they can't communicate, so God can't communicate with us, so he's got to create an intermediary being, and this intermediary being being will go between these two worlds the pure ideal of god and the real world that we live in. So.
Speaker 2:But here, if you start with that presupposition, see, it's fatal. You can never get jesus being god. In that perspective, he's just an intermediary being, and that's exactly what they all say. Right, God created Jesus, the first thing he created, and then he's the one who goes between him and us, but he's not God. Okay, that's hard to get around. I mean, that's hard to explain when the Bible is saying over and over that Jesus is God, it's putting Jesus on the same level as the Father, it's replacing Yahweh with Jesus. I mean, over and over and over. It's like okay, but the presupposition that they had is controlling the text. You see that, look, if you have blinders on and we all have blinders, let's just say blinders is another word for a presupposition, because they can blind you. You are assuming a text in the Bible says something and when you read that text you will see it, even if it's not there. That's the thing. You will see things in the Bible that are not there because they're in your mind and you think they're there and they're a conclusion that you're not willing to waffle on for whatever reason. That's what hermeneutics is about.
Speaker 2:Hermeneutics is the science and art of interpreting literature. You use it for all literature. It's not just a Bible term. If you want to know what the newspaper means, you have to use some kind of hermeneutic meaning, some kind of rules for interpreting language. Usually we say those rules are tied up in the grammar, right, I mean, and everybody's like, oh, you're just killing me. Right now I really don't want to go back to grammar in English. But there are certain rules that are built into the language, right. Periods mean stop, commas mean pause. You can't change these right. They have embedded meanings in them.
Speaker 2:Words have meanings in context. You can't just make up what a word means in a sentence because it suits what you want it to mean. It means what it means in the sentence, whatever that meaning might be. And you also can't just rip it out of history. You can't just pull stuff out of you know 1483, you know and say, well, it means this to me, so it must have meant that to Columbus. You can't do that. It meant what it meant to Columbus in his day, and so you'd have to go back into Columbus's day and see how the words were being used in his day.
Speaker 2:Here's one, just interesting. 1609 or so, the King James Bible was translated right, king James had his translators to do the King James Version translation and in Genesis 1, I don't have a King James in front of me, but I believe it uses refilled or something like that Replenish, replenish, refill, which in our mind, refilled or replenish means to do it. What Again? But if you go back to King James time English, it didn't mean do it again, it just mean do it so people could get the impression from reading the King James Version that this is the second creation or the second time this is taking place, because it says refill or replenish. The problem with that is what. We're reading, something from our day, the meaning of replenish back into 1600, and we're not supposed to do that, are we? We're supposed to find out what it meant to them, not what it means to us.
Speaker 2:Here we'll use a controversial one. Let's just say 10 decades ago the predominant use of the word gay was what happy? And I'm sure people use it all the time on the streets. He sure is gay today. Try saying that today. What happened? The word didn't change, it's G-A-Y, it didn't change. But what happened? The predominant meaning shifted. So now you know, most people don't ever use that for happy, although it's a valid usage and in some sentences it would require that meaning even in our own day. So my point is is that we have to be careful how we understand language from previous days and not presuppose what the biblical authors are saying, because then we'll tend to read into it what we think it says, and we shouldn't do that. We should read out of it what it says. Look at that. More problems here.
Speaker 2:Another group didocitus, which means illusion, and let's talk a little bit about this one, because this is important and this one same presupposition they'll destroy you every time. So really, what you want to be doing all the time is evaluating your presupposition. God is the pure ideal that's the greek thing, neoplatonist and he's the only reality. What does that mean about everything else? What does that mean about your life? What does it mean about human history? It means it's not real, it's an illusion, it's just an illusion. Does anybody believe that today? Oh yeah, there's about three and a half billion people on the other side of the earth that believe something similar to that, probably. Um, these, these concepts are not like new today. These are old.
Speaker 2:But the Docetists said this because they thought that God is so pure, see, he could never come down here and be in this reality because they viewed this reality as inherently sinful or corrupted. Well, that led to some problems. Because now we've got christ. Humanity is just an illusion. See, just an illusion. Let me ask you a question theologically, what happens if christ humanity is just an illusion? He wasn't really a human. Yeah, there's. How how can he ever die? For us, first of all, if you're not real human, you're just an illusion, how can you die? See, you can't die. You're not even alive. You're just an illusion. So you immediately get into some serious problems. Now we don't have anybody who died for our sins. We don't have any salvation right. These presuppositions will kill you. I mean, they will destroy all of Christianity.
Speaker 2:So let's go over to Hebrews, chapter 2 real quick. No, I'm sorry. Hebrews 4. If he's not a true human, does he really know what you're going through? Look at Hebrews, chapter 4, verse 15. Hebrews 4.15. Know what you're going through? Look at hebrews, chapter 4, verse 15. Hebrews 4 15. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses. I mean, do you have weaknesses, struggles, sin, issues, temptations, frustrations? Okay, we don't have a high priest who can't sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who's been tempted in all things as we, and yet without sin. Well, if he wasn't a real human, was he?
Speaker 2:really tempted in all things, as we know because he didn't have the. He wasn't a human being. But this text says that he was tempted in all things. That means he knows what you're going. Sometimes we get like to the point like you don't really understand where I'm going. I mean, you're God. How could you know where I'm going through? But he came in the flesh, he walked among us. He was tempted in all things as we. He knows exactly what we're going through. That's why he can sympathize with us. That's why there's nothing you can't take to him. You can take anything to him. He knows what it is that you're feeling, because he was there. He's been there. So that requires him to be a true human. Right, he has to be.
Speaker 2:Let's go over to chapter 5. Shooting a little bit from the hip here I've got a stomach bug and I couldn't get all this together very good. But Hebrews, chapter 5. By the way, if he's not a true human, can he be our high priest? Because that's the presupposition behind him being able to sympathize with us. We go to our high priest. He can't be our high priest right now if he's not a true human.
Speaker 2:Hebrews, chapter 5. My mind's not working very good, so I've got to find it. Oh, verse 8. Look at this one. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from the things which he suffered he learned. Does God learn anything? There's only two people who don't learn anything Moron, because he won't learn, and God because he can't learn. Right, he already knows everything. He never learned anything new. He never got any new information. He already had all the information before time was.
Speaker 2:But here is the son and it says he learned obedience. That's got to be talking about his humanity, right? I mean, is he truly a human? I mean, the text keeps indicating the guy was a true human. The Dossetists said no, it's just an illusion, because text keeps indicating God was a true human. The docetists said no, it's just an illusion, because they started with a false presupposition. So you can't sit there and say, well, jesus had it easier than me because he was God and he knows the Bible. No, he had to learn Isaiah 49 or 50, right in there Again, my mind going a little bit blank.
Speaker 2:It says the father would awaken him morning by morning and teach him. He had to learn the Word of God in his humanity, just like you have to learn the Word of God. The last verse in Luke 2 says he learned and gained favor with the people. So, you know, in his human nature he has to learn, just like you and I have to learn, and so he can identify with, with, he can sympathize with. He knows what we're going through. He's tempted in all things, as we can. He be tempted if he's not a human? No, I mean not in the way that we are.
Speaker 2:And we've got other views here, right, and historianism. Now this is when the debate kind of started to shift in church history and now they're trying to figure out. They pretty much got Trinity knocked out and what I'm going to show you is all these views, okay, that we've already gone over. When we get back to the last creed, they were writing against all these views. They specifically knew these, they were targeting these and their language is targeting these. That's why I'm taking you to it.
Speaker 2:Okay, not just for fun, okay, but you're like, this isn't fun, this is hard um presupposition for nestorianism and modern neo-orthodoxy. God is limited by creation, okay, he's so far above and so beyond and so other, that he can't come down in here and things just get dicey there. So, in this view, what they did with the sun, now they're just looking at the sun. They're trying to figure out this humanity and this deity. We just looked at some humanity passages. We've looked earlier at deity passages. They're trying to understand how the sun's divine and human natures go together. But because god is so other and he's limited by creation, you really can't get them together. So in historianism his two natures became two independent people. He was two people.
Speaker 2:I mentioned this before. I said, to the extent that you might think, that we've got four people now in the Trinity, a quadrennity, not just three people, you've got four. This was a problem. Now you've got him so separate that he's not one person anymore, he's two people. And then the opposite view of that is monophysitism. The last one, and this is where the two natures are mixed together. They're mixed. They're not separate, they're mixed now. So everybody's trying to solve these problems and they keep coming up with these little errors. So what happened?
Speaker 2:By the time you get to Chalcedon, where they're going to work out the Trinity, they're going to make statements related to the hypostatic union. By the way, the hypostatic union is the greatest theological conversation ever held. You know how long it took 500 years. 500 years and a lot of smart people thinking about the Bible, thinking about what it says, and knocked this out. So here's what Chalcedon came up with.
Speaker 2:We then, following the Holy Fathers, note that okay. In other words, they saw themselves not as doing something independent from the earlier church fathers who wrote like the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed, but they said we are in line with those people, but we're just a later part of the discussion here. Following them 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. If that wasn't clear enough, they say okay, truly god and truly man. So what percentage God is the Son? If you had to put it in percentages, 100%, you sure it's not 99.9?. What percentage humanity is he? 100%? That's what they're trying to communicate.
Speaker 2:Then they say of a reasonable or rational soul and body. Now why would they say that soul and body? Because some people came along and guess what they said okay, well, we'll grant that he's a true human in the sense that he had a true body, but he didn't have a human spirit or soul. So that was written against that. I view that idea. There's a lot of ideas, see, but these had to be crushed, based on scripture.
Speaker 2:Right consubstantial we've seen that word before means of the same essence, right co-essence, or sharing essence with the Father, according to the Godhead. So what attributes does Jesus have? Does he have the same attributes as the Father or does he have different attributes to the Father? According to that statement, in their view, same. And in Colossians 2.9, in him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form. It doesn't seem like he has any kind of different nature or essence. It seems like it's exactly the same as the father's. And then it says and consubstantial, or having the same essence with us, according to the manhood. So they're saying it on both sides of the fence.
Speaker 2:Right, make sure everybody's really super clear on these conclusions. And then they say in all things like unto us, but without sin. Is that right? Yeah, I mean, I think that's right. I think we just read in hebrews, chapter 4, tempted in all things as we, yet without sin. Uh, romans, chapter 8. Here's another great one. I don't have you in the Bible a lot today, so I feel guilty because I want you in the Bible. Romans, chapter 8, another great passage on this idea Romans 8, 3,. What the law could not do, weak as it was, through the flesh, god did, sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh. In the likeness of sinful flesh, he didn't say in sinful flesh, but in the likeness. In other words, he's a human, but he didn't have sin. That's the whole point.
Speaker 2:And then begotten before all ages. We know what begotten means, right, because they define it in nicaea not made, not made. Okay, not made, but they'll go on and say it here in a moment. So begotten before all ages of the Father, according to the Godhead, and in these latter days for us and for our salvation, he's born of the Virgin Mary. So obviously begotten and born don't mean the same thing, because begotten is before all ages, but in these latter days, born of the Virgin Mary. So those are different in their mind, right?
Speaker 2:And then they say something that got controversial the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, theotokos, or Mater Theou, mother of God, which some have disputed. And so I'm putting this up here. I'm saying I mean these are things that people still somewhat wrestle with. Are you comfortable with that language? If you read what they meant and I have I'm comfortable with what they're saying. They don't because they add according to the manhood. But what they're trying to preserve is that he had a divine nature, he had a human nature and he's only one person. And that person came into this world through Mary. That's what they're trying to protect and I'm okay with it.
Speaker 2:Placed that way, stated that way, one and the same Christ, son, lord, only begotten to be acknowledged in two natures. Here we go hypostatic union, two natures, one divine right, one human. They've already stated that. Perfect humanity, perfect deity. And then he says two natures, inconfusedly Say you just confused me. Inconfusedly, meaning they're not mixed, they're not confused together, the two natures aren't blended. That's what they're saying. Why didn't they want the two natures confused? Oh, because that's what the people at the bottom of this chart were doing, the monophysitists.
Speaker 2:They took the sun's divine nature and human nature and mixed them together. What happens if we do that? Let me ask what happens in communion if we do that, if we think that his divine nature was mixed in with his human nature? And here we are taking, and we take a literal, let's say a literalistic view, overly literal view of. And here we are taking, and we take a literal, let's say a literalistic view, overly literal view of the element. We're taking that bread right, we're going to eat this bread and we're saying this represents his body, his human body. But his human body is part of his human nature, but the divinity is mixed in it in this view, and it's still this way in Lutheranism.
Speaker 2:Okay, they still haven't figured this. Well, they've figured out what they want to figure out. They still haven't got the two natures separate, they've still got a mix, because his real presence is in the element, his divinity is present, and that's why communion is thought by many people to partake grace to you and not just a memorial to remember, but actually where we get grace bestowed on us from God, because God is in the elements. And it all comes back to hypostatic union. Who cares about all this stuff? I just don't believe it, or whatever. But this is where it is coming from. It's coming from deep theological ideas.
Speaker 2:So it's not just unimportant, inconfusedly, the two natures are not confused, they're not mixed Unchangeably, they don't change. The two natures don't change. In other words, his humanity doesn't get divinized, okay, no, his humanity is his humanity, his deity is his deity. But then it says two other words. What does this word mean? Indivisibly and inseparably? What do these words mean? You can't separate them, right? You can't pull them apart. They're together and they're not mixed, but you can't pull them apart. You see, what are they protecting against here? Second one from the bottom Historianism that somehow the sun had two natures that were so distinct that you could never even get them together.
Speaker 2:That language is directly written against Nestorius and his followers. Okay, so indivisibly, inseparably. Now what we have is there's two natures in Christ, right, they're definitely not like this. That's Nestorianism. They're definitely not like this. That's Monophysitism. Definitely not like this. That's Nestorianism. They're definitely not like this. That's Monophysitism. They're like this they're together in one person, but they're not mixed.
Speaker 2:See, now I've taught you all this. Two years, okay. Two years to get to one point. Two years to get to one point. Okay, is this right? That's the question. Is this right? Let me bring this Is this right? Well, the question is does this fit with what has been taught in the Bible before?
Speaker 2:In the beginning, god, right, that's all there is. Is there anything else? It's just God, the creator, that's all. There was nothing there. Then he created everything, right, including creatures, creatures, in specific, by Nezema.
Speaker 2:Now, what has happened in the incarnation, what has happened in hypostatic union? Is jesus this person? Is he the creator? Is jesus this? Is he a creature? Okay, and these two come together in one person. That's what I just explained to you, right? So yes, you've got the creator. This is who he is. He's the creator, he's also the creature.
Speaker 2:Is that what Genesis taught us? Is this what the Bible taught us from the beginning? Yeah, now you ask yourself I mean now you ask yourself my real question why did God make us in it? He didn't make anything else in his image because he knew one day he himself would become as a creature, that he himself would become incarnate. That is why Emmanuel, god with us, become as a creature, that he himself would become incarnate. That is why Emmanuel, god with us, is the biggest thing ever.
Speaker 2:This isn't just some stories in the gospel, this is the whole Bible. This is everything tied up in the person of Christ. So all that just to get to this one point. We can't. You know these aren't going to be mixed together. You know you can't mix all this together into a jambalaya and you can't pull the creator away from the creature, because then you don't have one person anymore. You've got to have this picture. So that's what Chalcedon is putting together. That's what they were writing.
Speaker 2:So that line again. They're inconfused, unchangeable natures indivisibly, inseparably. The distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union. See, they're wanting to keep them distinct even though they're united. Isn't that what I'm trying to draw here? They're distinct even though they're united. Okay, that's exactly what I'm trying to show. Okay, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, which is what we're saying. He's the creator, he's sovereign, righteous, just loving, omniscient. It explains all the passages where he shows forth deity, right, but he's also human, which explains the passages that show forth his humanity.
Speaker 2:And concurring in one person, how many people? Just one, and one subsistence Not parted or divided into two persons. That's Nestorius, again, right, but one and the same only begotten, meaning begotten for all ages. God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning. Now they're looking back at Genesis. Right Now they're looking back. They're looking back at the Old Testament prophets and say, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, he taught this too, and the creed of the Holy Fathers is handed down to us, they say. They're talking about the Nicene and the Apostles' Creed. That's why I took you through it Now.
Speaker 2:So what I'm going to do now is I'm going to summarize the hypostatic union so you don't have to memorize the Chalcedon, okay, because that's a lot to memorize. But this top statement covers pretty much everything. They said. Jesus Christ is undiminished deity. Yes, united with true humanity. Right, the two natures Without mixture. They're not mixed Without being separated. Yes, in one person. Yes, for how long? Forever. Now. This is where I'll just add a little bit about this this forever bit. You know, jesus Christ is forever going to be in a resurrection human body. He is right now. I mean, when you see him, you're going to see a resurrected human. That's what you're going to see Now.
Speaker 2:The book of Revelation describes it. It says that, revelation, chapter 5, he's like a lamb that's slaughtered, and it's describing the fact that he still has scars From what. Yeah, and the crucifixion happened, where it happened, right down in history. See, he came down in here with us. He was really crucified on the cross.
Speaker 2:You know, you're not going to have any scars. Ephesians, chapter 5, we'll be pure, we'll be spotless. You're not going to have any scars. You've got scars now, but you're not going to have any then, yes, we will have scars. The one who did everything, he'll wear them forever. That's our God. It's hard, can you imagine? Nobody likes scars. You like your scars. Good, you get rid of them. He'll carry us forever. It's going to carry him forever. This is what our God has done for us, and people who come along and just say you know, christianity is just another religion are revealing that they are some of the most extremely uneducated people in the world on this topic. It is not another religion. In what other religion did that God come down here and bear their sins and take their scars and keep them for all eternity for us to remember? Did Allah come down here and get?
Speaker 2:dirt under His fingernails? I don't think so. He never did and he never will, because he's not God. This is love, and Allah is not a God of love. Just ask any Muslim who's converted to Christianity. They'll tell you. The number one reason they could never get into Allah is because they could not find love in Allah. He's a cold, distant, judicial God and there's no love. And so that religion is a cold, distant, warring, destructive, political, theological rant and that's all it is. And these people need salvation and the one who came and bore their sins and paid for them 100 on the tree and offers them eternal life and with him forever. The christian is not another religion. That is one of the silliest statements somebody could ever make, not after seeing all this right.
Speaker 1:Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas. If you would like to see the visuals that went along with today's sermon, you can find those on Rumble and on YouTube under Spokane Bible Church. That is where Jeremy is the pastor and teacher. We hope you found today's lesson productive and useful in growing closer to God and walking more obediently with Him. If you found this podcast to be useful and helpful, then please consider rating us in your favorite podcast app, and until next time, we hope you have a blessed and wonderful day.