Imagine the following statement being made from the pulpit of your church by a guest speaker: “Our mission is to make this nation a Christian nation.”

What is your reflexive reaction in this hypothetical situation?

Perhaps you have noticed the lack of context in this thought experiment. Regardless of what context you may have added in your imagination, now consider if your visceral response is any different if our fictional guest speaker is:

A political officeholder sharing his agenda for the upcoming legislative session.

A Chinese missionary explaining his exploits in Asia.

An urban evangelist summarizing his recent ministry in your city.

Each of these scenarios that what the phrase “Christian nation” denotes can vary widely from what it connotes.

If this thought experiment teaches us anything, it is that context matters. Such is always the case in matters of theology in general, and this is nowhere truer than in matters of political theology, and specifically, the conversation on Christian nationalism.

In terms of the latter, Andy Naselli has attempted a helpful taxonomy of the various species of this movement—making clear the great deal of overlap between various camps of principled, biblical conservatism regardless of whether one willingly wears the Christian nationalist moniker. Naselli has done commendable work, with all the necessary nuance and carefulness in his definitions. Yet in the emotion-laden discourses that prevail in the negative world, Christians do not always have the opportunity to offer such clarifications. Sometimes, we are best off attempting to steer the connotations in a positive direction.

But, returning to our hypothetical scenario, we can easily imagine how the connotations of terms like Christian nation or Christian nationalism can vary widely, even among ostensibly conservative evangelicals. In political discussions, such shibboleths often arouse suspicion, thanks to progressive rhetoric linking them with colonialism, racism, or other aberrations. But in the context of global missions, to long for the flourishing of Christian nations is simply to echo the refrain of Scripture’s great missionary texts:

“Let the nations be glad and sing for joy, for you judge the peoples with equity and guide the nations upon earth.” (Psalm 67:4)

“All the nations you have made shall come and worship before you, O Lord and shall glorify your name.” (Psalm 86:9)

“And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands[.]” (Revelation 7:9)

My simple contention is that as the debate over Christian nation boils, we must keep these texts close at hand for the sake of our brothers and sisters who have yet to work out their theology of political engagement. The missionary spirit of the Christian faith, expressed in these and similar passages, contains all the resources we need to awaken (some might say “radicalize”) our fellow evangelicals to the monumental task of subjecting our civil life to the lordship of Christ. If our fellow Christians who are indifferent to the civil sphere, or who have imbibed the secularist fantasy, would but consider what Scripture says about discipling the nations, they’d soon be our allies in discipling ours.

By way of illustration: recently, I was privileged to spend nearly two hours with a pastor from the Indian state of Manipur—now a war zone. My pastor friend described in detail the conflict between the Hindu-majority valley tribes and the predominantly Christian hill tribes, along with the persecution and internal displacement happening to Christians as a result.

“The conflict between the two tribes flared up on [May 3rd], 2023,” he explained, “when the students from Kuki-Zo community namely All Tribal Student Union of Manipur called for a Tribal Solidarity march to oppose the High Court’s recommendation for inclusion of Meiteis in Schedule Tribe list. The Kuki-Zo were against this inclusion because it would help the Meiteis to monopolize all privileges and resources such as jobs, lands, and property which would be a threat to their very existence.”

He continued, “Thousands of tribal students participated in this rally which was held peacefully. In retaliation, the valley-based Meitei organizations organized counter-blockades, beat a pastor to death, and started burning houses belonging to Kuki-Zo community. From then on, the situation spread like wildfire with the burning of over 300 churches, hundreds of villages, 150 deaths, 60,000 displaced with ongoing kidnappings and arsons.”

At the heart of these tensions lies a complex interplay of ethnicity, religion, and political maneuvering—most notably a broader Indian political context in which radical Hindu groups, leveraging the Meitei tribe, have expanded their influence. Despite these barriers, the pastor to whom I spoke, together with his church, is ministering to displaced Christians who have lost everything and preaching Christ to those they encounter from the valley tribe. Sacrificially, they have devoted themselves to frontlines ministry including orphanage work, education, evangelism, and more.

Hearing such accounts overwhelms comfortable suburban ears such as mine. Yet impressed as I was with the faith and endurance of this community of believers, what struck me most was the pastor’s analysis of the situation in general and its potential answer: “The only solution to end this ongoing conflict is to grant Total Separate Administration to the Hill Tribals who are under the governance of Valley State government.” This amounts to the division of Manipur into two states: one with a Christian government, the other under Hindu rule.

At this point, I questioned my friend. Surely this is not possible, I reasoned, given the Hindu character of India as a whole. But he then proceeded to list several Indian states in which Christianity, in his characterization, is a “dominant cultural force”: Kerala (18.4% Christian), Nagaland (80%), Mizoram (80%), and Meghalaya (70%).

He shared as well, of course, the way in which the current Hindu regime would resist the addition of a new Christian state in India. “India is still a Hindu majority country,” he explained. “There has been propaganda to make India an entirely Hindu nation, with many pro-Hindu parties and government calling for everyone to return to Hinduism.”

Still, from his standpoint, the notion of organizing the hill tribes into a Christian state was at least plausible—especially since the hill and valley tribes currently cannot coexist peacefully. For him, this “Christianized” hill tribe government would simply entail freedom from persecution, freedom to consume foods such as beef, and freedom from anti-conversion laws which impede Christians throughout the country—benefits, he noted, which other predominantly-Christian parts of India do enjoy.

Throughout the entire conversation, I was struck by the straightforwardness of this pastor’s reasoning. Here was a Christian pastor—hailing from a corner of the world marked by idolatry, spiritual warfare, violent persecution, high concentrations of unreached people groups, and Hindu nationalism—unironically advocating for Christian self-governance. Yes, he was completely aware of the negatives of a nominal Christianity. (He shared that calling nominal hill tribes Christians to true discipleship forms a major part of his ministry.) Still, he saw no conflict between his evangelistic aims and the parallel goal of aligning their civil polity with the aim of Christ’s kingdom. And why should he?

Put another way: it apparently did not occur to this faithful minister that statements such as those found in John 18:36 (“My kingdom is not of this world”) and 1 Peter 2:13 (“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution”) preclude the formation of Christian states or nations. This shepherd was willing to “dirty” his hands with political concerns because of his overriding concern for the peace of his people and the welfare of his sheep. His desire for the conversion of the nominal Christians of his tribe and the ultimate evangelization of the enemy tribe cannot be fulfilled if his own tribesmen are all dead. Christian self-rule in Manipur, thus it seems, is the logical implication of missionary zeal and love for one’s neighbor.

Reasoning according to a biblical worldview demands we employ just weights and measures (Leviticus 19:35-36). This means employing the same standards evenhandedly upon others’ ideas as we would use in measuring our own. Thus, when we hear talk of Christian nations or even Christian nationalism, ought we not afford such persons the benefit of the doubt—given that their aims for our body politic are those same aims we pursue in missions for all nations? And if this is the case, could we not win more and more of our brothers to the cause of godly Christian political engagement by emphasizing these biblical realities—that Christ has received authority over all the nations (Revelation 11:15), and that we are to labor in the public square in light of that authority ourselves?

Brothers: let us recognize that if we truly believe in global missions, then we necessarily confess the imperative of striving for Christian nations—and inversely, if we believe in shaping Christian nations, then we must joyfully commit ourselves to doing so not only at home but also abroad. And in this way, may the Lord establish the work of our hands.

If the last few years have forced evangelicals to reconsider anything it is the nature of authority in the world and in the church. On Monday, March 16, 2020, President Trump announced that a corona virus was spreading throughout the world in such a way that we were facing a pandemic of epic proportions. He and federal health officials proposed a “15 days to slow the spread—or flatten the curve” of the virus in hopes of minimizing the impact of the looming disaster.

As we know, those 15 days quickly expanded into months, and then years of governmental officials restricting the activities of citizens, businesses, and institutions—including churches. Very soon, governors began issuing executive orders telling churches that they could not meet, or that they could only meet according to governmental guidelines—which often included restrictions on singing or having no more than 10 people present (as in the case of Virginia).

Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam held a press conference December 10, 2020 and said,

“Christmas is two weeks away. The holidays are typically times of joy and community. We gather together, we celebrate our faith, and we celebrate with family.”

“But this year we need to think about what is truly the most important thing. Is it the worship or the building? For me, God is wherever you are. You don’t have to sit in the church pew for God to hear your prayers,” Northam said. “Worship with a mask on is still worship. Worship outside or worship online is still worship.”

He called on faith leaders to “lead the way and set an example.”

Similarly, Governor Gavin Newsom in California issued an executive order forbidding churches from meeting. Later he said that churches could meet but under very severe restrictions. His restrictions continued until Grace Church and Pastor John MacArthur successfully won a judgment against him in the Supreme Court.

These, and similar actions by civil authorities, forced churches and church leaders to reconsider what Scripture teaches about how the church relates to the state. Specifically, who has the right to tell churches what they can and cannot do, when they can gather, and how they can gather?

Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. He and He alone is Head of the Church as well as the Head of every local true church.

Though that was a painful process for many churches, and some negotiated those challenges better than others, I think it is safe to say that for many it helped clarify what has always been true but can no longer be taken for granted, and that is that Jesus Christ is Lord of the Church. He and He alone is Head of the Church as well as the Head of every local true church.

I am confident that no church would deny that as an article of faith, but learning afresh to consider what it means practically—and what it may cost to honor His lordship in the face of opposition or persecution—has been a blessing to many churches.

Jesus Christ is Head of the church. When Peter confessed that Jesus is the Messiah, the “Son of the living God,” Jesus responded by saying, “On this rock I will build MY church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Paul introduces the idea of Jesus being the “head of the church” in six passages in his letters to the Ephesians and the Colossians. In Ephesians 4:16 he says that as we mature in sound doctrine and learning to speak the truth in love, we are able to “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.” In Ephesians 5:23 Paul writes, “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.”

In Colossians 2:19 Christ is called “the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.”

Christ is Head of the church in the sense that He is the One “who stands over it” in the sense of being the basis of its existence, the source of its life, and the authoritative Ruler over it.[1]

What this means is that every church—regardless of its polity—is ultimately a Christocracy. Jesus is Lord of the church. He is the Head of every true church. This truth, rightly understood, rightly guides church leaders in both addressing a church’s internal affairs and determining its mission.

Internal Affairs

When questions, challenges, or controversies confront a congregation the primary goal in responding to them should be to determine the mind of Christ. What does the Lord Jesus have to say on this? What is the way of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:17) to resolve this? Christ’s mind and ways are revealed to us in Scripture. There the job of church leaders and church members is to discern what the Bible says a church should do in any situation.

Granted, some situations are clearer than others, but no decision of any significance should be taken without first grappling with biblical teaching and principles. We do this because Christ is Head of the church.

Christ is Head of the church in the sense that He is the One “who stands over it” in the sense of being the basis of its existence, the source of its life, and the authoritative Ruler over it.

One clear example of how this works out practically is in the area of corrective church discipline. Matthew 18:15-20 unambiguously outlines normal steps for dealing with sin in the church. Since Christ is Lord of the church, true churches understand that they do not have the option to ignore these instructions. That is likewise true of the more urgent and immediate command to “purge the evil person from among you” (1 Corinthians 5:13; read the whole chapter) when a public, scandalous sin is being committed by a church member.

If a church sees itself as a Christocracy, it will obey the Lord Jesus in this area, even when it is painful and unpopular to do so.

Mission

How the church goes about making disciples is also governed by the Headship of Christ. Our starting point is with the exalted position of our crucified, risen Savior. Jesus Himself prefaces His great commission with this reminder: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Only after asserting His universal lordship does He issue the command to His followers, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 18:18-20).

Churches own the mission to evangelize the nations. We preach Christ both personally and publicly, formally and informally; in pulpits as well as coffee shops; on the job site as well as the playground. There is no place nor any person who is outside the scope of our concern. Why? Because as Head of the church our Lord has “all authority.” His authority extends everywhere.

As Paul puts it in Ephesians 1:22, God“put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church.” Jesus is not only Head over the church but also, over “all things.” All principalities, powers, governments, institutions, and individuals are subservient to our sovereign, risen Lord. God made certain of that by raising Jesus from the dead and giving Him, in the capacity of our risen Mediator, to the church.

So our evangelism, while full of compassionate pleading with people to be reconciled to God through faith in Jesus, is never to be carried out as if our Lord is dependent on human power for disciples to be added to His family. He is Lord of lords and King of kings and we, His ambassadors, go out in His Name, calling all people to come to Jesus Christ and be saved (2 Corinthians 5:20-21).

Our evangelism is never to be carried out as if our Lord is dependent on human power for disciples to be added to His family.

The early church had this understand of Jesus as King and the church as a Christocracy as they carried out their mission. We know this by the response of their opponents to their efforts. In Thessalonica, the response to the preaching of Paul and Silas was so profound that hostile Jews dragged some of the new converts before city officials. There they charged them not with becoming Christians, but with proclaiming the kingship of Jesus. “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also,…and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:6-7).

Could it be that one reason so many churches seem to be making so little difference in the world today is because we have lost sight of the kingship of Christ? He is Lord. He is Head of the church. God has raised Him from the dead and made Him head over all things for the church. We carry out our marching orders to make disciples because all authority belongs to Him and we are His ambassadors.

Pastors and elders must teach their congregations to recognize every true church is a Christocracy. We do what we do in obedience to our Lord. We conduct our affairs and carry out His mission in the Name of our King Jesus. Perhaps, as the Lord grants us grace and courage to live this way, we will, like the early church before us, have reason to be charged with turning our world upside down.

[1] Heinrich Schlier, “Κεφαλή, Ἀνακεφαλαιόομαι,” ed. Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 679.

In the last post, we considered some introductory reasons for every local church to have a healthy confession of faith. In this post, I’ll give you 5 positive reasons for having a confession of faith.

First, because:

We Have a Conviction

Robert Paul Martin wrote, “An unwillingness to define with precision the faith that it professes to believe is a symptom that something is desperately wrong with a church and its leadership.”

Local churches are not Milton Bradly. We are not inventing, producing, or playing games. We have a conviction regarding the truth of God. Here we stand; We can do no other!

We aren’t looking down at the ground kicking our foot saying “Ah shucks, I guess we sort of believe this or that…” No! It is the duty of every local church to boldly proclaim, this is what the Bible says!

Churches that embrace historic confessions of faith, like the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession, declare, “While everyone is progressing and minimalizing and moving to the shallow end of the pool, we are going to regress. We are going to go backward to our roots. We are going to maximize. We are going to go deeper and fuller and more thorough.”

No matter your church’s confession, you must, in a world that is trying to customize and personalize truth, stand on God’s truth unapologetically. 

No doubt confessions like the 1689 are thorough. But consider what Baptist B.H. Carroll wrote,

“A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. The more divine doctrines a church can agree on, the greater its power, and the wider its usefulness. The fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness. The modern cry, ‘Less creed and more liberty,’ is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jellyfish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. Definitive truth does not create heresy—it only exposes and corrects. Shut off the creed and the Christian work would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.” 

Local churches should love thorough, biblical, Baptist confessions of faith because we love the truth. Because we have real conviction.

I love the first line of the 1689 because it sets the tone for everything else:

The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain, and infallible standard of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.

This confession of faith serves the Bible. It is not equal to it. It is not above it. It’s an arrow that points to the Scriptures. If ever we find a conflict between the Bible and the Confession, we go with the Bible, since it is supreme.  

Confessions of faith are important because we have a conviction. 2ndly, because

We Have a Commission

Here is the gospel: The Son of God took on human flesh, conceived by the Holy Spirit., and was born of the Virgin Mary. He grew up in obedience to His earthly parents and His heavenly Father. He began His ministry around age 30. In everything He did He fulfilled all righteousness.

He proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God. He called sinners to repentance. He showed us the truth. He Himself is the truth.

He then died for the lawless sinners. Covenant breakers. He bore God’s wrath justly due our sins. He was buried and rose again on the 3rd day in victory. All who embrace this truth by faith and turn from their sins in repentance will be saved.

Upon His resurrection and before His ascension, Christ gave His church a commission (cf. Matt. 28:18-20). That commission is one of making disciples. We cannot make disciples apart from teaching.

Thus, a confession of faith helps the church fulfill this commission. It sets forth what we believe Jesus taught us to teach the nations. About the Bible. About God. Aboud sin. About redemption. About the church.

Because we take the Great Commission seriously, we have put down in writing what we believe so that we can teach it. A good confession of faith helps us do this rightly. It helps us form good ways to talk about the Trinity, the gospel, God’s governance of the universe, Christ, covenant theology, and the list goes on and on. All these precious truths we believe and hold so dear, we are to teach to others.

A confession of faith is useful because we have a Conviction, a Commission, 3rdly, because

We Have a Contention

The church today is the church militant. We are at war. We are contending for the faith (cf. Jude 1:3). We are contending for the truth. The world, flesh, and devil are constantly striving to minimize, change, or eradicate the truth.

New warped aphorisms are invented all the time that say things like: “Love over verses.”

You understand what that’s trying to do? Chip away at our foundation. It’s saying look past what God says in His Word and just “love” people. Ignore the Bible’s definitions and embrace a 21st century standard.

But this is where a good confession of faith comes in and helps us protect the truth. It helps us say, “Nope!” It helps us say, “Here is the faith once delivered that we are contending for.”

Individual Christians and churches are called to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. What is that faith? Someone may say, “Well, it’s what the Bible teaches!” Yes, this is true. But a lot of people say a lot of weird things about what the Bible teaches.

So, a confession of faith essentially says, here is what the Bible teaches. Here is the faith once delivered and passed down from generation to generation. Here is the truth that we are contending for.

5thly, a confession of faith is useful because

We Have a Commemoration

1 Samuel 7:12says,: “Then Samuel took a stone and set it up between Mizpah and Shen and called its name Ebenezer; for he said, ‘Till now the LORD has helped us.’”

A healthy confession of faith is an Ebenezer. It is a rock of remembrance. It is a commemoration. It is a reminder that we have only arrived where we are today by God’s help, that He has helped generations past, and that by His sovereign grace He will help generations future.

Holding to a historical confession of faith says, we stand in a long line of godly men and women who have been anchored in the same truth. Furthermore, by God’s grace, our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren will continue to hold the line and continue to gird themselves up in truth.

We have a confession of faith because we have a conviction, a commission, a contention, a commemoration, and finally, because

We Have a Congregation

Every local church is to be a pillar and buttress of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). We are not just a bunch of individuals, but a body and we are called to a corporate faith.

This is certainly not dismissing the necessity of an individual and personal faith in Christ. You cannot be saved by someone else’s faith. You must personally put your faith in the person and work of Christ. In His life, death, burial, and resurrection. There is no salvation without personal faith in Jesus.

But this personal faith is not a privatized faith. You confess what the church confesses because the church confesses the truth.

Ditches to Avoid

We have a conviction, commission, contention, commemoration, and congregation. This is why every local church should use a healthy and historical confession of faith. Practically, when it comes to a church using a confession of faith there are two ditches to avoid:

Hyper-confessionalism

This is when a church treats a confession of faith in word or deed as on par with the Bible. Remember, a confession of faith is under the Bible’s authority and is to serve the Bible. A local church reserves the right to amend, reword, or add to a confession of faith as necessary, though it should do so with the utmost care. Yet, we can never amend, reword, or add to the Bible!

We must avoid hyper-confessionalism. But 2ndly, we must avoid:

Nominal Confessionalism

This is when a church has a confession, like, say, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, but no one actually knows what it says. It is literally or metaphorically stuffed back in some ancient file in a closet somewhere in the church building that no one every uses anymore.

Thus, it has become a confession of faith in name but not practice. This is why confessional churches should be committed to reading, studying, teaching their confessions. In this age of religious pluralism, of the wild west where everyone can just believe whatever they want for whatever reason they want to, in this wicked age, every faithful church should have a confession of faith. And every member of the church should strive to know what that confession teaches and why. Truth matters.

Now, this doesn’t mean there won’t be disagreements at times with members over portions of a confession of faith, and that’s okay.

At our local church, no one is required to be a 1689 scholar or in strict agreement with every single sentence to be a member of the church. Within the life of the church there is liberty of conscience on certain issues. Some people are going to look at things differently. Some are going to need to be taught better. And everyone must be seeking to mature in the faith.

However, the 1689 helps us because upfront it says, “This is what we believe.” This is how our elders are going to teach. If you desire to be divisive over issues or cannot accept the teaching, then this would not be the best place for you.

It’s one thing to disagree and be willing to learn or to disagree and be willing to strive for unity, it’s one thing to be like that and it’s a different thing to just seek to sow division among the Body.

Conclusion

The strategy of churches over the last few decades has been to be as “big tent” as possible so as to include the largest number of people possible in the church. What our world needs, though, is churches willing to be dogmatic over the truth.

We need to obey verses like Eph. 6:14. Stand firm. Gird yourselves in truth. These are not the days for minimizing truths. These are not the days for nuance and ambiguity.

It’s like those who profess to be in Christ’s army are trying to hide which side they are on. They are covering up their uniforms so as not to stick out.

But I’m saying, wear the armor of Christ boldly. Let’s take out the biggest, most visible, flag for Christ that we can and let’s plant that thing firmly and unapologetically in the ground.

This is not because we want division or brashness. It is because we know that Christ is worthy of a church that loves His truth. It is because we know the only antidote, the only hope, the only thing that will turn our communities, our homes, our nation around, is truth.

Gird up church. Let us protect. Let us proclaim. Let us perpetuate God’s truth. 

Every Local Church’s Duty

In Ephesians 6:14, Paul instructs the church at Ephesus to gird themselves with truth. Similarly, 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the church the pillar and buttress of the truth.

It is the church’s job to:

1. Protect the truth – the truth has enemies. Chief of which is Satan and his lies.

2. Promote the truth – the church is not just on the defensive. We are storming the gates of hell and proclaiming the truth of God in Christ.

3. Perpetuate the truth – the church in each generation is responsible pass on the truth to the next generation.

In order to accomplish these sacred duties, our triune God has given the church a Book. A Book that we affirm is the inerrant, infallible, necessary, clear, authoritative, and sufficient Word of the living God. This Book has been attacked. It has been confiscated. It has been burned. It has been torn to pieces. And yet, here it remains today.

With that being said, let me share a little quote here and see if you agree with it: “Our appeal is to the Bible for Truth.”

I agree wholeheartedly with this quote at face value, but there is a grave problem. This quote actually comes from a book written in 1946 seeking to defend the false religion of the Jehovah Witnesses. Thus, the problem. Both the Baptist and the Jehovah Witness appeal to the Scriptures as their final authority.

Now, this does not give us a problem for the Bible. Men’s misuse of the Bible is not a problem of the Bible, but a problem of fallen man. This, then, is where I will make the case for a confession of faith.

A confession of faith is meant to be a servant of the Bible. It is subservient to the Bible and seeks to point us to the Bible and say, essentially, “We are not only saying the Bible is the highest authority here but also that we are not ashamed to actually say in writing what we believe this Book teaches.”

So, a confession of faith is simply man’s attempt to say, “Here is what we confess the Bible teaches.” The Bible ultimately needs no defender. It is, as they say, the anvil that has broken many hammers. But a confession of faith is saying to the world, “When we gird ourselves with truth, this is what we mean by truth. This is what we believe the Bible says.”

Spurgeon once preached, “Whatever we find in this Book, that we are to state.” And so, this is what a confessional church seeks to do. We lay out our doctrine. We confess these truths. And we don’t just give vague or nuanced positions, but rather stand for what it is we believe the Scriptures teach.

A Simple Reality

Truthfully, a confession of faith is not a necessity so much as it is just a reality. That is, everyone believes something about the Bible. You can write down what you believe, or you can choose not to write it down, but it doesn’t change the fact that you confess something about the Bible.

So, to reject a confession of faith denies reality. Thus, a confessional church acknowledges this reality and says, “we are going to actually own this and articulate what we believe instead of pretending that we don’t have beliefs about the Bible.”

With that said, let me give you 4 problems with rejecting a confession of faith:

1. It denies reality – as mentioned, everyone believes something about the Bible. To say something like “No Creed but the Bible!” is actually, a creedal statement. To say you don’t like confessions of faith is to pretend as though you don’t have already have a confession of faith. But you do. Everyone has a set of beliefs.

So, to reject a confession of faith denies reality. Thus, a confessional church acknowledges this reality and says, “we are going to actually own this and articulate what we believe instead of pretending that we don’t have beliefs about the Bible.”

2. It is Historical Snobbery – that is, it says in the 21st century we are smarter than everyone else in history and we don’t need them.

3. It is an adoption of hyper-individuality. In essence, it says well, all that matters is what I personally believe, and I don’t need to confess truth along with the church.

4. It ignores our present condition –

We live in a world today, an American culture I should say, that is apostatizing before our eyes. We are watching the SBC, the largest once staunchly conservative evangelical denomination, drift before our eyes.

We are watching the phenomenon of what people call “deconstructing” from the faith, people who claim they grew up evangelical, but now are walking away from the faith or embracing all sorts of unbiblical things to add to Christianity.

Who could look at this current state and say, “What we need today is less truth. Less clarity. Less precision.”?  It is foolish to look at our present condition and to say we just need to keep making the tent bigger to let more people in. No! All this has done is play right into the Evil One’s hands.

Thus, it is every local church’s responsibility before God to gird ourselves with truth. We must protect the truth, promote the truth, and perpetuate the truth until Jesus returns for His Bride.

Serving Not Shaping

A good confession of faith is merely a servant to the Scriptures. A biblical confession of faith does not shape the Bible, but serves it. Don’t press these analogies too far, but let me give a couple of illustrations:

1. If the Bible is a delicious steak, a good confession of faith is a plate, knife, and fork. It helps serve the steak. It helps digest the steak. It does not add to or stand in authority over the steak.

2. If the Bible is gold, a good confession of faith is a chest to carry it in. It helps pass the gold on from one generation to the next. It helps keep nefarious characters from trying to scuff up or steal or harm the gold in some way. The chest serves the gold. It does not add value to it.

Ultimately, what a good confession of faith does is help us use the truth rightly in order stand against the Evil One’s lies.

So far, we’ve covered introductory issues on why ever local church should have a confession of faith. In the next post, I’ll give you 5 positive reasons for a local church to have a good confession.

“When thou passest through the waters” 

Deep the waves may be and cold,

But Jehovah is our refuge,

And His promise is our hold;

For the Lord Himself hath said it,

He, the faithful God and true:

“When thou comest to the waters

Thou shalt not go down, but through.” 

Seas of sorrow, seas of trial,

Bitterest anguish, fiercest pain,

Rolling surges of temptation

Sweeping over heart and brain—

They shall never overflow us,

For we know His Word is true;

All His waves and all His billows,

He will lead us safely through.

Threatening breakers of destruction,

Doubt’s insidious undertow,

Shall not sink us, shall not drag us

Out to ocean depths of woe;

For His promise shall sustain us,

Praise the Lord, whose Word is true!

We shall not go down, or under,

For He saith, “Thou passest through.”

– Annie Johnson Flint

This article is part 14 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13).

A Summary of Chalcedon

Leo’s Tome led to Chalcedon’s clarity.  This creed of 451 A. D. toes the line on the difficult idea of two natures maintaining absolute integrity with full manifestation of the distinct and incommunicable properties of each in one person. Also, for the first time in a creedal affirmation, we find the term theotokos—God-bearer, or mother of God. Often the term provokes an immediate negative reaction because of the self-evident truth that God is self-existent, without beginning, infinite in glory, power, and wisdom, dependent on nothing outside of himself for his purpose, his decrees, or his ability to perform all that he so desires. The implications of Scripture are clear when he declares, “Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counselor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13, 14 KJV). Also one would pause before accepting such a doctrinally loaded word because of specific affirmations of Scripture concerning the Son: “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist” (Colossians 1:16, 17 KJV).

So how can such a being ever be thought of as having a mother? This is precisely why Paul wrote, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory” (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV). I accept the propriety of the word “God” because of the grammatical context. Paul wrote above about “the household of God . . . the church of the living God,” and begins the confession with the pronoun “hos,” translated “who” with “God” being the only antecedent.

This strange, but clearly revealed, truth of the birth of Christ, shows that the conception by the Holy Spirit of the child in Mary was the moment of the union of God the Son with true humanity in one person, that would be born, crucified, buried, risen, ascended, and would so come again in like manner. As discussed in a previous post on “Remember,” the mystery as announced to Mary (Luke 1:31-33) said that she would “bring forth a son” who would be given the “throne of his father David,” and that he should reign forever and “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Though she knew not a man, this would happen because “the Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,” creating fertility in her egg without the corruption of a human father. At the same moment of such a conception, “the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.” That means that the Father in his mysterious eternal activity of generating the Son caused a personal assumption of the human embryo by his Son with no lapse of time between the Spirit’s work of conception, the Father’s work of “overshadowing,” and the Son’s condescending to assume the human nature, taking the form of a servant, committed to conduct himself within the framework of humanity. That which was to be born of Mary would be called “the Son of God.” The singularity of this person so conceived, therefore, would be God in the flesh—“The word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

This truth of the birth of Christ, shows that the conception by the Holy Spirit of the child in Mary was the moment of the union of God the Son with true humanity in one person.

This reality was revealed to Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, so that when Mary traveled to stay with her for some months, Elizabeth greeted her with these words: “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” (Luke 1:42, 43). These words confirm the rather startling title given to Mary in this creed. They do point out that Mary, among all the women of the earth from the creation till the close of history was given this extraordinary blessing from God, (though she knew the truth of the words “a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also”), to be the one through whose seed the Messiah came. The real intent, however, of such a title, and such an observation from Elizabeth, was that this single child, this one person enfleshed the Creator and sustainer of all that has been made as the one who also would be mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.

Efforts to avoid the apparent clumsiness of the term, “God-bearer,” leads to erroneous assertions. To say “Mother of Christ” or “Christ-bearer” in order to avoid using the word “God” does not escape the problem unless one is willing to assert that the Christ she bore was not God. If one seeks to avoid the hypostatic union of the two natures by saying the unity was only of sympathetic will, as the human person borne by Mary had established in his soul a complete union of purpose with the Son of God, then one is back to the error of adoptionism. The best option, given all the biblical data and the soteriological purpose of the incarnation, is to affirm the term, theotokos, for it captures all the power implicit in the Johannine assertion, “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14).

On the basis of Leo’s letter, therefore, the following paragraph was set forth by the council of Chalcedon as an explanation of the doctrine consistent with the Creed of Nicea.

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 soul and body; consubstantial 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.[1] 

When the council of Chalcedon met, a committee was appointed to finalize its statement of orthodoxy. The committee considered several documents that had been produced during the controversy between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople and the “Tome” of Leo concerning the position of Eutyches. This committee produced a document that succinctly and clearly stated the position of the council.  Given the tensions present, and the fact that this is committee work, it is remarkable for its chaste conservatism, its doctrinal clarity, and its avoidance of metaphysical speculation. The pure “creedalism” of its assumptions, its anathemas, its pretensions to virtual canonical status would probably be resisted by the free-church, sola scriptura, orientation of Baptists and some others, but the careful expressions of the doctrine of Christ’s person should be joyfully embraced as a lucid, profound, and biblically accurate guide to both doctrine and interpretive principles.

Several items of theological and interpretive importance are distilled in this short statement. First, the creed seeks the consent of the reader that this formula is a true presentation of Old Testament prophecy, the teachings of Christ himself, the true doctrinal tradition of the church fathers, and the unalloyed meaning of the Nicene Creed.

Second, Jesus Christ really was God incarnate, the second person of the eternal Trinity. The eternal word that was with God (the Father) and was God (the Son) truly dwelt among men as a man. Jesus was not a mere phantom, nor a separately-personed man adopted or merely inhabited, but the one whose scars, whose hands and feet, were those of the one that was Lord and God (John 20:28).

Third, Jesus the Christ was truly and fully human. Not only was his body of the same stuff as our body, but he had all the soulish, rational, and spiritual aspects of humanity including human affections. His affections and perceptions constituted a soul that would be “exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death” (Matthew 26:38). He was of the same essence (“consubstantial”) as us but without the intrusive and corrupting factor of sin. Though people could clearly see that he was an extraordinary person (Matthew 16:13-16; Luke 7:14-17; John 3:2), none ever thought that he was less than a man.

The eternal word that was with God (the Father) and was God (the Son) truly dwelt among men as a man.

Fourth, without any mixture or confusion of the two natures that would compromise the integrity of either, Jesus was one person. All that he did as a person was an expression of the peculiar and distinguishing attributes of each nature. This perfect union in one person is emphasized by the vigorous expression of Mary as theotokos and the insistence that “the property of each nature” not only is preserved but concurs “in one Person.” All that he did as prophet, priest, and king was done in his capacity of Christ, so that each nature, concurring in the one person, contributed essentially to the proper fulfillment of each office. For example the First London Confession of the English Particular Baptists says, “That he might be such a Prophet as thereby to be every way complete, it was necessary that he should bee God, and withal also that he should be man; for unless he had been God, he could never have perfectly understood the will of God, neither had he been able to reveal it throughout all ages; and unless he had been man, he could not fitly have unfolded it in his own person to man.”[Lumpkin, 160]

Fifth, one must distinguish between nature and person. The personhood of Jesus was founded on the personhood of God the Son. The human nature was assumed by the Son of God but did not exist as a separate human person. That was the tendency of Nestorianism that fell short of the doctrine of the hypostatic union, that is, this one single person that was born of Mary from the moment of conception and every moment subsequent to his conception was both the eternal Son of God and the son of Mary, thus descended from David.  This distinction between person and nature indicates that the properties of personhood are consistent, whether it be of God or man, while the natures are distinct. Though the personhood consisted of the personhood of God the Son, its properties were consistent with Jesus’ human nature expressing itself in a fully personal way, so that in his communications, friendship, and affections in his humanity, there was nothing that was impersonal.

Hallelujah, What a Savior!

Victories of the past do not suffice for the present. Champions of error will continually seek to reclaim ground that they lost. Those who cherish the advances of truth from the past must seek to establish a bond with the courage, strength, and clarity of yesterday’s captives of truth and uncorrupted worship. Each generation has an increasing burden as well as blessing of stewardship. Revelatory truths stated and defended through careful thinking, hard work, and wrenching conflict must not be lost. Contemporary challenges must be dismantled while the grounds of defense must be reclaimed. Implications for present issues and for further understanding of the richness of divine revelation becomes a part of the stewardship of those who desire to “continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel” that they have heard, embraced, and found to be their very life.

[1] Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 2:62, 63.

This article is part 14 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ.

Join us at the 2024 National Founders Conference on January 18-20 as we consider what it means to “Remember Jesus Christ” under the teaching of Tom Ascol, Joel Beeke, Costi Hinn, Phil Johnson, Conrad Mbewe and Travis Allen.

This article is part 13 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12).

The orthodox party of Nicea prevailed for less than a decade. Challenges to the formula of Nicea soon began to multiply. For a brief period, Arianism was made the received doctrine of the empire.

Two other theological issues arose that called for closely reasoned biblical exposition. One concerned a construction of the human nature of Christ that compromised his full humanity by eliminating his human reason, human will, and thus, all true human initiative. This was propounded by Apollinarius. His zeal for the deity of Christ and the necessity of his sinlessness and incorruptibility led him to deny that Jesus had a human soul (thus no human reason, and will, and motivation).

Another issue concerned the person of the Holy Spirit. Was he a creature or was he, like the Son, of the same essence with the Father? Those who claimed the Spirit’s works were the works of a creature were known as “Fighters against the Spirit.”

The Emperor Theodosius I called a council in 381 at Constantinople in order to reaffirm the theology embraced at Nicea fifty-six years earlier and to give closure to the controversy over the Holy Spirit and the humanity of Christ. The creed of Nicea was reaffirmed with several phrases inserted to give clarity to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. We find, “by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” Also, we find, “We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.” The phrase, “And the Son,” filioque in Latin, was added to the western version of this creed during the time of Charlemagne. It affirms the double procession of the Holy Spirit in eternity who is, even as love flows eternally and personally between Father and Son, “the perfect bond of unity” (Colossians 3:14).

Although the Constantinopolitan creed gave a measure of balance to affirmations concerning the persons of the Trinity and locked Arianism outside the pale of orthodoxy, it did not give a detailed synopsis of the relation of the uncreated (God) to the created (man) in the person of Christ. That the eternally generated Son of God had taken to himself real humanity was now beyond dispute. The manner of this assumption of the human nature, however, and the appropriate words to use in asserting this truth still seemed to elude a clear, biblically defensible, theologically sustained definition.

Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, in response to a Mary-cult developing in his diocese, found it absurd to use the word theotokos, God-bearer, for Mary. He preferred the term christotokos, Christ-bearer. While firmly sustaining both the human and the divine, conscientiously resisting the tendency to fuse, and lose, the human into the divine nature, Nestorius was perceived as erring on the other side. It seemed that he maintained such an individuality in the human nature that he treated the nature as a person. He viewed the union as one only of undivided moral purpose, or a divine indwelling of the man born of Mary. His was a kind of high adoptionist Christology.

Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, kept the pressure on Nestorius insisting that he anathematize the positions attributed to him. To mke his position clear, Nestorious should affirm, “If anyone does not confess that Emmanuel is God in truth, and therefore the holy Virgin is theotokos—for she bore in the flesh the Word of God become flesh—let him be anathema.”[1] Unable to consent to this anathema, Nestorius was exiled after the Council of Ephesus (431).

Cyril’s language, however, gave rise to a group known as Monophysite (one nature) and Monothelite (one will). They contended that Christ, because of infinite greatness of his deity, had only one nature. The humanity was like a drop of honey absorbed into the ocean. In this vein of thought, Eutychus declared, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.” This formula was resisted by Flavian, the bishop of Constantinople, and was condemned by a council in 448 that used the terminology of “two natures,” obviously protecting the full human nature, existing in the one Christ.

Eutyches, representing this as Nestorianism, with support from Theodosius II, called a synod in 449 composed of those that revered him and his theological instincts to approve his formula. Flavian’s attempt to attend this council and provide a reasoned objection resulted in his being grossly manhandled so that he died.  This synod soon was termed the Latrocinium, Robbers’ Synod, by those that opposed Eutyches.

During the time of this theological, and sometimes physical, punch and counter-punch, the bishop of Rome, Leo, appealed to by both parties in this dispute, gathered enough information about what was at stake to weigh in with unusual clarity and vigor. Before Flavian’s ultimate conflict, Leo wrote him concerning his view of the issue. This letter, so profoundly practical and biblical in its content, has gained a just commendation through the centuries. Known as Leo’s Tome, its argument virtually sealed the issue concerning the relationship of Jesus’ human nature and his divine nature in the single person.  When a new council was called in 451 at Chalcedon to revisit the Eutychian problem, Leo’s letter was read. Many of those in attendance greeted its reading with the words, “Peter has spoken.” This should not prejudice those who reject the papal primacy or the Petrine succession of Rome against the power of the reasoning and synthesis of biblical truths present in this document. Edward Hardy wrote, “It is a fine specimen of the straightforwardness and clarity of the Latin mind—as also of the Western approach to the mysteries of Christianity from the facts of faith rather than the speculations of philosophy.”[2]

Leo’s reasoning, in fact, from the commonly accepted confession of Christians and the biblical material concerning the incarnation of the Son of God is tightly constructed and profound.  The argument is Bible-centered and doctrinally coherent.

Leo said that if Eutyches “was not willing, for the sake of obtaining the light of intelligence, to make laborious search through the whole extent of the Holy Scriptures,” at least he should have learned from the common confession, particularly the implications of its words, “His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary.” Failing that, he should submit to the implications of the gospel descriptions of the person and work of Christ which show that “in the entire and perfect nature of very Man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours” except for the corruption of sin.

As for the formula set forth by Eutyches (“out of two natures into one”), Leo indicated the greatest disdain. “I am astonished,” he told Flavian, “that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges [in 448], and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over.” Leo noted that it was just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God “was of two natures before the incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only.”[3] How could two natures exist in the Son of God prior to the incarnation? Also, how could one that was not fully man as a result of the incarnation ever reclaim for humanity the moral image of the divine and the warrant to eternal life?

A method of biblical citation emerges in Leo’s letter that helps the student of the Bible with an important principle of interpretation. His synthesis of texts employs a theological observation called the communicatio idiomatum—the fellowship of peculiar properties. This means that many texts in the Bible which would otherwise be confusing are perfectly clear when one sees the integrity of two natures in one person, Jesus Christ. Often Scripture asserts an action or attribute of one nature that, strictly speaking, holds true only for the other nature. Such is Paul’s statement in Acts 20:28, “to feed the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” God does not have blood, but the person who purchased the church by his death, did have blood and also was God. The same inference we draw from the words of Jesus in John 3: 13: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Jesus had never been in heaven as Son of man, but as Son of Man he is the same person that as Son of God had come down from heaven. Even at that moment, as he spoke, as Son of Man united in person with the eternally generated Son of God, he was in heaven. Though he stood before Nicodemus, isolated in time and space by his body and by every property of his humanity even as Nicodemus himself was, unlike Nicodemus, he also resided in heaven. As he spoke, his eternal generation from the Father, an eternal and immutable property of his personhood as Son of God, explained the meaning of “which is in heaven.” The communicatio idiomatum gives the key to a proper grasp of such a text.

Sometimes Scripture will indicate a condition of the whole person that is true only of one nature (“Before Abraham was, I am” John 8:58). These kinds of texts are the seed bed for the theology of two natures in one person, and, once established, the theology becomes a principle of interpretation for a large number of texts. For example, consider the following used by Leo himself in the famous “Tome” in which he argued and illustrated that in this single person “the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together.” Though it does not belong to the same nature, it is true of the same person, to say, “I and the Father are one” and to say, “The Father is greater than I.” We find clearly stated the same mysterious truth in Paul’s statement, “For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory?” When Jesus asked who he the Son of Man was, why does he commend the answer, ”Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God?”

Leo also kept pressing that the ontology of the person of Christ served the interests of the salvation of sinners, “because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation.” It would be equally wrong, as well as dangerous to the soul, to believe the Lord Jesus to be God only and not man, or man only and not God.

At the time of the Olivet discourse, Jesus made the puzzling affirmation, “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only” (Matthew 24:36). Jesus, speaking by the Spirit and in his humanity, had been isolated from that knowledge. He could state with perfect accuracy and verity that, in his perfect manhood, the Son did not know what the Father had decreed concerning the coming in glory of the triumphant, risen, ascended, redeeming Son of Man (37, 39, 44). In his humanity, Jesus increased in wisdom. His knowledge and his perfect ability to apply it continually increased throughout his life as the man who was being perfected, that is, brought by degrees to a full and immutable righteousness (Luke 2:52; Hebrews 5:8). This event was hidden even from him, in that peculiar capacity, at this time.

In his commentary on Matthew, John A Broadus observed: “If there was to be a real incarnation of the Eternal Word, then the body he took must be a real body, and the mind a real mind. How his divine nature could be omniscient, and his human mind limited in knowledge, both being united in one person, is part of the mystery of the Incarnation, which we need not expect to solve.”

If Christ in his perfection of moral rectitude and full commitment to all that the Father willed, had this event hidden from him at this time, and yet trusted fully even though he would go through the torturous propitiatory death, how willingly and joyfully should we submit to the mystery of our future with absolute trust in a faithful creator and Father.  In this way, we “Remember Jesus Christ” and emulate his submission to and trust in the Father’s wisdom and will.

[1] Hardy, Christology of the Later Fathers, 353

[2] Hardy, 359.

[3] Hardy, 359-370.

This article is part 13 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ.

Join us at the 2024 National Founders Conference on January 18-20 as we consider what it means to “Remember Jesus Christ” under the teaching of Tom Ascol, Joel Beeke, Costi Hinn, Phil Johnson, Conrad Mbewe and Travis Allen.

The doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is so precious to us. As a quick reminder, justification is:

Forensic – that is, it is a legal declaration. Because Christ has fulfilled all righteous, and died the just death that sinners deserve bearing God’s wrath, and rising again in victory, those who trust Christ by faith are declared legally righteous. They are imputed with the righteousness of Christ.

Full – there is nothing that you can add to your justification. All Christians, all those who look to Christ in faith, are equally justified. It is complete. There are no degrees of justification.

Final – We are not awaiting a future justification. Christ’s work has been applied to us who are trusting Him. Our good works do not add to this and cannot add to this and are unnecessary to this in terms of receiving justification.

Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is why the gospel is good news. It is at the very heart of what Christ has done for His people.

Furthermore, the 1689 2nd London Baptist Confession of faith rightly states: “…[T]he justification of believers under the Old Testament was exactly the same as the justification of believers under the New Testament.”

No one. Not one single soul has ever been saved apart from faith in Christ. Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Old Testament believers were saved by looking forward to the coming Messiah, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

This is what God does for His people by His grace.

Now, what we are doing in this post is considering, practically, how do we use this doctrine in battle?

I remind you of one of Satan’s attacks on the church: He is the accuser. He accuses the brethren. Part of the reason this continues to work on Christians is because Satan is right.

At least partly.

His accusations can carry weight because he reminds us of the guilt we’ve really experienced and do experience. The problem is, he does not tell the whole story. He doesn’t get to the last chapter. Christ has made sufficient atonement for our sins and clothed us in His own righteous robes.

So, I want us to consider practically how we this glorious doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone in battle.  

1. When You Are Tempted, Remember Who You Are.

Yes, I know. All my fellow millennials can hear James Earl Jones playing the role of Mufasa right now telling Simba, “Remember who you are!”

The reality of our justification does not lead us to desire sin. Whenever we sin, we are forgetting who we are in Christ.

But this really does have a practical application to every believer. Remember who you are! In one sense, that’s the theme of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. He begins that letter with one long run on sentence reminding them of who they are in Christ (cf. Eph. 1:3-14).  

Satan tempts the church to sin. To grumble. To divide. To complain. To sin egregiously.

But, if we are resolute in our doctrine of justification, then we are remembering we are new. We are forgiven. We are justified. We are adopted. We are in union with Christ.

Did Christ sin? No. Then why would we who are in Him be interested in that? How can we who died to sin still live in it?

The fundamental reality of who a Christian is can be put in very simple terms: Dear brother or sister, you are not who you once were! The reality of our justification does not lead us to desire sin. Whenever we sin, we are forgetting who we are in Christ.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. The doctrine of justification does not produce licentiousness or antinomianism. Not if we are remembering who we are.

2. When You Are Accused, Remember Whose You Are

Christians are the Lord’s and we stand in His strength (cf. Eph. 6:10ff). We are clothed in His armor. God owns us. And God will protect His church. Let the accusations come! Our Defender is stronger than our Adversary.

Though Satan does sometimes tell half-truths, he also sometimes tells outright lies. Accusing the church of things we are not guilty of. In those situations, remember you are God’s. God has adopted you in Christ.

Christ owns you. The One who has justified you is the one who defends you.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are.

3. When You Are Guilty, Remember Christ

There are times Satan will bring up your guilt and he’s right. You sinned. You sinned against a brother. You sinned against your children.

Your words or thoughts or actions or motivations or desires, they came short of the glory of God. You sinned. And now Satan attacks.

You can make excuses. I did this because this happened. Or like Adam and Eve we can blame others. Or we can even blame God. But to do any of that is to fall for Satan’s trap. It causes division or laziness or pride or continued sin. Don’t do that.

Rather, when we are guilty of sin, we must not make excuses. The doctrine of justification reminds us to look to Christ. We must remember, our justification never changes. Ever. We never become less justified because of sin. We are secure in Him.

There is, therefore, now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Look again to Christ!

This frees us. It frees us to repent. Christ has already paid for my sins. I can go to Him again in faith.

And while there are consequences for my sins, and there are times we do need to make restitution to others because of sin, there is never penance to God required for them. I don’t have to work for God to forgive me because I can’t. My forgiveness is wrapped up in what Christ has done.

The best thing a Christian can do when he or she is guilty of sinning, is to run again to our King. Run to Him in faith. Repent and rest again in all that God is for you in Christ.

Jesus paid it all.

When we sin, we are essentially telling Jesus to turn back and depart from us like Naomi said to her daughters-in-law. But Christ is like Ruth ever clinging to us and committing Himself to be with us even to our death.  He is not letting go of His Bride.

The best thing a Christian can do when he or she is guilty of sinning, is to run again to our King.

Christians were once alienated from God, but that is no longer the case.  The wrath of God for our sin is all gone. It has been propitiated by Christ.

Christ drank the foaming cup of the wrath of God down to the last dreg and there’s nothing left in that cup for you to drink, so keep drinking from the rivers of grace.

When you are guilty of sin, repent. Look to our Lord Jesus. Rest yourself in His completed work.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ.

4. When You Are Self-righteous, Remember the Law

If Satan cannot get you to fall in an egregious manner, he can work to harden your heart in self-righteousness.

Look at all I am doing! Look how committed I am to the church! Look how committed I am to a biblical home! Look how much I read my bible! Look how much I am obeying!

Isn’t Satan so crafty? We know better than to allow those thoughts to be spoken out loud. But if you’re honest with your heart, those thoughts have crept in before.

When you think about your justification, consider what Christ did to obtain it: Perfect. Personal. Precise. Perpetual obedience to God’s holy and righteous law.

Let that humble you. You are just as far away from keeping God’s law for your justification as the most wicked reprobate, depraved, sinner you can imagine in your mind.

Listen to me carefully here: This is not me saying “Well, sin is sin, so it doesn’t matter.” And this is not me saying that the believer does not pursue real obedience to God. Absolutely we do, by God’s grace working in our hearts.

Christians were recreated in Christ for good works (cf. Eph. 2:10). Christians do good works. Those who don’t, are not believers.

But hear me now: There is nothing that you can parade before God that merits His acceptance of you. In and yourself you do not meet His holy standard.

Let the law humble you and drive you again to our good and gracious King! Put on His armor, not your own (cf. Eph. 6:10ff).

We stand, all of us, on equal ground before God as sinners. Oh but the grace we have in Christ! He is our hope. He is our boast. He is our all.

Not self. Christ.

The doctrine of justification, properly understood, does not produce legalism. Let us live holy in and by His grace alone.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law.

5. When You Are Afraid, Remember God’s Armor

We should not make light of spiritual warfare. Sometimes we can walk around with such confidence in Christ. But, sometimes, we can have very serious times of depression or fear or trepidation. Satan can paralyze the church, at times, with fear.

But I am calling us to remember what God has provided His church. Ephesians 6:10-18 lays out our spiritual armor that Paul calls us to put on. But what’s important to remember is that it is God’s armor given to us.

This is the armor Christ has worn Himself (cf. Isaiah 59:17) and won for His church and now gifted to His church.

When you are afraid, remember the armor. The doctrine of justification reminds us that ultimately, nothing, not the culture, not the government, not any false religion, no demonic power, absolutely nothing can separate us from Christ. Nothing can prevent the church’s final victory. Our armor is the armor of God!

When you are afraid, remember the armor.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law. When you are afraid, remember the armor.

6. When All Is Well, Remember Grace

I’ve painted a lot of negative realities of the Christian life here. Temptation. Accusation. Failure. Self-righteousness. Fear.

But, there are also times when we don’t feel the heat of the battle.

Now, we should never grow complacent. But when you wake up, and the kids are well, and the table is set, and the food is served, and Christ is enjoyed, and the saints are edified, remember grace.

The doctrine of justification reminds us that God is for us in Christ, and this is based on His eternal love and sovereign grace. Grace has brought you safe thus far and grace will lead you home.

The doctrine of justification reminds us that God is for us in Christ, and this is based on His eternal love and sovereign grace.

Think about it! You stand in this impenetrable breastplate. The fury of Satan is kept at bay from you. Your heart is content in Christ. You are at peace with the church. You are hungering and thirsting for righteousness.

Where is this coming from? My friend, the fountain of grace. Drink deeply. And do not forget the source of these blessings. And do not forget the cost of these blessings.

They flow to you from the wounds of our King. The One who came to us, and lived for us, and died for us, and rose again, and now reigns on high for His glory and for the good of His church.

When all is well, remember grace.

When you are tempted, remember who you are. When you are accused, remember whose you are. When you are guilty, remember Christ. When you are self-righteous, remember the Law. When you are afraid, remember the armor. When all is well, remember grace.

7. When Death Arrives, Remember Gain

The inevitable is just outside the door. It is a phone call away. It is a doctor’s report away. It is a tragedy away. It is a heartbeat away. Death is coming. You’ll cross that river more quickly than you realized you would.

This is a terrifying reality to those who are rejecting Christ. Those living in their shelter of hypocrisy. Those dressed in carelessness or complacency. Those clothed in Satan’s armor and in love with sin.

Friend, if this is you, your condition is dreadful. And death should be frightening to you. It will creep up on you before you are ready and in the blink of an eye you will pass from this life to the next. From a life of carefree rebellion against God into one that enters His righteous judgment for all eternity.

Your only hope is to run to Christ. The One who has secured perfection and suffered our penalty. The one who died and is alive forevermore.  The One who is offered to poor and needy sinners. The one who will save the vilest of sinners who come to Him in faith.

You must repent and believe the gospel or death will only be the beginning of an eternal hell you can never escape.

But what about those in Christ? What about those dressed in His righteousness?

The Scriptures are replete with good promises: For me to live is Christ and to die is gain (Phil. 1:21). Precious in the sight of Yahweh is the death of His saints (Ps. 116:15). To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8).

How does the doctrine of justification practically equip us for daily living and spiritual warfare? Because it takes the greatest worry of mankind and turns it into a blessing.

Death is not the end. Death is the beginning. Death is gain for those who are in Christ. Christ entered heaven in victory and those who are trusting Him will follow Him there for they wear His own righteousness.

So, I look up and I see the hill. The battle there is fierce. But the King says. Go! Take the hill! For my glory!

But I might die. To win this ground for my dear Lord, what if it costs me my very life? I see saints of old who have perished striving to take this hill.

I am afraid.

What about my family? What about my children?

But then I think again of this doctrine. Christ has already won my greatest battle. He has reconciled me to God and turned my righteous enemy in to my friend. He has forgiven me. He has put my account upon His own and His account upon mine.

Death only means an entrance into the presence of Christ. It only holds out the promise of a resurrected and glorified body. Death, for those in Christ, is gain.

I am reminded: He is worthy. He is in me. He is with me. And the very worst thing that can happen to me, He has already made provision for: He has already conquered death for His Saints.

My Savior passed through death Himself. He tasted death under God’s divine judgment. His righteous life could not be contained by death. He rose again from the death triumphing over the grave. 

And this very righteousness He has bestowed upon me by grace through faith. That means the death that couldn’t hold Him, can’t hold me either. All death does is deliver me from this weak mind and decaying body, and the sin that seeks to cling so close to me.

Death only means an entrance into the presence of Christ. It only holds out the promise of a resurrected and glorified body. Death, for those in Christ, is gain.

So, I will charge the hill.

Will you go with me?

Christ is worthy.

Christ is worthy of a church that remembers who we are. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers whose we are. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers Him. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers the high cost of our salvation. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers His armor. Christ is worthy of a church that remembers grace. And Christ is worthy of a church that remembers death is gain.

The doctrine of justification is not just for seminarians and scholars. It’s for the everyday believer. It equips us to go through life prepared for whatever providence may have for us, confident in all God is for us in Christ. It protects us in our most vulnerable moments of spiritual warfare and keeps the church moving towards God’s great goal of declaring Christ’s glory over every nation.

Theology matters. Press on brothers and sisters!

How good it is to thank the Lord,

and praise to Thee, Most High, accord,

to show Thy love with morning light,

and tell Thy faithfulness each night;

yea, good it is Thy praise to sing,

and all our sweetest music bring.

O Lord, with joy my heart expands

before the wonders of Thy hands;

great works, Jehovah, Thou hast wrought,

exceeding deep Thine ev’ry thought;

a foolish man knows not their worth,

nor he whose mind is of the earth.

When as the grass the wicked grow,

when sinners flourish here below,

then is their endless ruin nigh,

but Thou, O Lord, are throned on high;

Thy foes shall fall before Thy might,

the wicked shall be put to flight.

Thou, Lord, hast high exalted me

With royal strength and dignity;

With Thine anointing I am blest,

They grace and favor on me rest;

I then exult o’er all my foes,

O’er all that would my cause oppose.

The righteous man shall flourish well,

And in the house of God shall dwell;

He shall be like a goodly tree,

And all his life shall fruitful be;

For righteous is the Lord and just,

He is my rock, in Him I trust.

– Ernest R. Kroeger, 1862–1934 –

(Based on Psalm 92, #179 in the Psalter, Tune: CHRISTINE)

This article is part 12 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ. (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11).

The first of the ecumenical creeds was formulated in a council called by the emperor Constantine. According to historians Eusebius of Caesarea and Lanctantius, Constantine was converted to Christianity as he prepared for a battle with Maxentius in the year 312. His victory, which he attributed to Christ, made him the sole ruler of the western portion of the Empire. After a dozen years of gaining more knowledge of the church’s organization and doctrines, Constantine, aware of a theological controversy that stirred the church, made arrangements for church bishops to meet in Nicea (present day Iznik in Turkey) to settle the dispute. Around 300 bishops were able to come with only half a handful of representatives from the west.

The controversy that prompted the call to Nicea focused on the teaching of a presbyter of Alexandria Egypt named Arius (260-336). Arius strongly concluded that the monotheism necessary to Christianity eliminated the possibility of any other personal entity sharing the status of absolute deity. In a letter to his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia in 318 during the initial tensions of the controversy, he complained that Alexander “greatly injures and persecutes us . . . since we do not agree with him when he says publicly, ‘Always Father, always Son, ‘Father and Son together,’ . . . ‘Neither in thought nor by a single instant is God before the Son.’” Arius instead taught that “before he was begotten or created or ordained or founded, he was not.” He, that is, the one called the son, is not “a part of the unbegotten in any way” but was “constituted” by God’s “will and counsel, before times and before ages.”[1]

Arius’s affirmation, therefore, of the lordship of Christ could not mean that he was co-eternal with the Father and of the same nature. The phrases anathematized at the end of the Nicene Creed 325 represent some of the phrases that Arius used to define his understanding of Jesus, the Christ. Because only God is eternal, Jesus is not; and so, “There was when he was not.” Since he is begotten, he must have come into existence subsequent to the Father and, therefore, “begotten” is taken as a synonym for “created.” Since he is created, he cannot be of the same eternal immutable substance as the Father and is, on that account, of a different substance. Since he is a created moral being, even though the first of all created things, he is mutable and could have sinned. The Father, however, endowed him with the power of creation, set him forth to be the redeemer of the fallen race, a task that the Son effected without blemish and thus gained the status of savior. In order to be like us and succeed where we failed, he had to take our flesh. In his person, however, his humanity consisted only of the body while the created logos constituted the rational soul of the person Jesus.

This savior concocted by Arius, therefore, was neither God nor man. The views of Arius show that a single theological principle pressed with a relentless, but false, logic uninformed by other revelatory propositions leads to destructive conclusions.

Among the most important of the biblical theologians opposed to Arius was a young deacon at Alexandria named Athanasius (296-373). Athanasius had written a book entitled On the Incarnation of the Word.[2] In it he had discussed how the incarnation of the Son of God solved an apparent dilemma. God intended to bring his creature man to a state of glorious fellowship with God. He also threatened that if his creature disobeyed then death would be the certain outcome. How can God complete his purpose for man and at the same time keep true to his word? The incarnation is God’s answer to this apparent dilemma. The one who was both God and man could take the death man owed for “all men were due to die,” thus fulfilling the veracity of God’s word and the honor of God. At the same time, he brought to glory the human nature that he shared with the creature, thus fulfilling the divine purpose for man. Athanasius was well-armed in biblical knowledge and in theological reflection for the vital corrective that the Arian speculation demanded.

The views of Arius show that a single theological principle pressed with a relentless, but false, logic uninformed by other revelatory propositions leads to destructive conclusions.

Though the Council had negative fall-out in church-state relations and the eventual authority of canon law, the most important result of the Council of Nicea was the adoption of the creed. To show the pivotal importance of the substance of this creed we will point to five short insertions. Eusebius of Caesarea (the first church historian) proposed the confession used at baptism by his church (or something very similar) as a possible statement to bring unity to the deeply divided council. When the Arian party agreed to sign the proposed statement, the party led by Alexander of Alexandria (d. 328) and his young deacon Athanasius (296-373) knew that no real unity could be gained by such a tactic. A creed that simply embraced the serious doctrinal disagreements would only perpetuate substantial disharmony and lead to constant dispute. Preeminently, ambiguity about the legitimate object of worship would in fact endorse a principle of idolatry and capitulate to the impression that Scripture itself was not clear in its christological focus. The wisdom of God would be impugned for leaving us without clarity on the status of the one he called “My beloved Son.” What could be more absurd in Christianity that to leave the christological issue a matter of opinion, ambiguity, and diverse formulation?

Much of the clarification was attached to the phrase in Eusebius’s confession “begotten from the Father.” The first defining clarification is in the words, “from the substance of the Father.” This means that the Son’s existence is not an act of the will of the Father at a point outside his own eternity, as openly asserted by Arius. Athanasius contended, “Created things have come into being by God’s pleasure and by his will; but the Son is not a creation of his will, nor has he come into being subsequently, as the creation; but he is by nature the proper offspring of the Father’s substance.” The Son’s co-eternality is intrinsic to the very existence of the Father as Father. If God’s essential character is Father, then he could never be without his Son. One of the truths we know about God is his eternal paternity, and thus, from that substance the Son eternally exists as Son.

A second defining phrase is in the words “true God from true God.” Jesus was not inferior in his divinity; he was not constituted as a deity by dint of accomplishment; he was not granted the position or title as a reward for hard and faithful work. Because he was begotten of the substance of the Father, his deity is a true eternal deity, and his Sonship means that he is of the substance of his Father, truly divine. The Son of God is a true Son in the natural and moral image and likeness of his Father.

Third, the creed denied Arius’s understanding of “begotten” by saying “not made.” The idea of begetting is a different reality from creating. That which is begotten shares the nature of the begetter. In his hard-hitting, intensely doctrinal, polemical refutation of Arianism entitled Contra Arianos, Athanasius points to the use of the term begotten in Scripture as sealing the reality that sons are of the same nature as their fathers. “The character of the parent determines the character of the offspring.” Humans, as created, arise in time and beget in time and their begotten ones follow them in time; but they are not different in nature. “But the nature is one,” Athanasius affirmed, “for the offspring is not unlike the parent, being his image, and all that is the Father’s is the Son’s.”

The Son of God is a true Son in the natural and moral image and likeness of his Father.

That sons follow fathers in time is not essential to the reality of begetting but only an accident of our state of being created and thus limited by time. That our children follow us in time does not mean they are of a different nature, but only that in creatures the process of begetting proceeds from generation to generation.

God as a begetter relates to his only-begotten as Son to Father, sharing the same eternal attributes while also maintaining eternally distinguishing traits of personhood. For this reason the doctrine of eternal generation was important to Athanasius. Never has there been any point in God’s eternal existence when the Son was not begotten by the Father. If there had been, then the relation of Father and Son would be merely temporal and there would be no way of maintaining a singularity in the divine essence while affirming a real plurality of persons. Without generation as an eternal operation of God, tritheism or modalism are the only alternatives.

This truth of eternal generation helps in the interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. For example, no doctrine gives greater aid in understanding John 5:26 than this. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so he hath given to the Son to have life in himself” (KJV). Self-existence is an attribute of God only. The Father has this attribute necessarily and, as eternally generated by the Father, so that attribute distinctive of deity constitutes the self-existence of the Son. “In him was life” (John 1:4). The Jews understood this ontological relationship of Father to Son to involve equality of essence. When Jesus called God his Father in a distinctive way, therefore, the Jews “sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18 KJV).

Fourth, the council adopted a controversial word to assure that none could interpret Christ’s nature as inferior to or other than that of the Father in any sense. The word was controversial because it was used by a theologian named Sabellius in asserting that the essence of divinity has appeared in three modes as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each of these manifestations is God, and, in sharing the same essence, are in reality only one person. Modalism, as it was called, was heretical and prejudiced some of the concerned against that word. The problem lay in the failure to define a difference between “essence” on the one hand, and “person” on the other. Tertullian (ca 160-ca 220) had successfully sustained the distinction in his Latin writings in deploying the terms una substantia and tres personae. His influence protected the West from the difficulty perceived in the mono-essentiality of Father and Son. In spite of the scary associations of the language among the Greeks, however, the creed affirmed that the Son is of “one substance with the Father.” If he is begotten of the substance of the Father, ascertaining that he is “true God of true God,” and that his begottenness can in no way be construed as createdness, then it is not only appropriate, but necessary that the term homousiov, same essence, substance, nature, be affirmed of the Son.

Never has there been any point in God’s eternal existence when the Son was not begotten by the Father.

Fifth, in light of the strange anthropology of Arius, the creed attached to the phrase “was made flesh,” the exegetical appositive “was made man.” Arius believed that the only thing really human about Jesus was his flesh. His rationality was constituted by the created word, or son. When John wrote, “the word became flesh and dwelt among us,” he never meant that Jesus had human flesh only but no human mind, affections or spirit. The phrase, “made man,” should not have been necessary to insert, but in light of the bizarre idea of Arius, this had to be defined.

Note also the soteriological concern involved in this. It was in pursuit of “our salvation” that he took our humanity into his eternal Sonship. Had he, the Eternal Son of God, not assumed our nature, he could in no wise be our savior. He could not have lived for us in order to grant us his righteousness; he could not have died for us to bear our load of sin, guilt, and punishment. “The free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many” (Romans 5:15).

The Creed of Nicea is not Scripture and has no authority as a creed. Its synthetic arrangement, however, of clearly biblical ideas, and its clarifying exegetical phrases give aid to the Christian in declaring with the mouth the esteem for and dependence on Jesus as Son of God and Savior that should be in the heart. This creed is a faithful expression of the announcement given by the angels at Jesus’ birth: “Unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ, the Lord.” If we “Remember Jesus Christ,” with clarity, confidence, gratitude, and worship these confessional affirmations we can recite from the heart. This is my translation of the Christological portion of the Nicene creed of 325.

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things seen and unseen; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten out of the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God out of God, light out of light, true God out of true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom as an intermediary all things came to be, things in heaven and things on earth, Who on account of us men and on account of our salvation came down, and was enfleshed even to the point of true manhood, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead.

“Remember Jesus Christ risen from the dead, of a seed of David, as preached in my gospel. …If we deny him, he himself will deny us” 2 Timothy 2:8, 12b).

[1] Edward R.Hardy, Christology of the Later Fathers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1954) 329, 330.

[2] Hardy, 55-110.

This article is part 12 in a series by Tom Nettles on Remembering Jesus Christ.

Join us at the 2024 National Founders Conference on January 18-20 as we consider what it means to “Remember Jesus Christ” under the teaching of Tom Ascol, Joel Beeke, Costi Hinn, Phil Johnson, Conrad Mbewe and Travis Allen.