The Southern Baptist Convention is an associational structure of churches. Is purpose is to carry “into effect the benevolent intentions of our constituents, by organizing a plan for eliciting, combining, and directing the energies of the whole denomination in one sacred effort for the propagation of the gospel.” The assumption behind the union was that each participating churches would be a  “regular Baptist church.” No Baptist church is forced to join an association of churches nor forced to stay. No association may exert authority over the internal affairs of a local church, but it may determine the terms of membership in the association. The church is autonomous; the association is autonomous. The church may select its own officers, receive and discipline its own members according to its understanding of Scripture, and choose to affiliate with other churches of like faith and order. An association of churches may govern its internal affairs according to the will of the associating churches and may adopt a confession of faith that expresses its understanding of the Scriptures. It may receive or reject churches into its associational structure on the basis of that confessional statement. A local church may not demand that an association of churches allow its participation while it holds doctrines out of accord with the association’s confessions. A church may not demand that an association change its confession to allow for its participation while dissenting from its doctrine. A church disagreeing with the confessional stance of an association may continue its autonomy independent of the association.

When the Philadelphia Association received queries from churches, a committee appointed to investigate the question would answer with pertinent Scripture and frequently would refer to a section of their confession of faith. In 1724, for a question on the Sabbath, one element of the response was “We refer to the Confession of Faith, set forth by the elders and brethren met in London, 1689, and owned by us, chap. 22, sect. 7 and 8.” In 1727 a question on marriage evoked the response “Answered, by referring to our Confession of faith, chapter 26th in our last edition.” A question about laying on of hands referred to the Confession in chapter xxvi, section 9. A question in 1735 about church membership of a person too far away to attend was answered by invoking the Confession of faith, chapter xxvii, and the Treatise on Discipline.

In 1743, the association heard discussion about a theological dispute that had developed in one of its member churches concerning the eternal generation of the Son. After the discussion, one person, Joseph Eaton, “recanted, renounced, and condemned all expressions, which he heretofore had used, whereby his brethren … were made to believe that he departed from the literal sense and meaning of that fundamental article in our Confession of faith, concerning the eternal generation and Sonship of Jesus Christ our Lord.” At the same meeting a “brother Butler” wrote an acknowledgement, “I freely confess that I have given too much cause for others to judge that I contradicted our Confession of faith concerning  the eternal generation of the son of God, in some expressions contained in my paper, which I now with freedom condemn.”

When Baptist associations opened formal correspondence with other associations, they determined their doctrinal purity through examination of their confession of faith. The Philadelphia Association minutes from 1788 read, “A letter and minutes which contain the sentiments of the Stonington Association, were received. From which it appears, that they have adopted the same printed Confession which this Association has heretofore approved. We shall therefore cheerfully concur with them in maintaining a mutual correspondence.”

OK, well, you get it. No need to multiply instances. The confession was important and no article would have been inserted unless there was good reason to believe that all the churches should affirm their conscientious acknowledgement of the biblical doctrines so stated.  A denominational confession necessarily includes doctrines deemed of secondary importance in relation to historic orthodox Christianity. If the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed were all that we should confess, and we certainly should confess them, we would have no denominations, but we would have constant disagreement between and even within churches about those things that seem to be secondary—not saving truths—but still vital for the health and unity of local churches AND vital associational structures, as well as personal obedience to the Lord. Among these are the mode and meaning of baptism—surely anyone can see that this could rise to the level of a first order issue–,  the number, authority, and qualifications of the officers of the church, and the manner of church discipline.

An essay on the relation of local churches to an association appeared in the minutes of the Philadelphia Association in 1749. After affirming the autonomy of each local church, and the right and obligation to administer the biblical ordinances, receive and discipline its membership, set apart its officers “independent of any other church or assembly whatever,” it discussed the autonomy and powers of an association, or confederation of churches that unite on a voluntary basis. Though not a “superior judicature,” there is nevertheless a power that the association has over itself. “For if the agreement of several distinct churches, in sound doctrine and regular practice be the first motive, ground and foundation or basis of their confederation,” the essay premised, and then drew the inference, “then it must naturally follow, that a defection in doctrine or practice in any church, in such confederation, or any party in any such church, is ground sufficient for an Association to withdraw from such a church or party so deviating or making defection, and to exclude such from them in some formal  manner.”

Baptists have never believed that baptism, the Lord’ Supper, or the calling and setting apart of church officers are minor matters for they are part of divine revelation and are given in order to bring the church to a “unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God” (Ephesians 4:13). These are the doctrines that distinguished Baptists in their seventeenth-century emergence from English Puritanism and Separatism. Within the framework of the broader Christian confession of creedal orthodoxy and Protestant evangelicalism—both affirmed clearly by Baptists as necessary for true Christian faith—issues of church order and officers might be considered secondary or even tertiary, but for the distinctive identity of Baptists they are primary. Baptists consider their views of baptism, church membership, the continuing mandate of the great Commission, ecclesiastical non-establishment, and the qualifications of local church officers as essential elements of our quest for the purity and spiritual power of local churches.

Acceptance of regulating confessions of faith and even so-called creedal affirmation are not foreign to Baptist convictions in protecting their commitment to “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). James P. Boyce famously argued extensively for a governing confession in the founding of a theological seminary: “Let subscription to it[the confession of faith] on the part of each Theological Professor be required as an assurance of his entire agreement with its views of doctrine, and of his determination to teach fully the truth which it expresses, and nothing contrary to its declarations.” He also stated with conviction and clarity that it fit well—even necessarily—in the stewardship of a local church. After allowing for the broad spectrum of biblical understanding and doctrinal maturity of the members of a local church In light of the hopeful reality of the presence of recent converts, Boyce proceeded to argue, “But I cannot grant that such a test is without due warrant from Scripture even in the Church. The very duties which God enjoins upon the Churches, plainly suppose the application of every principle involved in the establishment of creeds” [Boyce, Three Changes 1856]. 

The same we find in B. H. Carroll, the founder of Southern Baptists’ second theological seminary.  Carroll fully agreed with Boyce’s view of the stewardship of revealed truth through adherence to a confession and applied it to his attempt to give “safeguards” to the seminary. He also believed that hearty and hardy confessional adherence was fitting, in fact, required for a church. “A church with a little creed is a church with a little life. … the fewer its articles of faith, the fewer its bonds of union and compactness.” Carroll continued, therefore, with the warning, “Shut off the creed and the Christian world would fill up with heresy unsuspected and uncorrected, but none the less deadly.” When confronted with the claim of some that individual liberty would be challenged by the requirement of creedal authority, he responded, “We are entitled to no liberty in these matters. It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine. A creed is what we believe. A confession of faith is a declaration of what we believe. The church must both believe and declare.” Contemplating that Christ came to bear witness to the truth and that apostles would teach and write under the inspiration of the Spirit of truth, Carroll insisted, “To Christ and the apostles, false creeds were the most deadly things, and called most for the use of the knife.” The setting aside of men to the gospel ministry must conform, therefore, to this Christological and apostolical concern for truth: “The limit of ordination examination on doctrine is the maximum of church creed on doctrine. …  Unless ‘the faith’ is a needed creed of definite vital truth, there is no basis for examination looking to ordination and no standard up to which the convert must be developed” [Carroll on Ephesians 4].

One of the favorite tactics of the so-called and self-styled “moderate” wing of the Convention during the years immediately preceding and then during the conservative resurgence involved implying a dichotomy between adherence to strict orthodoxy and personal religious experience. One writer in 1978 warned against a growing tendency to “Creedal Subscription” and characterized the developing conflict as one between scholastics and pietists. He characterized the scholastic as the person who “wants to make the confession compulsory lest the faith become lost,” and the pietist as the one who “wants to make the confession optional lest the freedom for the vitality of faith become lost.” [Walter Shurden, R & E, Spring 1978, 231]. Pietism, not scholasticism,  the writer implies, should be the model for promotion of Baptist unity and mission

Another looked to positive lessons to be learned from American mystics who consistently asserted that “formal creedal authority was much less significant than the inner reality of the divine presence.” This heightening of inner experience disconnected from dogma “may be extremely useful” in providing “a unity beyond denomination and dogma which is the foundation of the Church universal, the mystical body of Christ.” [William Leonard, R & E, Spring 1978, 277.] 

Then in the midst of the fray, soon following the Glorieta Statement issued in 1986, a prominent Moderate spokesman pitted “scholarship” against “confirmation and indoctrination,” “authentic education” against “brainwashing,” “personal religious experience” against a “memorized religion,” and authentic education” against “indoctrination of students with predigested teachings.” [Roy Honeycutt, Risking the Arm, Convocation Address, September 1987]  In his infamous convocation sermon for the fall of 1984, Roy Honeycutt saw the “cosmic Christ” as making us free from any attempts at uniformity, particularly confessional uniformity, but asserted, “Communities such as this seminary and the Southern Baptist Convention should affirm not stifle or otherwise restrict pluralism.” Instead of uniformity, “we need to rediscover authentic, New Testament pluralism as an essential quality of the church on mission with God.” Certainly, we are not back to the practice of conceding that confessional infidelity is a sign of spiritual maturity, a deeper grasp of the mind of Christ, and educational superiority.

We know that this present concern about a confession of faith’s usurpation of the rights of conscience and the autonomy of a church is prompted by the question of the ordination of women to the office of elder/bishop/pastor-teacher. Again, the precedent of Baptist exposition on this issue shows that no assertion of lack of clarity either exegetically, ecclesiologically, or doctrinally need make a strong stance unwarranted. Carroll wrote in his exposition of 1 Timothy, commenting on 2:11-13 along with 1 Corinthians 14: 34, 35, “The custom in some congregations of having a woman as pastor is in flat contradiction to this apostolic teaching and is open rebellion against Christ our king, and high treason against his sovereignty, and against nature as well as grace. It unsexes both the woman who usurps this authority and the men who submit to it. Under no circumstances conceivable is it justifiable.” 

Likewise in his commentary on 1 Timothy in the American Commentary series, Hezekiah Harvey, considering the text carefully in the setting of Paul’s argument concerning creation, fall, and redemption says, “The passage plainly denies to woman the office of the ministry, or the function of prayer and instruction in the public assemblies of the church, on the ground that such an office, as it involves authority over the man, is inconsistent with the divinely-constituted nature and position of woman as subordinate to man.” Then again, after more detailed exposition he reconfirms, “These reasons [the ones Paul has given in the text], founded on the original constitution and nature of the woman, are plainly valid in all places and in all ages; and the rule excluding woman from the office of the ministry in the church, of which they form the ground, is consequently universal and perpetual.”

Neither exegetically, confessionally, nor ecclesiologically should this issue be a point of controversy among Baptists. The Bible is our sole authority; the confession gives clear expression to a coherent, canonically derived understanding of the Bible’s teaching; The churches obey the text in order to be found sincere and blameless, filled with the fruit of righteousness.

I am grateful to the Lord to be the father of five children. Being the father of five by no means makes me a parental expert, but it does mean I’ve had some repeat experiences with each child. One of those experiences is taking your newborn to the pediatrician for their first appointment. The nurse measures, weighs, and may even do a bilirubin test on the little one. And then the doctor gives you the results. As a father, what I was always most interested in with these exams is, “Is my child healthy?” The doctors, you see, have a standard, and by this standard, they are able to give you a pretty good idea of whether or not your precious baby is on a healthy track.
As Christians, we have a standard too. We have the Word of the living God. The Bible is a sufficient plumb line for measuring the health of an individual Christian, individual local church, or even a group of churches choosing to cooperate together like we have in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Much has been written over the last few years about areas of drift in our convention. I am among those who’ve written about matters of concern. But this is not what I want to do in today’s post. My goal is to give you a standard for what a solid, healthy convention looks like, not based on history or experience, but on the Scriptures. I do not mean to suggest history and experience have no place. Of course, they do! But the goal of today’s post is to give you God’s standard for what constitutes a strong group of churches. In doing this, I urge you to consider our convention’s state for yourself and pray for any area that we are weak in based on this evaluation.
I am sure other verses could be used for such a test, but the passage I want to examine is found in Ephesians 4:7-16. I have a couple of disclaimers before we begin. First, I cannot get into verses 7-12 in this post as that could take a whole book to get through! Secondly, I understand that Paul is writing to a specific local church here. However, the same principles that apply to one local church necessarily apply to a group of local churches.
With that being said, and understanding this is not a full exposition, let’s dive in. Our focus is primarily upon verses 13-16. What does a strong convention of churches look like? Here are seven signs:

Genuine Unity

“until we all attain to the unity of the faith…” (v.13)
As local churches focus on Bible-centered, prayer-saturated, local church loving, Christ exalting ministry (cf. v.11-12), they are brought into greater unity. This unity is not centered on secular ideas, skin color, or social issues. Instead, this is genuine unity created by the Holy Spirit of God (cf. Eph. 4:3) as He continually grows us together by faith in Christ.
Because of Christ’s sovereign and gracious gifting each local church may have certain areas of ministry they thrive at better than others. But the diversity of gifting comes together in a convention only to strengthen cooperation together in unity for the same mission: Seeing Christ exalted over the nations.
Churches rooted in the Scriptures, bowing to their authority and trusting their sufficiency, and focused on the glory of Christ have genuine unity even if they may disagree on certain peripheral issues. Not every church in a strong convention will look exactly the same. But each one will have full dependence on the gospel as the hope of the nations and seek to have the Bible as their final standard on all matters of the faith, including soteriology, anthropology, ecclesiology, and so on.

Doctrinal Fidelity

“and knowledge of the Son of God…” (v.13)
Knowledge of the Son of God is certainly necessary for any person to be a Christian. Yet, it is also true that a strong Christian, church, or group of churches is continually growing and standing firm in the knowledge of the Son of God.
A healthy convention is one that is faithful to sound doctrine. It possesses confessional integrity. And this doctrinal fidelity leads to greater unity! Curtis Vaughn writes,

“Unity” is to be taken with both “faith” and “knowledge,” and the latter two words are both modified by “of the Son of God.” What Paul contemplates is a oneness of faith in, and a oneness of knowledge concerning, the Son of God…The word “faith” is to be taken in the sense of trust and confidence. The Greek word for “knowledge” is a particularly strong one, denoting full, accurate, and true knowledge.[1]

A strong convention is one strong in the doctrine of the Son of God and all of the implications for His local churches that flow out of His life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and coming return.

Increasing Maturity

“…to mature manhood…” (v.13)
A strong convention is a mature convention full of mature and maturing local churches and Christians. This doesn’t mean there is no room for those who need to grow because we all need to grow!
It does certainly mean, however, that the leadership of such a convention consists of those mature in the faith. The metaphor Paul uses here is one of “manhood.” True, the church is often referred to as the “Bride” of Christ. But here, there is another image: one of a strong, healthy adult man unwavering in his convictions and resolution in his commitments to Christ.
Churches in a strong convention seek to spur one another on into greater maturity in the faith, holding one another accountable to the Scriptures and the convention’s stated confession. A mature convention is not afraid and even compelled to separate from churches that repeatedly and persistently show a lack of concern for God’s Word or growing in Christ.

Christ Conformity

“to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ,” (v.13)
This is how we know maturity is never finished. Because our goal for maturity is the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Complete conformity to Christ is something not fully and finally realized until glory. Yet, a healthy Christian, church, or convention constantly strives toward sincere holiness of life.
Being full of Christ means loving all He loves and hating what He hates. It means, like Jesus, we are concerned first and foremost about the glory of God. It means having the powers of our discernment trained in differentiating between good and evil. It means loving the Word of God, biblical worship, the local church, and the lost. It means bearing the fruit of the Spirit and understanding the moments that call for humble compassion and those that call for a strong rebuke.
In sum, a strong convention is a holy convention seeking to follow Christ in all areas.

Steadfast Immobility

“so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (v.14)
A healthy convention of churches is one that shall not be moved. It is not a ship drifting too far from the shore or a crumbling leaf blown around by an autumn wind.
The contrast here in this passage is between a grown man and a small child. A child can be easily tricked, but not a mature man. Thus, a strong convention is on guard against the godless ideologies and worldly philosophies constantly seeking to infiltrate the church.
A healthy group of churches understands that the Evil One is perpetually seeking to destroy the work of Christ on earth. It understands that today’s liberal tendencies might not look exactly like yesterday’s because Satan is crafty and will adapt his tactics custom-made for every epoch of history. Therefore, a strong convention will stand resolutely upon God’s Word and warn and even rebuke churches or leaders who are not showing appropriate care when it comes to guarding against deceitful schemes.

Loving Honesty

“Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (v.15)
A strong convention speaks the truth in love. That is, churches do not speak deceitful schemes or faulty doctrine. Rather, they speak, preach, teach, and live out the truth of the Scriptures. The only way to “grow up” is through the Word of God. Therefore, a healthy convention of churches loves to speak the truth to one another and to a lost and dying world. It holds the inerrant, infallible Bible as its highest authority and it trusts the Bible to teach it on all matters of the faith and to speak a sufficient word to every generation.
Often, this speaking the truth encourages and edifies the churches. But at times, the truth will convict, challenge, and rebuke people. Consider the opening illustration of taking your newborn to the doctor. If something was wrong, you would want to know, right? It would not be loving of the doctor to lie to you. So, a healthy convention of churches speaks even difficult truths to one another. Yet, all of this is done in love. In the words of R.C. Sproul, “we call attention to the truth in an extraordinarily compassionate and tender and loving spirit.”[2]
And finally, when speaking the truth to the unregenerate, a healthy convention does not seek to minimize God’s Word. Instead, it calls upon all to repent of every sin and come to Christ in faith, finding Him as the only suitable and all-sufficient Savior for all mankind.

Godward Affinity

“from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love.” (v.16)
A strong convention of churches builds itself up in love. Though its churches may be in different geographical locations, have diverse demographics, and possess a variety of gifts, there is a genuine love for God and one another that binds the convention together.
A love for the triune God and bringing Him glory in all things means that a strong convention is concerned about honoring God in all things, from worship to evangelism, to everyday life, to convention practices. Loving God means that a convention of churches seeks to please one another by first and foremost pleasing God. A strong convention understands that we love one another best when we love God most. And it is through this that a convention will be continually built up in love.
This is not an exhaustive list, of course. But it reminds us that God would not have any convention of churches to be childish. A strong convention must be growing in the Lord, aspiring to mature manhood. A childish convention would have symptoms that are the opposite of the signs of health above, like Superficial Unity, Confessional Infidelity, Acceptable Immaturity, Worldly Conformity, Drifting Carelessly, Hating Honesty, and Cultural Affinity.
God has given us a standard, brothers and sisters. It is by His own Bible that we are to assess our spiritual health. May we not compare ourselves to contemporaries or generations past. We must look into the mirror of the Word of God. Take some time today to consider your own walk with the Lord, the state of the local church you are a member of, and the Southern Baptist Convention. Pray for our health. Pray that the Lord would be pleased to bring about the recovery of the gospel and the reformation of churches in our convention.
[1] Curtis Vaughan, Ephesians, Founders Study Guide Commentary (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2002), 95.
[2] R. C. Sproul, The Purpose of God: Ephesians (Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 1994), 107.

Tweet Share

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

Paul’s alarm at the gullibility of the Corinthians in receiving false teachers arose from the implications this had for several issues of vital truth, all of which impinged on the genuineness of their faith. One, their undiscerning spirit questioned the authenticity of his appointment as an apostle. Could these false teachers relativize Pauls’ apostleship, they would do the same to his preaching. Paul, therefore, spent chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Corinthians demonstrating the genuineness of his apostleship in order for them not to be “led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:3). A second issue concerned the nature of the spirit, or Spirit, at work in them. Receiving the message of these false apostles would mean that they did not believe by the work of the Holy Spirit but actually had been duped, even as Eve was, by Satan disguised as an angel of light. John gives a succinct statement concerning the work of the Holy Spirit in relation to true belief when he asserts, “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God” (1 John 5:1). Third, if they received the alternative being offered to them, and departed from Paul’s gospel, then they had a different gospel, which, as he told the Galatians, is no gospel at all. Contrary to the claims of these false apostles, messengers of the great deceiver, what they toyed with had no saving power. A fourth difficulty enveloped all the others. Such a shift in their religious persuasion would finally mean that they received “another Jesus than the one we proclaimed.” Another gospel and another Spirit means another Christ, for the Spirit is given by Christ and the gospel is defined absolutely in terms of the person and work of Christ.

As argued earlier, the admonition, “Remember Jesus Christ,” with the parameters established concerning person and work, implies a comprehensive commitment to a large range of doctrinal ideas. The unshakeable confidence that Paul had in the absolute authority of his gospel inhabits the words, “whom we have not preached.” We find both on the pages of the New Testament and in the history of the church a number of ways in which the Pauline exhortation, “Remember Jesus Christ,” has been disobeyed. Usually this amounts to a denial of some element of Christ’s person and a consequent modification—i.e. denial—of his work and thus a severe alteration of the gospel preached by Paul.

Another gospel and another Spirit means another Christ, for the Spirit is given by Christ and the gospel is defined absolutely in terms of the person and work of Christ.

One way that Jesus is forgotten is by a denial of his true humanity. John confronts this error when he says, “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). He also had in mind a group that hesitated to embrace the apostolic teaching of the full humanity of Christ when he assured the readers of 1 John that the very one who was from the beginning “we have seen with our eyes, … we have looked upon and have touched with our hands” (1 John 1:1). Added strength to this doctrine is seen when John says, “The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin”  (1 John 1:7). Paul’s concern about the nature of the spirit at work in the temptation of the Corinthians to believe on a Jesus whom he had not preached is joined by John when he states, “By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2, 3). As he observed the developments among those who desired to find a position of teaching in Christian congregations, John warned that they should watch themselves “so that you do not lose what we have worked for.” Specifically, he referred to the “many deceivers” that had “gone out into the world” who “do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh” (2 John 7, 8).

The writer of Hebrews, after a clear exposition of the deity of Jesus (Hebrews 1:1-13) and a warning about ignoring “such a great salvation” (Hebrews 2:1-4), shows the ontological necessity of the true humanity of Christ. “He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have the same nature” (Hebrews 2:11 – My translation). Again he writes, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things” (Hebrews 2:14). Then further, as he argues more concerning the necessary qualifications of one who is to redeem fallen humanity, says, “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people” (Hebrews 2:17). Unless he were like us—that is, a man of full human nature, corruption of soul excepted—he could not make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Likewise, Paul argues in a number of places that Christ’s work of reconciliation would be impossible apart from the reality of the Son of God taking a real human nature to himself when he was “found in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:8). In that way “he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death” (Philippians 2:9). Another way Paul said it is found in his instructions to the church in Colossae when he reminds them, “And you who once were alienated and hostile in mind doing evil deeds, he has reconciled in his body of flesh by his death” (Colossians 1:21, 22). 

All that we are in our bodies, Jesus became.

Peter joins the apostolic chorus in celebrating the condescending grace of God in sending his Son to take our human nature to perform the work of redemption. Peter affirms that sinners are “ransomed … with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18, 19). He intensifies this strong assertion with the words, “Christ suffered for you, … He Himself bore our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:21, 24). All that we are in our bodies, Jesus became; if not, we have none of our race through whom God’s wrath and expectation for righteousness can be covenantally fulfilled.

We must take time to admire and adore the great display and wisdom, power, and mercy found in the confession, “risen from the dead, of a seed of David.” None can explain but only believe the marvel displayed when the angel told Mary, “that holy thing conceived in you shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35). The one who slept in the boat, and sweat great drops of blood, also forgave sins, silenced demons, and said “I and the Father are one.” Come, let us adore him.

This article is part 6 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, Paul Washer, Phil Johnson, Conrad Mbewe and Travis Allen.