ut but judjudge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
The above title is a bumper sticker that was designed to show the flaw in the thinking of a different message most people have probably seen: COEXIST (see comments in the Spiritual Perspectives from March 23, 2014). Andy Wrasman is the apparent author of Contradict, and he sends pages of explanation concerning its meaning with every order. The idea is that not all religions can be correct, which is true. They cannot be. And at least one of them does not want to coexist with the others. But even if they all were willing to allow anyone to choose whatever religion he wanted, they would all still not be correct.
And the reason is that they contradict one another. We know conflicting ideas cannot all be true. A simple illustration demonstrates the point. Suppose some members of society are taught that a stoplight showing green means, "Go," and that red means, "Stop." Then let's take another segment of the population and teach them the opposite. Both have been taught to believe that what they learned was true, and both groups are sincere in wanting to follow the civil law. Is that going to be helpful when all of them are turned loose in a community? No police force could handle the chaos. "Red means stop!" some will angrily shout. "No, it doesn't!" comes the quick reply. "My teacher said that green means stop and red means go. Furthermore, he had the highest degree attainable regarding traffic control."
We know that when such a contradiction exists, both positions cannot be true. But when someone says, "Infants are born depraved," and others disagree, some will suggest that perhaps both are correct. No, they're not! One position is not taught in the Scriptures while the other one is. They directly contradict each other, and religious confusion ensues because both are being taught and believed. People have advanced degrees on both sides of the issue; educational attainments cannot resolve the problem. Only honestly and correctly examining the Scriptures can do that.
The same is true with Jesus. Either He is the Son of God (Divine) and the only Savior of the world, or He is not. It will do no good to say He was a good man or even a prophet. The other religions of the world do not agree with the Scriptures as to Who Jesus is or that He is the Head of the one body, the church (Eph. 1:22-23), as well as being King over His kingdom (Col. 1:13-14). Truth is truth; it cannot contradict itself. Mr. Wrasman has invented an effective way to answer Coexist. Although he cites Acts 2:37-39 in his teachings, he appears to be a Lutheran who would contradict children coming into the world as innocent. Hmm.
THE NICENE CREED
Periodically, one hears about the Nicene Creed which was formulated in 325 A.D. Members of the Lord's church do not reference it often because we have always shied away from the opinions of men. On Sunday night, June 18th, a student attending an Episcopal seminary in the area visited us for worship. She had been given a class assignment to visit another religious group in the area and record observations about their worship. She was very friendly and undoubtedly sincere; a discussion ensued between her and various members afterward.
She kept referring to the Nicene Creed as something that was authoritative, and we tried to explain the reason it was not. She commented that teachings of the church were set forth to combat heresy, which is true, but she could not fathom why we have no use for creeds. Suppose the Nicene Creed were 100% accurate. What about the next manmade creed, and the one after that, and the one after that? Eventually, some ideas that actually contradict the Scriptures are going to be included, and everyone will be expected to believe them\>>This is a valid reason for objecting to manmade creeds. Those who uphold or deny a doctrine need to make their case from the Scriptures—not a creed invented and put together by men who may or may not have their doctrine correct. In other words, creeds written by men have no authority because they are not inspired by God. Anyone who doubts the truth of this matter should look at statements of orthodoxy written by some of today's "Christian" schools. Some of the doctrines that students and parents must swear allegiance to were never even dreamed of in the third and fourth centuries. Yet those who disagree with such teachings today are considered strange—if not outright heretics.
The creeds of men are subject to change from century to century as well as from region to region. They can, therefore, never be appealed to as authoritative. Any teaching must be proven from the Scriptures themselves. And if there is disagreement, let there be a debate over the matter so that everyone can see which position has Biblical support and which does not. Jesus denounced the doctrines and commandments of men (Matt. 15:8-9) while affirming that we would all be judged by His words (John 12:48).
The following information concerning the Nicene Creed comes from Volume 3 of Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church. The Council of Nicea met in an effort to stop the advance of the teachings of one named Arius. Actually, the Arians first proposed a creed, but only eighteen religious "officials" ended up signing it, and most of them ended up abandoning it (628). To counter the heresy, the Nicene Council was formed, and its purpose was to condemn the teachings of Arius. "This is the first instance of such a signing of a document in the Christian church" (629). Many others, however, would follow.
The controversy arose over the nature of the Godhead. Was Jesus a created being? And what about the Holy Spirit? Was He part of the Godhead or some impersonal force or attribute of God (664)? Below is what the Council of Nicea decided (668-69).
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only begotten, i. e., of the essence of the Father, God of God, and] Light of Light very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [in heaven and on earth]; for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was made incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven, from thence he cometh to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost
["And those who say; there was a time when he was not; and: he was not before he was made; and: he was made of nothing, or out of another substance or thing, or the son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable;—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church."] (All brackets are in the original, GWS.)
As one can plainly see, most of the discussion centers on the Deity of Jesus. The council wanted to be certain that no one held the views of Arius, which Jehovah's Witnesses still believe and propagate. However, for all their verbiage, the council was not clear. They say Jesus was begotten but not made; what does that mean?
It means, primarily, that Jesus is not a created being. The Father did not exist first and then create Jesus before everything else, as Jehovah's Witnesses teach. The council was right in insisting that this is not the case. But the reader may have trouble picking up on what they actually do think about Jesus. They say He was not made but begotten. By that they mean He is eternally begotten—that He has always existed—as God's Son. This affirmation is not true and will be discussed fully after two other points are made. The first is that they did not cite a single Scripture to support their view. The authority apparently lies in the council itself rather than in the Scriptures. And this is precisely the problem that exists when men write creeds. Second, they did not comment on the Deity of the Holy Spirit.
When Was Jesus Begotten?
Instead of depending on an uninspired group of men, our procedure will be to see what the Scriptures have to say about the word begotten. The first reference is in Psalm 2:7, which is a prophecy quoted in Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5—also in Acts 13:33. Five New Testament passages refer to Jesus as the only begotten Son of God: John 1:14, 18; John 3:16, 18; and 1 John 4:9. Revelation 1:5 refers to Jesus as the "first begotten from the dead."
In what sense was Jesus begotten? All of the verses John wrote (apart from Revelation) refer to His physical birth. When Jesus left heaven and came to earth, He was born as a human being, Mary being His mother. However, He was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:20). These all describe what happened on earth—not in Heaven prior to the earth's creation.
Psalm 2:7 does not refer to Jesus' physical birth. The text says: "Yet I have set My King on My holy hill in Zion. I will declare the decree: The Lord has said to Me, 'You are My Son, today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You the nations for your inheritance…'" (Ps. 2:6-8a). These words can apply to three situations: 1) Being raised up (begotten) from the dead; 2) Being made King, and 3) Becoming the Christian's High Priest. Yet all of these relate to Jesus becoming King.
First, notice how much of Psalm 2:6-9 (cited in the previous paragraph) refers to kingship—all which happened after the resurrection of Jesus. Second, Acts 13:33-37 clearly speaks of the resurrection, and Paul cites what David wrote in Psalm 16:10 (just as Peter did on Pentecost) about the body of Jesus seeing no corruption. Paul does not refer to the kingship of Jesus here, but Peter did on Pentecost when he said that God "would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne" (Acts 2:30). In other words, even though Jesus did not receive His kingdom until the ascension, the two events were only seven weeks apart and therefore legitimately associated together.
The main point of Hebrews 1:5-8 is that the Father begot Jesus to sit on His throne. Verse 6 also makes mention of God bringing Jesus into the world, but the main point is that He gave Him the throne after He was begotten from the dead—a fact also found in Revelation 1:5, where the text says that Jesus is "the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth." Once again the resurrection and the ascension (when Jesus received His kingdom) are tied together.
The tenth verse is Hebrews 5:5-6, where Psalm 2:7 is quoted once again. This time, however, the emphasis is on His becoming high priest, which occurred at the same time He became king (Psalm 110:1-4). In the New Testament, therefore, Jesus is begotten in the flesh (the five verses written by John). He is also begotten from the dead (resurrected) and raised up to Heaven where He became both King and High Priest.
Decision Making
Now all of that was examined to make this point—nowhere in the Scriptures do we find it taught that Jesus was eternally begotten. The Scriptures teach that He was begotten only in the senses described. There is no such thing as Jesus being the Eternal Son of God. That relationship only came into existence when He became a human being. Again, this illustrates the problem with having a council to discuss and decide spiritual matters.
Where is the authority for Christians to form a council in the first place? "Oh, what about the council in Jerusalem that decided what to do about the Judaizing teachers?" First of all, nowhere do the Scriptures refer to it as a council. To resolve the difficulty, "the apostles and elders" of the church met together (Acts 15:2). "So the apostles and elders came together to consider the matter" (v. 6). When they wrote the letter to brethren in other places, they greeted them in the name of "the apostles, the elders, and the brethren" (v. 23).
Nowhere is the term "council" used. Furthermore, no one voted on the matter; this gathering of brethren was not a synod, a convention, or any other manmade meeting. And in determining what to do Peter used logic in connection with principles they were all aware of, and James quoted from Amos 5:11-12 to show that what was occurring (the Gentiles accepting the gospel) was prophesied (Acts 15:16-17). Furthermore, in their letter they clearly stated that their decision was of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28). The New Testament does not authorize spiritual leaders to convene councils of uninspired men to legislate spiritual matters that already have been declared in the New Testament.
The Council at Nicea did not need to issue a creed. They needed to set forth what the Scriptures teach concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was not God's Son from eternity, but He is eternal (John 8:58). All three have existed from eternity and have shared equality (Phil. 2:5). All three share the same essence but have had different tasks and roles. New converts are baptized in the name of all three (Matt. 28:18-20), who are one in substance and unity.
The Nicene Creed did not say much about the Holy Spirit, but He is also Deity and a personality in the Godhead. He is not just a force; no one can lie to a force (Acts 5:3). A Christian does not grieve a force (Eph. 4:30). A force cannot teach (John 14:26). The Holy Spirit possesses personhood.
Appealing to the Nicene Creed for authority in Christian teaching is unwise. They did not meet by God's authority, and they were not inspired as the apostles and elders were. In addition, they did not get the doctrine of the Godhead correct. Jesus was neither made nor eternally begotten. He and the Holy Spirit have existed from eternity, from everlasting (Micah 5:2). None came forth from any of the others. When we need to know answers to spiritual questions, the Bible is our only source of accurate information.