← Back to sermon library

in the first five centuries. They're often referred to as 
ecumenical creeds, meaning that they are universally accepted 
by the churches. And they are the Apostles' Creed, 
the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian definition, and the Athanasian 
Creed. And I'll have some things to 
say about each one of them. Now, what they're trying to do 
is, in addition to responding to heresies, and we'll talk about 
some of those heresies along the way, they're trying to express 
for us and define what might be called the Catholic faith. 
Once again, without reference to Rome at all, Catholic simply 
means universal. What is it that Christians believe? And you may know the Vincentian 
canon which is one of my favorite statements from the early church. 
Vincent of Laronne was a theologian who lived on an island south 
of what is now France, it was then Gaul, and he was asking 
the question in a work that he wrote called The Commonitory, 
what is the Catholic faith? And the answer that he gives, 
fascinating answer, that's picked up after the Reformation by many 
Reformed theologians and English Puritans, is that the Catholic 
faith is that which has always, everywhere, and by all been believed. Now that's a great statement, 
everywhere always by all. And it doesn't exactly work in 
every way because not all of the things that are contained 
in these creeds have been accepted by everyone. But I think generally 
speaking, it's a very helpful way to approach the foundational 
issues of Christian theology to say these are what Christians 
have believed for centuries and we join with them in confessing 
these things. So let me walk through these 
four creeds. We'll see how far we get. I have 
to keep tapping my phone to keep track of time. Let's start with 
the Apostles' Creed. Now the Apostles' Creed seems 
to have been a baptismal creed, which was the norm in the early 
church. The person being baptized would 
recite a creed at baptism, and they based this practice on Romans 
10.8.9, verses we've already noted today, if you confess with 
your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God 
has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. It was believed 
that that confession was to be made at baptism. But it wasn't 
simply saying Jesus is Lord, rather it was acknowledging the 
fullness of truth that is expressed in the word of God and confessed 
by the apostles themselves. Now, the Apostles' Creed is ancient. was used predominantly, if not 
exclusively, in the Western or Latin-speaking Church. The Greek-speaking, 
the Orthodox Church doesn't really recognize the importance of the 
Apostles' Creed, so it's an ecumenical creed for the West, rather than 
the West and the East. The form that we know, that you 
may have memorized at some point in your life, seems to be from 
the 8th century, Though there's much evidence that its teaching 
was widespread beforehand, and there are earlier versions that 
we know probably going all the way back into the 2nd century. 
And it became the dominant form of Christian profession prior 
to the Reformation, especially at baptisms. and it continued 
to be employed by Reformation churches. Its words are used 
by the Lutheran Book of Concord, by the Post-Reformation Church 
of England, and by most of the Reformed churches of Europe. 
And some of its structure, as we'll see, is present in chapters 
two and chapter eight of the Westminster Confession of Faith 
and our own Second London Confession of Faith. Now this is how it 
goes. I remember learning this when 
I was 12 years old. I believe in God the Father Almighty, 
maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten 
Son, our Lord. who was conceived by the Holy 
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, 
was crucified dead and buried, he descended into hell. The third 
day he rose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and 
sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence 
he shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the 
Holy Ghost, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion 
of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the 
body, and the life everlasting. Amen. Now the best way that the 
Apostles' Creed is divided, if you were to outline it, is to 
say that there are three sections. The first speaks to us about 
the Father. Lines two through seven speak 
to us about the Son and His work, and then the final five lines 
speak to us about the Holy Spirit. Now, it's interesting to notice 
that there are 12 statements in the Apostles' Creed, and many 
have argued that this is proof of its origin among the apostles. The idea was each one of the 
12 contributed a statement, making it their united statement of 
faith. And this idea seems to stem from the late 4th century, 
and even as late as the 17th century, among some, it was an 
accepted idea. In fact, Richard Baxter believed 
that this was the statement of the Twelve Apostles, and surprisingly, 
he argued that there was better textual evidence for the apostolic 
origin of this creed than of any of the books of the New Testament. 
Baxter was wrong. No, there's no evidence that 
it came from the apostles themselves. It seems to be only a matter 
of, can I say the word coincidence? That there are 12 lines and 12 
apostles. The Apostles' Creed seems to 
have developed in the third or fourth century, and it has no 
direct link, no drink, with Jesus' apostles. Now listen to the words 
of paragraph 4 of chapter 8 of our Confession of Faith, very 
similar to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 8 is titled 
Of Christ the Mediator. So listen to this and notice 
how it follows the order of the middle portion of the Apostles' 
Creed. It goes like this. This office, 
the office of mediator, the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake, 
which that he might discharge he was made under the law, and 
did perfectly fulfill it, and underwent the punishment due 
to us, which we should have borne and suffered, being made sin 
and a curse for us. Here we go. Enduring most grievous 
sorrows in his soul, and most painful sufferings in his body, 
was crucified and died and remained in the state of the dead, yet 
saw no corruption. On the third day he rose from 
the dead with the same body in which he suffered, with which 
he also ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right 
hand of his father, making intercession, and shall return to judge men 
and angels at the end of the world. Now that's not expressed 
exactly as the Apostles Creed expresses the doctrine, but it 
is the same thing and follows the same order as that which 
is expressed in the Apostles Creed. The Westminster Assembly 
was reluctant to incorporate the Apostles' Creed line for 
line into its confession. And so they used the ideas and 
the expressions and put them into a paragraph rather than 
into a series of propositions. Interestingly enough, a particular 
Baptist pastor named Hercules Collins I like to say he was 
a mighty man of God. Hercules Collins adapted the 
Heidelberg Catechism in 1680, and when he did so, publishing 
it under the title An Orthodox Catechism, because the Heidelberg 
incorporates the Apostles' Creed, Collins incorporated the Apostles' 
Creed word for word into his own Orthodox catechism. Again, 
an attempt by a particular Baptist to express a common doctrine 
that was held in the church. Well, let's move on, secondly, 
to the Nicene Creed. This one is a fascinating study. 
If you were a Christian living in the port city of Alexandria, 
Egypt in the year 320, your life likely would have been full of 
excitement. Less than 10 years before, the 
great Emperor Constantine had defeated his enemies, ended Roman 
persecution of Christians, and granted Christianity the status 
of a favored religion. No longer was there fear of arrest, 
torture, or imprisonment, simply because you were a believer in 
Christ. The fresh air of freedom had 
come. In one of the most important 
centers of Christianity, The churches and the believers were 
emerging from the only life they had ever known, fear of opposition, 
enjoying the fresh air of freedom. The city was famous for its rich 
tradition of Christian thinkers, and now more than ever, people 
were considering and expressing their faith. Now you would, even 
if you were the humblest disciple in the city, Now something of 
the debates that were beginning to swirl inside the believing 
community, a highly respected presbyter, a mature and seasoned 
man, an able preacher and a popular pastor, was beginning to have 
a serious conflict with the bishop of the city. Don't think Roman 
Catholic when you hear the word bishop. This disagreement was 
doctrinal and it had everything to do with the person and work 
of Christ. The presbyter was named Arius, 
and he used his popularity and his abilities to spread his doctrine 
through the Christian population, and it went far and wide. Now 
interestingly, one of the methods used among the people was a series 
of short choruses sung or chanted by young and old, expressing 
the particular doctrine of this man. And it was a brilliant method. The scripture says that we're 
to teach one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, and 
this is exactly what the followers of Arius did. Now, let me give 
you an illustration of how their choruses went. And I'm gonna 
break a rule that I tell my students not to do. I'm gonna read you 
a little bit of Greek. But I do this on purpose so that 
you can hear it. So listen to the words and the structure and 
the rhyme of these words. Of course, remember that Greek 
was the main language of the eastern part of the empire. So 
in Alexandria, Egypt, you'd have Greek spoken. Now this little 
phrase, this chorus, consists of five words. in only seven 
syllables. It's a perfect chorus, just like 
when I was a little boy and we'd go to Sunday school and we'd 
sing these little Christian ditties, that's basically what this was. 
The first word and the last word rhyme with each other, or actually 
are the same with each other, and the second and third words 
rhyme. So you have a word at the beginning and a word at the 
end that are the same, then two words that rhyme, and then one 
more word in the middle, five words. Here it goes. Ein, pota, 
hota, uk, ein. You hear the ain at the beginning 
and the end, same word. You hear the potah, hota, the 
rhyming there, and then ook in the middle means not. We have 
to ask the question, what does this mean? One author says that 
it was chanted over and over again in church and daily in 
the streets of the city by those who believed its doctrines. Now, 
it's somewhat difficult to render exactly into English, and most 
of the attempts to do so, I think, miss the point. Because they 
render it, or most commonly it's rendered, there was a time when 
he was not. But that's not exactly what it 
says. It actually says, there was when he was not. The idea 
of time is not there. Now that's really important. 
There was when he was not. Over and over again in church 
and in the city, the huge community of the followers of Arius chanted 
this and similar choruses to teach and promote and strengthen 
their views. But we ask again, what does it mean? There was 
when he was not. Who is he and what does this 
say about him? Well, the he is Jesus Christ. 
So let me change the words. There was when Christ was not. This little change in wording 
makes the chorus a little bit more startling and perhaps easier 
for us to understand. You see, these words, ein potahotah 
ukein, were an attempt to express a very important point in the 
doctrinal system of Arius and his followers. Jesus Christ, 
as great as he may be, and they confessed that he was great, 
nevertheless is a created being who is brought into existence 
by the power of the one true God. He's the firstborn of all 
creation. He's greater than all the rest 
for sure, but still, he's a created being, which means he is not 
deity. There was when he was not, meaning 
at some point in eternity. Now, there's a problem with the 
whole concept of eternity as expressed in Arius' doctrine, 
because eternity is timeless. There was when he was not. At 
some point in eternity, God created the second person. God created 
the son and he came into being. And this course was a teaching 
tool or propaganda for Arius' doctrine. Now this teaching grew 
and it spread. And it was opposed by the Bishop 
of Alexandria. Anybody want to guess what his 
name was? How about Alexander? Alexander of Alexandria. That'd 
be like me being James of Jamestown, I guess. Pardon me? I've got a long time 
before midnight. Told you he's a heckler. Alexander 
understood the seriousness of this teaching and its implications 
He held a public inquiry into the matter, which resulted in 
the suspension of Arius from his ministry. But this was only 
the beginning of trouble, because it would last for another 70 
years. Arius had powerful friends outside of Alexandria, and these 
friends came to his defense. In 324, Constantine became sole 
ruler of west and east, and he sought to develop favorable relationships 
with Christian leaders from the eastern part of the empire. And 
among them were Arius' greatest supporters, who appealed to the 
emperor to intervene and restore Arius to his position in the 
Alexandrian church. There's never been a good relationship 
where the church and the state merge together. It's never been 
good. Feelings throughout the empire 
ran high, there was great debate, political maneuvering, ecclesiastical 
disorder. Constantine called a council 
to be held at Nicaea in the year 325 under his personal control. About 220 bishops attended what 
has been called the First Great Council of the Church. And through 
great debate, 218 of the 220 adopted a thoroughly Orthodox 
creed, and it seemed that Arianism was defeated. Although there 
were two versions of the Nicene Creed, a shorter one and a longer 
one. The shorter one comes from the 
Council of Nicaea in the year 325. The revised and expanded 
version, which is the more common creed today, it may be the one 
that you use in your church, is from the Council of Constantinople 
in 381. And I can never say it right, 
the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. That's a mouthful. I got 
it right there, didn't I? Yeah. But that's probably the 
only time tonight I'll get it right. I stumble over it every 
time. Now, here's the Nicene Creed proper. No, I'm gonna skip 
that. Let me get to the Nicene, yeah, the long one that I can't 
say. Let me get to that and read it to you. We believe in one 
God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all 
things visible and invisible. By the way, notice the clear 
echoes of the Apostles' Creed. Basically, they took the Apostles' 
Creed and expanded it. So it begins with a statement 
about the Father. Next, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, 
the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before 
all worlds, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not 
made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all 
things were made, who for us men and for our salvation came 
down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin 
Mary and was made man. He was crucified for us under 
Pontius Pilate and suffered and was buried, and the third day 
he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into 
heaven and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. From thence 
he shall come again with the glory, come again with glory 
to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. 
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth 
from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is 
worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets, in one 
holy Catholic and apostolic church, we acknowledge one baptism for 
the remission of sins, we look for the resurrection of the dead 
and the life of the world to come, amen. Now, if you were 
paying close attention and you know the Nicene Creed that we 
use, there's a phrase that's missing there, but I'll talk 
about it in just a moment. This is the most universal of 
all Christian creeds. It's accepted by all branches 
of Christianity. Its doctrines are considered 
definitive. That is, you must believe these 
doctrines in order to be considered, recognized as a Christian. Now, 
the original form of the creed was intended to guard the deity 
of Christ. The second and expanded version 
speaks more directly to the person and work of the Holy Spirit. 
Now, if we had had the time in our previous session, we would 
have noted how deeply rooted in scripture is the text of this 
creed. The authors of the Nicene Creed 
were committed to the authority of the word of God, and they 
sought to mine its depths and express its doctrine carefully. Now the phrase that is missing 
from what I just read to you is what is called the, or the 
so-called filioque clause, and the sun. The Holy Spirit proceeds 
from the Father and the Son, filioque. This clause was added 
to the text of the Creed in AD 589 at the Council of Toledo 
in Spain. So the Western Church, the Latin-speaking 
Church, adopted it. That's why it's in Latin, filioque. And the Eastern Church rejects 
it, not so much because of the doctrine it teaches, but rather 
in protest of the fact that the Council of Toledo was not an 
ecumenical council, and had no right to amend the Creed. You 
can't do that, so we won't accept what you've said. But the statement 
is orthodox, and the statement is important, because it strengthens 
the Trinitarian doctrine. When the Great System took place 
in 1054, the separation between East and West, this addition, 
the Filioque Clause, was prominently mentioned by the representatives 
of the Eastern Church. Now, what is it that the Nicene 
Creed teaches? And it's important to keep these 
things in our mind because as we move forward, we'll notice 
how this language is brought into our confessions. I've laid 
it out in 10 points, what the Nicene Creed teaches. First, 
there is one God who is almighty and creator of all. Two, Jesus 
Christ is truly God in the fullest sense of the term. He's the eternal 
creator. He is truly human, conceived 
by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary. He is one 
person with two natures, Though, and that's only in concept, not 
in expression yet, that comes in the next creed. Thirdly, these 
matters about the Father and the Son are essential for our 
salvation. Likewise, the historical facts 
of the gospel, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and 
being seated at the right hand of the Father are what's called 
the heavenly session of Christ. Fifthly, it teaches us about 
his glorious return, Then in the next section of the creed, 
it speaks of the Holy Spirit who is truly God and who is the 
author of scripture. It speaks of one church under 
Christ. Like the Apostles' Creed, it 
recognizes the importance of confession of faith in baptism. It speaks to the resurrection 
of the body and of eternal life. All of these fundamental issues 
of the Christian faith. But that leads us to the next 
creed which we have to consider. In the next century, in the fifth 
century, new ideas were being promoted and controversy erupted, 
especially two specific ideas, very similar, though there are 
subtle differences between them. But in essence, they both argue 
that Jesus Christ only had one nature, not two. So they refused 
to confess true deity, true humanity, united forever in one person. 
And this leads to a council that was held in Chalcedon in the 
year 451, and it's called the Chalcedonian Definition. Now, 
the two problems, the first one, the first heresy that erupted 
is called Eutychianism. It comes from the name Eutychius, 
who was an advocate Eutychianism mixes or confounds the human 
nature and the divine nature in Christ, and it teaches an 
absorption of the human into the divine. So the Eutychians 
used phrases such as, God is born, God has suffered, God is 
crucified, God died, etc. And they illustrated this by 
saying something like this, His human nature is absorbed into 
the divine nature in the same way that a sugar cube is absorbed 
into hot liquid. I'm sure many of you drink coffee 
in the morning, and probably a lot of you put some sugar into 
your coffee. Well, what happens? You have 
a spoon, and you have sugar on it, white crystals. You drop 
that into the hot coffee, you stir it a little bit, and those 
white crystals are gone. Now, you may be able to taste 
the sweetness that comes, but you never again will be able 
to recover those crystals because they've been dissolved into the 
coffee. And that was the idea. Jesus' 
human nature was absorbed into the divine, so in a sense, he 
no longer has a human nature that is distinct from the divine 
nature they have been brought together. So the Eutychians mixed 
or confounded the human nature of Christ. They diminished his 
human nature. The second heresy that appeared 
is called monophysitism, which translated into English means 
one nature. mono, one, fusis, physites, nature. The monophysites, though they 
rejected the Eutychian theory of absorption, nevertheless taught 
only one composite nature of Christ, making his humanity a 
mere accident of the immutable divine substance. And both of 
these errors were considered so serious because they undermine 
the true humanity of Jesus. You know what the result of that 
is? We don't have a mediator. We don't have a redeemer. If 
he's not like us in every way, apart from sin, and sin's not 
inherent to human nature, if he's not like us, we do not have 
a mediator. The Chalcedonian definition is 
not really a creed in the classical sense, but in that its form is 
more of a theological statement of fact, but it has been viewed 
in the Western churches as definitive, and most of the Eastern churches 
likewise accept it, and some of its language is purposely 
included in the Westminster Confession, in the Savoy Declaration, and 
the Second London Confession. The synod met at the town of 
Chalcedon in Asia Minor, Turkey in the year 451. And it affirms 
that creed, that long name that I have a hard time saying, Nicene-Constantinopolitan 
Creed. Oh, I did it right again. And 
it argues that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan, if I practice enough, I can say 
it. It argues that it teaches the same doctrine that they assert 
about the Lord Jesus Christ. And so they argue that their 
creed is a clarification of the earlier creed. When they identify 
the errors they're refuting, they say this. The synod, that 
is the meeting of these theologians in 451, the synod opposes those 
who would rend the mystery of the incarnation into a duad of 
sons. It repels from the sacred assembly 
those who dare to say that the godhead of the only begotten 
is capable of suffering. It resists those who imagine 
a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ. It drives 
away those who fancy his form of a servant is of an heavenly 
or some other substance other than that which was taken of 
us. And it anathematizes those who foolishly talk of two natures 
of our Lord before the union, conceiving that after the union 
there was only one. Hmm, that sounds sort of like 
some of the errors that we've already seen today, doesn't it? 
That they're refuting. And then they state the doctrine. Following 
the Holy Fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son of God 
and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the 
same person. that He is perfect in Godhead 
and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable 
soul and human body, consisting consubstantial with the Father 
as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching 
His manhood, made in all things like unto us, sin only accepted, 
begotten of the Father before the worlds according to his Godhead, 
but in these last days for us men and for our salvation, born 
into the world of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according 
to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, 
the only begotten Son of God, must be confessed to be in two 
natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably united. Remember those four words. We 
will see them again soon. And that without the distinction 
of natures being taken away by such union. Right? You hear what 
they're saying? Two natures brought together in one person. Neither 
nature loses that which is essential to itself in its existence. So 
the nature, the divine nature is always the divine nature. 
The human nature is always the human nature. They are united 
together in one person. Back to this. but without the 
distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but 
rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved 
and being united in one person and subsistence, not separated 
or divided into two persons, but one in the same Son and only 
begotten God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets 
of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ 
hath taught us, and as the creed of the fathers hath delivered 
to us. Can I make a personal comment? This is deeply moving 
to me. This is deep theology, but it 
tells us something about the glory and greatness of our Savior. 
And I read these words and my heart is deeply moved as I think 
about Him, truly God. Everything that may be said about 
God may be said about Him. Everything in chapter two of 
the confessions that speak to the nature of God, they're talking 
about Christ. and everything that can be said 
about you and I as humans, apart from our sin, can be said about 
him, everything. So he is just like us, and this 
is why the book of Hebrews can say that we have a high priest 
who's able to sympathize with us in our weaknesses, because 
he's just like us. When you go through, and I'm 
just gonna start preaching. When you go through, when you 
have temptations and trials, at the right hand of the Father 
in heaven, you have a high priest who knows what it's like to be 
tempted and to face trials and is able to sympathize with you. 
Isn't that the most comforting thing you can imagine? And that's 
what this highfalutin theology is teaching us. People sometimes 
say, you know, ah, that's just deep theology, we don't need 
that. I want to say, yes, you do. You need it far more than 
you know, and if you begin to work with it and understand it, 
it is going to be the bedrock of your life. Now, this statement is important 
in many ways, so I'll stop preaching again now. Hope you don't mind 
that. First, we notice the unusual 
language of a duad of sons, which is denied. This seems to refer 
to a doctrine of two Christs, one divine and one human. There 
are not two persons. Next, we see that the synod affirms 
the doctrine of divine impassibility clearly and plainly. Then it 
speaks against the mixture or confusion of the two natures, 
condemns those who deny that he took on true human nature 
and flesh, and those who assert some kind of pre-existence of 
the human nature. So there are other errors that 
are being resisted here. One's called docetism. It comes 
from the Greek verb doceo, which means it seems. That is, he only 
seemed to be a true human. If you saw him walk by, he would 
look like a carpenter, but in a sense, it was an illusion because 
he wasn't really human in the way that we are human and wasn't 
a carpenter like this. The Synod of Chalcedon rejects 
that. It says, no, that's not the case. He is like us. More 
positively, the Chalcedonian definition articulates one of 
the most important doctrines of the Christian faith, I've 
said it many times, that Christ has two true natures joined together 
in one person forever. He is truly God in the fullest 
sense of that term, and truly man in all that that means. And 
these two natures were joined together in the incarnation, 
in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and this must be confessed. The natures are joined, here's 
those four words again, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, and inseparably, 
so that he is truly God and truly man in one person. Neither nature 
loses any inherent quality but maintains the divine and the 
human character. Now this anticipates another 
question, and it's the question of what's called monothelitism. Here's a quiz question for you. 
How many wills does the incarnate Christ have? Dr. Godfrey used to ask that in his 
church history class at Westminster Seminary. And he'd say, OK, I'm 
not going to ask you to do this, so don't do this. I don't want 
to embarrass any of you. He'd say, all of you who think 
he has one will, raise your hand. All of you who think that he 
has two wills, raise your hand. If you raise your hand for one 
will, you're a heretic. You can probably understand why. 
If he's truly God, he must have a divine will. If he's truly 
man, he must have a human will. And so, Orthodox Christology 
professes that our Savior is truly God and truly man, thus 
has two wills. This problem of monothelitism, 
one-willism, appeared in the 7th century around 625, arguing 
that he has two natures but only one will. Now listen to how our 
confession of faith picks up the language of Nicaea. This 
comes out of Westminster. It's a common Christian doctrine 
of English Puritanism. The Son of God, being the second 
person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness 
of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with him, 
that's language from Chalcedon, who made the world, who upholdeth 
and govern all things he hath made, sounds a lot like Nicaea, 
doesn't it? Did, when the fullness of time 
was come, take unto him man's nature with all the essential 
properties The will is an essential property of humanity, with all 
the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet 
without sin. Being conceived by the Holy Spirit 
in the womb of the Virgin Mary, the Holy Spirit coming down upon 
her, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her, and so 
was made of a woman of the tribe of Judah, of the seed of Abraham 
and David according to the Scriptures. Now listen to this. Remember 
those four words I mentioned? So that two whole, perfect and 
distinct natures were inseparably, here's the first one, inseparably 
joined together in one person without conversion, composition, 
or confusion, which person is very God and very man, yet one 
Christ, the only mediator between God and man. Now once again, 
it's not a repetition of the Chalcedonian statement in its 
exact terminology, but it picks up the key terms and confesses 
them about our Lord Jesus. When we look at the three confessions 
of the English Puritans in the 17th century, they're all completely 
orthodox in what they say and confess about our Lord Jesus. 
We may speak of him in his uni-personality, We deny Eutychianism, we deny 
Monophysitism, we deny Monothelitism. We believe that our Savior is 
God and man, inseparably joined forever, one person, two natures. The hypostatic union. The fourth 
creed that I want to mention is the Athanasian Creed, which 
I find a fascinating study, and to be honest with you, it's my 
favorite of them all. It's great. Now, a couple of 
things to say. Almost certainly it wasn't written 
by Athanasius. It seems to have been about 100 
or maybe 150 years after him. We don't know its precise origin, 
which is debated, although, remember I mentioned Vincent of Laron, 
always everywhere and by everyone? Well, he wrote this book called 
the Commonotory, and if you read the Commonotory, which is itself 
a fascinating piece, much of the language of the Athanasian 
Creed is incorporated into what he wrote. So it could be that 
he composed the Athanasian Creed, or else that he employed the 
recently composed Athanasian Creed in his book. The Athanasian 
Creed is almost universally accepted in the Western churches, Roman 
Catholics, Lutherans, all of the Reformed churches, the Methodists 
don't. but everybody else does. It's a wonderful document. It 
clearly expresses the truth of scripture. The repetition of 
phrases clarifies so that truth may not be mistaken. In fact, 
it draws very clear lines. If you deny the truth, you cannot 
be saved. Genuine faith is based upon propositional 
truths. We've been saying this today. 
It is important to note that the focus of this creed is on 
the conscious rejection of its doctrines. It's not so much asserting 
that a thorough knowledge of these doctrines is necessary 
for salvation, only that the rejection of them evidences a 
lack of true faith, for such a rejection undermines the system 
of redemption in Jesus Christ. It consists of 44 lines, it's 
clearly divided into two sections. The first speak about the Trinity, 
using the language of Nicaea, Constantinople, and also of Augustine 
of Hippo. The second section, from 29 through 
44, addresses the doctrine of Christ, and it uses the ideas 
of Chalcedon. So we might say that the Athanasian 
Creed is a summary of these previous documents, and it shows how Orthodox 
Trinitarianism and Christology were received and expressed in 
Christ Church. Our Confession of Faith makes 
a clear reference to the Athanasian Creed in Chapter 2, Paragraph 
3 of the Holy Trinity, when it says this, In this divine and 
infinite being there are three subsistences, the Father, the 
Word, or Son, and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and 
eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence 
undivided. The Father is of none, neither 
begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally begotten 
of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and 
the Son, filioque. All infinite, without beginning, 
therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and 
being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties 
and personal relations." Again, Nicene and Chalcedonian language. 
And then I love this last statement. You know, the doctrine of the 
Trinity is probably the most challenging doctrine of the Christian 
faith. We will never be able to comprehend it, but we must 
confess it. But listen to what our Father 
said at the end of this statement about the Trinity. Which doctrine 
of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God 
and comfortable dependence upon Him? Your communion with God 
is founded on the doctrine of the Trinity and your comfortable 
dependence upon Him. in all the trials of life is 
dependent on the doctrine of the Trinity. This is why we as 
preachers must preach the doctrine of the Trinity, why you as God's 
people must strive to seek as best as you're able to do so 
to apprehend what the doctrine of the Trinity is about. But 
let me read to you the Athanasian Creed, and I'll make some comments 
along the way. Whosoever will be saved, Before 
all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith. Once 
again, nothing to do with Rome. Which faith except everyone do 
keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. Puts this into a pretty heavy 
category, doesn't it? This is an interesting statement, 
and basically what they're saying is this. Pay attention if you 
would be saved. Pay attention. And the Catholic faith is this, 
that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity. In these 
next lines, the unique Christian doctrine of God is asserted. 
They probably have several groups in mind, pagans, heretics, and 
unbelieving Jews. All groups that fail to confess 
the sublime mystery of God. Back to the confession. I'll 
have a comment to make on many of the statements. neither confounding 
the persons nor dividing the substance, and this prepares 
us for what follows, a detailed description of the Trinity. The 
idea is to provide believers with a clear understanding of 
a mystery. For there is one person of the Father, another of the 
Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. My comment is there are 
three persons. But the Godhead of the Father, 
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one. The glory equal, 
the majesty co-eternal. So there are three persons, but 
the Godhead is one. We're beginning to work our way 
through the doctrine. Such as the Father is, such is 
the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit, meaning each person is 
truly God. The Father uncreated, the Son 
uncreated, the Holy Spirit uncreated, the Father incomprehensible, 
the Son incomprehensible, the Holy Spirit incomprehensible, 
the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal, 
and yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. Mystery of the 
Trinity. Not three eternals, but one eternal. My comment is beware tritheism. Don't let your Trinitarianism 
become tritheism. As also, there are not three 
uncreated, nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, 
the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty, and yet they 
are not three almighties, but one almighty. That's why I love 
this, it's so clear. So the Father is God, the Son 
is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet they are not three 
gods, but one God. Again, beware tritheism. So likewise, 
the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord, and 
yet they are not three lords, but one Lord. Let me say it again, 
beware tritheism. For like as we are compelled 
by the Christian verity to acknowledge every person by himself to be 
God and Lord, so we are forbidden by the Catholic religion to say 
there are three gods or three lords. The father is made of 
none, neither created nor begotten. And now they begin to talk about 
the personal relations and peculiar relative properties. So first 
they speak of that which belongs to the father, which is paternity 
or unbegottenness. The Son is of the Father alone, 
not made nor created, but begotten. So the personal property and 
the personal relation or the peculiar relative property of 
the Son is begottenness. The Holy Spirit is of the Father 
and of the Son, neither made nor created nor begotten, but 
proceeding. So the peculiar relative property 
of the Holy Spirit is procession. But listen how they go on. So 
there is one Father, not three Fathers. One Son, not three Sons. One Holy Spirit, not three Holy 
Spirits. And in this Trinity, none is 
before or after another. None is greater or less than 
another. But the whole three persons are 
co-eternal and co-equal. so that in all things as aforesaid, 
the unity in Trinity and the Trinity in unity is to be worshiped. He therefore that will be saved 
must thus think of the Trinity. End of the first section. That 
would be worth memorizing, those 28 lines, because they so clearly 
state the truth. 29. Furthermore, it is necessary 
to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly in the 
incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is 
that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son 
of God, is God and man. That's the Nicene Creed. God 
of the substance of the Father begotten before the worlds and 
man of the substance of his mother born in the world. Truly God, 
truly man. I guess that's the next statement. 
Perfect God and perfect man of a reasonable soul and human flesh 
subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching 
his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood. 
When he says my father is greater than I, he's speaking as a mediator. 
He's speaking of his manhood, not of his deity. Who although 
he is God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ. One not 
by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking that 
manhood into God. And notice the language of Chalcedon 
here and in the next one. One altogether, not by confusion 
of substance, but by unity of the person. For as the reasonable 
soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who 
suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third 
day from the dead, language of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene 
Creed, he ascended into heaven, he sits on the right hand of 
the Father, God Almighty, from thence he shall come to judge 
the quick and the dead, and whose coming all men shall rise again 
with their bodies and shall give account of their own works. And 
they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and 
they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the 
Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he 
cannot be saved." Wow, I think that that's just a great statement. 
Comprehensive, straightforward, frightening, Frightening, if 
you don't believe it, you can't be saved. But comforting, if 
you do believe it, eternal life is yours. It's a wonderful statement. It's often neglected in churches 
today. It's kind of long to read as a confession of faith in worship. 
But it articulates the foundational principles of the faith beautifully. 
And I do believe that our churches ought to know it. and that it 
ought to be something that is brought to the attention of our 
people. Well, let's see, how are we doing 
on time? Okay, I have about 20 more pages here. But I won't 
go through them all. What about from the Athanasian 
Creed then to the Reformation? Well, from when the Athanasian 
Creed, yeah, the Athanasian Creed was 
written to the Reformation, there were no significant developments, 
apart from maybe the Council of Toledo, which added the Filioque 
Clause, but there were no significant creeds written or adopted for 
1,000 years. Around the year 1050, the Eastern 
Church and the Western Church split. They split over language, 
Latin and Greek. They spoke over geography, West 
and East. They split over the claims of 
the Pope, who was making noise that he was the universal father 
of the Church. They split over unilateral theological 
decisions, like the incorporation of the Filioque clause by the 
West. and even the date of Easter observance. Maybe you've noticed that the 
Orthodox churches observe Easter often on a different Lord's Day 
than the Western churches do. All of these things split. They 
took the church apart. And as a result, there wasn't 
any real significant theological progress that was made, although 
there were many great theologians and many Christians during that 
era. So we come very quickly to the 
Reformation. How much was lost? What is it 
that was recovered? Well, that's a great question. 
You know, Anthony Lane, in his book, John Calvin's Student of 
the Church Fathers, which is an outstanding book, has suggested 
that the Reformation was a battle over the proper interpretation 
of the fathers and the creeds of the church. The reformers 
argued that Rome had left the path. and that all they were 
trying to do, the reformers, was recover what the church was 
in its early centuries and expressed by many of the fine theologians 
of the medieval era. And all you have to do is read 
the reformers on this because they all accepted these creeds. This was the common doctrine 
of the Lutherans, of the Reformed, of the English churches, all 
of them accepted these four creeds. That's why they're so important, 
and that's what helps us to recognize what we have in common, not just 
in the 21st century, but since the Reformation, when all of 
the churches that come from the Reformation have been able to 
confess these things. But after the Reformation, we 
begin to see an explosion, I use that in a positive sense, of 
confessionalism. Most of the local churches, and 
by local I mean churches in a particular location, city, town, section, 
region of a country, most of them develop their own confessions 
to reflect the needs of their own congregations, to draw them 
together in terms of historic doctrines, but also to reflect 
unique circumstances that may have arisen in various places. 
Luther recognized the importance of creeds and catechisms. In 
1529, he published a small catechism and then a larger catechism, 
which simply takes the doctrines of the smaller one and opens 
them up. In 1530, Luther was involved 
in the publication of the Augsburg Confession, which had 28 articles. It begins like this, our churches 
with common consent do teach that the decree of the Council 
of Nicaea concerning the unity of the divine essence and concerning 
the three persons is true and to be believed without doubting. 
And they go on, and in 1580, the Lutherans compiled a book 
of Concord, and it begins with the three chief symbols, as they're 
called, the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian 
Creed, followed by the Augsburg Confession. That's their book 
of Concord. But let's move on to the Reformed 
creeds. There were many of them, as I 
said. Most cities, most jurisdictions produced them. Zurich, Geneva, 
Bern, Switzerland, we can only mention a few. If you've seen 
James Dennison's four-volume set, Reformed Confessions of 
the 16th and 17th Centuries, in English translation, you get 
a sense of how common it was for churches to adopt and publish 
their own creeds. 1536, Dr. Barcelos read from 
the First Helvetic Confession already, which spoke about the 
scope of scripture. This was intended to unite the 
churches of Switzerland. In 1553, the Church of England 
adopted a document that was called the 42 Articles. It was later 
reduced to 39 Articles. It still technically is the Confession 
of Faith of the Church of England, though almost no one in the Church 
of England believes it anymore, very sadly. In 1561, the Belgic 
Confession. was published, written by Guido 
de Brise, in the face of Spanish and Roman persecution. It contains 
37 articles, and it's one of the three forms of unity. De 
Brise was executed for his religious views by the Spaniards in 1567. In 1562, the 39 articles of the 
Church of England were published. After Queen Mary, Bloody Mary, 
died, and many of the Protestants who had fled to the continent 
were returned to England, they were able to revise the 42 articles 
into 39. It is clearly a predestinarian 
document. In fact, J.C. Ryle, the famous 
J.C. Ryle, referring to the 39 articles 
of the Church of England, called his church the Reformed Church 
of England, because that confession, in his mind, reflected a Reformed 
commitment. 1562 and 63, the Heidelberg Catechism 
is published. It's a confession in the form 
of a catechism, question and answer format. These things are 
essentially the same in content, the only difference is the method 
of appropriation. And maybe the Heidelberg Catechism 
is the best loved confessional statement of the 16th century. 
It's loved by the Reformed churches, it's loved by Presbyterians, 
it's loved by Baptists because it has so much good theology 
expressed in a way that warms the heart and draws us closer 
to the Lord. In 1566, in Switzerland, the 
second Helvetic confession, James Dennison said this, it's the 
most widely received of the 16th century Reformed confessions. In 1619, the canons of the Synod 
of Dort were published, convened in the Netherlands to attempt 
to resolve the growing problem of the influence of the theology 
of James Arminius in the churches. And the result was the canons 
of the Synod of Dort, another great, great statement of Christian 
faith that we love and appreciate. But let's fast forward to England. 
There was a conflict between the king and parliament. The 
king was effectively driven out of London, he made his dwelling 
in Oxford, and Parliament was able to begin the process of 
further reformation of the Church of England, and they called an 
assembly of divines that was to meet at Westminster. It began 
on July the 1st of 1643, and officially convened for six years. Their task originally was to 
revise the 39 articles of the Church of England. They proceeded, 
they were able to get through 15, but then some changes, mostly 
due to the influence of Scotland and the need for Scottish support 
in the war that was going on with the king, a demand was made 
that they put aside the work on the 39 articles and begin 
afresh a confession of faith. The result of that is what we 
know as the Westminster Confession of Faith. First published for 
the sake of Parliament and the members of the Assembly on December 
4, 1646, the parliamentarians demanded that scripture proofs 
be added, so it was published again in April of 1647. but it 
is certainly, along with the Shorter Catechism, the most famous 
production of the Westminster Assembly. It included 33 chapters, 
but it becomes the basis of two further confessions of faith 
that need to be mentioned. In 1658, now this is right at 
the end of the power of Oliver Cromwell, just before he died, 
A group of Congregationalists met together at a place in London 
called the Savoy and their purpose of meeting was to develop a confession 
of faith that would suit the Congregational practice of these 
churches as opposed to the Presbyterianism that's present in the Westminster 
Assembly. Among those who met in the Savoy were such famous 
men as Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, John Howe, and Philip Nye. Owen was the only one who had 
not been present at the Westminster Assembly. But because of the 
fact that Cromwell had just died, the Confession of Faith that 
they produced never really had any influence in England. Interestingly 
enough, it was adopted in New England and became important 
for the congregational churches in the New World, even though 
it was neglected in the Old World. But it is a revision of the Westminster 
Confession of Faith made suitable for congregational churches to 
be able to confess. Well, that leads us to what happens 
about 19 years later. And you'll remember what I said 
in the first session today. There were problems with a man 
named Thomas Collier. There were the problems of Matthew 
Caffin. Remember, they needed to be decaffeinated. All of those problems. And so 
it was necessary for the baptized congregations, that's what they 
called themselves, to join together and to confess their faith. And 
so they did what every good group before them did. They took previous 
documents and they adapted them and used them for good. So what 
you have when you look at these common Puritan confessions, Westminster, 
Savoy, Second London, is the language of the Apostles' Creed, 
the Nicene Creed, Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed. Ooh, I did it again. The 
Chalcedonian Statement, I'm getting good at that. I've never been 
able to do it like that before. and the Athanasian Creed, all 
of that language, the theology that is there is present with 
them. So we can look at them and see what they have in common 
and say, this is historic orthodoxy. This is what Christians have 
believed. And so together with Westminster and Savoy and Second 
London, we see the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Now, I think that this is, to 
me it's a great encouragement. You know, for 20 years, I taught 
at Westminster Seminary in California. You say, how could a Baptist 
teach at a Presbyterian school? Well, I wasn't a regular faculty 
member. But they did hire me to teach a couple of courses 
for them, and I taught the Baptist students a variety of courses. 
Why could that work for 20 years? The reason it could work for 
20 years is because we had so much in common. because the men 
at Westminster recognized that we confessed the same fundamental 
truths that they confessed. And so we were able to work together 
so very closely and wonderfully. Now we're not there anymore and 
the reason is not because we were unhappy there, it's because 
the opportunity came before us in the purposes of God to move 
to Texas and to develop a full-blown seminary. We were just an institute 
when we were in California. But I am so thankful to God for 
those Presbyterian men and for the men from the United Reformed 
Church, the three forms of unity churches, that welcomed me into 
their midst, gave me and our students opportunities. Mike's 
a graduate of our program from Escondido. Remember how great 
it was to be there? It really was first rate. But 
it's because we have so much in common. And brothers and sisters, 
that's the truth. We have our differences. But 
the fact that we have things in common allows us to join together 
in many areas. They knew that on certain ecclesiological 
issues I would be teaching something different to what they would 
be teaching. But we respected each other. We knew that we had 
so much in agreement. that on those minor areas of 
differences we could work together for the good and the glory of 
Christ Church. So we can say, we can say truthfully 
that we confess a faith that has been known by Christians 
for millennia and that since the Reformation has jointly been 
confessed on the continent among all the reformed churches, in 
England among the best of the Church of England, the Puritans 
who held the Westminster Assembly, the Savoy theologians who met 
in 1658, and then finally in 1677, the representatives of 
the baptized churches in London. I hope that that's an encouragement 
to you. because we are one in faith. And one day, we'll all 
stand around the throne, and we will praise God for the redemption 
that we have in Jesus Christ. And forever and ever, we will 
share together. The denominational differences 
will be gone, and we will be able to join together to the 
glory of God. Thank you very much, let's pray.