Let's pray. Heavenly Father, Lord, we thank you so much for this day. Thank you for your grace, your mercy, your kindness. Thank you for providing a place for us to come and gather as your people to worship you and to hear from your word. And we pray, Father, for the grace of your Holy Spirit, Lord, to strengthen us and quicken us that we might worship you in a manner that is pleasing to you. And we ask, Lord, for the abundance of the Holy Spirit to fill our hearts and gladden us with the wonderful news of who you are and what you've done for us in Christ. And we pray that not only for ourselves but all who are gathered here today, Lord. In Christ's name we pray. Amen. Hey, Rich. Hey, man. Thanks. All right, so last week we actually left off with a question from John, which was a really good question actually. And I want to pick up there again this week before we get back into the Nicene Creed. And the question was, who decides what orthodoxy is? Now the quick answer to that question is, well, God. All right, so the question itself is related to stuff that we talked about, we've been talking about in the Westminster Confession, but even in our series on apologetics. It's how do we know? Is it that people just decided that Jesus was God? and that he has the same substance of the Father? Did people just decide that and make it so? Or is it the case that God has revealed himself to us and he's spoken to us in words that we can understand and he's created us to receive knowledge from him and to be in fellowship with him? Obviously, the latter is the answer that we would hold to. So how do we know what we know? And is it the case that the Nicene Creed is just something that men made up? Or is it the case that men have looked at the scriptures and received the scriptures and understood them in a manner that can be expressible? In a manner that we can talk about who God is and what he's like. And that's how we understand what orthodoxy is. And to think about it in this way, the word just means straight teaching, straight doctrine. You think of, you go to the orthodontist to have your teeth straightened. Orthodoxy is just straight teaching. And what we have in the scriptures is straight teaching, where God has spoken to us in a manner that is clear to us and that can be understood. Now, it even tells us that some things in it are difficult for us to understand, but yet, and I think it was Justin who brought it up last week, there's still what we call the perspicuity of the Scriptures, that the main The main story, the main theme, the main message of the Scripture is clear, and it's clear for people to understand, from small children to the most learned of people among us. And it is something that we can grasp, that we can take hold of, that God has spoken to us in a manner that we can understand, and has made us to understand and to know Him. So when we come to the issue of who decides orthodoxy, there's a very skeptical notion that exists in our culture and has existed for a long time, really, is that this is really just warring parties and that really all that we have is just a matter of opinions and nobody can really know anything for sure. And that is, such a problematic view, and it's a problem for our culture and for our society. One, because it's a self-refuting view. So the one thing that we can't know about God is that we can't know anything about God. The very notion that we can possess and know truth about God and about who He is, is really, it's self-evident. Because to deny it is actually to affirm it. So when we talk about the Nicene Creed and we talk about confessional statements and things of that nature and we talk about sound doctrine, really all we're saying and all we're trying to do is repeat what God has said to us in a manner that is understandable, in a manner that can be explained even to a child. Yeah Well, I mean you think of a think of the notion I made just a simple question that for someone to To say there's no absolute truth What's the question that you asked of them? Is that absolutely true So we live in the world that God has created. We live in the universe that God has created. And in doing so, reflecting his image, we run up against the walls of the universe, the rules of the universe. There's an order to things that has been put in place by the creator. There's an order within us in the way that we think, in the way that we live, So it's inescapable that we are naturally going to run into the walls of the universe, the rules of the universe. So when we talk about whether or not God exists, or the scriptures being his word, we naturally run up against those walls that he has put in place. We run up against the walls of the universe, so to speak. It may not be the best analogy, but it We cannot deny his existence without also affirming his existence. It's necessary. These are necessary truths. These are necessary things that we have to grapple with. Does that answer your question? All right. Alright, what I want to do today is basically go over, I got a good section from Robert Raymond's Systematic Theology on the deity of the Holy Spirit. Because as we come up against the timeline for the Nicene Creed and the Nicene-Constantinoplan Creed, which we're going to be getting at in earnest next week. There's an issue that comes to bear, and it's obvious when we read the original Creed, that the Creed just stops and the Holy Ghost. And there's issues that arose in the Church where the deity of the Holy Spirit was denied in various ways. And we need to bear that in mind so that when the Nicene-Constantinoplan Creed is formulated, there's an addition to it regarding the Holy Spirit. Again, the original text of the Nicene Creed states, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and here's where it ends, and in the Holy Ghost. So there's a quick stop there. But then again, the anathema, but those who say there was a time when he was not, and he was not before he was made, and he was made out of nothing, or he is of another substance, or essence, or the son of God is created, or changeable, or alterable, they are condemned by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. So again, when it comes to the issue of the idea of creeds and confessions, what do the scriptures tell us? The scriptures tell us very clearly that Christ himself said, my sheep hear my voice and they won't follow another. And in many other places it talks to us about his sovereign control over the universe and his providential care over all things. So we would expect, given those things, given those truths of Scripture, that there's going to be a body of people who, what? Hear His voice. Who understand and who grasp what it is that God is saying to humanity and preserve that message and teach that message. And what else did the Scriptures tell us? The Scriptures tell us that When he ascended on high, he gave gifts to men. And he gave some to be teachers. He gave some to be pastors. He gave some to be those who are in charge of caring for his people, for caring for his flock, for caring for the sheep who will, what, hear his voice. So it really follows necessarily and logically from that that there's going to be an organization of people, a church, that understand and know what God is saying to His people. And so we find that there is, you know, again, a church of fallible and sinful people, but nevertheless, there is a core message. There is a core set of doctrines and truths about who God is and what he's like and how it is that he deals with us in the person of Christ that is sustained throughout history. And again, you know, there are times where there's There's darkness in the church. We think of the Reformation. We think of a variety of ways where we can see where the church has erred. But nevertheless, there is a sustained teaching and understanding of who God is and what he's like that we see crystallized basically in these creeds and confessions. All right, so the Holy Spirit. The third person of the Godhead is referred to in Scripture in many striking ways. Again, this is from Robert Raymond's Systematic Theology on the Christian Faith. In the Old Testament, in addition to the numerous references to Him simply as the Spirit of God, we see this from the beginning in Genesis 1 and 2, the Spirit of Yahweh He is designated the Spirit of the Lord God, God's Good Spirit, from Nehemiah 9, God's Holy Spirit, Yahweh's Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord, and the Spirit of grace and supplication. In the New Testament, In addition to the numerous references to him as the Spirit of God, he is designated as the Spirit of the Living God, the seven-fold spirits who are before the throne of God. In the New Testament, in addition to the numerous references to him as the Spirit of God, again, he's designated as the Spirit of the Living God, the Spirit of Grace, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit of Promise, the Eternal Spirit. Again, just going on and on and on, talking about the Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Sonship or Adoption, the Spirit of Life, the Spirit of Grace, the Spirit of Wisdom and Revelation, the Spirit of Glory and of God, and the Counselor or the Comforter. That's one of my favorite passages in the Upper Room Discourse, where Jesus is telling them Something that you don't want to happen is about to happen. I'm going away. And I'm going to be delivered over to sinful men. But don't worry. I'm going to send you the counselor. I'm going to send you the comforter. And one of the remarkable things about that passage is that Christ says, it's to your benefit that I go away. So it's to our benefit that we don't hear and now see Christ face to face. We don't have that relationship with him that the apostles and the disciples have. But we have the Holy Spirit. We have the spirit of wisdom and of truth and of comfort and of counselor. It's a remarkable thing for us to think of because We want to see in a face-to-face manner, but Christ has granted us something that is better for us, that is good for us, and that is the Spirit of His Spirit, the Spirit of Counselor, the Comforter. In several other ways, in addition to these titles, the scriptures affirm the full, unabridged deity of the Holy Spirit. He is identified as God. According to Peter, when Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, he was, quote, lying to God. Acts 5 verses 3 and 4. He is identified as the Yahweh of the Old Testament. What Isaiah reports that Yahweh said in Isaiah 6, 9 through 10, Paul asserts that the Holy Spirit said in Acts 28. What the psalmist puts in the mouth of Yahweh in Psalm 95, 7-11, the author of Hebrews puts in the mouth of the Holy Spirit. So we see throughout the scriptures, in both the Old and the New Testaments, that the Holy Spirit is referred to as God. And in the Old Testament, when it's being quoted in the New Testament, when the covenant name of God is being used, it's ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. Again, the author of Hebrews puts in the mouth of the Holy Spirit, Hebrews 3, 7-9, and where Leviticus 26, 11-12 foretells Yahweh's, quote, dwelling with his people, Paul, citing the Leviticus passage, speaks of the church in 2 Corinthians 6, 16 as the antitypical temple of the living God with whom Yahweh dwells. How does Yahweh dwell in his church? In the person of the Holy Spirit. who, according to Romans 8-9, is also the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. Though distinguished from them, he is represented as equal with the Father and the Son in the great Trinitarian passages of the New Testament. In Matthew 28-19, he is, along with the Son, brought into and included with the divine name of itself. the divine name itself, surely divine since it is the name of the Father. He possesses divine attributes. Hebrews 9, He is eternal. John 14, 6, He's omnipresent. Psalm 139, 7-10, He's omnipotent. That's the wonderful passage of scripture where David says, where can I go from your spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there. If I go out in the uttermost depths of the sea, you're there. Even there, your hand will guide me. He's omniscient. He's sovereign. He comes from the Father and is sent by the Father and the Son. Accordingly, he does divine works. He creates. Genesis 1, 2. Job 26, 13. Again and again, he regenerates. Ezekiel 37, 1 through 14. He is the spirit who brings alive from the dead, who raises us from spiritual death to spiritual life, who gives us the wisdom and understanding of the knowledge of the truth. It is, again, as Jesus said, it is to our benefit that He went away to send us the Holy Spirit so that we could be brought into the knowledge of the truth. Okay. Yeah, it was unlocked. Oh. Sorry. All right, so again, he does divine works. He creates, he regenerates, he resurrects, and he exercises divine authority in Christ's church. More specifically, he affected Mary's virginal conception. The greatest miracle of all in the incarnation was brought about by the Holy Spirit. He anointed and empowered Christ throughout His earthly ministry and in the hour of His death. He glorifies Christ. He inspired the scriptures. He convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. He invites men to come to Christ. He builds the church, Ephesians 2, 22. He comes upon and indwells believers as the seal, the down payment, and the first fruits of their full inheritance. We see over and over in the scriptures that he baptizes, He regenerates, which leads to faith in Christ. He has dominion over sin. He works of righteousness and love for others. He induces believers to their perception of Jesus as Lord and to their filial consciousness of God as their Father. He empowers believers to boldness, love, and self-discipline. He produces holy fruit in the believer, gives gifts to the believer, intercedes for them in their ignorance, Romans 8, 26 through 27, which we're actually gonna read this morning. that the Holy Spirit prays for us. When there are those moments in our lives where we don't even know what to say to God, whether we are overwhelmed by the circumstances of our lives, whether we are fallen into sin and can't bring ourselves to God, The Holy Spirit intercedes for us with groanings, as Paul says, that are unutterable. When we don't know what to say to God, when we don't understand what's going on in our lives, when the only thing that we can do is, ah, the Spirit intercedes on our behalf, prays for us. And who is this spirit? It's the spirit of wisdom and understanding, of knowledge, the one who knows exactly what to say, the one who knows exactly what to pray for on our behalf, who knows exactly how it is that we need to be brought to God. And He comforts us, He counsels us, He restores us, He refreshes us. Just wonderful, wonderful acts of the Holy Spirit. All right, I know that was kind of like an offshoot from where we left off last week. Any comments or questions? Okay. All right. Alright, I think where we left off last week was talking about Athanasius and his orations against the Arians. All right, so remember where we left off last week. It wasn't the case that the Council of Nicaea just settled the issue. That, oh, they dropped down the word, the homoousius, and Jesus is of the same essence as the Father. Matter settled. In fact, it was really the opposite. The Arian The Arian faction in the church, it actually grew. And we don't see a great adoption of the council of Nicaea, of the creed of the Nicene Creed. We don't see it repeated for decades in the church. And one of the reasons for this was that the creed was was really meant to be like a test of orthodoxy for the bishops in the church, for those who were going to be leading in the church. And we don't see it repeated in the writings of the early church fathers in large part because of that word, the homoousius, because of its statement that Christ is of the same essence and nature of the Father. And we don't see it really till really after the 350s, when Athanasius started to defend the Nicene Creed. Again, Athanasius was born around 296, 298, somewhere around there, died in 373 AD. He was present at the Council of Nicaea as a deacon and assistant to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria. He would come to play a major role in defending the teachings of the Nicene Creed. Regarding the Creed's statement that the Son shared the exact same divine essence as the Father, it is often noted that Athanasius did not frequently use the term homoousia. Again, homoousia, the same substance, the same essence, that which God is, the Son is. All that God is, the Son fully shares with the Father. He has the same exact divine essence as the Father. And it's often noted that Athanasius did not frequently use the term in the years following the Council, and it's been argued that it was because of some reticence on his part to accept the Creed's intended meaning, since we don't see it in his writings until the middle of the 4th century. But a more careful look at his writings and his subsequent staunch defense of Nicene Orthodoxy gives the idea that Athanasius was likely being circumspect in his writings, knowing that the term homoousia was regarded with some suspicion in the church. Historians have made much of the apparent lack of presence the Nicene Creed had in the statements of church leaders in the time following the Council. In his work, the early Christian creeds, J.N.D. Kelly writes, far too much has been made in certain quarters of his abstention, speaking of Athanasius, from using the term homoousius as the alleged drastic development of his theology which is associated with it. As stated, the theory depended, it may be pointed out in passing, on his being able to assign the three orations against the Arians to an extremely early date. This is basically an argument as to when he started arguing against the Arians. Leaving this on one side, however, it may be suggested that his silence is susceptible of another, altogether more plausible, explanation. Saint Athanasius was as conscious as anyone of the evil odor under which Homo oseus lay. It was in accord neither with his desires nor with his interest to flaunt the word provocatively before a largely hostile public." If you remember from last week, the problem with that word at that time, is that it had a huge, wide range of meanings. And it was susceptible to misunderstanding. It was susceptible to varied interpretations, which is one of the reasons why it's posited that Constantine, the emperor who called the council, was in defense of that term. Because, again, what he wanted to do was he wanted unity in the church. And he thought, if we can use this word where one portion can think it means this and another portion thinks it means that, then we can have unity. What have you. It was in accord neither with his desires nor with his interest to flaunt the word provocatively before a largely hostile public. It was not that he was personally unhappy about it, but that he wanted above all things to promote the doctrine for which it stood. That this doctrine was his own all along, and that his thought did not undergo any significant theological evolution, is borne out by a careful study of his vocabulary. In other words, how did Athanasius talk about the Son? Or how did Athanasius talk about the relationship between the Father and the Son in the time after the Council of Nicaea? What was the language that he used? Stepping around the bugaboo, basically, of that term homoousius, how was it that he talked about God? How was it that he talked about the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? Again, if in many of his writings he steered clear of homoousius, he had no compunction about using paraphrases like, quote, his, excuse me. His oneness with the Father. The single and indivisible nature of Father and Son. Offspring intimately united with the Father's substance. Identity of Godhead and oneness of substance. These are quotes from Athanasius. And many more equally expressive. Descriptions like these are really synonyms for the Nicene teaching. They attempt to get it across in language which their author considered would be more palatable to his audiences than the formula of the creed. And we can see that Athanasius' theology was Nicene in its character. So that without sidestepping the terms, he taught in substance the teaching of the Nicene Creed and defended it. His theology was Nicene in its character, though less overtly stated. But as Arianism became much more of an issue in the church and the empire, Athanasius' defense of Nicene orthodoxy was plainly stated. Athanasius' Trinitarian and Christological teachings are set forth in a particularly cogent way in his orations against the Arians. In his arguments, Athanasius develops a number of significant ideas in defense of the divinity of the sun. First, he notes that the distinction of the persons in the Godhead does not imply a distinction of being or essence. There is only one God, the Holy Trinity, in whom there is a real distinction of persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If you recall from a couple weeks ago, When we talked about the importance of having in our minds the ideas of contradiction, of paradox and mystery and the distinction in those terms, what's being discussed here and what Athanasius is discussing is the idea that God is one in being but three in persons. And so that when we make a distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a distinction in the essence that all three of the persons have the same nature. They have the same essence. They're fully divine. And therein is the mystery of the Trinity, but not the contradiction. All right? So we're not saying that he's one in the same way that he's three. All right? Does that make sense? All right. Any comments or questions? Great question. That's a good answer. That's a good answer. Begotten, not made. It refers to the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that from eternity the Son derives from the Father. That relationship has always been there. It's not that the Son became the Son when He was incarnate, but that relationship, that eternal relationship between the Father and the Son has always been there. And that, in essence, He derives His being from the Father. That's in. Yeah. And in the technical terms, it's the Spirit proceeds, and we're gonna get to that when we get to the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And it refers to, and again, we run into the limits of our ability to fully grasp, that that relationship has always existed. It gets into the eternality of God and of the persons of the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, how they have always related to one another. Is it a synonym then for begotten? Is that what you're saying? What? Proceeds? It's not. It's not. When we say begotten, it refers to the nature of the relationship between the father, that there's a filial, for lack of a better term, a filial relationship there of fatherhood and sonship. And that the father and the son together generate eternally the Holy Spirit. For lack of better terms. What were other terms that you used besides proceeds? Spirate. What was that one? Spirate. I'm using the best terms that I can. When we talk about, and we'll get into the filiocle quosa in the Nicene, Constantine-Opulent Creed, which the Eastern Church had an issue with. When we talk about the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, it's not primarily talking about You know, when we just mentioned the Upper Room Discourse, where Christ goes away and he says, I'm going to send you the Father, or I'm going to send you the Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, it's actually referring to the His proceeding refers to the relationship that exists within the Trinity between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, not in the economic sense where each of the persons, the Father sends the Son, the Son goes and does the will of the Father and the Spirit then applies the work that Christ accomplished. It doesn't refer to it in the economic sense of what each person is doing in the economy of salvation. It refers to the relationship that exists from all eternity between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Yeah, we're, I mean... It's interesting, I think I've had Bruce said, once you've described the Trinity as three distinct yet one person, once you've described it, you've done all you can do. It's... Trying to explain the mystery is impossible. It is. You really can't go very far with that. It is. I mean, what always comes back to me is just the eternality of God. Like, we... How do we, yeah. In general, is this like, I'll use the term, is this the upper echelon of the church that's working through these issues? But the common everyday person that's attending church, they don't know. of what's happening here, but they're being taught a particular way, and so the upper echelon wants to make, the people that are called to be teachers, they want to make sure that the sheep are being taught properly? Yeah, essentially, yes. It just seems like back then, people weren't as educated as they are now. A case could be made. Yeah. Today people have a lot of information, but they're not. That question reminds me of that book, The Marrow. What was it called? The Marrow of Modern... The Whole Christ. But yeah, so like there's a very, like the upper echelon, like you're talking about, the distinctions, once they're clear on the distinctions, that determines how they preach the gospel, if they have more of a legalistic bent or more of a gracious bent or, you know, and so the, and the congregation, like in that book, he mentions how, like over, you know, years of, the congregation actually changed to become a more loving, more polite home, you know, because of the teaching and it was just the tiniest little distinction of that odd question. Oh, the the octorotor creed? Yeah. But so in essence, yes, these were the heads of the church. These were the bishops. These were the men specifically and providentially charged with the teaching of the church. But at the same time, it's not as if they It's not as if they're approaching the issues like, oh, well, this is just for us to figure out. But it's how do we teach this to the people? What is the doctrine? What is it what Scriptures say? How do we explain to people how Christ is both fully man and fully God and not lead them astray? It is for the heads of the church, and it was, and it still is, a test of orthodoxy, but it's also, what are the boundary markers as to what we do teach to the people? So it's kind of a both and sort of situation, yeah. Yeah, that's fine. You say the church, so we had bishops here. that infers that there was a group over the bishops that elected the bishops to a certain place. And at this point in time, the Roman Catholics would say, oh, that was the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic was not, it wasn't there yet. No, certainly not in the way that we would recognize. Who was the church? I mean, you didn't have a pope. Well, I'm sorry, Peter was the first pope. So, where was the head of this group? The emperor. Okay, so it was Constantine. Yeah, I mean, but there wasn't... But you had bishops before Constantine. No, yeah, see... Or overseers. Well, Christ is the head of the church, to put it that way. Christ is the head of the church, and... Put you in a structure of some sort. Yeah, but it's... It was very organic and it was also political. We come to see the rise of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome primarily because of the importance of that city as a place of power. And at the fall of the Roman Empire, the Bishop of Rome actually did play an integral part in saving saving the church from being destroyed. So is this basically started when we see in the book of Acts we have Peter, and we have James, and then it just sort of happens. Yeah, and then just going out throughout the world, and there being overseers of various localities throughout the church. It was, I think you said it rightly, it was very organic, and it It came to be something other than that throughout the course of history. So if this is a test of orthodoxy, then you would say that Roman Catholicism is orthodox? Yeah, in this regard, for sure. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, yeah. Or, in fact, it's Christian, then, you would say. Yeah. Yeah, the problem. It's just anonymous journalism. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, certainly. But the problem is with the gospel. Going through the Westminster Confession and the issues that came about as a result of the Protestant Reformation, In its doctrine of God, yes, it's orthodox. In its doctrine of soteriology, it is not. It's heretical. Well, if it's heretical, it's not Christian. So if it's not Christian, it's not orthodox. So then it's not necessarily a complete Yeah, there's more to it, yeah. Yeah, there is. I mean, it's... I mean... You see, people will argue as to when it became a synagogue of Satan, and you might want to say maybe with the Council of Trent, when it anathematized the gospel and it damns anybody who says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, that's a huge, huge problem. No matter what else they are right about, no matter what else, no matter what else they're right in regards to their doctrine of God, in regards to their Nicene Orthodoxy, that's, it's a dividing line, it is. What's that? 1540s. Yeah, it's, Luther had a point. Luther had a point. Okay, all right, that's time. Let's pray. I got a sermon to preach. Father, we thank you for your kindness, your grace, and your mercy. We thank you for this day and for the discussion, and we ask that you would please strengthen us by your grace and Holy Spirit. In Christ's name, amen.