Josh Sommer, Author at The Baptist Broadcast

The Need for Creeds & Confessions — 3 Reasons

by Josh Sommer | Mar 7, 2025 | Biblical Theology, Christology, Confessionalism, Ecclesiology, Historical Theology, Practical Theology, Systematic Theology

Over the last 200 years or so, the use of creeds and confessions has become a controversial issue. There are several reasons for this. To the ears of those having come out from Roman Catholicism, the language of “creeds” and “confessions” sounds, well, Roman Catholic. Others have more technical concerns. Creeds and confessions, it is widely believed, can and often do undermine the general Protestant conviction that Scripture alone is the ultimate source of revelation for Christian faith and life. On these grounds, creeds and confessions should either be disregarded or otherwise carefully qualified, e.g., “creeds are helpful, but Scripture is my only authority.”

In this article, I want to discuss three reasons why creeds and confessions, in principle, are necessary for churches. And why the above concerns originate from theological and historical misunderstandings of the nature and function of credal and confessional documents.

First: Every Christian Has a Creed and Confession

Perhaps the strongest and most obvious reason, if not proof, for why creeds and confessions are necessary in principle is that every Christian has a creed and confession. Either Christians have their very own customized creed and confession to fit their individual doctrinal preferences, or they’ve adopted one or more of the ancient creeds and confessions framed by our spiritual ancestors.

The same goes for churches. Either a church structures its own credal and confessional documents according to what seems right to it, or it has chosen to adopt preexisting creeds and confessions penned over the last 1,700 years.

The point here is that everyone has a creed and confession.

“No. I don’t have a creed or a confession,” one might say, “I follow the Bible alone.” This is a common objection to the above observation. However, even those who hold this perspective usually draw conclusions about Scriptural meaning as they read and interpret the Bible, and they typically have little hesitancy in summarizing their beliefs either verbally or in writing. When a person is asked, “What do you believe about God, Christ, the gospel, the church, etc.?” the likely response is a summary of beliefs about those particular areas of Christian theology. This is a tell-tale sign that the person answering has a creed, whether acknowledged or not.

When a pastor preaches Scripture, he doesn’t simply read the text. He exposits the meaning of the words in the text so that the congregation can understand what the Scripture says. Likewise, creeds and confessions reflect the meaning of Scripture for the convenience of corporate confession of the faith, the understanding of the laity, and the preservation of biblical truth.

Second: Scripture Itself Requires Creeds and Confessions

The Greek term often translated to “confession” in Scripture is ὁμολογία. The root word of this term is λεγω, which means “to say” or “to tell.” The biblical witness to the principle of confessing the faith is why many churches throughout the ages have recited creeds within their orders of worship. “Saying” or “telling” the faith is an apostolic practice.

For example, the apostle Paul, writing to Timothy, says, “Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.” (1 Tim. 6:12) This practice of confessing the faith outwardly, or externally declaring what believers believe, stretches back to Deuteronomy 6:4 in the Shema, “The LORD our God, the LORD is one!”

In Hebrews 3:1, the author writes, “Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus…” And again, in 4:14, “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.” Confessing the faith is even linked with salvation in Romans 10:9, “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.”

Following the apostolic era, several heresies arose that required the simple statements in Scripture to be defended through the adaptation of theological grammar. The 4th century heretic, Arius, rejected the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father. For Arius and his followers, the Son was the highest created being, but a created being nonetheless. Thus, in a good-faith effort to preserve the Scriptural teaching concerning the Son’s deity, the Council of Nicaea developed the Nicene Creed. This Creed was and is substantially Scriptural in all its parts, but it used language that would prevent heretics from exploiting more basic scriptural statements to the detriment of their souls and the souls of others.

Hence, following Arius, who himself claimed to confess with his mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead, the question arose, “Who is Jesus?” The purpose of the Nicene Creed was to answer this very question while preventing the perversion of the biblical grammar by heretics. Those who claimed to be Christians could not reject the language of the Nicene Creed, not because the Creed itself possessed an inherent authority above or beside Scripture, but because it was nothing more than a reflection of the aggregate biblical data concerning the Son of God. If those professing to be Christians rejected the Nicene Creed, the early Christians could easily conclude that said professors had a different Jesus. (Lk. 17:22-23; 1 Jn. 2:18)

In Romans 15:5, the apostle Paul says, “Now may the God of patience and comfort grant you to be like-minded toward one another, according to Christ Jesus…” Scripture makes creeds and confessions necessary by commanding like-mindedness toward one another — an impossibility without formal doctrinal standards.

Third: Creeds and Confessions Unify Churches

Many believe that “doctrine divides” and that creeds and confessions exclude more than they include those with differing theological opinions. In a sense, the creeds and confessions indeed exclude. This is part of their design. The goal of creeds and confessions is to exclude doctrinal error and heresy while including doctrinal truth, thereby preserving the teaching of Scripture as understood by the faith community.

The way this works within an ecclesiastical setting should not be missed. A church needs a way to distinguish and preserve its beliefs about what Scripture teaches. More recently, a popular way to do this is through broad summaries of general beliefs, or “statements of faith,” largely designed to accommodate, as much as possible, those holding diverse theological opinions.

The problem with this method is that it allows one to seemingly affirm basic statements that no professing Christian would disagree with while, at the same time, holding more nuanced doctrinal aberrations. For example, some statements of faith define the Trinity simply as “One God in three Persons.” But a functional tritheist could trivially hold to this statement while also saying, “This one God is made up of three Persons, each of whom possess its own will, consciousness, substance, nature, etc.” Functionally, this represents the belief that the “one God” is actually a conglomerate of three distinct beings or gods, i.e., the heresy of tritheism.

However, this problem is mitigated by a more precise confessional statement, such as what we find in 2.1 of the Second London Confession (2LCF), which reads, “In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided…” This language builds on the credal language set forth by the early church. For instance, in the Athanasian Creed, we read:

Now this is the catholic faith:

    That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,

    neither blending their persons

    nor dividing their essence.

Creeds and confessions unify churches on the truth of what they believe Scripture teaches. They are designed to exclude those who would deviate from orthodoxy and include those who share the same doctrinal convictions. They are unifying documents that produce and preserve a unity founded upon a mutual concern for theological accuracy.

More pointedly, creeds and confessions are necessary for church unity. After all, how could a church unite upon the doctrine of God, Christ, or the gospel if every member in that church had a different conception of such essential doctrines? Any unity they may have would be apparent unity, not unity founded upon like-mindedness in the truth.

Were Our Baptist Ancestors “Landmarkers”?

by Josh Sommer | Nov 30, 2024 | Ecclesiology, Historical Theology

The short answer? No, they were not. At least, so long as we’re looking at Baptists living prior to the mid-19th century. But let’s see what they have to say for themselves.

First, a brief foreword…

If you’re new to this conversation: “Landmarkism” refers to a popular theory amongst 19th century Southern Baptist churches, and later independent Arminian and Calvinistic Baptist churches, that entailed Baptist exclusivity and Baptist church succession. “Old Landmarkism,” as it is sometimes called, holds that only local Baptist churches are true churches and that these churches have existed since the time of the apostles.

Because of this, brothers who hold this theory reject the universal church or “church catholic” (little “c”). They do not believe Paedobaptists, of any sort, can ever constitute a gospel church. They may be saved, but they are not part of Christ’s church. This means Baptists were neither “Protestant” nor “Reformed.”

The question set before us is, Did our older Baptist ancestors hold to this same view? Or did they instead know of a way to affirm true, yet erring churches, while maintaining standards for church communion that did not compromise Baptist principles?

The following are the words of some of our Baptist forefathers. These men are cited frequently in support of Landmarkism. But would they hold to the tenets of Landmarkism as mentioned above?

The Waldenses

Though debated by scholars, we will grant that this medieval group of Christians were at least baptistic. The Waldenses, at the very least, appear to be an earnest sect of Christians who protested Rome as far back as the 12th century. Here is what they have to say in a catechism composed, according to Samuel Moreland, “hundreds of years before Luther or Calvin”:

Min[ister]. What is a Dead Faith?

Answ. According to St. James, It is that which without works is dead. Again, Faith is null without works. Or, a Dead Faith is, to believe that there is a God, to believe on God, and not to believe in him.

Min. What is your Faith?”

Answ. The true Catholick and Apostolick faith.

Min. What is that?

Answ. It is that which in the Result (or Symbole) of the Apostle, is divided into twelve Articles. (Emphasis added)

Min. What is that which thou believest concerning the Holy Church?

Answ. I say, that the Church is considered two manner of ways, the one Substantially, and the other Ministerially. As it is considered Substantially, by the Holy Catholick Church is meant all the Elect of God, from the beginning of the World to the end, by the grace of God through the merit of Christ, gathered together by the Holy Spirit, and fore-ordained to eternal life; the number and names of whom are known to him alone who has elected them; and in this church remains none who is reprobate; but the Church, as it is considered according to the truth of the Ministery, is the company of Ministers of Christ, together with the People committed to their Charge, using the Ministry, by Faith, Hope, and Charity. (Moreland, Samuel, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, [London: Henry Hills, 1658], 76. “Result [or Symbole] of the Apostle” is a reference to the Apostles’ Creed)

Even the Waldenses held to “the Holy Catholick Church,” and they defined their faith according to the Apostles’ Creed.

John Spittlehouse

John Spittlehouse (17th century) was a “fifth monarchy man” who believed that Christ’s kingdom had two “arms,” the civil government and the church (which would grow to be a universal, global institution on earth under Cromwell’s Protectorate). Here is what he says:

I take these two Tables of the Moral Law or ten Commandements, with the Statutes and Judgments aforementioned, to be the Royal Law or Government of Jehovah the Lord Christ, and that those Statutes and Judgements, are that Civil Law, by which be will rule the Nations with a rod of iron, in that they produce the Sword of Justice in the hands of the Civil Magistrate, which Sword of Justice, I say, is that iron rod, formerly mentioned, and no other thing, and hence it is, the Saints are said to have a two edged sword in their band, as well as the high prayses of God in their mouths, Psal.149. the one edge offensive, and the other defensive. (Spittlehouse, John, The Royal Advocate, (London: Popes-Head-Alley, 1655), 33)

And, to Oliver Cromwell, Spittlehouse writes:

Israel continually together in a lump, but dispersed them as occasion was offered, making the same Elders he had chosen, heads over the people, &c. Exod. 18. 25, &c. reserving the chief management of affairs to himself, which certainly was not barely to himself alone, but with the assistance of his faithful Officers of war about him, of which I hope you may be plentifully supplyed, so that the Church or kingdom of Jesus Christ may appear in its now proper posture (viz. terrible as an Army with Banners, unto all the Nations upon the face of the whole earth)… but to persevere in the work of the Lord, in forreign parts, and not to make peace with the Gibeonites, or any other Nation which the Lord hath a controversie withal, and who are designed to destruction, to the end you may rest quietly upon your beds of Ivory. (Spittlehouse, John, “The first addresses to His Excellencie the Lord General…” [London: Seven Stars in Paul’s Church-yard, neer the great North-door, 1653])

While Spittlehouse believed that the infant baptism of the prelacy, presbytery, and papacy were false expressions of baptism, and rejected their hierarchies, he nevertheless embraced the congregational paedobaptists (he worked for Cromwell), and thought of them as fellow “kingdom-builders.” Further, Spittlehouse clearly hoped that the true church would reach global proportions, even by political means.

Thomas Crosby

Thomas Crosby was a renowned Baptist historian, who began publishing his The History of the English Baptists in 1738. He argued that the early church relegated the mode and manner of baptism to an article of Christian liberty, and positively mentions a “catholick spirit” in Henry Jessey. Our Landmark brethren adopt Crosby as their own because he traces believers’ baptism to the earliest years of the New Testament church in the preface to volume I. However, Crosby did not believe that the Baptist church was the only church, nor did he define the term “Baptist” in the same way as Landmarkism. For Crosby, a “Baptist” is simply a person who believes and practices believers’ baptism.

Concerning the early Christians, he writes:

But, if that term (“Baptist”) be used to signify such as hold the doctrine, on which infant-baptism is rejected, viz. That a personal profession of repentance and faith is necessary from those who are admitted to baptism, this was taught and practiced by persons of greater authority than Tertullian, and who lived long before his time; as will appear by the next account, which some have given concerning this matter, viz.

That the baptism of infants was, in the primitive times, left as an indifferent thing; being by some practiced, by others omitted.

Some Paedobaptists, of no small reputation, finding themselves so hardly pressed in the business of antiquity, are willing to halve the matter with their Brethren.

I find several men of great learning, and diligent fearchers into antiquity, to go this way, as Grotius, Daillee, bishop Taylor, and Mr. Baxter. (Crosby, History, vol. 1, xlix.)

Favorably describing the early 17th century Baptist, Henry Jessey, Crosby relates:

But notwithstanding his differing from his brethren in this, or any other point, he maintained the fame christian love and charity to all faints as before, not only as to a friendly conversation, but also in respect of church-communion. He had always some of the Padobaptist persuasion mixed and blamed those that made their particular opinion about baptism the boundary of church communion. He published the reasons of his opinion in this cafe; and when he travelled thro’ the north and west parts of England to visit the churches, he made it his principal business to excite them to love and union among themselves, notwithstanding their differing from one another in some opinions; and was also the principal person that set up, and preserved for some time, a meeting at London of some eminent men of each denomination, in order to maintain peace and union among those Christians that differed not fundamentally; and this catholick spirit procured him the love and esteem of the good men of all parties. (Crosby, History, vol. I, 312)

Noting the “nearness” of Baptists to the “other” Protestants, Crosby states the following:

…the Baptists in general consist of two parties, distinguished by the title of general and particular; so I find when the one have published a general Confession of their Faith, the other have soon after like wise done the same ; both which I shall place in order of time, that so a just estimation of their principles, and their near coherence with the other Protestant parties in this kingdom may appear. This seems to me the best and only method to answer the many misrepresentations which have been published by their ill-natured opponents, both of their principles and practices. (Crosby, History, vol. II, 345)

Concerning Thomas Grantham, Crosby notes that he was “an excellent apologist for the baptized churches in England…” (Crosby, History, vol. IV, vi) Quoting Grantham positively, he produces the following:

WE are ready in the preparation of our minds to believe and practice whatsoever the catholick church even of this present age doth universally and unanimously believe and practice… That however [the Baptists] were slandered and injuriously charged as schismatical, yet they were a body of her subjects, who claimed the titles of Christians and Protestants, and as such, hoped for a share in her zeal, for propagating and protecting the true religion. And that, [the Baptists] were Chriftians of the same orthodox faith, and of the same universal catholick church of God, of which her Majesty always professed her self a member, and of which the church of England, is declared to be a branch. (Crosby, History, vol. IV, xxiii)

Through a retrieval of Grantham, Crosby demonstrates a distinctly Baptist interest in the “universal catholick church of God” and in the “Protestant” way. Crosby, through Grantham, can assert catholicity between Baptists and certain paedobaptists while also stating the following:

And though it be neither lawful nor possible for us to hold actual communion with all sorts of Christians in all things; wherein they vary from the truth, yet even in those things we hold a communion with them in our desires, longing for their conversion and reunion with us in truth. (Crosby, History, vol. IV, xiii)

John Gill

Because John Gill does similarly to Crosby in admitting baptistic Christians throughout church history, e.g. the Waldenses and Albigenses, our Landmark friends often appeal to those areas of his work that seem most supportive of their position. But Gill, speaking of the universal church, writes:

There is another in which the church may be said to be catholic, or general, as it may consist of such in any age, and in the several parts of the world, who have true faith in Christ, and hold to him the head, and are baptized by one Spirit into one body; have one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, and are called in one hope of their calling; and this takes in, not only such who make a visible profession of Christ, but all such who are truly partakers of his grace; though they have not made an open profession of him in a formal manner; and this is the church which Polycarp called, the whole catholic church throughout the world… (John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, vol. 2 [Tegg & Company, 1839], 561.)

Prior to the 19th century, Baptists utilized a distinction found in others, such as the 17th century congregationalist John Owen, to properly identify what made a church a gospel church — matter and form. Of the matter, Gill writes that it is, “regenerate persons… of whom it is meet to think, and, in a judgment of charity and discretion, to hope and conclude that God hath begun a good work in them…” (p. 563) The form “lies in mutual consent and agreement, in their covenant and consideration with each other.” (p. 565)

In other words, Gill doesn’t answer the question, “What makes a church a true church?” by an appeal to the proper mode and manner of baptism, but by describing fit matter and right form. Those to whom baptism ought be administered, and the mode by which it is administered, would be placed under the category of “church discipline.” (Cf. Benjamin Keach, The Glory of a True Church, Introduction & ch. 1) And indeed, so long as it has fit matter and right form, a church may still be a gospel church with poor discipline.

While they differed from their paedobaptist brethren, and urged a redress of their church government and administration of baptism, the men surveyed above generally held gospel-believing paedobaptist churches to be true (albeit irregular) churches.

Cautioning Politics in Preaching: A Case Study

by Josh Sommer | Jul 17, 2024 | Confessionalism, Historical Theology, Politics

In volatile political climates, the church and her elders are ever pressured to use the pulpit as an opportunity to correct the ills of the state.

The pulpit, it is often thought, is a place not only to proclaim the articles of faith for the benefit and comfort of God’s people but also serves as a platform for political redress. True enough, a place ought to be given in the pulpit for the rebuke and correction of national sins and governmental woes. But as ministers of the gospel, we must be careful to present such rebuke and correction while considering the needs of the congregation before us. Three principles help us understand how to preach politically when the need arises.

First, rebuke and correction of national sins must arise from the text of Holy Scripture. Second, we should avoid making the rebuke and correction of national sins the point of the sermon. Third, we must be careful not to present such rebuke and correction in a way that would distract the congregation from the hope they have in Christ.

The first consideration is exegetical, the second is homiletical, and the third is pastoral. We will consider each of these in turn while examining particular instances from George Swinnock, Thomas Hall, and William Perkins.

The Exegetical Consideration: A Biblically Grounded Rebuke of National Sin

In his work, The Beauty of Magistracy, Thomas Hall writes:

This psalm may fitly be called the magistrate’s psalm, or the magistrate’s directory. The matter of it is didactical and doctrinal, setting forth the dignity, duty, and mortality of magistrates and judges, whom the psalmist exhorts to a faithful discharge of their places, by an impartial administration of justice, in punishing the wicked, and defending the good; and this he backs with many weighty arguments.[1]

The introductory placement of this paragraph should be noted. It appears early on in a sermon from Psalm 82. And while Hall is addressing the proper situation of civil politics under the Lordship of God, he does so in service to a faithful exposition of the text. Again, beginning with the text in his work on magistrates from Psalm 82, George Swinnock similarly notes:

The text presenteth us with a concession of the magistrates’ allegation for their illegal proceedings. They argued that, because they were gods, they might tyrannise over men: that the stamp of a deity on them would make them current coin, though they were never so light.[2]

What are we taught in the method of both Hall and Swinnock? Biblical and exegetical priority. Notice that neither of these two men begin with any particular event that sparked a felt need to preach and write these things. They began with the text and the doctrine therein.

As preaching elders, we must be wise in how we redress political grievances. It is sometimes (even rarely) our duty to do so, but it must be done in a principled, rather than haphazard, manner. Given the constant flow of information in the 21st century, one may be tempted to use headlines as opportunities to react from the pulpit — giving political commentary while perhaps preaching the biblical imperatives throughout. However, this is not how the church has historically addressed national or political sins.

The flow of preaching and writing in the work of our spiritual ancestors seems to begin with the text, then move to the general principles or doctrines, ending in the development of uses from those principles. They do not begin with the contemporary political issue, move to the text in service of that concern, only to preach imperatives at the congregation.

The Homiletical Consideration: The Goal of a Sermon

Because both Hall and Swinnock are preaching and writing from the text, they have ample opportunity to interject other doctrines as the passage and the analogy of faith allows. The goal of both works is not the correction of the state per se, but a proclamation of the Lordship of God over all things — in this case, over the magistrate. Homiletically, Hall’s sermon takes the people of God to God. In Swinnock’s case, he instances both theology proper and the doctrine of the incarnation, writing:

He is God by nature, and he hath given them to be gods by name. The deity was by incarnation clothed with the human nature, and humanity is here by God’s designation clothed with the divine name. ‘I will praise thee before the gods,’ saith David, Ps. 138:1; that is, the tune of my heart shall be high in singing thy praise, even before them that are by thy command highest in place.[3]

His closing words are as follows:

Oh think of that day, and let it move thee to a faithful, zealous discharge of thy duty. Zaleucus Locrensis, in his proem to his laws, hath these words: ‘Let this be often pressed upon men, that there are gods, and that an account must be given to them of men’s actions.’ Consider the day of the Lord is coming, and who may abide it! In a word, ‘Hear the conclusion of the whole matter, Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man: For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil,’ Eccles. 12:13, 14.[4]

The question is not whether we address political issues from the pulpit. Certainly there is a place for this. The question is in what way and for what reason we do so. In the above cases, the goal is not so much the reformation of the state, but the exaltation of God in the midst of the people.

The Pastoral Consideration: The Proper Care of Souls

What is the purpose of preaching?

William Perkins remarks in his famous volume, The Art of Prophesying, “For the prophet (that is, the minister of the Word) has only two duties. One is preaching the Word, and the other is praying to God in the name of the people…” (Prophesying, Introduction) He elaborates under “Use and Application,” writing:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it. However the gospel not only teaches us what is to be done, it also has the power of the Holy Spirit joined to it. When we are regenerated by him we receive the strength we need both to believe the gospel and to do what it commands. The law is, therefore, first in the order of teaching; then comes the gospel. (Prophesying, VII)

Perkins then runs through several categories of “hearers,” bringing awareness to the variety of spiritual needs in any given congregation — from unbelievers to ignorant hearers, to humbled hearers needing a gentle explication of both law and gospel. He writes:

Expound the law to them carefully tempered with the gospel, so that being terrified by their sins and the judgment of God they may at the same time find comfort in the gospel (Gen. 3:9-15; 2 Sam. 12; Acts 8:20-23). Nathan gives us an example here. Having been sent from God, he recalled David to an awareness of his true condition through a parable, and then pronounced him pardoned when his repentance was certain. (Prophesying, VII., Categories of Hearers)

As ministers of the gospel, we should remember that the people in the pews represent a multitude of circumstances and concerns. There are many who are exposed to news feeds throughout the week and who have tendencies to grow anxious in the face of current events. Might it be better for them to be taken to the sovereignty of God and the benevolence of their Savior? Conversely, there are those who may have grown complacent, caring not for their place in this world whatsoever. Perhaps it is good for them to be reminded of the law of God and their Christian duty — yet never in such a way as to neglect the grace of the gospel. A given sermon should unfold a buffet of spiritual food that will feed the whole of God’s people, no matter where they find themselves in life.

May we, as gospel ministers, strive to emulate these men of the past. And when political preaching seems necessary, may we not forget the needs of our flocks.

Resources:

[1] Hall Thomas, “The Beauty of Magistracy,” in The Works of George Swinnock, M.A., vol. 4 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1868), 158.

[2] George Swinnock, The Works of George Swinnock, M.A., vol. 4 (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; G. Herbert, 1868), 305.

[3] Swinnock, The Works of George Swinnock, 308.

[4] Swinnock, The Works of George Swinnock, 372.

The One Only True & Living God

by Josh Sommer | May 29, 2024 | Biblical Theology, Confessionalism

The unity of the divine essence states that what God is, only God is. This is a distinct, yet related, doctrine to that of the unity of the divine Persons, which states that the Persons are consubstantial with the divine essence. This latter doctrine flows from the former. Because God is one, creatures ought to worship Him and Him alone, and this one God subsists in three Persons — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The unity of the divine essence is paramount to the argument implied by the greatest commandment, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength.” (Deut. 6:4-5) The 17th century theologian and philosopher, Hugh Binning, once wrote, “Since God is one, then have no God but one, and that the true and living God, and this is the very first command of God, which flows as it were immediately from his absolute oneness and perfection of being.”

The unity of God grants sufficient reason for why this God is deserving of all honor, praise, and worship. The import of such doctrine is the Judaistical and Christian denial of pagan polytheism. Flowing from Deuteronomy 6:4 are other statements, such as what we find in Isaiah 45:14, “Thus says the Lord: ‘The labor of Egypt and merchandise of Cush And of the Sabeans, men of stature, Shall come over to you, and they shall be yours; They shall walk behind you, They shall come over in chains; And they shall bow down to you. They will make supplication to you, saying, “Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God.”’”

Incursions of henotheistic thought have made their way into churches, seminaries, and theological resources in recent decades. Henotheism is a species of polytheism, where many gods are said to be subject to one principal deity or supreme Being. Rather than being entirely equal, as with many Eastern polytheisms, henotheism teaches a hierarchy in the divine nature. Proponents of henotheism include the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Norse peoples. More recently, however, the late Dr. Michael Heiser has imbibed henotheistic thought. While maintaining monotheism in principle, Heiser defines monotheism as the belief in a “species unique” deity that presides over other divine beings or gods. In my opinion, this is virtually indistinguishable from the Greeks and Romans who saw Zeus or Jupiter, respectively, as the “king gods” who maintained sway over subjugated divine powers, such as Ares, Athena, or Mars. To adopt this position is to (inadvertently?) drink from the fountain of a fundamental metaphysical compromise, i.e. the expansion of “divine nature” to more than one being.

In other words, to grant a divine nature to beings other than YHWH is to grant that which belongs to YHWH alone.

In this brief post, I want to outline why this view represents a shift away from the clear biblical data that explains why Christians have always confessed only one true and living God.

Defining the Orthodox Position

A main point of confusion in this discussion involves the reality of beings that are often worshiped as gods by erring Israelites and pagan nations. What the orthodox position maintains is not that idols lack any real substance or beings that sit, as it were, behind them. Christians throughout the ages, following Scripture, have overtly affirmed the existence of real beings that are either worshiped directly or indirectly (through manufactured idols) as gods. As the apostle Paul notes, “the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.” (1 Cor. 10:20)

What is denied is that these spiritual beings habitually worshiped by the pagan peoples are actually “gods” or subordinate “Elohim.” We would, instead, want to say that these entities are “so-called” Elohim, but are not truly so. (1 Cor. 8:5) The Bible clearly states that there is only one true and living Elohim, “But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth will tremble, And the nations will not be able to endure His indignation.” (Jer. 10:10)

Credal and confessional theology is also clear that there is only one God. For example, the Nicene Creed begins, “We believe in one God…” And the 2LCF 2.1 states, “The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection…” Furthermore, the Baptist Catechism asks, “Are there more gods than one?” answering, “There is but one only, the living and true God.” (Q. 8)

Are there real spiritual entities other than YHWH that are able to either positive or negatively influence the world? Yes. Are these entities gods? This we strongly deny.

Wrestling with the Biblical Language

Frequently left out of the discussion amongst those who affirm a plurality of gods in addition to YHWH is the element of linguistic device. It is important that we assume the biblical use of analogy, metaphor, and metonymy as we read our Bibles. If we do not make this assumption, we may come away thinking that God has a body, with anatomical limbs, etc., when we read passages as follows, “So I will stretch out My hand and strike Egypt with all My wonders…” (Ex. 3:20) Or, “with the blast of Your nostrils The waters were gathered together…” (Ex. 15:8) Because Scripture interprets Scripture, our reading of these texts must be conditioned by other Scriptural ontological statements, such as, “God is Spirit…” (Jn. 4:24) Or, “God is not a man, that He should lie…” (Num. 23:19) And again, “For I am the Lord, I do not change…” (Mal. 3:6) These passages help us to understand that when creaturely features are ascribed to God, they are ascribed not properly but by way of some improper linguistic device, e.g. analogy or metaphor.

Furthermore, we know that the Bible sometimes attributes divine language to things that are not divine. For example, “But where are your gods (Elohim) that you have made for yourselves?” (Jer. 2:28) Clearly, this text is calling manufactured idols “gods,” which are no gods at all. Other texts indicate the falsity of these feigned deities, such as, “Has a nation changed its gods, Which are not gods?” (Jer. 2:11) And, “For all the gods of the peoples are idols…” (Ps. 96:5) The biblical text denies the true existence of any other Elohim besides YHWH, “They will make supplication to you, saying, “‘Surely God is in you, And there is no other; There is no other God (Elohim).’” (Is. 45:14b) Benjamin Keach is helpful on the name “Elohim”:

His Hebrew name אלהיﬦ, Elohim, when taken properly, belongs to none, but the only true and eternal God, and because it is of the plural number, it intimates the mystery of a plurality of persons in one most simple Deity…”

Why Henotheism?

So, why the modern interest in polytheistic henotheism?

The answer to this question continues to elude me. Assuming the best intentions, Heiser and others may have just missed the important piece of the interpretive puzzle in neglecting to observe linguistic devices employed by the divine Author. Another possible reason for the embrace of this view is a contemporary desire to “re-enchant” the universe. We live in a materialistic cultural rut that strives to remove any and all reference to the supernatural. Philosophical and scientific naturalism has stripped the world of its vibrant, spiritual excitement. But is this a good reason to adopt henotheism?

There appears to be a move toward a more colorful understanding of God’s creation. This is fine as far as it goes. And I am entirely in favor of recapturing a biblical and classical cosmology that assumes the influence of angels, the negative impact of demons, and so on. However, in our zeal to retrieve a more biblically faithful cosmology, we need to be cautious not to retrieve the pagan perversions of this cosmology often spoken of and condemned in the pages of Scripture. While the biblical record grants the real existence of “so-called” gods, or those who are called “gods” or “Elohim” by the pagan nations, we should stop short of granting to these beings what the Bible clearly reserves for God alone. “There is no God besides Me,” YHWH declares. (Is. 45:5) Imagine the delight of the demons if we granted them the status they so long for!

While it may be exciting for some to think of the universe as being under the sway of a multitude of deities, all of whom are in subjection to a “king God,” the reality stands that YHWH is the only true deity in existence. Alternatively, the classical Christian tradition offers a truly interesting cosmology, full of both holy angels and fallen angels, each of which fall under the supreme Lordship of the one true God. These angels are capable of a number of wondrous abilities, and all such beings are designed to lead us to fear and trust in the only true and living Elohim — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The reality of “principalities and powers” urges us to seek refuge in the only begotten Son our Lord, who for us and for our salvation was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, and through His active and passive obedience defeated the powers of darkness and ordered the holy angels into the service of our redemption.

Conclusion

Why is any of this important?

In John 5:44, Jesus asks the question, “How can you believe, who receive honor from one another, and do not seek the honor that comes from the only God?” The final two words of this sentence are, “μόνου Θεοῦ” (monou theou), from which we get the term “monotheism.” Taking theos to be the common New Testament translation of the Hebrew “Elohim,” we are able to see that our Lord Jesus Himself affirmed the “only-ness” and unity of God. Far beyond the bare theological musings of man, this biblical monotheism is the theology of our Savior. As disciples of Christ, may we follow Him not only in what He did, but also in what He affirmed theologically.

The City of God

by Josh Sommer | Feb 26, 2024 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology, Politics

In the world vs. not of the world. Pilgrims here vs. citizens there. Living in the US vs. our home is heaven. Sojourning in the city of man; looking to the city of God.

In the 5th c., Augustine of Hippo penned his greatest work, The City of God. Some have even termed it as one of the most monumental and influential works within the entire Christian corpus of literature. Rome, the greatest empire the world had seen up to the 5th century, was falling. The Goths had just sacked the mother city, and unmanageable social and economic issues were prevailing over the once-mighty empire. In an empire that had become saturated with the Christian religion, Roman Christians needed guidance. They needed wise counsel—how were they to suffer the loss of this city of man while yet living as citizens of the city of God?

We live in an age that often causes us to wonder how long our city of man will last. The West faces issues uncannily similar to the moral, social, economic, and geopolitical challenges Rome faced in the 5th century. As such, we may be helped by retrieving the mind of Augustine for the sake of informing our 21st-century moment. We will look at three things that will hopefully help us understand our place in the world so that we can be encouraged even when the world does things we don’t want it to do.

We will look, first, at the city of man. Second, we will look at the city of God. And third, we will consider what it means to live in both at the same time as we no doubt do.

The City of Man

The city of man is characterized by three things: sin, suffering, and impermanence.

The origin of the city of man is the first — and thus fallen — creation. In the beginning, God created Adam and Eve, and He commanded them to “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…” (Gen. 1:28) This is where God sanctioned the human community. And this human community was to fill the earth while worshiping and glorifying the Creator. This would have resulted not only in families, not only tribes but also in cities and nations. These cities and nations were to have God as their God with Adam as their intermediate or representational king.

But it didn’t go this way.

Adam sinned, and all his descendants sinned in him, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…” (Rom. 5:12) At the point of sin, however, this first creation didn’t disappear. The natural order didn’t just go away. It all remained intact through the mercy of God, though sin was now part of the picture. And this means that men would go on to form communities—families, villages, cities, etc. But all of these institutions would be infected with sin.

One of the first examples we might think of when we consider whole communities affected by sin is the Tower of Babel. There, we see a city full of sinful people in rebellion against God. So, we know humanity went forth after the fall and, in principle, tried to continue the dominion mandate—albeit in a fallen way. Humanity went forth from the fall onward trying to take dominion, trying to fill the earth, trying to subdue the earth—but never able to consummately succeed on account of sin.

If we take this whole situation—fallen man, effects of sin, suffering, impermanence, lack of success, etc.—and we summarize it in one term, it would be “the city of man.” This is how Augustine referred to it. He calls “the city of man,” “the earthly city, which, though it be mistress of the nations, is itself ruled by its lust of rule.”[1] (Emphasis added) The Bible refers to the city of man as impermanent. It doesn’t last. So, the writer of Hebrews says, “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.” (Heb. 13:14)

The city of man is characterized by rebellion against God, suffering the effects of sin, and impermanence—it doesn’t last. And everything in this city of man will one day fade. Look how the apostle Paul characterizes the temporary nature of suffering in this city of man, “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory…” (2 Cor. 4:17)

The Christian is in a unique position because, at present, the Christian lives in both cities — the city of man and the city of God. The Christian experiences sin, suffering, and impermanence. But the Christian also experiences grace, joy, peace, and righteousness in the Holy Spirit — things that will never pass away, things that characterize the city of God. Things that only God can give. The city of man is the present moral order of man generally. It began at the first creation but was plunged into sin by the first Adam. It is comprised of unbelief, active rebellion against God, suffering, and temporary things that will not last. That’s the city of man. It’s bleak. But the Bible tells us of something better — a city of God, whose builder and maker is God.

The City of God

If the city of man is characterized by sin, suffering, and impermanence, then the city of God is characterized by righteousness, happiness, and eternity.

Scripture speaks of the city of God in several places. In the book of Revelation, it’s called the New Jerusalem. In the book of Hebrews, it’s called the city “whose builder and maker is God.” In Revelation 3:12, we read, “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.” And, at the end of Revelation, in ch. 21, we read, “Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” So, here the city of God bookends the whole book of Revelation because John is encouraging his audience — the seven churches — with an eternal destiny, life in the city of God.

In Hebrews, the project is similar. There, the author is encouraging his audience to remain faithful to the end because, after all, there is no lasting city here — we look to another.

In Hebrews 11, we see that the Old Testament saints were likewise looking for this city of God, “for [Abraham] waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (v. 10) In Hebrews 12:22, it’s called the “heavenly Jerusalem,” “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem…” In Hebrews 13:14, it is written, “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.” And this is our encouragement to follow Christ outside the camp, bearing His reproach. (v. 12)

In Galatians 4, Paul speaks of the city of God, or the heavenly Jerusalem, “the Jerusalem above.” Contrasting the earthly city and the heavenly city, Paul writes:

For these (Hagar & Sarah) are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. (Gal. 4:24-26)

Notice the difference between the two cities. It corresponds to what we’ve said about the city of man and the city of God. The city of man is characterized by sin and suffering, i.e. bondage. But the city of God is characterized by liberty in Christ, joy, and glory, i.e. it is free.

Augustine, commenting on Paul’s words here, says:

This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants — the old and the new. One portion of the earthly city became an image of the heavenly city, not having a significance of its own, but signifying another city, and therefore serving, or “being in bondage.”[2]

The old Jerusalem, the one we know on earth, the earthly city, prefigures the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of God. The earthly city, fallen in sin, subject to suffering, and various forms of heartache, was a type that looked forward to the other and greater heavenly city, the heavenly Jerusalem — whose builder and maker is God.

Augustine is writing to Christians who were converted out of the Roman Empire. And the occasion is the sacking of the city of Rome by the Goths. Rome is falling. Augustine takes this two-city image and uses it to essentially say, “As a Christian, your meaning, your significance, your identity was never tied up entirely with Rome. You belong to a greater city. You look to a greater city.”

We know from Hebrews 11 that Old Testament saints looked to this heavenly city. We see glimpses of that in places like Psalm 48, where the Psalmist writes, “Beautiful in elevation, The joy of the whole earth, Is Mount Zion on the sides of the north, The city of the great King.” (v. 2) And in v. 8, “As we have heard, So we have seen In the city of the LORD of hosts, In the city of our God: God will establish it forever.”

The city of God is the new world to which God has saved His people through Jesus Christ. And this means that the church — Christ’s people — represents this city in the here and now. Christ’s people live in both the city of man and the city of God at present.

Living in Both Cities

City of man. City of God. As Christians, we have one foot in each.

In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus says, “Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You.” (Jn. 17:11) Jesus was once in the world, and His people remain in the world. But then, in v. 16, He says, “They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” Christ’s people are in the world (in the city of man), but they are not of the world (not of the city of man).

While the church lives here, it is not ultimately from here. Remember, though we were naturally born into this world, into the city of man, we have been born again as Christians. And in this new birth, we are born into the city of God and are thus from the city of God, as Paul says — “but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Gal. 4:26) Though we live in the city of man, following the new birth, we are no longer of (or from) the city of man. We have been born of the city of God. We have been made a new creature in the new creation, whose capital city is the city of the living, triune God.

What does all of this mean?

Christians have been through a lot over the last 2,000 years. The first time Christians had to struggle with the tension between living in the city of man on the one hand and living in the city of God on the other is, perhaps, the looming destruction of Jerusalem between the years 66 – 70 AD. At this time, if they hadn’t known it before, the Jewish converts to Christ learned that their home was not earthly Jerusalem — they were to look for something more sure, lasting, and stable. As they left earthly Jerusalem for Pella, they illustrated their true hope in real-time. They had to come to terms with the fact that their “home” wasn’t ultimately their home.

But the second major instance in which Christians had to wrestle with living in the city of man and the city of God was during the fall of Rome. It’s the 5th c., Rome has just been attacked by the Goths (pagans), and everything they had known on this earth up to that point was falling apart. Some other times when Christians were forced to deal with this tension would be the Holocaust, when Jewish Christians were persecuted by the Nazis, forced from homes, loved ones, etc.; or the Armenian genocide when the Ottoman Empire murdered probably over a million Armenian Christians in the early 1900s.

The question in the minds of Christians should always be, “How do I live in the city of God even when the city of man is falling apart?” Even in times of prosperity, we should consider this question. How is Hebrews 13:14 real for us? “For here we have no continuing city, but we seek the one to come.”

Here’s how: We trust Christ. We grow in our love for Him. And we labor to know what both of those things mean. Hebrews 13:14a admonishes us, “let us go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach.” Do we trust Him to follow Him away from the city of man as it’s destroyed by sin, death, and the devil?

Or, like Lot’s wife, will we be so attached to the comforts and pleasantries of the city of man that we look back?

As a church, who are we? Are we an outpost of the city of God in this world? Or are we just another organization in and of the city of man? Could we continue our worship if the city of man went away tomorrow? If everything we knew faded into history, could we still be a church—constant, remaining, set upon the Rock, identified by that heavenly, unshaking city of God?

Resources:

[1] Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of Saint Augustine: The Confessions, On Grace and Free Will, The City of God, On Christian Doctrine, Expositions on the Book Of Psalms, … (50 Books With Active Table of Contents) (p. 58). Kindle Edition.

[2] Augustine, The City of God … (50 Books With Active Table of Contents) (p. 615). Kindle Edition.

« Older Entries