Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 3

Part 2 Here

It's critical we define how we mean the word “church” before we go any further. In our day and age we use it mostly in ways that are foreign to the meaning of scripture. I’m going to here give the full definition of the noun church found in our current Merriam-Webster dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/church) so you can compare and contrast that with a biblical definition given by Sylvester Hassell. My purpose is to be very intentional about what we may think is meant by church to divorce ourselves from the definitions not considered in the New Testament for the purpose of this study. Like all English words, church has taken its own path in evolving in a living language. The biblical definition, as given by Hassell is the definition of the Greek word used in the New Testament. The Greek language is dead and therefore we have confidence that we understand the full extent of it’s meaning. For future articles, we’ll dive into more details about the biblical meaning to clarify and enhance our understanding of the institution Christ established.

Webster: 

church noun

1: a building for public religious services and especially Christian worship

2 often Church : a body or organization of religious believers: such as

a: the institution of the Christian religion : the Christian religion seen as an organization

b: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body

The word church … is put for the Persons that are ordained for the Ministry of the Gospel, that is to say, the Clergy—J. Ayliffe

c: denomination

the Presbyterian church

d: the whole body of Christians

… the One Church is the whole body gathered together from all ages …—J. H. Newman

e: congregation

… they had appointed elders for them in every church …—Acts 14:23 (Revised Standard Version)

3: a public divine worship

goes to church every Sunday

4: the clerical profession

considered the church as a possible career

Hassell, History of the Church of God, 1886, pg. 291:

The Greek word rendered “church” in the New Testament is “ekklesia”, which is derived from the verb ek-kaleo, to call out, and denotes an assembly called out, a select body separated from the mass of the people. In ancient Greece the ekklesia in each State was the assembly of free-born, native, self-governing citizens, the highest legal body in the land, from which there was no appeal; slaves and foreigners were excluded from the ekklesia. In the Septuagint ekklesia is the usual rendering of the Hebrew word kahal, “the congregation” of Israel or of the Lord, from which were excluded the uncircumcised, the unclean and the “mixed multitude”. Ekklesia occurs in the New Testament 115 times; twice referring to the Hebrew “congregation of the Lord,” three times referring to the Greek assembly, and 110 times referring to the Christian church. In 92 of these last cases the reference is to a special, local, visible society of Christians; in the remaining 18 cases the reference is the entire body of the elect in Heaven and on earth, or what is sometimes called the invisible church (as in Ephesians v. 25, 29; iii. 10, 21; Colossians i. 18, 24; Hebrews xii. 23). The word is never used in the New Testament to designate a universal (or Catholic) visible church, a national church (as the Church of Judea or England), or a denominational church (as the church was not divided into different denominations in the Apostolic Age, and as there was not then any great organization, like the Presbyterian Church of the Methodist Church, including in itself a large number of local congregations). A visible church is always in Scripture a local body; and every local church, acting by a majority of its members (in 2 Cor ii. 6, “ton pleionon” is, literally, not “many”, but “the more” the majority), is invested by Christ with the exclusive and final power of receiving, disciplining, excluding and restoring its members, electing its officers, and transacting all other necessary business (Rom. Xiv. 1; Matt. Xviii. 15-18; 1 Cor v. 4, 5, 7, 11-13; Rom xvi. 17; 2 Thess. Iii. 6; Acts i. 15-26; vi 1-6; 1 Cor. Xvi. 3; xiv. 23).

Part 4 Here

Church Identity and Perpetuity Part 2

Part 1 here

Why am I making a point about not being a protestant? If it’s not clear to you, then I want you to understand how radical and distinctive the Primitive Baptists doctrine of the church is from all the major Christian groups. I love the Primitive Baptists, not just as people individually (there are many other individuals and families I also love), but as an institution and fellowship of a distinct character and separate from the world. I have faith based on the promises of God that he has preserved his church through the ages and that we have that inheritance in this time and place and I want it to stay and grow here as we move to the next generation.

We are taught in scripture, including Daniel 2:44 and Mathew 16:18, that Christ established a kingdom on earth, Jesus called it his church, and it will remain true and faithful as a witness of the Truth in every generation. If this function were carried out by the Roman empire-church, then protestants had no right to split it up and were schismatics. By establishing new churches on principles lost for centuries, they couldn’t be the church started by Christ because that shall never be prevailed against. Being identified with Christ is the only reason I’m concerned with church identity.

I’m not saying that the true church has always looked exactly like us, that we can name them by existing historical records, nor that there are no true churches at any other place with another name and language with heritage back to the apostles. My ignorance of them doesn’t mean that they don’t or didn’t exist. But I am saying that no church that is substantially different from us is the true church. Primitive Baptists don’t decide who is or isn’t the church, that’s the work of the Lord—the only head of this church. What we do is try to acknowledge the leadership of God in every matter, and when it comes to worship and spiritual matters, withdraw and reject those things which are incompatible with the truth. This is the only way for true fellowship and unity. Christian fellowship and unity in the church is based on Christ alone and God is not the author of confusion. Identifying other denominations as part of the Church and then maintaining a distinct identity from them is inconsistent. If they are the church then there should be no divisions in it, if they aren’t keeping themselves separate from the world, then they are of the world and we should come out from among them. 2 Cor 6:16-18.

When I get questions about why we don’t invite members of other Christian denominations to our communion table, or why we “re” baptize folks who want to convert, I’ve never been satisfied in my ability to answer them. It’s a major sticking point for many people so I thought it worthwhile to study it for better understanding and the best way I know how to master a subject is to explain it to others as cogently as I can. I want us to get a firm handle on the doctrine of the church and that includes disabusing ourselves of much of the error that comes from the Protestant view of the church that undermines church perpetuity. I don’t see myself as having all the answers here, so as I try to lay my beliefs out, I invite correction in brotherly charity to put my ideas to the test.

Part 3 Here

Church Identity and Perpetuity -Part 1

 There are about 700 organizations in America today, claiming to be churches. Every one of these false churches can be traced to some man as their founder. Every one of these, each and all, have their own man-made creeds or faiths, and they are as conflicting as light and darkness. They can't all be true. But our school textbook writers throw all these conflicting creeds into one pile, and label the whole conglomerated mess: "The Christian Church!" Baptists have been permitting their children to be taught this monstrous falsehood without entering a protest. No wonder confusion, infidelity, atheism and wickedness are stalking rampant everywhere, defying every code of decency. The ONE and ONLY true Church is the Bride of Christ. She walks with him, trusts in him, leans on his arm, and has never strayed off into some spiritual "red light" district and needed reforming.

-Monroe Jones in The Bride and Seven Other Women 1948

I have never viewed myself as Protestant although I constantly get lumped into that pile. I’m a Primitive Baptist and have a heritage of baptism in churches that go back to Christ and the apostles without ever coming out of the Roman Catholic Church.  I have come to find out that that is called “pseudohistory” and that “no reputable church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament”. Should I just submit to the scholarly opinions accepted by even Baptist scholars that all Baptists are protestants?

The realistic truth is, my Baptism doesn’t have some kind of pedigree like a registered Border Collie that certifies and proves the validity of each baptism back to Christ. No one does. If you think a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox has such a pedigree (doubtful), then I would argue that is only a nominal or mechanical succession. I’m not really interested in a succession of the same name, or a perpetuity based on human tradition, but rather interested in perpetuity of the same faith and discipline from Christ.

Before I can jump into history, it’s vital I review my starting point. The first axiom is that the 66 books of the Bible are the infallible word of God and therefore the only authoritative source of light on the subject. But didn’t the Bible come from the church? No. The Bible contains revelation from God to the church, through God’s servants. The church never decided what God’s words were, they recognized them and submitted to him by obeying those words and rejecting anything spurious pretending to be God’s words. I know what they are by tradition, yes. Tradition means to hand down over time. So, in some sense, I am relying on the church while putting that tradition to the test. That’s the only starting point I have at my disposal. First, my church must be judged on the authority we profess to follow. If we pass that, then the protestants are out because we profess the same authority. If we fail the test of the scriptures we hold to, then our tradition does nothing to validate the Bible we profess as the authentic words of God, and I’m left to search for the tradition that kept the oracles as delivered from Christ. I don’t see any consistency in the belief that you can know what the scriptures are and deny the tradition that kept them through the generations. The perpetuity of the church and perpetuity of the scriptures go hand in hand.

From the Bible, I want to go through and carefully review what it teaches about the identity of the church. Then and only then can I judge the history, because we have to subject each historian’s conclusion to the light of the Bible, not the other way around.

Part 2 Here

Article 6. Justification

 We are often confronted with the question: If you die today, where will you spend eternity? Or prompted to get right with the Lord before you die.  That appeals to our need to be in the favor of God to avoid ultimate destruction.  Our 6^th article says: “We believe that sinners are justified in the sight of God only by the imputed righteousness of Christ.” What does that mean? It explains why you won’t hear Primitive Baptists generate anxiety in those pondering judgment. First, I want to notice how our righteousness is illustrated in the Bible, then explain how sinners are made righteous by the sacrifice of Christ.

John saw the worship in heaven and says in Rev 19:6-8 “And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.  Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.” So our righteousness is likened unto fine linen that beautify the wearer and we, the bride, were given them. All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags, but God has clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels (Is 61:10, 64:6). So when we stand before God’s judgment, the righteousness of the Son of God is what he sees on us, and we belong in his presence.

Justification is in respect to law. Just like God governs material with material laws, he governs persons by a moral law. A moral law states what we ought to do and what happens if we don’t. God doesn’t govern men by an absolute decree of every decision they would make, but he does govern us by enforcing consequences for bad behavior. The law of sin and death is very clear that the consequence of sin is death. Psalm 89:14 says, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne”, and Heb 2:2 says “Every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward”. So every sin must be answered for, and every person must receive justice from the hand of God. So how does God justify sinners?

The answer is the Word of God becoming our priest, mediator, and surety in an eternal covenant (Heb 7:20-28). We were placed in Christ by election, before the foundation of the world, so that we legally belonged to God by adoption for the pleasure of Jesus Christ (Eph 1:3-6). In faithfulness to this covenant, God was made flesh in the person of Jesus Christ to do the will of God which was to lawfully redeem us from our sins (Heb 10:7-18). The Apostle Peter says Jesus, who did no sin, committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree (1 Pe 2:22-24). This is the just suffering for the unjust (1 Pe 3:18). Peter refers to Is 53 which prophetically declares that Christ justified many because God laid our iniquity on him. Notice how Peter upholds the righteousness of God. That is not possible, unless our sins were really and lawfully transferred from us to Christ. We do not believe that Christ died symbolically or just to make a statement; he died to uphold the full consequence of our sin. As a result of Christ’s suffering, God’s holy law was fully satisfied (Is 53:11) and he, by himself, purged our sins (Heb 1:3).

Now that we understand that Christ’s death removed our sin and justified us, Paul asks (Rom 8:31-34) “If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.”  These sweet words always assure us, that no matter what my conscience, other men, or devils say; God has already declared our Justification and Christ is ever at the right hand of God interceding for us in righteousness. That’s how we’ll enter into glory when we die and on that fine morning when our bodies are glorified.

Definition of Justification

Justification is the act of declaring righteous. To justify yourself is to say (and believe) "I'm good or I'm right". For someone else to justify you is for them to say "you're good".

You can go to heaven if and only if God sees you as righteous by his law. God sees and knows everything exactly as it is, so that is to say, you're not getting into getting heaven unless you're perfect. No one else is either, that's how God ensures that there's no hurt or pain or offense in Heaven.

The Bible teaches that God justifies the ungodly. So that means he has made us, who are sinners, perfectly right in every way. He has done that through the sinless blood of Jesus in his role as our priest and mediator. When he rose from the grave, this act was complete never to be overturned or doubted. Rom 4:25, Heb 10:18.

Justification by Faith is the act of the born-again sinner when he turns to the Lord and believes in him. This is the sinner understanding what Jesus did and that God is satisfied with the sacrifice of Jesus. Having put his own trust in Jesus, he can say "I'm good. I've been made righteous in the eyes of God because I belong to Jesus." He then rests from worrying about his eternal life. Rom 5:1. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IS NOT THE SINNER LOOKING AT HIS OWN FAITH OR PROFESSION AND DRAWING THE CONCLUSION BASED ON THAT EVIDENCE THAT HE BELONGS TO JESUS. That would be justification by works and is meant for other people to know that you're born again; it doesn't work real well for oneself. Justification by Faith is not based on evidence that the sinner sees in himself that he's elect. Maybe this goes into it, but I believe what's really going on in Justification by Faith is the personal testimony of the Holy Spirit testifying directly to the heart that he is a child of God and not imputing his sin to him. Rom 8:16, Rom 4:8. The Holy Spirit is present as soon as the sinner is born again, but under the sound of the gospel there is a blessing that God gives in not imputing one's sins to them. This experience does not make the Justification in the eyes of God, but in the eyes of the sinner. This hope is not based on evidence the sinner sees in himself but in the love shed abroad in his heart by God. Rom 5:5. I believe this may happen several times over and I often need it again since from time to time I may forget I was purged from my old sins. David sought for this when he was convicted of his sins well after he was made to hope on his mother's breast.

Finally, Justification by Works is the act of other people looking at you and saying "he's good. Or he's been made righteous by the blood of Jesus and the quickening of the Spirit." This is by works because Jesus said by their fruits ye shall know them. We can't look into your heart, or feel the Spirit directly testifying to us of your new life. I read an influential Primitive Baptist preacher say that Justification by Works is proving to others that your belief is genuine. But that's not what justification means. It's proving that you're righteous, not that you believe. Yes, if you make a profession of Jesus, your works either agree with that profession or cast doubt on it, but that's not what Justification by Works really is. What fruit proves that you're good? The fruit of the Spirit proves that the Spirit has born you again: Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. So yes, belief requires faith which provides justification, but when we're talking about justification by works there is no need to privilege faith over any of the fruit of the Spirit. Just because you cannot see someone's faith, doesn't mean you can't know they're born of God if you can see other fruit of the Spirit.

The Kingdom of God is Better Than Your Political Party

I hate both of your political parties. I have a better kingdom to tell you about, but first I want you to hate the kingdoms of this world as much as I do. I don't think you're really ready to hear about the Kingdom of Christ if you're still looking for a political party to save you.

I'm not impressed with the biblical quotations and allusions to the gospel that a politician makes in his speech. Don't you know the pharisees knew how to make a great speech and to quote scripture? Don't you think Satan himself does too? Jesus said "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." I say with John: "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth." I'm not impressed by a politician's speech, until he starts walking his talk. Speaking is what they do. It's what they're good at. It's designed to make you love them, and to make you believe that all the things wrong are someone else's fault; and oh I can see it's working. I won't love them or praise them until they start holding rich and powerful perverts accountable for employing Jeffrey Epstein; until they start standing up against genocide in Gaza; until they stop oppressing the poor with debt and inflation; until they stop getting us involved in continuous wars; until they start criminalizing abortion at all stages and holding all responsible parties accountable for it. Now as much as ever is Isaiah's prophecy relevant:

 "Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.

"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.

“Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them."

 

These political parties are just kingdoms of this world. They are motivated by their lusts for power and fame and will say what they need to get it. We are called to a better Kingdom, one that is not of this world. This is where I hold my most valued citizenship and where I want to spend my energy growing. One of the beautiful things about the Primitive Baptists is that we make a clear distinction between the Church and the World. Almost every other denomination mixes the two together and it absolutely spoils the Church. Thankfully (but sadly) by withdrawing from worldly movements originating from the Church, the Primitive Baptists have kept the Kingdom that Christ established and preserves in the earth.

A key doctrine that keeps this distinction is the difference between the triumphant kingdom and the militant kingdom. This is ultimately the same Kingdom, but it's a distinction in when the Kingdom will be manifest as such (now in time or later in eternity). The triumphant kingdom is everyone that Jesus loves and saved, all of whom will enjoy His glory in loving communion for eternity. The extent of this kingdom isn't yet evident by human observation, but will be at the end. This kingdom is filled with a people that no man can number, that are redeemed out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (Rev 5:9). The triumphant kingdom includes all the seed promised in Abraham which are more than the stars of the sky and the sand of the sea. (It's clearly a large number but not universal in that God sovereignly did not love some and left them to their own reprobate nature to reap what they sow for eternity). The militant kingdom is a remnant of the faithful. Those that repent of their sinful mindsets and lifestyles. This is a small number of people. "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in his presence." "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." These last quotations deal with the militant kingdom and refer to the Primitive Baptists. It's important to note that we do not believe that heaven will be limited to those in the militant kingdom of God, but other denominations, try as they might to expand the borders of their church to include the whole world cannot, and end up with a much too small view of heaven because they only see people with their shared religious values as being included in the triumphant kingdom.

Another way we know these domains are distinct is in the way the Kingdom is entered. In Colossians 1, we read of being translated (passive) into the Kingdom of his dear Son. In Luke 16 Jesus says that since John the Kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth (active) into. Clearly these are distinct domains if one is entered into passively and the other is entered into actively. In John 3, Jesus said except a man be born (passive) again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. He compares that Spiritual birth to the way wind blows--thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is EVERY ONE that is born of the Spirit. This Spiritual birth cannot be what is done by faith in the gospel because it is like the wind and not carried or directed through the agency of man. The entry to the triumphant kingdom is a circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God (Rom 2:29). This circumcision is made without hands (Col 2:11).

If you've been born again, and circumcised in your heart, you hate the world too and are probably already tired of it. 1 John 2:16-17 "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever."  Don't you want to come home to the Kingdom now and enjoy the earnest of your inheritance? I wish every one of God's born again would come home and leave the world behind them. Entering this domain, the visible or militant Kingdom, the Church; requires taking up a cross, crucifying the flesh, following the Lord through the watery grave, and living for Christ (all active). What we gain by joining ourselves to the body of Christ, the Primitive Baptist Church, is worth way more than everything we lose.

Total Depravity. Article 5

Total Depravity describes the condition of every man by nature as subject to the wrath of God and utterly destitute of any virtue or ability to recover himself into God’s favor. Understanding this doctrine as taught in the Bible will force every child of God to abandon every other refuge and run to Christ as the only hope of their salvation. It is hard medicine for us at first, but it makes the glory of the mercy of God shine so bright that we are so much happier to glory in the Lord than we ever were in our delusions of self-sufficiency.

We believe in man’s impotency to recover himself from the fallen state he is in by nature, by his own free will and ability.

First let’s distinguish between the natural man and the spiritual man by considering 1 Cor 2:14-15 and Rom 8:5-9. These two passages clearly make a distinction between someone that has the Spirit of God and those without (in the flesh, carnal, natural). Jesus says that a man cannot see the kingdom of God except he is born again, or born of the Spirit, John 3:3-8. This doctrine addresses the man by nature only, and not the man after he is born of the Spirit. If you love the Lord and want to abide in him, this doesn’t describe your current state but proves that it required the life-giving power of God to change you from your natural state, Eph 1:19. If a mind is enmity against God, cannot be subject to his law, and finds spiritual things foolish; he won’t comply with even the easiest conditions because he has no desire for it.

Secondly, our natural condition is described as death. Eph 2:1-3 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. I first want to notice that he’s addressing saints—good people—and saying that we all by nature are no better than the worst of criminals. This death is obviously not a natural death but a spiritual death. Since it’s obvious that one who is naturally dead has no ability to respond to commands or invitations to be raised to natural life, the conclusion of the teaching here is that there is no ability in man who is destitute of the Spirit to respond to commands or invitations to be born again. It has to be the quickening power of the voice of Christ that raised Lazarus from the dead that raised us from our spiritual death into spiritual life.

Ezekiel 16:1-14 tells a graphic story depicting us (the adopted children of God) as a helpless baby cast out immediately upon birth by our natural parents. It’s so easy to see our helplessness in this picture. The Bible also goes at length to describe every part of us as corrupt. It describes our eyes, heart, hands, fingers, lips, tongue, feet, thoughts, paths, mouth, throat, and inward part as very wickedness (Rom 3:18, Jer 17:9, Is 59:3-8, Ps 5:9). Even our righteousness is as filthy rags, Is 64:6. That’s the very best we have to offer and it’s offensive in the sight of God.

The doctrine of total depravity is taught in the Bible to remove any basis of boasting in ourselves and to magnify the glory of the love of the Lord, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8). If you have experienced the depravity of your nature, then you are like the Publican in Luke 18:13,14 that would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. So you likewise have the promise of the Blessed saviour who said: I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Original Sin. Article 4.

 The curse bent the whole arc of history. Article 4 states that we believe in the doctrine of original sin. This means that every single person born from a human father has a nature that is corrupt. In other words, we’re all sinners.

It’s hard to imagine what the world was like before the curse. God looked at all his creation and said it was very good. There was no fear, no shame, no sorrow, no toil in labor, no disease or disability, and no death. The command God gave to Adam was simple to understand and easy to follow; but both Adam and his wife Eve, by the serpent’s suggestion, were complicit in testing God’s authority and goodness. True to God’s word, Adam and Eve died that day from the blissful, fear-free and shame-free fellowship with God. Their bodies also began to age and die. God cursed the whole world he had put under Adam’s authority, and history has ever since been marked by this curse.

Paul taught original sin in Romans 5:12-14. Sin entered the world by one man (Adam), death entered world by sin, so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. The law makes it known what is right and what is sin, but death reigns over even those individuals that haven’t broken a law. In other words, some have died even before making a conscious decision to break a law, because they had a sinful nature that was inherited from their father. Job observes that this curse affects us immediately and that our sinful nature is inherited. Job 14:1-4 Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full of trouble. He cometh forth like a flower, and is cut down: he fleeth also as a shadow, and continueth not. And dost thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringest me into judgment with thee? Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one. David also in Ps 51:5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. And Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. It's a hard pill to swallow but it’s an obvious truth that we can see all around us. If the doctrine of original sin were not true, how could we explain how hard it is for even children to do good when we need no instruction or help to lie, cheat and steal?

Our sin nature is universal. All of us, Jews, Gentiles, believers, unbelievers, are born in sin. Romans 3:9-10 What then? Are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteious, no, not one. This is why it is so foolish to compare ourselves to other sinners (2Cor 10:12). No matter how “big” you think your sins are compared to your neighbor, when it comes to the curse of death, we’re all just as guilty.

Thankfully, the same principle of representation is how we’re blessed by the righteousness of Christ. This is what Paul is driving at in Romans 5 when he asserts the principle of representation. Adam’s sin plunged all his seed into death, but Christ’s obedience springs all his seed into everlasting life.

This is a big reason I can never get on board with allegorizing the garden of Eden to harmonize the Bible with evolutionary timescales for the age of the earth and origin of species. Paul ties our hope of life to a man, Jesus, who overcame death brought by Adam’s sin. Death is not just figurative, it’s real and tangible. If evolution were true (survival of the fittest), then death is what made the world and mankind what it is. If the gospel is true, death can be defeated by a righteous man because it was brought in by the sin of the first man. If Adam’s sin is just an allegory, then Christ’s obedience doesn’t overcome the dreadful reality of death. But since we follow the Bible literally, we can with Paul rejoice in the literal triumph over death. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is they sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Cor 15:54-57

Election. Article 3

 Blessed is the man whom thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee, that he may dwell in thy courts: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house, even of thy holy temple Psalm 65:4.

Article 3 describes that those blessed persons who would dwell with God and partake of his goodness, were chosen by God for that blessing. We believe in the doctrine of election and that God chose his people before the foundation of the world. Let’s define this doctrine and place it in the context of an eternal purpose (covenant).

I will not try hard to prove the doctrine here, since I believe it comes out very strong by simply explaining it by the Bible. The difficulty comes from people who explain away the straightforward texts teaching election to harmonize them with texts that teach man’s duty. The harmony they miss comes in distinguishing the covenant of grace (eternal) with a covenant of service (temporal, discipleship) that we accept and obey in the church kingdom. Election is how we get into the eternal covenant and so for every single heir of heaven. The church kingdom is the current temporal phase of God’s kingdom and must be “pressed into” with effort and understanding (Lu 16:16). The heirs of the contemporary promise land—the church—are a small subset of the elect heirs of eternal heaven (Rev 5:9, 7:9).

Elect, as defined by Webster: “To pick out; to select from among two or more, that which is preferred. In theology, to designate, choose or select as an object of mercy or favor.” Articles of faith are in a sense negative. I mean they were written to distinguish our beliefs from specific errors which have brought confusion in trying to understand God’s Word. Article 3 repudiates the idea that we, sinners, make a choice that determines our eternal destiny.

Next, I want to separate us from the implication that the non-elect were unconditionally chosen for damnation. That is what Calvin taught, but it’s not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that we were chosen to be holy and without before him in love (Eph 1:4). God gave man a covenant of works and by His righteous standards, death is the sentence for those that break that covenant (Gen 2:17, Ez 18:4, Rom 6:23). The non-elect never had the benefit of the blessings the elect have in Christ (Eph 1:3) which included him being our surety (Heb 7:22), so they weren’t going to inherit Heaven and dwell with God intimately. But the only reason they die, and the only reason that in death they suffer everlasting fire (Mt 25:41) is because of their rebellion and iniquities that come from their will, not God’s (Mt 7:23).

Election teaches that the choice of God’s heirs (Ps 33:12) is by God and not by man. It is God’s sovereign choice. It’s not hard for us to understand that we didn’t choose to be created and live in the first place; we also didn’t choose the parents who gave us birth. It’s also easy to understand that in the process of adoption, it’s the parents that make the sovereign choice. I’ve never heard of an earthly adoption where a couple declared that whoever chose them would be adopted. The Bible describes us as being adopted into God’s family for eternal communion with Jesus Christ (Eph 1:5). Romans 9:11, 16 and 2Tim 1:9 all declare that election was based on God’s purpose and explicitly rule out any condition performed by the chosen as the basis for this choice.

Finally, I want to emphasize that we were chosen and secure before creation existed. God is not bound by time, so why would Paul in Eph 1:4 say that we were chosen before the foundation of the world? It has to be because it didn’t depend on anything that would happen in time. God providentially answers prayers and intervenes in our lives based on the circumstances we are in, but those actions are never described as before the foundation of the world. Ps 139:16 says that all the members of the body of Christ were known and written in his book when as yet there were none of them. These things couldn’t be unless God chose us completely independent of anything we ever say or do.

The Authorized English Translation. Article 2 Part 2.

 Why are Primitive Baptists stuck on the old King James translation of the Bible? It’s really quite simple. Every word of God matters and there is no reason to believe that modern scholarship has restored any of them. The KJV-only question is really a contest between church tradition and modern seminary scholarship. The King James translation is the Primitive Baptist tradition (and of every English-speaking denomination uncontested for 300 years); every other version is a product of modern seminary scholarship trying to move us away from what has been given to us. I will prove based on the Bible that all the modern translations should be set aside as suspicious at best, so we should hold on to the King James translation.

We will first briefly consider our adversary Satan, lest he should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices. Then we will lay down some basic axioms, state the argument, and prove it.

We just wrote an article about the Scriptures’ role as our only rule of faith and practice and so the next obvious question is what do the Scriptures say? It’s not nearly as complicated as the seminary professors want us to think it is. Paul asked the Galatians, Who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth? To bewitch is to deceive and mislead by juggling tricks or imposter (Webster 1828 defn 2). If you feel overwhelmed by all the scholarly work that has been done to “reconstruct” the text of the Bible, and decide that we just have to go along with the latest scholarship, then you know what if feels like to be bewitched. I respect that there’s so much that goes into textual criticism that is way over my head, and that’s ok. I don’t believe God makes it that hard for us to answer the simple question: What does God really say?

Let’s first consider that Satan is actively opposing the Lord’s people and undermining his authority. From the very beginning of time we hear: Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? Gen 3:1. Let’s state as an axiom, that just because something is subtle or is only a small change, does not mean that it isn’t dangerous. Let’s also note that Satan’s oldest trick in his bag is to create a question in your mind about what exactly God said.

Now the next axiom to be laid down is that we should strive for accuracy of God’s word when choosing a Bible above any subjective preferences. That’s obvious but how often do people just go straight to what language they are more familiar with or to other personal tastes without really addressing whether the changes in the words are accurate? I say we should establish what the words of God are and then submit our preferences to that. Choosing an inaccurate book because we like it better would be destructive.

The third axiom was stated in the introductory paragraph: The King James translation was the only authoritative Bible in our language for centuries. From about 1660 to 1960 there was no real rival to the KJV, except in only the most secular/progressive circles in the early 20^th century.

Finally, the fourth axiom is that the principles we use to select the proper translation should come from the Bible. The believer can understand the nature of God’s revelation laid out in Scripture without having a degree in classical languages or the philosophy of religion.

My argument is that all new translations should be rejected because their claims to better accuracy than the KJV undermines the promises of God that his words are pure and that they would be preserved.  The Bible describes every word of God as important, and that he promised that they would be available to his church in every age. If a modern translation does not claim more accuracy as the KJV, we eliminate it because of the many changes they made to the text. Whether or not someone says it affects a doctrine doesn’t matter! Someone who loves the very words of God will not tolerate such laxity with Scripture lest it obscures the truth in any way. If a modern translation had better accuracy than the the KJV, then some article of God’s word was lost for generations which violates God’s promises.

What does God say about the preservation of his words?

• He commands his people to hearken to them, not to add to them or diminish anything from them, but keep his commandments. Deut 4:2
• His people live by every word that proceedeth out of his mouth. Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4
• His words are pure and he will preserve them from this this generation for ever. Ps 12:6-7. Even if some say that he is talking about preserving the godly and faithful men, as we can see, the godly and faithful man is keeping his words, so either way it’s a promise that his words will be faithfully preserved pure.
•  Every word of God is pure. Prov 30:5
• For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven. Ps 119:89. Jesus and the Holy Spirit taught the Apostles things that came directly from the eternal Godhead. Jn 12:49-50, Jn 17:8, Jn 16:13. The word of our God shall stand for ever. Is 40:8. These references mean the fundamental substance of what we have in God’s revelation is something that never changes, so it makes sense for us to keep the text as constant and stable as humanly possible. Having a new revision every few years is the opposite of that.
• He gave us a new testament, which is a legal covenant. Heb 9. It’s not lawful to change the wording of even a man’s covenant. Gal 3:15.
• Jesus promised that the law had been preserved to him in every jot and tittle, and that his words would never pass away. Mt 5:18, 24:35
• Curses are given to those how add to or take away from the prophecy of this book. Rev 22:18-19.
• The faithful man of God loves God’s word, meditates in it, hides it in his heart, loves it above fine gold, and esteems it to be right concerning all things. Psalm 119: 11, 16, 97, 127-128, 140.
• The faithful man of God keeps his precepts, commandments, statutes, words, testimonies, word, law, and judgments. Psalm 119. Whatever may be entailed in the keeping of these things, a faithful written record is a minimal starting point.
• Paul charges Timothy that the Scriptures which he knew from his youth, as well the words and doctrine that he received from Paul, were committed to his trust and to be committed to faithful men who would teach others also. 1Ti 6:20, 2Ti 1:13, 2:2, 3:14-17.

As I hope you can see, for our confidence in the accuracy and reliability of the text of scripture, we rely on the promise of God to preserve them. God’s method of preserving his scriptures is not by him and him alone such as election, redemption, glorification etc.; but it is by providentially guiding and protecting his people who by their active and loving effort keep his words. This means that the promise isn’t that his pure words would be available for all humans everywhere, but that he would have a witness—a pillar and ground of the truth—in his church. So, where you find his church, you will find the accurate and reliable text in your time and place.

What does the modern scholarship that delivers new versions or substitute bibles say about the preservation of God’s words?

• Texts discovered in the 18^th century, such as Sinaiticus Aleph, should be used to improve the accuracy of the Bible because they are older copies (4^th century) than the physical copies relied on by Erasmus when he assembled the Greek “Textus Receptus” used by the King James translators.
• Scholars reconstruct the Word of God based on all available manuscripts that have been discovered.
• External evidence is weighed from each variation of text such as the number of manuscripts containing a given variation.
• Internal evidence is weighed from each variation to help explain which variant is more likely to be an omission or an addition.
• The scriptures are inspired and inerrant in the original autographs. However, since none of the original autographs exist, the Bible you hold in your hand is not inerrant.
• The method of reconstructing God’s word should be the same method of reconstructing Homer and Plato etc.
• Modern scholarship, examining 5,800+ manuscripts that are 500 – 2000 years old, gives a more reliable presentation of God’s Word than the Bible delivered to us through the unbroken tradition of men who love and esteem God’s Word.

I believe the above are fair statements representing what I hear from even “conservative” circles of seminary authorities for what goes into us knowing what exactly God has given for us to believe. In fairness, I believe they are honestly trying to do their best to establish what is true and most are not actually trying to get us to swallow heresy (even though there has always been an element of that too). I’m hoping that you can see that the principles of modern Bible revision are in violation of God’s word.

For most people, I will not be as influential as those scholars that have devoted their lives to higher study and make their living off it. My arguments aren’t sophisticated and my intelligence is mediocre. I also don’t have a command of all the facts and details about the modern methods of textual criticism like those who study it do. However, I think my approach is based on faith and that is better than the wisdom of this world. Let’s keep in mind what the Apostle Paul says before we just keep putting faith in those with educational degrees. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. 1Co 1:26-27.

I made an argument that common people like me can understand. It’s healthy to be skeptical of those that make their living off selling new revisions of the Bible. It’s not just the publishers and those that were directly involved in the work. The whole idea that you really need to learn and understand Greek and/or Hebrew to be a pastor, keeps the whole seminary industry going and helps those that have a degree to keep it profitable for themself. Having confusion in bible versions is all part of that racket. Consider the antithesis that our Lord had with the educated of his day in Mark 12:37-40. And the common people heard him gladly. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts: which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation. That doesn’t make me right, it just means beware of those that live by priestcraft and don’t just take their word because they know more than you and me.

I’m not against textual criticism, archealogical findings, and advanced scholarship per se. I’m just against using those methods to change God’s word or substituting something new for what has been passed down to us from our good and faithful fathers. I think the discipline of finding and studying ancient manuscripts is very interesting and the results of textual criticism goes a long way in answering the critic with an amazing level of agreement in all the old evidence. That is scholarly work reserved for a few that choose to dedicate themselves to that field.

Many other things could be said in favor of various features of the King James translation or refuting the arguments against it. I tried to be brief while still getting to what I believe is the heart of the issue. To restate my argument, based on the promises contained in Scripture, I trust what the church has done by the providence of God in real time when they decided which texts and translations that they would keep. Because they loved God and would not tolerate the adulterations which existed in every generation, I do believe the true church passed down what we need to hold on to and we don’t need to revisit those decisions with ancient evidence centuries after they were copied. May God bless you in your prayerful consideration of these issues and I hope my effort was able to shed some light for you. As always, give God the praise and glory for the light, but the fault is with me for any errors I have made.

Authority of Scriptures as God's Word. Article 2 Part 1

We believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God and the only rule of faith and practice (Article 2). God has spoken to his people, and they have kept his words for us to keep and pass to the next generation. The Bible is the written record that God has given us to know the truth and is therefore the final standard by which we judge every thought or act. This second article states how we prove all the other beliefs we hold, so we should carefully consider how we prove that it is true. The Scriptures that have been handed down to us through the generations in the Primitive Baptist Church as the Bible are the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments and for our place and time translated into English as the King James Authorized Version.

The first point is that these Scriptures are the word of God. As stated in Article 1, we have a personal relationship with God when he regenerates us into spiritual life and reveals himself to us vitally. Our ability to recognize the words in the Bible as his words is possible because he has taught us to know him. See John 6:41-47. When the Jews in this passage looked at Jesus, they simply saw a man that was the son of Joseph and Mary. What Jesus was saying is that in order for men to see Jesus as more than just a man, as the Bread of God given for the life of the world, they have to be taught by God himself. Likewise, without being born of the Spirit, man can only see another book that is written by men when they look at the Bible. But by the grace of God, those who are drawn and taught by God can see the Bible as precious and true because they tell us of the will of God and how we have eternal life.

Jesus is the Truth (John 14:6), so his words carry all authority. When we validate this Bible as the truth, it must be validated on its own terms, else we must look to some more authoritative source to ground our knowledge. If God didn’t provide the means to validate his word in his word, then we don’t have enough information to know the truth and the whole enterprise of arguing is a useless and meaningless endeavor. But he has given us enough validation.

We must recognize the lack of neutrality on this matter. Every notion I have about God—his nature and character—is informed by this Bible. Therefore, if I were to validate this Bible without referencing this Bible (presupposing its truth), I would have contradicted it by appealing to something else that is actually more authoritative. Also please notice that when someone asks us to justify the Bible based on a “neutral” reasoning, they are not being neutral. We should ask them to give us the ultimate standard by which we should judge the text and see if they can justify their ultimate standard without referencing itself. They can’t. At the ultimate level, they will be relying on their own individual human judgement or on some other arbitrary proposition that we must accept as self-evident. If anyone says something is true without depending on what God says, they contradict the Bible and are therefore not neutral. You have to choose one horse or another from the beginning: either your own human mind is the standard or God’s word is. I will stand on the Bible as the ultimate standard of truth and put that up against any other standard in its ability to make sense of reason, morality, and other realities that we know.

 The Bible is proven to be true, because without it, knowledge is impossible. That is, if someone denies the truth of the Bible, they know no foundational truth that can prove anything without being arbitrary or meaningless.

The second point is that it’s our only rule of faith and practice. Christ established a spiritual kingdom on this earth to worship him. John 4:24, John 18:36, Luke 12:21. He set the example for us by appealing to the scriptures as having authority to settle every question. Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17 as being noble for comparing his preaching to the scriptures. Every believer must test the words of elders and whoever has authority with the teachings of scripture. Those who are wise and know the Scriptures have an ability and responsibility to teach the sense and the meaning of the Scriptures, but there is no tradition or declaration made by men that equals the authority of the Scriptures. Every truth we need to affirm and every practice we need to keep in the church is established in the Scriptures. 2 Tim 3:16-17, and 2 Pe 1:3. This means that the revelation we were given in Scripture is perfect and complete. So, if a church practices anything that isn’t taught and regulated by God’s word, it is denying the scriptural teaching that God’s revelation delivered in the first generation of the church is perfect. This also means that to some extent or another, teaching or practicing it will hurt the church and diminish her witness in this world.

We feel the power of God’s words in our hearts because we have a vital knowledge of God, but to prove all our verbal, falsifiable, propositional beliefs (which are what articles of faith are), we rely on the text spoken by God.

Article 1 Part 2: Trinity

 I love the Trinity and want you to as well. I'm not talking about an abstract doctrine, I'm talking about my God. The doctrine of the Trinity describes my God in living detail and it's glorious if you see it. The first objective is to define the doctrine precisely and plainly because most objections stem from misunderstanding. Abstraction is dangerous here. Abstractions are made to help us understand real things, but if we can't make it back from abstraction, we haven't understood anything real. The second objective is to prove the doctrine based on the Bible. Finally, once the properly defined doctrine is understood and established based on the Word of God, we want to consider why a philosophy grounded in this three-in-one God is so much better than any philosophy man can come up with.

Article 1. We believe in the one true and living God, the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost.

The first description of God is that there is one God. He only is God and is completely unique--that is the first pillar of the doctrine of the Trinity. The article goes on to describe the one true and living God as the Father, the Word, the Holy Ghost. This is not merely three different names for a single person, but three distinct persons that partake in the being or essence of the one God--or the Godhead. The third pillar is that each of these three divine persons share the full and complete nature of God equally and eternally. Many complaints against the doctrine of Trinity act as if we're saying God is one and three in the same sense, which would be a logical contradiction, so we will clarify that the threeness is the persons and onness is the being. The three persons relate to each other in eternal love and communion, and each exist together in one self-sustaining, eternal being with divine attributes such as absolute power, absolute wisdom, and changelessness. 

The Old Testament emphasizes the unity and uniquness of God throughout.

De 6:4-5 Hear, O Isreal: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Is 43: 10-11 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Is 44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Is 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

These are just a few examples where God declares himself as one God. He claims authority over the whole universe as its creator, and particularly over Isreal as his redeemer. This is the first boundary as we ponder the nature and person of God is that there is a fundamental unity and oneness relating to his existence and authority that is not shared with any other being.

The second pillar, relating to the distinctness of the three persons, becomes vivid in the incarnation and ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lu 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Mt 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

I chose these two as examples showing Jesus revealed himself as the Son of God and showing a clear distinction between himself and the person of the Father and that of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit of God and Holy Spirit are just synonyms of the Holy Ghost so can be used interchangeably. But clearly the names of Father and Son are not synonyms and so must be talking about two distinct persons. The scene at the baptism shows while the Son was in the water, the Spirit descended; and then after the Spirit descended, the voice of the Father spoke from heaven. This can only be understood as three distinct persons and not merely three names nor three offices of the same person.

The Jewish leaders rejected Christ appealing to the Old Testament teachings of the unity of the Godhead, but the plurality of persons in the Godhead doesn't contradict the unity of God. I look at the pattern of the Beloved in Song of Solomon 2:8-9. In this story there is an account of the Shulamite woman seeing her beloved coming from the mountains, then seeing him behind her wall showing himself through the lattice of her window. I can relate to that image because when a person is close to you, more details about their appearance are visible than when they were distant. God was visible to his people in the Old Testament time, but he came closer in the incarnation. There were hints and evidence of the plurality in the nature of God in the Old Testament, but the distinct persons of Father, Son, and Spirit were not made explicit until God came in the flesh. The key is to not make a false choice between either accepting unity or plurality, but to learn how God combines both in his nature.

The third pillar is the full divinity and equality of each individual person. In Jn 5:17-23 we see that Jesus was claiming that God was his Father in a sense that gave him the same nature as his Father. We pray to the Father by the Spirit of Adoption (Rom 8:15), but Jesus was the only begotten Son (Jn 3:16). In this passage Jesus claims to do all the works as the Father including quickening the dead, executing judgment, and receiving honor from men. In the prologue of John, Jn 1:1-3, Jesus is ascribed being God, eternally present with God, and creating all things. This passage definitely identifies Christ as the one true and living God of the Old Testament as well as being present with the other persons who are also God. In Christ's prayer in Jn 17, he shines some light on that eternal presence with God as glorifying one another (v.5), being one (v.22), and loving one another (v.24). The Spirit was present in creation (Gen 1:2), inspired Holy Scripture (2Pe 1:21 + 2Ti 3:16), formed Christ's human nature (Lu 1:35), sent by the Father to guide the church into all truth, and reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness and of judgment (Jn 16:7-16). Each of these actions attributed to the Holy Spirit prove that he is fully and eternally God. Finally, they are each named during each Baptism into his church (Mt 28:19), which wouldn't make sense unless they all were completely and equally divine.

There are many more scriptures that demonstrate the Trinity and a long history of debates that we can't get into, but I hope there is enough there to understand what the doctrine teaches and that there is clear biblical support for it. Hopefully, it will convince those that agree that the Bible is the truth. However, for those that find the Trinity so unbelievable that it is a stumbling blockto accepting the Bible, I think taking some time to consider this issue from a secular standpoint would be helpful.

The conscious investigation of the nature of reality or being is called metaphysics or ontology. Historically in secular ontology, there have been beliefs set forth about the ultimate unit of realitythat goes in one of only two directions--monistic and atomistic. Monism is the belief that underneath all material and forces is one substance that explains the unity and harmony of all things. Atomism is the belief that the world is comprised of manydiscrete units or atoms that explain the variety and distinctions we experience. Monistic ontologies prioritize unity and try to explain change and variety in terms of the overall unified system. Atomistic ontologies prioritize diversity and try to explain relationships and laws in terms of the interplay betweenthe nature of individual things.

For the last couple hundred years, secular philosophy has not given metaphysics much attention as they realized that we can't resolve the differences of such ideas on the basis of our natural reason. Notwithstanding the suspicion of metaphysical arguments, one's belief about the fundamental nature of reality certainly determines what one considers good and bad approaches to wisdom in every aspect of life and society. Bible believers aren't neutral or accommodating to secular metaphysical theories. We believe that being is fundamentally aself-existent God that created everything we experience. So as we attempt to gain wisdom and learn the meaning and relationships of the various aspects of the world, our fundamental knowledge from God's word guides us. In God’s word we find that not only does a perfectly unified Godhead provide a basis for understanding and believing that there is harmony and order in all the diversity of life, we also find that particularity of individuals, and loving relationships are as equally fundamental as unity in the eternal Godhead.

The whole history of Western Philosophy is an unresolved tension between an ultimate reality that is one unchanging essence or several diverse particulars. Ignoring what ultimate reality is, and saying metaphysics is unimportant, hasn't changed the fact that in discussing moral norms, political authority, and factuality; people have fundamentally incompatible views and engage in bitter but unresolvable arguments because one position is based on a monistic metaphysic while the other is atomistic. If you want proof, just log on to social media, like X, and observe how intractable some of the discussions on politics/civil rights are. Monistic arguments always run in the direction that swallows up individuals and diminishes the freedom and uniqueness that we know and love; this understandably triggers a reaction from those to protect individuality. Atomistic arguments always tend to diminish meaningful relationships and obligations undermining social order and cohesion; this understandably triggers a reaction from those seeking to preserve order and harmony.

The Bible allows us to resolve this dilemma because it teaches about a God that need not prioritize unity over diversity norprioritize diversity over unity. The particularity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is not lost in the unity of the Godhead, neither is the unity lost in the particularity. They are one by sharing an eternal essence, exhaustively knowing each other, and absolutely loving each other. A Unitarian god could have created discrete particulars, but things like relationships, love, and distinction of individuals would be secondary or temporary and all things would ultimately resolve into the sovereign power of one. Likewise, polytheistic or subordinate gods might have love and individuality as eternal, but unity and harmony wouldn't be necessary or ultimate. I am not saying that the doctrine of the Trinity was thought up to be a solution to a philosophical problem—it clearly wasn't. Trinity is forced upon us by makingsense of the plain and clear teachings of scripture given to us by God. However, I do believe it gloriously avoids such an impossible dilemma that we've seen play out over history and gives comfort to those that believe it.