Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: — | Date: January 17, 2021 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

We love to explore it to the degree that you have revealed it to us. We pray that you will help us in our understanding of it today, help us to go away from it with a greater appreciation of your uniqueness, your greatness, and the work that you’ve done for us. We pray in Jesus’ name, amen.

Supposedly, in our series of studies through the epistle to the Colossians, but in Colossians chapter 1, we had all of those terminology and discussion about the person of Christ, his relation to the Father, and so on. So we’ve taken a bit of an aside for a few weeks to look at the early creeds and how they defined the Trinity, how they define the relationship of the Father and Son, and so on. We saw that the Church recognized that need for those kinds of definitions early on. First of all, for the affirmations of faith like we still have in the Apostles’ Creed. And then, as time progressed, the need to define those terms of what we say we believe, and that’s what we have in the creeds. And this defines for us orthodoxy as opposed to heresy.

The focus of the earliest creeds is the Trinity, the identity of the Son, the relationship of the Son to the Father. We explored that last time with the terminology of begotten and the doctrine of eternal generation—that the Son in some sense finds his origin in the Father, and yet it is eternally so. So, eternal generation, and we find this “fromness” language in the New Testament so often that reflects this doctrine that we’ve seen. And that’s what we see in these creeds that they’re trying to capture. And then it climaxes in that term “consubstantial with the Father.” The Son is of the same essence. It doesn’t explore what that essence is. It doesn’t get into metaphysics. Just whatever the essence of the Father is, that’s what the Son is also. They are one in being—distinct persons, but one in being.

And so we’ve looked at the creeds. Now, I have to do a mea culpa before we go any further. I got a phone call last Sunday afternoon from one of our deacons who has a good sense of humor. And I won’t give you his name, but his initials are Jim Worthington. He calls up and he points out a misspelling in the handout that I gave you on this great big term: Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Now, my point in giving that to you is not so that you remember to say it. Nobody says that. The point in giving it to you is to show you that the Creed of 381 is an update and a completion of the Creed of 325. And when we say today in churches they quote the Nicene Creed, it is the one of 381. But I think what Jim said was something to the effect of, “If you’re going to teach us a $10 word, you could at least spell it right.” And so my first response was, “I didn’t spell it right? It’s got to be right.” And I went and looked. And in fact, Jim, there were two misspellings in the same word. But now I think it is correct. Now that we got that behind us and I’ve confessed, we can move on.

The Holy Spirit And The Trinity

Okay, so we’ve seen—we’ve established at 325 and then in 381—we’ve established the identity of the Son, his relationship to the Father. Now backing up to 325, there were controversies that continued. And that is with regard to the Holy Spirit. Now it would seem that if you—whatever you say of the Son, you must say also of the Holy Spirit: that he is of the same essence with the Father. But in fact, there were those who objected to that. They argued that the Spirit was not of the same essence as the Father. He’s more like an angel. And these people are known to history as the Pneumatomachi. It’s a Greek word that means something like “combatants” or “fighting against the Holy Spirit.”

Well, so this now is the topic for today. What do we say now about the Holy Spirit with regard to the Trinity, the triune God? Well, again, it was Athanasius who rose to the cause and was the hero of the day. In a big way, he was also joined by his younger friends, the Cappadocians—Cappadocian Fathers, as they are known. First is Basil the Great, B-A-S-I-L. He was Bishop of Caesarea. Athanasius said of Basil that he is the pride of the church, so highly he thought of him. There was also Basil’s younger brother, Gregory of Nyssa. They had a younger friend, Gregory of Nazianzus—yes, thank you. Draw a blank. There were others as well. Didymus the Blind, as he was called. And Hilary was involved in that as well—Hilary of Poitiers, French word. I think it is pronounced “Pwan-tyay.” I like what Mark Twain said about the French: they have a beautiful language, but they really spell funny. Some of the letters don’t seem to matter. But anyway, he was another one.

Anyway, they have to argue now with regard to the deity of the Holy Spirit. And so just quickly here in a thumbnail sketch, some of their arguments for the deity of the Spirit that they culled from scripture:

One was that the Spirit is worthy of worship. For instance, in Philippians 3, you have an indication of that. Then the names and the titles of the Holy Spirit. For one, He’s called the Holy Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God. He is called the Spirit of the Lord. He’s called the Spirit of Christ. These all indicate his deity. And in fact, you have warning against blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, again indicating his deity.

We have the attributes of God attributed to the Spirit. He is omnipresent. He’s omnipotent. And so on. Also, the works of God are attributed to the Spirit. He creates, He gives life, He saves, He reveals God. Fascinating passage in 1 Corinthians 2 in that regard where the apostle says no one can know the mind of God but God Himself; who then can reveal God to us but the Spirit of God who knows the mind of God? That is, the Spirit is himself God, and so can reveal God fully to us. So he knows God fully. He can reveal God. He saves. He sanctifies. He inspires scripture. He inspires the prophets to bring God’s word to us. All of this is the activity of God attributed to the Holy Spirit.

One important argument that they used during those decades, which was an interesting one, I think, is the title “The Spirit of Christ.” He’s called the Spirit of Christ. We’ve already established in 325 that Christ is God, consubstantial with the Father. If the Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ, to say that he is not God—not fully God—would blaspheme Christ. An interesting argument that they used.

But anyway, those were some of the kinds of arguments that they used. Athanasius wrote, “Those who pretend to profess the faith confessed at Nicaea but who dare to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than deny the Arian heresy in words while they hold it fast in thought.” So we have then the issue of the Holy Spirit and his deity. Athanasius died in 373, and his cause was carried on primarily by the Cappadocians, although Basil died in 379.

The Emperor Theodosius called the council at Constantinople in 381, which we looked at last time with regard to its statement about the Son. But today we’ll look at it with regard to the Holy Spirit. Two primary accomplishments of the Council of Constantinople: number one was to reassert the statement of Nicaea with regard to the doctrine of Christ. And then two, in Constantinople in 381, the accomplishment was to expand on the Council of Nicaea with regard to the Holy Spirit.

So look at the Nicene Creed, 325, on your outline: “We believe in God the Father Almighty… We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ…” and then go to the end, “and in the Holy Spirit.” That’s all they had. That was not the point under dispute at the time. Now look at the Creed of 381: “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty… then the next, I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God… and then next, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.” And then a couple of other brief statements, which we’ll see hopefully before we close this morning.

It expands on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, primarily to affirm the deity of the Holy Spirit. All right, notice: “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord.” Again, affirming his deity. “The giver of life.” What kind of life? All life—physical life, spiritual life. He’s the creator. He’s the one who applies the work of Christ to us, giving us salvation, spiritual life. He’s the Lord, the giver of life. And then this next one, we’ll spend some time on in a minute: “who proceeds from the Father.” That’s the relationship with the Father. The Son was begotten by the Father. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. Now this also, as we’ll see, is meant to affirm his consubstantiality with the Father. And it’s also meant to then point out the distinct personhood of the Spirit. All right. He’s the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified. The all-important statement there. Perfect equality of the three. We worship Father, Son, and Spirit equally. The triune God is the object of worship, and the Spirit has spoken to us through the prophets. He is the one who, as God, gave us the scriptures, and as God speaks to us through the scriptures.

The Relations Of The Father, Son, And Spirit

All right, a little bit more then on the relations of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Remember now the question is we are dealing with one God. We’re trying to understand how God is one God and yet three persons. How do you have the threeness of persons without three gods? And the answer that the early church came up with from the scriptures, I’m convinced is right, and the whole church for all the centuries has been convinced is right. The answer is in their relations to one another: Father, Son, and Spirit.

So notice the statement there again: “who proceeds from the Father.” Look at John 15 verse 26. Here Jesus is talking, and someone read that for us when you get to it. John 15:26. Okay, there’s our statement. This is right out of Jesus’ lips. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. That’s his relationship. He proceeds from the Father. Notice again, there’s this relationship of origin. He proceeds from the Father. It doesn’t define exactly what that means. Somehow the Father emits the Spirit. The word that’s used in theology is that of spiration. He breathes out the Spirit. There’s some statements like that in the Bible. All of this, remember, just like the word “begotten,” is analogical language. It has to accommodate us to somehow understand how things really are with God. But the important point here is to recognize that there’s this matter of relationship. The Father as the source, the Son begotten, the Spirit proceeding. One God sharing the same substance and yet distinct persons.

All right, now look at the creed again. “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father.” And then notice I have in brackets, “and the Son.” He proceeds from the Father and the Son. I have it in brackets because that was not in the creed in 381. It was not added until 589 at the Council of Toledo, Spain. And in fact, this became a source of great contention between the East and the West. And this is one of the primary reasons we have an Eastern Church and a Western Church today—the Roman Catholic Church in the West, the Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. And this was a real bone of contention during that time, the Great Schism it’s called, 1054, when the formal division came.

Why the controversy? Why was this a point of controversy that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son? All right, you’re in John 15. Notice again, “when the helper comes whom I will send to you from the father, the spirit of truth who proceeds from the father, he will bear witness about me.” Go back a page, John 14:26: “but the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said unto you.” That is some of the biblical basis for this, adding this expression, “and the Son.” It’s the famous filioque in Latin that was added. If you ever hear about the filioque controversy, this is it.

Look over at John 16, another page over. Someone read for us verses 13 to 15. “When the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into all the truth, for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears, He will speak, and He will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is Mine, therefore I said that…” All right, try to think carefully of the language that he uses. “All that the Father has is mine.” There’s a reflection of that begottenness kind of relationship between Father and Son again. But the Spirit speaks all that has come from the Father through Christ. What Jesus has, he has from the Father. What the Spirit has, he has no less from the Son than from the Father. Does that reflect, then, the eternal relations as well? Chapter 20, verse 22, we have that rather enigmatic statement where Jesus breathes on his disciples and says, “receive the Spirit of God.”

Now, the question here is, there is clearly a sense in which the Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son. But does that reflect their eternal relations? That’s the question. Is He from the Father and the Son eternally? Does this define their relation eternally as God is in Himself? Now, you might think on one level this is splitting theological hairs. And in fact, I don’t know that this is something that needs to be split over, if you pardon the pun. But there is something important at stake in it. And this is why, historically, the church wrangled over it. And it seems that these temporal processions, these temporal sendings—the Father sending the Spirit in the work of salvation—reflects the eternal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. So just as it was the Son who was sent, not the Father, reflecting the eternal relationship of Father and Son, so also the Father and the Son send the Spirit, reflecting the eternal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit.

Now, it would seem that they have come up with this with some other biblical support, by the way. Not just that he’s called the Spirit of God, but he’s called the Spirit of the Father, and he’s called the Spirit of the Son. That seems to signify the procession, reflecting their eternal relationships as well. The Father is Father to the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and he’s the Spirit of the Son. So the most important consideration here is that it defines the relationship of the three persons eternally. This is how Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct. How do we have one God—not multiplying three gods—one God and yet three distinct persons? What’s different about them? It is not their essence. They share that entirely. What is distinct about them is that one proceeds from the other, the other proceeds from both. The relationship of them, what they call the taxis, the order of relationships of the persons of the Trinity.

Let me give you one description of it from Robert Dabney: “The generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, however mysterious, are unavoidable corollaries from two facts. The essence of the Godhead is one. The persons are three. If these are both true, there must be some way in which the godhead multiplies its personal modes of subsistence without multiplying its substance.” Well, that’s the point. So the Son is the only begotten of the Father. It’s his eternal relationship of sonship from the Father. He’s eternally begotten. He’s the idea of filiation. The Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. What distinguishes them is not what they have; what distinguishes them is the order of having it. And that ordering is eternal. And so, the external works of God in salvation naturally reflect how it is with God, eternally. So the Father sends the Son. The Son is sent on the mission to save. It could not have been the reverse—that the Son sent the Father. It is reflective of their eternal relations. And so also then with the Spirit.

Well, by the way, I could say more about the Father and the Son. The Father sent the Son in his saving mission. The Father also creates by means of the Son—Colossians chapter one that we saw, also John chapter one. In John chapter five, the Son does what he has learned from the Father. All of those are divine acts, but there’s a certain ordering. And so also then with the Father and the Son working through the Spirit. Warfield calls the Holy Spirit “the executive of the Godhead.” That is, he’s the one that carries out the work himself specifically. And so Romans 5 and verse 5, the Spirit is poured out by the Father. Also, Acts chapter 2, Pentecost, the Spirit is poured out by the Son. John 14 and 15, as we’ve seen, He is sent by the Father and the Son. And in Mark chapter 1, 1 Corinthians chapter 12, to bring his people into union with himself, Jesus baptizes his people in the Spirit. Proceeding of the Spirit from the Son.

All of that, mysterious as it is, as Dabney says, is important because it reflects the way it is with God in himself. How are we to understand God the Trinity? At the end of the day, we’ll never get our mind fully around it, but this helps. This is important to understand how we have three distinct persons without multiplying gods. One God, three persons—the distinction is their relationship. And it’s a relationship of origin that is eternal. The Father is the architect, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the executive.

Now, it’s important to note in this: nothing in any of this regarding the generation of the Son, nothing in this regarding the proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, none of this says anything about superiority, subordination, or degrees of authority. They are one in all that God is. It is simply to speak of distinction of relationships. To my mind, this is some of the most difficult, maybe we can say the deepest matters that we have in the scripture because we’re talking about the person of God himself in his oneness and his threeness. I don’t know a mystery greater than that. But this, I think, is what the scriptures have revealed to us. The creeds have captured that as well as can be captured, and that is why the Church throughout all the centuries, both Catholic and Protestant, have held fast to this as something very important. So again, why is it important? Answer: it explains the Trinity. Eternal God and yet a relationship of origins in persons who are distinct.

Question And Answer

All right, that’s a lot. Any questions? Yes, Pastor Greg. “Now the Lord is a spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into His image with ever increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the spirit.” The first thing that’s interesting about those verses is that there seems to be an equation of the Son and the Spirit. “The Lord is the Spirit.” And I think that is reflective of what we find in 1 Corinthians 15 at the end of the chapter, where Christ has become the life-giving Spirit. In his resurrection glory, he has obtained the power to save by means of the Spirit, and the Spirit now works from the Son, and the Son working through the Spirit. The relationship is so tight that several times in the New Testament, you can find the Son spoken of in equal terms with the Spirit, as almost an equal of identity. Not quite, but almost.

For instance, Romans 8, we have the same thing. We have Paul interchangeably speaking of the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God. Which is it? Spirit of God or Spirit—it’s both. Or he can say, “the Spirit dwells in you,” “Christ dwells in you.” How does Christ dwell in us? He dwells by the Spirit. But because his work is so attached to the Spirit as the Lord and the giver of life, the two can be spoken of in that sense as one. But again, you see, I think in 2 Corinthians 3 there, it’s reflective of the eternal relations as well. I’m planning to deal with that in a message sometime soon. I forget which message it was I was preparing ahead of time. But we’re going to look at that passage at some length.

Yes, Clark. “It’s like Jesus in the garden. He kind of asked God about whether a cup could be moved or something, does that sort of show up?” In the garden, he’s praying to God, asking about whether that cup can be moved or something like that. Isn’t that sort of showing subjugation kind of? Yes, there is a subordination of the Son in the external workings of the Godhead. And so Jesus can say, “the Father is greater than I.” But that’s in His incarnate state. But in their eternal relationships, no. And so, for another example with that verse is that that indicates two wills in Jesus. We’ll talk about that next time—a human will and a divine will. “Not as I will, but as you will.” But it’s very important to affirm that in their eternal relations, the Son has the one and same will as the Father, shared equally.

Yes? “How has this difference impacted their theology?” That’s a good question. I don’t know, except at this point—and that’s the important point that was fought over—that God as he is in himself doesn’t have these relations in this way, which the West is going to argue. How then do you distinguish persons within the one God? If this is not a proceeding from the Father and the Son, how is the Spirit different from the Son? The answer the West gives is: he proceeds from the Father and the Son. And the West is going to press the East and say, “You don’t have an answer to that question.” So that’s, like I said, in a sense it sounds like splitting hairs, but it becomes important because it explains how God is in himself, and without this, we don’t have that.

Yes? “I think you kind of answered it there, but my question was like, what was the rationale for such the opposition to the idea of the spirit proceeding from the sun, from the eastern whatever state?” I think the rationale was just that in the language of proceeding, in John 15:26, is “he proceeds from the Father.” And they would want to argue that the proceeding from the Son or being sent from the Son is only in the external workings of God, not as he is in himself. So for them, it would have been more hair-splitting, maybe, than we would consider it. But it becomes very important in terms of understanding who God is as he is in himself.

Yeah. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, it says, “when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him, who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” Is that simply by virtue of the fact that because Jesus, in relationship—I’m going to be careful of my words here—but he’s subjected to the Father, and because the Father put it under him, it’s now under the Father? Yeah, speaking of Christ’s role as mediator, it is in the current state and sending of the work of salvation, the external works of God. He has been sent to do it, and now he brings it back to the Father, to submit.

Yeah, please. “I have a practical question about how the doctrine of the Trinity should impact our prayer. Is there a correct way to pray?” When I pray, I don’t think of the Trinity very often. And when I do, then I start to be like, “Huh, how should I pray, thinking of that Trinity?” That’s a great question. Do I pray to the Father? Do I pray to the Holy Spirit? Many times when we pray, we use generic terms. We say “God.” We should be thinking triune, but we say “God.” Often the word “God” means Father in the scriptures. “Lord” means Christ, and then there’s Spirit.

But we should be careful to pray accurately and not theoretically. And I don’t want to embarrass anyone here, but check your language when you pray. I’ve heard it many times from Christians—you hear it more and more all the time. We pray to the Father, and then we close the prayer and say, “In your name we pray.” No. We pray in the name of the Son. He is the one who brings us to the Father, because the Father has sent him to do that. And we pray by the enabling of the Spirit, because of the Son’s work. All of it is reflective of what God has done. All this is reflective of his eternal relation: sending the Son, the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to bring us back to God. And so our prayers ought to be reflective of that. And when we ask God to open the heart of a loved one who needs to be saved, we’re thinking particularly now in terms of the work of the Spirit, who can go to that person to do that, because of the authority of God himself, sent by the Son, who accomplished the ground of salvation, now to be applied in the heart.

Is it wrong to address the Son in prayer? I don’t think so. I don’t think it’s wrong to address the Son or the Spirit. The norm is to pray to the Father in the name of the Son, by the enablement of the Spirit. But then when we get there, so to speak, we’re praying to the Triune God. And so we should feel very free to say, like Stephen, pray to the Son and ask specifically for a work to be done. More commonly, it will be to the Spirit, or more commonly to God.

Joe. “I was just gonna ask then, surely we’re not being outright heretical by praying directly to the spirit to ask him for empowerment and strength and help. But in what you’re saying, is that not a good idea?” Well, like I say, the norm is what Jesus taught us. Pray to the Father in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit. To isolate one person for a given request or something, I think that’s entirely right, but the norm is the other.

But again, let me reemphasize what I said. When we pray, we don’t pray in the Father’s name. It’s sloppy theology, and we ought to think better. I wouldn’t want a man in a pulpit talking like that, and I wouldn’t want to pray like that. We see it in another sense. We have a song in the RBC hymnal that makes me wince every time we sing it. The whole first stanza is talking about the Father—to the Father, about the Father in his work—and then jumping to the chorus and it’s thanking him for dying for us. That’s heretical. I know the guy didn’t mean it; “Okay, we’ve shifted gears now, now we’re talking about the Son.” Okay, I can get there; it’s not heresy, but it is sloppy. And again, I wouldn’t want a guy in a pulpit talking like that. I think the model of Paul in his prayers and when he explains his prayers to the church reflects that priority over and over.

I’ll just read from 1 Thessalonians 1 and verse 3. It says, “We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Read that again. “We remember before our God and Father…” there’s the priority of approaching when he thanks God for the church and their faith; he’s going particularly to the Father, whom he sort of defines in apposition as God the Father. And in other places, he will talk about the Lord also, but that’s the typical model that you’ll see. And when the disciples ask Jesus how we should pray, he tells them, “Pray in this way: Our Father.” So there is this priority to the Father, but always through the Son and in the power of the Spirit.

Very good. Very good. Thank you. Clark. “I always think I can never forget who my mediator is. Everything we have is because of Christ and what he did. So I can’t go before a holy God without Christ and without his righteousness.” Absolutely. So you have to pray—when you come to God, always pray in the name of Jesus. That’s the important. He is the mediator. You can’t forget that. It’s exactly the significance of praying in Jesus’ name. It’s not just a little formula we tag on the end. It’s bringing to our recognition and acknowledging to God that the reason I’m coming is because of what your Son has done for me. I come not in my name; I come in his name.

Final Statements Of The Creed

All right, very quickly then, let’s finish up this creed. We have two more statements here with regard to the church: “I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” And then the last: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.”

All right, first: “I believe in one holy, catholic, apostolic church.” The unity of the church; the word “holy” designates us as saints in Christ. “Catholic”—now that one we stumble over. We had talked—the elders had talked—about reciting the Nicene Creed here in the congregation. And this was one of the hang-ups: the word “catholic.” Now, it appears in the Apostles’ Creed as well. We’ve changed it to “universal church.” That’s what the word “catholic,” small “c,” means: universally. So “one, holy, universal church” is what it means. So we can affirm that wholeheartedly. This is to say that this local congregation is not the whole church, but there’s a whole body of people redeemed by Christ that are his church. And that is to be defined as the apostles define it, and so it is an apostolic church.

Now this next one, then, is going to give a little indigestion as well: “I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” This was the reason we decided not to recite it here at church, because it would be too confusing. I think there’s a right way to say this. This reflects some New Testament language. And we will get to that in Colossians chapter 2. I better not get into it, or it’ll go too long. If you can understand baptism as the expression of faith by which we are saved and receive forgiveness of sins—if you can view baptism as the expression of faith by which we receive forgiveness—then this statement is very good. And that’s the way it was viewed initially. We’ll talk more about that somewhere in Colossians chapter two. But because the language is so confusing, I think even in the fourth century here, we tend to shy away from that.

Final statement on the eternal state: “I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” All right, that is Constantinople in 381, what we call today the Nicene Creed. The statement of Nicaea with regard to Christ, expands on Nicaea with regard to the Holy Spirit, and it bolsters then together the statement of the Trinity, which is what Nicaea was after in the first place.

All right, I think that’s as far as we can go. Any questions quickly? Yes? “I don’t know if you could answer this or not, but I was raised in more the independent fundamental Baptist movement. Do you have any idea why they are so—at least the churches I was familiar with—are so against using things like creeds and catechisms and things like that?” It’s a reaction against formalism—mere formalism—and liturgy that is so formalized that it becomes meaningless. That’s the concern. And in fact, in the earliest church, it was not as formal as it becomes in our—what we call liturgical—churches today. Now, I’m not going to get hung up over the term “liturgy.” We have a liturgy, too. It’s in a bulletin. But the word as it’s used is usually a high church connotation sort of thing. And that’s their concern with it.

I think there’s real value in reciting the creed. Yeah, there’s danger of becoming overly familiar with it. We do it every time at the Lord’s Supper. We do it at the hymns that we repeat. There’s something good about that as well—to have a congregation unanimously affirming each week these great truths and being reminded of them. There’s a great value in it. Carl Trueman several years ago wrote a book called The Creedal Imperative. Something about the importance of creeds in the church. I forget the exact title. He gave an illustration that I thought was really funny. The concern is—he said he was talking to a charismatic friend. The friend said, “We want to be more spontaneous in our worship. And that’s why we don’t like reciting the creeds. We like to be more spontaneous.” And Carl asked him, “When do you practice your music sets for Sunday morning?” He said, “Well, the worship team gets together Thursday nights and we do that.” He said, “Well, we don’t do that until Saturday night. We’re at least two days more spontaneous than you are.”

All right. That’s all then for this morning. Pastor Greg, would you pray for us, please?

Father, we do thank you in Jesus’ name and under the power of the Holy Spirit for our lesson this morning. Truth that certainly causes our minds to stagger and reel as we contemplate the amazing character of our great One, the Triune God. We pray that we will, in our daily lives, reflect again and again in wonder and worship what a great God we have and how blessed we are to have His love and His grace bestowed upon us. We thank you for doing this, for sending the Son and for you and the Son sending the Spirit to give us new birth, to seal us for the day of redemption and to teach us such things as we have learned this morning in Sunday school and will continue to learn throughout the day. We bless your name for all of this and want to return the glory to you. In Jesus’ name, amen.