Search
We have seen that the recovery of the church is typified by the return of the children of Israel from their captivity and that it is indicated in some of the later New Testament writings. Now we shall go on to see what it means for the church to be recovered. In this message we shall consider the matter of being recovered from the divisive and apostate ground with its deviation from the truths concerning the person of the Triune God and the person and work of Christ. In the following message we shall see the significance of being recovered back to the unique and pure ground of the oneness of the Body of Christ with its truths concerning the New Testament faith and God’s economy, the person and work of Christ, the person and the dispensing of the Triune God, the church as the Body of Christ, and the universal and local aspects of the church. Then we shall go on to cover the building of the Body of Christ, the temple of God, the house of God, and the establishing of the kingdom life.
We need to be recovered from the divisive and apostate ground with its deviation from the truth concerning the person of the Triune God. During the centuries, three main schools of teaching concerning the Trinity have emerged: modalism, tritheism, and the pure revelation according to the Bible. Modalism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not all eternal and do not all exist at the same time, but are merely three temporary manifestations of the one God. Tritheism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three Gods. We should have nothing to do with modalism, for that extreme view of the Trinity is a heresy. It is also a great heresy to teach that there are three Gods.
According to the natural law in God’s creation, there is the law of balance. Nothing can exist without having two sides. The principle is the same with the truths in the Bible: all the truths in the Scriptures have two sides. Therefore, in order to hold a truth properly, we must hold both sides of it.
The pure revelation of the Triune God in the Bible occupies a central position between the extremes of modalism and tritheism. Because the truths in the Scriptures have two sides, there are two aspects to the Trinity: the aspect of the one-in-three and the aspect of the three-in-one. Modalism is an extreme on the side of the three-in-one. There is, of course, ground in the Scriptures for the side of the three-in-one, but modalism, going to an extreme, far beyond the confines of the Bible, neglects and even annuls the side of the one-in-three. Modalism has gone beyond the confines of the Scriptures concerning the aspect of the three. Hence, it is a heresy on the extreme of the one. Tritheism is the opposite extreme. Tritheism stresses the side of the three and neglects the side of the one. It also has scriptural ground because the Father, the Son, and the Spirit certainly are three. But tritheism, like modalism, also goes beyond the confines of the Bible and becomes a heresy. Therefore, both modalism and tritheism, being extremes, are heresies. The following diagrams will help us to visualize this:
The Bible is not at either of these extremes; it stands in the center, testifying the twofoldness of the truth of the Trinity. In this matter, the Scriptures are balanced. The Bible, true to the principle of balance in God’s creation, is balanced and in the center; it does not go to an extreme.
We need to be very clear concerning the error in modalism. Modalism teaches that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not all eternal and do not all exist at the same time. Instead, modalism claims that the revelation of the Son ended with the ascension and that after the ascension the Son ceased to exist. Modalism has gone too far, not believing in the coinherence and coexistence of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Unlike the modalists, we believe in the coinherence and coexistence of the three of the Godhead; that is, we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all exist at the same time and under the same conditions. We also believe that all three are eternal. Isaiah 9:6 says that the Father is eternal, Hebrews 1:12 and 7:3 indicate that the Son is eternal, and Hebrews 9:14 speaks of the eternal Spirit. The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not temporary but eternal.
The truth concerning the person of the Triune God is twofold. This means that the truth has two sides or two aspects: the aspect of the one and the aspect of the three. The twofoldness of the truth concerning the Trinity is embodied in the word “triune.” This adjective is actually a Latin word composed of two parts: tri-, meaning three, and -une, meaning one. The word triune, therefore, means three-one. On the one hand, our God is uniquely one; on the other hand, He is three. In the aspect of God’s being one, there is no separation between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. However, in the aspect of God’s being three, there is a distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The Lord Jesus said, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me” (John 14:10). Because the Father and the Son are mutually in each other, They cannot be separated. Nevertheless, there is still a distinction between the Father and the Son.
Concerning the Trinity we should not drift to either of two extremes, to the tritheistic extreme of emphasizing the three or to the modalistic extreme of emphasizing the one. In order to be balanced, we need to emphasize both aspects of the Trinity — the aspect of the three and the aspect of the one. Although the Father and the Son are one, there is still a definite distinction between Them. In the sense of distinction, the Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit. Although there is a distinction between the three of the Godhead, the three nonetheless are still one.
In The Principles of Theology W. H. Griffith Thomas says the following:
The term “Person” is also sometimes objected to. Like all human language, it is liable to be accused of inadequacy and even positive error. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism. While we use the term to denote distinctions in the Godhead, we do not imply distinctions which amount to separateness, but distinctions which are associated with essential mutual coinherence or inclusiveness…While, therefore, we are compelled to use terms like “substance” and “Person,” we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance or personality. The terms are not explanatory, but only approximately correct, as must necessarily be the case with any attempt to define the Nature of God.
I especially appreciate Griffith Thomas’s word that the term “Person” must not be pressed too far “or it will lead to Tritheism,” the belief in three Gods. In the same principle, when we say that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one, we should not press this too far, or we will fall into another kind of error. Some have used sunlight as an illustration: the sun is the Father, the ray is the Son, and the shining is the Spirit. Another illustration is that of ice, water, and vapor, with these three respectively representing the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Such illustrations may be used for temporary help; however, they should not be pressed too far, or they will lead to error.
We also need to be recovered from the divisive and apostate ground with its deviation from the truth concerning the person and work of Christ. One such deviation from the truth concerning Christ’s person is mentioned in 1 John 2:22 and 23. Verse 22 says, “Who is the liar if not he who is denying that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, who is denying the Father and the Son.” Even in the first century, certain heretics said that Jesus was not the Christ. Denying that Jesus is the Christ was the heresy of Cerinthus, who distinguished the maker (creator) of the world from God and represented that maker as a subordinate power. He taught adoptionist Christology, saying that Jesus became the Son of God by exaltation to a status that was not His by birth, thus denying the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. In his heresy Cerinthus separated the earthly man Jesus, regarded as the son of Joseph and Mary, from the heavenly Christ. According to John’s word, Cerinthus was an antichrist because he denied that Jesus is the Christ.
In verse 22 John tells us that the antichrist denies the Father and the Son. To confess that Jesus is the Christ is to confess that He is the Son of God (Matt. 16:16; John 20:31). Hence, to deny that Jesus is the Christ is to deny the Father and the Son.
In 1 John 2:22 we see that the principle of antichrist is to deny what Christ is. Jesus is the Christ, Christ is the Son of God, and the Son of God is the embodiment of the Father. To deny any aspect of this truth is to deny something of what Christ is and thereby to follow the principle of antichrist.
In verse 23 John goes on to say, “Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who confesses the Son has the Father also.” Because the Son and the Father are one (John 10:30; Isa. 9:6), to deny the Son is to be without the Father, and to confess the Son is to have the Father. In verse 23 to deny the Son refers to the heresy that denies the deity of Christ, not confessing that the man Jesus is God.
First John 4:2 and 3 say, “In this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ having come in the flesh is out of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus, is not out of God; and this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now is already in the world.” Here we see that the discernment of spirits is based upon whether or not a spirit confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh. Because the spirit of a genuine prophet is motivated by the Holy Spirit of truth, this spirit will confess the divine conception of Jesus and confirm that He was born as the Son of God.
Jesus was conceived of the Spirit (Matt. 1:18). To confess Jesus coming in the flesh is to confess that He was divinely conceived to be born as the Son of God (Luke 1:31-35). Since He was conceived of the Spirit to be born in the flesh, the Spirit would never deny that He has come in the flesh through divine conception.
The word “flesh” in 1 John 4:2 is very important. As human beings, we were all born of flesh to be flesh (John 3:6a). Thus every human being is flesh. To confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh is to confess that He was divinely conceived to be born as the Son of God. Christ is God incarnate to become a man through holy conception. He did not have a human father, for He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Although He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, this conception took place in the womb of a virgin. Therefore, He, the very God, became a man in the flesh. Contrary to the false teaching of the Docetists, who taught that Jesus Christ was not a real man but simply appeared so, Christ’s body was not a phantasm. On the contrary, He had a real body, a physical body that was solid in its substance. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit; He became flesh and was born of the virgin Mary. Because He was conceived of the Spirit to be born in the flesh, the Spirit would never deny that He has come in the flesh through divine conception.
Anyone who denies that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh denies that He was conceived of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, anyone who rejects Jesus Christ coming in the flesh rejects His humanity and His human living. Such a one also rejects Christ’s redemption. If Christ had not become a man, He could not have had human blood to shed for the redemption of human beings. If He had not become flesh through the conception of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary, He never could have been our substitute to be crucified to bear our judgment before God. Therefore, to deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is to deny His holy conception, His incarnation, His birth, His humanity, His human living, and also His redemption. The New Testament makes it emphatically clear that Christ’s redemption was accomplished in His human body and by the shedding of His blood.
Anyone who rejects Christ’s incarnation and thereby rejects His redemption also denies Christ’s resurrection. If Christ had never passed through death, it would not have been possible for Him to enter into resurrection.
Denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is a great heresy. This heretical teaching makes it impossible to have the enjoyment of the Trinity. According to the revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament, the Son came in the flesh with the Father and in the name of the Father. The Son was crucified, and in resurrection He became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b). Therefore, we have the Spirit as the reality of the Son with the Father. This includes incarnation, human living, redemption by the shedding of human blood, death in a human body, burial, and resurrection. All these are components, constituents, of our enjoyment of the Triune God. If anyone denies Christ’s incarnation, that one denies Christ’s holy birth, humanity, human living, redemption through crucifixion, and resurrection. This utterly annuls the enjoyment of the genuine Trinity.
In 2 John 7 the Apostle John again speaks concerning the antichrist. “Because many deceivers went out into the world, who do not confess Jesus Christ coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.” These deceivers are the liars, the false prophets, who deny that Jesus is God incarnate and in this way deny the deity of Christ. John clearly says that these deceivers are antichrists.
In verse 9 John continues, “Everyone who goes beyond and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; he who abides in the teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.” The teaching here is the teaching concerning Christ, in particular the teaching concerning the deity of Christ and His incarnation by divine conception. Today’s modernists do not have this teaching. They deny the deity of Christ and claim that His death was simply a kind of martyrdom and that it is not redemptive. This kind of teaching insults Christ’s person and annuls His work, leaving us no gospel to preach.
In 1 Corinthians 15:12-17 Paul deals with those who deny the resurrection. In verse 12 he says, “If Christ is preached that He has been raised from among the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” Some of the Corinthians said heretically that there is no resurrection of the dead. In this matter they were like the Sadducees (Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8). Denying the resurrection is most damaging and destructive to God’s New Testament economy; it is worse than the heresy of Hymenaeus and Philetus concerning resurrection in 2 Timothy 2:17 and 18. Resurrection is the life pulse and lifeline of the divine economy. If there were no resurrection, God would be the God of the dead, not the God of the living (Matt. 22:32). If there were no resurrection, Christ would not have been raised from the dead. He would be a dead Savior, not the One who lives forever (Rev. 1:18) and is able to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:25). If there were no resurrection, there would be no living proof of justification by Christ’s death (Rom. 4:25), no imparting of life (John 12:24), no regeneration (John 3:5), no renewing (Titus 3:5), no transformation (Rom. 12:2; 2 Cor. 3:18), and no conformity to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). If there were no resurrection, there would be no members of Christ (Rom. 12:5), no Body of Christ as His fullness (Eph. 1:20-23), and no church as Christ’s bride (John 3:29) and the new man (Eph. 2:15; 4:24; Col. 3:10-11). If there were no resurrection, God’s New Testament economy would altogether collapse and God’s eternal purpose would be nullified.
In 1 Corinthians 15:12 Paul refers to the preaching that Christ has been raised from among the dead. This indicates clearly that the apostles preached the resurrection of Christ. According to the book of Acts, the preaching of the gospel was mainly the preaching of Christ’s resurrection.
In verse 13 Paul continues, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither has Christ been raised.” This is the first point of Paul’s rebuttal. It is a fact that Christ has been raised from among the dead. How come, then, could some say that there is no resurrection? If there were no resurrection, then Christ could not have been raised from among the dead.
In verse 14 Paul goes on to say, “And if Christ has not been raised, then is our preaching vain; your faith also is vain.” The Greek word translated “vain” means empty, void. Without the living Christ in resurrection, both the preaching of the gospel and our faith in it would be empty and void, having no reality. Preaching the death of Christ without preaching His resurrection would be vain. The resurrection of Christ is what causes our preaching to become vital and prevailing. Such a preaching would never be in vain. Furthermore, apart from Christ’s resurrection, our faith would also be vain. Without the resurrection of Christ, both our preaching and our believing become vain. This is a very serious matter.
In verse 15 Paul says, “And we are found also false witnesses of God, because we witnessed concerning God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise if indeed the dead are not raised.” This is another strong point in Paul’s rebuttal.
In verse 16 Paul continues, “For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised.” Then verse 17 says, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” The Greek word rendered “futile” means fruitless, worthless. Without Christ resurrected to live in us as our life and as everything to us, our faith in Him would be fruitless, worthless, and without any issue like the impartation of life, freedom from sin, victory over Satan, and growth in life. The word futile used here is even stronger than the word vain in verse 14. Something that is vain is empty, but the word futile indicates labor without result, work without any gain. If there is no resurrection, we may still believe, but eventually nothing results from our believing. Hence, our faith becomes futile.
Furthermore, according to verse 17, if Christ has not been raised, we are still in our sins. Christ’s death saves us from the condemnation of our sins, not from the power of sin. It is His resurrection life that delivers us from the power of sin (Rom. 8:2). If Christ were not resurrected, we would still remain in sins and under the power of sin.
Second Peter 2:1 says, “There arose also false prophets among the people, as also among you there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” The Greek words translated “secretly bring in” may also be rendered “bring in by smuggling.” Literally, the Greek means to bring in alongside, to bring in sideways, to introduce a new subject for which the hearers are not prepared. Here it denotes the false teachers bringing in and introducing their false teachings alongside the true ones. These false teachings are called destructive heresies, or, literally, heresies of destruction.
Peter tells us that the false teachers even deny the Master who bought them. “Master” implies the Lord’s person and His redemptive work. In their apostasy, the false teachers denied both the Lord’s person as the Master and His redemption, by which He purchased the believers.
In Jude 4 we are warned concerning the heresies of the apostates. “Certain men have crept in unnoticed, who of old have been written of beforehand for this judgment, ungodly men, perverting the grace of our God into licentiousness, and denying our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Literally, the Greek words translated “crept in unnoticed” mean to get in by the side, or to slip in by a side door. The words “this judgment” refer to the judgment of the creeping in unnoticed of the apostates. Judgment here is the condemnation for punishment, and it refers to being condemned to be punished.
Jude speaks of ungodly men who pervert the grace of God into licentiousness and deny our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. The evil of these heretical apostates is twofold: perverting the grace of God into wantonness, that is, into the abuse of freedom (cf. Gal. 5:13; 1 Pet. 2:16), and denying the headship and lordship of the Lord. These two go together. Turning the grace of God into an abused freedom for wantonness requires denying the Lord’s rule and authority.
