You have probably seen them on television or had someone in your church reference them. What I referring to is Ray Comfort, actor Kirk Cameron and their evangelism method called the Way of the Master. On their program they can be seen presenting an approach to leading people to Christ that utilizes the 10 Commandments in a man-on-the-street, Q and A methodology. They claim that a person must first know that they are sick before they are willing to take a cure. The 10 Commandments, therefore, are used to confront people with their sin so that they will respond to the cure for sin which is the Gospel. In the video presentations, Ray Comfort can often be seen asking people questions like this:

Ray: Have you ever lied, even once?
Response: Well, yeah, I guess I have.
Ray: What does that make you?
Response: Okay, maybe a liar?
Ray: That’s right, you are a liar.

Ray goes on from there to confront the person about lust, stealing, etc. He then concludes this portion of the interview by stating: “By your own admission, you are a liar, thief, adulterer and murderer who blasphemies God. Therefore, on the day of Judgment, where will God send you?” Pretty strong stuff, huh?

Now, if you haven’t had someone from your church mention the Way of the Master, you probably will at some point. This happened at our church in our men’s Bible study. A guy from another church, in a rather aggressive style, confronted a guest teacher about evangelism and how the church has watered down the “Biblical method” that is demonstrated and used by Ray Comfort. Fortunately, the guest teacher gently and effectively handled the tense situation and everyone was blessed. However, even those who had not heard of the Way of the Master came away with a sense that there is something not completely right with its methods.

What’s Right with WoM?

I actually think that the WoM is not wrong in its methodology in certain circumstances. Many people today need to be confronted with their sinfulness. Too many people take the no-big-deal approach to sin. They think since everybody sins, God will let it all slide and eventually all people will make it to heaven. Nothing can be further from the truth. Sin is a big deal and God is holy. Consequently, many people need to come to grips with their personal position before a holy God. The WoM is a method that helps remind Christians that sin is a fundamental issue and, at some point, needs to be confronted.

What’s Wrong with the WoM?

I, for one, am not comfortable with the claim from WoM that what Comfort and Cameron demonstrate is actually what Jesus did. The problem is that even the title “The Way of the Master” is making a claim that what is done is based on Jesus’ method and is the only acceptable way of doing evangelism.

If we look at the gospels we see that often Jesus not only healed people, he sometimes pronounced them forgiven before they even said anything! That certainly doesn’t fit neatly into the WoM approach. In fact, Jesus seems to be all over the map doing all kinds of different things from casting out demons (without questioning the person about the Law), to performing miracles, befuddling people with parables, to even challenging the application of the Law.

Now, it is true that the Law acts as a mirror (see James 2:9-10) and a schoolmaster (Gal. 3:24 cf. Rom. 3:19-20; 7:7; 1 Tim. 1:8-11). Thus, showing someone that they have failed to uphold God's law is a powerful way of making the point.

There is no doubt about it, the Law of God does things like provide a moral mirror for our lives (James 2:9-10), act as a custodian to bring us to Jesus (Gal. 3:24) and show us how we have failed to live up to God’s standards. But the question is does the Bible mandate that we confront people with the 10 Commandments to do evangelism correctly?

Paul in Acts

Recently I finished teaching a 19 month verse-by-verse study of the Book of Acts. What impressed me was how strikingly different each conversion story is in Acts. However, if we focus for a minute on Paul we will see that he had a very adaptable methodology that seems to be “audience driven.” Wow, even as I write this, I know it makes many of us uncomfortable; however, I don’t know any better way to describe Paul’s wide-open approach to evangelism.

Luke, the author of Acts provides extended examples of Paul’s evangelistic approaches. In Acts 13:13-43 Paul and Barnabas are shown presenting the gospel to a Jewish audience in the Pisidian Antioch synagogue on the Sabbath. There Paul builds a detailed case for the messianic ministry of Jesus by piling one Old Testament text upon another. However, one thing he doesn’t do is confront his audience with their personal moral failings according to the Law. He simply builds a powerful case for Jesus as the promised Messiah and then proclaims that forgiveness of sins is available through him rather than the Mosaic Law.

However, my favorite examples of Paul’s methodology come with the Gentiles in Acts 14 and 17. In both cases Paul does not quote even one Scripture and never references the Mosaic Law. The reason for this would seem obvious. His audience would no nothing of the Law. But the real “kicker” is the way Paul leads his Gentile audiences to a point of conversion. In stead of pointing out their moral failings, Paul points to God’s goodness—wow, what a shock! Read what he says to a pagan audience that was trying to sacrifice an animal to him as a god: “In the past, he (God) let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy” (Acts 14:16-17)—then he called for an act of conversion. When was the last time you heard an evangelist tell an audience they should turn to God because He fills their hearts with “joy?” Obviously, Ray Comfort and the WoM would not recommend Paul’s methodology; yet, St. Luke seems perfectly at ease showing us what Paul did and said to lead people to Christ. But get this, in Acts 17 Paul not only does not use any Scripture, does not reference the Mosaic Law; but rather, he quotes a couple of pagan philosophers as he does evangelism. Imagine that.

Well, my mom used to say: “If it was good enough for Paul and Silas, it’s good enough for me.” I’ll stick with the biblical approach to evangelism and stay open to the audience and God’s leading.

The Definition of Chalcedon, 451

The creed that specifically defines what we believe about Jesus Christ as the God-man is called the “Definition of Chalcedon” from 451 AD. Here is part of it:

“…of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence,…”

A Typical Mistake

The coming together of Christ’s divine and human natures is often misunderstood to mean that whatever can be said of one nature can be said of the other. This is not true. The divine attribute of omnipresence (the ability to be everywhere at once) alone makes this fact obvious. Jesus' humanity could not be omnipresent because of the nature of the human existence. Humanity is limited by nature. Therefore, while Christ’s humanity would limit him to being present with His disciples in Galilee, His divine nature would continue to hold all things together in the universe (Col. 1:16-19).

A proper understanding of the coming together of Christ’s two natures means that whatever can be said of one nature can be spoken of as applying to the whole of Christ's person. For example, we would not say that the divine nature died on the cross. God did not die, but the humanity which God assumed died. Likewise, the Scripture says that God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), yet Jesus was tempted. If we apply the coming together of Christ’s two natures to mean that whatever can be said of one nature can be said of the other, then we have God's essence being tempted and dying. Such a conclusion is wrong.

The Two Natures in Action

Because in the divine/human union, each nature was preserved in its fullness and not blended into a third substance, we can recognize a distinction between Christ's deity and His humanity, but we cannot separate them. We may understand that Jesus did certain things because He was a genuine human being, or because He was God, but we cannot say that He only does those things in the specific nature--to do so would be to destroy the unity of the two natures, and hence the unity of the person of Christ. We can, however, see that His human nature had real limitations (just like any other human). This helps us understand how in His humanity He had human physical and intellectual limitations. For example, we understand that when He told His disciples that he was tired, He was truly tried. And when He told His disciples that He did not know the date set by the Father for the consummation of all things, in His humanity He did not know that which can only be known by God. On the other hand, His divine nature would not have been tired nor been limited in knowledge. It is important to remember that Christ’s human nature had a will and intellect and so did His divine nature.

A Troubling Scene

Some people are troubled by the scene of Jesus praying to the Father in the Garden of Gethsemane. They wonder how this can be if Jesus was truly God. They ask, “Was God praying to Himself?” The answer is found in Christ’s dual nature. In His humanity, Jesus agonized in the Garden and prayed for an extended time being comforted by angels. He also cried out to the Father for assistance in facing the difficulty of the cross and even submitted His will to the will of God, doing this through prayer. Here we must see Jesus wrestling with what any human would suffer who was about to face their crucifixion. It is also important to remember that in His humanity Jesus had a real mind and will unto itself. That will had to be submitted to God’s will. The body of Jesus was not an empty shell that was somehow filled with the divine mind and will of the Son of God. There were two real natures present in the one Christ.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Incarnation is that the deity was not compromised or obscured by the humanity, and neither was the humanity compromised or obscured by the deity; both being perfectly preserved in their wholeness and genuineness, yet united in every way. Neither were His two natures separated in any way, but were unified in every way.

In the last couple of posts I have been writing about the Trinity but now I would like to switch gears and look at the doctrine of the Incarnation (the dual nature of Christ). This will take two or more posts. I would like to start with why this is so important.

Here again, we could just say, “hey, big deal, why try to figure things out let’s just love Jesus and leave it at that.” Well, I wish we could. Unfortunately, the Trinity and the Incarnation have been the most hotly contested issues throughout church history. The reason for this is because they are so pivotal for our salvation. Simply put, if Jesus was not truly and fully God, then you and I are still in our sins as Christians. We would have no assurance that our sins have been forgiven. My friend, the reason why this true is because the Bible says in 1 John 2: 2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.” Did you catch the phrase “of the whole world?” There is no way that any one man (no matter how good) or even an angel could sacrifice themselves for the sins of billions and billions of people. It would have to be an atoning sacrifice with infinite value. God had to provide Himself as the infinite sacrifice for the sins of all of mankind. Wow, get your head around that thought. This is what makes Christianity so amazing.

Conversely, it was also necessary that Jesus be a Jewish man. Here is how the Apostle Paul writes about the humanity of Jesus in Galatians:

Galatians 4:4-7 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

In order to fulfill the covenantal promises and obligations given to the Jews through Abraham and Moses, it was necessary that there be a righteous Jewish Messiah to redeem and reconcile God’s sons and pave the way for God’s Spirit to enter our lives. Jesus came as the promised Messiah and lived a righteous life under the law. Therefore, it was imperative that Jesus come to us as Immanuel, God with us but also fully human—specifically a Jewish man.

The fact that Jesus was the man from heaven was taken for granted in the very early church. However, it wasn’t long before false teachers and heresies began to spring up and challenge the notions of either the full deity or the full humanity of Jesus. That’s when the “fun” began. Actually, it wasn’t much fun. It took a lot of heartache and headache for the church to fend off some very talented false teachers. A couple of times the orthodox belief in the full divinity and humanity of Jesus was nearly swept away by popular sentiment and easy-believism. At times it just seemed like it was easier to compromise, but, fortunately some godly teachers hung on by God’s grace and prevailed to establish a Bible-based understanding of the Incarnation. One of the greatest creeds ever developed is the Nicene Creed. It was established to summarize what we believe about Jesus Christ. I would like to end this post by quoting from that creed which was written in the blood and tears of wonderful godly leaders that have gone before us.

(We believe) in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;

An analogy can really help us grasp a difficult idea, and believe me, the Trinity is a pretty tough idea—though not impossible—to comprehend. In fact, it is usually better to use the term “apprehend” rather than comprehend when talking about the divine mysteries like the Trinity and Incarnation. That being said, what kinds of analogies work? Unfortunately there are some popular analogies that give us a flawed impression of the Trinity and even reinforce certain heresies.

The Child/Parent/Sibling Analogy

This one goes like this: you can be a child to your parents, a parent to your child, and a sibling to your sibling at the same time but you are only one person.

Unfortunately, this analogy takes us in the direction of what is called Modalism. Modalism propagates the idea that there is one God who reveals Himself in different modes of action. Actually, He is three in Person and not just one who performs three different roles. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry defines it this way: “Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms…. Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches.”

The Water Analogy

This one states that water is a single element that can exist in three forms: gas, liquid, and solid (ice) and each one is distinct from the other. Here, again, this analogy falls prey to the modal problem unless you add to it the element of a timeless unified whole where the water is in all three states simultaneously without change; this comes closer but is hard to explain.

The Egg Analogy

This analogy uses the egg which is one, and yet has three parts—shell, white and yoke. A similar analogy is the apple with its skin, fruit and core. This sort of analogy has a fundamental problem in that God cannot be separated into parts. Each member of the Trinity is fully God. Both the egg and apple are really a collection of different things. No single part of an egg is an egg, the parts must be added together to form the one. These analogies take us in the direction of Tritheism. The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry defines Tritheism as “the teaching that the Godhead is really three separate beings forming three separate gods… Present day Mormonism is tritheistic -- but with a twist….The godhead for earth is to them really three separate gods: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.”

Better Analogies

A Triangle: A Triangle has three sides, yet it is one shape. The different corners of the triangle represent the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The triangle is often upside down with the point on the bottom with the Father at the left-top, the Son at the right-top and the Holy Spirit at the bottom. The triangle is probably the best visual illustration because the triangle can symbolize the fact that each side is necessary for its existence, each meets the other at the angles and the sides are distinguishable.

Multiplication of 1: Here the formula: 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 stands for the Trinity as opposed to 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. The advantage of this analogy is that it is a good example of the essence of God in that the Persons of God are One in their divine substance and not three separate entities or “personages” which would be Tritheism.

There are other helpful analogies. Perhaps you have one to share.

First, allow me to mention why the Trinity is such an important doctrine. The importance of the Trinity primarily springs from its relationship to the corollary doctrine of the divinity of Christ. If Christ did not have a fully divine nature then His sacrificial death on the cross would not be effective for the removal of the sins of all mankind. Because of the infinite value of His divine nature, all humans have available to them the full forgiveness of their sins. If, however, Jesus was less than fully divine, we are still in our sins. If Jesus had been a perfect man who never violated God’s law, we may presume that His death on the cross would have merited His personal eternal life, but that is all. Again, because of His deity, Jesus’ atoning death merits forgiveness for all who will avail themselves of this wonderful blessing and receive eternal life.

The Basics

Early church councils were called to clarify what the Bible taught about the internal relationships between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The term "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. It is a word used to represent the facts presented in Scripture. The doctrines stated by these councils were not invented by them. Their creeds were formulated to carefully articulate what Scripture taught unambiguously, and to rule out heretical speculations that introduced inconsistencies into the Christian faith.

The basic way to approach the doctrine of the Trinity is to note that the Bible affirms two things. First, it affirms that God is one. Secondly, it affirms that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God. You can find lists of Scriptures that detail these two important points. It is not my purpose to here to list those Scripture; rather, I wish to go beyond this and look within the life of the Trinity.

What to Avoid

The two extremes to avoid in regard to the Trinity are unitarianism and tritheism. Unitarianism regards God as only one person—usually God the Father. This, of course, strips Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of their genuine deity. Often, Jesus becomes a mere man and the Holy Spirit is turned into an impersonal force that emanates from God. Jehovah’s Witnesses are essentially unitarian. Tritheism is a variation of polytheism because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are regarded as three separate Gods. Sometimes this is carried a step further into the idea that there are many different gods, some perhaps associated with other worlds or realms. Mormonism is an example of tritheism. Mormonism is actually polytheistic since it indicates that there are other gods besides these three.

Looking Inside the Trinity

Though it is not necessary for a Christian to understand how exactly the divine Persons exist as the great Three in One, it is helpful for them to grasp some of this mystery. It is also necessary for orthodox theologians to have a working knowledge of the Trinity so that they might guard against heresies. Historically it was through defending against heresies that the church has fully established its doctrine of the Trinity.

Gregory of Nyssa was the first great theologian to move beyond a simple understanding of the divine Persons as a “collection of properties” and begin to focus attention on the divine communion within the Trinity. This paved the way for a deeper understanding of the divine Persons.

St. Augustine was the first to realize that the Divine Nature must be prior (not in time but in principle) to the Personalities. God, therefore, is not strictly the Father but the Trinity. This was a step of the first importance, safeguarding the unity of God and the equality of the Persons. Consequently, every external operation of God is due to the whole Trinity, and cannot be attributed strictly to one Person alone, except by designated purpose.

Unfortunately when we think of a person we often understand this word to mean “personality” which is defined as, “the complex of all the attributes—behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental—that characterize a unique individual.” However, this is not what is meant by the theological word for divine “Person.”

The Divine Persons

In the Bible the second Person of the Trinity is referred to as the Word (John 1:1). Early Christians understood that the Divine Word proceeded from the Father eternally (eternal meaning not bounded by time). The formal term for this eternal generation of the Son is “Filiation.” This was seen as the eternal intellectual process of the Father. In a similar fashion we, as humans, generate intellectual concepts in our minds (unspoken words). However, in God, this intellectual action is not purely mental but is eternally real and substantial. In other words, the Second Person, the Word is not just a passing idea but is eternal and actually subsisting.

The Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Father as the eternal act of the Divine Will to love Himself. However, this procession also includes the Son (Word). Together, they breathe forth their eternal love in the Holy Spirit. The formal term for this is Spiration which literally means “the act of breathing.” These two proceedings—Father to Son and Father/Son to Holy Spirit—are termed the double procession.

The existence of relations in the Godhead comes from the doctrine of processions. Where there is a real procession the beginning point (i.e. the Father) and ending point (i.e. the Son) of that procession must also be “real.” Therefore, both the generation/Filiation of the Son and the Spiration of the Holy Spirit must involve the existence of real and objective relations. These relations are what constitute the distinction between the divine Persons. They cannot be distinguished by any other absolute attribute because all of God’s attributes must be infinite and common to the Three Persons. The personhood of the Trinity is none other than the real, eternal relations of the double procession. They cannot be distinguished by any absolute attribute, for every absolute attribute must belong to the infinite Divine Nature and this is common to the Three Persons. It is important to remember that all the divine Persons share the same attributes, essence, intelligence, will and power.