Does Galatians 1:12 Deny the Humanity of Christ?

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

There’s no doubt that, though he believes that Jesus Christ has a human body, Eli Soriano of Ang Dating Daan (ADD) denies that our Lord is man (that is, human by nature). 

To teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is a man is a big mistake. He is not a man by nature; He only assumed the form of a man. Don’t you have a common sense to comprehend that?[1]

That’s his bold proclamation regarding the issue of the Christ’s humanity. In his “Ang Guro At Tagapagturo (sic) ng Tunay na Doktrina Kristiana Upang Tiyak Na Maligtas Ang Sinomang Sasampalataya Ayon Sa Biblia” [The Teacher Teaching True Christian Doctrine So That Anyone Who Would Believe According To The Bible Would Be Surely Saved], Eli Soriano wrote, 

Kaya ang samahang nagsasabing si Cristo ay tao, MALI. Bakit? Sabi ni Pablo, ang evangeliong aking ipinangangaral hindi ko tinanggap sa tao, hindi itinuro sa akin ng tao kundi tinanggap ko kay Jesucristo. Tao ba si Cristo? Sabi ni Pablo, Ang evangeliong aking ipinangangaral hindi ko tinanggap sa tao, hindi itinuro sa akin ng tao, kundi tinanggap ko sa pahayag ni Cristo, tao ba iyon o hindi? Hindi nga niya tinanggap sa tao, kanino niya tinanggap? Kay Cristo. Kung gayon, hindi tao si Cristo. [Thus the group that says Christ is man [is] WRONG. Why? Paul said, the gospel I am preaching I did not receive from man, man did not teach it to me, but I received by Jesus Christ. Is Christ man? Paul said, the gospel I am preaching I did not receive from man, man did not teach it to me, but  I received through a revelation of Christ. Is that man or not? He did not receive it from man. He received it from whom? From Christ. Therefore, Christ is not man.][2]

Other than Philippians 2:5-8,[3] Eli Soriano quotes Galatians 1:12 to prove his teaching.  

For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.[4]

He reasoned that, since Paul did not receive the Gospel from man but from Jesus Christ, He is not man. Soriano is teaching that, in that verse, the apostle was contrasting “man” and “Jesus Christ.” Thus, he concluded that Jesus Christ is not man. (To know more about their beliefs, read: “Making Sense of Ang Dating Daan.”)

But was Galatians 1:12 really denying His humanity?

Let’s look at its context. In the first two chapters of Galatians, Paul defended his apostolic right to proclaim the Gospel. Back then people were questioning his apostleship. They claimed that Christ did not send him, accusing him that he fabricated his call from the Lord and that he merely made up his message. But Paul denied such charges. According to the ESV Study Bible,

Paul apparently is responding to criticism that he is peddling a gospel received from man, not from God, and that he is doing so simply to please man rather than God. Paul does not simply defend himself out of resentment or wounded pride but shows a pastoral concern: to reassure the Galatians that the gospel they received was the authentic one, not a false message delivered by an untrustworthy messenger (e.g., 2:5).

When he became a believer, Paul “did not immediately consult with anyone” (1: 16b) nor with “those who were apostles before [him]” (v. 17a). It was only after 3 years that he met Peter and James, the Lord’s brother, in person (vv. 18-19). He even wrote that “those…who seemed influential ​[that is, the apostles] added nothing to me.” (2:6b) In the New Living Translation (NLT), it goes like this: “And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching.” In fact, “they [even] saw that [Paul] had been ​entrusted with ​the gospel” just as Peter was (2:7). In short, the apostles recognized his call and his message.

Thus, the context of Galatians 1:12 was actually neither an affirmation nor a denial of the humanity of our Lord. To read in the passage something that the context did not intend to convey is a misreading of the passage. (See also “Was Eli Soriano Correct In His Criticism of Hermeneutics?”)

Paul did not write, “For I did not receive from man but from Jesus.” If he had put it that way, then Soriano might have a point. But let us read Galatians 1:12 again: “For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Emphasis added) Note the words “receive,” “taught,” “received… through a revelation.” Here we see that the apostle was not really denying that Jesus is man. That was not the intent of the passage. He was actually talking about how he got the Gospel. He received the Good News not through ordinary, natural means but through extraordinary, supernatural means. The Gospel is a divine revelation. It is not a message that Paul (or any of the apostles for that matter) came up with. So, when the apostle wrote that he “did not receive it from any man,” he was not contrasting the nature of Jesus with that of men. Note also that he wrote, “I did not receive it from any man” (Emphasis added). He was only pointing out from Whom he got the Gospel. He did not hear the Good News from any of the apostles but he heard it from the Lord Himself. That’s why the NLT rendered it this way:

Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning. I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.​

To read Galatians 1:12 the way Soriano reads it is “[going] beyond what is written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). Thus, to teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is not man based on that verse is a big mistake. 

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

     

________________________________

[1] Eliseo Soriano, “How the ‘Iglesia ni Cristo’ made our Lord Jesus Christ a Man,” Ang Dating Daan Bible Exposition Online, 11 July 2004, http://www.angdatingdaan.org/segments/seg_incm_1_pf.htm (accessed 6 August 2005).

[2] I got this quote from ADD’s official website way back in 2001. Unfortunately, I was not able to copy the link and they already took down the said article. However, if the ADD would issue an official denial that they don’t interpret Galatians 1:12 that way and that Eli Soriano did not say anything similar to it, I would consider removing this blog entry.

[3] See also “A Critique: The use of Philippians 2:5-8 as Basis for the Flawed Christology of the Cult ‘Ang Dating Daan’ by Eliseo Soriano.” Click here.

[4] All Bible verses are from the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted.

Setting the Record Straight (Part 4)

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

It is one thing to quote references to support one’s beliefs. It’s another thing to fit it according to one’s bias.

I already pointed one example where the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) made what is hypothetical appear to be historical just to prove their assertion that the teaching on the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ “was formulated not because of biblical merits but because of the whims of the emperor”[1]. (See “Setting the Record Straight Part 3”)

I also pointed out that even the word that the INC used (“formulate”) simply means, “to put into a systematized statement or expression.” (See “Setting the Record Straight Part 2”) 

Sadly, it appears to be their tendency to twist reference books to fit their bias. In another article, the INC made this allegation:

Sino lamang ang lumikha ng aral na si Cristo ay Diyos? [Who alone devised the teaching that Christ is God?] “Thus for example, it was not until 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea, that the Church defined for us that it was an article of faith that Jesus is truly God.” [Quoting from “Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed.”] ... Ang lumikha at nagturo ng aral na si Cristo ay Diyos ay ang Iglesia Katolika. [The Catholic Church devised and taught the doctrine that Christ is God.][2]

Note how they made it appear that the deity of Christ is a man-made doctrine. They claimed that the Catholic Church devised (“lumikha”) the said teaching. (They used a Filipino word that also means “invented” or, literally, “created.”) But, look at the word the reference that they quoted used: “the Church defined for us…” There is a big difference between “devise” and “define.” 

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word “devise” means “to form in the mind by new combinations or applications of ideas or principles”.[3] But “define” has another meaning. It means, “to determine or identify the essential qualities or meaning of”.[4]

To devise is to come up with something new. To define is to clarify that which is already there. Despite what their quote clearly said, the INC made it appear to support something contrary to what it actually said. As I already wrote, the major church councils only defined and defended the doctrines about Christ, not devise it. (See “Setting the Record Straight Part 2”)

Understandably, the INC may protest this because, as I have said, they used a word that literally means “create.” So, we may instead translate the above Pasugo quote this way: “Who created the doctrine that Christ is God? ... The Catholic Church created and taught the doctrine that Christ is God.” (Emphasis added) But, still, creating is different from defining. The word “create” means “to make or bring into existence something new”.[5] Plus, when the INC translated their quote from the “Discourses on the Apostles’ Creed,” they used a Filipino word for “define” that means “explain” (“paliwanag”).[6] Still, creating is different from explaining. 

This misuse of authorities seems to be not an isolated case. The website Examine the Iglesia ni Cristo exposed how the INC deliberately misquoted a Bible scholar.

Screenshot from Examine the Iglesia ni Cristo website.[7]

This prompted Dr. Charles Ryrie to respond, pointing out the “lack of integrity or lack of scholarship in the misuse of words”[8] of the INC. (See another deliberate misquotation of a Bible scholar: “Did 1 John 5:20 Really Call Jesus ‘the true God and eternal life’?”)

Screenshot from Examine the Iglesia ni Cristo website.[9]

To paraphrase Ryrie, I don’t know what English dictionary the INC used to substantiate the idea that to define means to devise or to explain means to create but my Merriam-Webster gives no such meaning. Such shows their lack of integrity or lack of scholarship in the misuse of words.

(To be continued)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

     

________________________________

[1] Ruben D. Aromin, “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message, July 1994, 16.

[2] Daniel D. Catañgay, “Ang mga katangian ni Cristo at ang Kaniyang likas na kalagayan,” Pasugo: God's Message, February 1995, 14. Emphasis added.

[3] Devise. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devise. 

[4] Define. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/define.

[5] Create. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 29, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/create.

[6] “Kaya, halimbawa, noon lamang 325 taon ng Panginoon, sa Konsilyo ng Nicea, nang ipaliwanag ng Iglesia sa atin na isang alituntunin ng pananampalataya na si Jesus ay tunay na Diyos.” Catañgay, 14. Emphasis added.

[7] “Honesty: Ryrie's Misquote,” Examine the Iglesia ni Cristo, 2000, http://examineiglesianicristo.com/honesty3.html (accessed August 29, 2012).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid. 

Setting the Record Straight (Part 3)

Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicea
(From Wikipedia)

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

“...the world was not worthy of them.” (Hebrews 11:38a, NIV)

We already saw in the previous article that major church councils such as the First Council of Nicea did not devise the doctrines about Christ but only defined and defended His deity, His humanity and how the two natures relate with one another. 

We must also distinguish between what really happened and what we think happened, that is, between the event and our interpretation of the event. It's much like the difference between straight news and commentary. 

For example, the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) claimed that the Council of Nicea gave in to “the whims of the emperor”[1] out of “utang na loob” (“debt of gratitude”). That the bishops compromised their convictions due to the comfort they enjoyed during the Council.

With all the amenities and favors so lavishly showered by Emperor Constantine to the bishop delegates of the council, they became indebted to him. As expressions of their gratitude to the emperor, they yielded to his demands.[2]

The INC based their claim on a quote from “A Short History of Christian Doctrine” by Bernhard Lohse: “It is understandable if the bishops showed their gratitude by generous efforts to oblige the emperor.”[3] Note how the INC changed the meaning of what Lohse wrote. 

He merely wrote, “It is understandable if the bishops showed their gratitude…” (Emphasis mine) That does not necessarily mean that they actually obliged the emperor out of gratitude to him. It seems to be merely hypothetical as far as Lohse is concerned, and not actually historical. But, the INC already made it appear that the bishops became beholden to the emperor.

It is a fact that the emperor lavished the bishops “with all amenities and favor.” But it does not necessarily follow that the bishops felt obliged to him.

To set the record straight again, neither pampering nor pressure made the bishops take a stand for the deity of Christ. They acted on their principles, not on imperial politics. Almost all of them suffered, losing limbs and almost their lives, in the cruel hands of the wicked Emperors Diocletian and Maximian.

The bishops at Nicea were more accustomed to persecution than pampering. … The marks of persecution were so prevalent that one ancient writer said, “The council looked like an assembled army of martyrs!” Of course, men who had suffered such physical injuries for the sake of spiritual integrity were not about to be told what they should believe about Christ—imperial pressure or not. Indeed the bishops at Nicea were more preoccupied with preaching than politics. … Constantine knew that whatever solution came about would have to reckon with the deeply held convictions of the majority of bishops and the churches they represented.[4]

Considering the persecutions these bishops endured before the reign of Constantine, it is more probable to believe that they acted out of conviction rather than compromise in the Council of Nicea.

It seems that, despite their efforts to prove their bias that the Council made Christ equal with God, there is really no truth to the accusation of the INC that “this doctrine was formulated not because of biblical merits but because of the whims of the emperor”.[5] 

To suggest that Constantine had the ability—or even the inclination—to manipulate the council into believing what it did not already embrace is, at best, a silly notion. … And although Constantine may have called himself “bishop of the bishops,” the church was going to believe what it knew it must believe—with or without him. And it believed, as it had from the beginning, that Jesus is God.[6]

I would rather seek to set the record straight than stick to “a silly notion” that would just show “a sign of our historically illiterate times.”[7]

(To read part 4, click: Setting the Record Straight Part 4)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

[1] Ruben D. Aromin, “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message, July 1994, 16.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid. As quoted.

[4] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 210, 211.

[5] Aromin, 16.

[6] Komoszewski, 215.

[7] Ibid, 207.

Setting the Record Straight (Part 2)

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

To put things in perspective, we must keep in mind that major church councils such as that of the historic First Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) only defined and defended His deity, His humanity and how the two natures relate to one another. To set the records straight, the Councils did not actually come up with those doctrines but only sought to clarify its definitions. To say that the Council “gave rise to [those] teachings”[1] about Christ is simply not factual. 

But how precisely should [the bishops at the Council of Nicea] articulate what they did believe about the deity of Christ? Therein lay the real issue at Nicea: determining how—not if—Jesus was divine.[2]

They merely formulated the faith. To formulate simply means, “to put into a systematized statement or expression.”[3]

For example, the books of the Bible by themselves are already God-breathed with or without the pronouncements of church councils such as the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397). No amount of council declaration would convert a piece of parchment into divine scripture. When they made the list of the canon, on which book was in or which was out, the councils did not make them the Word of God. They just acknowledged its “self-authenticating quality.”[4]

Our acceptance of the canon of the New Testament does not depend upon the decision of the church or a council of bishops; it does not depend upon the judgment of men. Scripture is its own witness and the early church leaders generally recognized this.[5]

That’s the same thing that they did at the Council of Nicea. They did not devise the deity of Christ. They only described who He really is. 

(To read part 3, click: Setting the Record Straight Part 3)

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

[1] Ruben D. Aromin, “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message, July 1994, 14.

[2] J. Ed Komoszewski, M. James Sawyer and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2006), 212. Emphasis theirs.

[3] Formulate. 2012. In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved August 25, 2012, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/formulate.

[4] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language 2nd Edition (TN: Nelson, 1982; reprint, 1995), 61.

[5] Brian H. Edward, Nothing But the Truth (Great Britain: Evangelical Press, 1993), 172.

Setting the Record Straight (Part 1)

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

“The person who tells one side of a story seems right, until someone else comes and asks questions.” (Proverbs 18:17, NCV)

Fresco in the Sistine Salon at Vatican depicting the First Council of Nicaea (From Wikipedia)

Depending on which side of the story you are reading, either the First Council of Nicea (Nicaea) in A.D. 325 was a decisive moment in church history or a disastrous one.

This is the age that formulated the doctrine [of the Trinity.] ... Thus, there [in the first imperial synod] emerged that Nicene Creed, which to this day is the standard of orthodoxy in the Roman, Eastern, Anglican, and some other churches… [1] 

However, as far as the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) is concerned, it was a disaster.

The Council of Nicaea did not decisively put an end to the arguments and conflicts on the issue concerning the nature of Christ. It turned out to be just the beginning of a more heated controversy on the dogma. … [It] generated more problems than it intended to solve. The years following its decision were marred by more christological and theological controversies...[2] 

For the INC, it was a conspiracy hatched by an emperor bent on his political agenda. It took its readers “a trip down memory lane in the history of the Church”[3] supposedly to enlighten them. 

In spite of the objections to the Christ-is-God doctrine, how did this become pervasive in “Christendom”? What circumstances gave rise to its teaching? How long did it take for this doctrine to be declared by the Church as official? … The controversy [about the deity of Christ] became so grave, the unity of the empire and that of the Church was threatened. This prompted no less than [Constantine] the Roman Emperor to intervene. He attempted to resolve the conflict by convening a council of bishops.[4] 

The INC gave the impression that it was the Council of Nicea that “gave rise to” the doctrine of the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, made it “pervasive” and “to be declared by the Church as official”. They even asserted, “This doctrine was formulated not because of biblical merits but because of the whims of the emperor”.[5]

Proverbs 18:17 tells us, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” (ESV) When the INC stated its case against the Council, it seemed right. However, by examining the claims of the INC, while this series of articles is not an exhaustive work, it seeks to set the record straight about this crucial, historic event. 

(To read the next article, click: Setting the Record Straight Part 2) 

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry. To know more about us, click here.

NOTE: We have moved to our new home, http://bibleexpose.org/.

________________________________

[1] Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language 2^nd Edition (TN: Nelson, 1982; reprint, 1995), 99, 102.

[2] Ruben D. Aromin, “Just when was Christ made God?” Pasugo: God’s Message, July 1994, 16.

[3] Ibid, 14.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 16.

What Does Bible Exposé Stand For?

Our Mission

In view of our COMMITMENT “in [our] hearts [to] revere Christ as Lord,” we seek to raise the COMPETENCE of Christ Followers so that they would “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people” and they would “always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks [them] to give the reason for the hope that [they] have” with all COMPASSION, that is, “with gentleness and respect.” (1 Pet. 3:15; Jude 3, NIV)

Our Strategy

We believe 2 Timothy 2:23-26 spell out the R.E.A.C.H. strategy. (Originally presented in “Making Sense of Ang Dating Daan” blog entry.)

“But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife. And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.” (NKJV)

Refrain from a combative stance.  In discussions with people with opposing beliefs, keep in mind that “a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all… [and] patient” (2 Tim 2:24).  Remember that “a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” The approach is as important as the arguments.  In the online forums, there will always bean attempt to provoke through insults or name-calling.  Never go down to that level.  Even if one may not win the cult member, he can win the hearts of the people who are listening in the discussion.  People tend to listen more when engaged “in humility” (v. 25) for those who come across as proud turns them off. Someone wrote, “You can always tell who is losing an argument by checking out who is yelling the loudest.” The Filipino saying applies here: “Ang pikon talo.”  (“He who loses his patience loses it.”)

Equip the saints.  Now more than ever there is a need to train and retrain pastors and church leaders and workers on what and why they believe so that they would be “able to teach” (v. 24).  Then, they can equip their members “so that they may know the truth” (v. 25).  According to a recent study, “16% churches without pastors plus 39% churches with untrained pastors translates into a need to train pastors for 55% of the churches in the Philippines.” In fact, it can even go as high as 63%. There is a need to equip the church so that they “should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:12-16. See also Titus 1:9-11). It is important to train the equippers to communicate the Word in a way that is simple, practical and authoritative.

Always show interest for the person.  Avoid personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.  They are not the enemies.  Satan deceived them, “having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:26c).  Thus, they need to “escape the snare of the devil” (v. 26b).  Engage in a respectful way.  In doing so, one earns the right to be heard.  Ask the person why he got converted to the group.  He could have joined the group for reasons other than spiritual hunger.  If the person joined the group out of a social need, then befriend him.  Keep in mind that “people do not care how much we know unless they know how much we care.” 

Concentrate on major issues.  Discuss only the essentials of the faith with those with opposing beliefs and avoid “foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels” (v. 24, NIV).  Move away from minor issues like tithing or eating blood.  Even equally competent Bible scholars disagree on these matters.  Focus on fundamentals topics such as the deity and humanity of Christ.  Keep the discussion on track by summarizing the points already discussed.  In discussions, the cultists tend to veer away and jump from one topic to another.  So pull them back to the original topic.

Help them to think.  In “correcting those who are in opposition… [the goal is] that they may come to their senses” (v. 25).  If they misquote a verse, show them its context.  Explain how to arrive at its proper interpretation. Do not pit one verse against another.  This would appear to be dodging the issue.  Challenge them to think for themselves and not just accept blindly everything that their religious group teaches them.

Our Statement of Faith

We accept those essential doctrinal teachings on which, historically, there has been general agreement among all true Christians. We desire to allow for freedom of conviction on other non-essential doctrinal matters, provided that any interpretation is based upon the Bible alone, and that no such interpretation shall become an issue that hinders the ministry to which God has called us.

We explicitly affirm our belief in the teachings of Scriptures:

ABOUT GOD

There is one true God, eternally existing in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each of whom possesses equally all the attributes of deity and the characteristics of personality. Deut. 6:4; Matt. 28:18-20; John 1:1-3; Acts 5:3,4.

ABOUT JESUS CHRIST

Jesus Christ is God, the living Word, who became flesh through His miraculous conception by the Holy Spirit and His virgin birth. Hence, He is the perfect deity and true humanity united in one person forever.  John 1:1,14; Matt. 1:18-25; Luke 1:30-37; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:6-11.

He lived a sinless life and voluntarily atoned for the sins of men by dying on the cross as their substitute, thus satisfying divine justice and accomplishing salvation for all who trust in Him alone. 1 John 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18; John 10:17-18; 2 Cor. 5:21; 1 John 4:10; Romans 3:24-26.

He rose from the dead in the same body, though glorified, in which He had lived and died. 1 Cor. 15:4,14,20; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:24-29.

He ascended bodily into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God the Father where He, the only mediator between God and man, continually makes intercession for His own. Acts 1:9-11; Eph. 1:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:24,25; 1 John 2:1,2.

ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Holy Spirit has come into the world to reveal and glorify Christ and to apply the saving work of Christ to men. He convicts and draws sinners to Christ, imparts new life to them, continually indwells them from the moment of spiritual birth, and seals them until the day of redemption. His fullness, power, and control are appropriated in the believer's life by faith.  John 3:5-8; 16:7-15; Titus 3:5; Rom. 8:2-4,9; Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30; 1 Cor. 6:19.

ABOUT THE BIBLE

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God's infallible written word, the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally, and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks. 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Timothy 1:13; Psalm 119:105,160, 12:6; Proverbs 30:5

ABOUT HUMAN BEINGS

Man was originally created in the image of God. He sinned by disobeying God; thus, he was alienated from his Creator. That historic fall brought all mankind under divine condemnation. Gen. 1:26-27; 2:15-17; 3:1-24; Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:21-22.

Man's nature is corrupted, and he is thus totally unable to please God. Every man is in need of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit. Rom. 3:9-20; Eph. 2:1-7; Mark 7:20-23; John 3:1-21; Titus 3:5-7.

ABOUT SALVATION

The salvation of man is wholly a work of God's free grace and is not the work, in whole or in part, of human works or goodness or religious ceremony. God imputes His righteousness to those who put their faith in Christ alone for their salvation, and thereby justifies them in His sight. Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:21-26; 9:30-33; Gal. 3:11-14, 22-24.

It is the privilege of all who are born again of the Spirit to be assured of their salvation from the very moment they trust Christ as their Savior. This assurance is not based upon any kind of human merit, but is produced by the witness of the Holy Spirit, who confirms in the believer the testimony of God in His written Word. 1 Thess. 1:5; John 1:12,13; Rom. 8:14-17.

Every believer is called to so live in the power and control of the indwelling Spirit that he will not fulfill the lust of the flesh but will bear fruit to the glory of God. Gal. 5:16-25; Eph. 5:18.

ABOUT THE CHURCH

Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church, His body, which is composed of all men, living and dead, who have been joined to Him through saving faith. Col. 1:18; Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; 1 Thess. 4:13-18.

God admonishes His people to assemble together regularly for worship, for participation in the ordinances, for edification through the Scriptures, and for mutual encouragement. Heb. 10:23-25; Acts 2:41-42; 20:7; Eph. 4:11-16; 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:16-4:2.

The Lord Jesus Christ commanded all believers to proclaim the gospel throughout the world and to disciple men of every nation. The fulfillment of the Great Commission requires that all worldly and personal ambitions be subordinated to a total commitment to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:7-8; Rom. 12:1-2; Gal. 2:19-20; Phil. 3:7-21.

ABOUT ETERNITY

At physical death the believer enters immediately into eternal, conscious fellowship with the Lord and awaits resurrection of his body to everlasting glory and blessing. 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23-24; 3:20-21; Luke 23:39-43; 1 Cor. 15:12-58; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 John 3:2.

At physical death the unbeliever enters immediately into eternal, conscious separation from the Lord and awaits resurrection of his body to everlasting judgment and condemnation. Luke 16:19-31; John 5:23-29; Rev. 20:10-15; Matt. 13:40-43.

ABOUT THE LAST DAYS

Jesus Christ will come again to the earth–personally, visibly, and bodily–to consummate history and the eternal plan of God. Acts 1:9-11; 3:19-21; Matt. 24:44; Rev. 19-22.

© 2012 Bible Exposé Apologetics Ministry