Jesus alone is our hope and stay and rest

 Three times does Noah send the dove. The dove found no rest in Genesis 8:9.

The second time the dove comes back with an olive leaf. This olive leaf is a representation of peace.

The Bible elsewhere talks about the dove resting on Christ who is our peace before God in Matthew 3. Notice the dove doesnt land on Christ and someone else or something else. The dove lands on Christ alone our Rock. The wise man builds his house upon the rock.

St. Augustine on the Son in the Form of God and the Form of a servant

I am reading St. Augustine On the Holy Trinity. Augustine does not define his terms. But I do like what he says here:

 "The Son of God is both understood to be equal to the Father according to the form of God in which He is, and less than the Father according to the form of a servant which He took; in which form He was found to be not only less than the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not only so, but less even than Himself...." - St. Augustine, 2.1.2

Either Christ saves or we save ourselves

"Every doctrine, then, which teaches us to do or endeavour any thing toward our acceptance with God, stands opposed to the doctrine of the Apostles; which, instead of directing us what to do, sets before us all that the most disquieted conscience can require, in order to acceptance with God, as already done and finished by Jesus Christ." - Robert Sandeman


"To illustrate this matter, let it be remembered that the saving truth which the apostles believed was, That Jesus is the Christ. The apostles had one uniform fixed sense to these words, and the whole New Testament is writ to ascertain to us in what sense they understood them. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ in a different sense from the apostles, or who maintains anything in connection with these words subversive of their real meaning, believes a falsehood; so his faith cannot save him. In the days of the apostles many affirmed along with them, that Jesus is the Christ, who yet meant very differently from them. The far greater part of Christendom will affirm in like manner; yet we shall not easily find many who, when they come to explain themselves, have the same meaning with the Apostles. Let us, then, lay aside all questions about faith, or how a man believes; and let the only question be, What does he believe? what sense does he put on the apostolic doctrine about the way of salvation?" - Robert Sandeman, Theron and Aspasio, Pg. 258 - 259


Joseph Hussey would concur with Sandeman. He says, "If there were such kinds of hearers now in our assemblies, yet there would be none amongst any of us who have received the common doctrine of the Gospel to deny, that the said doctrine of Grace was to be preached unto them, according to the precedent in which the apostles did it. Here then we all agree without dispute, in one and the same affirmative." - Joseph Hussey, God's Operations of Grace, Pg. 26

No difference between the law of Christ and the decalogue

In sundry other places of their confessions they explain their meaning more fully thus: Many laws were uttered by Christ of which Moses knew nothing; for instance, the law to love our enemies, the law not to seek private revenge, the law not to demand back what has been taken from us, ect. All these matters the papists declare to be 'new laws.' This is wrong; for even Moses has said: ' Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thine heart and with all thy soul and with ...all thy might,' Deut. 6,5; and: ' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' Lev. 19, 18. Now, Christ did not abrogate this law of Moses, but neither did He publish any new laws. He only opened up the spiritual meaning of the Law. Accordingly, He says in Matt. 5, 17: 'Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.' That means that He did not come to issue new laws, but to fulfill the Law for us, so that we may share His fulfillment. - C.F.W. Walther, The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, pg. 73-74

"The law is called the Decalogue, and the gospel is the doctrine concerning Christ the mediator, and the free remission of sins through faith." -Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg, pg. 2

 .

Christ professes to be God

In Matthew 4:7 it is said that Jesus is being tempted by Satan to fall off the cliff. The response of Jesus shows not only that he relied and correctly applied the word of God; but, that He Himself is God in the flesh - Emmanuel - God with us.

Christ's ethics based on the Ten Commandments

The ethics of Jesus is based on the ten commandments. These commandments were broken all the time by the religious leaders of his day. No doubt they are in fact broken by all mankind everywhere, but the religious leaders had a pertinent zeal for God's word that said "because I don't do x, y, and z, I have favour with God." These men, as long as they didn't commit murder or adultery were assured of their heavenly state; so to not break the law they placed around about it certain institutions to keep from having to break them. Of course, Jesus calls them whitewashed tombs. Outside they look clean but inside they were far from it. Today, we might see this very same thing in the world and amongst the professing Christian Institutes. As long as they don't do x, y, and z they are fine. Perhaps they have a certain positive change as well. They even perhaps give on occasion. But, these men have missed it as the proverbial horse and cart goes. Instead, Jesus says even if you lusted in your mind you have committed adultery. Even if you hated someone in your mind you have committed murder. Many false churches further teach some sort of rule as long as you desire to do x, y, and z you're fine. But these churches seem to have missed the point of the law. The law commands what is supposed to be done and what is not to be done. We are commanded not to worship idols but to worship God alone. What is commanded is both in the negative and positive light. So desiring to do x has no bearing at all. Sin is law breaking. All have sinned and have fallen short of God's glory, therefore the only hope for salvation is found in Christ work on the cross alone on behalf of his chosen sheep alone.

My sin is ever before me but I am saved by Grace alone in Christ alone

The lordshiper says if you're sinning then it must mean you are not actually saved. But, why such drastic assumptions? Why is it not because the Lordshiper has not himself submitted fully to his damnable doctrine? Why not say rather that a Christian is one who knows that they are sinners and because of that they turn to Christ in hope for salvation? Thereby why not address it at the heart of the matter, a Christian, one who accepts the gospel alone for life and sustenance, still sins the same sins that the non-elect sin and yet the cause of such horrible things is for us not to trust in ourselves but rather to turn to Christ and rest in him by faith aloneMy goal is to live honorably before the Lord. This might seem strange coming from someone who holds to the five points of grace and who is not a lordshiper. But, in reality I know I am a sinner and that I sin continually even when I am not thinking of it at the time my sinful thoughts are always before me but I know that the gospel only relieves me of the condemnation that my sins deserve. I try to stay out of trouble and try to live rightly and at peace with all men in so far as I can. Sometimes it doesn't help and so I say after I fall "glad that is over!"

Jesus is God in the flesh

In John 10,

22And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. 23And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. 25Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30I and my Father are one.

31Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 39Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

 Jesus was in fact calling himself God when he quoted Psalm 82. Jesus sits amongst the mighty and judges among them.

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

7But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

8Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Shedd's view presents changes in the Trinity?

"Shedd's material begins on page 278 of volume two. There he says, 'The God-man was a new person.' since Shedd will deny that the man Jesus was a person, this assertion implies certain changes and alterations in the Second Person of the Trinity. Indeed he is a very specific, for on page 281 he adds, 'The Trinity itself is not altered or modified by the Incarnation. Only the Second Person is modified.' Coming from an intelligent and well-educated Christian, this is amazing. The Second Person of the Trinity is as immutable as the other two. Furthermore, if the Second Person suffered alteration, it would modify the Trinity as whole. The Trinity, if I may use the language, is a complex of three Persons. Clearly if one changes, the complex changes. It will have different constituents. Certainly this violates the basic Christian doctrine and destroys all confidence in what may be said of the Incarnation." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 47


John Gill kind of reiterates this fact of the incarnation:


"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

God, Eternity, Christ, Ascension

I do not see at all where the Second person of the Holy Trinity took upon himself flesh (as he is God). But, I do say that Christ (both God and Man) in the flesh ascended to the right hand of God the father.

1 Corinthians 15:20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Hebrews 2:17 - Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

The divine second person of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation

"Nor is the unchangeableness of the divine nature to be disproved by the incarnation of Christ; for though he, a divine Person, possessed of the divine nature, was made flesh, or became man; the divine nature in him was not changed into the human nature, nor the human nature into the divine, nor a third nature made out of them both; was this the case, the divine nature would have been changeable; but so it was not; for as it has been commonly said, 'Christ remained what he was, and assumed what he was not;' and what he assumed added nothing to his divine person; he was only manifested in the flesh; he neither received any perfection, nor imperfection, from the human nature; though that received dignity and honour by its union to him, and was adorned with the gifts and graces of the Spirit without measure, and is now advanced at the right hand of God." - John Gill, The Body of Divinity, Pg. 37

The incarnation did not change the Son of God. Nothing was added to Him when he assumed the nature of man.

On the Trinity

The doctrine of the Holy trinity simply stated is that God is one in essence but three in person. These persons are completely God, coeternal, coexisting. The Father never became the Father nor did the Son ever become the Son likewise the Spirit... Neither of them became what or who they are as the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses teaches.


17Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. -2 Corinthians 3


To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 9

Christ is our High Priest

Just reading through Leviticus. I am in chapter 8 and so far I am seeing the tedious tasks of the levitic priesthood to make atonement of sin on behalf of the people.

As the Hebrew writer makes this so clear. Christ is the great high priest who actually atoned once for all by his effectual death on the cross for the sins of the elect alone.

"If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:

21(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)

22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

23And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24But thisman, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

26For such an high priest became us,who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. 28For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore."

1 Peter 1 is about the holiness that comes from Christ's imputed righteousness

1 Peter 1 talks of the holiness that comes by the blood of Christ alone. It is because of him (by his death which he took our sins and by his imputed righteousness to us) that we know and believe the gospel.

The only grounds of acceptance before God is the death of Christ alone imputed to the elect alone

When the Bible says in 1 John 3 that believers in Christ does not commit sin it does not at all say that believers do not continue to sin either by habit or accident. But what it is saying is simple the Bible tells us how to please God. It also tells us that no one has pleased God and that God will one day judge the nations on account of their sins. Now it also tells us the only ground of acceptance before God which is in Christ alone. For after the sin of the first parents who were our representatives all of us also fell in them. Because of this the law demanded our death for lack of perfect obedience. No one is righteous but that one that gave his life on the cross for the sins of the elect alone. It is this death that is now imputed to the elect so that in Him they live.

Nothing matters but that we guard the teaching and the faith

"Doctor Andreas Karlstadt has deserted us, and on top of that has become our worst enemy. May Christ grant that we be not alarmed, and give us his mind and courage, that we may not err and despair before the Satan who here pretends to vindicate the sacrament, but has much else in mind. For since he has not thus far been able to suppress with violence the whole doctrine of the gospel, he seeks to destroy it with cunning interpretation of Scripture.
Now I have foretold it, and my prophesying will become true (I'm afraid), that God will visit our ingratitude and permit the truth to be cast down, as Daniel says (Dan. 8:[12]). Because we persecute and do not accept the truth, we must again have vain error and false spirits and prophets. These have already been with us to some extent for three years, though thus far hindered by his grace. Otherwise they would long ago have wrought havoc in our ranks. Whether he will keep this disturbance in check any longer, I do not know, since no one cares, no one prays for it, and all are without fear, as though the devil were sleeping who, however, goes about as a furious lion [1 Pet. 5:8]. Although I hope restraint will not be lacking as long as I live. Therefore I personally, as long as I live, will resist insofar as God helps me, and help wherever possible. And this is my earnest, sincere warning and admonition:
First, that each one with complete earnestness pray God for a right understanding and for his holy, pure Word. In view of the fact that under such a mighty prince and god of this world - the devil -it is not within our power to preserve either the faith or God's Word, there must be divine power which protects it, as Psalm 12 well prays and says [Ps. 12:6-8], 'The promises of the Lord are promises that are pure, purified seven times. Do thou, O Lord, protect us, guard us ever from this generation. On every side the wicked prowl, as vileness is exalted among the sons of men." If we boast that we have God's word and do not take care as to how we are to keep it, it is soon lost.
Second, we, too, ought to do our part and not close our eyes, but be on our guard. For God nonetheless always holds his grace firmly over the world, so that he permits no false prophets to attempt anything except something external, such as works and subtle minute discoveries about external things. No one concerns himself with faith and a good conscience before God, but only with what glitters and shines before reason and the world. Just as the Arians apparently put up a good case in the court of reason, when they alleged that God was only one person, the Father, while the Son and the Holy Spirit were not true God.
Likewise, it was easy and pleasant for the Jews and Pelagians to believe that works without grace made one pious; and under the papacy it was said in an attractive way that the free will also contributes something toward grace. So, since it is in accord with reason, it sounds altogether pleasant to say that there is simply bread and wine in the sacrament. Who cannot believe that? If one only today would grant to the Jews that Christ was simply a man, I think it would be easy to convert them.
So our concern here should now be that we keep these two teachings far apart from each other: the one that teaches of the main articles, to govern the conscience in the spirit before God; the other, which teaches of things external or works. For more depends on the teaching of faith and a good conscience than on the teaching of good works. When works are lacking, help and counsel are at hand so that one can produce them if the teaching of faith remains firm and pure. But if the teaching of faith is placed in the background and works are put forward, then nothing can be good and there is neither counsel nor help. Then works lead to vain glory and seem to people to be something great, while God's glory disappears." - Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 157-158

Christ is both God and Man

"The relationship that obtains between the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity, and Jesus is unique, unlike that between the Logos and every other man who comes into the world (see John 1:9). The Logos did not merely light the mind of Christ; the Logos Himself is fully in Christ. Christ could therefore say, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' No mere prophet could make such an astounding claim. Prophets, inspired by God, possess some of the divine propositions, Christ, however, possesses them all, as the author of Hebrews argues in his first chapter. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
If, as seems to be the case, we now have a solution to the puzzles of the Incarnation, a solution that avoids the contradictions and meaningless words of the traditional formulations, a solution that is supported by Scripture itself, we are obliged to accept it. Jesus Christ was and is both God and man, a divine person and a human person. To deny either is to fall into error. Once the key terms are defined and clearly understood, the Incarnation is an even more stupendous and awe-inspiring miracle than the Church has hitherto surmised." - J.W.R., Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 77-78

What suffered on the cross? Nature or Person?

"The creeds and the volumes on theology, mindful of the heresies prior to A.D. 451, deny that Christ was a human person. They use the phrase 'two distinct natures and one Person forever.' With great uniformity they refuse to define nature. Now this leads to extreme difficulties.
If Jesus was not a human person, who or what suffered on the cross? The Second Person could not have suffered, for Deity is impassible. One of the heresies of the early ages, as mentioned before, was Patripassianism. Substituting a modal trinity for the three distinct Persons, the theory requires the Father to have been crucified. But to require the Second Person, as such, to suffer is equally impossible. The Westminster Confession describes him as 'a most pure Spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions' (II, 1). If then the Second Person could not suffer, could a 'nature' suffer? Perhaps some few readers have heard of Isaac Watts' not so popular hymn with its inference concerning children.

Dogs delight to bark and bite
For 'tis their nature to.

If, then, theologically undefined nature is certain qualities or characteristics, such as susceptibility to fatigue, aptitude for learning, joy, sorrow, or, to extend the list beyond the life of Christ, jealousy, irascibility, sullenness - if nature is such qualities can any one of them suffer pain? Can even a human, physical body suffer? If that were the case a corpse could suffer. On the contrary, only a spirit, a soul (including the souls of animals), or a person can suffer. Apparently demons can suffer (Luke 8:31; Matthew 8:29, in which one should note the word torment), yet they have no bodies." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 67-68

H.C. Powell's argument makes humanity divinity

"The pervasive and most annoying difficulty that plagues this whole subject is the deficiency in definition. The crucial nouns (not concepts) are ambiguous, or actually meaningless. On page 149 Powell declares, 'The chief point which was established in regard to both the Holy Trinity and to the . . . Incarnation, was that a real difference was to be recognized between essence, or nature, and personality. If there was no such real difference, then the Sabellian conception of God must be true.' The reader should recall that Sabellianism is the theory of a Unitarian modal trinity. Now, if essence means definition, which is its only suitable meaning, and if personality is a part of that definition, it is hard to see how defining the Father to include personality prevents one from including personality in the somewhat different definition of the Son. Powell's argument implies that all human individuals are one individual because every one of them is a person.
Powell goes even further. Continuing on page 149 he argues, or rather, asserts, 'if there was no distinction between person and nature [nature, he had previously identified with essence], it would seem to follow that there could be no separation in our Incarnate Lord between his Divinity and his humanity, in which case he could not have been really man, as we are.'
In the first place, however, according to the orthodox doctrine, Christ was not really man as we are, for we are persons and Christ was only a 'nature.' In the second place, Powell wants to define person in one way and nature in another way, even though he had earlier identified nature with essence, or definition. The nature is the definition of the person. How this prevents us from separating divinity from humanity, as he says it does, is not at all clear. Condense his argument: Unless person and nature are distinct, the definition of divinity is precisely the definition of humanity." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 30-31

What is the definition of a person?

"It is now time to identify the fatal flaw in the Chalcedonian Symbol, or, more broadly, to face the very real difficulties in formulating a theory of the Incarnation that is both Biblical and intelligible. The great defect in the Creed is the absence of definitions. Its bishop-authors did not explain, and probably did not themselves know the meanings of 'rational soul,' 'consubstantial,' 'nature,' 'subsistence,' and above all 'person.' This was said a few pages ago, but it needs constant emphasis.
. . .
Now, the trouble with the Creed is not that it contains an ambiguous word. The trouble is that there are so many of them. If psuches logikes causes minimum difficulty, how shall we translate omoousion, phuseon, the Latin theatrical mask persona, and especially prosopon? Nor is translation the main difficulty. If upostasis or persona means person, we still must form a definition of person. Can one person have two wills and two intellects? Christ is commonly said to have had two wills, though his human will does not make him a person. What in addition to will and intellect is necessary to make a human body a human person? The human 'nature' of Christ is supposed to have lacked an essential characteristic of a person. What was it that he did not have? How can he be true man without being a human person? Merriam Webster defines person as a character in a stage play, a specific kind of individual character, a being characterized by rational apprehension, rationality, and a moral sense, an individual human being. Was Jesus any of these, or none? Is it not plausible that the Church Fathers did not understand what they were saying? Is it not desirable therefore to give some serious attention to the Incarnation? And while not all persons are men, all men are persons." - Gordon H. Clark, Incarnation, Pg. 15-17