A Rope of Sand with Strength of Steel

Colossians 2:1-5

I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.

Colosse was united to Laodicea in the Apostle’s mind. When he thought of one, he thought of the other. They were united in more than mere proximity, however. Obviously, at the time Paul wrote this letter these two churches shared a great deal in common. The Apostle struggled in labours for these two churches [Colossians 4:13]. The two churches were to exchange greetings and to exchange letters from the Apostle [Colossians 4:15, 16]. The churches may have shared pastors at one time, or at least shared interest in one of the pastors. At the conclusion of the letter Paul addresses a man named Archippus [Colossians 4:17], likely the son of Philemon [cf. Philemon 2]. From the tone of the verse near the end of the Colossian letter, Archippus was probably the pastor of the Laodicean church. At the time of this letter, these two churches were united with that which fully unites God’s people until voluntarily broken by one of the parties.

Was there such a break in fellowship? John, writing no more than a few decades later, would convey the scathing message of the Risen Christ to Laodicea. Laodicea had become a church which sickened the Lord. They had grown lukewarm, tepid, neither hot nor cold. Did the church at Colosse seek to maintain a semblance of unity with their fellow church of the Laodiceans? Did the church at Colosse maintain close relations with their sister congregation? The two congregations could literally look across the valley and see their respective cities, but did they continue as one in the Faith? The question will be answered through considering the Word of God. I leave it to you to weigh the teaching of the Word and judge for yourselves whether the two churches might have maintained their confession of unity.

We Baptists pride ourselves on our independence. We speak of the autonomy of the church. By this we mean that no outside agency can dictate to us in matters of faith and practise. No government agency can tell us what to believe. No denominational agency can tell us how to conduct our service to the Lord. No sister church can dictate to us how we shall worship. Instead we are fiercely free in our service before the Lord.

In the text for this message the Apostle speaks of encouragement and of unity. The encouragement of which he speaks and the unity to which he refers are those precious commodities which are centred in Christ the Lord. Paul rejoices in the orderliness and in the firmness exhibited by these two churches. He commends them and encourages them in that which glorifies the Lord Christ. So long as the churches followed the apostolic teaching, they enjoyed sweet communion. However, as soon as one departed from that apostolic doctrine, there could be no further communion. Just so, it is our doctrine which unites us and not any organisation. That doctrine constitutes a rope of sand with strength of steel.

We Are United by Love. I know that among us are some who, by word and by precept, would argue that love is an emotion. They are focused on their feelings and they thus gauge the quality of others’ love by their own feelings. I further know that when I avow that we are united by love that they will likely imagine that I mean love for one another. While that may be great “pop” psychology, it is neither good science nor sound theology.

In fact we do love one another, but we love one another because we have received the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. In other words, the love which unites us as Christians is our mutual love for Christ our Saviour. To the degree that I love Christ, I love my fellow Christians deeply from the heart. This does not mean that I am particularly concerned about how they feel, but it does mean that I am greatly concerned with how they act. Godly love is concerned to benefit the recipient and not to merely make another feel good about himself or herself.

That love for Christ is in view is evident from reading the preceding passage. Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness—the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints. To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ. To this end I labour, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works in me [Colossians 1:24-29].

By this position, the Apostle makes clear that he is concerned that the people of God be united in love for the true Faith. He speaks of Christ’s afflictions and of his own struggles which he had endured for the sake of the body. He is concerned to present the Word of God in its fullness, convinced that it is the mystery of salvation. In short, his focus is on the Son of God. Clearly, the Apostle’s first priority is the presentation of the Gospel; and for this cause he struggles with all his energy [Colossians 1:29].

That which binds us in love for one another is love for Christ. Consider the teaching of the Word concerning that love. We love because He first love us [1 John 4:19]. A primary truth is that godly love is unnatural. If it were natural we would need no encouragement to love one another. If it were a learned response we would by nature be lovers. In fact, by this verse we are compelled to say that it is impossible for us to love others until we have received the love which God has for us. Notice the context in which that verse is found. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another [1 John 4:10, 11].

Galatians 2:20 teaches us that the love of Christ is a sacrificial love. Consequently, if I discover that divine love I will become willing to sacrifice myself for fellow saints. The love God demonstrates toward us is centred in the sacrifice of Christ [cf. Romans 5:8; 8:28, 35, 39]. Again, this would indicate that if the focus of my love leads me to value the love of others by how they make me feel, I have no concept of the meaning of divine love. I am compelled to take time to address this issue because there are yet those within the church of the Living God who are so focused on themselves that it is questionable whether they have yet experienced the love of God.

I am compelled to stress in this message the fact that we are united by love—love for Christ and love of the truth of Christ! If we thus love Christ, we will love the brotherhood of believers. The expression of that love will have little to do with how we feel or even with how others respond. We will express that love through making every effort to maintain a spirit of unity instead of attempting to make the church adapt to our concepts. Dear people, it is not love to manipulate and micromanage the attitude of the people of God. Love is expressed through a spirit of submission to one another, rejoicing in the appointment which Christ gives to each of us, and walking together in truth.

Love Results in Complete Understanding. The maturation of saints is hard work. Paul speaks of struggle such as an athlete would endure in the arena [ajgwnizovmeno" 1:29], of wearisome toil [kopiw' 1:29], and of suffering [paqhvmasin 1:24], all within a few brief sentences. The power for all this demanding work was from Christ. The purpose for all this labour was to enable the people to resist false teaching and to obtain encouragement and unity. There is no full knowledge apart from moral commitment. Complete understanding results from complete yielding. This understanding is centred in Christ.

As he writes the Church at Colosse, Paul writes of rejoicing in what was suffered on their behalf [Colossians 1:24]. He writes not of how he feels; such sentimentality is the concern of people with time on their hands and who are sufficiently unchallenged as to focus on themselves instead of considering how they may build others in the Faith. The Apostle invested his time admonishing and teaching [lit. counselling and instructing] everyone [Colossians 1:28] because false teaching was even then threatening the churches. The Gnostic heresy had invaded the churches, and the churches situated in the Lycus River Valley [Colosse, Laodicea, and Hieropolis] appeared to have been especially vulnerable. Paul’s concern was the production of mature believers, as is evident by his words in Colossians 1:28 which state his longing to present everyone perfect in Christ.

While we cannot speak with complete authority on the content or presentation of the Gnostic heresy, we know enough about that teaching which competed with the Faith of Christ to present the essence of that strange doctrine. Whatever the particular branch of Gnosticism, the Gnostics claimed to have an elevated spiritual understanding. This is the basis of the title of the religion, derived from the Greek term for knowledge. The Gnostics, either explicitly or implicitly, claimed special knowledge which made them more spiritual than others. Their special knowledge made them superior to others, and so they were released from the normal rules of society, especially the society of the faithful. Among the Gnostics was an emphasis upon feeling, upon ascribing to the ordinances magical power, and upon spiritual understanding of events.

Elements of Gnosticism are yet seen among the churches today in teaching which emphasises the spiritual meaning of a text to the exclusion of the practical application. Whenever an individual begins to exalt himself or herself above the people of God, claiming superior knowledge, that individual is flirting with Gnosticism. Whether an individual claims a spiritual encounter or special insight unavailable to others except through that one’s special experience, the heresy of Gnosticism again is present. Should an individual claim a dispensation to do that which is patently immoral or unethical, compartmentalising life into physical and spiritual realms, the heresy of Gnosticism is again making itself known.

What I find interesting is that although the Gnostics claimed superior knowledge, it was Christians alone who had any possibility of truly understanding God in that day. So it is today. Today, Christians must distinguish between a myriad of voices, each claiming to present “something more”. It is true that the Christian Faith is presented as a mystery in our text [Colossians 2:2, 3], but a mystery in biblical terms is not identical to the term employed in a secular sense. In our language, a mystery is an enigma, something over which we puzzle and wonder. That is not the case in biblical terms.

A musthvrion is not an enigma, that which is dark and obscure, but rather a musthvrion is that which is openly seen. In biblical terms, a musthvrion is the revealed mind of God. Previously, those who worshiped the Lord God would have been ignorant of what is now common knowledge. In virtually every instance, the mystery revolves around the revelation that Christ would make for Himself a people from both the Jews and Gentiles. Israel is hardened in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in [Romans 11:25]. Christ has been revealed so that all nations might believe and obey Him [Romans 16:25]. We are chosen in Christ [Ephesians 1:3-14] to share in the Body of Christ together with the apostles and prophets [Ephesians 3:4-12]. There is also the mystery of godliness which states of Christ that

God appeared in a body,

was vindicated by the Spirit,

was seen by angels,

was preached among the nations,

was believed on in the world,

was taken up in glory.

[1 Timothy 3:16]

You can see that all these Scriptures point to Christ and our relationship to Him. The only other mystery which is presented in the New Testament is that which comforts us with the knowledge that we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed [1 Corinthians 15:51]. Even this final mystery speaks of our ultimate relationship with Christ the Lord.

Christ loved us and gave Himself for us. In love He predestined us to be adopted into His family and to be presented complete in Him. It was He who gave us apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastor-teachers to prepare us for works of service. Because He loves us He created the churches wherein we may be built up until we all reach unity in the Faith and in the knowledge of Him as the Son of God and become mature. If we love Him we love the church; and if we love the church we love those whom Christ gave to us. We accept those whom He placed in the Body and endeavour to do that which builds them up to the praise of His glory, confident that that which builds one another up is knowledge of Him and of His will. Anything which detracts from the knowledge of Christ threatens the unity of the Body.

There is nothing deeper than the doctrine of Christ. There is nothing more difficult to fully grasp and nothing which is easier to understand than this doctrine. This doctrine becomes for us that rope of sand with strength of steel. It is this which binds us together and it is this which keeps us serving. The remainder of the message is an exploration of the expression of that doctrine in the church. In practical terms, what does the doctrine of Christ mean?

Love Will Lead Us to Christ and Keep Us from Error. Only the full knowledge and wisdom of Christ can keep us from being deceived by fine-sounding arguments. Those who would lead us into error use piqanologiva/—literally, persuasive speech which uses plausible but false arguments. Truth and persuasion do not always correlate. Error can be persuasive, as evidenced by world leaders such as Adolph Hitler and as evidenced by ecclesiastical leaders such as the past moderator of the United Church of Canada. Whether one is compelled by truth or persuaded by error depends on whether the listener possesses the full truth and is committed to it. Thus, the Apostle was delighted by the evidence that the Colossians were orderly and firm in their faith in Christ.

What doctrine makes us Baptist? The doctrine which historically distinguished us from all other communions was our insistence upon the priesthood of the believer. This means that we hold that each individual is responsible before God. There is no denominational covenant which can bring us to God. There is neither salvation nor merit of any kind within any denomination. Each individual alone is the sole arbiter of his or her conscience before God. Each individual must determine what is right and what is wrong. The sole criterion by which we judge our actions is the Word of God.

The consequence of this teaching is the insistence that since salvation is by faith each individual must answer to God for his or her faith—or lack thereof. It is the individual who receives salvation by faith and thus it is the individual who shall be required to answer to God for both faith and the outworking of that faith.

This means that we must reject as invalid all baptisms performed to secure salvation or in the hope of securing merit with the Lord God. That one who was baptised in order to become a Christian has no baptism at all. That individual who was baptised to be a better Christian has no baptism at all.

This means that we must reject as invalid that baptism performed in order to make the candidate a member of the Body of Christ. That one baptised in order to become a member of a particular church has no baptism at all.

The doctrine of the priesthood of the believer means that we must reject as unscriptural all teaching which teaches or implies that one can obtain merit with Christ through human effort or which teaches that one must maintain their saved status through their own effort. Whenever any religious authority teaches that human effort is important in obtaining salvation or in maintaining salvation, that must be viewed as errant teaching and the church holding such views is guilty of teaching heresy.

This means that the church has no authority to compel faith nor does any agency outside the local church have authority over that body. Just as we cannot compel an aberrant member to obey our doctrinal position, neither may an outside agency—whether convention, association or union—compel us to adhere to denominational doctrine. We can, however, require those in membership to live according to biblical standards. Just so, those groups with whom we affiliate may require us to live according to biblical standards. Should a member refuse to obey biblical instruction, we may only debar that rebellious individual from the Lord’s Table in an expression of disfellowship. Even so, those agencies with whom we fellowship may only declare us out of fellowship.

Why can we not become Anglicans or Catholics? What would keep us as Baptists from co-operating with Presbyterians in church planting and missionary endeavour? Why would we choose to co-operate with churches which call themselves Baptist while avoiding co-operation with Charismatic churches? We will, with the Psalmist, aver

I am a friend to all who fear you,

to all who follow your precepts.

[Psalm 119:63]

We rejoice with the angels in heaven over every soul saved by faith in Christ the Lord. However, we know that those saved within some communions are saved in spite of the doctrine and not because of the doctrine. Should a church teach, either by example or by precept, that salvation is found only within their organisation, we must in conscience reject that teaching as unsound. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from such error.

When a church teaches that salvation either lies within sacraments or is somehow enhanced by observance of sacraments, we are conscience-bound to reject that teaching. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from such error.

When a church teaches that children are made members of the kingdom by a sacrament, stealing their right and responsibility to obey Christ with mature knowledge, we must in love of the truth reject that teaching. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from error.

When a church teaches that there are multiple classes of Christians, with superior saints achieving some level of advance whether through an experience in the flesh or through a supposed experience in the spirit, we must reject that teaching as errant. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from error.

When a church teaches that there is an authority higher than the Word of God, we reject that teaching as unscriptural. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from error.

When a church teaches that there is a distinction between the members of the Body, some being endowed with authority beyond that which is stated in the Word, we must of necessity reject that teaching. Love leads us to Christ and keeps us from error.

Love is not a Doctrine to be Expounded; it is a Faith to be Lived. The words immediately beyond our text serve to draw the message to a logical conclusion. Just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him, rooted and built up in Him, strengthened in the Faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness [Colossians 2:6, 7]. How did you receive Christ Jesus as Lord? There are not two ways to Christ—there is but one. Either the Word is true in stating it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast [Ephesians 2:8, 9], or the Word errs grievously. If you are saved, you became a Christian by faith in the Risen Son of God. If you became a Christian by faith, why would you change after having been saved?

I remember a conversation I had with my own Dad only a year before he passed into eternity. He was quite agitated that I had declared myself to be a Baptist and he was trying to get me to “see the light.” He employed a number of arguments. My grandfather had “baptised” me and my decision was hurting the family. How could I really believe that strange doctrine which taught that salvation was eternal without my own efforts? The discussions ranged far and wide throughout the better part of one afternoon and well into the evening hours.

At last he used his clincher. “Son,” he began, “if I believed what you are saying I would go out and take my fill of sin.”

“Ah, Dad,” I retorted, “that is the rub. I’ve had my fill of sin.”

With that I asked him how he was saved, and he confessed that it was by faith in Christ. “If you began by faith and were unable to do anything to make Him love you,” I challenged, “what could you do to keep yourself saved? If you were too weak to save yourself in the first place, how could you be so arrogant as to think that you could somehow add to your salvation at a later time?” There was no answer.

If you began by grace, continue to live by grace. If you began with works, continue to labour in the hope that perhaps you can somehow secure your salvation. In that instance, however, the harder you labour the less you will know of love. You may share a measure of sorrow and grief with those who labour with you, but you will never experience true love. The sole concern of those who struggle with you will of necessity be how to use you to advance their own agenda.

There is throughout most of North America today a growing tendency to reduce the Faith of Christ Jesus to a sort of religious mutual admiration society. All who profess Christ Jesus as Lord, regardless of whether they possess His life or not, are invited to be part of the church. The great problem with this “feel-good” religion is that it has few doctrinal roots and seeks to reduce the Faith to an experience embracing the lowest common denominator. While that may have some value in avoiding immediate conflict, it ultimately serves to insult the teaching of Christ our Lord. Worse yet, such a movement is certain to ensure that the church will be neither hot nor cold but will instead become a tepid religious society. It does seem that Jesus has something to say about those churches which are lukewarm.

I am quite bold in pleading with this church to review its doctrine. If Baptist doctrine is biblical doctrine, than be Baptist. Ardently adhere to those roots which served you well in past years and which have grounded you in love for Christ. If somehow such adherence is odious, then become whatever you wish. Only be honest enough to admit that you have forsaken that biblical doctrine which distinguished the Faith throughout the years. Call yourself by any name you choose, only don’t besmirch this honoured name—Baptist.

As I have said repeatedly during the past several weeks, I have no authority. I cannot compel people to believe sound doctrine, though I am charged to teach that doctrine and plead with all to embrace that which honours Christ the Lord. I cannot force the church to do my will, much less the will of Christ the Lord. I can teach the Word of God and plead with the people who will honour God to submit to that which He has provided in this Word.

Now the message is done for this day. The Word of God seems quite clear in presenting the truth that we are to love Christ supremely. Because we love Him we will love the truth. Because we love the truth we will walk in that truth. Because we walk in the truth, we will seek to walk together with those who likewise seek to honour Christ the Lord and to walk in the truth. Amen.