← Back to sermon library

that it is quite impossible for us men clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead except by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own life. And praise God that he does condescend to our finite capacities in such a way to reveal himself. Not unto the end of confusion, but enter unto the end of really knowing him. And and if we if we frame our knowledge of God in the way that God himself has revealed himself to us, we won't heir when we say God is spirit and then we can read the scriptures and see and read about the nostrils of God and the right arm of God. Um, of course, he's condescending to our capacities. Not to say he really has nostrils, but that to God it is pleasurable to to behold the sacrifices given in obedience to him. Specifically, that rendered by the son of God incarnate. When it speaks of his right arm, we don't say he really has a right arm. But we're to perceive the divine power in redeeming his people. For example, that with a mighty right arm, he conquers his enemies and he upholds his people. not with a literal right arm but with divine power and the majesty of his divine excellencies. Uh we need to recognize um and that we won't we won't talk too much about this but we need to recognize the legitimacy of the use of logical consequences. So taking uh taking certain points of the scriptures uh knitting them together to ascertain what God is revealing by multiple truths that he sets forth therein. Our Bible our Bible our confession uses the language of things in the scriptures that are expressly set down and then those things that are necessarily contained. Turretin writes, "The doctrines of faith and practice uh are not only proved by the express word of God, but are also legitimately proved by consequences drawn from scripture." Uh on this note, James Renahan, Dr. Renahan writes, "The question in one sense is this. Is the use of reason appropriate in understanding scripture? And is the result of the use of logic binding for the result of interpretation? The simple answer to this question among the particular Baptists is yes. The use of reason and logic. God has given us reasonable minds created in his own image. In fact, reason, rationality is um in large part the image of God. Uh our ability to reason, our our ability to engage in logic. And so when our minds and our souls, when our hearts are lifted up by the redeeming power of God, that God-given and that creational reason that we've been given is exalted to be to behold God as he as he's revealed himself expressly in the scriptures, but also to engage and use that reason that we might come to legitimate conclusions, good conclusions, necessary conclusions from the scriptures with regards to what God is revealing concerning himself. Um and then coming to a lastly with regards to some of these observations and interpretive helps, we need to divest ourselves of the tendency to let the text speak instead of letting the Bible speak. What do what do I mean by that? Sort of goes back to the nostrils and arms and eyes thing with regards to what is God doing in communicating himself according to that manner. But listen to the words of Jerome and then Manton Jerome and an early church father. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have scripture authority for their assertions since the devil himself quoted scripture. And the essence of the scriptures is not in the letter but the meaning. And this is very important. And so we it would just go back to an example of what would it what would it mean then to say that the um that the essence of the scriptures is not in the letter. Well uh if we were to take it according to the letter and what Jerome means here then it would mean that God has all of these eyes floating about uh in in you know um in in spatial locations beholding the good and the evil. But if we take it according to the meaning with the revelation of God as he gives to us comprehensively in the scriptures we know that God is spirit and so then not can then cannot have eyes. So what is he saying by the multiplicity of eyes? Um he's saying that God is omnisient that he sees all that he beholds the good and the evil not that he has literal eyes. Manton says writes it is easy to rehearse the words of scripture and therefore not the bare words but the meaning must be regarded and that's Manton on the devil's use of scripture in the temptation of Christ. Um and so hopefully hopefully as we very quickly move through these things you can see how important these principles are in properly understanding God. And these aren't mechanistic principles imposed upon the scriptures, but simply principles that we gain from a reading of the divine revelation itself that God has given us. Lastly, and then we'll have a look at some of the the uh clauses in the confession, certainly not exhausting them uh even remotely close. Um but uh we need to recognize the legitimacy of the use of extra biblical words. Um the the Christian church has historically and necessarily employed words outside of the Bible to protect what is inside the Bible. um very quickly in the at the council of of Nika and you know maybe Grant afterwards you can confirm this but I I've read I've read some reports of the the the progression of the council of Nika how the the Aryan parties and you know the semi-aran parties perhaps um enjoying the reality of simply reading and attesting to the bare words of scripture and the nyine party realizing the necessity of you the employment of words outside of the scriptures in order to accurately articulate what the scriptures contain because uh you know an Aryan can go to uh to John um what is it uh what is it 14 14:20 Jim you can correct me if I'm wrong but the father is greater than I 14:28 uh an Aryan can go to the father is greater than I and argue for the legitimacy of the letter as it's stated there it is you know the uh the the the son is uh the son is less than the father. Um other examples abound but the necessity or the legitimacy of the use of extra biblical words the utility of them to protect what God is revealing in the holy scriptures. For example, John Owen writes, "It is not words and terms nor expressions but doctrines and things we inquire after. To express the same thing that is contained in any place of scripture with such other words as may give light unto it in our understandings is to expound it. Imagine if we were only limited to the words of scripture to articulate what was in the scripture. There goes preaching. There goes preaching. We can't the church of Jesus Christ cannot preach the word of God if we cannot use words outside of the Bible to describe and expound upon what is in the Bible. If heretics rest scripture expressions to a sense never received nor contained in them, it is surely lawful for them who are willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints to clear the mind of God in his word by expressions and terms suitable there. pretense of shuddering at it is uh at some gruesome hobgoblin and that we are fully justified in allowing the use of such fresh applications of words in respect to all things that can be named and to God himself. While however we strenuously avoid all concurrence with absurd notions in our thoughts of God, we allow ourselves in the use of many diverse appellations or words and phrases in regard to him adapting them to our point of view. In other words, the wholesome use of words not employed in the Bible to articulate what is in the Bible. So, to our confessions then with some time remaining and and then we'll uh we'll have some time for questions and I'll try to slow down the uh the rate at which I'm spitting words out of my mouth because I think we're we've covered a lot of ground here um as we're as we're moving forward. So, chapter 2, remember what what our confessionalists are doing in the confession at large, but in this chapter of course specifically because it's our it's our focal point. They are upholding faithfully what the scriptures teach with regards to the doctrine of God. They're also secondly then demonstrating their fidelity to a received theological heritage. In other words, they're they're declaring as we as we have read in our forward and as we heard at the conference, they're declaring that they have no itch to clog religion with new words, but do readily acquies in that form of sound words that had gone before them. They are in agreement with the scriptures, of course, faithfully expressing them, but they're also demonstrating their fidelity to a received theological heritage. They're not departing from the Westminsterians or the Seavoyans before them. They're not departing from Nika, from Constantinople, from Calcidon, from you know, from uh from Ephesus before Calcedon, from all of the faithful creedle, consilier and and confessional declarations throughout the history of the church that speak of God in the same way that they speak. So there is this heritage of antiquity that they are writing and articulating according to Dr. Renahan the Elder writes not uh the confession does not introduce novelties into their doctrine of God nor does it speculate on esoteric matters instead it articulates Catholic convictions that is the the convictions of the universal church throughout the ages. It is recognized that theological developments after the reformation did not alter the received doctrine of God. This chapter demonstrates the truth of that view. It is a statement that is recognizable and could be accepted throughout the ages of the church and across the spectrum of Christian belief so that when we read chapter 2 paragraphs 1 2 and three. Um we could we could cast that back into previous ages and those throughout the history of the church could read that and they could say amen. In fact, there's a there's a quote from a fellow I think he was an Athenian um in the early 2nd century or maybe mid 2nd century. So, let's just throw out around 125 I think. Um and he was a converted pagan. And if you were to read what he says about God, you would never believe that it was written. Well, you might believe depend, but you would you you would be very surprised that that was written in the 2n century because it sounds like our confession of faith. It sounds like he was taken out of the 17th century and that and and sort of blasted back in time uh 1600 centuries and he's writing about the doctrine of God. So this could be passed down historically uh to generations um before us and they would amen the content because it reflects the Bible and it reflects what they articulated regarding the same God that is being uh that is being proclaimed. Um a comparison just a comparison that we have here to the Westminster confession of faith and the savoid declaration um regarding this chapter on the doctrine of God. It's it we have the advantage of time in our confession because the second London was written after the Westminster and after the Savoy. But uh there are 408 words in our chapter, 311 in the Westminster and and 340 in the Savoy. That is to say, ours is a richer declaration. Again, again, not doctrinally different, but it is um it is strengthened and it is girded up by phrase upon phrase and clause upon clause uh to set forth the glory of so great a god. Renahan again, though there are subtle differences of expression between our three confessions, um uh uh the the Westminster confession of faith, the Savoy and the Second London convey a common doctrine held by Christians for millennia. What is a simple threephrase outline of this chapter in our confession of faith? There are three paragraphs. So, we could outline it simply this way. Paragraph one, God's essential glory. Uh, paragraph two, God's transcendent relations. that is how he relates to his creatures or perhaps phrased better how he uh relates creatures to himself. Um and then thirdly, God's triune majesty. And so in paragraph one with regards to God's essential glory, what what a packed paragraph we have here. uh we have at the outset of this paragraph God's um God's unity his unity of singularity and his unity of simplicity. God is one in such a way that he could be no other and God is one in such a way that he is not made up of as the confession will later say uh not made up of parts. He is simple. Uh as we heard during the conference, God is not made up of things smaller than himself upon which he depends. He's not made up of things more absolute than God because there can be nothing more absolute than the one who simply is. And so the Lord our God is but one only living and true God. He is self-existent. He is aay whose subsistence is in and of himself infinite in being and perfection. Um and we we talked about or Dr. Dozal talked about the fact that there's this doctrine of incomprehensibility that has a three-fold uh proclamation in here. The first one being uh whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself and then we have the simple statement later incomprehensible and then later on the the fact that he dwells in the light which no man can approach unto. And so this brings us back to our our proper posture of humility before this God who is incomprehensible. It has always been the errors of the heretics to say that they can confine God within uh within a grasp of comprehension. If we go back to the Aryans, the Eunomians of uh of similar era but a little bit after them. If we go to the 17th century and we're to look at the Cinians, we're to look at the anti-trinitarians in England in the 17th century. Uh among a lot of other errors, one of the biggest error is that is this uh this idea that they can contain God within the grasp of their comprehension. A an untoward rationalism that they can hold God uh in their knowledge uh completely. The confessionalists are ensuring that we understand that our God is beyond our comprehension and that is a mark of his greatness. We see the importance or we noted the importance during the conference of that clause without body parts and passions. God is first incorporeal. He does not have uh a body. He's not 9 feet tall. He doesn't have nostrils and arms and feet. Um uh he is as it says prior to that clause a most pure spirit uh infinite eternal and unchangeable in all of his glorious perfection. So he's incorporeal. He is without bodies. He's immaterial. Uh as we heard he is simple. He is without parts. He's not made up of things smaller than himself. And he's not comprised of his attributes. He's not the complex of of love, justice, goodness, holiness, truth, but rather he is his attributes. All that is in God is God. He is his perfections. He's without passions. He's not a man like us. He doesn't eb and flow from uh you know, he doesn't move from loving to a certain degree on Tuesday to to loving you less on a Wednesday. Um he cannot be moved by his creatures. He's not the the recipient uh of his creatures uh imposings upon him. He cannot be uh imprinted upon by his creatures, but much rather he is most absolute a most pure spirit without body parts and passions. He's not moved about to and fro. He doesn't eb and flow in affections, but rather he is um he is glorious, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, which is another doctrine that's brought forth as the confession moves with a lot of commas and a lot of statements through a number of different things. It's not just the multiplication of adjectives, uh the multiplications of things with regards to God. It's it it's trying to capture in a space and communicate not capture fully but trying to communicate in a space the the perfections of God and how glorious he truly is. Uh in order positively to to bring us to doxology but also negatively to to combat those who would oppose the doctrine of God and the perfections of his very being. He is immutable. He is without change. He is immense which is a very important term. At the conference there was um it was mo a lot at the point of uh at the point of eternity the amporal eternity of God that he is ever and always in a in a boundless and an unconstrained now. There is no succession of time. There is no before and after. Um the the infinitude of God at the point of time is his amporal eternity. But at the point of space it is this word here immense his his immensity. God is not bounded by spatial constraints. Um I think it was I think it was Dr. Renahan who who talked about the the dedication uh of the temple by by Solomon. Um you know the the heavens even the heaven of heavens cannot contain God. How much more this this house that that I've built for him this house made with hands. God is immense. He cannot be located anywhere but he also cannot be excluded from anywhere because he fills all things with the the the repletiveness of his essence uh everywhere. He doesn't have he's not extended in space is you know he's not somewhere one part of the essence of God at that part of the universe and then the other part of the essence of God at that part of the universe but he simply fills all things by the immensity of his essence. He is unconstrained. He is unbounded by time. He is unbounded by space. He is unbounded purely by anything. He is eternal. The confession says, remember that doesn't mean that he has a success of everlastingness, but that he is not bound by time. He is in an unbounded eternal now. Um he's uh this language of most that's applied to God too in a number of places here. He's most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute. I think it's important that we understand that that mostness is not a mostness of of quantity as if you know man is holy here you know the Christian redeemed by amazing and victorious grace made holy by virtue of the perfect work of uh of Christ and growing in his sanctification we can say that a saint has holiness um but first off God doesn't have holiness he is his holiness But also, God's not just most holy in relation to the saint who is not quite as holy. It's not a a scale or a comparison. It's a it's a magnification and a transcendent otherness to his holiness. Um God is most wise, most free, most absolute in such a way that there is no ebbing and flowing. There is nothing that could be more than and he certainly could not be less than his wisdom, his liberty and his absoluteness. He is most again not by comparison but by by quitative otherness by the fact that uh he is not the same what as uh as men and angels. Um, and I, you know, as as the as these adjectives are multiplied with regards to God, um, we're not then to proportionally have our chests and our and our heads puffed up because now we know him more. Um, I think the exercise in this is to show to us that we don't know him as much as we thought we did as we grow in the knowledge of our our God. But these sorts of things are, you know, only only 53 minutes on the doctrine of God. That's not even remotely close to enough. But however many minutes are spent in the knowledge of God, they're to lead us into worship. And as we read these things and we consider these things, hopefully it's it's stirring our hearts and preparing our hearts to actually go into the context of worship. And as we pray, as we read the scriptures, as we sing the hymns, as we engage in the preaching of the word, to exalt our God, to sing his praises, to rejoice in the one who is being itself, perfect in all things, glorious, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. Um, so the divine perfections are laid out. We have something of divine independence in paragraph 2. God is not dependent on anything. He's not even self-dependent. Uh it's proper to say he is independent, but he doesn't depend upon himself. Um because that would be weird. Uh he's he's God. That would mean that there are parts in God. That which precedes the the dependence that is uh that which uh is dependent and then that which provides um uh that which girds up the self-dependence, but rather he is independent. And we see this clearly stated with regards to a movement from his intrinsic glory, who he is in himself and his glory in and of himself. And then his extrinsic glory. Notice what we see in paragraph 2. God having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness in and of himself is alone in and unto himself all sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them. Now notice his extr extrinsic that is outside of himself glory but only manifesting his own glory in by unto and upon them. This magnifies the the the reality of the god that we worship. Imagine worshiping would a god who is dependent upon his creatures be worthy of worship? Would would a God who who is dependent upon sinners be worthy of worship? Or is a God who is sufficient unto himself, not standing in need of any creature wi-i which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them worthy of worship. The former is a pagan deity. The latter is the one and only living and true God who manifests his glory upon himself. the the glory of the the Olympian gods was dependent upon those who worshiped them. Their their fame uh ebbed and flowed with the the the you know the the verility or the uh the energy by which worshippers worshiped them. By the multitude of sacrifices their fame ebbed and flowed. Um and so our god is not like the gods of the pagans. He is independent. He manifests his glory. He doesn't gain glory from anything outside of himself. Um, and this this is what the doctrine of God ought to lead to. Two things at the end of paragraph 2. To him is due from angels and men whatsoever worship, service, or obedience as creatures they owe unto the creator and whatever he is further pleased to require of them. That's what the doctrine of God should lead unto the worship uh worship of his creation, the men and angels bringing praises to him eternally. And I think this is this is anticipating or it's it's reflecting something that's already been stated in paragraph 1, but that will be amplified, excuse me, chapter 1, but that will be amplified later in the doctrine of worship in chapter 22. that by virtue of their very creation, men and angels owe worship to God. And then there is that which is specially revealed unto men by which men are to approach God uh in worship, whatever he is further pleased to require of them. And then the the Trinity in 2 minutes. The the the the doctrine of God closes with the blessed reality that our God is triune and that this triunity isn't a divine essence isn't a God that's parsed up into three parts. Uh it's not that the father is 33 and a3, the son 33 and a3, and the the holy spirit 33 and a3, but the language of the oneness of substance is reiterated three times. It's very trinitarian in its declaration of the oneness and the unity, the substantial unity of God. And then it's also triune in thrice declaring the triunity of God. Notice in this divine and infinite being. So the the oneness of God is here first stated there are three subsistences the father word or son and the holy spirit. Now back to the oneness of one substance power and eternity. Now notice not a chopped up or divided deity but each having the whole divine essence yet the essence undivided. And now from the one back to the three. The father is of none. Neither begotten nor proceeding. The son is eternally begotten of the father. the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son and then back to the one all infinite without beginning. Therefore, but one God who is not to be divided in nature and being, back to the three, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations, which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence on him. What is the importance of the doctrine of God? Why? Why do we spend time on it as Christians? Why do we do we spend time and hopefully it doesn't seem like a weariness or or extra labor unjustly applied to a subject? Why do we spend so much time on the doctrine of God? Because it is the very foundation of our communion with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And it's the very foundation that we can as his worshippers comfortably depend upon the one who upholds us, who gives us life, breath, and all things. Who causes us to reverently, humbly, and joyfully approach him in worship. What a glorious God that we have. One infinite, eternal, and divine being who eternally exists as father, son, and holy spirit. and who has condescended to to by his grace call us from deadness to life to worship him and enjoy him forever. Well, let's pray and then we have a minute and 37 seconds for questions. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your your uh goodness to us that that we can uh even father, son, and holy spirit approach you and the the the study of you that we can uh learn from our Bibles that we can learn from these uh faithful confessions of faith. We can learn of our God as we reflect upon the the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. as uh uh as our pastor has uh has spent much good time on that the essence of eternal life is found in this that we know you the living and true God and and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. to help us as we grow in our uh in our Christian lives as we go about our Christian lives that we might never cease in the study of our God that we might see it uh as a glorious subject the subject of subjects that we can learn and know of the one who has created us who has sustained us who does sustain us and who has redeemed us from out of darkness to marvelous light do go with us into worship help us to worship you are right we pray in Christ's name amen Amen. Amen. Um any any questions about anything there? Oh, hello. Yes, go ahead. I was at the conference. Yeah. And uh you know um in particular I have when somebody asks me God answers prayer. Mhm. Yet he is by our preachers. Mhm. So why pray? Mhm. If God is unhooked by what we do. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think Yeah. I think the the first thing is that prayer is an act of worship. Um, you know, I think sometimes prayer can be can be unfortunately minimalized to we ask God for something, God gives it to us. Prayer is is first and foremost an act of worship. It's an element of worship. And you know, God has as the first cause ordained the means, second causes to bring about his decree and his providential plan for his creatures and for his church and for the magnification of Christ. And so, you know, just as just as the means to bring about sinners to everlasting life has been deemed well by God to be the preaching of the word, if God has elected fallen sinners to in time believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, then we might say, why why preach? But God has ordained preaching as the means whereby sinners are brought from deadness to life, attended by the power of the Holy Spirit. So, same with prayer. Um, how does God, you know, how does God bring about his plan, his goodnesses, his, um, his, you know, uh, his excellencies for his church and for his people by the ordained ma means of prayer where in a worshipful posture, his his saints go to the throne of grace and plead for those things. Remember Jesus Jesus says that, you know, our our father in heaven knows knows what you're you're going to pray be before you even pray. And so it's God's ordained and providential means to bring about uh those things that he blesses his people with. Uh Jim, anything to add on on that? It's commanded. And it's commanded. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. It's not it's not even like that our commands cause, you know, like we're praying for someone to be saved or praying doesn't actually directly cause in the way that me pushing my Bible causally related. Yeah. There's a technical term which escapes me right now for describing it. But God decrees the second request that we will pray, right? We'll wake up X, Y, and Z. We'll come to pray and we do this voluntarily. Um, and then at the same time, God has in his decree ordained that this person will hear the gospel on the bus, the exact person you're praying to. So, it's not like you're actually physically calling, but both are happening at the same time. There's a concurrence. There's God delights in in using that. Yeah. That's right. For his glory. Yeah. Yes. Troy. Okay. So, first John 3:2. Would you comment on that verse? Beloved, we are now children of God has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when he appears, we will be like him because we will see him just as he is. So, I'm assuming that refers to Jesus. Mhm. Please comment. Yeah, that um that it would take it would take a long time to to do it justice because it brings up kind of the whole topic of the the beatotific vision and and what things what things will be like in heaven when when we're brought to be with him. Um uh I think in in the very in the very least uh what we can comment on is that um when when we're resurrected we'll be like Christ who is the first fruits of our resurrection. So when when Christ is raised from the dead, he serves a as sort of a you know as sort of the the primary prototype of the resurre resurrection of all those who are in him united to him by faith. Uh so it's not that we'll be like him in the sense that we'll be you know the you know the sons of God incarnate who took upon you know who have deity and who took upon themselves humanity for the redemption of his people. But in with respect to the glory that Christ has gone before and secured by being the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep and those who will be uh with him in heaven. Um there is an aspect to that particular glory that we'll have um like Christ's glory. I know Jim, you you spent a little bit of time in John 17 talking about the glory that Christ gives to his people that will be like the glory that the father gave the son. Anything to add on that passage? Yeah. I just think it's the glory that's in view there in first John 3. Will be glorified like he is. He's the prototype as you said. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, sir. Just one comment just in studying who God is. Great comfort in a time where it's crazy. Yeah. It is. Yeah. What a what a foundation for comfortable dependence. Uh to know to know our God, but also to know who he is and and what he is. Uh that he, you know, he he's not moved by his creation. God isn't up there weeping at the state of the world. He's in the heavens and he does whatever he pleases. The he sits in the heavens and he laughs and and he he, you know, he he derides those who oppose him because he is the sovereign and we're to be his children. And what a blessing. Yeah.