← Back to sermon library

Amen. Well let us open in a word 
of prayer. Our gracious God and Holy Father, 
we thank you for this beautiful day. We thank you that the heavens 
declare your righteousness. We see your perfections revealed 
to us in general revelation. As well, we see those perfections 
described in detail in our Bibles. And we praise you for that. We 
thank you that you are most high, that you are the one true and 
living God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
We pray that you would guide our study this morning. We pray 
that you would help us to see how glorious you are and to respond 
with worship and praise and adoration to such a God. We thank you for 
so great a salvation, the gospel that you have ordained for our 
eternal life, even the life and death and resurrection of your 
blessed Son. God, be with us now, fill us 
with your Holy Spirit, forgive us of all of our sins, and we 
pray through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. We can turn in your 
copies of the Confession of Faith to chapter 2 of God and of the 
Holy Trinity. Cam introduced the doctrine of 
God last time. He's away right now, so I'll 
take up paragraph 1, and then, God willing, he'll return to 
take up paragraphs 2 and 3. So I'll read the chapter of God 
and of the Holy Trinity, and then, as I said, we'll focus 
on paragraph 1 this morning. So the Lord our God is but one 
only living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, 
infinite in being and perfection, whose essence cannot be comprehended 
by any but himself, a most pure spirit, invisible without body, 
parts, or passions, who only hath immortality dwelling in 
the light which no man can approach unto, who is immutable, immense, 
eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, 
most wise, most free, most absolute, working all things according 
to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his 
own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant 
in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and 
sin, the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal 
most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and 
who will by no means clear the guilty. 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, but only 
manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is 
the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to 
whom are all things. And he hath most sovereign dominion 
over all creatures, to do by them, for them, and upon them, 
whatsoever himself pleases. In his sight all things are open 
and manifest. His knowledge is infinite, infallible, 
and independent upon the creature. So as nothing is to him contingent 
or uncertain, he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his 
works. and in all His commands. To Him 
is due from angels and men whatsoever worship, service, or obedience 
as creatures unto the Creator, and whatever He is further pleased 
to require of them. In this divine and infinite being 
there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, 
and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having 
the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. 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. all infinite, without beginning, 
therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and 
being, 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. Amen. So, a wonderfully worded 
chapter concerning our triune God. We see in this, obviously, 
biblical reference, but as well there's reference to earlier 
creeds and confessions developed by the Church. When it came to 
the Second London Confession of 1689, It was not as if the 
divines reformed everything. They reformed with reference 
to Roman Catholicism, soteriology, things connected with salvation, 
some things connected with authority, namely the Bible itself. But 
with reference to the classical doctrine of God, they didn't 
tamper with it. They reached back into history, 
took the best insights from the church, whether it be Roman Catholic 
or Eastern Orthodox, and they incorporated those insights into 
their confession specifically in chapters 2 and 8. So there 
wasn't a big difference in terms of the Protestant Reformers and 
the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox relative to their understanding 
of who God is. And so this chapter is dependent 
upon stuff that had gone before it in terms of creed and confession, 
but also obviously scripture, scriptural reference, and in 
many ways this is theology. So what we find in the Bible, 
we are called upon to contemplate and to formulate and to theologize 
concerning, and so we yield those, or we glean those best insights 
that have been yielded by the church throughout our ages. So 
with reference to this particular chapter, I'm sure Cam introduced 
it in a similar manner. Paragraph 1 deals with what we 
call the attributes of God or the perfections of God. Basically 
we attribute to God certain things and typically in systematic theology 
there's a further sort of categorization of the attributes. You have what's 
called the incommunicable attributes, those that are unique to God 
alone, and then communicable attributes, those things that 
not only God has, but He communicates to the creature. So for instance, 
love is a communicable attribute. It's different in terms of God. 
God is love. You cannot say that about man, 
but nevertheless it is an attribute that we have or we possess. God 
has or God is wisdom. We as well have wisdom. So there's 
a communication of those particular attributes to the creature. I 
prefer the language of perfections because attributes almost suggest 
that there are so many things that make up God. And this particular 
chapter does not allow for that interpretation. There aren't 
things that make up God. We'll look at in a few moments 
what it says here concerning God is not made of parts. He's without body, parts, or 
passion. This idea of parts is divine 
simplicity. So there's not a bunch of stuff 
out there that is more ultimate to God that then forms or brings 
God together. So attributes, it's a good word, 
it's a wonderful word, but in my mind, perfection helps protect 
against this idea that God is a bit of love, He's a bit of 
wisdom, He's a bit of knowledge, He's a bit of this, and He's 
a bit of that. No, God is his attributes. God is everything. All that is in God is God, based 
on this concept of divine simplicity. So paragraph one deals with the 
perfections of God. Paragraph two deals with God's 
external relations, those things outside of God, and how God relates 
to that. There's a bit of that in paragraph 
one. toward the end, but we call this God's external relations. 
And then chapters following in the confession develop that as 
well. Creation and providence, those 
are God's external relations. Typically when you study systematic 
theology, creation and providence are under the overarching doctrine 
of theology proper. So in our study of God, we need 
to not only know who he is in himself, but who he is with reference 
to the creation. And then paragraph 3 explains 
in detail God's internal relation, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit. So if you look at the beginning of paragraph 1, 
the Lord our God is but one only, living and true God. And then 
paragraph 3, in this divine and infinite being, there are three 
subsistences. So you've got the triunity of 
God described or defined or declared there in paragraph 3. So that's 
kind of an overarching outline of the section, Perfections of 
God, God's External Relations, and then God's Internal Relations. And I think there's a good and 
helpful summary in Westminster's Shorter Catechism, number four. If you ever just want a good 
sort of handier or quick approach to what is God, Chapter number 
four in the Confession says, what is God? God is a spirit, 
infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, 
holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. So a great summary 
statement there. Many of those things you'll see 
expounded on or expanded on in this particular chapter. Steve, 
were there two girls in that stairwell? OK. They were there 
yesterday. I told them to go. OK. OK. All right. I was just curious. It was just one, okay. All right, so let's look at the 
perfections of God. Thomas Adams makes the observation, 
they are perfections in him what are affections in us. Affection 
is another word that we need to be careful about in our application 
to God. Affection seems to describe movement 
from one state to another, and God does not do that. So again, 
as we move through the confession, we will see that. But notice 
how the confession of this chapter starts off. The Lord our God 
is but one only and living and true God. So the second London 
here follows the first London. The Westminster Confession and 
Savoy don't have our God. And I know that the smaller, 
minor detail, but it does highlight the fact that we are confessing 
our God. We are in relation with this 
God. He has saved us. According to the language of 
Galatians 2.20, the Apostle Paul says, Jesus loved me and gave 
himself for me. So the addition of this pronoun 
is most helpful in terms of understanding that we're not just confessing 
some abstract theory or principle out there, not just some blind 
faith, not some mechanism that rules the nation, but rather 
he is our God. We're in a relationship with 
him, so it's not abstract theology, but a confession of our great 
God. So it says the Lord our God is 
but one only living and true God. So, if you look at Deuteronomy 
chapter 6 for a moment, you see where this comes from. Deuteronomy 
chapter 6, in terms of the singularity of our God, or the unity of our 
God, or the oneness of our God. Again, paragraph 3 will describe 
the triune nature of our God, but in terms of God, there is 
but one only, the living and true God. In this living and 
true God, there are three persons, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit. But with reference to this confession of one God, 
notice in Deuteronomy 6, 4. Here, O Israel, the Lord our 
God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your 
God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your 
strength. And then if you turn to the New 
Testament, you see the same emphasis in 1 Corinthians 8. The Apostle 
Paul underscores this reality. And we need to appreciate this 
with reference to the doctrine of the Trinity. It does not teach 
tritheism. The doctrine of the Trinity does 
not yield the doctrine of three gods. 1, true and living God, 
1 in one sense and 3 in another sense. He's 1 in terms of substance 
or essence. He's 3 in terms of subsistence 
or person. So notice in Deuteronomy chapter 
6 at verse 4, therefore concerning the eating of things offered 
to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world and that 
there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called 
gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods 
and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom 
are all things, and we for Him. And then notice that Jesus is 
on the side of God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom are all things, and through whom we live. He acknowledges 
this oneness, the unity of God. He also, at least, is giving 
us implication in terms of triunity because Jesus is on the side 
of God the Father. You see that in passages that 
speak of creation, in John's Gospel, John 1. Where is Jesus 
relative to creation? He's on the side of God the Father. 
He's not the creature. He's not the one being brought 
into being, but rather He is with the Father in terms of creation. So that is a very important thing 
to understand. Bavinck makes the observation, 
by the first we mean that there is but one divine being, that 
in virtue of the nature of that being, God cannot be more than 
one being, and consequently that all other beings exist only from 
him, through him and to him. Hence this attribute teaches 
God's absolute oneness and uniqueness. his exclusive numerical oneness, 
in distinction from his simplicity, which denotes his inner or qualitative 
oneness." Now, when we look at this chapter, look at specifically 
paragraph 1, we'll see in a few moments where it goes on to say, 
"...whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself." And then 
right about in the middle, at least in my copy of the Confession, 
you have the word incomprehensible. That does not mean we can't know 
anything about God, but it does mean we are limited. The finite 
can never fully explore the infinite. The creature can never fully 
know the Creator. But in the revelation of God, 
we have propositions that teach us truth about Him. But the fact 
that God is infinite and we are finite, the fact that God is 
Creator and we are creature, does underscore there's going 
to be some difficulty in the study of theology proper. So, 
as I often try to encourage us as we move through the confession, 
it takes several passes through the confession when, you know, 
this stuff starts to click and it starts to make sense. The 
first time you read about who God is, hopefully your minds 
are blown and hopefully you're scratching your melon going, 
wow, I probably need to read or study some more. There are 
going by necessity to be concepts used in theology proper that 
are not the sort of things we traffic in each and every day. 
Because in each and every day we're not trying to plumb the 
depths of the infinite. We're not trying to figure out 
the creator. And again, we are limited by 
finitude and we're limited by sin. So, there's going to be 
things that you may not get as you pass through the confession, 
but stick with it. Continue to read, continue to 
contemplate, continue to reflect upon scripture as it teaches 
us concerning the true and living God. So, now notice back to the 
confession. The Lord our God is but one only 
living and true God. Notice, whose subsistence is 
in and of himself. Look back to chapter 2, paragraph 
3. Notice, in this divine and infinite 
being, there are three subsistences. So the word subsistence is being 
utilized in the Confession here in two different ways. Not absolutely 
different. We use words with what's called 
a semantic range. different meanings and different 
contacts and the same thing is true here. Renahan says the term 
subsistence is used twice in this chapter, each instance carrying 
a different sense. In this first occasion it refers 
to the self-existent life of God. In the first paragraph it 
speaks of divine existence. Here, in paragraph three, it 
refers to the persons who together exist as Trinity. And the Baptists 
diverged from, or differed from, the Westminster and the Savoy 
in the use of subsistence in paragraph 3. Cam will deal with 
that, God willing, when we get there. But it's more technical 
language applied to the doctrine of the Trinity that's even more 
helpful. The word persons helpful, the 
word persons is good, but the word persons in the history of 
theology has brought or smuggled in some concepts or thought that 
aren't helpful. So the London Confession, the 
Second London Confession, the Baptists use that word subsistence 
for greater theological clarity. Now, what this refers to, where 
it says, whose subsistence is in and of himself, it refers 
to what is called in theology the aseity of God. The aseity 
of God, His independence. He did not originate from elsewhere. There's not a father to God. There's not a mother to God. 
There's not something outside of God that produced God. A saiety is a reference to God 
alone. We are derivative. We have an 
origin. We are creature. We come from 
God. We come through our parents. 
We come through, you know, being put together by God in the wombs 
of our mother. God is independent. There's never 
been a time there wasn't God. there will never be a time where 
there is a dog. God is ultimate, most absolute 
as the confession will go on to say. So a say it is the divine 
attribute of uncaused existence. It is the essence of God to exist. So that's what it means there, 
whose subsistence is in and of himself. He does not derive his 
existence from something outside of himself. He is ultimate. He is most absolute. And that's the emphasis here. 
And then as we move through the confession, you'll notice that 
there's a lot of negative terms applied to God. A lot of things 
that he isn't. This is a creaturely way for 
us to understand what he is. And in theology, this is called 
apathetic. It is predicating or asserting 
things of God in terms of denial, or describing God by way of negation 
based on the incomprehensibility of God. So if you look, He's 
infinite. That means He's not finite. It 
speaks about Him being invisible. That means He's not visible. 
It speaks about Him in terms of what He isn't, so that it 
can effectively communicate to us what He is. And that's not 
unique to the Confession. You get that from the Bible. 
The Bible tells us a lot about what God isn't. God is not like 
us. God is not a creature. God is 
not visible. God does not have a body like 
man. God is what Scripture asserts 
concerning him. And so there are negative statements 
that are calculated to help us as creatures to understand what 
God is. And then notice, so after a saiety 
it speaks of God being infinite. So whose subsistence is in and 
of himself, infinite in being and perfection. Infinite in being 
and perfection. Again, a concept that we get, 
but we don't really get, because we're finite. We understand it 
because it's contrasted with finitude. It means that there 
is no beginning, there is no end. But to fully appreciate 
or understand that, it's outside of our pay grade. There are things 
about God that we're just not going to get. Again, he's incomprehensible. His essence is known only to 
himself. These are not statements calculated 
to frustrate our pursuit of theology. They are statements to chasten 
us and discipline us and humble us in our pursuit of theology. We're never going to be able 
to fully explain God. We're never going to be fully 
able to understand God. when we've been there 10,000 
years bright, shining as the sun. We've no less days to sing 
God's praise than when we first begun. And one of the reasons 
for that is because we're going to continually be getting more 
of God and understanding more of God. We will always be creatures. We're not going to arrive to 
the place where we're with the creator. In that sense, when 
the Eastern Orthodox talk about what's called theosis, or having 
the divine essence, they usually mean union with God. They're 
not saying that we actually participate in the divine essence. That's 
not going to happen. We are always going to be creature. 
We're always going to be limited by that finitude. So, he is infinite. Now notice, it goes on to speak 
of his incomprehensibility, whose essence cannot be comprehended 
by any but himself. So, I think it's very important 
for us to understand this does not mean we can't know anything. 
Some have understood this as the reformed tradition saying 
we can't know anything about God. That's not what the reformed 
tradition is saying. The reformed tradition is saying 
we can know a lot about God because God has given us 31 propositions 
in the Bible to instruct us about himself. But we'll not know God 
the way God knows God. And in theology, there's a distinction 
between the knowledge of God and our knowledge of God. It's 
called archetypal and ectypal. The archetype is God, who knows 
himself the way that the infinite knows the infinite. Our knowledge, 
again, is derivative. It is learned, it is acquired, 
and so that's ectypal. It's the same knowledge, but 
it's different in terms of our acquisition of it and to the 
degree in which we know. So when we speak of God as being 
incomprehensible, make sure that you caution anyone that we don't 
mean you can't know anything about God. We can't know everything 
about God. We can't know about God the way 
God knows about God. But we can know about God from 
the scripture that presents to us special revelation about God 
himself. So it's very important that we 
get that. Notice it goes on to say that God is a most pure spirit. a most pure spirit. And the theological 
sort of doctrine that flows from this is what is in Latin called 
actus purus, or God is pure act. See, we all have potential, whether 
it's active or passive. Your mama told you this when 
you were growing up. You've got great potential, son 
or daughter. That means there can be increase 
in us. There can be movement in us. 
There can be growth in us. God's not that way. He doesn't 
have active potency. There's not passive potency in 
God. There's nothing within God or 
outside of God that acts upon God that causes Him to move in 
another direction. He's most pure spirit. He's actus 
purus. He's ultimate. There's no becoming 
better for God. There's no diminishment in terms 
of God. God is absolute as the confession. All these attributes or perfections 
are tied together. So, pure act, or perfect actualization, 
free from all potency for change or potential for greater perfection. 
It is of the essence of God to be pure act, because He is infinite 
in perfection and self-existent, whose inner life is eternally 
and fully realized. I'm quoting here from a book 
called Confessing the Impassible God. It's got a helpful glossary 
in the back for these various theological terms. If you're 
interested, let me know and I can at least show you where, well, 
Roger can sell you a copy. I noticed on his shelf he's got 
several copies of them, so you might make a buck, Roger. shameless 
plug here, so Confessing the Impassable God, a very helpful 
book I think along the way, but as I said, that glossary helps 
you in terms of theological terms that are involved. So when it 
comes to theological terms that are involved in the study of 
theology proper, which is God himself, there have been those 
who have said, well, you know, that term isn't in the Bible. 
Well, if you read in our tradition, you read in the Reformed tradition 
to a man, they confess and they acknowledge that we need words 
outside of the Bible to help us protect the words that are 
in the Bible. If you're familiar with the Council 
of Nicaea, the letter I was a big difference in terms of the people 
on the right side and the people on the wrong side. Is Jesus like 
the Father or does Jesus have the same essence as the Father? So that word outside of the Bible 
helps to protect the doctrine in the Bible that Jesus is consubstantial. He has the same substance or 
essence as the Father. The word Trinity is not found 
in the Bible. You will find, you go to your 
concordance and you will search in vain. You will not find the 
word Trinity. The word Trinity is very helpful 
for us to protect the doctrine of the Trinity that we find in 
the Bible. So the employment of outside-of-the-Bible 
words to protect inside-of-the-Bible words is theology. It's a most 
helpful endeavor. So beware of those who say, well, 
that's not in the Bible, so therefore... Well, again, the word trinity 
is not in the Bible. We don't conclude that the doctrine 
isn't there. A good classic example in terms 
of covenant is David in 2 Samuel chapter 7. God makes a covenant 
with David. All of the elements are there, 
the stipulations are there, the parties are there, but the word 
is absent. But subsequent revelations vis-à-vis Psalm 89 and Psalm 
132 tell us specifically that that was a covenant. So the doctrine 
is there, even if the word is absent. And the Trinity is one 
of those doctrines, even though the word is absent. So some of 
these words that are used in theology help us to protect the 
words that are found in the Bible. You've got, in the history of 
theology, heretics. bringing scripture, and not exegeting 
it properly, saying, you know, the predication of God, or to 
God, you know, of hands and feet. Guess what? There was a group 
called the anthropomorphites that thought that God had a body, 
because the Bible uses that language of God. That's why our Confession 
says He's without body. He is incorporeal. He is not 
physical. God is spirit, Jesus defines 
in John 4, 24. And, so, just because there's 
something in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean that you're 
appreciating it or exegeting it rightly. So, theology, in 
the words that are employed, are very helpful for us to understand 
what's going on exegetically in Scripture, and then to help 
us to protect what's going on in Scripture. The worst heretics 
in the history of the Christian church have been those who have 
said, well, the Bible alone is all I need. When they waive the 
Bible and say, all I need is me and the Holy Spirit, I'd say, 
you know, cover your wallet and get your back up against the 
wall, because these are not friendly people in terms of church and 
the advancement of Christian doctrine. We need the help that 
God has given to us in the church. The early church did great things 
in terms of Trinity, in terms of Christology, for us to neglect 
that, or negate that, is to say to Christ, who ascended on high, 
who led captivity captive, and who gave gifts to men, we don't 
want your gifts. We don't want it. We want to 
do it on our own. I mean, we can't get out of bed 
on time, we don't know how to balance our checkbooks, but certainly 
we can figure out theology proper all on our own as we wave our 
Bibles and say, only the Holy Spirit is all I need. Well, the 
Holy Spirit has given gifts and helps to the church, and if we 
deny those gifts and helps given to the church, it is tacitly 
a denial of the Holy Spirit himself. So outside of the Bible words 
are helpful to protect inside of the Bible words. The next 
statement is the invisibility of God. You can turn to 1 Timothy 
chapter 6 to see that the divines are not making this up. Or 1 
Timothy 1 and then 1 Timothy 6. 1 Timothy chapter 1 verse 
17. Now to the king eternal, immortal, 
invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever 
and ever. Amen. And then over in 1 Timothy 
chapter 6, specifically at verses 15 and 16, which he will manifest 
in his own time. He who is the blessed and only 
potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone 
has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no 
man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. Remember John 118, no one 
has seen God at any time, but the only begotten Son, who is 
in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. So this concept 
of the invisibility of God speaks concerning His spirituality, 
the fact that God is spirit, He doesn't have a body like men. 
In fact, Richard Muller, another book that I could recommend, 
It's a bit of an advanced treatment. It's a four-volume set called 
Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics by Richard Muller. And it is 
probably without equal in terms of Reformed scholarship on the 
history involved at the time of the post-Reformation divines. 
He says the spirituality of God implies His invisibility or insensibility, 
and indeed the reverse is true. God's invisibility implies His 
spirituality. John Owen makes the observation, 
He is not seen, not because He cannot be seen, but because we 
cannot bear the sight of Him. The light of God, in whom is 
no darkness, forbids all access to Him by any creature whatever. 
We who cannot behold the sun in its glory are too weak to 
bear the beams of infinite brightness. So I think that that's a helpful 
sort of underscoring of the reality that God is different. As I've 
said before, God's not in our chain of being. He is in a different 
class altogether. He is not creature. He is creator. And then the next three attributes 
are ones that typically don't get a lot of attention in theology. Although there has been a resurgence 
of this over the last several years, we were part of a larger 
association of churches, and the doctrine of divine impassibility 
erupted, and we had to study that, and we had to think about 
it, and it caused many of us to dig deeper into the Reformed 
tradition and learn what the doctrine of God was all about. 
It was a very helpful thing that we experienced when we were part 
of ArbCot. But the next three attributes or perfections are 
unique to God. These are not communicable whatsoever. None of the ones up to this point 
have been. But notice, without body, parts, 
or passions. So God is without body, parts, 
or passions. So basically, without body, this 
means that he is incorporeal. He does not have a body like 
men. He does not extend in space. He has no materiality to him. There is not a physicality about 
him. Now, of course, the Bible predicates, 
or speaks concerning God, having body parts. But it does that 
by way of accommodation to us. When the eyes of the Lord run 
to and fro throughout the earth, we're not supposed to think of 
several million eyes kind of running through the earth. We're 
to think about God's omniscience, God's ability to see and know 
all things. When the Bible speaks of the 
mighty right hand or arm of God, we're not to think that this 
spirit being has an arm extended into space, but rather we're 
to think of his power, of his glory. When the Bible speaks 
concerning God, this is figurative language, which predicates human 
form to God. And Calvin wrote against these 
anthropomorphites, the persons who thought that God was in fact 
a physical being. He says, the anthropomorphites 
also, who imagined a corporeal God from the fact that scripture 
often ascribes to him a mouth, ears, eyes, hands and feet, are 
easily refuted. For who even of slight intelligence," 
I love their digs when they used to write theology. We couldn't 
handle it today. Oh, he offended me by that tone. We don't like that tone. He says, 
they are, for who even of slight intelligence does not understand 
that as nurses commonly do with infants, God is want and a measure 
to lisp in speaking to us. Thus, such forms of speaking 
do not so much express clearly what God is like, as accommodate 
the knowledge of Him to our slight capacity. To do this, He must 
descend far beneath His loftiness." So in other words, those things 
are in the Bible to help us. It's accommodated language for 
us, so that the infinite can discuss with the finite, so that 
the Creator can speak to the creature, There is a use of analogy, 
or there is a use of figurative language, or the use of metaphor, 
so that we as the infants, in this particular illustration, 
can understand what the nurse is saying. Because if the Bible 
does not come to us in the language of men, or in the manner of men, 
then we won't understand it. So, it's a form of accommodation. And so, when it comes to God, 
He is without body. Now, when we speak about this, 
we speak in the manner of men. If you read old commentaries 
and you read, for instance, that God has eyes or God has a hand, 
the older commentaries will say it's speaking in the manner of 
men. In other words, it's a caution to us not to interpret that literally. 
We don't think God has eyes, so that we don't think God has 
ears, so that we don't think God has, you know, an arm, but 
rather it's spoken in the manner of men. It's language accommodated 
to us so that we as the babies here can receive what God has 
for us by way of analogy, by way of what's also called an 
improper predication. Improper predication sounds like 
it's wrong. It's not. Improper predication 
means there are things predicated or said about God that are not 
true at the level of God. The fact that he has an arm, 
the fact that he has an eye, the fact that he has an ear. 
But it's an improper predication designed to teach us truth. The 
fact that God is omniscient, the fact that God is omnipotent, 
the fact that God is omnipresent. So the Bible accommodates itself 
to us so that we can receive it. The next one, after without 
body, is without part. Now, again, this is a concept 
that's probably a bit difficult for us at our first pass, or 
if it is your first pass, without parts. Well, we're compounded 
beings. We have parts. We have a body 
and we have a soul. There's a debate as to whether 
there's two parts or three parts. I side with two parts. It's the 
doctrine of dichotomy versus the doctrine of trichotomy. But 
you can go to heaven believing either. But we're made up of 
parts. We have other things that are 
more ultimate to us than us. There was an absolute necessity 
that you had a father and that you had a mother. I don't want 
to get into the biology here, but there was an absolute necessity 
that these two beings came together in a conjugal relation and they 
produced you. There was something more ultimate 
than you. And behind them, obviously, is 
God who ordains all this or orchestrates all this. So with reference to 
this doctrine that God is without parts, the doctrine is called 
simplicity. God is a simple being. Now, simplicity 
can be a very difficult subject to pursue, a very difficult subject 
to understand, but the idea is, again, basic. He's not compounded. He's not built of things. There's 
nothing outside of God that produced God. having an uncompounded or 
non-composite nature, which, referring to God, asserts that 
He is absolutely free of composition physically, rationally, or logically. Because of divine simplicity, 
we assert that all that is in God is God. God is His essence. God is His perfection. If we 
misstep here, we're going to have a God that's made up of 
things, and the doctrine of divine simplicity demands that we don't 
do that. Again, this isn't something that, 
you know, a few guys sitting around a table figured out, but 
there is a categorical difference between the infinite and the 
finite, between the Creator and the creature. And so, if God 
were composed of parts, then there would be something more 
ultimate than God Himself. There were sort of God parts 
out there, and they came together and formed God, and those God 
parts are ultimately more absolute and more ultimate than He is. And if God is simple, as this 
definition that I just read says, then all that is in God is God. I always use the example in 1 
John 4, 8 and 16. It cannot be said of us that 
we are love. We love. We should love more. We probably love some things 
that we ought to love less, but we are not definitionally love. God is love. All that is in God is God. Again, He's not made up of 33 
and a third percent of love, 33 and a third percent of hate, 
33 and a third percent of justice. He is not composite. He is not 
built. He's not put together. He is 
simple. He is without part. And then 
the next statement, again, that has made a resurgence in the 
past few years is he's without passions. He's without passions. Now, typically people hear that 
and they say, well, that means God's static or inert or God 
doesn't react or respond. Well, he doesn't react and he 
doesn't respond, but he's not static and he's not inert. It's 
the doctrine of divine impassibility that secures for us the statement 
that comes later in this paragraph, where it says that he's most 
wise, he's most free, he's most absolute, and then if you drop 
down a little bit, he's most loving, and I think we can supply 
most to the rest of those perfections. He's most loving, he's most gracious, 
he's most merciful, he's most long-suffering, he's most abundant 
in goodness and truth, Thank Divine Impassibility for that. It simply means that there's 
no movement from God from one state to another. The predication, 
or rather the idea, that God is without passions is again 
something unique to Him. Doesn't mean that He's static 
or inert. It's divine impassibility. And there are passages in the 
scripture that underscore this. Acts 14 and James. In fact, you can turn to Acts 
14. There's a statement that the Westminster Confession site 
is a proof tax for divine and possibility not sure why our 
Baptist brothers didn't include it in the proof tax in the second 
London but we have it here. So notice in Chapter 14 Paul 
and and Barnabas in Lystra and specifically at verse 8. And 
in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, 
a cripple from his mother's womb, who had never walked. This man 
heard Paul speaking, Paul observing him intently and seeing that 
he had faith to be healed, said with a loud voice, Stand up straight 
on your feet. And he laughed and walked. are 
we can walk and now now when the people saw what Paul had 
done they raise their voices saying the like only in language 
the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men and Barnabas 
they called Zeus and Paul Hermes because he was the chief speaker 
then the priest of Zeus who whose temple was in the front of their 
city brought oxen and garlands to the gates intending to sacrifice 
with the multitude. How does Paul combat this? How 
does Paul deny their desire to worship him. I mean, you get 
it, right? These pagans see somebody do 
a mighty miracle. What's the response of the pagans? 
Let's worship him. Obviously, the gods have come 
down. They're chilling with us. They're dwelling in our midst. 
How does Paul combat that? He combats it by saying, we're 
of the same nature as you. Verse 14, when the apostles Barnabas 
and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among 
the multitude, crying out and saying, Men, why are you doing 
these things? We are also men with the same 
nature as you. What's the implication? God does 
not have the same nature. God is different qualitatively 
with reference to the creature. Again, this passage is cited 
as a proof text in terms of Westminster with reference to the doctrine 
of divine impassibility. We see the same language in James 
5.17, Elijah was a man with a nature like ours. So this distinguishes 
Paul and Barnabas from God. Paul and Barnabas have a human 
nature. God has a divine nature. And with reference to the divine 
nature, he doesn't have shift and move and reaction and response 
the way that the creature does. He's without body, he's without 
parts, he's without actions. This without passions, again, 
secures the reality that He can't love us more because He already 
loves us mostly. He won't ever love us less because 
He loves us mostly. He doesn't get better at loving 
us, and He doesn't get worse at loving us. This idea of impassibility 
secures that for us. So in Acts 14, the Greek word 
pertains to experiencing similarity in feelings or circumstances 
with the same nature as someone else. It means to have the same 
experiences and the same feelings. That's why the Westminster appeals 
to this. It's the idea of like passions, 
like feelings, like nature. There's a semantic range at which 
we get at this doctrine. And then with reference to the 
solidarity of creatures, Gill comments, men not gods of the 
same human nature and that as created alike sinful men and 
need a sacrifice better than those. frail mortal man, subject 
to frailty, imperfection, afflictions, troubles, diseases, and death 
itself, and so very improper objects of worship. That's why 
Paul and Barnabas say, we're men of like nature. Don't worship 
us. We're not anything. We're just 
like you are. We stand in need of sacrifice. 
We stand in need of redemption. Now, with reference to the fact 
that God is not like us, this text does support the doctrine 
of divine impassibility. And basically, impassibility 
defines us that God does not experience inner emotional changes. Isn't that good news? I mean, 
there's a debate about women in combat. I'm all for women 
not being in combat. I'm all for a woman not flying 
an F-16, because I know that as a creature, women have something 
happen to them every month that's a beautiful thing that's necessary 
to sustain the human race. But when that time comes, there's 
a bit of emotional flux, at least in my observation. I think when 
you raise daughters have bags of chocolate handy for certain 
times of the month. It might go a long way to preserve 
your sanity in there. Brethren, emotional flux, emotional 
change. Is that what you want in your 
God? Do you want to throw an anchor out to a rock that can 
possibly sink? You want God as God is. The doctrine of divine impassibility 
is glorious. It is wonderful. So God does 
not experience inter-emotional changes, whether enacted freely 
from within. This is a weaselly way to get 
around it. Well, God orchestrates and God 
ordains these changes. No, He doesn't. Your theology 
dictates that, but God, in His Word, does not tell us that. So he does not experience inner 
emotional changes, whether enacted freely from within or affected 
by his relationship to and interaction with human beings and the created 
order. God's not capricious. He's not 
arbitrary. What you get from God, you're 
always going to get from God. There's not going to be any change 
or shadow of turning or variation, as James celebrates in James 
chapter 1. We don't want a God who changes. 
And impassibility is certainly a subset of immutability. All 
Christians confess that God is immutable, that He's unchangeable. 
Well, if He's unchangeable and immutable, then it necessarily 
follows that He's impassible. Now, when it comes to the Bible 
saying that God grieved, or God sorrowed, or God's heart was 
broken, we use the same strategy that we use with reference to 
the predication of human features to God. God doesn't have eyes, 
literally, but it suggests to us His omniscience. God does 
not have an arm, literally, but it suggests to us the fact that 
He's all-powerful. When the Bible speaks of God 
grieving over the creation, We're not to see an emotional response. 
We're not to see a deity in flux. We're to see an improper predication, 
things spoken according to the manner of man, to tell us that 
God despises sin. God is just. God is righteous. There's no grief where he moves 
from one state of absolute beatitude and blessing to a state of sadness 
and depression. That's true of man. That's not 
true of God. This is why these three things 
go hand-in-hand. He's without body, he's without 
parts, he's without passions. If we sacrifice that, we've got 
the God of our own making and not the God of Holy Scripture. 
Doval makes the observation, God is not to be counted as existing 
in an ontological series with any creature. Ontology is the 
doctrine of being. He says, as the absolute cause 
of all creaturely being, God himself cannot be numbered as 
one of those things appearing within being in general. Bovink 
says, God is the real, the true being, the fullness of being, 
the sum total of all reality and perfection, the totality 
of being from which all other being owes its existence. He 
is an immeasurable and unbounded ocean of being, the absolute 
being who alone has being in himself. So, suffice to say, 
God doesn't move from one state to another. He doesn't grow in 
His love for you, but He doesn't diminish in His love for you 
either. And the reason He doesn't grow 
in His love for you is because His love is perfect. It's absolute. It's most He doesn't go back 
from that. God so loved the world that He 
gave His only begotten Son. So when you read the Bible and 
you see, for instance, in Genesis chapter 6 that God was grieved 
in His heart and He was sorry that He had made man upon the 
creation, you have to square that with the doctrine of divine 
immutability and impassibility. How do we square these things? 
Well, we understand there's improper predication being used of God 
in Genesis 6 to tell us about the travesty that was brought 
in terms of sin in the world. It's not that God changes. It's not that the perfect creator 
of all things... You know what? I shouldn't have 
made mess. Boy, that was dumb, hey? What does that suggest, if that's 
our view of God? It suggests that He's not immutable. It suggests that He's not infinitely 
wise. It suggests that He's not operating 
according to the decree and the plan and purpose that the Bible 
tells us He's operating according to. He is immutable, that means 
He cannot change. Then He is impassable, that means 
He does not change. Numbers 23, 19, God is not a 
man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent. 
1 Samuel 15, 29, And also the strength of Israel will not lie 
nor relent, for He is not a man that He should relent. And intriguingly 
in 1 Samuel 15, there's two statements where God was sorry that he had 
sent Saul on a particular task. Again, how do you square that? 
He's sorry, but at the same time he doesn't change? Well, on the 
one hand, it's an improper predication, accommodated language from the 
Creator to the creature, so that we may understand something of 
the enormity of Saul's rebellion. But on the other hand, there's 
these proper predications that tell us exactly, God doesn't 
lie, God doesn't change, God's not a man. He doesn't move from 
one state to another. And again, pull back to actus 
puris. There's no potency in God. Active 
potency means that a person can actively change. Passive potency 
means that a person can be changed from something without. God has 
no active and no passive potency. God is active purest. He's pure 
act. So if we don't get sort of this 
wonderful paragraph full of His perfections and we start to, 
you know, tinker with one here or there, what happens? You're 
going to mess up everything. I had a thread in my new trousers 
today, and I made the wise decision to cut the thread. Because many 
times in the past, I've made the unwise decision on pulling 
on the thread. I'm stronger than the thread. 
The thread should easily break. Well, you know what happens. 
You might have a big thread in your sweater. You yank the thread. What happens? The whole sweater 
gets affected. Oh, you were dumb enough not 
to cut the... You know, that's why scissors 
are in the drawer, Junior. Cut the thread. Don't pull the 
thread. Well, when you pull the thread in one aspect of theology, 
you're going to sacrifice theology elsewhere. If you don't get God 
as the Bible sets God forth, you're going to have problems 
in not just theology proper, but in soteriology. The thought 
that the salvation of sinners is left up to sinners? What a 
horrible thought! Arminianism is troubled with 
that view that it's the free will of man that chooses God. Well, if we understand these 
perfections, we'll know that God does not leave these things 
up to man. That God is God, that we are 
sinners, and that we need Him to save us. Malachi 3, 6, I am 
the Lord, I do not change. Therefore, you are not consumed, 
O sons of Jacob. It's based on the doctrine of 
immutability that Israel kept going. I mean, have you ever 
read the Old Testament and thought, wow, that's long-suffering, that's 
patience. I mean, look at how long God 
stuck with this group or sticks with this group. We would have 
killed them and cut them off way long ago, but God doesn't 
change. That's why you're not consumed. 
James 1, 17, every good gift. And every perfect gift is from 
above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there 
is no variation or shadow of turning." Again, that's not something 
calculated to produce depression in the people of God, any more 
than as I used the illustration earlier. If you're on a ship, 
and you're about to sink, you throw the anchor out, you want 
it to connect on something stable, and something solid, and something 
that's not going to get brought down with you. God is necessarily 
our hope, our anchor, our shield, and he is so because of all that 
the Bible says concerning him. He's not going to change. He's 
not going to, you know, relapse. He's not going to vary in terms 
of his reaction or dealings with his creatures. Thomas Manton, 
commenting on James 1.17, he says, But God doth not change. 
There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. The arm of 
mercy is not dried up, nor do his bowels of love waste and 
spend themselves. We cannot exhaust who God is. We cannot stop God or change 
God. You've ever heard those people 
who say, Prayer changes God? No, it doesn't. Praise God, prayer 
doesn't change God. If prayer changed God, we'd all 
be rich and we'd probably all be in horrible conditions. You 
know, God, I need a bag of money. Well, the reason you don't have 
a bag of money is because God is good and wise and knows that 
you probably can't handle a bag of money. So the idea or concept 
that prayer changes God That can't be. The creature can't 
change the creator. The finite can't change the infinite. We have an immutable, unchanging 
God. We have a God who's impassable. But again, that doesn't mean 
He's static or inert. This same confession that highlights 
He's without passions goes on to tell us that He's most wise, 
most free, most absolute, most loving, most gracious, most merciful, 
most long-suffering. If you want a good explanation 
of this in the Puritan tradition, read Stephen Charnock on his 
Existence and Attributes of God. This isn't new stuff. This is 
what the Church confessed until the 20th century. In the 20th 
century there was a radical revolution that occurred in terms of theology. 
And what was jettisoned was the doctrine of divine simplicity 
and the doctrine of divine impossibility. We tried to bring God down to 
our position. We tried to tame or domesticate 
God. Well, God is not like us in the 
sense that He is God and we are His creatures. Well, we'll stop 
there. We'll let Cam deal with the rest. 
I'll close in a word of prayer, and if there's any questions 
on any of the material that we've considered, you can ask. Our 
Father in Heaven, we thank you again for what you reveal to 
us in Scripture concerning our blessed God, our triune God, 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We praise you that you are what 
Scripture says. We praise you that you are for 
us what Scripture says. And we rejoice in your goodness 
and in your kindness to us and in your love and grace and mercy. Help us as we go now to worship, 
to glorify and honor you. And we pray through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. Amen. Well, any questions or comments? 
Yes. Apathetic. A-P-O-P-H-A-T-I-C. Apathetic. A-P-O-P-H-A-T-I-C. Apathetic. So basically, it's understanding 
who God is by way of negation. And that has a history in the 
tradition of the church. Yes, sir. There's not been, you know, he 
figured out how better to deal with people in the New Testament, 
yeah. Yeah, and it really, really speaks to the glory of the triune 
God. There's no three separate consciousnesses 
or three wills operative in the one true and living God. Yes, 
sir. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics 
by Richard Muller, and that's M-U-L-L-E-R. And his dictionary 
of Greek and Latin theological terms is an absolute necessity. 
If you're a young guy and you want to learn theology, get that. 
like a senior or young guy that wants to learn theology. So get 
that. Sell your shirt to buy some of 
these things. Yes, sir. explain, when I tell them that 
God is beautiful and changeable and perfect, I once told a fellow 
that if God told a dartboard, he'd hit every target at the 
same time, all the time, every time, or one target all the time, 
and then he says, well that means, well explain this, why did he 
create man? Why was there a haggling with 
Moses? Again, the Bible is accommodated 
to us. The question as to why did God 
create man, a great answer for just about every question in 
theology is for his own glory. The Westminster Shorter Catechism 
starts off with number one, what is the chief end of man? Man's 
chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy him forever. God's ultimate 
end in terms of the revelation that we have is His glory. So 
why did God create man and man fell into sin? Did God know that 
man would fall into sin? God ordained, God decreed that. 
Why? For the revelation of His glorious 
grace and mercy. Consider the angels. Jesus doesn't 
assume their nature and become one of them and die for them. 
So the angels know God is good. The angels know God is infinite. 
The angels know a lot of true things about God. But when Jesus comes and assumes 
our humanity, and there's passages in the New Testament that speak 
of the angels looking at churches. When we gather for worship, the 
angels are spectators. Well, what are they spectating? 
They're spectating perfections or attributes of God that they 
had not previously known. Grace and mercy, right? For an 
elect angel, they didn't have that need. So the ultimate end 
for man's fall into sin is rescue and redemption by the Lord Jesus 
Christ. So God's purpose is to gain glory 
or receive glory through the salvation of sinners. through 
the coming of the Lord Jesus. Why he haggles with Moses? Again, 
the Bible's accommodated to us. When we study God in the Scripture, 
we're not studying a systematic theology. We're studying God 
in the lives of his people. We're studying God in the midst 
of his people. And that, again, is a great encouragement 
for us, so that we know of God's presence among us. The Bible 
teaches He's transcendent. That means He's removed from 
us. The Bible teaches that He's imminent. That means He's with 
us. He's there in the midst of the trenches. And so when you 
see Him haggling with Moses, for instance, you get that. He's 
there. You don't get God to, I'm God 
and that's the way it is. I mean there's times that that's 
an answer. Romans 9, you know, why did God do this and why did 
God do that? What does Paul say in Romans 
9? You just need to shut your mouth. You need to understand 
that God is God and you're not. Does the potter, or does the 
potter have the right to say to the potter, why did you make 
me thus? So that's an answer that's very helpful in certain 
situations. But for most of the time, God 
enters into the relations with his people and shows us that. 
So it's a manner of accommodation, of speaking to us, in the sense 
that we learn of God. We grow in our understanding 
of who God is. We learn of those perfections 
in a way that is helpful, versus, here's your systematic theology, 
here's the abstract concepts, go memorize these things and 
you'll be happy. No, when we see God in the midst 
of the nation of Israel, exercising that long suffering and that 
patience, After they dance around the golden calf, he reveals his 
wrath. I'm going to cut him off. I'm 
going to start with a new nation. Well, yeah, that's not suggesting 
there's movement in God. It's for us. And so we can appreciate 
when Moses says, no, don't do that. And then God says, OK. 
Again, it's not flux in God, but it's his revulsion against 
sin, his justice and his righteousness. But it also highlights his long 
suffering and his mercy and his grace to us. So all of the Bible 
is designed to teach us concerning those perfections of God. Some 
of them come out just like that. God doesn't lie. Okay. God is 
not a man, that he changes. Okay. But then there's actual 
demonstration of God in Scripture for further sort of description, 
for further understanding on our part. It was really helpful 
when you talked, and it really helped me understand it was that 
The way we talk to our two-year-olds, we don't talk in the same language 
as a two-year-old. A 22-year-old. And if we are, 
we've got a maxed out 22-year-old, right? Yeah, the Bible comes 
to us in that way. The nurse lifts, I don't think 
he means like that, but lifts to the infant. We talk to a two-year-old 
different than a 22-year-old. God speaks to us in the manner 
of men so that we can gain understanding of who he is according to his 
perfection.