← Back to sermon library

Amen. Well, you can turn to chapter 
2 in the Confession of Faith. If you don't have one, raise 
your hand, and one will hopefully come to you. All right, chapter 2, I'll begin 
reading in paragraph 1, and then our focus today is on paragraph 
3. So the Lord our God is but one 
only, 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 with all 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 pleaseth. 
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 they owe 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. Well, as I mentioned last 
time, I think it was last time or even the time before, there 
are a few books, or no, that was on the Saturday morning study 
in the Confession. There are a few good books, helpful 
in terms of an introduction to the doctrine of the Trinity. 
We happen to be going through one in the Saturday morning theology 
study now. It's called Simply Trinity by 
Matthew Barrett. If anybody's interested in participating 
in that study, let me know. I'll put you on the email list 
and give you the notification for the Saturday meeting. But 
one even a bit more basic than that or more introductory, at 
least it's not as thick as Barrett's book, is by Scott Swain. It's 
an introduction to the Trinity, very helpful, very excellent, 
very good. And then a book by Pastor Richard 
Barcelos called Trinity and Creation. And I forgot to mention at the 
Saturday morning meeting, there's a very helpful appendix in that 
book by our own Cam Porter, in which Cam does a critical review 
of a book by a man named Scott Oliphant. Scott Oliphant teaches 
theology at one of the primary seminaries in America, and he 
has reworked the doctrine of God in ways that are not biblical 
or consistent with the Reformed tradition. So Cam took him to 
task in a very helpful essay critiquing that particular book. 
But the book as a whole, Trinity and Creation, by Richard Barcellos, 
is very helpful in terms of the trinity. Well, we looked at paragraph 
one, which deals specifically with the perfections of God. 
It indicates who God is in terms of his perfections, or what we 
might call attributes. And then at the end of that particular 
paragraph, it gives an emphasis on how God deals with His creatures. 
Toward the end it says, the rewarder of them that diligently seek 
Him. So that's a reference to the 
believer. That's a reflection of or allusion to Hebrews 11. 
It's not only that we must know that God is, but that He is a 
rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So the confession after 
highlighting the perfections of God indicates he is the rewarder 
of them that diligently seek him, and with all, most just 
and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will 
by no means clear the guilty. So that then leads into paragraph 
two, which paragraph two underscores the external relations of God, 
or God and his creatures. How does this God deal with his 
creation? And so that paragraph highlights 
his independence. He's not dependent upon the creature, 
rather the creature is dependent upon him. As well, it underscores 
his omniscience. He knows everything there is 
to know about his creatures, and then it ends on his holiness 
in terms of how he is, again, relative to his creatures. And 
then that particular paragraph ends by giving us an indication 
of the obligation of the creature to the creator. Notice, it says, 
as in, I'm sorry, at the end, it says, 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 that. So God and his creatures in paragraph 
two. Paragraph three takes up the 
internal relations of God, or God as He is in Himself, and 
it deals with the reality that God is triune. And if you look 
specifically at the Gospel of Matthew, just a couple of passages 
that underscore the importance of this study, Matthew chapter 
28 is one of those passages, because what the Lord Jesus says 
here is very wonderful in terms of our God. So in Matthew 28 
18, and Jesus came and spoke to them saying, all authority 
has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and 
make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them, notice, in the 
name singular. There's one name of the living 
and true God, baptizing them in the name, but then notice 
the triunity of this one God, baptizing in the name singular 
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. So the 
one living and true God is triune, and that's what this chapter, 
or rather paragraph, is going to deal with. Notice the Apostle 
Paul's benediction in 2 Corinthians chapter 13. These are just a 
few specimen passages which underscore to us that the God of the Bible, 
being one living and true God, is three persons. We'll deal 
with that in just a moment. But notice in 2 Corinthians chapter 
13 at verse 14. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ 
and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you 
all. Turn over to Galatians chapter 
4. Galatians 4, at verse 4, but when the fullness of the time 
had come, God, the Father, sent forth His Son, the Lord Jesus, 
born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were 
under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. 
And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of 
His Son into your hearts, crying out, Abba, Father. Therefore, 
you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an 
heir of God through Christ." So you see the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit, and you see relations between them. The 
Father sends the Son, and the Son and the Father send the Spirit 
to accomplish specific acts in the economy of redemption. Turn 
over to Ephesians 1. In Ephesians 1, the Apostle Paul 
in verse 3 says, And then he praises the Father for the Father's 
work in the redemption of sinners. The work of God in creation and 
providence and redemption is the Godhead, Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit. But when we look at the Bible, 
certain passages appropriate specific acts to one of the persons 
of the Godhead, and that's what the Apostle does here. The Father 
chose us in Christ. The Father predestined us to 
adoption as sons by Christ, according to verse 5. Notice in verse 7, 
in Him, Jesus Christ, we have redemption through His blood, 
the forgiveness of sins. And then notice in verse 13, 
in Him you also trusted after you heard the word of truth, 
the gospel of your salvation, in whom also, having believed, 
you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. So the salvation 
wrought by the one living and true God is ascribed to the three 
persons of the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So let's 
look at paragraph three in our confession in chapter two of 
God and of the Holy Trinity. Notice in the first place that 
it underscores or reiterates the oneness of God. This picks 
up what the confession says in chapter two at paragraph one. Notice, the Lord our God is but 
one only, living and true God. The text, obviously, Deuteronomy 
chapter 6, the Shema, given to Israel. Hear, O Israel, the Lord 
our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your 
God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. This is repeated 
throughout scripture, that the Lord our God is but one only, 
living and true God. So back to paragraph 3, it reminds 
us of this. There is this declaration in 
this divine and infinite being. There are not two or more divine 
and infinite beings, but one being in which there are three 
subsistences. And it goes on to underscore 
that. Now what a subsistence is, Very simply, it has other 
meanings. In fact, in paragraph one, it 
means to exist. But here, a subsistence is used 
in a different way in paragraph one. In paragraph one, it describes 
God's self-existence. His subsistence is in and of 
himself, meaning that he derives his existence from himself. But 
in this particular instance, this use of subsistence, it means 
an individual instance of a given essence. Now, this may sound 
confusing, but just try and follow along. And I don't mean that 
like you're dumb. Just try and follow along. I mean it because 
we don't typically traffic in this kind of theology. We don't 
typically go any further than just a bare reading of those 
particular texts and say, therefore, we have the doctrine of the Trinity. 
We need to understand that the doctrine of the Trinity is not 
inconsistent, it's not contradictory, and it's not paradoxical. It's 
mysterious in the sense that we can never fully understand 
it, because as the Confession states in paragraph 1, God is 
comprehensible to only God himself. In other words, the creature 
cannot fully exhaust who God is. But what is revealed to us, 
we can understand, we should understand, and we need to be 
able to distinguish the doctrine that we believe from what is 
being preached out there and from what is being misrepresented, 
say, by the watchtower society. So subsistence means existence 
in general, but it can also mean an individual instance of a given 
essence, and that's how it's being utilized here. Now the 
Westminster Confession of Faith uses the word persons at this 
point, and that's perfectly fine, it's acceptable, but subsistence 
is a little bit more technical in terms of the history of theological 
understanding. So in this divine and infinite 
being, there are three subsistences, or persons. So we need to understand 
at this point, that God is one in one sense. So notice, in this 
divine and infinite being, the one that is alone, there are 
three subsistences. If you ever talk to the Jehovah's 
Witnesses, they will no doubt say that the doctrine of the 
Trinity is contradictory. You can't be one and three. And 
in a sense, that's right, but we're not suggesting that God 
is one and three in the same sense. He's one at the level 
of essence and three at the level of subsistence or person. So he's one in one sense and 
three in another sense. It would be contradictory to 
say that he's one in one sense and three in the same sense. 
then you've got a contradiction because then you have a dog that 
meows and a cat that barks. It's simply untenable. So he's 
one at the level of or in terms of substance or essence, some 
of that language again in the history of the church has been 
used interchangeably, but he's three in another sense, either 
subsistence or person is a very helpful way to distinguish this 
as well. Also, we need to appreciate the 
fact that there are not a multitude of divine and infinite beings. 
There is one true and living God, and this one true and living 
God exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the 
confession underscores once again that there is one divine infinite 
being. It goes on to say there are three 
subsistences, and then it identifies those persons. Notice the Father, 
the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. So those are the three 
persons. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. We just sang concerning that 
triune God. We just saw in the name of, singular, 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We see that benediction 
from the Apostle Paul, giving us each of the persons of the 
Godhead in 2 Corinthians 13, 14. So we have the Father, the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now notice that the confession 
underscores the unity and equality of the persons. The unity and 
equality of the persons. Notice, of one substance. Okay, there's one substance or 
one essence, the one divine being. But within that one, or in that 
one divine being, there are three persons. The Father, the Word, 
and the Holy Spirit. And they are of one substance, 
not of a different substance. They don't bring different things 
to the table, but rather each has that essence or substance. Notice it goes on to underscore 
they each have the same power, eternity, they each have the 
whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. That yet the 
essence undivided is important because it's not that Jesus is 
33 and a third percent God, the Father is 33 and a third percent 
God, and the Spirit is 33 and a third percent God. It's not 
as if these three persons make up the Godhead. No, they each 
have the whole divine essence according to the confession, 
yet the essence is undivided. Now notice, one substance, not 
three. One power, not three. One eternity, not three. One 
will, not three. John Owen explains what we call 
or will identify as inseparable operations. And basically inseparable 
operations means, as I said earlier, that the works of creation and 
providence and redemption are all ascribed to this one true 
and living God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But sometimes 
in the Bible to help us understand things, sometimes in the Bible 
to help us understand various beauties of our great and glorious 
God, it will ascribe certain things to one of the persons 
in a way that it doesn't to the other persons. For instance, 
we think of the Holy Spirit in terms of sanctifying us. We think 
of the Father in terms of choosing us and predestinating us. We 
think of specific acts predicated of specific persons. But we need 
to understand that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 
act by one will. Again, they don't each bring 
their several gifts to the table and say, you know I'm pretty 
good over here. And the other one says I'm pretty good over 
here. It's the doctrine of inseparable operations. Every work outside 
of God is attributed to God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 
But as I said, sometimes in the Bible, certain things are appropriated 
to certain persons of the Godhead to underscore certain things 
and to help us understand, I think, more of our triune God. So, Owen says, the several persons 
are undivided in their operations, acting all by the same will, 
the same wisdom, the same power. Every person, therefore, is the 
author of every work of God, because each person is God, and 
the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine 
operations. And this arises from the unity 
of the persons in the same essence. Now, this is important because 
people mess up at this particular point. There's a group of people 
today that have messed up on how Jesus relates to the Father. 
And this group of people that have messed up happen to teach 
in most of the Christian seminaries today, and they happen to teach 
in most of the Christian Bible colleges today. So it's a real 
big problem. But what they say is that Jesus 
is always and eternally subordinated to the Father. That's not what 
the Bible teaches. Jesus, in the economy of redemption, 
when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, Jesus, according 
to his humanity, according to his office as mediator, prophet, 
priest, and king, willingly submits himself to the Father in terms 
of that redemptive plan. But Jesus, the second person 
of the Trinity, is not subordinate to the Father. Listen again to 
what the Confession says. Of one substance, power and eternity, 
each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. And typically, these people that 
teach in these seminaries and Bible colleges at times posit 
the idea that Jesus has a distinct will. That's not biblical Christianity. Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit 
have the same will in terms of Godhead, in terms of essence, 
in terms of substance. Now, Jesus as man, Jesus as mediator, 
had two wills. because that's a function of 
personhood to have a will. That's why Jesus in the Garden 
of Gethsemane prays to his father, if it is possible, let this cup 
pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but 
thine be done. We'll see more on that when we 
get to chapter eight of Christ the Mediator. But with reference 
to the Godhead, Owen is spot on, reflecting what the confession 
indicates. The several persons are undivided 
in their operations, acting all by the same will, the same wisdom, 
the same power. Every person, therefore, is the 
author of every work of God, because each person is God. And 
the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine 
operations. And this arises from the unity 
of the persons in the same essence." Now again, some of this may be 
new, some of these concepts may be you know, brand new, stick 
with it, pay attention. Again, not like you're dumb, 
but typically we don't think at this level in our construction 
of the doctrine of the Trinity. Matthew Barrett helpfully points 
out that many formulations are simply mathematical in nature. 
It's just mathematical. One God, three persons. Here's 
the text that stipulate the one Godness, and then here are the 
texts that indicate Father, Son, and Spirit are God. That's not 
altogether unhelpful, but it doesn't get to the level that 
the historic confessions of faith embodied in their confession 
of the doctrine of the Trinity. And if you just take that tact, 
you're not going to be skilled and able to defend the doctrine 
against the heretics who assault it and who allege that it's contradictory 
in nature. So notice, you've got the unity 
and equality of the persons, and then the confession moves 
on to the distinction between the persons. How do we know there's 
distinction among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit? Notice 
what the confession goes on to underscore. It tells us how we 
know this. Let me just encourage you. It's 
not just heretical to deny the oneness of God. It's also heretical 
to deny the threeness of God. Make sure you get that, because 
I think we're under this idea that as long as we confess monotheism, 
as long as we confess that there is but one only, the living and 
true God, then we're safe. We don't really need to think 
about Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If we do, that's cool. but if 
not, it's such a mystery, we can never figure it out, so it's 
not a big deal. No, to deny the threeness of 
God lands one into the same heresy, or on the other side, not the 
same heresy. The heresy is bad, but it's not 
the same. So to deny God being one is heretical, 
but to deny that God is three is heretical as well. So the 
Jehovah's Witnesses aren't just a little wrong, they're heretics. 
They believe damnable heresy. You can be wrong on a lot of 
things. God is good. He's kind. He's 
gracious. You could be wrong on your eschatology. 
You could be wrong on baptism. You could be wrong on a whole 
host of things and still by grace make it to heaven. You can't 
be wrong at the level of who God is. You can't be wrong at 
the level of who Jesus Christ is, because Jesus says in John 
8, if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins. In other words, if you don't 
understand who God is, then you are not a believer in Christ. Now that doesn't mean you've 
gotta be Athanasius, or you've gotta be Augustine, or you've 
gotta be able to recite and rehearse every jot and tittle of this, 
but you cannot be an enemy to the oneness of God or to the 
threeness of God. So the confession underscores 
how we know concerning the distinctions between the persons. So it says, 
the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. The 
Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit 
proceeding from the Father and the Son. So those are the distinctions, 
those are the things that help us to understand the differences 
between the persons in the Godhead, or better, the distinction between 
the persons of the Godhead. Notice, the Father is of none. neither begotten nor proceeding." 
That's how we know that the Father is distinct from the Son and 
the Spirit. The Father is of none. The Father 
does not, or rather is neither, begotten nor proceeding. Now notice what it goes on to 
say concerning the Son. The Son is eternally begotten 
of the Father. Again, the language of Scripture 
tells us this, which we'll look at in just a moment, but the 
primary emphasis as to why Scripture does this is to underscore two 
things. Not only the distinction between 
the persons, but also the divinity of the Son. See, those theologians 
today that want to get rid of this notion of what we'll call 
eternal generation of the Son think that it somehow suggests 
that the Son is not really God. But interestingly, the early 
church adopted the language for the very reason to not only maintain 
distinction between Father and Son, but to underscore the divinity 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. So modern theologians getting 
rid of some of this language have gotten rid of the doctrine 
itself. This is the problem when we tamper 
with accepted creeds and confessions. When we say, well, we don't really 
talk like that, we should reformulate it. No, it's better to understand 
how the history of the church understood these things as well. 
I'm not against, you know, redaction in terms of new language 
and all that sort of thing. And there are guys within our 
Reformed Baptist movement that want to do this to the confession 
of faith. But there's others of us who 
say, no, it's better, instead of changing the language of the 
confession, that you understand first the language of the confession. And once you understand first 
the language of the confession, you'll probably realize we shouldn't 
mess with it. Why reinvent the wheel? Why reinvent 
something that has stood the test of time? Why would we want 
to rework something? Well, when we look back at the 
last generation of theologians, they have reworked it. The church 
isn't more Trinitarian. The church isn't better instructed 
in the Orthodox faith. But the church is worse off for 
it. So with reference to this idea of the eternal generation 
of the Son, one man, Kevin Giles, in a book with that title, says 
that Athanasius and all the Nicene theologians saw clearly that 
to speak of the Son of God as eternally begotten not only safeguarded 
his full divinity, but also indelibly distinguished him from the Father. 
The language, only begotten, or eternally begotten, or eternal 
generation, was employed to highlight the self-differentiation of the 
Father and the Son. Again, brethren, this isn't just 
a confession making this up. In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John starts 
his gospel by underscoring the co-eternality of the Son with 
the Father, the distinction of the Son from the Father, and 
the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father. He starts 
his gospel with that emphasis. So when we get to Nicaea in the 
4th century AD, it's not that they're making up the doctrine, 
they're explaining and they're showing and they're declaring 
how these things are true. And so back to the confession, 
we have the father who is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding, 
and then you have the son is eternally begotten of the father. 
The book I mentioned by Matthew Barrett, the first chapter we 
dealt with last Saturday was on Trinity Adrift. And Barrett 
basically tells us why we need to return to Nicaea for our Trinitarian 
understanding, our understanding of Trinitarian doctrine. And 
he does essentially that. Over the last 40 years, the best 
and the brightest theologians that are writing big fat systematic 
theologies have reworked the doctrine of God at this point. They've jettisoned the notion 
of eternal generation. And so Barrett gives a bit of 
his own autobiography. I went to the Bible colleges, 
I went to Bible college, I went to seminary, and I heard these 
things not being taught. I heard these things being reworked 
and being basically thrown out in the works of major systematic 
theology over the last generation. And then once he started learning, 
once he started studying, he understood, if we get rid of 
the doctrine of eternal generation, we're getting rid of the doctrine 
of the Trinity itself. So whatever these guys are doing, 
it's not proven to be helpful. And Barrett makes this observation. If the Son is not begotten from 
the Father's divine essence from all eternity, they argued, he's 
talking about the historic church, then the Son is not equal to 
the Father in deity. The doctrine not only distinguished 
the person of the son from the person of the father, but ensured 
the two were co-eternal and co-equal in divinity, power, will, glory, 
and authority. To affirm eternal generation 
was equivalent to confessing oneself, get this, to be a Christian. And a Bible-believing Christian 
at that, to deny eternal generation was to align yourself with heresy. So again, in the context of the 
last generation, about 30 or 40 years, this has been jettison. We don't deal with the doctrine 
of the eternal generation of the Son. We don't understand 
it, so therefore we relegate it to the shelves of historical 
theology, and that's the way they used to do things back then, 
but it's hatched a whole host of heresy. 2016, there was an 
eruption on the internet concerning that doctrine that I mentioned 
earlier, that Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, 
is eternally subordinate to the Father. This was a massive sort 
of a ruckus over the last few years. And this has been led 
by, again, some of the biggest names that teach Christian theology 
in seminaries today. It is very disconcerting. And 
so that list of books that I indicated earlier in terms of introduction 
to the doctrine of the Trinity, they are Nicaea. a nice scene 
in terms of their orthodoxy. They go back to the ancient church 
rather than side with the modern church in its reworking of the 
doctrine of the Trinity, which ultimately results in no more 
doctrine of the Trinity. So this idea of the eternal generation 
of the son from the father is how the persons are distinguished, 
but as well, how the divinity of the son is underscored and 
reiterated. When we hear the word generation 
or begotten, remember, it's speaking to us in the manner of men. There 
is an analogy in terms of fathers and their sons, to be sure, but 
that modifier eternal takes it out of the humanly sphere and 
puts it where it belongs in terms of God the Creator. It is eternal 
generation. It is eternal procession. It's 
not a point in time. Athanasius, rather Arius, that 
arch-heretic of the church said, there was a point of time when 
the sun was not. That's what Jehovah's Witnesses 
say as well. Well, if you affirm that there 
was a point in time when the Son was not, you have joined 
the bands of heresy. It is the case that there was 
never a time when the Son was not, He's always been, and the 
same with the Father and the Spirit. It is an eternal God 
that we are dealing with. Now, we looked at the generation 
of the Son when we were going through the prologue in John's 
Gospel. I'll just rehearse some of those 
passages again. Actually, we can do that. We 
can turn to these various passages to see the language that is utilized 
by the Bible to distinguish the persons of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. Now this won't be exhaustive 
to be sure, there's other sort of areas that we could look at, 
but notice in Psalm 2 at verse 7. Psalm 2 verse 7. Is everybody turning to the New 
Testament? I bet. Psalm 2 verse 7, I will declare 
the decree, this is the Messiah speaking here. The Lord has said 
to me, you are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me 
and I will give you the nations for your inheritance and the 
ends of the earth for your possession. Now, whatever else is going on 
in this particular passage, we see that relationship that obtains 
between the Father and the Son. The Father is not begotten, but 
the Son is begotten. Turn to Proverbs chapter 8. Again, 
we looked at these passages going through the prologue, but no 
thing like repetition to help seal the deal. Proverbs chapter 
8, notice in verse 22, the Lord, most in the history of the church 
have seen Proverbs 8 as Christ speaking as wisdom. The second 
person of the triune God is the object or rather subject here 
in Proverbs chapter 8. Look for instance at verse 36. 
If that does not underscore the problem in society today, but 
he who sins against me wrongs his own soul, all those who hate 
me love death. When we were doing the pro-life 
walk yesterday, of course, you get the fingers, you get the 
claps, you get the honk and the horn and all that sort of thing, 
either for or against. One guy rolled down his window 
and cursed us with the grossest obscenities. You heard that? 
Who was in our little group there? Just nasty stuff. How do you 
explain that? It's a spiritual battle. The 
devil is a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Notice what 
Jesus says in verse 36. He who sins against me wrongs 
his own soul. All those who hate me love death. It's the way you explain abortion. 
It's the way you explain euthanasia. That's the way you explain, you 
know, drive-by shootings and the complete disregard for life. People hate Jesus. Now back to 
verse 22. Notice, "...the Lord possessed 
me at the beginning of His ways, before His works of old. I have 
been established from everlasting, from the beginning, before there 
was ever an earth. When there were no depths, I 
was brought forth. When there were no fountains abounding with 
water, before the mountains were settled, before the hills, I 
was brought forth. while as yet he had not made 
the earth of the fields or the primal dust of the world. When 
he prepared the heavens, I was there. When he drew a circle 
on the face of the deep, when he established the clouds above, 
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep, when he assigned 
to the sea its limits so that the waters would not transgress 
his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 
Then I was beside him as a master craftsman, and I was daily his 
delight, rejoicing always before him, rejoicing in his inhabited 
world, and my delight was with the sons of men." That's Christ 
speaking concerning the relationship that obtains between him and 
the Father. I was brought forth. Again, not 
the case that there was a time when the Son was not. This is 
an eternal generation and eternal begetting. And then in the prologue, 
we see that reference to only begotten. It's a problem with 
the newer translations. Guess who supervised the newer 
translations? It was those who have been skilled 
in the newer doctrine of God and Christ. That's why you don't 
have only begotten in some of the newer translations. Now you 
might say, well, the Bible still teaches it and these newer translations 
still teach it. Yes, they do. But it's certainly 
interesting that the church, in the history of the church, 
the Greek-speaking fathers opted for the language of only begotten, 
not one and only or unique son. The word that is used definitely 
has that semantic range, but the context that these translations 
find themselves in are very much on the side of using the translation 
only begotten. Notice in verse 14, the Word 
became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, 
the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace 
and truth. Again, John the Apostle is doing 
what he does in verse 1. In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was what? The Word was with God. There's 
distinction. So how does John distinguish 
the persons when he gets to John 1.14? He uses that moniker, only 
begotten. Verse 18, no one has seen God 
at any time. The only begotten Son, that's 
the better translation than only begotten God, who is in the bosom 
of the Father, He has declared Him. Again, it's not enough to 
simply affirm the oneness of God, we must confess as well 
the triunity of God. John 3.16, for God so loved the 
world that He gave who? His only begotten Son, that whoever 
believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Verse 
18, he who believes in Him is not condemned, but he who does 
not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in 
the name of the only begotten Son of God. Acts 13.33, a reference 
to Psalm 2, same idea, distinction between the persons. Acts 13.33, 
God has fulfilled this for us, their children, in that he has 
raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the 
second Psalm, you are my son, today I have begotten you. Hebrews chapter one. Hebrews 
chapter one, specifically at verse five. And this is actually the word 
that they say it isn't in the other passages. You are my son, 
today I have begotten you. And then you have that same moniker 
in 1 John 4, 19, only begotten son. So we have in scripture 
this distinction between the father and the son at the level 
of unbegotten for the father, begotten for the son. There are 
various images and metaphors concerning the Word that also 
underscores this relationship between the persons. The Word 
is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of 
His person. Who could that be said of but 
the only begotten Son of the Father? One who is co-eternal, 
one who is distinct from, and one who is consubstantial with. The word is the image of the 
invisible God, Colossians 1.15. The word is the power of God 
and the wisdom of God, 1 Corinthians 1.24. The words going forth are 
from of old, from everlasting, or from the ancient of days, 
Micah 5.2. Barrett does that translation. It's masterful. In Daniel, we 
have that reference to the Ancient of Days. The Son of Man comes 
to the Ancient of Days. It's an ascension text. But the 
same language is used in 5.2 in the prophet Micah. He comes 
from the Ancient of Days. And every text where Jesus says 
that he has come from the Father underscores again this distinction 
from the Father, but his eternal origin from the Father. So we 
call these notions, we call them eternal relations of origin. 
Our confession calls them peculiar relative properties and personal 
relations. They are deployed in order to 
distinguish the persons of the Godhead, because brethren, we 
are not civilians. We are not those who deny the 
triunity of God. The Nicene Creed captures this 
beautifully. It says, Begotten of the Father 
before all worlds. God of God, light of light, very 
God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance 
with the Father. Again, that's not an unbiblical 
statement. That's not the work of Constantine 
telling the Nicenes to make a Trinitarian creed. It reflects the prologue. In the beginning was the Word, 
the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became 
flesh and dwelt among us. 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. The use of generation is analogous 
to the creaturely sphere. The Father is the Father to the 
Son, the Son is the Son to the Father. So there is an analogy 
with what we find in creation. But, the modifier eternal shows 
that it is an analogy and it's not strictly parallel. Okay? 
Analogies are not strictly parallel. Sometimes, and always rather, 
analogies break down. We've got big problems when we 
take what goes on in the created realm and read it back into God 
as creator. Gregory of Nazianzen, sounds 
like Gregory the Nazi, but it's not. It's where he hailed from. 
He says this concerning eternal generation. He says, the begetting 
of God must be honored by silence. Think about what he's about to 
say here. That it is the case, the Bible tells us. How it is 
the case, we can't comprehend that. We're creature, God is 
creator. We're finite, God is infinite. This is why the confession in 
paragraph 1 of chapter 2 tells us he is incomprehensible to 
the creature. That doesn't mean nothing can 
be known about him. but it means we can't fully explore, 
we can't understand the depths, because there is this chasm between 
the infinite and the finite. So Nazi Hansen says, the begetting 
of God must be honored by silence. Actually, I don't think that's 
his last name. Gregory said, the begetting of God must be 
honored by silence. It is a great thing for you to 
learn that he was begotten. But the manner of his generation, 
we will not admit that even angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? 
It was in a manner known to the father who begat and to the son 
who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden 
by a cloud and escapes your dim sight. Again, that it is the 
case, true. How? Again, we have creaturely 
limitations, not to mention sin that keeps us from a full understanding. Gregory also speaks to the idea 
that I mentioned before of reading things concerning the creature 
back into the creator. This is why there are problems 
with the Trinity today in the modern church. Because many today 
who subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity are also called 
complementarians. And complementarians are those 
who see that the husband is the head of the wife, and that the 
wife is to submit to her husband. The contrast to that is what's 
called egalitarians. Egalitarians say, who's ever 
best and fit for the job should do it. If the wife is better 
at leading, let her lead. Well, complementarians are biblical 
in that emphasis. That's right. The husband is 
the head of the wife. If you have a problem with that, 
it's not with me. It's with Paul in Ephesians 5. 
It couldn't be any more clear. It couldn't be any more elementary. 
The husband is the head of the wife. No matter how you try to 
get around that hermeneutically, no matter how your exegesis doesn't 
agree with that, it will never change the fact that the husband 
is the head of the wife. So on that point, the complementarians 
are right. But if you've ever heard me distance 
myself from the complementarians, it's because of this problem. 
They take what happens in terms of the human family and read 
it back into the Trinity. There's analogy, 1 Corinthians 
11 gives us analogy that the son is submissive or submits 
to the father. Again, in the economy of redemption, 
not at the level of the second person of the Trinity submitting 
always to the first person of the Trinity. Trinity. So the 
complementarians go from creature to creator and that's not good. Here's what Gregory said about 
those who do that. It is very shameful, and not 
only shameful, but very foolish to take from things below a guess 
at things above. From fluctuating nature at the 
things that are unchanging. And as Isaiah says, to see the 
living among the dead. You're not supposed to do that. 
This again will come out when we get to of Christ the mediator. Things that were true of Christ 
according to his humanity are not true concerning the Godhead. The Son suffered, the Son bled, 
the Son died, the Son had hair, the Son had fingernails. The 
Godhead does not. The Godhead doesn't fluctuate. 
The Godhead doesn't suffer. The Godhead doesn't change. The 
Godhead doesn't have this, you know, if it's possible, let this 
cup pass from me. So we need to be careful when 
we move from creature to creator, first of all, to not do it. Secondly, 
if we do understand there's analogy, we only go so far as the analogy 
allows. Don't press it to the level of 
the Godhead that there is gradation among the persons there. That's 
not Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 11. It's certainly not Paul's 
point in Ephesians 5. Though there may be analogy, 
it is not the case that it's strictly parallel when it references 
the creature and the creator. So just be aware of that, that 
the complementarians are right in terms of the husband-wife 
relationship. But typically, not always, the 
complementarians run afoul in their doctrine of the Trinity 
because they go from the relationship of husband and wife back into 
the relations between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Everybody 
get that? That's important. You may not 
get it all right now, but someday, hopefully, that light bulb will 
go on in your head. You're reading Wayne Grudem or 
you're reading Bruce Ware. Again, I'm not the government. 
I can't control what you do or can't do. But I'd say there's 
other books you should read before those two men. But if you happen 
to read those men, I'd like to understand or see that that light 
bulb goes on and you say, that's not right what they're doing. 
That's not legit. That's not cool. That doesn't 
jive with our confession, which jives with the Bible, which jives 
with Nicaea, which jives with, you know, all of the ancient 
creeds and confessions of the church. Again, up until about 
40 years ago, when guys said, eh, We don't really understand 
eternal generation, and it seems to suggest that the Son is subordinate, 
so we'll get rid of it. We'll get rid of it to your own 
peril. Get rid of it to a group of Christians today that are 
supposed to be Trinitarian, but don't have the faintest or foggiest 
idea what it means to be Trinitarian. So we emphasize God is one, but 
we emphasize that in this infinite and divine being, there are three 
persons, or three subsistences, the Father, the Son, or word 
or Son, and the Spirit. Now notice the Spirit. I don't 
want to rush through the Spirit, so I think we're going to leave 
the Spirit for next time. In my experience, most systematic 
theologies rush through the Spirit. I realize this isn't a systematic 
theology, but I don't want to just say, yeah, the Spirit proceeds 
from the Father and the Son. Let's close out this confession 
and be happy. No, we need to understand the 
Spirit's eternal relations of origin, 
or what we call notions, or what our Confession says here concerning 
these peculiar relative properties and personal relations. Just 
a bit of a heads up, you've got the Father who is of none, neither 
begotten nor proceeding, you've got the Son who is eternally 
begotten of the Father, and then you've got the Holy Spirit proceeding 
from the Father and the Son. So what distinguishes the spirit 
from the Father and the Son? It's that he proceeds from them. 
It's that he is spirated. That's the other term that is 
applied to that distinction. So we'll look at that next time 
and then close out this particular section of the confession by 
underscoring the practicality of the doctrine. Notice that 
the doctrine, the confession, the divines don't just end there. 
No, they say there's something about this that you really need 
to get. which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of 
all our communion with God and comfortable dependence on Him. 
So when we don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity, we do 
so not only to our peril theologically, but we do so to the health of 
our soul, Practically, to know the Father and the Son and the 
Holy Spirit, to love the triune God, to adore the triune God, 
to worship the triune God, it is good for the soul. It's good 
for the soul of the church when we gather together to come to 
the Father through the Son and the power of the Spirit. Paul 
sees Christian worship in that triune category in Ephesians 
2. He says, now, therefore, in verse 19, you are no longer strangers 
and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of 
the household of God, having been built on the foundation 
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief cornerstone, in whom the whole building being fitted together 
grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom also you, I'm sorry, 
in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place 
of God in the Spirit. Christian worship is distinctly 
Trinitarian. Father, Son, and Spirit are present 
in the house of God on the Lord's Day as we gather together to 
worship. So it is intensely practical, 
not only at the individual level, but at the corporate level for 
the believing people of God. Well, let us pray. Our Father, 
we thank You for Your Word. We thank You for this confession, 
a helpful summary of Christian doctrine that clearly articulates 
what the Church has confessed throughout our ages. And we praise 
You for this wonderful truth of this one true and living God, 
the three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Help us to get 
our minds wrapped around these things so that we are biblical, 
that we're orthodox in terms of our confession, but as well 
in terms of the practical import help us to understand these things 
for the good of our souls as Individuals and as a church of 
the Lord Jesus Christ and we pray in his most blessed name. 
Amen Well, we got a few minutes if anybody has any questions 
Okay Yes So he the father has granted the son That goes exactly along with 
this eternally begotten of the Father. I mentioned, I think 
it was at the Saturday morning, Calvin was a bit off on eternal 
generation. So for Calvin, eternal generation, 
and Cam, correct me if I'm wrong, it meant the begetting of the 
person, right? Whereas the history of thought 
concerning eternal generation is that the Father communicates 
the divine essence to the Son. And I think that's what John 
5, 26 is underscoring, that just as the father is autotheos, so 
is the son autotheos. That's part and parcel of being 
generated from the father. Is that accurate? No, no, it's a good translation. 
Again, put it in this larger Trinitarian context, though. 
When we deal with Father, Son, and Spirit, they're one true 
and living God in three subsistences. So how do we know of these subsistences 
or persons? We know because the Father is 
unbegotten, we know because the Son is begotten, which is the 
John 5.26, and we know because the Spirit proceeds from the 
Father and the Son. So that text, you know, under the hand of a 
Jehovah's Witness or in the hand of an Arian would say, oh, that 
means there was a time when the son was not. No, we know that 
there was never a time when the son was not. And so what Jesus 
is referring to there is eternal generation. And it's not just 
that the father generates the person of the son, but the father 
communicates the divine essence to the son as well. And this 
is where Calvin was off. Calvin thought it was that eternal 
generation was at the level of person. And it's at the level 
of the divine essence. That's why Barrett says, if the 
Son is not begotten from the Father's divine essence from 
all eternity. So that's what's happening in 
terms of these eternal relations of origin. So that's how I would 
explain John 5.26. Now, I get when you say that 
to the Jehovah's Witness at your door, you're going to be met 
with a deer in the headlights sort of a look. But they don't 
have a Trinitarian understanding. So for them, John 14, for instance, 
the Father is greater than I. Well, there it is. Jesus is less 
than the Father. Jesus is speaking according to 
his humanity. That's such an easy concept to 
reconcile with when you have a Trinitarian framework. But 
if you're an anti-Trinitarian, then every text that is deployed 
by a Trinitarian is suspect. It's like speaking Chinese to 
somebody who's Japanese. It's like speaking English to 
somebody that has no clue. We're operating at completely 
different readings of Scripture. There is a cultic misreading. And I know it can sound proud. It can sound arrogant and all 
that sort of thing. But we're not the ones who develop this 
reading. We read it, we see it makes sense, 
we compare it with what the church historically has said, and we 
go, wow, yeah, that's what it means. They don't do that. And 
so with a Jehovah's Witness, for instance, a more fundamental 
issue is, you know, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you 
shall be saved, I think. So yeah, it's a communication 
of divine essence by the Father to the Son in eternal generation. Yeah, absolutely. John 1030, 
I and the Father are one. For Jehovah's Witnesses, that's 
just bizarre. That's just one in design. We both have the same sort of 
purpose and view. No, for persons that are Trinitarian, 
there's a consubstantiality. He's one with the Father at the 
level of the essence or the substance. In this one divine and infinite 
being, there are three subsistences, and each has the whole divine 
essence. So that's how Jesus can say, 
I am the Father, or one. And certainly in purpose and 
direction and all that too. But because of the bigger issue 
of who God is. Thank you. And that's your big task. I mean, 
you know, when we get to have Christ the mediator, or one of 
the big tasks, when we get to have Christ the mediator, we'll 
deal with this, I think, a bit more, but, you know, the Father 
is greater than I, so how could Jesus be God? That's how a Jehovah's 
Witness argues. That's how, you know, those are 
passages that trouble the people of God. Jesus on the cross, why 
hast thou forsaken me? Jesus in Gethsemane, let this 
cup pass from me. Well, how in the world could, 
you know, Jesus pray to the Father? How could there be this unity? 
Again, a Christian doctrine of the Trinity understands the Bible 
and presents it in a cohesive and coherent way. When you operate 
as a Biblicist, as a Jehovah's Witness, as a person that doesn't 
have a problem with contradiction, you're going to have contradiction. 
When the Bible calls Jesus God, And then other passages, Jesus 
distinguishes himself from God. Well, you've got a contradiction. 
Well, some people are OK to live in that. But the church hasn't. The church has said, no, let's 
deal with the scripture. Let's exegete it. And let's put 
into a confessible small place what we believe concerning the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, sir? I was thinking, I'm going to 
double check Muller. That's from Muller. I was about 
to say. So that's where, just as a point of clarity, lest someone 
were to misconstrue this. I'm not the brightest bulb, Isaac, 
but when I come to a study like this, I rely on Muller and the 
big guns in the faith. Muller's dictionary is fantastic 
when it comes to the value. But then the other thing I was 
thinking of is, I was thinking of the Spanish 
and Portuguese translation, because unigenito, uni, genito, uni, 
one, which corresponds with the motto, and genito, which corresponds 
with the genase. So the Greek stuff correlates 
with the Latin stuff. And the idea was that I'm wondering 
if, on the English side, it might be better if anyone's going to 
re-translate the John text, if they should use only generated, 
rather than only forgotten. That might be something that's 
worth discussing in the future. But in the interim, yeah, this whole 
emphasis on uniqueness, one only, oneness, I think this is the 
point. Yeah, and I think it's at 118 
in the ESV, or 114, no, it must be 118, that puts Jesus in the 
thought, it calls Jesus the only true God. That's not good. God is the only true God, Father, 
Son, and Spirit. So it calls Jesus the only true 
God and puts the Father distinct from that in the ESV, I think, 
at 118. What's it say? The only God. 
What is 114? The only son of the Father who 
will represent you, gifts only. somewhere I saw, it's a great 
article, if anybody wants to do a little study on that only 
begotten, monogenesis is the Greek word. There's an article 
by a guy named Lee Irons that does lexical study, he does exegetical 
study, and I found it very, very compelling, very excellent, very 
helpful in terms of that particular word and the choice of translators 
to use only begotten. I think there's some historical 
reasons for why that reading exists in the extent of textual 
criticism. Sure. But there's argument. I haven't found the textual argument 
convincing in terms of, by the way, I was saying textual criticism. 
But the one thing I will say is that if someone wants to construe 
that as But it's like, theologically, 
if that's what that verse says, I think it makes things more 
confusing. That said, even then, we would 
use the analogy of scripture. And that's the other thing we 
have to remember. Yeah, you're not a heretic if you take the 
reading, only the God and God. Right. However, we have to, nevertheless, 
stick to our religious beliefs. Sure. And James White would tell 
me that I'm wrong. There's only the God and God, 
and I'm only the God and Son. All right.