← Back to sermon library

So I'll read paragraph three, 
and we'll go from there. In this divine and infinite being, 
there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word, or Son, 
and 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 
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. Sure, sounds good. Thank you. 
So chapter two of God and of the Holy Trinity, we've been 
considering this over a number of weeks. We're now in paragraph 
three, or we started in paragraph three last time, looking at the 
doctrine of the Trinity. Next Sunday, we will have a prayer 
meeting to take a sort of a halftime with regards to the doctrine 
of God. And then the following Sunday, we'll return to the doctrine 
of God, looking specifically at the doctrine of divine simplicity. But again, now we're looking 
at the Trinity. And last time, just by way of quick review, 
hopefully quick review, we started by noting the importance of the 
doctrine of the Trinity. It is an essential doctrine. 
It is not a non-essential doctrine. It is absolutely central to the 
Christian profession of faith. Because if it is the case that 
the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all of our 
communion with God and our comfortable dependence upon him, We cannot 
somehow endure a God who is ambiguously monotheistic to the exclusion 
of particular Trinitarianism. We cannot endure the God of the 
spiritually ambiguous out there who might affirm blasphemously 
and with casual language, a big guy in the sky. But rather, we 
observe and we acknowledge the God of Christianity, the God 
of the Holy Scriptures, who is one divine and infinite being 
in whom there are three subsistences who are or who have the essence 
undivided, who are co-equal, co-eternal, and co-glorious. And so this is a very important 
doctrine. And we noted that because it 
is an important doctrine, it is not an ivory tower doctrine 
that is only for the doctors of theology, but it is for the 
mechanic, the candlestick maker, and those who pay the mechanic 
and who pay the candlestick maker. And it is for those who are doctors 
of theology. So whatever our rank, if you 
will, within the world, within society, within culture, whatever 
our rank, if you will, within the church, whether it is a doctor 
of theology, a pastor in the pulpit, a person in the pew, 
the doctrine of the Trinity is absolutely vital. It is the stuff 
of great joy. and a topic that we are to approach 
always with a presence of defending the doctrine. We are always to 
have the mind where the doctrine of the Trinity is eternally relevant 
and eternally important because there are those out there who 
would seek to attack the doctrine and steal away the stuff of our 
communion with God and comfortable dependence upon him. We noted 
that the Particular Baptists are classical and reformed, or 
the classical and reformed pedigree of the Reformed Baptists, the 
Particular Baptists. They uphold ancient divine language 
from the early church, the Nicene Council, the Constantinopolitan 
Council, the Chalcedonian Creed, the Athanasian Creed, those sorts 
of things. They do not deviate from the 
ancient divines, but rather uphold and perpetuate the formulations 
that they observed from scripture. And so they are also in line 
with the reformed formulations as well. The Protestant reformers 
before them, Calvin and the crew, as well, they are in step with 
the Westminster Confession of Faith and in step with the Savoy 
Declaration. And you have a comparison chart 
there in front of you, which we will look at in a moment. 
in step with both the classical, that is the creedal history of 
the ancient church, as well as the reformed formulations of 
the doctrine of the Trinity contemporaneous to them and preceding them. We noted the technical and terminological 
improvements of the particular Baptists. So noting that, you 
can turn to that comparison chart in front of you. We said that 
the particular Baptists and their Presbyterian and congregational 
contemporaries, they are all in step with regards to the Orthodox 
doctrine of the Trinity. There is nothing heterodox to 
the Westminster Confession or the Savoy Declaration. However, 
the Baptists did make improvements, technological, terminological 
improvements, as compared to the other two. Now, notice. If 
you look, the Baptist confession, which is on the far right, is 
at least twice the size as the Westminster statement of the 
Trinity on the far left. So the particular Baptists expanded 
on and opened up the doctrine of the Trinity in bringing to 
the fore a better and more detailed formulation, though again, the 
Westminster is most certainly orthodox and theologically in 
step. You'll notice the Savoy Declaration 
is pretty much identical to the Westminster, though with the 
addition of that last statement, which doctrine of the Trinity 
is the foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable 
dependence upon him. The bolded portions there in 
the Westminster and in the Savoy are carried over into Or are 
the same as each other and are carried over into if you look 
at the bolded portions of the Or if you look at sorry the non 
bolded portions of the Baptist they are basically reiterations 
of the Westminster and the Savoy but notice in the bottom right 
the portions outlined above do not appear in the Westminster 
or Savoy documents as and are taken almost verbatim from the 
First London Confession, revised edition of 1646, with the exception 
of the last statement, italicized above, which is taken from the 
Savoy Declaration. So all of that to say, we acknowledge 
the consistency with our Presbyterian and congregational contemporaries, 
or their contemporaries, but also the way in which they improved 
upon the language. Some of the things we were and 
we are to keep in the back of our minds as we consider the 
doctrine of the Trinity first, the foundation of the doctrine 
is the Holy Scripture, not the early church's foundations or 
formulations, though those are very important and we already 
noted that the Baptists uphold the language. But the foundation 
of the doctrine of the Trinity is not in the creedal formulations 
of the early church. but rather and simply in the 
Holy Scriptures themselves. It is the Scriptures whereby 
propositions are explicitly set down and where truths are necessarily 
contained that we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity. We arrive 
at that doctrine by the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, by the 
reading and the understanding and the exposition of God's revelation 
to us in the Old and New Testaments. And in the scriptures, as James 
White notes in his Forgotten Trinity, the three foundational 
assertions are one, monotheism, two, that there are three distinct 
persons, and three, that the persons are co-equal and co-eternal. That middle foundation, there 
are three distinct persons with regards to their deity, we'll 
look at later on this morning, the biblical proofs for the doctrine 
of the Trinity. Additionally, some things to 
keep in the back of our minds, the revelatory development of 
the doctrine of the Trinity. The Old Testament, we have it 
in seed form. The New Testament, we have the 
full flower of the doctrine of the Trinity. We noted that in 
the Old Testament, the doctrine of the Trinity is like a chamber 
dimly lighted. The New Testament, the light 
is fully turned on, not introducing new furnishings, but rather with 
the light of the full flower of the New Testament, we have 
the doctrine of the Trinity more clear to us, though it was present 
in seed form at the outset of Revelation in the Old Testament. The rightness of using extra-biblical 
language in defining and formulating the doctrine of the Trinity, 
these are helps to us. Subsistences, essence, proceeding, 
all of these things, all the language used in paragraph three 
that are extra biblical in their nature, it's not contrary to 
the scriptures, but rather helps in defining. And perhaps more 
specifically, helps not in explaining the Trinity necessarily, but 
in defending against assertions and attacks against a Trinitarian 
understanding of God. And then lastly, the abiding 
relevance of Trinitarian apologetics. Because there have always been, 
are now, and always will be, those who are anti-Trinitarian, 
we must understand and know the Trinity and the doctrine and 
where to go in the scriptures in order that we might defend 
this truth of the scriptures and of the ancient and contemporary 
divines. All right, so we looked at the 
doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained last time. God hath 
decreed in himself from all eternity by the most wise and holy counsel 
of his will. Oh, excuse me. I'm reading chapter 
three, paragraph one. In this divine and infinite being, 
this is the doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained. In this 
divine and infinite being, there are three subsistences, the Father, 
the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit. And we noted that in that summary 
of the doctrine of the Trinity, We have the oneness of God upheld, 
monotheism upheld in this divine and infinite being. And then 
the personality of the triune Godhead opened up. There are 
three subsistences, and then the person's named, the Father, 
the Word, or Son, and Holy Spirit. Going back to our first session 
in the doctrine of God, we noted that Turretin approached the 
doctrine Summarizing, it's sort of in a threefold sense. We say 
that God is, or we must argue that God is, against the atheist. We must argue what God is against 
the heathen, and we must argue who God is against the Jew and 
the Mohammedan and anybody else that rejects the Trinity. So 
we have In this divine and infinite being, there are three subsistences, 
the oneness and the threeness of God asserted, and then the 
distinction of persons named the Father, the Word or Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. We noted the use of the term 
subsistence instead of person. And Howie noted something important 
that I didn't even define what subsistence is. We talked about 
it. We noted, for example, With regards to why the change, Sam 
Renahan's saying, writing, while there is no doctrinal difference, 
the term subsistence is more technical and carries less linguistic 
baggage. Person carries with it the linguistic 
baggage of human personhood connected to human essence, while subsistence 
can express better the unity and trinity of God because it 
connects to the singular and unique essence of deity. Richard 
Muller defines subsistence this way, an individual instance of 
a given essence. So when we speak of father, when 
we speak of son, when we speak of Holy Spirit, we're speaking 
of an individual instance of a given essence, an individual 
instance of a given essence, an individual instance of a given 
essence. He defines person which is synonymous 
with subsistence, though again, perhaps a less precise term, 
a divine person can be understood as an incommunicable subsistence 
of the divine essence. And we'll look more at that later 
when we actually get into what we're looking at this morning. 
But subsistence is an individual instance of a given essence. 
What is an essence? It may be simple to define essence 
this way, the whatness of a thing. Muller says, the essence is the 
essence or whatness of God. God is the only necessary self-existent 
being, or in other words, the only being in whom esse, or existence, 
and essentia, or essence, are inseparable. It is of the essence 
or whatness of God that God exists. Thus, the essence of God, as 
distinguished from the divine attributes, can be described 
as independent or self-subsistent spirit. The view of the divine 
essence coincides the scholastics note with the biblical self-description 
of God as the one who is, Exodus 3.14. So, subsistence is an individual 
instance of a given essence and essence is the whatness of God. All right. So, we looked also 
at the unity and equality of the Trinity maintained in the 
statement seen right at the beginning of one substance, power, and 
eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence 
undivided. So we have the oneness upheld. We have the threeness set forth. The identification of those three, 
Father, Word, or Son, and Holy Spirit, And then the unity maintained, 
unity and equality. They are not of different substances. We don't have the father of a 
greater substance, the son of a lesser substance, and the spirit 
of a lesser or different substance, but rather of one substance. 
They are all of one power. They all have the divine attribute 
of eternity, undivided and not distributed in percentage, but 
rather they all have eternality. each having the whole divine 
essence, yet the essence undivided. The constant reassertion that 
in the Trinity we do not have a Godhead divided into three. We do not have the Godhead, one 
third Father, one third Son, one third Holy Spirit, but rather 
we have God, all three persons having the essence, yet the essence 
undivided. And then we looked at the personal 
distinctions expressed and qualifications asserted We began to look at 
that, and that's what we'll continue to look at now. So the personal 
distinctions expressed and qualifications asserted. Notice 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. So there we have the personal 
distinctions expressed. If we were asked the question, 
well, what is What are the distinctions then between Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit? If you say that there are three 
subsistences in this divine and infinite being, then what are 
the distinctions? Well, the confession says, first 
with regards to the Father, the Father is of none, neither begotten 
nor proceeding. So the distinction that the Father 
has to the Son is that the Father is of none, and he is not forgotten 
the distinction that the father has with regards to the spirit 
is that the father does not proceed but rather it is the spirit alone 
who proceeds from the father with regards to the sun the distinction 
with regards to the sun is stated the sun is eternally begotten 
of the Father. And we noted last time that we 
need to remove from our understanding this idea of begotten, meaning 
God the Son having a beginning in time. Eternally begotten does 
not refer to the Son having a beginning at some point. We are not Arians 
saying that there was a time where the Son was not. He is 
eternally begotten of the Father. The Father is eternally Father 
by virtue of the eternal begottenness of the Son. The Son is eternally 
the Son by virtue of the eternal begetting of the Father. And 
we don't say that there was at some point in eternity a begetting 
of the Son, but rather past, present, and future from infinite 
to infinite, from eternity to eternity, The Son is always eternally 
begotten of the Father, and the Father always eternally generates 
the Son. We will have more time to look 
at that in more detail, I think, when we get to the doctrine of 
Christ in Chapter 8 of Christ the Mediator. But eternally begotten, 
again, does not mean that the Son is lesser than the Father 
in some sort of ontological order, that the Son is subordinate to 
the Father. but rather the distinction is 
maintained and set forth in the scriptures where the son is eternally 
begotten of the father. Not pertaining to a beginning, 
but rather to the eternal relationship of father to son and son to father. And the spirit then, what is 
the distinction with respect to the spirit? The Holy Spirit 
proceeding from the father and the son. We noted that the father 
gets his name not from his relationship to creation and his relationship 
to providence or his relationship to redemption, that sort of a 
thing, but rather with regards to the doctrine of God, the Father 
is the Father by virtue of his relationship to the Son. That's 
why we call the Father, Father in the sense of the Godhead. 
The same with the Son. Though he was born of the Virgin 
Mary, though there is this idea with regards to the mediation 
of Christ, that he has sonship with respect to the father's 
sending of him in his messianic mission. Nevertheless, with regards 
to the Godhead, son is the son eternally so by virtue of his 
relationship to the father. And same with the spirit. The 
spirit doesn't get his name because he is spirit ontologically as 
opposed to father and the son who aren't spirit. Remember, 
God is spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable. in his being 
and in all his attributes. But rather, the Holy Spirit gets 
his name by virtue of that metaphysical truth whereby he is breathed 
out or proceeds from the Father and the Son, and again, eternally 
so. So the personal distinctions we could summarize are expressed 
in generation, filiation, and spiration. That just means God 
the Father as the one who generates. The God the Son represents the 
filiation aspect of the distinction, the relationship of a son to 
a father, and then spiration, the breathing out of the spirit. So either paternity or generation, 
filiation and spiration, or the eternally unbegotten begetter, 
God the Father, the eternally begotten, God the Son, and the 
eternally proceeding God, the Holy Spirit. And so we must uphold these personal 
distinctions. And it is over and against any 
sort of modalistic construction. Remember, we noted that. It is 
not the case that we have a Unitarian God, whereby an instance of that 
God is not simultaneous with the other subsistences or instances 
of the essence, but rather there is a Unitarian God, God who is 
the Father, sometimes is the Son, and sometimes is the Spirit. 
Or that in time, in the works of creation, providence, and 
redemption, we have God the Father coming as the Son and then coming 
as the Spirit. Not modes of existence or modes 
of a Unitarian God, but rather persons subsistences within the 
divine and infinite being that is God. Once again, if there 
are questions at the end of this, please ask. There is a safety 
that we are to exercise as Christians when we study such a doctrine. And that is the safety of resting 
in the incomprehensibility of God, especially at the doctrine 
of the Trinity. Because it has been the case 
in the history of the church that those who have sought to 
comprehend God, remember, comprehend different from knowing. God has 
made us to know him by his spirit and in his scriptures. But you 
see, there are those who would like to merge these two concepts 
together, know and comprehend, so that we can grasp fully God 
and his being and his essence and his and his attributes fully 
within the grip of our minds. The confession upholds the fact 
that his essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself. This is cocks 
on the doctrine of the Trinity and something you see we are 
to have what one man has called an epistemic humility with regards 
to the doctrine of the Trinity. That just means that we are to 
have humility and knowing. We are not to be as it were Christians 
who stand up upon the pinnacle of something and look down upon 
the doctrine of the Trinity, taking it all in and understanding 
everything with regards to one and three. But rather, we are 
to have the posture of one upon the knee, upon our knees, looking 
up upon the glorious and incomprehensible pinnacle, which is the triune 
God and having and epistemic humility, a humility in knowing. Nehemiah Cox says, the scripture 
doth also instruct us concerning the subsistence of God or the 
manner of his being. And this is such a glorious mystery 
as by his word only is revealed to us. We cannot by reason comprehend 
it, but ought to adore it and by faith rest in his testimony 
concerning it." And just a little bit longer of a quote, Stephen 
Charnock on the existence and the attributes of God. You see, 
in understanding the triune God, we are not understanding God 
in his essence and being to exhaustion, but rather understanding what 
the scriptures reveal to us, or rather what God, enlisting 
to us through the scriptures, has revealed concerning himself. 
God in his kindness to man hath made revelations of himself, 
but his goodness is manifested in obliging us to believe him, 
not fully to understand him. He hath made them by sufficient 
testimonies as clear to our faith as they are incomprehensible 
to our reason. He hath revealed a trinity of 
persons in their distinct offices in the business of redemption 
without which revelation of a trinity we could not have a right notion 
and scheme of redeeming grace. God did not require of every 
Israelite, or of any of them that were stung by the fiery 
serpents, that they should understand or be able to discourse of the 
nature and qualities of that brass of which the serpent upon 
the pole was made, or what art that serpent was formed, or in 
what manner the sight of it did operate in them for their cure. 
It was enough that they did believe the institution and precept of 
God, and that their own cure was assured by it. It was enough 
if they cast their eyes upon it according to the direction. 
The understandings of men are of several sizes and elevations, 
one higher than another. If the condition of this covenant 
had been a greatness of knowledge, The most acute men had only enjoyed 
the benefits of it. But it is faith, which is as 
easy to be performed by the ignorant and simple as by the strongest 
and most towering mind. It is that which is within the 
compass of every man's understanding." So as we traffic in terms and 
phrases with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, because it is 
true, but it can be a complex subject to understand, nevertheless, 
we have And we must understand this truth of epistemic humility, 
humility in knowing. We will not comprehend God in 
the full grasp of our intellect. Nevertheless, it has been revealed 
to us the doctrine of God in the Holy Scriptures. So we have 
the personal distinctions expressed, but notice we have qualifications 
asserted. So we have 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. Now notice qualifications asserted 
all infinite without beginning, therefore, but one God. So we 
have this truth, though the Son is eternally begotten of the 
Father, and though the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father 
and the Son, yet all three are all infinite, yet all three are 
without beginning. So It is the case that Father, 
Son, and Holy Spirit are all co-infinite. There is not one 
that is more infinite than the other by virtue of the relationship 
of begottenness and procession, but rather all three are all 
infinite. It is not the case that any are 
without beginning because the language is used, begotten and 
proceeding, but rather that all are without beginning. The Holy 
Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father, the Father eternally 
begets the Son, The Son is eternally begotten and eternally breathes 
out, if you will, the Spirit. The Spirit eternally proceeds 
from both Father and Son. We noted as well that the personal 
distinctions given here are not, or the personal distinctions 
spoken of with regards to this final statement, or not the final 
statement, but the next statement, a summary statement regarding 
unity and personal distinction, And actually, let's just move 
on there now. Moving on from the personal distinctions expressed 
and qualifications asserted. These will come up again, but 
a summary statement regarding unity and personal distinction. 
Notice the confession continuing. But one God, therefore but one 
God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished 
by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations. So there is a summary statement 
regarding unity, therefore but one God. We have three persons 
or three subsistences, but remember, these are therefore but one God. We do not have a tritheism in 
Christianity. We do not have three divine essences. We do not have three divine substances. We do not have Three divines, 
but one divine, one divine and infinite being in three subsistences. Therefore, but one God who again 
is not to be divided in nature and in being. So we don't have, 
we cannot, remember, construe the triune God as the essence 
divided, or as the being divided, or as God divided into three 
persons, but rather All three persons are three subsistences 
in the divine and infinite being. Again, we do not have father 
one-third, son one-third, and spirit one-third. But rather, 
God is not to be divided in nature and in being. And then again, 
the distinctions reasserted. The distinctions reasserted here, 
but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties 
and personal relations. And this is important to understand 
that that language of peculiar relative properties and personal 
relations is speaking back to the intra-Trinitarian relationship 
of the three persons, not the outward operations of God in 
time and in history. So the several peculiar relative 
properties and personal relations, we can say, is not a reference 
to Ephesians 1, 3 to 14. Remember what we find in Ephesians 
1, 3 to 14, the predestination of the Father, the redemption 
of the Son, the guarantee and the sealing of the Holy Spirit 
unto the day of redemption. That is not what the Confession 
is talking about when it's talking about several peculiar relative 
properties and personal relations. We have to be careful in our 
understanding of the Trinity not to take what's been called 
the opera ad extra, the works outside of, or the works from 
without God, and reading ontological conclusions back into God. For 
example, when the Son is, when the Son, when Christ Himself 
speaks of the Father being greater than He, or when the Son speaks 
with regards to, you know, being sent and doing the work of the 
Father and submitting to the Father and We have language of 
subordination with regards to the Messiah Christ Jesus in his 
human mediatorial work. We are not to take that truth 
and then send it back to the triune God and say, therefore, 
ontologically speaking, or therefore, with regards to the being of 
God, the son as a personal subsistence in the divine and infinite being 
is less than the father or subordinate to the father. We cannot do that. 
So we cannot read redemptive work back to the triune God to 
construe some sort of relationship that is not true in the intra-Trinitarian 
relationship. And hopefully that example of 
the Son makes sense. Christ speaks with regards to 
the Father being greater. He speaks with regards to a submission 
to the Father. But there is no eternal submission 
or subordination of God the Son to God the Father. that has created 
many problems in the ancient church, in the church historically, 
and contemporaneous to ourselves, even among those who would call 
themselves Christian and Reformed. So we cannot say, we cannot argue 
from the mediatorial work of the God-man back to an ontological 
truth as it respects God the Son and the relationship of the 
Son to the Father. Again, if there's any questions 
about this, Any need for me to clarify anything, whether you're 
young or old here this morning, just talk to me afterwards. So 
the personal distinctions expressed and the qualifications asserted, 
a summary statement regarding unity and personal distinctions. Just to be clear, the several 
peculiar relative properties and personal relations are those 
only spoken before in the confession. The father is of none, neither 
begotten nor proceeding. The son is eternally begotten 
of the father. and the Holy Spirit proceeds 
from the Father and the Son. And then we have, lastly, a concluding 
statement regarding the doctrine's importance and application. Before 
we move on to some biblical proofs, a concluding statement regarding 
the doctrine's importance and application. Notice what the 
Confession says. Which doctrine of the Trinity 
is the foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable 
dependence on Him? The Savoy added that, as you 
can see in your comparison, the Westminster Confession of Faith 
did not have that concluding statement. The Savoy added it, 
probably at the behest of or the influence of John Owen, and 
the Baptists recognized its propriety and its status as a blessed summary 
or closing statement to the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the 
Trinity specifically. which doctrine of the Trinity 
is the foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable 
dependence on him. So you see the importance of 
the doctrine. It is a God of idolatry that 
anyone worships, even under the guise of so-called Christianity, 
if they do not affirm Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If they 
do not affirm in this divine and infinite being there are 
three subsistences, the Father, the sun and the Holy Spirit because 
well for many reasons but one of which a blessing to the Christian 
the doctrine of the Trinity is first off the foundation of all 
our communion with God on what that means John Owen there was 
no more glorious mystery brought to light in and by Jesus Christ 
than that of the Holy Trinity and this revelation is made unto 
us not that our minds might be possessed with the notions of 
it, but that we might know a right how to place our trust in Him, 
how to obey Him and live unto Him, how to obtain and exercise 
communion with Him until we come to the enjoyment of Him. When 
we talk about communion with the Holy Spirit or communion 
with the Triune God that The Trinity is the foundation of 
all our communion with God. What does that mean? I think 
very often the idea of communion can just be somewhere floating 
out there, and it's some sort of mystical thing that is just 
undefined. We have this mystical communion 
with God, maybe by virtue of our union with Jesus Christ, 
and it just is left with this sort of intangible or unknowable 
communion, or a definition of communion. But this is Jason 
Walter, who wrote a great paper called The Foundation of the 
Foundation, The Pastoral Importance of the Doctrine of the Trinity. 
Communion is Owen's preferred translation of the rich and also 
often misunderstood, scriptural term koinonia and its cognates, 
most frequently rendered fellowship in the English translations. 
The root idea is that of having something in common, of sharing 
or mutual participation. In Owen's own words, our communion 
then with God consists in his communication of himself unto 
us with our returnal unto him of that which he requireth and 
accepteth. Or later, it is that mutual communion in giving and 
receiving after a most holy and spiritual manner, which is between 
God and the saints while they walk together in a covenant of 
peace. Our communion with God, in other 
words, says Walter now, consists in everything that God does for 
and gives to us in salvation and in everything that we return 
to God in response. It is a two-way street, hence 
the idea of commonality in it all. Yet the initiative and power 
behind it is all of God. So you see, the communion that 
we have with God, or the Trinity is the foundation of our communion 
with God, you think of it in the context of prayer. Our prayers 
would be empty and in vain if we were praying to a Unitarian 
God who is not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But rather, normatively 
we may say, we pray to the Father through the Son by the power 
of the Holy Spirit. We think of worship. We are to 
worship God, the Father, in spirit and in truth. The triune aspect 
of worship, we come to worship and we're worshiping not a dagon 
of Unitarianism, but rather the living and true God of Trinitarianism. We worship God, the Father, God, 
the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. We think of redemption. And our 
redemption is, if we think of the beautiful passage of Ephesians 
1, 3 to 14, and there we have triune perfect and salvation, 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Father predestinating, the 
Son redeeming all those predestinated, and the Spirit applying the benefits 
and sealing and guaranteeing all those who were predestinated 
and redeemed. And so we have in the means appointed 
by God, the Lord's Supper. Think of the Lord's Supper for 
a moment. We have God the Father blessing us by virtue of Christ's 
atoning work and Christ himself as well. Because remember, the 
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. We have blessings 
by virtue of Christ coming to us in the Holy Spirit at the 
Lord's Supper. The confession of faith speaks 
to that. in the chapter on the Lord's Supper, as well as the 
chapter on saving faith. And in chapter 14, we have wonderful 
language that speaks to this communion with God. And in chapter 
14, where we have in paragraph one, the grace of faith whereby 
the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls 
is the work of the spirit of Christ in their hearts and is 
ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the word by which also and 
by the administration of baptism in the Lord's Supper. prayer 
and other means appointed of God, it is increased and strengthened. So this trinity is the foundation 
of our communion with God can be seen in the Lord's Supper 
as well, whereby our faith is strengthened by those means that 
God has appointed. God the Father, by virtue of 
the perfect work of the Son, and the Son as well in his exalted 
state, sending by the Holy Spirit the benefits of redemption for 
the food of our souls. And so we have this doctrine 
of the Trinity as a foundation for communion with God. Also, comfortable dependence. 
Comfortable dependence. And Walter notes here that this 
probably has to do with assurance of salvation by the triune God. So comfortable dependence would 
speak to comfort. Not physical comfort, but spiritual 
comfort that we have in the triune God by virtue of that stuff of 
Ephesians 1, 3 to 14. And I think we see this in chapter 
17 in paragraph 2, where we read, this perseverance of the saints 
depends not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability 
of the decree of election flowing from the free and unchangeable 
love of God the Father. upon the efficacy of the merit 
and intercession of Jesus Christ and union with Him, the oath 
of God, the abiding of His Spirit, and the seed of God within them, 
and the nature of the covenant of grace, from all which ariseth 
also the certainty and infallibility thereof." So our comfortable 
dependence on God, the assurance that we have in God, the consolation, 
if you will, that we have in the hope of the promise of God, 
the stuff of Hebrews 6, It cannot rest in a Unitarian conception 
of God. It only rests in that foundational 
doctrine of Christianity, which is that in this divine and infinite 
being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Spirit. Walter, on that, before we look 
at some scriptural proofs, Owen's common description of what we 
now more commonly call assurance was the phrase comfortable persuasion. As is clear even from the title 
of his book, Owen considered this comfort or consolation to 
be the particular gift of the third person of the Trinity, 
the Divine Comforter. As such, this second phrase of 
our passage in the Confession ought to be understood not as 
a blessing completely separate from the first, rather our comfortable 
dependence on God is to be understood as one specific facet of our 
overall communion with God. a facet with Owen and our Baptist 
forefathers determined was deserving of special emphasis in this context. So if we were to go to the scriptures 
then and to see some proofs for the doctrine of the Trinity, 
where would we go? Well, first off, in the Old Testament, 
we would want to note where God speaks with regards to a revelation 
of plurality in Genesis 1. For example, we have that wonderful 
language in verse 26, where a seed of Trinitarian theology is sown, 
Genesis 1 and verse 26, then God said, let us make man in 
our image according to our likeness. What is the us or who is the 
us and what is the our? Well, it's speaking not with 
regards to God taking up a council of angels, which is one of the 
attacks or arguments of Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals that 
God here is speaking to the angels. Would God bring into his divine 
courtroom or his counseling chamber, to use the language of men, angels 
and discuss with them how he ought to make men? It's not speaking 
to angels here, but rather it's a seed form revelation of what we have in 
full flower in the New Testament, the plurality of the Godhead. 
We have the triune God here, and the very least, we have plurality, 
which Trinitarian specificity is brought later in Revelation. But nevertheless, then God said, 
let us make man in our image. Again, in Genesis 11 and verse 
7, we have the same language there. Come, let us go down, 
and there confuse their language. The incident of the Tower of 
Babel, we have plurality. At creation, we have plurality. And then in the confounding of 
the Babel idolaters and the Babel humanists, if you will, we have 
plurality brought forth. Let us go down. We have the angel 
of the Lord identified with and as God, yet distinguished from 
him. For example, in places like Genesis 
16, 13 to 17, The angel of the Lord brought 
forth there where we have identified as or with God and nevertheless 
or also distinguished from God. In the account there with Hagar, 
the angel of the Lord said to her, I will multiply your descendants 
exceedingly. Getting down to verse 13, then 
she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, you are the 
God who sees. So in verse 10, then the angel 
of the Lord said to her, verse 13, then she called the name 
of the Lord who spoke to her, you are the God who sees, for 
she said, have I also there seen him who sees me, et cetera. We have in Genesis 19 the same 
thing. In Genesis, excuse me, generous, 
Genesis 19, 24, then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on 
Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord, out of the heavens. So we have 
two Yahweh's, two Jehovah's here spoken of distinct from one another 
and yet identified by or with that name of God. Genesis 19-24. And you'll remember Pastor Butler 
preaching on Judges 13. Shall we not die because we have 
seen God in that narrative concerning the angel of the Lord. We have 
word or wisdom personified. In Psalm 33, 4, and 6, you can 
just make a note of these, Proverbs 8, 12 to 31, we have word and 
or wisdom personified, and not as a convention of literature, 
but with no doubt the triune God in the background at that 
point, the Son of God. We have multiple persons mentioned 
in a text with divine designation. Notice in Psalm 45, and you can 
turn to that one, in Psalm 45, In this text, we have what is 
exegeted, brought forth by the Apostle Paul in the book of Hebrews. But in Psalm 45 and at verse 
6, we read with respect to multiple persons mentioned in the text 
with divine designation. Notice, your throne, O God, is 
forever and ever. A scepter of righteousness is 
the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate 
wickedness. Therefore, your God has anointed 
you with the oil of gladness more than your companions. In 
the Genesis 1 argument at the outset, Paul says, and to the 
Son he also says. And so we have divine designation 
given and two persons spoken of in Psalm 45. We have thus, Bovink stating, 
thus the OT carries with it a clear anticipation of the fuller revelation 
of the Trinity in the New Testament. And so when we come to the New 
Testament, then, we see things in that greater light with the 
chamber no longer dimly lighted, but rather illuminated to its 
fullness. And we see, first off, the Son in the capacity as Redeemer. For example, in the Old Testament, 
we have God spoken of as Savior and Redeemer. And that identical 
language in the New Testament is applied to Jesus Christ, the 
Son of God. You can turn to Isaiah 43 for 
a moment to look at this comparison. In Isaiah 43, we have in verses 
3, in verses 311 and in 14. Notice, first verse 3, for I 
am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. In verse 11 we have I even I 
am the Lord and besides me there is no Savior and then verse 14 
thus says the Lord your Redeemer the Holy One of Israel. Well 
now turn to Titus 2 13 and 14 because we have both titles given 
to the Lord Jesus Christ there looking for the blessed hope 
and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 
who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from every 
lawless deed and purify for himself his own special people, zealous 
for good works. So we have, in the Old Testament, 
God as the only Savior and the only Redeemer. But we have, first 
off here, an explicit statement with regards to Christ's deity, 
our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, those two things true 
of Christ. who gave himself for us that 
he might redeem us. So if it is the case in the Unitarian 
conception or in those who reject the deity of Christ or the Trinity 
that it is God alone who is Savior and Redeemer, then they certainly 
run into trouble in the New Testament where these things are spoken 
of with respect to the Son. The Spirit as the one who dwells 
in his people and in the New Testament Church. It's a very 
interesting text in Psalm 74 too. You can turn there in Psalm 
74.2 and then in a New Testament parallel or New Testament understanding 
of it. But in Psalm 74.2, we read this. Remember your congregation which 
you have purchased of old, the tribe of your inheritance which 
you have redeemed, this Mount Zion where you have dwelt. We have this language in Ephesians 
1 and elsewhere in the Holy Scriptures, but the language of Ephesians 
1 where the Holy Spirit is the seal and the guarantee given 
to the church. We have the language of Ezekiel 
43 carried into the New Testament with regards to the Spirit who 
dwells in the hearts of believers. And so those things spoken of 
God, we have spoken of with respect to the Spirit in the New Testament. And it's an interesting language 
here. Purchased, tribe of your inheritance which you have redeemed, 
and Mount Zion where you have dwelt. Shadows, if you will, 
of the substance of the Trinity in the New Testament. We have 
in the New Testament as well the sending of the Son by the 
Father. John 3.16 and Galatians 4.4. The sending of the Son by 
the Father. This is not a modalistic conception 
of God, but rather a simultaneously a simultaneously existing if 
you will subsistence is within the Godhead one sending the other 
Galatians for for John 316 the sending of the spirit by the 
sun and the father John 1426 John 1526 and John 167 there 
we read that the sun sends the Spirit, but also the 
Father sends the Spirit. We have the Father addressing 
the Son, the Son communing with the Father, and the Spirit praying 
to God in the hearts of believers. But probably two of the most 
glorious texts that speak to this truth of the doctrine of 
the Trinity and disclose the simultaneousness of Father, Son, 
and Holy Spirit, a non-modal but rather Trinitarian presentation 
We have first in Matthew 3, then in Matthew 28. In Matthew 3, we find the baptism of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. And there we see, beginning in 
verse 13, this blessed doctrine brought forth in clarity. Then 
Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized 
with him. And John tried to prevent him, saying, I need to be baptized 
by you. And are you coming to me? But 
Jesus answered and said to him, Permit it to be so now, for thus 
it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness. Then he allowed 
him. When he had been baptized, Jesus 
came up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens 
were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending 
like a dove and alighting upon him. And suddenly a voice came 
from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased. You see, all three persons of 
the Blessed Trinity Here, the Son of God in the waters. Spurgeon 
said, we have reason to suspect the conscious water trembled 
by the knowledge that it contained the deity. We have the Spirit 
descending like a dove and alighting upon him. And we have the Father 
speaking from heaven. This is my beloved Son in whom 
I am well pleased. In Matthew 28, we have the doctrine 
of the Trinity brought out with clarity as well in verse 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 the nations baptizing them in the name of the father and 
of the son and of the Holy Spirit we have at the baptism of Christ 
the Trinity and then this command to baptize all in the formulation 
of the singular name of The plural representatives with respect 
to the Godhead, representative is probably not the best term, 
but the three subsistences or persons in that infinite and 
divine being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So we have wonderful 
texts in those two that speak with great clarity to the doctrine 
of the Trinity. And you can ask questions here 
in a moment after we pray, but we've got about a minute left. 
We'll look at one of these in more detail when we get to the 
doctrine of Christ. The doctrine of the Trinity is 
clear, and we did a little bit of this last time, but it's clear 
from the doctrine of the deity of the sun, the deity of the 
sun. We have divine titles applied 
to Christ in. Well, first off, we have God 
explicitly or Christ explicitly called God in the New Testament. John one, one, John, twenty, 
twenty eight, Romans nine, five, the eternally and blessed God. We have divine titles applied 
to Christ, Isaiah 9, 6. That son that is born and that 
child that is given is wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting 
father, prince of peace. 1 Timothy 3, 16, God was manifested 
in the flesh. We have divine attributes ascribed 
to Christ, eternality in Isaiah 9, 6, everlasting father. Micah 5, 2, this one who comes 
to the Smallest of cities, Bethlehem, is one who is of everlasting. 
John 1, 1 and 2, to be sure. Omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence, 
all spoken of with regards to Christ, immutability, divine 
works performed, creating providence, the forgiveness of sins. These 
things mount upon one another and the evidence mounts and is 
overbearing.