You can turn in your confessions to chapter 2. Remember, it's what we are studying, what we have been studying in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677 forward slash 1689. We're now at the paragraph concerning the Trinity, paragraph 3. I'll read paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, though, as we get into this important study of the Blessed Trinity. So, paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. The Lord our God is but one 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, or 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 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." So we're now at paragraph three, a study in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. And just by way of a very brief review, we have looked at the confession in the stuff of paragraphs one and two, the essence and the attributes of God, focusing first off on the unity of God. And a qualification there, because when we study the unity of God, we are not studying unity to the exclusion of Trinity. When we talked about the unity of God, we had occasion to note that that has to do with the unity of singularity, which simply means that God's essence cannot be divided, that God's essence cannot be multiplied, and maybe more recognizable that God is, the triune God of Holy Scripture, is the only living and true God. There is only one God, the living and true God revealed in the Holy Scriptures. We noted as well that there is the unity of simplicity, that God is without parts. Some of the rest of the confession in paragraphs one and two speaks to that reality, that God is without parts. He is not the sum of his attributes. He is not composed of perfections, but rather is identical with all of those things that we attribute to him. God is love. And so when we study unity, we are not saying that God is not triune, but rather those things that we have already stated. And that will come up more as we study. As we study paragraph three, it must be understood that all of those things that we looked at with regards to God in his essence and attributes are true of each of the three persons of the Trinity. In other words, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are true of all the three persons of the blessed triune God. It's not the case that the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipresent, and the Spirit is omniscient, or that the Father only has those three things. communicates them in a small measure to the other two or some strange idea, but rather that all three have everything. And what is true of everything in paragraphs one and two is true of the three that are brought out in paragraph three. The importance of the doctrine of the Trinity, some introductory matters here before we look at the sum and substance of paragraph three there, but the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. essential and foundational truth in Christianity and for Christianity. If Christianity is to truly be Christianity, it must be radically Trinitarian. It must be explicitly Trinitarian. It must be evangelically Trinitarian. It must be apologetically Trinitarian. And it must be polemically Trinitarian. In other words, as we go about our Christian lives, and maybe more specifically within the context of church and worship, our church and worship or Christianity is to be explicitly Trinitarian. We are not to somehow whisper the Trinity as we gather together as a church, but we are to be outwardly and explicitly Trinitarian, recognizing father, son, and Holy Spirit. It is to be evangelically Trinitarian, that is, in our proclamation of the Gospel, we are preaching concerning the saving perfections of the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is to be, we are to be, Christianity is to be apologetically Trinitarian, that is, we defend the faith as it concerns Trinitarian theology. We are to defend against those attacks of the heretics, even within the ranks of those who might call themselves Christian, we are to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and we are to be polemically Trinitarian. That is, we attack the strongholds of heresy, those who would be anti-Trinitarian. We tear down the daggons, if you will, of modalism, of tritheism, of subordinationism, so that we ensure the pristine doctrine of the triune God is upheld and believed. It is a foundational doctrine, and so therefore it is not an ivory tower doctrine. It's not something that only the doctors of divinity are to be concerned with. But if it is the case, as our confession states, that the doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence on Him, then the doctrine of the Trinity is as much for the shepherd boy as it is for the wise men from the east. The doctrine of the Trinity is as much for the seller of linen and the Macedonian corrections officer as it is for the doctors of divinity. And so it is foundational. Therefore, it is not the stuff. It is high and lofty, but it is for the mechanic as much as it is for the Doctor of Theology. This doctrine of the Trinity is now and has been before and no doubt always will be under attack. From the outset of Christianity in the first century to our present day, there have been those who have sought to destroy the doctrine of the Trinity that have taught against it. We have seen within Christendom, if we can use that term, people deviating from and attacking and distorting and confounding the doctrine of the Trinity as it is set forth in the Holy Scriptures and that will no doubt come out or will have occasion to allude to various heresies as we work through the doctrine of the Trinity. So that's the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. Secondly, the classical and reformed pedigree of the particular Baptists. There is a heritage that the particular Baptists uphold and perpetuate in their formulation in paragraph three. First off, the classical pedigree. And when we say classical, we're talking about the creedal formulations of the Trinity in the early church. The Baptists do not depart from the creedal history of the first five centuries of the church, but rather uphold and reiterate the formulations of the ancient divines. In paragraph three, we can hear the ancient divines speaking to us through the language upheld here in this paragraph by the Baptists. The stuff of the Nicene Council, the Constantinopolitan Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed in 451, the Athanasian Creed as well. We hear the language coming through and upheld affirmed by the Baptists. So we need to see that the Baptists did not say, OK, those old and ancient divines did not formulate it properly. Let's revise and reformulate. But rather, they recognized the brilliance and the genius that the fathers had in formulating and defending the doctrine of the Trinity from the scriptures, and so upheld and perpetuated those truths that they set forth and formulated. The reformed pedigree. The Baptists do not differ from their Presbyterian and congregational contemporaries, but are theologically and terminologically in step with the Westminster and Savoy documents, as well as the reformers that preceded in the 16th century. So they are in line with, they have that classical and reformed pedigree. There is a consistency, a continuation of this doctrine the outset of Christianity in the first century up until this point, and by virtue of the fact that we're now studying it in the year 2014, it continues. Thirdly, the technical and terminological improvements. Kids, terminological simply means talking about terms, the use of words and the use of phrases. So the technical and terminological improvements of the reformed Baptists, there are additions and changes compared with the Westminster Confession of Faith and with the Savoy Declaration. Not theological changes, they're not improving anything theologically, but they're providing or expanding and bringing out nuances with regards to the Trinity. The paragraph three in the Baptist Confession here is twice the size as the Westminster Confession of Faith. They add in this divine and infinite being, there are three subsistences, and they change persons to subsistences. And we'll look at that in a little bit more detail later. They include the last statement that the Savoy added, which doctrine of the Trinity is, et cetera. And there are some other phrases. There are some other phrases and words that they add here. And in fact, it is almost a verbatim repetition of the first Baptist confession of faith of 1644, and maybe more particularly, the revised edition of 1646. So just to note that. There are technical and terminological improvements that the particular Baptists made. but not theological differences. And some things to consider as, remember, when we opened up with the doctrine of God a number of Sundays ago, we talked about interpretive helps and aids as we study the God of Holy Scripture. Here are some things specifically with regards to the Trinity that we can keep in the back of our minds. First, the foundation of the doctrine is the Holy Scripture. Contrary to the attacks of anti-Trinitarians, contrary to the attacks of those who would claim to be Christian and yet deny the Trinity, it is not the case that the doctrine of the Trinity finds its foundations in the formulations of the early church. In other words, those divines of, let's say, the Nicene Council, didn't run or rail against primitive and pristine Christianity and now saying God is The nature of God is such that in this divine and infinite being there are three persons or subsist subsistences But rather the foundation of the Holy Scripture or rather the foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity is the Holy Scriptures not the early church that in for in some way deviated from pristine Christianity the early church fathers in formulating the creeds were upholding and opening up the Holy Scriptures as it speaks to the Trinity in order to oppose those who were contra the Scriptures at this point. And in the Scriptures we find three foundational assertions regarding the Trinity. Three foundational assertions regarding the Trinity and these are as summarized by James White in his book, The Forgotten Trinity. The first foundation is this, Monotheism the stuff of Deuteronomy 6 for the first Corinthians 8 6 other passages but monotheism there is but one living and true God the second foundation is there are three distinct persons So the first foundation monotheism the second foundation in this divine and infinite being there are three subsistences and then the third foundation is the persons are co-equal and co-eternal. So really, the foundations, those foundations are found. In fact, that could be a nice little outline of chapter two. Monotheism, paragraphs one and two, and the attributes of that one God, and then paragraph three, the persons, the distinct persons and their co-equality and co-eternality. Secondly, the revelatory development or disclosure of the doctrine of the Trinity. The revelatory development or disclosure of the doctrine of the Trinity. And kids, that just means, whenever we talk revelatory, that just simply means God's revelation to us, generally speaking. So God has revealed, revelatory, the revelatory disclosure of the Trinity. And this is bobbing on this point, the revelatory development of the Trinity in the scriptures. While the true development of the Trinitarian ideas of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, the seeds that developed into the full flower of New Testament Trinitarian revelation are already planted in the Old Testament. In the economy of the New Testament, more specifically, in the events of the incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Spirit, this one true God reveals himself as Father, Son, and Spirit. In other words, we don't have the full flower of the Trinity revealed in Genesis chapter 1. We don't have that full flower revealed to us, but rather the seeds are planted by divine design in Old Covenant revelation and then are fully revealed in the New Testament in that full flower that blooms as we see in the incarnation and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. That doesn't mean that somehow ontologically God was not a Trinity prior to the Incarnation, but much rather that in terms of God revealing himself, he's free to reveal himself, his nature and his being as he sees fit in the Holy Scriptures. One man has put it this way, that the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament is like a chamber dimly lighted. When we get to the New Testament, the light of the New Testament shines, and it doesn't reveal anything that was not there before. It doesn't introduce new furniture and new aspects to the chamber, but rather shines the light with more clarity on what was already there in the Old Testament. So a chamber dimly lighted, the Trinity in the Old Testament. The New Testament, the light is turned on, and we see what was no doubt there before in seed form. the propriety and utility of extra-biblical language. Propriety simply means the rightness or the appropriateness of something. So the propriety of extra-biblical language, the creeds, and our reformed confession uses language that we don't find in the scriptures, but it is useful and it is right to do so in order to formulate and preach the doctrine and as well in order to combat those who contradict. So the propriety and utility of extra-biblical language. And then lastly, the abiding relevance of Trinitarian apologetics. That simply means that we are to defend the Trinity. There is the necessity to defend the Trinity until Christ comes again. Because there have always been anti-Trinitarians out there lurking in the weeds and they're in the churches, they're out there seeking to tear away the stuff of our communion with God and comfortable dependence on him. The time of the writing, you see, in the 17th century, we don't have the time of the writing of our confession, we don't have the, you know, the landscape of Christianity wasn't such that everybody just skipped along affirming Trinitarianism. The confession is delivered to us in the landscape of anti-Trinitarian theology. Prior to the penning of this confession and actually contemporaneous to at the same time as the first London Confession of Faith, there were those such as Paul Best and John Biddle who were preaching a Unitarian God, a God that is not triune, saying the sort of the stuff of Sassanianism before them, that there is one God, the Father, and there is Christ or the Son of another substance or created, and the Spirit some sort of impersonal force. That may be simplistic, but the point is at the time of the writing of the confession there were those who claimed to be pristine Christians who were saying that the Trinity is a farce and if you believe this doctrine you are not believing in the God of Holy Scripture. And so there was a necessity to formulate and to uphold the ancient and pure doctrine of the Trinity in the face of such attacks. John Owen, of the Savoy Declaration and Francis Channel of the Westminster Assembly were two prominent Trinitarian apologists who attacked Best and Biddle and those like them in defending the true doctrine of the Trinity. So the confession, the framers of the confession are writing recognizing ancient heresy leading up to their particular time targeting those in their own era who were anti-Trinitarian, and no doubt for the prosperity of the church, those who follow, providing a formulation that we, 400 years, well not 400 years, but however many years later from 1689, if anybody wants to do the quick math, 325, 325 years later we have this deposit of truth and apologetic in order to affirm with great faith the doctrine of the Trinity. So let's move in then to the stuff of the paragraph. The stuff of the paragraph. And there are five things that we'll look at. Five things that we will look at. First, the doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained. The doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained. And we see that in the very first statement. In this divine and infinite being, There are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit. So there we have the doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained. Notice first the oneness and the threeness of God are clearly stated there at the beginning of paragraph three. In this divine and infinite being, the oneness of God is upheld. It's singular in this divine and infinite being. In this one being that is God, the oneness of God is upheld. We do not have, in the case of the Trinity, or we do have, let's say positively, in the case of the Trinity, one in one way and three in another way. Negatively speaking, we cannot say with the Trinity that we have one in one way and then three, in that same way. In other words, we don't say one being that is God and three beings that are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We don't say the one person of God who is also in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but rather we have one in one way in this divine and infinite being and then three in another way in that divine and infinite being there are three subsistences so we do not have one God yet three gods we do not have one being but also three beings we do not have one essence and three essences remember the essence undivided and the essence not multiplied and we do not have one person and three persons but quite clearly we have one God in three persons blessed Trinity in this divine and infinite being there are three subsistences secondly The three are identified by name. The three are identified by name. This is Richard Barcelos quoting Hodge. As Hodge said, we must realize that these titles, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are not different names of the same person in different relations, but of different persons. And then Barcelos continues, the names are not descriptions of the same person existing in different modes or manifestations, but official titles for distinct persons who share the same essential properties of divinity. This sharing of the essential properties of divinity is asserted in the very next section of the Confession. The fact that there are three persons within the Godhead can be seen in the following text, which we will look at in a moment. But this must be understood, we identify three persons or God reveals himself in three persons. And in that we don't have three modes of the same being or three modes of the same person. We don't have three manifestations of the one being or one person, but rather we have three distinct persons in this one divine and infinite being. Why do we need to, well hopefully we already covered that in the introduction, but why do we need to study this? Because churches are being planted that are unitarian, that are oneness, that deny the Trinity today. A number of years ago, James White debated a fellow by the name of Roger Perkins, I believe a oneness Pentecostal. And he, In his introduction, he said that I'm planning a church, or when I return from Australia, where the debate was held, I'm going to be planning another oneness church. That's horrible. There are people who call themselves Christian out there that reject the Trinity. Remember, we said earlier that Christianity is to be radically Trinitarian. It must be explicitly and evangelically so. Well, in the evangel of the oneness Pentecostals, they are explicitly anti-Trinitarian, radically anti-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as defined by the historic church. And so this is most certainly relevant. So when we talk about persons, we're not talking about that modally, where God becomes, or the Father becomes the Son in the incarnation, and then the Son becomes the Spirit at the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, or something like that. Or that that one God is in three manifestations. He manifests himself as father, he manifests himself as son, and he manifests himself as spirit. Those are heretical and damnable, but rather we have three persons distinct and distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations in the divine and infinite being God. So the three are identified by name. First off, we have the father. And we need to understand that when we study the father or consider the father with respect to the trinity, he is not named such by virtue of his relation to creation or his creatures. So when we talk about the father as it respects the trinity, we're not calling the father the father because of his creative fatherhood over humanity. and all things. The Bible does use that language with regards to divine fatherhood, Acts 17, 28. We are not referring to the father's fatherhood with regards to his theocratic relationship to the nation of Israel. In the Old Testament, that simply means God as the ruler and the king over his son Israel. That's not where we get the name Father as it respects the Trinity. As well, the redemptive fatherhood of the Father in the New Covenant, for example, when we get to passages such as Romans 8, 15 and Galatians, in Galatians 4, 4 to 7, where it talks about the fact that we've been redeemed and we've been given the adoptions as sons, whereby through the Spirit we cry out, Abba, Father. That is not how we see in the Trinity the father or how the father gets his name with respect to the study of God. Though all of those things are true, he is a creative father. He is a theocratic father. He was a theocratic father. He is a redemptive father. We are his sons by adoption through Jesus Christ the Lord. But rather, the father, as we study the Trinity, is the father in, as Bavinck says, a unique metaphysical sense. A unique metaphysical sense. When we say metaphysical, we might equate that with ontological, which, again, is studying the nature and the being and the existence of things. So when we talk about being the Father in a unique metaphysical sense, we could say, as it pertains to the being of God, the Father is named the Father. And what do we mean by that? Well, simply, as we get later down in the paragraph, the Father is the Father by virtue of his relationship to the Son, and reciprocally so. So again, the Father is not in the Trinity, the Father, because of the identification that he is the father creatively, theocratically, or redemptively, but rather metaphysically so. Because we read, the father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding, the son is eternally begotten of the father. So the father is the father by virtue of that inner Trinitarian relationship to the son. We see this, we see that with regards to the Godhead in John 14, 6 to 13. in other places, but in John 14, 6 to 13, and in John 17, 25 and 26. Remember when Jesus is praying with respect to the father, I and my father are one. And so we have the fatherhood of God specifically in relation to the son. We have the person, and this is Barcelos again, the personhood of the father is proved from the following texts. Matthew 6, 9, and Matthew 28, 19 to 20, he has a name or a personal identity. In that Great Commission, we see that baptistic formula, if you will, the manner in which a recipient of the ordinance of baptism is to be baptized is in the name of the father and of the son. and of the Holy Spirit. We have the fact that God knows his personality in Psalm 139 1-4 and in Hebrews 4.13 and then he loves in John 3.16 and 14.21 and then he makes choices. This is just with regards to his personality Romans 9.18, Ephesians 1.4 and 1st Peter 1.1-2. So we have the Father, we have the Word or Son. not name such son because of his incarnate birth or as the Messiah. So again, as with the father, the son does not gain his name with respect to the being of God and the three subsistences in this divine and infinite being by virtue of him being born of the Virgin Mary in the incarnation or by virtue of him being the anti-typical son of God in his messianic role to which the typical sonhood of Israel pointed forward. All of that to say that the Son of God gets his name or that the Son of God is such by virtue of or in a metaphysical sense by nature and from eternity, John 118 and John 316. We have there the sonhood of the Son, not by virtue again of something that happens at or after the incarnation, but by virtue of an eternal truth within the divine and infinite being that is God. So the Father is the Father in that metaphysical sense, by virtue of the nature and the being of God, and so is the Son. We have that self-same idea regarding the personhood of the Son proved in texts such as Matthew 1, 21, 28, 19 to 20. We do have the fact of his knowing, his loving, and his making of choices, as Barcelos brings out to argue for his personality. In other words, there are those errors in the history of the Church, and that abide today, that would say that we have, in Oneness Pentecostalism, for example, we have God the Father and the Son is not real in a pre-incarnate state, but rather the Logos is simply an idea in the mind of God that is brought to bear in the incarnation and made flesh in the incarnation. So when it speaks of, in this heresy, when it speaks of the word became flesh, it wasn't the son of God eternally abiding in this divine and infinite being. But rather, it was this eternal idea in the mind of God, impersonal, that was made flesh in the incarnation. And so when we study the Son, it is that we are studying, or the word of God, John 1.1, it is that we are studying a personal subsistence in the Trinity that was and is eternally so. There is personhood, both with regards to the Father and with regards to the Son. Now the spirit. So we have father, the word or son, and we have the spirit and the spirit is not named such because of some sort of distinction whereby he is spirit as opposed to the father and the son, the son, you know, the son, the father and the son are something else, but the Holy Spirit is spirit ontologically. So as opposed to father and son, but rather, He owes his name, as Bobbink says, to his special mode of subsistence. Spirit actually means wind or breath. So just as the father gets his name by virtue of him begetting eternally the son, and the son gets his name by virtue of being eternally begotten of the father, the spirit gets his name by virtue of being eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. So that's why we see here Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and we see their names, really the reality or the foundation of their names given in this statement, 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. The Spirit gets his name by virtue of that distinction. proceeding from the father and the son. The son gets his name by virtue of this distinction. He is eternally begotten of the father. And the father of none gets his distinct name by being the one who begets or the one who eternally generates the son. Now, again, if there are any questions after this, kids, words, statements, anything, write them down. I'll happily answer them for you. Adults, same thing. When we close in prayer in 20 minutes, if there are any questions, please feel free to ask. As we work through these things, there are important things. And I don't want anything to get lost in the technical language. I don't want anything to get lost in these important formulations that we study. So if there are any questions, by all means, please ask when we close after prayer. A note on the language of subsistences as it's found in this first statement. Note that we read, in this divine and infinite being, there are three subsistences. In the other two confessions that preceded the London Baptist, we have the language of, in fact, I have it here. I didn't print it out, but let me just read it for you, because the language is theologically the same, but it is different when we read it. In the Westminster and the Savoy, we read at the beginning of paragraph three, in the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons. In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons. And here in ours, we have in this divine and infinite being, there are three subsistences. I would submit that the Baptist Confession is better in the sense that it improved terminologically the language with respect to the Trinity. It is not theologically different, but it is a better and an improved formulation. This is Sam Renahan on subsistences versus person. Why the change? 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. In other words, when the word person is used, though we can use it and though we can sing it, when it is used, perhaps in a person that might not understand or be able to distinguish, they have a preconception in their mind of human personhood and individuality separate from one thing. In human personhood, we all share or we all have the essence of human beingness, if you will, but we are all separate individuals and we do not all have wholly the essence of human beingness. We're separate. We don't have a unity. But in the infinite, in the infinitude of God, the eternal and divine and infinite being, This reality of personhood is not to be conceived as just a greater and exalted version of human personhood, but rather it is much different. In fact, Boevinck says there is no similar meaning in person as used with father, son, and spirit as with human persons. And so subsistence is just better language, if you will, in order to bring out this, the unity and the trinity of God, in connecting a person, whether father, son, and spirit, to the divine singular and unique essence of deity. So the Baptists chose to use that word. Again, Sam Renahan, a careful examination and comparison of the Second London Baptist Confession and Westminster Confession yields a variety of differences and nuances, some more obvious than others. One such difference is found in the second chapter of God and of the Holy Trinity, The London Confession is considerably more detailed and technical in its formulation of the doctrine of God, which is not to imply any lack of orthodoxy on the part of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This technicality is seen in the Baptist Confession's use of subsistence instead of person. So if there are any questions about that afterwards, just let me know. But to sum it up, Bob Incke says, in the dogma of the Trinity, the word person simply means that the three persons in the divine being are not modes, but have a distinct existence of their own. So as opposed to a modalism where there is no real definable distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there is in person a distinction made to put away those notions of modality or manifestation. with regards to a unitarian conception of God. God truly is God in three persons, blessed Trinity. Secondly, we have, so that's the doctrine of the Trinity summarily contained in that first statement. Secondly, we have the unity and the equality of the Trinity maintained. Notice the confession continues, of one substance, power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence yet the essence undivided. So we have the unity and the equality of the Trinity maintained. They are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of one substance. There has been in the history of heretical Christianity the notion that they are not of one substance. For example, that the Father is of one substance, but the son is of either a like or a different substance. There is battles in the early church over language and over concepts and over theological conclusions with regards to the Trinity. Is the Trinity, or do we have in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all three of one substance? Yes, historic Christianity says, and so do our particular Baptist forefathers, Or do we have the father of one substance greater, and then the son of either a like or a different substance, and then the spirit likewise? So the confession upholds the necessary commitment that in the distinction of the persons, we nevertheless have the fact that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance. We would see this in that all of the persons are called God, in that all of the persons are called God. For example, first, in 1 Corinthians 8.6, we have the Father. In 1 Corinthians 8.6, we could see the persons called God. So one of the ways that we would go to the Bible and say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one substance would simply be to go to passages in the scriptures where we see that all the persons are called God, in 1 Corinthians 8 and verse 6. Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. So we have there the Father and the person of the Father called God. If we turn to John 1-1, a passage that should be very well known by each and every one of us, we have the person of the Son called God. In John 1-1, we have, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And in that simple statement in that sent in that glorious sentence. We have the eternality of this person of the divine and infinite being God set forth in the beginning was the word that the word had an eternal preexistence before coming into the flesh. And in time and in history, we have the eternal preexistence of the sun or the word. We have a distinction between the word and the Father, the Word or Son, and the Father, and the Word was with God. And even in that distinction, we nevertheless have communion. There is distinction, the Word was with God, but we have the with. There is distinction and there is intimate communion. And then we have the fact that the Word was, by His very nature, God. Notice again, and the Word was God. So we have most certainly The reality that the father is called God and the son is called God. We also have the son called God in Romans 9 5. Wonderful text speaking to the deity of the sun. In Romans 9 and verse 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is overall the eternally blessed God. Amen. And then the deity of the Spirit set forth in one among other places, but set forth in Acts 5, 3 to 4. In Acts 5, 3 to 4. So these are texts that argue for this reality that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one substance. In Acts chapter 5, we have in verses 3 and 4, but Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God." So you see, the identification of the fact that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, and then the affirmation of deity there with respect to the Holy Spirit, because he closes that particular portion by saying, you have not lied to men, but to God. So there we had, did I say Paul? I didn't mean to say Paul, but anyway. We have here the statement, the Holy Spirit, the Ananias has lied to the Holy Spirit. And then the further identification that that was lying to God or that the Holy Spirit is by virtue of that recognition. God most high so we have the fact of the unity and equality of the Trinity maintained in the fact that the confession sets forth That they are all of one substance Argued for the from the fact that the scriptures reveal Father Son and Holy Spirit as God They are of one power So if we were to talk about another defense for the deity of Christ and the Spirit, but also for the triune God and the doctrine of the Trinity, we have the fact that Father, Son, and Spirit are of one substance, but then they're also of one power. Creation, for example. The creative power of God is attributed to Father, to Son, and to Holy Spirit. It's attributed to the Father in Hebrews 1, 1 to 2. Through the agency of the Son, no doubt, but nevertheless the Father creates and as well in Genesis chapter 1, 1 and 2. We have the Son and His creative power in Colossians 1, 16 and in John 1 to 3. In fact, right after that portion that we read in John 1, 1, We have the creative power of the sun brought out in the statement that follows 1.1 in verse 1.3. In verse 3 of John 1, we read this, all things were made through him and without him, nothing was made that was made. We have the creative power of the spirit in Genesis 1 and verse 2 and in Job 33.4. And you see, the doctrine of the Trinity, remember we said earlier, it might not have its full blossoming as a flower in the Old Covenant, in the Old Testament, but rather the seeds are most certainly planted and they are present. The chamber is dimly lighted, but it is lighted. And in Genesis 1 verses 1 and 2, we have the triune God at work in creation. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth the earth was without form and void and Darkness was on the face of the deep and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters then God said Let there be light we have father word and spirit in the first three sentences of the Bible and so we have this reality that father son and spirit are of one substance and They are of one power and we see that exercised in creation for only one example. We see it also exemplified in redemption, don't we? We see the acts of redemption and we look at a place like Ephesians chapter 1, we see God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit active in salvation. They have redemptive power. They are all at work in the salvation of sinners. We see some of those same things attributed to all three persons of the Trinity with respect to salvation. Well, sometimes we would see, for example, with regeneration, we see the Spirit as the one who is active in that irresistible grace. We do have as well the Father making alive those in Christ Jesus who were once dead in their trespasses and sins. So we have power exercised in creation and redemption. And then the confession says as well that they are of one eternity. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one eternity. You may know that it's 1025, so we'll probably continue with it. I had sort of anticipated that we may have to continue with the Trinity I tend to do that a lot, possibly because I don't have time management skills with the presentation of material. But hopefully you see at least this, that the weight of the subject matter sometimes demands a couple Lord's Days. Perhaps once we've gotten some of this terminological language in the background, it will still be there that we can pull from it. We can mine the scriptures as we see the deity of the sun and the deity of the spirit affirmed. and other things made clear by the Holy Scriptures with regards to this doctrine. But as we continue for the next five minutes, the three persons of the triune God are of one eternity. The father is eternal, Exodus 3.14 and Psalm 90 verse 2. The son is eternal, Micah 5.2. Remember what Micah 5.2 says in that prophecy of the coming king who would be born, that he is from of old. from everlasting, the one who would be born in Bethlehem, whose goings forth are from old, from everlasting. John 8, 58, we see the eternality of the Son. Other places to be sure. We see the eternality of the Spirit in Hebrews 9, 14. So the idea to the confession here is that we do not have in the persons of the Trinity one substance of the Father and then a like or different substance in the Son and the Spirit. But rather, we have all three of one substance, power and eternity. Thirdly, we have, and we'll start this and continue next time, but thirdly, we have the personal distinctions expressed and qualifications asserted. The personal distinctions expressed and qualifications asserted. Notice, after we read, of one substance, power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided, we read, 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. There we have the personal distinctions expressed, and then we have qualifications asserted, or we might say qualifications reasserted, all infinite without So the distinctions, the personal distinctions with regards to the triune God are seen first with the father. He is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. So how do we distinguish the father from the son and from the spirit? Well, we distinguish the father from the son and the spirit from the fact that the father is not begotten and he does not proceed from either. from any of the members of the blessed triune. So that is the distinction of the father. We see how is the son distinguished from the father and the spirit. The son is distinguished from the father in the fact that the son is begotten of the father, eternally so. He's distinguished from the spirit in that he does not proceed from the father. and he does not proceed from the spirit. How is the spirit distinguished from the father and the son? He is neither, he is not begotten, but he does proceed from the father and the son. And when we get to this statement, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations, we are not to see in that the redemptive work of the triune God in time and in history. In other words, the distinctions between the persons of the triune God are not to be seen in their redemptive acts in history, but rather, their distinctions are to be seen in their relationships to one another. We do most certainly have in the Bible, and as you see, this is, as we noted a number of Sundays ago, first principle in the holy scriptures it is foundational to what follows in the confession and so when we get to of God's decree we are to have chapter 2 in the back of our minds when we get to Providence and when we get to all those aspects of redemption in light of the fall of man and and man's recovery by divine grace, we are to see those ad extra, or those outside of God acts of redemption that the Father, Son, and Spirit engage in, and truly we read of that. But those things that distinguish them in those several peculiar relative properties and personal relations, the confession is not talking about their redeeming activity at that point, but simply what preceded. 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 from the Son." So next time, we will continue with that, the personal distinctions expressed and qualifications asserted. We'll bring out, and we'll have time to do so, some more quotes from Spurgeon, from Gill, and other men with regards to the the practical benefits of this doctrine of the Trinity. Kids and everybody else, we spent some time in some technical and terminological language with regards to the Trinity. And this will come up perhaps less so as we continue, but still so. And it's important to set that foundation so that we do not entertain and do not speak to others heresy with regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather that we uphold that in this divine and infinite being, There are three subsistences, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, of one substance, power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. Well, let's pray, and then if there are any questions, please feel free to ask them. Heavenly Father, we rejoice that we can study doctrine. We can rejoice that we can study you, Lord God. We thank you for revealing yourself in the Holy Scriptures. We thank you for revealing yourself as a divine and infinite being, wherein we have Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of one substance, power and eternity. And we do pray that you'd help us to glory in this truth, that our Christianity would be radically Trinitarian, that we would acknowledge even daily Father, Son and Holy Spirit and rejoice in you, our God. And we do pray that you'd go with us now into worship, that you would help us to worship you in spirit and in truth, that we would, Lord God, rejoice in having been saved by amazing and victorious grace and seek to return to you the praises and the honor that is due your most high name. And it's in Christ's precious name that we pray. Amen.