All right, so tonight we'll be discussing the Trinity for our time in the Westminster Confession of Faith. That's the subject of paragraph three of chapter two of our confession. We spent several weeks on paragraph one, which describes in great detail the attributes of God. We did, I believe, six weeks just on chapter two, paragraph one. and I decided because of that and some other reasons not to actually teach through paragraph two here. I'm going to read it in just a minute, but the second paragraph here is really just a restatement application of what we're reading in paragraph one, and I think we covered a lot of it already, and then we'll cover more of what gets fleshed out in paragraph two and some later chapters of the Confession, specifically in chapter three. So because of that, I'm just gonna read for us chapter two, paragraph two, and we're still in the chapter that is on God and the Holy Trinity. And then after that, we'll go right into chapter, I'm sorry, paragraph three, where we'll have our main lesson for tonight. So this is chapter two, paragraph two of the Confession of Faith. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness in and of himself, and is alone in and unto himself all sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures 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 hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever he pleases. In his sight, all things are open and manifest. His knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature. So as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain, he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men and every other creature whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them. So we're not gonna teach on it, but if there's something that really jumped out and you have a question, I want you to feel free to ask. And if I'm not sure, cause I didn't study up intensely on all those attributes, we can answer it next week. Is there anything that jumped out that you really wanna know or have a burning question about before we move on? It is, right. We could just, it's like the Bible. Sometimes I wonder why do we preach? We could just stand up and read the Bible the whole time. And there's something to that, but God is ordained, of course, teaching and preaching too. All right, well, we'll move on. And then our focus tonight is gonna be on paragraph three. It's a good bit shorter, but it's a transition into some new waters for us in the confession. In the unity of the Godhead, there be three persons of one substance, power, and eternity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Ghost, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. All right. So the Westminster Divines here in chapter two, paragraph three are talking about the Trinity. Of course, this is what we've been building to in studying chapter two to this great doctrine that God is a triune God and now we're going to get into it. And this will be a, I think a multi-part discussion. I do not think we'll get through talking about the Trinity and this paragraph three tonight. I anticipate we'll have at least two lessons on this. But the divines point out here, first off, that there's a unity within God. Even though this section is about the Trinity, they emphasize at first that there is a unity within God. God is one being. That central confession of faith that our Israelite forefathers used under the Old Covenant, in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 6.4, called the Shema. Here, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. The Lord is one. Or in the New Testament, we read this repeated over and over. 1 Timothy 2, the apostle Paul tells us in no uncertain terms, there is one God. Of course, he says that many times. As we see in Ephesians 4, even more clearly emphasized by Paul, there is one body. and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all." So unity, unity, unity. Oneness. There's One. So much about Christian theology is dependent upon this fact that God is one. He is one being. The Apostle James says that even the demons know this. This is Christianity 101. Even the demons know that God is one. Now, they don't worship him. They believe, but they shudder. They do not worship. They know he's one. But the Bible is also very clear The God is not only one, he is also three. The proof texts that the men who wrote this, the Westminster Divine, cite first, in their first footnote, they cite 1 John 5, 7, Matthew 3, 16, and 17. Matthew 28, 19, which is part of the Great Commission, and 2 Corinthians 13, 14. I'll read them one by one as we go through here, and then there are more proof texts they give also, but we'll have to push discussion of those into next week. So our first proof text for this chapter, this is where the divine say, we are getting our doctrine directly from the Bible, and this is where we would say, go here first as a reference point. 1 John 5, 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. Well, we can close the book right there. We're done. It's clear, abundantly clear. Our God is a triune God. But this verse has a very interesting history surrounding it. And if anyone has a modern Bible translation, you open it up. Odds are this verse is not there. It is not in the first epistle of John, most likely. Or if it is, it's relegated down to the footnote. That is thanks in large part to a modern reliance on what is known as the critical text. So we've talked about this a little bit in the past in a couple of Sunday sermons, and I'm not gonna go into much detail here, but if you're looking it up, it's 1 John 5, 7. But the difference in what's called critical text and received text is whether our main way of discerning what the original text of scripture is should be by using, should we discern what that original text of scripture is by using what the church has always used. the faith that was handed down from our fathers to their sons to their sons and on down to us, what the church has always held as these are the 66 books of the Bible, this is the text of the church, should that be our main way of discerning what that original text of scripture was written thousands of years ago, or is our main way of discerning what the original text of scripture is done by seeking to reconstruct that original text through what are deemed to be the most reliable manuscripts that are available to scholars and archaeologists today. So there are two ways of approaching this. We don't have the original writings of the prophets and the apostles anymore. None of them exist. We don't have the Ten Commandments that were in the Ark of the Covenant. That's gone. We don't have any of the Old Testament scriptures in their original Hebrew in the actual paper that the prophets wrote on. They're gone. We don't have any of the first Greek manuscripts that Paul or James or John or Luke or whomever wrote on. They're all gone. And I think this is in God's wonderful providence because we would in fact idolize them. I guarantee you if we had Ephesians from the Apostle Paul's hand, and it was ironclad proof that this was what Paul put his hand on and wrote. Well, his scribe, because he usually used a scribe, but what that original first copy was, we would idolize it. Our hearts are idol factories, and so I think it's in God's providence that we don't have these texts. There's a good thing, there's a comforting thing that God has shown us some mercy, but then we do have to answer the question, well, how do we know what those texts said? How do we know what those texts said? And so you see these two streams of thought and how we get back to that. Critical text, let's reconstruct and trust the scholars and the archeologists and people like that, the linguists, most of whom are unbelievers, liberals and work for secular universities. Or do we trust what has been handed down throughout the centuries by the church itself? And it's not that this is a big oversimplification I'm giving. It's not that people who affirm the priority of that critical text, that reconstructed text, it's not that they ignore the church's role or that they ignore translation history. And it's not that people who affirm the priority of the received text, and you see in that the difference, what we've received from our fathers, what's been handed down and we've received. It's not that we totally ignore manuscript evidence and we just blindly trust what the people before us said. But the difference here between received text and critical text, whether 1 John 5-7 should be there or not, is an understanding of who was entrusted with the Word of God. Who did God entrust His Word to? Did He entrust it to university archaeologists, or did He entrust it to faithful pastors and elders and deacons and ordinary Christian men and women? I think that's the question we have to really come down on. And also, do we believe God's promises about the preservation of his word, that his word would remain pure throughout the ages and that we would always have a record of his revelation to us? I think that that's the answer. I'm much more inclined to affirm that we should trust the church as the keeper of God's word. And we should have this verse, 1 John 5, 7 in our modern Bible translations. The seeming trouble with this verse in particular though, is that even throughout church history, there has been some degree of dispute about this verse more than some others. It's perhaps the most disputed verse in the entire Bible as to whether it should be here. We can't just blame all the confusion on modernism and liberalism. But also, many throughout history, even going back possibly as early as Jerome, have asserted that this debate on whether 1 John 5-7 should exist in scripture was not an accident, but is actually by design. There are many that think that during the Arian controversy, which we'll talk about, I think next week, that this verse 1 John 5-7 was removed from Bibles or intentionally left out of future copies because the Arians wanted to weaken the Orthodox case for the Trinity. Now, we don't know if that's true. That's speculation. But many revered theologians have believed that. Calvin, for instance, believed this verse to be original, but Luther left it out of his translation of the New Testament into German. So even if it were not original, though, 1 John 5, 7, even if it were not original, the truth of the Trinity thankfully does not rest on this one verse alone. It just happens to be the clearest. the divine's next site after 1 John 5, 7, they cite Matthew 3, 16 and 17. This is the baptism of Christ. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straight way out of the water and lo, the heavens were opened unto him. And he saw the spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him. And lo, a voice from heaven saying, this is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased. This is such a powerful argument that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, and yet are distinct from one another, that I've actually heard in my personal conversations in evangelism, I have heard Mormons use this verse to attempt to argue against the unity of God's being and in favor of a form of polytheism or tritheism, saying that they're, oh yes, of course, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit's God, God's God, of course. And of course they're all there, but that's because there are three gods. This, of course, is nonsense and goes directly against so much of Scripture. But Mormons think that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct beings, that there's more than one God, and that God himself Mormon official doctrine, and if you press a Mormon on it and they know their stuff, they will admit this. God himself was even once a man who was then exalted to this position of God, and you too. you can become a God one day and even have your own world. The more you learn about these Trinitarian heresies, at first they might seem mild and maybe even semantic, you know, kind of an argument over terms and maybe we're just getting too focused on the words, but they just lead down a rabbit trail of utter absurdity and heresy. Specifically with Mormonism here, you can see it just gets crazier the more and more you dig, the deeper you dig, the wilder it gets. But far from proving the distinction of being here, that God is three beings, Jesus' baptism proves that there is a unity of purpose within the Trinity. It's true, if we only had this verse and no other part of the Bible, we couldn't prove the unity of God's being, that he's three persons and one being. We need more, we need more of scripture. But it's absurd to argue for disunity here. What's clear in Jesus' baptism is that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three distinct persons. and they exist and act and reveal themselves simultaneously. All at one time, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are acting together in unity of purpose and revealing themselves. They're working in perfect harmony and they have perfect togetherness here. Christ's baptism is so clear that God is one and God is three. I know that's a lot of words. This is a high and lofty doctrine. I know I'm saying a lot at once, but it's very important. With regard to Mormonism, which I mentioned a moment ago, it is a major and pervasive heresy that is still growing in America. And Mormons, when you get to talking to them, if they've ever come to your house or you've visited with them, I mean, they're an evangelistic people. And they are people that have a lot of children. And so it is a growing sect, a growing cult. And they largely know their Bible. I don't know if you've ever talked to a Mormon, but if you're not prepared for the conversation, a lot of times they can bring up what kind of feels in the moment, like a gotcha thing. You know, they know their Bible really well, just like those demons who know their Bible and how Satan tried to trick Jesus by quoting the Bible to him. The Mormons will quote the Bible. And in many ways, of course, they seem like the nicest people on the planet. And they seem like model citizens and good neighbors and who wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood full of Mormons? But they do promote heresy here. They're not alone, I don't wanna just pick on Mormons, it's just the first kind of problem I wanted to bring up, but they're not alone in holding to a Trinitarian heresy, a heresy that, a false belief that undermines the doctrine of God. In fact, the majority of the major doctrinal problems and heresies that the early church dealt with And in fact, a lot of those same heresies are the ones that still keep popping up to this day. A majority of them relate to a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. And this is particularly problematic for a few reasons. First, if you don't understand who God is, then how can you properly worship him? You would have a zeal not according to knowledge. You'd worship you know not what. In order to please God, step one is to believe that he is. But we can't just believe in a vague type of divine force or higher power, like sometimes is one of advancement. Of course, I believe in a higher power. Of course, I believe in a God. We have to believe in God as he has revealed himself to us. God is the first and greatest being and the fountain of all being in life, and that is why our study of him comes before in our confessions. It comes before our study of the church. It comes before our study of man, before our study of angels, before our study of salvation, of any other doctrine. In almost every single confession of faith, it doesn't matter what theological tradition, the doctrine of God comes first before all the other doctrines. Now, of course, the Westminster Confession here speaks first about what we believe about scripture, because that's God's revelation to man. We can't properly speak of God without doing so in reference to his word. But the immediate next subject the Westminster divines turn to after scripture is the doctrine of God. And second, so the first point of why Trinitarian confusion is such a major problem, even if we don't realize it first, well, how does it affect my day-to-day life if I believe God's three or one or six or nine? But the first point about why it's such a big deal is if you misunderstand who God is, then you can't worship him properly. Similarly, the second point is if you misunderstand who or what God is, then all of the rest of your theology is founded on sinking sand. The wise man built his house upon the rock and the rock was Christ. And Christ wasn't just a Christ of his imagination. or a false Christ of whatever Judaizing cult might have said He was. It was the Christ of the Word, the Christ as He is revealed in Scripture. If you miss the boat on a proper understanding of God, then how can you have confidence in properly understanding anything? God created all things. So if we want to properly understand his world, if we wanna properly understand ourselves and why in the world we're here, why do we exist? If we wanna properly understand anything, we have to first properly understand God and that must be done through his word. Now, I don't mean that if someone does not have an orthodox view of the Trinity, then they can't know anything. That's, of course, we know that's not the case. We all probably know people of totally different religions that are smarter than we are. I certainly do. I know a lot of people that are smarter than I am that don't have faith in Christ at all. Some of the most brilliant, in fact, mathematicians and physicists have been Muslims and atheists. Now, I say some of them, because a good deal of them have been Christians also. But those who do not know God can still know a lot of correct things, but they're operating on borrowed capital. Because those people who do not know God are still made in God's image, and they still can see him, however dimly or darkly through his world and through their reason. There is such a thing as common grace and natural revelation. And we cannot say that that has no value. But without a proper understanding of God and his word, You are immediately standing on a slippery, slippery slope that can easily send you into a lot of problems, not the least of which would be how do we worship God and how, in fact, can we be saved? but it goes into every area of life if you don't start with a correct understanding of God. Another pervasive Trinitarian heresy that has cropped up and has garnered a decent following over the past several decades, especially is that of modalism. Modalism, in contrast to Mormonism, rightly affirms that God is one. But modalism overemphasizes his oneness such that the threeness of God really becomes nothing more than a way of God expressing himself. Modalists have historically said that in the Old Testament, God expressed himself as Father. That was the mode then. In the New Testament, God expressed himself as Son, as Jesus Christ. And then today, God expresses himself as Holy Spirit. This type of thinking is especially prevalent in some Pentecostal circles. Of course, not all of them. I don't want to throw Pentecostals under the bus as if they're all unorthodox, but in some Pentecostal circles. Popular teachers such as T.D. Jakes affirm this and the music group that even you'll see sung from in some evangelical churches, Phillips, Craig, and Dean. They've done a number of popular contemporary Christian songs. They are modalists. They affirm this Trinitarian heresy. But right here in Christ's baptism, as well as in several other places, we see modalism clearly refuted. Remember, in his baptism, God is simultaneously, actively present as three distinct persons, all at once. They're all there expressing themselves. God the Father is speaking with the voice from heaven. God, the Holy Spirit is descending as a dove. God, the Son, Jesus Christ is standing in the water fulfilling all righteousness as the scripture says. The only ways to interpret God's revelation of himself in this passage is either to conclude that God is a Trinity or that there are three gods. There can't be a one person God in this baptism here. And we know that there is only one God. Now some of the modern modalists, namely the oneness Pentecostals, have gotten a little more precise and complex than some of their ancient forebears. Some of them would even affirm that even though God is only one person, which he's not, that he can manifest himself as father, son, and spirit simultaneously. But this is just mental gymnastics. If God exists in heaven as father, Think about this, if God existed 2000 years ago in heaven as father and his son on the cross, and he is one single undistinguished person, then how is it that God the father is not the person who is suffering death? We have a problem here. How is it that God the Son, if there's only one undistinguished person, how is it that God the Son is not the one pouring out wrath on God the Spirit on the cross? Who is our sacrificial lamb if there's only one person in the Godhead? We have to answer these questions. How can Jesus say that he is sending another advocate or another helper as he promises to do in John 14, 16, if there is no other, if he's only sending himself? And further, how can God have true love and eternal fellowship within the Trinity if there is no Trinity? What does it mean for God to be love if there's only one person in the relationship? Even if that one person manifests himself in different ways, how could that be the pinnacle of what love is? Self-love. Love always flows outward. And God has, from everlasting, existed in a loving relationship. He's existed in a divine community, in a sweet and perfect society between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Love is, in the Bible, other-centered. Greater love has no man than this, greater love. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. or in the most famous verse of all scripture, God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. How can the father beget the son if they're the same person? How can the father give the son if they are the same person? The doctrine, of the Trinity, I will admit, and that we all have to admit, is above logic. The doctrine of the Trinity is above reason, but the doctrine of modalism is against logic and reason. There's a difference there. There's a difference in something that we understand to be illogical and something that we understand that is higher than our brains can understand. We do have to accept the doctrine of the Trinity by faith, but it's not an illogical, irrational, or blind faith. And if you're wondering modalism, why is it called modalism? I don't think I really explained this well. They're using the word mode to really mean manifestation or expression of God. Those are the three modes of God, father, son, spirit, but not three distinct persons. And then one final note on modalism. If these are mere manifestations or modes and not persons, then modalism would also fly in the face of some of the very important attributes that we've discussed in our previous six weeks in chapter two here. For example, if modalism is true, then God cannot be immutable. God cannot be an unchangeable God if he shifts from one form to another. There is no shadow of turning with thee as we sing. But if as a North Carolina pastor, Stephen Furtick has said, God changes forms. And this is the most influential pastor regarding number of congregants in North Carolina. Stephen Furtick says, God changes forms. If he does that, then that would mean that God can change. and God cannot change. And it is a great comfort to us that God cannot change. Or if the Father and the Son and the Spirit are different parts of God, as some people have posited, and this is perhaps the weakest of all the positions here, then God would not be simple, as we've discussed. Remember, God is not made up of different parts. All of God is all of God. All of God is holy. All of God is perfect. But if the three persons of the Godhead are different parts, then what we've got is God being one third Father, one third Spirit, one third Son. And that cannot be true. Confusion just abounds and abounds when we start to reject the Trinity. The next proof text that I want us to look at, the divine sight. And if you have a question, please just raise your hand or shout out. I know this is drinking from a fire hydrant here. The next proof text that the divine sight is Matthew chapter 28 and verse 19. This is the great commission. We should all be familiar with this. I'm gonna read us the verse before and the verse after also just to give the full context of the Great Commission here. Matthew chapter 28. beginning in verse 18, and Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Amen. Not only are all three persons of the Trinity mentioned here, but you see both their unity and their distinctness clearly here in the Great Commission. First of all, Jesus tells us that all power has been given to him. All power has been given to Jesus. Now we have to ask, well, if all power has been given to him, who gave him that power? Did He Himself give Himself that power? No, it was God the Father. And it is implied that because of this power, we will have success in our mission of discipling the nations. because he is always with us. But who is always with us? It's God, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity. Further, we're told, and this is very interesting, and the grammar is clear, we're told to baptize in the name, singular, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why would we not be told to baptize in the names of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit? We have a singular and then a plural. This sounds a lot like one and three. We are to baptize in the one name of the three persons of the Trinity because these three are one as 1 John 5, 7 tells us. One God, one Lord, one body of Christ, therefore one baptism. And then the final proof text that the divines mentioned in their first footnote here in chapter two, paragraph three is 2 Corinthians 13 14 and i'm just going to end with this as a benediction and then we'll do questions and discussions paul says the grace of the lord jesus christ and the love of god and the communion of the holy ghost be with you all amen and of course that's not unique to second corinthians he uses this type of language at the beginning and the end of a lot of his letters, emphasizing the threeness and the oneness of the Trinity. So we're going to pause right there for tonight, and we'll plan on picking up next Wednesday, discussing more of the specifics of the Confession here, more of the proof texts, and perhaps more of the Trinitarian problems we run into today. But what questions do you have about the Trinity? Don't be afraid to ask, even if it's something that you don't even think your question makes sense. Because like we said, this is all above reason. Our simple minds struggle. Yes, Hope. Right. Sure. Yeah. So what I was meaning there. is if God is a God of parts, then he would be 1 3rd Father, 1 3rd Son, 1 3rd Spirit. And that would mean that God the Father is not fully God. God the Father is fully and completely God. That doesn't mean he's the only person of the Godhead, but he's not 1 3rd of God, he's not less divine. And they don't add up to a whole God as if you have to piece them together like a puzzle. They are each co-equal, co-eternal, each fully God, and Jesus Christ also, then you have another thing. He is both fully God and fully man. Jesus isn't 50% God, 50% man. Then he wouldn't have been a sufficient sacrifice. He would not have been able to atone for us if he was only half a man. He wouldn't have been able to assuage God's wrath or even receive worship if he was only half God. And so in the same way, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are not 33% of God. It's something the scripture doesn't really refute because it's a question never posed, but there are some people, I think mainly actually just through lack of teaching or through being imprecise, there are some people though that say that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are parts of God. And actually there was a big issue when one of the candidates for president of the SVC a couple years ago, someone realized that on the website for the church that he was senior pastor of, that's exactly what it said on their doctrinal statement, that God was, you know, the Father was a part of God, the Spirit was a part of God. I've seen it in discussions online, and I think a lot of it is imprecision, but it's imprecision because they're letting their mind influence what the Trinity means. If we do that, we are bound to mess it up every time because it is above reason. It's above logic. The Trinity is something we can't think up in our head what we think it means and then try to express it. We just have to go to the text. What does the Trinity mean? It means 1 John 5-7. Well, how? I'll give you all these texts and I'll give you what I can distill from Scripture, but we can't explain how the Trinity exists, for instance. It's just totally above our minds. So you almost always run into error when you try to start explaining how the Trinity. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. 1 John 5, 7 is, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. I think that's the clear statement, but there are other Trinitarian statements throughout scripture. And there's things we can deduce. I mean, I didn't bring up, you know, John 1, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Now the spirit isn't in that very verse, but the word was with God and the word was God. You've got wisdom in Proverbs. I mean, they're all over the place. You see one and many, one and many, all about God. Yes, Benjamin. Anybody was gonna say something? One being in three persons, that's right. And it's something we accept and we trust and we receive because we know God's word is true. Exactly. Y'all could teach many people that are confused on that point. Did you have a burning question, it looks like, maybe, John? No, you were doing this number. You never know. Well, you read me, because I did want to ask something. So I've heard you say it's above reason. I've heard you say it's above our minds, our understanding, our ability. And is there a distinction to be made there between those two statements? Is it possible that it is beyond our understanding but that it's not above, and it's above our use of reason, but it's not above God's use of reason. Yes, that would be a much better way of saying it. Yeah, above our reason. Yeah, see, that's what I'm saying. Imprecision can get you in trouble, because that would be a better way of phrasing it. Above our reason. Yes. I'm only dialed into that because in question one of Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas says that it is beyond reason. Anyway. Or that those topics are getting dealt with. Right. The idea that something is beyond our reason. Anyway. Yeah, and I think Thomas Watson, who is certainly not like Aquinas in a lot of ways, I think he says basically the same thing, so I might have been unconsciously pulling the phrase from him, but now that you say it, I would prefer, until I study it further at least, to say, above our reason. But certainly, the one thing I really want to emphasize is it's not against reason. One God, one person is against reason because the scriptures so clearly show that God is three persons. But yes, one God, three persons, I think it'd be fair to say above our reason is a safe place to land. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments or confusions or anything?