Before, we're in chapter two still, moving on to section three. This is just simply the chapter on God and the Trinity, and so now we move into that section on the Trinity. Is there anything anybody wants to bring up from all the attributes that we talked about? Anything that anybody's concerned over? I know I didn't know what was happening there. I don't know. Whenever nurses get up and start moving around, you kind of get nervous. You don't know what they see somebody choking or what. All right. Well, this, I meant to pull up the Westminster, but I forgot. This section three in chapter two is very unique in the 1689 in that they borrowed some from the Westminster and also from the Savoy. And this one is much larger, the 1689, and much more detailed. Now, there's no doctrinal changes, of course, but our Baptist predecessors really wanted to emphasize this and I read a lot of commentators who said that one of the reasons they feel like this was such an emphasis for them to say this much about the Holy Spirit and I mean the Holy Trinity was because there was a tendency in the 1600s for General Baptists and other believers to fall into a lot of heresy, especially Unitarianism. I don't know if you're familiar with Unitarianism, which is basically you just believe there's one God, and he exists in one person, and there's not a trinity. And I've tried to find out, so I thought I'd pitch it out in case, I don't know if Michael knew, or if we could find out. I've tried to figure out in what way General Baptists were in danger of falling into Unitarianism. That interested me. And it was because of Arminianism, and Arminianism had a tendency to fall into Unitarianism. And I just haven't been able to put those thoughts together. You may not care, but it was something to me to think, why would General Baptist be in danger of falling into Unitarianism? And I'm sure it has something to do with the things we've been talking about in salvation, how the whole Trinity's involved in salvation. The father elects, the spirit draws and calls, and the son lived and died. So they're all intricately involved. I would assume if you hold to a general Baptist and certainly an Armenian viewpoint that there was no election before time, or if there was election, it was God electing those who he knew would make certain choices, and not just God electing from his own free will. and free sovereign choice, then probably I could see how, I guess that could lead you to a Unitarian viewpoint, not one to separate. I don't know. I've just been trying to, that's been rattling in my brain since I started reading that this week, and I haven't been able to find anything. Everywhere I go just makes that statement. But they don't elaborate, so I don't know. Interesting. You got any thoughts about that, Michael? Have you ever heard it? I've never looked into that. I've never even heard it. And they don't go into it in either three commentaries that I have on the 1689, but all three say it. And I even looked at an article on Founders website, and it made the same statement, but just one sentence, and then it never went back to it. So anyways, I'm going to try to look into it because I'm interested in it. If I find anything, I'll let you know. But anyways, they do go into a lot of detail here about the Trinity. And it's interesting because There's a tendency to think, okay, well, what they're trying to do is to make you understand it. And they're really not. In fact, Sam Waldron points out, it's a mistake to think that the great creeds of church history were trying to explain the Trinity. They weren't trying to explain it, they were just trying to safeguard it. And that's what they're doing here. They're trying to say, They're trying to keep as much mysterious as they are sane. In other words, they're not trying to say, all right, we've got this thing figured out, here it is. But they were safeguarding so much. In fact, Sam Waldron made this statement. He said, really, if the church was wanting to explain it, they had at least two great opportunities. One, during the Modalist or Sabellian controversy, if you're not familiar with those, it was basically where there was a teaching that basically you had a God who could act in three different ways, right? Sometimes He could be the Father, sometimes He could be the Son, or sometimes He could be the Holy Spirit. And there's a lot of that still going on today. One is Pentecostalism. T.D. Jakes, for example, if you've probably heard that name, he's a oneist Pentecostal. He believes in modalism. He does not believe in the historical view of the Trinity. He believes that God functions at times like the Father, and functions other times like the Son, and other times like the Spirit. The church had that, and just like always, nothing new under the sun. That was way back in, what, 3rd or 4th century? And they didn't buy into that. And later they also had the Aryan controversy, the Aryan heresy, which is basically modern day Jehovah's Witnesses, in which the church was offered the explanation to say simply, put, that Jesus and the Holy Spirit aren't God. They just function for certain reasons at certain times, but they are not God. And of course, the church declined that too, right? They didn't fall into that. And I say they had a chance to give in, and this was Sam Waldron's point. If the church was just trying to define Trinity in a way that people could grasp it, that's a good way to do it. Well, it just functions in different ways. There's no way that you can have three persons and one God. You gotta have a God who functions in three different ways, right? And that seems to make sense. And we've tried to, we've talked about this a few weeks back. That basically is what happens in every illustration that we try to come up with for the Trinity, right? What you end up doing is kind of promoting modalism. Well, sometimes God's this, sometimes that, sometimes this. And it's why we kind of talked about that night and and Joe because we've all used those analogies to try to figure out try to make it where people can say and really at the end even of those analogies we're all going. Okay, because it really still don't make sense, right? And so, and the danger a lot of times is you're basically promoting modalism. Two years ago at the Southern Baptist Convention, for reasons known only to God and His sovereignty, the Southern Baptist Convention asked Oh gosh, what's his name? Tony Evans to speak at the Preacher's Conference. And he got up and basically gave an illustration using a pretzel about the Holy Spirit, which was nothing but modalism. He described the Holy Spirit, he described the Trinity as God being modalistic. Of course, thankfully, he didn't get invited back this year, but he's got other issues now. But it is a mystery, and that's the thing to keep in mind It cannot be explained. It's a mystery and we have to understand that this is something that for all church history the 2,000 years at least since Christ the church as a whole has very aggressively guarded the doctrine of the Trinity, right? I mean we have the Nicene Creed and honestly our Confession steals a lot of the words from the Nicene Creed, and a lot of the ideas. I've got the Nicene Creed I want to read to you in a minute, because you'll see, I think that was the Arian controversy, if I'm not mistaken, that Nicene Creed was... I think it would have been the Athanasian Creed, actually. Athanasius was the champion of Trinitarian thought. Yeah, both of them, both of them do that. It was Athanasius against Arius, or I thought the Nicene Creed was against Arius. I might be wrong. But you're right, the Athanasian Creed also, I'll see if I can pull that one up too. The only reason I had this one was because I thought that was the one that was battling against the thing I was just talking about. Anyways, well, I can't find it. Well, we'll just look at this one, I'll pull that one up next time. Anyways, let's read it together and then we'll try to talk about it a little bit more. Section three, the divine and infinite being consists of three real persons, the Father, the Word or the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three have the same substance power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence without this essence being divided. Now if you notice up in that first sentence, three real persons, I think in the King James, I mean in the Old English version of it, the word subsistence is in there, and they mark, they note that there. so it was just a way uh we say three persons they used to say subsistence is indicating this other stuff which is next they have the same substance power and eternity they are the same subsistence in other words there's not they weren't made up of something else they're all the same because that's kind of the if i remember right the arian teaching the arius teaching on christ was that he became divine when the Logos descended upon him at the cross, but then it left him and there's, I don't know all of it, but so they're kind of battling against that. No, they are all the same substance, same subsistence, same eternity, the whole divine essence without this essence being divided. The Father is not derived from anyone, neither begotten nor proceeding. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. All three are infinite without beginning, and they are therefore only one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being. Yet, these three persons are distinguished by several distinctive characteristics and personal relations. This truth of the Trinity is the foundation of all our fellowship with God and our comforting dependence on it. That last sentence is just, we kind of already, I kind of mentioned that earlier. I mean, every bit of our relationship to God is founded upon the fact that the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God equally. They're all intimately involved in our salvation. Now, it's interesting. Because, you know, part of what, and again I'm trying to do this from memory, but part of what Arius was trying to say is that, well the Bible clearly says Jesus was begotten. So there's a time he wasn't. He was born, right? So they point out here, no, he is begotten, he is begotten eternally, right? So there's never been a time when he was not the begotten of the Father. And there's some other things about that that I'm trying to wrap my mind around. The eternal subordination and all that. Are you familiar with that? And I don't even want to try to weigh you down with that right now. It's such a deep thing that it's coming back up and people are arguing over it, but anyways, right now you don't have to worry about it. But I think this, even though I still can't grasp this completely because of the incomprehensibility of God, I'm satisfied that Jesus is the only begotten of the Father who is eternally begotten. So just like I've been trying to teach about predestination, we have a tendency to think, oh, so you had people and creation, and then before creation there was predestination. But really predestination is rooted in the eternality of God, right? There was never a specific time. We, again, when you try to, when you think about that big word anthropomorphism, the Bible trying to bring these things into a way that our little finite brains can comprehend it, right? Because even though, because I can comprehend creation, before creation, right? I can't really comprehend eternity that never meets, you know? But I think the same is true for the begotten Son of God. He's always been begotten. And since He's always been begotten, He's eternal, and the Father is eternal, then the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which, guess what? Means that's happened for all eternity, right? So again, it's not, you don't look back and say, okay, well at some point during, when there was just nothing, there was a point in which the Holy Spirit began proceeding from. You can't do that because that would make the Holy Spirit not God, right? So, He's eternal. And if you listen to the Nicene Creed, you'll hear these things. This is it, I'm gonna read it to you. I hope this is not a weird one. You have to watch out sometimes they print a bunch of remodeled ones. This is a Nicene Creed. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father. Through him all things were made for us men and for our salvation. He came down from heaven and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. Rose again on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. He ascended into heaven, was seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who is with the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets." So, you see that, you can kind of hear in that the same stuff, right? Of course, they went a little bit further in their explanation of Jesus being only begotten, born of the Father before all ages. But then they describe him as God from God, light from light, true God from true God. And again, they weren't trying to explain the Trinity, they were trying to safeguard against heresy that was being brought against it, right? And so it seems like you can kind of hear that in our confession here as it talks about the Holy Spirit. Our little catechism that we use on Sunday mornings, it's really a children's catechism. I don't know if y'all know that. I've told you before, I think. I've started several times and even tried a few times to switch from the children's catechism. But the problem is, if you look at any of the other catechisms, they're very wordy, very lengthy. They're all in the King's English. And, you know, one, I don't want to sit there and go through every paragraph and try to modernize it. And two, you know, I kind of like that it's simple. It's the simple, basic doctrines. And, you know, I just love that that stuff's pounding into our heads and pounding our kids' heads. But one of the sections that we do ask these three questions about the Trinity. Are there more gods than one? You might know the answer. No, there's only one God because we do this a lot. And how many persons does this one God exist in three persons? Who are they? Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And so it just teaches that there's one God, and exists in three persons, and who are those persons? The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And there again, it's something that we believe by faith. And you know, I've listened to a lot of debates, and some of you may have too, about trying to, again, it's hard to do anything other than safeguard against heresy. because the Bible seems to point out very clearly in many places, one, that there's only one God, right? We talked about this when we were talking about the attributes of God, His oneness, right? His singularity. There's only one God, I am the Lord, there are no other. And when you come to the New Testament, The same thing is taught. But then you can't deny that Jesus clearly said he is God. He made those I am statements. He clearly said things before Abraham was, I am. And he made those statements that were, to his listeners, they knew. what he was saying John 1 14 these are some of the verses listed in our confession the word Jesus became flesh dwelt among us and we have seen his glory glory is of the only father as the only son from the father full of grace and truth No one's ever seen God. The only God who is at the Father's side has made Him known. Jesus has called Himself God there. Jesus says, the Holy Spirit, the Helper, He will come whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father. He will wear witness about me. You know, we've been looking at Romans chapter 8, but also in Galatians 4, because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. We've seen that. And we talked about how that's how God bears witness with us that we belong to him, right? 2 Corinthians 13 and 14, which is listed, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. That's one of the verses that have all three persons in it. The Great Commission, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them what? In the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I mean, there's no way that that statement would have been made by the New Testament writers had they not thought that all them were equal. You can't, you wouldn't dare blaspheme God and put somebody up and say, baptize them in the name of the Father. I mean, you wouldn't say, baptize them in the name of the Father and Baal and Ashtaroth or whatever. You would, I mean, that would blaspheme. So for them to put Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit up there with the Father, It's because they knew that they are one. Of course, 1 John chapter 5, there's a great controversy there about what should belong and what shouldn't. But I was trying to see, where's the King James Version? Most of the versions just say, so we have three witnesses, or there are three that bear witness in heaven. But the King James says, for there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. Now there's a lot of debate about, is that last phrase original or not original? It seems to not be, it definitely seems to not be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture. So, all right. Y'all say something now. Also, Revelation 1, right? When John sees Christ and he says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. He basically expresses his eternity there. He's always been. Jesus tells the disciples, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. Colossians 1, Paul says that in him, all the fullness of God dwells bodily. There's too many other examples, and not necessarily, you can search the scriptures, but every time an angel Anytime a human bowed down to an angel, the angel rebuked the person and said, don't I'm just a servant like you. But when people bowed before Christ, they were not rebuked. Right? Never. And even Paul and Barnabas rebuked, or at least Paul rebuked the men for bowing down to them. Same way. But you're right, Jesus never did. And people always bowed to Him. They never fell backwards in front of Him. They were always falling forward. So why is that in 1 John 5? Why is that a contradiction? Because it says the Word instead of Jesus. Yeah, because the older... Two things. The older manuscript that's been found reads differently. It doesn't say... It doesn't read exactly like that. It's not very, it's not that clear cut, same father, same spirit. And then the other thing is, Athanasius, when he was writing to explain the trinity, he never cited that verse as support for the trinity. Whereas if it was as clear cut as the Erasmus' text, or Texas Receptus. Yeah. So that's why if you're if you're reading the SV or NIV or even NASB, any of the anything that's based on older manuscripts, they will say, basically, just there are three that bear witness or there. Maybe even there are three in heaven to bear witness. But it doesn't have that last part. But incomplete, like Ron says, for there are three that testify. That's the verse. And then it just feels like Right. Well, that's the argument is people say so later, somebody else felt that way. And so they added. Yeah, it probably does. So the ESV said, you know, for there are three that testify the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three agree. Yeah. Yeah, it goes in the verse. But if you look, if you look at the same person, King James, I've got a New King James. New King James will. It says, says father. Well, in the argument, you know, now, the real Textus Receptus people, I have a friend, I'm not going to name him because we're recording, but I've seen him say on Facebook, you know, because he believes that the Catholic Church destroyed the real King James Bible. And so we should be using only the King James Bible because that's the real Bible from the Textus Receptus. And he'll use that verse, say, this is clear. This is the clearest there is about the Trinity. But that's what he was saying. But the truth is, there's plenty of verses that I feel are clear. And so that's the argument. OK, that's a great text. And use it if you want to. But just know that if anybody knows anything about the controversy, they're going to point that out. That's not even a certainty that that's there. OK, it's not. But look at these other. OK, let's go to the ones that aren't. And again, that's not, you know, understand, that's not a question, it doesn't question the integrity of the scripture, because the King James Bible is a perfectly great translation, it's wonderful, but you find, you come after what the Qumran cave scrolls and all those things, you discover these older texts that seem to be, you're hoping that the closer you get back to the first century, the clearer they, the less additions they have. And so those don't have that. But even with that added, all it's doing is shoring up the truth that we know about the Trinity. It's not like it's adding, it's not like there's nothing else in the New Testament. If you take that away, there's no proof that there's Trinity. And so that's why I don't, You know, I mean, I get it and I've read about it. And, you know, people like James White, if he goes to debate somebody about the Trinity, he's not going to use that because they're going to use that against him. So he's not going to use that. And he'd point that out, too, obviously, because he knows it. He knows the whole argument very well. But. I think it's very clear, and again, it's mysterious. And we know because we just studied about the incomprehensibility of God, it doesn't surprise us that we can't describe and explain the Trinity. But we all believe it. You know, if I say go home and write an essay, why don't you believe it? I mean, that's hard. Now, you could pull these scriptures out and say, well, you know, and that would be the thing that we should do, and it's a healthy endeavor to say, well, what passages in the New Testament do teach the Holy Spirit in the Father and the Son? are all one and I think I mean like I said we've already seen that in Romans I feel like clearly even though it's not spelled out as like we just read but you see that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are intimate they're all involved in salvation and who who can save but God so you can't And God doesn't need help. So it's not like the Holy Spirit and Jesus are God's little helpers because he needs some help. No, I mean, it's got to be. They're all they're all three persons, one God, and how how they can how God functions in the persons within the Trinity do everything they do. Again, that's a mystery. So. In verse 10, it says it says in verse six, like, Yeah. So it goes, it does itself. Absolutely. Absolutely. And most places are like that when Jesus is teaching. I mean, you know, if you have to go and look, why did they get so, why would they call Jesus a blasphemer? Because he was making himself equal with God. And they clearly understood that. And they were hoping he would. That's why they tried to trick him. So if he'll just call himself God, we got him. And they did, and they made up all kinds of stuff, but ultimately, they wanted to crucify him because he had made himself equal with God. Well, when he forgave the paralytic of sin, they were all mumbling, like, only God can forgive sins. That's right. And they understood that well. Yeah, I mean, they were right. They just didn't understand how right they were. That's right. They didn't realize the implications of that. Yeah, for him to say that, for him to make that statement, go, your sins are forgiven. I mean, because they didn't have a, this is way before the Pope, so they didn't understand there was any kind of, I mean, they didn't believe that there was somebody, a man that could confer forgiveness on people. So yeah. It's a great doctrine that we have to hold on to, and we have to be clear, and we have to be careful that we're not promoting old heresies like modalism, or any of the other heresies. We certainly don't want to make Jesus out to not be God. And you see this, I've seen it in my own kids. My dad, Jesus is God? I thought God is, the Father's God. How can Jesus be God? And the Holy Spirit's God, what? Yep, I mean it just is, you know? And you try to explain that to a kid and you realize this is not explainable. I cannot explain it. A lot of things like that. It's good sometimes just to have kids around. They ask the questions that need to be asked, right? I know I told y'all before one of the times that I don't remember which kid it was of mine. Years ago, when I had said something one day in preaching and they asked me, So what does it sound like when God talks to you? Because you said that God spoke to you and said, because I would say that stuff all the time. And it hit me that I had no idea how to answer that because I've never heard God say anything. I've never heard Him talk. What does He sound like? Yeah, He don't talk to me. But then it forced me to say, he speaks through his word. And the Holy Spirit does guide and direct us and lead us, but God's not talking to me the way he talked to Moses through Bernie Bush. And so again, it's a helpful thing to have somebody ask those questions sometimes. All right, anybody want to say anything else?