Simply Trinity (part 14)

Our Father in heaven, we thank you this morning for the glorious day that it is, for how you've granted us a new day, more breath, more opportunity to worship you, our triune

God. Lord, we ask for your blessing this morning as we look to this book and your word for what it tells us about your nature, who you are.

I pray that you would grow us, that you would stretch us, that we would learn to love and worship our triune

God all the better as we study these things. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. So a couple weeks ago we left off in chapter 5, chapter 5 quiz.

Anybody that doesn't have a copy of chapter 5? Because I think I have one copy with me. So hopefully you have one.

Well, don't make too many.

I mean, I have a lot of chapter 6, but I only have one of chapter 5. Okay, so we left off at number 17, as you,

I'm sure, recall. I don't know. Number 17, true or false, the

Son and the Spirit being derivative are nevertheless truly God. I just wanted to put that word derivative in there.

John says false. What does the spirit of the age say?

Okay, it is in fact false because of the word derivative. John is correct.

So good. Aquinas said the wholefulness of divine nature is present in each of the persons.

Okay, number 18, I normally don't hum during class, but there you go.

Number 18, true or false. Thomas Aquinas was muddy, unclear when it came to the

Trinity. What's funny, you know, last week, talking to Steve Meister, and I'll get to the answer here in a moment,

I said, what did you do with Thomas Aquinas when you were in seminary? Because we got assigned to read some

Thomas Aquinas, but you could just pick the pages at random. And he goes, I went in and read Thomas Aquinas about predestination because I was determined to prove him wrong.

The problem was Aquinas was right because he had, it was very much like Augustine or Calvin or anybody else.

So anyway, there are places where we would disagree with Aquinas, but the Trinity is not one of them.

Thomas Aquinas, this is from Barrett, was made fun of in school and was nicknamed the dumb ox.

Can you imagine that? And by the way, that was his Instagram tag, the dumb ox.

True story. As it turns out, this dumb ox shook the

Western world and to this day is considered one of the greatest theologians, philosophers, and biblical commentators the church has ever seen.

Now, what do you suppose Thomas Aquinas, what's the caricature, what is

Thomas Aquinas best known for? I think when

I say this, you guys will go, oh, I've heard that before. Trying to calculate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Yeah, Odira is correct. That's what, you know, we joke sometimes about how we waste too much time and we don't think about significant things.

Well, sometimes if you think too much about significant things, you can wind up trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Aquinas wrote the only extensive apologetic for theology. I don't know why

I put only in there. He not only wrote, that's why I did it. He not only wrote an extensive apologetic for theology called the

Summa Contra Gentiles, but an extensive unfinished guide for theology called the

Summa Theologiae. Sadly, Protestants today, especially evangelicals, avoid

Thomas like the plague, like I did, thinking he is Roman Catholic. That is a caricature that needs to die a sudden death.

Yes, we should critique Thomas like any theologian in history, but to hand him over to Rome is to miss out on his countless theological, apologetic, exegetical, and pastoral insights.

He makes an excellent point there, by the way, and the answer is false. He's not muddy when it comes to the Trinity. What do we do when we read anybody?

In fact, we were just having a discussion, oh, I was having a discussion with Pastor Mike the other day about this, as we were reading somebody that we respect a great deal, and an article that he wrote in a theological journal, and we're reading it, and we think to ourselves, okay, he's right here, and he's wrong there.

Does that mean we throw out everything he's ever said or written? No, it just means we examine everything that they say, and we compare it with Scripture, and we compare it with what we know is right, and we take what's good, and we throw away what's not, and that's what we should do with everybody.

I don't care if it's Thomas Aquinas or John MacArthur, you have to examine what they say and compare it with Scripture.

Okay, number 19, yes, okay, that's a good question, wouldn't you say it to yourself or to others?

I'm just not going to read their books. I mean, I have a fairly large list of people whose works

I will not read, so what's the dividing line? What's that?

Personal conscience, I think, is a good one, and I would say this, when a person's writings are typically so egregious as to not have much value at all, you know, like, if, let's see,

I think, you know, let's just name a name, that'll be fun. Would I read a book by Rick Warren?

Why not? I mean, your strainer has to be so fine to get anything out of it, and I'm sure that whatever he says that's good,

I can get somewhere else. Years ago, we were at Saddleback Church, we used to go there as a field trip when we went out to Shepherd's Conference, because you could go on Saturday.

So we would go on Saturday, and one time in particular, I remember him teaching on the parable of the soils, and what he said was, the message of the parable of the soils, and you can look it up, okay, the message of the parable of the soils is

God's trying to tell us to remove obstacles in our lives that keep us from hearing him.

One of the guys who was with us, he's no longer at the church, but he said, well,

I could teach better than that, and this man didn't teach at all, and I'm like, you probably could, because even if you just read the text, and then read the explanation that Jesus gave in the same context, you would see that it had nothing to do with removing the obstacles so that we can hear what

God's trying to tell us. So that would be an example of somebody I wouldn't read, because just too many problems.

I mean, his latest thing is, women can be pastors, and so he continues to spiral.

But what's the dividing line? I think, I would just say this, that when somebody becomes so much work,

I think Andrew was on this line here, so much work to read, that I can't get anything out of it, then

I probably wouldn't read him, even if it's somebody like, there are orthodox writers who are very difficult to read, and what's that?

Like Aquinas. Or like B .B. Warfield. They write at such depth that, and I mean, it's fine if you want to say to yourself, well,

I'm just going to read a paragraph today, and I'm going to read it six times, and grapple with it.

I think that's fine. But there are some people that are just so difficult to read, or they're filled with so much rubbish that it's like a waste of time.

So I think that's up to everybody. I mean, if they're just not right heretic, then

I'm not, unless you're reading it for academic reasons, I don't know why you'd want to read it. Other thoughts or questions before we move on?

Yeah. Yeah, he mentioned Wayne Grudem, and I mean,

I wouldn't group Grudem with Rick Warren, but I mean, there are a lot of issues.

I mean, he believes in the continuation of gifts, and he believes in eternal subordination of the

Son, and there are a number of things that, you know, there are some really excellent parts of that systematic theology, and then there are some parts that are not so good.

So, yeah. Okay, number 19, true or false?

The Father could exist without the Holy Spirit. False. And this is like one of those things about the

Trinity that we can't really explain, and we're going to talk more about it in Chapter 6, because it seems like, if you just think about this, using your own logic and your own reason, it seems like the

Father being the origin of everything, that He did exist before the

Son and the Spirit. And what's the problem with that? Before implies time.

And we're going to see that over and over and over. I'm trying to get out of the habit of saying gonna, so we're not going to do that anymore.

Barrett says, the Father does not exist without His Son. The Son does not exist without His Father.

And the Spirit does not exist without the Father and the Son. Not if all three have the same divine essence.

Yes, they are distinguishable, but only in terms of their eternal relations of origin, their personal properties, not in terms of their essence or nature.

Okay, number 20. True or false, the difference between divine essence and divine persons is vital.

Divine essence, divine persons. Is it okay to mix those two,

I guess, is the kind of question. The answer to the difference between divine essence and divine persons is vital, is true, yes.

Barrett says, everything, that's a lot, is true. Everything hinges on this distinction between essence and persons.

It's that important. Without it, we stray toward radical oneness,

Sibelianism, or radical threeness, Tritheism.

But simplicity keeps us from both. In other words, simplicity is not only consistent with a

God who is triune, but simplicity is the reason we can affirm a God who is triune, ironic as that may sound.

Not only that, but simplicity guards us from several major Trinitarian heresies.

So it's like Cory and Andrew did us a solid when they taught us about the simplicity of God. Yeah. Number 21.

There are three personal modes of subsistence in the Godhead. Yeah, you know what?

If I could just tell you, and with all the love of my heart to John, that's why

I put this question in here, because I knew it would, the word mode would be trigger, you know, it would trigger a true answer.

And that's why, you know, sometimes I'm just cruel. Barrett says, when we affirm that there are, listen, three modes of subsistence, paternity, affiliation, spiration.

Okay, so if I say paternity, who am I talking about? Affiliation.

And spiration, spirit, right? When we affirm that there are three modes of subsistence, we do not mean three impersonal modes of subsistence, which would be modalism or sibilianism, but three personal modes of subsistence.

In other words, the one essence is not manifested in three different ways. That would be modalism,

Patrick. Rather, the one essence eternally and wholly subsists in three undivided yet distinct persons.

And this is so difficult for me. Three persons who all have the same essence, undivided, and yet we have the

Father, Son, and Spirit, not the same person in three different modes, but three different persons, but all having 100 % of the divine essence.

That seems really complicated to me. Is it simple? Okay. Number 22.

I mean, it seems really complicated because it seems like it makes my head go into contradictory mode.

But it's not contradictory, it's God. Number 22. True or false, the one divine essence is multiplied three times one for each person.

Sounds like what? Sounds like three essences. Or it could be like three times the essence.

Okay, that doesn't make any sense. As both Aquinas and Anselm explain, just because there are three having divinity does not mean there are three gods.

The one divine essence is not multiplied three times. That is triplicity.

Woo! Yeah, triplicity. 23.

True or false, each person of the Trinity possesses the whole of the divine essence. It's true.

And that's the part that's really kind of mind -boggling. How is it that these three persons all have 100 % of the divine essence?

I don't know. But we are going to talk more about it. John Gill says,

There is but one divine essence, undivided and common to Father, Son, and Spirit.

And in this sense, but one God. Since there is but one essence, though there are three different modes of subsisting in it, which are called persons, and these possess the whole essence undivided.

Okay. I just think it's because I think it helps me to hear this, to read it repeatedly, so I hope it helps you.

But number 24. True or false, Social Trinitarianism need not lead to Tritheism.

What is Tritheism? Three gods. So, Social Trinitarianism need not lead to Tritheism.

True or false? See Glossary.

You want to know what it is? Look it up right here. Yeah, three persons of the

Trinity and how they respond, how they interact. And it's fully developed form.

It's not simplicity. Some reject simplicity, but the three persons. The Trinity is not defined primarily by eternal relations of origin.

Social Trinitarianism defines the Trinity as a society and a community analogous to human society.

It redefines the persons as three centers of consciousness, will. It redefines persons according to their relationships.

And redefines unity as interpersonal relationships of love between persons.

Okay. So, when we say that need not lead to Tritheism it is false.

Why is it false? Because when you wind up with three wills you're going to have three gods.

There's one will in God. Barrett says, despite protests Social Trinitarianism has all the ingredients for Tritheism.

For where there are three wills there are three separate centers of consciousness. And where there are three separate centers of consciousness there are three separate gods.

Imagine, pick any three people in this room. You know,

Janet, Andrew, Steve. And you say, well those are three individuals and that's what they do here.

No matter how much Steve, Andrew, and Janet agree, cooperate together, etc, etc, etc you have three individuals.

So you have in essence, you wind up with three persons, or in this case with the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit you wind up with Tritheism. I'm waiting for a

Patrick. Okay, number 25. True or false, divine simplicity ensures the equality of each member of the

Trinity. Simplicity guards us from thinking that one person of the

Trinity is superior to another. Have you ever had somebody say these things to you?

Because I have and I live here, right? Well, obviously if the

Son is here to please the Father, obviously if the Father sent the Son, obviously etc, etc, etc, etc then the

Father is greater than the Son. Why is that wrong?

But Jesus even said the Father is greater than I. It's all language of accommodation.

And what's the ultimate answer to this? Why is the Son equal to the Father? They have the same essence.

So when Jesus says the Father is greater than me, what's He doing? Yes, it's language of accommodation but He's also making a particular point which is

He's human and in His humanity the Father is greater than He is.

Barrett goes on to say such co -equality can only be affirmed if simplicity is true of God.

Should He be divided by parts we call Father, Son, and Spirit which is what I want to do in my head.

That's what I default to and I have to tell myself that's not right. Then those parts are either not holy

God, each only possessing part of God tallying up to God, in other words when they're all added up you have

God or they are holy divine because they are each their own

God resulting in tritheism. But if God is simple then He's not made up of three parts nor is

He divisible by three centers of consciousness or three different wills.

Instead He is one. Thoughts, questions, concerns?

Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to chapter 6 which that's why

I said don't make too many copies of this other one because I may or may not have made enough of these.

I don't know. We'll find out. It's going to be exciting. I'm on pins and needles.

By now some of this some of these questions you should just be nailing because you're just brilliant.

By the way, again, I just want to say if you're not reading the book I had a coach my freshman year in high school basketball and we would do a lot of running up and down the basketball court and whatnot and I'll never forget how long ago was that?

A long time ago Coach Preston used to say this, he'd say don't cheat your bodies don't cheat your bodies what did he mean?

Give it all you got don't hold anything back of course it was also his way of just torturing us but I would say if you're not reading this book you're cheating your mind you're cheating your mind because you will absorb it better if you how do we learn let's go back to that I'm sure

Mark could wax eloquent about that. How do we learn things? What's that?

Repetition is one way definitely. Some people will say that I'm a visual learner right?

I mean, you know how I learned how to tie ties? Close this was before YouTube existed

I was watching some stupid TV show and a girlfriend tied a tie around her boyfriend's neck and I thought,

I can do that I went upstairs and I grabbed a tie and I did it. Before that it was always a big struggle, right?

How else do people learn? Making connections reach out and touch somebody's hand how else do people learn?

Seeing patterns again, that's kind of a visual thing some people hear better by what?

By hearing and some people hear better by doing.

But repetition is important and when you hear this class when you think through things when you answer the questions those all help you.

But I'm going to tell you that reading the book is going to help you a lot as well and some of the things that I don't go through because I don't have time to do all of it are pretty fun

He has this fictional character I knew if I fumbled around a little bit

I'd figure it out this fictional character that he uses in the book that really is helpful in helping us understand what it would be like to be a

Christian in the early days of the church or even before the church starts when

Jesus is on the earth and to just think what would it be like to hear Jesus say this? What would it be like to hear

Peter say this? And so it just kind of puts you in that mode of thinking through these things and I think it's very helpful.

But he does a lot of things in the book that help us to grasp a very difficult concept namely the

Trinity. Chapter 6 Question number 1 True or false?

Eternal generation of the Son is a matter which orthodox theologians may debate

I see a big thumb up in the back of the class Maybe it wasn't up What do you think?

True or false? I mean you got a 50 -50 shot What's that?

They may debate it See I put false and there's one word

Zook is getting pretty good at figuring out what my one word tripwire is What is it in this?

Yeah it's orthodox If you're an orthodox theologian are you going to debate

I said it again Eternal generation of the Son. Are you going to debate eternal generation of the

Son? No. I mean you could, right? If you're for some reason wanting to be dopey

Somebody who believes orthodox things Somebody who believes what the church has traditionally held.

Somebody who holds to confessional truths Those would be orthodox. So good question I mean if you you know let's put it this way

I would say orthodox is the opposite or orthodoxy is the opposite in many ways of innovative

We could say well it's really heterodox which is true, right?

A different theology But the problem is typically when we hear something we go well that's wrong right?

Well why is it wrong? Usually it's because somebody's trying to be innovative So number one, eternal generation of the

Son is a matter of which orthodox theologians may debate. False Listen to John Gill All the sound in orthodox writers have unanimously

I mean this is like a blessed redundancy have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and Sonship of Christ in all ages.

I mean how many times can they say all? You know there's all unanimously and all again.

So that's pretty good the triunity of yes Number two

I see that hand. Okay eternal generation, we're going to define that most definitely.

Somebody want to take a crack at eternal generation Andrew Andrew wholeheartedly raises his hand

You know Look Don't even if you're just going to like you know kind of like my arm's broken or I've been shot in my shoulder you know

Okay good. State that they've always been in. Jesus second person of the trinity is not created but eternally generated and we're going to talk more about that so I don't want to belabor it because then we can just scrap the whole quiz here because we're going to see this repeated in different ways throughout this quiz hint number two true or false the term eternal relations of origin tells us where each of the trinity came from and I'm going to give you a big hint that's kind of what

I made up so that's false I was just like when you hear yeah it was very innovative and not orthodox when

I think of that term eternal relations of origin it sounds pretty good but what does it mean right and what it's trying to tell us about is before time exactly what

Andrew was talking about before time how is it that there came to be three persons right and so these kind of things these categories help us to understand that Aquinas says this eternal relations of origin therefore identifies from whom each person proceeds and what it is about each person that distinguishes listen that distinguishes that person from the others what makes the father different from the son what makes the son different from the spirit what makes the spirit different from the father it's the eternal relations of origin eternal relations of origin alone can tell us why

God is trinity why he is triune the aim says

Gregory of Nazianzus there's too many z's in there and this is a quote is to safeguard the distinctness the uniqueness the difference of the three hypostases within the single nature and quality of the

Godhead so what does that mean well we will talk more about it but to just put it in a nutshell

I don't want to put too much of it in a nutshell because I'll give away all the rest of them I think for the moment it's just important to say this the father is distinct and different from the son who is distinct and different from the spirit who is distinct and different from the father and yet they're all they all share the divine essence so the divine or the eternal relations of origin tells us what is different about each one of them yes you may

I may decline but go ahead because the next one is going to give us one of the one of the okay that is true yes that's what made it yes you're getting good at zeroing in on my falseness

I'll never be able to lie to you again okay yes it doesn't tell us anything about where each of the trinity came from right

I mean because where do they come from they don't come from you know like ones from Indiana or you know no

I don't know definitely not Indiana okay number three true or false of the trinity only the father can be said to be without source it's true it's true ish it's true

Noah 100 % true and here's a word that you will never hear for again for the rest of your life because I'm not going to try to say it again inaskability and he says this is a fancy theological word that means the father is listen from no one the source without source the principle without principle while the son is begotten the father is unbegotten so what does that mean that the father is without source it means that he is unbegotten he's the principle and that's why

Andrew is going to be teaching the rest of the class okay just come up here come up here it's a minefield yeah but if we stick with historical vocabulary

I was about to say nomenclature how many of you are familiar with that that word that's something they use in the military you know the nomenclature blah blah blah just means the words were the vocabulary that applies to this particular topic so if we stick with the traditional nomenclature we're going to be relatively safe and if we quote

Barrett we're going to be relatively safe too because he's quoting other people who are safe and that's what we want the father if you just think about it this way the father is from no one he is unbegotten okay and I get where you're going just hang with me here number four true or false there never was a time there never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father there never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father it's true and I give you a little insight here from the fictional character that Barrett uses says

Jesus is not beloved because he became incarnate that he came to earth he became incarnate because he is beloved as Zipporah Zipporah the fictional character in the book said never was there a time when he was not the father's beloved son as Jesus said time after time the father loves him loves

Jesus begotten from the father from all eternity he was sent by the father into history for us and our salvation there never was a time of course now as soon as you rethink what

I wrote there for the question there never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father

John Zook would immediately focus in on what? time and now you all can too

I'll never be able to lie to anybody this is terrible number five you know all my tells now you have to watch for those tricky words number three is true of the trinity only the father can be said to be without source number five

I didn't put it true or false so that means there can be a raucous debate number five which of the persons of the trinity can be said to be principle we already said the father is without principle which of them can be said to be principle

I could but then

I give away the answer nice try that's like you know those are the kind of things that you know the smart high school kids did they'd walk up and ask it you could see what he did walk up to the question walk up to the teacher ask a question knowing that when the teacher gave the answer that would be the answer to the so there you go we'll define it here now unlike human fatherhood god the father has no father right we know that I mean who would say something crazy like god the father had a father who would say that Mormons would say that in case you're wondering because from our human standpoint does that make sense sort of except then we'd wind up at some point you'd have to you can't have an eternal regression of fathers because there has to be a father who's the father of all the fathers unlike human father fatherhood god the father has no father he is in a word unbegotten no father brought him into existence the great tradition our dream team used the word principle which according to Aquinas meant simply that from which something proceeds okay so god the father first person of the trinity is the principle not principle like go see the principle but the principle of the trinity which it ends in le not al number six which of the persons of the trinity can be said to be without principle well it's kind of tricky no no it's still the father he's the principle without principle the father is

Barrett says the father is principle and the only one of the trinity who is without principle

I don't like these words I don't like this I don't like this nomenclature okay well let's just change it a little bit okay let's think about it this way does the spirit proceed does he from the son and the father yes does the son proceed or is he sent by the father okay from whom does the father proceed and that's the point nobody sends the father he proceeds from nobody he is the principle and he's without principle meaning there's nobody sending him okay now does it sort of make sense seeing no objection all right number seven true or false the father gave his glory to the son sounds like something from John so that sounds like I fooled

John Zook okay the answer is false there you go he always had it

Barrett says he's eternally from the father that's why he's called the son to be more specific in eternal generation the father from all eternity communicated his name has perfections and his glory to the son but did he give it to the son you know that would be like saying he gave him his it it's hard for us why why is this difficult because it implies time and so we want that but again was there ever a time when the father did not have his son and you know logically if we think that through why would that be because can the father be a father without a son okay the answer is no okay he let's see from all eternity this is a quote from somebody no it's not this is back to Barrett from all eternity the father communicates the one simple undivided divine essence to the son or to use the vocabulary of John's gospel eternal generation means the son is eternally begotten from the father's essence eternally begotten from the father's essence and this is what causes us trouble because we want to see that word eternally sort of stricken you know we'd like it better if it said the son is begotten from the father's essence because then we could comprehend it a little bit easier but it's eternal not in time number eight true or false being from the father has to do with the incarnation that is false and I want to get to number nine so I'm going to go a little quickly here to be from the father does not refer to the incarnation to Christ as mediator being sent by the father to say may reflect eternal generation but in no way constitutes eternal generation may reflect it but it doesn't constitute it instead to be from the father refers to the son's origin in eternity apart from creation as we will learn generation is internal to the triune god or ad intra we talked about that several weeks ago ad intra means something that takes place within the trinity and ad extra is something that takes place outside of the trinity he is son whether or not he was ever sent into the world and the reason

I wanted to get to number nine true or false the ESV translated

John 3 16 similarly to the King James Version similarly has to do a lot of work to make it similar okay listen to what

Barrett says and then we'll compare those two as we've seen there is another term that conveys the concept of generation begotten perhaps you've heard the word used when reading those long genealogies in the

Bible so and so begat so and so and so and so begat so and so but as we'll see in chapter 7

John applies this language to Jesus as well referring to him as the only begotten son of God this begotten language however long predates the

King James Bible well let's look at what our Bible says the English Standard Version John 3 16 anybody know that off the top of their head never read it before in my life for God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life now is there any problem with that begotten is not there did anybody have a guess why that's not there somebody's name was mentioned earlier in the class

Wayne Grudem had some impact on the ESV and I'm not certain but it seems somewhat likely that the term begotten son was removed because eternally begotten would not comport with eternal subordination or eternal functional subordination so it's stricken thus you know

I kind of like every time I read that in the ESV I get a little tight because it's misleading we need to know that he's not just the unique son of God but that he's the eternally begotten one timeless

ESS and EFS subordinate all that stuff kind of leads to ultimately

I think if I were the Mormons I would switch to the ESV because there are fewer questions with the

ESV about their theology than this idea that maybe Jesus has created kind of goes along well with that I want to read only begotten in what sense?

it's in the sense that Jesus is eternally begotten there was never a time when he wasn't which is consistent with what

John says in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was

God this is good and true and right and that's the way we should understand it and every time you read it now in the

ESV I want you to just think his only son not good enough his only begotten son eternally begotten is even better we need to think credally with the great tradition we need to think historically thoughts, questions, concerns before we close you're blessed the answer is false the

ESV translates John 3 .16 no it does not Mark it's monogamous it should have it has to do with the only one basically the unique son, the only one like him no matter how you slice it the

ESV is rather mundane and pedestrian in the way it says it because it needs to be sort of exalted and given the depth which it's due the

ESV does not do that okay well let's close in prayer

Father thank you for this time help us even as we study your word to just think rightly about you as Father, Son and Spirit Triune to think in terms of your persons what causes you to be unique in your

Triunity but Lord also let us remember that there's no division there's no division of will there's just unity of will and of mind and you do all things perfectly well and together

Lord let us love you more even as we look to these things and even think as we read the

Old Testament how the New Testament helps us to understand the

Old Testament and some of the things that are going on there Father help us as we study help us to grow in our love for you we pray in Jesus name,