Simply Trinity Study (Part 5)

Well, good morning. Let's open in prayer. Our great triune God, we come before you this morning. We're thankful, thankful that we're able to meet, thankful that we were able to arrive safely. Father, we're thankful as we consider our salvation, the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ would come to earth, take on an additional nature, that of a human being, live a perfect life, the life that we ought to have lived, die a substitutionary death bearing our sins, and then be raised gloriously on the third day, that we might know that our sins are paid for.

Father, as we look to the Trinity, the doctrines that are contained within, I pray that you'd strengthen us, that you'd help us, that you'd encourage us. We pray for these things in Jesus' name. Amen.

The Quiz Continues and Eternal Generation

So, I mean, I've been encouraged so far. I was reading this morning about double constant substantiality, which is a phrase that rolls off the tongue. Okay, if you say so, Steve. Yeah, I'm sure we'll be talking about that.

But now, back to the quiz, back to the fun stuff, as we say. We left off, and we finished number 12, and I just noticed a major flaw in my notes. Not really, but okay. I just, I hate it when I do stuff like this.

You know, I have an A, and then it goes B, and the B is blank. Well, that just means that I, you know, messed up, but that's okay. Number 13, true or false? And remember this, always, the indelible marker, the yellow, is always correct, whatever you may think.

Number 13, true or false? If the Son is eternally generated, He is wholly divine. If the Son is eternally generated, He is wholly divine. What's that? What do you mean, if is pedantic? Okay, which means you say false, but is that a true or false statement, if the Son is eternally generated?

It's true. It's a condition that's met, right? Whether, you know, I guess you're, it's a ridiculous condition, right? Okay, it's a ridiculous, but it's a true condition. So, well, okay, is it or isn't it?

In other words, what's, okay, let's, let's frame it another way. What if we say that Jesus is not eternally generated, then what? Okay, then He wouldn't be divine. And why wouldn't He be divine? Because He'd be a created being.

That's absolutely correct. Let me read the, what Mr. Barrett says here. The Nicene Fathers argued that the Son is begotten from the same essence of the Father. Eternal generation does not undermine the Son as co-eternal and co-equal.

That's an understatement. Eternal generation safeguards the Son as co-eternal and co-equal. Then, here's what Barrett says, only if He is eternally begotten from the Father's essence is He holy divine.

See, so I didn't really change that a whole lot, did I? Oh man, it suddenly turned to a political debate. That's out of context. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, you know, you'll give the point to Dr. Barrett, so I yield.

If the Son is eternally generated, it's important that He's eternally generated because then He's of the same substance as the Father. If He's not eternally generated, then we have a problem. Then there was a time when Jesus came into being.

If we just say He's generated, then there was a time where He did not exist and the Father created Him. If we say simply that He's eternal, then He's not what? If we just say Jesus is eternal, there's nothing wrong with that, except in the context of the Trinity, if we put it in that context, if we say that Jesus is eternal, we're leaving something out, which is the whole framework of His divinity or His Sonship, right?

How does He become the second person of the Trinity, right? I don't want to say His Sonship, I guess. Back off. How does He become the second person of the Trinity? Because He's eternally generated, so He doesn't become anything.

He is the second person of the Trinity. Yes. No, we cannot say, okay, well, let's... That's a fair question. Can we say that, let's back up and tackle these one at a time. It's football season. Is the Father eternally generated of the Son?

Why is the answer no to that? A stunned look. An absolute... What's that? Okay, I like that. It's kind of like, you know, what if your parents say something, can you do X, Y, or Z? No, mom said no, you know, and that's all there is.

The creeds say no, that He's not. What do the creeds say about the Father? That He is unbegotten. Unbegotten. Which means what? He always was. Well, the Son was always, too. So was the Spirit. No, because the Son is eternally begotten, so it doesn't refer to His human nature.

It refers to the relationship between the two. Here's what we could say. We could say the Father eternally begets the Son and therefore the Father is eternally the Father. To be a father, you have to have a child.

True? Okay, so it tells us something about the relationship between the members of the Trinity when we say the Son is eternally begotten, the Father eternally begets, the Spirit is eternally, sorry, I'll use the 25-cent word and then I'll back out for a second.

The Spirit is eternally spirated, okay, or we could say simply the Spirit is eternally sent, and who sends the Spirit? Father and the Son. Okay, so again, it just tells us something about the relationship between the three, doesn't create a hierarchy, because if there's a hierarchy, we have other problems, including violating, as John so helpfully said, the creeds and confessions.

We're creating a new Trinity, if we go against that. Now, I mean, you could make arguments for it, and people have, and they usually fall into heresy one way or the other. Number 13, true or false, if the Son is eternally generated, he is wholly divine.

True, because he is, as Barrett says, only if he's eternally begotten from the Father's essence is he wholly divine. In other words, there's this divine essence, and you know, it's interesting, because how much of the divine essence does the Father possess?

100%. How much does the Son possess? 100%. The Son possesses 100%, so we wind up with the whole, you know, don't try to do this math at home, kids, kind of thing. We're gonna have some, some mind-blowing issues there.

Homoousios and Divine Simplicity

Number 14, you know what, you know what I like, if I could just, as an aside, what I've enjoyed is people talking about this book. I even had somebody in the restroom say, I've only gotten to chapter 3, but I have a question for you.

In the restroom, it's fine, it's good. Number 14, which of the following, uh-oh, it's not true or false. Danger. Which of the, which of these applies to the Son? Heteroous, I'm not even gonna try to say it, heteroous, oosios, heteroousios.

Different or unlike in essence. Homoiousios, similar like essence, okay, or homoiousios, which, you know, help me, looks like they're exactly the same. I probably misspelled one, so forget my spelling.

How did I do that? I don't know. Look at the English instead. Different, different or unlike in substance, similar or like in essence, same essence. Yeah, and the answer is same. I mean, if you just, if you just, and you're already doing this, if you just think about it, well, if they have an, a different essence, then they're not the same God.

You have different, different gods. If they have similar or like essence, well, then the Son could be created, which is what the Arians said. And if you have the same essence, then you have what we're talking about here, the Trinity.

Barrett says this, he says, the Son is co-essential, meaning same essence. He shares the same divine essence. He is consubstantial, meaning he shares in the same divine substance. Begotten from the Father's essence from all eternity.

The Son's existence originates from the same eternal divine essence as the Father, which means he is co-equal, true God of true God. Lest we doubt that, Nicaea leads us to consider the works of God. The Father creates the world through his Son, unlike Arius, who positions the Son on the side of the created order.

If you remember how I tried to mentally create that picture for you, that the, the Son is a special creation of the Father, and then through the Son, the first created, everything else flows. Unlike Arius, who positions the Son on the side of the created order, Nicaea identifies the Son with the Creator himself, indeed, as the Creator himself.

So he has to be of the same essence, same substance, as the Father. Questions? Yes, Charlie. Well, since I mangled it, there you go. There you go. How many have seen that meme? I mean, I really should start using a projector in this class.

The meme where the kid's sitting on Santa's lap, and he says, you know, he asks Santa, he says, and he, he uses the two spellings, Homoousius or Homo, Homo-Eusius, and Santa Claus looks at him and goes, what?

And then the kid says, you're not the real Santa Claus, you're not the real Saint Nick, you know, because the real Saint Nicholas knows the, knows the difference between the two. I mean, giving Santa Claus theological quizzes, I like that, and if your kid knows that much, you got a, you got a preacher on your hands.

Divine Simplicity and the Attributes of God

Number 15, true or false, the Son's essence is his attributes, and his attributes are his essence. I'll just appeal to Andrew Smith, professor of all things. Well, wait a minute now, come on, well, let me change the question then.

True or false, God's essence is his attributes, and his attributes are his essence. It sounds exactly like the simplicity of God. Thank you. I'm not gonna fire Andrew, but, you know, I gotta listen pal for that rope.

All right, the answer is true. Alright, I, and I, I am a simple-minded guy, but listen to this, Barrett. Barrett says, one important step forward can be credited to Athanasius, who defended the eternal generation of the Son from the Father by appealing to divine simplicity.

In theology, simplicity does not mean God is elementary or basic. In other words, God is simple, not because he's basic or because he's elementary. It means God is made up of, or composed of, or compounded by parts.

That, that would mean, oh, he's not made up of that. In other words, if you could say that God is, he's holy, he's loving, he's just, he's, give me some more attributes. Anyway, if you line up all the attributes you can name, and you say, well, then all those attributes make up God, and the survey said, the survey said, why?

Because he's not made up of parts, right? You can't name him all and add up all those things and come up with God. He is, you know, if we say he is love, he's entirely love, he's entirely just, he's entirely all these things.

He is his attributes, and his attributes are him. He, and his whole, his essence. Simplicity means that God's essence just, or his essence, boy, that, that's a mouthful. Simplicity means that God's essence just is his attributes, okay?

I'd leave out just there, because just is one of his attributes, but his essence is his attributes, and his attributes his essence. Scripture, for instance, does not merely say God possesses love, but that he is love.

God does not merely perform good acts, but he is good. In other words, God's attributes are not one thing and his essence another, but all that is in God is God. All that is in God is God. To say that the triune God is simple is to say that all that is true of the divine essence, eternity, immutability, etc., is true of each and every person of the Godhead.

The Son is no exception to that rule. He too is simply God. So everything that's true of the Father is true of the Son, except that the Son does not eternally generate anyone. As Stephen Holmes says, quote, equally identical with all the divine properties.

In other words, there's no divine property of the Father that the Son does not possess as well. Number 16, true or false. Simplicity helps us differentiate between divine generation and human generation.

Simplicity helps us differentiate between divine generation and human generation. That's true. And divine generation and human generation, you know, we think, and I don't want to skip ahead, but when we think of like father like son, right?

There's truth to that. There's a lot of truth to that. And in a human sense, it means one thing, but divine sense, it means something else. Barrett says, simplicity helps us differentiate, for example, between human generation and divine generation.

So there you go. Listen to Athanasius. As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not as God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the Father in another. In other words, the analogy helps us to understand the relationship.

It doesn't quite come about exactly. I mean, if I have a son, my son could be said to be like me in all the bad ways. But when we say, you know, Jesus is the image of the Father, what does that mean? Yes, there's nothing derivative about it.

He is in his essence God. Okay, follow up on 15. All right, would I say, would you say that again? Relationship between the Father and Son. Okay, are those separate, are the relationships separate from the attributes of God?

Okay, Charlie. Well, I think that's true. I think that we'll never fully grasp the totality that is God, because that's just beyond our graspitude. You know, I like making up words, too. Getting back to the question, is the, does the relationship between the three of them, is that independent of the attributes?

The attributes define the essence, and the essence define the, well, I don't know, this is so complicated for me. It's pretty, I don't know, submit that, submit that in writing. Okay, number 17. I mean, I'm just gonna have to think about it, because it's like, kind of, I mean, I, when you said it at first, I thought I knew it, and then I, the more I think about it, the more I'm like, yeah, give it to me in writing.

So, I know it, I just don't know it. Number 17, true or false, to be begotten of the Father is to have the same essence as the Father. Obviously true, and I mean, we've been talking about that, so this is a little bit repetitive.

Said Athanasius, since he is not a creature, which is so important for us to remember, because we live in a world where Jesus is a creature. That's how people think of him. Since he is not a creature, he alone is from the Father.

We must say that the Son is from the essence of the Father. And to say that he is from the essence of the Father, is to say that he is truly God. He's truly divine. Yes, he's truly man, but he is truly divine, and we have to keep that in focus.

One Will, One Power, and Inseparable Operations

Number 18, true or false, for there to be three persons in the Godhead, there must be three wills. Why is that false? I mean, if you're a person, you have a will. Well, if they all had three wills, they'd all be on their own little trajectory, their own little path.

Well, they could just come to agreement, though. Compromise. Okay, if they're indivisible in what now? Their essence, then they're indivisible in will. I mean, I think that's really close to what Barrett says.

He says the persons were, talking about the Father, Son, and Spirit, the persons were consubstantial, same essence, same substance. Consubstantial just means same substance. The persons were consubstantial with one another because they were one in will and power.

Will and power are not separate from the essence, as if they can be divided up in different degrees among the persons. For example, no one, for example, he says, and then no, will and power are to be identified with the one essence.

We mortals tend to distinguish between essence, will, and power for the sake of comprehension and clarity, but we must remember that they are not parts of God. Indeed, they are one and the same. God is one, and the three persons having one essence, will, and power.

They have one will. So, and here's why I think it's important because we can go back, you know, go into our DeLorean, go back to the pre-time, pre-temporal counsel, where the Father, Son, and Spirit, you know, lay out this plan of salvation for mankind.

And if we're not careful, then what do we wind up with? Kind of like a United Nations, right? The, the three, yeah, the three of them get together, and you know, debate, and have a vote, and it's two to one, you know, or so, and no.

No, there's nothing like that. They're always of the same will, the same desire, the same thoughts. There's no differentiation. The problem we have, of course, is we identify personhood as will, right?

So we think of ourselves, well, if there are three persons in the Trinity, each of them must have different desires, a different plan, different thoughts, different, no. Well, then how are they three different persons?

Because they are, because the Bible says they are. They do things, they make decisions, and the thing is, they don't make decisions that are in conflict, or in any way contrary to the other persons. In fact, they're always in full agreement with one another.

Okay, from there, there must be three wills. Number 19. Any question about that? Okay, moving on. Number 19, true or false? Each of the persons in the Trinity have different areas of operation. That really feels true, doesn't it?

It is false. It's a shaka. Bear it. If the persons of the Trinity are one in essence, will, and power, simply Trinity, then it also follows that they work, listen, inseparably in creation and salvation.

Indivisible in essence, indivisible in operation, the Church Fathers like to say. Singular in nature and will, the persons form a singular action. Separate individual centers of consciousness and will may be true of created persons, us, but cannot be true of divine persons, otherwise the Godhead would be divided.

So what does that mean? I mean, when we think about, for example, and this is the easiest example maybe to give in all of Scripture, or at least it's easier for me, Ephesians 1, 3 to 14, when we read through that, and I mean we could read through it now, we read through it, we tend to preach it this way, and I'll preach it before I read it, you know, the Father chooses, the Son dies for, secures the salvation of the elect, and then the Holy Spirit seals them, and everybody would say amen to that, you know, that's a good and right sermon.

Here's the issue though. Let me read it. Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ, with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him, right, this is the Father choosing us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him.

In love, he predestined us for adoption to himself, as sons through Jesus Christ. Again, talking about the Father choosing us, he's going to adopt us through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.

Okay, now there, was there a different will? No. Moving on, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the beloved. In him, in Christ, we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ, as a plan of the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven, and things on earth.

In him, in Christ, we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined, according to the purpose of him who works all things, according to the counsel of his will. So that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be to the praise of his glory.

In him, you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed by the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance, until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

Now, let's just focus on that last one for a moment. If I say, who is it that guarantees our salvation? Which are the persons of the Trinity? What's that? Holy Spirit. Okay. But if I say to you, that no one can take us out of the Father's hand, what does that mean?

It refers to his decree? Okay. Okay, I think Lisa's correct. Let's look at John 6 for a moment. I'm looking at Jesus walking on water, which has nothing to do with what I want to talk about. Okay. 44, no one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.

Does that sound like Jesus is guaranteeing our salvation? I think it sounds like that. But we just said in Ephesians 1 that the Spirit guarantees our salvation. Which one is it? Is that a contradiction?

Why isn't it a contradiction? Because they're one of the same, and because in terms of operations, they both operate. There is nothing that, and you know, why does it seem like sometimes that the Father said to be doing something, and then later on we'll see the Son is said to be doing something?

Here, let's look at John 10 for a moment. I mean, this is a clear, in one context, we have the Father and the Son doing the same thing. Verse 27, my sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. Well, they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What does it sound like? He's guaranteeing their security.

Verse 29, my Father who has given them to me, his eternal decree, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. Well, can't take them out of the Son's hand, can't take them out of the Father's hand.

It kind of sounds like what? Verse 30, I and the Father are one. Not one in purpose alone, right? An Arian, a Mormon, could agree with that. Meaning that even if Jesus was a created being, he could have the same eternal purpose.

But one in action. So, you know, we often see things divided up as if they're separate operations, as if the Father does something and the Son doesn't. Well, true or false? The Father chose us in eternity past.

Is that true or false? True. Did Jesus choose us in eternity past? It's true. I mean, we can look at passages, and you could argue with me about this, but it says, Jesus says, you did not choose me, but I chose you.

Well, what did that mean? You know, just in the offhanded chants or that one moment here where he went and prayed, and then he came down, and he said, these are the guys I want. You know, this is my team.

I don't think so. I think there's an eternal reference as well, right? So, let's read what Barrett says. If the persons of the Trinity are one in essence, will, and power, simply Trinity follows in separately, blah, blah, blah, okay.

Indivisible in essence, indivisible in operation, the Church Fathers like to say. Singular in nature and will, the persons perform a singular action. Separate individual centers of consciousness and will may be true of created persons, but cannot be true of the divine persons, otherwise the Godhead would be divided.

Then, when Lewis Ayres, a world-renowned expert on the Trinity, lists the three essential conditions for one to be pro-Nicene, in other words, to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, a belief in inseparable operations is one of them.

Inseparable operations, okay, just one second, meaning that what the Father does, the Son does. What the Son does, the Spirit does. What the Spirit does, the Father does, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Okay, Janet, I don't know if I can either.

Romans 15, well, I mean, first of all, you'd have to accept the idea that the term God always means the, well, or the Father, right? I mean, I remember when I was going through the John 13 through 17 and, you know, when he, when Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will take up residence in them, he also says what?

He says something else there. He says that he would abide with them and that the Father would also abide. In other words, I recall quite clearly saying that the Triune God would take up residence within each and every person of the Trinity, or every saved person.

And we sometimes just assume that it's the Holy Spirit alone, but that's not correct. And there are other passages we could point to. Yep, so let me, let me just read the verse and then I'll get to you.

May the God of hope, so we would have to assume then that this would be a separate, well, I, you know, I'm looking at the non-authorized version here, Reformation Study Bible, and it says this, what was described as the effect of Scripture in verse 4 as having hope and promised, and the citation is from 1110, verse 12, is now attributed to the work of the Holy Spirit.

Paul here is following a pattern evident throughout the New Testament. God's saving acts are attributed in God's Word as well as to the work of the Holy Spirit, etc. I mean, I think it's really difficult.

You can find multiple places where different acts of God are attributed to different persons. Yes? Okay, yeah, I think it has to do with that exactly. I don't have time to sort all this out either, but in John 14 is where the Holy Spirit is promised, and he takes up resonance in us, even the spirit of truth, but even if you study that out, I think you'll see that it's not just the Holy Spirit who takes up resonance in us.

But I think the important part is to understand if we just take, like Andrew said, if we just take a step back, and we say, okay, same power, same will, meaning what? If God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have the same will, then that means they're all working together.

They have the same power, and what the Scripture does is it highlights particular emphases, you know, with regard to Father, Son, and Spirit. Now there are some, there is one big difference between the Trinity.

We cannot say, for example, that the Father died for sinners, or that the Holy Spirit died for sinners. Well, why not? Because only the man Christ Jesus died, right? Only in his human nature could he die.

Yeah. Okay, I have to confess, somewhere here I started hearing Paul McCartney, The Long and Winding Road. I lost the question there somewhere. Are there three persons of the Godhead because they relate to creation differently?

Okay. Yes, that's true. Okay, so let's take this one piece at a time here, and I see we're going to close on this, but okay, no sinful thing can enter into God's throne room, right? I think we're agreed on that.

Okay. Okay, but that's not, but that's not a sinful creature entering into the throne room. That's God entering into a sinful creature, right? Okay. Yes. That part's true. That part's true. I still, I still don't, I mean, I don't think that's analogous though to us entering into the, you know, in other words, what happens when, and you know this, when the Holy Spirit enters into us, he begins a refining process that ultimately is not complete until we die and go to glory.

I, I don't, I don't think so. Yeah, I think that's, yeah, I think that's too divided. John says it feels a little too divided. I just think it feels too divided. Okay, how can they? Well, because Jesus says that, it's a direct implication, and I don't, well, it's not the Holy Spirit alone, right?

Right, because that's how we typically, we describe it, because that's how the scripture most, most often defines it that way, right? I mean, like, the vast majority of the time. The, the question would be, you know, who, who's at work in sanctifying me?

Is it the Holy Spirit alone? I mean, is it the Holy Spirit alone? And I, I think the answer is no. If we, you know, if we, if somebody wants to, you know, refute that, we can do a study on that, well, in a few weeks.

But the idea, here's, here's the question, does the Holy Spirit alone sanctify believers? And I think the answer to that is no. It's just that the emphasis is put on, you know, if we say, who created the earth?

Well, the emphasis is on whom? Is it on the Father? I mean, I think the, I think in Genesis, we might say the, the emphasis appears to be on the Father, in John, the emphasis is, what's that? You know, and so the emphasis would be on Jesus, but I think we could also make the case that certainly the Father and the Son are, or the Father and the Spirit are also involved.

I, I, I think in everything, you know, even if, even if you could find an action in Scripture where only one person of the Trinity is said to be engaged, the ultimate question is, was that just his purview alone?

You know, he's got this isolated bit of action that only he does, and the answer would be no. They've got, they're all involved, there are inseparable operations, because the same essence is involved in whatever that power is exercised in, in doing.

Okay, any, any million-dollar questions that I can't answer in less than 20 minutes before we close? And the, you know, Andrew's shaking his head, because he knows that if we, if we do any more, we're gonna get, you know, in big trouble here, so let's close in prayer.

And, as always, let me, before I pray, if you have some complicated question based on something that we just talked about, send me an email, we'll address them all in three weeks. All of them, every single one.

All right. Let's pray. Father, what a delight it is to, to think, to meditate, to just be sometimes bewildered, sometimes overwhelmed by the knowledge of what a transcendent God you are, and yet you stick closer to believers than a brother.

You have loved us with an everlasting love. You have determined to redeem us in spite of who we are. You, you change us. You save us, you sanctify us, and one day you will glorify us. And that is, in fact, a transcendent truth, a mind-boggling truth, when we consider our own sins.

You are a glorious God and worthy of all our praise, and we thank you and pray to you in Jesus' name. Mind-boggled.