Westminster Confession

Bible Study

 

Chapter 1 On God and theHoly Trinity, section 3: The Triune Nature of God

 

By: Moses Flores

 

 

Sections one and two of the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith have given us much insight into the attributes of God and even His character.  For instance, we have seen how God is immutable in His purpose which makes Him faithful in all His covenant promises, etc…

Section three brings us to see how God exists in and of Himself.  Here we learn of the Triune nature of God, also known as the doctrine of the Trinity.  Simply stated, the doctrine of the Trinity is this:

 

“Within the one substance that is God, there eternally exists three co-equal and co-eternal persons, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

 

Within the discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity, there will be some vocabulary that is quite unfamiliar to most people.  Terms like “substance” and “co-inherence”, etc…While I admit, some words can be confusing, and have proven to be so in the history of theological development, we should have some understanding of what is generally meant by the word “substance” as it will be thrown around quite a bit in this portion of the study. 

“Substance” is a concept developed by Aristotle and is defined by most philosophers as “the underlying essence; that in which all qualities of a thing inhere.[1]”  In other words, a “substance” of something is that which underlies all the qualities of something but still make it what it is.  For instance, a table may come in many sizes and shapes and colors, etc…but there is a quality about the object – irrespective of its appearance (or accidents as Aristotle would call them) that places it in the category of table.  Dogs, though they may have different colors of skin, long hair or short hair, pointed snouts or blunt snouts, short snouts, yet they still retain their categorical placement of being dogs.  This is the easiest way that I can think of to try to explain substance.  Substance is the primary category of a being. 

With a rudimentary understanding of the term “substance” we are now ready to proceed into the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

 

Trinitarian Errors: What the Trinity is not

 

            I want to begin this lesson from a negative perspective and begin by examining some historical errors involving the nature of God in regards to the Triune nature.  The reason for this is that it is quite common to misunderstand the doctrine of the Trinity and not understand the implication of the errors.  Within Church history, many saints have debated, and even given their lives for the truth of God in Scripture.  It is only right that the Church in the present recalls how God has led His Church from errors in the past that we  may not return to commit them again.

 

Arianism

 

            Let us begin with an old Trinitarian heresy that goes by the name of Arianism.  Arianism is named after Arius of Alexandria who essentially rejected the full deity of Jesus Christ, and hence, His inclusion in the substance of the Godhead.  The theology of Arianism essentially says this:

 

“The Father alone is God; therefore he alone is unbegotten, eternal wise, good and unchangeable, and he is separated by an infinite chasm from the world.  He cannot create the world directly, but only through an agent, the Logos.  The Son of God is pre-existent, before all creatures, and above all creatures, a middle being between God and the world, the creator of the world, the perfect image of the Father, and the executioner of this thoughts, and thus capable of being called in a metaphorical sense God, and Logos, and Wisdom.  But on the other hand, he himself is a creature, that is to say, the first creation of God, through whom the Father called other creatures into existence; he was created out of nothing (not out of the essence of God) by the will of the Father before all conceivable time; he is therefore not eternal, but had a beginning, and there was a time when he was not.[2]”

 

            Sometimes, Arians quote passages like I Corinthians 8:5-6 which says that there is “one God, the Father…and one Lord Jesus Christ…”  Arians believed that there was a distinction of substance involved here since there was said to be only “one God” and “one Lord”.  Hence, for Arians, Jesus Christ was the first creation of God and then made the rest of creation through Him.  This theology developed around the late third century and made waves into the fourth century, eventually being formally dealt with at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) but not really seeing its end, though it was suppressed formidably at the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.). 

            The main problem with Arianism, as Athanasius of Alexandria saw was that if Christ was not fully divine then how can our salvation be valid if it is not wrought by an eternal person?  That is, how can we gain eternal salvation if the one who gained it for us was not himself eternal?  Phillip Schaff recognizes the same concern,

 

“The main question was, whether Christianity is the highest and absolute revelation of God, and such that by it in the Son o God the self-existent absolute being of God joins itself to man, and so communicates itself that man through the Son becomes truly one with God, and comes into such community of essence with God, as makes him absolutely certain of pardon and salvation.  From this point of view Athanasius apprehended the gist of the controversy, always finally summing up all his objections to the Arian doctrine with the chief argument, that the whole substance of Christianity, all reality of redemption, everything which makes Christianity the perfect salvation, would be utterly null and meaningless, if he who is supposed to unite man with God in real unity of being, were not himself absolute God, or of one substance with the absolute God, but only a creature among creatures.  The infinite chasm which separates creature from Creator, remains unfilled;  there is nothing really mediatory between God and man, if between the two there be noting more than some created finite thing, or such a mediator and redeemer as the Arians conceive the Son of God in his essential distinction from God: not begotten from the essence of God and coeternal, but created out of nothing and arising in time.[3]”

 

            Thus, the issue went much deeper than a Greek iota in homoousia (same substance) and homoiousia (like substance).  The very essence of Christianity was at stake.  For Athanasius, Christ being of the same substance with the Father meant that man could truly be united to God for eternal salvation.  For the Arians, however, it could only mean an acknowledgement, or consciousness, of the great chasm that exists between the Creator and the creature and forever fixing it in place with no hope of union between the two.

            The scripture proofs that Arians offered tended to be those passages of Scripture which seemed to place Christ’s essential nature, or his substance, in the category of things created.   Passages like Proverbs 8:22-25, which speaks of “wisdom” (a reference to Christ) being “brought forth” for the reason of creating the rest of the world.  They also use Colossians 1:15, which speaks of Christ being the “firstborn over all creation,” among other passages of Scripture. 

            Other arguments include that if Christ is divine then there is the violation of the Old Testament principle of strict monotheism – the belief that only one God exists.  However, such was not the case for the Trinitarians clearly presented that there was only One True God, but within the one and only substance that is God, there exist three co-equal and co-eternal persons.  Arianism, however, would have to have us believe that there are two gods: one who is uncreated and another who is created.  Such a system, should inevitably lapse into the heathenistic polytheism of a supreme god and a sub-god such as the Greek gods.

            Arianism still exists today in Christian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.  In one of their doctrinal tracts that they pass out, they have a statements that says “Christ is God’s Son and is inferior to Him[4]” and “Christ was the first of God’s creations[5]”.  What this amounts to is nothing more than henotheism, which is the belief is one primary God, whiling allowing for the existence of other sub-gods. 

 

 

Sabellianism/Modalism

           

Another error involving the essential nature of God is known as Sabellianism, which also goes by other names such as Monarchial Modalism, or simply Modalism.  Sabellianism was the idea of a man by the name of Sabellius who taught that God is one substance and one person who reveals Himself in three different ways, or modes.  Phillip Schaff, again, helps us to understand his fundamental thoughts:

 

“His fundamental thought is that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the world’s development in three different forms and periods of revelation, and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity.  The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy (not in the creation also, which in his view precedes the Trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration.  The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification.  He illustrates the Trinitarian relation by comparing the Father to the disc of the sun, the Son to its enlightening power, the Spirit to its warming influence.”[6]

 

            Modalism stems from two presuppositions: the belief in strict monotheism and the full deity of Jesus Christ.  The former was taken to mean that only the Father is God.  Thus, one God is equated to one person.  However, at different times, this one person – the Father – reveals Himself to us in different ways.  Thus, as John Frame states, “Sabellianism denies that the Trinity is ontological; for the modalist, Father, Son and Spirit are not the nature of God, but only roles that God assumes in history.[7]”

            To be very clear: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same person just assuming a different roles at different points in the order of redemption.  There are plenty of difficulties that naturally follow from such a supposition.  For instance, one that followed when this doctrine surfaced was called “patripassianism”.  Patripassianism taught that it was the Father who was the dominant “role” in the Godhead, and thus, when Christ died, it was the Father who died as Christ.  How is Christ the Son of God (the only begotten) when the Father was not begotten?   Another problem that emerges is the question of how we understand God as he reveals himself.  That is, if God reveals himself to us in “roles”, does it not follow that God is not revealing His true self at those moments?

            To at least give this theological view its proper due, it begins with some sound presuppositions, namely monotheism and the full deity of Christ.  However, it still leaves us lacking in our understanding of Christ and how Christ relates to the Father in the Bible.  Clearly, in the scriptures, we see Christ as a separate person, talking to and communing with the Father (e.g. Matt. 16-17). Indeed, in John 1:1 we even see the Son eternally existing with the Father. 

            Sabellianism still lives on today, especially in the “Pentecostal Oneness” doctrine.  It is also alive in the analogies of some well meaning Christians who try to explain the doctrine of the Trinity.  For instance, I personally have heard the “orthodox” doctrine of the Trinity explained like this: 

 

“Understanding God as three and one at the same time is pretty simple.  For instance, I can be a grandfather, a father and a son all at the same time but I’m still one person.”

 

            This is not to say that people who use this understanding are necessarily Modalist, but only careless in analogy.  Obviously, those modes of being are shared by the same person in relation to different people.  Thus, there is the failure of showing three persons subsisting in one substance.  

 

Other views

 

            One more view that I wish to discuss very briefly is a view not mentioned much in modern systematic theology, but is certainly worth mentioning is the Mormon view of God in regards to the Trinity.

            For Mormonism, their doctrine of the Trinity does not stem from any sort of Monotheism, like Judeo-Christian thought does, but is rather based on a polytheistic view of god, in that there are many “gods” who exist.  In our world, Yahweh, is the supreme deity of the Earth and is the literal father of Jesus Christ and even the Holy Spirit.  These are considers “gods” with the Father but only in that they derive their own divinity by obedience to the Father.  Thus, Mormonism’s trinity is one of Tri-theism amongst a plurality of gods.  Where the unity is between these three is not found in them sharing the same being, but rather them being united in purpose. 

           

 

 

The significance of the Doctrine of the Trinity

 

            Now, in this entire lingo, it is easy to say that one is simply being too nit picky about all this stuff.  After all, can’t we all just get along? 

            But can one be too picky when it comes to the doctrine of God?  Shouldn’t we be picky on what the Bible really says that God is like in His essential being?  After all, doesn’t the Bible condemn those who worship a false image of God as idolaters? 

            In my personal opinion, true religion begins with the true God.  If one does not have the correct God, how can one engage in true worship?  Hence, the doctrine of the Trinity involves an essential element of the Christian faith, and even true religion at that.  The doctrine of the Trinity is a revelation of the being of God.  Bruce Milne offers other reasons for the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity.  He says,

 

“Such complexities may tempt us to question the value of raising these issues at all, especially in t face of the sheer conundrum of ‘one plus one plus one equals one’.  In fact, however, just about everything that matters in Christianity hangs on the truth of God’s three-in-oneness.

            Take the supreme issue of our sin which separates us from God and renders us subject to his wrath.  In the final analysis sin concerns two parties, the offending sinner and the offended God.  Hence, if Jesus is not God, my sin really has nothing to do with him.  Once when Jesus forgave a man’s sins he was accused of blasphemy, for only God can forgive sins (Mk. 2:5-7).  In one sense his critics were perfectly correct; their error lay in not seeing who Jesus was.  Only if Jesus is God come to us in person can he deal with our sins; conversely, if he deals with our sins he must be God.  God is therefore not a simple undifferentiated unity of being.

            Similarly with the Holy Spirit.  Christians claim that God’s regenerating power has come into their lives; now they know God and experience his presence, are persuaded of the authority of his Word, and receive strength to live for him and gifts with which to serve him.  But if this is not God himself at work in us, Christian claims about the activity of the Holy Spirit are a delusion, unrelated to supernatural reality.  Only if the Holy Spirit who acts upon us is God himself, can our experience make good its claim to be truly redemptive.  On this basis, too, we must say that God is more than a simply unity of being.

            Thus the entire fabric of Christian redemption and its application to human experience depend wholly on the three-in-oneness of God.  The Trinity is as important as that.

            The threeness of God is also the basis of the fundamental assertion that God is love.  God is not a lonely God who needs the creation as an object for his love.  As Trinity God is fulfilled in himself and does not need to create or redeem.  Creation and redemption are acts of sheer grace, expression of God as free eternal love.

            The fact that in this doctrine there are difficulties which burst through the simple formulae constructed out of the raw materials of our human experience is in one sense entirely predictable, since God is the transcendent Lord of all being.  Indeed if we did not encounter deep mystery in God’s nature there would be every reason for suspicion concerning the Bible’s claims.  For all its difficulty, the Trinity is simply (!) the price to be paid for having a God who is great enough to command our worship and service.

            One final related point.  To reflect upon God in his three-in-oneness, Father, Son, Spirit, in their distinguishable persons and functions yet perfect unity and harmony in mutual, everlasting love, is to catch a vision of something so unspeakably glorious, even beautiful and attractive, that is has ever and again down the centuries moved men and women to the heights of adoring worship, love and praise.”[8]