3. The Trinity
3. The Trinity
1. Why must we not seek a decisive proof for the Trinity in the Old Testament?
a) Because Old Testament revelation was not finished but only preparatory. The perfect comes only at the end.
b) Under the Old Testament’s dispensation the concept of the oneness of God had to be deeply impressed upon Israel’s consciousness in the face of all polytheistic inclinations.
c) We must not imagine that the Old Testament saints were able to read in the Old Testament everything that we can read there in the light of the New. Yet, what we read in it is clearly the purpose of the Holy Spirit, for He had the Scripture of the Old Testament written not only for then but also for now.
2. Which traces of the doctrine of the Trinity can we nevertheless discover in the Old Testament?
a) The distinction between the names Elohim and Yahweh. Elohim is God as He works among both Israel and the heathen by creation and providence. Yahweh is God as He has made Himself known by theocratic guidance and revelation. Compare Genesis 1:1 with 2:4. Where God reveals Himself, He therefore bears another name, that is, one knows Him in that respect not only more than elsewhere but also as another.
b) The plural form of this name Elohim (see Eloah).
Since Peter Lombard many have found a proof for the Trinity in this form. For example, Luther, but not Calvin. Elohim, however, is used of Father and Son (see Psa 45:8); the name also appears for people and idols (Exod 22:8, 1 Sam 28:13). The plural is to be understood intensively, as “heavens,” “waters” are extensive. It points to the inexhaustible fullness of God, and is therefore a pluralis majestatis in the deeper sense of the word.
c) The concept of the angel of the Lord, מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה.
Concerning this are the following hypotheses:
1. The Angel of the Lord is a finite spirit, a created angel. Thus Augustine, Jerome, and later Kurz and Delitzsch. This Angel, they say, can speak as if He were God, as the messenger speaks ex persona for the one who has sent Him and is identified with Him. However, how could such a messenger receive religious honor for the one who sent Him? Judges 6:11, 18, 22–23.
2. The Angel of the Lord is the Logos, the Second Person of the Trinity. Thus Irenaeus, Tertullian, and later, Lutheran and Reformed dogmaticians (Calvin hesitates at some places, yet seems to choose 1 above), Hengstenberg. Some assume that the Logos has personally united Himself for a time with a created being.
3. The Angel of the Lord is not a person but only an impersonal appearance of God, a momentary entering of God into the sphere of the visible. מַלְאַךְ is to be understood as an abstract noun.
We accept the interpretation under 2 since only it does justice to all the givens. Additionally, however, we also note:
1. Those who shared in this appearance did not have a clear and distinct concept of the doctrine of the Trinity.
2. The Angel, the Messenger, was uncreated, the eternal Logos, but the visible form in which He revealed Himself was created, and the Logos was not personally united with it, as He was with the human nature assumed later.
The grounds for this interpretation are as follows:
1. The Angel speaks with God’s authority (Gen 16:13).
2. He is addressed as God (Gen 16:13).
3. He does divine works (Exod 23:20).
4. He has divine attributes (Gen 16:8).
5. He accepts divine honor (Josh 5:14).
6. He is distinguished from a created angel, Exodus 33, where the Angel of the Presence is distinguished from an ordinary angel (Isa 63:9; Deut 4:37).
7. His name alternates with the name Elohim (Zech 12:8).
d) The concept of Chokma, חָכְמָה, “wisdom,” as it appears in Proverbs 8:22 and following and Job 28:12–27. Here wisdom is personified, so that it becomes objective for God Himself and yet it stands in the closest relation to Him. It is the image of His thought, the perfect imprint of His inner existence—within Him and outside of Him at the same time. In the prologue of the Gospel of John such things are said of the Logos.
e) To the word of God in the Old Testament are also ascribed divine attributes (e.g., Psa 33:4; Isa 40:8; Psa 119:105).
f) The doctrine of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament. The Spirit is the principle of the natural, rational, reasonable life of the world and thus represents the self-conscious immanence of God. He is also the Spirit of revelation. Finally, He is also the Spirit who lives with each believer (see Pss 51:13; 143:10). The Spirit acts as a person standing objectively vis-à-vis God (Isa 63:10; 48:16).
g) Old Testament passages in which God speaks of Himself in the plural. The church has always had a Trinitarian conception of these passages. The following are diverging sentiments:
1. It is a pluralis majestatis as the Oriental rulers used of themselves. There are no antecedents for this in Scripture. Only relatively late does something like this appear (Gen 20:15; cf. Ezra 6:8).
2. It is a pluralis communicationis by which God includes Himself together with the angels (cf. Isa 6:8); thus Philo, also the younger Delitzsch. However, in Genesis 1:26 one cannot attribute an active part in creation to the angels.
3. It is a pluralis of self-generation, in which the subject considers and addresses Himself as object, so that the appearance of a plurality arises. See Hitzig. This is unproved, see Genesis 2:18; Psalm 12:5.
h) Old Testament passages where more than one person is expressly named; Psalms 45:6–7; 110:1. Hebrews 1:8–9 shows that these passages must be understood in this way.
i) Passages that speak of three persons; Numbers 6:24–26; compare 2 Corinthians 13:14; Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 61:1; 63:9–10.
3. In what way must proof for the Trinity be provided from the New Testament?
One will have to prove:
a) That there is one God.
b) That there are nevertheless three distinct persons named, respectively, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, called God and considered as God.
c) That there is, therefore, unity in trinity and trinity in unity.
4. Which New Testament texts speak of the three persons alongside each other?
Luke 1:35; 3:21–22; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Corinthians 12:3–4; 1 Peter 1:2. Also, above all, in chapters 14–16 of the Gospel of John the teaching of the Lord bears a Trinitarian character.
5. Which two matters are primarily of concern in argumentation for the Trinity?
The deity of the Son and the personality of the Holy Spirit. The personality of the Son and the deity of the Holy Spirit, in contrast, are so certain that argumentation is virtually superfluous.
6. Is there anywhere in the New Testament that provides us with a complete doctrine of the Trinity?
No, as in the case with other dogmas, here also it was left to the church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to gather the givens spread abroad throughout Scriptures and then to formulate the dogma gradually and in contrast to all kinds of error.
7. Who used the name Trinity first?
In its Latin form the first to use the term was Tertullian, who speaks of a Trinitas Unius Divinitatis. Before him, however, related terms were already used in Greek. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch in Syria, spoke of ἡ τρίας τοῦ θεοῦ. This was in the last half of the second century after Christ.
8. Who in the Greek church has contributed the most to the dogmatic development of the doctrine of the Trinity?
Apollinaris of Laodicea, who, however, was heretical in his Christology, and the great Cappadocians.
9. Who in the West has contributed most?
Tertullian. With him, however, much was still unclear. He had the Son and Spirit as proceeding from the Father only for the sake of the creation. They do not have the entire substance of the Godhead but are “parts” or “portions” subordinate to the Father, etc.
10. What lies between Tertullian and the Cappodocians?
The official presentation of the church’s doctrine at Nicaea and Constantinople. The creed accepted there is also received by our Belgic Confession, article 9, and is therefore binding for us for formulating the doctrine of the Trinity.
11. How does this creed read?
As originally accepted at Nicaea (apart from later changes) it reads:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten as Firstborn of the Father, who is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father. By whom all things are made, both in heaven and on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation has come down and become flesh, and became man and has suffered, and on the third day He rose and ascended into heaven, and who shall come to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost.…
Those who, to the contrary, say, “There was a time when He was not”; “He was not before He was begotten”; and that He was made out of nothing or is of another substance or essence (or is created), or that the Son of God is variable or changeable—these the catholic (and apostolic) church anathematizes.
12. In which theses can you state the doctrine of the Trinity?
a) There is only one divine being. Scripture expresses itself decisively against all polytheism (Deut 6:4; Isa 44:6; Jas 2:19).
b) In this one God are three modes of existence, which we refer to by the word “person” and which are, each one, this only true God. In Scripture these three persons are called, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
c) These three persons, although together the one true God, are nevertheless distinguished from each other insofar as they assume objective relations toward each other, address each other, love each other, and can interact with each other.
d) Although these three persons possess one and the same divine substance, Scripture nevertheless teaches us that, concerning their personal existence, the Father is the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Spirit the third, that the Son is of the Father, the Spirit of the Father and the Son. Further, their workings outwardly reflect this order of personal existence, since the Father works through the Son, and the Father and Son work through the Spirit. There is, therefore, subordination as to personal manner of existence and manner of working, but no subordination regarding possession of the one divine substance.
e) The divine substance is not divided among the three persons as if each possesses one-third. Neither is it a new substance beside the three persons. Finally, neither is it an abstraction of our thinking in a nominalistic sense. But in a manner for which all further analogy is lacking, each of these persons possesses the entire divine substance.
13. On which two points has the agreement of the Nicene Confession of Faith with the preceding description been called into question?
a) Doubt has been raised whether with the use of the word homoousios the Nicene Fathers truly meant that the Son is of one being, that is of one and the same substance with the Father. Repeatedly, also in recent times, the assertion has been made that homoousios says no more than “similar.” That these doubts are unfounded appears from the following points:
1. If the Nicene Fathers had meant no more than that the Son is similar in being with the Father, then they would not have needed to reject the Arian homoiousios, whose precise meaning is “similar.” However, they rejected it.
2. The confession of Nicaea says explicitly: The Son is begotten of the substance of the Father.
3. If there is nothing more than similarity, and the Son is still God, one then falls into tritheism, that is, into “tri-godhood.”
b) It has been proposed that the Nicene Confession has the Son receiving not only His personal existence but also His deity from the Father. In fact, there are expressions that allow being explained in this sense: “begotten of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light.” One must admit that on this point the framers of the Confession had not yet come to complete clarity. Already the Cappadocians used the more careful and more exact description, begotten and spirated “within the divine substance.” To Augustine belongs the honor that, on the basis of Scripture, he completely eliminated this element of subordination concerning substance from the doctrine of the Trinity. It was a dangerous element.
14. Give a description of the most important terms that have been used and are still being used by theologians in their doctrine of the Trinity.
a) First, we have the words ousia and hypostasis (οὐσία and ὑπόστασις). Ousia is the being of God in the abstract that is common to the three persons. Hypostasis, on the other hand, means the personal existence mode of this being, what we call person.
Both these terms originate from Greek philosophy. Ousia is Platonic, hypostasis is Stoic. The latter originally means “self-existence” and could therefore be used by theologians for a long time to express the same as ousia. Later it took on more the sense of “person.” But not at once. Consequently, great confusion arose because one could now hear at the same time the assertion that there was one hypostasis and that there were three hypostases in the Godhead.
b) Another Greek word is physis, “nature.” This also indicated the substance of God in distinction from the persons. However, physis and ousia are not the same. Ousia is the being of God in the abstract. Physis is inclusive of the attributes in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, those unique to the divine being. The attributes, however, are inseparably joined to the being (Greek φύσις)
c) Still another Greek word was prosōpon (πρόσωπον). The original meaning is “face” or “mask.” The Latin persona, from which we get “person,” had the same meaning. Naturally, the heretical Sabellians, who wished to know only of a revealed trinity, eagerly made use of these words in order to gain acceptance for their sentiments. The consequence of this, however, was that the orthodox avoided these words. The Greeks therefore used the above-mentioned hypostasis for “person,” even where they had earlier used prosōpon.
d) The western Latin church also found it difficult at first to find unambiguous terms. There were two Latin words, namely, substantia and subsistentia. Sometimes both were used for substance, and sometimes both for person, sometimes the one for substance and the other for person. The solution was as follows:
1. The term substantia was abolished in relation to God. Substantia is associated by contrast with accidentia, “accident,” “chance,” and by calling God “substance” one did not want to give the impression that in God, too, there is chance.
2. This rejected word was replaced by the more precise term essentia, “being,” “essence,” which corresponds to the Greek ousia.
3. The nature of God, as inclusive of the attributes of His being, is called natura in Latin, which agrees with the Greek physis.
4. The word subsistentia remained in use in order to indicate the personal mode of existence. Thus, it means what we call person. In the same sense is suppositum, a translation of the Greek words hypostasis and hypokeimenon (ὑποκείμενον).
e) The ancients also spoke of a perichoresis or enyparxis (περιχωρήσις, ἐνυπάρξις); Latin: circumcessio or inexistentia mutua, “mutual in-being.” One wished to say that the persons of the Godhead are in each other reciprocally (John 14:2; 17:21; 1 Cor 2:10–11). There is a kind of internal circulation of the Godhead, an eternal movement within the being of God.
f) The persons of the Trinity are distinguished from each other by their character (character hypostatius sive personalis; Greek: τρόπος ὑπάρξεως). This personal factor is expressed in the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which make known the uniqueness of the three persons. This factor is incommunicable, that is, it belongs only to one person. Thus, it serves to distinguish the persons. With the Father, it is His begetting the Son (but not in His causing by breathing the procession of the Spirit, for He has that in common with the Son). With the Son, it is His being begotten by the Father. With the Holy Spirit, it is His being breathed out (spirated) by Father and Son.
g) Regarding the relation between persons and substance, and, in particular, regarding the question how the persons are distinguished from the substance, complete unanimity does not reign among the orthodox. Two extremes must be avoided here: Sabellianism that admits only one person, who is said to have revealed himself in three forms, and tritheism that does not comprise the three persons within the unity of substance. In order to find the proper middle way, some say that the persons are distinguished from the substance modaliter, “according to the mode,” that is, as the substance in the abstract and as the substance in a certain mode with certain ways of existence (but not realiter, formaliter, or merely ratione). Others say that the persons are distinguished from each other realiter, “actually” (but not essentialiter or merely ratione). Mastricht says, “If someone cannot follow this scholastic style of discourse, then let him simply believe with Scripture that the persons are distinguished as three and declare that beyond that he does not know what kind of distinction, since Scripture has not revealed these things, or that they are distinguished supernaturally, not in a natural manner.”
h) Concerning the idea to be with connected the words hypostasis, subsistentia, suppositum, persona, unanimity also does not reign. Calvin admits that the word “person” is only an aid but still does not disapprove of its use. Socinians, Remonstrants, Anabaptists, Cartesians, and also Cocceius have disputed its use. The oldest definition was: “Person is the divine being itself distinguished by a certain independent character and by its own manner of existence.” Later further descriptions were added. The accepted definition of the older dogmaticians goes back beyond Melanchthon to Boethuis. It reads, “Person is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature and not a part of something else.”
In order to arrive at clarity regarding this matter one first needs to make clear demands that a theological definition of person must satisfy. These are:
1. It may not detract from the unity of the being of God. If one says, for example, “Person is what does not exist in another nature,” that appears to exclude the persons of the Trinity. These persons surely do not exist in themselves but in the divine nature.
2. It must have an element in itself that is common to divine and human personality. In Christology, specifically the divine person of Christ serves to represent the human person of the elect in the justice of God. If a point of likeness does not exist, then this could not happen.
3. It must be Reformed in that it allows the human nature of the Mediator to be impersonal. If I say, “Person is a being with self-consciousness and self-determination (free-will),” then the human nature of the Savior is included.
In order to satisfy these three conditions at the same time, one can now formulate approximately in the following manner, “Person is an independent entity, indivisible, rational, incommunicable, not sustained by another nature but possessing in itself the principle of its operation.”
Or, one can be content with the more modest description, “Person, with reference to the Trinity, means the divine essence in a specific mode of existence and distinguished by this specific mode of existence from that essence and the other persons.” On this point further, see Christology.
i) The activities by which each of the persons of the Trinity exists distinct from each other, one calls “internal works” (opera ad intra). They are personal activities not common to all the persons and are incommunicable. As such they are the begetting and spirating of the Father, for the Son, being begotten and spirating, for the Spirit being spirated. These works, for the reasons mentioned, are called divided works (opera divisa).
j) In contrast to the “internal works” are the “external works” (opera ad extra). These may not be divided but belong to the whole being (Gen 1:26; John 5:17, 19).
1. The external works are performed by God’s power, and power as an attribute belongs to the being.
2. In the economy or management of God each person has His unique task. For example, creation is ascribed to the Father, salvation to the Son, etc. Yet here, too, the three persons in a certain sense work together, namely, the Father through the Son and the Spirit, the Son through the Father and Spirit.
3. Moreover, in the economy in a narrower sense, that is, in the economy of salvation, the persons of the Trinity exist in a judicial fellowship. Nothing can take place in which each one is not involved judicially. The Father, as Judge, represents violated holiness and is wrathful. But at the same time the thought of salvation wells up in the depth of His Fatherly heart and He ordains the Son as Mediator and the Holy Spirit as the one who applies salvation. The Son accomplishes the Mediator’s work, but He does so officially for the Father’s sake, and through the Holy Spirit He applies His merits. The Holy Spirit works in the hearts of the elect, but He does so for the sake of the Father and the Son.
4. This order of working points us back to the order of existence. Just because the Father is the First Person, He occupies that place in the plan of salvation and in the external works in general. Just because the Son is the Second Person, He also assumes in both respects the position He assumes. And the same is true for the Holy Spirit.
15. Why is this doctrine of the economy of God important?
Because it contains a powerful protest, both against pantheism that identifies God and the world as well as against deism that keeps God and the world separate. God is not the unconscious background of the world, but in Him there is an abundance of conscious distinctions. Neither does God stand at a distance from His world but is present as Creator and Sustainer, as Savior and Sanctifier, as the source of all being, of all thought, of all life in the world.
16. Have analogies for the doctrine of the Trinity been drawn from nature?
Yes, this was already done very early.
a) Many church fathers adduced physical images.
b) Augustine, in particular, worked out the analogy that exists between the Trinity and the unity of intellect, will, and emotions in the human soul. On careful reflection, this analogy could lead to Sabellianism or Modalism. In man these three principles are certainly summed up in the unity of person. Augustine had a strong impression of the unity of God and therefore sometimes actually verges on Sabellianism. “Three persons, it is said, not so much because they wanted to say this, as that they did not want to keep silent about it.” This analogy reoccurs in Anselm, Melanchthon, among the Reformed, Keckermann, and in many later theologians.
c) For the medieval Scholastics the point of departure is that all positive relationships must be ascribed perfectly to the most perfect being of all. It must therefore have been created in itself and creating, creating and not being created; thus, for example, Duns Scotus.
d) Still others take their departure in the goodness or love of God; thus recently, Müller and Dorner. Goodness and love presuppose fellowship between more than one person. In this way, however, one does not arrive at the Trinity, at most at a bi-unity.
e) Finally, we have the pantheistic distortion of the doctrine of the Trinity. The ecclesiastical scriptural names are used to attach an entirely new sense. An example is the construction of Hegel: The Father is God in His eternal idea of Himself and for Himself; the Son is the eternal idea of God in its otherness, the world as objectified out of God; the Spirit is the idea returned again to itself in the element of community.
17. Must we ascribe personality to God’s being in itself?
No, for then we obtain four persons. The essence, however, is not impersonal for it exists in three persons. Only if one abstracts the essence from the latter can one say that it is not personal.
18. What are the two extremes between which the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity lies?
a) Modalism or Sabellianism. It will recognize only the divine Person, who assumes three forms of revelation.
b) Tritheism or tri-godhood. It emphasizes the threeness of persons to such an extent that it thereby loses sight of the unity of the being.
19. How do you refute Sabellianism?
By showing:
a) That Scripture everywhere places the divine Persons in distinction from each other. The Father speaks to and of the Son and the Son to and of the Father.
b) In God’s economy, as it reveals itself in the plan of salvation, the persons appear in judicial relationships with each other. Thus, they must have the capacity and competence to undertake such relationships. For example, what is said about the Counsel of Peace would all be a mere show if the persons were not distinguished from each other.
c) That this heresy denies the immutability of God as soon as it takes the distinction between the persons more seriously. Some Sabellians do teach that the Godhead from eternity was one and unipersonal but for the sake of revelation has divided itself into a trinity of persons. This is the pantheistic doctrine of a self-developing of God in the world.
d) That Sabellianism does not allow justice to be done to the humanity of the Mediator. According to this point of view, it is merely a revelatory from of God, like the appearance of the Angel of the Lord.
20. Is the name Father always used of God in the same sense?
No.
a) Sometimes God is called Father as the origin of all that is created. In this sense one can say that the name refers to the Trinity as a whole and to the Father insofar as within the divine economy the work of creation falls to Him (compare Eph 3:16).
b) In by far the most instances, God is called Father of men insofar as He is the one who begets His children. Therefore, the name indicates God’s sovereignty in the work of grace. Thus, it is not in agreement with Scripture if we call God the Father of all. Neither is this true when it can be said to be the truth that all are His children in the deeper sense of the word.
c) Entirely distinct from these two meanings is the meaning of the name of Father applied to the First Person of the Trinity in His relationship with the Second Person. The Father is Father of the Son and this is a supernatural relationship, of which all human sonship can only be called an image.
21. Is the Second Person always called the Son of God in the same sense?
No, when some claim that the name Son is only an official name for Christ, we reject this, not because this name never occurs in this sense, but because this is not its primary and basic meaning. The Socinians maintained that Christ is called Son as the Messiah. But we hold:
a) That He is called Son as, in a supernatural manner within the Trinity, He is eternally generated by the Father.
b) That even as Messiah He can only be called Son because He is Son supernaturally, for Christ can only be Messiah because He is the eternal Son of God. The clearest confirmation for this is the many places that bring His Sonship into the closest connection with his worth as Mediator and His resurrection. (Acts 13:13; Rom 1:4)
22. Show that the first and foremost reason why the Second Person is called Son lies in His eternal and supernatural relationship with the Father and is independent from His position as Mediator.
This appears:
a) From those places where the Word is called Son before His incarnation (Gal 4:4; John 1:14, 18).
b) From the places in which the name Son of God is used such that it includes the deity of the Lord (John 5:18–25; Heb 7).
c) From the places in which He is called the only begotten Son of God (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
d) From the fact that Christ nowhere prays to God as “Our Father” or speaks of Him as “Our Father.” It is always “Father.” In these places the Lord does not place Himself on the same line with His disciples. For Him, God is a Father in an entirely other, infinitely higher sense than for them.
e) From the fact that in Mark 13:32 the Lord presents Himself as “the Son” in distinction from angels and men.
f) From the fact that in Matthew 11:27 a wholly unique knowledge of God, which no one else can possess, is derived from His Sonship.
g) From the fact that by accepting the title Son of God, Christ could be charged with blasphemy.
23. Is it correct to speak of the Father as the “Fountain of Deity,” as many have done?
This expression is not biblical. It can also lead to misunderstandings. Scripture uses the name Father relative to showing the personal existence of the Son. Of this the Father is the source and not of His deity. The deity of the three persons is one and undivided, belonging to each of the three persons. On the other hand, the Son and the Holy Spirit have their personal existence from the Father, the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son.
24. If this is true, how is it nevertheless that the Father in some places is placed as God toward the Son and the Holy Spirit?
In such places, Christ is not in view as the eternal Word, except for His incarnation, but specifically as Mediator and Guarantor of the covenant of grace. This happens in 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 17:3; Ephesians 4:5, 6; 2 Corinthians 11:31; and Ephesians 1:3.
25. What comment did Augustine make regarding the personal existence of the Father?
He said that the Father has His personal existence precisely in generating the Son and spirating the Holy Spirit, and that thus in a certain sense the personal existence of the Father is determined by the Son and the Spirit.
26. What is the personal character of the Father?
Negatively considered, it is His not being generated. Positively considered, it is His both generating and spirating. In itself spirating also belongs to the Son, but in this connection with generating it is only present with the Father.
27. Which external works are more specifically attributed to the Father?
a) The first planning of the counsel of redemption, including election.
b) The work of creation and providence, especially their first results.
c) Representation of the Trinity in its rightly maintained deity in the work of redemption.
28. Which attributes, as a result, are preeminently ascribed to the Father?
a) Power, Matthew 11:26.
b) Righteousness, Genesis 18:25; John 17:25; 2 Thessalonians 1:6.
29. With reference to the Second Person of the Trinity, what, in turn, must be treated?
a) The personal existence of the Son, its ground and nature.
b) His deity.
c) His economic function.
30. What information does Scripture provide for us to determine more exactly the relationship that exists between the First and Second Persons within the Trinity?
a) The names Father and Son, which presuppose each other.
b) The words “only begotten” and “firstborn” (John 1:14, 18; 3:16–18, 1 John 4:9; Col 1:15; Heb 1:6).
c) The doctrine of the Word of God, the Logos-doctrine, and the designations of Christ that appear to be connected with it, namely “the radiance of the glory and the express image of His substance” (Heb 1:3), “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15; 2 Cor 4:4); further, “Wisdom” in the Old Testament.
31. What must be observed about the names Father and Son?
That from them one derives at times too much and at other times too little. Too much if one thinks to have found proof here for a communication of being from the Father to the Son; too little if one maintains that these terms are only to be taken figuratively and do not express a real relationship between the two persons.
32. Show that in the names of Father and Son there does not need in itself to be a communication of being.
If this were the case, it would have to rest on the supposed fact that among men a son obtains his being by communication from his father. This, however, is not the case. Only Traducianists maintain that it is and then only when at the same time they are Realists. According to the Reformed view, God is continuously creating the being of men. Naturally this cannot be applied even remotely to the Son. He was not created, but generated. One will therefore have to admit that in the common use of the names father and son for divine and human relationships the point of comparison cannot lie in the communication of being.
33. Does not John 5:26 speak of a communication of being?
No, it does not speak about a communication of life from the Father to the Word before His incarnation, but only about a communication of life to the Mediator. Already Calvin correctly explained this passage in the last mentioned sense. One should peruse the context.
34. When does one derive too little from the names Father and Son?
When one wishes to find only an expression of the unity of being or of the equality of the persons with each other.
35. In what does the true meaning of these names reside?
In the concept of causality. The Father is called Father and the Son, Son because the former is the cause of the personal existence of the latter.
36. What needs to observed concerning the designation “only begotten Son”?
Regarding its meaning differences of opinion are prevalent. All must certainly admit that this designation belongs to Christ as the eternal Word, thus before and apart from His incarnation. But some maintain that nothing more is involved than that from eternity Father and Son are bonded by love as an earthly father and his only son would be. It is figurative language to express the greatness of this love.
Against this view we observe the following: If one already acknowledges that the name Son expresses an eternal, supernatural relationship, it is in all respects necessary to discover in “only begotten Son” a more exact description. It would be very unnatural in this latter designation to take one half literally, the other half figuratively. We take both literally. For us, therefore, the name “only begotten Son” includes that the relationship of causality is a relationship of generating on the one side and of being begotten on the other. Moreover, that the one relationship is of the most intimate unity, completely different from God’s unity with the children spoken of in John 1:12. This difference lies in only begotten. The others are not born in this fashion. Finally, John 1:14 teaches us that the possession of divine glory by the Son coheres in a certain manner with this generation. It reads, “a glory as of the only begotten of the Father.”
37. Where does the name “firstborn” occur?
In Colossians 1:15, “firstborn of all creatures.” Primarily at issue in the explanation of these words is the genitive πάσης κτίσεως. Is this a partitive genitive or a comparative genitive? In the first instance the sense becomes “the firstborn of all creatures.” Christ would then be included under the concept of creature. Some who dispute the deity of Christ maintain that this is the meaning of the apostle.
In the second instance the sense is “who is born before, then all creatures were created,” so that Christ lies outside the circle of creatures. The genitive then depends on the comparative concept included in “first.”
The latter view is the correct one. The text does not say, of “all the creation,” as one would expect on the first view, but only of “each creature,” “every creature,” which only fits the latter view. One should note the clear distinction the apostle makes here between being born and being created. The latter is true of all other things; only the first can be said of Christ. He is born but not created.
38. Where else do we find the name “firstborn”?
In Hebrews 1:6, where it is added that He can bear that name because He has inherited the divine nature, “having become so much more superior than the angels as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.” The name alluded to is “firstborn” (cf. vv. 4, 6, 9).
39. Did the name Logos appear elsewhere before its use in the Gospel of John?
Yes, the Old Testament already spoke of a “word of God” by which the heavens are made, as was seen above.
In the non-sacred writings of Philo and the earlier and later Jewish theology this name is also used, although with a basically different meaning, to which one needs to pay attention. With Philo and others the word is means of revelation and creation. The idea is that God is so high and far above the finite that He cannot come into immediate contact with His creation. One therefore tries to lessen this infinite distance by an intermediate being, a kind of cosmic mediator, who then reveals God to man and thus is called “logos,” word.
In the Gospel of John and in Scripture in general it is quite different. There in the first place Christ is not called Logos, “Word,” for what He does with respect to the world, but for what He is with respect to the Father. Here is where one must pay attention most carefully in order to grasp the deep meaning of this Logos-doctrine. The other thought is present, too. God spoke and can speak to man though Christ, because the Son is His eternal Word. But this thought is subsidiary and derives from the first.
40. Specify which elements are included in this being the Word of the Second Person of the Trinity.
a) The word is something caused by the speaker.
b) Nevertheless this word is not created out of nothing. Its rationale is already inherent in the speaker.
c) The word reproduces an image of the speaker; it is an imprint of his personal existence. There is equivalence between the speaker and his word.
d) Speaker and word remain tied to each other in the most intimate way. Even after it has been spoken, the word lives on in the consciousness.
41. Has one sometimes wanted to find more in the Logos-doctrine?
Yes, some have found in it a confirmation of their philosophical conception of the Trinity. Even some Reformed theologians have taught that generation was an act of the divine thinking of the Father. Logos, however, can have a twofold meaning: (1) word in its external sense, that is, speech; (2) word in its internal sense, that is, reason. If it is taken in the latter sense, the thought would be that the Son is called the Word as the one brought forth from eternity by the Father’s thinking. Scripture, however, provides no occasion for understanding the Logos designation in this sense.
42. What more is taught in John 1:1 and 18 regarding the Logos?
That He was “with God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) and “in the bosom of the Father” (εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός). Here both times a preposition is used that suggests direction. The Son is “toward the Father” and “toward the bosom of the Father.” The thought appears to be that Christ, continually through generation, turns, as it were, through the impulse of His personal life toward the Father.
43. Which expressions connected with the Logos-doctrine are present in Hebrews 1:3?
Here the Son is called ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δοξῆς καὶ χαρατὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως of God; that is, “reflection of His glory and image of His substance.”
44. What in the Letter to the Hebrews is distinctive about its argumentation for the deity of Christ?
This argumentation is distinctive in reasoning from the greatness of His inheritance as Mediator and His honor as Mediator to His eternal Sonship. Someone who is Mediator in this way can only be God’s supernatural Son or, more exactly, “God’s natural Son.” Such is also the reasoning in the third verse being discussed here. One must consider the connection between this verse and what follows in this way: “Since He is the reflection of the Father’s glory, etc., He has been able to obtain this place of power and honor and to take His place at the right hand of the majesty in the highest heaven.”
45. To what purpose do the expressions “reflection of the Father’s glory,” etc. appear to be used by the writer of Hebrews?
They are used in order to connect the deity of the Son with the unity of God. The Son is, as it were, a reflection, an imprint of the Father, and is yet distinguished from Him. By “reflection of His glory” unity in being is expressed, by “imprint of His substance,” equality of persons. One image was not able to express these two truths at the same time. Therefore two images were chosen. Of one being with the Father and yet begotten of the Father—that is what the two images teach us. Here “imprint” means “stamp” in the sense of “what is stamped,” for example, the impression on a coin.
46. Which names are attributed to Christ in Colossians 1:15 and 2 Corinthians 4:4?
Here He is called “the image of God.” In 2 Corinthians 4 that is brought into connection with that fact that God’s glory is revealed in Him. As the image of the Father, Christ shares in this divine glory that belongs to God alone (Rom 1:23). When it is now said, “He is the image of the invisible God,” that implies, “the visible image of the invisible God.” In other words, the incarnate Word is spoken of here. But the incarnate Word would not be able to be the image of God unless He was that image as the eternal Word.
47. What follows from all the givens from Scripture discussed so far?
a) The relationship between Father and Son is one of causality.
b) It is also a relationship of unity of being.
c) It is a relationship of equality of persons.
d) It is a relationship connected with the possession of the divine nature by the Son, for from that possession it is repeatedly inferred that the Son shares in the glory of God.
48. What judgment is to be made about speaking of the communication of being from the Father to the Son?
If by that one thinks of the being as it were first existing in the Father and then taken by Him and communicated to the Son, then that language appears very dubious.
49. What objections are there against such an idea?
a) It appears to us not to do justice to the absolute deity of the Son. A communicated deity is not an absolute deity but a contradiction. Deity cannot be communicated. It is always of itself, self existing.
b) It can easily lead to viewing the Son as a created being. Where something is communicated, one must think of a person to whom it is communicated. If now the Son is there before being is communicated to Him, then He is also generated from this communication of being. But how? Out of nothing? That cannot be. And yet the communication of being appears to lead to such a consequence.
c) The old theologians have not really intended a communication of being. What they meant was a communicatio that makes being to be in common. The Father does not first generate the Son in order then to communicate being to Him. But within the one divine being He generates the Son from that being and thereby makes this one being common between Himself and the Son.
50. Is the generation of the Son a temporary, transitory or an eternal, abiding act?
It is eternal and abiding. There can be no thought of continuation or progression in time. In his Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.13.29, Calvin appears to deny this eternity. It follows directly from the eternity of God.
51. Is generation an act of will of the Father or an eternal, necessary act?
The latter. Otherwise the Son would be a creature, for all that proceeds from the will of God and so could not have been, is created. Of course generation is not contrary to the will of the Father. All that is meant is that it is not in the same sense as, for example, the creation is the free result of this will.
52. Does generation imply a division or split in the divine being?
No; its result is that the Son completely possesses the divine being, like the Father. There is but one God and the Son is that God.
53. How do you describe the generation of the Son?
It is the eternal, necessary act of the First Person of the Trinity, by which, within the same divine being, He is the ground for the existence of a second person, equal to His own person, and by which He makes this second person to share in the possession of the divine being without, thereby, any split taking place.
54. What is the difference between deity and divinity?
Many who argue against the Trinity are willing to attribute divinity to the Son. Arians, semi-Arians, Socinians and other Unitarians deny unity of being. To all these people one must pose this question: Is the Son God in the sense that one can speak of only one God? That decides everything and faced with that question everyone must take sides. No one can be saved from it with vague answers.
55. What kinds of proofs are there for the deity of the Son?
These are two kinds:
a) Indirect proof, that is, proofs drawn from facts and data that presuppose deity.
b) Direct proof, consisting of biblical passages that intentionally teach the deity of the Son.
56. In what does the first category of proofs consist?
In places that:
a) Ascribe divine names to the Son (Psa 45:7–8 compared with Heb 1:8–9; Isa 9:6; and 7:14 compared with Matt 1:23; Mal 3:1 compared with Mark 1:2 and Luke 1:16; 1 Tim 3:16 and Heb 1:10–11 compared with Psa 102:26; and Eph 4:8–9 with Psa 68:18).
b) Attribute divine properties to the Son, specifically:
1. Eternity (Mic 5:2 compared with Matt 2:6; Isa 9:6; Heb 7:3; Rev 1:8; John 8:58).
2. Immensity and omnipresence (Matt 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13).
3. Omnipotence. (Rev 1:8; John 5:19; Heb 1:3).
4. Omniscience (John 21:17; 16:30; 2:24–25; 1:49; Rev 2:23 compared with 1 Kgs 8:29). Mark 13:32 is no objection. Augustine speaks of an official not-knowing of His human nature.
5. Immutability (Heb 1:11–12 compared with Psa 102:26; and Heb 13:8).
6. Fullness of deity (Col 2:9).
c) Attribute divine works to the Son, specifically:
1. The work of creation (Prov 8:27; John 1:3; Col 1:16–17; and Heb 1:2, 10).
2. The work of providence (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17; John 5:17).
3. The working of miracles (John 5:21; 6:40; ([5:36]).
4. The works of redemption (Acts 20:28; John 13:18; 10:16; Eph 5:26, John 16:7, 14).
d) Attribute divine honor to the Son, specifically:
1. Faith directed to Him (John 14:1). He teaches differently than the Pharisees and the Scribes, even than Moses and the Prophets, having authority and whose word does not allow for any higher appeal.
2. Hope (1 Cor 15:19; 1 Thess 1:3; 1 Tim 1:1).
3. Formal worship (Heb 1:6; Psa 2:12; John 5:23; Phil 2:9–10).
4. The invoking of grace from Him (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Cor 1:2; Acts 7:59; 9:14; Rev 5:13; 1 Pet 4:2; 2 Tim 4:18; Rev 1:6; 2 Pet 3:18).
57. Which texts speak directly and intentionally of the deity of the Son?
John 1:1; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; Titus 2:13; John 5:20; 20:28.
58. What is in John 1:1?
“The Word was God.” By this, absolute deity is attributed to the Son, for He bears the same name with the Father, with whom He was in the beginning.
59. How many translations are there of Romans 9:5?
a) The customary translation, “… from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all, to be praised forever, Amen.” So understood, these words provide the strongest evidence for the deity of the Son.
b) Others, however, would have it translated, “From whom Christ is to be praised forever.” The final words would then refer to the Father.
c) Still others would translate, “From whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is above all. God is to be praised forever.” The final words must then refer to the Father.
60. Why is the first translation the correct one and the latter two to be rejected?
a) Because Christ is the antecedent, and it is not arbitrary here to think of Him when the apostle continues, “who is …”
b) Because the words “according to the flesh,” by virtue of the contrast implied, demand a description of the deity of the Lord (cf. Rom 1:3).
c) The words applied to Christ stand in the closest connection with what precedes, since they add a new link in the chain of Israel’s privileges.
d) If a doxology to God the Father occurred here, the word order in the original would not agree with what is always the word order in such doxologies.
e) After Paul has lamented the sad apostasy of Israel, one does not expect a doxology to God in this context.
61. What is the answer when one says that nowhere else does Paul call the Lord, God?
That he certainly does so, namely in Titus 2:13 and Acts 20:28.
62. How then can the apostle sometimes distinguish so sharply between God and Christ (e.g., 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5)?
This distinction is meant economically. Here Christ is placed as Mediator in contrast to God, not as Son to the Father.
63. What is the answer if someone says that there are no praises (doxologies) to Christ in later letters by apostles?
This claim is based on the denial of the authenticity of 2 Peter and of the apostolicity of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as well as on a faulty explanation of 1 Peter 4:11. In any case, 2 Timothy 4:18 and Revelation 1:6 and 5:13 may not be dismissed.
64. Give a short explanation of Philippians 2:6.
We can render this much-discussed and variously interpreted passage as follows: “The one possessing the same being with God the Father (being in the form of God) did not consider equality in the economy of God’s working as something to be robbed (did not view equality with God as a matter for robbery), but humbled Himself, etc.”
That is, as far as His divine being was involved, Christ, like the Father, was in the form of God. In the order of persons, however, He was the Second Person, so that in the counsel of peace it fell to Him to be the Surety, with all that is bound up with that. The apostle, then, intends to say: In this division of the work of redemption Christ did not consider being equal with the Father as something to be robbed, as something that He must take for Himself by force. As the second person He submitted to this second work, with which suffering and death are associated, and thereby has become the great example of self-denial. The text therefore teaches:
a) That with the Father the Son possesses the same divine being.
b) That, nevertheless, in the order of persons, in mode of existence, He is not the first but the second person.
65. What is the Son called in Titus 2:13?
“Our great God and Savior.” Despite the desire of some, the initial words do not refer to God the Father, so that one would have to translate, “of our great God and of our Savior.” They refer to Christ:
a) Because the expression “appearing” is never used of the Father but always means the return of the Son for judgment.
b) Because what follows only concerns the Son.
c) Because if the reference were to God the Father, the expression “great God” would be superfluous. On the Day of Judgment, the apostle intends to say, Christ will be revealed as great God and Savior. So, the addition of “great” makes good sense.
66. What is in 1 John 5:20?
That the Son is the true God and eternal life. Here, too, these words must refer to the Him and not to the Father, for:
a) Otherwise the same thing would be said twice.
b) In this sense, it is not said of God the Father that He is eternal life.
c) Here the words must show that Christ is able to do what is attributed to Him in the beginning of the verse, namely, come and give us understanding so that we may know the One who is true. He is able to do this, says the apostle, because He is the true God and eternal life.
67. What judgment is to be made about John 20:28?
What we have to consider here is not an outcry of amazement, but of amazement addressed to Christ, for:
a) The text states, “Thomas answered and said.”
b) “My God” could perhaps be an outcry of astonishment, but “my Lord” can only refer to Christ.
c) The context demands this explanation, that Christ is being addressed. The words contain Thomas’s acknowledgment of the Lord’s resurrection. One should note that the Lord accepts this acknowledgment of His deity.
68. What comprises the work of the Son in the economy of God’s working?
He occupies the second place in the external works [opera ad extra] of God. Through Him all things are created. On behalf of the Father He takes on the role of Surety in the counsel of peace and accomplishes in time His mediatorial work on earth in order to continue His intercession in heaven before the Father.
69. Is there a connection between the eternal Sonship of Christ and His work as Mediator?
Yes; Scripture joins these two with each other. Because He is the Second Person in the Trinity and so has His personal existence from the Father, it is appropriate that of the three persons He shall be the one sent, who comes to fulfill the servant-work of the covenant. The Son is therefore presented in Scripture as a servant.
70. Does the Son also have a close relationship to what is created, considered apart from His position as Mediator?
Yes; for as all things are created through Him, so they are also created for Him. That comes out especially in Paul’s letters from his first imprisonment (Eph 3:9, 11; 1:3–4; Col 1:16; Eph 1:10; 5:5; cf. 1 Cor 15:2).
One should note, however, that in this relationship the Son is not called Mediator. The name “Mediator” always has in view the relationship in which the incarnation brings the Word to stand in relation to creation. This latter relationship results entirely from the demands of the work of redemption.
71. Which attributes are primarily attributed to the Son as a result of His work in the economy of God’s working?
a) Wisdom (1 Cor 1:24; Prov 8).
b) Faithfulness, as that is particularly characteristic of a steward (cf. 1 Cor 4:2 with Heb 3:1–2; John 5:30; 8:29, 49–50).
c) Power, both in the sense of authority and force (1 Cor 1:24; Heb 1:3).
d) Mercy and grace (2 Cor 13:14; Eph 5:2, 25).
God the Holy Spirit
72. What three points must be discussed here?
a) The personal existence of the Holy Spirit, its nature and degree.
b) His deity.
c) His economic involvement.
73. Which is most disputed, the personality or the deity of the Holy Spirit?
His personality. Once this has been established it will be impossible any longer to cast doubt on His deity. With the Son the situation is just the reverse. He is the one who appeared and became personally revealed in the flesh. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit only seldom does his work in visible forms. He is the person who dwells and prays within believers and thus in a certain sense is identified with them. He therefore stands less in a personal relationship toward believers.
74. What error results from a false understanding of these characteristics?
The old Sabellian error that the Holy Spirit is only an expression of God’s power. This is also the view of all Unitarians, earlier and more recent. It is the view as well of the modern Sabellianism of the school of Schleiermacher, according to which the Holy Spirit is God in the church as a whole. The Holy Spirit first began to exist, it is said, when the Christian church made its appearance. This error is facilitated because Lutherans ascribe more to the sacrament itself and to the word itself than do the Reformed. Thus they do not feel the need to the same degree as we do of the personal activity of the Holy Spirit.
75. With what data do we have to reckon in order to determine the personal existence of the Holy Spirit?
a) With the name “Spirit” (Hebrew, ruach; Greek, pneuma).
b) With the expression “proceeding from,” by which Scripture describes the relationship between Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
c) With texts that speak of a unity between the Spirit and the Father or the Spirit and Christ (1 Cor 2:10–11; 2 Cor 3:17; Eph 1:17; and the Gospel of John).
d) With texts that attribute all the qualities of personality to the Holy Spirit.
76. Is something in particular expressed by the name “Spirit” that belongs to the Third Person of the Trinity as person?
Yes, everything favors that it does. The name Son for the Second Person has such a significance. Therefore, that will also be the case with the name Spirit. The name cannot have in view being in the abstract, for in that Father and Son likewise share. If the Third Person is called the Holy Spirit specifically, there must also be a specific reason. Finally, in the Apostolic Benediction the name “Spirit” stands side by side the personal names “Father” and “Son.”
77. What then does the name Spirit teach about the personal existence of the Holy Spirit?
a) The Hebrew and Greek words for Spirit both originally mean “breath” and subsequently “wind” and any invisible power. Now, however, breath is the distinguishing mark of life. In Genesis 2:7 the inbreathing of life means the communication of life. Therefore the Third Person of the Trinity is called Spirit because, as far as His personal existence is concerned, He is brought forth from eternity by the Father and by the Son, because the personal breath of life passes over as it were from them to Him. In this connection it must be kept in view, just as with the generation of the Son, that we have to do here not with a mere human figure used by God in Scripture to indicate relationships within His being. The reverse is true. Breath as a sign of life in living beings is an image in what is created of the particular way in which the Holy Spirit, who is the supervisor of life, receives His personal existence from the Father and Son.
b) Breath or wind is something active, something that acts with force. Just so the Holy Spirit is the person of the Trinity that brings life and movement into what is created.
c) If the breath of one person is breathed into another, then that involves at the same time that there is some likeness between the life that thus originates and the life from which the breath issues. So, between the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father, besides unity of being, there is also a resemblance of the persons, with the result that they are each other’s image.
78. Can we further distinguish “out-breathing” [spiration] from generation?
No, not as far as the action itself is concerned. On the formal difference we will speak later.
79. What does John 15:26 teach us about the personal existence of the Holy Spirit?
That He “proceeds from the Father.” The great question is how this procession is to be understood. Should it be understood as a description of eternal spiration or of temporal sending? On the former understanding the Holy Spirit receives His personal existence from all eternity; on the latter, the Third Person of the Trinity is sent to the church after the accomplished work of redemption.
80. How can you prove that the former and not the latter understanding is meant?
a) In the immediately preceding verses where the temporal sending of the Holy Spirit is mentioned, Scripture uses another word, not “whom I will cause to proceed from the Father,” but “whom I will send from the Father.”
b) It is not said, “who will proceed from the Father” but “who proceeds from the Father,” in the present tense. Thus, an eternal, ever-present act must be meant.
c) If temporal procession were meant, the Lord would say, “I will send the Spirit, whom the Father (otherwise or usually) sends.”
d) The preposition used here is the same that is used elsewhere regarding the Son.
81. If this understanding of the verse is correct, how is it that here the Holy Spirit is said to proceed “from the Father” and not from the Father and the Son?
Because the Son speaks here as Mediator, He does not include Himself. Although the Spirit certainly proceeds from Him as Son, considered in terms of His deity, it is less appropriate that He would speak of that as Mediator.
82. Does it follow from 1 Corinthians 2:10 and 11 that the Spirit with respect to God is the same as what the spirit of man is to man—in other words, not personally distinguished from Him but only one of His faculties?
No; that in no way follows from this text. The apostle wishes only to say that the Spirit stands in an equally close relationship to the depth of God as the spirit of man to man. The Spirit is in God as the spirit of man is in man. The point of comparison therefore lies in the close union between the Spirit and God. It is just as close as in man, as close as the unity there is between human nature and the spirit of man. As the one is a being-in, so is the other a being-in. But the similarity goes no further and one has to force the image in order to find in it something more. With man, the unity is such that man and his spirit are only one person. With deity, unity is such that there nevertheless can be three persons in the one divine being. In spite of the comparison there is a great difference.
83. What does 2 Corinthians 3:17 teach?
That “the Lord,” that is the divine person of the Mediator, is the Spirit. This is so in the sense that in turning to the Lord, Israel will at the same time turn to the Spirit and be delivered from all veiling and bondage because the Spirit works freedom (see the context). In view here first of all is the economic unity between the Spirit and the Mediator in the work of redemption. But this unity points back to the unity in the divine being.
84. What does Ephesians 1:17 teach?
Here the Spirit is called “Spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of” God and Christ. This means that the Holy Spirit possesses this knowledge of God by nature and can therefore communicate it.
85. What does the Lord teach us about the Holy Spirit in His last discourses transmitted in the Gospel of John?
That, like the Son, He teaches, proclaims, and witnesses, and that for Him these acts, just as is true for the words of Christ, result from a hearing and receiving (John 16:13–14). With Christ, however, all this resulted from His eternal abiding at the side of the Father, from the close, entirely unique relationship in which He stood and stands to the Father. Therefore, such a relationship must also exist with respect to the Holy Spirit (cf. John 14:26; 16:13; 1 John 2:20–21).
86. How does more recent Sabellian theology dispose of those texts that prove the personality of the Holy Spirit?
By finding nothing more in them than an emphatic personification. One must at all costs avoid seeing personality, for the deity of the Holy Spirit is so firmly established that as His personality is proven, there is no more evading the doctrine of the Trinity.
87. Why can one not admit that in these texts there is a personification?
a) A personification may never be accepted where it would nullify the sense of a statement and would defeat the purpose for which the statement is made. This would be the case in Romans 8:26. If the Holy Spirit is not really a person, then there is no comfort in His praying for us. One does not comfort someone with personifications.
b) One cannot expect such a large number of figurative sayings in the New Testament and in its prose style. Especially in dogmatic argumentation there is no place for such sayings.
c) Personifications are always easy to distinguish from all other things. In John 3:8; Hebrews 12:24; and 1 Corinthians 13:1–8, everyone senses immediately that he is dealing with personifications. But this is not the case in texts that speak of the Holy Spirit.
88. What proofs are there for the personality of the Holy Spirit?
a) The personality of the Spirit is seen from His procession because the latter is the ground of the former, as generation is the ground of the personality of the Son.
b) The Spirit speaks of Himself in the first person (Acts 10:19–20; 13:2). In the three significant proof texts in the Gospel of John, Christ refers to Him with the masculine personal pronoun έκεῖνος̓ (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13–14).
c) All the distinguishing marks of personality are attributed to Him, such as:
1. Intellect (1 Cor 6:11; John 14:26; 15:26; Rom 8:16; 1 Tim 4:1; Isa 61:1; Acts 13:2; 5:3; 20:28).
2. Will (1 Cor 12:11; Acts 16:7)
3. Emotions (Eph 4:30; Isa 63:10; Matt 12:32).
d) Our relationship to the Holy Spirit is such as is possible only toward a person (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13).
e) The Holy Spirit has appeared in separate personal forms, like a dove (Matt 3:16), like fiery tongues (Acts 2:3–4).
f) The Holy Spirit is distinguished as a person from His own power (Luke 1:35; 4:14).
89. Distinguish between the generation of the Son and the spiration of the Holy Spirit.
a) Generation takes place by the Father alone; spiration takes place by Father and Son.
b) Some say that generation not only causes a new mode of existence in the divine being but also a mode of existence that is like that of the One who generates. The latter then is not true of spiration. The reason offered for this point is that a mode of existence can only be an image of one and not of two. But how if the two are already like each other, as is the case with Father and Son? This point is doubtful to say the least.
c) The result of generation is the communication of the capacity, in turn, to grant participation in the divine being. Through generation the Son receives the necessary attribute of actual breathing. In spiration such a necessary attribute is not communicated to the Holy Spirit. In Him the inner movement of the Trinity comes to conclusion and rest.
d) Concerning logical order, generation comes first and then spiration. But this is not a distinction in time. Both are equally eternal.
90. Does the Holy Spirit proceed only from the Father or from the Son as well?
Also from the Son, although the Greek church denies this. Different motives underlie this denial. It agreed above all with the mystical direction of the Greek church. In this way the saving work of the Holy Spirit within the soul could be more easily detached from the objective work of the Mediator. Proofs for procession from the Son also are the following:
a) If the Spirit does not proceed from the Son, then there is a point in the Godhead where Son and Spirit do not affect each other but are separated. They would then find their unity only indirectly, that is to say, in the Father.
b) The Son sends the Spirit in time. He would not be able to do this if the Spirit did not also proceed from Him eternally, for the order of working in the Trinity follows the order of existence among the three Persons (John 16:7).
c) The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son and the Spirit of Christ no less than the Spirit of the Father (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:9; Phil 1:19).
d) All that the Spirit has, He has from the Son no less than from the Father (John 16:13–15).
91. If the Holy Spirit has His personal existence from the Son, who in His turn has His from the Father, is there thereby no derogation of the Holy Spirit’s deity?
No, for by spiration the Holy Spirit does not receive His deity but only His personal existence. As He receives the latter, at the same time He is made to share in the one indivisible divine being.
92. How many kinds of processions of the Holy Spirit are there?
Only one. The Holy Spirit proceeds as a unique Spirit within the divine being (not out of nothing). But there is a twofold breathing, one from the Father and one from the Son.
93. How do you prove the deity of the Holy Spirit?
By proving that:
a) He bears divine names. Not valid as proofs are those places that present words from the Old Testament as spoken by the Holy Spirit. Such places do not directly concern His deity but simply follow from His work in the economy of God’s working as the author of Holy Scripture. Words of men from the Old Testament are therefore sometimes presented in the New Testament as spoken by the Holy Spirit (cf. Isa 6:9 with Acts 28:25). Certainly valid as proof, however, are Acts 5:3, 9; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; and 1 John 4:13.
b) Divine attributes are ascribed to Him:
1. Eternity (Gen 1:2).
2. Omnipresence (Psa 139:7–8; 1 Cor 3:16).
3. Omniscience (1 Cor 2:10; John 16:13; 2 Pet 1:21).
4. Omnipotence (Luke 1:35).
c) Divine works are attributed to Him:
1. Creation (Gen 1:2; Psa 33:6).
2. Preserving and governing (Psa 104:30).
3. Miracles (Matt 12:28; 1 Cor 12:4; Luke 1:35).
4. Forgiveness of sins and regeneration (1 Cor 6:11; John 3:5).
5. Governing the church (Acts 13:2; 15:28; 20:28).
6. Foretelling future events (John 16:13).
7. Illumination and sanctification (Eph 1:17–18; 2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2).
8. Resurrection from the dead (Rom 8:11).
d) Divine honor is given to Him (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:13; Rev 1:4; 1 Cor 6:19–20).
e) One can sin against the Holy Spirit and then, in fact, commit the most severe, unforgivable sin.
94. In what does the distinguishing work of the Holy Spirit consist, in distinction from the work of the Father and of the Son, within the economy of God’s working?
In perfecting things by bringing them to their goal. As the Holy Spirit is the person that completes the Trinity, so His work completes the work of God in every area. Some have found here a ground for the designation Holy Spirit. (Holiness, however, is the “separateness” of God.) The Holy Spirit would then be called “Holy” because in Him the three-and-one being of God is complete in itself and Father and Son again come together in one point. Scripture, however, does not speak of this.
95. How is the Holy Spirit designated as a consequence of this, His distinguishing work?
As the One to whom are all things, as can be seen from a comparison between Romans 11:36 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. As the preposition “from” belongs to the Father, the preposition “through” to the Son, so the preposition “to,” to the Holy Spirit.
96. How does the work of the Holy Spirit relate to that of the Son?
It follows in order, as the work of the Son follows in order that of the Father. This must always be kept in view, for one arrives at a false mysticism if one detaches the work of the Spirit from the objective mediatorial activity of the Son.
97. In what different respects does the Holy Spirit carry out His distinguishing work?
a) In creation, where He is the superintendent of life, as the Father is the source of being and the Son, the architect of thought (cf. Gen 1:2; Job 26:13; 33:4; Psa 33:6; 104:30; Isa 40:13). The Holy Spirit lays the final hand on what is created, as is sufficiently shown by the expressions “brother,” “made … the heir,” and “to adorn.”
b) The Holy Spirit is continuously the one who prompts and enables in science, art, and official service (Exod 28:3; 31:6; 35:35; Psa 51:12; Isa 45:1; and elsewhere).
c) The Holy Spirit has prepared the body of the Messiah, according to the promise of God the Father made to the Surety in the counsel of peace (cf. Psa 40:7–8 with Heb 10:5). To the preparation of this body also belongs the inspiring of this Scripture passage, since it is intended to form a picture of Christ.
d) The Holy Spirit has also worked continuously in the human nature of the Mediator and provided it with gifts of grace, which it needed for discharging the offices of mediator. This happened especially at His baptism in the Jordan River and in His exaltation. Of course, this equipping only has reference to His human nature.
e) The Holy Spirit also works in the body of Christ, the church. He has formed the church already under the old order by regenerating individual believers, converting them, bringing them to make confession, and joining them together. After the exaltation of the Mediator, the Holy Spirit has begun to form the mystical body of the Lord, in which He dwells and unites the head, Christ, with the individual members. This began with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, which finds its explanation in this outpouring (Eph 2:22).
f) Also, the Holy Spirit works in individual believers by:
1. Preparatory grace.
2. The grace of regeneration and calling.
3. Conversion, to which faith belongs.
4. The application of justification.
5. Sanctification. This includes the recreating work that occurs at the death of believers in their souls and at the resurrection of the dead in their bodies.
98. Which attributes are particularly ascribed to God the Holy Spirit as a result of this distinguishing work?
a) Holiness.
b) Goodness (Psa 143:10).
c) Grace (Heb 10:29; Zech 12:10).
d) Might and power, especially perfecting power (Luke 1:35).
e) Glory, in an active sense, as in, making glorious (1 Pet 4:14).