The Miracles of God

The miracles that are recorded in the Bible are probably the most contested points of the Christian faith. The fact that the Bible contains records of men overcoming the powers of nature seems to be sufficient grounds to reject the message of the Bible as a whole. Such events are considered to fantastic for the modern man. The unbeliever claims that such miraculous events are the stuff of legend, have no empirical grounds, and belong to an age and people of ignorance. An objector to miracles, David Hume, wrote, “They are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors, who transmitted them with that inviolable sanction and authority, which always attend received opinions.”1 Therefore, only the unlearned and crude would believe in miraculous as a possibly true event.

However, Scripture contains numerous accounts of miracles. Miracles even take a prominent place throughout Scripture. Therefore, as believers of such miraculous events, we need to make a careful presentation of miracles as possible credible events. This lesson will only provide a brief presentation through a theological and metaphysical explanation. It will by no means provide a thorough defense against opponents of miracles. Such a presentation would also require an explanation of the consistency of eye-witness testimony of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, even extra-biblical testimony and allusions by unbelievers.2

A. Definitions of a Miracle

The debate on miracles occurring the past couple of centuries has caused Christians to re-examine their definition of miracles a couple of times. Therefore it is important that we take our time to understand the correct definition of a miracle and that it be state carefully. An incorrect definition will lead to multiple objections on this topic. 

1. A Correct Definition

It seems almost necessary that a person would have taken a study of the providence of God before coming to studying the miraculous works of God. As you will recall, Christ is “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3). Therefore, before we define a miracle, we must admit that the “Laws of Nature” are only operations of God’s providence. The regular occurrences in nature take place because God is preserving their inherent characteristics. Millard Erickson makes a great illustration of this.

God’s work of preservation also means that we can have confidence in the regularity of the created world, and can plan an carry out or lives accordingly. We take this fact for granted, yet it is essential to any sort of rational functioning in the world. We are ale to sit down in a chair because we known it will not vaporize or disappear. Barring a practical joke by someone while our back is turned it will be there. Yet form a purely empirical standpoint, there is no real basis for such an expectation. In the past, we have found that our expectations of the future proved true when the future became present. Thus, we assume that our present past futures, will be fulfilled. But this argument assumes the very thing that it purports to establish, namely, that future futures will resemble past futures. There really is no empirical basis for knowing the future until we have had a chance actually to experience that the future. While there may be a psychological tendency to expect a certain thing to occur, there are no logical grounds for it, apart from a belief that reality is of such a nature that he will persist in existence. The assumption that matter persists, or that the laws of nature for continue to function, brings us into the realm of metaphysics. The Christian's belief at this point is not in a material or impersonal ground of reality, in an intelligent, good, and purposeful being who continues to will the existence of his creation, so that ordinarily no unexpected events occur.3

This understanding of God’s providence must be put into consideration when defining a miracle. Erickson continues with this idea later on in his discussion of miracles. 

Late twentieth and early twenty-first-century science is more likely than was that of the nineteenth-century to recognize natural laws as merely statistical reports of what has happened. From a purely empirical standpoint, one has no logical grounds, but only a psychological inclination, to predict the future on the basis of the past. What is the course of nature is fixed and inviolable, or whether it can be successfully opposed, is a question bringing us into the realm of metaphysics. If we are open to the possibility that there are reality in force outside the system of nature, and miracles are a possibility. It then becomes a question of examining the historical evidence to determine whether they have occurred.4

Therefore, from this understanding that is heavily influenced by our understanding of God’s providence we can finally correctly define a miracle. A miracle is a singular action of God’s providential work done in a manner that is unusual according to what is regularly observed in nature for the purpose of demonstrating God’s glory and power. Many theologians will even call miracles providentia extraordinaria because they are simple an extension of God’s ordinary providential work. 

Such extraordinary acts of God can be broken down into two groups of miracles; both still fulfill the purpose of demonstrating God’s glory and power. One category includes miracles that are done with natural explanation given in the account. They are still deemed miracles because they are usually told about beforehand and still point to God’s power. A good example is when Israel received the quails for meat (Num. 11:18–20, 31–33). God told Moses that it would come to pass. Yet the account also explains that “there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea.” However the event is still meant to point to the power of God. Another example is when Peter finds a coin in the mouth of a fish in order to pay the temple tax (Matt. 17:24–27). While finding a coin in the mouth of a fish can easily be explained by admitting that a fish could have tried to swallow the coin earlier, one cannot explain the statistical probability of having that same fish be the first one that Peter draws up. How could have Christ known of the possibility that there was a fish in the sea that had a coin in its mouth?The majority of miracles fall into the other category—they are not able to be explained by ordinary means. Examples of such miracles are obvious, and they are meant to be obvious. They can be anything from an axehead floating (2 Kings 6:5–7), to the sun staying up extra hours (Josh. 10:12–14) to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

2. Incorrect Definitions

Incorrect definitions come about when one does not properly consider God’s upholding the universe by the word of His power. The reason this stated is because the argument over miracles has largely been concerning the relation between the “laws” of nature and the will/nature of God. Many, like David Hume, have defined a miracle as, “a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.”5 Many will use this definition to object to the idea of miracles by showing that it is consistent with a perfect Deity. The argument is that the laws of nature were established by a perfect and immutable God and are therefore perfect and immutable laws. Nothing can break the laws of nature. And since a miracle breaks the laws of nature, God would never allow a miracle to happen nor would He ever perform a miracle. If God performed a miracle, it would be against His own established will in the created order in creation. The only answer that is given to this objection of miracles is that the miracles were always in the will of God, it was a part of His eternal decree.

Another poor definition is that miracles are only manifestations of little known or known laws of nature. Augustine had the same understanding of miracles, “For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.”6 However, “the Scriptures not only are silent about any higher law as the cause of miraculous events, but they always refer them to the immediate power of God.”7 God is always meant to be seen as the agency of cause for the miraculous event, especially in the resurrection.

A similar explanation for miracles is that a miracle is when a supernatural power interferes with nature.8 Such an explanation is that a miracle does not break the laws of nature but just simply, the supernatural, God, was not taken into account. “In this view, the laws of nature are not suspended. They continue to operate, but supernatural force is introduced, negating the effect of the natural law.”9 The problem with this definition of a miracles is that it states that God only interacts with nature when He wants. Scripture teaches that He is upholding all things at all times, and not only at the times when He wants to perform a miracle. All of nature is dependent upon God for its existence and movements at all times. 

B. Purpose of Miracles

God does not perform miracles merely to excite or awe people. Miracles are performed to reveal the character of God, primarily His sovereignty and power as God. They show that He is able to perform acts no other person could perform and therefore there is no one like Him (Isa. 45:5–7). This was clearly seen during the ten plagues, and the exodus (Exod. 8:10; 9:14–16; 14:17–18, 31). The same power was demonstrated on mount Carmel by the hand of Elijah (1 Kings 18:37–39). Jesus even demonstrates His absolute sovereignty over nature (Mark 4:39–41) and the demonic spirits (Luke 4:36). They are meant to glorify God (John 9:3–4). 

Perhaps of greater importance is that miracles are meant to testify to the authority of the spoken prophetic word. They were meant to verify that a prophet’s message was truly from God. This was the case with Moses and the people of Israel (Exod 4:1–9, 30–31). Christ appealed to the miracles He performed as testimony (Matt. 11:2–5; John 5:36; 10:38; 14:11; Acts 2:22). The same was also true of the apostles (2 Cor. 12:12; Heb. 2:3–4). There even instructions that if a man’s prophecy fails, he should be considered a false prophet (Deut. 18:22). A man is not able to perform miracles unless God is with him and his doctrine is true (John 3:2). 

An interesting observation and subordinate reason for miracles is that they always meet the needs of people. Elisha multiplied oil for a widow so she could pay her debt (2 Kings 4:1–7). The LORD gave water to Israel so they could be refreshed in the wilderness (Exod. 17:6). And of course, Jesus fed the five thousand when they had no food (Matt. 14:15–21). We could even say that miracles are a restoration of God’s creative work.10 Mankind was not blind, mute, or crippled at creation. And we see Jesus overcoming these effects of sin (Isa. 35:5–6; Matt. 11:4–6) and death (John 11:25, 42–44). Ultimately, Jesus will restore the heavens and the earth so that none of the effects of sin will be present (Rev. 21:4). 

____________________

1. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, 94. 

2. Such allusions by unbelievers include: Tacitus, Annals, 15.44; Josephus, Antiquities, 18.63–64. A good book for more information: William Paley, Evidences of Christianity (London: W. Clowes and Sons, 1851). 

3. Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 364–5.

4. Ibid, 381–2. 

5. Hume, 90n22. Of course Hume uses a definition that is easy for him to defeat in argument but there were many theologians of antiquity that followed this thinking.

6. Augustine, City of God, 21.8.2 (NPNF¹ 2:459).

7. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), 1:625.

8. C.S. Lewis, Miracles: A Preliminary Study (New York: MacMillan, 1947), 10; cf. 10n. 

9. Erickson, Christian Theology, 381; cf. Lewis, Miracles, 59–61. 

10. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1938), 177. 

The Providence of God

The previous lessons have done much work in order to get us prepared for this lesson and the one to follow on miracles. After discussing our knowledge and ability to describe God, we started our study in theology proper with the characteristics of God, starting His primary characteristic—aseity. From there we learned of God’s power, presence and knowledge. Then we learned of His moral attributes—holiness, love, and truth. We also learned of the Triunity, three Persons consisting in singular unity. After we learned of who God is, we learned of His plan, that is, His eternal decree for all things that works for His glory. After learning about God’s plan, we start to see how God to enact His plan, with the creation of the heavens, the earth, and all that is in them. So, I would hope that it make logical sense that the next discussion is on how God relates to His creation. This brings us to the topic called providence.

It would make sense to think that after God had created the world that He would still relate to it in some way or fashion. The amount of relation God has with creation could be represented on a scale with one end being “none at all” and “nature is God” at the other. Either end of the spectrum is incorrect. Deism teaches the idea that God has only created nature and then left it to run its program according to the laws that He has written for how nature should act. Pantheism teaches that nature is not separate from god but nature is simply an emanation, or a level of power from a god. Instead we find that nature is not a part of God because He has created the universe and that God has not left nature alone to follow written laws. The Bible makes it clear that God is separate from nature and He is continually upholding, operating, and ruling in all of creation at all times. The best definition found for providence is as stated:

God is continually involved with all created things in such a way that he (1) keeps them existing and maintaining the properties with which he created them; (2) cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do; and (3) directs them to fulfill his purposes.Under the general category of providence we have three subtopics, according to the three elements in the definition above: (1) Preservation, (2) Concurrence, and (3) Government.1

Berkhof defines providence in a similar fashion, 

Providence may be defined as that continued exercise of the divine energy whereby the Creator preserves all His creatures, is operative in all that comes to pass in the world, and directs all things to their appointed end. This definition indicates that there are three elements in providence, namely, preservation (conservatio, sustentatio), concurrence or cooperation (concursus, co-operatio), and government (gubernatio). 2

In simplest terms, the doctrine of providence is the study of God working in and through His creation in ordinary means to bring about His decree according to His good pleasure. 

The topic of miracles will be dealt with in the following lesson. However, it should be noted that the only difference between providence and miracles is that, in miracles, God is working in and through His creation in extraordinary means in order to display His character and bring about His decree that is according to His good pleasure. 

As stated earlier, God’s providence is exercised over all of creation. To help illustrate this point, the following examples from Scripture are given. 

The Bible clearly teaches God’s providential control (1) over the universe at large, Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:25; Eph. 1:11; (2) over the physical world, Job 37:5, 10; Ps. 104:14; 135:6; Matt. 5:45; (3) over the brute creation, Ps. 104:21, 28; Matt. 6:26; 10:29; (4) over the affairs of nations, Job 12:23; Ps. 22:28; 66:7; Acts 17:26; (5) over man’s birth and lot in life, 1 Sam. 16:1; Ps. 139:16; Isa. 45:5; Gal. 1:15, 16; (6) over the outward successes and failures of men’s lives, Ps. 75:6, 7; Luke 1:52; (7) over things seemingly accidental or insignificant, Prov. 16:33; Matt. 10:30; (8) in the protection of the righteous, Ps. 4:8; 5:12; 63:8; 121:3; Rom. 8:28; (9) in supplying the wants of God’s people, Gen. 22:8, 14; Deut. 8:3; Phil. 4:19; (10) in giving answers to prayer, 1 Sam. 1:19; Isa. 20:5, 6; 2 Chron. 33:13; Ps. 65:2; Matt. 7:7; Luke 18:7, 8; and (11) in the exposure and punishment of the wicked, Ps. 7:12, 13; 11:6. 3

Of course, many more example could be given but the above is sufficient to illustrate that God’s providential work is over all things, from the insignificant to the highest ruling power on earth. 

The remainder of the lesson will focus on three different ways in which God’s providential rule is described, that is, preservation, concurrence, and government. Remember, these are not different ways in which God works in His creation. These words are only different ways of describing God’s singular work of providence. 

A. Preservation

“Preservation may be defined as that continuous work of God by which He maintains the things which He created, together with the properties and powers with which He endowed them.”4 One could say that it explains the consistent properties of matter that are observed on a regular basis. For example, water is wet and will continue to behave with the properties of water that were previously observed. Water will freeze when the temperature goes below 32ºF. Water will boil when the temperature reaches 212ºF. Water has these behaviors, not because these properties are inherent in themselves, but because preserves such behaviors on a continual basis. Furthermore, 

The doctrine of preservation proceeds on the assumption that all created substances, whether they be spiritual or material, possess real and permanent existence, distinct from the existence of God, and have only such active and passive properties as they have derived from God; and that their active powers have a real, and not merely an apparent, efficiency as second causes, so that they are able to produce the effects proper to them. 5

Thus we can say that a rock exists in reality and it’s hardness is not a product of our perceptions. God made the rock and continues to preserve the rock with all of its intended properties. It is through this doctrine of preservation that we able to perform observational science. If God were not continually and consistently preserving His universe, we would never be able to understand creation and use it for our advantage. If water did not always come to a boil at 212ºF, we would have never been able to create a steam engine. If rocks were not always hard (at normal temperatures), then we would not be able to use them for a building material. 

The idea of preservation is most clearly seen in Hebrews 1:3. The author of Hebrews demonstrates the supremacy of Christ by explaining that Christ is even “upholding all things by the word of his power.” The present tense for “upholding” indicates that this is a continual work. Jesus is continually upholding the universe by the power of His word. This would even indicate that the universe exists because Christ is making it exist. If Christ so desired, He could have all of creation vanish into nothing. The same idea is repeated in Colossians 1:17, “He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together” (NASB). 

We must also realize that God is preserving our very being. Self-subsistence is an attribute that only God can possess. All life on earth is not able to sustain itself and must depend upon God for its preservation. Paul spoke of this in his sermon to the Athenians, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Ezra even praised God for preserving all of creation (Neh. 9:6). God is so active in our sustaining of life that He gives every breath that we breathe (Job 34:14–15; Ps. 104:29). 

B. Concurrence

Concurrence may be defined as, “God cooperates with created things in every action, directing their distinctive properties to cause them to act as they do.”6 The primary importance in understanding the doctrine of concurrence is that God is the primary, simultaneous, and immediate Causer for all motion and action in the world rather than the world acting independently. This is not to meant to diminish secondary causes as not real. We should simply understand the secondary causes that are regularly observed as cooperating with the First Cause done by God’s omnipotent hand. For example, we may ask why is it that the planets maintain orbit around the sun? Observational science can explain that inertia and gravity keep a planet within its orbit around in such a manner that its movement can be explained mathematically (Kepler’s planetary laws of motion). Yet Scripture teaches that God is causing the planetary motions in a manner that is consistent with  what is observed (Matt. 5:45). Photosynthesis is a real process which causes grass to grow, but it is only a secondary cause (Ps. 104:15). 

1. Scriptural Examples

The truth that God works in the world in a primary, simultaneous, and immediate way is seen in many places in Scripture. Joseph claimed that God sent him to Egypt when his brothers sold him into slavery (Gen. 45:5). God promises that He will deliver the enemy into the hand of Joshua (Josh. 11:6). God turns the heart of the king in whichever direction He pleases (Prov. 21:1; Ezra 6:22). God gave Israel the power to gain wealth (Deut. 8:18). God even works indirectly in evil actions. David states that Shimei was bidden by God to curse David (2 Sam. 16:11). God directed the Assyrians to destroy Israel (Isa. 10:5). 

2. Characteristics of Concurrence

I have stated that God’s work of concurrence is primary in order to communicate that it is not subservient to another’s will. God does not begin His work only after a man has decided to take action. If this were the case, man would frustrate the plan of God; something contrary to Scripture (cf. Job. 23:13; Isa. 14:24, 27). Therefore it is God who works and energizes a person to work according to His will (Eph 1:11; Phil. 2:13). 

As explained earlier, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Therefore we must also say that concurrence is a work that is simultaneous. “After the activity of the creature is begun, the efficacious will of God must accompany it at every moment, if it is to continue. There is not a single moment that the creature works independently of the will and the power of God.”7 This is not to say that a man is not responsible for his actions but a man will not be able to do anything apart from God.

Thirdly, it must be stated that God’s work of concurrence is immediate. When God effectually causes something to come to pass, the effect is immediate. God does not simply set up a situation and then allow the object to take care of the rest. Nor is God only starting a singular cause to run in a long chain of cause so that His purpose will be accomplished. God works and the effect is immediately seen. 

3. Objections to Concurrence

Many will object to this doctrine that God works concurrent manner in all things to bring about His will. The objection is that God does not work to bring about sin or evil acts. However, we must be clear on this objection. 

Scripture never teaches that God is a direct doer of sin but that He acts concurrently. The greatest example is in the narrative of Joseph. Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery (Gen. 37:28). Yet Joseph understood the evil intentions of his brothers to be a providential work of God (Gen. 45:5; 50:20; Ps. 105:17). God also hardened Pharaoh’s heart to sin and not let Israel leave. God even told Moses this would happen (Exod. 4:21; 7:3, 13; 9:12). Later it is explained that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that God could demonstrate His power in the earth (Exod. 9:16). Paul even cites this example and then rebukes objectors with the rhetorical question, “For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” (Rom. 9:19–20). 

Scripture teaches that man is responsible for his sinful actions. There even occasions when it was stated that it a part of God’s plan for evil action to come to pass, and God worked in a manner to make it come to pass, but the consequences of the evil actions still fall on man, not God (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). Furthermore, Scripture is clear that God is never responsible for the evil actions of men (1 Cor. 10:13; James 1:13–14). 

God also uses evil in order to bring about His will (Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11). While this is difficult to understand, it must be held in faith. If we say that there is evil on the earth that is outside of God’s control or was never intended, then we would be saying that those evil actions are beyond God’s control or outside of His will and He is no longer omniscient or sovereign. 

Some may even object that concurrence robs man of his free will. However, we discussed this issue in the lesson on God’s eternal decree. Man is only free to do what he desires most. For a man without Christ, he will choose to sin because that is only what his heart desires (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:20–23). As believers, our wills matches His will (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 4:24; Phil. 2:13). 

C. Government

“The divine government may be defined as that continued activity of God whereby He rules all things teleologically so as to secure the accomplishment of the divine purpose.”8 Simply stated, God is working all things in order to accomplish a specific end goal. This is seen especially in the passage of scripture that demonstrate His sovereignty over all things9 and this His work is done according to only His own will (Ps. 103:19; Dan. 4:35; Rom. 8:28; 11:36; 1 Cor. 15:27; Eph. 1:11; Phil. 2:10–11). 

D. Application

Though the lessons on the Decree of God and the Providence of God, we can come to an important practical application. Many ask what is the will of God for my life? Many ask this question because they are worried about a specific decision that should be made and they thinking in particular about the “hidden will” of God. In other words, “What is it that God wants me to do in this particular case?” However, God has not shown us everything that will come to pass to tell us every decision that should be made. These are matters that are under God’s control. As a Christian, we should concern ourselves with the “revealed will” of God when it comes time to make a decision. Every time Scripture speaks on the will of God for our personal lives it only states that our sanctification is of the highest priority (1 Thess. 4:3; cf. Rom. 12:2). Therefore, if we make loving God and keeping His commandments to be the greatest concern in our decisions, then we will fulfill the will of God for our personal lives (Ps. 40:8; 37:4). Thus, Augustine of Hippo said, “Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt: whether thou hold thy peace, through love hold thy peace; whether thou cry out, through love cry out; whether thou correct, through love correct; whether thou spare, through love do thou spare: let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.” 10

_______________________

1. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 315. 

2.  Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing, 1938), 166.

3. Ibid, 168.

4. Ibid, 170. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 317. 

7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 173.

8. Ibid, 175.

9. See the first citation from Berkhof for a demonstration on “all things.”

10. Augustine of Hippo, “Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John,” 7.8 (NPNF¹ 7:504).

The Decree of God

Thus far, we have only discussed the nature of God (i.e. His attributes and Trinity), which serves as part one in our study of Theology Proper. Part two of Theology Proper will be concerning some of the actions of God (the study of salvation will be placed under a separate system titled “Soteriology” due to its size and significance). In the lessons to follow we will be studying specifically His act of creation, providence and miracles. However, before we begin studying such actions of God, we must recognize that these actions bear a unique characteristic—they were eternally planned in the mind of God. In other words, they were decreed by God. Therefore, this lesson will serve as a general introduction to the works of God. 

The classic definition for the decree of God comes from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass” (Question #7). Berkhof explains the decree of God as, “He has sovereignly determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass, and works His sovereign will in His entire creation, both natural and spiritual, according to His pre-determined plan.”1 We use the word “decree” because it is analogous to a king making a decree and having it come to pass because of the king’s sovereignty and authority. Many use the example of the planning of a building by an architect. The architect had the plans for the building in his mind and then placed on paper so other may construct his plan and thoughts for that building. 

Scripture never states God’s entire plan for the entire universe in an explicit manner but scripture does clue us in to God’s plan with the use of certain words. In the Old Testament, we find such words as עֵצָה (ʿēṣâ) meaning counsel, or advice (Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 46:10–11); סוֹד (sôḏ) meaning secret, or confidential conversation (Jer. 23:18, 22); זָמַם (zāmam) meaning to think, plan, or consider (Jer. 4:28; 51:12); חָפֵץ (ḥāp̄ēṣ) meaning to take pleasure (Isa. 53:10–11).2 In the New Testament, we find words like βουλή (boulē) meaning desicion, resolution, or counsel (Acts 2:23; 4:28; Heb. 6:17); θέλημα (thelēma) meaning will (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:11); εὐδοκία (eudokia) meaning favor, or good pleasure (Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13); προορίζω (proorizō) meaning to decide upon beforehand, or predestinate (Rom. 8:29–30; 1 Cor. 2:7); and πρόθεσις (prothesis) meaning something planned in advance, plan, or purpose (Rom. 8:28; 9:11).3

Much of what we will learn of the decree of God will logically follow what we have already learned about God’s attributes, primarily His omniscience and omnipotence. God’s omnipotence states that God has the ability to do whatsoever He pleases. The decree goes one step further by stating that God has foreordained all that He desires to accomplish and the certainty that it will come to pass. Omnipotence speaks of His power. The decree speaks of His efficacious sovereignty. 

A. Characteristics of the Decree

As stated earlier, the Decree is similar to an architect planning a building or a king making a new law. However, these illustrations are limited. In the illustrations, the planner is limited in his knowledge; on all details that may be pertinent to matter at hand as well as any future details that may or may not occur. Sure an architect may plan a fire safety system into the building but it is not because of when or if a fire will occur; it is only a precaution. When we speak on the decree of God, we must remember that we are talking about an omniscient Being and is perfect in all His attributes.

1. One

Theologians usually discuss the decrees of God. In our human perspective, there seem to be many decrees of God. There was a decree to create the earth, another to send His Son to the earth, and another to elect individuals for salvation. However, there is really only one decree. From a heavenly perspective, there is only one decree that is for all things. The decree that planned the earth is the same that planned to send the Son to earth. This is because, “His knowledge is all immediate and simultaneous rather than successive like ours, and His comprehension is always complete.…There is, therefore, no series of decrees in God, but simply one comprehensive plan.”4 God does not need to think out the plan of how He will accomplish everything. He just simply knows without having to consult anyone (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16).

2. Eternal

We should also note that the decree was eternal. We come to this conclusion based upon the fact that God is eternal. He never had a beginning. Also, God never needed to logically think about His decree; it was always known by God. There was never a point in time in which God decided what He was going to do. Scripture hints at this from passages that mention His plan were “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; cf. Acts 15:18; Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9, 11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20).

3. Perfect

Whatever God has decreed from the beginning is perfect and good (Rom 12:2). God is holy (Isa. 6:3; Hab. 1:13) and is unable to do anything against His own character (cf. James 1:13). We could also say that His plan is the best plan. This is because of His infinite wisdom (Ps 104:24; Prov. 3:19). There may be times when it seems that nothing good is happening in our personal lives but God is always working out His perfect will. Joseph experienced this first hand in his life. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. He was falsely accused of assaulting a woman and jailed for it. He was forgotten by the chief butler of pharaoh. But when Joseph spoke of all transpired, he says, that God meant it for good. (Gen. 50:20; Rom 8:28). 

4. Immutable

The decree of God is immutable, or it does not change. There is nothing nothing that God has not foreseen. He knows all things and all possible outcomes. Change to a plan would mean that God did not see something coming or realize that it could happen. Nothing will overthrow the original intention of His decree. What God has planned will happen (Job 23:13–14; Ps. 33:11; Isa. 14:24; 46:9–10). 

5. Independent

God’s decree was made independent of any of man’s actions. Just because foreknew an event or a person, does not mean that His plan was based upon that event, action or person. God determined His own plan despite whatever man plan (Ps 33:10; 115:3; 135:6; Dan. 4:35). This must mean that God has decreed not just the end but also the means (Acts 2:23; Eph. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:2).

6. Efficacious

What God had decreed will come to pass. There is nothing than can overthrow the plan of God. He knows all things that will happen and God is omnipotent. Therefore, God knew of adversary or event that would be against His character but He is also strong enough to overcome any and all things that oppose His plan (Isa 14:27; 43:13). 

7. For His Glory

God’s decree is ultimately for His glory. The entire meta-narrative of Scripture is the glory of God. Every page is meant to teach us of His glory and goodness. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16; cf. Prov. 16:4; Rom. 9:11, 13–18; 11:36; Eph. 1:6, 11–12; Heb. 2:10). 

B. Manifestation of the Decree

We have come to an understanding of the characteristics of God’s decree through a careful study of the matter from Scripture. However, we have come to knowing some of the content of God’s decree through the record found in Scripture and through the unfolding of history. (We only know part of the content because there is still more to come between now and Revelation that has not been revealed.) Therefore, there are some things that need to be said about God’s decree from a human perspective.

1. Separate from the Event

For the sake of clarity, one must know that the decree is not the same as the act was decreed. The plan for an event and the event itself are separate. The blueprint and the construction for a building are not the same. “The decree of God must also be distinguished from its execution in history. The decree to create is not the actual creation of the world ‘in the beginning’ (Gen. 1:1). The decree to send Jesus Christ is not carried out until Jesus was born of Mary in the days of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1–7).”5 

The distinction between the plan and the event is necessary in order to properly place the guilt of sin upon the proper party. God foreknew that sin would enter into the world and thus it was part of His wise decree but it does not mean that God is responsible for sin entering into the world. The directive will of God was for man to remain holy and obedient (Gen. 2:16–17), yet God’s permissive will allowed the event to take place. “All acts—including sinful acts conform to the eternal plan of God, but He is not directly the author of all acts.”6 Berkhof further explains the permissive will of God, 

It should be carefully noted that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will [of man]; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination (Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30).7

Another simple example comes from when Satan tested Job. Satan was permitted to test Job and was also restricted in the extent of the testing (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). Yet, God’s overall plan was for Job to trust God no matter how badly the circumstances have become because God’s counsel is all-wise (Job 13:15; 37:23–24; 38:1–3; 40;1–8). 

2. Revealed Progressively

As one begins to read the Bible, one first reads of God creating the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), and then reads of the Fall of mankind (Gen. 3), even with a promise of one that would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Much later in Scripture we read more of a coming Redeemer. The reader of Scripture is slowly learning of God’s plan as it is being revealed. The entire plan of God was not revealed at the very beginning even though it was “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). It is only through the progression of time that we have come to learn what God has planned to come to pass. A well made novel makes a good illustration. We, as the reader, do not know the author’s plan for the main character of the story from the beginning. The only way to learn what the author does with the story is to progressively read through the events in the story. 

3. Wrought Directly and Indirectly

Just because God has decreed that an event should come to pass does not necessarily mean that God must directly act in creation (i.e. miracles), in order to bring an event to pass. His direct actions upon creation certainly do bear witness to His existence and sovereign power but He is still able to work through the actions of men in order to accomplish His will. Examples of human actions being a part of God’s plan include the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile (Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10–33; Ezra 1:1), the birth of Jesus Christ (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:1–7), and even the death of Christ (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 12:10; John 19:37; Acts 2:23). 

4. Encompasses All Things

The decree of God encompasses all things. Nothing is not included in God’s plan to bring about His glory. 

The decree includes whatsoever comes to pass in the world, whether it be in the physical or in the moral realm, whether it be good or evil (Eph. 1:11). It includes: (a) the good actions of men (Eph. 2:10); (b) their wicked acts (Prov. 16:4; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28); (c) contingent events (Gen. 45:8; 50:20; Prov. 16:33); (d) the means as well as the end (Ps. 119:89–91; 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 1:4); (e) the duration of man’s life (Job 14:5; Ps. 39:4), and the place of his habitation (Acts 17:26).8

Therefore we should comfort ourselves with the fact that no sin, personal mistake, failed achievement, or poor choice has ever ruined the plan, both for His grand scheme or for our personal lives. Nothing that has taken was not in God’s decree. God never said, “Oops,” or, “I never saw that coming.”

C. Objections

Many individuals are comfortable when learning of God’s decree. For a new christian, it makes sense that God is omnipotent and omniscient but yet finds God’s sovereign decree over all things for His glory difficult to comprehend. The problem comes not in questioning God’s capabilities but in questioning of how God’s all-powerful capabilities are applied to everyday events; events that include our actions and our personal salvation. The three most common objections to God’s decree are given below for our examination and understanding. 

1. Contrary to Free Will

The most common objection is that the idea of God planning everything from the beginning and determining the ends ignores the fact that man has a free will. However, it is quite clear that Scripture speaks of both God’s plan and man’s actions and does not present any kind of a contradiction between them. Paul even rebukes us for thinking that there is a contradiction (Rom. 9:18–23). Our human minds may have difficulty with resolving both God’s sovereignty and man’s actions but God’s mind knows both perfectly and without contradiction. Therefore, there must be some way in which these are compatible. 

Perhaps the greatest hurdle in understanding the compatibility between the two comes a misunderstanding of one the two. As we have already discussed the decree of God—His eternal purpose according to only the counsel of His own will encompassing all events for His own glory—we should look more closely at what Scripture states about the will and choices of man. 

Those object most to the doctrine God’s eternal decree are those that have a view of man’s will called Libertarianism. Libertarianism (as it concerns man’s free will) is defined as, 

The belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called “the power of contrary choice” or “the liberty of indifference.” This belief  does not claim there are no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from outside determination.9

However, this is never seen in the real world; man’s will is never autonomous. For example, a court of law does not operate thinking that man makes decisions that are completely free from any external or internal motivators. They do the opposite. The prosecution is always looking for the motive that caused the accused to commit a crime. The prosecution will often show that a bank robber wanted to rob a bank because he wanted to be rich or he needed to pay a debt. The prosecution would never spend time showing that the accused robbed a bank only because he decided to do so without any motivating factors. 

We should not see man’s will as autonomous but rather as one that is subject to its causes and desires. Augustine defined free will as “the ability to choose what we want.”10 This view of man’s free will is the one that is taught in Scriptures. Jesus explained that man will say and do what is in his heart (Matt. 12:33–37; Luke 6:43–45). To explain further, an unsaved man may have the capabilities and the ability to do something right but he lacks the motivating factors that causes an unsaved man to do right (John 8:34–36; Rom. 3:10–19; 5:19; 8:6–8). Therefore in summary, man cannot choose to do good because he lacks anything within himself that is good. The unsaved man will only commit sin because he is sinful. The sinful man chooses to do sin because he desires from within to sin at every opportunity. It must be admitted that even God only does that which is in conformity with His character of holiness, that is, He cannot sin.

Therefore, coming back full circle, it is foolish to think that man is able to make decisions against what God has decreed. The unsaved man will disobey God’s commandments (i.e. His directive will) but this is not going to upset God’s plan (i.e. as part of His permissive will). God planned for sinful acts and chooses to use them for His glory (e.g. Acts 2:23). 

2. Ruins Accountability of Sin

A second objection brought against God’s sovereign decree is that is makes God responsible for the sin that was planned. This objection is raised due to a misunderstanding between the decree and the effectuating of the decree. “It must be borne in mind that God has not decreed to effectuate by His own direct action whatsoever must come to pass. The divine decree only brings certainty into the events, but does not imply that God will actively effectuate them.”11

We see multiple example within Scripture of God foreknowing an event and yet still holding the man that acts as responsible for those actions (Prov. 16:4–5). Isaiah prophesies of the Assyrian king invading Israel but he will still be punished for this action (Isa. 10:5–15). Jesus foreknew that Judas would betray Him (John 6:70–71; 17:12) but Judas still bears the guilt for this action (Matt. 26:21–24).

3. Ruins Need of Exertion

A final objection often laid against God’s sovereign decree is often stated within the example of election of individuals for salvation. “If God has determined that certain individuals will without a doubt receive salvation, then what is the point of sending missionaries to foreign countries? Apparently God can still bring the person to salvation without a missionary.” However, God has not only determined the end (the salvation of a person) but also the means (through the sending of a missionary). God commanded (Matt. 28:19–20) and foreknew (John 10:16; Rom. 15:8–12) that the Church should preach the Gospel to all nations (Acts 1:8; Rom. 10:14). Therefore, God’s foreknowledge is an encouragement for missions (Acts 18:9–11). 

________________

1. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 2.100. 

2. Definitions of the Hebrew are from CHALOT, 280.1, 254, 89, and 112, respectively. 

3. Definitions of the Greek are from BDAG, 181–2, 447, 404, 873, and 869, respectively. 

4. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.102. 

5. Fred H. Klooster, “Decrees of God,” in EDT, 303.

6. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, rev. and expanded (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 209. 

7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.105. 

8. Ibid.

9. R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 43–4; qtd. in John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 825. 

10. Quoted by R. C. Sproul, Can I Know God’s Will, The Crucial Questions Series, vol. 4 (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 45. 

11. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.106. 

The Trinity

Theologians argue amongst themselves if the relational or moral attributes of God have to be exercised in order to for God to have them. For example, “Does God need to bestow love upon someone in order to show that He has the attribute of love?” If the answer is yes, then another question arises, “How did God display or exercise His moral attributes before the creation of the world?” The answer comes from the doctrine of the Trinity. God exercised His moral attributes unto Himself. In other words, God was able to exercise love before the creation of the world because all three Persons of the Trinity were exercising love unto each other.

Upon starting our study of the doctrine of the Trinity, it must be admitted that the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found in the Bible. However, the doctrine can be easily defended using the Bible. Many men have studied the relevant passages that will be discussed below and have come to the conclusion of what we call the doctrine of the Trinity. Doctrine was formed, not because it was explicitly state in Scripture, 1 but because it is the best synthesis of all the relevant texts. What we will see, as we study these texts, is the different Persons of the Godhead acting in creation and revealing Himself which allows us to have insights into an understanding of the Godhead. 

A complete and perfect understanding of the Trinity is impossible. The doctrine of the Trinity falls into the category of the incomprehensibility of God. God’s divine majesty and glorious being/essence is beyond the capabilities of man’s mind (Ps. 145:3). The fact that no one has ever come up with a perfect analogy to illustrate the workings of the Trinity demonstrates  the transcendence of God’s essence. Yet this does not mean that we should not make an effort to know the definition of the Trinity and the workings of the Persons in the Godhead. After all, God has given us glimpses of the Trinity in Scripture and we should make it our duty to know what we can to the best of our ability. Besides, if we misunderstand the Trinity, we end with disastrous and even heretical results.

Before discussing a definition of the Trinity, some terms need to be explained. The doctrine of the Trinity speaks of the Godhead on two different levels—Essence and Person. When concerning discussing the unity of the Godhead, the term “essence” is employed and refers to the being of God Himself. “Essence” and “substance” can be used interchangeably when discussing the Trinity; both have a similar range of meaning. One man explained that, 

Essence is from esse, to be, and denotes energetic being. Substance is from substare, and denotes the latent possibility of being.…The term essence describes God as a sum-total of infinite perfection; the term substance describes Him as the underlying ground of infinite activities. The first is, comparatively, and active word; the last, a passive. The first is, comparatively, a spiritual, the last a material term. We speak of material substance rather than of material essence.2

For the sake of clarity, I will try to consistently use the word “essence” when discussing the being of God. The second level of discussion concerns the Persons of the Trinity. The term “Person” is employed when discussing the individual and separate Persons of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word “subsistence” is also used in the same manner. Men have  struggled for centuries to come up with better labels for the individuals Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvin explained, “By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the divine essence—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence.”3 In short, I use “Person” to refer to either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit simply because a better term is lacking. One must take careful note! While substance may be used alongside essence and person may be used alongside subsistence, substance refers to something different than subsistence and essence refers to something different than person. 

Now that some terms have been explained we can finally move onto a definition of the Trinity. “There is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence.”4 Athanasius (ca. 296–373), the bishop of Alexandria, stated, 

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the Substance [Essence]. For there is one Person of the Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is the Holy Spirit.…For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord: So we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be [are] three Gods, or three Lords.5

The Trinity can be summed up in three statements: 1) there is only one God; 2) God is three Persons; and 3) each Person of the Godhead is fully God. According to the Bible, none of these statement contradicts each other. 

A. There Is Only One God

The Scriptures are abundantly clear on this: there is only one God and God is one. The famed Shema of the Jewish faith, makes it clear that God is one (Deut. 6:4–5; cf. NASB: “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”). Jesus recites these verses when He was questioned about the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29–30). After seeing Pharaoh’s army drowned in the Red Sea, Moses sang of God’s power asking the rhetorical question “Who is like you among the gods, O LORD?” (Exod. 15:11 NASB). The obvious answer is no one is like the LORD. Isaiah was told of how there is no other God (Isa. 44:6–8; 45:5–6, 21–22; cf. 1 Kings 8:60). Paul confirmed this as well in his writings (Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4–6; 1 Tim. 2:5). James mentions that there is only one God as well (James 2:19). 

The obvious conclusion of all these Scripture passages is that God is undivided. He is one in His essence or in His being. Therefore, the attributes that we just finished studying can be applied to all three Persons because They are all of the same essence or substance. 

B. God Is Three Persons

Even though God is one in His essence, there are three Persons within the Godhead. We see this from when each Person of the Trinity is mentioned. The Persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The first and second Persons of the Trinity are respectively called Father and Son because of how they relate to each other; the names are illustrative (John 1:14, 18; 5:17–26; 14:12–13). “The first person is the Father of the second in a metaphysical sense. This is the original fatherhood of God, of which all earthly fatherhood is a faint reflection.”6 The third Person of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is designated with words that are similar to “breath” or “to breathe.” Therefore the name is illustrative of the invisible work that is done by God because breath cannot be seen (John 3:5–8). 

There are multiple passages for when all three of the Persons are mentioned. The first passage is the baptism of Jesus Christ (Luke 3:21–22). This passage is extremely important because not only is each Person mentioned, each Person is acting in creation.7 Another passage when all three Persons are mentioned is at the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). At times Paul wrote while bearing the Trinity in mind (2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6); as well as Peter (1 Pet. 1:2), and Jude (Jude 20–21).

1. Each Person Is Separate

While there is unity in God’s essence there is a distinction between the three Persons. Perhaps Jesus explained it best when He claimed that, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30). Jesus claimed that He is God and yet at the same time distinct in Person. Both the Father and the Son have and share the entire essence of God and are the separate Persons, otherwise Jesus would not be able to say “I and my Father.” We see the Father and the Son as separate Persons throughout Scripture (John 1:1–2, 9–18; John 17:24; 1 John 2:1; Heb. 7:25). Therefore, it must be said that the Father is not the Son. It is also true that the Holy Spirit is not the Father (John 14:26; Rom. 8:26–27), and that the Son is not the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; 16:7). 

2. How Each Person Relates

Another set of distinctions that must be discussed is how each of the Persons relate to creation and to each other. The relation of each Person to creation is known as the economic functions of the Trinity or the opera ad extra (i.e. work outside). The relation of each Person to each other is known as the ontological relation or the opera ad intra (i.e. works within). 

a. Economic Relation

When I am using the word “economics,” I am mean it in the sense of “the ordering of activities” (e.g. home economics), rather than the financial state of the country. 

While there are numerous ways in which each Person uniquely relates to creation, there are two examples in particular that I want to focus on: creation and salvation. In each of these examples, each person has a distinct role but all three Persons are still working together in perfect unity towards the same goal. This is due to the set order that is observed in the Trinity. We will see that, “All things are out of the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit”8 (cf. 1 Cor. 8:6). 

The first example we see of all three Persons working on one task is in the creation of the world. God the Father spoke the world into existence (Gen. 1:3–5). Yet the world was created through the Son (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2). We also see that the Holy Spirit was working in a unique way as well (Gen. 1:2; cf. Ps. 33:6, where “breath” could be translated “Spirit”). In the completion of creation, God was able to look on His creation and call it “very good” (Gen. 1:31).

The second example we see all three Persons woking on one task is in salvation. The Father planned redemption, elected certain persons for salvation according to His will and sent the Son (John 3:16; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:9–10). The Son suffered death on the cross and redeemed all that the Father had given unto Him (John 6:37–40; Rom. 3:25). The Holy Spirit regenerates (John 3:5–8; Tit. 3:5), seals (Eph. 1:13; 4:30), and sanctifies (Rom. 8:13–14; 15:16; 1 Pet. 1:2).

As we examine how each of the Persons relate to the created world, we should notice that there is an order between the Persons. This is often discussed in terms of subordination yet this subordination is limited to how the Persons relate to creation or their role, not their degrees of dignity. We see that Jesus Christ, God the Son, is subordinate to the Father as according to the Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30; 6:38). Christ will be Ruler over all things but will even subject Himself to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28). We also see that the Holy Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son (John 14:26; 15:26).

b. Ontological Relation

Upon an examination of how the Persons relate in their work in creation, we can begin to understand how they relate to each other. There is an order that is seen between the Persons but this does not mean that the Son is any less God than the Father or that the Holy Spirit is any less God than the Son. They are still co-equal. Berkhof explains,

It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.9

We state that the Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father (John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9), and that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father and the Son (John 15:26) because we lack better terms to describe how the Persons relate to each other, so we borrow the words that are used by the Bible. 

The term “eternally begotten” comes from the “only begotten” passages (see above). The words “only begotten” comes from the Greek μονογενής (monogenēs). For the longest time, many thought monogenēs was a combination of μόνος (monos) meaning “only” and γεννάω (gevvaō) meaning “to cause something to come into existence, primarily through procreation,”10 thus leading to the translation “only begotten,” almost in the sense of an only child (cf. Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). This leads some to think that the Son had a beginning, which we know to not be true (John 8:58; 17:5). However, monogenēs is really a combination of μόνος (monos) meaning “only” and γενός (genos) meaning “class or kind.”11 Therefore monogenēs really means, “being the only one of its kind or class, i.e., unique (in kind).”12 Therefore we should not think of the Son as One who was begotten by the Father but that the Father sent His unique One to earth. The author of Hebrews uses monogenēs to describe Isaac. The passage only makes sense when we realize that monogenēs does not mean “only begotten,” for Isaac was not Abraham’s only son, but the author means to say that Isaac is unique, in that, Isaac was the child that received the blessing of the Abrahamic Covenant (Heb. 11:17–18). Clement of Alexandria (c.150–c.215) uses the same meaning of the word as well in his letter to believers in Rome and Corinth, “There is a bird that is named the phoenix. This bird, the only one [monogenēs] of its species.”13 Therefore, when monogenēs is said of Jesus, “monogenēs is used to mark out Jesus uniquely above all earthly and heavenly beings; in its use the present soteriological meaning is more strongly stressed than that of origin.”14

Stating that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son (John 15:26) is known as the filioque clause and caused quite a stir in Chuch history. The filioque clause supposedly led to a split between western Christianity (eventually becoming the Roman Catholic church) and eastern Christianity (which eventually became the various branches of the eastern orthodox churches) in A.D. 1054.

The word filioque is a Latin term that means “and from the Son.” It was not included in the Nicene Creed in either the first version of A.D. 325 or the second version of A.D. 381. Those vision simply state that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” But in A.D. 589, at a regional church council in Toledo (in what is now Spain), the “and the Son” as added, so the that the creed then said that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque).” In the light of John 15:26 and 16:7, where Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit in to the world, it seems there could be no objection to such a statement if it referred to the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son at a point in time (particularly at Pentecost). But this was a statement about the nature of the Trinity, and the phrase was understood to speak of the eternal relationship between the Holy Spirit and the Son, something Scripture never explicitly discusses. The form of the Nicene Creed that had this additional phrase gradually gained in general use and received an official endorsement in A.D. 1017. The entire controversy was complicated by ecclesiastical politics and struggles for power, and this apparently very insignificant doctrinal point was the main doctrinal issue in the split between eastern and western Christianity in A.D. 1054. (The underlying political issue, however, was the relation of the Eastern church to the authority of the Pope.) The doctrinal controversy and the split between the two branches of Christianity have not been resolved to this day.15

I would have to agree that the argument was over something non-consequential. John 15:26 and 16:7 only talk of a singular act that took place in a single point in time and not about how the Holy Spirit relates to the Son and the Father in all of eternity. At best these verses only tell us of the economic subordination seen in the Trinity. 

C. Each Person Is God

Having now discussed that the essence of God is one, and that God is three Persons, we must now discuss how each of the three persons are God. Something that must be stressed is that each Person of the Trinity is fully God. Scripture never shows any degrees of dignity between the Persons of the Trinity. One Person is not more divine than another; each is equally God.

The Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit will be discussed more extensively when such concerns become the main topic in future lessons. For now, these matters are briefly written with enough sufficiency to demonstrate the point on hand—each Person is God. 

1. Father

There should be no debate with the fact that the Father is God. Yet, for the sake of argument, some proofs are provided. When Jesus prays, He prays to God the Father (John 17:1). The Father is labeled as God (John 6:27; Gal. 1:1; Phil. 2:11). 

2. Son

The testimony of the apostles make the Deity of Christ very clear (Col. 1:15; 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 1:3, 8, 10). The Gospel of John says much of the Deity of Christ (1:1–4, 14; 5:17–18; 8:58; 14:8–9; 20:25–31). The synoptics speak of Christ’s Deity as well (Matt. 1:23; 9:2–6; 14:33). One could even go to the Old Testament (Ps. 110:1; Isa. 9:6; Zech. 12:10). 

3. Holy Spirit

Now that the Father and the Son are seen as God, the passage where all three Persons listed should help to understand that they are all treated equally, and therefore the Holy Spirit is fully God (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Pet. 1:2). In the episode with Ananias and Sapphira, Peter uses the terms “Holy Ghost” and “God” interchangeably (Acts 5:3–4). 

Because it is understood that the Holy Spirit is God, it should be also understood that the Holy Spirit is a Person and not a force. Even though πνευμα (pneuma) is neuter, New Testament authors use a masculine pronoun when referring to the Holy Spirit (John 16:14; Eph. 1:14). “The characteristics of a person are ascribed to Him, such as intelligence (John 14:26; 15:26; Rom. 8:16), will (Acts 16:7; 1 Cor. 12:11), and affections (Isa. 63:10; Eph. 4:30). Moreover, He performs acts proper to personality.…What does all these things cannot be a mere power or influence, but must be a person.”16 If certain passages were interpreted as the Holy Spirit being a power, they would be a tautology. All you have to do to see the absurdity is substitute the word “power” for Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 10:38; Rom. 15:13). 

D. The Three Persons Have Always Been the Same

The doctrine of the Trinity was progressively revealed in Scripture. The Old Testament did not display marks of the Trinity like the New Testament. This is because the incarnation of Christ caused a lot more information to be revealed concerning the Trinity than had been previously necessary. If a person does not very closely, one could get the impression that the Persons of the Trinity did not exist until the incarnation of Jesus Christ, or that God was expressing Himself in  differing ways in differing dispensations. However, God does not change (Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; James 1:17); this includes His essence and each of the individual Persons. God has always existed as one God. God has always existed in three Persons. Each Person has always been God.

1. Eternity Past

Eternity past, or before creation, is rarely spoken of in Scripture. Yet there are a couple of verses that do stand out and help to demonstrate that the Trinity has always existed. Jesus talks of possessing a glory alongside the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5). Then, within the same prayer, Jesus talks about a relationship that He had “before the foundation of the world” (John 17:24). We can also assume that John 1:1 is talking the relationship between the Word (i.e. Christ) and God before the world is created because it does not talk creation until verse 3. 

A popular misunderstanding of Christ’s pre-existence comes from the word “firstborn” in Colossians 1:15–18 causing some to think that Christ was created by God before the world was created. However, the context of the surrounding verses demands otherwise. Verses 16 and 17 make it clear that Jesus Christ is a being that is without beginning, for how could a created being create?  And the word “firstborn” is repeated in verse 18 as well, that is, “firstborn from the dead.” “Firstborn” is πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos) which is “pertaining to having special status associated with a firstborn.”17 Paul is emphasizing the rights and privileges that a privileged position brings, not an order of generation. In this case, Paul is talking about Christ authority as head over the Church, “that he might have the preeminence.”

2. Old Testament

One does not have to look to far in the Old Testament to see hints of the Trinity. Within the creation account we see a plurality of Persons that are sharing in a singular essence (Gen. 1:26). Multiple Persons are seen in the plural pronoun “us” and yet all of these Persons are possessing the ability to create, which only comes from an uncreated Being. Also, these Persons are in agreement as what man should be—“in our image.” The plural personal pronouns are seen in multiple places in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). 

A significant passage that shows more than one Person in the Godhead is Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said unto my Lord (נְאֻם יְהוָה ׀ לַֽאדֹנִי, n^euʾm y^ehwāh la-ʾdōnî).” The Pharisees did not understand this verse when Jesus asked them about it (Matt. 22:41–46). The reason why David calls his son “Lord (אָדוֹן, ʾādôn)” is because He is God. Yet this only makes sense if we bear in mind the separate Persons of the Trinity. If we think of Psalm 110:1 within the scope of the Trinity, we should see it as, “God the Father said unto God the Son.”

The Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father as well. In Isaiah 63:10, the people “rebelled and vexed (i.e. grieved) his holy Spirit.” The verse does not say that they rebelled against God, but against His Holy Spirit, which marks the Spirit as separate from the Father. 

In Isaiah 48:16, we see all three Persons: “And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirt” (NASB). The Person speaking is the “Servant of the Lord,” which is Jesus Christ (cf. Isa 42:1). Therefore, we see God the Father sending the Son, along with the Holy Spirit. 

There are also multiple times in the Old Testament when one of the Persons of the Trinity is seen. The first example of this are the passages that mention the Angel of the LORD (Gen. 16:13; Exod. 3:2–6; 23:20–22; Num. 22:35, 38; Judg. 2:1–2; 6:11, 14). The Angel appears to have characteristics that should only be applied to a Person of Deity and is yet still considered a separate Person from God the Father, especially since no one has seen God (Exod. 33:20; John 1:18). The second example are passages that mention the Holy Spirit working as separate Person (Gen. 1:2; Ps. 51:11).

3. New Testament

As one comes to the Gospels, we encounter the incarnation—God dwelling in flesh amongst men. The doctrine of incarnation demands some more explanation concerning the essence and character of God. Therefore, it makes sense that the New Testament reveals more concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. The multiple passages that mention all three Persons of the Trinity easily show that all three Persons existed during the time of Christ (Matt. 3:16–17; 28:19), and for the Church (2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4–6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20–21).

4. Eternity Future

In the future, all three Persons will still exist as they are now. This can be seen in the passages that discuss actions or transaction that will happen between the Persons of the Trinity. In John 5:21–30, Jesus explains that authority for judgment was given by God as well the power of the resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, God puts all things under Christ and then Christ puts Himself under the Father. Hebrews 1:8 mentions that Jesus Christ will sit on David’s throne forever (something only the second Person can do, cf. 2 Sam 7:12–13). Lastly, we see both God and the Lamb (i.e. Jesus Christ) as two separate Persons existing alongside the redeemed (Rev. 21:9–10; 22:1). 

E. History of Errors Concerning the Trinity

While it may not be absolutely necessary, it certainly helpful to know of some of the errors people have made concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. At the very least, we can learn from their mistakes so we do not unwittingly follow their example by becoming confused or having a poor knowledge of the doctrine. All of the following errors fail to acknowledge one of the three main points concerns the Trinity: there is one God; God is three Persons; and each Person is God.

1. Monarchianism

Monarchianism stresses the unity of the Godhead and denied the separation between the Persons (think mono, or one; and monarch, i.e. king). Monarchianism fails to recognize each Person of the Godhead working alongside the other Persons towards a unified goal as was seen in the economic relation of the Trinity to creation, or the opera ad extra. Monarchianism comes in two forms: Adoptionism (or Dynamic Monarchianism) and Modalism (or Sabellianism).

a. Adoptionism

Adoptionism tried to tried to maintain the unity of God by denying the deity of Jesus Christ. “Jesus was viewed as a mere man who was endowed with the Holy Spirit. this view was first put forward by in Rome about 190 by Theodotus of Byzantium and continued by his successor, Artemon (also called Theodotus), who tried to argue that this teaching was the heir of the apostolic tradition.”18 Adoptionism, therefore, also denied the eternal existence of Jesus Christ (cf. John 17:5). The false doctrine received the label “Adoptionism” because proponents claimed that Jesus was “adopted” by God and called him His “Son” at the time of Jesus’ baptism when the Holy Spirit came upon Jesus. 

b. Modalism

Modalism, or Sabellianism (so named after the teacher, Sabellius), attempted to maintain the unity of God and even affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ. However, Modalism stated that the Son is the Father, and the Holy Spirit—there is only one person. God is only expressing Himself in different “modes.” Bavinck explains,

The precursors of Sabellianism in the second and third centuries A.D. were Noetus, Praxeas, Epigonus, and Cleomenes, who taught that in Christ, the Father himself had been born and had suffered and died; that the “Father” and the “Son” were names for the same person in different relations, name before and during his incarnation, both for the same person as such as well as in this historical manifestation; or also that the divine nature in Christ was the Father and the human nature, the flesh, the Son. Now, in the third century this monarchianism, patripassianism,19 or modalism was promulgated and further developed by Sabellius. The Father, Son, and Spirit are the same God; they are three names for one and the same being. Calling this being “Huiopator,”20 he applied the name to its three successive energies or stages. God consisted first of all in the person (prosopon), the appearance or mode of the Father, namely, as Creator and Lawgiver; next, in the prosopon of the Son as Redeemer, from the time of his incarnation to the moment of his ascension, and finally in the prsosopon of the Holy Spirit as the Vivifier.21

Of course, numerous problems arise with this idea, especially the heresy of patripassianism requiring that the Father suffer the punishment of sin rather than the Son (cf. Matt. 27:46; Rom. 3:24–26; the doctrine of propitiation requires three parties be involved, 1) the guilty, 2) One whose wrath is satisfied against the guilty, and 3) and the One who is the propitiation). Modalism is easily refuted when we see more than one Person active in a singular event (e.g. Jesus’ baptism, the Transfiguration). 

2. Subordinationism

Subordinationism confuses the nature of Christ in relation to the Father by saying that the Son is subordinate to the Father. “Subordinationism held that the Son was eternal and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes.…The early church father Origen (c. 185–c. 254) advocated a form of subordinationism by holding that the Son was inferior to the Father in being, and that the Son eternally derives his being from the Father.”22 There is a difference between economic subordination and ontological subordination—Christ did what the Father willed but Christ was not any less God than the Father is God. 

3. Arianism

“The term ‘Arianism’ is derived from Arius, a presbyter (elder) of Alexandria whose views were condemned at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and who died in A.D. 336.”23 Arius’ main tenet about Christ was, “there was when he was not.” Arius taught there was a time when Jesus did not exist but was instead created from nothing by God the Father before the creation of the world. His ideas were influenced by Origen’s idea of subordinationism, and a misunderstanding of the μονογενής (monogenēs, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and the πρωτότοκος  (prōtotokos, Col. 1:15, 18) passages. Arius’ explanation was that, “God was immutable, unique, unknowable, only one. Therefore Arians felt no substance of God could in any way be communicated or shared with any other being.”24 The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity agrees that the divine substance cannot be shared with another being. Jesus and the Father are different Persons not different beings (John 10:30). 

The catchword that eventually defeated Arianism that came from the Council of Nicea was ὁμοουσιαν (homoousian), meaning the Son was of the same substance as the Father. Arians agreed that Jesus was God but claimed that Christ was of a similar substance of the Father (i.e. ὁμοιουσιαν, homoiousian). The difference in the Greek words is only one letter. When the church fathers began to distinguish between Substance and Person more clearly, the Council of Constantinople in 381 was able to reaffirm the orthodox position—Christ is eternal.

4. Tritheism

Tritheism is a simple misunderstanding that there are three gods rather than three Persons within the Godhead. No orthodox Christian group has ever claimed Tritheism though some new Christians may hold to this in their functional understanding of the Trinity. On occasion, Muslims accuse Christians of believing in Tritheism due to their misunderstanding of the Trinity.

___________________

1. 1 John 5:7 in the KJV and NKJV is not a trustworthy reference for defending the Three-in-One doctrine of the Trinity. A quick comparison to other translations will show that, “in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJV), is missing from other translations. This is because the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus which is based upon the Greek NT assembled by Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1466–1536). However, Erasmus did not have this phrase (i.e. Johannine comma) in the first two editions of his NT because he was following his Greek MSS and only found the phrase in the Latin Vulgate. A man named Diego López Zúñiga found a Greek MS, Codex Montfortianus, containing the phrase and forced Erasmus to put the phrase into the next edition of his Greek NT. However, “the manuscript is highly suspect, in that it most probably was created in the house of the Grey Friars, whose provincial, Henry Standish, was an old enemy of Erasmus” (James White, The King James Controversy [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995], 61). However, no harm is done to the doctrine of the Trinity by either the inclusion or the exclusion of the Johannine comma. 

2. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York, 1891–4), 1:271; qtd. in Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 2:87. 

3. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.6. 

4. B. B. Warfield, “Trinity,” in ISBE (1915), 5:3012; qtd. in Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999), 61. 

5. Athanasius, “The Athanasian Creed,” lines 3–7, 19–20; qtd. in Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 253, see also 1170–1. 

6. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:91. 

7. The Scriptures do not state that it was the Father that was speaking from heaven but the voice did refer to Jesus as “his Son” indicating that the Father was speaking. 

8. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:89. 

9. Ibid. 

10. BDAG, 193. 

11. “μονογενής,” BDAG, 658; “γένος,” BDAG, 194–5.

12. BDAG, 658. 

13. 1 Clement 25:2. Clement was using the folklore of the phoenix to illustrate the resurrection in Christ. 

14. Karl-Heinz Bartels, “μόνος,” in NIDNTT, 2:725; cf. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 243–4, 1233–4.

15. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 246.

16. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2:96. 

17. BDAG, 894.2. 

18. Craig A. Blaising, “Monarchianism,” in EDT, 727. 

19. Literally, Father-suffering, from their belief that the Father suffered on the cross.

20. Greek, literally, Son-Father.

21. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1936–62), 2:290; qtd. in John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 475–6. 

22. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 244–5.

23. Ibid, 243. 

24. Victor L. Walter, “Arianism,” in EDT, 74.