Catechism Buzz: Beyond Mere Orthodoxy

That Jesus is God is not merely doctrine—a belief that serves as a test of orthodoxy; it gives us encouragement to know that it is no mere human being who intercedes on our behalf with God. We have no need of a human priest, because we have the great high priest, who is God Himself (Thx, Hebrews).

In the same way, we understand that God lives in tents not made with hands, but He tabernacles with us by living in us. The Holy Spirit is able to dwell inside of all believers because, as God, He is omnipresent. It is for this same reason that David can testify that there is nowhere he can go to escape God's Spirit—not because the Spirit is like a bloodhound, able to sniff out a man wherever he might go—but because wherever he might go, God the Holy Spirit is already there (Psalm 139).

So it is that the teaching about the three persons of the Trinity being co-equal is not dry orthodoxy, but rather practical and encouraging to believers, as God in three persons works out His plan of salvation in the lives and hearts of His people.

Tech Specs: Knows like Vos

In order to know God as He is, we must know and accept Him as He presents Himself in His self-revelation to us. The Catechism leads us gently but firmly down the path to this point, by first telling us that we need to know about God--that is our purpose (Q.1), and how God is revealed to us--through His Spirit and His Word--(Q.2). It then proceeds to tell us about God's Word: what it is (Q.3), how we can know the Scriptures are God's Word (Q.4), and the summary statement about what the Scriptures teach (Q.5). And so it is that we are brought to the section where what God is and who He is explained.

God makes a big deal about presenting Himself as one. Dueteronomy 6:4, for example, tells us directly that God is one. But other passages, such as Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14, present to us three separate, distinct persons all identified as "God." And so it is that we begin to see a the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This lays the foundation for later discussion of the differing roles in the various stages of salvation, identified as justification, sanctification, and glorification.

The importance of this doctrine of the Trinity cannot be overstated. In his commentary on the Larger Catechism, Johannes Geerhardus Vos puts it this way.

What is the practical importance of the doctrine of the Trinity?

This is far from being mere technical theory or abstract doctrine. Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the Trinity. The Bible represents the plan of salvation as a compact or covenant among the persons of the Trinity. Where the doctrine of the Trinity is abandoned, the whole Bible teaching about the plan of salvation must go with it.

The relationship within the Godhead also enables us to understand concepts like equality of persons but distinction of roles; it allows us to submit to one another, as we see that even amongst equal persons there is the submission of the Son to the Father. It helps us understand our need for relationships, and reinforces the priority of those relationships, with God and with each other. It even helps us to know that God geniunely desires relationship with us, but doesn't need it, since God alone would not be lonely. Seeing the Godhead operate in relationship enables us to put a premium on our relationship with God and with His church.

So that we can properly glorify God and enjoy Him forever.

Tech Specs: Lost in Translation

Now, it is at about this point that some astute Gadfly reader following along at home is going to wonder if there may be a problem here. The older versions of the Catechism have 1 John 5:7 as the Scripture proof for the statement about the persons of the Godhead in Q.6. However, based on manuscript evidence, most modern Bible translations have omitted this statement about the Trinity because it doesn't appear to be part of the original text. So what happens when a prooftext goes missing?

The short answer is, the Assembly was preparing teaching tools, not an exhaustive systematic theology text. The Larger Catechism, like the other documents produced at Westminster, is a summary of Bible doctrine, and as such, the number of Scripture proofs referenced is necessarily limited.

In fact, when originally written, the Confession of Faith contained no proof texts at all. It was intended to be an exposition of what Scripture taught. It was only after the British Parliament returned the Confession and requested them that the prooftexts were added. The Catechisms were written after that and so the Assembly presumably would have included proofs in those as well.

At that time, the passage in 1 John would have been the clearest evidence of the statement they were making. In our day, with the questions surrounding that passage, those gathered at Westminster might have referenced the verses their modern counterparts point to, including Matt 3:16-17; Deut 6:4-6; 1 Cor 8:4,6; Matt 28:19-20; and 2 Cor 13:14.

The controversy around 1 John 5:7 does not require us to choose a certain translation of Scripture in order to subscribe to the Westminster Standards or uphold the truth expressed in them, nor is the truth of the statement itself weakened by our choice of the same.

Hive History: Proper Properties

It wasn't until 1704 that the word "proper" began to take on the meaning of something that was socially appropriate. Prior to that, the word described something that was one's own - an attribute entirely particular to the thing itself. When the authors of the Westminster Catechism say "it is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity", they weren't making an argument for the Trinity based on how socially appropriate that relationship seemed to them. They were describing the inner-Trinitarian relationship as a property of the Godhead.

The fullness of what is being expressed in the Catechism (concerning this relationship) cannot be imparted until or unless we understand the language the authors were using. I am speaking in particular about such peculiar terms as "begotten" and the phrase "proceeding from". In order to comprehend what these authors believed the scriptures teach about the personal properties of the three Persons in the Godhead we must first understand what these terms meant to those who used them at the time they were using them.

In 325, at the Council of Nicea, Arius was condemned as an heretic for teaching that God -created- Jesus. The council, in correcting Arius, clarified what the scriptures taught concerning the Sonship of Christ: that this Sonship was eternal and singularly so (ie. there were no other eternal Sons - Jesus was the only "begotten" of the Father, a coeternal Person, of the same substance as the Father, and explicitly affirmed as divinity). Thus they affirmed a creed, called the Nicene Creed, which was to be regarded by all of Christendom to be an accurate explanation of what the scriptures taught, and as pertains to this post at least, concerning the eternal Sonship of Christ. The Westminster Catechism affirms this same Sonship as a property of the Trinity.

In 381, at the First Council of Constantinople, the Nicene Creed was amended to include the teaching that the Holy Spirit preceded from the Father, meaning that the Holy Spirit was of the same being (ousia) as God the Father. In 589, at the Third Council of Toledo, this amendment was revised to say that the Holy Spirit proceeded from both the Father and the Son (and not without a whole lot of controversy(!) that we won't get into at this time). Again, this relationship is affirmed in the Westminster Catechism as a property of the Trinity.

The scriptures lead us to the conclusion that God is the eternal, uncreated, infinite reality who exists in three Persons related to one another as the Father, His only Son, and the Holy Spirit who together are of the same substance/essence. The reason we labor to articulate this understanding, is not because we want to impress ourselves or others with the scope and depth of our own biblical navel gazing, rather we strive to articulate what is true and revealed of God in order that we may ourselves be on guard against those innovations and corruptions that would eventually lead us astray in our faith, and again, in order that we might warn others away from such innovation and corruption.

Catechism Buzz: What God Is

I love that the Catechism asks, "What is God?" It seems that the more natural question is "Who is God?" It is a different question altogether to ask "what" something is rather than "who" someone is. Why, do you suppose, that the theologians who drafted the Larger Catechism would ask "what" instead of "who"? And how does that help us think about God?

This sets us up for a series of questions that help us think about both the "what" and the "who" of God. Zero in here on the first part of the answer to question six; it states that the Scriptures make known what God is and the persons in the Godhead. That's rich if you meditate on that truth. We serve a God, an almighty God, who is both a what and a who.

He is a "what" because we can't get our minds and hearts around all that He is. He is, as the catechism says, "incomprehensible." He is infinite in being. Do you know what an infinity is? He is perfect. Do we fancy that we know what perfect really means? He is One God, and yet He is three persons. He is neither divided in His essence, nor is He confounded in His persons. He is God, and there is nothing like Him. You have never seen anything like Him. There is nothing on earth that we may compare to Him that will do. He is infinitely glorious and blessed and perfect and all-sufficient and eternal and unchangeable and incomprehensible and everywhere present and wise, just to name a few. We may heap up the superlatives to describe Him, but really, does that ever get at "what" He is? By way of analogy, because I can help myself and you through no other means, it is as if I took a blind man and granted him sight for the first time in order to view a magnificent sunset, and as he stared in awe I said, "Friend, what is that?" How might he answer? Our struggle is worse than his to approximate what we see of God in Scripture. Our language is most pitiful when our hearts are most full.

This thought brings me finally to the "who" question of God. God is one being, yet in three persons. The Scriptures teach us this. Specifically, let us think for a moment on the Second Person, the eternal Son of God. God is more awesome than the sunset or a majestic waterfall. In Jesus, the God Incarnate, the being of God comes close in the person of Jesus Christ. Can you see what God is in Jesus?

See if you can see God revealed in this: A man with leprosy came and knelt before him and said, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.” Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” (Matt. 8:2-3). Jesus touched the leper and made him clean. He taught us to pray to God as "our Father." He said that He would send to us the Holy Spirit, and He called him our "Comforter." Jesus taught us that God is our Father, that he is our Savior, and that the Holy Spirit is our Comfort. The Father has compassion for His children and sends us the Son; the Son dies to makes us fit for our Father; the Holy Spirit convicts us through this love out poured and embraces us as sons and daughters of God. We learn who God is through Jesus.

So, having seen this one God in three persons, I ask you: What is God? Tell us what He is, not just to educate us, but so that we may worship and adore Him with you.

HSBJ9AD9ZMXZ

Catechism Buzz: Your Safe Passage

You’ve been given an ancient map, on yellowed parchment with rough edges. It’s a map of all the waterways and the seas of the whole world. The map has lines and arrows that show you all the ways of safe passage to guide your ship in its travels. It has warnings: “Here there be dragons” and the like. And there’s a legend on the map that gives keys to understanding all the symbols and markings on it.

As you undertake to study the map for all its worth, you discover that it’s made of some kind of iParchment, so that when you brush your fingers against it, it zooms in to intense detail of the passage you’re attempting to sail. And it turns out that even in the safe channels there are great dangers that require the utmost care to navigate their passing.

You come to a narrow canal where the map shows that there are razor sharp, craggy rocks both to your left and to your right, hidden under the water. If you were to steer your ship anywhere but straight ahead, you could easily get wrecked on either side. You wonder why the map maker would consider this to be a safe passage at all. But a note from the legend pops up on the iParchment, explaining that the map maker cut this channel himself, and put in the sharp underwater rocks to keep your ship from sea serpents on one side and dragons on the other. Why? Because he’s interested in your safe passage.

The Larger Catechism’s sixth question asks us what the Scriptures make known of God. The first phrase of the answer says the Scriptures make known what God is. The proof text is Hebrews 11:6, which tells us that God is a rewarder of persons who diligently seek Him by faith. As we Reformed types navigate through these waters, we often tend to hang close to the side of the channel that speaks of our depravity and our utter inability, our worminess and wretchedness. And it’s easy to get shipwrecked clinging to our knowledge of our own depravity.

But what is God? God is a rewarder. The map says so, and the One who made the map, made the world.