In this sermon, Robert Bosley explores the doctrine of the Trinity as a foundational belief in the Christian faith. He explains that the Trinity is the belief in one essence or being of God existing in three distinct co-eternal and co-equal persons. Bosley emphasizes the importance of confessing the doctrine of the Trinity to be considered a Christian, as it is revealed in the Bible and reflects the true nature of God. He addresses common verses used to dispute the Trinity and provides interpretations that align with the overall teachings of Scripture. Bosley concludes by encouraging believers to confidently affirm and defend the doctrine of the Trinity in a world hostile to Christian beliefs.

Good afternoon, church. What a joy as always it is to be with you and to stand before you and to open up God's Word together. What a delight it is. So this afternoon we're gonna be continuing this new series that I began last time I spoke in the afternoon on our theological foundations. What are the doctrine, the points of theology that we hold to as most foundational for us as a church, and beginning with not just what's foundational for us as a church, but what's foundational for the Christian faith entirely.

So we began last time looking at the doctrine of the Trinity, and we're going to continue doing that today with a little bit of a different format, we could say. But let's begin our time going to the Lord in prayer, and then we'll open up our Bible. So let's pray. Oh Father, we come before you in the name of your Son, and we thank you for this time that you've given us to be together in your Word. Father I pray that you would help us by your Spirit to see wonderful things in your law.

Help us God to comprehend these great truths that are higher than we are. Lord as best as our finite minds are able, enable us to grab hold of these precious truths, to understand them and to be changed by them. May you be exalted in our time together, God. In Christ's name we pray, amen. So last time as I said we began looking at the issue of the doctrine of the Trinity, which is in my estimation really the absolute foundational doctrine of the entire Christian faith.

Without the Trinity, without, I want to be careful on how I say this, without confessing the doctrine of the Trinity, you are not a Christian. If you confess a God that is not the triune God of scripture, you confess a God that you have made in your own image. A God that is not revealed in the Bible. Now it's not to say that to be saved you must have a working understanding of the Trinity. That's not what I'm saying.

Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. But to be a Christian, once you have been born again and Christ has changed your heart, you will understand to some degree and confess this doctrine. To reject it is to reject Christ. That is what I'm getting at here. So that's what I mean when I say this is a foundational doctrine to the entire Christian faith To kind of recap what we covered last time gave a simple definition of the the Trinity What do we mean when we say Trinity?

What we're saying is that there is one essence or being of God who exists in three distinct co-eternal and co-equal persons. To make it even simpler we could say that the doctrine of the Trinity says that there is one what of God and three whos. To give a little bit more of an expanded definition we could turn to our own confession that our church has adopted the second London Baptist Confession 16 and 9 chapter 2 on the Trinity paragraph 3 says this in this divine and infinite being there are three subsistences the Father the Word or Son and the Holy Spirit of one's substance, power and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided. The Father is of none, either begotten or proceeding. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father.

The Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, all infinite, without beginning. Therefore, but one God, who is not to be divided in nature or being but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations. So that's a much more expanded definition but it is a helpful one and We kind of went through what a lot of those terms mean last time. We talked about what a subsistence is and what the essence is. And this is really that distinction of being and person.

Everything that exists has being. That's essentially what being means. It has existence. But only certain things are persons or have personhood God, men and angels as far as scripture reveals seems to be the only things that have personhood But men and angels are not in the same category as God. We are creatures.

And as creatures, our personhood is limited to one being, one being per person or one person per being. But God is utterly unique in that in his single simple self-existent being there exists three co-eternal co-equal subsistences or three persons And last time we looked at how the doctrine of the trinity is not communicated in a single verse in scripture. There's not just one proof text that we can go to and say, aha, here, this verse says this, this is why we believe the doctrine of the Trinity. You can't do that. Rather, it is the cumulative case of all of scripture.

And it is not a thin case. It is a mountain of evidence. Passage after passage after passage that you cannot take them all together and understand them in a coherent way without adopting the doctrine of the Trinity. It's simply not possible and we saw that when we considered that there are three essential points to the doctrine of the trinity. First that the Bible teaches monotheism, absolute monotheism.

There is only one true God. Secondly that there are three persons who are identified as this one God. And third that these three persons are clearly distinguished from one another and yet they are equal. All these passages throughout scripture, and I ran through and gave about 30 references to different passages that all support one element of these tenets in one form or fashion. It is the unavoidable, inescapable conclusion of scripture that there is one God who eternally exists in three persons.

But there are a couple of passages that are often used by those who want to dispute or try to refute the doctrine of the Trinity, but they will throw out. These are some common verses if you have had any discussions with say the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or Muslims, there are some consistent verses that will come up in your discussions with them or with other so-called Christian heretical groups where they say, well this doesn't fit into your paradigm therefore the Trinity is not true. And so we want to look at a few of these verses today. So I want to go through three particular verses that are going to usually be probably the first three or three of the first verses that an opponent of the doctrine of the Trinity is going to raise and I want us to look at them, consider them in their context, and see how do we understand these things in the light of what the rest of scripture says about who God is, and about what we as a Christian church confess about who God is. First, I want us to turn an open year Bible to Isaiah chapter 9.

Isaiah chapter 9, the Christmas text of all Christmas texts. Isaiah 9, 6 and 7, we're going to specifically look at verse 6. Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6. We see this almost every year at Christmas time because it is such a wonderful passage for the incarnation of the sun and the promise of the sun. But it is also one of the first texts that those, particularly those who are what are called modalists, who believe in a Unitarian God, that they believe that there are, there's not three persons, but one person who plays different roles essentially that that they're the same person is father son and spirit taking on different roles at different times in history This is one of the primary texts that modalists will go to to say, see the Trinity is not true because of this verse.

Isaiah 9-6, for unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Wonderful, counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Now here God is promising that he is going to give a son to his people who will rule and reign and be exalted as this supreme and magnificent ruler over God's people. He will exemplify and be the ideal ruler for God's people. And he goes through these several different descriptors of who he is. He's wonderful.

He's the one who just is marvelous. Not just what he does, but who he is. He is wonderful. He is the counselor. Now there's debate and you'll see various translations, some put wonderful counselor together as a description of who he is.

We're not gonna worry about that, but he is the counselor. He is the one who gives wisdom and guidance to his people. He is mighty God, El Gabor. If you've read your Old Testament, many of us are probably in Old Testament and are reading through scriptures right now, maybe you've seen David and his mighty men or the mighty men of Abraham's house, the gibbor, the gibberim, the mighty men. So this mighty God, El Gibor, the warrior God, or the hero God, The one who has the might, who is able to rescue and save his people.

That's who this king is that's promised. The almighty one who always accomplishes his will. And then everlasting father. There's the contentious part. This is about the son.

We just read it's a son that's being given. How is he also everlasting father? As I mentioned, modalists such as those who call themselves oneness Pentecostals in particular today, that's probably the largest group of modalists, at least self confessing modalists today. They'll come to this passage and say, see the father is the son, the doctrine of Trinity is nonsense, you're wrong. How do we respond?

How do we understand this verse? Well, there are a couple options. I'm gonna give you three different ways that this section of this verse could be understood. And I'm gonna give you all three, partly because I'm not sure which one is to be preferred as our interpretation. I'm also not sure that they're mutually exclusive either.

I think you could hold to and believe two or three or maybe all three of these and as a rebuttal or as a way to say, well no, it's not quite as simplistic as the modalists want to say it is. So what does it mean, everlasting father? What does it mean when we say the son is everlasting father? First, everlasting father could be better translated as father of eternity of the odd father of eternity now this is a if this is the translation that would be preferred we could understand that in two different senses First it could be saying that he's the author. So when we say father of eternity we're clearly putting this idea of father in the sense of he is the author or the creator.

That's kind of the essence of when we get to this interpretation that he's the Father of eternity. He's creator, he's author. We see that in the Old Testament in a few different places, this use of father being the one who begins something or he is the creator of something. He is the father of this. And we use this language all the time.

But this could be understood in two senses. First, that he's the author, the creator, the father of all things that exist. This son is the one who created everything, the earth, the animals, the plants, man, even time itself. And so to sum up and encompass all these things, Isaiah uses this language and says he is the father of eternity. He is the one who has even made eternity to use a very poetic way of describing all things.

So this interpretation of a father of eternity would emphasize the nature of the Son as the Creator. That's one possible way to understand it. Secondly, it could be understood as the equivalent to Daniel's statement of calling God the Ancient of days and signifies that he is the father or the creator who possesses eternity. The father who is eternal. The one who, the creator, the author who is unchanging and uncreated.

And so this interpretation would emphasize his attribute of self-existence and eternality. It's one possible way to understand what it means when it's called the son everlasting father. It could also be that everlasting father is meant in a relational sense. That to his people and this great kingdom that has been given to him and the people of that kingdom that he saves with his mighty hand to them he is like a father. He is fatherly in his attitude and disposition toward his people.

He is not only the creator of this kingdom, but he is in his attitude toward them like a father. He not only made them, but he's shaping and molding them and guiding them. And we use this language regularly. Political leaders, especially the founders of nations, are often called fathers. Not simply because they're the ones that began a nation, but because they set this formative position and they take this formative role in shaping the culture and beliefs of a country.

So for instance, us as Americans, we have our founding fathers. Israel had her fathers the patriarchs which literally means father rulers and the church even had her early church fathers. And so it could be here that Isaiah is telling us this messianic kingdom has her king as a father, the ruler who loves and leads and guides his people under his care, his protection, his instruction. And that seems to be what the writer to the Hebrews is getting at in Hebrews chapter 2. Hebrews chapter 2 beginning in verse 10.

He says, For it was fitting for him for whom are all things and by whom are all things, so his role as creator, and bringing many sons to glory to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, I would declare your name to my brethren. In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to you. And again I will put my trust in him. And again here I am and the children whom God has given me." So the writer of Hebrews is taking that quote from the Psalms and putting it in the mouth of Christ and how he views the elect that he's redeemed.

He says, here I am with the children God has given me. So relationally, Christ is fatherly toward his people. Third, it could be that Isaiah was using this in a simple literary function. That he's wanting to give us a full-orbed picture of who the Messiah is and what he would be like. Like setting a diamond on display and seeing all the facets of where the jeweler has made it beautiful.

The Isaiah may be intending us to see all these different elements and character traits that make the Messiah this preeminent, exalted king that he is. Think of the rest of the language in this verse, the Messiah is a child that's been given to us. He is a son. He is a warrior, the mighty God, the warrior God. He is God.

He's royalty, the prince who brings peace. He's a counselor. He's a father. Maybe he's using these different literary terms and these different adjectives to describe the nature of who he is and he's simply using father not to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity or the nature of the of the essence of God but rather describing different elements of what Christ would be like. Personally I'm partial to the sense of the the second interpretation that he's fatherly in his his attitude and his his care for his people But regardless of which interpretation of this you take, it's clear that Isaiah is not saying that the son is the father in person.

That's not what's being taught here. This is not in contradiction to what the rest of Scripture says. There are good, consistent, exegetical ways to take this that do not mean it conflicts with the doctrine of the Trinity. The next verse, and this is a favorite of Arians everywhere and of every time, is one of the key texts used by the Arians in the early church. It's one of the first passages that the Jehovah's Witnesses will quote to you.

It's also one of the main proof texts used by those who aren't exactly Arians but those who advocate for a subordination in the nature of the son to the father. And that's John 14, 28. So if you want to follow along, turn to John 14, 28. And I threw out the term Aryan and I realized I never actually defined that. I imagine many of us know what an Aryan is and what Aryanism means, but those of you who don't know, that's fine.

Aryanism is a heresy that has been around from the beginning of the church really but it has that name from a bishop named Arius who taught that this is the famous line from Arius that there was a time when the sun was not, that the sun is a creature. That was what Arius taught, that the sun was an exalted creature, absolutely, but still a creature, that he was not of the same essence with God. And so this eventually culminated in the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD, and various other issues that continued afterwards. Athanasius, if you, some of the most fascinating people in church history, the early centuries of ironing out these issues of Christology and who Christ is and the nature of Christ. And don't have time to go into it today, but maybe we will in the future when we talk about Christology.

But that's what I mean by Aryan. An Aryan is someone who says that Jesus is not God, but a mere creature. So the Aryans will come to John 14, 28, which I always find funny because of all the books in the New Testament that is the clearest about the deity of Jesus. It's the gospel of John from literally beginning to end. He is God, he is with God, He is God in John 1, 1 and 2.

John 1, 18, if you take the rendering in most modern versions, the unique God who is at the Father's side has revealed him. All the way to the end of the book, Thomas's confession, my Lord and my God. I mean, you can't get any clearer. And yet this verse, and actually the third verse are also from John, it's interesting to me. But John 14, 28.

Jesus speaking to his disciples, "'You have heard me say to you, "'I am going away and coming back to you if you have heard me sorry if you loved me you would rejoice because I said I'm going to the father for my father is greater than I my father is greater than I what do we make of that well again the those who want to deny the Deity of Jesus will run to this and say, well, he says the Father's greater, therefore he must not be God. I understand. No. How do we understand this? There are, man, it's 22 minutes already.

Not enough time. There are numerous ways that this has been understood throughout church history. And some, as much as I love the patristics, as much as I love the reformers, I think they were men shaped by the debates of their day. And so a lot of times they would read things into this passage in particular that I don't think are there. So a lot of the ancient fathers would go in and talk about, well, the father's not begotten, but the son is begotten.

So this is about the eternal relations in the Godhead, which we talked a little bit about last time. I don't think that's what's getting out here. And I don't think he's even talking about in his human nature, his human nature is being inferior to God. I don't think that's what's meant here either. Rather, I think what he's saying is that positionally, at this moment in time when Jesus is speaking these words, the father is greater in position.

He's contrasting the father's exaltation at that moment with his current humiliation. Consider the whole context of John 14. He is telling them what will happen when he leaves and goes back to his father? He says that he will go and prepare a place for them, that he will answer their prayers, that he will give them peace and he will send them another comforter, the other person of the God, the Holy Spirit. And these are all things Jesus is not able to do in his current state of humiliation.

But he will do them when he is exalted to the Father. This is why he chastens the disciples for not rejoicing when he says, I'm going to go to my Father. Now, if they're supposed to rejoice that he is going away, it must be because something will be different when he is gone. We understand that. They are to rejoice because there will be something different, something new that they've not yet seen or experienced when Jesus goes away.

So I don't think it's something about eternal relations in the Godhead. I don't think it's about his human nature in contrast to the Father's divine nature because those things are still true today. The Son is still the begotten Son. And Christ even today is still the God-man. He still has his human nature.

That has not changed. So if that was what he was talking about, what sense would it make for him to criticize them for not rejoicing? But what has changed? His position. He is speaking here at this time in the midst of his humiliation.

He's looking ahead and he's anticipating the cross. That's coming very soon. He is in the midst of facing the opposition of the Jewish leaders. The God who made all things and is holding all things together is suffering the rejection of his own people. But that's not going to last very long because after he ascends he's going to go to his father and he is going to be exalted and glorified as he was before he was incarnate.

We see a parallel to this in John 17 where Jesus says, Oh Father, glorify me together with yourself with the glory which I had with you before the world was. Jesus was with the Father in glory. He was now humiliated. He humbled himself in the incarnation. But he's going to go back to that glory.

And I think that is what he's getting at here. The Father is greater not in essence, not in His person, not in His nature, but in His enjoyment of the exalted glory of God. And so his disciples should rejoice that he is going back to be with his father and share in that glory. Now quickly, the last verse, John 17, I just mentioned John 17, five, where Jesus talks about the glory he shared with his father. Ironically enough, a couple verses ahead of that is another verse that people will go to when they want to try and rebut the doctrine of the Trinity, John 17,3.

And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. Now despite the next couple of verses clearly communicating the pre-existence of Jesus and his shared glory with the father before the world was even created, this one little phrase, you, the only true God, gets lifted out and say, well, Jesus called the Father the only true God, therefore, Jesus can't be God. All sorts of problems with this. First, to make that conclusion you have to assume Unitarianism. You have to assume that the one being of God is only possessed by one person.

You have to assume that's the case from the start. Because otherwise it makes no sense to say, well he's the only true God, therefore Jesus can't also be God. Because we confess there's only one true God. But we're Trinitarian. That one essence of God is shared by three persons.

To come to this verse and say, well, Jesus can't be God because he called the Father God. You have to assume that because one person is called God, another person can't also be God. You have to assume your conclusion. Second, note that Jesus says that eternal life is based on knowing the Father as the one true God and himself. This immediately places Jesus on the same plane, puts him in the same category as the only true God.

If he was a mere creature, even if he was the greatest prophet, as Islam says, That there would be no way that he could say, eternal life depends on knowing God and me, a mere man. It'd be blasphemous. But he said it and he meant it. Because he's more than a man. He's more than a prophet.

He is the eternal God. Jesus, in his own statement here, puts himself on equal standing with God. And third, what else would we expect him to say? Would the perfect God-man who has lived a life of perfect obedience to the law of his father deny the nature of the father and be an atheist? Do we expect him to be, do we expect the perfect man to be an atheist?

What else is Jesus going to say? Is he going to say that the Father is one of many gods? No. We shouldn't expect that. The Bible teaches there's only one God.

Both options are foolish. We see over and over again in the incarnation that Jesus as the Son of God and God the Son in human flesh lives a life of perfect obedience and submission to his Father. He prays to the Father, he worships the Father, he obeys the Father, he lived as an example, more than example, but as an example in how a man ought to live, in perfect obedience to God. So of course, he called the Father the one true God. What else would he say?

What else would he say? He called the Son called the Father the only true God because there is only one true God. The Son is a separate person in the Godhead, not a separate God. So we shouldn't expect him to address the Father in any other way. He's speaking as the incarnate one.

And he's speaking exactly how we should expect him to speak the Father is the only true God and the Son is the only true God and the Spirit is the only true God because the Bible teaches there is only one God who exists in three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal persons. So we've looked at these three verses and there are others, but these are going to be in my estimation probably the three big ones that are going to be thrown at you by those who want to dispute the doctrine of the Trinity. Don't let people deceive you. Their bad proof texting does not overthrow what is crystal clear. There is a reason this has been confessed by God's people for 2000 years now.

There is a reason that this has been even before the Council of Nicea, we can get into the debate of everybody blames Constantine, fine that's what the internet does, They do internet things and they don't make any sense. Before Nicaea even existed, this is what Christians confessed. Do not be deceived. Do not be shaken in your faith. If someone comes to you with these verses, sit down and say, let's look at it.

Explain it to them and show them that Even in these passages, these passages in John, the immediate context utterly destroys any other interpretation than defending the doctrine of the Trinity. So don't let these things shake you. Let them actually build you up in your faith. May this bolster your confidence in this doctrine. Even in just your own heart and your love for God and His Word and your engagement with others.

May you have confidence knowing that this is the teaching of Scripture, and may this cause you to grow in your love for God and His Word. When you hear these things that seem to be difficult to understand, may it drive you back to the scriptures, to open up God's Word and say, God, show me what I need to know. Show me the truth. So I hope it has been helpful to you and I pray that you can come away from these two messages on this most vital of doctrines with a better grasp of it and a better ability to defend it. Because in a world of increasing hostility against the Christian faith, we don't need to withdraw from doctrine We don't need to withdraw from Drawing lines in the sand of what we believe.

No, we need to be more clear more careful more forthright and more knowledgeable about what we believe and why we believe it. So let's be a church that gladly joyfully confesses we believe in the triune God of Scripture, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let's pray. Father, we do thank you again for this time. Thank you, Lord, for giving us your word and making it so clear in so many ways.

Lord, there are passages that are often hard to understand, but we thank you that you have given us help. I pray, Lord, that you would continue to help your people, help us, Lord, to grow in our love and our zeal for your word. And God, may you give us help as we seek to proclaim the good news of your Son to a world that desperately needs it. Lord, may you be with us, strengthen us, encourage our hearts today and throughout the rest of this week until we come together again. In Christ's name, amen.

We are dismissed.