Charles Finney Collection: Finney-Charles-Skeletons Of A Course Of Theological Lectures: LECTURE 17 THE TRINITY OR TRI-UNITY OF GOD
TOPIC: Finney-Charles-Skeletons Of A Course Of Theological Lectures (Other Topics in this Collection) SUBJECT: LECTURE 17 THE TRINITY OR TRI-UNITY OF GOD
Fourth. The amount of evidence to be expected, if the doctrine be true.
Fifth. Adduce the proof.
Sixth. Answer objections.
First. State the doctrine.
1. That there is one only living and true God.
2. That he subsists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
3. That there are three divine, distinct, though not separate moral agents, in the Godhead.
4. That they exist in one essence, or substratum of being.
Second. The point now under consideration.
1. Not the unity of God, or that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one. The divine unity has been already established. But:
2. The point of inquiry before us respects the distinct personality and divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Third. The sources of evidence.
1. We are not to expect to gather clear evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity or Tri Unity of God, from the works of creation, as the perfect moral and essential unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, would preclude all possibility of discrepancy of views or operations in the creation or government of the universe. Every thing, therefore, in the creation and government of the material universe, may be expected to indicate only the existence of one God, without distinct notices of a Trinity of persons.
2. The only source from which we can expect proof, is that of direct revelation, oral or inspired.
Fourth. The amount of evidence to be expected, if the doctrine is true.
1. We are not to expect that the quo modo, or mode of the divine existence will be, by revelation, made intelligible to, or brought so within the comprehension of our minds, that we shall be able fully to understand it. All that we can know of infinite is, that it exists; but whether an infinite mind subsists in one or many persons in one substratum of being, we cannot know but by a divine revelation. And by revelation we can only know the fact, without a possibility of comprehending the quo modo.
2. We are not to expect such a formal and metaphysical statement of the doctrine as has been common in polemic theology; for this is not the manner in which revelation is given upon any subject.
3. We may reasonably expect evidence, direct, inferential, incidental, full, and conclusive, or otherwise, as the knowledge and belief of it is more or less essential to salvation.
4. If it be a fundamental doctrine, or a doctrine the belief of which is essential to salvation, it is reasonable to expect traditionary notices of it, where there are traditionary notices in heathen nations of other fundamental truths of revelation.
5. We may expect to find the traditionary notices such as we have of other important truths, such as images, medals, oral or written statements, more or less obscure, in proportion as other fundamental truths are known and preserved among men.
6. If the doctrine of the Trinity in the God head be a fundamental doctrine, we may expect its announcement at the commencement of revelation, to be more or less full, in proportion as other fundamental doctrines are there revealed.
7. We might expect the revelation of this truth in its fuller and fuller development, to keep pace with the fuller revelation of other fundamental doctrines.
8. We might suppose, that before revelation closed, it would be revealed with such fullness, as to satisfy an honest mind, that was disposed to rest in the naked testimony of God.
9. But we should expect this and every other fundamental doctrine, to be so left by revelation as not to preclude all cavil, evasion, or gainsaying. This might be expected, from the nature of probation, moral agency, and the existence and design of moral government.
10. It would not be unreasonable to expect some intimation of the doctrine in the name of God.
11. It would not be unreasonable to suppose, that their common or collective name, should be plural, and when action is ascribed to them, that the verb should be singular.
12. Beside this, it would not be unreasonable to expect each person to have a singular name, or appellation peculiar to himself, as Father, Son or Word, and Holy Ghost.
13. We should expect the unity of God as opposed to Dualism, Tritheism, and Polytheism, to be fully and strongly revealed.
14. We might reasonably expect also, a full revelation of the distinct personality of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but in such a way as not to contradict the essential unity of God.
15. If the doctrine of the Trinity be a doctrine of revelation, we may expect the absolute Deity of the three persons to be fully revealed.
16. We might expect that the common or collective name, or names of the God head, would be given to each and either of the three persons indiscriminately.
17. We might expect that divine attributes should be ascribed to each and all of them.
18. We might expect the works of God to be ascribed to either and each of them indiscriminately; for if they subsist in one substratum of being; what one does, they all do by him.
19. It might be expected that what one of the persons did or does, would be represented either as his act, or as the act of the whole God-head.
20. We might expect a perfect moral unity, to be plainly asserted or implied in revelation.
21. We might expect that each person, would be represented as filling a distinct office, as exercising peculiar functions, and as sustaining peculiar relations to the universe.
22. We might expect that they would speak of each other as distinct persons.
23. It might be expected they would speak of themselves altogether as one.
24. That they would all claim and receive divine honors.
25. We might expect that when any official act or relation demanded it, they would claim superiority, or acknowledge inferiority and dependence, as their official relations and functions might require.
26. If the official work or relations of either person to creatures, were such as might obscure the evidences of his divinity, we might expect a correspondingly full revelation of the divinity of that particular person. See Christ.
27. So if for these or for other reasons, the distinct personality of either required special proof, we might expect to find it in revelation. It is not pretended that the proof would not be sufficient, if in all the above named particulars it was not complete. Yet when the importance of the doctrine is considered, in connection with the infinite benevolence of God, and his great desire to enlighten and save mankind, it is not unreasonable to expect those intimations of it which have been above noticed.
Fifth. Adduce the proof.
Here I will premise the following remarks:
1. The full proof of this doctrine includes the proof of the Divinity of Christ, and of the personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. In the present skeleton I shall not examine those subjects extensively, but defer their proof to a future occasion.
2. I remark, that many seem to have come to the examination of this subject, with a determination not to receive this doctrine, unless it is so unequivocally taught in the Bible as that it can by no possibility be explained away or evaded.
3. Many of the German and other critics have practically adopted this as a sound rule of Biblical interpretation, that every text is to be so explained as to evade this doctrine, if it possibly can be evaded.
4. They have manifestly set aside, in practice, what all Biblical scholars admit in theory--that the Bible is to be received in its plain, natural, and common sense import, unless there be some obvious reasons for resorting to another mode of interpreting a particular passage.
5. The opposers of this doctrine, and not a few of its advocates, have manifestly adopted the principle, that, judging a priori, the doctrine of the Trinity or Tri Unity of God, is highly improbable, and unreasonable, and therefore, that no text is to be received as teaching this doctrine, if it will by any possibility admit of any other construction.
6. I feel bound to protest against this assumption, and the practical adoption of this rule of Biblical interpretation, either by the enemies or friends of this doctrine.
7. I insist that the doctrine of a Trinity in the God head is so far as we can see, as consistent with reason as any other view of the subject whatever. And that we are to come to the Bible, in examining this question, with this plain and simple rule of interpretation before us--that every passage, as read in the original, is to be taken in its plain and obvious import, entirely irrespective of the difficulty or mysteriousness of the doctrine of the Trinity of God.
8. In referring to the different texts, especially in the Old Testament, I shall follow very much the order in which Knapp has considered them.
9. It will not be expected in this skeleton form, that I should enter into a critical examination of the opinions of learned divines upon them; but leave you to consider them according to their obvious import.
10. It is not generally pretended by the friends of this doctrine, nor do I contend that the doctrine of the Trinity in the God head is formally and unequivocally taught in the Old Testament; but it is contended that it is so plainly intimated in different passages, when viewed in their connections and relations to each other, as fully to account for the fact of the extensive understanding and reception of this doctrine by the Jews.
11. I propose now to consider only some of those passages that treat in a more general manner of the doctrine of the Trinity, leaving, as I have already intimated, the particular examination of the personality and divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for future occasions.
12. This doctrine, like all other fundamental doctrines of the Bible, is revealed with greater and greater fullness and distinctness as revelation progresses, and is brought out in connection with the Atonement, and by the New Testament writers, as might be expected, in a much fuller and more satisfactory manner than in the Old Testament.
I come now to the examination of scripture testimony.
I. The plural names of God, Eloheim, Adonai, etc. It is said that these forms may be regarded as the pluralis excellentiæ of the oriental languages. To this I answer,
1. That they may be, but that this proves nothing.
2. The plural form of the name of God is, as might be expected, if the doctrine of the Trinity were true.
3. We are to give this circumstance no greater or less weight than belongs to it, and by itself, it would prove nothing satisfactory. Yet taken in connection with the other and abundant proofs of this doctrine, the plural forms of the divine name are to be regarded as a circumstance of importance.
II. Those passages that speak of God as more than one.
1. Genesis 1:26: "And God said, let us make man after OUR image."
Of this passage it has been suggested, that God addressed the angels, when he said, Let us make man. To this I reply:
(1.) It is mere conjecture.
(2.) Those whom he addressed were not mere witnesses, but actually concerned in the creation of man, and must therefore have possessed divine power.
(3.) There is no instance, unless this is one, in which God is represented as consulting creatures in respect to what he should do, not even in cases where they are co workers with him.
2. Genesis 3:22: "And the Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us."
This passage is remarkable. Here God says of Adam, "Behold the man is become as one of us." This seems as plainly to imply a plurality in the God head, as any form of expression could.
3. Genesis 11:7: "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
Here again God is represented as consulting other divine personages, and saying, "Let us go down," etc. To these passages it has also been replied, that they may be only the pluralis excellentiæ, such language as kings are in the habit of using when speaking of themselves. To this I reply:
(1.) God is represented as using this language before any kings existed.
(2.) The fact that such language might have been in use when Moses wrote, does not seem sufficiently to account for the plural form of the divine name; and,
(3.) As Polytheism was the great sin of the world, in making a revelation to man, we should expect all such language to be avoided, as might convey the idea of a plurality in the God head, unless that were really the fact.
III. I refer to those texts in which there seems to be more than one Jehovah, and more than one Eloheim.
1. Genesis 19:24: "Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven."
Here it is said Jehovah rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven. The Jehovah were mentioned as raining upon Sodom, appears to be the same person who the day before had visited Abraham, and to whom Abraham had presented several petitions, which were granted. It appears that Lot prayed to him to spare Zoar, which request also was granted. He said to Lot respecting Zoar, "Haste thee, for I can do nothing till thou be come hither." This Jehovah, to whom Abraham and Lot prayed, is the identical Jehovah that rained fire and brimstone from Jehovah out of heaven, as if one Jehovah were in heaven and another on earth.
2. Daniel 9:17: "Now therefore, O God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake."
Here Daniel is represented as praying to God in the name of the Lord. To this it has been said, that it may mean nothing more than that God would answer his prayer for his own sake. To this I answer:
The inquiry is not what it might by some possibility mean. But what does such language, in its obvious import seem to imply? "Hear, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant for the Lord's sake." This, taken in connection with the many passages where God is besought to do things for the Lord's and Christ's sake, appears to be a parallel passage and to mean the same thing.
3. Zechariah 10:12: "And I will strengthen them in the Lord and they shall walk up and down in his name saith the Lord."
Here Jehovah speaks of another Jehovah, in whose name they shall walk up and down.
4. Zechariah 2:8, 9: "For thus saith the Lord of hosts, After the glory hath he sent me unto the nations which spoiled you; for he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of his eye. For, behold, I will shake mine hand upon them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants; and ye shall know that the Lord of hosts hath sent me."
Here Jehovah of hosts speaks of a Jehovah of hosts that had sent him, and declares that they that touch Zion touch the apple of that Jehovah's eye who had sent him. Again in the 11th verse, Jehovah of hosts speaks of himself as having been sent by Jehovah of hosts. And continuing to the 13th verse, he speaks of Jehovah as one distinct from himself, and as raised up out of his holy habitation."
5. Psalms 45:7: "Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."
Here God, or Eloheim, addresses another Eloheim.
IV. I refer to those texts where God is spoken of as three.
1. Isaiah 48:16: "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit hath sent me."
It is contended by some that this passage should be rendered, "The Lord God hath sent me and his Spirit." Which ever rendering is preferred, it cannot reasonably be denied that three distinct persons are recognized in this text as divine. The person spoken of as being sent declares that he had not spoken in secret from the beginning, or from eternity. It is plain beyond all reasonable debate, that in this text the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are spoken of.
2. Numbers 6:24 26: "The Lord bless thee, and keep thee; the Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee; the Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace."
The repetition of the divine name, Jehovah, three times in this passage is very remarkable, and, as we shall by and by see, was understood by the Jews to intimate the doctrine of a divine Trinity.
3. Matthew 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Here the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are spoken of in connection, and in such a manner as that no one of them is represented as divine any more than the other.
Deuteronomy 6:24: "And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is at this day."
4. John 14:23: "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
Here Christ promises that himself and his Father will come and make their abode with those who love him. Other passages abundantly teach that they come in the person of the Holy Spirit.
5. 2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen."
This benediction appears to be a prayer addressed to the three persons of the God head.
V. I refer to those passages where the Son of God is spoken of in the Old Testament.
1. Psalms 2:7: "I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
That the Son of God, or the Messiah, is here spoken of, is attested by the Apostles.
Acts 13:33: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again: as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."
2. Psalms 72:1: "Give the king thy judgments, O God, and thy righteousness unto the king's Son," compared with,
Psalms 89:27: "Also I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth."
These passages have always been understood as relating to the Son of God as Messiah. They do not indeed prove the divinity of the Son; but speak of him as distinct from the Father.
With respect to the Holy Spirit, I observe that he is so often spoken of throughout the Bible as distinct from the Father, that I will not here enter into an examination of any of the texts.
I will now close the examination of scripture testimony upon this question, reminding you that the principal scripture proofs of this doctrine are to be examined in considering the personality and divinity of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
I will next refer you:
1. To intimations of this doctrine among ancient heathen nations, which I shall borrow from Dwight's Theology, vol. 2, page 390:
(1.) "The Hindoos have, from the most remote antiquity, holden a Triad in the Divine nature.
The name of the Godhead among these people is Brahme. The names of the three persons in the Godhead are Brahma, Veeshnu, and Seeva. Brahma they considered as the Father, or Supreme Source; Veeshnu as the Mediator, whom they assert to have been incarnate; and Seeva as the Destroyer, and Regenerator: destruction being in their view nothing but the dissolution of preceding forms, for the purpose of reviving the same being in new ones.
The three faces of Brahma, Veeshnu, and Seeva, they always formed on one body, having six hands; or two to each person. This method of delineating the Godhead is ancient beyond tradition, universal, uncontroverted, and carved every where in their places of worship; particularly in the celebrated cavern in the Island of Elephanta.
(2.) Equally well known is the Persian Triad, the names of which were Ormusd, Mithr, AND Ahriman; called by the Greeks Oromasdes, Mithras, and Arimanius. Mithras was commonly styled Triplasios. Among them, as well as among the Hindoos, the second person in the Triad was called the Mediator, and regarded as the great Agent in the present world.
In the Oracles ascribed to Zerdusht, or Zoroaster, the famous Persian Philosopher, are the following declarations:
'Where the Eternal Monad is, it amplifies itself, and generates a Duality.'
'A Triad of Deity shines forth throughout the whole world, of which a Monad is the head.'
'For the mind of the Father said, that all things should be divided into Three; whose will assented, and all things were divided.'
'And there appeared in this Triad, Virtue, Wisdom, and Truth, who knew all things.'
'The Father performed all things, and delivered them over to the Second mind, whom the nations of men commonly suppose to be the First.'
The third Person, speaking of himself, says, 'I Psyche, or Soul, dwell next to the Paternal mind, animating all things.'
(3.) The Egyptians, also, acknowledge a Triad, from the earliest antiquity, whom they named originally Osiris, Cneph, and Phtha; and afterwards Osiris, Isis, and Typhon. These Persons they denoted by the symbols Light, Fire, and Spirit. They represented them, also, on the doors, and other parts of their sacred buildings, in the three figures of a Globe, a Wing, and a Serpent. Abenephius, an Arabian writer, says, that; 'by these the Egyptians shadowed Theon trimorphon, or God in three forms.'
One of the Egyptian fundamental axioms of Theology, as given by Damascius, and cited by Cudworth, is, 'There is one Principle of all things, praised under the name of the Unknown Darkness, and this thrice repeated.'
In the Books, attributed to Hermes Trismegistus, is the following passage:
'There hath ever been one great, intelligent Light, which has always illumined the Mind; and their union is nothing else but the Spirit, which is the Bond of all things.'
Here light and mind are spoken of as two Persons, and the Spirit as the third; all declared to be eternal.