Blogging the Institutes | 1.13.9 | Proof that the Son is God

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List

Proof that the Son is God

I’m not going to talk about the Son as the Mediator just yet. I first want to show that the Son is God. First, Psalm 45:6 says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” The Jews quibble that the name “God” is applied to angels or rules of government. But no Scripture passages indicates that God’s throne would ever be set up for a mere creature, angelic or otherwise. In the passage, he is not only called God, but also the eternal Ruler. Furthermore, the title of “God” is never applied to a human being except when there is some qualifying remark such as the time when Moses would be “like”  God to Pharaoh (Exodus 7:1). Some read this verse as if it were in the genitive case, but that is a weak point. I will admit that anything which has a great excellence can often be called “divine.” But from the context is clear that the throne is not divine! The Messiah is.

But if Psalm 45 doesn’t convince them, then Isaiah should. In Isaiah 9:6, Christ is not only introduced to us as God but also as having the attributes of God: “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.” Jews object to this passage too and invert the order. They believe that the only name the “Might God” will call the Messiah is Prince of Peace. But why would so many titles for God the Father be piled up when Isaiah’s purpose is to present the Messiah with certain attributes which would stir faith in us? There can be no doubt that the one called “Immanuel” a little earlier in Isaiah (7:14) is called “Mighty God” here.

Also, there can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah: “In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The LORD is our righteousness'” (23:6). Jews claim that other names of God are mere titles. But in this passage, the covenant name of God (“Yahweh”) is used. This name is substantive and expresses God’s essence. In this passage, then, the Messiah receives the very same name as Yahweh. The Son is God too. And the Son also receives the exclusive glory of God, as elsewhere, God declares, “My glory I will not give to another” (Isaiah 42:8).

Now, the Jews try to evade this argument and claim that the name “Yahweh” was applied to the altar which Moses built and to the New Jerusalem by Ezekiel. Thus, there is nothing special about receiving the “name” of God.

However, in both of those instances, each thing was made to testify to God’s glory. For example, the prophet Ezekiel reports about the Lord’s presence returning to the city and thus bringing glory to Him (Ezekiel 48:35). Also, Moses built an altar and named it, “The LORD is my Banner” (Exodus 17:15), testifying to the work that God had done on behalf of the people. It received the “name” of God because it was meant to glorify God.

The Jews use a similar argument about Jeremiah 33:16, where Jerusalem receives the “name” of God: “ In those days Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will dwell securely. And this is the name by which it will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness’” (Jeremiah 33:16). But rather than cutting down the truth I am arguing for, actually defends it. The prophet first declared that Christ is the true God from whom righteousness flows (Jeremiah 23:6). He then declares that the Church would be made so knowledgeable of Christ that she would be to glory in assuming His very name. In the first passage, the source of righteousness is laid forth: Christ. In this passage, we see the effect of Christ’s righteousness: we, too, are declared righteous and receive His name.

Do Nothing

Do we do nothing to obtain [God’s] righteousness. No, nothing at all. Perfect righteousness is to do nothing, to hear nothing, to know nothing of the law or of works, but to know and believe only that Christ has gone to the Father and is no longer visible; that he sits in heaven at the right hand of his Father, not as a judge, but is made by God our wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and redemption; in short, he is our high priest, entreating for us and reigning over us and in us by grace. In this heavenly righteousness sin can have no place, for there is no law; and “where there is no law, there is no transgression” (Romans 4:15).

–Martin Luther, Preface to Galatians

Blogging the Institutes | 1.13.8 |The Word is Eternal

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List

The Word is Eternal

Certain people try to deny Jesus’ eternity while not outright deny His divinity. They argue that the “Word” came into existence when God opened His mouth to create the world. They imagine some change in the essence of God. Some names of God refer are applied to Him after He did some work. For example, He is called “Creator of the heavens and earth” after He made everything. But true faith does not recognize any change in the essence of God. If change in God’s essence takes place, then James 1:17 would not be true: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” Therefore, it is intolerable to believe that the Word, which was always with God, had a beginning at the beginning of the world.

They even go so far to argue that when Moses talks about God speaking for the “first time” that no Word existed in God before. You don’t need to go that far, however. Just because something isn’t brought out clearly until a certain time, doesn’t mean it did not exist previously. I draw a very different conclusion. At the very moment when God said, “Let there be light,” the energy of the Word was immediately exerted. Since it was immediately exerted, it must have existed long before. If people ask, “How long before?” they will find that it was without beginning. No certain period of time is defined. Jesus Himself said, “And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed” (John 17:5). Even before John mentions the creation of the world in His gospel, he writes, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (1:1). Therefore, we conclude that the Word was eternally begotten by God. The Word lived with God in eternity. In this way, the Word’s true essence–His divinity and His eternity–are established.

Blogging the Institutes | 1.13.5 | Different Terms; Same Truth

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List

Different Terms; Same Truth

If the various theological terms that have been coined over the years were not invented rashly, then we need to be careful not to hastily discard them. I actually wish that some of the terms could be buried if everyone agreed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and that the Son is not the Father, and the Spirit is not the Son. I don’t want to argue over terms. The church fathers were consistent in writing about the truth, but they weren’t always consistent in the terms they used. The terms used by the various ecumenical councils and defended by Hilary are somewhat strange! St. Augustine’s views are extravagant sometimes! How different are the Greeks and the Latins!

Let’s look at one example. The Latin church translates the word homoousios as consubstantialis (consubstantial). They meant that the Son and Father were one substance, having substituted the word “substance” or “essence.” Jerome, in his letter to Damasus, claims that it is profane to affirm three substances in God. But in Hilary, he mentions over one hundred times that God is three substances. Jerome is greatly confused by the word Hypostatis! He believes there is something sinister in saying that there are three Hypostases in God. He truly believes that such an expression is not right. He did hate the Eastern bishops, though, so it’s hard to know if he said this because he really believed it or just wanted to make them seem suspect. He asserts that ousia means Hypostatis (substance). But such an assertion is easily refuted by looking at the word’s common use.

Augustine is more moderate. He says that although the term Hypostatis is new to Latin ears, he is tolerant to its usage. Socrates, in his Sixth Book of the Tripartite history, says the term had been improperly applied by the unskillful. Because of his struggle with heretics, Hilary felt he needed to introduce new terms but apologizes for doing so. After he writes about the Father, Son, and Spirit, he admits that all further inquiry into who God is transcends words, the use of our human abilities, and even our minds. In another place, he congratulates the Bishop of France for not writing a new confession of faith but merely receiving the ancient confession of the church. Augustine says something similar: the term had been taken out of the realm of mere human experience and applied to God to try to express something which our minds cannot fully grasp.

The examples of the church father should be warning to us not to criticize right away those who deviate from term which we come up with provided they don’t reject the terms out of pride and also consider that new terms may have been needed to be coined. Mere acceptance of the terms does not necessarily mean somewhat does not follow Arius or Sabellius. Arisu will say, “Christ is God.” But then he will say that the Son was made and had a beginning. He will say that Christ is one with the Father but then whisper that Christ was “made one” with God, just like us albeit with special privileges.  But if you use the term “consubstantial” you will immediately rip off his mask and expose his heresy. Sabellius will say that Father, Son, and Spirit will indicate some distinction within God. If you say that God is three, then he will cry out that you are making three gods! But if you say that there is a, “Trinity of persons in one divine essence,” you will express in one word what Scripture says and shut him up!

If some object to these terms, they will not be able to deny that when “one” is spoken of is means a unity of substance. When “three” is spoken of in one essence, it means the three persons of the Trinity. When the church confesses these truths without equivocating, then we don’t have to dwell long on the terms. But I have learned my lesson over the years that those who claim wrangle over terms usually have some ulterior motive. Therefore, it’s wise to provoke them to object to the terms so we know exactly what we’re dealing with.

Stagger Onward

We live liturgically, telling our sacred Story in worship and song. We fast and we feast. We marry and give our children in marriage, and though in exile, we work for the peace of the city. We welcome our newborns and bury our dead. We read the Bible, and we tell our children about the saints. And we also tell them in the orchard and by the fireside about Odysseus, Achilles, and Aenas, of Dante and Don Quixote, and Frodo and Gandalf, and all the tales that bear what it means to be men and women of the West. We work, we pray, we confess our sins, we show mercy, we welcome the stranger, and we keep the commandments. When we suffer, especially for Christ’s sake, we give thanks, because that is what Christians do. Who know what God, in turn, will do with our faithfulness? It is not for us to say. Our command is, in the words of the Christian poet W.H. Auden, to ‘stagger onward rejoicing.’

Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option, 241.

Blogging the Institutes–1.12.3–Worship is Due to God Alone

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List

Worship is Due to God Alone

The distinction between “service” and “worship” is useless. Paul speaks of the Galatians being enslaved to serve false gods (Galatians 4:8). Because Paul does not explicitly use the term “worship,” are the Galatians then excused of their former idolatry? Certainly not! He condemns “service” to idols as much as worship of them. When Christ repels Satan’s insulting proposal with the words, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve'” (Matthew 4:10), he was responding to Satan’s request for reverential respect. Thus, Christ saw respect, service, and worship all tied together. 

In a similar way, when the angel rebukes John for falling down to worship him (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9), we should not assume that John lost his mind and intended to give worship to an angel rather than God. Because religious always seeks after the divine, John could not reverential respect to the angel without denigrating the worship of God. It is true that we read in the Bible that men were “worshipped.” But that was speaking about civil honor. It is different when religious honor is given. Whenever religious respect is given, it is joined to worship and has the potential to profane God’s name if not done correctly. The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:25).  Cornelius had made a lot of progress in how he worships God; he still falls down at Peter’s feet. Surely, in context, it was a sign of Cornelius’ respect for Peter. Yet Peter forbids him to do so because it is easy to “cross a line” in worship and defame God’s glory.

Therefore, if we have one God, let’s remember that we cannot hold on to the smallest part of His glory without depriving Him of it. Remember Zechariah. When he spoke of the restoration of the Church, he says that there would not only be one God but also one name (Zechariah 14:9). Why? So God would have nothing to do with idols.  The way we should worship God is treated elsewhere (Book 2, chapters 7-8). But we can say this: God proscribed in the Law the right way to worship so that people would think of their own ways to worship. Since it’s helpful to be exposed to wide-variety of topics, I won’t dwell on this issue right now.

Remember: whenever you worship something else, you are committing idolatry. First, pagan religion assigned honor to the sun and the moon and to idols. Then ambition came in. Ambition to profane all that was sacred. Although in principle the worship of a supreme God was practiced, other worship practices such as making sacrifices to lesser “gods” or departed ancestors were prominent. We are so prone to idolatry!

Blogging the Institutes–1.12.1–One God; No Idols

“Blogging the Institutes” is my on-going attempt to paraphrase John Calvin’s work, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. You can find out more about the series in the Introduction. For all the posts in this series, check out the Master List

One God; No Idols

At the beginning of my work I made the claim that knowledge of God does not consist of mere “head” knowledge but actually leads us to worship Him. I will talk at length in other places about the proper way to worship God. For now, I want to talk about God’s unity. When Scripture speaks of God’s unity, it not only speaks of His name but also that anything applied to God should not be applied to any other thing. Scripture makes clear the difference between true worship and superstition.

The Greeks themselves have a word for “right worship.” Although they were feeling around in the darkness, they still recognized that certain rules were needed to govern the worship of God.  Cicero points out that the word religion was related to the word relego. But he makes a farfetched application. He believes that true worshippers read and read again and ponder what it true. In contrast, I believe the word religion speaks of order and rules in opposition licentiousness in worship. People usually worship however they deem fit. Whereas though who are true worshippers, will worship within the proper bounds.

In a similar way, superstition seems to take its name from the fact that it’s not curtailed by reason. Rather, superstition accumulates pointless rituals and beliefs. Everyone admits that religion is corrupted whenever false opinions are injected into it. Most of what is done in the name of superstition cannot be defended. And yet, people still refuse to worship the one, true God or follow His rules concerning proper worship.

But God is a jealous God. He is a fearsome avenger against anyone who confuses Him with a false “god.” Therefore, God defines worship. Consequently, people must follow His prescriptions, not their own. God binds His people to allegiance to only Himself, being the only Lawgiver. In His Law, He sets forth the rules for proper worship. The Law was given to be a bridle to curtail people to prevent them from turning to false worship practices. Therefore, unless everything that defines God is given to God alone, He is robbed of His honor and His worship is violated.

Superstition subtly steals worship from God. It seems to avoid abandoning the one, true God by giving Him the highest place. But He is surrounded by lesser deities. By doing this, superstition robs God of His glory. Both Jews and Gentiles did something similar by placing many other gods in subjection to the father and rulers of the gods. They assigned them rulership over the universe along with the supreme God. Some even exalted the saints to a partnership with God so that they would be worshipped and adored too. Such superstition blinds people to the glory of God. All they have left is a some speculation about God’s power. Being entangled in superstition, people follow after other gods.