some thoughts

Today we were to take up part I of the Doctrine of God (The Being of God), but didn’t because of some other (more important) activities going on at the same time (and in the same room), and also for lack of a quorum. Instead we discussed some questions that had come up regarding the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter I section i (WCF I.i.), and chapter II section i (WCF II.i.)

• Regarding WCF I.i, the last phrase was a bit of a stumbling block: “…those former ways of God’s revealing his will to his people having ceased.” We talked again about the necessity and sufficiency of Scripture, and that what the Westminster Divines meant was that God is no longer writing the Bible through his OT prophets, through the words of his Son, nor the words of his apostle-prophets in the NT. What has “ceased” is the writing of the absolutely authoritative divine words of God that are morally binding on the conscience of the universal church. That is, what God wants his entire church to know about him, about mankind, about the covenants, the person and work of Christ Jesus, the future, etc.–all this is already fully revealed in Scripture. There is no more “continuing revelation” to the church as a whole. (See Heb. 1:1-2, 2:1-4.) This is not talking about “illumination,” which is when what has been revealed to the church suddenly gets “revealed” (in a sense) to us personally, and it “clicks.” This is also not talking about private, specific directions meant for individuals but not for the church (as in a call to serve in a certain church, a call to a particular mission field, an impression to pray for someone at 2am, etc.). This may be legitimate (each must be weighed according to Scripture), but they do not become Revelation 23; they’re for us personally, not for the entire church. But big picture, the Word of God is God’s will for my life. We should be wary of seeking anything further, though we should be open if it should come (Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:16-20).
• And regarding WCF II.i., there were two questions:
  1. The first question was about the notion that God is “without…body.” The objection was, since we are created in the image of God, we must look like God, so God must have a body too. But “God is spirit,” (John 4:24), and has no material body–though he may have some kind of ‘appearance’ like us–it’s non-corporeal. We may never know exactly (Ex. 33:18-20), for each of his attributes is infinite. When the bible speaks of God’s having “ears,” “hands,” a “heart,” a “strong right arm,” etc. he’s speaking in our language using images we can understand. No image in the material world could do his glory justice (Ex. 20:4; Deut. 5:8). At least, not until Jesus; for “He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature…” (Heb. 1:3), “He is the image of the invisible God…” (Col. 1:15), and he said “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (John 14:7-9). Of course, Jesus does have a “true body.” He “took on flesh” when he became “like one of us,” and continues in the flesh today. (Imagine! Transcendence became Immanence! “God with us!”) But having “a true body” is not essential to the being of God, or he would’ve always had one. “God is Spirit;” immaterial, and thus has no locality in time or space–he is eternal and immense–boundless. He’s always everywhere equally.
  2. The second question was about the notion that God is “without…passions.” We agreed that God is certainly passionate about his glory, about justice, about his Son Jesus, about his people (who are his “bride”), and about many other things. The Westminster Divines could’ve meant that God is not subject to fickle, unpredictable, whimsical, fitful roller-coaster like emotions that lead him to make rash and impulsive decisions, because he’s clearly not like us in that way. His will and his actions are always good, right, wise, perfect and planned. He’s “a God of order,” (1 Cor. 14) but that does not mean that he’s “without…passion” in the sense of intense positive regard (or, ‘approbation’). He’s a jealous God; jealous for his name, and for his people. But, given the scripture proof they used, and its meaning, they may have really meant to affirm God’s impassibility, in which case, they were clearly wrong.

So that’s what we talked about instead. Next week: Doctrine of God I (The Being of God). Your thoughts are welcome!