II. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT
But now we come to the question, Is the Holy Spirit a distinct personality from the Father and from the Son? He might be a person, as we have clearly seen that He is, and He might be a divine person, as we have just seen that He is, and at the same time He might be only the same person who manifested Himself at times as the Father and at other times as the Son, and in that case there would not be three divine Persons in the Godhead, but one divine Person, who variously manifested Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So the question that now confronts us is, Is the Holy Spirit a distinct personality separate and distinct from the Father and from the Son? This question is plainly answered in various passages in the New Testament.
1. We find this question answered in the first place in John 14:26 and John 15:26. In John 14:26 we read: "But the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." In John 15:26 we read: "But when the Comforter is come,
whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me." In both of these passages we are told that the Holy Spirit is an entirely distinct personality from the Father and the Son, that He is sent from the Father by the Son. We are elsewhere taught that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father (John 6:29; 8:29, 42). It is as clear as language can make it in these passages that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one and the same Person manifesting Himself in three different forms, but that they are three distinct personalities.
2. We find clear proof that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personalities in John 16:13, where we read: "Howbeit when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for He shall not speak from Himself; but what things soever He shall hear, these shall He speak: and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come." In this passage the clearest possible distinction is drawn between the Holy Spirit who speaks and the One from whom He speaks, and we are told in so many words that this One from whom He speaks is not Himself, but another.
3. In the next verse the same thought is brought out in still another way. In this verse, John 16:14, we read: "He shall glorify me: for He shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you." Here the clearest distinction is drawn
between He, the Holy Spirit, and Me, Jesus Christ. It is the work of the Holy Spirit not to glorify Himself, but another, and this Other is Jesus Christ, and He takes what belongs to another; that is, to Christ, and declares it unto believers. It would be impossible to express in human language a distinction between two personalities more plainly than the distinction between the Son and the Holy Ghost is expressed in this verse.
4. The distinction between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is very clearly brought out in Luke 3:21, 22: "Now it came to pass, when all the people were baptised, that, Jesus also having been baptised, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form, as a dove, upon him, and a voice came out of heaven, thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus Christ who was on the earth, and the Father who spake to Him from heaven, and the Holy Spirit who descended in bodily form as a dove from the Father upon the Son.
5. Still another striking illustration is found in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Here a clear distinction is drawn between the name "of the Father," and the name "of the Son," and the name "of the Holy Spirit."
6. A very striking setting forth of a clear distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit
is found in John 14:16, 17: "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter that He may be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth." Here the clearest possible distinction is drawn between the Son who prays, and the Father to whom He prays, and "another Comforter," who is given in answer to His prayer. Nothing could possibly be plainer than the distinction that Jesus Christ draws in this passage between Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit.
7. We find the same thing again in John 16:7: "Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send Him unto you." Here the Lord Jesus Himself draws a clear distinction between Himself, who is about to go away, and the Holy Spirit, the other Comforter who is coming to take His place after He has gone away.
8. The same thing is brought out again in Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:33, where Peter is recorded as saying: "Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear." Here a clear distinction is drawn between the Son exalted to the right hand of the Father, and the Father Himself, and the Holy Spirit whom the Son receives from the Father,
and sheds upon the Church. To sum up all under this head: again and again the Bible draws the clearest possible distinction between the Holy Spirit, and the Father, and the Son. They are three separate personalities, having mutual relations to one another, acting upon one another, speaking of or to one another, applying the pronouns of the second and third persons to one another.
We have seen that the Bible makes it plain that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person and that He is an entirely separate personality from the Father and from the Son. In other words, that there are three divine Persons in the Godhead. It has oftentimes been said that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible. It is true that the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly taught in the Bible in so many words, but the doctrine of the Trinity is simply the putting together of truths that are clearly and unmistakably taught in the Bible. It is clearly taught in the Bible that there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4). But it is taught with equal clearness, as we have seen to-day, that there are three Divine Persons, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost; and the doctrine of the Trinity is the putting together of these truths which are taught with equal plainness.
But, some one may ask, How can God be three and one at the same time? The answer to this question is very simple and easily understandable.
He cannot be three in one in the same sense, nor does the Bible teach that He is. But in what sense can He be one and three? A perfectly satisfactory answer to this question is manifestly impossible from the very nature of the case—first, because God is Spirit and numbers belong primarily to the physical world, and difficulty must always arise when we attempt to conceive of spiritual being in the forms of physical thought. In the second place, a perfectly satisfactory answer to the question is impossible because God is infinite and we are finite. "God dwells in the light that no man can approach unto," and our attempts at a philosophical explanation of the Trinity of God is an attempt to put the facts of infinite being into the forms of finite thought, and of necessity such an attempt can at the very best be only partially successful. This much we know, that God is essentially one, and also that there are three Persons in this one Godhead. There is but one God, but this one God makes Himself known to us as three distinct Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is one God, eternally existing, and manifesting Himself in three Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If we were to go into the realm of philosophy, it could be shown that from the very necessities of the case, that if God were to be God, there must be in the eternal Godhead before the creation of finite beings a multiplicity of persons; for otherwise God could not love, for
there would be no one to love, and therefore God could not be God. The ease with which one can grasp the Unitarian conception of God is not in its favour but against it. Any god who could be thoroughly comprehended by a finite mind would not be an infinite God. It would be impossible for a thoroughly intelligent mind to really worship a god whom he could thoroughly understand. If God is to be really God, He must be beyond our complete understanding.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not merely a speculative doctrine. It is a doctrine of tremendous daily practical importance. It enters into the very warp and woof of our experience, if our experience is a truly Christian experience. For example, in our prayer we need God, the Father, to Whom we pray, we need God, the Son, through Whom we pray, and we need God, the Holy Spirit, in Whom we pray. So also in our worship we need God, the Father, the very centre of our worship, we need the Son, through Whom we approach Him in our worship, and we need to worship by the Holy Spirit. But all three—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are the objects of our worship. The long metre doxology is thoroughly Christian in its worship when it sings:
"Praise God from whom all blessings flow,
Praise Him all creatures here below,
Praise Him above, ye heavenly hosts,
Praise Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
And so, also, is the Gloria Patri, the words of which we so often sing, but the thought of which we so seldom grasp:
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end, Amen.
VIII
The Atonement: God's Doctrine of the Atonement vs. Unitarian and Christian Science Doctrines of the Atonement
"Apart from the shedding of blood there is no remission."—Hebrews 9:22.
Our subject in this chapter is "God's Doctrine of the Atonement vs. the Unitarian and Christian Science Doctrines of the Atonement." One of the most fundamental, central and vital doctrines of the Christian faith is the Christian doctrine of the Atonement. Without the Bible Doctrine of the Atonement you have no Christianity, but the Devil's substitute for Christianity. Without the Bible Doctrine of the Atonement you have no real gospel, but an utterly false and soul-destroying philosophy. In speaking on the doctrine of the Deity of Christ I said: "If a man really holds to right views concerning the person of Jesus Christ he will sooner or later get right views on every other question, but if he holds a wrong view concerning the person of the Lord Jesus Christ he is pretty sure to go wrong on everything else sooner or later." The same is
true regarding the doctrine of the Atonement: If a man really holds to right views concerning the Atonement made by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary, he will sooner or later get right on every other question; but if he holds a wrong view regarding the Atonement made by our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, he is pretty sure to go wrong on everything else sooner or later. There is a great need in this day of teaching on this subject that is definite, clear, accurate, exact, complete; because not only in Unitarian and Christian Science circles, but also in circles that are nominally orthodox, in professedly Christian colleges, seminaries, pulpits, Sunday School classes, and religious papers, magazines, pamphlets, books, there is much teaching to-day that is vague, inaccurate, misleading, unscriptural, and oftentimes utterly false and devilish, teaching that is essentially Unitarian or Eddyistic. Men and women use the old words with a new meaning; so as to deceive, if it were possible, the very elect. Even the Christian Scientist will tell you he believes in the Atonement, and that Mrs. Eddy taught the Atonement. But when you begin to ask direct and pointed questions regarding his belief and teaching you will find that by Atonement he meant, and that Mrs. Eddy meant, something utterly different from what you mean and what the Bible teaches. Paul tells us that the Devil camouflages as an angel of light (II Cor. 11:14), but never has he done it more successfully and
dangerously than in the teaching regarding the Atonement which he has inspired in Mrs. Eddy and in Unitarian teachers, and also in the teachers in many supposedly orthodox pulpits, in many Congregational pulpits, in some Methodist pulpits, in many Baptist pulpits, and even in some Presbyterian pulpits. Some years ago in teaching a Bible class in Minneapolis, attended by people from all the churches, I remarked incidentally that Christian Science denied the doctrine of the Atonement through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. A very intelligent lady, a lady perfect in her manners, came to me at the close of the class and said: "Mr. Torrey, you ought not to have said what you said to-day about Christian Science; for you do not understand its teachings. They do teach the Atonement." I replied: "I said that Christian Science denies the Doctrine of the Atonement through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Do you believe that Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" She answered: "I think Christian Science is a beautiful system of teaching." I said: "That is not what I asked you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" She replied: "Christian Science has done me a great deal of good." "That is not what I asked you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" "I think that Jesus Christ's life was the most beautiful life ever lived here on earth." "That is not what I asked you.
Do you believe Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" "The Christian Scientists are lovely people." "That is not what I asked you. Do you believe that Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" "I believe in following the Lord Jesus Christ." "Do you believe that Jesus Christ bore your sins in His own body on the cross?" "Oh," she said, "that is a doctrinal question." "Now," I said, "you are yourself an illustration of the truth of the very thing I said. You do not believe in the Atonement through the shed blood of Jesus Christ." The Christian Scientist uses the word "atonement," but he means something entirely different from what the Bible teaches regarding the atoning death of Jesus Christ. So does the Unitarian. So do many of the ministers supposedly of orthodox denominations. The pastor of a Congregational church in this city said recently: "I have my own kind of religion; it answers for me, but I hope I have sense enough to see that it would not answer for everybody. I imagine the Salvation Army captain preaching my kind of religious doctrine, without a devil, without a hell, without an atonement of blood and recompense, without an infallible Bible—and I see his audience melting away like snow in the rain. Is his doctrine truer than mine, or is mine truer than his? Why, neither; his is true for him and mine for me—that is all—each after his own kind." Now this may sound tolerant and lovely, but it is utter
nonsense. Any doctrine which is not true for everybody is not for anybody true, and any doctrine which is true is true for everybody. If a doctrine that leaves out "an atonement of blood" is not true for the Salvation Army—and it certainly is not—it is not true for anybody else. Truth is not relative; it is absolute. What is true is true, and what is false is false. So we come face to face with the question, What does the Bible teach on this great fundamental doctrine?