4. The struggle against the deniers of the one God.
The unity of God (unus Deus) is denied when the three persons in God are also ascribed to themselves three divine beings (tres essentiae divinae) or three divine natures (tres naturae divinae). This is done a) on the part of the Tritheists, who assume three divine beings or natures of equal quality in God; b) on the part of the Subordinatians, who teach three divine beings of different quality or dignity. Representatives of the Tritheists are Jn. Philoponus in the sixth century († after 610) and Roscellinus in the eleventh century.1231) To the class of the Subordinatians belong the Arians and Semiarians, the Arminians, also modern Lutherans. In a particularly pronounced way Kahnis, of whom the liberal theologians report with satisfaction that he calls Son and Spirit "God in the Word's second and third sense."1232)
1231) Documents in Gieseler, Kirchengesch., about Philoponus I, 577 f., about Roscellin II, 2, p. 353 f. about the tritheistic dispute in general RE. 2 XVI, 47 ff. Although it is difficult to ascertain all the details in this controversy because of the somewhat confused accounts, this much is certain, that both Philoponus and Roscellin thought that in the Trinity, according to the number of persons, there were also to be assumed three divine natures or three deities. The reason for this departure from the doctrines of Scripture and the Christian Church cannot be misunderstood. There is an attempt to make the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity reasonable in the apologetic interest. Both thought that what applies to three human persons: Quot personae, tot essentiae, should also be applied to the three persons in the Godhead: Quot personae divinae, tot essentiae divinae. But now it stands, as is well known, that God neither in his action nor in his essence is guided by human thought. The Scripture — and after it the Christian Church — teaches, as we have seen, tres personas et unam numero essentiam in Divinitate. Roscellin recanted at the synod of Soissons (1092). Anselm wrote against him his Liber de Fide Trinitatis et de Incarnatione Verbi contra Blasphemias Ruzelini, about Roscellin in particular cf. Landerer-Hauck (RE. 2 XIII, 52 ff.), where also about the connection between Roscellin's nominalism and his doctrine of three natures in our opinion is correctly judged. Roscellin denied quite correctly the objective existence of genera and species. His mistake consisted in transferring what is true of three men to the three persons in the one God.
1232) The Arminian dogmatists teach subordinatianism very firmly. Episcopius, Inst. Theol. IV, 2, 32; Limborch, Theol. Christ. II, 17, 25. 26. Limborch wants to admit that the divine essence belongs to the Son and the Spirit: Colligimus, essentiam divinam et Filio et Spiritui Sancto esse communem,. But he adds: Sed est quaedam supereminentia Patris
462 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 385-386.]
Against the Tritheists with their three equal divine natures and against the Subordinatians with their three unequal divine natures, the Christian Church holds that there can be no talk either of a multiplication (multiplicatio) or of a difference of degree (subordinatio) with regard to the divine essence, because one and the same divine essence, not merely according to the nature, but according to the number (eadem numero essentia), belongs to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the clear doctrine of the Scriptures.
The doctrines of Scripture teach the following: The divine essence or Godhead is present only once, or — as it has also been expressed — only in one example, 1 Cor. 8:4: ονόείς ϑεός ei μη εϊς, and this Godhead, present only once, has each person whole. Thus, not in such a way that the first third of the divine essence would belong to the Father, the second third to the Son, and the third third to the Holy Spirit, but in such a way that the whole undivided divine essence would belong to both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This not only results from the infinity of the divine essence, which excludes any division, but this is also explicitly taught in Scripture. Col. 2:9 it says of the Son: In Him dwells παν το πλήρωμα τής ϑλεότητος, and Acts 5:4 it is said concerning the Holy Spirit in the talk of punishment to Ananias, Thou hast not lied to men, but τώ ϑεφ, where ό ϑεός certainly denotes the whole Godhead, not merely a third of it. That one and the same whole divine essence belongs to each of the three persons is also attested by the fact that, according to the baptismal command (Matt. 28:19) Father and Son and Holy Spirit have only one divine name (ovoμα): βαπτίζοντες αυτους εις τό δνομα τοϋ πατρός και τον νιον και τον άγιον πνεύματος. Further: the divine majesty name of the Old Testament is Jehovah, אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה [HEBREW]. This is the name of God, which is the eternal and
respectu Filii et Patris et Filii respectu Spiritus Sancti ratione dignitatis et potestatis. Dignius siquidem est generare quam generari, spirare quam spirari. [Google] Thus the first proposition that the essentia divina also belongs to the Son and the Holy Spirit is abandoned. Similarly Episcopius according to the words and the rationalistic reasoning. — On Kahnis as a subordinatian Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 490. Extensive quotations from Kahnis's Dogmatics and Hofmann's "Scriptural Proof" Baier II, 53 ff. The position of modern Lutherans in the doctrine of God is treated in detail in a longer series of articles under the heading "Der moderne Subordinatianismus im Licht der Schrift," L. u. W. 40, 17-323. The author is Dr. Stöckhardt.
463 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 385-386.]
unchangeable divine being (the absolute being) or God in his essence (essentia). God Himself explains this name etymologically and factually Gen. 3:14: אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה [HEBREW] therefore semper idem. Luther says in reference to the name "Jehovah" as a designation of God: "It is called with him (God) pure Is or Essence."1233) While אֱלֹהִ֣ים [HEBREW] is also used of creatures
1233) Luther's powerful words about the name "Jehovah" deserve to be read again and again. He writes St. L. XX, 2057 f. in his writing of the Shem Hamphoras [paragraphs # 75b-78]: "Now we want to deal with the one name, called Jehovah, with which the devil and Jews do much sorcery and all kinds of abuse and idolatry. This name Jehovah, according to the Grammatica, comes from the word Haja or Hava, which means Latin, fuit, in praeterito, esse; German, wesen or sein; and the J can be nota nominis verbalis. like Josaphat, Jesaias, Jeremias and many other names, and is as much as in Latin ens, in Greek on. We Germans must speak: he is, and thus becomes trigrammaton in Latin, dygrammaton in Greek, hexagrammaton in German, or if we want to take badly 'is', then it is also trigrammaton. That they now pretend that the name Jehovah should be unpronounceable, they do not know what they slur; if they mean the letters, it cannot be true, because he is called Jehovah. And if he can be written with pen and ink, why should he not also be called with the mouth, which is much better than pen and ink? Or why not also call him unwritable, illegible, unthinking? Summa, it is a lazy thing. But if they do it in honor, they should also do it in all other names and let them also be unpronounceable. For it is said, Thou shalt not take God's name in vain: therefore this also is evil. Nowhere does Scripture say that some of God's names should be unspeakable, otherwise all those who take God's name in vain would be innocent, because they would say they could not have called his name, let alone take it in vain. This is what they say, that God's essence, power, wisdom, goodness, and what else can be said of God is inexpressible, immeasurable, infinite, incomprehensible, etc., that not the letters or syllables, but that which is meant by them, is inexpressible. Yes, so one would have to speak of the ineffable name of God. For he has his being from no one, has neither beginning nor end, but is from eternity, in and of himself, so that his being cannot be called 'has been' or 'will be'; for he never began, nor can he begin to be, nor has he ceased, nor can he cease to be; but it is called with him the same is or being, which is Jehovah. Ex. 3:14. Since the creature was created, there is already his essence, and what is yet to come, there he is ready with his essence. In this way Christ speaks of his divinity, Jn. 8:58: "Before Abraham was, I am"; does not say: "I was then", as if he would not be anymore afterwards, but: "I am," that is, my being is eternal, has not been, will not be, but is a vain Is. Therefore, as his is, am, or essence is incomprehensible, so it is also inexpressible; for no creature can comprehend that which is eternal. Therefore the angels are eternally blessed, for
464 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 386.]
inasmuch as these have really or supposedly divine functions and divine prestige (persons in authority, Ps. 82:6; the idols of the heathen, Deut. 4:28), יְהֹוָ֥ה [HEBREW] is used only of God. Hence the designation: Nomen Dei essentiale et incommunicabile,1234) But this name is not only attached to the Father, but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The מַלְאַ֨ךְ יְהֹוָ֥ה [HEBREW] mentioned in Ex. 3:2, that is, the Messenger of God κατ' εξοχήν, the Son of God, is יְהֹוָ֥ה [HEBREW] himself, v. 4. 7. 15, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. According to Ps. 85:9 the people of the Old Covenant hear what יְה֫וָ֥ה הָאֵ֪ל [HEBREW] speaks. But according to 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Pet. 1:12, it is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jehovah and the Spirit of Christ, who spoke in the prophets. Thus the Holy Spirit is הָאֵ֪ל׀ יְה֫וָ֥ה[HEBREW]. In the New Testament the Son of God is called not only δ κύριος και δ ϑεός (John 20:28), but also δ άληϑινός ϑεός (1 John 5:20), δ μέγας ϑεός (Titus 2:13), δ ών έπι πάντων ϑεός (Romans 9:5). Likewise, Scripture gives the predicate δ ϑεός to the Holy Spirit in distinction from creatures, Acts 5:3-4: You did not lie to men, άλλα τφ ϑεω.
Furthermore: As there is no division and no difference of degree in the divine essence, but to each person the whole divine essence belongs without division, so according to the Scriptures there is also no division and no difference of degree with regard to the divine attributes (attributa divina), the divine works (opera divina ad extra) and the divine worship (cultus divinus). — As far as 1. the divine attributes are concerned, the
they cannot get enough of the eternal being of God and rejoice nor comprehend it; and if it were to be comprehended, it could not be eternal, would itself also have to have an end or beginning, and could neither give nor receive a being to anyone, because it would itself be uncertain of its essence. Further, its wisdom, power, goodness, etc., is also eternal and incomprehensible, because it must be nothing else than its divine essence itself. Thirdly, which is probably higher, that in the divine being God is Father, Son, Holy Spirit, three persons in one, eternal, incomprehensible being. Yes, to say all this about God would be to call him an incomprehensible, inexpressible name. Who wants to name such a strange being, to think it out, to pronounce it, to write it out? In this way, perhaps, the ancients would have called the name Jehovah unpronounceable, because it means God's essence, according to the Grammatica, which (as heard) is called a vain Being from eternity and three Persons." [Ed. note: English edition pgs 385-386 note 18 is highly abridged and a free translation. Green highlighted text was omitted in translation. See my full translation from paragraphs #s 75-78 here.]
1234) More about this name under the section "The Holy Trinity in the Old Testament".
465 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 386-387.]
Scripture nowhere states that, for example, one third of the divine omnipotence or divine omniscience or divine omnipresence is attributed to the Father, the second third to the Son and the third to the Holy Spirit, but Scripture attributes these attributes without division and without limitation not only to the Father, but also to the Son and the Holy Spirit. The omnipotence (Jn. 10:28), the omniscience (Jn. 21:17), the omnipresence (Matt. 28:20) is ascribed to the Son. Likewise the Holy Spirit is ascribed without limitation the omnipotence (Ps. 33:6), the omniscience (1 Cor. 2:10), the omnipresence (Ps. 139:7). — Concerning 2. the divine works, the Scriptures say one and the same divine works (opera ad extra) not only of the Father, but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The creation of the world is a work of the Son (Jn. 1:3; Col. 1:16; Hebr. 1:10), but also a work of the Holy Spirit (Ps. 33:6; Job 33:4) etc. — 3. Because the three persons have one and the same Godhead and one and the same attributes and operationes, they also have one and the same divine worship: Trium personarum unus est cultus divinus. With respect to the Son, it is very particularly inculcated that all should honor the Son, καϑώς τιμώσι τόν πατέρα (John 5:23). As for the Holy Spirit, although Cardinal Gibbons,1235) claims that the divine worship of the Holy Spirit cannot be proved from Scripture, it has become a part of the Christian faith through the tradition and authority of the Papal Church. But it is taught in Scripture wherever one and the same divine majesty and one and the same divine attributes and works are ascribed to the Holy Spirit. That the Holy Spirit has one and the same cultus divinus with the Father and the Son is expressed in the baptismal words Matt. 28:19. By being baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, we worship the Holy Spirit with the same cultus divinus as the Father and the Son. Athanasianum:1236) Ita ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et Trinitas in.unitate et unitas in Trinitate veneranda sit. [“So that in all things, as has already been said above, both the Trinity in unity and the unity in the Trinity should be venerated.”]
1235) The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 111. [1920: p. 89]
1236) M., p. 31, 25 [Trigl. 33, 25 🔗].
466 ><w:t xml:space="preserve">The Doctrine of God. [English ed. p. 387-388.]