Thanks for the comment! I need to look into it, but I think that Gordon Clark, Loraine Boettner and Robert Reymond would probably disagree with this point. Whether or not Calvin agrees that the context demands our taking it this way, I cannot say. It may be that he would accept the description (who is and was and is to come) and the context (the reference to the Spirit and the Son) as suitable grounds for drawing this conclusion. I think it is important to note that the phrase “who is and who was and who is to come” is applied to the Son just as I believe it is first being applied to the Father. While in His mediatorial role Jesus Christ is subordinate to the Father, in His divine being He is not. I am basically following Edwards at this point. I would recommend Edwards’ sermon, “On God the Father.”

I hope this is somewhat helpful. I know it is an extremely difficult issue. Let me know if you find anything out that may be helpful in explaining it further or correcting it.

Nicholas,

I agree with this statement, so by what follows please do not think I am trying to be argumentative!

In reading through The Institutes I was surprised that Calvin repeatedly states that the use of “God”, when it is not qualified by any other modifiers, refers to the Trinity. I was surprised the first time I read it, and kept on being surprised as I read it more.

Have you come across the reasons Calvin had for this assertion? In the context it seems like the major reason was to refute those who denied the deity of Jesus. Or, do you know any one else who holds to Calvin’s view and might give more support for it?

Thanks for your web-ministry,

Brad