Kenoticism Examined

Well, good afternoon, we didn't bother to turn the screen on and inside here today So I don't know if we're on the air or not.

I can't see anything, but it's good to be with you One way or the other where is that thing?

Oh There it is The professionals are back

Notice it rich didn't even Look my you know what my sweaters are so much brighter

Than they actually are in life. I mean, this is this is a pretty calm quiet Sweater it really is and it's the same on either one.

That blue is so much brighter, isn't it? Come on, we fork it

So you're telling me 4k creates color? I mean, this is this is this is one of the

Coogee made For the people who and we got to be really careful about style today

You know, I mean Wow, I hear it's really cold other places.

It's pretty cold for us here It's me down to freezing again here in the desert tonight, and it's windy But You know,

I do bring scarves when I go to places where it's windy and cold and snowy

But evidently you're not allowed to do that anymore. Just just thought we'd mentioned that in passing Let's not get into that today, please there are certain topics that take over Twitter that we really don't need to deal with but These sweaters the

Coogee sweaters I get from eBay Coogee doesn't make Well ever since they moved their manufacturing to China, it's like who cares why even bother but I get everything from eBay and it's from back in the 90s early 2000s and We just those of us who like these things just trade them back

On eBay just you know, whatever and they had one called Coogee blues. That's what this is

This is this like it's meant to go with jeans. So honestly this blue is The same blue as you'd have on blue jeans, but it's like fluorescent on this camera so I'm not sure what that means other than The the color intensity is fake.

That's just the only way to put it. It's fake and I had nothing to do with it Okay, there's only one other person has controls

This year I didn't have this night and plugged in so I can't it's not me But it's it's somebody else who keeps complaining about not liking

Coogee sweaters But he's making them even brighter Which tells me that there's a there's a you know subliminal desire on his part that he wishes he had

Coogee sweaters, they were this bright and and beautiful anyway, oh

Yeah, well but That's closer to the actual color but anyway

Yeah, that see that's But no, you're you're sitting there you seeing what

I'm seeing. This is just a standard blue. It's not fluorescent Anyway, hi folks

I just actually responded to Ben Zeisloft on Twitter He Posted some yeah, that's this

DEI stuff rich and I were talking about right before the program started We've been trying to say for a long long time that this is insanity.

Just simply on a on a basic level To hire people based upon their skin color or who their great -great -grandparents were or whatever

There's just so many areas Where if if this nation and this culture is going to continue on and I'm not sure that this culture needs to in certain aspects, but That you you hire the best people for the job and It has nothing to do with their parents or their great -grandparents or great -great -great -grandparents or Any of the rest is insanity that is going on and there's certain areas that look

We we've seen this stuff for decades now But we've always thought yeah, but they'd never do it in this air

They'd never do it in the airline industry. They'd never do it with pilots and Engineers and maintenance people.

No, no, no, no, no Sanity has to demand that you know

You can't you can't have people building airplanes Who are not going to build them

Perfectly as well at least as best as human humanly possible. I mean you can have parts fail, but but you just and We think this way we put it in the back of our mind and and we function that way and when you get into a

Plane and you sit next to the window and I much prefer windows to aisles or let alone the middle and You know,

I've fallen asleep leaning up against an emergency exit door more than once in My many many many many many miles.

I was it I think with American I was at over 700 ,000 miles When I stopped flying and that wasn't including a lot of stuff that came before that so I've flown well no, probably 1 .5

1 .7 million miles probably since the 19 late 1980s and so yeah, you know 17 -hour flights back and forth from Australia and and you just trust that the people that built this were the best people who could could be and Yet you look you look at the world today and what we're doing and It's self -destruction

It it, you know it when wisdom speaks in Scripture and says you who you hates me loves death well

Secularism has given us the insanity of DEI and all the other associated foolishness and We're gonna reap the rewards.

We're gonna reap the rewards I'm telling you I just said to Ben I said we have to do repairs on our

RV after every trip Just the nature of the beast and the interstate state highways across the nation especially in New Mexico and Eastern Missouri Wow and Louisiana.

Oh, man that one spot around Oh up in the north north west part of the state

Anyways, it's bad really really really bad And so you know you just bounce that thing around and stuff needs to be repaired in fact

Thank you Got really good news today. I was good.

I was a little nervous I'll admit I was a little nervous got the big trip coming up, and I'm asking this audience Please be in prayer for this big trip

I need I need to be a good driver. I need to stay healthy

I need to be getting lots of preparation done Over the next month because I I pull out in in less than one month

I Mean what's what's today Thursday? So I pull out

Four weeks is it four weeks from tomorrow. I think so something like that somewhere around there

February 9th and You know we we can't accomplish anything with a without your support, but most importantly with without Lord's blessings, so please be praying for us and so We just got we're just off the phone with the with the tech that I had talked with for quite some time last evening

Because on the last trip you may recall I mentioned the refrigerator stopped working. That's not it was it was sort of cold on the trip, but You still that's that's a bummer

Especially on the the travel sections Where you're not stopping and and disconnecting the truck?

I mean if I'm only staying overnight Depending on the spot. I won't disconnect the truck.

It'll just I'll just stay connected You know you put the feet down on the on the fifth wheel and take the weight off the truck

But I'll stay hooked up so next morning. It's just a matter of attracting everything taking off So I can't go get anything at that point

And so you have to have some fresh food to have to you know just to make a good meal or something like that So the refrigerator is sort of important, and it had stopped working and Nice thing is

I've now learned Rich and I were both completely wrong About our the refrigerator well, okay.

You said it was a ground issue probably and but we didn't know And now

I do know in the last RV the refrigerator ran on 110 and Propane and it would switch back and forth, which is really cool

We assume this did the same thing 12 volt 12 volt it's a 12 -volt refrigerator

You know like like plugging into your cigarette lighter. Yeah, the 12 -volt refrigerator with freezer 10

Cubic feet 12 I forget what it was But they're switching to all of it so you can run it off of the battery in your

RV Which everybody now has solar we have 400 watts of solar on the roof and so it recharges during the day as long as it's got some

Sun and So it's 12 volt and it doesn't run on propane We didn't know now.

I know I Think the people sold us to us sold to us didn't know that in fact

There Rich it's going there were a lot of things. They didn't know yeah, that's a that sadly variable

There is a lot of things. They didn't know um so anyway they found a

When they did the grounding they didn't crimp the wire properly and You have something go through 20 earthquakes every day and stuff happens

So we have to We have to get stuff repaired and we thankfully

It's got a new roof on it because during it was made during kovat I'm not the only one that'll tell you stuff that was made during kovat gonna have problems the other

RV They didn't bother to lubricate the big ball joint in The tongue that you connect to your truck so every time

I would turn It was like 7 ,000 cats were dying in the back of my truck And they just because they didn't lubricate it because kovat kovat anyway

So It's got a new roof on it because they had not put What did they put like?

110th the amount of adhesive on the roof originally that was meant to have So it's got a new roof on it and the refrigerator is working

And I'm excited about all those things because I don't need to be doing Repair work on this next trip not with five debates and everything else

I'm doing on that particular trip, so I said to Ben's ice loft But let me tell you I am NOT nervous sitting next to the door of my

GMC Sierra I would be on any DEI designed built and maintained aircraft and Don't don't tell me

I'm some conspiracy theorist If you think about it you would be too

Because you I used to go yeah, they're gonna have they don't want these things crashing

So they're gonna have their they're gonna make sure to have the best people on this That's not how corporate

America works anymore. They've been captured by our own enemies by our own enemies and while the

West bankrupts itself with expensive energy The East the

Bricks India China That Large conglomeration that's coming together because we're run by idiots self -destructive idiots

They're gonna be building coal -fired plants having cheap electricity, and you're just gonna run us into the ground

Just and that's that's the plan. That's the it's so clear. It's so obvious and people's there.

I go well. I can't have it Oh, yes, I can Yes, I can and it is so yeah,

I am I'm at least thankful That well, that's interesting

My that's not good at all given that the Let's see is that this one here.

Oh that might mess stuff up. That's gonna mess everything up. Yep I'll get back in see if we can get the mouse working again

Um Because I think that's what it's plugged into at least oh no oh, okay, it's working now

I Touched it. It was got healed anyways That's where we are we got stuff to talk about let's get to it

There's gonna be people writing and complaining you spend too much time to be a program was talking about stuff doesn't matter actually

I was letting you know that You know stuff like being able to repair

I'm I'm I know the roof and The other stuff is warranty stuff because the unit's still fairly new

But there are other things we have to have done that that are not warranty and so when you give to the travel fund

That's how we get to travel around and do the stuff we're doing including the five debates coming up Next month into March.

That's how we do it. So we appreciate you doing that and thank you very much for that All right

So dr. Riccardi from master seminary posted a

Lengthy thread evidently he does not have his blue checkmark on Twitter regarding Cannoticism now there's all these all the stuff's going on in the world right now and We we literally have insanity running through the streets we have we have

New York City Closing public high schools To use those high schools to house

Invaders that have been invited here by the Biden regime They've just they've just been invited come on in we'll love oh and in,

California California what a wonderful land, California is

They're offering sex transition surgeries for illegal aliens

Isn't that lovely? At taxpayer expense, it's great it

I mean yeah, I Sit here and think about if if my mom came back today my mom died in 2010

So she's been gone As of yesterday as of yesterday.

She died January 10th 2010 and so she's she's been gone for 14 years now and If she came back today,

I'm just 14 years is not a long period of time as Far as human history is concerned.

I Just the way she would look at me if I even tried to explain to her what has happened in the past 14 years

She would go that's not possible son that son that couldn't that couldn't happen And I wish she was right

But I could I can just see the look on her face. I can I can hear her voice I am very thankful. I can still hear my mom's voice 14 years after she died

I'm very thankful for that anyway It is hard for those of us with this much snow on I was gonna say the roof but that doesn't work on the chin to even conceive of the stupidity of what is happening in Western culture the the the self -destructive insanity and So you you look at this kind of stuff?

And you go with all the stuff happening. Why should we be talking about incredibly obscure theological?

Teachings well the broad topic of The reality of the incarnation and the deity of Christ of doctrine the

Trinity Absolutely central to dealing with all the rest of this stuff. Why I've used the illustration many times.

I Think it's a good illustration When I when

I said on the dr. Drew show back in 2016, I Quoted Jesus from Matthew chapter 19 in regards to from the beginning the

Creator made them male and female and When the guy pushed back and said well, you know, that's that's

Jesus, but there's also for the religions and I'm like except that he prophesied his death, burial and resurrection and Then died was buried and was risen as enthroned on high and when you can do that We'll worry about your opinion till then he's got the final say

Who Christ is is Central To all of the culture war, which is culture war.

There's a lot of stuff in culture war, which is a silly Okay, there's there's people that are just trying to get clicks by taking shots of people that they shouldn't be taking shots at and Not really accomplishing it was in the process

But when you think about it when we're talking abortion genetic manipulation this kind of Fundamental, what's a male?

What's a female? What's a family so on and so forth? That's not

Just quote -unquote culture war. That's the necessary conflict that exists between the claims of Christ and a rebellious sinful world and Fundamentalism a lot of Evangelicalism has done

Everything that it can do to Run and hide

From that battle for a long long time and now a lot of people are going. Hey, you know, we've we can't do that We've got to do this.

We've got to do something differently But doing making the shift in a balanced and mature way

Can be a bit challenging all of that goes back to why should we think we have anything to say the world in the first place well because the

Creator entered the world and Taught us and established a church and gave us his word and his spirit and so he's enthroned in heaven and The scripture warns

Kings and judges Not to rebel against him lest they engender his wrath

That was the part that was pretty much missing be honest with you from my theology for a long long time

It was like oh no, no, no, that's just the world gets do whatever it wants to do You know God will just do the big stuff and you know

Psalm 2 it's right there. We read it but just sort of skipped over it, you know kiss the Sun lest his wrath is kindled against you and so what we believe about Christ look a

Unitarian Does not have the same foundation of Proclaiming the

Lordship of Christ that a Trinitarian has a Merely human

Jesus has never Unitarianism has never developed a

A Theology of Lordship that would speak to the world with any kind of authority or power just never has never has

And so who we believe Jesus is vitally important if Jesus is Michael the

Archangel Game over completely different religion. No question about it.

No question about it But what I'm seeing now is I'm seeing people who are engaging

Really fine Distinctions uses of language that are that are not have nothing to do with denying the deity of Christ or anything like that, but You need to say it the way my group says you need to say it or it's just Full -on heresy and you're to be marked out and and we're not to have anything to do with you and it's extremely divisive and It and it's based upon Speculation it's not based upon if you were to press them.

Okay prove that biblically Well, so and so said it in their systematic theology.

Well, that's great. But did they prove it biblically and So we're seeing this kind of stuff happening and there's reasons for a lot of it now

Dr. O 'Carney teaches at the Master's Seminary and For years and years and years we've had just wonderful relationship

With all the people over there Donald cooperated in doing all sorts of things

No, I think we haven't ever done TMS and and grace the church. They've never believed in debates and That's fine that didn't keep them from having me in to speak and do stuff like that But we just never you know, it was just known to all all sides

That that was not something that they believed in You know, it was expressed to me we don't believe that you should give a platform to false teachers in any context, even if it's in the context of refuting them and You know my response would be well, okay

The Apostle Paul certainly did not bind and gag the people he was debating

In the in the marketplace in the ancient church in the primitive church he was demonstrating from the scriptures that Jesus was the

Christ and that means the other side got to be heard too and so Okay, but there is

It's part of grace's Fundamentalistic background and that's still a part of of things the dispensationalism the fundamentalism

You don't you don't give false teachers a hearing Which unfortunately not for TMS but in most of fundamentalism means you don't worry much at all about accurately representing the other side either and that becomes a problem when

Your people go out and encounter the people from the other side and They have all sorts of false ideas about what they believe and stuff like that and that that causes a problem.

But anyway so There was that you know, the idea was, you know, we won't do the debate type of stuff

But you know, I I taught for TMI overseas in European and around Europe a number of different nations in Europe over the years had wonderful relationships

And you know, I haven't changed. Well, I guess you can say well, yeah, but you you became a post -millennialist and okay

I was a Unconvinced I I was a I was put away.

I was a dispassionate all -millennialist and So, okay, that's that's about it on everything else

Biblical sufficiency Trinity my views have not changed in the slightest

And so What happened I think and it this is how it's been explained to me by a number of different people

So I won't name names or like that. But what what happened was the EFS controversy in 2016 and Starting oh,

I think it was April May if I recall correctly There were a series of blog articles that just started

Lobbying Bombs Toward Bruce where and other proponents of eternal functional subordination or ESS eternal subordination to the

Sun or all the different terminologies and perspectives and I remember very clearly

That July when when I Rode the double triple bypass ride

The in the first leg the first climb I was riding with a pastor friend and we're sitting there we're

Climbing this mountain Talking about EFS and I I remember sort of looking around and seeing the looks on people's faces

That's we they pass us or we'd pass them and they're hearing what we're talking about and they're like Because that's really an unusual context

You're at 11 ,000 feet above sea level and you're gasping for air and you're talking about stuff like the

Trinity It's a little bit weird. But anyway, I Remember we did some we didn't jump into the middle of saying we've never it's it's not been a situation like oh

Well, you know, I wrote a book on the Trinity. So we just need to jump it right in the middle is No, I'm sitting here

You know going okay Wayne Grudem Bruce Ware, I think it had been

Had it been the year before I think it may have just been the year before I think it might have been 2015

That we had at the g3 conference that we had and it was still those

I think it was the year before it went to the big You know became real big it was still in the church at that time

Bruce where was one of the people speaking on the Trinity as was I and I sensed the differences between us at that point in time

But it never crossed my mind to You know identify him as a heretic and that's what was very very quickly in 2016 it was charges of heresy were being thrown around and everything else and What I've been told happened is that for a lot of people at Masters They felt they did not even have the vocabulary to engage the topic it was not something that the seminary had been dealing with and that in fact

The reality was there was sort of a default acceptance of EFS by lots and lots of people even though Are you accepting something when you're not even sure?

What the what the issues are, you know, has it If it hasn't been identified how many people in 2015 would have just immediately heard

EFS and gone I eternal functional support nation Probably not all that many and so it seems to me that there has been a

Sort of whiplash response to The events that are now

Coming up on eight years in the past and The chosen methodology of Denying EFS and Purging EFS from Well, my understanding is there have been doctrinal statements that have been edited and changed

Stuff on websites and sermons from John MacArthur that have had to be altered

Because of not using the proper language you see and Look, I get you know any school that wants to take a position on something fine

It just from my perspective Especially given the background of the school in the church

The only way to really address this is biblically Not from some you know,

I mean Grace Community Church does not use the London Bapst Confession of Faith it's not it's not a confessional church in that sense and so To to decide to take this rigorous

Perspective that would include utilizing materials from James Dolezal and and people like that Just strikes me as very very strange very odd and So what's happened over the past couple of years is not all the faculty members, but some faculty members have decided that I'm a big bad guy and As a result have told students that well, he believes this he believes that there there have been students who have asked me

I've been told that you you hold EFS. It's like no one can say that no no no one with a semblance of honesty

Because you can go back to 2016. You can go back to the summer of 2016 and Listen to the dividing lines we brought the issue up because it was exploding all over the place and we talked about it and You know,

I I said, I I agree that EFS is dangerous in the sense that I have

For pretty much all of my public ministry at least since Oh Least since 89

I would say have openly aligned myself with the

Reformed Minority Knowingly so in holding to John Calvin's enunciation of the

Sun as Altaf a us as God in and of himself

This is over against the post Nicene Orthodoxy That again,

I this is one of the reasons I go have we really thought through Creeds and confessions and stuff like that and why we draw the lines where we draw them

Are we even being semi -consistent how we do this? but after Nicaea and and around the time of Chalcedon You have

The development of Doctrinal stances not so much by creeds and confessions and counsels

But by name So the two

Gregory's Basil John Chrysostom to a lesser extent

Augustine obviously These men and their work become the very definition of What orthodoxy is?

Fact the matter is we we don't believe everything that they said in all sorts of areas.

We demure as evangelical Protestants from many of their practices and Especially so theological issues and things like that but when it comes to Theology proper the doctrine of God specifically

Christology related issues Then it's like well You can't question anything that any of them said even though there were differences of emphasis and things like that between them once you start digging into it, but anyway, so It just seems like The best way

To deal with something like EFS is Is to do so from a biblical perspective if you're gonna take a stand and say we think this is

Dangerous and so it's so we're not we're talking about over here If you're gonna be where I think the vast majority of people are in the middle where they're they're going.

Well, I don't I Don't agree But I want to be clear and generous in why

I don't agree and I want to hear what the other side has to say And I want to I don't want to Misrepresent them.

I don't want to in any way Just kick everybody out of the kingdom unless they

Dot the I's and cross T's the exact same way that I do and So I think most people

Go well, I can My real concern is if taken to its final conclusion if pressed and for me when something is press is being pressed in debate going outside of the realm of our own fellowships and presenting this in regards to Islam and Mormonism and Unitarianism and everything else

That's where your position is going to be pressed. There's going to be stuff that's going to come against it My concern is that if you press that in that context it becomes

Inconsistent but we have to have conversation about that because some of might say no it won't become inconsistent because of this because that a

Lot of the early stuff. Well, actually most of the stuff in 2016 there wasn't any willingness to have that kind of conversation at all.

It was just That that type of stuff unfortunately So another opportunity for actually enriching and deepening our theology sort of got passed over in the process

So anyway fast forward a bit The charge of canonicism, so we're not going to talk about EFS now but but the issue on canonicism has

Come out from the same stuff so you can really trace the

Impassability Controversy from say 2010 to 2013 2014 amongst reformed

Baptists and that gives rise to Resourcement movements and that gives rise to the a hyper emphasis upon a philosophical definition of simplicity

Which then gives rise to inseparable operations which

Almost nobody had any idea what in the world that was Didn't write books about it anything else, but now it's the definition of Orthodoxy and in the midst of all this

Comes this issue of canonicism and the accusations against me of being a canonicist.

What is all that from? Well Canot oh, of course is the term that is used by the

Apostle Paul uses a number of times. He never uses it literally But it is used in Philippians chapter 2 when the

Sun Empties himself. He makes himself a no reputation. Notice that it's the

Sun doing this. It's not something that's being done to the Sun Reflexive pronoun being used there and so back in 96 97 when

I wrote the Forgotten Trinity came out in 98 as I recall You Read my ex -Jesus

Philippians to a discussion of this and Then I wrote a lengthy article for the

CRI Journal Which interacted with a number of different positions including Dan Wallace's position which now using

The emphasis we make today what it was and I think still is an EFS position

I I Interacted with because that was what

Dan and I had Dan. I stood at the any tea table at that 96 98 98

Evangelical theological meeting and That's what we were talking about. We stood there for a lengthy period of time at least an hour

Debating the Greek of the Carmen Christi and The specific issue was in regards to that that topic

What's what's the nature of our Pogmos and The relationship between the father and the son everything else and I I even sent him the article and said

I want to make sure that I'm accurately representing you and and he wrote back with a couple suggestions and I made the changes and and Then said he said hey, that's that's great

Deb. Thank you for taking the time to accurately represent me and So, I don't remember what year that came out but it was it was long time ago and so I Dealt with these issues.

I first ran into the term kanata schism probably Graduated 89 so 87 88

May have been before that because I was dealing with Trinitarian issues before that, but it I very clearly remember

Fortman's book in seminary Talking about kanata schism and and stuff like that.

And of course, I'm already dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses Mari dealing with Mormonism Already engaging all that stuff at that point in time and back then and so No one can give you

Any kind of Official definition, I mean if you look at Horton's definition it almost limits things to Forms of eutychianism if you're not familiar with eutychianism

If you remember the major Christological errors in a story in ism eutychianism Apollinarianism I've used the hand thing many times to try to explain that but eutychianism is a mixture where There is an inter intermingling of the divine the human in Christ so that he's not fully

God not fully man but a New mixture that's never existed before and of course that's in Opposition to the hypostatic

Union where you have two natures that are not intermingled There's nothing removed from one replaced by the other apollinarianism

There's nothing separated out In the story in ism whether Nestorius actually believe that or not, it's another issue, but um

So if you look at that particular Definition then

Obviously the large majority of people that are being accused of Canonicism wouldn't wouldn't qualify

But what we have now is it? Up until this time period talking about the the veiling of Certain aspects of the divine nature was

Common language you can you can fill pages With people going all the way back that have used terms veiling hiding

Because you everybody has to Everybody has oh by the way before I get to that I Defined especially in the

CI article I defined the incarnation in and the emptying in terms of addition rather than subtraction

So long before Any of these modern guys

Did that I did that and I did that Because of why because of Philippians 2

I Remember I was on was it issues etc. Is that the Lutheran guy?

Okay issues, etc Had me

I've got a cat checking out my my truck right now. I'm just hoping he doesn't all of a sudden disappear into the

I Can't tell from this this angle the Sun's back there, so I have no idea

Okay, yeah, well he's he's between the back wheels right now, so I just want to make sure he doesn't stay there um Anyway, yes,

I am watching the parking lot. You see me looking over here. It's Because we live in Phoenix, and if you have a truck it can get to Mexico real fast

Even though Mexico is coming here, so it doesn't you know does it really gonna matter anymore anyways? Talking about um see the cat got me the cat running around underneath my truck out there got me all discombobulated

The article that I wrote for Sierra the Sierra journal when issues etc. Had me on The I think it was

Todd Todd Wilkin. Is that the name anyways? He just loved the translation that I provided of The Carmen Christie.

I did I did put a lot of work into it and I remember one of the things he really appreciated was

I really appreciate how you've by your translation You're emphasizing that the emptying was by taking on the human nature

So it was making himself an orbitation. It wasn't changing the divine nature but The Sun had to become incarnate to be able to give his life.

He had to live a true human life and So I Emphasize that in the translation and so my emphasis came from exegesis

It came from the biblical text. I wasn't going well Gregory of Nyssa said and so I need to say

Well, okay, you know Gregory's Brilliant in many many areas, but not nearly as brilliant as scripture

And so that's why I took the position That I did and I'm doing this in defense of the deity of Christ against Unitarians against polytheists, you know all of these types of Things that I'm dealing with regular basis

And so Kenosis as I would understand it involves a fundamental change in the divine nature in The incarnation so I had a student once I remember very clearly in which classroom you're in in Mill Valley at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, we were

Somewhere in this particular area of discussion and I I Remember he he said well if if we really believe this one, then we have to believe that that God changed and I remember he and I had quite an interesting back and forth conversation in class over that very issue and I was like, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and He was rather insistent that yes.

Yes. Yes, so it was an interesting Thing and I was going no

There is there is a purpose for the incarnation and that purpose

Must be fulfilled the Sun will do what the Sun needs to do to fulfill that but without ceasing be

God And I said so for example obviously his glory is hidden with the exception of the

Transfiguration Now one of the problems I've got with Riccardi's list here

Glory is just as definitional of the divine being as omniscience or omnipotence

And so It seems to me that In the current situation where we we sort of have people deciding that they get to define these things on their own

There needs to be room to push back and and and go You really want to go that far do you really want to Insist in such a in saying well for example, all this is gone back to part of the connection to Matthew 24 36 and My simple observation which

I've yet to have anybody really provide Any response to I I threw it out there and I said here's what the other side can say

About a consistent use of Sun Sun language in Matthew How do you respond?

crickets absolute crickets and The reason to me is obvious you guys don't take the people on that.

I take on you just don't as Long as you keep it in -house. You can ignore all that stuff.

I can't and So all I've done for years for decades

Has been to go This is a really tough passage it's raised by all sorts of folks and you can't just simply dismiss it on the basis of Well our theology from our creeds and confessions says

That this text can't say that because I can't turn around and do that when the other side does it

The other side has creeds and confessions Did you did you know that the Sassanians have a catechism?

what if I were to present a Passage of Scripture, let's just for the fun of it make it

Titus 2 13 Granville sharp construction there our great God and Savior Jesus Christ what if I were to present that to a

Sassanian who denies the deity of Christ and He were to say well that text can't mean that because section 7 of article 3 in our

Confession says this What do you do? I?

Know what I'm gonna do But the only way I can do it is if I am consistent and don't turn around and do the same thing myself

So I can't go to Matthew 24 36 say well it can't mean that because of This this this and this not biblical teachings

But this person said this and that person said that and but up it up it up if I do that then they're free game to use whatever source they have it just reminds me so much of The Statement of Augustine In writing to Maxwell in the

Aryan and he says I Cannot quote the authority of Nicaea against you just as you cannot quote the authority of a rim in them

Which was a post Nicene? Semi -Aryan Council during the

Aryan ascendancy after Nicaea Against me. Let us come to that which we both agree on and that is the holy inspired scriptures

There that's my whole point. That's my whole point. So your exegesis of Matthew 24 36 has to be has to take into consideration those issues and Hence I have just said all along.

Well, you know, it's it's a tough passage. I've always thought that It would be really convenient

And in fact, I had a guy last week on Twitter I May not get through this today or I may only get started today and have to finish it up because I have a

I have a meeting after this I had a guy on Twitter last week saying that the whole the it's easy to deal with Matthew 24 36

You just got to recognize it's all about weddings You saw that yeah, you saw it.

It's all about weddings and So only the father knows

Means that only the father gets to determine the time And it's it's the time of the wedding the time of the you know, all this

Jewish wedding stuff I looked at the link that he gave and stuff and I'm like well,

I Have always thought that the easiest way the way the way you could deal with it

Would be to say that the father knows only in the sense of establishing

Now you could say that raises some interesting Theological issues maybe

But Yeah, I've thought that many many times and just gone.

It's not defensible you're you're sort of begging the question here and How how could you even begin to explain that in in the context of?

Someone who doesn't accept your starting presuppositions as to what orthodoxy is and stuff like that So, but I've always

I've thought about that but what I've said is that these are the words of the incarnate

Son and So what people say is oh the only that you got to use part of exegesis and this is look it is the standard explanation

Not of people who take this out there, but internally that this is only referring to the human nature of Christ That Christ and his human nature did not know which means that for some reason

The Sun as the eternal Sun Divine nature did not communicate this knowledge to the human nature now already

We're getting into speculation that clearly Matthew 24 is not even trying to talk about But you can quote all sorts of people who've who've said this is this is just the

Sun Speaking as a son I go Okay, if you want to interpret that way, how do you defend that?

against someone who then says oh so we're to be baptized in the name of The Father and of the human nature of Christ and of the

Holy Spirit right the same book. It's the Sun There are a number of places in Matthew where Sun is used of the divine person

How do you make the distinction show me where you get the distinction? They won't even try I Get it from my confessions.

That doesn't work Well, it's all we got. Well, you just abandoned solo scripture

Congratulations, so I try to keep telling you So I've said well

You know It's possible that for the purpose of accomplishing

His role as Messiah and sacrifice that the

Sun speaking of The Sun in the way that the

Sun speaks in Matthew Veils that knowledge and people go. Nope can't happen because The Sun always has to be omniscient

The divine Sun always has to be omniscient can't can't be anything other Does the divine

Sun always have to be glorious is that just as definitional of the divine nature and If the glory was hidden, why couldn't the knowledge?

Nope can't do it can't because they differentiate they somehow I've never seen a biblical argument. They somehow go the the glory of the divine nature is

Different than the knowledge of the divine nature. The knowledge of divine nature cannot be veiled for any reason.

I Anything like that in the exact same way that glory and I don't care who you are

It's sad. I listen to these guys because there's been all these Articles they've been throwing out there about canonicism and stuff like that.

And look there's there are people who embrace canonicism without knowing with a heretical form of canonicism a progressivist form this main mainstream

Mainstream denominations anymore don't even argue about it because they don't actually believe in the deity of Christ to begin with but when they were in The progressivist mode and and trying to change those denominations.

This was big stuff This was this was very this was very common. I I Get it, but it's not some major issue for the vast majority of us and They've used that kind of language

The canonicist they're talking about a fundamental change in the divine nature.

I'm not No more than anything else in the incarnation, but There's always got to be balance because you can go so far to the other side

That you no longer have a real incarnation The Jesus isn't truly the

God man. He's the God man There has to be balance.

And where do you get the balance from you get the balance from Scripture. That's the one thing It doesn't change

You don't get the balance from well this person said this and that person said that and that person said that and that built up a tradition that becomes a great tradition over time and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah that that's that that's ain't gonna work it's not gonna fly in a debate and the real problem is you don't actually believe it if you're a

Baptist and a Protestant or if you're a pedo -baptist Protestant Who does not believe in the

Roman Catholic doctrine of infant baptism for remission of original sin and state of grace and all the rest of that stuff

Which is all else reform folks, at least I thought so So with that as a background,

I might as well get to this. I'm not gonna get through all of it Dr.

McCarty says functional canonic Christology teaches not that Christ surrendered the attributes themselves

But limited them in some sense or just curtailed their use function during his humiliation

This is serious Christological error Okay, so John MacArthur was guilty of serious

Christological error during his entire ministry because the the sermons the transcripts thankfully

AI hasn't gotten around to changing and And so again now we have

Okay. So what terms do you want to use? Because I've read

Dolezal's article if you don't like veiling all they're doing is coming up with other terms that mean the same thing

You you have to deal with the reality that the

Sun did something you've got to deal with what kenosis means and I say you define kenosis on the basis of Paul's theology

New Testament as a whole. Yes, but first you start with Paul. He's the one using it

What does he say? How does he present this and then you flesh that out with the gospel and everything else that comes that comes from that?

But you you have to deal with it you can't just say nothing happened So this is saying that you are in serious

Christological error if you say there is limiting of The divine attributes in the incarnation and I go

You just made everybody a Christological heretic going all the way back in history

You everybody has to has to deal with this This is serious

Christological error the kenosis of Philippians 2 7 is not a surrender a divesture a limitation or a laying aside of any aspect of the

Sun's divine existence again It is not a the Sun does not cease to be the

Sun. The question is what is the manifestation of? All of the divine attributes in the incarnation.

We know beyond question. No one can argue this That there is the fundamental definitional reality of the glory of Yahweh That is veiled in the

Sun. He did not walk through the streets of Jerusalem glowing in the dark No one was consumed in his presence

Okay, so there it is. That's the refutation of this hyper limitation.

It's done. It's just Chuck it Or a laying aside of any aspect of the

Sun's divine existence was laying aside me Is that non -exercise?

during the incarnation Is there is there no did the

Sun in no way have any? reliance upon the Spirit of God At all,

I know that full -on kenosis like Um guy, it's

Bethel whatever his name is. Um Yes, Johnson. I know they take that that's their big thing

Is that Jesus rely on the Spirit and then therefore we can rely on the Spirit in the same way Jesus relied in the

Spirit? and the whole night the whole yard so that Every miraculous thing the Jesus does is just dependence upon the

Spirit and of course, you know Jesus feels power coming out of himself and the woman types of all the way so you That's not a balanced perspective, but there's but there's no relationship at all in in the incarnation in regards to it the

Spirit of God Again Instead it is a taking an assumption of a distinct essence a human one by means of which such limitations can be experienced

What does that mean What what by means of which such limitations can be?

Experienced. How is that different than saying there's a veiling?

I'm saying that by taking on a distinct essence a human one

Such limitations were experienced. That's what failing We are arguing over Minutia and yet willing to say ah, but you you're an error.

You are a heretic if you don't agree with my terminology Okay, all right

The text doesn't say he emptied himself of something but that he emptied himself That is he nullified himself or made himself of no reputation

Philippians 2 7 by taking on the form of a slave I e assuming human nature Exactly what's in the

Forgotten Trinity and in the CRE article So any construal the incarnation as a net negative where the

Sun ceases to be or do something Proper to his divine existence is a species of canonic error. I agree.

Don't believe it. Don't believe anything like it I've made that very clear It's not a net negative.

It is a net positive. He takes on a perfect listen to my debate Can God become man?

2011 from University of New South Wales. I would love to see all of the folks that are so Cross the

T that the I I'd love to see you take on some of these people. I really

The the cross -examination would be painful but educational Really would be

To Say something like Christ limited the use of his omniscience in his incarnation is to deny what cannot be denied his true deity

In order to affirm what must be affirmed his true humanity Nothing. Let's let's change that to say something like Christ limited the expression of his glory in his incarnation

Is to deny what cannot be denied his true deity in order to affirm what must be affirmed as true humanity

And that's exactly what everybody has to do. So obviously this argument isn't true.

It's not true What else could be said

So so the the affirmation is Christ in the incarnation could not

Limit the use of any divine attribute I'd say the incarnation itself requires a

A self a Self limitation not a changing of the divine nature

But but the fundamental idea here is no God can't do that. That's what the

Muslims say That's what the Muslims say We don't want to go there and I know he's not going there.

This is a nice man. He's a good man He's a good young scholar But you don't want to go there. You don't want to go there

Is impossible for God to limit his Godness because part of what it means to be

God is to be infinite and unlimitable You really want to go there

Because we're not talking about and change in the divine essence. We're talking about expression here

We're talking about demonstration. We're talking about What does it mean to be incarnate and shouldn't we all be sitting here going, you know

There is only one source for us to answer any

Questions on this subject and it's right here and may

I suggest to you that a lot of post -Nicene Theological speculation doesn't believe this is enough and Goes way beyond Way beyond in fact

Um Let me I need to I put this go over here, um, this is a

Quotation that I want to make sure we get into today. I Think I could still make it if I go to 430.

So, um This is a quotation from the works of the

Reverend John Howe Puritan writer This is published in 1848, but he was back in the 1700s

Listen this is on the subject of simplicity. So very closely related

Theological expression Forgive the language, but it's old older not old

English at all, but older form of modern English whatsoever Simplicity or the doctrine of simplicity

God is not made up of parts and pieces that are lesser than himself You can't take a part away from God may

God and God God anymore But as we talked about with Jeffrey Johnson, there is a biblical doctrine of simplicity and there's a philosophical doctrine of simplicity whatsoever simplicity the ever -blessed

God hath by any express revelation claimed to himself or can by evident and Irrefragable reason be demonstrated to belong to him as a perfection

We ought humbly and with all possible reverence and adoration to ascribe to him but such simplicity as he hath not claimed as Is arbitrarily ascribed to him by over bold and adventurous intruders

Into the deep and most profound arcana of the divine nature think about that Such as can never be proved to belong to him or to be any real perfection

Such as would prove an imperfection and a blemish Would render the divine nature less intelligible ding ding ding ding ding ding more impossible to be so far conceived as his requisite as would

Discompose and disturb our minds Confound our conceptions make our apprehensions of his other known

Imperfections less distinct or Inconsistent render him less adorable or less an object of religion or such as is manifestly

Irreconcilable with his plain affirmations concerning himself, which I would argue you can only get from here

We ought not to impose it upon ourselves or be so far imposed upon as to inscribe to him such

Simplicity man, there's a lot there. Wish I had more time to expand on It would be an over officious and too meanly servile religiousness and it could put the words together to be awed by the sophistry of presumptuous scholastic wits

Into a subscription to their confident determinations Concerning the being of God That such and such things are necessary or impossible

Thereto beyond what the plain undisguised reason of things or his own express words do events to imagine a sacredness in their rash conclusions

So as to be afraid of searching into them or of examining where they have any firm and solid ground or bottom

To allow the schools the making of our Bible or the

Forming of our creed. This is this is against scholastic ism. This is against the schoolmen primarily

Who license and even sport themselves to? philosophize to philosophize upon the nature of God with as petulant and irreverent a liberty as they would upon a worm or Any the meanest insect while yet they can pronounce little with certainty even concerning that Hath nothing in it either of the

Christian or the man it will become as well as concern us to dis encumber our minds and Release them from the entanglements of their unproved dictates

Whatsoever authority they may have acquired only by having been long and commonly taken for granted think about that only by having been long and commonly taken for granted how many speculative conclusions are held in scholastic ism

Simply because they have been long and commonly taken for granted You know how you find out

Get outside the walls and take the message to the world then you'll find out real fast the more reverence we have of God the less we are to have for such men as have themselves expressed little

Okay, I now I Was not by reading that applying that to Mike Riccardi But I am expressing the terminology that he is using in Regards to for example

Speculative Conclusions That are not

Forced upon us by scripture, and that's what we get into the the good and necessary consequences

That would render the divine nature less Intelligible God didn't give us his word for us to muddle it with our

Brainiac Categorizations of philosophical Systems and So I would say getting back to kanata system that the ultimate

Has to be found here and that until Especially my critics answer

The challenge that I've I've read on this program, and I've posted I Wrote an article last year.

I think it was October of 22 on Reform biblical ism and I included or No, no, no, this was the one titled

Too long for a Twitter thread. Sorry, there's two everyone's too long for Twitter thread. It's on the theology matters blog and I gave a paragraph

Where someone can go to Matthew and go so what you're saying is This means this that means that and you're you're reading in a definition of Sun That you're not reading out of the text reading into the text

How do you respond to that? No one has until you do until you do

You're making things You're making the divine nature less intelligible not more intelligent, okay

The Sun did not restrict or limit or dial back his infinity So he could sell he fit himself into finite humanity he assumed finite humanity into personal union with his infinite deity and subsisted in two whole perfect and distinct natures right alongside one another

I Agree, but why use infinity?

Why not use glory? Because you can't because that was limited

For the purpose of accomplishing the what the incarnation is to accomplish, right?

Tell me where I'm wrong. I just I want to hear I Keep hearing people say well, but that's not what this word.

I don't care. Tell me where I'm wrong biblically Please think we can do that.

We're supposed to be able to do that, right? He did not become less God in order to be man agreed

So we must say at the of the incarnate Sun he is infinite according to his deity at the same time

He is finite according to his humanity It'd be wrong to say the Sun limited his infinity there is an incarnation

Did the Sun limit the expression of his glory during the incarnation? Yes or no? Yes, or no is

Gloriousness is glory definitional of the divine being yes or no, but that's

For the same reason it is wrong to say the Sun limited his omniscience in his incarnation God cannot limit his omniscience because omniscience is essential to the infinite perfections of being

God gloriousness isn't Of course it is Of course it is if a person is not omniscient.

He may be many things, but he is not God So if a person is not glorious, he may be many things, but he's not God So the

Sun did not restrict or limit or dial back his omniscience so he could fit himself into ignorant humanity he assumed finite ignorance into personal union with his infinite omniscience and Subsisted in two whole perfect and distinct natures right along with another again.

That's a nice theological statement But it's not dealing with it.

This is meant to be This is meant to be no Matthew 20 40 36

Cannot mean that because of this that's what the argument is And again,

I have how many times do I have to say this is a really difficult text?

But I can't take this kind of theology outside of the church and Say you need to accept this before you can then understand what

Matthew 24 36 is saying Because they can turn around and say well then you need to accept this so you can understand what

Titus 2 13 is saying right And I guess the only response says say well

We don't have to worry about you know, taking this stuff outside We just need to have it nice and neat and tidy for us in other words

Because Jesus is truly and fully God and truly and fully man Scripture makes statements about him the whole person that are true only because of one or the other nature

That doesn't mean that an opposite statement isn't true. According to their nature. This is your standard again The confession itself says there are times the scripture speaks this way.

I agree Prove it in Matthew 24 36 You can't just quote from the

Westminster or the London Baptist you have to demonstrate that in that context you're deriving your interpretation from that and if you don't see

That if you don't do that You will fundamentally eventually have to capitulate

To the authority of external developed traditions over time you can't avoid it

You can't avoid it So yes

Scripture makes statements about him the whole person that are true only because of one of their nature agreed and The context will show you that But you're taking this and making it the over arching interpretive principle

Rather than doing what you have to do, which is demonstrating that my partitive exegesis in Matthew 24 to 36 is actually drawn drawn from Matthew 24 36

And I think I I think the honest folks in the great tradition movement

Would say we can't do that and we won't try. I Think the honest folks would do that That's what

I that's that's why I'm ringing this big old bell. I'm saying to the guys at masters You can't go there without changing who you've always been

You can't go there I Know who's trying to drag you there. I know their names.

I know when you've met But you can't go there you won't be consistent

You won't be consistent now again, maybe You know, I keep going and I think it's important to be consistent but why because I want to take this message outside of our little confines and It's got to be consistent out there because those people out there are smart and they will see the inconsistencies

D -d -d -d -d -d -d sometimes you get them right next to each other acts 2028 speaks of the blood of God Incarnational.

Yep, you bet guys a spirit and has no blood there Paul predicates attributes of deity and Attributes of attributes of humanity blood to the same person

Jesus according to his distinct natures. Yep, that's Clearly what you have in what the incarnation is

No two ways about and I he doesn't use the one that I I think is the best and That that is they would not have crucified the

Lord of Glory Lord of Glory is obvious deity language

You can't crucify the Lord of Glory But you could Because the incarnation because it was real because he truly became man

So in John 16 30, he is said to know all things and in Mark 13 32 He is said to be ignorant at the time of his return

Those aren't contradictory John affirmed something that's proper to his deity and mark affirmed something is proper to his humanity okay, but once again and There's a textual issue there that we won't get into right now

Derive it from the context pretty do easy to do it John 16 How do you do it in Mark 13 or Matthew 24?

That's the issue. That's the issue It is wrong and a species of canonicism because we now get to define these things

For ourselves to say that one of those things omniscience or ignorance must be limited or curtailed in order to say

The other one is genuine in Matthew 24 36 once again, if what you're saying is well the

Sun here Jesus when he makes reference to the

Sun is making reference to the human nature Okay, all

I've been saying all along I am NOT dogmatic on my interpretation of Matthew 24 36

I am dogmatic on you having to give an exegesis of Matthew 24 36

That's the difference between us. You guys aren't given an exegesis. You're giving a theologists a theology diseases

You're you're you're telling us what your theology says the text must say and I'm sitting here going you

Can't do that and be consistent It's all I've been saying That's all

I've been saying you cannot assist No, I'm not a canonicist. Jesus deity was not changed

But you have to believe that he had the power to whatever term you want to use veil

Limit not get rid of but veil or limit his glory to do what he said as he did

His glory is just as definitional as anything else and you cannot get around that no matter what you do

No matter what you can stand on your head you can spin in circles you can't get around it. It's just reality

Just reality. So I'm sorry that I'm not in the in group I'm out here with the lost folks that already have religious beliefs and I'm trying to go.

Hey guys, if you ever decide to come out here and help with this stuff What you're doing in there ain't gonna help much

You're good. You're not gonna be able to It's not gonna work I'm trying trying

So we have to say that Jesus predict predicated ignorance of himself according to the properties of his human nature

No, not the human nature is ignorant But the one person Jesus could be spoken of as ignorant by virtue of the finitude of his human mind except that the

Divine could reveal Supernatural knowledge to that finite mind, right?

So why would that particular piece of information? Be too much for the finitude of his human mind that that that one

I don't get okay And can we all admit we are way past Matthew 24 or Mark 13 now, right?

Can we all can we all admit that? We're not we're not we're not there anymore. We're we're four five six seven steps down the road now

Can we all admit that? you know for some folks they're like, yep, and we always have to be and Again, I go think about where that's gonna lead you.

Where is that gonna take you? But because he was subsisting in the divine nature at the very same time

It can also be said that he did know the time of his return According the properties of his divine nature by virtue of the infinity of his divine mind

Look, I understand the theology but a

You didn't get that from here, please don't pretend you did and B I start going

Hmm Would render the divine nature less intelligible more impossible to be so far conceived as his requisite as Would discompose and disturb our minds confound our conceptions make our apprehensions of his other known

Perfections less distinct or inconsistent render him less adorable or less an object to religion.

I'm concerned I'm concerned That that's where this type of stuff goes eventually it

Not necessarily in this context, but I just remember a young man

That I helped When he was in high school and in college and then he goes off to seminary and I just remember meeting with him before he left and I just Said to him

You become a liberal You abandon the foundations that we've been talking about at seminary and I'm gonna get you

Yeah, you'll never see it coming If you fire from more than 500 yards away, yeah, you never you never hear hear the shot

I've just seen it happen so many times and Sadly what a lot of these guys are doing is

When I make that warning, they just as I'll say there's white saying I'm gonna become a Roman Catholic again

I didn't say anything about Roman Catholicism. That's one of the Directions you can end up going once you lose confidence in sola scriptura.

Yeah, that could end up there orthodoxy and lots of other places but it's like why don't you just stop for a second and Listen to me just just You know,

I've got a lot of experience that people have done this a lot more than you do a lot more than you do But you won't listen what

I'm not saying Mike McCarty I'm talking about the people pushing this stuff It's counterintuitive

Yeah, but it's not contradictory It's the miracle of the hypostatic Union Okay, I believe in the hypostatic

Union. Why do I believe in the hypostatic Union because I believe this and I have to make sense of this

Why do you believe in the hypostatic? Why do you believe in the hypostatic

Union is this enough or Is this only enough to give you broad outlines and now we need something beyond that He can know and be ignorant of the same fact at the same time because he knows that according to divine nature and he doesn't know it according to the human nature and All I gotta do is prove that in Matthew 24 36.

That's how you can use the term son Right, that's that's what you gotta do

He says Calvin agrees. Of course, there's more to this context. We don't have time now. I was gonna Wow Oh eat it goes

Calvin Gregory not Sian's us and concludes canonicism whether ontological or functional

Does not behave consistently with the truth the hypostatic Union and therefore canonicism should rejected in all its forms.

Well The real question is who gets to define it and The real question

I have to ask of dr. Riccardi and everybody else is I Thought at the master's seminary

This was the final word for definition. Is it still that's the question.

That's the question And am I being unfair am I being unkind because I My my belief all along has been

I without a doubt without a doubt On a

Wednesday night I got to Speak a grace from behind the pulpit. That's how

I know that if you lean into it it moves Because it's on that Hydraulic thing and it's not perfectly firm huge amount of space great wonderful, but it moves

The night that I spoke there There wasn't a person in that room or on that staff that would have for a second

Taken offense of being called a biblicist and you know it

You know it So do I so as every graduate that school You know it you know it

Did not expect to do an hour and a half I Did not should not have taken the time at the beginning.

I could have gotten done a little bit faster. Sorry about that My sincere apologies, but we got through it, and I've got some place to get to now