Psalm 33 Refutation Concluded, Thoughts on Trinitarian Orthodoxy Over Time

And greetings and welcome it is Christmas Eve Eve, and I hope you and your family will have a wonderful time together

I think that maybe We all need to be thinking very deeply concerning the real reason for the season more than we ever have in the past and So I hope your time with your family

Hope you have opportunity to be with your family at this time of the year if you do not that you would find your

Your peace and your joy in in your Lord I'm wearing

I Brought this in because someone sent me this very nice mug.

It says 30 years of debates 1990 to 2020 it's got my name and the Alpha Omega logo on the bottom, but then it has this and as I as I look yeah, this is this is definitely the this definitely the

Coogee that they Must take in a screenshot, but even the the little yellow things are at the same same place

In this sweater as in in the cool cat Coogee one So I am pretty certain that that's that that's how that worked

So I felt that today would be a wonderfully celebratory day to Wear one of my brighter ones.

I actually I don't think I have it in here. I have the other room. I offered one to rich To wear

Maybe if it was a little bit cooler. No, no, it would there would have to be icicles hanging off of the cameras

Before before rich would do that, but I do have one here. That is one of my two brightest

Coogee's I mean it is just blinding and I would love to You know get a rich cam shot of rich wearing that that Coogee But he said that he would have to be dead before that would happen

Happen I said I said you can preach my funeral, but you can't dress my coffin.

Yeah, okay We'll see cuz by then, you know Ain't much you can do about it.

You might go into eternity wearing a Coogee, you know, it's just you never There's purgatory.

Yeah, there you go Yeah All right. We got a lot to get to today and I've got an appointment this afternoon

And so I can't go super super long today as I have been recently.

So We need to get to it and I've got all sorts of stuff all over the screen here, so if you recall last

Program we were together We did two things we had dr.

Joseph boot on to talk about the end of religious liberty and the fundamental

Attack of the Canadian government on the Christian faith and on humanity as a whole In Bill c4 which will go into effect in just about a month little over well, no a matter of weeks actually in in Canada and Reminder that January 16th is going to be the day when our church and many other churches will be standing with our

Canadian brothers and speaking to the biblical teaching on sexual morality and sexual ethics and We did link to that in the description of the last program if you want to have the link to be able to go to The website that talks about that and then we started responding to Tyson James article from 2018 as I recall which is responding to dividing line from 2014 on Psalm 33 and so in the last program we walked through Psalm 33

Provided a exegetical interpretation application of the 33rd

Psalm in regards to its context in regards to relationship of Psalm 33 and its assertions regarding The connection of creation with Providence and That is that there is a clear contrast drawn in the text on 33

Between the plans of men and the plans of God that God frustrates the plans of men

These are plans that they have hatched in their hearts. Of course, that means

These are unregenerate men these are unregenerate kings or generals or whoever it might be they were talking primarily about the nation's outside of of Israel and so these are the fallen sons and daughters of Adam and and one of the

One of the things that does need to have more discussion and I did discuss this with Eli Ayala on his program is

One of the gaping holes in Molinism is Its Anthropology since it's philosophically derived.

It's primarily it's primarily attracted to people who just want to do little logical games and philosophical quandaries and things like that and so it's

Completely lacks any kind of meaningful anthropology because to To even say that God has knowledge of what any given person will do before that person is decreed to be made

Raises all sorts of real problems in regards to the doctrine of total depravity original sin

The inability of man to do that, which is pleasing to God And so it doesn't matter what circumstance someone is put in if you're spiritually dead

There is a limitation by your nature on the range of options

That are available to you that's that's a given and of course The will then operating on the desires of the nature

That nature will only be presenting evil desires and so there's there's limitation based upon Fallenness and then of course so many of our decisions are based upon Not just a sterile set of circumstances

But upon Interaction with other fallen sinful human beings and that that sinful nature is not a predictable nature sinful natures are

Tremendously unpredictable and We have biblical evidence that God is engaged in restraining the evil of men

There could be no room as far as I can see in For an act of providence of God in restraining the actions of men that would be a violation of their quote -unquote free will that would be the the the married bachelor the

Square with with three sides or whatever else because just as they they reject the idea

That God can raise you from spiritual death to spiritual life Unite you to Jesus Christ change your nature

So that you naturally now love God instead of rebel against God they reject that you can't do that That has to be something that man actuates himself

In the same way in the opposite direction. How then could God? Limit the freedom of the expression of the evil of man yet.

He does Plainly and clearly does Had to have to bring about the redemptive work of Jesus Christ think how many times

How many times did Joseph walk past a Roman soldier How many times did

Mary walk past a Roman soldier before the angelic announcements and Could not one of those

Roman soldiers have given vent to their evil How about just simply brigands thieves?

How many times to bring about just think just think about the prophecy that the line of descent to the

Messiah How many times God had to protect that line? against the natural inclination to evil of Men and women around those people had to be able to resist had to be able to restrain their their evil and did and How does that even work in a

Molinistic concept where the greatest goal is? The maintenance of the absolute autonomy of the human will

That is that is the whole reason that anyone has even come up with this Assertion is to protect the idea of the autonomy of human choices

So the anthropologist there's all sorts of issues regarding original sin and and total depravity and That just simply

I don't think are part of things because remember Molina Believed in prevenient grace.

So he's a Roman Catholic Prevenient grace is the cellophane tape of theology. It's it's just there to hold stuff together, but it actually never really works

There is just no biblical basis for anything. I Don't remember how many years ago it was

I bought a book that just come out on prevenient grace and my review was there's nothing

There I mean, there just simply isn't any biblical basis for this concept.

It's it's absolutely necessary in synergistic systems But Molina's depending upon something that is not at all biblical to make it even a

Possibility that God could put people into a position where they will freely choose to follow

Christ. There is no such position According to script Korean Romans chapter 8 There is no condition you can put someone in to where they were freely do that because unless they have been regenerated

They will not do that which is pleasing to God they will not submit themselves to love God Romans chapter 8 So the whole system doesn't work for many many reasons that that's a whole that's a very fruitful area of Criticism of Molinism is the whole area of biblical anthropology and at that point

The Molinist is really at a loss because now they have to engage the scriptures directly and that's just not something

I've found that they're overly comfortable doing They're much more comfortable in their logical stuff

Which I think is logical stuff by the way, I'm really tired them saying I somehow reject logic as if I've ever said that Logic is only as good as the basis upon which it proceeds

You can Create logical arguments on the basis of naturalistic materialism, which will have nothing to do with the real world

They will be formally correct you can got your you can put it out in in whatever forms you want to put it out in in Symbolic logic and it'll all work out.

But since it's based upon Something it's outside of reality. The results will be irrelevant

They won't they will not reflect what's real. And so logic is wonderful. God has made us to think in that way

He is his creation guides us in that direction. No one's saying reject logic or reason

But the foundation and the starting point is the fear of the Lord That's the whole point and None of that changes the reality that God made us as human beings to be dependent upon Scriptural revelation from the beginning

Adam was dependent upon what God informed him of and gave him the parameters up So with all that said we started looking at Tyson James comments in Psalm 33 and I marked where we were

So I want to get that done and get to our other stuff because I've already gone 12 minutes. Okay so we pick up with Tyson James saying the only alternative available to white is that God is unable to select a particular complete description of reality to bring about as Jonathan Thompson notes

White's claims are contradictory for he wants to assert that God is sovereign in his decree of all things It claims that on Molinism God's bringing about some possible world a complete description of reality makes him less than sovereign

Thompson drives point his home drives his point home. Well, let's just stop again and point out where they're

Missing the forest for the trees, I guess God's sovereign decree flows from his eudachia

The good intention of his will He is ordering time with a direct purpose of the demonstration of his attributes of his wrath his power his justice of his love his mercy and his grace and Therefore he

Orders time in such a way as to bring about this revelation perfectly and it represents his desired mechanism of self -revelation

Within Molinism, he is limited to feasible worlds Based upon not something that flows from his eudachia does not flow from his will

But is something these true conditional subjunctives these subjunctive conditionals That he does not create that he has no control over and cannot change and So if you cannot gentlemen if you cannot see the difference

Between those two assertions, then I don't know what to do for you Most people can see the vast difference between those two things

Whether you're Tyson James or whoever Jonathan Thompson is don't have any idea who he is

These claims are not contradictory if you understand both what the Bible is saying and What Molinism is saying they're not contradictory but Let's go ahead and read it.

Anyways, it's unclear for me. This is whoever Jonathan Thompson is It's unclear for me to me how

God having the freedom to will or withhold a particular world just stop and say again, we've we're so far outside of Any biblical parameters here that we're off in Philosophical fantasy land again, but Will or withhold a particular world?

Okay counts as a sovereignty undermining limitation of God's freedom well if the limit the delimiting factor is the decisions of mankind as yet uncreated or decreed but as fixed by some force

Something somehow all against biblical revelation about the nature of man and everything else all that stuff if God is delimited by something.

He did not create and does not represent the freedom of his will That's the problem.

There's the issue. I'm not sure how you can't see it But there it is everybody else can

Indeed given that God is a free agent notice a free agent biblically. He is the one and only free agent

How could his freedom possibly be otherwise? Well from a Christian perspective, right? That's why we reject

Molinism It's not as if there could be some third option available to him that doesn't ultimately collapse

Into his choosing to will or refraining from willing a particular world White's criticism thus appears to be unintelligible to me since I can't even conceive how

God's freedom could be. Otherwise. Well, I'm sorry You don't understand what the issues are, sir. I'm not sure why Tyson James was quoting someone who doesn't understand what the issues are, but anyone who's read

William playing ring William Lane Craig's book and as we have gone through it on this program and let him say

This is how middle knowledge delimits the world's the feasible worlds that God could create

We all get it and hopefully whoever Jonathan Thompson is he will read those books and come to understand those things, too then a subtitle exegetical overshoot

Quoting for me bless his nation whose God is Yahweh the people he has chosen as his heritage Notice the application

Yahweh looks down from heaven. He sees all the children of men from where he sits enthroned He looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth

Now that could almost be taken at that point as a passive taking it of knowledge Maybe but that's not what it says

It says he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds There is absolutely no question that the heart of man is in biblical anthropology dot dot dot

Out of the heart flow the issues of life. I wonder what the dot dot dot was It is the central seat of man and for anyone to suggest that man could act in such a way as the heart is not

Determinant of his actions is biblically absurd. There's the quote now Response here

White's exegesis far exceeds the biblical data Yes, God fashions the hearts of man.

Does he fashion it to provide us with free will or not? This text does not give any indication now remember

This is the text that has already had God is creator of all things. Everyone is to be in awe of him

Man's plans and counsels are frustrated gods are not but the text has no indication that when

God says he looks down on the sons of men and He who fashions their hearts understands their actions completely has nothing to do with the nature of the will

I You can just all you got to do is read it and let it stand for itself and let most people just sort of sit back and go but Obviously it does

Right. It does This text is not given any indication. The Molinist agrees that the heart of man decides his choices good

Notice though that the word heart in the Bible is often synonymous with the person himself

Genesis 6 5 reads Yahweh sought the wickedness of man was great in the earth and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart

Was only evil continually Well, that is not actually synonymous with the person himself.

It's specifically saying That the thoughts of his heart were only evil continually.

It wasn't the thoughts of his left foot Wasn't the thoughts of his kidneys It wasn't just well

Everything he did know that the contemplation what he was thinking about his his desires

Were evil continually so The the assertion and this is just one of there are numerous texts.

I Spent some time going through numerous of the of the text in regards to Heart look look up heart in Proverbs and Psalms and Jeremiah and See for yourself

The the heart is desperately sick and wicked who can understand it Now does that mean that men then give expression to that?

Yes But the point is it is the seat of What would have to be known by middle knowledge?

Because we're being told without being told how we are being told

That middle knowledge tells God What every deceitful heart would do in any given situation and yet?

the the Essence of James White stuff. There is no essence of a human being

Floating around out there that can be known as to what that human being will do without addressing the issues of the heart yet who formed the heart and What does forming mean that's a part of the decree

So once again That which is allegedly known in middle knowledge has to be from the decree of God.

You can't separate them biblically and Yet a Mullen ism you have to You have to separate these things out

Because the the Results of what the heart will do can be known Apart from the expression of God's creative decree according to Mullen ism and my point is

You didn't get that from reading Psalm 33. Did you know you'd be led to the opposite conclusion

If you didn't already have your framework To try to push it down on top of the text, which is what

Tyson James is doing so Hit this isn't an exegetical overshoot.

This is Mullen ism causing Tyson James to do an exegetical undershoot

Where you have the evidence right there in the text, but you won't listen to it You won't believe it because it would be contrary to The system that you've already adopted from out here and are now using as the lens through which you read the scriptures

Are we are we to understand the heart here as something distinct from the person? If this is true

This part has thoughts of its own wholly apart from the person himself a strange sort of symbiosis

Obviously though the thoughts belong to the person and heart is synonymous for inner or true self. The heart is what?

Produces what is allegedly known by middle knowledge

The heart is what produces the true subjunctive

Conditionals, however, whatever way you want to try to express it and whichever flavor of Mullen ism you end up coming up with it comes from the heart and God made those hearts and That is why he understands.

That's the whole point of of what is being said when it

Asserts that he he who fashions the hearts So If that is the decision -making it is if that's the decision -making organ

Then that's the same term that's used of God fashioning clay So, how can you have the results of what is fashioned without the fashioner?

You're putting the results coming after the creation of what makes the results. It's backwards guys

Molina was wrong. So were you Molina was wrong?

Because he was trying to undercut the gospel of grace and you're trying to use his wretched tools

Apologetically Accomplishes nothing only God's truth can be used apologetically to accomplish something that will actually be lasting so He who fashions the hearts of them all

Understands all their works so the biblical assertion is that he

Understands the the what flows out of the heart because he fashions the heart He has perfect knowledge of What comes out of the heart because he's the fashioner the molder of the heart that's why he can judge perfectly

He knows exactly what the desires were what the state of knowledge was everything but this is all post decree

This is all assuming what came before in psalm 33. God is the maker of all things. That's post decree

There's no place for middle knowledge here. None. There is nothing in this psalm that does not fit into a to knowledge understanding

Natural and free nothing. Absolutely nothing. You would never I Challenge Tyson James right here right now

You go into psalm 33 and you derive your system

Consistently from the flow of the text don't bring it in from outside. Don't say well, it's consistent No, you derive it from the text because I'm deriving my business.

This is why we're doing this This is what I said to to to Dr. Craig, this is the difference

I'm walking through psalm 33 and I'm deriving my beliefs from the text

You Create your system out here and put it down on top of the text rather than deriving it from the text there's the difference and Certain people can stand their heads and spin in circles and just get all upset when that's just naive

No one's actually doing that. We're doing it and I'm thankful that folks out there

Who are concerned about these things, you know, you don't live your lives thinking about Molyneux's and you don't think live your lives thinking about Some of that stuff we're gonna be talking about the program today

But still you can see this you can recognize this and that's all that matters

That's that's that's the issue. I don't care What any professional organizations thinks or anything else?

That's why we do what we do. And There you go so All right

If we read the Bible pan canonically as white suggests elsewhere in the episode and affirm that heart here is synonymous with man again

At this point what Tyson James would have to have done Let why not go to Jeremiah the heart is desperately wicked and sick

Why not why not go to Psalm 139 he who forms the hearts? Why not go to all these places where heart is clearly being defined not simply as all of man but as the seat of emotion decision

Passion everything it is the the heart. It's a heart of man. Sorry the issue. Why not go to those we could do that Be happy to do that Then we see it the passage really just means see what's going on here

It's under determinative. You see it really just means that God fashioned man

Which the Molinus affirms wholeheartedly does the Molinus affirm that God in his decree fashions that which produces the true subjunctive conditionals

Yes, or no? Because if you say yes, then the decree precedes the true subjunctive conditionals and there's no more middle -knowledge if you say no

What then Again this under determinative text that's quote this

Under determinative text lacks the ammo against libertarian free will white is seeking we have refuted you

Tyson James you stand utterly refuted by the text and All you can do is say well, it's just not clear enough

That's what's this. This is useful because this is exposing what Molinism forces men to do on The one hand let's say this is the

Word of God No hand to say but it's not clear enough to know what it's saying and Yet the psalmist knew what he was saying and the people who read the psalmist knew what he was saying and they never came up with Molinism and There's a reason for it.

There you go last section here white is right, but not really

So quote for me the king is not saved by his great army, I'm gonna skip my part Let's just go to the response. It is not entirely clear here.

What white's point is I'm trying to rush through this. It sounds as though he thinks on Molinism God would have control over natural events, but not over the decisions of human beings, of course in a sense

He's right since Molinists believe that it's logically incoherent to say that God causes Deterministically our free choices.

It wouldn't be rational to say that God has control of human decisions in that sense so the heart of the king is

Not in the hands of Yahweh. He does not turn it whichever way he pleases It's biblical phrase biblical term

Molinism says no because that is Molinism's central Assertion, that's what that's the only reason that exists

Molina Invented it to create and a taught a means of on one hand affirming

God's sovereignty on the other hand affirming man's sovereignty can't do it so it doesn't work, but that's the whole point and Again just briefly, you know the the idea of Causal determinism and the simplicity that Molinists assert to this idea.

They just they simply cannot Begin to understand how

God could decree and create in time the

Massive chain of fulfilled prophecies that lead to the incredible conjunction of Pilate Herod the

Jews and the Romans To do exactly what his hand not what his knowledge of middle knowledge had allowed him to feasibly determine but what his purpose and his hand predetermined would take place and And yet no one who reads

Acts chapter 4 comes away going yeah, well, obviously that means that the Bible is saying that Pontius Pilate wasn't guilty and Herod wasn't guilty and the

Jews weren't guilty and the Romans weren't guilty Nobody comes up with that Because it's obvious in Scripture.

You have a full orbed multidimensional Presentation of Time and eternity

God's purposes man's intentions all coming together in in one in the fulfillment of All the prophecies in the redemptive work of Christ rather than that flattened down up It's just a bunch of puppets type idea that you have not only in Molinism But that you have in provisionism too interestingly enough, so Of Course in a sense since most believe this logically, okay

The reason this wouldn't be rational is that omnipotence doesn't require that God be able to do what is logically or metaphysically impossible so again

Logically Acts 4 27 28 it's out the window But of course Molinism has the resources to avoid such incoherence and yet affirm a robust sense of divine providence

Namely middle knowledge if God's knowledge includes how free creatures would freely act in certain situations

Say knowing that a particular soldier in the middle of a particular battle would flee rather than fight Then he can obviously incorporate those decisions into his meticulous providential planning of history again.

That's not God freely Expressing himself. It's God working with the

Legos provided by middle knowledge to put together What he can the best he can do given the cards he's been dealt conclusion

Psalm 33 is under Determinative regarding the question of free will and therefore fails they prove text against it

Given the parallelism of the passage affirmed by white himself. It is also plausibly gives support to proponents of libertarian freedom

Moreover white unjustifiably reads divine causal determinism into the biblical language of God's fashioning the heart of man

Remember that's the exact same Hebrew term used of Forming that the

Potter forming the pots. This is it's our has a long and deep biblical usage here notice

There's nothing nothing from the text is brought out to do this Sadly it seems that white did just what he has elsewhere accused moles of doing beginning with a philosophical view determinism and seeking to loosely justify it with biblical proof text well,

I Assert that Tyson James's article has been refuted to the last comma and period

There is nothing left of it it stands fully refuted and There you go,

I gotta do is go to scriptures and Don't don't be intimidated by all the philosophical

Stuff on the outside. Yes, sir So I'm getting the impression that psalm 33 doesn't work for him because that's pretty much what

I hear him saying It doesn't work for me. So you don't get to use that one the end look simple fact

I can go from psalm 33 1 to the end Consistently in context and drive my beliefs from it.

The Molinist cannot and he knows it So that what's the only thing you can do? Well, nobody can

It's under determinative That means there is no passage anywhere in the

Bible that is determined enough to tell us Molinism So all you do is say all the rest of the

Bible is under determinative to refute it and we win That's what we're up against, you know again

There you go. Okay switching gears Switching gears.

All right Story time with uncle Jimmy here This isn't too long.

Something tells me I'm not gonna get as far today as I Wanted to but we'll do our best

Basil of Caesarea is one of the great Cappadocian fathers. He is post -Nicaea. So in other words all is important 325

AD is a Dividing line not to use the name of the show in an appropriate way.

It is a dividing line in church history Pre -Nicene post -Nicene that's just standard

Historical terminology it is a watershed period because it's the first in Hindsight ecumenical council nobody at the time thought that that's what it was people at the time did realize it was extremely unusual because the

Roman Empire called it and This was only 12 years after the end of persecution.

So that was a pretty quick turnaround and And so people recognize that but its decision in regards to Christ being homoousius with the father was disputed for 40 50 years afterwards and So it wasn't like oh, there's been an ecumenical council.

Everybody needs to believe it But it's still an absolutely key point in history. You need to know when it was 325 and So Basel comes after this point of time.

So we're talking about in general in history the development of post -Nicene

Orthodoxy now Obviously depending on how you view things

Those who have a very high view of a Development of a kind of tradition

Will see this period as extremely important it's it's extremely important in The debates that were going on concerning.

Okay. Now that we've said Christ is this what does that mean about the Holy Spirit? What does that mean about the the person of Christ?

This is when you have the Christological controversies. This is when you have Conversations that lead to the definition of the hypostatic

Union and and Everything else because you've gotten a more foundational issue dealt with and now you're you're building on top of that and Obviously a

Protestant a consistent Protestant Has to Say well

Nicaea is important. We can be thankful for Nicaea but Nicaea is not canon scripture and this raises all the issues about the relationship of creeds confessions signs symbols and The authority of scripture and of course within Roman Catholicism.

That's a very it's different. It's understood in a very very different way since Written tradition scripture is

Joined with oral tradition and subsumed under a larger category of sacred tradition capital

S capital T Then this is what leads to the ability to have entire new dogmas defined 1400 years later after this time period

That have the same authority as the resurrection of Jesus or even the Trinity itself so lots of really important topics come up here and No one should be claiming

Infallibility for The great Cappadocians or for Augustine or any of the people writing during this time period

They are important to understand historically in regards to the development of certain things but to Grant to them infallibility is to ignore the fact that they frequently were not exactly in line with one another either and Terminology differences exist and There's still a lot of it it results of it requires an incredible simplification of This time period to come up with any idea that there is just one understanding of everything now

Basil of Caesarea Wrote this epistle in answer to a question and You can

Find these easily online just like I said if you just put in Basel letter 234 you'll find two three four different versions of it just online

CCEL it's available in the Shaft the

Old Erdman used to be called the Erdman set now. It's a Hendrickson set the 38 volume set, but here is

That letter Do you worship what you know or what you do not know

If I answer I worship what I know They immediately reply the people he's arguing is

What is the essence of the object of worship Then if I confess that I'm ignorant of the essence, they turn to me again and say so you worship, you know not what

I Answered the word to know has many meanings we say that we know the greatness of God his power his wisdom is goodness his providence over us and The justness of his judgment, but not his very essence

The Question is therefore only put for the sake of dispute. Oh, really? I'm not quoting right now.

Someone would actually Introduce things into arguments that Were are only there for the sake of dispute even long long ago.

Yes, unfortunately Thankfully Basil never had to deal with Twitter. I Am convinced that the majority of the early church fathers

Would have Lost their minds had they ever had to do a deal with Twitter The question is therefore only put for the sake of dispute for he who denies

That he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God Because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which

I have enumerated now please know what

Basil's doing here and Note that there to this day

Exists a fundamental difference between East and West on this topic and on a number of topics and almost always when

I Deal with this issue. I am struck once again that we still struggle with terminological differences

Like we did back then even though we we know that they struggle with terminological differences then we continue to have them today we continue to struggle to create a vocabulary to describe that which is timeless and that's understandable and That might mean that in certain areas

Where you do not have clear biblical revelation There might be a need for Humility grace and patience maybe

But especially when talking about the East Thankfully and I and I I don't identify my dear brother because I don't want to get him in trouble and he knows exactly why

But I have a dear brother Who is expert in many things and Every every time

I think of this brother, I I smile and I have joy because He just brings joy to me when

I think about him We haven't been able to spend a whole lot of time together, but the times we have been pretty special anyway

He knows a lot about the East and so I am thankful to have someone that I can sort of Pop some questions off to and in fact, he's one that said well just read

Basil's 234th letter and give me a really good idea and he was right, of course, obviously But the

East does not make Does not hold

To the same concept of simplicity as the West in general there are You have to say in general in almost any point

The East while affirming obviously monotheism

Differentiates between the essence of God and his attributes or his powers or his energies whereas the

West Especially as formulated in a particularly

Strict fashion The West with Aquinas Moves toward a doctrine of simplicity that eventually in Aquinas results in the idea that the attributes of God in God are all the same thing and Cannot be differentiated.

They're only differentiated like you put light through a prism and So the light going in is purely white so in God all of his attributes are the same but through revelation they become distinguished to us and this is a major portion of The conflict and argument going on in reformed circles right now, or at least reformed

Baptist circles Regarding the doctrine of simplicity And so here is

Basil and he is saying For he who denies it that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God Because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes, which

I've enumerated But God he says is simple and whatever attribute of him you have reckoned as knowable is of his essence but the absurdities

Involved in this sophism are innumerable now,

I I just just stopped just to point something out there are young men, especially these days who seem to believe that their understanding mediated through Aquinas and through modern writers has no

Objectional element to it and they believe that this is apostolic.

This has always been the view of the church If you have made that statement and you have not read this maybe you missed something

Maybe this wasn't a point of discussion a hundred years earlier

Possibly that's why maybe you should be a little slower to Get out your cancel gun and start identifying people as heterodox or no longer worthy of of Being followed

Before you do that, you might want to consider some of these things But I repeat the sentence but the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable what's the sophism

But God he says is simple and whatever attribute of him you have reckoned as knowable is of his essence

When all these high attributes have been enumerated are they all the names of one essence?

and Is there the same mutual force in his awfulness and his loving -kindness his justice and his creative power?

His providence and his foreknowledge and his bestowal of rewards and punishments his majesty and his providence in Mentioning any one of these do we declare his essence if they say yes

Let them not ask if we know the essence of God But that let them inquire of us whether we know

God to be awful or just or merciful These we confess that we know

If they say that essence is something distinct Let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity

For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated

The operations are various and the essence simple But we say that we know our

God from his operations But do not undertake to approach near to his essence his operations come down to us, but his essence remains beyond our reach now

If you read the Turreton quote that I gave a few weeks ago How does he deal with this at intra ad extra

Internally to God all of his attributes are one ad extra in His revelation in his dealings with man.

They are easily distinguished from one another which would mean that if It is

God's intention to make himself known truly to his people Then what he is revealing truly to his people is

Different than that which is true within himself, right?

Just as long as you're comfortable with that because see I'm not saying you guys are heterodox You're the one saying

I am Okay, let's keep that in mind But it is replied if you are ignorant of the essence

You are ignorant of himself Retort if you say that, you know his essence You are ignorant of himself a man who has been bitten by a mad dog and sees a dog in a dish does not really

See any more than is seen by people in good health He is to be pitied because he thinks he sees what he does not see do not then admire him for his announcement

But pity him for his insanity Recognize that the voice is the voice of mockers when they say if you are ignorant of the essence of God you worship what you

Do not know. I do know that he exists what his essence is. I look at as beyond intelligence

How then am I saved through faith? It is faith sufficient to know that God exists without knowing what he is and he is reward of them that seek him

Hebrews 11 6 Now just by the way, that's just an insertion of the biblical reference

Nobody back then had divided Hebrews up into 11 chapters with the sixth verse, but So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of his

Incomprehensibility and the object of our worship is not that of which we come Comprehend the essence but of which we comprehend that the essence exists and the following counter question may also be put to them

No man has seen God anytime. The only begotten which is in bosom. He has declared him Interesting that he only has the only begotten that's

John 1 18 that's text will variant so it's interesting that in this fairly early relatively early

Patristic citation is just monogamous not monogamous. We also monogamous theos and I think

I'll top my head. I think there there are some manuscripts that only have monogamous I'd have to I'd have to double -check that but I'm not looking at the moment.

So anyway What of the father did the only begotten Son declare his essence or his power if His power we know so much as he declared to us if his essence tell me where he said that his essence

Was the being unbegotten When did Abraham worship was it not when he believed and when did he believe was it not when he was called

Where in this place is there any testimony in Scripture to Abraham's comprehending? When did the disciples worship him was it not when they saw

Creation subject to him. It was from the obedience of sea and winds to him that they recognized his

Godhead Therefore the knowledge came from the operations and the worship from the knowledge

Do you believe that I'm able to do this? I believe Lord and he worshipped him So worship follows faith and faith is confirmed by power

But if you say it the believer also knows he knows from what he believes and vice versa

He believes from what he knows We know God from his power. We therefore believe in him who is known and we worship him who is believed in point is kids

This is not the first time in history that there have been

Arguments and disagreements over how far outside the range of the direct light of Scripture You can go in coming to conclusions

Concerning that which is beyond our comprehension That which is beyond We there are so many places in Scripture Where we are given the opportunity to see and hear things that man should

Talk about grace beyond the veil of eternity drawing aside

The veil so that we might see things that we would never know otherwise, but we're depend upon Scripture for that, but it only goes so far and so when we take biblical truths of monotheism and eternality and creatorship and power and We put them together as long as they are biblical statements well

That's a an appropriate Analysis based upon Revelation, but how far can you go?

Until you have completely gotten outside the range of the light provided by Scripture and Once you get out into the woods

Be very very slow To Start saying to somebody else who's not following this the same path as you that they are now heterodox or even heretical

When you're far outside the light of Scripture, I mean you can chuck basil if you want suppose, but you do not have a unanimous tradition quote -unquote to make appeal to and we as Protestants shouldn't be making appeal to that tradition in the first place read them understand them, of course

Critically analyze them in the light of Scripture. I thought that's how we did things.

I thought that's how we did things however Let me this is

Incredibly long Let me see here Had some more of these

I guess I didn't pull them up. I want to just express some concern and this is a in -house concern this is for my

If they would even call themselves any longer my form if my fellow Reformed Baptist believers

I have a feeling for many of them. I have already had my card revoked and They're sort of hoping

I will come up with some other name or something like that in the future But I have some real concerns about How things have changed over the past 10 -15 years when

I did I was doing some digging around and Looking at sources

I was reading a article and In fact, here's the article here.

This is an article by Craig a

Carter Research professor of theology at Tyndale University in Toronto and An individual who's written a number of Important books and He wrote an article just recently by the title of the decline of Nicene Orthodoxy the decline of Nicene Orthodoxy and He makes reference to For example,

I'm quoting from the article Difficulties in articulating an Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity are not limited to Baptist and poorly worded megachurch websites talking about the

Ed Litton debacle remember during the convention where During the the voting it was discovered that Ed Litton had an a completely unorthodox tritheistic

Really bad definition of the doctrine of God on his website. Remember? Oh, hello Staring at this one.

That's all right um That's what he's talking about here.

So in his widely discussed 2017 book all that is in God James e dollars all

Surveys the many unorthodox claims inconsistencies and historically illiterate statements in today's expositions of the doctrine of God Traditional understandings of God have been caricatured for the sake of replacing them with notions of a changing temporal deity whose oneness is merely social dulles all terms this phenomenon

Excuse me theistic mutualism By what she means that God changes because the actions of creatures it represents a clear departure from a historically

Orthodox doctrine of God Well, yes

All that is in God does use that terminology and I think a number of times unfairly to be perfectly honest with you

But So this is what dr. Carter is referring to and so I'm reading through and he talks about his own

Path he's talking of course about Wayne Grudem being one of the primary people Bruce Ware Obviously always in the crosshairs of folks as well

But then he starts talking about how he came to understand Where there were problems with all these things and So he starts talking about some of the books that that he read and then we come to this one

It was at this point that another book shaped my thinking

Matthew Levering's scripture and metaphysics Aquinas and the renewal of Trinitarian theology

Levering argues that we should reject the alleged opposition between scriptural and metaphysical modes of reflection

While at the same time recognizing they must not be conflated he presents theology as contemplation of the

Holy Trinity Including contemplation of the metaphysical attributes and intra

Trinitarian processions This helped me see why the 20th century so -called revival of Trinitarian theology

Often attributed the influence of BART amongst others Was not a revival of Nicene Trinitarianism Levering's analysis confirmed

Ayers damning accusation quote in Many ways the argument is not that modern

Trinitarianism has engaged with pro -Nicene theology badly but that it has barely engaged with it at all as A result the legacy of Nicaea remains paradoxically the unnoticed ghost at the modern

Trinitarian feast Levering also helped me see that the first 43 questions of The Summa Theologica Aquinas are a brilliant summary of the thought of the fathers by simultaneously integrating and correcting

Aristotelian philosophy Thomas was doing something like what Augustine had done with Neoplatonic thought

Thomas's goal like that of the fathers was the critical appropriation of Greek philosophy under the authority of biblical revelation

The Hellenization thesis was disproved the scripturalized theory is more accurate.

So I started doing some looking around and I discovered that Matthew Levering is being quoted by everybody these days

And when I mean everybody I mean Everybody in the leadership of the Reformed Baptist movement

It's quoted by Dulles all rich Marcellus has quoted him Carter's quoting him everywhere.

I looked there's Matthew Levering. There's Matthew Levering. There's Matthew Levering. So I Want to know who

Matthew Levering is and somebody with a lot of time on their hands posted a review of one of the

Scripture metaphysics quiescent renewal of Trinitarian theology On Amazon, I mean, it's a small book.

I'm not sure how many I mean it is huge But but I want you to hear

Some of what this says for some years now a number of biblical scholars and theologians have been calling for a reappraisal the state of biblical exegesis and This is the project to which

Matthew Levering makes an important contribution Levering conceives of a process of biblical exegesis Founded on a commitment to reading sacred his history as a quote metaphysical and Christological pneumatological participation in God end quote

For Levering such a revaluation requires a radical reconsideration of the nature of history itself from the standpoint of Christian belief

What then is history? Given that the Christian conception of divine action upon and in the created order and the life of man is fundamentally true to reality

Levering advocates for a recovery of medieval patristic exegetical commitments grounded in a participatory metaphysics

Which must then be synthesized with modern historical critical tools To yield an exegetical method that can best represent classical

Christian theological tradition While providing a more complete reading of Scripture founded on a more faithful treatment of the literal sense

While Levering praises the precision of contemporary historical critical tools He criticizes the one -sided readings issuing from a historical critical method

Which truncates the theological tradition while importing hidden philosophical assumptions of its own

Assumptions that are themselves not only fundamentally antithetical to a faithful reading I'm sorry faithful rendering of the literal sense of Scripture and the mainstream of Christian tradition

But also imminently open to philosophical critique That's just the first paragraph so I do a little more digging around and Obviously, Dr.

Levering is a brilliant scholar and I learned

Long long ago in seminary to learn from people very different than myself.

I had to read entire commentaries on books of Scripture By people far far far off to my left and I learned to Appreciate and learn and See when facts are being provided that probably wouldn't be provided by more conservative

Commentators, but to critically recognize

When the person I'm reading begins with presuppositions That are fundamentally opposed to direct divine revelation and to therefore filter out the influence of those false assumptions in the conclusions that this scholar arrives at Dr.

Levering is a practicing Roman Catholic he teaches in Roman Catholic institutions he believes in Roman Catholic theology and soteriology.

He is conservative in the sense that See he can't he the the real problem being a believing

Roman Catholic scholar today is that since last century and certainly since Vatican II You simply have to accept the abiding validity of for example, the historical critical methodology of doing exegesis

Which is completely contrary to how the bishops of Rome did exegesis in the past, but I'll leave that to the

Roman Catholics to figure out how to put all that together You can't avoid it the the poison of Naturalistic Skepticism and and leftist liberalism was injected not into the bloodstream of the

Roman Catholic Church, but into the heart of the Roman Catholic Church During the period of Vatican II and you can't you can't just get rid of it and Pope Francis is the result of it and I think if he resigns he dies, whatever you're only gonna see

The continuation of that It seems to me

Ratzinger was sort of the last of a dying breed at that point Anyway So he has to Appreciate the historical critical

Exegetical methodology because that's what Rome depends upon the the papal biblical

Commission everybody on it is Functioning on that basis.

He can't get away from it. And so what he's saying is well, yeah, we have to take that into consideration but There's more

Why don't we go back and why don't we think like Aquinas thought why don't we think like they thought back during the medieval period and Let's let's come up with some conclusions that and let's sort of try to fill in some of the gaps now

For Roman Catholics and people within the Roman Catholic faith Okay, there you go, but here's the problem

I Naive me naive silly me. I Thought we didn't need this stuff.

I Mean Reformed Baptist again in in -house discussion I Thought that we had a very robust Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture.

I thought I thought solo scriptura was not just something you talked about toward the end of October But that it was a recognition that God has given to us everything we need for life and Godliness and I thought that we recognized that in the

Reformation there was such a Gracious God -given

Explosion of light post tenebrous looks After darkness light now, we're being told

No, we need we just didn't see the light that existed then now we can profit from it and I I look at this and I I think of Calvin's discussions of the sufficiency of Scripture and the depth that you can go in Reflecting upon actual divine revelation in these areas without getting into all the external metaphysical speculations and I go why is why are all my friends quoting from Matthew Levering?

all of a sudden I I don't remember anybody doing this in the 1990s

The early 2000s. I don't I don't remember it one of my fears.

I'll be honest with you. I've said many times Reformed Baptists read

Presbyterians we read their covenantal literature We understand it

Presbyterians don't read our stuff They don't they don't I've hardly ever met a

Presbyterian that had seriously dealt with any kind of reformed Baptist writings on covenant theology nothing they they just don't they just don't think we have anything worthwhile to say and Instead of just accepting that as reality and loving them and moving on and being satisfied

With what we believe I think my fear is That there are a lot of guys that are tired of being the redheaded stepchild

The yeah, yeah get the present, you know, the Presbyterian Pat I've talked about but yeah, you'll you'll get it someday and I my concern is

That that could result in a willingness To want to be seen as Deeply reflective

Upon Christian tradition, it's a nice term But you see

I have Sat with right through that wall right there.

I sat with a Presbyterian minister Who was going to Rome and Dealt with issues regarding solo scriptura with him and he went and Greatly damaged, you know his church

He eventually ended up I think with a I don't know what's happened to him since then but that podcast of drunken pastors or something like that where you know, they would drink during the show until they're tipsy at the end and all the rest that stuff it was just a public explosion just sad to watch but I met with the guy and he's not the only one that I've met with over the years and I just I look at all this and I go why are we doing this?

What What's missing that we actually need to be talking about The conclusions of people who do not believe that scripture is

Either materially or formally sufficient to function the way our own confession says its function so we can be more confessional what

What happened? I? Don't get it. I I just don't get it

I don't see where it's coming from and so look it up yourself

Look at look at your look at your text you say well, it's just a genetic fallacy. No, I'm simply asking the question

Why are these kinds of? resources Having the influence amongst reformed

Baptists that they are. I don't understand it. I Don't get it.

I Maybe just because I'm just as dull as they come But maybe not Maybe not.

I don't know Um I'm not gonna have I don't know how

I'm gonna put all this together. I still have a bunch of stuff here, but uh I do have

Yes, sir Just in some of the interactions I've had with some of these fellas over the last few years

The thought is the flip side of how you stated it and that is when did the scripture become insufficient

Well, they're not saying it is That's the thought that comes to my mind is when you keep having to reach outside for your answers

Well, we don't want to be bellicose, you know And that's where I go. When did the scriptures become insufficient because it says they are sufficient

But you know, that's just me being a simple thing I guess The I'm gonna have to get to this one later,

I guess but I Pointed to some really excellent webcasts from the reform forum a brother on Facebook was kind enough to Refer me to them just a few days ago, and I was

Really blessed by getting to hear other people's addressing similar topics but a

Some people in my own group have decided that I am heterodox on the doctrine of God and We'll look at more that later on and Yet as I listened to two of the leading reform scholars of our day

Who teach on the subject of God? There were sections where I'm just Grinning Because I'm going well,

I I guess if anything I have said and of course

They like to focus solely upon a cross -examination with a one this guy in a debate rather than published stuff, which is really sad

It tells you the depth of their argumentation, but it's still really sad But there were things that were being said in both of these programs that I'm like One of them is a discussion with dr.

Oliphant from Westminster on the aseity of the Sun now a

Lot of these conversations have been prompted by what the explosion took place in early 2016 about eternal subordination of the

Sun eternal functional subordination other formulations that were under discussion at that particular point in time and this was a

Conversation that was before that this first one. I want to play the second one was as a result of it but back in 2016

I Sort of felt like I was On the outside of things because as I'm listening to the argumentation going on.

I'm going well, you know the thing that I found most vitally important that seems to be missing in so much of the modern

Trinitarian conversation is The reality that and Here I am in agreement with Calvin is

That the Sun is Altaf a us God of himself in Later post

Nicene Trinitarian theological tradition the

Sun is Considered to possess aseity he exists of himself but that comes by extension from the father and Calvin said no if the

Sun is a say He is without modification qualification

Anything like that and this is picked up by a lot of modern Reform writers as well, thankfully

So here is a just a brief clip and I will try to remember to Link to these two programs when

I put the blog post together here in a few minutes So you can listen to yourself because I would highly recommend that you do so But here is

Dr. Oliphant again the whole program. This is just one portion of it.

But this is where he is Talking a little bit about Thomas and Thomas's philosophy and And I agree with him here, okay, so Oops.

Okay. This is I thought this could be at 1 .8. It's like that's not gonna sound good At normal speed.

Here's what dr. Oliphant had to say. Oh Drat It would be helpful if I sent it to the right place apologies sound and That one, okay, hopefully that's the right one.

Let's try it again No, that's not it either

Sorry about that. I hate when this happens Well, that's supposed to be it, huh never had this happen before Should have tested it beforehand not good

What what all right, it may be the program doesn't like it.

Let me let me try something over here real quick now The program will need to be rebooted before it will allow that output that's not good at all

I don't like when programs do things like this So MacBook Pro speakers and we'll see if we can make this work remember to test that In distinction from God the

Father and God the Spirit and so this is intrinsic to his identity from all eternity

And just in light of that I have no idea what the scripture teaches that he wills

Hypostatically distinctly as a as a distinctive agent he wills to submit and obey and those two texts are

John 17 3 and Philippians 2 6 I'll just make two brief comments in John 17 3 the son says father

I have finished or completed the work you gave me to do and in the context of that It is the glory that the son had with the father from the beginning of time from before the foundation of the world from before At the beginning of time if we can speak that way

That is the context in terms of which the work was given him It is an eternal commission and in Philippians 2 6

The although the son was the form of God and that is although he was equal with God from all eternity in his equality with God as The form of God he did not consider that equality as a thing to be selfishly retained

Now that gives you access Into the hypostatic consciousness of the eternal

Son of God in his equality with God I mean this text takes you into the unity of the divine essence and affirms hypostatic consciousness a distinction of consciousness within the unity of the

Godhead being equal with God He as a distinct hypothesis

Hypothesis did not consider that equality as a thing to be selfishly retained, but did what? freely and voluntarily

Emptied himself verse 7 humbled himself verse 8 became obedient to death on a cross and Herman Ritter boss puts it this way and Paul I can forget the page number, but he says

He says the disposition of obedience that you see exercised in time is

Predicated here of the eternal son in his equality with God so that that Disposition to obey is freely voluntarily undertaken it is not a function of some kind of Intrinsic ontological authority structure no such thing exists within the

Godhead, but notice it what it does it it pinpoints that you have

Try consciousness within the unity of the divine essence and these two texts take us

I Think very very deeply into this issue and provide some clarity that I don't think standard more

Thomistic Uniconsciousness functionally modalistic views of the Trinity. They just can't account for this sort of thing

Do you think Lane? Thank you for the reminder that these things need to be? Theology I closed the program

I Have no earthly idea How that came this is this is a miracle taking place

Clearly, that's the section the Lord wanted played and it got played and then and It's still playing that's and there there is no program open

That should be playing anything to you right now at all fascinating Absolutely fascinating keep it down That was

Lane Tipton also from Westminster Seminary by the way in Philadelphia and So I didn't get to play what

The comments about Thomistic philosophy, but you'll notice Lane Tipton did make reference to Thomistic philosophy while discussing the divine persons

The whole reason that I wanted to play those clips however in the world that happened

What what? Yeah, I'm he's he's distracting me in the other room

The reason I wanted to play those obviously was to ask are these men heterodox because they're talking about the

Pactam salutis the eternal covenant redemption and the free voluntary act

Of the divine persons is there such thing as free voluntary acts of divine persons

Are we allowed to speak of these things? Are we allowed to affirm that the

Son is Altaf a us That he does not derive his participation in the being of God from the father

But that he is his a saiyyati is Without qualification these men talk about the differences within orthodoxy

But I'm hearing a lot of our people deciding that they Get to define what the orthodox now and if you don't agree with their very narrow take on things

Well so much for you Hmm it was it was refreshing to get to listen to that level of discussion

But always with the this is all within the bounds of orthodoxy concept that was very very

So I apologize for that. I'm I'm Literally sitting here looking going.

No there is not a single program open It's and rich says it's still going that's that is absolutely fascinating There is a single program open that is should be playing any audio whatsoever, so I Do remember however that particular program audio notetaker

That was when we when I first started using that that was a Windows program And it was eventually sort of ported into Mac.

It's always been a little bit Unfriendly toward Mac and evidently that's that just what happened right there

So apologize we were gonna be a little more Organized with that one, but mess it up Sorry about that technical issues are that way all right, so that's a lot on Christmas Eve Eve.

I would imagine But we'll get back to it on the on the far side once again,

I hope you and your family have a Wonderful time together if you have that opportunity if not

If you're feeling rather lonely these times. I hope you're in a good church where You'll be able to still have fellowship with folks, and if that's not the case

May the scriptures and the Spirit of God be your consolation and your joy at this time as well

And don't let the world get you down in that way. Thanks for listening to the program today Lord well