Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Comments are turned off for this media
That's how they did it in the olden days. You're just sort of keeping the old arts alive. Use a pen and you're not writing on an iPad yet or anything like that. That's not going to happen soon? Okay. That's going to happen when Fry starts preaching from an iPad?
Yes. Is it possible? Could we someday see Pastor Fry preaching from an iPad? Anyone want to take a look? Even though I keep showing them mine and I've got these massive huge fonts and I just keep getting them bigger and bigger as time goes by.
You can't buy anything with fonts that big. You honestly can't. We shouldn't be too confident that maybe someday I'll get that phone call. Okay, so on the next page. We are in Stolen John chapter 12. And we better get to it before we get into any more trouble than we're already going to be in.
Yes, yes, yes. We are being recorded. This is true. They can't hear you as well as they can hear me on the recording. Boy, last week we could spread out and go like this and not touch our neighbor. And this week we're all filled up.
I guess that's what happens when school starts again. But who got the idea of starting school in August anyways? I mean, seriously. Am I so old, but I seriously remember school starting after Labor Day, right?
What? I know I someone explains me what the thinking is. I found out that they pay on the first hundred days of when a student's in class. And so if you start your school early, then you get more pay than if you start your later.
And so I don't care school. That's not a stumber break. If you're in school in Arizona in August, I think that's cruel and unusual punishment. I mean, can you imagine trying to go across the monkey bars in August in Phoenix?
I mean, that's just that's just all wrong. That's well, anyway, that has nothing to do with John Chapter 12. It just might explain why we have a rather full house this this week in comparison to last week.
So but anyways, we've been doing a synoptic study, but every once in a while we get out of the synoptic study and throw John in just to keep up with things. So I guess when we get done, we'll be able to say we covered all the Gospels at the same time or something along those lines.
But we are looking at a particularly difficult text in the sense that. We have the end of Jesus's public ministry, and we were looking at right at the end of the class a few weeks ago before I had two Sundays when I was preaching that you have this statement in verse 37, but though he had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in him.
This is to fill the word of Isaiah, which he spoke. Who has believed our report? Who has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For this reason, they could not believe. Isaiah said again, he has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart so they would not see with their eyes, perceive with their heart and be converted and I heal them.
These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory, he spoke of him. And the first thing we were looking at was this discussion of judicial hardening. That is going on here and we had finished up with asking the common question and that is, well, isn't this contradictory to reformed belief that it seems to indicate they have the ability to do something you say that they don't have?
And I pointed out that, for example, when God casts Adam and Eve out of the garden, he places an angel to guard the way to the tree of life, lest man reach forth his hand and take of the tree of life.
Now, what are these things referring to? Are they contradictory to the statements of scripture that, well, men love their sin? Men prefer darkness to light. Jesus taught that when you preach truth, that brings light.
Men flee. They flee to the darkness. They love their sin, etc., etc., etc. Is it that only some men love their sin but other men love their, well, don't really love their sin and so they might do what's right separate from God's grace?
Is the fact that there is judicial hardening and evidence of the capacity of man so that you end up with contradiction in scripture, in essence, is the issue? And I know that, for example, I received a bunch of contacts this week.
A fairly well-known Arminian by the name of Jerry Walls posted some videos, The Real Problem with Calvinism, and I started looking at it. His book, he co-authored a book, I forget how many years ago now it was, titled Why I'm Not a Calvinist.
And I think the same time some other folks put out a book, Why I'm Not an Arminian or something like that, but from the same publisher type thing, and that happens fairly frequently. And he and another guy debated, I know Bruce Ware and I think Tom Schreiner from Southern Baptist Seminary on that subject.
And by the way, I just mentioned Tom Schreiner's wife was riding her bicycle to the grocery store on Friday, I think, and they don't know what happened but they found her by the side of the road with broken bones and they had to do emergency surgery to remove a blood clot in her brain.
And the next few days are going to be really, really touch and go for her. So, I just want to pray for Tom Schreiner's wife. He's a pretty well-known scholar there at Southern Baptist Seminary and a good man.
So, they don't know what happened. I can guess personally. Something tells me we got a hit and run there, but she may never remember and no one saw it. So, they might get away with it, which is a sad thing.
Anyway, back to the point, this Jerry Walls, as he started his video on what the real issue is, the heart of the real issue with Calvinism, I was, it's nothing new, I've been doing this for a while now, but as he's explaining the real problem of Calvinism, it has to do with their view of man.
And I just immediately go, there's the problem. That's where Arminianism starts with. It starts with man. It's starting with God. And every time, you know, they believe in this compatibilism thing and we believe in genuine freedom.
And I go, you're one step down the road. You've already taken one step farther down the road without answering the real question, and that is, what about God? And what about his freedom? And what about his knowledge?
How does God know the future? Well, he just does. Okay, that doesn't really answer the question. How does God know the future? Is it because the future is formed by his decree, or is there some point in time in the past, logically or physically, where God took in knowledge of what was going to happen?
Did God take the big cosmic dice and go, come on, say guys, and hey, it rolls, I win, glorify me. Is that what creation is all about? Is that God took a chance, he throws creation out there, and then he immediately takes in knowledge or anything happens, and hey, I won at the end, glorify me.
As if there's no decree, it's just, it was just a chance thing that God did. Or maybe it was, I don't like that one, wipe it out. Just keep going until, ah, there's the one I wanted. Or like a Molinus, who say God can have this special knowledge, it's not based upon his decree, it's a special knowledge where he knows what anyone would do in any given circumstance before he decrees to make them.
And you go, so who, you know, I know that when I do something, it's the result of all sorts of different factors, my experience, and what I've experienced in the presence of others, and how I'm made up, and that all has to do with God's decree.
So how could God know what I was going to do before he decreed to make me? I mean, it's just, there's so many problems that those becoming incredibly popular. There's a book by a guy named Keithley, or Heathley, that is really making the rounds amongst Southern Baptist churches, and it's all based on this, well, God just knows these things, and that's how we can have free will, and yet God's still sovereign, and basically what God does, he runs all the numbers, he's a big, huge, cosmic number machine, and he runs all these possible universes, and he chooses the best one.
Now, what the best one is, it's hard to say, there are some Mullinists that say, well, there are no possible universes in which everybody could be saved. So God could not save everyone if he wanted to.
It's just, it's beyond his power. And in fact, the most famous Mullinist in the United States today, William Lane Craig, said, God's got to deal with the cards he's been dealt. It's a direct quote. It's a direct quote.
God's got to deal with the cards he's been dealt. To which I go, excuse me, could we talk about the dealer for a moment, please? I just, I mean, if I've been dealt cards, there's this, you know, one obvious question there, who's the dealer, you know?
And if God's the one receiving the cards, who's the dealer? Are we the dealer? No, there's this cosmic force out there that determines what all these universes could look like. And so his idea is that God chose the universe where he had the maximum number of people saved, and he even comes up with the idea that everyone who is lost would have been lost in any other universe.
So in other words, everyone who's lost could not have been saved in the first place. God could never have saved anyone who was lost. That's how it works out. Well, no, there's not, because it's not God's choice.
It's not that God chooses to save X, Y, or Z. It's that he's choosing, I want to save the most possible, and the most I can do is this. I don't get to determine who's in that group. The dealer, whoever the dealer is.
I think we should, I think Molinists, if they're honest, should start a worship the dealer cult, you know, and proclaiming the dealer or something like that. But there's no personal election there. The only election in Molinism is electing to save the maximum number possible.
But it's a nameless, faceless group as far as he doesn't get to choose. Yes, sir. Right, that's what I mean. God's only choice is whether to create or not to create. Well, there's a second choice, and then what criteria he's going to use.
In other words, you know, he could have chosen to not save the maximum number. Maybe he could have chosen another universe where those who are saved are particularly pleasing to him, or they all have blonde hair, or something like that.
I mean, seriously, I mean, it all depends on what criteria he comes up with. And you're probably sitting there going, where does any of this come from scripture? Well, it doesn't. Molinists try to point to, you know, Jesus' statement that, Tyre and Sidon, if they had seen the things that the cities in Jesus' day had seen, then they would have repented in sackcloth and ashes.
That's middle knowledge. Or when David asked God, if Saul comes, will the men of the city turn me over to them? And God goes, yeah, they will. So he leaves. None of that has anything to do with middle knowledge, because both those have to do with knowledge of the hearts and minds of individuals who are already alive, who are already part of God's creative decree.
I wasn't intending to go into this. I just mentioned it, and it's just so popular these days that hopefully it is something you're familiar with. If you want to go further into this, go to my YouTube channel.
And a couple years ago, back in 2010, I think, I went over to Biola, to a Reformed Baptist church, a Trinity Reformed Baptist church right off the campus of Biola, because William Lane Craig teaches there.
And I did a two-part lecture on Romans 9 and then the errors of William Lane Craig and the concept of Molinism. And it's all available there on YouTube if you want to go more into that. But anyways, it's extremely popular these days.
And if someone starts talking about, well, in the universe that God actuated, you might go, ah, okay, I know where you're coming from. Were you just playing with the mustache? No, no, it's been around for a long, long time.
Molinism was developed by Louis de Molina, who was a Jesuit scholar who was responding to the head of the Jesuits, Ignatius Loyola's command, that his men find a way to undercut Reformed preaching. And so it's initially a Roman Catholic mechanism, but they've abandoned it.
Rome has pretty much abandoned it. It's now pretty much championed all by Protestants, but by obviously anti-Reformed Protestants. And like I said, it's a, well, uh, February of this year, uh, Calvary Community Church, Freeway, you know, the big signs and like that, had a big old Saturday thing.
All it was, was Molinism. Why we believe in Molinism and what Molinism is and that and free grace, uh, the anti-lordship stuff, why we don't believe in lordship salvation, blah, blah, blah, blah. They coalesced them as if they were somehow the same thing, which was really strange.
But, um, yeah, that was, so it's, like I said, it's all over the place. It's very, very, very popular. Anyway, um, all of this coming back to our, our text dealing with, uh, the judicial hardening of, of God.
And if man is, is already, if, if, how do we put this together? Well, with John. I mean, John's the one who's already reported for us the words of Jesus, that men love darkness rather than light. And Paul tells us in Romans chapter one, that there is none that seeks after God.
So why would there have to be judicial hardening of anyone? Um, or is really the, the question is not, well, every man has the ability to believe in of himself, but that this is a particular act of hardening specifically aimed at the very people who possessed the very word of God.
And I think that's where we need to focus our attention. Uh, both the Isaiah 53 text, which is quoted in John 12, 38, and the Isaiah six text, which is, I quoted in verse 40 of John chapter 12, uh, both are specifically having to do with the Jewish people.
And they are the very people who claimed knowledge. They actually did not possess. They claimed to know God, but they did not. They possessed the word of God. They, they, um, they like Adam and Eve were within hand's reach of the tree of life.
Uh, but they proved themselves not only unworthy, they, they proved themselves to be hypocrites in their making a claim that they do not have the hardest and harshest language in all the new Testament is reserved for religious hypocrites who have the most light and yet abuse that light most fully.
And so these individuals who claimed to see are the ones who are blinded. Uh, that is where the great, uh, judgment of God comes is not against people who make no claim to site, but those who do and yet, um, squint, close their eyes most harshly against, against the light that is theirs.
And so there is a judgment that comes upon the very people that God has revealed himself to most clearly. We know of course, that there is also that remnant, um, you know, the, the, the 7 ,000 who've not bowed the knee to bail, which we talked about only a few weeks ago.
Um, but here Jesus is closing off his, his ministry and that, and then notice, and I, I'm not skipping over this, but I think that that is clearly the indication of the text because of verse 42, nevertheless, many, even the rulers believed in him, but because the Pharisees, they were not confessing him for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.
Here's a, here's a picture of this kind of person because, uh, once again, uh, we have a form of the word believed in verse 42 Episcopal. Um, now I was, I was going to ask our, our Greek speaking brother, has the modern language maintained the distinction between the aorist and, and the present tense that existed in the Koine?
Because you'll notice that Epistus on there has the, the, the Sigma Alpha. Uh, does, does the modern Greek likewise communicate the difference between a, a point action or a undefined action versus the ongoing action of the present tense?
Yes. What was it? What ongoing action would there be? Does that still abide in the modern Greek? Well, I know that in the Koine, in the original language, in the gospel of John, you will note that when normally, when John refers to saving faith, he uses a form of the word, either in the participial form Piscuon, um, or using the present tense that refers to ongoing faith.
When, for example, in John chapter two, there were people who saw Jesus' miracles and they believed in him, but Jesus was not. It's literally believing himself to them. We translate in trusting himself, but it's the same root.
John uses the aorist. Now the aorist in the Koine was the simplest form of action. It's normally a past action. It's normally just a point action. It's making no statement about its continuation, ongoing nature, present results.
It's just the most basic way of saying something happened in the past. And when he does that, that is all, that is the indication in John that it is not a true saving faith because in John chapter two, when it's used, Jesus does not entrust himself to those men.
In John chapter eight, when men believe in Jesus because they hear his words, by the end of the chapter, they're picking up stones to stone him. And here you have the same thing. That is, you had individuals who, um, even many, even of the rulers believed in him, but because the Pharisees, they were not confessing him for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue.
Why? Where was their love? What kind of, we have a description here of what true saving faith is all about. If you want, if you want to start collecting passages in the Bible to describe what true saving faith is, here's one that describes what it isn't.
They loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God. And so they have a surface level, one time, yeah, I think this might be the guy type faith. That's not the kind of faith that described in John chapter six.
The one believing in me, ongoing, is coming to me. The one coming to me, that's present tense as well. Believing. Ongoing, present tense. Right. Right. So, so you, you pronounce an omega with a V sound then.
How did you say, how, how would you say the participle? That's interesting. So, well, we'll get into that some other time. Anyways, everyone's going, just keep going. Okay, thank you very much. Anyway, the point is that this, here you have the illustration, someone who's, think about it, they've got the scriptures, they're in the presence of Jesus.
They even are convinced, you know, I think this is the one. But there's no change of heart because they continue to love the approval of men rather than the approval of God. Repentance and faith go together.
That's one of the great dangers of the anti-lordship stuff that makes repentance some, maybe, maybe not. We highly recommend it, but it's, it's, it's not really a part of, of God's act of regeneration.
Here you see what that, that leads to. And it's, it was interesting because I listened to that seminar from up there and listened to most of it anyways. And this was one of the texts they pointed to as evidence that you can be saved, but still love the approval of men rather than God and not even confess Jesus.
And that then has led to a lot of the corruption of missions organizations around the world. A lot of the missions organizations that deal with the Islamic world today have bought into the, the insider or secret Christian movement where they, they, they say, you can be like these folks.
You can be like these folks. Don't confess Christ because we know what's going to result. We know what the result of that is. You don't confess Christ. You stay in the Muslim context. You continue going to the mosque.
You say the prayers, but when you say your prayers internally, you say them to Jesus. So you're still fasting Ramadan and you still go to the mosque. You don't tell anybody that you're following Jesus, but you do so secretly.
And the idea is, well, it worked for these guys. Why not? Why not for folks today is the idea. And of course, believing missionaries who have risked their lives for decades in these lands are pulling their hair out that this kind of stuff is going out there.
And now they've got something more. They've got to fight. I don't have to just fight the Muslims anymore. Now I got to fight the Christians that are coming in. They're telling people you can be a secret disciple of Jesus.
You don't have to confess him because of something like this and just missing the meaning of this particular text. So that I think illustrates what we're talking about above. But oh, yes, I would say that both faith and repentance are the works of the spirit of God.
And since the spirit of God is the one who births true faith, the spirit of God will also birth true repentance. And to separate them the way they do is to turn from their perspective. Repentance is a work, and therefore we are violating Sola Fide.
That is not what any of the reformers ever taught. And they accused it was amazing. I actually listened. I wasn't expecting to go this direction, but we can go. I listened. The worst presentation at this conference was done by the most scholarly person.
It was interesting. The less trained the speaker was, the less objectionable their perspective was. And the more trained they were, the worse it was. And there is a professor at Phoenix Seminary who is well known for being an opponent of reformed theology and a proponent of the quote-unquote free grace perspective, which is neither free nor grace.
But anyway, he started off his presentation saying that Calvin tried to chummy up with Rome when he was writing his antidote to the Council of Trent. He's the one who came up with the phrase, we are saved by faith alone, but it's a faith that's never alone.
We've all heard that one. It's a pretty well-known statement going back to James chapter 2. And if you ever want to know how to identify one of these free gracers, ask them to try to interpret James chapter 2 for you, beginning in verse 14.
And after they've spun in their 47th concentric circle at high speed, you'll be able to figure out, ah, that must be a free gracer. Because they just can't deal with James 2, no matter how hard they try.
But anyway, uh, he's basically said that if you say that you're saved by faith alone, but that faith is never alone, that you're trying to chummy up with Rome. Now I, I can imagine what Calvin would have had done with him, uh, had he been in Geneva back then.
It wouldn't have been pretty, um, and it would have took a little while to put the flames out. But, um, uh, the reality is that's not what Calvin was trying to do in any way, shape, or form. And, uh, what he was emphasizing is that when we talk about saving faith, it is the result of the work of the Spirit of God in someone's heart.
And that really is how you can maintain the balance. The only way that I can see that you can maintain the balance between the, the freeness of God's grace, and yet the strong call to personal holiness and sanctification in the Christian life, is to see that God is the one who saves his people by his work, and that we can claim no, no, no benefit for that, no, no credit for that.
If you don't have that, you're going to fall off the side one, one direction or the other, either off into antinomianism or, uh, legalism or something along those lines. So that's just, there's just, there's no question about that.
Last few moments. Let's see if we can, if I can get this in, because this can be somewhat confusing. Having said all of this, we can see why most Christians reading this text have been focused upon, well, what does verse 40 mean?
And for this reason, they could not believe. And, and, and that takes up the majority of our thought. And like I said, we need to talk about those things. But that's why verse 41 normally goes flying right under the radar for the vast majority of believers.
And they don't see how significant this text is where our minds are elsewhere. And so when we run into these things, Isaiah said, because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him. Now, if you have the NIV, uh, and the earliest, uh, known document edition of the NIV is Codex Rigotonius, right down front here, uh, going back to, uh, the, uh, eighth decade of the 1900s, I think, um, uh, that says, uh, Jesus spoke, uh, uh, these things, Isaiah said, because he saw Jesus's glory or because he saw him and spoke concerning Jesus.
Which one is it? Okay. Saw Jesus's glory and spoke about him. Now, the first thing you need to realize is the word Jesus is not in the Greek text. Uh, the NIV and some other translations, once you get a certain distance in context away from the antecedent, they will repeat the antecedent rather than just continuing with the pronoun.
So the reason I say this is this is a text that I have dealt with many, many, many times with Jehovah's Witnesses. And if you've got something like the NIV, which is very strong in the deity of Christ, by the way, but if you've got the NIV and you read that, they're going to look at that and go, mine doesn't say Jesus.
And it can actually be a problem. And it creates a doubt in their mind because they may get out their little kingdom in linear. There's no Jesus in there. Your Bible is messing stuff up here. It's trying to, and now you've the opportunity of really presenting a strong case here sort of falls apart.
Oh yes, it is. Oh yeah. I'm not questioning the fact that it's, it's right there, but the Greek text doesn't say that the Greek text is actually assuming you have a little longer attention span than the NIV editors think that you do.
So anyway, what does that mean? What does this text mean? These things Isaiah said, because he saw his glory and he spoke concerning him. Well, the immediately preceding text is Isaiah six. And you would immediately go, well, I know what Isaiah six is about.
Isaiah six is Isaiah's temple vision where Isaiah saw the Lord lofty and lifted up. So take a, take a look at that real quickly. That's why I hope we can get through this. Look at, look at the text. Isaiah six one, the year of King Uzziah's death.
I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, and the train of his robe was filling the temple. Seraphim stood above him, each having six wings, with two he covered his face, and two he covered his feet, with two he flew.
One called out to another and said, holy, holy, holy is Yahweh of hosts. The whole earth is full of his glory, and the foundations of the thresholds trembled. The voice of him who called out, while the temple was filled with smoke.
Then I said, woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips. For my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts. Then one of the Seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs.
He touched my mouth and said, behold, this has touched your lips, and your iniquity is taken away, and your sin is forgiven. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, whom shall I send and who will go for us?
And I said, here am I, send me. He said, go and tell his people, keep on listening, but do not perceive. Keep on looking, but do not understand. Render the hearts of his people insensitive, their ears dull, and their eyes dim.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and return and be healed. So there is our section. There is the section of Isaiah's temple vision that has just been quoted, and it's where Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, lofty and lifted up, surrounded by the Seraphim and the Cherubim.
And it was specifically Yahweh, because you'll notice in verse 5 it says, for my eyes have seen the King, Yahweh of hosts. And so Isaiah has his temple vision, and that then becomes the background of what we have in John chapter 12.
And so immediately the question you have is, so these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him. So is John saying that Isaiah, when he saw Yahweh's glory, he was seeing Jesus?
Because the only him in the context is Jesus. It goes on to say, nevertheless many even the rulers believed in him. That's clearly about Jesus, but because the Pharisees they're not confessing him, that's clearly about Jesus.
So there's no question that Jesus is the one who is in view here. There's no, well we're skipping over to God and we're going to skip back to Jesus type thing. There's no question about that. So are we right to see here that if you had asked Isaiah, Isaiah whose glory did you see?
Isaiah's response would be Yahweh. If you ask John, John whose glory did Isaiah see? John's response would be Jesus. Now hold on just one second. There is further evidence of the fact that that is the appropriate interpretation.
If you want to go really in depth on this, I did a debate with Unitarian back in November of last year and then did a hour and a half long dividing line thereafter where we went in depth on each one of these texts and it went into Greek and Hebrew and but there is further evidence at this point that I think is very very important to see.
Notice it says these things Isaiah said because he saw his glory. Now what version of what we call the Old Testament, the Tanakh, would John's readers have been using? The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.
John's writing in Greek. He's writing to a Greek speaking audience so they're going to be using a Greek version of the Old Testament and if you look back and I don't know if you have the Septuagint with you.
It doesn't look, it looks like you just don't have the New Testament but if you look back at the Greek Septuagint, there's a textual variance. Now what's a textual variance? Well it's a difference in manuscripts and the Greek Septuagint of Isaiah chapter 6 verse 1 is somewhat different than what we have in the Hebrew Masoretic text which I just read to you when I read Isaiah chapter 6 and what it had to say there.
Specifically in Isaiah 6 -1 in the Masoretic text, it says, with the train of his robe filling the temple. That's the end of verse 1. The train of his robe, so the great robe of the king, flowing off of the throne and filling the temple which is an interesting picture.
Is that what the Greek version says? Is that what the Greek version says? The Greek version simply says, and his glory was filling the temple. Had nothing to do with a train of the robe or anything like that.
His glory was filling the temple and so in verse 1 it says, in the year of King Uzziah's death, I saw the Lord lost and exalted and his glory was filling the temple. In Isaiah 6 -1 in the Greek Septuagint, it specifically says Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord.
And so if you're reading the Old Testament in Greek, that's what you'd see and so you get to John 12 -41. These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory. If you're reading Isaiah 6, it's right there.
This is what John's talking about. So John is clearly making the connection to the temple vision and he is making the connection between the one who Isaiah saw is the very one who is incarnate as Jesus Christ in John 12 -41.
And again, because of the fact that we we just we get focused upon other things, we just go flying past that. Yes, well there's a question, the idea of a second person who is an archangel being seen as if that's what Isaiah was talking about or John was talking about is massive reading into things.
But it's true, that is an argument that I've been making for a number of years now and they try to prepare their people for almost any kind of argument. It doesn't mean that the argument they give them is a sound one, but you got to realize you're going to talk to these folks.
They spend a tremendous amount of time preparing to talk to you. We spend relatively little time preparing to talk to them. So keep that, make that note. John 12 -41, one of the key issues, remember in light of what we did in Hebrews chapter 1, that those two texts, Hebrews chapter 1 verses 10 through 12 in comparison to Psalm 102, remember what I preached to Hebrews 1, and then this one, they are, I think, my two favorite texts to go to to demonstrate New Testament writers identified Jesus as Yahweh.
But we have gone over our time, so let's close the word of prayer. Our Heavenly Father, once again, we thank you for this opportunity. We would ask that you would write these things upon our hearts and our minds that when the opportunity does arise, that we will be not only filled with compassion for the lost, but we will be in remembrance of your truth, and that we will be able to share these things with others.
You would use that to your honor and glory. Be with us now as we go into worship. We pray in Christ's name. Amen.