John 5, 17, and Starting with Scripture as Our Only Reliable Foundation

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:48

And we're live. Really? Yeah, we're live. I'm like, hey!

00:57

Well, that's how it works when we're not at the top of the hour, I guess. Welcome to The Dividing Line.

01:02

On my end, I cannot hear the theme song any longer, so Rich was evidently waving at me, and I was looking at John chapter 5, where we'll be here in a little while.

01:13

But, welcome to the program. I'm not trying to do anything special by being sort of dressed up.

01:21

This is what I wore for the recording I just did down at Canon Press on the subject of post -millennialism, actually.

01:31

And, you know, I was thinking as I was driving back, it never ever crossed my mind in the past to be thinking about what churches

01:46

I would speak in, or how we'd minister with people depend upon eschatology.

01:54

Part of that, obviously, was due to the fact that in my younger years I had been really turned off by people who demanded a particular eschatological position, or you're not a

02:07

Christian, or you're... And when I say eschatological position, I'm not talking about whether there's going to be a final judgment, or heaven and hell, and stuff like that.

02:15

I'm obviously talking about the timing and the order of events, and purposes of events, really, when you think about it.

02:26

So, you know, when I was young, the only option was you were to be a dispensational pre -trib, pre -millennialist.

02:40

That was it. And the heretical positions were mid -trib and post -trib.

02:48

There wasn't anything else, really, to even consider. And so, when

02:55

I talk about positions, I'm talking primarily about pre -tribulational, both dispensational and historic, amillennial and postmillennial, but there are obviously varieties and differences amongst all of those things.

03:11

And it just, I've never, sometimes I would be at a church, and maybe over dinner after speaking or something like that, the issue would come up, and I would be surprised.

03:22

I didn't know. It just never crossed my mind that that would be something that would, you know, be something that you would use to determine where you're going to go, or who you're going to fellowship with, or things like that.

03:34

So, I'm hoping that even the discussion that we recorded today, that people just listen to it, consider it, think about it.

03:45

I have discovered that postmillennialists are pretty chill about, oh, you don't believe that?

03:53

Okay, fine. Whatever. Here's why I come from that perspective. Instead of some people where it's really much more a central, you need to convert to my viewpoint perspective.

04:09

So, I'm still wearing what I wore then. And, so just to remind you folks, on Friday, now,

04:17

I'm very doubtful this will be live -casted, but it will be recorded very nicely, and it won't just be the debate itself, but there'll be some stuff recorded afterwards.

04:30

On the subject of pedocommunion, my whole goal, and most people, honestly, most evangelicals have never even heard of pedocommunion.

04:37

You can sort of figure out what it means, obviously. But, my whole goal is to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the ordinances, or the terminology that will be being used,

04:53

I'm sure, will be sacraments, the Lord's Supper, and baptism in the church, between two people who believe in covenant theology.

05:03

We believe that there is a covenant of grace, and we believe there are such things as the

05:08

Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and how they relate to one another, and especially what is the relationship of faith to the ordinances, because that's what the focus,

05:23

I think, is going to end up having to be on, is that very issue, because, for example,

05:29

I know that Doug will, Doug's common statement is, all who are bred, receive the bread.

05:38

He's going to 1 Corinthians chapter 10, instead of 1 Corinthians chapter 11. And so, if by baptism you are joined to the church, then you are of the loaf, and therefore you receive bread.

05:49

And the question, you know, we're going to have to discuss ex opera operato versus ex opera operante, and all sorts of stuff like that, which we will.

06:00

But hopefully it'll bring clarity and understanding and things like that. Hear strange noises outside once in a while.

06:10

There's a playground nearby, and so you sort of check on things.

06:16

Anyway, welcome to the program. That's coming up on Friday. I'll be preaching twice on Sunday up here in Moscow.

06:26

And as I said, we've been having a great time with everybody and great fellowship. And so what I'd like to do, starting the program today, is to, before we get to any of the prophesied results, because you can go back.

06:43

I didn't bother doing so, but you didn't have time to. You can go back. At the end of yesterday's program, what did

06:49

I say right at the end? I said, I prophesy there will be innumerable straw men that will be popping up, what did

06:59

I say, in 30 seconds or pretty, almost immediately. And boom!

07:07

I mean, it was a matter of minutes before Rich was going, oh, look at that.

07:13

There's a meme here. Oh boy, that's not what he said. And oh, you're saying that man's a modalist.

07:21

No, I didn't say he was a modalist. I said how do you differentiate this statement from the argumentation that is used by oneness people?

07:35

That's a vitally important question. It's been, there are books written about it. I'm not the first one to bring it up.

07:42

There are lots of people who've had these discussions before. The people promoting these things recognize all this stuff.

07:50

But let's be honest, the vast majority of this stuff is new all across the board for most people.

07:56

That this stuff that's now being forced upon us, new beliefs that you have to confess to be considered a good teacher and orthodox.

08:08

And it is all part of a internal to the reformed world backlash against presuppositionalism.

08:18

So those of us who remain very much convinced of the necessity of a presuppositional approach are the targets of this stuff.

08:31

And you just, you obviously cannot make the two systems work together at all, at least in a consistent fashion.

08:42

Quote -unquote classical theism, which interestingly enough, people like to talk about, well that term is a modern term.

08:49

Classical theism was applied to this perspective by the open theists in the last century. So there's that.

08:56

But I did, I called it. I just, I knew all you have to do is just become overly emotional and you're going to hear things that were never said.

09:07

I asked, in that one instance, I asked a very important question.

09:15

How do you differentiate? That goes to the foundations. That goes to what is giving rise to the assertions that are being made.

09:26

And if you just automatically jump from asking the question, what differentiates to, you're asserting this person is promoting that.

09:35

It's pure emotion. And I can't control your emotions. And I'm not going to try to.

09:40

And to be honest with you, these are subjects that should not be addressed in an emotional manner.

09:47

They should be addressed in a very, very serious manner. So anyway, I'd like to go into John chapter 5 before we get into any of those other things.

10:00

And I'd like to consider the scriptures today a little bit. Some foundational things that hopefully will be then a basis for our consideration of other things.

10:14

Starting off by saying that in seeking to address arguments that are being made, that I believe fundamentally obfuscate and confuse the relationship of the

10:35

Divine Persons, even the definition of the Divine, even the existence of the Divine Persons. We start with Scripture.

10:46

Because whereas we can have discussions of Church history, we can talk about Nicaea and Chalcedon, we can talk about later speculative theologies and developments over time.

11:08

The book that the Lord has blessed and used to bring people out of Oneness Pentecostalism and Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism called the

11:20

Forgotten Trinity, which I'm sure is now being cancelled in many, many places with the rise of the hyper -emphasis upon quote -unquote classical theism.

11:34

I said right at the beginning of the book, I'm a Biblical Trinitarian. I believe in the

11:41

Doctrine of the Trinity because of what the Bible teaches. I am forced to the

11:49

Doctrine of the Trinity by believing in Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura. There's nothing new here.

11:56

I'm even thankful, for example, to one former associate who has become somewhat of a critic over the years, unfortunately, saddened about that, but it's not the first time it's happened, who pointed out this morning in my defense, sort of,

12:14

I thought, I'll take it as my defense anyways, pointed out White has been saying this for 30 years.

12:24

Where's the articles of people bringing this up over the past 30 years? This only popped up a few weeks ago.

12:30

Yep, he's exactly right. Exactly right. So I've been real consistent in saying

12:39

I'm a Biblical Trinitarian. I believe and have experienced in my ministry that the people of God respond to that which is the

12:51

Anastos, that which is God breathes. The long term impact and change in people's lives does not come from a new program, a new worship style, a new psychology.

13:11

It comes from the ministry of the Word of God. The people that I have seen survive the greatest crises of faith, they did so because they were rooted in that which is the

13:29

Anastos, that which is divinely revealed in Scripture. I believe that it's

13:36

God speaking. That's what, Jesus held men accountable to it as if God was speaking to them.

13:41

There's nothing else that Jesus would ever hold anyone accountable to in that fashion than what is found in Scripture.

13:49

Men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. I've taught it, believed it, haven't found any reason to stop believing it.

13:58

That's the same thing in regards to the Trinity. I don't believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity because of the Council of Nicaea. And if you do, then you would have stopped believing in the

14:07

Trinity during the 25 to 35 years after the Council of Nicaea during the

14:12

Arian Ascendancy. Church history always has a way of providing a counterbalance because God's been at work building

14:22

His church for all this time wonderfully, and He will continue to do so. That's the great hope. So, it should not shock anyone that I want to go to Scriptures first, and it should not shock anyone that what

14:43

I'm seeing is when I go to the Scriptures, my critics become silent. They want to quote either

14:53

Ertrich's fathers or Thomas Aquinas or somebody else, but they don't want to do exegesis.

15:01

They don't want to get into text on that level. And that's very troubling. It's very, very troubling.

15:07

It should not be that way. It should not be that way. So, in John chapter 5, I want to remind us of this is a text, one of the things

15:17

I love doing is I will do live translation sermons where I just all

15:23

I've got is the Greek text. We just do John chapter 5, and you can't get through all of it. That'd be a really long sermon.

15:30

But there's just so much rich discussion of the relationship of the Father and the Son in John chapter 5.

15:36

And it comes right before 6 where you're going to have the soteriological application of the drawing of the

15:46

Father to the Son, the giving of a particular people by the Father to the Son.

15:52

And again, if certain philosophical assertions are allowed to become the lens through which

16:03

Scripture is viewed, this idea of the Father giving a people to the

16:09

Son doesn't make any sense. Drawing someone to the

16:15

Son, that's a different operation, that doesn't make any sense. The disruption to the text by some of these beliefs, just amazing.

16:26

But chapter 5 really is where the conflict begins.

16:36

There's a little hint of it in chapter 2, just briefly, but really chapter 5 then chapter 6, chapter 8, chapter 10, it's a building crescendo of the opposition of the

16:53

Jews to Jesus and this then brings out opportunity of discussion of fleshing out this revelation that John wants to give us from chapter 1 to chapter 21.

17:05

So in chapter 5, remember at the beginning you have the healing of the man by the pool of Bethesda, you have um it's interesting that so many people try to dismiss the historicity of the gospel of John and yet here's one of the key historical anchor points because we found this pool, it's described it was described accurately by John, it's been archaeologically excavated, there it is, this is where it happened.

17:36

And as you know from the story, this took place on the

17:44

Sabbath and that's purposeful that Jesus could have, you know, done it any day of the week, but he did it on the

17:56

Sabbath for a purpose and it seems that this man really is not a believer by any stretch of the imagination because you'll notice in John 5 .14,

18:09

afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, Behold you have become well, do not sin anymore so that nothing worse happens to you.

18:15

The man went away and disclosed to the Jews it was Jesus who had made him well. I mean you could spin it if you wanted to that he's just sort of not the brightest bulb in the pack, but no,

18:29

I think this is a situation where an unbeliever receives unwarranted grace so as to prompt what happens next.

18:40

And so verse 16, for this reason the Jews were persecuting Jesus because he was doing these things on the

18:45

Sabbath. But he answered them, My father is working until now and I myself am working.

18:53

So here is the key text, so I'll go ahead and make sure we all are able to see that.

19:01

That's interesting. We want to do the desktop and share, there we go.

19:09

So but he answered them, My father is working until now and I myself am working.

19:17

So let's this is, so my father is working until now and I am working.

19:31

So here is oh and I forgot to grab my pen, brilliant. You have to use the just have to be able to underline today any well

19:44

I actually now that it's screen shared I could jump over, I know exactly where it is,

19:49

I could grab it. If I feel the need to circle something I will do so. Anyway, so there is a distinction clearly in Jesus' words.

20:01

My father is working until now and I am working. This is one person referring to another person and what offends the

20:12

Jews so much diatuta for this reason therefore they are seeking all the more to kill the

20:22

Jews seeking all the more to kill him. Why? Because he was not only loosing the sabbath but he was also calling or referring to his own father, the father as his own

20:39

God, as his own father, idion. Esan heaotan poyon to theo making himself equal to God.

20:52

Not making himself the father but making himself equal to God. Why? Because up here in 517 the background very clearly is the reality that the

21:05

Jews believed that God worked on the sabbath. God worked on the sabbath in keeping the universe running and the sun still rises and sets and rain still falls and everything else and so therefore

21:25

God is working on the sabbath and what Jesus is saying is my father is working until now and I am working.

21:34

And so you the Jews fully understand exactly what it is he is saying. He is claiming equality with God.

21:42

Not identity but equality with God. He said my father is working until now and I am working.

21:49

Not I have been working all along but I am working. There is the whole point of John chapter 5 is the perfect unity that exists between the father and the son.

22:01

This unity does not create sameness. It does not create identity.

22:08

But it is perfect unity. That unity is reflective of something that many people including some medieval theologians really struggle with and that is the fact that God is accomplishing his perfect decree in all of creation.

22:30

And the incarnation is a part of that decree. The accomplishment of redemption is a part of that decree.

22:37

And so in chapter 5 then what you have are a number of texts that are vitally important for understanding the relationship of the father and the son.

22:50

Their equality in the divine essence but their difference in action.

22:58

It is the son who has become incarnate not the father. It is the son who is now doing these works but they are works that have been given to him by the father.

23:06

There is nothing in the revelation given to us by John that would cause us to divide our worship between different deities.

23:18

Jesus is not a competing deity with the father. But at the same time a very specific balance is presented in John chapter 5 that distinguishes the father from the son and yet assures us that to honor the son is not to diminish the honor you have for the father either.

23:44

Perfect unity and yet it is the son who has become incarnate not the father.

23:50

There is an ability to differentiate between the divine persons that is not just a speculation about internal relationships that are not actually revealed in scripture.

24:06

But in the relationship, the dynamic relationship that exists between father, son, and spirit.

24:15

And yet, same John is identifying, for example, in John chapter 12 identifies

24:21

Jesus as Yahweh, the father is Yahweh, the spirit is the spirit of Yahweh. The idea there could be three

24:27

Yahwehs or three gods or tritheism. By the way, anyone who accuses me of tritheism, just write them off.

24:33

Just go unfollow, just clearly, no reason to even bother. I've defended monotheism for far too long.

24:42

I just don't take it seriously. I cannot take anyone seriously who makes that kind of accusation.

24:48

Anyone who listens to how we handle the word of God and how we've done those things knows that that person is either only emotional, imbalanced, or just is dishonest.

25:01

people who do that, I feel for them. If they're true brothers and sisters, there will be reconciliation in heaven,

25:07

I guess, for all the lies and everything that people do. Just mark it off.

25:14

I'm not going to worry about that person anymore. We go back to John chapter 5 and share the screen with you here.

25:30

Go ahead and put this on here for now. Jesus answered and said to them, truly, truly,

25:36

I say to you, This is very important.

25:44

The son is not able to do

25:49

Uden anything off of himself except what he sees the father doing for whatever that one does.

26:09

The immediate reference is, of course, the father. These things also the son likewise does.

26:17

Now, you will note that there are a number of very, very important issues here.

26:28

Our Muslim friends, and I note just in passing that many of my critics who have been very active recently,

26:38

I have no evidence that these are individuals who are ever actually actively involved in doing apologetics with any of the key groups that have formed my background in my understanding.

26:53

Our Muslim friends will point to this and, of course, their emphasis is right here.

27:01

The son is not able. So if the son is not able to do something, then the son cannot possibly be

27:10

God. But I emphasize right here of himself.

27:17

That is in separation. Distinction. What the son does, he does with the father in perfect unity with the father.

27:30

What he sees the father doing for whatever the father does, these things the son also does in the same manner.

27:39

That is a claim to deity. You must understand the Jews would have understood this as a claim to deity.

27:48

And this is the continuation of the doing. My father is working until now, and I am working.

27:55

It's just picking up on that same idea of engagement in divine activity, which has just been demonstrated in the healing of the man at the

28:08

Pool of Bethesda. And so the things that the son does are done in the same way as the father does them.

28:18

So they are divine acts, and they are in perfect harmony with what the father does.

28:24

Why are they in perfect harmony with what the father does? For the father loves the son and shows him all the things that he himself is doing, and greater things than these he will show to him, greater works than these, in order that you will be amazed.

28:50

Now, it is plain, very clear that we have divine persons, and that these divine persons engage in love.

29:07

The father loves the son. Accusative, singular, direct, object. This is the basic meaning of language tells us that there is a relationship of love that exists between Pater and Juan.

29:26

The object of the love of the father is the son. This is a special kind of love, because it's on the base of that loving relationship that he shows him all things, all things whatsoever he is doing.

29:42

That again tells us that the son is divine. No creature could receive such an incredible revelation.

29:52

And the promise is there will even be greater works than these that will be shown by the father to the son.

30:00

I would say this is in probably the resurrection and the founding of the church.

30:08

For just as the father raises the dead and gives life, again, things only

30:15

Yahweh can do, so also the son gives life to whomever he wills.

30:26

Thely. So the son makes alive, gives life to whoever he wills.

30:42

Now, that's not in opposition to the father, but there is the assertion that in the exercise of the divine act

30:54

No, I did not go get my pen. I'm just using my mouse. That in the exercise of that divine act of making alive, giving life, zoapoiai to make alive, that the son can do so and he does so thely, as he wishes.

31:18

As he wishes. Vitally important to see that that works in that way.

31:26

Scroll the screen up here a bit. For notice, for not even the father judges anyone, but he has given all judgment to the son, so that all will honor the son, even as they honor the father.

31:40

He who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent him. Now, it just seems really difficult to see this as anything other.

31:52

Again, the father judges no one, and yet Jesus will judge.

32:02

How does that work in classical theism with its assertions of inseparable operations?

32:13

Isn't it the same operation? Isn't it the father judging? Now again, inseparable operations, I'm perfectly fine with stating that there is absolute perfect harmony between the father and the son in their actions.

32:31

That there is no disunity, and that there is a perfect fulfillment of the decree of God which flows from the will of God.

32:42

But that doesn't mean that when the son judges, that's just the father judging, or even the spirit judging.

32:53

If we let Scripture be Scripture and not place it in the binders of philosophical constraints, the father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the son.

33:13

Now, I was seeing people yesterday literally in talking about the prayers of Jesus, which we'll get to in John 17, saying, well, all those prayers of Jesus, that's just the human aspect.

33:26

So it's just the human aspect of Jesus that's going to judge? This kind of dividing up of the

33:37

Incarnate One should cause all of us, especially when the only way you can illustrate it is to bring in science fiction and stuff like that, should cause all of us to go, what is going on here?

33:52

Where is this coming from? I mean, honestly, can someone look me in the eye and say, yep,

33:57

I'm sure it's exactly what John believed. I'm sure it's exactly, John, mm -hmm, no he didn't.

34:04

None of the apostles did, it's obvious. But, anyway. So, judgment's given to the son in order that all may honor the son,

34:18

Kathos, just as they honor the father. Now, again,

34:25

I distinguish, clearly, we're not saying honoring the son creates a confusion between who the son and the father is, because Hinnah here is saying the reason that you honor the son, even as you honor the father, is because all judgment has been given to him.

34:49

So there are distinctions being made by Scripture itself. The one honoring the son does not honor the father, the one not honoring, sorry, the one not honoring the son is not honoring the father who sent him.

35:10

This is obviously directly relevant to the Jews and to early church contexts and situations where, and it's relevant to us today, in regards to one's

35:22

Pentecostals and things like that. But the early sects that would reject the full deity of Christ, John's obviously making reference to them.

35:36

So, here we have, very clearly, just a portion of John chapter 5 where you, once again, are provided with a biblical foundation for creating a biblical understanding of the relationship between the father and the son.

35:58

And I am simply suggesting to everyone, this is where we should get our understanding of the relationship with the father and the son, not from an external

36:07

Greek philosophical system that is not based in what is

36:12

Theanostas, and does not even have as its origin the created world that Yahweh creates.

36:24

And when we allow systems of theology that developed from mixed sources, and in fact,

36:37

I've said for a long time, our job in looking back at history, and looking back at the people who came before us, is recognizing that we all have a mixture.

36:49

And our goal is to be as consistent as possible to identify those places where we have imbibed that which is not appropriate, that which is not actually derived from what is

37:07

Theanostas. I used to think that that was completely unremarkably unoffensive, and basically a duh statement.

37:21

I now realize that that's not the case, that that needs to be emphasized, and you need to say, hey, this is important stuff, really, really important stuff.

37:32

To recognize that the Christian faith that I present to Muslims and to Jehovah's Witnesses and others is a faith that is derived from the

37:50

Scriptures. And the discussions that have taken place down through church history, the early discussions began first because those outside the faith were asking questions from their worldview.

38:08

And Christians sought to express answers that would be of assistance to those types of individuals, and so we had to engage in that kind of discussion and study where they're coming from.

38:23

No one denies any of that, but that does not change the reality that the truly faithful answers to difficult questions will always be those which seek self - consciously to find their root and their branch in that which is inspired before anything else.

38:50

And given mankind's tendency toward self -exaltation, it should be always our concern to differentiate between mere ecclesiastical speculation and that which is necessary in light of what is revealed in Scripture, which means there are certain questions that Scripture does not address, and where God has made an end of speaking, so do we.

39:25

Unfortunately, down through the years there have been many who've been willing to go past where God made an end of speaking, and the result has never been overly good, to be honest with you.

39:38

So, we stay in the Gospel of John, and we go to Jesus' High Priestly Prayer.

39:54

And there is honestly a part of me that is always we're literally having the opportunity to listen in on Jesus speaking to His Father.

40:25

And this is so high, and it's so exalted that I think it really,

40:33

I know all Scripture is inspired, but here is something that needs to be handled with tremendous care and respect and worship and honor and any other term you can come up with.

40:50

But it is plainly Jesus speaking as a Divine Person to the

40:58

Father. I was deeply troubled once again last evening and this morning in seeing people who because again of a commitment to a system, are willing to say less than Scripture says when it comes to the prayers of Jesus.

41:26

And I think if there is ever to be a debate on this, that's the only thing I would debate on. Because of the making of philosophical systems and of the parsing of terms, there is no end.

41:40

But of the meaning of Scripture, there is an objective reality. And if your system can't handle

41:50

Jesus' prayers without destroying the distinction of the Father and the Son or without dividing

41:55

Jesus up into parts, it's amazing the same people that want to tell us that we have to view

42:06

God's attributes as one attribute will then divide Jesus into parts. Huh. Weird.

42:12

Why that would happen. But Jesus spoke these things and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said,

42:20

Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you. Glorify your

42:30

Son. I'll go ahead and again, you've seen my nice pretty blue coat.

42:38

You don't need to see that anymore. Let's look at the text here.

42:47

So he lifts up his eyes to heaven and he addresses the

42:52

Father. The hour has come. Not going to preach this whole section.

43:00

I'm just focusing on what's relevant. Glorify your

43:06

Son in order that the Son may glorify you.

43:14

Mutual glorification but you cannot even start to understand what's going on here.

43:27

If you do not recognize this as one divine person speaking to another divine person. If you have gotten to the point where the

43:37

Father can't speak to the Son anymore, you you missed the vote somewhere my friend. Come on back.

43:43

Come on back to Scripture. Glorify your

43:49

Son in order that the Son may glorify you. When you're using pronouns like this very important there's distinctions being made even as you gave him the

44:05

Son exousia, authority, passe sarcas, over all flesh.

44:13

Is that just to the human nature of Jesus? Is that just the human nature of Jesus? That to in order that to all whom you have given to him he may give eternal life.

44:34

So Jesus' authority over all flesh which ties us over to Matthew chapter 27 all authority has been given to me in heaven and earth is directly relevant given the

44:46

Hinnah Clause to the fulfillment and we need to notice this is a fulfillment all that you have given to him takes us right back to John 6.

44:57

Takes right back to all that you have given to him he may give eternal life.

45:04

He has to have this authority and he gives eternal life. What did we just see in John chapter 5? He makes alive whom he will.

45:12

These are all things that the Son does in perfect harmony with the

45:17

Father but they're different things than what the Father does. And if your theology, if your philosophy is too small for the breadth of biblical revelation then get rid of your philosophy.

45:34

So having spoken of this eternal life that he is able to give and this is the eternal life in order that they may know you the only true

45:51

God and not just the first and Jesus Christ the one whom you sent.

45:59

So to have eternal life is to know the Father and the Son. And we're not going to go off on the avenue of a discussion of the only true

46:10

God if you really want to do that there is this debate that I had with a fellow by the name of Ventilation and to say that we went over it more than once is an understatement.

46:32

So those of you who know what I'm talking about well you know what I'm talking about. And that was an interesting debate.

46:41

So to have eternal life is to know the Father and the

46:47

Son I glorified you upon the earth having finished the work which you have given me to do.

47:00

I was this morning given a reference to Augustine talking about this and I'm going to tell you something that was not his best day.

47:09

That was some of the most confusing. Wow. I get why it can be confusing but no that wasn't his best day.

47:22

Clearly you know people say wait a minute Jesus' work wasn't done he hasn't been crucified he hasn't gone to the cross yet.

47:30

That's true but what did Jesus say at the beginning of John 17? The hour has come. The hour which was fixed by the

47:37

Father. It is a certainty. And so it is taken as an accomplished reality in this prayer.

47:45

Because the hour has come. Up to this point no one could touch him because the hour had not yet come.

47:50

Now the hour comes. Sovereignty of God the divine decree is all right there clearly in the text.

47:57

Right before us. And so but please notice something.

48:07

Teleosos having finished the work which given to me in order that I might do who gave him that work?

48:23

The Father. This was not a work given to the Father it was a work given by the

48:29

Father and it's the entire work of redemption itself that glorifies the

48:34

Father. Is this just a human aspect of Jesus that has done this? Or is Jesus one person with two natures?

48:42

Is it? I thought all this was a given I really did it seemed like and now as a result of this glorify me you glorify me

49:00

Father. Yes. Dr. Sanmay is imperative but I think you have to be very careful that you don't read too much into the use of the imperative here because that's commonly used in prayers in a supplicatory way not a commanding type way.

49:22

There are a lot of different uses of the imperative. And now

49:27

Father glorify me together with yourself

49:37

Paraseato with the glory which I had Parasoy in your presence

49:47

Prato Doncosmon Aenei before the world was before the world came into existence there is a glory that the

49:59

Son has which I had okay so if there were some people that seemingly maybe they just have never thought about this

50:09

I don't know but seemingly we're suggesting that the prayers of Jesus are just the human side of Jesus praying the divine side of Jesus that's like I said that's what one of the

50:22

Pentecostals say and yet what does icon mean?

50:31

What does that term mean? Which I had I mean

50:40

I just I don't even know what to say in these the language is clear this is one person speaking to another person about a time before the world was before creation itself when the one person is in the presence of the other person and they are sharing one glory which has been laid aside

51:05

John 1 14 and is now going to be restored if you're going if you're going to evidently you know

51:19

I don't know if Rich saw this somewhere he didn't I've been busy today and I didn't have time to you know look too much more at other things but evidently and in fact someone from the seminary contacted me and said oh

51:37

I hear you're a tritheist now if you're going to make that kind of accusation you have to be able to walk into that text and you have to be able to explain what it's saying not explain it away but explain from it and that means dealing with the verbs and dealing with the prepositions and dealing with the relationships of the clauses and you tell me that that is not one person praying to another person who is a praying to a divine person and yet the one praying is a divine person because before the world was he was in the presence of the father and he was glorious who's that who's that is that Michael is that just some thought is this a plan in the father's mind again that's what people say that's exactly what they say so is a plan praying is a plan have memory of being glorious in the presence of the father it's right there in your bible what are you going to do with it these divine words have to be the foundation and any system that you build up from this cannot go outside and become greater than what the foundation was this is how we have truly biblical theology and here's the point biblical theology remains consistent from generation to generation if it's based upon that which is the when we look back through church history there's so many times when we're reading people before us we appreciate their faithfulness and their

53:46

Christian lives and everything else but there are things they did there are things they said there are things they taught that we go they were deeply influenced by a particular understanding of that particular point in time and we don't follow them in that hopefully we don't just kick them out of the kingdom but we learn yeah it's real easy to allow the context of your time in this dispute going on right now and again

54:22

I can go back to the 90s on this I have more than once given a talk on how you can go back and look at Augustine and look at the key controversies in his life and see how they impacted his theology and created contradictions in his theology and we are all subject to that myself included what is the one objective reality that transcends all the controversies that we could be involved with that is identified to us by our

54:59

Savior as God speaking to us scriptures this is why

55:07

I'm not the only one going solo scriptura not solo not nuda not any of these things some of us have dealt with other systems for decades and so we sort of sit back and go wait a minute people in my own house are starting to use the terminology and arguments of the people

55:34

I've been dealing with outside my house for a long time and so when you try to raise a warning how dare you you hypocrites of all the insults that's one anyway if you're going to say hey

55:59

White's lost it within a few moments people were saying that I had said this I had said that the moment when this happened if you're going to go there you've got to get into the text and if you don't you've capitulated you've surrendered and I just go bye see you later hope you come back because I'm not following you out there

56:28

I'm staying in this foundation foundation that I've claimed all along so if you feel like you need to rescue me from my errors the word the word not somebody 1200 years later or 400 years later for that matter go to the word so with all of that having been said and once again

57:03

I had not intended to spend quite that much time

57:09

I would like to actually direct you because I think it'll help you to understand what's going on to a thread by Steve Meister because you want to hear what's being said and why it's being said and what they think the thought process is and Pastor Meister said did you know the recovery of so called classical theism in our generation so they recognized yep we started off on the wrong foot and we are now recovering classical theism in our generation you're wondering what all of a sudden changed is actually the result of the church practicing

58:02

Semper Reformanda now the definition of what Semper Reformanda means is what the issue is here he says 20 years ago is popular to give a new church plant a

58:12

Latin name so at least had a historic aesthetic Semper Reformanda has a similar heritage it's the creation of the mid 20th century whatever its precursors it certainly wasn't the sixth soul of the

58:26

Reformation well it's not the sixth soul of the Reformation but I will say to you without it there is no

58:34

Reformation and without a biblical understanding of it any movement that denies it will die it'll die he quotes from Sitzma who's very commonly being quoted by these folks further the motto

58:56

Semper Reformanda is an excerpt from this sentence Ecclesiae Reformata Semper Reformanda Secundum Verbum Dei translated the church reformed always reforming

59:08

Semper Reformanda according to the word of God so here's the first thing when

59:16

I have used the term Semper Reformanda I have explained and I explained this in a thread that unfortunately

59:26

Pastor Meister decided to just ignore and would not respond to I explained that it's vital importance can be seen very clearly in dealing with the history out of which our own confession arose you cannot teach the

59:49

London Mass Confession without recognizing that there are entire sections that are only understandable if you understand

59:55

Roman Catholic theology and especially the material in the Lord's Supper and stuff about sacraments as well but specifically

01:00:03

Lord's Supper is not understandable unless you understand Transubstantiation Council of Trent Perpetuatory Mass all those types of things and if you understand where Rome came up with those beliefs then you understand the importance of Semper Reformanda because once the church views itself and proclaims itself to be infallible there is no way of correcting that church so especially since the

01:00:39

First Vatican Council when you have the proclamation of the infallibility of the papacy there it's very clearly seen and there were

01:00:46

Catholics who opposed that as they really had to historically they knew historically it was not what the church would believe but there it is but once you have an infallible church rather than the church receiving the voice of Christ and that which is the voice of the shepherds it's what's in scripture,

01:01:06

God speaking once the church becomes infallible the church is now stuck in a monologue with herself there can be no external input that causes reform that's the problem and so you are seeing changes for example in Roman Catholicism today thanks to Francis and I think the next pope is going to be a real humdinger that's not a really technical term but it's not even

01:01:38

Latin but Francis has packed the college cardinals with his own acolytes and so what happens when you get decades of fundamentally different world view leadership within an allegedly infallible church you have

01:01:59

Roman Catholics getting red pilled as they themselves call it you have them recognizing that there's pure cognitive dissonance here, you're having to believe that red is blue and blue is red and just whatever the church says but none of this makes any sense anymore and the whole thing comes tumbling down because there can be no reform what

01:02:21

Francis is doing is not reformation it's fundamental change because in the system it's proclaimed itself infallible so the church experienced reformation in the 16th century and that reformation was required true believers to recognize a higher authority than the traditions and the teachings that the church was enforcing by its own power that's what you have in Luther that's what you have when he stands before Charles, that's what you have when you read the institutes of the

01:03:07

Christian religion yes, they are not saying we're starting a new religion, they are not saying we are completely disconnected from what's come before no question about it that's not even a given no one's arguing it, but what they are saying is the ultimate authority that must bring about reform is to bring us back to ad fontes to the scriptures which are the sole infallible rule of faith not to a set of traditions that then interpret the scripture for us without this you cannot have reform if you do not believe that the scriptures continue to function in that way then what are you left with?

01:03:56

an infallible church which means for Protestants are you not dancing with the danger of literally saying your confessions are infallible if they cannot be questioned now, you can say well there's a process for doing it and Pastor Meister says there is great wonderful but the reality is those confessions do not sit as the lens over scripture scripture must always be the light that shines on the confession once you flip that relationship and the confession becomes the lens through which you read scripture it can no longer be reformed it can no longer be questioned and that's extremely dangerous so when

01:04:49

I speak of semper reformanda, look we can have most of the time when errors take place they take place incrementally for good reasons maybe because there was a there was a particular controversy facing the church in one generation the three generations later no longer exist and that generation earlier because of the pressure of the controversy made an error they overreacted to something and the problem is if there is no reformanda then that error becomes established and can become the basis for another error and then another error and then another error until you now have a departure that is fundamentally definitional the initial one wasn't but if you if there is not the freedom not to become subjective oh my goodness

01:06:00

I heard Pastor Meister was part of it but the idea that semper reformanda it goes back to Barton it's just pure subjectivism we are not talking about anything like that if you think that's what you're talking about I'm sorry but that's just silly that's just silly it's unworthy of even honestly responding and it's unworthy of you to even think that that's not what we're talking about we're not talking about let's just throw it all out let's become the emergent church and just throw it up semper reformanda baloney that's just ridiculous what we're talking about is the recognition that can we even put on the table the possibility that the framers of a confession because they were differentiating themselves from a majority group because they were in the minority have you ever seen a situation in all of church history where because you are even persecuted by the majority that you develop a slight imbalance in certain areas has that ever happened can we ever think it's possible obvious it's obvious so unless we think there are new things being given to us then reformanda must be we're not talking about well let's think about the trinity or whatever else it's fascinating to me

01:07:23

I was listening to lectures on the way up here about how specifically with the

01:07:29

London Baptist Confession of Faith that there was language that was used there that was specifically meant to not be so specific as to exclude certain people to allow for varieties of opinion same thing happened with the

01:07:40

Westminster Confession of Faith so how you can then turn around recognizing that and say well you see this one phrase here it would have meant this to one of the framers and therefore that's what we must understand to me maybe it was left less specific so that it didn't require that because it was done elsewhere maybe these are issues that come up with the idea of Semper Reformanda and that's what we're talking about I may simply say to anyone who questions

01:08:18

Semper Reformanda if you take what you're saying out to dealing with historic

01:08:26

Orthodox Roman Catholicism I think you're going to see the light I think you can see the light because you're going to realize

01:08:33

I can't point my finger at them when

01:08:39

I've got three pointed back at me I need to be consistent if I'm saying they need to examine their external authorities on the basis of scripture

01:08:49

I can't turn around and say well Semper Reformanda is just Barth's way of trying to get around everything that's not so in the next tweet

01:09:01

Steve Meischer says you see it refers not so much to a continual doctrinal flux red herring

01:09:08

Barth fine I'm not a Barthian never suggested anything close to Barth red herring dismiss that one if you hear that one again just go to a continual doctrinal flux or a modernist skepticism of all preceding theological formulation

01:09:27

I don't who's saying that I don't know not me nobody I know so that's the problem right there that's a straw man so let's let that straw man get eaten by bugs or whatever rather reminds us to be conforming both individually and corporately in our churches to the faith we confess according to scripture and if that requires examining anything outside of scripture then we need to do so so he quotes from Truman reform churches have at times used scripture to justify such things as racism

01:10:05

I don't know of any there may have been some confessions like in South Africa or something that may have done that at some point certainly in our situation that's not the case we are all sinners vulnerable to using

01:10:20

God's word in sinful ways and thus we are always in need of being reformed in the light of scripture would that mean that if you had that if you likewise at times use scripture to justify such things as racism doesn't mean you could use confessions do the same thing and what's the standard by which we then correct that semper affirmandum by scripture yeah is this to say that a confession can never be rise for amended no and those who confess second line of confession of faith a revision of prior confessions which it was should be the last to suggest otherwise indeed indeed then

01:11:04

I think this is must be a sub Twitter I mean

01:11:10

Twitter's good but it's also bad I don't know anyone confessing the second line of confession a revision of Westminster Savoy in the first London who would deny it's subject to revision by scripture many deny is that you can redefine what many deny is that you can redefine its meaning and claim to confess it so now we go back to the are you strictly confessional and this again is where my my

01:11:34

Presbyterian friends have been talking to me on the side going you know long time ago we figured out that the only way we're all going to be able to get along is to recognize that as long as you're understanding the confession is reasonable that someone else can come along and say well you have to understand this as including this this and this well they could have included that that and that but they didn't and they didn't because not everybody necessarily agreed about everything and the same thing was true of the second line of confession or or the other option here that we're not even get into right now because I've already gone over time is that there were certain aspects of things that were brought in from other sources that were not at that time even an issue of argumentation and therefore no reason to examine the traditions or anything else we've talked about that in the program before but a confessional revision must be a public ecclesiastical process yep that first requires a forthright statement on the part of petitioners to relevant churches or associations as to why revision should be considered and proving as much from scripture to say the least such a process is far cry from anachronistically redefining what was meant by the terms of a confession anyone who engages in these progressive readings progressive readings while crying

01:13:04

Semper Reformanda is either confused or dishonest and to be sure neither is good well we could agree

01:13:10

I've laid out I laid out what I meant by Semper Reformanda as I said Pastor Meisner just ignored what

01:13:17

I said and so in another thread and I'll wrap up with this um there was a um so when

01:13:36

I responded to what I just read to you and direct you to it you don't hide anything uh

01:13:47

I said Brother Meisner makes a basic error here in a recent webcast he traced the modern use of Semper Reformanda to Barth now this involves a basic error of logic just because Barth used the phrase and applied it in a particular fashion it does not follow that for and then

01:14:01

I did this thread and I went through basically what I just said I went obviously a whole lot more now than you did on Twitter with its remember back when it was how many characters when it first started oh man it was frustrating um and so he responded uh no he gave some resources including uh

01:14:25

Muller um 140 was it 140 yeah now it's 280 that was 140 initially and that was just that was sinful that's just bad and then he quotes from Muller uh our most probably all 20th century inventions employ for the sake of justifying doctrinal change um obviously what

01:14:53

I laid out had nothing to do with that um and my response was that's nice but as you did with SW's article

01:15:02

Sam Waldron's article you're missing the point because that's not what I was saying I wasn't talking about just changing doctrine and stuff like that I was talking about the necessity of recognizing the relationships of authority in scripture and confession and the danger of having a confession as a lens through which scripture is viewed which we saw a lot of people saying yesterday after yesterday's program we saw a lot of people pushing that type of idea

01:15:29

I said you're missing the point would you care to interact with the substance of the thread I posted or is

01:15:35

Muller said it I believe it sufficient now because man that does seem to be Muller well

01:15:40

Muller says this therefore okay well brilliant guy but that doesn't make him an ecclesiastical um authority so I said would you care to interact with the substance of the thread

01:15:52

I posted or is Muller said it I believe it sufficient now response was I try to minimize how much

01:15:58

I engage misrepresentation and obfuscation James now stop right there what what is that that's an allegation that in my thread on Semper Reformanda I engaged in misrepresentation and obfuscation as I've said

01:16:17

I steward my time to try by trying to focus on substantive contributions which means mine wasn't that demonstrate a knowledge of the basic necessary distinctions means

01:16:26

I don't have any so this entire tweet is a personal attack it's filled every word is an accusation every word is an accusation well okay

01:16:42

I said I understand you get to criticize but not explain nor defend authority works like that for some so he gets to decide what misrepresentation is what obfuscation is that there's no substantive contribution and that I don't have a knowledge of the basic necessary distinctions but he won't back any of that up so all right so here's the response

01:17:10

James that kind of ad hominem and I but I said

01:17:15

I understand you get to criticize but not explain or defend authority works like that for some James that kind of ad hominem is precisely what makes further engagement seem futile my wife and I just prayed for you as we sat for lunch may the

01:17:30

Lord grant us both the humility and the knowledge to preserve the faith of the next generation now that is a very pious statement but it was a pious statement covering the fact that Steve engaged in ad hominem he made accusations and when challenged to back up his statements refuses to do so but very piously says but I'll pray for you that's not how things should be done you don't use prayer as a means of covering over the fact that someone wrote you a substantive presentation you dismissed it you engage in ad hominem you engage in attack and when somebody said well you want to back that up no

01:18:35

I but I'll pray for you I don't think that's how it should be done that's that's no

01:18:47

I don't think that's so if you've listened to this broadcast this point don't you think we've raised some important issues important issues in regards to all of these

01:19:03

Trinity person of Christ the application of this so -called classical theism whoever gets to define that because I know it's defined and applied in all sorts of different ways we've raised substantive questions and issues and evidently they're not really going to be dealt with other than simply being dismissed but I appreciate at least that there was that level of response let me see if I can find this one oh that's interesting that was a tweet that I may respond to at another point in time looking for one here and unfortunately there it is okay

01:20:00

I found it at least that was better than this one Richard Braselis great guy but has not been helpful at all in this field here's the tweet and I'll finish up with this resist the urge to join a tradition it'll become a pope to you instead start your own it's the only safe way you will always agree that yours is right it's way humble too self -poping popery try it you'll be proud of your accomplishments especially the idiosyncratic ones

01:20:48

I will still tell folks that the work that Richard's done on Lord's Supper Colossians 2 great stuff but that kind of contribution is not needed not needed at all and someone

01:21:13

I don't know who can come along and say you know you've been doing this for a long time you probably need to stop but well listen to me