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

Really well that's how it works when we're not at the top of the hour i guess. Welcome to the dividing line. I on my end i cannot hear the theme song any longer. So uh rich was evidently waving at me and i was looking at john chapter five where we'll be here in a little while but um welcome to the program we um i'm not trying to do anything special by being sort of dressed up um this is what i wore for uh the recording i just did down at canon press um on uh on the subject of post-millennialism actually and uh you know i was thinking i'm as i was driving back it never ever crossed my mind uh in the past to be thinking about what churches i would speak in or how we'd minister with people depend upon eschatology.

Eschatology, Ministry, and the Coming Pato Communion Debate

Uh 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 christian or you're. And when i say eschatological position i'm not talking about where there's going to be a final judgment or heaven and hell and like that.

I'm obviously talking about the timing and the order of events and purposes of events. Really when you think about it so you know when i was young the only the only option was you were to be a um dispensational pre-trib pre-millennialist that was that was it.

And the the heretical positions were mid-trib and post-trib there wasn't anything else really to even consider. Um and so when i talk about positions i'm talking primarily about pre-tribulational you have both dispensational and historic um on millennial and post-millennial but they're obviously varieties and differences amongst all those things and it just i 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 and i would be surprised i didn't know um it just never crossed my mind that that would be something that would you know be something that would you you would use to determine where you're going to go or who you're going to fellowship with or things like that.

So i'm hoping that uh even the discussion that we uh we recorded today you know the people just listen to it consider it think about it. Um i i have discovered that uh post-millennialists don't are pretty chill about.

Oh you don't believe. Okay you know whatever uh here's here's why come from that perspective um instead of some people where it's really um much more a central you need to convert to my viewpoint perspective so i'm still wearing what i wore then and um so just to remind you folks um on friday now i i'm very doubtful this will be live casted but i'm it will be recorded very nicely and uh it won't just be the debate itself but there'll be some stuff recorded afterwards on the subject of pato communion my whole goal and most people honestly most evangelicals have never even heard of pato communion you can sort of figure out what it means.

Obviously um but uh my my whole goal is to have a meaningful discussion about the nature of the ordinances or the terminology that will be being used i'm sure will be sacraments uh the lord's supper and baptism in the church uh between two people who believe in covenant theology we believe that there is a covenant of grace and we believe there are such things as the old covenant and the new covenants and how do they relate to one another.

And especially what is the relationship of faith to the ordinances. Because that's what the focus i think is going to end up having to be on uh is that very uh issue. Because for example i know that uh doug will doug's common statement is all who are bred receive the bread.

He's going to first corinthians chapter 10 instead of first 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. And the question you know we're going to have to discuss ex opera operato versus opera operante and and uh all sorts of stuff like that which we will uh i but hopefully it'll bring uh clarity and understanding and things like that.

Hear strange noises outside once in a while there's a playground nearby and um um so you sort of check on things anyway. Welcome to the program uh that's coming up uh on uh on friday i'll be preaching twice on sunday up here in moscow.

And uh 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 uh prophesied results because you can go back.

I didn't bother doing so but you didn't have time to uh you can go back at the end of yesterday's program. What did i say. Right at the end i i said i prophesied there will be innumerable straw men that will be popping up.

What did i say in 30 seconds or pretty almost immediately. And boom i mean it was a matter of minutes before rich was going. Oh look at that up. There's a meme here. Oh boy that's not what he said. And oh the you're saying that man's a modalist.

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 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. There are lots of people who've had these discussions before. Um the people promoting these things recognize its initial all this stuff. But let's be honest the vast majority of this stuff is new all across the board for most people that this stuff that's now being forced upon us new uh beliefs that you have to confess to be considered a good teacher and orthodox.

And it is all part of a internal to the reformed world backlash against presuppositionalism. So those of us who remain very much convinced of the necessity of a presuppositional approach are the targets of this stuff.

And you just you obviously cannot make the two systems work together at all at least in a consistent fashion. Um quote unquote classical theism which interestingly enough uh people like to talk about.

Well that term is a modern term. Classical theism was applied to this perspective by the open theists in the last century. So there's that um but um 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. I asked like in that in that one instance i asked a very important question how do you differentiate that goes to the foundations that goes to what is giving rise to um the assertions that are being made.

And if you just automatically jump from asking the question what differentiates to you're asserting this person is promoting that it's pure emotion and i i can't control your emotions and i'm not going to try to and to be honest with you these are subjects that should not be addressed in an emotional manner.

Uh they should be addressed in a very very serious manner. So anyway i'd like to go into uh john chapter five um before we get into any of those other things 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.

John 5 and the Equality of the Son with the Father

Starting off by saying that in in seeking to address arguments are being made that i believe fundamentally obfuscate and confuse the relationship of the divine persons even the definition of the even the existence of the divine persons.

Um we start with scripture because whereas we can have discussions of church history we can talk about nicaea and chalcedon. Uh we can talk about uh later speculative theologies and developments over time the the book that the lord has blessed and used to bring people out of one this pentecostalism and jehovah's witnesses and mormonism called the forgotten trinity which i'm sure is now being canceled in many many places with the rise of the hyper emphasis upon quote-unquote um classical theism.

Um i said right at the beginning of the book i am a biblical trinitarian. I believe in the doctrine of the trinity because of what the bible teaches. Um i am forced to the doctrine of the trinity by believing in sola scriptura and tota scriptura.

There's nothing new here. 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. It's sort of i thought i'll take it as my defense anyways. Um point out white has been saying this for 30 years. Where's where's the articles of people bringing this up over the past 30 years.

This only popped up a few weeks ago. Yep he's exactly right. Exactly right. Um so i've been real consistent in saying i i'm a biblical trinitarian. I i believe and have experienced in my ministry that the people of god respond to that which is the honest us that which is god breathed.

The long-term impact and change in people's lives does not come from a new program um a new worship style a new psychology. 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 outer sauce and that which is divinely revealed in scripture. I believe that it's god speaking. That's what jesus held men accountable to it as if god was speaking to them.

There's nothing else that jesus would ever hold anyone accountable to in that fashion than what is found in scripture. Men spoke from god as they're carried along by the holy spirit. I've taught it believed it.

I haven't found any reason to stop believing it. That's the same thing in regards to the trinity. I don't believe in the doctrine because the council of nicaea um and if you do then you would have stopped believing in the trinity during the 25 to 35 years after the council of nicaea during the arian ascendancy.

Church history always has a way of providing a counterbalance because god's been at work building his church for all this time wonderfully. And he will continue to do so that's the great hope. Um so it should not shock anyone uh that i want to go to scriptures first.

And it shouldn't shock anyone that what i'm seeing is when i go to the scriptures my critics become silent. They want to quote either urchurch fathers or thomas aquinas or or somebody else. But they don't want to do exegesis.

They don't want to get into text on that level. And that's very troubling. It's very very troubling. Should not be that way should not be that way. So in john chapter five uh i want to remind us of you know this is a text i one of the things i love doing is i i i will do live translation sermons where i just all i've got the greek text.

We just do john chapter five. And you can't get through all of it. It's just that'd be a really long sermon um but there's just so much rich discussion of the relationship of the father and the son in john chapter five.

And it comes right before sex where you're going to have the soteriological uh application of the drawing of the father to the son the giving of a particular people by the father to the son. And again if if if if certain philosophical assertions are allowed to become the lens through which scripture is viewed.

Uh this idea of the father giving a people to the son doesn't make any sense. Um drawing someone to the son that's that's a different operation that doesn't make any sense it just the disruption to the text by some of these beliefs.

Just amazing. But uh chapter five really is where the conflict begins. There's a little hint of it in chapter just briefly. Uh but really chapter five then chapter six uh chapter eight chapter ten it's a building crescendo of the opposition of the uh the 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. So in chapter 5 remember at the beginning you have the healing of the man by the pool.

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 um anchor points because we've found this pool it's described it was described accurately by john.

Um it's been archaeologically excavated there it is. This is where it happened. Um and as you as you know from the story this took place on the sabbath and that's purposeful that that jesus could have you know uh done it any day of the week.

But he did on the sabbath for a purpose and it seems that this man really is not a believer by any stretch of the imagination. Uh because you'll notice in john 5 14 afterward jesus found him in the temple and said to him behold you have become well do not sin anymore.

So nothing worse happens to you. The man went away and disclosed the jews. It was jesus who had made him. Well i mean you you could spin it if you wanted to that he's just sort of not the brightest bulb in the pack.

But no i i think this is a situation where an unbeliever receives unwarranted grace so as to prompt what happens next. And so verse 16 for this reason the jews were persecuting jesus because he was doing these things on the sabbath.

But he answered them my father is working until now and i myself am working. So here is the key text. So i'll go ahead and make sure we all are able to see that. Uh that's interesting. Uh we want to do the desktop and share there we go.

So uh but he answered them my father is working until now and i myself am working. So let's um uh this this is so my father is working until now and i am working. So here is. Oh and i forgot to grab my pen.

Brilliant. You have to use the just have to be only be able to underline today. Any. Uh any. Well i actually now that it's screen shared i could jump over i know exactly where it is. I could grab it. Um if i feel the need to circle something i will i will do so anyway.

So there is a distinction clearly in jesus words my father is working until now and i am working. This is one person referring to another person. And what offends the jews so much for this reason. Therefore they're seeking all the more to kill the juicing 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 god as his own father. Idion isan health on making himself equal to god not making himself the father but making himself equal to god.

Why. Because up here in 517 the background very clearly is the reality uh that the jews believe that god worked on the sabbath. God worked on the sabbath in uh keeping the the universe running and and the sun still rises and sets and rain still falls and and and and everything else.

And so therefore god's working on the sabbath. And what jesus is saying is my father is working until now and i am working. And so you the jews fully understand exactly what it is. He's saying he is claiming equality with god not identity but equality with god.

He said my father is working until now and i am working. Not i've been working all along but i am working. I there is the whole point of john chapter 5 is the perfect unity that exists between the father and the son.

This unity does not create sameness it does not create identity. 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 in all of creation. And the incarnation is a part of that decree. The accomplishment of redemption is a part of that decree. 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 their equality in the divine essence but their difference in action.

It's the son who's become incarnate not the father. It's the son who's now doing these works but they are works that have been given to him by the father. So there is nothing in the revelation given to us by john that would cause us to divide our worship between different deities.

Jesus is not a competing deity with the father but 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 perfect unity.

And yet it's the son who's become incarnate not the father. There is an ability to differentiate between the divine persons. That is not just um a speculation about internal relationships that are not actually revealed in scripture.

Um but in the relationship the dynamic relationship that exists between father son and spirit. And yet same john is identifying. For example in john chapter 12 12 identifies jesus as yahweh. The father's yahweh the spirit spirit of yahweh.

The idea there could be three yahwehs or three gods or tritheism. By the way anyone who accuses me of tritheism just write them off. Just go unfollow. Just clearly no reason to even bother. Um i've defended monotheism for far too long.

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

So um people who do that i feel for them uh if they're true brothers and sisters they'll there'll be reconciliation in heaven i guess for for all the lies and everything that people do. Um but you just just mark it off.

Just i'm not going to worry about that person anymore. Um all right. So we we go back to john chapter uh john chapter five and share the screen with you here. Therefore jesus. Um therefore jesus answered.

I'll go ahead and put this on here for now. Uh jesus answered and said to them truly truly i say to you this is very important. The son is not able to do uden anything off pay out to of himself. Yon may accept what he sees the father doing for whatever that one does.

Then the immediate reference is of course father these things also the son likewise does. Now you will note that there are a number of um very very important issues here are muslim friends and i i note just in passing that many of my critics who have been very active recently 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 and in my understanding um our muslim friends will point to this.

And of course their emphasis is right here. The sun is not able. So if the sun is not able to do something then the sun cannot possibly be god. But i emphasize right here of himself that is in separation distinction what the son does he does with the father in perfect unity with the father what he sees the father doing for whatever the father does these things the son also does in the same manner that is a claim to deity.

You must understand the jews would have understood this as a claim to deity. And this is the continuation of the doing. My father is working until now and i am working. 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 pool bethesda.

And so the things that the son does are done in the same way as the father does them. So they are divine acts. And they are in perfect harmony with what the father does. 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. Now it is plain very clear that we have divine persons and that these divine persons engage in love.

The father loves the son. Accusative singular direct object there this is the the basic meaning of language tells us that there is a relationship of love that exists between pater and quion. 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. That again tells us that the son is divine. No creature could receive such an incredible revelation.

And the promises. There will even be greater works than these that will be shown um by the father to the son. I would say this is in probably the resurrection and the founding of the church. For just as the father raises the dead and gives life again things only Yahweh can do so also the son gives life to whomever he wills.

Fell i so the son makes alive gives life to whoever he wills. Now that's not in opposition to the father. But there is the assertion that in the exercise of the divine act. No i did not go get my pen i'm just using my mouse that in the exercise of that divine act of of making alive giving life to make alive that the son can do so.

And he does so fell i as he wishes as he wishes. Vitally important to see that that works in that way. 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 all will honor the son even as they honor the father. He who does not honor the son does not honor the father who sent him. Now it just seems really difficult to to see this as as anything other again uh the father judges no one.

And yet jesus will judge. How does that work in classical theism with its assertions of inseparable operations. Isn't it the same operation. Isn't 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 that there is no disunity and that there is a perfect fulfillment of the decree of god which flows from the will of god.

But that doesn't mean that when the son judges that's just the father judging or even the spirit judging. If we let scripture be scripture and not place it in the binders of philosophical constraints.

Um the father judges no one but has given all judgment to the son. Now i was seeing people yesterday literally in talking about the prayers of jesus which we'll get to in john 17. Um saying well all those prayers of jesus that's just the human aspect.

So it's just it's just the human aspect of jesus. It's going to judge. This kind of dividing up of the incarnate one is 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. Where is this coming from. I mean honestly can someone look me in the eye and say yep. I'm sure it's exactly what john believed. I'm sure it's exactly john. Yep. No he didn't. None of the apostles did.

It's obvious. But anyway um so judgments given the son in order that all may honor the son cathos just as they honor the father. Now again i i i distinguish clearly we're not saying honoring the son creates a a confusion between who the son and the father is because hina 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.

So there are distinctions being made by scripture itself. The one honoring the son does not honor the the one not honoring. So the one not honoring the son is not honoring the father who sent him. This is obviously directly relevant to the jews and to uh early church contexts and situations where and it's relevant to us today in regards to one is pentecostals and and things like that.

But the the early sects that would reject the full deity of christ john's obviously making reference to them. So here we have uh very clearly a just a portion of john chapter 5 where you once again are are provided with a biblical foundation for creating a biblical understanding of the relationship between father and son.

And i am simply suggesting to everyone this is where we should get our understanding of the relationship with the father son not from an external greek philosophical system that is not based in what is the honest us and does not even have does not even have as its origin the created world that yahweh creates.

And when we allow systems of theology that developed from mixed sources and in fact our you know i've said for a long time our job and looking back at at history and looking back at the people who came before us is recognizing that we all have a mixture and our goal is to be as consistent as possible to identify those places where we have imbibed that which is not um appropriate that which is not actually derived from what is the honest us.

I used to think that that was completely unremarkably unoffensive and basically a duh statement. You know i now realize that that's not the case that that needs to be emphasized and you need to say hey this is this is important stuff really really important stuff to recognize that you know the christian faith that i present to muslims and to jehovah's witnesses and and others is a faith that is derived from the 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 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.

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 and given mankind's tendency towards 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. 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 uh to be honest with you.

John 17, Eternal Life, and the High Priestly Prayer

So we stay in um the gospel of john and we go we go to jesus's high priestly prayer and there is honestly a a part of me that is always um i i we're literally having the opportunity to listen in on jesus speaking to his father.

And this is so high and it's so exalted that i think it it really you know i i know all scripture is inspired but here is this something is to be handled with tremendous um care and respect and worship and honor and any other term you can come up with.

But it is plainly jesus speaking as a divine person to the 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.

And i think if there is ever to be a debate on this that's that's the only thing i would debate on um because the of the making of philosophical systems and of the parsing of terms there there is no end but of the meaning of scripture there is an objective reality.

And if your system can't handle jesus's prayers without destroying the distinction of the father and the son or without dividing jesus up into parts it's amazing. We're saying people that want to tell us that we have to view god's attributes as one attribute will then divide jesus into parts huh.

Weird why that would happen. But jesus spoke these things and lifted up lifting up his eyes to heaven. He said father the hour has come glorify your son. That the son may glorify you. Glorify your son.

Um i'll go ahead and again you've seen my nice pretty blue coat. You don't need to see that anymore. Let's look at the text here. So he lifts up his eyes to heaven and he addresses the father. The hour has come.

I'm not going to preach this whole section. I'm focusing on what's relevant glorify your son in order that the son may glorify you. Mutual glorification. But you you cannot even start to understand what's going on here.

If you do not recognize this as one divine person speaking to another divine person. If if you have gotten the point where the father can't speak to the son anymore you you missed the vote somewhere my friend come on back come on back to scripture.

Glorify your son in order 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 son. Ecstasy on authority posse sarcos over all flesh.

Is that just 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. So jesus's authority over all flesh which ties us over to matthew chapter 27 all authorities been given to me in heaven and earth is directly relevant given the hinnah clause to the fulfillment.

And and we need to notice this is a fulfillment. All that you have given to him takes us right back to john 6 takes right back to all that you have given to him he he may give eternal life. He has to have this authority.

And he gives eternal life. What do we just see in john chapter 5 he makes alive whom he will. These are all things that the son does in perfect harmony with the father. But they're different things than what the father does.

And if your theology if your philosophy is too small for the the breadth of biblical revelation then get rid of your philosophy. 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 god and not just the first and jesus christ the one whom you sent.

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 god. And if you if you really want to do that there is this debate that i had with the fellow by name of ventilation.

And if we to say that we went over it more than once um is an understatement. So uh those of you who know what i'm talking about you. Well you know what i'm talking about. And that was an interesting interesting debate.

So um to have eternal life is to know the father and the son. Uh i glorified you upon the earth having finished the work which you have given me to do. Now there's 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. Uh that was some of the most confusing. Wow. Um i i i get why it can be confusing. But no that wasn't his best day. Uh clearly you know people say wait a minute.

Jesus's work wasn't done. He hasn't been hasn't been crucified. He hasn't gone to the cross yet. That's true. But what did jesus say at the beginning of john chapter 17. The hour has come. The hour which was fixed by the father it is a certainty.

And so it is taken as an accomplished reality in this prayer. Because the hour has come up to this point no one could touch him because the hour had not yet come. Now the hour comes sovereignty of god divine decree.

It's all right there clearly in the text. Uh right before us and so. But please notice something teliosas having finished the work which given to me in order that i might do who gave him that work. The father.

This was not a work given to the father. This is the work given by the father. And it's the entire work of redemption itself that glorifies the father. Is this just a human aspect of jesus that has done this.

Or is jesus one person with two natures. Is it. I i i thought all this was a given. I really did. It seemed like. But and now as a result of this glorify me you glorify me father. Yes dr san may 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. Um because that's commonly used in prayers in a supplicatory way not a commanding type way. There are a lot of different uses of the imperative.

And now father glorify me together with yourself para se auto with the glory which i had para soy in your presence pra to don cosmon i and i before the world was for the world came into existence there is a glory that the sun has which i had.

Okay. So if there were some people that seemingly maybe they just have never thought about this. 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.