Biblical Inerrancy Pt. 3: Revelation

We're in biblical inerrancy. We're up to part three titled

Revelation. I just a little bit review. Remember there's 19 articles of affirmation and denial.

Articles 1 & 2, which we addressed last week, address the Bible and authority. Articles 3 through 5, which we will address tonight, covers the topic of the

Bible and revelation. And then just to show you how it progresses, 6 through 8 address the

Bible and inspiration. 9 through 12 address the Bible and inerrancy.

And then Bible and truth. And then lastly the Bible and you. All right.

So you can see, hopefully we'll be able to stick with each of these. I don't know how long each one will take.

It depends on how many questions you have as well. So article 3 is titled

Revelation. All right. And here's the affirmation. We affirm that the written word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

Very short. Very sweet. But notice what it says. We're affirming that the written word, all right, in its entirety, keep that word in the back of your head because we're going to address that later on, is revelation given by God.

That's a very simple statement, all right, but it's jam -packed with information.

The denial is we deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation or only becomes revelation in encounter or depends upon the responses of men for its validity.

That may sound kind of strange, but this was written to refute a very certain type of heresy.

All right. Now both the affirmation and denial of article 3 have in view the controversial question of the objective character of divine revelation in Scripture.

Okay. One of the things that has come under attack, and you'll see that in a few minutes, is the objectivity of the

Word of God and how it was written, all right. The wording of this article is in direct opposition to neo -orthodoxy.

That's not a word that's panned around a lot today, all right, but in the middle of the 20th century, the 1900s, that had gained a lot, a big foothold.

You've heard of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Rudolf Bultmann. If you're familiar with theology at all, those should be familiar names, and who were at one point evangelical scholars, but they lapsed into this neo -orthodoxy.

Neo -orthodoxy is the so -called dynamic view of Scripture. In other words, that Scripture becomes something.

It's not what it is. It's not objective truth, but it becomes something in encounter, and you'll see that this view says the

Bible itself is not revelation from God, but becomes revelation in human experience or is merely a witness to revelation, which is only found in the person of Jesus Christ.

The interesting thing is they had a high view of Jesus Christ as the Savior and a pretty orthodox view of Christology, but you can see how they made almost a dichotomy between Jesus and the written word, okay?

And so notice what it says. The Bible itself is not revelation, okay, but becomes revelation as you experience certain things in your life.

Then the Word of God becomes revelation as you encounter various situations in your life.

That's why it's called dynamic, okay? All right, or is merely a witness to revelation.

They say, no, the Bible was written to witness revelation, but it is not in and of itself revelation.

You can see how that could cause all kinds of problems, and we'll address some of those.

The spirit of these articles is opposed to a disjunction between the revelation that is given to us in the person of Christ objectively and the relation that comes to us equally objective in terms of the

Word of God. Notice what the Council is saying. Equally objective.

Just as Jesus Christ is objective truth, the written

Word is also objective truth, and completely in harmony and in sync with the written

Word. Notice, Jesus Christ is what? The incarnate Word of God.

The Bible is the inscripturated Word of God, but both are the

Word of God. That's why sometimes you get, you know, critics who will answer the question, well, could

Christ have have gone against what the scripture teaches? The answer is no, it's not possible.

Why? Because that would be going against himself, because both are the

Word of God. Now, the Word in its entirety, in the affirmation, those words are also very significant, because there are those who believe the

Bible contains revelation in certain places, but that it is not revelation in its entirety.

Why would that be a problem? Exactly. How do you know what's revelation, and who's going to make the determination what's revelation and what is not revelation?

The denial of Article 3 also enforces the objectivity of revelation in scripture. Notice, both the affirmation and the denial enforce the objectivity.

Revelation does not depend upon whom is reading it, or their response to it.

In other words, the Bible is objective truth. It doesn't matter who's reading it, or how we respond to it.

You can respond to the scripture favorably, or you can disobey the scripture.

That doesn't change the objective truth that's in the scripture. It just changes your obedience or disobedience, okay?

But the neo -orthodox view said that, no, the scripture can mean different things to different people, because of what they are encountering in life.

There's that dynamic view, which is very problematic. The central thrust of Article 3 is to declare with confidence that the content of scripture is not the result of human imagination, or cleverly devised philosophical opinions, but that it reflects

God's sovereign disclosure about himself and all matters which are touched upon by scripture, okay?

Again, just constantly reinforcing, why can we trust the Bible?

Because it is objective truth right from the divine being, okay?

So, not the result of human imagination or cleverly devised philosophical opinions. What you will find in cults and in false religions is exactly the opposite of that.

You will find all kinds of false logic, or coming from the imagination of men, and coming out as calling this truth, all right?

But what we're saying is that the content of scripture is not a result of human imagination, and it's not just a philosophical opinion.

Now, what I've included here again, and this is going to be the way I go through the whole confession, first I'm going to give you the affirmation and denial, then we'll look at the exposition, and then

I'm going to give you some scripture references. Now, I want you to understand, these scripture references don't necessarily prove the point, but it at least demonstrates that it's what's taught in scripture, okay?

Because some of them might even be secondary texts, but so we're concerned now with just that the

Bible is revelation. Also, you're going to see some of these texts are going to be used over and over again, because all of these articles, they're not disjointed, you know?

Article 1, Article 3 is very similar to Article 6 in many different respects, all right?

So, first is Ephesians 3, 1 through 5. We're looking at the

Bible as revelation. Is that what the Bible teaches? For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus, for the sake of you

Gentiles, if indeed you have heard the stewardship of God's grace which was given to me for you, that by revelation, notice right there, that by revelation it was made known to me, the mystery, as I wrote before in brief, the revelation was written down, okay?

By referring to this, when you read, you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ.

We're going to touch on this verse a little bit later. Which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed.

There again is the word revealed. So, this idea that the scripture is revelation comes, even the wording comes straight from the scripture itself.

Romans 16, verses 25 to 27. Now, to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, same type of word, and by the scriptures, the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal

God, has been made known to all the nations. There's revelation, okay?

Leading to faith to the only wise God through Jesus Christ be the glory forever.

Amen. Romans 1, 16 to 17. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the

Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith that is written, but the righteous man shall live by faith.

This is an important point. Remember when Jesus had his disciples in Caesarea Philippi, okay?

And he asked them, who do people say that I am? And they gave him all kinds of answers, Elijah, you know,

Jeremiah, etc. But who do you say that I am? And then Peter makes that tremendous confession, thou art the

Christ, the Son of the living God. And what did Jesus say to him? Blessed are you, Simon Bar -Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, right?

But my Father who is in heaven, okay? The idea being that it is revelation directly from God himself.

It's not something that was just even passed down. Deuteronomy 29, 29.

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever that we may observe all the words of this law.

That's the end of Article 3. Remember, the title of that was just Revelation.

Now we come to Article 4, still under the title of Revelation, but human language.

And this you might find a little bit interesting. We affirm that God who made mankind in his image has used language.

Remember, God has used language as a means of revelation.

So we're still talking about revelation, but now we're talking about the medium, if you will, that God used to translate or to transmit his revelation.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation.

Notice, obviously, why did they put this denial in there? Because this is exactly what some people say when they're criticizing the

Bible. They say, well, no, you can't possibly think that God can communicate through human language the truth about him and who he is.

He is so other. This also stems back to neo -orthodoxy. The neo -orthodox theologians had a very high view of God and a very low view of man.

In fact, they used a, I believe it's a

Latin phrase, totaliter, aliter, all right? Do we have any Latin students?

You can correct me if I pronounce that wrong. But the idea is that God is totally other.

In fact, he is so other, and we are not, that there is very little point of contact for us, and human language is inadequate for us to have any meaningful relationship with him.

See where that can take you, okay? So that's why this denial is in here.

We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness. I know

R .C. Sproul put that word in there. If you listen to R .C. Sproul, you could start picking up where he, his, even his vocabulary, that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation.

We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted

God's work of inspiration. You see what it's denying? It's denying that the fact that we're so sinful,

God is so pure and holy, that the separation, the gap is just too great.

What point are they missing here completely? That's part of it.

Well, how do we have any relationship with God at all? Yes.

Yes. Jesus came. There is a major gap between us, but God has bridged that gap through Christ.

But even aside from that, one of the most significant attacks on biblical inerrancy that has come to light in the 20th century is that based on the limitations of human language.

Now notice, most significant attacks. So again, we may not hear it, because I haven't heard too much about neo -orthodoxy in the last 20 years or so, but earlier in the 20th century, it was a major, major deal.

And because the men that I mentioned earlier were brilliant theologians, they knew the scriptures, and that's why they were able to carry a lot of people away into their neo -orthodox thinking.

So one of the most significant attacks on biblical inerrancy that has come to light in the 20th century is that based on the limitations of human language.

Okay? Since the Bible was not written by God himself, which of course we all agree, but by human writers, the question has emerged again and again whether such human involvement by virtue of the limitations of limitations built in human creatureliness would of necessity render the

Bible less than infallible. There's the critique. You can see where they're going.

They're dealing with the critique that, no, our language is just so corrupted, and mankind is so corrupt, that we can't possibly think that men writing the

Bible could have done so infallibly. That's what they're saying. And of course, that's what the

Council is mitigating against. The argument is put forth in this manner.

Since men are not infallible, and are prone to error in all they do, and anybody disagree with that, that we're not infallible, and are prone to error, we can all agree with that, does it not follow logically that anything they do must be errant?

Anything they do. The Council refuted this thinking in two ways.

First, in a general sense, the tendency to err does not mean man is always in error.

Remember when I was given the introduction, and I talked about the difference between inerrancy and infallibility, all right?

It's possible, not likely, but it's possible for me to stand up here and go through 40 minutes inerrantly.

Now, I said it's possible, not likely, but what's not possible is for me to do so infallibly, because infallibly means that I don't have the ability to make an error.

Inerrant means I can just do it without error, and anyone who is adept at a certain thing can do something for a period of time without any actual error, okay?

I know we have teachers that never gives their students a hundred, because they claim nobody can be perfect.

I disagree with that. When it comes to essays? Sorry. I used to give students hundreds all the time, but that's just me.

All right, the tendency to err does not mean man is always in error. It's just the tendency, all right?

And the council used, in their exposition, used Adam and Christ as two examples.

One, we know that Adam, at least for a time, was able to do things inerrantly, so it's possible in a human sense, and of course

Christ, he was fully man. Granted he didn't have the sin nature, but he was fully human, and before you jump on that, don't mess with the doctrine of the humanity of Christ, and don't make him any less a man than we are, because if you do, you're taking your

Savior away. It's equally as important for Christ to be human as it is for him to be divine, and that's why we're very, we guard jealously that the doctrine or Christology, that Christ is fully human and fully divine, okay?

So those are just two examples they use, but the second reputation deals with inspiration.

Now we're going to go through a little bit about inspiration, but that's actually next week. We'll have three articles on inspiration, but however, with the aid of divine inspiration and the superintendence of the

Holy Spirit in the giving of the sacred scriptures, the writings of the Bible are free from the normal tendencies and propensities of fallen men to distort the truth, all right?

You follow that? In other words, apart from the fact that man does always have a tendency to err, to exaggerate, to distort, all right?

Our whole doctrine of inspiration is that that's exactly what the Holy Spirit did, was he superintended the writing of these documents to prevent men, one, from lying, two, from writing any falsehood, three, from exaggerating, or four, from distortion, and we're going to get into that a little bit more in detail probably next week when we look at the

Bible and inspiration, but here it's important. That's what neo -orthodoxy doesn't take into consideration, is the role of the

Holy Spirit in the giving of the scripture. Yes, I'm sorry.

These great theologians that come up with these other theories, what's your opinion, what's their motive?

I think they think more highly of themselves than they ought to, because what happens is the scripture, we hold to a doctrine, it's called the perspicuity of scripture.

Now, why perspicuity means clarity, I don't know, why would they use such a complex word for that, but that's neither here nor there, but we hold to that doctrine, and that is whatever, in the essential doctrines of scripture, the scripture is clear.

It says what it, we sometimes people say, well, by logical inference, they take things in a direction that is in their own imagination.

Yes? Well, wouldn't you say some of the heresies that form are the result of people kind of aspiring to knowledge that's not revealed, and that isn't made clear, and therefore kind of nearing the fall of Adam and Eve in the first place, in terms of aspiring to knowledge that's not ours, because it's divine?

Absolutely. In fact, that's probably one of the major causes. So you have somebody, one, who thinks more highly of themselves than they ought to think, and then they're peering into places where they ought not to go, and then you have those people who are trying to justify certain things that are difficult in scripture, but just imagine, you know, take somebody who denies the doctrine of election.

You cannot read the Bible without coming away just on a clear, simple reading of it that God has chosen whom he, and he will save whom he will.

I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. I mean, it's clear, and yet good

Christian people deny it because they think it's unfair, and so they're taking, they're using their own sense of what's right and wrong and what's fair, and not what the scripture is.

So there's a number of different issues that could come into play. Okay, good question.

The Council also affirmed that though human language may never be comprehensive enough or exhaustive enough in its ability to capture eternal truth, it is adequate to communicate truth without error.

In other words, what the Council is saying, you know, in one sense, these critics are somewhat correct, and that is we can't possibly know all there is to know about God.

It would be impossible for him to communicate that through human language, not only the fact that our brains could not, finite brains can comprehend an infinite

God. So it's true that we can never understand in an exhaustive sense, but that doesn't mean that what is communicated is not true, all right?

And they use, okay, the fact that God doesn't reveal everything about himself in scripture doesn't negate the truthfulness of what he has revealed, okay?

And the Council uses this statement, which I kind of like this. Chicago is a city in the state of Illinois.

Is that true? Does it tell us everything we need to know about Chicago? Not even close, all right?

The statement doesn't tell us everything about Chicago, but what it does tell us is true, and it's the same thing with God.

What the Bible tells us about God is true, it just doesn't tell us everything about God. Why? Deuteronomy 29, 29.

The secret things belong to the Lord, but the things revealed belong to us. The fact that man was created in the image of God means that there is a point of connection between God and man.

Communication between God and man is possible. The point of connection was built into creation by God himself as he created us as his image bearers.

So in response to the inadequacy of human language, the Council responded this. Though we recognize that human language is limited by creatureliness, we do not allow the inference that therefore human language must necessarily be distortive of the truth, okay?

Not necessarily. They rejected that out of hand, all right?

Again, that tendency toward corruption, distortion, and falsehood is precisely that which we believe to be overcome by the divine inspiration, by the divine inspiration and involvement in the preparation of holy scriptures.

Thus we think that skepticism about biblical entirety based on inferences drawn from the adequacy or an inadequacy of human speech is unwarranted, okay?

Let's look at some scripture references. Hebrews 1, verses 1 and 2. God, after he spoke, he spoke, is a language to the fathers and prophets in many portions, many ways, and these last days has spoken to us in his son.

And if we understand who his son is, we know that that must be infallible, all right?

Whom he appointed heir of all things, etc. Ephesians 3, 4. By referring to this, when you read, you can understand my insight into the mysteries of Christ.

So Paul says that, and remember, how did Paul get his revelation? He wasn't taught, it was given to him directly by God.

He makes that very clear. So he's saying when you read what he wrote, you can understand it.

So obviously, Paul felt that human language was adequate to convey biblical truth.

Daniel 12, 4. But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book.

Until the end of time, many will go back and forth and knowledge will increase. It's the time when that book was to be unsealed, all right?

Why? Because it could be understood. Revelation 22, verses 8 to 10.

Similar, I am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw,

I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, do not do that. I'm a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren, the prophets, and of those who heed the words of this book.

If you can't understand it, or if it may not be true, how can you be blessed for heeding the words?

And he said to me, do not seal up, do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book for the time is near.

No, never mind. That would open up. What is near?

Is it 2 ,000 years? Okay. All right.

Article 5, progressive revelation. We affirm that God's revelation in the

Holy Scriptures was progressive. God's progressive.

We'll get into what that means. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.

We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the

New Testament writings. Again, now this is something that will affect us still today.

This is part of the exposition. The issues in view in Article 5 are of profound importance to the life of the church and are very complicated at times.

What is simply stated in the affirmation is a recognition that within the Bible itself, there was a progressive revelation.

All that has been revealed of God in the totality of Scripture is not found, for example, in the book of Genesis.

Much of the content of God's redemptive activity in Christ is hinted at, in part, and given in shadowy ways in the earlier portions of the

Old Testament. We know that. In the Old Testament, things were in types and shadows.

In fact, part of our doctrine is we believe that some of the prophets didn't even understand the full implications of what they were prophesying.

But throughout sacred Scripture, the content of divine revelation is expanded ultimately to the fullness reached in the

New Testament. That is what is meant by progressive revelation in this context, that the revelation within Scripture unfolds in an ever -deepening and broadening way.

Now, there's some important caveats on this. Having made that recognition, the

Article of Denial makes it clear that such progress and expansion of revelation does not deny or contradict what has been given earlier.

That's a mistake, and you will hear this in evangelical churches today. Oh, no, well, we go by the

New Testament because the New Testament has corrected what's in the Old. Never. That did not happen.

Though certain precepts which were obligatory to the people in the Old Testament period are no longer so in the

New Testament, this does not mean that they were discontinued because they were wicked in the past, and now

God has corrected what he formally endorsed, but rather that certain practices have become superseded by newer practices that are consistent with fulfillment of the

Old Testament activities. Follow that? That's another, that's a very important principle.

Some people look at some of the things that God did in the Old Testament. They say, oh, we would never do that in the

New Testament, as though God did something wrong. God never did anything wrong.

Everything he's done has always been righteous and holy and just. But in the

New Testament, certain things were fading away, and the new things came.

It is also added by way of denial that no normative revelation has been given to the church since the close of the

New Testament canon. The denial does not mean that God the Holy Spirit has stopped working or that the

Holy Spirit in no way leads his people today. There's a difference in what the

Holy Spirit does in giving scripture and giving revelation and leading his church today.

Do we believe that the Holy Spirit still leads and guides? Of course he does. But not in the same way that he did so in writing and causing these men to write scripture.

What is meant here is that no revelation has been given since the first century that merits or warrants inclusion in the canon of Holy Scripture.

The problem that we have where somebody comes up and says,

I have a word of God for you, we have to be careful.

And the scripture references for Article 5. Well, let me just back up. I kind of left that hanging, didn't

I? If somebody tells me they have a word of God for me, if it is in fact a word from God, then

I had better obey it. But if it's not included in Holy Scripture, how do

I know it's a word from God? You follow? That's the point that's at issue here.

Do we believe that God enlightens, illumines, guides?

Yes, of course. I hope so. But does he give instructions in that specific way?

How can you check that? Progressive Revelation, Galatians 3, 22 to 23, but the scripture has shut up everyone under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

So we see that there is earlier revelation, later revelation. Ephesians 3, 4, and 5, we looked at this verse before.

By referring to this, when you read, you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the

Spirit. It was kept in dark, now it's revealed. And then

Progressive Revelation, speaking of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ being superior to the sacrifices, we have

Hebrews 10, 1 to 18, which is all about the superior priesthood of Christ.

I just included one verse. For the law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very forms, can never, by the same sacrifice which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw ne 'er.

There we see the progressive nature of revelation. Questions?

I know that's a lot. Well, I brought this up partly in the evangelism course, but I want to modify it a little bit to deal with the topic.

Both the Muslims and others today question, they might acknowledge that the original manuscripts are without error, or they...

You're getting way ahead of us. We will deal with the original manuscripts later on in this statement.

So, yep. Yeah, we can keep the questions to the topic, because again, we have how many more articles, you know, to do, and we do address the autographer, as it's called.

Yes. Infallibility is talking about innate ability.

Inerrancy talks about a matter of practical fact. So in other words, I can write a paper, or I can, for example, give me a geometry quiz, and it's possible

I can do everything perfect without error. So you can say I did it inerrantly, alright, because inerrant means without error.

Infallibility means no ability to make an error, alright.

Even though I may be perfect on that geometry quiz, you can't say I did it infallibly, because I always had the ability to make a mistake.

My first question is, so we talked previously,

I think, about the fact that Scripture is not ambiguous, and that it's not like an abstract piece of work.

It's very straightforward, and God has given it to us in such a way that we can know, we can have the truth and know it, and be able to live it out practically.

My question is, you had mentioned about how many people come to Scripture and go away from it with different, like, perspectives, let's say.

And let's say that, like for example with the Arminian, the

Calvinist and the Arminian both go to Scripture reading it, but they both come away with different interpretations, their own, because they're fallible.

Would you say that the main objective for, because we're reformed, so we want to be always reforming, always reforming our minds, our hearts, and what we bring, what we take from Scripture each time we come to it, we want, would you say, because you had mentioned about obedience, and how, would you say that that is the thing that's, like, the foundational thing that we are driven by is obedience to God's commands, to his words, like in Deuteronomy 4 he says, you know, you shall not, this is what

I, this is what I'm laying out for you, and you shall not add to it or take away from it, you know, this is the word that I've given to you, obey it, and so as we come to Scripture each time, we're seeking to learn how we can better be obedient to Christ and to his word, is that, like, would you say that's the main objective every time we come to Scripture?

Yes, of course, yeah, we want to know what it says. In order to obey it, you have to know what it says, and if, and in order to know what it says, you have to handle it accurately, okay, and what happens is, unfortunately, you have many teachers, pastors and teachers, who are not teaching their congregation to accurately handle the

Word of God. I mean, for whatever reason, I mean, that's just the reality of the situation, and that gets back to the fallibility of man, all right?

Look, I would love to stand up here and say, look, I hold to a certain theological perspective.

I'm a Reformed Baptist, theonomic, post -millennialist, okay, and I believe that that is the most accurate interpretation of Scripture.

There are great theologians who would disagree with me on each one of those points, all right?

At least one of us is wrong, all right? But the key is, there becomes an error where the error goes so far that it becomes heretical, and that's what you really have to be careful about, and especially in the doctrine of Scripture, because if you abandon the orthodox doctrine of Scripture, all right, then where's your standard?

Now your standard is going to be some sort of a man -made standard, okay?

I believe what I believe because I think that's what the Scripture teaches from all my study.

Could I be wrong? Yeah. If I knew I was wrong,

I'd change, and that's where you advise not to go against your conscience, you know, and kind of like the

Martin Luther statement, you know, where they told him he can't. I can't. Why? Because unless I'm showed by sacred

Scripture, you know, or evident reason, I cannot recant. To violate conscience is neither safe nor right.

Here I stand, and I'm not equating myself to Martin Luther, but to his sentiment,

I hope everyone would have that same sentiment. Somebody had a hand over here? Yes.

Does God give people, individual people, revelation about something?

I don't believe in the way that the charismatics say.

I don't believe that. Yes, I have, and I think that that is a gross misinterpretation of the

Greek word rhema. But the Holy Spirit can and does communicate to us.

Yes. Not revelation that would be outside of Scripture, but he convicts, he converts, and he always bears witness of Jesus.

Yes. So as we read the Scriptures, there might be thoughts that come into our mind that connect the dots and say, oh my goodness,

I never saw that before, and you know that that didn't come from you, and you say, okay, this is

God enlightening me and putting these things together. But if it's something outside of Scripture, where I should go to college, where I should move to, that's not something that the

Holy Spirit speaks to us about, because then

Scripture wouldn't be sufficient. Right. It comes down to the sufficiency of Scripture. Everything for life and godliness is contained in the

Scriptures. In the Scriptures, and we're called to use wisdom. Yes. Right, and follow the principles of the

Scriptures in order to make these decisions. So, yeah, this comes into play, you hear people a lot of time, and this is what the language

I'll use. I'm just seeking God's will, okay? And they use that in terms of making life decisions, okay?

The way it's usually put forth is that's really a wrong choice of words.

What is the will of God for your life? You're sanctification, all right? That's the number one will of God for your life.

Start doing that, and don't tell me you want to know if you're supposed to move to Cincinnati or Cleveland.

When it comes to those type of decisions, what God requires of us is to make wise decisions, and he has given us our mental capacity to use the

Scriptures to make those wise decisions, and people constantly use all secular decisions.

What's the number one reason people move? Money. Money.

Number one reason why people move is money, in one face or another, whether it's to get a better -paying job,

I can live, the taxes are lower, and whatnot. We're in their thought process, which should be number one, is this where I can serve

God the best? Where has God called me to serve, all right?

I know of Christian people who have left Long Island and gone, and to this day, ten years later, still don't have a decent church to attend.

Where was that thought process, okay? We still in the church have a very secular way of thinking about those type of decisions, because we don't exercise a full biblical worldview, and then you have people who are looking for God's will, and they're looking for this rhema, all right, a word.

That's why I don't like to use that God gives us revelation. He will help us as we read the

Scripture, and his spirit does bear witness with our spirit, so there is this interaction, but is it revelation?

I think to call it revelation and then to call the Scripture revelation, I think, is to offer confusion to people.

Same thing with I'm searching for the will of God, all right? I think people misuse those words all too much, and that's why we have so many people floundering in their

Christian faith. I think it goes to the fact that so many people say, well, God wants her to be happy, so I'm gonna do what

I want. Yeah, that's an excellent guess. I think it's also not trusting in God's provision as well.

I think of Naomi, how she moved to Moab, and because there was famine, so she's like, well,

I'll move over here, but then there ended up losing her husband and her daughter -in -law.

They lost their husbands, and then they moved back because now Israel's thriving.

Right, yeah. Good example. Any other questions?