Damnable Heresies Come Fast

Well greetings welcome to the second Episode today of the driving line. I Can't put that up there. I'm gonna put this over here. I'm sorry about that. Move it over there may not be quite as loud, but you don't leave your phone sitting in the Sun for very long even in.

What Southwest Texas? Southern Texas, I'm I don't know. I've still got 300 miles to go before I can arrest today, and then I've got another eight hours plus of driving tomorrow. So yee-haw. Anyway a couple days ago.

I think.

Right as I was leaving to come out here to do this duty.

A.

Well, I thought it was a single video when I first saw it. I thought it was a single video. I thought it was going to be a discussion. I thought there's to be substance to it. What it turned out actually to be once I finally got around to finding the time to look at it.

Was.

Mitchell Wigand. Who?

Is.

Gloriously follically blessed. Okay, I mean I've never seen a beard Like like this one really really impressive. It doesn't have anything to do with your anything, but he's got a great beard. He posted.

Basically all they were were a couple clips minute and two minutes From some fairly recent dividing lines fairly recent because they they were both from the RV they were in the back of the mobile command unit and Along with Titles that are accusations of heresy of Canonicism and Tritheism and then.

I.

Think yesterday if I recall correctly Tony Arsenal used language concerning me of damnable heresy. Now, let's Let's define well. It's all a matter of definition, isn't it? Yeah, we're discovering that it's it's all a matter of definition these days.

Damnable Heresy, Tritheism, and Canonicism

Let's start with damnable heresy. Now, that's a that's a phrase that in general is Pretty well known and it means a heresy.

That.

Dams the soul so it leads people to hell. So it is a heresy that fundamentally alters.

The.

Christian faith in such a way that is no longer the Christian faith. Isn't amazing how fast we went from? We're not sure you're really Confessional to you're leading people to hell. That was that was quick.

That was that. Yeah, I was. That was really fast. It's just shocking anyway. So damnable heresy is the heresy leads Others to hell and if you believe it yourself leads you to hell too because it fundamentally changes the Christian faith.

Tritheism would be a denial of the doctrine of the Trinity by saying that there is more than one God because As I've been teaching forever The fundamental foundational Basis of the doctrine of Trinity is in fact.

There's only one true God one true Yahweh Who has revealed himself as father son Holy Spirit?

And.

So tritheism is a form of polytheism. I mean there's there's different kinds of theism you have you know theism for example and the guy over at Lagos he Sort of promotes the kind of the idea of Christian, you know theism and the Old Testament and stuff like that, but It's a you know, if you want it real clear dividing line the dividing lines between monotheism and Polytheism and then you get all the subspecies in between if you want to start playing games with that.

So a tritheist is someone who fundamentally denies monotheism And believes there are three gods which everybody knows with a brain that that doesn't fit me, but there are people that are using that terminology and Then we have canonicism now.

Kenosis is not quite as easily defined because there have been. It's it's a fairly modern term. Well, it's not I mean kenosis itself is the Greek term Used in Philippians 2 making yourself into a reputation, but Paul never uses it literally.

He always uses it metaphorically and he does so in Philippians 2, but he also used it for example. I would not that my labor would be vain among to become empty amongst you and Literally the Greek term is to is to empty but when it's used metaphorically, you know Be of no reputation that type of thing.

So.

It's.

Used.

In the 20th century of.

The eye.

Well, there was a group of differing ideas in relationship to.

The.

Divine the human in Christ and the exercise of divine prerogatives. So especially in Europe there is an emphasis upon The Sun's total dependence upon the spirit so that he can be a proper example and guide for Believers who are in him to be dependent upon the spirit for empowerment and service and things like that.

And it's a it's a discussion of What you know, it's based on Philippians 2. It's based on he made he emptied himself. But what does that mean. And I've given my view on that over and over and over again in reference to Being made of no reputation and Not that there can ever be a Essential Alteration of the nature of the Sun.

The Sun can't cease to be the Sun. He can't cease to be truly God but obviously there is in the incarnation and this was again terminology that was utterly Unremarkable until just recently a veiling of Certain aspects of his divine nature in the incarnation of necessity So that he could be the God man.

So.

He he cannot the Shekinah glory of God that would consume any Unholy creature that would come by him And and be the Messiah and to function the way that the triune God had determined that the function that the Messiah would function.

In.

In his earthly ministry. And so there is a There is there is a humiliation. There is an entering into Human existence and hence a veiling of Certain aspects and certain prerogatives really of the Sun's Glory and power and might.

And the issue becomes well, you know exactly how far does that extend. What's the. You know and a lot of the a lot of the discussion at least back in the 20th century. And it sounds weird back in the 20th century.

Back in the 20th century was really in regards to.

The.

Incarnate Sun's relationship to the spirit. So so how does the Incarnate Sun relate to the spirit in the sense of empowerment. So When Jesus does miracles From whence is the power coming. Because the idea was if Jesus is our model and we are in him and we are to be like him We're called to be like him.

Then we are called to be dependent upon the Spirit of God In our lives and therefore he had to be dependent on the Spirit of God and his and so on and so forth. And again, it's somewhat speculative because you know There's a couple texts if I by the finger of God do this that.

Nothing.

So you you can Have a few texts that may or may not be directly relevant, but it is somewhat speculative in its its orientation, but especially in in Europe the the danger of a canonic Christology is that there is a There's There's more of a of a temptation towards subordination ism in European theology.

Well, of course you can find anything in both European theology in American theology, but just in a general sense there's there's more of a Danger and a temptation toward a Fundamental a willingness to say that there's a fundamental change.

In.

The Sun in the Incarnation, you're not gonna get quite as much of that in On the American side of things at least back in in those particular days. Like I said, I'm driving Off the top of my head. I didn't look but I remember very clearly a it was a Edition I had anyways was a white cover white paperback cover.

And I'm pretty sure the author was Fortman and I'm pretty sure he was Roman Catholic believe it or not yeah, there's a vast difference between reading Roman Catholics and benefiting from them and Saying that they're the only ones to get the doctrine of God, right there.

If you can't tell the difference between those things, yeah and get a problem so anyway, I just remember a Fairly lengthy discussion In regards to the concept of Kenosis that I had to deal with during seminary and you know, I was when I was first dealing with a lot of the Unitarians or nationists things like that in my well early mid-twenties.

And.

It was so unhelpful, so anyway. Then we have. Well, did anybody bring that up? Yeah, it is it is coming out today. There's in fact I've seen today.

Just.

Briefly at you know pit stops and gas stations and Yes, McDonald's just now. Hey, you gotta eat what you gotta eat and that was actually really good today. And they weren't really busy. So the fact that they had fresh hot food was nice anyway.

I've seen discussions going on about inseparable operations Which again ninety nine point nine nine percent of all Christians never heard the phrase don't know what it means wouldn't have the background understand what it means and Probably needs to be defined just really quickly I think I think Somewhat, you know, the problem is you can anybody can say the Father Son Holy Spirit act in perfect harmony and unity with one another.

That's not enough. That's not in several operations that's not in several operations several operations requires a particular view of simplicity as being definitional and It's a Thomistic view of simplicity as being definitional.

It's really where it's Driving its force from and I think one of the best ways to recognize it in someone Is when they say that the only way To distinguish Father Son and Holy Spirit.

Is.

Add intra. Never add extra. That's. That's what defines the separable operations. What do I mean by that? Well. Add intra. You have the Relationships Which have been identified in theology Which are not specifically the objects of revelation, but a theological understanding of Begetting being begotten and proceeding spirated.

So the the father begets the son in the West the father and son Spirit proceeds from them spirated from them In the East only from the father. That's the filial clause and all that and that that's the only way you can actually distinguish Father Son and Spirit.

And immediately the vast majority of Christians just common-sense everyday believers go.

The son.

Is the only one that became incarnate so There's an action there that the son does the father and the spirit don't and they say Nope. That's an action of the triune God and Then they default back into further more speculative theology to say.

But we can talk about appropriations where there are certain actions were a particular one of the divine persons. It's more appropriate or the Depropriation of those particular actions to one particular divine person, which doesn't actually answer anything.

It's just it just makes it look like you're you're Getting somewhere when you really aren't you're just adding more complicated Terminology to try and make your system stand up. Because the reality is anybody who reads the New Testament For more than a couple pages will encounter text after text after text That just assumed the distinction of Father Son and Spirit that is On its surface level just on its face is a distinction In what they have done in the economy of salvation.

They have taken different roles in the economy of salvation the spirit comes to witness of Christ and he's not witnessing of himself and Etc, etc. So the common sense first it says wait a minute something something got messed up here an emphasis has started to override the text of Scripture and it has and it's It's Thomistic simplicity.

So What's happening now going back to the accusations?

Is.

If you.

Do not buy into The inseparable operations based upon Categories of Thomistic divine simplicity type of an idea Which no one has ever even tried to defend biblically. You can't it's That's not what the Apostles taught us that this is a later Systematization.

There's there's no way you could ever Walk into a debate and prove from the text of Scripture that the Apostles taught that the only way you can differentiate between father son spirit is Not by add extra actions, but only by add intra Relationships.

You couldn't do it. Don't I mean I suppose there might be some people foolish enough to think that they can't but it is plainly obviously a extra biblical Theological interpretation that requires Bring in all sorts of external Stuff which is why for months and months and months.

You've been hearing all the stuff about natural theology and and All the rest I guess Because you're not going to get it in any kind of meaningful interpretation of the text of Scripture unless Unless you buy into something like great tradition exegesis, which is you know spiritualized and you push past the Basic meaning into this special spiritual meaning and at which point you might as well go join origin in the in the deserts of Egypt.

So.

What we're hearing now is if you if you don't buy into this if you don't accept this. And it's always because John Owen said. It's not because the Apostle Paul says was John Owen said.

Then.

You can't maintain Christian orthodoxy and so that's like, you know when Craig Carter says you have to come a Christian Platonist. To defend the doctrine Trinity. That's basically what he's saying. Is Plato.

I'm sorry, Augustine was deeply influenced by Plato by neoplatonism and.

And.

Therefore To hold to post Nicene Christological development you have to embrace the same philosophical categories That were utilized at that point. That's what that's that's the assertion is being made.

But now it's not just if you want to follow Augustine and use his terminology now, it's if you want to be a Christian at all.

Then.

The Bible just ain't enough It's just not enough. It doesn't give us what we need and We've developed what we need.

By.

Bringing in Plato and Aristotle and categories and Development and tradition and now we've got what we need.

But.

Obviously to anyone who thinks through it more than a few seconds They realize so that's the end of sola scriptura and yes, of course it is. There's no question about it so the idea is if It is insufficient to confess That there is one God.

Okay, so I've done entire debates defending monotheism against polytheistic Mormonism. They're you know, if you go to the hundred verse memorization system, which I wrote years and years and years and years and years ago You'll see the whole section where we go through the trial of false gods and we Do a pan canonical from Genesis to Revelation Defense of the fact that there is only one true God and.

So that's not enough. That's that's no longer enough. And you can't just go well. But that one God has identified himself with his covenant name Yahweh.

And.

In the New Testament. You know, we know the spirit of Yahweh from the Old Testament becomes the spirit of the New Testament. It's the same spirit.

And.

The father's identified as Yahweh Isaiah 53, it's Yahweh that places the sins of his people upon the Messiah. But then you have the key key key texts where Jesus is identified as Yahweh and there are so many and They're they're interwoven throughout the text.

First Peter 3 15. A lot of you have heard me speak on, you know that key text in regards to Apologetics, but it's not just that it's a much more key text that it is viewing Christ as Kurios Lord, that's a quotation from Isaiah.

Look at the Nessie Allen text. They even recognize or the continuation of the text continues right in the citation continues right in verse 15. We're talking about viewing Jesus as Yahweh Being the ordering principle of all human knowledge.

I.

Don't think there's nearly enough emphasis placed upon that. I think part of it to be honest with you is because people think Peter is not as Deep as Paul and therefore they don't expect something like that coming out of Peter.

It's like I Think you forgot Peter's own description of Scripture. But anyway the Sun is identified as Yahweh, so you have all three divine persons. Being identified with the covenant name of God Yahweh and of course Unitarians dispute this and there are some who claim to be some kind of Trinitarian who might dispute some of it as well.

But it's it's very very clear and it's found repeatedly. It's in the Carmen Christie, for example, and it's in John and it's it's just all over the place.

So.

You can say there's one true God creator of heaven and earth. And because he's and this is by the way, this is where a biblical doctrine of simplicity can be derived is if you want to actually benefit the the sheep of Christ rather than pointing them to People where you have to go.

This guy was really good on the doctrine of God. But man, he's completely off on the gospel because most people realize that doesn't make a lick of sense. But if you want to give a biblical Argument for the Doctrine of simplicity then what you say is God's being is Simple that is it's not made up of parts.

Because if something is a part it is created. God created all things. Therefore he has to be before all parts and therefore he must be simple because everything that is made he makes. It's pretty straightforward seems I think.

I think the reason people don't like it is because There is a mindset among some people. I'll be promised with the the people who want to be seen as philosophically astute. Want stuff to be a little bit more complicated than that?

It's so so you've got it. You've got to get into all this other stuff to make it all work. But again, if you want a biblical doctrine God can't be made up of parts because if it's a part God made it in the first place.

So he has to be before all parts. And therefore he can't be made up of parts and that's pretty straightforward anyway. If you don't hold to these Formulations Then you must be a tritheist. Everything you say about one Yahweh Eternal creator of all things no other gods before him.

Rap doesn't matter. Because if you dare say that you can distinguish between father son spirit by anything other than begettal inspiration.

Then.

The whole Trinity is going to explode Into at least three parts anyways, and you become a tritheist. That's that's literally the assertion being made and when you Explain that to people they just look at you and go, but that's silly and I go.

Yeah, I know when when people become.

Scholasticized.

They start doing silly things and they start believing silly things. That Scholastic formula and system becomes the be-all and end-all of all things. Now let me just head off a Sideways argument here because I've already seen it.

We're talking here about Speculative theology. People admit this is a philosophical theology. And so some people will say Sounds like what you're saying is everything's just really simple. I'm not saying that and therefore Mr. Calvinist man, why don't you you know, mr. Pott calling the kettle, you know Mr. Pott kettles on line one type of a type of an argument.

Here's the problem. Predestination election are biblical terms. There are entire chapters on the subject. There is no chapter on The extended doctrine of dying simplicity. There is no chapter on inseparable operations.

And.

Any honest advocate of these positions will say yep. No. We're not we're not saying that when Paul taught the Ephesian elders. This is what he was teaching. This develops over centuries. Here are the external sources that have given rise to this.

And.

That's that's what's dealing with. So there there is no parallel between Affirming the clear biblical teaching that there is a divine decree and that God is absolutely sovereign over all events in history and there there's divine election and You know, we've we've spent years and years and years going through this.

There is no parallel between these things because none of that is speculative theology where we're having to bring in This category or that category from from this philosopher or that philosopher or something like that, so let me just Head that one off at the past.

So with all that said when you when you look at the Clips, for example that the greatly bearded one posted they are in reference to the necessity to Recognize.

Biblical.

Statements straightforward biblical statements and what we're hearing. Let's use. Let's use the Matthew 24 36 text. It's astonishing to me again after years and years and years of Having addressed this subject without anyone Raising a whisper now all of a sudden So many men who will admit I introduced them to reform faith or I was first one to explain the doctrine of Trinity to them now they are so Because they've read now they I'm the one that needs to repent and learn you see never raised a An objection before so I guess they were leading people to hell before at least from what Tony Arsenal was saying I guess he was leading people to hell before but he's probably repented of all that.

So he's Good. Anyway Matthew 24 36 I've said for a long long time look My concern here is really rather simple. This is a very difficult text and if you can construct a Theological philosophical system that simplifies the difficult text That is is a Jesus not exegesis and you can get away with that As long as you do not try To export the Christian faith outside of the narrow confines of Where you are and what you're doing?

Because I've debated plenty of sharp people Who will Absolutely Nail you because as soon as you start appealing to your external sources Outside of Scripture they will nail you and say I thought you believe in the soul of scripture and See the reason they can do this is because you're not being consistent with.

Soul of scripture.

You've redefined that as well and so.

This.

Text all I've tried to say about Matthew 24 36. I've always said for example That the Spirit of God searches deep things of God. Spirit knows that spirits not mentioned in Matthew 24 36. So even going there is irrelevant doesn't matter.

The point is That you can't Affirm or deny More or less than what the text itself says. And once you say well I'm just gonna divide Jesus up this way. Look there are places Where it is very clear?

That.

Jesus is making when when when Jesus makes reference in John chapter 17 to the glory He had with the Father before the world was okay. We know who's talking here. Okay, we know what the referent at that point is.

Because the Sun as a human has not eternally existed. We can get that but remember we're in Matthew and When the term Sun is used you can't just flip a switch and go well. This isn't Jesus speaking as a unified person.

This is this aspect speaking of that aspect speaking. Unless there is an absolutely Overwhelming reason to have to make that kind of distinction. You don't do it John 17 being an obvious example of that.

And in Matthew Into whose name are we baptized? The name singular of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Is that the same term father? Why. Yes, it is. Is that the same term son? Why. Yes, it is.

So If you're going to have the Sun Have one referent in one text and another referent in another text you can understand why an Opponent in a debate and again, that's always what's important for me.

I.

Might go you seem to be being somewhat arbitrary here and just you know, taking an external system and making it fit your text and If I'm saying that to them if I'm debating a Muslim and I'm saying you've developed an external system since the writing of the Quran which is not consistent with actually the text of the Quran and.

Here's the reasons why? Well, I need to be consistent don't I? If you're in a Facebook group discussing this stuff and that's what you do your entire life. You don't have to worry about that. I get that but you take this stuff outside those realms and take it to the straits take it to the world and You've got to do things differently and there has to be consistency.

And so all I've tried to say is look if you and I've said this if you want to say That well, this is the Sun's human nature speaking you have every right to say that if you if you believe that's the best interpretation that that's exactly what Matthew was attempting to communicate more power to you.

I Simply go prove it. Prove it exegetically don't go it has to be because of this doctrine. You show that to me in in Matthew because I know I'm gonna be trying to speak to people who are going to go to those other places in Matthew where the Sun is Unified and is speaking in a unified fashion, and they're gonna go why not here, too.

What's your what what kind of consistent methodology? Can you suggest?

And.

Once you say well my consistent methodology Is derived by an external system, then that external system is your ultimate authority no matter how Hard you might want to try to Avoid that conclusion. That is your ultimate authority and Soluscripture is done at that point.

That's that's just all there is to it. So I've simply said this is a very difficult text therefore It would seem to me that in the context. We are talking about the incarnate one. You do have his functioning as the Messiah in this context and This is not a statement that the Sun didn't know before the incarnation doesn't know today.

But that there could be a reason Why in the incarnate state this would be the state of affairs? And all I get from people is no no no no can't be that well. Why can't it be that well? It just can't be Okay exegetically why can't it be that it just can't be okay fine That's that's where we've got the problem is as I go.

Hey if you want to If you want to take another perspective If you want to say that this is some type of parted of exegesis, and this is human nature and then later on Baptized the name of the Father's Son now.

It's the United God man Or something I don't even know what you do with that one, but you're gonna have different Appearances of Sun in Matthew, and you're gonna have to you're gonna have to explain that and I have to explain Why there would be a reason why that knowledge would.

Be.

Not attributable to the Sun as a Singular person that it would be appropriate for the Sun in speaking of men angels the Sun but God only the Father only. I have to explain why there's a That's an issue, but this is it's amazing to me that instead of with humility and grace People go yes, this is a tough.

This is a tough question. And of course the Incarnation is tough because it's it's absolutely neat there is no. You know I I remember being challenged in a debate by a Muslim. Can you give us? An example of Something like the Incarnation, and I'm like no of course not it's absolutely neat.

So there is there is no example that you can give of of the Incarnation that would make Jesus something other than being the unique son of God so no. So instead of going yes, this is a really unique situation.

This is we need to be humble and we need to be gracious and Listen to other perspectives instead. It's oh no no no no If you dare say that you canonic tritheist Neo-saucinian damnable a heretic That's we got there real fast.

I think really Really really quick. I I guess that type of thing happened in the past, but I think social media Provides the the skids the oil and the skids and everything else To push us down the slope into this kind of nastiness a whole lot Faster than than ever ever in the past so unlike Tony Arsenault and And he of the great beard I'm not kicking them out of the kingdom.

I pray that they'll be blessed that they will. You know I don't know how you can experience joy and peace When you're for example recording the dividing line just to try to find stuff to attack I Not sure how enjoyable that really is, but hey You you stand or fall before your own Lord, not me and so I don't identify I.

Warn.

Against an imbalanced Philosophical perspective. In fact that was one thing. I did want to I did want to mention. I know I'm going along here. There is a Vast difference between consistently Interpreting scripture and deriving your faith from it and having a philosophical System that provides you the framework for the interpretation of scripture.

Those are two completely Different things and that will come out without question in dispute especially When that dispute is outside of the narrow confines of an argument amongst Christian theologians.

So you can have you know back to church history. You can have the robber synod where you know marauding bands of Egyptian monks are beating each other senseless and to death in the streets and coming up with theological conclusions as a result.

You can have stuff like that happening, but that's internal it's when You have Christians standing before Muslim Caliphs and Giving a an answer for their faith. That's the kind of.

Pressure.

That will demonstrate whether you are doing Bible as Source of truth exegesis or you're doing Bible as Conditioned by my theological system eisegesis. And you can't always see that easily but it's those external encounters that demonstrate it one way or the other and We don't honestly we don't have Enough of that external stuff going on anymore at least not in the big sense.

To provide that level of clarity and it's interesting that the vast majority of people I know who are pushing this Philosophical system that will fundamentally Do away with sufficiency of scripture are people who as far as I can tell have never taken Their current emphases outside of the Christian faith to some other context and And like I said many times I hope they don't because I I don't believe that it would be helpful at all In those in those situations.

So I probably thought of a bunch of stuff over the past couple of days while driving that I Forgot to throw in there as I was going along as I was watching the bugs getting snatched all over my windshield.

Yeah, there's there's some Bug, I don't know what it is. It's sort of a medium-sized critter given by Judging by the amount of guts on the windshield. That is breeding right now. Hatching doing something.

I don't know and I'm in like I said South getting towards southwestern Texas and The speed limit here is 80 miles an hour and I'm doing 80 8 -0 not going over but 80s let me tell you you hit a bug straight on at 80 and This this trucks big enough to not be worried about that it is getting pretty gross out there you may have heard a little.

That was what was going on in the background where we are alive on the driving line. Anyway so I was. There's a bunch of other stuff that I I've still got On my computer that's starting to get like two weeks old.

But I think I still should be able to grab it and who knows maybe we'll be able to get to some of it Might get some it on Tuesday. We'll see. But rich is doing what I'm doing. I've got I'm preaching like I said on Sunday and We'll see how much Preparation I get done in the evening is between now and then.

I mean I've gotten a lot of preparation done now but I don't there's still much more that I would like to be able to do between now and then and We'll just see how that that works out. But so I hope this is useful to other folks.

I try to redeem the time as best I can it certainly helps keep me awake if if for nothing else. You know that it has a benefit along those lines. When you're on these long long long long journeys and.

But once I'm done with this one, I've got a whole bunch of Podcasts and I've picked up a couple audible books this morning a couple that I've done. I did an audible book on the Great Schism another on the history of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Already as part of what I'm doing and then of course, I love my history stuff, too. And I'm way behind on a couple of those books, I want to get to and so we try to try to redeem the time be as profitable as possible as we zip along the nation's roads here and get this beastie home and Get all the stuff taken care of so that the next trip which will start right after Thanksgiving Will give us an opportunity and I did I should say that one thing I did on this trip was we will be.