On the Road Trip with James

Well, greetings welcome to a Rolling along the road Dividing line short. I don't know if that's gonna stick it probably won't we'll come up with something else somebody. I'm terrible at titles. But you know, I figured hey, I spend hours in here and If I had a co-pilot we could sit here and talk and I don't maybe someday the wife he'll get to go along right now.

She's taking care of her mom. And that's you know, it's that time of in our lives and that's what she needs to be doing. So there you go, but There are times when I'm like man, I'd like to be able to comment on that so I thought well Let's do an audio recording use sermon audio link to it.

Let people know and Like today it just does not appear that I will be able to get to my next stop Early enough really to do much as far as a providing line is concerned and You know, we did a fairly lengthy program yesterday.

So that's that's fine. Anyway, the troublemaker from Texas Was making trouble this morning and His what he did is I was actually getting gas when you know, ding and It's funny I was I was in a thing as a men's room at a large gas station along the interstate and You hear ding.

Everybody in the rooms reaching for their phones, you know, I could tell who's it was and we all have the same ding. It's it's like Pavlov's dog. Oh The the regime wants me. Anyway, the troublemaker in Texas sent me a tweet from Tony Byrne.

Tony Byrne's an Amaraldean. Well, he was last I knew anyways has been for a long time. But Tony Byrne's been one of the primary he has been the primary source provider to David Allen to attack the Particularity and the consistent sanitary inconsistency of the atoning work of Christ.

And So Tony Byrne tweeted if Jesus died only for the sins of the elect Then no one and that's in italics. I wish it I'd like to know how to do the italics thing. That would be sort of cool. Then no one I think I do know how but man If that's how you do it, it takes forever.

No one can know from Scripture alone that Jesus Substituted himself for their sins. Notice the language. The ramifications this point for the definition of the gospel assurance faith warrant, etc are quite profound.

So if Jesus died only for the sins of the elect Then no one can know from Scripture alone that Jesus substituted himself for their sins. That's the assertion That is made so once again Think through. It's it's so vitally important to think through.

What is behind the question? I think if there is one thing, you know, very often I have people say I'd like to get involved with apologetics and I'd like to do apologetics and and things like that. One of the absolutely most important things that you you have to be able to do and I'm not sure I guess it's something you can learn.

I Guess it is something you can You can teach yourself over time I guess It's just a natural thing for me. It's just a natural way that I think when I hear a statement or especially when I hear a question My mind and I've mentioned this before sort of graphically Lays out The Foundations that would be necessary for the question to be a valid question and so I can I can see visually the you know, what what would be required for this to be a valid question and so in this case as is normal.

The vast majority of objections to particular redemption are actually objections to the doctrine of election which Tony Burns says he believes. But this is an objection to election. Because no one can know from Scripture alone their own election.

They can't that there's no the list of the elect is not provided in the pages of Scripture, obviously and so The objection really Assumes that there can be some kind of specific Scriptural revelation of One's being in the elect because those are the ones for whom Christ effectively Engages in substitutionary atonement.

But no one can know that there's all sorts of things that you can't know in that sense because there are general principles laid out in Scripture. It's sort of like when the Roman Catholics say well, you know, the Bible doesn't specifically say Mary's sinned just because she talked about God as her Savior doesn't Necessarily mean I mean you you have to have the words.

Jesus Mary sinned or like when the Muslims follow Ahmadiyya and The Bible does not specifically noteworthy. Does Jesus say I am God worship me and so there can't be any kind of Doctrine that is not specifically stated in that in that sense and so Evidently the idea is well Scripture isn't Scripture alone solo scriptura is Not sufficient to give you this kind of information when the reality is Scripture alone teaches the perfection of the work of Christ.

It's Perfect harmony with the decree of the Father and that's where that's that's the issue here is the Amaraldian system Distinguishes and and breaks the harmony the inter-trinitarian harmony between the decree of the Father and the accomplishment of the Son and then the application of the Spirit and so We can just simply respond by saying there's a Unstated assumption here and that's where the problem is and that is scripture has to somehow identify who the elect are so that we can know.

None of this actually has anything to do with the reality that the high priest Intercedes for those for whom he makes a sacrifice. That's that's true the then you make application to specific individuals or specific situations and that's where particular redemption comes from and so that's the kind of of thing that is very very common and in my experience it is Coming to understand those basic foundational things that is So important in not only understanding particular redemption, but then in listening to the objections and being able to think through well What would have to be true for these objections to be true?

What's the what's the foundational presupposition assumption of of the objection? So there you go, so I'm gonna I'm gonna save this and Try to get it to To rich. I'm not, you know, it's just thought of it this morning and then let's let's See if it can even be done and So that's that's what we're doing on our way to today.

I just left Whiteville, Virginia. I'm heading for someplace in Tennessee today. I guess it's about seven hours on the road today. Probably a little more with stops thrown in there and Then into Conway on Wednesday and early church history class begins on Thursday morning looking forward to seeing all the bright shiny faces and diving into the early church and You might say, you know, I'm let me just add this in so it's worth spending the time uploading it.

Our emphasis at GBTS is in the preparation of ministers in the church. I really appreciate that. That is the first and foremost function of Christian scholarship is the edification of the church it's not the edification of the Academy and Some might say well if that's the case and you you all are reformed biblicists.

Why are you studying church history? I can hear that from some people. I really I really could see that coming up and The answer of course is not that scripture is insufficient to equip the man of God but scripture itself Directs us to history.

There are so many Examples of look back to those who came before look to what God's faithfulness has been in the past. That's why you you had the Evan H sir the stone of help the pile of rocks that people would put up to commemorate when God had by his grace and power interceded in their lives and So we have scriptural examples of looking at what God has done and of course as Christians we have the biblical example the fact that Jesus promised to build his church and So we have the history of Men and women who profess the faith Christ.

We can't necessarily look into their hearts and know with absolute certainty who was the elect and who was not. As I look at church history, I Look at those came before me in the way that I would want to be looked at by those who will come after me and that is that I Want to believe the best.

I'm going to be hopeful for their salvation and for their relationship to Christ. There there may be some that make that very difficult by the things they did and said and professed lots of inconsistencies in church history, but I want to be as hopeful as I can and Then I want to be able to learn.

I want to be able to learn from the positive examples and from the negative examples learn from the victories and from the defeats and If that includes Having to recognize. Hey, I'm in a completely different context than they were in.

So I have to be very very careful very very Circumspect in my specific applications. There are still a lot of Examples and Advocation and encouragement that can be Derived from the study of church history.

And yes that includes early church history. I was raised independent fundamentalist Baptist early church history meant nothing to us early church history as I've said so many times was the period before Billy Graham.

But The fact is there are a lot of parallels a lot of parallels to where we are today. The paganism of the society around us how the church is going to respond to persecution. That was one of my topics.

I'm not sure if it's been posted. Maybe we can track it down. Oh, and as I was sitting here, that's I was sitting here. I just realized That I did not link When I promised to link in yesterday's dividing line, so what am I supposed to do that?

What am I supposed to do right now? There's nothing new about that. I can guarantee you six and a half hours from now. Or more when I get to where I'm going. I'm not going to remember that so I'll have to try to.

I Don't know Put a bunch of string in my in my truck here tie it around different fingers. I hope I can remember which one meant to do what? But anyway, yeah, I I will try to get that link but Studying early church history So many parallels persecution and I I gave a presentation as I don't know if they've posted it out in Honestly, I don't even remember this little city.

Well, it wasn't even a city. It was just it was a spot in the middle of cornfields to the east of Harrisburg and it was last Friday night and that was my discussion was dearly church. You know, I read the Cyprian's words to the miners that's mi n e r s and What was interesting was all of the questions that were asked afterwards had Absolutely nothing To do with the topic.

Yeah, you sort of wonder if you just either exhausted the topic or you bore the people to tears if All the questions afterwards are on completely completely utterly different topics, though. I will say this.

They all demonstrated a knowledge of current controversies and discussions on the dividing line. So That was positive, but nobody asked a question about that. So Let's talk about the doctrine of divine simplicity.

Part of us have never heard of the doctrine of divine simplicity and so recently and Primarily smack theologians would address it and now it has become a central theme of a controversy amongst reformed people.

How'd that happen? Well is between having a doctrine that is derived from biblical revelation and having a doctrine that is philosophy and then made to look like it's at least consistent with biblical revelation a World of between a doctrine derived from Scripture and a doctrine made to be amenable.

Description. I think over time the chief of Christ Can tell the difference the short end of things? Maybe not. What would be? First of all, what is the doctrine of divine simplicity? Well It's normally it would normally be defined as the fact that God's essence is simple rather than compound.

So it's a special use the term simple. It's not the normal use for simple that we would you lot in the English language today. But it has an obvious meaning to it and that is that God is not made up of differing parts so that you can Take one part out maybe replace it with something else or anything along those lines.

God's being is one and God's being independent upon composition. Now, there is a biblical doctrine of simplicity and there is a philosophical doctrine of simplicity and It is important. I think to differentiate the two.

Especially today in life the function and authority of souls for true biblical would basically be. Well, a biblical doctrine simplicity is a subcategory. There is one true God biblically-oriented understanding.

Would say that the being of God is not complex is not compound. It's not made up of parts because there's only one true God. He is eternal and he's the creator of all things. Those are all Fundamentally biblical teachings and therefore his being could not be made up of lesser parts because he would have to have created those parts in the first place and So you'd have no grounding.

For the lesser parts to make up God in the first place so Clear biblical teaching Isaiah 40 to 48 trial of false gods one true God eternal creator of all things put those together and you have a biblical doctrine of divine simplicity.

God's being as simple it's not made up of lesser lesser parts so there would be a you know, if you want to hold to biblical theology, there would be a Mechanism whereby you can identify the doctrine of simplicity.

Today what is being promoted by many is not a biblical doctrine of simplicity, but a philosophical doctrine of simplicity that is derived not from Monotheism Creatorship biblical categories like that, but primarily from a metaphysical Standpoint of Thomas Aquinas mediating the overarching categories of Aristotle and so what you have there the insistence that there can be no parts to God and hence no no distinctions thereby you have the extended assertion of the idea that the attributes of God are in some fashion Not to be distinguished and cannot be distinguished on another and if we do distinguish them We're doing so only as creatures with the lesser capacity so that we don't really know the nature of God the way that it should be known and So the assertion being that God's omniscience is God's omnipresence is God's love is God's mercy is God's justice Etc, etc.

Because to distinguish between the attributes is to make them parts again. I don't know why That that becomes a necessity. The attributes of if a statement the name of an attribute is simply a true description of an aspect of God's being.

Then you do not have to confuse them you do not have to do any of this type of engage in all the philosophical gymnastics that you have to engage in to maintain a philosophical doctrine of simplicity and of course their history explain How God's being is simple and yet there is a true eternal vitally important distinction between father son and spirit.

How do you have three divine persons? Who are sharing one absolutely undivided in simple being? Well real major problem as long as Obviously if you're holding a biblical doctrine of simplicity, that's not even an issue.

But I'll let those who hold to a philosophical doctrine of simplicity explain Exactly how they fit all that together and still have a place. For the father son spirit to be actual persons who can interact with one another.

Obviously it is the philosophical doctrine of simplicity that gives rise to the concept of inseparable operations which very similarly there's a biblical way of speaking of the perfection and unity of the father son and spirit and accomplishing the one will of God and That none of the divine persons act separately from as in distinction from God as a whole as long as you remain biblical you can say that in the same way that John chapter 5 says that without destroying the distinctions and destroying the reality father son and spirit doing particular things.

So that it is the son who is incarnate spirit who indwells people of God these things are our fundamental truths. And if you Put the emphasis upon the philosophy Then you end up with this strange Eisegesis where you're trying to dance around the fact that the New Testament authors very clearly Distinguish father son and spirit and not merely based upon internal relationships I .e. the father begetting the son being begotten and the spirit being expirated.

Those are theological developments from a much later time period to begin with and certainly not apostolic in the sense of some type of this is the only way you can distinguish father son spirit the The apostolic writers very plainly Distinguish them father son spirit in meaningful fashion.

In fact some of the greatest beauty of the Doctrine of the Trinity is the interaction of father son and spirit seen the carbon Christy flashes one Hebrews one and None of these are limited to add intra distinctions.

As to be able to differentiate between father son spirit. Oh anyway because the doctrine the truth of monotheism is Foundational to the entire doctrine of God it is it is not only the the foundational doctrine, but It determines the nature of the other doctrines that give us the entire concept of the Trinity and so We need to recognize the emphasis of Scripture upon monotheism.

Upon the fact there is only one true God that is Really necessary to be able to understand the Lord Christ incarnation the fulfillment of divine promises Made in the tenach the Torah the Nevi 'im the Ketuvim the what we call the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

The fulfillment the promises made there for example Christ must reign till every enemy's foot under his feet. You look back at the Old Testament, and you see this Yahweh extending the scepter of his power over the nations and giving the nations as an inheritance to his son.

These are these are all promises that are extremely important that have a Context in which they must be interpreted. Divine simplicity does allow us biblical divine simplicity allows us to recognize these things without falling into the air of tritheism and Together with the Biblical argument that God cannot be made up of lesser parts because God's the maker of all lesser parts to begin with.

You likewise have the biblical reality of the identification of father son and spirit with the divine name Yahweh and So the father is identified as Yahweh. Just just giving an example. It was Yahweh that laid our sins upon the Messiah father.

The son is identified as Yahweh and numerous texts. You know John 1241 chapter 2 and all these places where the New Testament writers make that specific application and The spirit in the Old Testament is the spirit of the Lord or the spirit of Yahweh.

I think people will see that a little bit more clearly if they read something like the Legacy Standard Bible where you actually have this my name there I Think it's very very helpful aspect of it. And so the fact that there's only one Yahweh that's the one Yahweh of Isaiah 40 to 48 and Yet that one Yahweh is identified as father son spirit is a vitally important mechanism whereby the scriptures preclude us from.

So separating the divine persons that we end up as tritheists or subordinationists where there's one one Yahweh above other Representatives of Yahweh or things like that. Which some Unitarians have definitely come up with one might say yeah, but it's but it's not really a pastoral doctrine.

Well models, he isn't certainly as the immutability of God most certainly as His sameness over time his faithfulness. Thank you very much. Yes. I am driving It does have that Pastoral and important application.

I think that needs to be recognized as well. So do I believe in the doctrine of divine simplicity, of course? Do I distinguish between a biblical doctrine and a philosophical doctrine most assuredly I do most assuredly I do and I think it's it's important to recognize those differences.

So hope that was helpful. Thanks for listening.