The Laborers' Podcast- Christology

Welcome to the Laborer's Podcast. Tonight we're going to talk about Christology,.

The study of Jesus Christ. We hope you will stay tuned. Once again, welcome to.

The Laborer's Podcast. We're so grateful that you have joined us tonight. We've got the comments open, and they are open for you. We would love to hear from you. Let us know that you're watching. If you have a question, we'll try to answer that question.

Give us a critique. Whatever you'd like to give, just let us know that you're watching and joining the conversation. We want to glorify God and exalt Christ with you for our communities so that they can come to know Jesus Christ and know the truth of God's Word, and we love doing it together.

I'm so thankful to be joined with my fellow laborers. What's up, guys? How are you doing? Good, good, good, good, good. Tonight's topic is Christology. It's a big theological word, but you can see the word Christ in there, so it makes it kind of obvious what that theological term means.

Christology is the study of Jesus Christ. We've talked about Jesus on the road to Emmaus and how He went through their scriptures, which would be the Old Testament, speaking to them, showing them that it speaks of Him.

He was showing them Himself in Scripture. I know you've heard us say that a lot, and maybe you've heard that in church as well. So whenever you read Scripture, you're looking for Jesus in each verse, in each chapter, in each book.

But Christology, the study of Jesus, is a little bit different. It's a little bit deeper. It helps us to take the Bible as a whole, systematically, and understand Jesus and His character and His nature in a more profound, deeper way.

And it's great because we get to learn more about our Savior. So if y 'all are ready to jump in, we'll start right... I feel like sometimes we should do the Brady Bunch thing and wave at each other. Oh, so Tyler on my right...

There we go. Let's go with question number one. Is Jesus God?

Indubitably. Absolutely, yes. Jesus is God.

What a word!

What a word! John chapter 1 says, in the beginning, literally in RK, which is how the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, starts Genesis, that same way, in the beginning, was the Word. The Logos, the divine reason.

That's a pretty potent word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. And RK. And everything that has been created, through Him, all things have been created.

I might be splicing that a little bit. If we skip down a. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory. And this is about Christ.

Absolutely. I'm going to have to come back to myself, because I need to turn to John chapter 1, and I'll share with you guys something that... a way that I viewed and helped me to understand John chapter 1.

I explained it when Tyler was our guest last week, or last Sunday, on the Truth and Love Network, and I talked about how I like to use pictures in my mind to help me understand concepts, and I'll share that with you once I get to it.

But anybody else have any comments on answering, is Jesus God? Because we're the only religion that will say that.

Yeah.

And I was going to make a comment.

Yeah, go ahead.

I just happened to be listening to an old Q &A from Ligonier Ministries with Sproul earlier this week. I don't remember exactly what the question was, but he was talking about this verse, John 1 .1, and he said it's really a key word in there, and the second part of the word was, was with God.

He said that word with, it shows a distinction there between the word and God, but then later, directly after that, it also clearly shows that the word was God. So right there, you've got the distinction, but at the same time, the oneness.

And he said also, too, the word with, I don't remember the exact word, the original, but he said there's, in the original language, about three words that we can translate into the word with, and one's kind of like you're with people in a group.

Another one is if you were just with one other person, like you're walking down the street with someone, but the word here used is like a face-to-face, very intimate relationship. So it's the closest relationship you could have.

So in that verse, again, you've got the distinction between the word, which later on in verse 14, we clearly see is Jesus. So the distinction between Jesus and the Father, but in a very close, intimate relationship, and then directly following that up by saying they're both the same.

So I thought his explanation was a lot deeper than that, but I thought that was interesting to hear that earlier this week.

Here's what I saw in 1 John, and this may not make sense, and I may not do a very good job describing what I'm seeing in my mind, but here's the picture I'm seeing in my mind. It's John 1, I'm sorry if I said 1 John, but it's John 1, verse 3, and I always found it interesting how John sounds like he's repeating himself.

It says, All things came into being through him, and apart from him, nothing came to being that has come into being. I was like, what is he saying? And finally, what I did in my mind was I drew a circle, and everything within that circle was everything that came into being, and then I drew another circle around that circle, and the only thing outside of that circle, according to this verse, was Jesus, because everything through him came into being, and apart from him, nothing came into being.

So the question about him being a created being, he could not be a created being because he's not within that circle of all things that were created. He's outside of that circle, and that may not make sense, but that's what I saw in my mind.

I put everything that was created inside that circle, and he's on the outside. He created. Claude described the concept of eternity and the eternality of Christ.

All right. I started fretting when you started with Tyler, because I knew that going across the ways that I was next, so this is a big one, but I would describe it with the Scripture. So Colossians 1, beginning at verse 16.

I'm really not wanting to leave out any of that context, and I know it really kind of will lead us into those other questions too, but Colossians 1 .16, he is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

For by him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through him and for him, and he is before all things.

There's eternity, and in him all things consist, and he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may have the preeminence. So the question is, describe the concept of eternity and the eternality of Christ.

Well, eternity by definition is incomprehensible. No beginning and no end, and so in that definition is Christ. And as Forrest would say, that's all I've got to say about that.

Do you think within the definition of the eternality of Christ, it's not just speaking of time, but his greatness? Do you think that's a part of his eternality?

Well, I mean, the incomprehensibility of eternality itself is, I guess, yes, it does go hand in hand. I don't know a big word like indubitably, like Tyler used, but I know indubitably isn't the right word here, but it goes hand in hand with that.

Again, you can't separate and dissect the Godhead, and I'm going to go to the Trinity there. You can't necessarily dissect them, pull one attribute out, because God is complete in all things.

Right. Absolutely.

If I could add to what Claude said about eternity and the eternality of Christ, that he's the centerpiece of reality, and forgive me if I get too philosophical here, but when we look at cause and effect, which when we look at reality, that kind of governs the way we see things.

This happens, and as a result, this happens. There's a chain. You knock over the domino, it knocks over another one, and if we could trace back all the causes and the effects all the way back, at some point, there has to be a starting point, which is logic, right?

There has to be a first cause, but what would require God to not need a cause? And some philosophers have debated on this and tried to come up with some fancy definition, but simply put, a cause is something being enacted, something being put upon it, something that brings energy into movement, and the reason that God doesn't need a cause is because he is always in motion.

He's always moving. He doesn't need something to make himself kinetic. He is always kinetic. He's not potential energy. He is always acting. He is.

Always actively upholding his creation. That again is incomprehensible, but makes sense.

And that goes to Genesis 1 -1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Go ahead, Matt. Sorry about that.

I think we can take this question and point back to help us answer the first question, too, just in a little greater form. As Jesus God, we can look to his eternality. For example, in Revelation 22 -13, Jesus says, I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

When we go back to the Old Testament, for example, Isaiah 44 -6, we see the same language about God. Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts, I am the first and I am the last.

Besides me, there is no God. So you see them using that same name for Christ and God. So, again, you can tie that eternality to both the Father and the Son.

As well. Amen. Absolutely. Absolutely. And we probably don't have time for every single nuance of these questions, but the eternality of Christ and eternity also brings up the questions of how does he view all things at one time and being outside of time?

So many other incomprehensible questions that are good to discuss, but it also exalts his greatness to think about these concepts. Andy, how about the next one? What is incarnation and describe the incarnation of Jesus.

And its implications? Well, before I get to that, I want to touch on where we've been. And I think this is part of the reason I always get a little chuckle when I see our homework and it's 12 questions like, yeah, we'll never get to all those, which is actually a good thing because it means we're taking what we're answering seriously.

We're not checking boxes. We're actually taking these things seriously. So in order for me to do that, I think it's important to touch on these first two questions real quick. First of all, I want to thank you, Rob, for posing question number one in the way in which you did.

You said, is Jesus God? And what you didn't ask was, was Jesus God? I can't stand it because when people ask it that way, because and some people may be well-intentioned, they may be, but usually when they're asking about that, they're hyper-focused on the fact of Jesus, the man, and therefore understand him to have existed as a man in time, and therefore it was previous to when we exist.

So they think of it in terms of having existed. And so I like the fact that you asked the question correctly, is Jesus God? Well, I got up at a sermon, I did a sermon one time, a long time ago. I can't remember what name it was, but it was something about the deity of Christ.

I got up and I said, is Jesus God? And the congregation went, yeah. I said, all right, let's go home. There's nothing more to cover. We're good. Because the whole hinge of Christianity and Scripture, or the whole foundation, I should say, of Christianity and Scripture hinges on that fact.

If Jesus is not God in human flesh, then he's not who he said he was. He's not what he claimed to be. And so that's very important. In terms of the eternality, just like with the Trinity, I'm always, and I'd say that kind of lightly because I guess you can't, you really, we try to avoid using terms like never and always.

I've learned that in therapy. Don't use terms like never and always. But I typically hesitate to, or shy away from, analogies of any kind for the Trinity. The worst one is the four-leaf clover, three-leaf clover.

I just want to compete my head against the wall every time I hear about a clover. It's not an analogy for the Trinity. And I hear the things like the three lines that are drawn on top of each other. That's not it either.

That's modalism, Patrick.

Oh, yeah, that's modalism, Patrick.

Isn't there Lutheran satire on the Trinity?

Yeah, it's just, it's bad. Just as a general rule, don't attempt to use creaturely concepts and creaturely categories to describe the infinite. And so in terms of the eternality, we have to understand, you could try to come up with some type of creaturely analogy or picture in your mind to understand it.

But the fact of the matter is you can't. And this hits to the heart of who God is and who we are. We have to remind ourselves that time is a created order. God exists outside of His creation. There was nothing without God.

And in reference to John 1, 3, we talked about nothing has came into being or nothing would have came into being without Christ. That word translated made or came into being is a word talking about creation with a point of time or a point of origin in time.

Whereas when he talks about Christ, it's the present tense self-existence of I am, I exist. And so God's nature is completely different from our own. We are created and we are creaturely. So we're not going to understand it because we can't experience it.

We don't know what it's like to be a self-existent being. But if y 'all will permit me, I just want to go Old Testament on y 'all for a little bit. As soon as I saw the question, immediately my mind went to Isaiah 43.

So now I know I'm not asking the question I was asked, but I've really worked hard on this one. So I really want to make sure I get this point across to you. In reference to number one is Jesus God. We could spend a lot of time talking about John 8, where the Jews clearly understood what Jesus was claiming.

But I like the Old Testament in Isaiah 43, verse three says, for I am the Lord your God. And I'm actually, you know what, I'm going to pull up. I'm actually going to read this from a legacy standard Bible because I love the way it translates it.

He says, for I am Yahweh your God, the Holy one of Israel, your savior. And he talks about how he gives Egypt as your ransom and goes on so on and so forth. Verse seven, everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made.

This is Yahweh using God language, creation, formed, sovereignty, decree, all these things. So keep that in mind. Then you get down to verse 10. You are my witnesses, declares Yahweh. And my servant, this is the constant theme.

One of the constant themes throughout Isaiah is the suffering servant, the coming Messiah. This is obviously who's been talked about here. My servant whom I have chosen that you may know and believe me and understand that, watch this, I am he.

There's no question that the writer is denoting that this servant, this Messiah, this coming one is God himself. All throughout Isaiah, all throughout other places in Old Testament, you get this language that the Messiah is God himself.

And that's why he says, before me, no God was formed, nor shall there be anyone after me. I am the Lord. Besides me, there is no savior. I declared and saved and proclaimed when there was no strange God, or there was no strange God among you.

You're my witnesses. And there's more in the chapter that could be brought out there, but it is very clear in the Old Testament and in the new for that matter, but the Old Testament is very clear that this coming Messiah that's prophesied against is God himself coming.

Micah talks about this. This coming one in chapter five is literally our peace. So if you want to talk about scripture's witness to it, there's no question what scripture thought of Jesus. So you really just have to go from there.

So I'll kind of just stop there. And if anybody wants to pick up or respond, or maybe take the question I was supposed to answer.

Yeah. Keep on, keep on going. Tell us about the, uh,.

Okay. I was gonna say I don't have the time, but if you want me to, I'll go ahead and I'll jump into the, uh, incarnation part. That'll be fine. I'll tee us up and let everybody else go after that. Um, obviously with the, uh, with the incarnation, we, we, we think of, uh, Philippians two is obviously a passage that readily comes to mind.

Um, and the question is what is incarnation describe it, the implications, so on and so forth. Uh, verse five of chapter two says, have this mind in yourselves. The King James says, let this mind be in you.

The new American standard, I think, translates it to have this attitude. The idea is that this word translated mind is a word that means that the inner perspective or the inner essence manifest in outward behavior.

So there's a unity and a harmony there. And if you think about how we operate as creatures, God's creatures, what is on the heart? Jesus even said this, that which is in the heart proceeds out of man.

And so that's what he's saying. Let what is in your heart as Christians match the same type of mindset that Christ had as the servant. And so then the classic verses are verse six is as who referring to Jesus, though he was in the form of God, this word form meaning shape, outward expression, that is in complete harmony with the inner.

So you see a, a similarity in language and interesting to note in Hebrews one verse three, these are the word which we get icon, the exact representation of God. He in the form of God did not account equality with God, a thing to be grasped or seized after emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant being born in the likeness of man.

And one thing to point out here, when it says that he's made in the likeness of man or being born in likeness of man, this is a word that means to emerge or to become it's a transitioning from one point around to another.

This is not as the false teaching goes that Jesus is a created being or had a point or origin or origin point in time. It just simply says at a point in time, the second person of the Trinity took on flesh.

He became man. And then finally, verse eight and being found in the human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the cross. So I'll just say very briefly, the biggest takeaway in understanding the incarnation, there is some that will try to debate, you know, what Christ could do this, that, and the other.

The biggest thing to take away here is that God himself, glory and majesty among what we can even comprehend, try to imagine the level of condescension to lower himself to a created order that is full of dust and flesh and pain and sorrow and aching bones and all that goes with it.

And he did it for us. So in closing, I'll say Dr. James White has always said consistently, we see the Trinity revealed in the incarnation of the son and now pouring at the spirit. And in reference to, and I'm not touching on the Trinity now that's coming in a minute, but in terms of the Trinity and God, Jesus being God, once you've established that both the son and the spirit are Yahweh, the debate is over.

And so that ultimately is the incarnation that God himself literally took on human flesh. Sorry for the monologue there.

Oh, it's okay. It's good. Great information. And what you were talking about, it's so hard to imagine the humility of Christ and the condescension that took place and so many areas that you could go with that.

And I was just thinking, when you were talking about it, I was just thinking about. The nails that they used on the cross weren't created like a tree. The materials were, but it took the ingenuity that God gave man to make those nails.

And those nails that man formed kept Jesus on the cross, put Jesus on the cross. His own creation, man, the material, the nails that through their ingenuity formed, it took smarts. It took labor.

To make this thing. God allowed himself to be killed by his own creation.

Yes. And they took all that effort and didn't worship him, didn't exalt him, but killed him with what they had made. And I mean, it's just unimaginable talking about his condescension. Any other thoughts on his incarnation?

I was going to say, I think it's one thing we can look to is how important the affirmation of God in the flesh is. We look at 1 John 4, 1 -3 and 2 John 7. In summary, it says, those that deny Christ came in the flesh have the spirit of the antichrist.

So that right there tells us that affirming the humanity that Christ came in the flesh as God, that is an essential of the faith. That's right. Amen.

There is a quote that came to mind while you were saying that, Robert, that I would love to share real quick. Oh yeah. From Octavius Winslow, the Puritan from the 1800s. One of my favorites, honestly.

And he says, so completely was Jesus bent upon saving sinners by the sacrifice of himself. He created the tree upon which he was to die and nurtured from infancy the men who were to nail him to the accursed wood.

That'll make the hair on your neck stand up. Amen.

And I always loved Octavius, that name, Octavius Winslow, what a name.

I always think of Dr. Octopus.

That's right. Part of that question, Matt, is another big theological term, the hypostatic union. I was only familiar with that word not too many years ago. And many may not be familiar with that word.

So explain what the hypostatic union is.

Like I said, it's basically a theological term to state that Jesus at the same time was both fully God and fully man. And to some degree, I mean, that it's one of those things like Andy was talking about.

We can't try too hard to try to make analogies out of this or explain this in human terms. There is a certain air of mystery to that because if we start trying to, like you said with the Trinity, start trying to describe this too much, we're going to get off into the heresy.

But I think for this and also other things, not only going to scripture and obviously just trusting what it tells us, but this is a good topic where we can look to the historical creeds and confessions that these subjects have been debated throughout church history.

And as we look to these creeds and confessions over time, we see what the historical orthodox church, what they have come to a conclusion based on scripture. We don't hold the creeds and confessions up equal with scripture, but they are a time-tested way, just a summary of what scripture says.

And as far as the hypostatic union, I would also commend to everyone an episode specifically on the hypostatic union on the Here I Stand theology podcast that Claude and I did. I don't remember when that was.

Maybe Claude can find the link. We did a whole episode on that, but I think one of the best is, which we talked about this in the episode, the Chalcedonian definition. And one thing, I won't read the whole thing, but one thing I really like in it is it talks about the two natures of Christ, and it kind of gives some negatives, per se, about it to understand it.

Let's find it in here. Okay, it says, the natures of Christ undergo no confusion, no change, no division, or no separation. So we have to, again, there's mystery just based on the limitations of our human mind of how a person can be fully God and fully man at the same time.

But we can go through scripture and see that Jesus, how he was the attributes of divinity and also the attributes of a full human being. And again, we ultimately trust what scripture says and go with that.

That was the person and work of Christ, correct? That was the name of that episode.

I think it was. It was that first one we did on the person and work of Christ.

Got it. Nice. And real quick too, I'll send that link here in a minute, but Matt mentioned the confessions. The Belgic confession is another one. Article 19 actually is specifically on the union and distinction of the two natures and the person of Christ.

We believe that by this conception, the person of the son is inseparably united and connected with human nature, so that there are not two sons of God, nor two persons, but two natures united in one single person.

Yet that each nature retains its own distinct properties, as then the divine nature has always remained uncreated without beginning of days or end of life, filling heaven and earth. So also hath the human nature not lost its properties, but remained a creature, having beginning of days, being a finite nature in retaining all the properties of a real body.

And though he hath by his resurrection given immortality to the same, nevertheless, he has not changed the reality of his human nature, for as much as our salvation and resurrection also depend on the reality of his body.

That's just paragraph one. There's a second paragraph, but the Belgic confession,.

Article 19. If I could interject something real here, because I think this needs to be said, because it speaks to one of the purposes of our podcast, because I don't want listeners to get lost and think that we're just taking them through the thick jungle of theology here, and they can't see past all the weeds and all the thickness of the jungle that we're taking them through, and think to themselves, what's the purpose?

Yes, there is a simplicity to Christianity where God can save a child. We believe that God can save someone who has, you know, limited knowledge and know enough to be saved. However, in this world, there are people who believe in Jesus.

Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Muslim, Catholic, Satan, believe in Jesus, but they have a different Jesus. When you hear the word Christology or hypostatic union, yes, it may seem like we're taking you through the thick jungle of theology or taking you through the weeds, and you seem lost, and you can't see the destination and the treasure that we're taking you to, but it's so important that we move from simplicity to maturity in the faith and maturity in the word because not everybody's Jesus is the biblical Jesus, and we want you to have the biblical Jesus.

I want to piggyback on that, Rob. Hebrews talks.

About moving on from milk on to meat, so a lot of situations, I don't know that you could apply this in every situation, but generally, I'll talk about preaching against the extremes. So, for example, in the context of what you just said, the extremes would be this.

You must have exhaustive knowledge of every creed, confession, doctor, thesis, anything that's ever been put in print by a Christian. You need to know it, be able to speak it, understand it, and teach it back to somebody.

The other extreme is one, two, three, repeat after me, punch your ticket to heaven. Who cares if you even know anything about anything? That's right. Yeah. Here's the difference with this that I would take versus some other things.

Normally, you would say the truth is in the middle, try to find balance, and that's all well and good. On this one, I actually think we're called to lean towards, don't go up to the thou must know every possible thing there is to know.

You don't go that far, but we're to lean and have our aim be, say, several notches past whatever is neutral, because in the interest of what you were talking about, the fact of the matter is, Scripture commands us to grow into the depth and the richness of all there is to know about Christ.

That's right. So, if you're not actively pursuing that, you're sinning. But the Bible does not require every Christian to have the same level of exactness of knowledge, and also, the Bible does not require us all to be able to articulate.

There is a specific reason why it is told in Ephesians that pastors and teachers are a gift to the church. Not so those pastors and teachers can think in their pride or think highly of themselves, because one of our requirements as a biblically qualified elder in Christ's church, I take it immensely serious to humble myself and understand that the knowledge and the gifts I've been given didn't originate with me.

They were given to me. So, having said that, we as a preacher, it's not my job to get there and preach something that literally everybody can understand at all times and never go beyond that. No, I'm supposed to be inching you closer and deeper in knowledge, but those people that are marred by sin's curse in their body to where their minds aren't able, or say a child, obviously there's developmental things, in eternity, that won't be an issue.

Everybody will be able to grow. The key now is doing as much as you can, and only you can really answer whether you are. That's right. That's right. That's why this is important. Oh yeah,.

Absolutely. Can I say one more thing on the incarnation? I just wanted to kind of touch back on the implications. One thing I was kind of drawn to was Galatians 4, 4 and 5, but when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his son born of woman, born under the law to redeem those who were under the law so that we might receive adoption as sons.

I think that's, to me in a nutshell, that's the implication that Christ came in the flesh to redeem his people.

Amen. That's right. That's right. Well, I just want to hit one really quick. We're talking about trying to keep things simple to some degree, too. A very, very simple implication of the incarnation of Christ.

If in fact Jesus Christ is God, everything he claimed to be, and he died, was buried, and rose again, and has all authority, you're going to bow knee to him one day. And you've got to reconcile what you believe with that at some point in this life, or you'll be wishing you had.

And for the Christian, that's the greatest hope that we have. I mean, I struggle in battle with depression, have for probably since I was in high school. And the only thing that really gets me through any of it is the fact that Christ is God.

If Jesus Christ is not God, if there's not a sovereign God over this universe, this is a scary, frightening world to live in because there's nothing beyond it. And in my mind, what's the point of living with this depression if there's no eternity?

I mean, I could end it now and no more pain. And why do you think the suicide rate's so high? The reason I'm not like that is because I believe that Jesus is God, and the hope that I have in him spurs me forward, even in the midst of great trouble.

Amen.

That's right. That's right. I appreciate that, guys. Tyler, we've already talked about it, and we don't want to go outside our boundaries, but the Trinity and Jesus' part in the Trinity keep us within the bounds of Scripture, but help us to understand the Trinity a little bit.

All right, everybody, get your fidget spinners out. We're about to have a thing.

Let me just go ahead and give you a preemptive...

Now, we've heard some of those illustrations with the three arms of the fidget spinner, and you got Father, Son, dot, dot, dot. I disagree with that, but Deuteronomy 6, I think, is pretty important here.

This is part of what's called the Shema. This is one of the key prayers of the Jews in ancient Israel, and this is actually something that Jesus cites when he's asked what the greatest commandment is, and he takes them to the Shema.

But the beginning of the Shema is, here, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is one. And I think it's important to note here that in the Septuagint, that is the Greek copy of the Old Testament, that Hebrew word Yahweh is rendered as kurios, which we know is Lord.

So when Jesus says he is Lord, they knew what he meant. There's not disambiguation. I can't say that word for some reason today. There's no disambiguity about that, because he's using a word that has been used to render Yahweh.

He knew what he was saying, and they knew what he was saying. Just throwing that out there. Secondly, if the Lord is one, then whatever we come up with about Christ and the Holy Spirit has to fit within that verse, because if not, we have a very sincere problem here when the tried-and-true testimony of Moses, which Jesus himself said was about me, about Christ.

If this is incorrect, we have a pretty significant issue here. But Jesus himself said, I and the Father are one. And so the best way I've found to articulate this is that there are different persons to what we call the Trinity.

There's the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, but they're not different people. They're not different entities. They are the same substance, but there's different personalities that build on each other.

So you have the Son who gave his life for the sheep. You have the Father who sent him to do so. And you have the Holy Spirit who advocates for those.

Redeemed people after he ascended back to heaven. Amen. Country language,. The Father thought it, the Son brought it, and the Spirit taught it. Absolutely. That is, I think, the best way I.

Can think to put that in words, keeping within the same boundaries. If somebody can do a better job than me, I'm open to the invitation. I think that's good. I think one thing we can see,.

Again, Claude and I did an episode on the Trinity as well. I think one thing that we focused on in that episode, as you go through the totality of Scripture, which we've talked about a little bit already with Jesus, the Son, and God, the Father, and the Spirit in there, you can see throughout Scripture the same qualities and attributes given to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, all three, showing that they are one and the same.