Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Our Father in heaven we thank you this morning for the glorious day that it is, for how you've granted us a new day, more breath, more opportunity to worship you our triune God. Lord we ask for your blessing this morning as we look to this book and your word for what it tells us about your nature, who you are.
I pray that you would grow us, that you would stretch us, that we would learn to love and worship our triune God all the better as we study these things. In Jesus name we pray, amen. So a couple weeks ago we left off in chapter 5, chapter 5 quiz.
Anybody doesn't have a copy of chapter 5? Because I think I have one copy with me, so hopefully you have one. Okay, well, okay, don't make too many. I have a lot of chapter 6, but I only have one of chapter 5.
Okay, so we left off at number 17, as you I'm sure recall. I don't know why you would remember that. Number 17, true or false, the Son and the Spirit being derivative are nevertheless truly God. I just wanted to put that word derivative in there.
John says false. What does the spirit of the age say? Okay, it is in fact false because of the word derivative. John is correct. So good. Aquinas said the wholefulness of divine nature is present in each of the persons.
Okay, number 18. I normally don't hum during class, but there you go. Number 18, true or false, Thomas Aquinas was muddy, unclear when it came to the Trinity. What's funny, you know, last week talking to Steve Meister, and I'll get to the answer here in a moment, you know, I said, what did you do with Thomas Aquinas when you were in seminary?
Because we got assigned to read some Thomas Aquinas, but you could just pick the pages at random. And he goes, I went in and read Thomas Aquinas about predestination because I was determined to prove him wrong.
The problem was Aquinas was right because he had, it was very much like Augustine or Calvin or anybody else. So anyway, there are places where we would disagree with Aquinas, but the Trinity is not one of them.
Thomas Aquinas, this is from Barrett, was made fun of in school and was nicknamed the dumb ox. Can you imagine that? And by the way, that was his Instagram tag. The dumb ox, true story. As it turns out, this dumb ox shook the Western world, and to this day is considered one of the greatest theologians, philosophers, and biblical commentators the church has ever seen.
Now, what do you suppose Thomas Aquinas, what's the caricature? What is Thomas Aquinas best known for? I think when I say this, you guys go, oh, I've heard that before. Trying to calculate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Yeah, Odira is correct. That's what, you know, we joke sometimes about how we waste too much time and we don't think about significant things. Well, sometimes if you think too much about significant things, you can wind up trying to calculate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Aquinas wrote the only extensive apologetic for theology. I don't know why I put only in there. He not only wrote, that's why I did it, he not only wrote an extensive apologetic for theology called the Summa Contra Gentiles, but an extensive unfinished guide for theology called the Summa Theologiae.
Sadly, Protestants today, especially evangelicals, avoid Thomas like the plague, like I did, thinking he is Roman Catholic. That is a caricature that needs to die a sudden death. Yes, we should critique Thomas like any theologian in history, but to hand him over to Rome is to miss out on his countless theological, apologetic, exegetical, and pastoral insights.
He makes an excellent point there, by the way, and the answer is false. He's not muddy when it comes to the Trinity. What do we do when we read anybody? In fact, we were just having a discussion. Oh, I was having a discussion with Pastor Mike the other day about this.
As we are reading somebody that we respect a great deal, and an article that he wrote in a theological journal, and we're reading it, and we think to ourselves, okay, he's right here, and he's wrong there.
Does that mean we throw out everything he's ever said or written? No, it just means we examine everything that they say, and we compare it with scripture, and we compare it with what we know is right, and we take what's good, and we throw away what's not, and that's what we should do with everybody.
I don't care if it's Thomas Aquinas or John MacArthur. You have to examine what they say and compare it with scripture. Okay, number 19. Yes. Okay, that's a good question. Wouldn't you say to yourself or to others, I'm just not going to read their books.
I mean, I have a fairly large list of people whose works I will not read. So, what's the dividing line? What's that? Personal conscience, I think, is a good one. You know, I would say this. When a person's writings are typically so egregious as to not have much value at all, you know, like, if...
Let's see. I think, you know, let's just name a name. That'll be fun. Would I read a book by Rick Warren? Why not? I mean, your strainer has to be so fine to get anything out of it, and I'm sure that whatever he says that's good, I can get somewhere else.
Years ago, we were at Saddleback Church. We used to go there as a field trip when we went out to Shepherd's Conference because you could go on Saturday. So, we would go on Saturday, and one time in particular, I remember him teaching on the parable of the soils, and what he said was the message of the parable of the soils, and you can look it up.
Okay. Message of the parable of soils is God's trying to tell us to remove obstacles in our lives that keep us from hearing him, and one of the guys who was with us, he's no longer at the church, but he said, well, I could teach better than that, and this man didn't teach at all, and I'm like, you probably could because even if you just read the text and then read the explanation that Jesus gave in the same context, you would see that it had nothing to do with removing the obstacles so that we can hear what God's trying to tell us.
So, that would be an example of somebody I wouldn't read because just too many problems. I mean, his latest thing is women can be pastors, and so he continues to spiral. But what's the dividing line? I think, you know, I would just say this, that when somebody becomes so much work, I think Andrew was on this line here, so much work to read that I can't get anything out of it, then I probably wouldn't read them.
Even if it's somebody, you know, like there are orthodox writers who are very difficult to read, right? And what's that? Like Aquinas or like B .B. Warfield. They write at such depth that, and I mean, it's fine if you want to say to yourself, well, I'm just going to read a paragraph today, and I'm going to read it six times and grapple with it.
Okay, I think that's fine. But there are some people that are just so difficult to read or they're filled with so much rubbish that, you know, it's like a waste of time. So, I think that's up to everybody.
I mean, if they're just an outright heretic, then I'm not, you know, unless you're reading it for academic reasons, I don't know why you'd want to read it. Other thoughts or questions before we move on?
Yeah, yeah, he mentioned Wayne Grudeman. I mean, I wouldn't group Grudem with Rick Warren, but I mean, there are a lot of issues. I mean, he believes in, you know, the continuation of gifts, and he believes in eternal subordination of the Son, and there are a number of things that, you know, there are some really excellent parts of that systematic theology, and then there are some parts not so good.
So, yeah. Okay, number 19, true or false? The Father could exist without the Holy Spirit. False. And this is like one of those things about the Trinity that we can't really explain, we're going to talk more about it in chapter 6.
Because it seems like, if you just think about this, using your own logic and your own reason, it seems like the Father being the origin of everything, that he did exist before the Son and the Spirit.
And what's the problem with that? Before implies time. And we're going to see that over and over and over. I'm trying to get out of the habit of saying gonna. So, we're not going to do that anymore. Barrett says, The Father does not exist without his Son.
The Son does not exist without his Father. And the Spirit does not exist without the Father and the Son. Not if all three have the same divine essence. Yes, they are distinguishable, but only in terms of their eternal relations of origin, their personal properties, not in terms of their essence or nature.
Okay, number 20. True or false. The difference between divine essence and divine persons is vital. Divine essence, divine persons. Is it okay to mix those two? I guess is the kind of question. The answer to the difference between divine essence and divine persons is vital.
Is true, yes. Barrett says, Everything, that's a lot. Everything hinges on this distinction between essence and persons. It's that important. Without it, we stray toward radical oneness, Sabellianism, or radical threeness, Tritheism.
But simplicity keeps us from both. In other words, simplicity is not only consistent with a God who is triune, but simplicity is the reason we can affirm a God who is triune. Ironic as that may sound.
Not only that, but simplicity guards us from several major Trinitarian heresies. So it's like Corey and Andrew did us a solid when they taught us about the simplicity of God. Yeah. Number 21. There are three personal modes of subsistence in the Godhead.
Yeah, you know what? If I could just tell you, and with all the love of my heart to John, that's why I put this question in here. Because I knew it would, the word mode would be trigger, you know, it would trigger a true answer.
And that's why, you know, sometimes I'm just cruel. Barrett says, when we affirm that there are, listen, three modes of subsistence, paternity, filiation, spiration. Okay, so if I say paternity, who am I talking about?
Filiation. And spiration spirit, right? When we affirm that there are three modes of subsistence, we do not mean three impersonal modes of subsistence, which would be modalism or civilianism, but three personal modes of subsistence.
In other words, the one essence is not manifested in three different ways. That would be modalism, Patrick. Rather, the one essence, eternally and wholly subsists in three undivided, yet distinct persons.
And this is so difficult for me. Three persons who all have the same essence undivided, and yet we have the Father, Son, and Spirit, not the same person in three different modes, but three different persons, but all having 100 of the divine essence.
That seems really complicated to me. Is it simple? Okay, number 22. I mean, it seems really complicated because it seems like it makes my head go into, you know, contradictory mode. But it's not contradictory, it's God.
Number 22, true or false, the one divine essence is multiplied three times, one for each person. Sounds like what? Sounds like three essences, or it could be like, you know, three times the essence. Okay, that doesn't make any sense.
As both Aquinas and Anselm explain, just because there are three having divinity does not mean there are three gods. The one divine essence is not multiplied three times. That is triplicity. Yeah, triplicity.
23, true or false, each person of the Trinity possesses the whole of the divine essence. It's true, and that's the part that's really kind of mind-boggling. How is it that these three persons all have 100 of the divine essence?
I don't know, but we're going to talk, we are going to talk more about it. John Gill says, there is but one divine essence, undivided and common to Father, Son, and Spirit. And in this sense, but one God.
Since there is but one essence, though there are three different modes of subsisting in it, which are called persons, and these possess the whole essence undivided. Okay, and I just think it's because I think it helps me to hear this, to read it repeatedly.
So I hope it helps you. Number 24, true or false, social Trinitarianism need not lead to Tritheism. What is Tritheism? Three gods. So social Trinitarianism need not lead to Tritheism. True or false? See Glossary.
You want to know what it is? Look it up right here. Yeah, three persons of the Trinity and how they respond, how they interact. And it's fully developed form. It's not simplicity. Some reject simplicity, but the three persons.
The Trinity is not defined primarily by eternal relations of origin. Social Trinitarianism defines the Trinity as a society and a community analogous to human society. Redefines the persons as three centers of consciousness, will.
Redefines persons according to their relationships and redefines unity as interpersonal relationships of love between persons. Okay. So when we say that need not lead to Tritheism, it is false. Why is it false?
Because when you wind up with three wills, you're going to have three gods. There's one will in God. Barrett says, despite protests the contrary, social Trinitarianism has all the ingredients for Tritheism.
For where there are three wills, there are three separate centers of consciousness. And where there are three separate centers of consciousness, there are three separate gods. Imagine, pick any three people in this room.
You know, Janet, Andrew, Steve. And you say, well, those are three individuals and that's what they do here. No matter how much Steve, Andrew, and Janet agree, cooperate together, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, you have three individuals.
So you have, in essence, you wind up with three persons or in this case with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you wind up with Tritheism. I'm waiting for a Patrick. Okay, number 25. True or false, divine simplicity ensures the equality of each member of the Trinity.
It's true. Simplicity guards us from thinking that one person of the Trinity is superior to another. The discussions. Have you ever had somebody say these things to you? Because I have and I live here, right?
Well, obviously, if the Son is here to please the Father, obviously, if the Father sent the Son, obviously, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, then the Father is greater than the Son. Why is that wrong?
But Jesus even said, the Father is greater than I. It's all language of accommodation. And what's the ultimate answer to this? Why is the Son equal to the Father? They have the same essence. So when Jesus says, the Father is greater than me, what's he doing?
Yes, it's language of accommodation, but he's also making a particular point,.
Which is he's human.
And in his humanity, the Father is greater than he is. Barrett goes on to say, such co-equality can only be affirmed if simplicity is true of God. Should he be divided by parts, we call Father, Son, and Spirit, which is what I want to do in my head.
That's what I default to, and I have to tell myself that's not right. Then those parts are either not wholly God, each only possessing part of God, tallying up to God. In other words, when they're all added up, you have God.
Or they are wholly divine because they are each their own God, resulting in tritheism. But if God is simple, then he's not made up of three parts, nor is he divisible by three centers of consciousness or three different wills.
Instead, he is one. Thoughts, questions, concerns? Okay, seeing none, we will move on to chapter six, which that's why I said don't make too many copies of this other one because, you know, and I may or may not have made enough of these.
I don't know. We'll find out. It's going to be exciting. I'm on pins and needles. By now, some of these questions you should just be nailing because you're just brilliant. By the way, again, I just want to say if you're not reading the book, you know, I had a coach my freshman year in high school, basketball.
And we would do a lot, we did a lot of running, you know, up and down the basketball court and whatnot. And I'll never forget. I mean, how long ago was that? A long time ago. Coach Preston used to say this.
He'd say, don't cheat your bodies. Don't cheat your bodies. What do you mean? Give it all you got, right? Don't hold anything back. Of course, it was also his way of just like torturing us. But I would say if you're not reading this book, you're cheating your mind.
You're cheating your mind because you will absorb it better if you, you know, how do we learn? Let's go back to that. I'm sure Mark could wax eloquent about that. How do we learn things? What's that? Repetition is one way, definitely.
Some people will say that I'm a visual learner, right? I mean, you know how I learned how to tie ties? Close. This was before YouTube existed. I was watching some stupid TV show and a girlfriend tied a tie around her boyfriend's neck and I thought, I can do that.
I went upstairs and I grabbed a tie and I did it. Before that, it was always a big struggle, right? How else do people learn? Okay, making connections. Reach out and touch somebody's hand. Making connections.
How else do people learn? Yes. Okay, seeing patterns. Again, this is kind of, that's kind of a visual thing. Some people hear better by what? By hearing. And some people hear better by doing. But repetition is important.
And when you hear this class, when you think through things, when you answer the questions, those all help you. But I'm going to tell you that reading the book is going to help you a lot as well. And some of the things that I don't go through because I don't have time to do all of it are pretty fun.
He has this, what's a made-up character? What do you get? Fictional. There we go. I knew if I fumbled around a little bit, I'd figure it out. This fictional character that he uses in the book that really is helpful in helping us understand what it would be like to be a Christian in the early days of the church or even before the church starts when Jesus is on the earth.
And to just think, okay, what would it be like to hear Jesus say this? What would it be like to hear, you know, Peter say this, et cetera? And so it just kind of puts you in that mode of thinking through these things.
And I think it's very helpful. But he does a lot of things, I think, in the book that help us to grasp a very difficult concept, namely the Trinity. Okay, chapter six, question number one. True or false, eternal generation of the son is a matter which orthodox theologians may debate.
I see a big thumb up in the back of the class. Okay, maybe it wasn't up. What do you think, true or false? I mean, you got a 50 -50 shot. What's that? They may debate it. See, I put false and there's one word, you know, Zuck is getting pretty good at figuring out what my one word tripwire is.
What is it in this? Yeah, it's orthodox. If you're an orthodox theologian, are you gonna, you know, debate? I said it again, gonna. Eternal generation of the son. Are you going to debate eternal generation of the son?
No. I mean, you could, right? I mean, if you're, for some reason, wanting to be dopey. Somebody who believes orthodox things. Somebody who believes what the church has traditionally held. Somebody who holds to confessional truths.
Those would be orthodox, so good question. I mean, if you, you know, let's put it this way. I would say orthodox is the opposite or orthodoxy is the opposite, in many ways, of innovative, right? We could say, well, it's really heterodox, which is true, right?
A different theology. But the problem is typically when we hear something, we go, well, that's wrong, right? Well, why is it wrong? Usually it's because somebody's trying to be innovative. Okay, so number one, eternal generation of the son as a matter of which orthodox theologians may debate.
False. Listen to John Gill. All the sound in orthodox writers have unanimously, I mean, you know, this is like a blessed redundancy, have unanimously declared for the eternal generation and sonship of Christ in all ages.
I mean, how many times can he say all? You know, there's all, unanimously, and all again, so that's pretty good. The triunity of, yes. Number two, I see that hand. Okay, eternal generation, we're going to define that, most definitely.
Somebody want to take a crack at eternal generation? Andrew, Andrew wholeheartedly raises his hand. You know, look, don't even, if you're just going to like, you know, kind of like my arm's broken or I've been shot in my shoulder, you know, okay, good.
And the state that they've always been in, Jesus, second person of the Trinity, is not created, but eternally generated. And we're going to talk more about that. So I don't want to belabor it because then we could just scrap the whole quiz here because we're going to see this repeated in different ways throughout this quiz.
Hint. Number two, true or false, the term eternal relations of origin tells us where each of the Trinity came from. And I'm going to give you a big hint. That's kind of what I made up. So that's false.
I was just like, when you hear, yeah, yeah, it was very innovative and not orthodox. When I think of, you know, that term, eternal relations of origin, it sounds pretty good, but what does it mean, right?
And what it's trying to tell us about is before time, exactly what Andrew was talking about, before time, how is it that there came to be three persons, right? And so these kinds of things, these categories help us to understand that.
Aquinas says this, he says, eternal relations of origin, therefore, identifies from whom each person proceeds and what it is about each person that distinguishes, listen, that distinguishes that person from the others.
What makes the father different from the son? What makes the son different from the spirit? What makes the spirit different from the father? It's the eternal relations of origin. Eternal relations of origin alone can tell us why God is Trinity, why he is triune.
The aim, says Gregory of Nazianzus, there's too many z's in there, is, and this is a quote, is to safeguard the distinctness, the uniqueness, the difference of the three hypostases within the single nature and quality of the Godhead.
So what does that mean? Well, we will talk more about it, but to just put it in a nutshell, I don't want to put too much of it in a nutshell because I'll give away all the rest of them. I think for the moment, it's just important to say this, the father is distinct and different from the son who is distinct and different from the spirit who is distinct and different from the father and yet they all share the divine essence.
So the divine or the eternal relations of origin tells us what is different about each one of them. Yes, you may. I may decline, but go ahead. The next one is going to give us one of the,.
Okay, that is true.
Yes, that's what made it. Yes, you're getting good at zeroing in on my falseness. I'll never be able to lie to you again. Okay, yes. It doesn't tell us anything about where each of the Trinity came from, right?
I mean, because where do they come from? They don't come from, you know, like ones from Indiana or, you know, no. I don't know. Definitely not Indiana. Okay, that's right. Number three, true or false of the Trinity, only the father can be said to be without source.
It's true. It's true-ish. It's true. No, 100 true. And here's a word that you will never hear for again for the rest of your life, because I'm not going to try to say it again. Inaskability. And he says, this is a fancy theological word that means the father is, listen, from no one.
The source without source. The principle without principle. While the son is begotten, the father is unbegotten. So what does that mean that the father is without source? It means that he is unbegotten.
He's the principle. And that's why Andrew is going to be teaching the rest of the class. Okay, come. Just come up here. It's a minefield. But if we stick with historical vocabulary, I was about to say nomenclature.
How many of you are familiar with that word? That's something they use in the military. You know, the nomenclature, blah, blah, blah, blah. It just means the words were the vocabulary that applies to this particular topic.
So if we stick with the traditional nomenclature, we're going to be relatively safe. And if we quote Barrett, we're going to be relatively safe too. So because he's quoting other people who are safe, and that's what we want.
The father, if you just think about it this way, the father is from no one. He is unbegotten. Okay, and I get where you're going. Just hang with me here. Number four, true or false, there never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father.
There never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father. It's true. And I give you a little insight here from the fictional character that Barrett uses. He says, Jesus is not beloved because he became incarnate, that he came to earth.
He became incarnate because he is beloved. As Zipporah, the fictional character in the book said, never was there a time when he was not the father's beloved son. As Jesus said, time after time, the father loves him, loves Jesus.
Begotten from the father from all eternity, he was sent by the father into history for us and our salvation. There never was a time, of course, now as soon as you rethink what I wrote there for the question, there never was a time when the son was not beloved by the father.
John Zook would immediately focus in on what? Time. And now you all can too. I'll never be able to lie to anybody. This is terrible. Number five, you know all my tells now. You have to watch for those tricky words.
Number three is true. Of the Trinity, only the father can be said to be without source. Number five, I didn't put it true or false. So that means there can be a raucous debate. Number five, which of the persons of the Trinity can be said to be principal?
We already said the father is without principal. Which of them can be said to be principal? I could, but then I give away the answer. Nice try. That's like, you know, those are the kind of things that, you know, the smart high school kids did.
They'd walk up and ask it. You could see what he did. Walk up to the question, walk up to the teacher, ask a question, knowing that when the teacher gave the answer, that would be the answer to the...
So there you go. All right, we'll define it here now. Unlike human fatherhood, God the father has no father. Right? We know that. I mean, who would say something crazy like God the father had a father?
Who would say that? Mormons would say that, in case you're wondering. Because from our human standpoint, does that make sense? Sort of, except then we'd wind up... At some point, you'd have to... You can't have an eternal regression of fathers, because there has to be a father who's the father of all the fathers.
He says, unlike human fatherhood, God the father has no father. He is, in a word, unbegotten. No father brought him into existence. The great tradition, our dream team, used the word principle, which, according to Aquinas, meant simply that from which something proceeds.
Okay? So God the father, first person of the trinity, is the principle. Not principle like, go see the principle, but the principle of the trinity. It ends in le, not al. Number six. Which of the persons of the trinity can be said to be without principle?
Well, it's kind of tricky. No. No. It's still the father. He's the principle without principle. The father is... Barrett says the father is principle, and the only one of the trinity who is without principle.
I don't like these words. I don't like this nomenclature. Okay, well, let's just change it a little bit. Okay, let's think about it this way. Does the spirit proceed, does he spirate from the son and the father?
Yes. Does the son proceed, or is he sent by the father? Okay. From whom does the father proceed? And that's the point. Nobody sends the father. He proceeds from nobody. He is the principle, and he's without principle, meaning there's nobody sending him.
Okay, now does it sort of make sense? Seeing no objection. All right. Number seven. True or false. The father gave his glory to the son. Sounds like something from John. So that sounds like I fooled John Zook.
Okay. The answer is false. There you go. He always had it. Barrett says he's eternally from the father. That's why he's called the son. To be more specific, in eternal generation, the father from all eternity communicated his name, his perfections, and his glory to the son.
But did he give it to the son? You know, that would be like saying he gave him his... It's hard for us. Why is this difficult? Because it implies time. And so we want that. But again, was there ever a time when the father did not have his son?
And, you know, logically, if we think that through, why would that be? Because can the father be a father without a son? Okay, the answer is no. Okay, let's see. From all eternity, this is a quote from somebody.
No, it's not. Oh, this is back to Barrett. From all eternity, the father communicates the one, simple, undivided divine essence to the son. Or to use the vocabulary of John's gospel, eternal generation means the son is eternally begotten from the father's essence.
Eternally begotten from the father's essence. And this is what causes us trouble. Because we want to see that word eternally sort of stricken. You know, we'd like it better if it said, the son is begotten from the father's essence.
Because then we could comprehend it a little bit easier. But it's eternal, not in time. Number eight, true or false, being from the father has to do with the incarnation. That is false. And I want to get to number nine.
So I'm going to go a little quickly here. And to be from the father does not refer to the incarnation, to Christ as mediator, being sent by the father. To say may reflect eternal generation, but in no way constitutes eternal generation.
May reflect it, but it doesn't constitute it. Instead, to be from the father refers to the son's origin in eternity apart from creation. As we will learn, generation is internal to the triune God, or ad intra.
We talked about that several weeks ago. Ad intra means something that takes place within the Trinity. And ad extra is something that takes place outside of the Trinity. Anyway, he is son, whether or not he was ever sent into the world.
And the reason I wanted to get into number nine, true or false, the ESV translated John 3 .16, similarly to the King James Version. Similarly, it has to do a lot of work to make it similar. Okay, let's know what Baruch says, and then we'll compare those two.
As we've seen, there is another term that conveys the concept of generation, begotten. Begotten conveys that. Perhaps you've heard the word used when reading those long genealogies in the Bible. So and so begat so and so, and so and so begat so and so.
But as we'll see in chapter seven, John applies this language to Jesus as well, referring to him as the only begotten son of God. This begotten language, however, long predates the King James Bible. Well, let's look at what our Bible says, the English Standard Version, John 3 .16.
Anybody know that off the top of their head? Never read it before in my life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Now, is there any problem with that? Begotten is not there. Did anybody have a guess why that's not there? Somebody's name was mentioned earlier in the class. Wayne Grudem had some impact on the ESV, and I'm not certain, but it seems somewhat likely that the term begotten son was removed because eternally begotten would not comport with eternal subordination or eternal functional subordination.
So it's stricken. Thus, you know, I kind of like, every time I read that, I just, in the ESV, I get a little tight because it's misleading. We need to know that he's not just the unique son of God, but that he's the eternally begotten one.
Timeless. I don't, you know, ESS and EFS, subordinate, all that stuff kind of leads to ultimately, I mean, I think if I were the Mormons, I would switch to the ESV because there are fewer questions with the ESV about their theology than, you know, this idea that maybe Jesus has created kind of goes along well with that.
I want to read only begotten. Well, in what sense? And it's in the sense that Jesus is eternally begotten. There was never a time when he wasn't, which is consistent with what John says. In the beginning, God, or in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.
This is good and true and right, and that's the way we should understand it. And every time you read it now in the ESV, I want you to just think, okay, his only son, not good enough. His only begotten son, eternally begotten is even better.
We need to think credally. We need to think, you know, with the great tradition. We need to think historically. Thoughts, questions, concerns before we close. Yes. Oh, yeah, you haven't. You're blessed.
The answer is false. The ESV translates John 3 .16. No, it does not. Mark, it's monogamous, which is, it should have, you know, it has to do with the only one, basically, the unique son, the only one like him.
So, you know, I mean, no matter how you slice it, the ESV is rather mundane and pedestrian in the way, you know, it says it, because it needs to be sort of exalted and given the depth which it's due, and the ESV does not do that.
Okay, well, let's close in prayer. Father, thank you for this time. Help us, even as we study your word, to just think rightly about you as Father, Son, and Spirit triune, to think in terms of your persons, what causes you to be unique in your triunity.
But Lord, also let us remember that there's no division. There's no division of will. There's just unity of will and of mind, and you do all things perfectly well and together. Lord, let us love you more, even as we look to these things, and even think, as we read the Old Testament, how the New Testament helps us to understand the Old Testament and some of the things that are going on there.
Father, help us as we study. Help us to grow in our love for you, we pray in Jesus' name. Amen.