I want to start at this point by asking what is between those disciplines, the biblical systematic.
! And we saw that the biblical is of course systematic because it organizes. We can't think without
! organizing your thought and certainly biblical theologians are highly organized scholars.
But in systematic we make the opposite plea here that it also supports the biblical discipline.
It involves one exegesis and also biblical theology and gathers all these up into one final coherent whole.
So briefly, what are its distinctives? The major distinctives are systematic organizing the material
on a topical basis. On a subdued basis not, they could originally assess biblical theology,
but in terms of the great biblical concepts which one finds in Revelation. It is often suspected
that, as I suppose in supposing, alien philosophies of the student doctrine or non-biblical concepts
of the student doctrine. Karl Barthes refused to elect himself because of what he saw as problematic
in that area that meant they gave the alien concepts of philosophy and imposing those on theology.
He also subjected, of course, to a confessional approach because he thought that was equally a sweet jacket.
He gave us what he called church normative. He gave us what he called church normatics. They don't see much improvement
in the normative or when it gives the alternative terms, but that's what he did.
Now, these topics are subjects which occur and recurrent in the Bible. We find them time and time again.
And there are five or six basic loci, which all of you are aware of, theology as such, doctrine of God,
anthropology, histology, scoteriology, and physiology and perhaps some suespectology, depending on your range of material.
But those are the five that have to create sub-humanism. But within these, of course, there are also a large number of what we might
have to do with the sub-humanism. And we have to recall some concepts such as the Trinity, the divine attributes,
creation, providence, the sub-humanity of God for ordination. These are all in theology proper.
And Christology, again, we have the sub-humanism, the incarnation of Christ, his work of atonement, his exaltation.
Or perhaps the three, four doggies, prophet, priest, and king, that are all alternative ways of recognizing material.
But the epithel is more based on biblical guidelines. It's an iterating point, having made that comment that
only in Hebrews is Christ called a priest. But it has become a major category in the form of theology that they do this through the
through place the deep port office of Christ. They assume that they're quite valid because it's so widely endorsed by the epithel of the Hebrews.
And of course, again, those other ideas of theology and so on.
What I would say perhaps in that area is that these are almost as an abstruse concepts. Some of them do sound abstruse.
And some can remain abstruse. But remember that, in secularism, we also cover experiential and practical realities.
For example, Calvin's Institutes in Book 3 has a great extension on the Christian life as part of his systematics.
And that includes such issues as Christian liberty, for example, and assurance, which are by no means abstruse or practically aware of the issues.
And we might also, under the same rubric, cover such things as repentance, conversion, faith, perseverance, all of them again experiential.
And ethics too was seen by Calvin and by many others as part of systematics, based on the Ten Commandments.
And so again, Calvin, of course, is part of the Christian life. Because the law is the rule of life for believers.
Now, there are always discussions about what are your cases and proportions and what order you take them.
And there is no biblically mandated or necessarily order, there is no canonical order that we want to discuss these topics.
When I discuss the book, under God, we discuss first of all the One God, Deopuno, or the Trinity.
And there are those who call one and the one who strongly that is called the Trinity.
But historically, when has it begun with the One God?
And then that is, of course, the divine begins with the One God, and then it's triune, necessarily, later on in the New Testament,
the course of the work of redemption. But the discussion is quite a matter of discussion.
And again, Calvin's locating of predestination in book 3, in relation to the new birth and so on.
When, as others have put, God and ordination just before creation, the order again can be buried widely.
But, as I've been saying, in videos of the democratic arrangements, for example, our own Thomas Charles of Scotland, in his Institute of Theology,
he began with the disease, which God was a remedy, began with the disease, reflecting against the Charles of Schoen practical mind.
But these are two significant points. But he begins, not for a quietness or courage, but he earns life with the disease, unable for remedy.
And that's his order. And then again, this is the book that can be detestable, I'm sure.
So, Barthel often quoted the phrase, method who says, amethalius. Method is, amethalius is a matter of free women.
You choose your own method. But, the opposite of systematic, of course, is not biblical, but are systematic.
So you have to organise material, there is only the material, but organise as far as one can see, in terms of the bigger proportions and balance.
There are challenges such as eschatology. Where does that go? Because it's tempting to paint it on at the end of the system, as an appendix.
And I am very, very suspicious of that arrangement. So, sometimes I place it under Christology,
linking it to the polemic of Christ, because that inaugurates the conservation. But then, of course, the last days were inaugurated with the arm of Jesus to enter him.
Now, there is the eschatology. God has, in these last days, spoken to us.
But we have made, as we call that, in all of eschatology, so where are we put it? The eschatology.
Or, as we call it, as we call it, is a theology. Because it's conservation, or redemption.
Basically, if any of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of those of
inevitably, the site of the clerical press, and I know this to my cause, because I'm also
more clerical press than myself, there's a type of believer to a clerical call, which
is like, I'm going back to Amur, and they are convinced this man can be converted, because
he's a clerical call. And so the site of the bishop, I'm saved, and he be the pedagogy
that he owes, he said, it depends on what text will be where you're using. I have been
saved, I am being saved, and I shall be saved. And so at that point, eschatology is a part
of the redemptive process. It's been, we have redemption inaugurated, but not yet
consolidated too. And so, I will be occasionally accompanying events of the
evangelism of the universe. That really is part of our salvation. And it's even
somewhat part of humanology, what is said. Because in a single way, it's the dead, as
the bodies of believers. And the transformation of the universe of
Timothy, as the same ancient, as Homer, over the original chaos, and I may use that
word, of Genesis, Genesis 1. And so, questions of a range of education do raise
very interesting issues. The other issue that's of consequence is the physiology. Where do you
put that? Last year I taught a six-week course of
this called a physiology, 24 lectures. This year is going into Systematics 2, which already
occupied 96 lectures, and some have wanted to, 24 to 96, to give us a flag what we want. But
obviously, they did a defective. It's going wrong something. Now, my concern is that, listening
into your own discussions today, the doctrine of the church is so important. As long as I
took it, there aims to theology in the sense that the church is a community of the redeemed.
The same as having baptism in the theology. Because the New Testament, there is no separate baptism
on conversion. When there is conversion, there is baptism. And I think that link perhaps has
been sometimes rather randomly broken in some of our theology. I do it all the time. But
the broken issue should be from the eventual calling to faith, repentance, and baptism. That
is the profile of the theology. I think the scripture is so fairly good. But my concern is that the
church is God's chosen instrument for the blessing of the world. We are able to have seed. And in the
the church is God's chosen instrument for the blessing of the earth to be blessed. And if the church becomes
dysfunctional as it has, to some extent, lack of self-reflection, self-reflection, self-reflection,
then it's in opposition to the blessing of the world. And that's why the kind of
Lachlan-decent approach to theology is something deeply wanted. It is important to ask what is the
Lord's idea of the church, and what are the notes of the church, and what are its ministries. And to have
clarity on issues of that kind. How should a church be organised? And you have a choice. You can say what we think as
as Western business people, we go this way. And then you say the New Testament are a different way. And you have a choice.
Do you choose what made you choose the most efficient business-like way of doing things? Some American
corporations, directors, and so on. Or do you go with the Presbyterian Church or the New Testament with its
the New Testament? It's a college of overseers, and its connections of where the
the, in my opinion, where the Vatican court is the local accession, the local church. And where that church is again
overseen and turned by the Presbytery, and in turn by the Synod. So you have a review of the Lord by what
the Protestant my darling called the Ephelium. Now of course only in rare circumstances, such as the
superior at all medal in the Ephelium, the local church autonomy is a pretty important
but the particular principle. And it's interesting to remind ourselves that in Scotland, post-officacy,
the Catholic formation, there were no Presbyterians for several years. And Father
the Indian John Knox had died before they had Presbyterians. So the idea that Presbytery
the Vatican court is not one that had me to teach endorsements from the Symbolic
American thinking. The Vatican court, the Vatican church is still the local church. And that
local church is linked or gathered into any other church. They linked to any church in the whole
world. And one of the intriguing themes from Scottish theology which gave me much attention
to the church, the so called Second Reformation, the Benedict Coulterford and George Gillespie and
the Catholic Church and so on. But they had this view that when you sat at the Lord's table, you
know better mind this fear of sitting at a table when somebody wasn't pushing me there. And the
powers that can cause, I'm not going to sit at the table without pushing. And they said, look, when you sit at
the Lord's table, you sit at the table with every other communicator of the whole world. Now, it's
something that was, I think, most interestingly present, but in this facsimum, it was a unifying
factor. And it's a challenge, I'm not going to acknowledge it entirely. Who are Christians? The
Baptised and the Communicants. Now, we would never think of those things who would become so accustomed
to dismissing these sacraments as far as I define the criteria. But they were at one time precisely
that. They were identified criteria. And it has helped me often to know on the Lord's table
morning that as I sit at the Lord's table, I sit with all those in the church with me, all
others in Scotland at the Lord's table, and all over the world from this day are sitting at
the Lord's table, because we are born in Christ. You know, we can't choose a
progressive institution. God has his own adoption policy, and he doesn't consider us on that policy.
And so, that's where we are. So, I'm just suggesting to you that these issues of arrangement,
and so on, there are really some quite interesting issues as to the logical progression and so on, and
that is the second feature of the system that I want to comment on briefly. That is this. That is,
interestingly, organic connections between the various components of the truth. Because, at
at the last, uh, through the shmone, and there is a modern system of theology. Now, of course,
that can be horrified or subtle, but because the, uh, the, the, the, the, the, the, the
70 million years system. Now, obviously, that is a principle of the modern system. And within that system, uh, every secret truth, uh, is affected by every other truth, relates to that.
Uh, there is a support suit. And error in one department, where it would definitely, uh, generate error in another department. You know, you affect one member, one component part, then you affect every single, uh, component part.
And so we have to ask ourselves, not only how you are angels most of the times, but, how are they connected, the, the one, uh, to the other?
Now, there is one remarkable point that maybe we should take to heart here, and place in the heart of our students. And it is this. The, absolutely, the
fundamental importance of our views of sin. And it is the gravity of sin that means that we need an atonement. An atonement, uh, of such magnitude that God's own sin.
That's the virtue that God's own son takes their place under the curse of the law. Minimizes sin. As, uh, Abelard did. And, uh, uh, uh,
And, uh,
that's it, said,
you haven't pondered
the gravity of sin, he said.
And that, he said, is where you've got
wrong, Alba Larrie.
And only because sin is so brave
to justify
God's bruising his own
son on the
cross of slavery.
And only because of her sin for
us to believe in your birth
when the life is in,
then a little more
improvement will do.
But if we get in the test of us
that sin, then I think we would
want to do. We need to be
resurrected
and raised up
with Christ, more and again
back in the spiritual home.
And again, because
of the gravity of sin,
we need
proven in grace.
Because there is
no point of conflict
in my heart with the gospel
or with the glory
of God.
And so,
I need God's grace
to renew
my heart.
He does it
sovereignly.
Because I simply
can't take the initiative.
And it's not surprising
that Augustine's
very early debate
was in the ancient
controversy
for
original sin.
And all he says and does
is link to that
great doctrine.
And in a very important way,
the natural
lives
trust, most fundamentally,
all evangelicals
together.
Whether it be
Spurgeon,
Wesley,
Whitfield,
Baxter,
these things
don't
difference
in many departments.
And yet,
all of them
agree on this
great fact.
Wesley is a
great servant
on original sin.
More succeed
than Edwards,
but no less
urgent
than Edwards.
And
he may have
deviated
from what
you are
on some other
issues,
like perfectionism
and so on,
but nevertheless,
here,
he is one with
us.
That's true of all
your generation.
The reading
takes its
start
in what we
think,
on the
significance
and gravity
of the
form of
man.
And all
those other
connections,
the person
and what
of Christ.
Why has
he to be
God
and has
he to be
man?
And so on,
and so on.
You work out
all these
connections.
Karl
Barth,
sometimes
suggested,
and a
treatment
has
suggested
often,
as you
say,
in terms
of his
conclusion,
that sometimes
he suggested
that you
can start
at any
point on
the
physical
technological
spectrum
and develop
from that
point the
whole system.
Because the
whole system
is in every
element of the
system.
You can start
the
information
with
Christology
and
everything
to that.
So we
want to
look at
how those
doctrines
are
linked
together.
the other
point that
might just
wonder here
is that
systemality
is about
finality.
It's
topical,
it's
different
connections,
and it
is
final.
Now,
I say
final in the
sense that
that was
a contrast
with biblical
theology.
Biblical
theology is
never
final,
because of
its historical
timeline.
you can
ascertain
what
Moses said,
that's not
final,
it's true,
but it's
not final.
What Isaiah
said,
again,
that's not
final.
And even
what Paul
said,
and James
said,
and John
said,
but no
one of
them
has
spent
the
whole
of God
through
one
given
topic.
And so
systemality
waits
until
the
final
process
concludes
and the
camera is
closed.
It deals
with a
closed
camera,
the
final
self-disclosure
of God,
God's last
words we
spoke.
And it
also deals
with the
Bible
comprehensively,
and it
puts all
that all
the hearers
and all
the
shawar
and all
the
writers
have
said.
And it
says,
take it
holistically,
what
message
are the
giving
tools.
And so
that
says,
it is
a
finality
that
everybody
does
not
have,
because
it
deals
with
the
closed
camera,
and
with
the
total
comprehensive
self-disclosure
of God.
Now,
of course,
in Isaiah,
there are
main words
about
incarnation,
there are
main words
about
the
sacrifice
of
Christ,
and
in the
Psalms,
again,
there are
main words
not
similar
messiahic
themes,
and there
are hints
in the
CO2
of
eschatology,
which are
brought into
the New Testament,
the Doctrine
New Testament,
but
Isaiah
is not
final,
there are
words that
come
after
Isaiah,
and there
are others
that speak
besides
Isaiah.
Even
the New
Testament,
or
justification,
we must
hear James
as well
us all
to get
the
poor
picture.
And
when we
have done
that,
you have
the
finality
that is
adherent
in
systematics.
Now,
it
follows
from
that
fact
that
systematics
is
dogmatic.
Now,
this is a
problematical
word,
because
dogmatism is
found in
the modern
culture,
and we
have to
be careful
what we
are dogmatic
about,
and
we
imagine
it's
both wrong
things.
But,
and dogma,
in the world
is used
in different
ways in
theology,
but what I'm
driving at
here is
this,
that if
we have
the truth
of God,
and it
is fine
the truth
of God,
and we
are saying,
thus said
the Lord,
then that
is a
dogmatic
statement.
If I
say that
Jesus Christ
is the
Son of
God
incarnate,
no
postmodern
hesitation
should
reduce me
to say
that that
is not
a
dogmatic
statement.
It is
categorically
true.
that he
is the
Son of
God
incarnate.
Again,
we are
justified
by
faith
without
the
works
of
the
law,
by
faith
alone.
That
again
is
a
dogmatic
statement.
So,
we have
to be
careful
not to
put our
humility
and
modesty
in the
wrong
place.
We
have
to
realise
that
we
have
no
way
to
speak
what
is
not
God's
word,
and
it
is
God's
word,
we
write
dogmatic
about
it.
Now,
of course,
there is
uncertainty,
and we
must be
aware of
that.
But when
we are
certain
that this
is what
God
has
said,
then we
have
a
dogmatic
statement.
Now,
many other
things are
involved in
that,
which I
first
learned
before,
like I
had
them.
in the
official
sense of
the word,
dogma is
an
officially
accredited
statement
on the
part of
the
church,
the
decrees,
for example,
of Acts 15,
of the
Catholic
Jerusalem.
These
decrees
were
dogmas,
and Isaiah
is a
dogmatic
statement.
In other
words,
what the
church is
spoken
upon,
pronounced
not officially,
is,
in that
special
sense,
a dogma
of the
church.
And,
the most
important
of them
are
described
in the
great
ancient
the
Chimedic
of
Crees,
of
Nicaea,
and
Castador.
These
encapsulate
the
dogmas
in which
we are
all,
as
Christians,
agreed to
do.
They
decrease
their
dogmas.
Again,
in the
Reformed
tradition,
we have
our
own
Reformed
Crees,
and so
there are
Reformed
dogmatics.
And,
at the
most
fundamental
level,
these are
the
doctorates,
which,
again,
have been
agreed by
the
Reformed
truths,
which are
not
consensus,
but
a great
number of
particular
doctrines.
But,
right beside
that,
there lies
the fact
of a
hierarchy
of
truths.
And,
in other
words,
that some
are more
important
than others.
Now,
this is
a
dramatic
attitude
discovery.
Kalman
saw this
very
clearly,
not all
dogs
are of
equal
importance,
because not
all will
be with
equal
clarity.
And,
we can
disagree as
Christians,
some,
and yet,
they're looking
at each
other as
brothers and
sisters.
Another
division is
a
totimunity.
I'm not going to
my
demise,
that these
are
particularly,
which are
fundamental.
But,
what
better is
is
the
mathematics,
is the
existence of
proportion.
We know
what things
are really
worth
contending
for,
with
might and
may,
with
might and
may,
because there
are such
fundamental
importance.
Not all
are equally
important.
Kalman,
again,
says,
time again,
this
covers
particularly,
if you
can't
argue,
then I
wouldn't
worry
too much
about it.
On some
doctors.
But another
she's
adamant.
And we
need that
sense of
proportion.
Now,
systematics,
that's
distinct from
a
creed
of
statement,
doesn't
go to
confine
to
fundamentals.
A
creed
of
confession
should
be
a
certain
fundamentals.
But,
systematics
makes
over the
whole
of
revealed
truth.
And it
would
venture
to
express
the
fear
of
God's
word
on
each
and
every
topic
or
every
slight
of
God's
word
on
that
topic
at
all.
So,
because of
its
finality,
it is
a
dogmatic
statement.
Yet,
it's also
true that
theology is
provisional.
Provisional
because
it lives
under
constant
judgment
of
nature.
And
God
may
cause
more
right
to
break
out
of
this
word
and
revise
on
opinions
on
certain
things.
To
quote one
example
of that,
if you
get
any
kind of
pre-20s
discussions
of
the
type of
man,
it is
seen
immediately
as
an
antithesis
or the
opposite
to the
Son of
God.
God
divine
nature
of
human
nature.
Of course,
promise
Daniel is
revealed
to
the
divine
and
his
function.
There's
a divine
title
from
Daniel
chapter 7.
The
pre-existent
fellow
of the
ancient
of days
who
comes
to the
clouds
of
heaven,
clouds
of
glory.
It is
not a
reference
to
humanity,
but to
his
pre-existent
Christian
status.
So,
our
mission is
called
for.
It takes
something
else.
We
can
go to
the
old
world
of
sanctification
or
sanctification
or
even
why.
In
the
Christian
there
are
two
men,
the
old
man,
the
new
man.
And
that
was
the
accident.
We
know
that
we
have
this
almost
split
person
and
this
internal
laugh
between
old
man
and
new
man.
But
John
and
others
brought
out
this
alternative
approach.
In fact,
there's
no
old
man.
He
was
crucified
across
the
Calvary.
And
I'm
a new
man,
a new
person.
Now,
in my
new
person
there is
the
flesh.
But
I'm
going to
people
the
old
man
is
the
average
of
itself.
And
that
old
man
is
kaputu.
It's
the
wrong
man.
And
you
can't
pay
for
anything
because
it's
not
going to
be
paid
for
anything.
I
saw you
out of
the
theology
all the
time.
There's
another
text in
which
the
theology
is
around.
it's
this.
But
revelation
is not
yet
completed.
I've
spoken
of it
for many
years
and
well.
But
of
course
there's
another
world,
another
age
to
come.
And
in
that
age
of all
terms
which
I
see
not
to
look
as
darkly
but
face
to
face.
And
so
in
that
you
see
of
close
encounter
the
eyes
of
God
we
shall
see
depths
of
glory
that
at
the
moment
are
undisclosed
to
us
and
which
are
undisclosed
to
us
who
will
not
be
given
a lot
of
actually
assimilating.
And
part
of the
glory
of that
remember
is
this
that
we
come
to
another
timeline
that
is
the
unending
major
of
discipleship
something
that
is
everlasting
be
growing
in the
knowledge
of
God
so
that
at
every
point
of
the
process
there
is
progression
and
there
is
approvisionality
always
more
light.
When I
have been
there
ten thousand
years
prior
sharing
us
a
sandwich
to
see
God's
praise
when
first
began
and
I
will
put
it
to
you
that
even
the
incarnate
Christ
in this
human
nature
is
difficult
to know
God
as
Father
better
than
the
passing
day.
Now
it's
not
reminding
his
opinions
or
abundance
of all
thoughts
but it's
bringing
ever new
discoveries
of the
glory
of
God
and
so
in
that
sense
there
is
no
reality
there
is
no
provisionality
which
means
that
we
look
for
further
insight
for
a
change
of
our
current
position
but
more
we
look
for
more
revelation
of
God's
glory
in
the
world
to
come.
I
want
to
move on
now
in
conclusion
to
maybe
where I
should have
begun
this
but
chose
not to.
theology
of
preaching
or
theology
of
the
preacher
how
does
it
bear
on
our
own
ministries
and
I
want
to
see
it
very
quickly
first of
all
how
it
bears
on
an
exegesis
now
we've
had
this
already
how
he
raised
his
dematics
or
theology
in
general
to
exegesis
the
temptation
to
arrest
the
scripture
to
twist
the
text
to
accommodate
our
own
particular
systematic
prejudices
the
danger
that
a
capitalist
could
use
the
text
to
prove
that
God
did
love
the
world
because
the
system
is the
determinant
of the
approach
here
and
of course
that is
a real
danger
whether
you
are
a
dispensationalist
or a
charismatic
or a
calibrist
or a
baptist
he
would
bring
more
appeal
about
which
would
bring
more
prejudices
into
the
arena
and that
almost
forces
danger
he
was
a
preacher
once
reputed
the
enemy
who
whatever
the
text
almost
had
three
headings
very
convenient
headings
I can
assure you
first
he
would
say
I
worry
about
the
text
secondly
I
worry
about
application
and
third
they
worry
about
baptism
every
ceremony
that
was
in the
temple
started
so
that
shows
how it
got
not to
be done
to be
a
system
to be
able to
text
a
distorted
way
on the
other
hand
you
cannot
divorce
Jesus
from
your
system
you
bring it
with
you
and
again
think
of
scientists
dispassionate
impartial
calm
observer
of
phenomena
unfaithest
of course
he's
nothing
of a
kind
he
brings
his
paradigms
with
everything
that
you
share
to
the
motion
whether
it be
in
biology
or
in
physics
chemistry
or
whatever
they
have
a
paradigms
the
is
the
is
the
is
the
paradigm
or
unfortunately
the
paradigm
but
the
paradigms
are
there
the
conditions
of
temperature
and
pressure
and
he
doesn't
reinvent
the wheel
and say
well I
can't
be
any
preconceptions
to
this
for
example
he
has
to
accept
well
the
earth
is
not
flat
and
he
has
to
accept
that
they
are
close
with
the
sun
and
not
the
other
way
round
and
he
brings
these
preconceptions
these
paradigms
with
them
now
I'm
suggesting
to you
that
system
I
performs
that
same
function
you
have
your
paradigms
you
are
over
you
and
you
come
to
the
text
with
that
come
me
heads
at
you
of
Bible
teaching
as
a
whole
and
you
will
then
come
across
a
text
that
doits
you
to
quote
one
obvious
example
that
also
refers
my
father
is
greater
than
I
plain
subordinations
obviously
not a
divine
person
at
all
because
this
text
is
saying
that
Jesus
is
inferior
and
subordinate
to
God
but
then
you
have
your
paradigm
you
know
the
overwhelming
weight
of
the
evidence
that
Jesus
was
a
cultist
of
his
own
divinity
and
is
acclaimed
and
worshipped
as such
throughout
the
New
Testament
and
so
you
have
heard
him
say
stop
here
and
you
see
this
text
of the
light
of
your
whole
doctrinal
party
framework
you
realize
that
perhaps
there
is
a
spiritual
mediator
who
as such
is
the
servant
of
the
Lord
and
as
the
servant
of
the
Lord
yes
the
father
is
the
night
Jesus
did
not
capacity
as
the
genotized
servant
yes
the
father
is
greater
than
him
but
if
you
found
another
text
that's
in the
same
thing
the
same
general
sentiment
and
then
another
and
another
and
another
if
you
say
I
not
here
maybe
I
should
rethink
something
here
because
there
is
a
gathering
body
of
evidence
that
does
affect
my
paradigm
and
that
so
science
progresses
because
the
paradigm
is
okay
but
the
paradigm
was
really
compromised
by
certain
data
or
at least
by
certain
mathematics
not
yet
well
that
is
experientially
but
to
be
medified
eventually
of
one of
moussaros
from
the
scott
and
that's
another
point
altogether
but
the
paradigm
in
other
words
I
bring
Nicaea
to
all
Jesus
and
I
can't
much
do
that
and
I
see
the
whole
of
the
church
I
know
that
paradigms
are
revisable
that
I
see
as
if
you
don't
do
it
but
in
principle
lies
but
as I
mentioned
once or
twice
cases
I
can
add
to
you
there
is
a
very
great
danger
in
setting
those
secrets
and
one
reason
why
the
church
of
England
disappeared
eventually
was
because
it
tied up
to
the
anti-confessionalism
that
came into
the
puritan
movement
the
average
church
who
because
of
their
excessive
biblical
system
so
as
the
Bible
alone
and
they
said
no
creeds
no
evil
creed
and
then
you
have
the
emergence
in
Holland
and
Scotland
the
divine
Christ
Feity
and
there
weren't
protection
against
it
the
one
safeguard
from
the
proof
that
there
did
not
be
alienized
was
a
scripture
to
those
creeds
and
in
the
church
in
England
there
was
a
great
scripture
to
the
mess
in
creed
and
Daniel
Waterland
was
raised up
to
do
tremendous
work
in
a
couple
of
return
of
these
in
many
ways
on
the
trinity
and
it
says
if
queen
made
the
creeds
the
protection
that
the
trinity
will
be
confessed
in
every
proof
and
the
Lord
see
the
truth
especially
in
the
deity
part
of
the
condition
of
mission
to
a
church
to
believe
in
the
creed
now
of
course
if
you
can
convince
us
that
they
didn't
undertake
to
prove
that
the
creed
was
strong
in
any
sense
the
Lord
said
!
that
she
!
wrong!
But
they
said
yes
not
mine
and
of
course
the
Bible
is
not
a
creed
and
it
began
you know
people
quite
innocently
like
Philip
Don
Christ
and
Watts
they
would
subscribe
and
Watts
when he
was
born
wouldn't have
heard of
any
creed
not
was
the
church
wouldn't have
heard of
any
creed
our
second
function
here
from
the
creed
of
the
church
is
what
I
believe
is
the
church
but
it
was
individual
the
wider
tradition
of the
Catholic
church
and
that
was
ignored
to
see
what
Barth
did
want
a
professional
theology
what
evolved
by
that
he
even
all
himself
about
!
other
Christian
confessions
and
that's
why
the
Presbyterian
church
you
could
remember
his
panthrist
stories
have been
expanded
but
yet
he
certainly
was
a
panthritic
scholar
and
he
was
very
committed
to
the
life
of
the
church
and
those
ancient
creeds
and
to
the
theology
perhaps
not only
of
Augusti
but
also
Christosho
and
the
Christian
parish
and
so
we
ourselves
we
didn't
be
difficult
information
Calvin
thought
goes
right
back
into
the
Bible
and
into
the
church
parish
!
church
and
these
creeds
really
are
saints
and
what
happened
in
the
church
in
America
became
a
unitarian
church
is
by
large
and
that's
why
I
would
be
suggesting
this
confession
is
very
important
as I
say
to
God
in
a
constitution
there is
no
common
prayer
that's
what it is
like
what you
mean
that
we
say
every
Sunday
or
you
read
them
but
there is
in
churches
there is
a common
preaching
so
that
every
group
of
the
IPC
will
preach
the
same
message
and
will
not
violate
the
confession
that's
a
guarantee
the
people
have
that
if
we
call
this
minister
this
man
to
preach
the
word
to
us
we
can
be
confident
that
he
will
deliver
the
prayer
work
of
a
common
tree
!
So
exegesis
again
they're
influenced
by
verses
to
that
would
be
the
paradigm
to
honor
Jesus
and
then
feeding
the
flock
theology
and feeding
the
flock
now
I suggest
to you
that at
this point
we
consider
a
theology
classroom
and
look at
the students
in front
of you
and
what
are they
for
and what
are they
intended
to do
some
will
be
shivaris
some
will
be
academics
although I
hope not
too many
of them
and
most
will
be
pastors
and
that's
what are
they
for
they're
not
the
man
in the
street
you
must
you
read them
to be
bothered
to
or
you
level
to
that
because
they're
not
the
man
in the
street
Christians
they
would
be
pastors
and
they
must
be
themselves
fed
to
the
flock
of
Christ
and
that's
why
we're
here
to teach
them
to help
them
to
expose
them
to the
great
doctrine
of the
world
white
christian
church
because
they
are
pastors
who
will
be
to
feed
the
flock
now
that
is
I
think
tremendous
theology
and
it
basically
that's
your
body
but
there
is
great
pressure
on
today
to
become
social
workers
or
entertainers
master
of
the
ceremonies
and
it
is
so
important
to
say
look
you
most
of
you
are
going
to
be
pastors
of
central
congregations
and
I
am
here
to
give
you
the
message
and
feed
the
flock
of
christ
that's
what
this
is
all
about
so
you
can
feed
the
flock
but
then I
ask you
to
think
of
something
else
look at
the
text
these
people
are
going
to
be
is
now
that's
what
preaching
is
as
Calvin
insisted
our
job
is to
explain
the
text
that
is
the
beginning
and
end
of
a
!
so
if I
can
quote
Carl
Bart
again
Bart
that
seems to
be
covered
in
production
of
circles
he
didn't
like
them
because
he
got
in
the
way
of
the
text
!
very
often
there's
some
discussion
on the
state
of the
word
today
and
I
find
that
always
quite
a
point
to
you
that
when
listeners
should
I assume
just put
the
lives
in
the
weeks
of
studying
come out
and tell
the
gracious
doctors
what the
real word
is
right
because
they
know
the
real
word
from
books
these
people
know
the
real
word
they
want
to
get
to
the
text
and
so
the
deductions
to
a
text
to
get
the
text
in
the
shortest
space
of
time
in
the
way
from
the
introduction
that's
what
the
text
at
that
a
while
with
the
text
who
are
these
texts
in
the
rest
to
the
first
instance
to
the
man
in
the
!
to
the
!
20th
century
pagan
or
the
first
century
pagan
or
the
hippie
humanist
artist
with
guitar
whatever
they
are
addressed
to
the
saints
that
come
on
the
saints
in
Rome
and
the
saints
in
Ephesus
use
gospel
and
rest
again
to
the
things
beneath
among
us
the
sort
of
presumed
reader
of
every
New
Testament
book
is
a
church
and
the
books
are
blessed
to
that
be
in
this
or her
needs
and so
the
pastor
is
called
to feed
the
flock
he
has
given
documents
with
which
to feed
the
flock
and
his
task
is
to
expound
those
documents
that
will
feed
the
flock
that
respect
them
their
faith
that
inspire
them
to
pursue
service
to
comfort
them
and their
needs
and so
on
feed
them
feed
the
church
of
God
and
feed
them
with
the
whole
counsel
of
God
it's
amazing
the things
that people
think
they're
open
their
heads
of
Christians
believe
and how
daft
God
was
who
put
this
to
the
Bible
for
ordinary
people
which
you have
no one
better
John's
prologue
John 17
Romans 6
Romans 8
for
ordinary
people
and then
that's
what God
is saying
please
what am I
privileged
was
that
I
began
my
ministry
and
congregation
in the
churches
where I
knew
that the
people
were
better
than
I
and
it was
extraordinary
because
of
30
men
in
worship
the
number
was
maybe
I'll
try to
unfortunate
but
there was
only one
graduate
among
the
more
graduate
and so
on
so forth
they were
very
working
class
people
but
they
were
really
interested
in
theology
and
I
could
never
have
blamed
of
talking
down
to
them
or
to
say
this is
all the
people
says
too much
for
them
my
first year
in Glasgow
I preached
through
John 17
on a first
evening
and I
never felt
to dilute
this
or simplify
it
just
never
got some
more
because
I
have
a
right
to
assume
that
these
people
are
hungry
and
thirsty
for
the
word
and
that
they
need
to
be
fed
and
do I
say
well
I'll
feed
them
with
this
to
make
my
own
mind
no
God
says
you
feed
them
with
this
you
feed
what I
tell
them
to
you
because
God
decides
to
me
I
will
decide
to
me
and
so
!
evangelizing
the
pastor
will do
that
to
accept
as well
because
the
people
are
not
converted
and
they
need
to
be
led
to
the
Lord
or
perhaps
in
evangelism
so
in
the
seed
as
Paul
says
in
Romans
going
with
the
gospel
is
not
known
and
he
will
say
well
here
this
must
be
not
in
the
ones
you
will
start
with
where
they
are
and
with
atheism
and
humanism
and so
on
and so
forth
and
you
ask
Paul
when
you
went
to
college
where
did
you
start
what
foundation
did
you
lay
and
he
says
I
deliver
to
the
person
of
all
that
Christ
died
for
her
sins
and
you
might
say
Paul
let
you
!
because
that is
good
deception
of
God
you
something
was
profound
and
difficult
the
Messiah
died
what do
you mean
by that
died
for
sin
what is
sin
died
for
our
sins
yes
that's
what I
told
about
God
there
people
said
to
me
look
peace
now
the
lost
of
the
lost
and
use
the
eternal
device
of
great
traditions
to
that
God
because
that's
what
works
whereas
the
cross
as
for the
human
consumer
survey
that
I
choose
what
we
want
to
do
the
cross
well
and
devoted
wasn't
what
was
the
first
section
it
was
unhorror
to
them
as
to
us
the
idea
that
you
go back
to
Corinth
and
see
60
AD
and
you
hear
someone
telling
you
that
a
Jew
was
crucified
just
thirty
years
ago
is
the
savor
of
the
world
what
on earth
madness
is that
and that's
what
it
was
to
them
those
famous
graphic
one of
the
Lord
when
it
portrays
a
Christian
worshipping
and
his
God
has
the
crucified
Christ
and
below
this
caption
so
worships
this
God
this
acidite
absolutely
as a
methodology
and yet
that's
when
Paul
says
that's
what
I
started
by
it
didn't
seem
to
reality
any
foundation
that he
did
you know
when
Scotland
when there
was
spoken
of
the
18th
century
the
non-evangelium
was
the whole
idea
he said
he was
educated
the
natives
and
then
evangelized
and
education
pushed
him
but
Paul
didn't
say
that
I
didn't
push
for the
foundation
of
apologetics
but
I
pitched
Christ
crucified
now
that
might
need
fine
shooting
of
course
that
can
approach
but
this
is
the
doctrine
of
precarious
suffering
Christ
my representative
and my
substitute
he died
for
her sins
I
was
a
message
to
people
who
probably
didn't
know
at first
what
his
sin
was
they
had
ready
to
offer
to
know
what
it
was
that
Christ
died
for
her
sin
now
you
look
at the
New Testament
evangelism
look at the
great evangelistic
texts
and see how
non-theological
they are
the most
obvious
of all
of them
is John
316
how
non-theological
is that
I
had
the
timidity
when I
was
about
24
to
preach
on
that
text
of
the
verse
of
John
Murray
that
was
twice
then
as
I
know
he
said
to
him
he
was
not
at
all
he
was
very
encouraging
the
gentleman
John
Murray
but he
said
to
me
I
have
never
preached
on
that
text
I
have
found
that
sentiment
very
wide
and
I
was
wondering
what
did
you
can
show
if
you
can
preach
of
John
316
but
if
you
preach
of
John
316
the
dimensions
of
God's
love
a
love
for
the
world
what
does
the
world
mean
the
life
in which
God's
love
why
gives
only
God
his
son
what
is
that
gave
his
only
son
he
gave
his
only
son
and
then
again
the
asymmetry
of
it
he
gave
his
son
what
does
he
ask
of
us
by
way
of
return
that
whoever
believes
in him
should
not
perish
and
want
to
receive
from
God's
eternal
life
so
here
you
are
explain
that
text
that
is
the
message
explain
that
particular
text
and
you
can
look
at
so
many
of
those
simple
gospels
come
to me
father
and I
will
give
you
rest
or
Philip
and the
Ethiopian
chancer
he
evangelized
Jesus
the
gospel
to
Jesus
for
I
receive
you
in the
place
of
Christ
to be
reconciled
to
God
for
him
who
you
know
is
to be
simple
for us
that we
might
blame
the
might
of
God
explain
that
text
the
gospel
of
God
concerning
a
simple
gospel
Romans 1
gospel
of
God
the
only
one
of
God
and
what
does
he
say
about
him
he
wasn't
made
to
him
according
to
the
flesh
but
he
cleared
to
himself
a
God
of
power
there
was
an
extra
to
that
text
God
good
news
about
his
son
what
is
God
good
news
about
his
son
what
is
Paul
saying
to
his
son
!
There
cannot
be
a
!
God
should
give
evangelism
possible
care
I
don't
really
have
time
to
go
to
that
but
again
you
have
nothing
to
say
we
are
not
and
it's
so
hugely
important
we are
not
psychiatrists
we are
not
psychiatrists
we are
not
counselors
we don't
have
to
do
that
therapy
we have
only
one
thing
the
word
of
God
from
God
about
God
theology
that's
all
that
we
have
you
go
through
those
two
moments
about
the
spiritual
depression
and
faith
and
pride
and
time
and
time
and
time
we
find
this
massive
theology
not
to
bear
upon
acute
pastoral
problems
which
a
magnificent
sermon
in
spiritual
depression
I think
it is
on
that
one
thing
because
we
did
that
we
can't
be
forgiven
and
so
for
the
promise
stemmed
from
an
improvement
class
which
is
occasion
by
faith
alone
but
God's
family
care
so
you
see
going
back
to
Isaiah
chapter
40
why
do
you
say
my
way
you
did
from
the
Lord
have
you
not
known
have
you
not
heard
that
he
doesn't
get
tired
the
everlasting
God's
pain
that
no one
doesn't
become
weary
there is
nothing
wrong
with
his
mind
he
knows
what
he's
doing
your
theology
is
fundamentally
flawed
and that's
why
you're
saved
your
way
is
hidden
from
the
Lord
and the
remedy
for that
is
proper
theology
and
then
theology
your
worship
and
not
again
so
what
is
worship
well
is
expressing
your
joy
your
thankfulness
and so
on
hope
but it's
also
about
a
courage
reference
and godly
fear
but the
question is
how do
you
generate
those
emotions
go back
again to
the Lord's
supper
the great
concept of
remembrance
that we
have
there
is
remembrance
of me
the
eucharist
that is
in
thanksgiving
is
elicited
by
remembrance
or by
showing forth
the Lord's
death
until he
comes
and so
the
subjective
response
has
something
to
respond
to
some
are
some
of
jubilation
celebration
why
because
god
is
a
great
god
death
of the
earth
and
the
spirit
of
whose
is
to
whom
the
spirit
you
see
belongs
for
you
saved
it
made
it
how
do
you
get
people
to
celebrate
by
describing
celebration
or
describing
joy
or
refuse
life
who
did
get
them
to
do
that
by
describing
god
to
them
god's
greatness
i
close for
this
the
great
challenge
for
love
to
get
our
lives
into
mind
without
theology
it's
very
easy
to
be
correct
in
theory
and yet
so
wrong
in
practice
to
get
a
walk
of
relationships
with
our
neuroses
that
he
has
been
under
the
control
of
what
we
believe
about
god
and
that's
why
at the
end
of
the
day
the
words
about
god
are
an
only
comfort
but
they
often
also
a
rebuke
well
I
shall
you
pray
this
for
your
patience
thanks
Thank you.