My family and I have been in the area for about six months now.
We came from a youth ministry in central Georgia.
And it was actually a really hard decision to leave those youth in that church in general
decision.
My wife and I were talking together and we were asking ourselves whether or not we had
done the right thing in coming here.
And it was only a week later that we read of a local atheist group at the University of
North Georgia that thought that it would be a great way to protest the pro-life movement
by baking cookies shaped like children and ripping their heads off.
So at that point we were convinced that what we had thought was the right thing for us
to do was actually the right thing for us to do.
So we're very grateful to be here today.
If you are, if the kinds of things that we're going to be speaking about today interest you,
if they pique your interest, I know that not everyone has the same types of interests, then
I would encourage you to sign up at the back.
But also, even if this isn't your thing, the kind of thing that we're going to be thinking
about and speaking about, then I would encourage you to support the ministry in any other way
that you can, whether it be administrative or anything like that.
So now with those things, those preliminaries out of the way, we are going to be reading from
Exodus chapter 3, verse 14.
That's Exodus chapter 3, verse 14.
And the word of God says,
God said to Moses, I am who I am.
And he said, say this to the people of Israel, I am has sent me to you.
I know we've we've prayed, but I'd like to offer another prayer this morning.
So let's please go to God in prayer.
Father, I thank you for this another day of life and breath that you've granted us, that
we may come before you in awe and humility on this Lord's day to worship and to magnify
your name.
For as you revealed to Moses, you are pure.
I am this you are pure being itself.
You want nothing you want for nothing, but you created us for no other purpose than you
might be glorified.
And father, today I confess to you that I am but a man.
And apart from your grace working in me, I am nothing.
I pray that you will guide my thoughts while we seek to plumb the depths of your being.
I pray that you will both bless this, your word, as I proclaim it, as it is proclaimed and
that you help us all to reason well through these issues.
I pray that we do not engage in this study for its own sake, but that we may be transformed
by this knowledge that we might glorify you and all that we think and all that we say and
all that we do.
In Christ's names we pray.
Amen.
All right.
So before we get started to inform you of one more thing, and that is that some of the
issues that we're going to be talking about today are deep.
I actually, in speaking to people before I came out here, I was told that, well, Dan,
that sounds more like a seminary lecture than it does a sermon.
And I can understand that sentiment a little bit.
Many modern Christians aren't accustomed to hearing the kind of message that you're going
to hear today.
And I think that's for a couple of reasons.
One is because we often make a sharp divide between preaching and teaching.
You'll note in Nathan's introduction, I'm trained as a teacher, not a preacher.
And often the things that I say in that, I do come across more as teaching than they do
preaching.
But in all actuality, preaching and teaching are pretty much the same thing on a spectrum.
You cannot teach without some exhortation and you cannot preach without some teaching.
So preaching exhorts here to do something with the knowledge that they have.
But you really, you have to do some teaching in all of preaching.
And that's what we'll be focusing on heavily today.
Second, I think that there's a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in the church.
Many would look at today's topic and say that this kind of study is unnecessary or even
unspiritual.
They're content with a felt faith rather than one that's grounded in truth and reason rightly
applied.
This attitude needs to be remedied.
And unexamined faith is one that is afraid of serious study.
And if you are afraid of serious study, then you have a faith that poses no real threat
to the unbelieving culture of our day.
And I'm convinced that it also greatly hinders the process of sanctification.
Now, why do I say that?
Well, I say that because we, the church, haven't always done a good job in explaining to fellow
believers or to our congregations on what exactly the work of the Spirit is.
And the Reformed Confessions are unanimous on this.
Today, for those who are born again, regenerated by the power of the Spirit, the Spirit does
not create content in the minds of believers.
I'll say that again.
The Spirit does not create content in the mind of believers.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it this way.
It says, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the
saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.
The Spirit allows us to reason through Scripture, to see objective truth for what it really is.
And as B.B. Warfield would say, that that objective truth that we see is glorious.
And it is.
R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner put it this way.
They say, the internal testimony of the Spirit is divine light thrown on ordinary, natural human knowledge.
They go on to say, the noetic effect of sin is not direct through a totally depraved mind,
but indirect through a totally depraved heart.
So regeneration renews our will so that we can make the right use of our God-given reason.
And we must do a better job at exercising our intellect.
That's why Paul says in Romans 12, 2, that we are to be transformed by the renewal of our minds.
In Colossians 10, he says we are to be sanctified, that we are being sanctified,
that we've put on the new self, and that we're being renewed in knowledge after the image of our Creator.
Transformation comes by making use of God's ordinary means of grace,
which includes reading, proclaiming, and reasoning through His revelation to us.
And by His grace, by the illumination of the Spirit of God in us,
by those means, that's what we're going to do.
We're going to delve deeply into Scripture today.
We're going to reason through it, and we're going to learn what the classical doctrine of God is,
and why it's still...
And we'll do it because, sadly, there are many evangelicals that are,
if they do not reject the doctrine outright,
they are trying to tweak it along the edges.
And as we'll see, you cannot do that.
The classical doctrine of God stands or falls as a unit.
You cannot pull a thread without unraveling the whole sweater.
But I also want us to see today how this doctrine leads us to doxology,
how a proper understanding of it drives us to worship
when we meditate on what God is,
and as we behold any part of His creation,
no matter how large or how small.
And I say all that is...
The reason why I'm going through all these things when we talk about the intellect
and the illumination of all the Spirit
is because the doctrine of God is not a doctrine that we arrive at easily.
It's often been said that the Bible is not a textbook on systematic theology,
and that's true.
We don't have neat headings where it says that this section is about God,
and this section gives us the doctrine of humanity and sin and redemption.
No, we have to mine the text for information
because we don't have that information,
and we have to reason through exactly what it is that God is telling us,
what it is that He's revealed to us.
And the doctrine of God is an area that requires some heavy intellectual lifting
if we are to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.
It's an area where believers can easily be led astray
if they aren't familiar with the classical terminology,
the words that we use to describe God's whatness, what He is.
And part of the reason why this can be such a challenge
is because of the way the Bible itself speaks about God.
Some passages speak of God as having very human-like experiences.
Genesis chapter 6, verse 6 through 7 says,
And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth,
and it grieved Him to His heart.
So the Lord said,
I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land,
man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens,
for I am sorry that I have made them.
Deuteronomy chapter 9, verses 7 through 8 say,
Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God
to wrath in the wilderness.
From the day you came out of the land of Egypt
until you came to this place,
you've been rebellious against the Lord.
Even at Horeb you provoke the Lord to wrath,
and the Lord was so angry at you
that He was ready to destroy you.
Now a normal and plain reading of these passages
seems to indicate that God can be provoked,
that He gets angry,
and that He grieves,
that He has regrets,
and all of these things,
all of these emotions in response to His creatures.
It would appear from these passages
that God is called,
caused to be something
that He was not previously
in response to something outside of Himself.
He becomes angry,
or He regrets in response to His creation.
In short, it would seem
that there is what some would call
a reciprocal relationship
between God and creation.
He causes us to be,
and we cause Him to feel and act
in certain ways
based upon our actions
in time and space.
And there are some
who would actually take these passages
very literally,
but there are also passages
that seem to deny
that these very changes happen in God.
For example, in Numbers 23, 19,
it says,
God is not a man that He should lie.
He is not a son of man
that He should change His mind.
So if we read this plainly,
again, it sounds like,
well, God cannot change His mind
or does not change His mind.
1 Samuel 15, 29 says,
And also the glory of Israel
will not lie or have regret,
for He is not a man
that He should have regret.
So again,
this passage seems to stand in tension
with the passages we've already read
that say that God does change.
Last one, James 1, 17,
says,
Every good gift
and every perfect gift
is from above,
coming down from the Father of lights,
with whom there is no variation
and there is no shadow due to change.
That God does not vary
and He does not change.
Now again,
when we read these texts plainly,
they seem to stand in tension
with the others we read.
Which is it?
Does God change
or does He not?
Now typically,
when I read these passages
to believers
and I ask them these questions,
I get the response
that these verses
that speak of God's changing His mind
and regretting and repenting
and those kinds of things,
the response that I usually get
from Christians is,
well, that's anthropomorphic language.
And that's absolutely right.
It is.
It's language that's applied to God
that gives Him human-like traits
so that we can understand
what it is that He's communicating better.
His condescension,
His stooping down to speak to us
in ways that we can understand.
But in my opinion,
even though that answer is right,
if you cannot explain
why it is right,
then you're only writing,
we're only writing on momentum
that has been built up
for 2,000 years of Christianity.
Because if I come to the text,
how do I know
what is figurative language
and what is not figurative language?
How do we know that God is literally unchanging
and figuratively changing?
Why can't it be the other way around?
Why can't He be figuratively unchanging
and literally changing?
And as some would claim,
they would say,
these ideas of God being unchanging,
they don't believe them
because it means that
we can't have meaningful interaction
between ourselves and God.
God can't have meaningful interaction
between Himself and creation.
And it's this kind of approach
that some have actually taken.
They've rejected the classical doctrine of God
and they've begun to recast God
in the form of a man.
For example,
I'll give you this one example.
One of my professors actually let me know.
I'd heard of this Bible before,
but he pointed out this passage
that's actually really troubling.
The guy's name is Finnis Jennings Dake.
And if you've heard of the Dake Annotated Study Bible,
then you've probably heard that name before.
You can actually find that study Bible
in many Christian stores.
And, again,
I hadn't heard of this particular passage before,
but one of my professors showed it to me.
And it's on page 97
of the Dake Annotated Study Bible.
It says,
God has a spirit,
or, excuse me,
God has a personal spirit body.
He has a shape.
He has form.
He has image and likeness of man.
He has bodily parts,
such as back parts,
a heart,
hands,
and fingers.
He has a mouth,
lips,
and a tongue.
He has feet.
He has eyes.
He has ears.
He has hair.
He has a head,
face,
and arms,
and other bodily parts.
Now,
if I were to actually project this quote
onto the screen,
that the thing that you would notice,
I think,
immediately,
that I find troubling,
is that every single thing
that Dake says about God,
he gets from Scripture.
Every single thing
that he says here
about God's form,
about his image
and likeness of man,
the fact that he has parts,
such as back parts,
a heart,
hands,
and fingers,
all of those things
have Scripture references.
Every single one.
Parts,
such as back parts,
Exodus 33,
23,
a heart,
Genesis 6,
6,
8,
21.
Lips and a tongue,
Isaiah 30,
27 feet,
Ezekiel 1,
27.
Eyes,
Psalm 11,
4,
18,
24,
33,
18.
Ears,
Psalm 18,
6.
And Dake would likely argue
that all he is doing
is he's taking Scripture
at face value.
That he is the one
that's reading Scripture
literally,
and we are not.
He would say that
those who adhere
to the classical doctrine
of God
are rejecting
a plain and clear
reading of Scripture.
Now, obviously,
we've got a problem here
because we do hold
that we believe
in a literal
or a plain reading
of Scripture,
but we also admit
to the fact
that there is
non-literal language
in Scripture.
And the challenge
before us
when it comes
to the classical
doctrine of God
is identifying
figurative language
when we see it.
And that is my aim
here today
because there are many.
Again,
you can go to
Christian bookstores
and find this book,
the Dake Annotated
Study Bible,
but in my opinion,
it is heretical.
So what we want
to do today
is clear the waters
so that we can see
more clearly
what the classical
doctrine of God
is
and how we arrived
at it.
Now, I'm not going
to spend a lot of time
going through
the historical
development
of the doctrine.
If you'd like
to do that,
you can.
And we're not going
to have time
to go through
every single
attribute of God
that the classical
doctrine defines.
I'll leave those
things to your own study,
but what I want
to do here
is simply to reason
through Scripture
with you
so that the doctrine
becomes more clear.
Now,
in that regard,
there's really
no better place
to start
than Genesis 1-1,
which is where
Scripture starts itself.
Genesis 1-1,
in the beginning,
God created
the heavens
and the earth.
A complimentary
passage,
Psalm 33-6,
By the word
of the Lord
the heavens
were made,
and by the breath
of His mouth
all their hosts.
Now, obviously,
in the history
of the church,
we've held
that these verses
and others
like them
depict the difference
between the Creator
and the creature.
That there is
some kind of relationship
between creature
and Creator.
and that God
existed prior
to the creation
of the world
and that He will
continue to exist
after this world
passes away.
God is not
dependent
upon anything
for His existence.
Rather,
He is the only
sufficient
explanation
for His own
existence.
Paul puts it
this way.
He says,
God is not
served
by human hands
as though
He needed
anything
since He
Himself
gives to all
mankind
life
and breath
and everything.
God doesn't
need creation
for anything.
He doesn't need
me for anything.
While creation
depends upon God
for its existence,
God,
the Creator,
doesn't depend
on anything
for His existence.
And the Chronicler
puts it this way
in chapter 1 Chronicles
29, 14.
It says,
But who am I
and what is my people
that we should be able
thus to offer
willingly?
For all things
come from you
and of your own
we have given
to you.
What is it
that we
who receive
our very being,
our existence
from God
can give back
to God?
Nothing.
Absolutely
nothing.
There is nothing
that we can give
or offer
to God
that He has not
first given
to us.
Whatever it is
that God is,
His existence
is independent
of His creation.
There is nothing
to offer Him
that again
hasn't first
been given
to us.
And the word
that we use
for that
in the history
of the church
is that God
is entirely
all say.
One of His attributes
is divine
aseity.
That is that
God is of
Himself.
He is not
caused to be
anything
by anything
less than God.
Now that doesn't
mean that God
is self-caused
because self-causation
is a contradiction.
Something must be
in order for it
to cause itself
to be.
God would need
to exist
before He existed
in order to cause
Himself to exist.
So it's a
contradiction.
No, what we
mean when we
speak of
divine aseity
that God
is a
say
is that
nothing
other than
God
explains God.
God is the
sufficient
explanation
for Himself.
Now the church
has made use
of philosophical
language in the
past
in order to
tease out
the implications
of divine
aseity.
And they've
done so
by pondering
what a
self-existing
being
must be.
They've
started
ontologically
and that's
a philosophical
term that
just means
it's the
study of
being as
being.
So they
want to
study
what God
is.
So whenever
we're talking
about the
classical
doctrine of
God,
we're talking
about God's
whatness,
what He
is.
We're not
talking about
who He
is.
We're talking
about Him
in His
being
ontologically.
Now you'll
see that
as
theologians
in the
history of
the church
started adopting
some of this
philosophical
language,
it began to
take shape
as some of
the classical
arguments of
God.
For example,
one form
of the
argument from
change
involves a
couple of
terms that
I first
need to
explain.
And those
terms are
actuality
and
potentiality
or act
and potency.
actuality
or act
is simply
existence.
While
potentiality,
potency
or potential
is the
potential
for existing.
And all
created things
are this
mix of
potentiality
and actuality,
act and
potency.
For example,
at the most
basic level,
God has
actualized
me.
However,
not everything
that could
be true
of me
is actual.
While I
have the
potential
to speak
Italian,
I can't
speak
Italian.
You might
think it
because my
name is
Italian,
my last
name is
Italian,
but I
don't have
the ability
to speak
Italian.
The ability
to speak
Italian does
not exist
in me.
It's not
actual,
but the
potential
does.
That potency
within me
to speak
Italian must
be actualized
by something
that is
outside of
me.
like I
would need
a book
on Italian
or I
would need
to go
hire an
Italian
tutor.
Somebody
to bring
that potential
in me
to act
so that it
was actual,
so that it
was existing
in me.
I can't
actualize the
ability to
speak Italian
myself.
And this
is true
of all
created
things.
All created
things are
a mix
of act
and potency.
Every created
thing is this
composition of
what is actual
and potential
and every
created thing
requires something
to cause it
to move
from potency
to act.
Anything
that merely
has the
potential
to exist,
the potential
to exist
is still
not existing.
So anything
that has the
potential to
exist must be
caused to
exist by
something that's
already in
act.
And here's
the application
in that regard
that we make
to God.
If God
is all
say,
then there
is no
explanation
for his
being outside
of his
being.
And if any
potentiality
must be
actualized
by something
that's already
in act,
something that's
already actual,
then it must
be the case
that in God
there is no
potentiality.
There is no
potency.
That God
is pure
act.
Pure
actuality.
Since pure
act is the
lack of
potential,
then there is
no potential
for God
not to
exist.
And that's
why in the
history of
the church
they said
that God
is a
necessary
being.
He
necessarily
exists because
there is no
potential for
him not to
exist.
He is pure
act.
He is,
in other
words,
as some
have said,
he is
ipsum
s
subsistence,
the pure
act of
subsistence
being.
Paul says
in him we
live and
move and
have our
being.
We have
our being.
But only
God is
being itself.
He is the
pure act
of subsistence
being.
He is pure
act because
in him there is
no potential.
And he is
subsistence
being because
he is
existence
itself from
which all
existing
things derive
their being.
In the
beginning God
created the
heavens and
the earth.
Through him
all things
were made.
For by him
all things
were created.
All things
were created
by him
and through
him.
From him
and through
him and to
him are
all things.
God is the
fount of
all being
because he
is being
itself.
There is
nothing more
basic than
we can say
of God
that he
is his
own
existence.
God is
existence
itself who
gives existence
to everything
else that
exists.
That's why I
began our
scripture reading
with Exodus
3.14.
God said to
Moses I
am who
I am.
And he
said say
this to the
people of
Israel I
am has
sent me
to you.
Or it
may also be
translated I
am what I
am or I
will be
be what I
will be.
Now there's
certainly a
great deal
more we
can derive
from this
passage but
fundamentally God
is telling
Moses and
us today that
he is pure
I am
ness.
He is the
pure act
of being
itself.
And here's
the important
part.
God's
aseity
demands that
he is pure
actuality.
And his
pure action
actuality demands
that God
is ase.
That he is
self existing.
They're mutually
reinforcing.
If you have
one then you
have the
other.
From this
understanding
of God as
some being
that is purely
actual.
That he is
ase.
We can
derive all
of the other
classical
metaphysical
attributes of
God.
First of all
there can only
be one such
being.
There can
only be
one God
that is
ase.
One God
that is
pure
actuality.
And the
reason for
that is
because the
only opposition
to being
is non-being.
And nothing
in this
sense can
stand in
opposition to
God.
Nothing
cannot stand
in opposition
to God.
Nothing
cannot be
another
God.
Likewise
you can't
propose
to such
being
because
there is
nothing
that would
differentiate
one from
the other.
In creation
we can look
at a forest
and we can
see that
there are
individual
trees and
trees are
composition.
We look
at the
forest and
we see
that all
of the
trees share
the same
essence.
They all
participate
in this
idea of
treeness.
But what
differentiates
one tree
from another
is that
this tree
is made
of this
stuff and
this tree
is made
of this
stuff.
If you
get rid
of all
the stuff
all of
the matter
then all
you're left
with is
the idea
of
treeness.
And in
God
there is
no matter.
There's
nothing to
differentiate
his being
so that
God just
is one
with his
being.
You cannot
say that
there are
two such
beings
because
there's
nothing
that would
be able
to
differentiate
one from
the other.
God is
pure
being
itself.
He just
is.
He is
the first.
He is
the last.
Besides
him there
is no
God.
There can
only be
one God
who is
being
itself.
Moving on
since God
is pure
actuality
then it
also follows
that God
is simple.
That is
God is
not
composed
of parts.
He is
indivisible
but
whatever
is not
simple
if you
have
something
that is
not
simple
if you
have
something
that is
composed
of
parts
then that
thing
has the
potential
to be
divided
but God
has no
potential
and God
so God
must
it must
be true
that God
is not
composed
of parts
whatever
is composed
of parts
has the
potential
to be
decomposed
but in
God
there is
no
potential
he is
pure
act.
He has
no
potential
to
change
or to
be
divided.
We could
also say
that whatever
is composed
depends
on its
parts
to be
what it
is
and those
parts
are less
than the
whole
but if
God
himself
had
parts
then he
would
depend
on those
parts
to be
what
he
is
but if
God
is
I'll
say
then he
cannot
depend
on
anything
less
than
himself
to be
what
he
is
if he
were
composed
of
parts
we'd
have
to ask
!
well what
principle
is it
that
hold
these
parts
together
what
is
the
thing
that
holds
God
together
and
whatever
that
thing
is
that's
God
not the
thing
that's
composed
of parts
because
it's
a more
fundamental
or
transcendent
principle
than
God
himself
but we
don't
accept
that there
is
any
principle
that
stands
above
God
that
causes
him
to
be
what
he
is
pure
being
itself
doesn't
require
anything
to make
it
be
it
just
is
God
can't
be
composed
he's
infinitely
simple
or one
in his
being
the Puritan
Stephen
Charnock
in his
work
the existence
and attributes
of God
says
God is the
most
simple
being
for that
which is
first in
nature
having
nothing
beyond
it
cannot
by any
means
be thought
of as
compounded
for
whatsoever
is so
depends
upon the
part
whereof
it is
compounded
so
it is
not
the
first
being
so
this
is
not
new
teaching
these
are
things
that
were
accepted
by
early
Christians
and the
Reformation
just
carried
those
ideas
through
and this
is how
we know
that the
God of
Phenis
Dake
is wrong
his fault
God
doesn't
have
the
parts
that
Dake
ascribes
to him
and we
know
this
because
we
have
some
idea
of
what
God
is
like
in
his
very
being
he
cannot
be
composed
and
pure
act
he
cannot
be
composed
and be
a
say
and that's
how we
know
that the
language
all of
those
verses
all of
those
things
that
whenever
I
read
what
Dake
had
initially
written
all of
those
verses
that
seem
to
confirm
what
it
is
that
he
is
saying
about
God
now
we
can
understand
to
be
figurative
because
we
have
an
understanding
of
God
as
all
say
and
an
understanding
of
God
as
pure
act
and we
know
that it's
figurative
language
that way
it's
anthropomorphic
God's
way of
condescending
to us
so that
we can
speak
of him
in ways
that we
can
understand
but we
can
take this
further
we
can
say
that
okay
in
addition
to
his
simplicity
that
this
idea
of
God
is
all
say
that
he
is
pure
act
that
immutability
also
flows
from
this
doctrine
God
cannot
change
entails
passing
from
potential
potentiality
to
actuality
what is
potential
to what
is
actual
but
God
does not
contain
in himself
any
potential
he
cannot
become
what
he
is
not
he
doesn't
become
at all
he
is
today
what
he
was
yesterday
and
he
will
be
tomorrow
what
he
is
today
and
this
is
how
we
know
that
all
of
those
verses
in
the
Bible
again
that
depict
God
as
changing
his
mind
or
as
repenting
we
know
those
verses
as well
to be
anthropomorphism
God's
condescension
speaking to
us
in ways
that we
can
understand
so
when
God
says
in
Malachi
3
6
that
I
the
Lord
do
not
change
then
he
does
not
change
and
he's
not
saying
that
in
my
character
I
do
not
change
he's
not
saying
that
well
my
will
does
not
change
no
he's
saying
that
he
does
not
change
in
his
very
being
God
is
immutable
and
from
this
we
also
get
from
his
immutability
we
could
carry
it
on
further
to
his
eternality
Isaiah
57
15
says
that
God
inhabits
eternity
now
time
involves
change
but
what
is
change
but
a
movement
from
what
is
potential
to
what
is
actual
but
again
God
does
not
have
potential
in
him
so
God
does
not
change
and
therefore
stands
above
and
outside
of
time
God
is
the
unchanged
being
cause
of
being
that
allows
change
to
happen
in
time
and
in
creation
but
he
himself
is
unchanged
by
that
causation
by
his
causing
things
to
exist
now
we
could
also
say
that
immutability
also
entails
the
idea
of
impassibility
and
this
is
one
of
those
that
people
really
have
a
hard
time
with
because
impassibility
means
that
God
is
not
subject
to
passions
it's
really
misunderstood
by many
people
it
doesn't
mean
that
God
doesn't
have
emotions
rather
it
means
that
he
cannot
be
caused
to
experience
emotions
as
people
do
there's
no
change
in
his
state
of
being
he
does
not
move
from
being
happy
to
being
sad
from
being
loving
to
being
wrathful
God
nothing
outside
of
God
can
cause
God
to
be
what
he
is
not
God
when
we
say
that
God
is
love
does
God
love
absolutely
yes
God
loves
but
what
we're
saying
is
that
there's
nothing
outside
of
God
that
causes
him
to
love
what
we're
saying
is
that
there
is
an
in
God
there
is
an
eternal
disposition
that
is
loving
that
is
love
but
that
is
not
caused
to
be
by
anything
outside
of
himself
this
can
be
said
about
any
of
his
other
emotions
as
well
when
we
speak
about
his
anger
or
his
wrath
we
mean
his
eternal
and
immutable
disposition
towards
evil
all
of
the
emotions
described
of
God
and
scripture
are
just
descriptions
of
his
immutable
disposition
now
finally
and I
mentioned
this
earlier
I'll
mention
it
again
!
God's
necessity
!
flows
from
his
being
pure
act
from
his
pure
actuality
because
he
does
not
have
any
potential
to
not
exist
his
infinity
follows
also
because
potential
is the
very
thing
that
limits
being
I'm
limited
in
my
being
by
my
potential
I
have
the
potential
to
learn
Italian
and
that
potential
is
what
limits
me
but
because
God
does
not
have
any
potency
in
him
then
that
means
that
he
is
not
limited
by
anything
there's
no
potential
for
him
to
be
limited
in
any
way
now
all
of
God's
basic
metaphysical
attributes
flow
from
his
pure
actuality
his
pure
isness
St.
Augustine
says
it
is
absolute
is
that
true
is
and
the
true
sense
of
the
word
that
I
long
for
that
is
which
is
in
that
Jerusalem
which
is
the
bride
of
my
Lord
where
there
will
not
be
death
and
there
will
not
be
failing
elsewhere
he
says
for
God
is
absolute
being
and
therefore
all
other
being
is
relative
!
that
is
relative
was
made
by
him
Thomas
Aquinas
says
there
is
some
first
being
whom
we
call
God
and
that
this
first
being
must
be
pure
act
without
any
admixture
of
any
potentiality
God
is
I
am
this
itself
and
it's
this
classical
doctrine
of
God
that
the
church
has
confessed
!
throughout
its
history
the
reformation
did
not
alter
this
doctrine
in
the
least
but
there
are
some
prominent
reformers
today
that
said
one
of
the
things
that
was
left
undone
by
the
church
is
to
revise
this
doctrine
of
God
and
it's
some
prominent
names
we don't
have
time
to go
into
the
who
the
what
or
the
why
that
are
attempting
to
revise
this
classical
doctrine
of
God
but
the
reformers
themselves
didn't
do
that
they
just
carried
it
over
into
their
own
confessions
the
Westminster
confession
of
faith
the
Savoy
declaration
and
the
1689
London
Baptist
confession
of
faith
are
all
in
agreement
specifically
in
chapter
2
section
1
of the
London
Baptist
confession
said
the
Lord
our
God
is
but
one
only
living
and
true
God
whose
subsistence
is
in
and
of
himself
now
notice
that
language
the
language
that
I'm
still
using
is
the
language
of
the
confession
that
God
is
subsistent
being
he
is
infinite
in
being
and
perfection
whose
essence
cannot
be
comprehended
by
any
but
himself
he
is
a
most
pure
!
spirit
he
is
invisible
without
body
without
body
or
parts
or
passions
there's
the
doctrine
of
simplicity
there's
the
doctrine
of
impassibility
right there
in the
confession
who
only
has
immortality
dwelling
in the
light
which
no
man
can
approach
unto
who
is
immutable
immense
eternal
incomprehensible
!
Almighty
every way
infinite
most
holy
most
wise
most
free
most
absolute
working
all
things
according
to the
counsel
of his
own
immutable
and most
righteous
will
for
his
own
glory
and
again
three
of the
most
fundamental
reformed
confessions
confess the
same thing
they're
in
agreement
we could
also go
to the
belgic
the belgic
confession
says
we all
believe
in our
hearts
and confess
with our
mouths
that there
is a
single
and
simple
spiritual
being
the
doctrine
of
divine
simplicity
they put
it right
at the
front
of their
confession
simple
spiritual
being
whom
we call
God
he is
eternal
incomprehensible
invisible
unchangeable
infinite
almighty
completely
wise
just
and good
and the
overflowing
source
of all
that is
good
the
reformers
confessed
the
classical
doctrine
of God
and this
doctrine
has
historically
been
articulated
in terms
foundationally
of God's
aseity
and his
being
pure
act
but sadly
there's
some
in the
evangelical
community
who have
set
themselves
up
as
opponents
to this
doctrine
again
I mentioned
even in the
reform community
we are not
immune to
it
but I want
to point out
one thing
about the
way that
we've
constructed
this
doctrine
today
and why
I said
at the
very beginning
that you
cannot pull
on a thread
of the
classical
doctrine
of God
and not
have
the
whole
sweater
unravel
you can't
pull the
thread
of
impassibility
without
denying
immutability
denying
immutability
means that
God is
not being
but he
is
becoming
and that
is exactly
what we're
denying
in his
aseity
and his
pure
actuality
so if you
say that
God is
not being
but he
is becoming
then we
have to
ask
what is
the cause
of his
becoming
if we
say that
God brings
this about
then we've
entered into
the realm
of self
causation
and we've
already
proven that
to be
an absurdity
he is
the cause
of everything
else
his being
is the
only sufficient
explanation
for himself
so that
we could
also say
that there's
no way
that God
could be
caused
to be
anything
that he
is not
from
outside
of
himself
if we
say that
creation
causes
God
to become
today
what he
was not
yesterday
then we're
put in the
position of
saying that
God
needs
something
to bring
about
some
change
in his
being
he needs
creation
in order
to actualize
some potency
within himself
and if
God needs
anything
if there's
any potency
in God
then God
is not
ase
God is
not
self
existing
however
if God
is
the
subsistent
act
of pure
being
as the
church
has
historically
taught
then we
get
aseity
and we
get all
the other
metaphysical
attributes
of God
that go
with it
and you
might think
that this
is all
fine and
good
you might
think
that this
is a
bit
high
brow
and
it's
not
and it's
not
irrelevant
to our
situation
today
it has
apologetic
applications
if we
go out
there are
many
atheists
today
who will
say
that the
attributes
of God
are
incompatible
and
contradictory
whereas
if you
hold to
the
classical
doctrine
of God
then you
can see
that they
are
not
but in
addition
to that
as I
mentioned
before
there are
those
that are
trying to
undermine
that
doctrine
and that
position
if you
want to
look into
it a
little
more
is known
as
theistic
personalism
theistic
personalism
is an
attempt to
make God
into something
that we
can wrap
our brains
around
and as
proponents
do this
God
starts looking
less
and less
like God
and more
like a
man
God
may be
an all
powerful
and all
knowing
man
but he's
much like
a man
nonetheless
it's an
implicit
or if not
outright
rejection
of another
doctrine
and that
is the
doctrine
of God's
incomprehensibility
and that's
the idea
that no
finite
creature
no creature
can
can fully
grasp
the infinity
of God's
essence
that doesn't
mean we can
know nothing
about God
we can
it just
means that
as soon as
we grasp
some truth
about God
something about
his goodness
then it
escapes us
as it
hurdles off
into eternity
into infinity
so that we
can know
something of
God's
goodness
but then
magnified
to infinity
we lose
our handle
on it
we lose
our grasp
of it
and if you
notice that a
lot of the
words that we
use to
describe God
have built
into them
this idea
that God
is incomprehensible
we say
that God
is infinite
it's just
a negation
that God
is not
finite
we say
that God
is immaterial
a negation
that God
is not
material
he is
immutable
another negation
that God
is not
mutable
he is
impassable
and all
of these
things are
just negations
we're
only saying
what God
is not
like
and they
serve to
establish
the acceptable
boundaries
about how
we speak
about God
about how
we speak
about what
God is
but we
know that
ultimately
he is
incomprehensible
in his being
Job 11
7
says
can you
find out
the deep
things of
God
can you
find out
the limit
of the
almighty
and the
answer of
course
is no
finite
creatures
we don't
have that
capability
we don't
have that
capacity
God
is not
like
a man
and we
must not
make him
out to
be like
a man
for our
own
self-serving
purposes
so that
we can
say
perhaps
that we
understand
more about
God
than we
really
do
rather
instead of
doing that
what do
we do
we sing
praises
to him
great
is the
Lord
and greatly
to be
praised
and his
greatness
is unsearchable
we cannot
know him
in his
being
and we
shouldn't
try
so what
do you
do
when you
come face
to face
with the
pure act
of being
itself
with one
who contains
all
perfections
in
and of
himself
what do
you do
what
Isaiah
did
you fall
on your
face
and you
say
woe
is me
for I
am
lost
for I
am a
man
of unclean
lips
and I
dwell
in the
midst
of people
with
unclean
lips
for my
eyes
have
seen
the
king
the
lord
of
hosts
what
do
you
do
when
one
who
was
not
a
man
becomes
a
man
condescends
to become
a man
to add
to himself
a human
nature
what do
you do
when that
man
proclaims
a message
of reconciliation
between
God
and man
and goes
on to
both
live
and to
die
for
us
you
stand
in
all
you
stand
in all
of his
infinite
love
and you
weep
over
your
sin
you
repent
and you
turn to
him
forsaking
all else
to follow
him
no
we
have
to
there's
no
option
for us
that we
must
resist
any
attempt
to make
God
look more
like us
because
he
doesn't
need
us
yet
he
made
us
and
he
showed
us
and
continues
to
show
us
today
the
extent
of
his
love
through
his
condescension
his
condescension
and
Christ
taking on
a human
nature
for us
and his
condescension
and his
abiding
word
which we
still have
access
today
that we
can
understand
by the
work of
the
spirit
in us
the
classical
doctrine
of
God
is
not
inconsequential
it's
important
and as
Charles
Spurgeon
notes
there's
no
higher
or
noble
object
on
which
we
can
set
our
minds
than
God
himself
and
I'll
leave
you
with
this
final
thought
from
Spurgeon
it's
an
extended
quote
but
I
think
it
gave
me
chills
when
I
read
it
so
I'm
going
to
read
it
to
you
Spurgeon
says
nothing
will
so
enlarge
the
intellect
nothing
so
magnify
the
whole
soul
of
man
as
a
devout
earnest
continued
investigation
of the
great
subject
of the
deity
the
most
excellent
study
for
expanding
the
soul
is
the
science
of
Christ
and
him
crucified
and
the
knowledge
of
the
God
head
in
the
glorious
trinity
the
proper
study
of
the
Christian
is
the
God
head
the
highest
science
the
loftiest
speculation
the
mightiest
philosophy
which can
engage
the
attention
of a
child
of
God
is
the
name
the
nature
the
person
the
doings
and
the
existence
of
the
great
God
which
he
calls
his
father
there
is
something
exceedingly
improving
to
the
mind
and
a
contemplation
of
the
divinity
it's
a
subject
so
vast
that
all
our
thoughts
are
lost
in
its
immensity
so
deep
that
our
pride
is
drowned
in
its
infinity
other
subjects
we can
comprehend
and
grapple
with
in
them
we
feel
a
kind
of
self
content
we
go
on
our
way
with
the
thought
behold
I
am
wise
but
when
we
come
to
this
master
science
finding
that
our
plumb
line
cannot
sound
its
depth
and
that
our
eagle
eye
cannot
see
its
height
we
turn
away
with
the
thought
I
am
but
of
yesterday
and
know
nothing
let's
pray
go
to
go
to
the
!
go
to