Prof Richard Pratt

Doctrine of God

The Bible talks more about people than God. That's interesting. But the Bible
does say a lot abut God.
It can be very confusing because no where in the Bible do we have something
that even closely resembles systematic, coherent description of God.
All these things that say about God don't fit nicely and neatly. Some will say that
there are contradictions, some things are incompatible. eg. how can you say that
your God is a God of love, and yet He sends people to hell?
How can the Bible say that God is eternal and yet He is involved in time?
As an unsympathetic reader, you would say that those things contradict.

What do sympathetic and submissive readers do? What do we do with ideas that
seem to be contradictory? Let's talk about it and discuss it, and see how we
reconcile those ideas.

This is how you study theology properly: you're trying to make sense of what the
Bible says about God. Not everything is perfectly clear nor is it obvious how it all
fits together.

Traditionally, what have Christian theologians done with the doctrine of God?
1. attributes of God (about God himself, who is God)
2. the works of God

As we go down these roads, we will try to address some very contemporary

issues. eg. LGBT - the uni student leaders in Jogja spoke of how the UN is
currently pressurising universities with money to accept the LGBT.

What do we know about God? What kind of knowledge of God do we have?

- Revelation & Mysteries of God
- Attributes & Works of God

Revelation & Mysteries:

- Divine revelation
- Divine mysteries

As God reveals somethings, He also conceals things. What reveals also conceals.
This is true of everything, not just about God. Everytime a person reveals
something to you, he is also hiding something from you. That's inevitable,
unavoidable. Sometimes strategically, sometimes not on purpose.

After this class, it's true that you will know more about God than before the class.
But I hope that you will also realise how much you don't know about God and
that should humble you. Analogy: being afraid to shoot a gun

Divine revelation.
Basic concept - God's self-disclosure, always given in human terms and most
fully given in Christ.
We cannot find God somewhere and put Him under the microscope and study
God. God is not a kind of being that we can put in a bottle and test Him. The only
way to know is by something that God himself has revealed to us.

Divine revelation is always given in human terms. This is what is called the
doctrine of accommodation. Calvin says that when God reveals himself to us, it's
like a mother talking babytalk to her baby. It can very well be that God is
revealing himself everywhere but we can't be aware of it unless God is talking to
us in human terms, unless He accommodates us.
God does not reveal to us as He is to Himself. If he did, you would not even
recognise it as such. The idea is that if God does that, it is so far above us, that we
would not understand everything. so what does he do? He accommodates us, he
'babytalks' to us, in terms that humans can understand, to some extent.

God knows Himself completely perfectly and eternally. But when He reveals
himself to us, he reveals it in human terms. The Qn is: if you only know God in
human terms, do you ever really know anything about God? If it's in human
terms, is it true? There's been a great debate about this among theologians.

The argument: When we're talking about accommodations, we're talking about
quantitative accommodations, he's revealing to us in bits and pieces. But others
argue that the accommodations we're talking here is qualitative. Don't allow
people to pull you into arguments like this, who cares?? But accommodation here
is an important concept.

Anthropomorphic (human form) Revelation:

human characteristics - social structures - theophanies - abstract qualities

In a poem, as you're talking about a tree and its branches as if it has arms, its
roots, you're talking about it in human forms.
When the Bible speaks about God, it's always speaking of God
anthropomorphically, in human forms.

Human characteristics eg. God has a right arm. God's strong hand is his right
hand, His blessing hand is his right hand.
He has eyes, he has a heart, he has ears, he thinks, he feels things, he becomes
angry. There's hardly any description of God where you without a human term.

God's arms are spirit arms. V different to what we think of arms. Human beings
have arms to accomplish things, so does God use his 'arms' to accomplish things.
Even though we understand this to be anthropomorphism, don't say it's not
true, even if it's simply accommodations for us.

Social Structures eg. God is our King - the number one way the Bible describes
God. In the days of the Bible, what kings were, and they knew a lot about God
simply because God calls himself a King. Eg. He has authority, he is wealthy, he
has rules and laws, he is a judge.

Theophanies - eg. smoke, fire

Abstract qualities - eg. when He speaks of himself "I am Holy". God is good.
Even when we say things like that, we're talking about abstractions, but still
we're talking in human terms.

Colossians 1:15 - God most fully reveals himself in Christ.

We know that God is more than Jesus. We know that Jesus is impt, we also know
that God the Father is impt, and so is the Holy Ghost. But there's this monomenia
of how Christ is the supreme revelation of God.

The types of divine revelation.

Acts 14:17; 17:28 - general revelation.

The gentiles already know things about God, they know these things from nature.
Acts 17 - he quotes the Greek poets - for in Him we breathe, we move, and have
our being - and that poet was actually talking about Zeus, not Yahweh.

Psalms 19 is another example of it - nature is constantly talking to us about God

although they don't do it in words.

Romans 1 and 2 - most extensive description of general revelation.

People take the truth and continue to suppress it, and God gives them over to the
futility of their mind.

God's revelation does not simply come to us through nature in the raw,
unaffected nature, but also through human culture, what humans have created.
even mobile phones, markers, plagues etc. Even sin reveals God to us.
General revelation means everything reveals something about God, even the
moral standard of God.

We often talk about the external world when we talk about the general
revelation but there's a need to talk about the human internal world as well
when we talk about general revelation. Your dreams, your intuitions

Rm 2:14 - the conscience of these gentiles would either excuse or defend them.

John Frame talked about general revelation as: normative revelations (he
basically means the Bible) and situational revelation (the surrounding
world/umwelt)
But John also splits situational revelation into a third category: existential
revelation. This allows us to pay attention to it, though people tend to stay away
from this category - because there's a danger of us being too influenced by our
inner things/emotions etc, like the charismatics.

At some point we have to become more agile, more adapted to the existential
revelation, to reap its benefit. When this is not a part of the notion of what God
reveals to us, then you're depriving yourself of it.
Vocabulary that is included in this third category: "conviction" eg. God convicted
me of my sin. or "moved by God" or "calling"

There is a difference between General/Natural revelation and Natural Theology.

Natural theologians - try to make sense of what nature reveals about God.
If you understood of how much time in your life that you depend on the general
revelation, even when we are reading the Bible, then you would realise how
much we are affected/influenced by the general revelation.

"schoolmen" - medieval theologians - they came up with 3 main ways in how you
can look at nature and learn things about God (without the bible) (Natural
Theology):
1. the way of causation via causalitatis
If you see something out there that exists, it has to be caused by something. We
all know that because Aristotle taught us that. Therefore you can learn things by
looking at the qualities of that something, that you can learn about the cause, the
qualities of the cause.

2. the way of negation via negationis

God is the opposite of what you see in nature. eg. everything in nature is finite,
He is infinite. Everything in nature is visible, but God is invisible. The earth has
parts, we have parts, but God does not have parts.

3. the way of eminence via eminentiae

the word means 'superior'. when you look at the world, and you see it's good, but
you can see how God is superior to that. How God is a greater judge/justice to
that in the world.

Natural theology doesn't work by itself, it has to depend on special revelation

too. You can't do good natural theology without the special revelations.
For the rest of our lives, we will be tempted to build our theology on our
situational/nature and existential/inner revelations (in evil ways).

Sola Scriptura - The bible is the supreme authority .... (Quote from the
Westminster Confession)

Can you read the Bible without natural theology? No

Can you understand the Bible without natural theology? No.
How do you learn to read? From natural theology.

But you can't read the Bible without the Holy Spirit working in you, illuminating
you, convicting you, leading you (i.e. existential revelation)

You never need only a thing, including reading the Bible, you always need all
kinds of things.

Natural theology will work well when you're deeply influenced by the Bible
(highly Christianised in your theology), you will know that you shouldn't
conclude that our God is evil by seeing Auschwitz. As soon as you lose the Bible
knowledge (no longer Christianised) then the natural theology will no longer be
working well.

The church in Germany had at one point become so liberal that they followed the
natural theology so much that they denied the obvious revelations in the Bible.
Natural theology would deny the resurrection of Christ, because Science has
proven that dead man don't come back to live. They conclude that the Bible is
primitive, pre-historic. So Karl Barth wanted to recapture that essence, that God
is alive, not dead, that the Holy Spirit is there, and that resurrection is true. Neo-
orthodoxy. It comes largely from Karl Barth.

In your souls, you can believe these things spiritually, despite knowing that the
facts are to the contrary.
Heilsgeschichte - 'heils' is salvation, 'geschichte' - redemption; so heilsgeschichte
is: Redemptive salvation.
There are so many Christians like that nowadays, those who recite the Apostle's
Creed without believing in what they're reciting. Those who celebrate Easter
without believing that Jesus physically rose from the dead.

LGBTQIA+
Thanks to the United Nations and other international organizations, even
muslim-countries like Indonesia is being pressured to accept the LGBT, to accept
same-sex marriage.

The premise that the LGBTQIA+ use:

1st premise: God made me LGBTQIA+
God is good
LGBT is good
Therefore you are evil, not me!

Many people believe in this logic, many think it's logical!

This is another example of causalitatis.
So what's the problem with this reasoning?

OT: Gen 1, Gen 2:24, Leviticus (man shouldn't lie with man, woman should lie
with woman).
NT: Romans 1 - the number one passage where Paul describes women denying
their...and lie with other women and how God condemns them and that they
should die.

In the light of these 2 passages and other passages in the Bible, let's analyse the
natural theology and analyse whether these premises are right.

God made me LGBTQIA+ - ?

God is good - v
LGBT is good
You are evil, not me!
Does God make people LGBT?
let's ask: Does God make people born with deformities? Does God directly create
human beings have deformities? No. God only creates humans directly when He
created Adam and Eve.
Did God create you? Yes, indirectly.
In English, we make a distinction between create and procreate.
When human beings have babies, they procreate, not create. People make babies,
not create babies.

God does not create babies directly. It is through the fusion of DNA between the
mother and the father.

So the first premise is wrong.

God controls everything, it's true. God made the DNA come together.
He created Adam out of nothing, He created Eve out of Adam. It's not that God
created babies out of nothing, like He did in the beginning, but He used your
father's and mother's DNA. God is in control of all of these, but it doesn't mean
that God directly caused this.

Why are some babies born with deformities? Procreation.

What caused this procreation to be so bad?
Death and disease do not come from God creating death and disease in this
world, it comes from human beings' fall into sin.
The evolutionists do not have the doctrine of man falling into sin.

We believe that God created the world one way, and sin came into the world, and
the world begins to fall apart. The evolutionists believe that God created the
world as we see it now.

The effects of sin are physical, some children are born doomed to have leukemia.
This is not because God made them this way, but God ordained procreation, and
procreation is affected by the fall into sin. Some people are born with
schizoprenia, they would become schizoprenics at a certain age. They are
doomed by this. Again, this is because procreation has been affected by sin.
Some of us in this room have the propensity towards depression. It's procreation
that makes people this way, not God himself!

Procreation is affected by sin in its physical aspect but also in its emotional
aspect.

So when someone says "I'm attracted to the same sex" that could be true. In our
world today, that has become so important, compared to the ancient times.
The LGBT movement is all about the individual. They remove the family
restraints, the cultural restraints etc. Now the society is saying that you're
allowed to.
The LGBT movement is held back a little bit in Indonesia is the Islam religion. It's
also why abortion is not legal in this country. But remember where Islam has its
roots? The Bible.

So same-sex attraction is something that is in nature, but it's in nature that is

affected by sin. So we need to be very patient with these people because the
struggle is real. There is a difference between acting upon that feeling, and....

John 9 - someone born blind - the sin of either himself or the parents'.
Jesus was answering against the Pharisees. God had this person born blind so
that God can be glorified in this particular circumstance, Jesus chose this
moment to heal him and glorify him.
The world is under the curse of sin.

Same-sex attracted people struggle with their lustful thoughts just like we
struggle with our heterosexual erotic lustful thoughts. We should not expect us
to say a prayer and all these thoughts will disappear immediately. They, like us,
have to fight against acting upon these erotic lustful thoughts.

Transgender - instead of adjusting their brain to the body, the try to adjust their
body to their brain.

People who think seriously about committing suicide, who has tried to commit
suicide, and who do commit suicide, when you put all these 3 together, it's about
4% of the general population in the US, but the figure is about 38% among the
transgender pouplation. That's why parents take this concern seriously when
their young child tells them that they they think they are of the other gender.
Sadly, the figure among ppl who have undergone the transgender process to
change gender, the figure stays at around 38% too. So the problem is to do with
depression, and gender confusion is just one of its manifestations.

Adam and Eve did not just have general revelation, but also special revelation
from God. God actually spoke to them. So it was always God's plan to have
general revelation and special revelation together, because you always need to
have them together in order to have a good theology.

Tim Keller wrote a book about pederasty. Sexual exploitation of children.

The paedophilia claims that there is exploitation paedophilia and also consensual
paedophilia.

It's a good thing that God has revealed Himself to us, and unless God reveals
himself to us, we will not know anything about him at all. But the truth of the
matter is that God doesn't reveal much about Himself to us. That's why we must
put Divine mysteries alongside divine revelation

Divine myseteris - innumerable, undisclosed truths about God that limit our
understanding of God.
Romans 11:33 "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)

Systematic theology Vol 1 part 1 chpt 4
There is infinitely more in God than we have any idea of; and what we do know,
we know imperfectly.

What impact does this have on us? We always have something to learn, we never
stop learning. And this also tells us how to treat our brothers and sisters who
may not agree with what a certain thing about God. They might get one little
thing correct, and wrong, you might get one little thing correct, and wrong. So we
should not only be humble in front of God, but also humble to one another.

1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."

There are times in your life when you just have to say "I don't know". And as you
grow older, it's easier to tell people "I don't know"

This is not just true about God. The same is true of your eg. little finger nail,
something finite and small like that? Can you tell me the chemical compound of
your fingernail? No? So you know almost nothing about your fingernail. But
when a biologist knows something about it for example, it only reveals many
more things that you don't know, it raises more questions.

Your faith is not about how much you know, but it's about whether you know
Jesus.

Types of Mysteris: Temporary and permanent mysteries.

Ephesians 1:9; 3:3; 6:19

If you truly understand the OT, then you would know that there are a lot of
'surprise endings' to the way Jesus fulfilled the prophesies in the OT.
One of them is when the gentiles are made co-heirs of the kingdom of God. And it
was revealed to us in the first century churches.
So the OT is especially full of mysteries that the NT tells some things about, that
reveals things about them.

There are some mysteries however that are permanent ones. And this comes
from the distinctions between God and man that we can't overcome.

Isaiah 55:8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways
higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Isaiah 55 is dealing with the fact that Israel is going into exile, and that the gods
of the Babylonias are going to defeat Israel, and that the Babylonian armies are
going to defeat Israel, many will be butchered. Many people believed that God
had lost the battle at that time, obviously the God of Israel was weaker than the
babylonian gods. Isaiah anticipated that many Israelites would be thinking that
too. That God is not a loving God. Why would God use the evil, wicked
Babylonians to crush His people? And His answer is this verse.
We will always be dumbfounded before God because God is so much greater
than us humans. We will always see Him with our eyes, not as He is but as what
He reveals to us.
So we should rest in the confidence that no matter how bad things become for us
or for His people, our God reigns!

Rev 2, Isaiah 6, 2 Chro 15, Job 1, Daniel 11 - heaven is the throne room of God.
Blinding light radiates from Him, a river of fire beneath his feet, rainbows
surrounding HIm, there are thousands and thousands of creatures worshipping
him, saying Holy Holy Holy. If God is infinite, how big is the throne that he is
sitting on? So when God reveals Himself about Him in heaven, He is also
accommodating himself. So God not only accommodates himself when He reveals
himself on earth eg. smoke and fire.
Jesus in his divine and human nature is sitting at the right hand of God's throne.
This is also an accommodation!

So there's earthly imminence (as he reveals himself on earth), and heavenly

imminence (as he reveals himself in heaven), and there's God's transcendence
that is far beyond that. When we go to heaven, we will know God as He is in
heaven.

When you do theology the Doctrine of God. We talk about the attributes of God
and we talk about His works.

Divine Attributes - basic concept and types.

Divine Attributes - The perfections of God's essence revealed through a variety of

historical manifestations.

When you say God is this way or God is that way, it doesn't mean it's definitely
an attribute of God. Because it could be a true statement about God that is true in
the heavenly or earthly imminence, but not necessarily in His transcendence. An
attribute of God is something that is true in his trancendence. It is His essence.

Neo-platonism : the dominant philosophy in the mediterranian...?

This "THING" has an essence that makes it what it is. And surrounding this
essence are secondary features that makes the essence to manifest itself as the
THING.

The essence of God is what is the constant thing about God, not the secondary
features about God. The Bible tends to talk about these secondary features. And
ppl will take these to figure out what the essence is. These secondary features
are simply the windows to the essence of God. Technical definition always has
been true of God, always is, and always will be. No matter what variations you
see, it is always true of God.
The Great Commission is that we are to teach the world the Bible, or teach what
Jesus taught. In order to teach this, we have to contextualise it, you follow
different categories, different emphasis, different order. Systematic theologians
in the early church tried a method to communicate the Bible that would serve
the people well.

Essence precedes existence - that what you are determines how you live. In other
words, you would say my heart, the core of me, that's how i live. And Christ
changed my heart, the core of me, and that's how my life is changed.

Existence precedes essence -

That's why some ppl reject authority - i'm not created to be subservient to
anyone else. My job is to live my life. Who you are is what makes yourself to be.

You see how your philosophy impacts your life.

2 latin words that describe Essence:

essentia - being
substantia - substance

God has essence and substance. It's different from yours, His is unchanging.
The doctrine of trinity is: God is Three Persons but One Substance.

The essence of God is who He is, his substance

The attributes of God is the characteristics of that essence
manifestations - How He reveals himself
long-term historical manifestations eg. he is patient, he is just
short-term historical manifestations eg. he rides the clouds, he defeats
egyptians

Remember all of God's attributes, always have been, always are and always will
be. It is consistent and unchanging. He cannot be God if these things are not true
of Him.
This should raise one question in your mind: Is love an attribute of God?
If this is true, what does that mean? God has always been love, is always love, and
will always be love.
If God is love, and that's his attribute, He will never send anyone to eternal hell,
He will never bring judgment to anyone, all He will do is love.
If it is His essence, He cannot do anything other than love.
He is manifesting great kindness and great love towards people. He is
manifesting a lot of love all the time, we might even call that a long-term
manifestation of God.
But in this technical theological sense, can you call love an attribute of God?

God is good when He loves someone, but God is also good when He does not
show love to someone.
God is just when He loves someone, but God is also just when He does show love
to someone.
Ausburg Comfession - Article 1
There is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without
body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, the Maker and
Preserver of all things, visible and invisible.

How do they come up with the list of attributes of God?

They look at:
descriptions of God in the Bible
names and titles given to God in the Bible
metaphors and similes used for God
actions that God takes in this world

Can you now see why there needs to be a bit of humility here? When we look at
the different confessions, we will have differences in the list, and we need to
have a little bit of humility here.

Psalms 34:8
Ezekiel 8:18 - I will not listen to their prayers, do you want to say, on the basis of
this verse, that God doesn't listen to prayer? No, because in other parts of the
Bible it does say God listens to prayers. So we can't put this as an attribute of
God.

infinity, holiness, justice, wisdom, incomprehensibility, omnipotence.

Types of Attributes:
Incommunicable incommunicatio
& Communicable communicatio

Incommunicable: unable to be shared and this only applies to God. This is what
makes God distinct from all other creatures. We do not share them, this only
applies to God.

Looking back at the Ausburg Confession:

eternal, without body, without parts, infinite - those are incommunicable
attributes.
power, wisdom, and goodness - communicable, because the Bible says that
people can have these attributes. These attributes can be shared by people, even
angels and the devil.

Communicable: able to be shared.

Divine works: How God works all things according to His eternal purposes

Ephesians 1:11 - Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose
of his will.
"Maker" is the first work of God - Creation
"Preserver" is the second work of God - Providence (providential preservation of
the world and all things).
Work of Creation:
fact
variety
purpose

Kids' Catechism: Why did God create you and all things? For His glory.
Why is it if we do that, then we're evil. But if it's God, then it's good.
Because of His essence.

providence providentia
"attending to something or taking care of something"

Colossians 1:16-17
For in [Christ]...

Work of providence:
fact (the fact that is true)
variety (there's a lot of variety of His providence)
purpose (what's the purpose of His providence)

DAY 2 - 20 Aug 2019

One of the main traditional ways in distinguishing the attributes of God has been
to distinguish between the communicable and incommunicable.

Incommunicable - cannot be shared because it is buried in the essence of God.

But you can't really separate these from each other. This distinction though is
not without problems.

We are more like God than any other creatures, including angels.

How is God diffferent?

- Identification
- Integration

The identification of the incommunicable attributes of God and how they

integrate his other attributes (His communicable attributes).

Identification
- Biblical Foundation
- Theological Variety
- Biblical Perspectives

Why would we think that God is not like us? Where in the Bible would we infer
that from? It's when Bible writers talk about the incomparability of God.
2 Sam 7:22 - How great you are, O Sovereign Lord (adonai Yahweh)! There is
no one like you, and there is no God (Elohim) but you.

The God of Israel is great, and there is no one like Him.

There is no God but You - when Israel speaks of Yahweh as Elohim, they're
speaking of God not in a trans-religious way.
The Hebrew Bible use the word Elohim to refer to gods of other nations too.
What is it that makes Yahweh different from other gods? (Which we refer to as
angels and demons) - He is the Creator. John 1 says that Christ is the Creator and
nothing that is that was not created by Him.

Isaiah 40-46 - a section of Isaiah where he is arguing about the supremacy of

Israel's God over all the other powers.
This is in the context of the exile - it would be easy for people to think that
Israel's God has lost the war/battle/power.
He is writing that Israel was sent to exile not because Yahweh lost power but
because He sent Israel to exile to punish them.

And this is the basis of why Paul said that it is okay to eat meat that's been
sacrificed to other gods because we as Christians know that there is no other
power greater than our God.

Job 40-41 - God is not just one of the many gods but He made all the other gods.
So that puts him in another category from others.

Everytime the Bible describes God as incomparable, the most supreme, we can
say that this is the incommunicable attributes of God.

The first 3 chapters of Romans is about the sinfulness of humanity

Chpt 4-8 - way of salvation of faith, sanctification
Chpt 9-11 - predestination
Chpt 12-15 - practical application

It's interesting how Paul in those sections describe how gentiles are sinners, and
jews are sinners too. That the grace of salvation extends to gentiles too.
Romans is not a systematic theology, it's a letter that's oriented towards the real-
life problems that peole in Rome were facing.

When you apply the systematic theology to these sorts of texts, then you will
have differences in the opinions of what the data/facts of the Bible are, and also
how they are...?

Everytime you collect the data/facts from the Bible, you are summarising it, and
when people are summarising it, they're going to summarise it in different ways.
That's why the confessions of faith don't say the same exact things when it comes
to the incommunicable attributes of God.
Theological Variety
- Augsburg Confession (Lutheran)
- Belgic Confession (Continental Reformed) - Europe
- Westminster Shorter Catechism (written in England)

Augsburg Confession (Article 1)

There is one Divine Essence which is called and which is God: eternal, without
body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.

Belgic Confession (Article 1)

There is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God ... He is eternal,
incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just,
good, and the overflowing fountain of all good.

Westminster Confession of Faith(Q4)

Q. What is God
A. God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom,
power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

When you compare all three:

eternal and infinite are in all three.
Only Belgic and Westminster use the word 'spirit'
Immutable/unchangeable are only in the Belgic and Westminster

Why would Belgic and Westminster include the word immutable/unchangeable?

What is it that about Calvinist that want to highlight abt immutable? Eternal
counsel. It is what makes predestination sure, unchangeable. God doesn't change.

But while they differ in terms, they may refer to the same concept.

It's impt in biblical hermeneutics to differentiate between terminology and

concepts. Terminology is the terms/words you use, and concepts are the ideas
in your brain.
Many terms can refer to one concept i.e. any terms can be used to refer to the
same concept.

So bear in mind when the Bible uses different words, it doesn't necessarily mean
a different concept.

The reverse is also true, many concepts can be indicated with one word i.e. one
word can refer to many concepts.

So when you do theology, you're taking this messy thing (the Bible), and you're
creating another messy thing. Because theologians can use many terms to
describe/to refer to one concept, and many concepts with one word. And if you
don't realise that both of these are 'messy' things, then you will be 'in trouble'.

isomorphic- parallel shape.

What the Bible has, and what theology has, will never be isomorphic, they will
never be identical, unless you're just quoting the Bible.

So when we look at these now:

Ausburg - without body
Belgic - spiritual being, invisible
Westminster - spirit
---> so they don't have to match up in words to refer to the same concept.

ie. the fact that the Westminster does not use the word 'without body' does not
mean that the Westminster believes God has a body.

Ausburg - without parts

Belgic - simple
Westminster - infinite

Ausburg - infinite
Belgic - incomprehensible
Westminster - infinite

omnipresence - God is everywhere

omniscience - God knows everything
omnipotence - God is all-powerful
aseity - God is self-sufficient (He needs nothing, He is dependent on nothing)
sovereignty - God is in total control
All these are not in the list

Side Question - on the concept of Reformed belief and the worship

"the regulative principle of worship" - in contrast to Lutheran whose basic
concept is: unless the Bible forbids it, you can do it. So the liturgy of the
Lutherans have a lot of things in it that you'll find hard to find support in the
Bible.
"the regulative principle of worship" says you must have positive biblical
support for everything you do in worship, except what Westminster says
"circumstantial...?"

eg. Calvinist says no biblical support for a choir (because of the abuse by the
Catholics - only the priest and some special people could sing)
Calvinist says no musical instrument, sing a capela
Calvinist also says you can only sing songs in worship, not hymns.
So you're not super-reformed unless you sing psalmity (only sing songs from the
Psalms)
So if you believe in the "regulative principle of worship" then you are reformed
in your worship.
It comes from the 2nd commandment: no idols.
Btw reformed churches did not use to have crosses, it's an idol. They would
never have a picture of a saint. The rule is simplicity, simplicity, simplicity.
Nothing on the wall, no writings, no TV screens.
So we need to tone down this discussion a little bit, when you think your church
is right and the rest are wrong.

Biblical Persepectives
- divine transcendence
- divine immanence

What made Israel stand out for her Great God is that He had no wife. Other gods
of other nations always had a wife.

Divine Transcendence
- infinite
- eternal
- unchangeable

Infinite
immensus infinitus
immeasurable unending
incalculable unlimited

The terms above says what is not true, not what is true, it's a negative statement,
not a positive statement.
It's saying what God is not, not what God is.

infinite
God's perfections are without limits.
You might think it only means spatial limits, but it doesn't, it means limits in
other aspects too.

Jesus in his human nature was finite. His power was finite, his knowledge was
finite, he was limited by time, he was limited in every way like you are, but
without sin.
Jesus in his divine nature, is it ever limited? No, if it were, He would cease to be
divine.

The calcedonian confession says: Within this Second Person of the Trinity, the 2
natures (divine nature and human nature) do not mix, they do not convert one to
another, but they are not separated, they are together.

1 Kings 8:27 "even the highest heaven, cannot contain you"

Behind Solomon's words was the idea that God is infinite.
We're not over-claiming Solomon, we're saying that to understand what
Solomon was saying, we need to believe that God is infinite.

Romans 11:33

Psalms 139:6 "too wonderful...to lofty...to attain"

These are some of the verses that are used to support the idea that God's wisdom
is limitless.

To properly evoke a response of praise and admiration in worship, it needs to be

true.
Some claim that systematic thelogians have over-analysed the Bible, but those
who claim so also do so, they are over-reading the Bible too, though in different
way. The attack against systematic theology is: systematic theology is too
western, too hellenisitic. it observes rational thoughts that developed in the
greek and all the way to enlightenment era, so the argument is that they
squeezed the Bible too much through the grid that they've lost the Bible.
But those who claim this, they themselves do so. They have run the Bible through
the same grid, but come up with a different conclusion.
Why is it that when it comes to these 2 different choices, why do they choose
between that two option, they already have the presupposition of the beliefs
influenced by the Western culture ...??
Every interpretative grid comes from a community.
Seldom are you aware of how much you presuppose as you interpret the Bible.
The choice of religious community is impt, you want to be surrounded by ppl
who are genuine in their faith in Christ, they're filled with the Holy Spirit, and not
walking in the flesh. They're concerned abt the body of Christ and not the
academic scholars. Community is both of present day and historical, because
community is streams of tradition. And the tradition represents, to some degree,
the work of the Holy Spirit in the past, and your current community represents,
to some degree, the work of the Holy Spirit in the present. So the community
who influences you is extremely important. The longer your tradition has said a
certain thing, then you have a good reason for thinking that your understanding
of a certain verse is correct.
Induction, at best, gives you probability.
So when you interpret the Bible, it comes from your personal judgment, but it
also comes from your community.
Some things in the Bible are clearer than others, the clearer it is, the more unison
there is on its inference. The less clearer it is, the more divisions it has in the
community.

"logical positivism"
teltology? - self-evident statements
empirical/factual claims
sentimental/feeling claims - every ethical/moral/theological statements come
under this group

Eternal
God's perfections are not subject to time.

1 Tim 1:17 "Now to the King eternal ... the only God"
Paul refers to God the Israel as the only God, and distinguishes Him as the eternal
God.
Rev 4:8 "who was, and is , and is to come" - God is not subject to time, he is not
subject to limitations of time.

2 Pet 3:8 "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are
like a day" - it's because God is transcendent over time.

Even though God is infinite and eternal, it doesn't mean he is outside of space,
and outside of limits, and outside of time. But He can be in time as well, he is not
constrained to be outside of it, he cannot not be within the limits. Why would He
say that - because the Bible says that. The Bible says that God does enter into
time and space, He was present in the Tabernacle, He was present in Jesus, He
does things with reference to time. To say that God is infinitely eternal, He is
outside of time and restricted to enter the limits of time. He is not restricted from
entering it. It just means that He is not bound by the limits of time. If God is truly
outside, if He is beyond all these things, then we cannot know anything about
Him. But the only ground upon why we say that is because God does involve
himself within the boundaries of space and within the boundaries of time.

Our sincere the desire is to see what the Bible says, and not to come to a
conclusion which you think is logical.

unchangeable
If you take God to be unchangeable, in the broadest sense of that word, then you
will take a God that is not the Bible's God.
In some sense God does change. In the Medieval description of God, they said
that God is autus purus - action , pure
God is unchangeable but it doesn't mean he is immovable, it doesn't mean he is
immobile. He is constantly and actively doing things.

unchangeable:
God's perfections cannot change

His substance, his essence, he's not holy in one moment, and unholy in one
moment. He is not good in one moment and evil in another moment. etc etc.

God who does not change in the broadest sense, is a God who doesn't answer
prayers. There's nothing I can do to get God to do anything.

intensity of prayer is usually one of the first things that people usually lose when
a 'charismatic' becomes a 'reformed'.

Numbers 23:19 - "Not a human being that he should change his mind"
James 1:17 - "the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting
shadows"

Qn: The impassibility of God - an attribute in the Westminster Confession of faith.

- can God suffer? does God have emotion? Can God be affected, in His relationship
with us?
He is not with unrestrained passions. God has emotions, that's esp true in the
Bible, eg. words like love, wrath, anger, 'he burns with anger'. But it's not
unbridled anger, not unjustified anger. His love is also just love, it's not 'fly off the
handle' kind of love
It's v clear in the Bible that God reacts to events on earth and in the heaven.
Whether 'suffer' is the right word or not is a question mark. In the old tradition
English bible, in Gen 6, it is said that 'God was grieved' when he made human
beings. So can God have grief and regret? Yes obviously so. But that brings us to
our discussion: how we deal with the fact that we speak of God as infinite,
eternal and unchangeable, and read the Bible and see things that don't quite fit
with that.
It's appropriate on the basis of Biblical evidence that God is infinite, eternal and
unchangeable. But to understand this properly, we have to extremely careful,
because the Bible doesn't always speak about God in the way that affirms that.
The solution lies at the disctinction that has to be made: divine transcendence
and divine immanence.

Divine transcedence - above creation, above time, above change

Divine imminence - He is involved in the limitations of creation, time and change.

You would think that a God who is infinite will never have to investigate or
anything, don't you? But in the OT, God frequently sent messengers to discover
things. He tested Israel in the wilderness, to test their hearts, to see whether
their hearts are true to Him or not. You would think when God says to Adam
"Adam, where are you?" He should have known the answer. God frequently asks
questions of people, He frequently sends angels to find out about things.

God is eternal, but why does God do things like in Deut 8:2, where He looks and
sees what people do before He reacts to them? If He is unbound by the
limitations of time, then why does He enter into time, and waits for people to do
things and reacts to them?

If God is unchangeable, but why then does the Bible record about God changing
His mind? (Exodus 32:14)
And if God is unchangeable, then why does God speak? And having a
conversation with somebody?
- Moses 'corrected' God - they're not my people, You brought them out of Egypt.
- Moses says that the Egyptions will mock You and the Israelites.
- Moses reminded God of His promise to the patriarchs.
- in Ex 32:14 it says "And the Lord repented" (naham - changed) He changed and
He didn't bring about what He planned to do.
And this is not unusual at all, most of the Bible talked that way about God.
A lot of verses seem to contradict one another.

This is what we in our traditions call the "imminence of God". God is not only
transcendent, but He is also imminent. When God is imminent, He has to deal
with His creatures in ways that can be understood by the creatures.
Amoz 7 - Amoz is having a vision of heaven, and He sees that God is preparing a
swarm of locusts and He is about to send them to the earth. Amoz asks God not
to send them, because no one in Israel will survive, if you do that. And God
relents.
The next vision: God was preparing a fire.. and he argues the same thing. And
God relents.
The next vision: God holds up a plumbline and asks Amoz what he saw? The
plumbline means that God will judge His people individually, rather than send a
'nuclear bomb' kind of punishment.

Under the influence of Plato, there has been a tendency to say: Divine
transcendence is true and real, and divine imminence is just the appearance of
things, not real.
Plato says that the search for truth is like being in a cave. People who are looking
for truth in the wrong way, they're looking at the wall, and they see things on the
wall, and they think that these things are real, but they're fools. These people
have their hands and legs tied, they can't move, they can't turn around. But Plato
says these things on the wall are not real, these are just shadows that are being
projected onto the wall.
And outside the cave is the sun, and the sun is shining its rays to cast a shadow
on the wall. So the sun is real, but you're living in the world of shadows. That's
not to say nothing's is happening, things are happening, but they are merely
shadows.
So under the influence of Plato, Christianity has tendency to say - that the
transcendence of God is real, but the imminence of God is not real, they're just
the shadows. And a lot of people in the reformed traditions believe this.
But if you use this line of thinking then you'd say that 'Jesus dying on the cross' is
not real, or his resurrection is not real, or that the Holy Spirit is not real - this is
where the problem rise.

In Genesis, God came down to see the tower that they have made. This can't be
true? these are just shadows. And when God says 'if we don't stop them, there's
no stopping them'. That can't be true? How about when God answers prayers?
He already fixed everything beforehand! No way. I'm not going to wrestle God
and get him to do things. This is the insanity of Neo-Calvnism - they become a
fatalist. What is a fatalist? Who were determinant of fates in the Greek mythology?
The three women who stir the pot, who fix and determine things.

But here's the glory of the God of the Bible. He is infinite, eternal and
unchangeable. He has a plan that supercedes over all. But that same God who is
utterly infinite, eternal and unchangeable, He stoops down to earth is REAL, it's
not fake, it's not shadows on the wall. When He says 'believe in the Lord Jesus
Christ', that's real. When Jesus says John 3:16 - that's real, there's nothing more
real than that. And this is the wonder of the God of the Bible, we don't have to
choose between his transcendence and imminence, He is both!

And what we do has an effect of what is going to happen next.

If God is in fact transcendent, incomprehensible, it shouldn't surprise us that we
can't figure out how both these things are true. In fact, if you can put them
together easily, then you should wonder if it's true at all.

If you believe in the Bible, with all its diversity, and etc etc etc, if you believe that
they represent one religion, that has at least a measure of coherence to it, and it's
not just a million different paths that don't fit together, but if you believe that it
does make sense somehow, though we may not get it all, then you have to ask:
"what are you searching for?"

We do not search for the only system that makes any sense of the Bible
We search for the best system that makes the most sense of the Bible.

Being aware that this system will still be flawed and inadequate.

Generally speaking, people who are sincerely studying the Bible will make some
sense of some parts of the Bible.

Analogy: sometimes I give treat to my dog when she asks for it, sometimes I
don't because if I did, then she won't eat her dinner and this won't be good to her.
If that little distance between me and my dog, makes her dumbfounded and
confused about why I sometimes give her treat and sometimes not, what more
would that be the case when we see the distance between us and our Creator. It
shouldn't bother us that we get dumbfounded and

Integration
- biblical foundation
- theological variety
- biblical perspectives

The reason why we have to believe that the transcendence and imminence of
God are integrated together, is because of this doctrine: simplicity of God. It
emphasises on the highly inter-dependency of the two things.

(slide on the simplicity of God)

Deut 6:4 - "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one."
Moses was saying to his readers: there is only one place to worship God, and that
is the tabernacle. There is only one God, He is not able to be sliced up, He is the
One God and that He is unified.

James 2:19 - "You believe that God is one; you do well"

Augsburg Confession Article 1

There is one Divine Essence, which is called and which is God: eternal, without
body, without parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.
the word infinite here (Latin word immensus) is the adjective used to describe
God's power, wisdom and goodness.

His incommunicable attribute here (infinite) is used as a qualifying description

(adjective) of his communicable attribute (power, wisdom, goodness). This is
what we mean that the two are highly integrated.

This works the other way too: He is eternally infinite, His wisdom is powerful,
His goodness is wise...

In the Belgic confession we can also see this integration:

almighty perfectly - tout puissant - all power
perfectly wise - tout sage

So these confessions actually integrate God's incommunicable attributes with

God's communicable attributes.

What about the Westminster shorter cathecism, does it do the same thing?
in his being ...
All of God's communicable attributes: being, wisdome, power, holiness, justice,
goodness, truth are all infinite, eternal and unchangeable

Biblical Perspectives
How the communicable attributes of God are not true of us.

being
immensity: existence beyond creation
1 Kings 8:27 "The highest heaven, cannot contain [God]"

omnipresence: existence everywhere within creation

Jeremiah 23:24 "Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
Acts 17:28 "In [God] we live and move and have our being"
Psalms 139:7-10
Isaiah 66:1
Acts 7:48,49

wisdom
omniscient: knowledge of things
Job...?
Hebrews 4:14 "nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight"
Psalms 33:15 "[God] considers everything [people] do."
Jer 23:24 "Can anyone hide in secret places so that I cannot see him?"

incomprehensibility: cannot be fully known

Romans 11:33 "unsearchable...beyond tracing out"
Job 11:7 "[cannot] fathom the mysteries of God"
Psalms 139:6 "[God's] knowlege is too wonderful ... to attain."
1 Sam 16:7
1 Chroni....
power
omnipotent: all-powerful
Job 42:2 "[God does...
Psams 115:3
Jeremiah 32:17 "Nothing is too hard for you"
Matthew 19:26 "With God all things are possible"

God cannot lie, sin, change, nor deny himself

Numbers 23:19
1 Sam 15:29
2 Tim 2:13
Hebrews 6:18
James 1:13,17
The reason for this is because God's power does not go against His other
attributes. eg. he cannot lie because He is truth, he cannot sin because he is good,
he cannot change because he is unchangeable etc...

sovereignty: absolute control over creation

2 Chronicles 20:6 "Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand
you."
Job 42:2 "No purpose of yours can be thwarted." (how about the verse that says
"do not resist the Holy Spirit"? Remember, transcendence over immanence.
Eph 1:11 "works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will"
Romans 8:28 "In all things God works for the good of those who love him."

holiness
holy, sacred, sanctified: separate, set apart

moral: separate from all evil

Psalm 92:15 "There is no wickedness in him."
James 1:13 "God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." (how
about the Lord's Prayer: lead us not into temptation?)

majestic: separate from all creation (including the holy creations)

Isaiah 6:3 "Holy holy holy is the Lord Almighty"
Ex 15:11, 1 Sam 2:2, Isaiah 57:15, Hosea 11:9

That by comparison of things of heaven, God is holy. He is greater than all of

them. Even as He accommodates himself to creation, He is still far above them all.

Day 3 - Wed 21 Aug 2019

Beliefs form webs of multiple logical reciprocities.

There is no one idea, ideas are always clumps or clusters of ideas. Just like in
your brain, you do not just have one neuron, one idea does not come from just
one neuron, but a cluster of neurons.
Let's take these beliefs that we have:
Jesus is Lord
Jesus was resurrected

Do we believe that Jesus is Lord because He was resurrected, or do we believe

that He was resurrected because He is the Lord? Both. Because these 2 ideas
have reciprocal logical connections. So there are ways in which you can make
one of these the premise, and the other the conclusion, vice versa.

Let's another one:

The Bible is the Word of God.

Do we believe because Jesus was resurrected, so the Bible is the Word of God? Or
do we believe the Bible is the Word of God because Jesus is the Lord?

Why do we believe that the Bible is the Word of God? What makes your belief
that Jesus is the Lord, lead you to believe that the OT is also the Word of God?
Because Jesus said so. I do hope your allegiance is not in the book. Who died for
your sins and rose again? Not that book, it's Jesus. Then why do we carry the
Bible around with us?

Jesus is the Lord, and Jesus affirmed that the OT is the Word of God. So this
affirms the authority of the OT, it is the Word of God. What he believed about the
OT should be your belief in the OT.

So a statement like: Jesus is Lord is actually a summary of clusters/clump of

ideas, a web of multiple reciprocities.

Will our web of reciprocities be equal to those of the Bible writers? Similar yes,
completely identical? no. But we share enough in common that we can agree
together.

Can we say: We believe that the Bible is the Word of God (this is the premise),
therefore Jesus is the Lord (this is the conclusion). Yes, because the Bible tells us
that Jesus is the Lord.

So we can take one direction in this web, but we can also take the reverse
direction, because they are reciprocal.

When you're giving a talk/seminar, you're bringing people usually to walk the
path in one direction. We're just picking tiny little pieces of this web of
reciprocities.

It's interesting that the Confessional statements themselves do it. They say it in a
way that brings out reciprocities.

So this web of reciprocities is not an unusual thing, it's always going on in the
background.
The question is: out of all the things I believe, what should I emphasise?
Well all of these -ologies form this web of reciprocities. So actually, any person
should be able to do these in any order they wish. eg. christology, pneumatology,
escathology etc...
If all these various ways are all God-honouring, how do you decide which should
you emphasise? It depends on the circumstances, eg. your audience. You
emphasise different things in different circumstances.

You sometimes hear Reformed people say "if you don't have your Doctrine of
God straightened out, you can't do anything else". But it's actually completely
alright to start with something else and to have God as your conclusion.

Why do we have 13 different letters that are all inspired by the Holy Spirit, by
Paul? Different audience and different emphasis.

This brings us to the next adage:

"Because the deck of life is always shifting, balance should be nothing more than
momentary synchronicity"

What's the danger of constantly emphasising the transcendence and sovereignty

of God? Fatalism or ignoring the immanence of God. It's v easy not to realise that
that constant emphasis is letting bad things to creep into your church, because
you're losing the emphasis of the immanence of God. And this is true in a lot of
the reformed churches. When we lose the vitality of the immanence of God
(personal r'ship with God etc etc) because of that constant emphasis on the
transcendence of God, we lose that side of the Bible. And what would be the
effect? You lose the vitality of the dynamic relationship of God in His immanence.
You may stop praying/pray less, you don't care about other people, God becomes
irrelevant. God becomes so distant that you stop interacting with Him. So
psychologically you become very dry, and the only emotion that stays with you is
anger with people who don't have the same stand as you, you become arrogant.

When ppl talk about reformed theology in the reformed churches, what do they
say about us? They're arrogant, logic without feeling, stubborn.
I've never heard them commenting on us say: Oh, my, the Reformed people sure
love their neighbours! There's no widespread comment about us that we love
people so much.

So when you neglect this immanence of God, it begins to lose its impact on us.
Sure, it's hard to strike that "balance" but you have to always be alert on the
condition of your church and be sensitive about what you need to emphasise
next. Make that a conscious choice. Make that 'momentary balance' or
'momentary synchronicity'.
 normative
(standard, rules)
(deontology)

situational existential
(goal) (motives)
(situational ethics) (egoistical ethics -
eg. killing someone is evil in oriented towards
one circumstance but can yourself, doing
be good in another something that will
circumstance
self-actualise you)

How do you make that momentary balance? By the axis of the three things above.

The Bible is the supreme judge of all controversies. But you can also make
judgment based on natural theology - situational and existential (based on the
circumstances).
eg. you don't want to read to a 5-year-old the part of the Bible how the Levites
gave their concubine over to the rapists till she died.

Reformed churches tend to emphasise a lot on the rules.

The charismatics tend to emphasise on the existential, what God is telling them
in their hearts, the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In the Reformed churches, we don't spend much time talking about the intuitive
aspect, the work of the Holy Spirit in you, being filled with the HS, being led by
the HS, keeping in step with the Spirit. That's not emphasised much by us,
because we emphasise on the transcendence of God, and not much on the
immanence part.

All the three things have to be used when making a moral judgment, including
when the deck of life is shifting. Why? Because the Bible tells us this. Sola
Scriptura means all three above, not just the rules! And again, the three are also
web of reciprocities.

The Righteousness of God

Justice
1 Peter 1:17 "judges each person's work impartially"
Romans 2:5,6 "righteous judgment ... God 'will repay each person according to
what they have done"
Romans 9:14 "Is God unjust? Not at all!"
Deut 32:4
John 17:25

rewards - just rewards for righteousness

Psalm 58:11 "The righteous
Punishments - just punishments for evil
2 Thes 1:6-8 "God is just ... He will punish those who do not know God and do not
obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus."
Romans 3:26 "just and the one who justifies"

The moral conundrum of God not punishing the evil ones is settled in Christ.

4QMelkisedek - commentary on Melkisedek. There's a sect of the Jews that

believe that melkisedek will return one day and he will perform so many
sacrifices that in the end there would be no more need of sacrifice.

Genesis 1:31 "very good"

God is called good.

Goodness
direct - benevolence, mercy, love and patience toward his creatures
Psalm 34:8
Exodus 33:19
Psalm 25:7
indirect - good even through troubles and trials - God uses evil to bring about
good.
James 1:17 "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the
Father of the heavenly lights."
Romans 8:28 "We know that in all things (including persecution, evil, etc) God
works for the good of those who love him." - God is showing his goodness
indirectly. No matter what happens to a believer, it will produce good. No matter
what happens to an unbeliever, it will produce good, not good for that person
necessarily, but it is for good.
The just rejoices when he sees that vengeance is complete (Psalms..?) - think
about this and wrestle with this.

Truth
to be sure, confirmed, true
faithfulness, loving kindness

Romans 3:4 "Let God be true, and every human being a liar"
When we say people to be a liar, we don't just mean that they don't tell the truth,
but they also don't live in the truth.

faithful source
Psalm 25:5
John 16:13 "The Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all the truth."
John 17:17

faithful to promises
Titus 1:2 "God... does not lie."
Numbers 23:19
Psalms 33:4
Hebrews
Rev 3:14 "The faithful and true witness, the ruler of all creations."

-------------------
How God is Like Us

John Calvin, Institutes of The Christian Religion, Book 1 Chpt 6 Sect 1.

"Just as those with weak vision ... with the aid of specatacles, will begin to read
disticntly; so Scripture, gatherin up the otherwise confused knowledge of God in
our minds, having dispersed our dullness, clearly shows us the true God."

i.e. if you put the spectacles of Scripture, you'll be able to see nature and see how
God intends you to see it, you'll be able to see God through nature.

Calvin is saying: use the Scripture to look through them, look at yourself and the
world around you.
So the Scripture is not given for us to merely examine it, but to look at things
through Scripture (not just to examine the spectacles, but put the spectacles on
and look through them).

When it comes to the doctrine of God, the Bible does say a lot of things about God,
but also to look at the world around you through them and be able to learn about
God from this.

Basic Strategies
Way of Negation
Way of Causation
Way of Eminence

These 3 approaches are the ways that the Bible writers talk about God.

When they use the way of negation, they are describing the incommunicable
attributes.

But when they use the way of causation and eminence, they are describing the
communicable attributes.
Way of causation - you look at things and you can see God, eg. you'll be able to
see God in a play, or in music etc.

Even though the schoolmen were trying to do pure natural theology, they
couldn't do it. That's interesting.

Psalm 94:9 "Does he who fashioned the ear not hear? Does he who formed they
eye not see?" - can you see that this is the way of causation?

Psalm 18:2 "The Lord is my rock, my fortress ... my God is my rock, in whom I
take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."
The difference between a metaphor and a simile, is that a simile uses the word
"like" or "as". Everytime they use a metaphor or a simile, there are things you
have to keep in mind:
you have the topic, which is the thing itself, in this case it would be God.
and you have the image, which in this verse is: rock, stronghold, shield.
So God is being compared to a rock, stronghold, shield.
Between these two (the topic and the image), the points of comparison, you
have to ask the question: HOW?

Usually it's hard to explicitly see all of the three above.

I can say this about my grandson: My bulldozer ran into my house today and
knocked over the lamp.
If I were to say this to my daughter, she would understand right away that I'm
talking about her son.

Aristotle said: Figures of comparison are inherently deceptive.

What he meant by that is that the thing you're talking about and the image you're
using are never the same. So this figure of speech is a lie, it's deceptive, it's not
clear. Now this is a little bit exaggerated, because they are similar in some ways,
or else you wouldn't be using that. But as responsible Bible readers, you have to
ask in what ways is this comparison true, and in what ways is that not true?

So take that as an example: The Lord is my rock.

How is God like a rock?
How is God not like a rock? He's active, rocks are not living. He's constantly in
action. He's alive. God is Spirit, and not physical. Rock is finite, and God is infinite.
There are prob more ways how God is not like a rock, than how he is like a rock.

Systematic theologians (systematicians) tend to not want to use metaphors and

similes at all, based on what Aristotle said about them. They don't want any
ambiguity.
So they take all these comparisons and reduce them to something else.
What's wonderful about these comparisons is that they allow you to use your
imaginations. They also evoke emotional responses.

Deut 32:10-11 "[God] shielded [Jacob] and cared for him ... like an eagle that
stirs up its nest and hovers over its young.

Psalm 91:4 "[God] will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will
find refuge." - here you can see that the image [a bird] is not explicitly mentioned,
but you infer it from 'feathers' and 'wings'.

1 Tim 6:15-16 "God, the blessed and onyl Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of
lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable ligt, whom no one
has seen or can see. To him be honour and might forever."
Because we don't have kings here, we don't have much understanding of what
that means in real life, and the implications of that. The Bible writers did
experience it, they had kings in their time. So this is a big problem.
In fact if someone in the US would rise and claim that he is king of the US, a civil
war would literally break right away.
In the state flag of Virginia, the state flag has an image of a king lying dead with
his crown next to his body, and a woman standing over the dead king, with these
words written:
sic semper tyranis - thus always a tyrant. We assume that kings are always
tyrants.

But if you have a perfectly good King, that would be a different case!

Why do we have a problem with God doing things that seem unjust to us?
Because we don't believe that He is King and that He has power over all. The
metaphor of kingship answers those questions. This is the argument in Romans 9
(check?)

We have this expression in English: "Solid as a rock" - the prob with this is that
we know that scientifically that rocks are not utterly solid.

Biblical Foundations
- basic strategies
- outlooks on humanity

Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness."

People are unique above all creatures because

Psalm 8:3-5 "When I considern your heavens...

Gen 9:6; James 3:9 - you don't stop being the image of God as a sinner, though a
corrupted image of God.
Eph 4:22-24
Mat 7:11 - God is like a human father (so bear in mind how God is like a human
father, or even more than a human father; but also think about how God is NOT
like a human father)
Isaiah 5:1-7; John 15:1 - God is like a farmer
Nu 23:21; 1 Tim 1:17 - God is like a king
Gen 48:15, Heb 13:20 - God is like a shepherd

The king is like the great vineyard maker, the great builder, so these are royal
images. Every great king calls themselves a great architect and builder, the glory
doesn't go to the workers, but to the king. Just like in Gen 1: God is building the
universe.
And this is a divine royal image of God. So it's not surprising that back in those
ancient times, the king would build something (eg temples) and after finishing
them, they sit back on the throne and rest while enjoying/marvelling at their
work. So it's not surprising that God also did that in Creation, he rested.

When Jesus calls himself the good shepherd, he is claiming royalty. Because kings
protect their people.
Isaiah 54:5 - God is like a husband.
Kings married their countries, they were like husbands to their citizens. Kings
are also fathers to their nations. What does it mean for kings to say they are like
the husband? He loves them, he protects them, he provides for them, he rules
over them.

These are not arbitrary, these are rooted in the ancient world of kingdoms.
So it doesn't surprise us that the escathon takes on the image of a wedding feast.
We are like a bride waiting for her husband. You can see how impactful these
imageries can be when you think about God.

Outlooks on Humanity
- intellectual character
- volitional character - they make choices
- moral character

We don't talk about people the way traditional theologians talk about people.
This will impact on the way God shares His attributes with us. It's impt to note
the underlying principle when the Bible writers make these comparisons.

If you look at the traditional systematic theologian and ask what does it mean to
say we are the image of God? They would fall into the above three characters.
But in our post-modern world, what's missing in the list? relationship, emotions.
What makes us different from everything else? it's our emotions.

Take a look at the Fruit of the Spirit, how many of them are to do with emotions?
All of them!

Christianity is utopian.
The future of the western world now is dystopian, we'll end up in a nuclear
holocaust, or some kind of epidemy.
And so momentary erotic satisfaction is now the height of human satisfaction in
the West. Which is what the LGBT movement is all about. Satisfying their erotic
needs now.

So the questions are:

How is God like us intellectually? eg. His wisdom
How is God like us volitionally? eg. His power
How is God like us morally? eg. His goodness

Theological Outlooks
- processes
- historical documents
- organization
- implications

A question: What is emotion?

Everytime we put something in a category, it becomes artificial. The truth of the
matter is, if we want to use the words intellects, actions, behaviours, emotions.
They are not separable in reality. What goes on in the heart and in the rest of
your body, impacts your thinking. You cannot separate your emotions from your
intellects, or your emotions from your behaviours, or your behaviours from your
intellects. They all form webs of reciprocities.
But when we use words, we create grids, artificial grids, that help us to
understand them, but they also hide things from us, they have their limitations.
(Remember something that reveals also conceals?).
If by emotions you mean there are chemicals flowing through your body that
gives rise to a certain feeling, those are the impacts of thoughts in your brain on
the chemicals in your body. Your body is fixed in this way, so when certain
neurons in the brain are activated, it causes some hormones or chemicals to flow
in your body that gives rise to your emotions. Your brain does that to you. But
here's the other side of it. The chemicals in your body also impact your thought.
This is why when you get tired, you get confused. So these chemicals impact on
your ideas. So your ideas impact your emotions, but your emotions also impact
your ideas. The actions you take (the macro actions you do with your body) also
impact your emotions, and vice versa. These are all interplaying with each other.
Now if you don't feel close to God, if you'd feel humbled towards God, there are
ways that you can do. eg. if you don't feel close to God, then stop praying with
your arms crossed in front of you in defiance posture, start getting down to your
knees and pray! And you usually start breaking down. Your posture impacts your
emotions and your thinking. You do things with your body to produce certain
emotions, and this impacts on your ideas too. Welcome to being a human being,
it's magnificent! We are what we do, we are what we feel, we are what we think!
How wonderful it is to be a human being!

When you talk about triggering, you talk about doing something that makes your
neurons to be on standby to be activated.
When you have a highly traumatic emotional experience, it puts your neurons on
'standby' ready to go. All you need is to have a stimulus from your environment
or from yourself, and it will fire on. This is what a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) is all about. But this works positively too, this is why fasting is important
too. What you do with your body affects your spirituality too. Fasting for a very
long time will become a heightened religious experience for you. Fasting is
another behaviour that will impact your spirituality.

Theological Outlooks
- processes
- historical documents
- organization
- implications

Processes
- Technical Terms
- Theological Propositions

Technical Terms
- wisdom
- knowledge
Some say that wisdom is part of knowledge, and some say knowledge is part of
wisdom. Theologians take normal words in the Bible and turn them into a
technical term. But they restrict the meaning of the word in a way that the Bible
doesn't restrict the meaning of those words. They do it so that we don't have
confusion. So the fact that Isaiah uses the word 'election' differently from Paul,
and how Paul uses the term differently in different passages confuse us.

Other words like: grace, mercy, love, goodness.

So theological technical terms of the words are not always the same as that in the
Bible. Don't let the technical terminology get to you.

As you the attributes of God, compare it to the BIble, you have to realise
something that the way in which formal theological study has been done in the
past, it has been based on one genre of literature: argumentative discourse.
By the time Aquinas came along, it changed to become: ...?

What's a theological proposition?

A sentence that asserts as directly as possible at least one factual theological
claim.

We will take different genres in the Bible: epistles, narrative, prophecy, poetry,
law - and ask: How to make these into propositions?

The Scripture is not the just the canon for the content of theology but also for the
construction of theology.

Theological Propositions
Psalms 34:8
1 John 4:8 "God is love"
Isaiah 1:4: "The Holy One" - therefore i can conlude this proposition: God is holy
Deut 7:9 "Faithful"

To conclude from narratives:

Genesis 2 - God is powerful, God is wise, God is good.
Genesis 19 - God is holy, God is merciful, God is just.
It's not that hard to do from most parts of the Bible, but it gets difficult when we
come to metaphors and similies.

To conclude from Metaphors and Similes:

Isaiah 64:8 ; Psalm 89:26 - "father" - but the conclusion is: God is good (they
generalise it and make it like a factual claim)
Joshua 23:10, Psalm 24:8; Exodus 15:3 - "warrior" - the proposition is: God is
powerful.
1 John 1:5; Psalm 118:27 - "light" - the proposition is: God is morally pure
You don't find people opposing systematic theology writing their oppositions in
poetry. Biblical theologians use the same method which they critique in
systematic - they use argumentative discourse, they write propositions. They use
the same data but come up with different conclusions and they feel superior.
Most of the time, people who regard themselves as superiors, they are not.

Total depravity means the whole human being, even the mind, not just the will
and the emotions etc. But 'total depravity' does not mean there is no goodness
left in you.

Ephesians 3 Paul says work hard in maintaining the unity of the spirit. You are
commanded by the Lord to work hard in maintaining the unity of the church!
The easiest thing to do for theologians is to have an argument. We need to look
behind the word and ask "what do you mean by that". Sometimes the differences
that we 'see' are not really what they are because we don't take the time to talk
to one another.

Ausburg, Belgic, Westminster shorter cath: all of them have 'wise/wisdom',

power/almighty, goodness/good.
Westminter is the only one that says: truth
Don't get hung up on the words, think about the concept that's behind them.

Of all the things that are in the Bible, why do you talk about just those in the list?
Glorious is not in the list, nor is enjoyable.

God can be glorious or shining his light brightly either when He's really happy, or
when He's really angry and burning like a fire. So the idea of God's glory is:
blinding light, like the sun. His brilliance will fill the heavens and the earth on the
second coming.

So how do they organize these thoughts on this communicable attributes of God?

Ausburg: intellectual - wisdom; volitional - power; moral - goodness
Any communicable attribute of God you may list, you can throw it into one of
those categories above.
How do they come up with those categories? By looking at people, who are the
image of God.

Belgic: intellectual - wise; volitional - mighty; moral - just and good.

Westminster: intellectual - wisdom ; volitional - power ; moral - holiness, justice,

goodness and truth

It's interesting to note that the 3 confessions are listing the attributes in the same
order; intellectual, volitional, and moral.

The Heidelberg was written in the social circumstances of persecution, where

the believers were being slaughtered. Hence Heidelberg's Q1 is "What is your
only comfort in life and death?" So all these confessions are influenced by the
sociological context at the time it was written.
Image of God is the phrase used in the ancient near-east including the egyptians,
babylonians: and they used this phrase for their kings. And the emperors in the
Hang dynasty says the the gods put emperors on earth in order to represent
them on earth. So the joby of these emperors were to know what the gods
wanted and make them happen on earth.

Moses wrote in Genesis that it's not just kings who are the image of God, but all
of us are. That's why Moses wrote in Gen 5, Adam is called the son of God.

If you take that approach to understand the term the image of God, then you will
take these communicable attributes: emperor, king... etc

Weltenshaung - worldview.
The model behind this, ard 19th century western view of the world.
To understand the world around you.
What you're looking for in a weltenshaung is something permanent, with the
right priority. And you create a grid. And the mentality behind this word is: we'll
hold on to this structure no matter what, even in the midst of a raging storm.

The more modern view of this is: episteme - a way of knowing, but it's not a
permanent thing that we hold on to. Worldviews change. Ever experience you
have impacts your worldview, even if it's hard for you to admit it. So you hold on
to that permanent structure until the weight of data from your experience breaks
that structure. If there's anything that the history of theology or the history of
human experience should tell us is that you don't settle for anything. Even the
understanding of the belief of: Jesus is Lord - changes to a certain degree over
time.

The only way to maintain your Sola Scriptura as your absolute, is not to
absolutise anything else. So that includes every tradition you know, every
opinion you have.

When does God display his power (his volitional attributes): miracles, defeats his
enemies - his faithful people will rejoice because God is displaying his power.
When do people lament? When God does not do that. When it appears that God
seems 'to be asleep'.
You have to adjust your expectations as you deal with your life, compared to
what you might have expected when looking at God's attributes.

The same goes with God's intellectual and moral characters. People lament when
they don't see God displaying His attributes the way we expect Him to. And when
God is displaying His attributes the way we expect him to, then we rejoice. So be
careful with your 'expectations' of God.

Implications
- expectations of God
- imitation of God

Luke 6:36 "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful."

In the Sermon on the Mount He even went further to say do good to your
enemies, because God has caused the rain to come down upon both the good and
the evil.
Eph 4:32 "Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just
as in Christ forgave you."
1 Peter 1:15-16 Just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is
written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

(side question) -(missed the question)

How do we know, as 'good Reformed people' that not all sins are equal in the
eyes of God?
Westminster's larger catechism Q150 and Q151
Q150: are all sins ...equal in the eyes of God? And the answer is No!

1 John 3:2-3 "we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we
shall see him as he is. All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he
is pure."

-----------------------------------
Q&A
Doing theology is like serving a cup of tea on a tray, while standing on a big
beach ball, on the deck of a shaky ship, and you're always trying strike that
momentary balance.

Across denominations, every group has its blindspots. Getting with other
Christians who emphasise on other things that your denomination might not,
sometimes lets you see things that you haven't seen before.

We not only have segmented ourselves denominationally, but also socio-

economically. As a result of this, many Christians don't actually come across
people who are really poor! If you come across them, it'll make a great impact on
your lives, it will change you. So it's impt to have a broader interactions with
other people!

I like to think Christian tradition as a home, and let's go around the

neighbourhood and see what other people are doing. If you see someone paint
their house yellow, and you like the idea and you go back and paint your house
yellow. Or you move your lamps and furniture a little bit. But it's also okay to like
your home better. you don't have to sacrifice your identity.

===============================================
DAY 4: Thursday 22 August 2019

ecclesia reformanda sempre reformanda est (the reformed church is always

reforming)

God's Plan and Works

- Plan of God
- Works of God

It's impt for us to know what the teaching is in the Westminster Confession of
Faith. The 1st Chpt is on the Scriptures, 2nd Chpt is on the Holy Trinity, and the
3rd Chpt is on God's Eternal Decree (there is an argument whether God's 'decree'
or 'plan' should be singular or plural).

1. God from eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will,
freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: (a) yet so, as thereby
neither is God the author of sin, (b) nor is violence offered to the will of the
creatures (the will of the creatures is not violated by God's plan), nor is the liberty or
contingency of second causes (creatures' causes; God is the first cause, and things of creatures are
second causes. You have liberty and contingencies, it doesn't eliminate them, it establishes them) taken
away, but rather established (c)

What does God foreordain? whatsoever. (meaning everything!).

(a) Eph 1:11; Rom 11:33; Heb 6:17; Rom 9:15,18

(b) Jam 1:13,17; 1 John 1:5
(c) Acts 2:22; Mat 17:12; Acts 4:27-28

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed
conditions, (d) yet hath He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future,
or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. (e)

III By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels
(f) are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to
everlasting death. (g)

(f) 1 Tim 5:21; Mat 25:41

(g) Rom 9:22,23; Eph 1:5,6; Prov 16:4

IV. These angels and men, thus prdestinated, and fore-ordained, are particularly
and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it
cannot be either increased or diminished. (h)

V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation
of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the
secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto
everlasting glory, (i) out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of
faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the
creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto: (k) and all unto....

VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, by the eternal and
most free purpose of His will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. (m)
Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,
(n) are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season,
are justified, adopted, sanctified, (o) and kept by His power through faith, unto
salvation. (p) Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called,
justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (q)

VII. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel
of His own will, whereby He extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as He pleaseth, for
the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain
them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (r)
(do they deserve them? Yes they do deserve them, it's not that they are innocent and yet God punishes them)

(r) Matt 11:25,26; Rom 9:17,18,2,1,22; 2 Tim 2:19,20; Jude ver4; 1 Pet 2:8

Election to salvation - God is actively involved in all the processes

But for reprobation to damnation - God passively leaves them alone
Some people believe that the above two are symmetrical, both is active in the
first, and also active in the second (reprobation to damnation).
We're not saying that God keeps some people from believing in Jesus. These
people are sinners and are corrupt and God leaves them as they are in their
condition, He does not rescue them.
There are many passages in the Bible where they say "God hardens someone's
heart" - the person has already hardened his heart and God leaves them with a
hardened heart and shows His justice to them.

VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with

special prudence and care, (s) that men attending the will of God revealed in His
word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their
effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election, (t) so shall this doctrine
afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, (u) and of humility,
diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel. (w)

This should give you assurance that when you believe in Jesus and the Holy Spirit
is working in your life, then you have the assurance of salvation.

This document should not be used to tell people that there is nothing you can do
about your salvation, it should not be used to tell other Christians that they are
stupid (as often happens), instead it should be used to assure true Christians of
their salvation, and to spur them on in humility and diligence to obey the Word.

God doesnt just make eternal decrees, but He also makes historical decrees.
What's the difference? Eternal decrees cannot be broken, it's unchangeable. Just
because God says something is going to happen in the Bible, doesn't mean it's
necessarily going to happen. (we'll talk more about this).
Does God change His mind about His eternal decree? No. Can it fail? No. Even one
little piece of it? No.
But in history, all kinds of things that God says He wants to happen, don't happen.
So people who say to you, "look God made plans and failed", they can actually see
that in the Bible.
People are affected by sin in different ways, and hence people have different
needs. So you have to have the wisdom to know which part of the Bible to preach
to someone.
You have to live filled with the Holy Spirit, you have to display the fruit of the
spirit overflowingly! If you want to win over the charismatics, you need to
display the fruit of the spirit more than they do!
Christians ought to be joyful people because we know we are going to win, that
no matter how hard things get in life, we know that God has ordained this to
happen, but I am going to win in the end.

(Chapther IV. Of Creation)

Chapter V.
Of Providence.
I. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, (a) direct, dispose, and govern
all creatures, actions, and things, (b) from the greatest even to the least, (c) by
His most wise and holy providence, (d) according to His infallible fore-
knowledge, (e) and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, (f) to the
praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy. (g)

(a) Heb 1:3

God is eternal, infinite and unchangeable. That is His transcendence. But while
God is infinite, he enters into the finite world, while God is eternal, He enters into
time, and while He is unchangeable, He enters into the changeable world.

What does the bible talk more of? God's transcendence or immanence?
Immanence. How much more? In the whole Bible, only about 10 verses talk
directly of God's transcendence. The rest talk more about His immanence. Of
course it does, because that's where we live, and He knows our needs.

What we tend to do as Calvinists is to flatten God's providence into something

simple like: God controls everything. He does, but we need to look at how He
controls everything. We need to look at the details, at how God provides and
sustains the world. Remember this is not shadows on the cave wall, this is real!
The Bible talks a lot more about the immanence of God, but behind that is the
transcendence of God. You're looking at different layers of reality.

Providence is according to the eternal will of God. The eternal will of God does
not change, but the providence of God changes.

Names can be erased in the Lamb's Book of Life, because that's the historical
decree of God. His eternal will does not change.
So what do you think it means to be written in the Lamb's book of life in the
history (before Jesus was born)? It means they are in the covenant of God, or
they are in the visible church - all who profess the religion. The invisible church -
the full number of the elect. That's what Paul said in the Romans (?), those who
are outwardly Jew may not be saved, and those who are inwardly Jew (secretly,
invisible) may be saved. So people get their name on the book when they get to
the visible church, and when they go apostate, their names get crossed out of the
book.

II. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause,
all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly: (h) yet, by the same providence,
He ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either
necessarily, freely, or contigently (i).

(h) Acts 2:23

(i) Gen 8:22; Jer 31:35; Exod 21:13 with Deut 19:5; I Kings 22:28,34; Isa 10:6,7.

III. God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means, (k) yet is free to work
without, (l) above, (m) and against them.

There was a great debate about the second causes. Some of them said everything
is the same in creation. A human being is just like a rock, it does not move unless
something (other creatures and God) pushes you. Same thing with the birds, the
bees etc, they won't move unless something pushes it. It was a very mechanistic
way of looking at the world. The Westminster rejected this and they say different
second causes have differences. A rock does not have a will, people do. And God
in His providence handles these differences in creatures, He interacts with
different second causes in different ways according to what the second causes
are. As He deals with different aspects of creations, He causes them to fall out of
His plan, either 'necessarily, freely, or contigently'.

So in the level of God's transcendence, God's plan is eternal, it does not change.
But in the imminence level of God's providence, He interacts necessarily, freely
and contingently, according to the nature of the second causes. God sees how
humans respond to Him and God responds to that. But hasn't God pre-ordained
everything? Yes He has, in the transcendence level.

A frame of reference around an event is an important thing. And you talk about it
and think about it, and you shift that frame of reference to another grid, and you
talk about it and think about it. It might not be easy to fit these frames of
reference, your conceptual grids together into a bigger package, but both are
important. One might have to shift their frame of reference/conceptual grid in a
certain circumstance to achieve that momentary synchronicity.
analogy: Richard plucking broken pieces of glass off the foot of his 4-year-old
daughter who was screaming in pain and wouldn't keep still for her dad to be
able to pluck the broken pieces of glass safely. So Richard had to literally sat on
her and ignored her screams and protests, and he had to overcome his own
feelings for the sake of her daughter. So in that instance, he had to have a 'shift of
frame or reference' to do a loving thing to his daughter although it seemed 'cruel'
to be sitting on her daughter and ignoring her cries and screams. If someone
outside the house were to hear her screaming "Daddy, get off me!", imagine what
they would think! But afterwards, when she was all bandaged up, he held her
tight and comforted her. So you see the concept of 'love' is very different in those
two instances, in that moment of emergency, you have to be able to shift your
frame of reference/conceptual grid to achieve that momentary synchronicity
(Answer to a question raised): In order to believe Christianity and have saving
faith in Christ, as the apostles engaged with people of different cultures etc, in
order to teach them enough about the Jewish religion to the point of bringing
them to that saving faith. Sometimes you try to bring the gospel to such
simplicity to make it 'easy' for people to hear and to be accepted, but you should
instead challenge them with the offensive nature of gospel to get them to wrestle
within themselves, wrestle with their beliefs, and let the Holy Spirit work in
them.

The word 'saviour' means 'victor in war'. The word 'gospel' means 'victory'. The
'good news' is that the Kingdom has been victorious over another kingdom.

III. God in His ordinary providence maketh use of means, (k) yet is free to work
without, (l) above, (m) and against them at His pleasure. (n).

So God uses ordinary means to make things happen in the second cause. He can do it as He wants to.
Yet, God is free to work without, above and against second causes at His pleasure. So things can
happen in this world that you would superficially characterise as without means (a miracle), eg.
spontaneous/miraculous healing.

(k) Acts 27:31,44; Isa 55:10,11; Hos 2:21,22

(l) Hos 1:7; Mat 4:4; Job 34:20
(m) Rom 4:19, 20, 21
(n) II Kings 6:6; Dan 3:27

IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so
far manifest themsevles in His providence, that it extendeth itself even to the
first fall, and all other sins of anges and men; (o) and that not by a bare
permission, (p) but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful
bounding, (q) and otherwise ordering and governing of them, in a manifold
dispensation, to His own holy ends; (r) yet so....

V. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season
His own children to manifold temptations....

VI. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as righteous Judge, for
former...

V. ...

Plan of God
- Biblical Perspectives
- Theological Positions

When someone asks you "Does God have a plan?" He has a plan and also He has
plans.

In the bible:
"plan" - to think, to plan, to determine, to give counsel, pleasing, favourable,
purpose, counsel, decree, will, desire, pleasure...
So there's variety of words in the Bible that the writers use to describe the plan
of God. All these words are used with respect to the transcendence of God but the
same words are also used in his immanence, in his involvement with history. The
Bible uses language fluidly.

Jeremiah 18:7-8 "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be

uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warn repents of its evil,
then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.
the word "planned" here is - to think, to plan, to determine.

Does God's plans fail? The answer in the tradition is "No!"

Is it fair to say that in Bible terms, that for an unbeliever, God intends for that
person to hell, and when he/she becomes a believer, God reverses that intention?
In Bible terms, yes it's right to say that. But this is not transcendent/eternal plan
of God, this is his historical plan. Many of His historical plans do not take place,
and thank God for that!

Luke 7:30 - The Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for
themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.
purpose is - purpose, counsel, decree, will
Can God's purposes be thwarted? In the traditional answer: No.
But in Bible terms, can someone reject or go against God's purposes? Yes.

1 Thessalonians 5:18 - Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for
you in Christ Jesus.

Theologians talk about the "prescriptive will of God" - often the expression will
of God refers to what God commands them to do, and this is His good will.

Matthew 23:37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets nad stone
those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a
hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
Here we're talking about God operating within space, within time, within a
changing environment. You should not be hiding these verses. You should now
know how to put it together in your frame of reference.

Transcendence
Romans 9:19 - you will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can
resist his will?"
What will is he talking about here? The fore-ordained eternal will of God.

--------------------
(answer to a Qn raised) You can bring people (even young people) to realise that
you can look at something and looking at it from different angles, and know that
there are v different ways of looking at it.
--------------------
Isaiah 46:10 - I make known the end from the beginning...
Job 42:2 - I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted.
Eph 1:11 - In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according tot he
plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will.

Westminster says: providence is always within the eternal will of God, without
fail.

1 Thes 5:18 - Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will ....
Mat 23:37
In America, you have the legal term: negligent manslaughter - if you could have
helped the person and you didn't and the person died, you're actually culminable
to a crime.
For God - He has the power to save all people and yet He doesn't save some of
them, but we don't hold Him responsible for that.
Human beings continue to rebel against God and push against everything that is
good. Is God morally obligated to help them? No, given everything they have
done, He is not obligated to help them.
God is God, and the way in which He shows his morality might not match with
the way we humans do.

------------------------------
Ephesians 1:11
decretive will of God
"purpose" "will"

The decretive decree of God cannot be broken.

The extremes to which diff groups will go to, on the will of God.
The spectrum - transcendence and imminence.
There are some tendencies for some groups to go to one or the other extreme.

Fatalistic theology reflects the transcendence of God over all other things.
Sometimes they might go to the extent of denying the immanence of God. And
they'll say that the appearance of God in the world, and God answering prayers,
are just 'shadows', they believe that God is in control of everything. Fatalist
theology is not orthodox theology, it's outside of orthodox.

Fatalist theology likes to answer to this Qn:

Does God plan something and then set it aside while interacting with creation?
They'll say No! even though the Bible says God does.

There are different kinds and degrees of fatalists. Someone who is fatalistic in
their theology, would tend to say 'no' to that question. They even wonder if God
ever interacts with His creations.

Remember the parable of the unjust judge who finally relented, and then Jesus
said "ask and keep asking"... and you must persist in your prayers. Calvanist
fatalists hate those verses, because it seems that God is responding to human
requests, to them God doesn't do that! No wonder they do not pray!

Are God's counsel or decrees ever frustrated? The fatalists will say No!
But we see verses in the Bible where it does happen.
We know that His eternal decree never fails. But we know that his historical
decrees do.

Can the will and pleasure of God ever be thwarted? They will say No!

And there's the other extreme to this spectrum: It's called open theology or
open theism. There are many different forms to this. What these ppl do, in one
way or another reject the divine transcendence. God asking Qs, God seeking to
know things, God changing his plans. To the extreme, they actually believe that
God is limited in His power to the point that His goals for this world can actually
fail.

God is so transcendent that He actually enters into creation also, and that's a
very high form of transcendence. That He can actually stoop so low to interact
with us. (John Frame's book: No Other Gods - his refute to open theology)

What do typical open-theists say?

Does God have an all-encompassing, eternal, and unfailing plan for history? They
would say no. They would even question the concept of eternal, they regard it as
just stretching time for a very long time, and that God is bound by time.

Just because something is not prominent in the Bible (it's not said many times in
the Bible), doesn't mean it's less significant. Because the most basic and
fundamental things you believe, you usually do not say. They're the most
fundamental and basic, they form the basis of what you say.
What do I spend my time talking about? Things that you have to change, or
things that you have to learn.
The same is true with Bible writers, just because they don't say something often,
doesn't mean it's insignificant. In fact, those things that they say the least is the
most systemic of all.
So this is not a statistical game that we're playing here. It's a conceptual game
we're playing here.

When we live in a world where they deny the transcendence of God a lot, we may
need to talk more about the transcendence of God.

Are God's counsel and decrees ever frustrated by human rebellion? Yes they
would say.
Can the will and pleasure of God ever be thwarted? Yes it can be, they would say.

Why is fatalism deadly? God dies, He becomes irrelevant to you.

Why is open-theism deadly? Because when trouble comes, you have no hope.
You cannot count on God winning. Jesus might have died for your sins, great but
it may just be in vain, as God's will may not prevail in the end.
So those are the extremes, and then there's the centrist outlooks.
These would be viewpoints in the centre that are within the boundaries of
orthodoxy.
You can divide them (there are varieties here as well) to 'traditional calvinism'
and 'traditional arminianism'.
Here's the difference (oversimplified):
Traditional calvinism: fore-knowledge and fore-ordination.
God knows everything ahead of time because He has pre-ordained it.

The Arminianism believes that God has foreknowledge of everything, so he fore-

ordains it. (fore-knowledge precedes pre-destination)

The Calvinists argue: For God's fore-knowledge is based upon his fore-ordination
- so therefore He knows ahead of time.

Fore-knowledge and fore-ordination - is eternal, there's no order as to which

comes first (it's not bound by time)

The Centrists will say:

Does God have an all-encompassing, eternal, and unfailing plan for history? Both
would say yes.
Does God make speicif plans as he involves himself in the course of history? Both
groups would say yes.
Will the eternal plan, purpose, counsel, decrees, will....?Both would say yes.
Can God's historical plans, purposes, counsel, decrees, will and pleasure be
thwarted? Both would say yes.

Centrist Outlooks:
- Order
-?

Supralapsarianism
supra: above lapsus: the fall
This is an attempt to describe the order of God's eternal decrees.
Most ppl will say this is a logical order not a temporal order.
It's the belief that God decreed election before He decreed the fall would happen.
So God's decree is: creation... .... .....

infralapsarianism
infra: beneath lapsus: the fall
Decree to create - to permit the fall - to save- to accomplish and offer redemption
- to apply redemption.

sublapsarianism
to create - to permit the fall - to accomplish and offer redemption - to save - to
apply redemption
For the most part, around the world, Reformed ppl would say that the argument
around the lapsarianism - is for the most part: speculative.

How can we maintain the goodness of God when his plan permits humanity's fall
into sin and only grants salvation to some?
How can God's offer of the gospel to all people be genuine when God has an all-
encompassing, eternal and unfailing plan (that some people will reject it)?