The Doctrine of God

My family and I have been in the area for about six months now.

We came from a youth ministry in central Georgia.

And it was actually a really hard decision to leave those youth in that church in general

decision.

My wife and I were talking together and we were asking ourselves whether or not we had

done the right thing in coming here.

And it was only a week later that we read of a local atheist group at the University of

North Georgia that thought that it would be a great way to protest the pro-life movement

by baking cookies shaped like children and ripping their heads off.

So at that point we were convinced that what we had thought was the right thing for us

to do was actually the right thing for us to do.

So we're very grateful to be here today.

If you are, if the kinds of things that we're going to be speaking about today interest you,

if they pique your interest, I know that not everyone has the same types of interests, then

I would encourage you to sign up at the back.

But also, even if this isn't your thing, the kind of thing that we're going to be thinking

about and speaking about, then I would encourage you to support the ministry in any other way

that you can, whether it be administrative or anything like that.

So now with those things, those preliminaries out of the way, we are going to be reading from

Exodus chapter 3, verse 14.

Exodus 3:14

That's Exodus chapter 3, verse 14.

Exodus 3:14

And the word of God says,

God said to Moses, I am who I am.

And he said, say this to the people of Israel, I am has sent me to you.

I know we've we've prayed, but I'd like to offer another prayer this morning.

So let's please go to God in prayer.

Father, I thank you for this another day of life and breath that you've granted us, that

we may come before you in awe and humility on this Lord's day to worship and to magnify

your name.

For as you revealed to Moses, you are pure.

I am this you are pure being itself.

You want nothing you want for nothing, but you created us for no other purpose than you

might be glorified.

And father, today I confess to you that I am but a man.

And apart from your grace working in me, I am nothing.

I pray that you will guide my thoughts while we seek to plumb the depths of your being.

I pray that you will both bless this, your word, as I proclaim it, as it is proclaimed and

that you help us all to reason well through these issues.

I pray that we do not engage in this study for its own sake, but that we may be transformed

by this knowledge that we might glorify you and all that we think and all that we say and

all that we do.

In Christ's names we pray.

Amen.

All right.

So before we get started to inform you of one more thing, and that is that some of the

issues that we're going to be talking about today are deep.

I actually, in speaking to people before I came out here, I was told that, well, Dan,

that sounds more like a seminary lecture than it does a sermon.

And I can understand that sentiment a little bit.

Many modern Christians aren't accustomed to hearing the kind of message that you're going

to hear today.

And I think that's for a couple of reasons.

One is because we often make a sharp divide between preaching and teaching.

You'll note in Nathan's introduction, I'm trained as a teacher, not a preacher.

And often the things that I say in that, I do come across more as teaching than they do

preaching.

But in all actuality, preaching and teaching are pretty much the same thing on a spectrum.

You cannot teach without some exhortation and you cannot preach without some teaching.

So preaching exhorts here to do something with the knowledge that they have.

But you really, you have to do some teaching in all of preaching.

And that's what we'll be focusing on heavily today.

Second, I think that there's a strong streak of anti-intellectualism in the church.

Many would look at today's topic and say that this kind of study is unnecessary or even

unspiritual.

They're content with a felt faith rather than one that's grounded in truth and reason rightly

applied.

This attitude needs to be remedied.

And unexamined faith is one that is afraid of serious study.

And if you are afraid of serious study, then you have a faith that poses no real threat

to the unbelieving culture of our day.

And I'm convinced that it also greatly hinders the process of sanctification.

Now, why do I say that?

Well, I say that because we, the church, haven't always done a good job in explaining to fellow

believers or to our congregations on what exactly the work of the Spirit is.

And the Reformed Confessions are unanimous on this.

Today, for those who are born again, regenerated by the power of the Spirit, the Spirit does

not create content in the minds of believers.

I'll say that again.

The Spirit does not create content in the mind of believers.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession puts it this way.

It says, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the

saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word.

The Spirit allows us to reason through Scripture, to see objective truth for what it really is.

And as B.B. Warfield would say, that that objective truth that we see is glorious.

And it is.

R.C. Sproul and John Gerstner put it this way.

They say, the internal testimony of the Spirit is divine light thrown on ordinary, natural human knowledge.

They go on to say, the noetic effect of sin is not direct through a totally depraved mind,

but indirect through a totally depraved heart.

So regeneration renews our will so that we can make the right use of our God-given reason.

And we must do a better job at exercising our intellect.

That's why Paul says in Romans 12, 2, that we are to be transformed by the renewal of our minds.

In Colossians 10, he says we are to be sanctified, that we are being sanctified,

that we've put on the new self, and that we're being renewed in knowledge after the image of our Creator.

Transformation comes by making use of God's ordinary means of grace,

which includes reading, proclaiming, and reasoning through His revelation to us.

And by His grace, by the illumination of the Spirit of God in us,

by those means, that's what we're going to do.

We're going to delve deeply into Scripture today.

We're going to reason through it, and we're going to learn what the classical doctrine of God is,

and why it's still...

And we'll do it because, sadly, there are many evangelicals that are,

if they do not reject the doctrine outright,

they are trying to tweak it along the edges.

And as we'll see, you cannot do that.

The classical doctrine of God stands or falls as a unit.

You cannot pull a thread without unraveling the whole sweater.

But I also want us to see today how this doctrine leads us to doxology,

how a proper understanding of it drives us to worship

when we meditate on what God is,

and as we behold any part of His creation,

no matter how large or how small.

And I say all that is...

The reason why I'm going through all these things when we talk about the intellect

and the illumination of all the Spirit

is because the doctrine of God is not a doctrine that we arrive at easily.

It's often been said that the Bible is not a textbook on systematic theology,

and that's true.

We don't have neat headings where it says that this section is about God,

and this section gives us the doctrine of humanity and sin and redemption.

No, we have to mine the text for information

because we don't have that information,

and we have to reason through exactly what it is that God is telling us,

what it is that He's revealed to us.

And the doctrine of God is an area that requires some heavy intellectual lifting

if we are to remain within the bounds of orthodoxy.

It's an area where believers can easily be led astray

if they aren't familiar with the classical terminology,

the words that we use to describe God's whatness, what He is.

And part of the reason why this can be such a challenge

is because of the way the Bible itself speaks about God.

Some passages speak of God as having very human-like experiences.

Genesis chapter 6, verse 6 through 7 says,

Genesis 6:6–7

And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth,

and it grieved Him to His heart.

So the Lord said,

I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land,

man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens,

for I am sorry that I have made them.

Deuteronomy chapter 9, verses 7 through 8 say,

Deuteronomy 9:7–8

Remember and do not forget how you provoked the Lord your God

to wrath in the wilderness.

From the day you came out of the land of Egypt

until you came to this place,

you've been rebellious against the Lord.

Even at Horeb you provoke the Lord to wrath,

and the Lord was so angry at you

that He was ready to destroy you.

Now a normal and plain reading of these passages

seems to indicate that God can be provoked,

that He gets angry,

and that He grieves,

that He has regrets,

and all of these things,

all of these emotions in response to His creatures.

It would appear from these passages

that God is called,

caused to be something

that He was not previously

in response to something outside of Himself.

He becomes angry,

or He regrets in response to His creation.

In short, it would seem

that there is what some would call

a reciprocal relationship

between God and creation.

He causes us to be,

and we cause Him to feel and act

in certain ways

based upon our actions

in time and space.

And there are some

who would actually take these passages

very literally,

but there are also passages

that seem to deny

that these very changes happen in God.

For example, in Numbers 23, 19,

it says,

God is not a man that He should lie.

He is not a son of man

that He should change His mind.

So if we read this plainly,

again, it sounds like,

well, God cannot change His mind

or does not change His mind.

1 Samuel 15, 29 says,

And also the glory of Israel

will not lie or have regret,

for He is not a man

that He should have regret.

So again,

this passage seems to stand in tension

with the passages we've already read

that say that God does change.

Last one, James 1, 17,

says,

Every good gift

and every perfect gift

is from above,

coming down from the Father of lights,

with whom there is no variation

and there is no shadow due to change.

That God does not vary

and He does not change.

Now again,

when we read these texts plainly,

they seem to stand in tension

with the others we read.

Which is it?

Does God change

or does He not?

Now typically,

when I read these passages

to believers

and I ask them these questions,

I get the response

that these verses

that speak of God's changing His mind

and regretting and repenting

and those kinds of things,

the response that I usually get

from Christians is,

well, that's anthropomorphic language.

And that's absolutely right.

It is.

It's language that's applied to God

that gives Him human-like traits

so that we can understand

what it is that He's communicating better.

His condescension,

His stooping down to speak to us

in ways that we can understand.

But in my opinion,

even though that answer is right,

if you cannot explain

why it is right,

then you're only writing,

we're only writing on momentum

that has been built up

for 2,000 years of Christianity.

Because if I come to the text,

how do I know

what is figurative language

and what is not figurative language?

How do we know that God is literally unchanging

and figuratively changing?

Why can't it be the other way around?

Why can't He be figuratively unchanging

and literally changing?

And as some would claim,

they would say,

these ideas of God being unchanging,

they don't believe them

because it means that

we can't have meaningful interaction

between ourselves and God.

God can't have meaningful interaction

between Himself and creation.

And it's this kind of approach

that some have actually taken.

They've rejected the classical doctrine of God

and they've begun to recast God

in the form of a man.

For example,

I'll give you this one example.

One of my professors actually let me know.

I'd heard of this Bible before,

but he pointed out this passage

that's actually really troubling.

The guy's name is Finnis Jennings Dake.

And if you've heard of the Dake Annotated Study Bible,

then you've probably heard that name before.

You can actually find that study Bible

in many Christian stores.

And, again,

I hadn't heard of this particular passage before,

but one of my professors showed it to me.

And it's on page 97

of the Dake Annotated Study Bible.

It says,

God has a spirit,

or, excuse me,

God has a personal spirit body.

He has a shape.

He has form.

He has image and likeness of man.

He has bodily parts,

such as back parts,

a heart,

hands,

and fingers.

He has a mouth,

lips,

and a tongue.

He has feet.

He has eyes.

He has ears.

He has hair.

He has a head,

face,

and arms,

and other bodily parts.

Now,

if I were to actually project this quote

onto the screen,

that the thing that you would notice,

I think,

immediately,

that I find troubling,

is that every single thing

that Dake says about God,

he gets from Scripture.

Every single thing

that he says here

about God's form,

about his image

and likeness of man,

the fact that he has parts,

such as back parts,

a heart,

hands,

and fingers,

all of those things

have Scripture references.

Every single one.

Parts,

such as back parts,

Exodus 33,

23,

a heart,

Genesis 6,

6,

8,

21.

Lips and a tongue,

Isaiah 30,

27 feet,

Ezekiel 1,

27.

Eyes,

Psalm 11,

4,

18,

24,

33,

18.

Ears,

Psalm 18,

6.

And Dake would likely argue

that all he is doing

is he's taking Scripture

at face value.

That he is the one

that's reading Scripture

literally,

and we are not.

He would say that

those who adhere

to the classical doctrine

of God

are rejecting

a plain and clear

reading of Scripture.

Now, obviously,

we've got a problem here

because we do hold

that we believe

in a literal

or a plain reading

of Scripture,

but we also admit

to the fact

that there is

non-literal language

in Scripture.

And the challenge

before us

when it comes

to the classical

doctrine of God

is identifying

figurative language

when we see it.

And that is my aim

here today

because there are many.

Again,

you can go to

Christian bookstores

and find this book,

the Dake Annotated

Study Bible,

but in my opinion,

it is heretical.

So what we want

to do today

is clear the waters

so that we can see

more clearly

what the classical

doctrine of God

is

and how we arrived

at it.

Now, I'm not going

to spend a lot of time

going through

the historical

development

of the doctrine.

If you'd like

to do that,

you can.

And we're not going

to have time

to go through

every single

attribute of God

that the classical

doctrine defines.

I'll leave those

things to your own study,

but what I want

to do here

is simply to reason

through Scripture

with you

so that the doctrine

becomes more clear.

Now,

in that regard,

there's really

no better place

to start

than Genesis 1-1,

which is where

Scripture starts itself.

Genesis 1-1,

in the beginning,

God created

the heavens

and the earth.

A complimentary

passage,

Psalm 33-6,

By the word

of the Lord

the heavens

were made,

and by the breath

of His mouth

all their hosts.

Now, obviously,

in the history

of the church,

we've held

that these verses

and others

like them

depict the difference

between the Creator

and the creature.

That there is

some kind of relationship

between creature

and Creator.

and that God

existed prior

to the creation

of the world

and that He will

continue to exist

after this world

passes away.

God is not

dependent

upon anything

for His existence.

Rather,

He is the only

sufficient

explanation

for His own

existence.

Paul puts it

this way.

He says,

God is not

served

by human hands

as though

He needed

anything

since He

Himself

gives to all

mankind

life

and breath

and everything.

God doesn't

need creation

for anything.

He doesn't need

me for anything.

While creation

depends upon God

for its existence,

God,

the Creator,

doesn't depend

on anything

for His existence.

And the Chronicler

puts it this way

in chapter 1 Chronicles

29, 14.

It says,

But who am I

and what is my people

that we should be able

thus to offer

willingly?

For all things

come from you

and of your own

we have given

to you.

What is it

that we

who receive

our very being,

our existence

from God

can give back

to God?

Nothing.

Absolutely

nothing.

There is nothing

that we can give

or offer

to God

that He has not

first given

to us.

Whatever it is

that God is,

His existence

is independent

of His creation.

There is nothing

to offer Him

that again

hasn't first

been given

to us.

And the word

that we use

for that

in the history

of the church

is that God

is entirely

all say.

One of His attributes

is divine

aseity.

That is that

God is of

Himself.

He is not

caused to be

anything

by anything

less than God.

Now that doesn't

mean that God

is self-caused

because self-causation

is a contradiction.

Something must be

in order for it

to cause itself

to be.

God would need

to exist

before He existed

in order to cause

Himself to exist.

So it's a

contradiction.

No, what we

mean when we

speak of

divine aseity

that God

is a

say

is that

nothing

other than

God

explains God.

God is the

sufficient

explanation

for Himself.

Now the church

has made use

of philosophical

language in the

past

in order to

tease out

the implications

of divine

aseity.

And they've

done so

by pondering

what a

self-existing

being

must be.

They've

started

ontologically

and that's

a philosophical

term that

just means

it's the

study of

being as

being.

So they

want to

study

what God

is.

So whenever

we're talking

about the

classical

doctrine of

God,

we're talking

about God's

whatness,

what He

is.

We're not

talking about

who He

is.

We're talking

about Him

in His

being

ontologically.

Now you'll

see that

as

theologians

in the

history of

the church

started adopting

some of this

philosophical

language,

it began to

take shape

as some of

the classical

arguments of

God.

For example,

one form

of the

argument from

change

involves a

couple of

terms that

I first

need to

explain.

And those

terms are

actuality

and

potentiality

or act

and potency.

actuality

or act

is simply

existence.

While

potentiality,

potency

or potential

is the

potential

for existing.

And all

created things

are this

mix of

potentiality

and actuality,

act and

potency.

For example,

at the most

basic level,

God has

actualized

me.

However,

not everything

that could

be true

of me

is actual.

While I

have the

potential

to speak

Italian,

I can't

speak

Italian.

You might

think it

because my

name is

Italian,

my last

name is

Italian,

but I

don't have

the ability

to speak

Italian.

The ability

to speak

Italian does

not exist

in me.

It's not

actual,

but the

potential

does.

That potency

within me

to speak

Italian must

be actualized

by something

that is

outside of

me.

like I

would need

a book

on Italian

or I

would need

to go

hire an

Italian

tutor.

Somebody

to bring

that potential

in me

to act

so that it

was actual,

so that it

was existing

in me.

I can't

actualize the

ability to

speak Italian

myself.

And this

is true

of all

created

things.

All created

things are

a mix

of act

and potency.

Every created

thing is this

composition of

what is actual

and potential

and every

created thing

requires something

to cause it

to move

from potency

to act.

Anything

that merely

has the

potential

to exist,

the potential

to exist

is still

not existing.

So anything

that has the

potential to

exist must be

caused to

exist by

something that's

already in

act.

And here's

the application

in that regard

that we make

to God.

If God

is all

say,

then there

is no

explanation

for his

being outside

of his

being.

And if any

potentiality

must be

actualized

by something

that's already

in act,

something that's

already actual,

then it must

be the case

that in God

there is no

potentiality.

There is no

potency.

That God

is pure

act.

Pure

actuality.

Since pure

act is the

lack of

potential,

then there is

no potential

for God

not to

exist.

And that's

why in the

history of

the church

they said

that God

is a

necessary

being.

He

necessarily

exists because

there is no

potential for

him not to

exist.

He is pure

act.

He is,

in other

words,

as some

have said,

he is

ipsum

s

subsistence,

the pure

act of

subsistence

being.

Paul says

in him we

live and

move and

have our

being.

We have

our being.

But only

God is

being itself.

He is the

pure act

of subsistence

being.

He is pure

act because

in him there is

no potential.

And he is

subsistence

being because

he is

existence

itself from

which all

existing

things derive

their being.

In the

beginning God

created the

heavens and

the earth.

Through him

all things

were made.

For by him

all things

were created.

All things

were created

by him

and through

him.

From him

and through

him and to

him are

all things.

God is the

fount of

all being

because he

is being

itself.

There is

nothing more

basic than

we can say

of God

that he

is his

own

existence.

God is

existence

itself who

gives existence

to everything

else that

exists.

That's why I

began our

scripture reading

with Exodus

3.14.

God said to

Moses I

am who

I am.

And he

said say

this to the

people of

Israel I

am has

sent me

to you.

Or it

may also be

translated I

am what I

am or I

will be

be what I

will be.

Now there's

certainly a

great deal

more we

can derive

from this

passage but

fundamentally God

is telling

Moses and

us today that

he is pure

I am

ness.

He is the

pure act

of being

itself.

And here's

the important

part.

God's

aseity

demands that

he is pure

actuality.

And his

pure action

actuality demands

that God

is ase.

That he is

self existing.

They're mutually

reinforcing.

If you have

one then you

have the

other.

From this

understanding

of God as

some being

that is purely

actual.

That he is

ase.

We can

derive all

of the other

classical

metaphysical

attributes of

God.

First of all

there can only

be one such

being.

There can

only be

one God

that is

ase.

One God

that is

pure

actuality.

And the

reason for

that is

because the

only opposition

to being

is non-being.

And nothing

in this

sense can

stand in

opposition to

God.

Nothing

cannot stand

in opposition

to God.

Nothing

cannot be

another

God.

God.

Likewise

you can't

propose

to such

being

because

there is

nothing

that would

differentiate

one from

the other.

In creation

we can look

at a forest

and we can

see that

there are

individual

trees and

trees are

composition.

We look

at the

forest and

we see

that all

of the

trees share

the same

essence.

They all

participate

in this

idea of

treeness.

But what

differentiates

one tree

from another

is that

this tree

is made

of this

stuff and

this tree

is made

of this

stuff.

If you

get rid

of all

the stuff

all of

the matter

then all

you're left

with is

the idea

of

treeness.

And in

God

there is

no matter.

There's

nothing to

differentiate

his being

so that

God just

is one

with his

being.

You cannot

say that

there are

two such

beings

because

there's

nothing

that would

be able

to

differentiate

one from

the other.

God is

pure

being

itself.

He just

is.

He is

the first.

He is

the last.

Besides

him there

is no

God.

There can

only be

one God

who is

being

itself.

Moving on

since God

is pure

actuality

then it

also follows

that God

is simple.

That is

God is

not

composed

of parts.

He is

indivisible

but

whatever

is not

simple

if you

have

something

that is

not

simple

if you

have

something

that is

composed

of

parts

then that

thing

has the

potential

to be

divided

but God

has no

potential

and God

so God

must

it must

be true

that God

is not

composed

of parts

whatever

is composed

of parts

has the

potential

to be

decomposed

but in

God

there is

no

potential

he is

pure

act.

He has

no

potential

to

change

or to

be

divided.

We could

also say

that whatever

is composed

depends

on its

parts

to be

what it

is

and those

parts

are less

than the

whole

but if

God

himself

had

parts

then he

would

depend

on those

parts

to be

what

he

is

but if

God

is

I'll

say

then he

cannot

depend

on

anything

less

than

himself

to be

what

he

is

if he

were

composed

of

parts

we'd

have

to ask

!

well what

principle

is it

that

hold

these

parts

together

what

is

the

thing

that

holds

God

together

and

whatever

that

thing

is

that's

God

not the

thing

that's

composed

of parts

because

it's

a more

fundamental

or

transcendent

principle

than

God

himself

but we

don't

accept

that there

is

any

principle

that

stands

above

God

that

causes

him

to

be

what

he

is

pure

being

itself

doesn't

require

anything

to make

it

be

it

just

is

God

can't

be

composed

he's

infinitely

simple

or one

in his

being

the Puritan

Stephen

Charnock

in his

work

the existence

and attributes

of God

says

God is the

most

simple

being

for that

which is

first in

nature

having

nothing

beyond

it

cannot

by any

means

be thought

of as

compounded

for

whatsoever

is so

depends

upon the

part

whereof

it is

compounded

so

it is

not

the

first

being

so

this

is

not

new

teaching

these

are

things

that

were

accepted

by

early

Christians

and the

Reformation

just

carried

those

ideas

through

and this

is how

we know

that the

God of

Phenis

Dake

is wrong

his fault

God

doesn't

have

the

parts

that

Dake

ascribes

to him

and we

know

this

because

we

have

some

idea

of

what

God

is

like

in

his

very

being

he

cannot

be

composed

and

pure

act

he

cannot

be

composed

and be

a

say

and that's

how we

know

that the

language

all of

those

verses

all of

those

things

that

whenever

I

read

what

Dake

had

initially

written

all of

those

verses

that

seem

to

confirm

what

it

is

that

he

is

saying

about

God

now

we

can

understand

to

be

figurative

because

we

have

an

understanding

of

God

as

all

say

and

an

understanding

of

God

as

pure

act

and we

know

that it's

figurative

language

that way

it's

anthropomorphic

God's

way of

condescending

to us

so that

we can

speak

of him

in ways

that we

can

understand

but we

can

take this

further

we

can

say

that

okay

in

addition

to

his

simplicity

that

this

idea

of

God

is

all

say

that

he

is

pure

act

that

immutability

also

flows

from

this

doctrine

God

cannot

change

change

entails

passing

from

potential

potentiality

to

actuality

what is

potential

to what

is

actual

but

God

does not

contain

in himself

any

potential

he

cannot

become

what

he

is

not

he

doesn't

become

at all

he

is

today

what

he

was

yesterday

and

he

will

be

tomorrow

what

he

is

today

and

this

is

how

we

know

that

all

of

those

verses

in

the

Bible

again

that

depict

God

as

changing

his

mind

or

as

repenting

we

know

those

verses

as well

to be

anthropomorphism

God's

condescension

speaking to

us

in ways

that we

can

understand

so

when

God

says

in

Malachi

3

6

that

I

the

Lord

do

not

change

then

he

does

not

change

and

he's

not

saying

that

that

in

my

character

I

do

not

change

he's

not

saying

that

well

my

will

does

not

change

no

he's

saying

that

he

does

not

change

in

his

very

being

God

is

immutable

and

from

this

we

also

get

from

his

immutability

we

could

carry

it

on

further

to

his

eternality

Isaiah

57

15

says

that

God

inhabits

eternity

now

time

involves

change

but

what

is

change

but

a

movement

from

what

is

potential

to

what

is

actual

but

again

God

does

not

have

potential

in

him

so

God

does

not

change

and

therefore

stands

above

and

outside

of

time

God

is

the

unchanged

being

cause

of

being

that

allows

change

to

happen

in

time

and

in

creation

but

he

himself

is

unchanged

by

that

causation

by

his

causing

things

to

exist

now

we

could

also

say

that

immutability

also

entails

the

idea

of

impassibility

and

this

is

one

of

those

that

people

really

have

a

hard

time

with

because

impassibility

means

that

God

is

not

subject

to

passions

it's

really

misunderstood

by many

people

it

doesn't

mean

that

God

doesn't

have

emotions

rather

it

means

that

he

cannot

be

caused

to

experience

emotions

as

people

do

there's

no

change

in

his

state

of

being

he

does

not

move

from

being

happy

to

being

sad

from

being

loving

to

being

wrathful

God

nothing

outside

of

God

can

cause

God

to

be

what

he

is

not

God

when

we

say