So, well, before we begin, let's pray and enter a time of discussion. Heavenly Father, we thank you for your loving kindness to us, your people, church, and that here at this local church, Trinity Bible, you've given us the means and the ability to be in a building be here and enjoy one another's company in the middle of the week. Lord, I pray that our time of talking about who you are and the attributes of God is that we are solely focused on the Word and its revelation to us, even as we endeavor to mine the history of the church. Lord, that ultimately, that we would come out of tonight having a greater appreciation for the triune God who we're called to worship. And that through this time that we would edify and lift each other up, that we would be challenged, and that the Word would guide us through the Spirit to appreciate and understand and love you more. Now God be with us at this time, as we endeavor in your word, we praise in Christ's name, amen. So, we have a simple study tonight. We are in the Attributes of God series where we are, if you weren't here last week, we're dividing this up into two sections. The sections are called the incomprehensible attributes, sorry, Incommunicable. Sorry, incommunicable. Incomprehensible is an aspect of the communicable. Incommunicable and communicable attributes of God. The incommunicable attributes we're starting with, and then we'll go to the communicable attributes. And the incommunicable attributes are simplicity. Sorry, my father-in-law is calling me. Because he has an iPhone, it pops up there. OK. Not right now, Freddie. Okay. Simplicity, acuity, immutability, impassibility, and eternity. Now, as was mentioned last week in a question posed by Bonnie, is that you can read multiple areas or authors on this study of the attributes of God and get these categories shifted around, and where some people might put them here and some people might put all the omnis in one, and the reason that, so the route I'm taking is I'm following after what would really start with a, although it would lean towards Aquinas' model in the Middle Ages, but really it's refined in study by Calvin, but really later the Dutch theologian, Nerman Bavink, And then it has kind of moved its way down to a guy named Michael Horton. But there's a lot of authors who, and the reason I stick to those guys is because they're very reformed in their view of this, and as we are here at Trinity. But as I said, there's other, what's his name? How many people have heard of Tim Chalice? So Tim Chalice has this thing called, what's that called? visual theology I think is what it's called and he has a lot of just he takes theology and puts it on these big charts and so his charts of attributes is much more of a mixed bag in terms of where he puts everything but again it's still a great work but we're trying to define something here about God and so I've tried to keep it more simple by even I mean even that might not have come across last week keeping it more simple in terms of how I'm defining but as I said more important that we are looking at what this is saying about God and how that helps us better communicate God. One of the things that we want to, because this is more, although we'll be looking at scripture today, excuse me, so this is more of a theological exercise, we want our theology to always be experiential, or we want our theology to be lived out. And so we want to learn these things in order that it moves us to do those things that we are called to do as sons and daughters of God at a greater level. So today we are in the attribute of simplicity, or you can call it Unity. One of the things we talk about... I don't know what's going on. With all this noise. My father-in-law is... I don't think anything's wrong. He's just excited about something. So one of the things I wanted to talk about as an example is when we talk about God's unity, we're talking about a collection of things that we say about God. Like, God is, and now fill in the blank, anyone. God is love. God is merciful. God is just. God is truth. Any others? God is Powerful, all powerful, right? And yet, each of those are not distinct, or do not, in some way, make competition with one another, right? So, we say, excuse my handwriting before it starts. We say, God is love. And then, what will we say about this? If you look at the scriptures, you'll say, love, you know, especially in the New Testament, there's how many Greek words for that? How many Greek words for that? Okay, you just say three. What are they? Kappe, phileo, brotherly, phile. Someone said Eros, what else? Storge. And so you have these four terms, and then what do we say? We'll say this type of love means this. Brotherly love looks like this. Agape love is this, which quite frankly isn't. They have meaning, but they're used interchangeably, and we shouldn't put one above the other. But when we say God is love, now, say, This always happens to me. It's been a really long time since I did dry erase, and the first marker I picked is dead. God is... Do you know why that always happens to you? I didn't call on you, sir. God is wrath. A guy that realized that it doesn't work put it back on the tray so that somebody else would pick it up now. That's my sense of humor more than anything. So, God is wrath. I think that works. Gravity? So God is love and God is wrath. How often do you say this one? Or do you hear this one? All the time. All the time. How often do you tell someone this? Not often enough. God is wrath. God is love. Right? These seemingly are at odds with one another, right? If we just say this. Love and wrath in the marriage. Micah, Anna, that's your hair. Love and wrath, interchangeable, right? With one another, with our human relationship, how often are we called to love one another in the New Testament? Yeah, it's a lot. How often are we told to rain down wrath on one another? Never, right? And so this is one of those aspects where we look at these and say, well, these things are inconsistent with one another. So God, who is not inconsistent, must be one over the other. or one must take precedence over the other, or one is greater than the other. I'm using this, this is a very, very prominent theology, whether you realize it or not, in the modern church. This comes, no one would have said this, as no joke, the first 1800 years of the church. no one would have said God is above love is above wrath and God therefore is a God of love and this is a new construct in the church today so when we approach attributes of God like simplicity the reason I'm starting with this which might seem a strange start is to say how often have we maybe in our own walk or in our own life seeing God as a piece, seeing the attributes of as a piece of God. This is a piece of God over here. And this is a piece of God over here. Well, how does that all work together? I don't know. There's different ways that he presents himself. Has anyone ever heard that or in any way or seen that on TV, on TBN at night when there's nothing else on? You want to go to bed angry? No. So God is love, God is wrath. Now we can fill in all these other things about who God is, but the doctrine of simplicity or unity is that these things do not in any way make God separate or different or many parts. He's not many parts. Like, if you lack knowledge, or you lack some other essential part of what someone else has as a human being, do you cease being you? Like say you have no knowledge, I'm not pointing at anyone in general, or you have no concept of justice, or you have no love for your fellow man, do you cease being you? See, and this is one of these aspects of why this is called an incommunicable attribute, is because we can be missing certain things, and we never stop being us. We are complex in that way. But if God ceases being love, He's no longer God. And so God being these many attributes, these attributes are describing who he is. And he is united. He never ceases being God. Does that make sense? Does anyone have any questions? If you do, I understand this gets a little up and down. Yeah? What's the difference between an attribute and a virtue? Because we're a composite of virtues. Is God a composite of attributes? God's not a composite of anything. That's what I'm getting at. Yeah. He's the definition. With us, our wrath and our love and that sort of thing can be at odds with one another. With God, you can't because he's entirely self-consistent. I get that. I'm just looking for the contrast between attribute and virtue. Virtue is an attribute. Virtue is God's moral character, which would be his holiness, which would then be his attribute. So I don't think you have to make a distinction between attribute and virtue. Virtue is built into who God is as a moral being. Sometimes these are referred to as God's perfections, as opposed to attributes. Well, not as opposed to, but as attributes. I've never heard them referred to as virtues, but I think I can kind of follow this with that. I think if we get into real technical language, which we're kind of doing, then maybe there might be a distinction. I just don't know. So we as people, we can exercise I can choose to love somebody. that make up an individual into who he is, like you said. You don't cease being you, but we can exercise virtues. Attributes are the composite of what makes up God, right? So what's the distinction between exercising a virtue versus exercising an attribute? Is an attribute what defines you, and a virtue is something that you can interchange? What is the contrast between the two? Well, I would say that when we are as as we're complex and compound is what I was trying to say um versus God simple and spiritual and so when we shh when we are exhibiting something and someone says oh look what look what Robert was doing uh he was being kind to that person who was terrible to him. He was showing mercy or grace to them. So Robert is being merciful. Robert isn't mercy. And so God, where we can reflect some of these things, it's never us by definition. And so God is a sum total, or should I say God is not a sum total of his attributes. but is simultaneously, he's everything that the attributes reveal all the time. And so he's always love, he's always wrath, he's always justice. Whereas we are sometimes doing those things. but it can never define us. I think for the Christian man or woman, something like showing mercy or showing grace or something like that is an exercise of reflecting God's glory in Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. So we're strengthened through that. And when we're doing it, we're giving him glory by displaying that. But virtue is a good word. I think you could also say that it's just a reflection of the Christlikeness in us. I think that where it gets a little where I might not like the idea of assigning someone virtuous actions is if we're getting into the idea of, what is good for a person that is outside of Christ? Are they able to do good? Are they able to do actions of a purely selfless manner even though they are sinful? I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah, free for all, though, everyone. So, like, you were saying something like if we as humans, like, don't have, like, a specific something, we don't, we're not, we don't cease to be us, but, like, say a person's, like, super jolly, like, friendly, outgoing, and all of a sudden, like, they become an ex-murderer, like, we would all say, they're a completely different person, like, so how like i don't know that doesn't work well they would they would be crazy but they wouldn't cease they wouldn't cease being yeah they would be lacking some serious things like empathy morality sanity like all of those things but they wouldn't cease being human they wouldn't cease being them um unfortunately Whereas my point being that's what makes, when you're, and as Fred said, when we're talking about these things, it sounds like really complex language to try to define something, but all it's really trying to find is the idea that we can be a sum of all these different virtues or actions that we do or don't do, whereas God isn't. He's simple in his profoundness, and that's why it's a weird word. using the idea of simplicity. But it's not trying to point out God is simple compared to complex humans, because then that flips the whole creature-creator distinction. But what it's trying to communicate is that all these things you see, and one of the studies we're going to do in this is on the names of God, particularly in the Old Testament, where all these names are saying something about this very issue here with simplicity. You know when we take Yahweh and we say, I am who I am. You can translate Yahweh like a dozen different ways and you're not stretching it. I will be who I will be. I have done what I have done. I will continue to do what I continue to do. You can translate in all these different ways and all that is describing this concept of this Perfect transcendent being and that's why when we try to delve into it We're trying to use these things where like complex simple doesn't make any sense But all of these attributes all these words that you've maybe heard have been thrown out for years Omni this omni that immutability impassibility omniscient omnipresent all these things are describing a God who simultaneously has all of those things and always and always had, even when he stepped into time, even though he is outside of it. If you want to think of one of the, when we're talking about these things, one of these things where there's seeming contradictions, think of, for a moment, I want everyone to think about Jesus's humiliation, his life in the flesh, his leading all the way up to the cross, and his death. How many different things of God or attributes of God are taking place at that time. What's being displayed? Just think of the humiliation of Christ and his death. So love and wrath are happening. What else? Salvation. What else? Justice. But how is the justice meted out? The wrath on who? On Christ, right? So you have this seemingly impossible thing, where wrath is happening of God. On who? On God. Perfect, holy, and wrath is being put on Him, and it's called justice. And it's called justice, and at the same time, wrath is happening, and judgment is rendered. God the Son Mercy is being extended to who? all of us everyone who will receive Christ and all of that aspects of Christ there's multiple attributes of God that are being displayed at the same time all seemingly contradictory if you were to say to a person I am going to see off the cuff stuff that was way too snarky okay so you can't get really angry with someone and punch them in the face and smile at them and say receive my mercy it doesn't work now you can punch somebody and say I've just given you some mercy but you're going to jail because that's not true and No matter how much we might want it to be true sometimes. I can't discipline my son or my daughter while enraged and yell at them about learning to control their temper. Right? This is where when we see these things happen, like when I'm talking about all of these things happening with Christ, justice, mercy, grace, wrath, judgment, all at the same time, and God never ceases being God. It goes on and on, yeah, yeah. One author said, the ultimate apologetic for the simplicity of God is the cross. because it's, and he listed a dozen, but you could take less, you take more, it doesn't really matter, of all of these things happening at the same time with the cross, when Jesus is at the cross. And we're supposed to take that away and go, whew, that's something to think about. One of the things to think about, his, God's, existence is identical with his attributes, God's existence is identical to his attributes, his goodness, his love, his omniscience, and holiness are simply who he is. Now I've purposefully, because I have a couple of guys that I know that are drooling at the idea, maybe not drooling, Why don't we talk about these things, the attributes of God, and why is simplicity nowadays what we're talking about, unity of God? Why is it considered, why is it under fire? Maybe that's the right word. By respected theologians? Yeah, yeah. Maybe some of you guys haven't heard of, but in their circles, they're respected. They're seemingly orthodox everywhere else. But they either throw it out, or they modify it a little bit. But now they might not be very popular, like they're writing a bunch of books, but they're teaching a lot of future ministers. I'm ignorant to it, so it might be. I have no idea. Eric and Fred are not, so Eric, if you want to. Hm? Is it the whole movement that's going on right now in the Baptist theological world? No, it's, it's, so what it is, OK, so no one wants to talk. All right, so. I'm going to process theology. Somewhat. I don't have any way to take the life, like an idea of what a reason for not accepting that would be. be like they're trying to judge they're trying to almost protect or justify God and his wrath okay but not like protecting the idea of God being all consumed like like being having wrath like that that can't be possible because it contradicts these things and they don't understand that so they want to protect him by saying he's not he's not He's not full of wrath, I guess, in an effort to say that, oh, he's not this. There's no possible way, as if he needs protection from critics. Anyone else? The popular culture right now wants to. If you make him more complex Do you think people see don't see the? the inconsistency of that, if you make those attributes have different tiers or levels, that it makes God less than united with himself. Sort of like the buffet, where you can just take the components that you want. Yeah. Everyone eats all the egg rolls. There's no egg rolls left. You're just left with the jello with the stuff in it. Right. Yeah. Well, one of the reasons we're struggling something that we receive. So with there is no, I mean, there's exactly one being who has this, this characteristic or attribute or whatever you call it, and it's got himself, right? Nobody else has it. And so we struggle with getting our minds around it. And that doesn't sit well with Yeah, yeah. And we even sang that once. Yeah, I remember. At the elder retreat, we had a fight about it. Not you and I. There was just a fight about it. Sorry to let you guys behind the whipping. Not a fight. We're going to fight. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, it was a good discussion. I guess if I was to try and simplify simplicity, I'd want you to walk away the definition like his attributes just don't don't view them as a as one greater than the other, and don't convince yourself that one's beating out the other, because they're identical with God. They're identical with who He is. And we need all of them, right? We need wrath just as much as we need love, believe it or not. And God has defined all these things. One of the things I was getting at last week was that These attributes, even though they're constructs that we're trying to identify or define God with, is that if you pull one out of the middle and say, I don't like that one. So we're going to talk about aseity, like self-existence. Oh, go ahead, Barb. So can you give me a clear answer to your question that you asked? That's what I'm doing right now. Right yeah, that's what I was doing right now, so so the the sea of your self-existence or immutability which is unchangeable Ness or non changeability, which is the one I liked last week or impassability that God can't be overwhelmed by suffering and eternity which is God's transcendence of time See, what you'll find is that people really don't like those ones. They don't like the idea of a transcendent being. And so you change that. You change that to something of where God is affected by time. And he is affected by us. And he is changeable because God changes his mind. It says in the Bible that he changes his mind. And then, of course, so when you start taking all of these things away, well, simplicity doesn't matter anymore. Because you've already set up the ground. And so the way this is done is starting with simplicity is one that I think everyone, if I said, God isn't made up of different parts, his attributes are identical to who he is. They define who he is. More than likely, if I said that on Sunday morning, everyone goes, or the room, at least, is probably going to go, Yeah, why are we here? We already know that. But if we say something like, God is transcendent. He's outside of the limits or the constraints of time. And we have to get our mind around how that works. And yet sometimes He steps into time, but He's not bound by its rules. People, no, hold on. That's not true. God's a part of this whole thing, this whole cycle. He's unchangeable, but it clearly says in the Bible, He changes His mind. Boom. you know, that kind of thing, and so when people start doubting all these other aspects, simplicity's already been taken away. It's already been done away with. And so God is simply become, for much of the evangelical world today, whatever is the most palatable for us. And that's where most of even what you consider conservative evangelicalism is today. Go ahead. I was just going to say, simplicity is basically the bottom Jenga block. Yep. You pull that out, everything else crumbles. It all comes down. And you think that's within the last 100 years? It's about the last 200 years, yeah. So you don't think people did that from the beginning? They did it, but it wasn't the people who called themselves Orthodox who were doing it. And I think that's a big difference that we see today. And we even have guys we would disagree with a lot on, like I mentioned Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who upheld God's simplicity. He was one of the great champions of it. And yet, yeah, in the last really 150 years. I know I talk about the time period a lot, even from the pulpit, that early 20th century movement of modernism in the church in the West that had already run through the church in Europe, kind of typified by the conflict of the Northern Presbyterian Church and men like particularly J. Gresham Machen in his book, Christianian Liberalism, where he's almost prophetically saying, if we go through with believing these things this is what the church will look like in so many years and he was exactly right if we define who god is by whatever the culture demands him to be he's no longer god and this is not no longer christianity but it's another religion and i think that's now if that's the 1920s 100 years later if machen could be bothered to see where we are today, he'd be like, told you. Maybe not. Maybe not that. He was a much more refined man than that. And so it's become the norm. But let me ask you this. Take away all the big mumbo jumbo words. Think in your own Christian life, in our own kind of conservative Christian circles, How often have you ever had a conversation with someone about God being both equally wrath and equally merciful and equally loving and equally just and all of these things and having people go, well of course he is, and then kind of run through some scriptures about where it shows that. We never have those conversations anymore. Ever. I mean, people like getting, like, the tip of the iceberg about things like, uh, oh, well, well, God is sovereign, and I'm elect, and, and, you know, chosen for the foundation of the world, but, but we get into these smaller issues, we don't really talk about these grand issues about who God is, and it's really those, we're all, what we consider, like, liberal theology, it doesn't start with, I don't like, when you tell me, I can't choose. It starts with the fact that you want to shape God in whatever image you want to make Him in, and that that's kind of the way it's been for a while now. And so, God isn't here to be shaped in whatever we want Him to be. God is who He is. He is the sum total of His attributes, always. Not the sum total, I keep saying that, yeah. Not the sum total of His attributes. He is defined, he is defined, I'm sorry, his attributes are identical with his being. I keep contradicting myself because I am communicable. Sorry. The way I tend to think about it is And it may be kind of dorky or whatever, but if you think of the diamonds, there's a bunch of facets on it. It's like the attributes are the facets of God. You're talking about the same diamond. And it's not exactly correct, because there is no analogy for what we're talking about. But at least we're talking about one thing, and we're able to look at it in different ways and see different parts of it. Well, not parts and pieces, but different aspects. And Bonnie asked something about, has it only happened in the last 200 years? I think, like Kent was saying, the subtleness of the attacks, I think, the attacks have really gotten subtle in the last couple hundred years. If you go back to, when was Marcion, late second century? Yeah. Marcion, you know, he divided love and wrath, but he said it was two different gods. And so that's not as odd as it sounds, that's not as nefarious, because as soon as you hear that, you know there's a problem. But if somebody is attacking a more esoteric idea about God, then it can work its way into your consciousness. Well, I think probably the pillars aren't as clearly defined either of Orthodoxy now as they were then. There's not as much knowledge in general among the Church. I mean, in what way? Because it was pretty... Yeah, and leaders in general. If we're confused about all of this, and we're bummed about it, this is just a light level. If I'm bumming you out, I probably need to stop teaching. If you ever get bummed about it, there's a really cool verse that I can put it in the God's hand if you want to read it. It's in Ecclesiastes 3. You know, I was talking about the time to do this and the time to do that. So what kind of pushes me when I see this is that God is telling us on the earth that there's a time for this separate from this. There's a time for this separate from this. And there's a whole bunch of things that we're talking about attributes in there. But God's all of them at the same time, right? And then if you're bummed about it, he goes, I have seen the task which God has given the sons of mankind with which to occupy themselves. He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart without the possibility that mankind will find out the work which God has done from beginning to end. So we don't have to worry about it. He's not going to let us figure it out. He says that we're not going to be able to figure it out. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped. Unbumped I mean, I know I have. It was the first church I ever went to. It was a Southern Baptist church, and it was very Armenian, and kind of backwards. They would say things all the time, like God's holding himself back, or he's limiting himself, or he's decided not to show that part of himself in fullness, so that, you know, that's directly the time period I'm talking about. I didn't even realize it, but it's a guy named Hegel, Hegel, however you say his name. Kenosis. Yep. Hegel. Hegel, yep. Progress, becoming, all that stuff. God is evolving. They didn't use that word yeah, but at the time, but God is Becoming more God if he's learning along the way like Like his creation is an erector set where he's got one of the pieces wrong. Oh, well, let me try this now. Sorry for people who don't know what an erector set is. But there shouldn't be anyone. Danny, sorry. Doesn't that just show the opposite is true? That person is making his god more like what he wants God to be as he's aging and going on. Well, but this guy was good. The funny thing about Hegel is he believed that all of history was moving and he called it the Geist. It was moving him along. And by the way, his philosophy was the pinnacle of the realization of the Geist. And so yeah, his philosophy, in a sense, was God. He didn't claim to be a Christian. He was kind of a Pantheist sort of weird guy. He had a lot of influence. That's the point though, is he's had immense influence on Christian thinking. Just like a lot of the existential crisis theologians, All in that early 20, late 19th, they have had an immense impact on Christian thinking. Well, Marx came straight out of that. Right. Go ahead. You said something about, like, what God, like, people say that God opens himself. Like, you're saying that that's not. Right, yeah. They would say it is. So what they're saying about it, and anyone jump in if they know the teaching, what they're saying is God holding himself back for is God's learning. And God's looking at, like any organism, they're learning their surroundings and then changing based on that. So God is both changeable and not perfect. Those are the correct conclusions you could draw. So when I'm talking about that phrase in particular, it has to do with that mindset. I think what God is long-suffering and that kind of thing is not and I change it there's not a change to who he is from that happening so a lot of people do say that God is being patient like he's waiting he's waiting for people to come around to believe in him but that basically teaches that God is waiting there's there's a point in which God is waiting for on the human side before God will act. So it's not so much like God limiting his wrath as it is just enough, it's patience being shown? Well, I mean, the verse is God is, you know, God is not slow as we consider slow, but he's patient towards you. not wanting any of you to perish, but to come to repentance. So in the context of that verse are people who have come about to buy into some of the heresies that were circling, making circulation in the church. And so there were people, Peter is addressing both the issue of apostasy as well as the heresy that was going on. He's not slow. He's not slow as you might consider slow. We're all waiting for him to come, but really it's God is patient that none of us, none of the elect will perish. He will not allow any of his people to perish on account of heresy. That's the point of that verse. Does that make sense? You still have a question? Okay. Keep going if you have questions. We have time. We're good. That's it. Okay. The answer, non-answer. I think it goes back to, I guess it was Fred saying that we can't, we're trying to wrap our minds around things that we really can't fully. Well the unfortunate thing is that we just don't have like five hours to sit and go through all the attributes because I think when we talk about all of them they all make sense together and so when you're taking something like this by itself it just it seems both really simple and overly complex for no reason and in the only reason that is that is this that's that's that's on me I'm trying to make it overly complex I just I want to make sure we we get the main points. Just to ask, because you said that the big ones, or you said that the small things like salvation, and you mentioned a few others, and you said that when we forget these big things, like God's attributes, but those really are the They are the big things what yeah, sorry what I mean by big things is that what I mean by big is thinking about who God is This is like a big idea type thing not that it's not the salvation is obviously not is a big thing Right so it While it's not talking about salvation specifically, it is bound to salvation. Or it's when we are investigating the attributes of God, we are investigating, we are looking into Christ. And so the aspect is more of how do you defend, think about, Properly view God to where in your own life in your own study. You're not even subconsciously doing this which is which is Maybe I'm trying to kill a fly with a cannon by doing it this way, but but I I Just think that when you have when you wrestle with some of these hard things about who God is And you get you get at least parts of it it's a lot harder to start saying things like this to people when you're thinking at all times, like, wait, no, God, yeah, He is love, but He's also wrath. He's also mercy. And so when I'm talking to people about who God is, who don't know who God is, or you've run into, or you have a Christian family member or friend who is theologically out to lunch, and it's affecting the way they live, and it's affecting their their assurance and it's affecting all of these different things that you see in Christians all the time where they have simply no confidence in God at all. And you can chalk it up often to they've never they don't really understand him at all in what and how he's revealed himself in scriptures not in the ways like God has not revealed to us about himself but the immense amount of ways which he has revealed himself and people simply Don't know and so when when you and I run across this all the time when you counsel people or you talk to people They just don't even know who God is and so there's no confidence and they can be a Calvinist and that could be the only thing they ever read about and they have no confidence at all in anything because they've never actually They just don't understand who God is And and so that's why I think this is a good exercise. Yeah, Eric. Can I add one thing I think might help? I think I know where you're getting at. Hopefully this will help. So in regards to being patient towards those who are being taken by the Pharisees, he's not pulling himself back on account of limiting himself. Remember that Jesus said, No one knows the time or date that I will return, only the Father knows. So when Peter's saying those things, he's speaking from a human perspective with regards to slowness. So it's not God is patient because he's holding himself back. All of those things that are happening are worked in within the plan that God already has from eternity. So he doesn't have to hold himself back because it's all worked in to his providence. It's a plan already set from eternity. He's coming back and Peter's talking to those people to give them hope. God's not slow. Does that make, does that help? Yeah. So it's not like we're viewing it as patience. Right, it's an attribute, but it's just part of, it's the way that we understand, it's a way that we understand that part of God. He's not withholding for the sake of limiting his wrath in that sense. He's, from a human perspective, it's He's not doing what he could do at this moment, which is to exercise wrath because of the plan he already has to come. That's good. Any other questions? I finished, by the way. Any other comments? I think the next one we do will be more fun, which is a C-I-T, which is a better word. God's self-existence. One of the best ways to look at it is that he doesn't need anything or anyone. And so we'll be done in 10 minutes. I'm kidding. Here's a short little B.A. Carson video on how to study on YouTube. I love DA Carson I have I have copies of exegetical fallacies to give away for last six or seven years, I've always had some in my office, wherever my office is, to give to people. Great little book. You'll be embarrassed when you read the first few chapters. When you read Root Fallacy, you'll go, oh boy. Exegetical fallacies, I have one. Did you like just happen upon So many copies or did you like... No, I read it and then... Lost it and bought another one? Lamented and repented and all these other things and so I bought like 30 copies just to give away to people. So it was on purpose that you have all these copies? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh, wow. No, no, I read it and was just like I've taught that way so many times. I need to give myself mercy with a punch in the face. Like that was the... Yeah, the root fallacy ate my lunch. And then later when I took, this was before I ever took a Greek I class. And when I had Greek I at Redeemer Seminary, that was one of the texts, the first text. You had to read the whole book before you did your first class. And so then I was like, I already had this book. I already know I made all those mistakes. So if you want to get re-bumped out. Yeah. Yeah, that's a side note, but yeah, Bonnie, I got one in there for you if you want one. Don't read it. No, what it's really good for, so for anyone who's not teaching the Bible regularly, you won't feel as bad. What you'll do is you'll go like, hey, someone so used to do this all the time. Yeah, anyway. Evidently Southern Baptists aren't allowed to read it because It's not a warning book, it's an instruction manual. It's meant for people. It's instructing you how to read and teach the Bible properly and not to make exegetical errors. How many copies did you say you have? I don't know how many I have anymore. Sometimes if I hear someone say something I'll just hand them one. People that are really cantankerous and will be like, you know, after a sermon be like, what you should have done was this. I'll be like, hold on, I got something for you. People at this church have received copies. Sorry. So if you haven't, okay. Do you write in there? Yes. This is your rebuke. Love, Pastor Ken. I always write the same thing in books that I give from the desk of Reverend Newman. Kidding. As a side note, the Micah that you and I both know, Caswell, this has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. I had a book, the Carl Truman book, which is always a treasure, but it was The Place Where Monkeys Dare to Tread, or something like that. And it was this really sarcastic book, and it was hilarious. No, no, it was Truman's Republicrat. He wrote it like 10 years ago, and it was just a book on politics. It was like a scathing book on politics, and Christians, and American politics. And so, Mike Caspel asked to borrow it, and I was like, sure. And I got it back, and the thing was like, bent, dog-eared everywhere, wrote all over it, and gave it back to me. And I was like, what kind of animal does this? He's like, well, you don't write in your books. No, I write in my books. I had just read this. What is wrong with you? He's like, I'm fine. I'll buy you another one. Yes, you will. This is your book now. But he bought me a book, and specifically for that moment, had a stamp made. That said, from the desk of Reverend Caswell. And it's forever in my copy of my book now. And I was like, that's a good move. Anyway. This is why anybody who asks me to borrow a book, I just buy them a copy. I do not trust anybody with my books. Well, that's too far. I've got a commentary series I need to borrow from. You're right, yeah. Touche. I was going to ask the barman about something. What's that series by Brackle? It's super expensive. Christian's Reasonable Service. Do you have that I can borrow? OK, well, again. If this has been more of a chore than a joy, I apologize. I think it'll open up a little bit more as the weeks go on, and we'll start being able to tie the pieces together a little bit better. Like I said, we'll do a seiyuudai next week, and then we'll have a break on Wednesday nights until after the new year, and then we'll push through the rest of the incommunicable and communicable attributes.