July 11, 2025 • 47 mins
We all experience competing interests. My desire to spend time on my hobby and my desire to spend time with my family. My need to work to make money and my need to have time off work so I can enjoy what that money provides. These are simple examples of a far more complex problem with an elegant solution.
More information about Beyond the Walls, including additional resources can be found at www.beyondthewalls-ministry.com
This series included graphics to illustrate what is being taught, if you would like to watch the teachings you can do so on Rumble (https://rumble.com/user/SpokaneBibleChurch) or on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtV_KhFVZ_waBcnuywiRKIyEcDkiujRqP).
Jeremy Thomas is the pastor at Spokane Bible Church in Spokane, Washington and a professor at Chafer Theological Seminary. He has been teaching the Bible for over 20 years, always seeking to present its truths in a clear and understandable manner.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New TestamentFramework.
Today, the full lesson fromJeremy Thomas.
Here's a hint of what's to come.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Like I almost don't know of any doctrine in the
whole Bible that has moreapplication than the Trinity.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Legalism and licentiousness, national law and
international law, the rightsof the husband or the wife in
the context of marriage, therights of a minor child and a
family.
There are many, many conflictsin this world.
How do we handle the needs ofthe group over the rights of the
(00:37):
individual?
Where does this conflict comefrom and how does it get
resolved?
The resolution is in theTrinity, in the triune, godhead
and the balance that ispreserved in that relationship.
But when a nation, a society, aculture rejects God, rejects
(00:57):
the Bible, now they have nobasis for solving the problems
inherent in relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Colossians, chapter 2 , verse 8, is sort of the basis
for our background study on theTrinity, and the reason it's the
background is because it wasone of the implications of the
hypostatic union.
And the hypostatic union is thedoctrine that Jesus Christ is
undiminished deity, united withtrue humanity and one person,
(01:27):
without confusion or mixture orseparation forever.
And in Colossae, which Paulwrote to this small church in
the foothills of Asia Minor, heis addressing various concerns
of people who were bringing,first of all false philosophy
(01:47):
into the church at Colossae,also mysticism, legalism, and so
this chapter is devoted highlyto dealing with these problems
of philosophy and these otherthings seeping into the church.
In Colossians 2.8, he'saddressing the philosophical
issues.
Believers can be deceived byphilosophies.
(02:08):
It says.
See to it that no one takes youcaptive through philosophy and
empty deception, according tothe tradition of men, according
to the elementary principles ofthe world rather than according
to Christ.
So we looked into what theseelementary principles of the
world are.
In the ancient world, known asthe stoichia it's a Greek word
here Well known to people in theancient world these were the
(02:30):
building blocks of knowledgeaccording to ancient pagan
thought.
Ancient pagan thought,basically air, fire, earth and
wind or whatever, the four basicelements or categories of what
they thought made up theuniverse, which have their
corollaries in modern dayscience.
(02:50):
You know solid liquid gas andso forth, so it's really not
that ancient.
These ideas are still with ustoday as people think about.
Well, these are the basicthings that make up atoms, and
you know the basis of physicsand biology and chemistry and
all these things.
And so if we understand thesethings, supposedly we can
(03:12):
understand the world around us.
In other words, we can use themas stepping stones to have
actual knowledge.
Paul is saying in this versedon't be deceived by these
philosophies.
You are to take every thoughtcaptive to Christ, right.
And then we ask ourselves well,what's the difference between
(03:34):
what the world is doing, howthey're trying to build a
knowledge system, and what we'resupposed to do?
Well, he explains in verse 9what it means to take every
thought captive to Christ.
It says, for in him, that'sChrist, all the fullness of
deity dwells in bodily form.
Well, he explains in verse 9what that means to take every
thought captive to Christ.
It says, for in him, that'sChrist, all the fullness of
deity dwells in bodily form.
In other words, in Christ he'sfully God, right, full deity,
(03:56):
but he's also fully human.
So what this sets up is thisidea as far as thinking and
logic and language, are youready?
There's the creator and there'sthe creature, and these are
distinct.
So when we think about God ascreator, we're not talking about
(04:18):
him in the same sense that wewould talk about ourselves.
Here's the example I'm usingwith Trinity.
People come along they say well, christianity talks about the
Trinity.
You guys have an inherentcontradiction at the very heart
of Christianity in the idea thatyou've got three and one.
So what they're saying is I'vegot threeness over here and I've
(04:38):
got a concept of threeness increation.
I've got a concept of oneness.
Threeness and oneness are notthe same.
Three doesn't equal one and ifyou put that on any math paper,
you're going to get a wronganswer.
It's wrong, right?
One equals one, three does notequal one.
So Christianity is, at itsheart, illogical and irrational.
Okay, now what has happened?
(04:58):
They have taken a principlefrom creation of threeness and
oneness and they've taken Godand put him underneath this idea
of threeness and oneness andjudged that he is inherently a
contradiction what Paul issaying.
He'd already thought all thisthrough.
He's light years ahead of allof us.
(05:19):
We could see here Romans 1,acts 17,.
He's light years.
He's already thought about allthis is that you can't do that
Because he's the creator.
He's not subject to thecreation, he's the creator.
He's distinct from the creation.
So you cannot take conceptsfrom within creation and place
God underneath them, as if thestandard is what is in creation.
(05:40):
In fact, what we end updiscovering is that the concepts
of threeness and oneness thatwe experience down here are
derived from the concept that heis three in one as the Creator.
In other words, there is noconcept of threeness and oneness
unless God is first there asthree in one, and so this is the
basis or root or justificationfor why we experience number and
(06:04):
the concepts that we all useevery single day, whether you're
a believer or not.
Now, I said I don't want thisto become too abstract, but it's
not abstract, and this problemhas been pointed out.
In fact, I pointed out thatthis is exactly the problem that
Aristotle and Plato weredealing with in Athens centuries
(06:27):
and centuries ago, four or fivecenturies before Christ, but
here it's called the problem ofthe one and the many, the
oneness meaning.
Well, it's easier to talk aboutthe many.
The many is the individualthings that are in our world,
like Like you're an individualthing, okay or person.
The one in this case would beour society as a whole, let's
(06:52):
say our nation, the UnitedStates of America.
Or we could also look at itthis way the many would be the
many nations on earth, but theone would be the whole earth or
global concept of governance andlaw.
But the one would be the wholeearth or global concept of
governance and law.
So there's always one and many.
We're always dealing with this.
(07:12):
We have in family or, let's say,marriage, in marriage, you have
the individual persons in themarriage and then you have the
marriage itself.
So the many would be the twoindividuals, the one would be
the marriage itself.
And we're always askingourselves in these questions
which we're all involved inevery single day.
You're either in a marriage,you have a family there's the
(07:32):
concept of a one family, butthere's many members in the
family.
You're always asking yourselfwhich takes priority.
Does the individual's rightsand needs, are they the priority
, or does the family's intereststake priority?
(07:56):
In our country we have peoplewho are very individualistic.
They are concerned aboutindividual rights right, and
they're strongly in thatposition.
And then you have other peoplewho are strongly concerned about
the unity of society andkeeping everybody together.
So they're more interested inthe one, the country, society
and other people are moreinterested in the many, that is,
(08:17):
the individuals and individualrights.
And they say if you allow thegovernment more power, then that
will take away freedom.
And we're interested in ourfreedom.
And both of these have logicaloutcomes.
If you emphasize one over theother, if you emphasize just the
one the government, the many,the whole then of course there
(08:39):
are a lot of laws that governevery single thing that we do
and we lose freedom, right, welose individual freedom.
But if you emphasize justindividual rights, right, then
everything runs to anarchybecause everyone does what's
right in his own eyes.
So we're all involved in thisproblem, okay, whether we like
(09:01):
it or not.
And I'm going to show you it'seven worse than that.
It's worse than that in thesense that you're involved in it
every time.
You say a sentence Okay, thatyou cannot escape this problem.
And Plato and Aristotle knewthis.
They just didn't have an answer, they could never resolve it.
And so societies swing from oneto the other.
You know we have a crisis inour country.
(09:24):
Which way do we swing?
Toward more control or do weswing toward allowing people
more freedom?
Well, more control.
That's the tendency, because wehave to come together.
We have to stop this problem orsolve this problem.
So let's make all these lawsand freedoms get restricted.
So how do we balance these andwhat is the answer to the
(09:48):
problem?
So everybody faces it.
That's the point of this slide,and you're trying to decide
which gets more emphasis.
So how do you solve the problem?
Or the one in the money, thisancient problem, by the way?
This problem, if you take aphilosophy course today will
likely not be discussed, and thereason, even though it is the
(10:09):
greatest philosophical problemin question ever discussed in
the history of the world, stillbeing discussed and people are
obviously still trying to dealwith it, is because there's no
answer from unbelief.
Paganism has never been able toanswer it, and so it's just
been pushed out of thediscussion.
So how do you solve it?
Well, you need two things.
(10:29):
You need language.
By that I mean propositionalspeech, as I'm using now.
I don't mean like stomping onthe ground, like a herd of
elephants communicating toanother herd across the desert.
We're talking aboutpropositional speech, where
ideas can be entertained anddiscussed and words can be put
together in sentences and viableideas that present concept and
(10:51):
logic.
You also need logic.
Now, those are linked.
Language and logic are linkedright Because logic is thinking
and language is what you use tothink.
If you don't have language,then all you have is that's all
you have.
There's nothing more than afeeling.
Where do you get language andlogic?
(11:15):
In other words, where's thesource of them?
Where do they come from?
Are these just abstractuniversals?
That's what Plato projected.
In other words, plato knew thisproblem and he said we have to
have some universal out there inorder to have absolutes, and
what he meant was absolutecategories, like, for example,
(11:36):
that I would look at this pieceof furniture that's sitting here
in front of me, called a pew,and I would actually be able to
categorize that a pew, and it'snot going to change tomorrow
into a pu or something else.
It's not going to changebecause if we want to have
knowledge, we have to havecategories that aren't changing,
don't we?
I mean, if two plus two is fourtoday, but tomorrow two plus
(11:58):
two is five, how can we everhope to have knowledge?
We can't.
So the categories have to bestable and they have to be
universal.
They have to be absolute, andthis is what Plato was
understanding.
So he created a world of forms,what was his absolute realm?
But it was just a projection ofPlato's mind.
(12:18):
But he realized the problem.
We have to have this Now.
Language and logic are thosebasic to everything that you do
every day, all the time.
This is all you're doing.
Okay, so it's apparent thateverybody uses these.
But then what happens is peoplecome along and they criticize
(12:40):
Trinity, but the issue is asbeing a contradiction, as I
mentioned before.
But without the Trinity, youdon't have a concrete basis for
language and logic.
In other words, you can't getlanguage and logic going.
Now, what I'm going to do hereis I'm going to play a minute
and a half or so of a debate.
This was a debate in 1985between Greg Bonson, who is a
(13:07):
Christian theist, and the othergentleman is one of the most
informed atheists of his day, drGordon Stein.
And this is just a portion ofthe debate.
The name of the debate was thegreat debate does God exist?
So I'm just going to play aportion of this, because if
(13:31):
you're an atheist, atheists tendto be materialists.
They're not all materialists.
When I say materialists, I meanthat they tend to think that
everything is material,everything has a molecular,
chemical makeup.
There's no such thing asimmaterial realm.
Now, some atheists, to grantand be fair, do believe in
paranormal and things like that,like weird ghosts and stuff
(13:53):
like that, but they're in theminority among atheists.
Atheists are typicallymaterialistic.
So I want you to listen to thisdebate.
I don't think.
Well, let's just listen toabout a minute and a half about
some issues and I'll give youthe words up here so you can
follow what's being said.
If you can't hear very well andthink about what happens in
(14:15):
this debate, okay, go ahead,george, when you're ready.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Just assume that that was so, because you were
quoting from the Bible as if itproved the existence of God.
I assumed.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I asked you if I used that argument.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
No, you did not use the argument, but you used the
results of the argument.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Dr Stein, you mentioned 11 basic proofs for
the existence of God.
Did you mention thetranscendental proof for the
existence of God?
Speaker 4 (14:38):
No, I didn't mention it by name.
I think it is not a proof.
I would not call it a proof.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
As I think it is not a proof, I would not call it a
proof, as I understand it fromwhat you said.
In other words, you didn't dealwith that particular one.
Are all factual questionsanswered in the very same way?
Speaker 4 (14:53):
No, they are not.
They are answered by the use ofcertain methods, though that
are the same Reason logic andpresenting evidence.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
I heard you mention logical binds and logical
self-contradictions in yourspeech.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
You did say that I said it, I used that phrase.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, do you believe there are laws of logic, then
Absolutely.
Are they universal?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
They're agreed upon by human beings.
They aren't laws that exist outin nature.
Are they simply conventions?
Then they're conventions, butthey're conventions that are
self-verifying.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
Speaker 4 (15:30):
They are laws of thought which are interpreted by
men and promulgated by men, arethey material in nature?
How can a law be material?
That's the question.
I'm going to ask you Thank you,I would say no, dr Bonson,
(16:03):
would you call God material orimmaterial?
Immaterial?
What is something that'simmaterial?
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Something not extended in space.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Can you give me an example of anything other than
God that's immaterial?
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Loss of logic.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Okay, you see, there are some problems, and Dr Bonson
just pointed a really big oneout that if you have an atheist,
materialist universe, where arethe laws of logic coming from?
(16:43):
Of course, dr Stein says well,they're conventions of men,
they're self-verifying, butthey're not absolute.
This is the struggle.
This is the struggle, this isthe trouble for paganism Is what
you are learning today going tobe true 10 years from now, or
(17:04):
will it be obsolete?
I mean, we go to school, we goto the university, we learn
sciences, maths, we learn laws,ethics, all these things.
But will that be obsolete 10years from now, 20 years from
(17:24):
now?
Are the things that we'relearning absolute?
In pagan thought, you can'thave absolute knowledge.
In fact, in our society, toclaim knowledge in an absolute
sense of something is consideredarrogant.
And the problem is, of course,that our young children now have
(17:45):
caught on to this idea that youcan't have absolute knowledge
and we wonder why they don'twant to learn.
We wonder why they don't wantto read, we wonder why they just
want to sit in front of theboob tube and play video games.
Well, because you've told themthat there is no such thing as
absolute knowledge.
And the knowledge that you havenow, let's say in your field of
(18:07):
computer and technology, willbe obsolete 15 years from now.
So why am I going to learn allthis information if it's just
going to be obsolete 15 yearsfrom now?
So why am I going to learn allthis information if it's just
going to be obsolete in the nextdecade of my life?
It's a we live in anenvironment now where there's
not a lot of motivation to learnbecause apparently the things
(18:27):
that we're learning aren'tabsolute, they're not going to
be with in the future.
And he is to in one sense.
What he's admitting is thatthese are just convention.
I want to talk about anddevelop this idea about logic
being convention and the problemthat unbelief has, but the
problem that christianity hasanswered all along.
So let's push forward a littlebit.
(18:49):
Um, how do you solve thisproblem?
Okay, the one is a universalcategory.
I've already mentioned this.
It's the question of where doyou get a concrete, universal,
something that is absolute, sothat we can have absolute
knowledge, so that thecategories aren't always
changing and knowledge is alwaysslipping away from us and we're
just on the fuzzy edge of it.
The many is this particularidea in a category, and I'll
(19:13):
give an example, okay, but inorder to think about anything,
we have to have a universalcategory that that particular
thing fits into.
To make sense, we just have to,as you'll see.
So where do you get theseconcrete particulars?
Now, example, okay, of logicOur dog in our house is a Morkie
(19:33):
.
Now, that sentence states theproblem of the one and the many
Our dog is a Morkie.
Morkie is a particular kind,it's one of the many in a
category, the one, the onecategory that we call dog.
Right, nobody has a problemwith this, right, I know nobody
thinks about this.
That's what I said.
(19:54):
You, nobody has a problem withthis, right, I know nobody
thinks about this.
That's what I said.
You got to think about thinkingOkay, I know nobody, we just
talk Our dog's a Morkie, okay,but you are bringing in a
universal category called dogand a particular in that
category called a Morkie.
Okay, it could be a Great Dane,whatever.
Okay, now, this example showsthat we're always involved in
this problem.
(20:14):
If you don't have categoriesthat have certain
characteristics in which you canplace a particular thing, then
you can't talk, can you?
I can say our dog is a Morkie,but if you don't understand the
category dog, you don't knowwhat I'm talking about.
If you don't know what certaincharacteristics are of dogs,
(20:36):
okay, we can't talk.
The only way I could explain toyou what a morgue was is I'd
have to say come here, let's goto my house if you understand
what I'm saying, and I'llactually show it to you.
Right?
So language is central here.
We all do this.
Guess what?
Nobody knows how we do it.
(20:56):
Nobody knows.
Nobody in the universe outsideof Christianity has ever figured
out how we do this.
That ought to strike you.
We do it All.
Right, here's a Morky.
Okay, this is a Morky.
Okay, this is a Morkie.
An 11-pound bark machine, okay,also known as Morkie.
(21:19):
Now, I've already givencharacteristics to the dog,
haven't I?
That's characteristics of aparticular thing inside of a
category, now.
So, now that you've seen thiscute little pup, who's probably
wanting a treat, I'm going touse an example from logic, using
a similar thing dog.
If we're going to form acategory, we have to have this
thing called language, right?
But it also requires logic todo this.
(21:41):
And here's the thing in oursociety, in every society, if
language is sloppy, guess what?
Our logic will be sloppy,because language and logic are
related.
If I say this and this is asloppy example but if I say all
dogs have four legs, then I goout I see an animal that has
four legs.
I conclude well, that's a dog,it's got four legs.
(22:03):
That's sloppy logic, right?
Because there are lots of otherkinds of animals that have four
legs, okay.
So what I have to do is I haveto isolate more categories of
dogs to narrow it down.
So every time you see afour-legged creature, you don't
say dog.
Okay, now this can get Dicey,because some animals, like foxes
(22:25):
, have a lot of characteristicsof dogs, and so you have to come
up with a whole lot ofcharacteristics so you get this
category.
Another problem in our logic isthis the word dog can have more
than one meaning in the Englishlanguage, and so you have to
know which meaning I'm using.
(22:46):
For example, I could say thatperson is a dog, meaning they're
a sorry person.
So our words have multiplemeanings and these are two
different categories, eventhough they're a sorry person,
right?
So our words have multiplemeanings and these are two
different categories, eventhough they're the same word.
As a society becomes more andmore illiterate okay, logic
(23:07):
becomes less and less good.
It becomes sloppier.
That's what we're experiencingnow in our culture a decline in
literacy, and the result is adecline in logical reasoning,
where most things end upbecoming just a heated argument
between two people's egos.
(23:27):
And logic and reasoning hasnothing to do with which side
wins, it's who can throw morerocks at the other person.
In other words, this is sayingor signaling illiteracy in
society and people not wantingto have reasoned, rational
debate or discussion, and theycan't do it without becoming
heated.
They can't control themselves.
(23:49):
That's a result of lack ofliteracy In previous generations
.
Books I've read from the early1900s, sentences could be almost
a page long.
Now you might say, well, that'snot good.
Some English professors may saythat's not good, but they know
what I'm talking about, right?
Some of you kind of thought alittle bit of English here and
there at the collegiate level,so I know Now it's more short
(24:14):
sentences.
You know just ideas.
Now, how do you solve thisproblem?
The Greeks knew this problem.
Remember Plato and Aristotle.
Remember Plato on the right orleft Sorry, left he's pointing
up, aristotle on the right.
He's pointing down.
What Plato is pointing to whenhe points up is the need for one
universals as categories overeverything.
And what Aristotle is doing,pointing down, is saying no, no,
(24:38):
no, you can't forget theindividuals in these categories.
So one would be likeemphasizing Doug as a category.
The other would be saying no,we got more keys, great Danes,
kali's, you know lots ofopposites, and so forth and so
on.
That's what they were.
Each was emphasizing somethingdifferent.
Okay, one was saying marriage,the other was saying, no, the
husband and the wife.
It was an emphasis issue.
Now, plato knew there had to bethese universals, otherwise
(25:03):
there's no meaning, can'tcategorize anything.
It's just basic.
In Greek thought, though, and inthought that comes down to our
day, there is no concreteuniversal out there.
See, in Christianity there'sGod, three in one, a concept of
threeness and oneness, and wesay, yeah, but that contradicts
(25:24):
our.
It doesn't contradict ourconcept of threeness and oneness
.
Ours is derived from him andthey're different, but they are
similar enough that we knowthese concepts.
In other words, our concept isfinite, it's just limited, and
I'll explain a little bit more.
But in God, see, there's aunity the oneness of God.
(25:44):
How many gods?
One God?
How many persons in God?
Three.
Now, has Islam dealt with this?
Yes, they are trying to dealwith this problem, but which
side do they emphasize?
One or many?
Oneness, allah is a solitary,monotheistic God.
There's no diversity of personin Allah.
(26:06):
So this does create problems,because now you have an
overemphasis on the one andAllah can't express all of his
attributes within himself.
For example, he can't love,because there's no object
outside of himself to love, andtrue love is giving yourself to
another.
So it tried to answer theproblem, but it answered it in
(26:30):
an unsatisfactory way, becausethere's no diversity in Allah.
Now, mormonism did exactly theopposite.
Mormonism, which does itemphasize One or the many?
The many, because there aremultiple gods in Mormonism.
In fact, one day, if you're aMormon, you'll become a god
yourself and you'll populateyour own planet.
Okay, so there's all these gods.
(26:53):
So it emphasized the many, butthere is no balance.
See, everybody's dealing withthis.
Okay, it's just, are theydealing with it adequate?
Adequately, in christianity,there's unity and diversity in
god and I'm going to start toshow you next week, um, how
interesting this all is.
Because in the bible, take, forexample, in the burning bush,
here comes moses.
(27:14):
There's this bush burning.
It's on fire, but it's notburning up, right, it's a
strange sight.
So he starts to approach it andthis voice comes out of the
bush.
It says take off your sandals,for the feet, I mean, the ground
on which you are standing isholy ground, right.
And Moses asks, as he comestoward the bush what is your
name?
That I may tell the hebrews inegypt your name?
(27:35):
And he says what I am, one ormany one.
Now, in the book of genesis, 1,26, 27, 28, he's on the sixth
day and he's about to create man.
And he says what let us, whichis the emphasis, the many In God
(27:57):
.
They're both true.
There's a unity and there'sdiversity in him, and that's the
basis for all unity anddiversity that we experience in
our lives all around us.
This is why there are triads increation.
Now, by the way, triads, what doI mean by a triad?
I mean three in one the peoplewho founded this country, the
(28:20):
United States of America, backin 1776, and later, when the
Constitution in 1789, especiallywith the Constitution, they set
up a particular type ofgovernment that we call a
republic the republic for whichI stand right.
When they did that, most ofthese men were influenced by
(28:42):
Christian thinking.
They actually did thispurposefully, based on Trinity.
When they set up our onegovernment, with how many
branches?
Three Everybody learned this ingovernment class right the
executive branch, thelegislative branch, the judicial
branch.
Why not four?
(29:02):
Why not two?
Why not just one?
Because they recognize theimportance of unity and
diversity, because they alreadyknew about unity and diversity
in God and they wanted toreflect that.
And diversity, because theyalready knew about unity and
diversity in God and they wantedto reflect that.
There are triads also, as I'vementioned.
(29:24):
One of my favorite ones is inmusic.
You have one piece of music butit has three parts rhythm,
melody, harmony.
Some people have pointed outthings like the egg, which has
the albumen, the yolk and theshell, and they say one egg but
it has three parts.
Actually, if you get allinvolved, there's also an air
sac.
So my point in saying that isthat when you find a triad in
(29:47):
creation, it's never going to beperfect representation of God.
It can't.
It's a finite thing.
God is not finite.
So when we see these triads,they're very interesting, but at
some point they will break downas far as being a perfect
reflection of who God is.
Because?
(30:08):
Why?
Because you've got the creationdown here and you've got the
creator, and he's not subject tothe limitations that we are
subject to now.
So what does this mean aboutlanguage and logic and category?
Very simple again.
We have threeness and onenessdown here in creation.
(30:29):
Right now, god is three in one,but guess what?
Not in exactly the way that weexperience in creation.
It's similar, though, but wedon't have a total grasp of him.
This is the whole point.
We do not have a total grasp ofthe nature of God.
He is incomprehensible.
(30:50):
Okay, we will never totallycomprehend him.
We can only understand in partwho he is.
But when we see three in onedown here, here's the deal.
It's a finite derivative of whohe is, and that's why we have,
and that's why we have languageand that's why we have logic,
(31:13):
and it's the reason we havecategories that we can trust,
whereas the world's like, we'vegot to have this concrete,
universal a thing like a god,but there's not one there
because we're in denial of that.
So we just go on as if theseproblems are just going to go
away now.
So this is the problem forpagans when do they get these
(31:35):
absolute categories?
So language and logic are notslipping and sliding all over
the place.
Here's the question Can you everknow a thing perfectly?
What do you have to know inorder to know a thing perfectly?
You have to have perfectknowledge of everything.
Let me give an example.
Do you know what a morkey is?
(31:56):
It's particular in the dogcategory.
Well, here's the thing have youever observed every single
morkey that has ever lived?
Well, if you're not, how do youknow what a morkey is and what
its characteristics are?
Let's say you're a dog judgeand you've evaluated 2,500
(32:16):
morkeys and the 2,501st morkeycomes along and it has a
different characteristic.
Here's the question Is it amorkey?
Now, do we have to change thecategory to include this dog, or
are we making a differentcategory?
(32:37):
This is what I'm saying aboutpagan knowledge.
It's slippery, it's sliding,it's fuzzy, and the reason is
because the categories that weset up are not built on absolute
, infinite knowledge.
That's why you are an economicguru, okay.
Okay, you sit there and youwatch markets.
You take a pattern for themarket.
(32:58):
This year you take a pattern.
The second year you're buildinga model, right based on
patterns in the market.
Year three, you you're buildinga pattern and you're saying oh,
I see how this works.
Year four boom destroys yourknowledge, covid.
Okay, the point is in paganknowledge.
(33:18):
Here's the problem.
The problem is you never knowwhat the next piece of data is
going to be, so you can neversay you know something perfectly
.
In fact, as I said earlier, ifyou actually, as a person, claim
to have knowledge, an absolutetype of knowledge, you'll be
considered arrogant anduncultured.
Okay, but this is the problemfor pagan knowledge you can
(33:39):
never get certain knowledge,because what you need for a
perfect model is omniscience,and the only place you can get
that is the Trinity.
This is what we've seen in thewhole story of evolution and
creation debates over the last200 years, starting in geology,
with Hutton and Lyell in thelate 1800s or 1700s, and
(33:59):
developing this discussion.
At the time that Hutton andLyell started all this in
geology, you know how much timethey were trying to add to the
biblical accepted age of theearth About 50,000 years,
nothing, nothing I mean tocompare to today, right?
So on a pagan basis.
(34:19):
Let's just say, did Hutton andLyle have knowledge on a pagan
basis?
Well, it was a 50,000 year oldearth.
What are they saying?
The age of the earth is now 4.6billion years old.
That's a little different than50,000.
I mean just slightly, just ahair off.
I mean, are you kidding me?
(34:41):
These aren't even close numbers.
If I had $50,000, I'd be happy,but if I had 4.6 billion, you
see the difference, right?
It's quite a bit of adifference and it keeps changing
.
It keeps changing.
Do you really have knowledge?
See, that's my point.
(35:01):
No, there's no knowledge there.
I had to learn all that stuff.
I had to spit it on the testand get A's and stuff, and
become proctors and all thisstuff for exams and teach labs
and all that, and it was allwhat I don't know, stuff that's
probably obsolete now.
Why did I take up all my braincells to do that?
I, I don't know.
I don't know, but I did it toget the grades right.
(35:21):
So here's what van till statedat the end of this discussion of
the one and the many, and herealized this in the 30s, the
1930s.
He realized that christianityis the only answer to the
problem of the one and the many,and he realized this in the 30s
, the 1930s.
He realized that Christianityis the only answer to the
problem of the one and many thateverybody is working with every
day of their life, in theirmarriages, in their families, in
their countries, in their localcommunities.
(35:42):
They're dealing with thisproblem all the time.
Okay, and he said this usingthe language of the one and many
question.
We contend that in God, the oneand many are equally ultimate.
Unity in God is no morefundamental than diversity, and
diversity in God is no morefundamental than unity.
The persons of the Trinity aremutually exhaustive of one
(36:02):
another.
Okay, I want to talk about thatpoint.
When we say there is one Godand there's three persons Father
, son, spirit right, this iswhat we don't mean.
Are you ready?
The Father is part of God, theSon is part of God and the
Spirit is part of God.
Like a pie and you cut it upinto three pieces and you say
(36:23):
see, there's one pie with threepieces Father, son and Spirit.
That's not God.
Okay, I already told you youcan't take anything from
creation and say this is arepresentation of exactly what
God's like, because that's notwhat God is like In the Trinity,
the persons are mutuallyexhaustive of one another.
And you're sitting there in yourmind right now going what
(36:46):
exactly do you mean?
I don't understand how thispiece of the pie and this piece
of the pie and this piece of thepie could all be mutually
exhaustive of each other, pieceof pie.
Well, that's because his waysare above our ways.
His thoughts are above ourthoughts.
We can't comprehend that ideabecause we don't have anything
(37:08):
like it in creation.
So what I'm trying to say nowis that God is incomprehensible,
but down here we have finitelittle replicas of him, but
don't think that those arereally like him.
Okay.
Now, the good news is that,because we have Trinity and this
(37:28):
is actually a wonderful thingit helps us resolve so many
issues in life.
Okay, it helps us solve theissue of which is ultimate
having a one world government orindividual nation.
There has to be a balance here.
(37:49):
I mean okay, here.
Okay, here's the thing.
We know where the world's going, because the Bible's already
said on this point it says it'sgoing to go to a totalitarian
dictatorship, right, wherethere'll be one world government
.
Okay, the Bible's already saidthis is what's going to happen.
Everything else it said hashappened, so that's going to
happen too.
Now, that's not a balance tothe question, that's a leaning
(38:15):
toward the one to the ultimate,to totalitarianism.
But at the same time, friend,we do have to deal with
international issues.
What about criminals who take upresidence in the United States
of America from other countries?
I don't know somebody fromChile, let's just say Somebody
who has tried to come to the USto escape criminal charges in
(38:38):
Chile.
How do you deal with that?
See, you're having to deal withsome law that's neither Chilean
law or US law, aren't you?
I mean, there has to besomething in place to deal with
this problem.
What about fishing off the coastof the United States of America
?
Where does the United Statesend and waters become
(39:00):
international water?
So you can fish in these watersas a US citizen, but you can't
fish in those.
Or, if you're not from US, youcan fish in these waters but not
those not from US.
You can fish in these watersbut not those.
How do you solve these problems?
See, you can't just do.
Everything in this question isgoing to focus just on
individual nations, becausethere are issues that transgress
(39:28):
our boundary.
So how do you answer it?
Just the way the Trinity wouldanswer it.
Each is equally ultimate, eachis equally important.
You can't sacrifice one for theother, right?
That's how the Trinity wouldanswer it.
I'm trying to inject a littlewisdom in society about how to
think about problems.
(39:49):
Same thing, though, in yourmarriage.
Which is more important?
The two individuals who are inthe marriage and protecting
their individual rights, or isthe marriage itself more
important?
It's obvious in marriage thathusband and wife have to
compromise.
If you don't compromise, well,one partner is going to run
(40:11):
roughshod over the other partner.
Right, I mean, it's going to beterrible.
Whichever way it works, it'sgoing to be a nightmare.
You have to learn to worktogether.
But at the center of that, youhave to remember hey, this is a
marriage.
And that's when you'recompromising.
You're saying the marriage ismore important than my own
personal desire.
(40:31):
Here, I want the marriage ismore important than my own
personal desire.
Here, I want the marriage andI'm willing to compromise and
give something up for ourmarriage.
Right, that's what you'resaying.
Same thing in a family.
You've got husband, wife,you've got kids.
Who's more important?
Yeah, we're all important.
You've got the family andyou've got every individual
(40:53):
person in the family.
What if some family member isout there doing stupid stuff and
it's affecting everybody else,right?
I'm sure you've never seen it.
Is that family member important?
Yes, is the family as a wholeimportant?
(41:13):
Yes, so how are you going tosolve this?
You have to have equal weightput on the family itself as a
unit and on the importance ofthat individual and helping them
get resolved and stay insidethe family.
So this is I'm not saying theseare easy, this is easy to do.
I'm just giving like a, a modelfor how it has to be thought
(41:35):
about and dealt with.
But the good, the good uh news,see, is at least, at least we
have a basis for answering theproblem.
At least in the trinity, oneand many equal uh importance, we
have a basis for it.
Okay, there's a, there's a toolhe's given us, okay, and so we
don't swing toward one or swingtoward the other, but rather
(41:58):
there's balance.
And if there's anything I canshow you that's applicable out
of the Trinity, which we'llreally start to look at next
week, you know, in the textWe've already started.
I am let us oh, what's going on.
But this, it is highlyapplicational, like I almost
don't know of any doctrine inthe whole Bible that has more
(42:20):
application than the Trinity.
Because, you know, the Biblesays things like walk by the
Spirit, which is to live theChristian life.
Right, walk by the Spirit,that's an individual
responsibility, right.
But if you're in a marriage,your individual responsibility
to the Lord is connected toanother person.
What if they're not walking bythe Spirit?
(42:42):
Well, you still are responsibleto walk by the Spirit,
regardless of what they do.
Here's the Bible.
Here's what it says in marriage,for example, husbands, what
Love your wives, wives, whatRespect or honor or fear your
husband?
Right, it's a respect typeconcept Submit, respect, honor.
(43:04):
But what if I'm not loving mywife?
Does she have liberty now tonot respect me?
Not biblically.
It's not to be conditioned onwhat I'm doing Now.
If she's not respecting me orhonoring me, should I love her?
(43:24):
All the women said yeah, youshould.
They're much more vocal thanyou guys.
Yes, you should.
They're much more vocal thanyou guys.
Yes, you should love me.
Okay.
But here's this might botherpeople, but I'm going to say it
anyway why should I love her?
Because he said it's an issuein me and how I am responding to
(43:54):
him.
The same thing for the wives youmay not want to respect your
husband because your husband isbeing a doofus, he's doing
something stupid or making adumb decision, but guess what?
Do you respect your husbandbecause he's respectable or do
you respect him because he saidto See, this is very practical.
(44:18):
This is real world, and thereason you do these things is
because you want to honor him,you want to do what he said and
because he's the one that mademarriage, he's the one that's
unity and adversity.
Here you are in a marriagewhich is unity and adversity.
He said the two shall becomeone flesh.
So there's a unity to the thing, but there's two-ness in there
(44:40):
too.
That's coming right out of theTrinity too, and the concepts of
unity and diversity.
It's not one and three.
Three people don't get married.
But you see the point, you seethe principle, you see how it
can actually exist in this world.
Why has marriage basically beenan institution in every single
society and culture around theworld?
I mean, yeah, there's beendeviations, polyandry, polygamy.
(45:02):
Cultures have tried thesethings.
Guess what?
They never work.
They always fall back to what?
One man and one woman.
Why?
Because you have to create asociety and you can't do that
with one man and another man.
You can't do that with onewoman and another woman.
You cannot create a society.
You dip below the threshold ofreplacement numbers, which is
2.1.
(45:22):
If every generation does notcreate 2.1 individuals per
family unit, you will not existas a nation in 50 years.
Do you realize that?
It's demographics?
It is math.
Where do we get math?
The Trinity this is allinterlaced.
What I'm trying to show you inthe grand scheme and I'll stop
(45:42):
with this is that there is noother way to think about
anything in all of life otherthan the way that God has
charted out that it should bethought about.
In other words, if someone isthinking something that's not
scripture, it's essentiallynon-thinking.
It's non-thinking and modernphilosophy.
(46:03):
One of my kids is about to takea philosophy course at Spokane
Falls over here.
All modern philosophy and thisis the most fundamental thing
you can learn about paganthinking today is
anti-philosophy.
It is against knowledge, it isagainst wisdom, it is against
understanding, and the reason isis because they've never and
(46:26):
will never attempt to answerthis fundamental question, and
that's why our society isrocking back and forth between
more and more laws and thenpeople breaking out of that box
and going crazy Legalism andlicentiousness, because they
cannot solve this one problem ofthe one and the many, and they
won't even address it anymore.
(46:46):
And I didn't come up with theidea that all modern philosophy
is anti-philosophy.
Francis Schaeffer said that inthe 1970s.
We're 40 years after this hasalready been understood.
40 years after this has alreadybeen understood.
You have a blessing in theTrinity.
Think about it.
(47:06):
Think how many problems hesolves, because the problems are
solved in him.
Speaker 1 (47:11):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with
Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spokane Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
We hope you found today'slesson productive and useful in
(47:32):
growing closer to God andwalking more obediently with Him
.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app, and until
next time, we hope you have ablessed and wonderful day.
Welcome to Beyond the Walls with Jeremy Thomas and
our series on the New TestamentFramework.
Today, the full lesson fromJeremy Thomas.
Here's a hint of what's to come.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Like I almost don't know of any doctrine in the
whole Bible that has moreapplication than the Trinity.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
Legalism and licentiousness, national law and
international law, the rightsof the husband or the wife in
the context of marriage, therights of a minor child and a
family.
There are many, many conflictsin this world.
How do we handle the needs ofthe group over the rights of the
(00:37):
individual?
Where does this conflict comefrom and how does it get
resolved?
The resolution is in theTrinity, in the triune, godhead
and the balance that ispreserved in that relationship.
But when a nation, a society, aculture rejects God, rejects
(00:57):
the Bible, now they have nobasis for solving the problems
inherent in relationships.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
Colossians, chapter 2 , verse 8, is sort of the basis
for our background study on theTrinity, and the reason it's the
background is because it wasone of the implications of the
hypostatic union.
And the hypostatic union is thedoctrine that Jesus Christ is
undiminished deity, united withtrue humanity and one person,
(01:27):
without confusion or mixture orseparation forever.
And in Colossae, which Paulwrote to this small church in
the foothills of Asia Minor, heis addressing various concerns
of people who were bringing,first of all false philosophy
(01:47):
into the church at Colossae,also mysticism, legalism, and so
this chapter is devoted highlyto dealing with these problems
of philosophy and these otherthings seeping into the church.
In Colossians 2.8, he'saddressing the philosophical
issues.
Believers can be deceived byphilosophies.
(02:08):
It says.
See to it that no one takes youcaptive through philosophy and
empty deception, according tothe tradition of men, according
to the elementary principles ofthe world rather than according
to Christ.
So we looked into what theseelementary principles of the
world are.
In the ancient world, known asthe stoichia it's a Greek word
here Well known to people in theancient world these were the
(02:30):
building blocks of knowledgeaccording to ancient pagan
thought.
Ancient pagan thought,basically air, fire, earth and
wind or whatever, the four basicelements or categories of what
they thought made up theuniverse, which have their
corollaries in modern dayscience.
(02:50):
You know solid liquid gas andso forth, so it's really not
that ancient.
These ideas are still with ustoday as people think about.
Well, these are the basicthings that make up atoms, and
you know the basis of physicsand biology and chemistry and
all these things.
And so if we understand thesethings, supposedly we can
(03:12):
understand the world around us.
In other words, we can use themas stepping stones to have
actual knowledge.
Paul is saying in this versedon't be deceived by these
philosophies.
You are to take every thoughtcaptive to Christ, right.
And then we ask ourselves well,what's the difference between
(03:34):
what the world is doing, howthey're trying to build a
knowledge system, and what we'resupposed to do?
Well, he explains in verse 9what it means to take every
thought captive to Christ.
It says, for in him, that'sChrist, all the fullness of
deity dwells in bodily form.
Well, he explains in verse 9what that means to take every
thought captive to Christ.
It says, for in him, that'sChrist, all the fullness of
deity dwells in bodily form.
In other words, in Christ he'sfully God, right, full deity,
(03:56):
but he's also fully human.
So what this sets up is thisidea as far as thinking and
logic and language, are youready?
There's the creator and there'sthe creature, and these are
distinct.
So when we think about God ascreator, we're not talking about
(04:18):
him in the same sense that wewould talk about ourselves.
Here's the example I'm usingwith Trinity.
People come along they say well, christianity talks about the
Trinity.
You guys have an inherentcontradiction at the very heart
of Christianity in the idea thatyou've got three and one.
So what they're saying is I'vegot threeness over here and I've
(04:38):
got a concept of threeness increation.
I've got a concept of oneness.
Threeness and oneness are notthe same.
Three doesn't equal one and ifyou put that on any math paper,
you're going to get a wronganswer.
It's wrong, right?
One equals one, three does notequal one.
So Christianity is, at itsheart, illogical and irrational.
Okay, now what has happened?
(04:58):
They have taken a principlefrom creation of threeness and
oneness and they've taken Godand put him underneath this idea
of threeness and oneness andjudged that he is inherently a
contradiction what Paul issaying.
He'd already thought all thisthrough.
He's light years ahead of allof us.
(05:19):
We could see here Romans 1,acts 17,.
He's light years.
He's already thought about allthis is that you can't do that
Because he's the creator.
He's not subject to thecreation, he's the creator.
He's distinct from the creation.
So you cannot take conceptsfrom within creation and place
God underneath them, as if thestandard is what is in creation.
(05:40):
In fact, what we end updiscovering is that the concepts
of threeness and oneness thatwe experience down here are
derived from the concept that heis three in one as the Creator.
In other words, there is noconcept of threeness and oneness
unless God is first there asthree in one, and so this is the
basis or root or justificationfor why we experience number and
(06:04):
the concepts that we all useevery single day, whether you're
a believer or not.
Now, I said I don't want thisto become too abstract, but it's
not abstract, and this problemhas been pointed out.
In fact, I pointed out thatthis is exactly the problem that
Aristotle and Plato weredealing with in Athens centuries
(06:27):
and centuries ago, four or fivecenturies before Christ, but
here it's called the problem ofthe one and the many, the
oneness meaning.
Well, it's easier to talk aboutthe many.
The many is the individualthings that are in our world,
like Like you're an individualthing, okay or person.
The one in this case would beour society as a whole, let's
(06:52):
say our nation, the UnitedStates of America.
Or we could also look at itthis way the many would be the
many nations on earth, but theone would be the whole earth or
global concept of governance andlaw.
But the one would be the wholeearth or global concept of
governance and law.
So there's always one and many.
We're always dealing with this.
(07:12):
We have in family or, let's say,marriage, in marriage, you have
the individual persons in themarriage and then you have the
marriage itself.
So the many would be the twoindividuals, the one would be
the marriage itself.
And we're always askingourselves in these questions
which we're all involved inevery single day.
You're either in a marriage,you have a family there's the
(07:32):
concept of a one family, butthere's many members in the
family.
You're always asking yourselfwhich takes priority.
Does the individual's rightsand needs, are they the priority
, or does the family's intereststake priority?
(07:56):
In our country we have peoplewho are very individualistic.
They are concerned aboutindividual rights right, and
they're strongly in thatposition.
And then you have other peoplewho are strongly concerned about
the unity of society andkeeping everybody together.
So they're more interested inthe one, the country, society
and other people are moreinterested in the many, that is,
(08:17):
the individuals and individualrights.
And they say if you allow thegovernment more power, then that
will take away freedom.
And we're interested in ourfreedom.
And both of these have logicaloutcomes.
If you emphasize one over theother, if you emphasize just the
one the government, the many,the whole then of course there
(08:39):
are a lot of laws that governevery single thing that we do
and we lose freedom, right, welose individual freedom.
But if you emphasize justindividual rights, right, then
everything runs to anarchybecause everyone does what's
right in his own eyes.
So we're all involved in thisproblem, okay, whether we like
(09:01):
it or not.
And I'm going to show you it'seven worse than that.
It's worse than that in thesense that you're involved in it
every time.
You say a sentence Okay, thatyou cannot escape this problem.
And Plato and Aristotle knewthis.
They just didn't have an answer, they could never resolve it.
And so societies swing from oneto the other.
You know we have a crisis inour country.
(09:24):
Which way do we swing?
Toward more control or do weswing toward allowing people
more freedom?
Well, more control.
That's the tendency, because wehave to come together.
We have to stop this problem orsolve this problem.
So let's make all these lawsand freedoms get restricted.
So how do we balance these andwhat is the answer to the
(09:48):
problem?
So everybody faces it.
That's the point of this slide,and you're trying to decide
which gets more emphasis.
So how do you solve the problem?
Or the one in the money, thisancient problem, by the way?
This problem, if you take aphilosophy course today will
likely not be discussed, and thereason, even though it is the
(10:09):
greatest philosophical problemin question ever discussed in
the history of the world, stillbeing discussed and people are
obviously still trying to dealwith it, is because there's no
answer from unbelief.
Paganism has never been able toanswer it, and so it's just
been pushed out of thediscussion.
So how do you solve it?
Well, you need two things.
(10:29):
You need language.
By that I mean propositionalspeech, as I'm using now.
I don't mean like stomping onthe ground, like a herd of
elephants communicating toanother herd across the desert.
We're talking aboutpropositional speech, where
ideas can be entertained anddiscussed and words can be put
together in sentences and viableideas that present concept and
(10:51):
logic.
You also need logic.
Now, those are linked.
Language and logic are linkedright Because logic is thinking
and language is what you use tothink.
If you don't have language,then all you have is that's all
you have.
There's nothing more than afeeling.
Where do you get language andlogic?
(11:15):
In other words, where's thesource of them?
Where do they come from?
Are these just abstractuniversals?
That's what Plato projected.
In other words, plato knew thisproblem and he said we have to
have some universal out there inorder to have absolutes, and
what he meant was absolutecategories, like, for example,
(11:36):
that I would look at this pieceof furniture that's sitting here
in front of me, called a pew,and I would actually be able to
categorize that a pew, and it'snot going to change tomorrow
into a pu or something else.
It's not going to changebecause if we want to have
knowledge, we have to havecategories that aren't changing,
don't we?
I mean, if two plus two is fourtoday, but tomorrow two plus
(11:58):
two is five, how can we everhope to have knowledge?
We can't.
So the categories have to bestable and they have to be
universal.
They have to be absolute, andthis is what Plato was
understanding.
So he created a world of forms,what was his absolute realm?
But it was just a projection ofPlato's mind.
(12:18):
But he realized the problem.
We have to have this Now.
Language and logic are thosebasic to everything that you do
every day, all the time.
This is all you're doing.
Okay, so it's apparent thateverybody uses these.
But then what happens is peoplecome along and they criticize
(12:40):
Trinity, but the issue is asbeing a contradiction, as I
mentioned before.
But without the Trinity, youdon't have a concrete basis for
language and logic.
In other words, you can't getlanguage and logic going.
Now, what I'm going to do hereis I'm going to play a minute
and a half or so of a debate.
This was a debate in 1985between Greg Bonson, who is a
(13:07):
Christian theist, and the othergentleman is one of the most
informed atheists of his day, drGordon Stein.
And this is just a portion ofthe debate.
The name of the debate was thegreat debate does God exist?
So I'm just going to play aportion of this, because if
(13:31):
you're an atheist, atheists tendto be materialists.
They're not all materialists.
When I say materialists, I meanthat they tend to think that
everything is material,everything has a molecular,
chemical makeup.
There's no such thing asimmaterial realm.
Now, some atheists, to grantand be fair, do believe in
paranormal and things like that,like weird ghosts and stuff
(13:53):
like that, but they're in theminority among atheists.
Atheists are typicallymaterialistic.
So I want you to listen to thisdebate.
I don't think.
Well, let's just listen toabout a minute and a half about
some issues and I'll give youthe words up here so you can
follow what's being said.
If you can't hear very well andthink about what happens in
(14:15):
this debate, okay, go ahead,george, when you're ready.
Speaker 4 (14:19):
Just assume that that was so, because you were
quoting from the Bible as if itproved the existence of God.
I assumed.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
I asked you if I used that argument.
Speaker 4 (14:25):
No, you did not use the argument, but you used the
results of the argument.
Speaker 3 (14:28):
Dr Stein, you mentioned 11 basic proofs for
the existence of God.
Did you mention thetranscendental proof for the
existence of God?
Speaker 4 (14:38):
No, I didn't mention it by name.
I think it is not a proof.
I would not call it a proof.
Speaker 3 (14:44):
As I think it is not a proof, I would not call it a
proof, as I understand it fromwhat you said.
In other words, you didn't dealwith that particular one.
Are all factual questionsanswered in the very same way?
Speaker 4 (14:53):
No, they are not.
They are answered by the use ofcertain methods, though that
are the same Reason logic andpresenting evidence.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
I heard you mention logical binds and logical
self-contradictions in yourspeech.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
You did say that I said it, I used that phrase.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, do you believe there are laws of logic, then
Absolutely.
Are they universal?
Speaker 4 (15:16):
They're agreed upon by human beings.
They aren't laws that exist outin nature.
Are they simply conventions?
Then they're conventions, butthey're conventions that are
self-verifying.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Are they sociological laws or laws of thought?
Speaker 4 (15:30):
They are laws of thought which are interpreted by
men and promulgated by men, arethey material in nature?
How can a law be material?
That's the question.
I'm going to ask you Thank you,I would say no, dr Bonson,
(16:03):
would you call God material orimmaterial?
Immaterial?
What is something that'simmaterial?
Speaker 3 (16:11):
Something not extended in space.
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Can you give me an example of anything other than
God that's immaterial?
Speaker 3 (16:17):
Loss of logic.
Speaker 2 (16:22):
Okay, you see, there are some problems, and Dr Bonson
just pointed a really big oneout that if you have an atheist,
materialist universe, where arethe laws of logic coming from?
(16:43):
Of course, dr Stein says well,they're conventions of men,
they're self-verifying, butthey're not absolute.
This is the struggle.
This is the struggle, this isthe trouble for paganism Is what
you are learning today going tobe true 10 years from now, or
(17:04):
will it be obsolete?
I mean, we go to school, we goto the university, we learn
sciences, maths, we learn laws,ethics, all these things.
But will that be obsolete 10years from now, 20 years from
(17:24):
now?
Are the things that we'relearning absolute?
In pagan thought, you can'thave absolute knowledge.
In fact, in our society, toclaim knowledge in an absolute
sense of something is consideredarrogant.
And the problem is, of course,that our young children now have
(17:45):
caught on to this idea that youcan't have absolute knowledge
and we wonder why they don'twant to learn.
We wonder why they don't wantto read, we wonder why they just
want to sit in front of theboob tube and play video games.
Well, because you've told themthat there is no such thing as
absolute knowledge.
And the knowledge that you havenow, let's say in your field of
(18:07):
computer and technology, willbe obsolete 15 years from now.
So why am I going to learn allthis information if it's just
going to be obsolete 15 yearsfrom now?
So why am I going to learn allthis information if it's just
going to be obsolete in the nextdecade of my life?
It's a we live in anenvironment now where there's
not a lot of motivation to learnbecause apparently the things
(18:27):
that we're learning aren'tabsolute, they're not going to
be with in the future.
And he is to in one sense.
What he's admitting is thatthese are just convention.
I want to talk about anddevelop this idea about logic
being convention and the problemthat unbelief has, but the
problem that christianity hasanswered all along.
So let's push forward a littlebit.
(18:49):
Um, how do you solve thisproblem?
Okay, the one is a universalcategory.
I've already mentioned this.
It's the question of where doyou get a concrete, universal,
something that is absolute, sothat we can have absolute
knowledge, so that thecategories aren't always
changing and knowledge is alwaysslipping away from us and we're
just on the fuzzy edge of it.
The many is this particularidea in a category, and I'll
(19:13):
give an example, okay, but inorder to think about anything,
we have to have a universalcategory that that particular
thing fits into.
To make sense, we just have to,as you'll see.
So where do you get theseconcrete particulars?
Now, example, okay, of logicOur dog in our house is a Morkie
(19:33):
.
Now, that sentence states theproblem of the one and the many
Our dog is a Morkie.
Morkie is a particular kind,it's one of the many in a
category, the one, the onecategory that we call dog.
Right, nobody has a problemwith this, right, I know nobody
thinks about this.
That's what I said.
(19:54):
You, nobody has a problem withthis, right, I know nobody
thinks about this.
That's what I said.
You got to think about thinkingOkay, I know nobody, we just
talk Our dog's a Morkie, okay,but you are bringing in a
universal category called dogand a particular in that
category called a Morkie.
Okay, it could be a Great Dane,whatever.
Okay, now, this example showsthat we're always involved in
this problem.
(20:14):
If you don't have categoriesthat have certain
characteristics in which you canplace a particular thing, then
you can't talk, can you?
I can say our dog is a Morkie,but if you don't understand the
category dog, you don't knowwhat I'm talking about.
If you don't know what certaincharacteristics are of dogs,
(20:36):
okay, we can't talk.
The only way I could explain toyou what a morgue was is I'd
have to say come here, let's goto my house if you understand
what I'm saying, and I'llactually show it to you.
Right?
So language is central here.
We all do this.
Guess what?
Nobody knows how we do it.
(20:56):
Nobody knows.
Nobody in the universe outsideof Christianity has ever figured
out how we do this.
That ought to strike you.
We do it All.
Right, here's a Morky.
Okay, this is a Morky.
Okay, this is a Morkie.
An 11-pound bark machine, okay,also known as Morkie.
(21:19):
Now, I've already givencharacteristics to the dog,
haven't I?
That's characteristics of aparticular thing inside of a
category, now.
So, now that you've seen thiscute little pup, who's probably
wanting a treat, I'm going touse an example from logic, using
a similar thing dog.
If we're going to form acategory, we have to have this
thing called language, right?
But it also requires logic todo this.
(21:41):
And here's the thing in oursociety, in every society, if
language is sloppy, guess what?
Our logic will be sloppy,because language and logic are
related.
If I say this and this is asloppy example but if I say all
dogs have four legs, then I goout I see an animal that has
four legs.
I conclude well, that's a dog,it's got four legs.
(22:03):
That's sloppy logic, right?
Because there are lots of otherkinds of animals that have four
legs, okay.
So what I have to do is I haveto isolate more categories of
dogs to narrow it down.
So every time you see afour-legged creature, you don't
say dog.
Okay, now this can get Dicey,because some animals, like foxes
(22:25):
, have a lot of characteristicsof dogs, and so you have to come
up with a whole lot ofcharacteristics so you get this
category.
Another problem in our logic isthis the word dog can have more
than one meaning in the Englishlanguage, and so you have to
know which meaning I'm using.
(22:46):
For example, I could say thatperson is a dog, meaning they're
a sorry person.
So our words have multiplemeanings and these are two
different categories, eventhough they're a sorry person,
right?
So our words have multiplemeanings and these are two
different categories, eventhough they're the same word.
As a society becomes more andmore illiterate okay, logic
(23:07):
becomes less and less good.
It becomes sloppier.
That's what we're experiencingnow in our culture a decline in
literacy, and the result is adecline in logical reasoning,
where most things end upbecoming just a heated argument
between two people's egos.
(23:27):
And logic and reasoning hasnothing to do with which side
wins, it's who can throw morerocks at the other person.
In other words, this is sayingor signaling illiteracy in
society and people not wantingto have reasoned, rational
debate or discussion, and theycan't do it without becoming
heated.
They can't control themselves.
(23:49):
That's a result of lack ofliteracy In previous generations
.
Books I've read from the early1900s, sentences could be almost
a page long.
Now you might say, well, that'snot good.
Some English professors may saythat's not good, but they know
what I'm talking about, right?
Some of you kind of thought alittle bit of English here and
there at the collegiate level,so I know Now it's more short
(24:14):
sentences.
You know just ideas.
Now, how do you solve thisproblem?
The Greeks knew this problem.
Remember Plato and Aristotle.
Remember Plato on the right orleft Sorry, left he's pointing
up, aristotle on the right.
He's pointing down.
What Plato is pointing to whenhe points up is the need for one
universals as categories overeverything.
And what Aristotle is doing,pointing down, is saying no, no,
(24:38):
no, you can't forget theindividuals in these categories.
So one would be likeemphasizing Doug as a category.
The other would be saying no,we got more keys, great Danes,
kali's, you know lots ofopposites, and so forth and so
on.
That's what they were.
Each was emphasizing somethingdifferent.
Okay, one was saying marriage,the other was saying, no, the
husband and the wife.
It was an emphasis issue.
Now, plato knew there had to bethese universals, otherwise
(25:03):
there's no meaning, can'tcategorize anything.
It's just basic.
In Greek thought, though, and inthought that comes down to our
day, there is no concreteuniversal out there.
See, in Christianity there'sGod, three in one, a concept of
threeness and oneness, and wesay, yeah, but that contradicts
(25:24):
our.
It doesn't contradict ourconcept of threeness and oneness
.
Ours is derived from him andthey're different, but they are
similar enough that we knowthese concepts.
In other words, our concept isfinite, it's just limited, and
I'll explain a little bit more.
But in God, see, there's aunity the oneness of God.
(25:44):
How many gods?
One God?
How many persons in God?
Three.
Now, has Islam dealt with this?
Yes, they are trying to dealwith this problem, but which
side do they emphasize?
One or many?
Oneness, allah is a solitary,monotheistic God.
There's no diversity of personin Allah.
(26:06):
So this does create problems,because now you have an
overemphasis on the one andAllah can't express all of his
attributes within himself.
For example, he can't love,because there's no object
outside of himself to love, andtrue love is giving yourself to
another.
So it tried to answer theproblem, but it answered it in
(26:30):
an unsatisfactory way, becausethere's no diversity in Allah.
Now, mormonism did exactly theopposite.
Mormonism, which does itemphasize One or the many?
The many, because there aremultiple gods in Mormonism.
In fact, one day, if you're aMormon, you'll become a god
yourself and you'll populateyour own planet.
Okay, so there's all these gods.
(26:53):
So it emphasized the many, butthere is no balance.
See, everybody's dealing withthis.
Okay, it's just, are theydealing with it adequate?
Adequately, in christianity,there's unity and diversity in
god and I'm going to start toshow you next week, um, how
interesting this all is.
Because in the bible, take, forexample, in the burning bush,
here comes moses.
(27:14):
There's this bush burning.
It's on fire, but it's notburning up, right, it's a
strange sight.
So he starts to approach it andthis voice comes out of the
bush.
It says take off your sandals,for the feet, I mean, the ground
on which you are standing isholy ground, right.
And Moses asks, as he comestoward the bush what is your
name?
That I may tell the hebrews inegypt your name?
(27:35):
And he says what I am, one ormany one.
Now, in the book of genesis, 1,26, 27, 28, he's on the sixth
day and he's about to create man.
And he says what let us, whichis the emphasis, the many In God
(27:57):
.
They're both true.
There's a unity and there'sdiversity in him, and that's the
basis for all unity anddiversity that we experience in
our lives all around us.
This is why there are triads increation.
Now, by the way, triads, what doI mean by a triad?
I mean three in one the peoplewho founded this country, the
(28:20):
United States of America, backin 1776, and later, when the
Constitution in 1789, especiallywith the Constitution, they set
up a particular type ofgovernment that we call a
republic the republic for whichI stand right.
When they did that, most ofthese men were influenced by
(28:42):
Christian thinking.
They actually did thispurposefully, based on Trinity.
When they set up our onegovernment, with how many
branches?
Three Everybody learned this ingovernment class right the
executive branch, thelegislative branch, the judicial
branch.
Why not four?
(29:02):
Why not two?
Why not just one?
Because they recognize theimportance of unity and
diversity, because they alreadyknew about unity and diversity
in God and they wanted toreflect that.
And diversity, because theyalready knew about unity and
diversity in God and they wantedto reflect that.
There are triads also, as I'vementioned.
(29:24):
One of my favorite ones is inmusic.
You have one piece of music butit has three parts rhythm,
melody, harmony.
Some people have pointed outthings like the egg, which has
the albumen, the yolk and theshell, and they say one egg but
it has three parts.
Actually, if you get allinvolved, there's also an air
sac.
So my point in saying that isthat when you find a triad in
(29:47):
creation, it's never going to beperfect representation of God.
It can't.
It's a finite thing.
God is not finite.
So when we see these triads,they're very interesting, but at
some point they will break downas far as being a perfect
reflection of who God is.
Because?
(30:08):
Why?
Because you've got the creationdown here and you've got the
creator, and he's not subject tothe limitations that we are
subject to now.
So what does this mean aboutlanguage and logic and category?
Very simple again.
We have threeness and onenessdown here in creation.
(30:29):
Right now, god is three in one,but guess what?
Not in exactly the way that weexperience in creation.
It's similar, though, but wedon't have a total grasp of him.
This is the whole point.
We do not have a total grasp ofthe nature of God.
He is incomprehensible.
(30:50):
Okay, we will never totallycomprehend him.
We can only understand in partwho he is.
But when we see three in onedown here, here's the deal.
It's a finite derivative of whohe is, and that's why we have,
and that's why we have languageand that's why we have logic,
(31:13):
and it's the reason we havecategories that we can trust,
whereas the world's like, we'vegot to have this concrete,
universal a thing like a god,but there's not one there
because we're in denial of that.
So we just go on as if theseproblems are just going to go
away now.
So this is the problem forpagans when do they get these
(31:35):
absolute categories?
So language and logic are notslipping and sliding all over
the place.
Here's the question Can you everknow a thing perfectly?
What do you have to know inorder to know a thing perfectly?
You have to have perfectknowledge of everything.
Let me give an example.
Do you know what a morkey is?
(31:56):
It's particular in the dogcategory.
Well, here's the thing have youever observed every single
morkey that has ever lived?
Well, if you're not, how do youknow what a morkey is and what
its characteristics are?
Let's say you're a dog judgeand you've evaluated 2,500
(32:16):
morkeys and the 2,501st morkeycomes along and it has a
different characteristic.
Here's the question Is it amorkey?
Now, do we have to change thecategory to include this dog, or
are we making a differentcategory?
(32:37):
This is what I'm saying aboutpagan knowledge.
It's slippery, it's sliding,it's fuzzy, and the reason is
because the categories that weset up are not built on absolute
, infinite knowledge.
That's why you are an economicguru, okay.
Okay, you sit there and youwatch markets.
You take a pattern for themarket.
(32:58):
This year you take a pattern.
The second year you're buildinga model, right based on
patterns in the market.
Year three, you you're buildinga pattern and you're saying oh,
I see how this works.
Year four boom destroys yourknowledge, covid.
Okay, the point is in paganknowledge.
(33:18):
Here's the problem.
The problem is you never knowwhat the next piece of data is
going to be, so you can neversay you know something perfectly
.
In fact, as I said earlier, ifyou actually, as a person, claim
to have knowledge, an absolutetype of knowledge, you'll be
considered arrogant anduncultured.
Okay, but this is the problemfor pagan knowledge you can
(33:39):
never get certain knowledge,because what you need for a
perfect model is omniscience,and the only place you can get
that is the Trinity.
This is what we've seen in thewhole story of evolution and
creation debates over the last200 years, starting in geology,
with Hutton and Lyell in thelate 1800s or 1700s, and
(33:59):
developing this discussion.
At the time that Hutton andLyell started all this in
geology, you know how much timethey were trying to add to the
biblical accepted age of theearth About 50,000 years,
nothing, nothing I mean tocompare to today, right?
So on a pagan basis.
(34:19):
Let's just say, did Hutton andLyle have knowledge on a pagan
basis?
Well, it was a 50,000 year oldearth.
What are they saying?
The age of the earth is now 4.6billion years old.
That's a little different than50,000.
I mean just slightly, just ahair off.
I mean, are you kidding me?
(34:41):
These aren't even close numbers.
If I had $50,000, I'd be happy,but if I had 4.6 billion, you
see the difference, right?
It's quite a bit of adifference and it keeps changing
.
It keeps changing.
Do you really have knowledge?
See, that's my point.
(35:01):
No, there's no knowledge there.
I had to learn all that stuff.
I had to spit it on the testand get A's and stuff, and
become proctors and all thisstuff for exams and teach labs
and all that, and it was allwhat I don't know, stuff that's
probably obsolete now.
Why did I take up all my braincells to do that?
I, I don't know.
I don't know, but I did it toget the grades right.
(35:21):
So here's what van till statedat the end of this discussion of
the one and the many, and herealized this in the 30s, the
1930s.
He realized that christianityis the only answer to the
problem of the one and the many,and he realized this in the 30s
, the 1930s.
He realized that Christianityis the only answer to the
problem of the one and many thateverybody is working with every
day of their life, in theirmarriages, in their families, in
their countries, in their localcommunities.
(35:42):
They're dealing with thisproblem all the time.
Okay, and he said this usingthe language of the one and many
question.
We contend that in God, the oneand many are equally ultimate.
Unity in God is no morefundamental than diversity, and
diversity in God is no morefundamental than unity.
The persons of the Trinity aremutually exhaustive of one
(36:02):
another.
Okay, I want to talk about thatpoint.
When we say there is one Godand there's three persons Father
, son, spirit right, this iswhat we don't mean.
Are you ready?
The Father is part of God, theSon is part of God and the
Spirit is part of God.
Like a pie and you cut it upinto three pieces and you say
(36:23):
see, there's one pie with threepieces Father, son and Spirit.
That's not God.
Okay, I already told you youcan't take anything from
creation and say this is arepresentation of exactly what
God's like, because that's notwhat God is like In the Trinity,
the persons are mutuallyexhaustive of one another.
And you're sitting there in yourmind right now going what
(36:46):
exactly do you mean?
I don't understand how thispiece of the pie and this piece
of the pie and this piece of thepie could all be mutually
exhaustive of each other, pieceof pie.
Well, that's because his waysare above our ways.
His thoughts are above ourthoughts.
We can't comprehend that ideabecause we don't have anything
(37:08):
like it in creation.
So what I'm trying to say nowis that God is incomprehensible,
but down here we have finitelittle replicas of him, but
don't think that those arereally like him.
Okay.
Now, the good news is that,because we have Trinity and this
(37:28):
is actually a wonderful thingit helps us resolve so many
issues in life.
Okay, it helps us solve theissue of which is ultimate
having a one world government orindividual nation.
There has to be a balance here.
(37:49):
I mean okay, here.
Okay, here's the thing.
We know where the world's going, because the Bible's already
said on this point it says it'sgoing to go to a totalitarian
dictatorship, right, wherethere'll be one world government
.
Okay, the Bible's already saidthis is what's going to happen.
Everything else it said hashappened, so that's going to
happen too.
Now, that's not a balance tothe question, that's a leaning
(38:15):
toward the one to the ultimate,to totalitarianism.
But at the same time, friend,we do have to deal with
international issues.
What about criminals who take upresidence in the United States
of America from other countries?
I don't know somebody fromChile, let's just say Somebody
who has tried to come to the USto escape criminal charges in
(38:38):
Chile.
How do you deal with that?
See, you're having to deal withsome law that's neither Chilean
law or US law, aren't you?
I mean, there has to besomething in place to deal with
this problem.
What about fishing off the coastof the United States of America
?
Where does the United Statesend and waters become
(39:00):
international water?
So you can fish in these watersas a US citizen, but you can't
fish in those.
Or, if you're not from US, youcan fish in these waters but not
those not from US.
You can fish in these watersbut not those.
How do you solve these problems?
See, you can't just do.
Everything in this question isgoing to focus just on
individual nations, becausethere are issues that transgress
(39:28):
our boundary.
So how do you answer it?
Just the way the Trinity wouldanswer it.
Each is equally ultimate, eachis equally important.
You can't sacrifice one for theother, right?
That's how the Trinity wouldanswer it.
I'm trying to inject a littlewisdom in society about how to
think about problems.
(39:49):
Same thing, though, in yourmarriage.
Which is more important?
The two individuals who are inthe marriage and protecting
their individual rights, or isthe marriage itself more
important?
It's obvious in marriage thathusband and wife have to
compromise.
If you don't compromise, well,one partner is going to run
(40:11):
roughshod over the other partner.
Right, I mean, it's going to beterrible.
Whichever way it works, it'sgoing to be a nightmare.
You have to learn to worktogether.
But at the center of that, youhave to remember hey, this is a
marriage.
And that's when you'recompromising.
You're saying the marriage ismore important than my own
personal desire.
(40:31):
Here, I want the marriage ismore important than my own
personal desire.
Here, I want the marriage andI'm willing to compromise and
give something up for ourmarriage.
Right, that's what you'resaying.
Same thing in a family.
You've got husband, wife,you've got kids.
Who's more important?
Yeah, we're all important.
You've got the family andyou've got every individual
(40:53):
person in the family.
What if some family member isout there doing stupid stuff and
it's affecting everybody else,right?
I'm sure you've never seen it.
Is that family member important?
Yes, is the family as a wholeimportant?
(41:13):
Yes, so how are you going tosolve this?
You have to have equal weightput on the family itself as a
unit and on the importance ofthat individual and helping them
get resolved and stay insidethe family.
So this is I'm not saying theseare easy, this is easy to do.
I'm just giving like a, a modelfor how it has to be thought
(41:35):
about and dealt with.
But the good, the good uh news,see, is at least, at least we
have a basis for answering theproblem.
At least in the trinity, oneand many equal uh importance, we
have a basis for it.
Okay, there's a, there's a toolhe's given us, okay, and so we
don't swing toward one or swingtoward the other, but rather
(41:58):
there's balance.
And if there's anything I canshow you that's applicable out
of the Trinity, which we'llreally start to look at next
week, you know, in the textWe've already started.
I am let us oh, what's going on.
But this, it is highlyapplicational, like I almost
don't know of any doctrine inthe whole Bible that has more
(42:20):
application than the Trinity.
Because, you know, the Biblesays things like walk by the
Spirit, which is to live theChristian life.
Right, walk by the Spirit,that's an individual
responsibility, right.
But if you're in a marriage,your individual responsibility
to the Lord is connected toanother person.
What if they're not walking bythe Spirit?
(42:42):
Well, you still are responsibleto walk by the Spirit,
regardless of what they do.
Here's the Bible.
Here's what it says in marriage,for example, husbands, what
Love your wives, wives, whatRespect or honor or fear your
husband?
Right, it's a respect typeconcept Submit, respect, honor.
(43:04):
But what if I'm not loving mywife?
Does she have liberty now tonot respect me?
Not biblically.
It's not to be conditioned onwhat I'm doing Now.
If she's not respecting me orhonoring me, should I love her?
(43:24):
All the women said yeah, youshould.
They're much more vocal thanyou guys.
Yes, you should.
They're much more vocal thanyou guys.
Yes, you should love me.
Okay.
But here's this might botherpeople, but I'm going to say it
anyway why should I love her?
Because he said it's an issuein me and how I am responding to
(43:54):
him.
The same thing for the wives youmay not want to respect your
husband because your husband isbeing a doofus, he's doing
something stupid or making adumb decision, but guess what?
Do you respect your husbandbecause he's respectable or do
you respect him because he saidto See, this is very practical.
(44:18):
This is real world, and thereason you do these things is
because you want to honor him,you want to do what he said and
because he's the one that mademarriage, he's the one that's
unity and adversity.
Here you are in a marriagewhich is unity and adversity.
He said the two shall becomeone flesh.
So there's a unity to the thing, but there's two-ness in there
(44:40):
too.
That's coming right out of theTrinity too, and the concepts of
unity and diversity.
It's not one and three.
Three people don't get married.
But you see the point, you seethe principle, you see how it
can actually exist in this world.
Why has marriage basically beenan institution in every single
society and culture around theworld?
I mean, yeah, there's beendeviations, polyandry, polygamy.
(45:02):
Cultures have tried thesethings.
Guess what?
They never work.
They always fall back to what?
One man and one woman.
Why?
Because you have to create asociety and you can't do that
with one man and another man.
You can't do that with onewoman and another woman.
You cannot create a society.
You dip below the threshold ofreplacement numbers, which is
2.1.
(45:22):
If every generation does notcreate 2.1 individuals per
family unit, you will not existas a nation in 50 years.
Do you realize that?
It's demographics?
It is math.
Where do we get math?
The Trinity this is allinterlaced.
What I'm trying to show you inthe grand scheme and I'll stop
(45:42):
with this is that there is noother way to think about
anything in all of life otherthan the way that God has
charted out that it should bethought about.
In other words, if someone isthinking something that's not
scripture, it's essentiallynon-thinking.
It's non-thinking and modernphilosophy.
(46:03):
One of my kids is about to takea philosophy course at Spokane
Falls over here.
All modern philosophy and thisis the most fundamental thing
you can learn about paganthinking today is
anti-philosophy.
It is against knowledge, it isagainst wisdom, it is against
understanding, and the reason isis because they've never and
(46:26):
will never attempt to answerthis fundamental question, and
that's why our society isrocking back and forth between
more and more laws and thenpeople breaking out of that box
and going crazy Legalism andlicentiousness, because they
cannot solve this one problem ofthe one and the many, and they
won't even address it anymore.
(46:46):
And I didn't come up with theidea that all modern philosophy
is anti-philosophy.
Francis Schaeffer said that inthe 1970s.
We're 40 years after this hasalready been understood.
40 years after this has alreadybeen understood.
You have a blessing in theTrinity.
Think about it.
(47:06):
Think how many problems hesolves, because the problems are
solved in him.
Speaker 1 (47:11):
Thank you for joining us on Beyond the Walls with
Jeremy Thomas.
If you would like to see thevisuals that went along with
today's sermon, you can findthose on Rumble and on YouTube
under Spokane Bible Church.
That is where Jeremy is thepastor and teacher.
We hope you found today'slesson productive and useful in
(47:32):
growing closer to God andwalking more obediently with Him
.
If you found this podcast to beuseful and helpful, then please
consider rating us in yourfavorite podcast app, and until
next time, we hope you have ablessed and wonderful day.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.