NT Framework - Logic & Philosophy Solved

How should we think about the created world? How do we solve conflicts in priorities and rights? How do we even think about thinking so we can understand ourselves, our world, and God? The solution is embedded in the Triune Godhead, His very nature teaches us. 

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. 

Episode Transcript

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):
What you do in this life is going to be evaluated at
the judgment seat of Christ,and rewards will then be given
out.

Speaker 1 (00:19):
Where does language come from?
What about logic?
How we think about things?
What's the origin of logic?
How do we balance the needs ofthe individual with the needs of
the group?
Is the husband more importantthan the wife?
Is either of them moreimportant than the marriage?
Is a citizen more importantthan the nation, or does the

(00:43):
nation have precedence over theindividual?
Whether we've thought aboutthese questions or not, the
basis for how they are answeredis rooted firmly in the Trinity.
God has laid out how we balancethe needs of the individual
with the needs of the group, andhe has given us this basis of
talking about it and thinkingabout it in the same location,

(01:07):
the Trinity.
It is all about how God, thetriune God, his nature and
character manifests and is thebasis for his creation and for
how we live in this life.
The Trinity is so amazingly andterribly and beautifully

(01:28):
important to life.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
We want to finish off right some of the implications
of the hypostatic union.
What's the hypostatic unionsaying?
Well, jesus Christ isundiminished deity, united with
true humanity in one person,without confusion or separation,
forever.
Basically, six points in there,and we've gone through that and

(01:51):
dealt with that, and so theimplications are like okay, so
what does that have to do withother areas of life?
How does this impact me?
Well, first, we showed that,basically, that one of the
implications is that thecreator-creature distinction
will forever remain intact.
What do we mean by that?
We mean that in the person ofChrist, here's where you have

(02:13):
the creator and the creature inone person, right, and never
were the two mixed and neverwere the two separated into two
separate persons.
So you have the creator and thecreature in this one person.
And yet what I showed was in theGospels Christ has to live out

(02:33):
of his true humanity.
He can't, you know, cheat andborrow his deity.
And I took you, I think, to thetemptations and showed you that
in the temptations he had tomeet those temptations as
humanity and attend to thelearning of Scripture which he
himself had undergone in histrue humanity.

(02:53):
He grew in his understanding ofthe Scripture, of course, in
his deity.
You can never grow in yourunderstanding of Scripture or
knowledge, because you alreadyknow everything.
So the point was to show thathe becomes the test pilot for
the Christian life.
He shows us how to live theChristian life and in the
temptations, which went on for40 days, right, and then he
became hungry, and that's whenyou see the three temptations.

(03:16):
So there's a lot more than justthree.
But what we get to see is thoselast three temptations and how
he is depending upon the Spiritof God to address Satan's
temptations.
And he is using the Scripture,he is using the Word of God, and
this is the same thing that wehave to do to live successfully
in the Christian life.
We have to depend upon theSpirit of God and we have to use

(03:38):
the Word of God right?
So I laid out several passagesthat our Lord may have turned to
in his training to learn totrust in the Lord Isaiah 40s,
luke 4 is the temptations, andthen Philippians 4, you know, be
anxious for nothing but byprayer and petition, present

(03:59):
your request to God, and thepeace of God that transcends all
comprehension will guard yourhearts and minds in Christ Jesus
.
So these types of promises,these concepts, these principles
that our Lord used in his truehumanity to show us that, oh
indeed, the Christian life canbe lived.
It's already happened, it'salready taken place as a
historical fact in space andtime, and so you and I can't

(04:21):
come up and say, well, I triedthe Christian life and it
doesn't work for me.
Well, maybe, maybe you didn'tactually try.
Try it.
I mean, have you been learningthe word of God?
Have you been hiding it in yourheart?
Have you learned and are youlearning to depend upon the Holy
Spirit?
Because if you are, then ofcourse you have you learn to

(04:43):
live the Christian lifesuccessfully.
Does that mean you never fail?
No, it doesn't mean you neverfail.
The Lord, jesus Christ, neverfailed, but he is the test pilot
and he shows us how it can bedone effectively, how we can
live the Christian life.
The second implication that wedidn't spend any much time on at
all is the Creator can nevermeet us more fully than in the
person of Jesus Christ.
The Creator can never meet usmore fully than in the person of

(05:04):
Jesus Christ.
The Creator can never meet usmore fully than in the person of
Jesus Christ.
Here's an implication of thatstatement.
Can I learn more about God theCreator through studying Islam?
Can I learn more about theCreator by studying Mormonism,

(05:27):
smith and all that?
So the the answer would be wewill know.
I mean, obviously, if thefullest way we can meet our
creator is through jesus christ,then we meet god the creator
through him.
He is the avenue and he is theonly place to go.
So John 1, verse 18.
Let's look at that the Gospelof John, chapter 1, verse 18.

(05:49):
Almost every verse in chapter 1is a great verse.
So memorize verses 1 through 18and have that ready for us next
week.
You will stand up here and giveus a reading from memory of the
first 18 verses.
No, it wouldn't be a bad idea,though.
Right?
John 1.18,.

(06:10):
No one has seen God at any time,the only begotten God who is in
the bosom of the Father.
He has explained Him.
Exegeoma, from which we getexegeted Him.
That's the word for exegesis,which is what you're supposed to
do.
It's the application of yourhermeneutic, your interpretive

(06:34):
method, how you interpret, andit means to draw out.
So you use your interpretivemethod to draw out what is in
the text in the Bible.
So what is this saying about whoJesus Christ is.
It's saying he drew out who Godis.
He showed us exactly who God is, and that's the second point.
Right, the creator of God cannever more fully meet us than in
the person of Jesus Christ.

(06:54):
Why?
Well, because he drew out whohe is.
Let's go over to John, chapter14, verses 9 through 11.
I mean, you don't need any togo to anybody else no religious
gurus, no other founders ofother religions to know more
about the creator.
You only need to go to JesusChrist because he is the.

(07:17):
He drew out exactly who God is.
14, 9 through 11, verse 9.
Jesus said to him that is, toPhilip.
Well, let's look at Philip'squestion, or statement in verse
8.
Philip said to him Lord, showus the Father, and it's enough
for us.
You know that'll be it, we'llbe satisfied.
Jesus said to him have I beenso long with you and yet you

(07:41):
have not come to know me, philip, he who has seen me has seen
the Father.
How can you say show us theFather?
Do you not believe that I am inthe Father and the Father is in
me?
The words that I say to you?
I do not speak on my owninitiative, but the Father,
abiding me does his works.
Believe me that I am in theFather and the Father is in me.

(08:02):
Otherwise, believe because ofthe works themselves.
In other words, what Secondpoint right?
Who were you meeting when youmet Christ?
If you knew Christ, you knewthe Creator, because he is the
fullest expression of who God is.
And therefore, all these otherreligions and religious gurus,

(08:23):
they cannot get you any closerto God.
Hebrews, chapter 1,.
Let's turn there.
Hebrews, chapter 1, verses 1through 4.
Verses 1 through 4.
Speaking of God's revelation ofhimself to us.

(08:46):
In these introductory verses itsays God after he spoke long
ago to the fathers and theprophets, in many portions and
in many ways, so that would bethe Old Testament period.
Right Through visions, throughdreams, through just direct
revelation, he spoke to them.
Verse 2,.

(09:06):
But in these last days,speaking of the days when the
Messiah came, he has spoken tous in His Son, whom he appointed
heir of all things, throughwhom also he made the world, and
he is the radiance of His glory.
He is the exact representationof His nature and he upholds all
things by the word of his power.
Look at those words at thebeginning of verse 3.

(09:28):
He is the radiance of God'sglory.
He is the exact representationof God's nature or essence.
Right?
You cannot meet the creator anymore fully than you meet him in
the person of Jesus Christ,because he is the creator and
the creature in one person,without confusion or separation,

(09:51):
forever.
All right, let's go to thethird point.
Okay, that should keep us awayfrom false religions and
thinking we can gain somethingby going to those.
Third point is history haseternal importance.
What do we mean by this?
Remember I said there's someviews like extreme Calvinism and

(10:13):
ascetic views that almost viewhistory itself as like an
illusion, that it's not reallyreal, that the real is somehow
the beyond, that it's not reallyreal, that the real is somehow
the beyond, and so understandingthat history has ramifications
that will go on forever, intoeternity, is important.

(10:33):
I mean, history is important.
That's what this point isstating.
John 20, 27.
Let's look at John 20, 27.
So back to the Gospel of John.
This is the scene with Thomas,and he had not yet seen the
resurrected Christ.
We've looked at this verseactually a lot of times the last

(10:55):
several weeks John 20, 26 and27.
After eight days, his discipleswere again inside, inside a
house, right, and Thomas waswith them this time.
And Jesus came, the doorshaving been shut, and he stood

(11:16):
in their midst and he said peacebe with you.
Then he said to Thomas reachhere with your finger and see my
hands, and reach here your handand put it in my side and do
not be unbelieving, butbelieving.
How does this passage relate tohistory having eternal
importance?
Well, what body is Jesus inwhen he stood there in the house

(11:40):
?
He's in his resurrection body.
So is he still in the sameresurrection body right now?
Yes, is he going to have thisresurrection body when he comes
for us at the rapture?
Is he going to have thisresurrection body at the second
coming of Christ, when he comesto earth to rule and reign for a
thousand years?
Yes, he's going to have thesame exact body that was there

(12:01):
and Thomas reached and touchedand saw body that was there, and
Thomas reached and touched andsaw.
Now this body is derived fromthis history, right, in that the
resurrection is atransformation.
I mean, his body was laid inthe tomb, his mortal body was
crucified.
It was laid in the tomb, butthen it wasn't there.
On the third day, right, it wasrisen, meaning that body was

(12:25):
transformed into a resurrectionbody.
So it was the body that was inhistory.
It was now transformed into animmortal condition that is a
part of the world to come.
Will it be there in the newheaven and new earth?
Revelation 21 and 22.
Same body Not going to change.
Are the scars going to go away?
Where were those scarsinflicted In time in history?

(12:49):
Or in eternity?
In time in history, and theyare carried into eternity.
Look at Revelation chapter 5.
We're pointing out theimportance of history and
hopefully this will make yourealize that your life is
important in history.
That's where we're going withthis.
Your life is important inhistory.

(13:09):
What you do in history carriesover in some way into eternity.
Revelation chapter 5 and verse6, this is where you've got the
scroll, the seven-sealed scroll,and nobody can open it right.
And then someone steps forward.
Who can?
And we notice in verse 6, I saw, between the throne with the

(13:33):
four living creatures and theelders, a lamb standing as if
slain.
Standing as if what Slain?
Now it's standing, so it'salive, but it looks like it's
Slain.
Not standing, so it's alive,but it looks like it's been
slain right.
In other words, it bears scars.

(13:54):
Scars from when?
From the crucifixion Again,when did the crucifixion take
place?
In time in history or ineternity?
It took place in time inhistory, and yet here he is
standing and John sees him, andhe looks like a lamb, as if
slain, you know, having carriedthose wounds from history into
this eternity.

(14:14):
So history is important.
Now let's look at our own lives.
2 Corinthians 5, verse 10.
Is there anything in theChristian life that relates to
this idea that our lives arereally important in history?
What we do with them, how wespend our time, what we do with
our time, what we do with ourlives, is that important?
2 Corinthians 5, verse 10.

(14:43):
Paul says For we must all appearbefore the judgment seat of
Christ.
We call this the Bema, right?
It's a Greek word that meansyou go to a judgment seat.
It was used in the ancientworld for Olympic games or
competitions, when thecompetitors would have a race or
whatever their event was, andthen they would go and they

(15:03):
would stand before the Bema,where the judges were the judges
for the contest, and they wouldthen award those who won their
events.
Right, this is the type ofthing that we will stand at,
viewing the Christian life aslike a race that we are running
and Paul says elsewhere you runso as to win right.

(15:25):
Win what Win prizes?
He's talking about rewards.
So let's read on.
So we must all appear beforethe judgment seat of Christ you,
me, all of us who are believersin Christ.
Why?
So that each one of us may berecompensed for his deeds in the
body according to what he hasdone, whether good or bad.
In other words, then there'sgoing to does what we do in

(15:46):
history?
Does it have any effect oneternity?
Yeah, because what you do inthis life is going to be
evaluated at the judgment seatof Christ, and rewards will then
be given out or not given out,depending on how we lived our

(16:09):
Christian lives.
So again, is your lifeimportant?
Is history important?
Yes, it is important.
Some people say, well, the onlything that's important in life
is believing in Jesus Christ.
I believe that is the numberone thing that is of greatest
importance that a person believewho Jesus Christ is and what he
did for them on the cross, andthe sole condition for enjoying

(16:30):
eternal life is just believeright, just believe in him.
That's not everything, though.
Once you become a Christianright, the second biggest thing
in life is how you live theChristian life, because once
you've believed in Christ,eternity is set.
You have everlasting life.
Nothing can separate us fromthe love of Christ.

(16:50):
But the issue becomes how do welive the Christian life?
Because there's also going tobe an evaluation, an abayment, a
judgment seat, and rewards willbe given out, and those rewards
are for eternity.
Jesus said it this way out.
And those rewards are foreternity.
Jesus said it this way store uptreasure in heaven, right when
moth and rust don't decay, right.

(17:10):
So that's talking about whatyou do now in history having
eternal ramifications.
So that's an implication of thehypostatic union, because it
all starts with Christ.
You really get to realize thatwhat he does in time, in history
affects eternity and isreflected even in his
resurrection body.
So your lives are important too.
And you know Paul says inEphesians 5, 15,.

(17:34):
He says making the most of yourtime for the days are evil,
making the most of your timebecause the days are evil.
Or the most of your timebecause the days are evil.
Or the Greek says buy up thetime.
In other words, don't wastetime Because you're only here
for a short period of timerelative to eternity.

(17:56):
I mean, all of us will lookback and our lives will be just
like a vapor, and yet, of course, that's all we know.
So we make mountains out ofmolehills right here.
I do, I do it all the time, butreally it's just a vapor.
This life is so short, buteternity is forever.
So what does Jesus say?

(18:17):
Store up for yourself treasurewhere In heaven.
Why?
So time is going to affecteternity.
What you do in time is, in fact, very important.
That's what he's saying andthat's why he says in Ephesians
buy up the time, make use of it.
Okay.
And lastly and this will help ustransition into the Trinity the
last implication of thehypostatic union is that the

(18:39):
basic categories of humanthought are derived from the
hypostatic union.
I said a lot in one sentence.
It's probably not totallyunderstood.
So let's turn to Colossians,and I want to start to develop
something that will relate toapologetics, and I guess the new

(19:04):
understanding of theimplications of the Trinity will
develop out of this that we'reseeing in the 20th century, the
early 20th century.
So I want to talk about that,but I want to start with
Colossians 2.8, because thisverse is critical.
Colossians 2, especially verses8, and following Paul, is
addressing four things atColossae, four false theologies.

(19:29):
The first one is gettingenamored with human philosophy,
the second is legalism, thethird is licentiousness and the
last is mysticism.
And he's saying humanphilosophy, legalism,
licentiousness and mysticism,these are not anything that are
going to get you closer to Godthrough Christ.
They're not a part of thespiritual life, the Christian

(19:52):
life.
The first one he talks about isphilosophy.
And so let's look at verse 8and notice what he 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

(20:15):
to Christ.
Now you see two accordings.
Maybe you see two accordings inthat verse.
Well, actually three.
According to the tradition ofmen, according to the elementary
principles of the world, ratherthan according to Christ.
That's kata with accusativeevery time.
It means according to thetradition of men, according to
the elementary principles of theworld, rather than according to
christ.
That's kata with accusativeevery time.
It means according to somestandard.
And he's warning us make sureno one takes you captive.
I mean anybody here been like acaptive and like a pow in war.

(20:36):
You don't want to be takencaptive.
That's the imagery.
Okay, what could you be takencaptive to?
Well, philosophy, humanphilosophy, empty deception,
things that are according to thetradition of men, according to
the elementary principles of theworld.
I want to talk about thiselementary principles of the
world a little bit and thencontrast this with taking things

(20:57):
captive to christ.
Okay, elementary principles isa greek word, stoikia.
Stoikia.
You see it under point one here.
The Greeks said the stoikiawere the fundamental building
blocks of knowledge.
In other words, you had to havethese in place and from these
things you could build knowledge, you could build wisdom, a

(21:21):
philosophical system.
These fundamentals in theancient world, these building
blocks earth, fire, water andair.
And everybody goes.
Well, that's so ancient, youknow, yeah, that's old, you know
.
Like nobody thinks that anymore, except they do.

(21:41):
Because look at the modern.
What modern scientists say arethe basic, fundamental
categories upon which we buildknowledge.
Well, there's solid, whichcorresponds to earth, energy,
which corresponds to fire,liquid, which corresponds to
water, and gas, whichcorresponds to earth, energy
which corresponds to fire,liquid, which corresponds to
water, and gas, whichcorresponds to air.
In other words, have we reallyadvanced that far in the last

(22:06):
2,500 years of human knowledgeand thinking, or I should say,
humanistic knowledge andthinking.
There really hasn't been achange in the basic categories
that modern scientists areutilizing.
They'll say well, we've gotatoms, we've got energy, we've
got spontaneous generation andevolution by chance, random

(22:27):
processes.
That gives rise to everythingthat we see today, and this is
what we know.
This is our knowledge of theworld.
Notice how everything startswith these basic building blocks
Solid energy, liquid and gas.
From there we use so-calledscientific laws to develop

(22:50):
theories about things thatexplain how the world came to be
as it is.
In other words, your startingpoint this is what I'm trying to
get to your starting pointdetermines your conclusion, your
end point.
This is why starting points arevery important.
This is why Paul is saying in2.8, don't be taken captive by
the starting points of theGreeks and their philosophy,

(23:13):
because if you start there, theconclusion is already made for
you.
And, by the way, evolution inits modern sense, with Darwin
who was giving a mechanism forevolution, is not new.
Empedocles taught this in theancient world, before the time
of Christ.
You can see forms of it inEgyptian philosophy and their

(23:38):
art and all their stuff.
So even Satan said I will becomeas God, which means to
transgress a boundary, to becomesomething you are not, in other
words, to evolve.
I will set my throne above histhrone.
I will become okay as God.

(23:58):
So there was this concept.
I believe it's obviouslysatanic in origin that you could
become something that you arenot.
But at any rate, the basicbuilding blocks of knowledge
among the Greeks and how theywould formulate their
philosophical systems was tobuild them on the stoichia and
Paul's saying don't do that,don't be taken captive by that.

(24:18):
It did take me captive when Iwent to the university, at Texas
Tech.
I mean, I was enamored by allthis and we could have all this
knowledge and understanding tothe point I wanted to go and
teach it to other people andexplain these things to them.
But if I'd known this verse andI'd been paying attention to
the Lord, I would realize I wasbeing taken captive.
All this was just emptydeception.

(24:40):
It was just traditions of menand held by even the Greeks.
So rather than that, he says betaken captive or take things
captive according to Christ.
Now the point here, right A, isthat the basic categories of
thought should be set upaccording to Christ.

(25:01):
Well, who's Christ inhypostatic union?
He's the creator and he's thecreature.
Right the creator-creaturedistinction, which is the first
thing you learn in the Bible.
In the beginning, god, and thenhe created.
So you've got God, he's thecreator, and then everything
else that he's created, thecreation.

(25:22):
So the creator, creaturedistinction is always there,
right?
Who is Jesus Christ?
He's the creator and thecreature in one person.
Is that what Paul means here?
Yes, look at the next verse 2.9.
Why?
Because in him, that is, inChrist, all the fullness of

(25:43):
deity dwells in bodily form.
You see the creator and thecreature in verse 9?
All the fullness of deity,that's the creator.
Bodily form, that's thecreature.
What is this saying?
This is saying that the basiccategories for human thinking
always have to start with thecreator-creature distinction,

(26:05):
the most fundamental distinctionin the entire Bible.
It is there from verse 1, andit is forever there, to the end
of the entire Bible and it nevergoes away.
And it's saying this is whereyou start in your thinking.
You start with the creator andthe creature in one person.

(26:26):
That is Christ, and that iswhat controls your thinking and
your outlook and everythingabout the way you reason okay
and develop what I would call aChristian philosophy, a
Christian way of thinking.
Why do we have to have Christianphilosophy.
We have to have it because it'sthe way we interact with people
in the world.
Okay, so this isn't a lectureon Christian philosophy versus

(26:51):
pagan philosophy, but there issuch a thing as Christian
philosophy, but it's controlledby theology.
If put in an analogy, it couldbe put this way If the hand is
theology, the glove isphilosophy.
So philosophy is not somethingindependent of theology.
It is, in fact, simply anexpression of what is already

(27:14):
there theologically and it formsto it like a glove.
So yes, we have to, and you do.
Whether you think, youphilosophize or not.
You have philosophies and waysof thinking.
You don't even know, perhaps,but you use reasoning.
He's saying the starting pointfor that reasoning is to take
every thought captive to JesusChrist.
Okay, we could go to 2Corinthians, 10, 3 through 5,

(27:38):
show another passage showsessentially the same thing.
But the point is the scripturesare saying look out, christians
, do not be taken captive by thestoichia of the world.
And that can happen to anyChristian.
They can start going down thispath in middle school and high

(27:59):
school and into college, andthey get into what I just today
call scientism.
You know and they think scienceis knowledge and this is how
you know.
I mean it's Latin rightScientia, which means knowledge.
So, which means knowledge.
So, and it is very alluringMost science today actually I

(28:23):
don't want to get on a rant, butmost science today is
politicized science.
By that I mean a lot of things,but primarily that there are
agendas by political people thatare designed to fund and grant

(28:43):
research of scientists who willsupport the political agenda.
And if you're not on that pagewith whatever the governing
authorities, the politicians,want, then suddenly your grant
money dries up and then youcan't finish your research and
you can't get everything youwant as a professor and all that

(29:06):
kind of stuff.
So most science today ispoliticized science.
We saw this a lot with.
You know, anthropogenic globalwarming, so-called climate
change, all that stuff.
You know, 25, 20, 25 years ago,this became very obvious that
what was going on waspoliticized science.
Just select the people thatwill actually present data from

(29:28):
scientists to give itcredibility that this is
actually taking place and weneed to therefore become a third
world country so we don'tdestroy the ozone layer.
Okay, whatever, you go back tothe 1400s.
Now, third point, under thedanger of setting up false
categories of thinking, thestarting point take every

(29:51):
thought captive to christ.
Christ is the creator and thecreature in one person.
That's hypostatic union.
So this is fundamental to rightthinking.
You don't see it yet, that'sokay, we're going to get there.
The image of God is the setupfor all this.
What do I mean by that?
The image of God is, you know,only one creature in the entire

(30:11):
universe is made in the image ofGod, and it's not angels, it's
not animals, it's you, it's you.
Now I understand thattheologically, a lot of people
say well, it's a spiritualaspect of man is made in the
image of God, because Goddoesn't have a body.

(30:32):
So our physical bodies areunrelated to the image of God.
This is essentially the way theargument's gone.
And if you think it is, thenmaybe you're a Mormon or
something, because in Mormonism,of course, god is a physical
being.
Now, that's not.
I'm going to say that the humanbody, the human form, is not
just an afterthought, but thatit is actually made in the image

(30:53):
of God.
But what I mean by that is thisIf God were to incarnate
himself, it would be in thehuman form.
In other words, when Godcreated Adam, who did he have in
mind?
Jesus Christ.
That is why our form has,upright standing, two arms, two

(31:19):
legs, opposable thumbs, eyes,nose, ears what we have.
And then when we read the Bibleright and we see God saying
things like at the Exodus mymighty arm delivered you.
Or with an outstretched arm, wedon't say, well, that means God

(31:41):
has an arm, he has a physicalarm up there.
No, but we know, theoutstretched arm is what we use
to deliver with.
It's a powerful instrument.
And so we make a connectionbetween the physical appendage
that we have, right, andsomething in God, his power.

(32:02):
And if we didn't have thatconnection, we wouldn't know
what it was talking about.
If we didn't have anoutstretched arm, you know what
would that mean?
You couldn't know anythingabout God.
So we are constructed in hisimage to reveal, even in our
physical selves, who he is, andeverything that we have is that

(32:23):
way.
When the scriptures say that Godlooked down and he saw what man
was doing, you know eyeballs,right.
If we didn't have eyeballs,what would that mean?
That sentence wouldn't meananything to us because we would
have no contact point with sight.
But it does convey something tous about God.

(32:43):
It means that God is interestedin what's going on in the
creation and he's observing itwithout physical eyes, of course
.
So this is a setup for all this.
Now here's what happened theLord Jesus Christ comes into the
world.
He's material and immaterial.
He a.
He has a true human body.
He's got a true human spirit.
He's a, he's a human soul,right?

(33:04):
So you've got material andimmaterial in one person.
I mean, just like you, right,you're material and immaterial
in one person.
The greeks could get thistogether.
That's why almost all Greekphilosophy, well, it's always
dualistic.
You've got to keep materialaway from immaterial.

(33:25):
You can never get thesetogether.
Okay, in Greek thought, becausethey basically said that if
anything's material, it'sinherently evil, intrinsically
evil, and the spirit, that'stotally good.
So they said evil,intrinsically evil, and the
Spirit, that's totally good.
So they said you can never getthese together.
It was a dualism.
But didn't you have JesusChrist?
Material and immaterialtogether, and it wasn't

(33:49):
intrinsically evil, but he wasin fact intrinsically good, good
in both body and spirit andsoul.
So this sets some things up forgetting past moving past greek
thinking and all this dualistictype terms and allowing us to
see material and immaterial cancome together, okay.

(34:13):
So this is important.
Now, trinity okay, we're goingto look at a lot of verses next
week in the Old Testament.
You're going to be shocked athow much of the Trinity is in
the Old Testament, because mostpeople say, well, I mean the Old
Testament, it prepares us forTrinity, but there's very little
about the Trinity and the NewTestament develops and explores
it.
But I'm going to show you a lotof passages that will affect

(34:34):
the Trinity.
So today, what we're going todo from right now for the next
few minutes, is start to preparefor the Trinity by asking the
right types of questions.
What do I mean the right typesof questions?
Questions that matter, bigquestions Like issues that
basically affect the entireworld and whether you're a
believer or not.
Okay, so the Trinity is a hugedoctrine.

(34:57):
It's obviously heavyweightmaterial, and so let's just
start to jump in.
Okay, the Trinity is criticizedtypically as being a logical
contradiction by unbelievers.
They'll say you Christians,don't you realize that you have
a contradiction at the veryheart of your system, of your
faith?
I mean, god is one and God isthree.

(35:18):
How could you not be morecontradictory than that?
One does not equal three.
So you are at the very heart ofyour system is a logical
contradiction.
Now, so what unbelievers do tomake this objection or this
criticism is they start withtheir logic machine, right?
And then what they do is theysubject God to the logic machine

(35:38):
, right?
And then what they do is theysubject God to the logic machine
, right?
In other words, they put Godunder human logic and evaluate
him.
Actually, it's exactly thereverse.
Okay, what I'm trying to showyou through this portion is that
the logic machine doesn't existwithout the Trinity, that the

(36:00):
Trinity is the basis for thefact that we have logic machines
.
The only way we have theability to think logically and
use language is if there isTrinity, and this goes for
everybody, because everybody ismade in whose image, god,
whether you're a believer or anunbeliever.

(36:21):
So let me start to try todevelop this in what is known as
the problem of the one and themany.
Now, you may never heard thisproblem, but it is the most
important philosophical problemthat ever will be discussed,
because it's never been resolvedby anyone who's not a Christian
.
Let me explain what itbasically means and then talk

(36:44):
about a few of these individualsI have up here on the screen
from the 20th century.
The problem of the one in themany basically deals with this
problem Unity and diversity ofthings.
Which is more important?
The group as a whole or theindividuals that make up a group
?
Quick basic question Family.

(37:09):
How many of you in here does nothave a family?
I mean, basically, you all cameout of a family.
You're an individual in afamily.
Which is more important?
The family or you as anindividual in the family?
Which gets priority, which getsemphasis?
We've all faced this.
Sometimes you as an individualhad to sacrifice for the sake of

(37:31):
the family and sometimes thefamily had to sacrifice for the
sake of you as an individual.
This is where we struggle withthis.
But I'm going to show you.
It's not just family, it's inpolitics, it's in nations.

(37:59):
I always one is global, themany are the nations that are on
the globe.
We see this in politics,between well, I'll talk about
all this in a minute.
I'm just trying to framebasically what the problem is as
far as the way that people areinteracting with issues in their

(38:21):
world.
Their marriage, the two shallbecome one flesh.
Does that mean that allindividuality is erased and the
two individuals who havedifferences among them are lost
for the sake of the unity of themarriage.
Okay, everybody's involved inthis problem, because I just got

(38:44):
you all involved.
Okay, now it wasn't realized.
Now I'm going to tell you alittle story about what's on the
board here corneas van till andprinceton and westminster
theological seminary.
Corneas van till probably notwell known, but he was a student
at princeton.
Princeton, of course, wasoriginally founded as a
theological seminary and whathappened in the early 1900s was,

(39:09):
you know, liberalism.
Liberal Christianity was movingin, it was making its mark on
the major schools like Princeton, and there was a divide among
the faculty at Princeton andbasically it split and some of
the guys that were there wentand formed Westminster

(39:30):
Theological Seminary.
Now they'd been dialoguing infaculty for years and years over
these issues.
Between you know liberalChristianity, which is using
logic and language to undermineChristian theology and those who
are standing by thefundamentals of the faith.

(39:52):
So it's really thefundamentalists versus the
liberals at Princeton and otherinstitutions.
J Gresham Machen was basicallylike the voice of the day, who
held on to the fundamentals ofthe faith.
You know the virgin birth, youknow Trinity, you know deity of
Christ, you know like basicthings, whereas the liberals
were denying all these things.

(40:13):
Right, and he wrote for thefundamentalist cause.
Cornelius Van Til was one whocame out of this and he left
Princeton.
He went to become a faculty atWestminster Theological Seminary
.
Now, who was this guy?
Well, basically, he's kind oflike he never wrote anything
popular, so most people arenever going to pick up his book.

(40:33):
He basically lectured right inseminary and later people said
this is such valuable, they tookhis curricula and they
published him in book and it'slike reading through sludge.
I mean it's thick.
It's the thickest reading I'veever done.
I read them a long time ago.

(40:55):
Van Til was concerned about whathappened, like why did the
liberals win?
How did the liberals beat us?
I mean, we were thefundamentalists, we were
standing on the scriptures.
How did they beat us?
Well, what?
We were the fundamentalists, wewere standing on the Scriptures
.
How did they beat us?
Well, what he found out was wereally weren't standing on the
Scriptures.
We were borrowing from paganismand trying to fight them on
their own ground.
And he found out this was amistake.
He realized that and hedeveloped what's called

(41:22):
presuppositional apologetics.
I'm not into everything aboutpresuppositional apologetics,
but here's what he found.
And, by the way, this guy wassomebody.
This guy was a serious, goodguy.
He was a Dutch guy.
He came to America.
He basically wanted to be afarmer, but he was super
brilliant and he got intotheology and all this.
Okay, he hung out with peoplelike J Gresham Machen, who

(41:45):
basically led thefundamentalists against the
liberal war for two decades.
He hung out with Robert DickWilson.
I don't know if you've everheard of this guy, but this guy
knew over 25 languages and heknew every Semitic language on
the earth.
So this guy is no slouch.
And these are the people thatCornelius Van Til hung out with.

(42:08):
Okay, I'm just saying he's nota slouch.
He did his dissertation onImmanuel Kant, who you know is
probably the most influentialphilosopher in our entire world
to this day okay, followingPlato, I mean modern philosopher
and this work that he did wasused by the professor of
philosophy at Princeton to writethe standard text work on

(42:31):
Immanuel Kant.
So this guy is super brilliant,even though he wanted to be a
farmer.
That can happen, right, thatcan happen.
Van Til pointed out that in hisstudy of the philosophy of the
world all through history isthat the problem of the one and
the many was the most basicphilosophical problem that has

(42:51):
ever been faced, and he'spointing out that everybody
faces this problem.
Nations face this.
I gave examples a moment ago.
I'm going to give more examplesand explain.
Politicians face this,accountants face this.
Accountants face this, spousesface this, children face this.
And his point was there was arenewed understanding of the

(43:12):
importance of the Trinity.
That the Trinity was alreadythere.
I mean, it was understood bythe fifth century.
It was written, it wasarticulated God in three persons
, blessed Trinity, Great, great,great.
And we believe that.
But what difference does itmake?
That's what he found.
He found out what thesignificance of it was and why

(43:35):
this is such an importantdoctrine.
Okay, so let's state the problemagain, and then I'm going to
give some examples.
The statement first of all,which is more important, right,
you've got the one, that's thegroup, and then you've got the
many, that's an individual or aparticular.

(43:57):
Let's use some examples Nationthe world is heading toward one
world government.
Right, they want to do awaywith individual national
sovereignty in favor of oneworld government.
So, which is being emphasizedin that example?
Right, the one world government.

(44:20):
The nations will be sacrificed.
Individual nations will besacrificed for the one world
government.
The nations will be sacrificed.
Individual nations will besacrificed for the one world
government which will takepriority.
Does the Bible have anything tosay about this?
I mean, is there a story in theBible about this?
Yeah, we know that the world isheading toward a one world

(44:42):
government, one world religion,one world economy and by default
, then it's moving away from themany, the concept that we need
individual nations to maintaintheir distinctness and function
under their own rules of law.
Right, we're rejecting that.
But these are the two ways youcan swing right that, but these

(45:04):
are the two ways you can swingright.
You can swing toward aone-world government in which a
nation's rights will be givenover to elitists, either
monarchy one elitist or anoligarchy, a few elitists who
rule the world with their set oflaws.
I'm sure you've seen about this,or, oh, what's the end of that?
What's the end of that?
If that's the presuppositionand we're going to emphasize the

(45:26):
one over the many, where isthat going to end?
It's going to end at absolutetotalitarianism.
That's the end of that andthat's what the Bible says.
Actually, that's the way theworld's going to go.
They're dealing with theproblem of the one and the many
and they're going to choose infavor of the one and they're
going to sacrifice the manynations and get rid of them.
So the other option is to alloweach nation to govern themselves

(45:50):
autonomously, more like it isnow but let's go back a couple
hundred years and it would beeven more representative right
and where we have nations,separate nations, and they war
against one another as they viefor supremacy in the world, and
the end of that is anarchy.

(46:11):
The end of that is anarchy andpeople struggle over these, they
have a tension over which waywe should go, because we do
realize, right, there basicallyhas not been a year where there
wasn't war since Daniel wrotehis book.
I did a research on that onetime.
I was like I don't think thereis any years when there was not

(46:33):
war going on somewhere in theworld for the last 2,600 years.
So you know, I think people aretired of that right in the
world right now and they'rethinking well, maybe if we all
just come together and we get anelite oligarchy or an elite
ruler, then all the world's warswill go away.
That's the reasoning processthat is taking place.

(46:56):
Of course, you have to give upall your rights as an
independent nation to be a partof this.
So that's an example.
Politics, politics.
This is similar but a littledifferent.
Here we have the state versusthe individual.
Is it better to have a unifiedsociety where we sacrifice
individual rights to the stateand the state decides what is

(47:19):
right and wrong, or that's anall-powerful state right?
Or is it better to giveeverybody their individual
rights and sacrifice the unityin society so everyone kind of
breaks up in their own littlegangs and clubs and races and so
forth and fights one another,fights for their rights?
What happened?

(47:43):
Here's the example.
What happened?
Here's the example.
What happened with covid, notjust in america, but all over in
other nations of the world,which was an attempt toward
global unity, uh, and globalism.
But what happened?
Well, we were basically toldyou needed to take this shot.
You need to stay at home, youneed to to socially distance.

(48:03):
In other words, you need toforfeit your individual rights.
Let's just put it that way youneed to forfeit your individual
rights.
For the sake of what?
For the sake of one, for thesake of society, for the sake of
the state.
Why should we do it?
Because the government tells usto do it.
Sacrifice your individualrights and we will give you

(48:24):
security, and a lot of peopledidn't like that and they said
well, I don't want to take theshot and I don't want to stay
home and I don't want to stayfour feet away, six feet away
from whoever you know.
I want to just be able tofunction here Instead of, like
I'm always, like, tiptoeingaround everybody.
The lines are six miles longnow because I've got to be six

(48:46):
feet apart from everybody.
See how this is a problem.
See how that decision was madein favor, once again, of which
One or the many?
Did individuals favor theirrights or the one, the society
as a whole?
Society as a whole and peoplewho tried to stand up for their
freedoms lost their jobs.

(49:06):
And now these companies don'thave good people to do those
jobs and so they can't keep upwith the supply chains.
And here we are right Supplyand demand Price is doing what
Soaring, inflation doing whatSoaring.
Okay, this is too hard to seethat at the root of this issue
was a determination that we aregoing to lean toward an answer

(49:31):
for the one rather than the many.
I read some of the SupremeCourt cases that came out of
this.
One of the judges actuallyappealed to a case from, I
believe the late 40s, where anindividual was deprived of her
rights and the courts later cameback and realized you know, we
shouldn't have done that and hecited that in reference to cases

(49:54):
that were going on during COVIDthat what we're doing is
running roughshod overindividuals' rights and all that
does is move us toward thestate being more totalitarian,
doesn't it Controlling everyaspect of our lives?
So, yes, the one in the many isa problem right here in

(50:16):
politics.
How about in marriage?
Should we emphasize the unityof the marriage of two
individuals?
If you do, then each individualin the marriage loses their
individuality, their ownpersonal expressions.
They all get wrapped up in theconcept of the marriage.
Now, that would be an emphasison the one, the marriage being

(50:40):
taken priority over theindividuals in the marriage.
But the other side of it wouldbe emphasizing the individual's
rights in the marriage.
And that goes.
If you do that, the end of thatis divorce, because you've got
two individuals.
They're viewing themselves ashaving their own specific rights
, and if this person infringeson my rights, then I'll just
divorce you.

(51:01):
Which way has society tended onthis Individual?
They've gone individual.
In fact, the whole legal systemis set up around individual
rights, not around maritalrights.
Okay, so the whole legal systemis built on this.
It's an answer of the problemof the one of many in the favor
of the many.

(51:21):
Here's the problem.
See, I'm just starting to touchon the problem.
Okay, they can't get thebalance.
They're always swinging fromone side to the other side on
these issues and they can neverstrike the balance.
And I think what Christianityand the Trinity is doing is
giving us an answer for thebalance.

(51:43):
I'm not ready to dump all thison you yet, but think about it.
Which is more important in theTrinity, the oneness of God or
the threeness of God?
You don't have to answer.
If you want to, if you want toblurt it out, go for it.
It's fine, you'll probably getthe answer right.
What is the answer?

(52:03):
Which is more important, theoneness of God or the threeness
of God?
Both they're equally important.
In other words, balance isstruck in the problem of the one
of the many, in God himself, inTrinity.
And then the Bible comes alongand says in marriage, the two
shall become one flesh.
So which has priority, theindividual in the marriage or

(52:25):
the marriage?
Both.
You can't sacrifice themarriage just for individual
rights, and you can't sacrificethe individual rights just for
the marriage.
You have to find the balance,you have to strike the balance.
God has struck the balance.
He showed us what the balanceis and now he says okay, I'm
making you like me in my image,I put two together in one flesh.
Now you have to find, strikethe balance.

(52:46):
It can't all be about you oryou whichever spouse.
It also can't be just about themarriage, because you also have
individual expression in themarriage.
So you have to find the balanceand I've given you the model
one and three Family.
Here's another one Family whichis more important?
The family or the individual inthe family?
Well, this has already beendecided in our country too, in

(53:08):
the legal system, in favor ofthe individual and against the
family.
You can say thanks to Karl Marxfor that, because that's how it
came into our country in the40s.
Remember the McCarthy days andall that stuff.
Communism was coming in,bringing what ideas?
Marxist Leninism, that's whatthey were bringing in.
And they came up with thisthing called inheritance taxes,

(53:31):
which Karl Marx invented.
So when your parents die, yourkids are left behind.
You're going to inherit whatyour mom and dad give you right,
wrong, because you're going tohave to pay so many taxes.
You may not be able to dealwith it.
You may have to just sell itoff Whatever it is, get rid of
it somehow.
Can't deal with it Because thegovernment's got to have their

(53:53):
little hand in that Inheritancetaxes.
So the emphasis here is on howto destroy the family.
That's what Marxism was tryingto do.
Try to destroy the family.
That's what Marxism was tryingto do.
Try to destroy the family.
So it was an overemphasis onwhich one, overemphasis on the
many.
They swung toward that side andsacrificed the one, sacrificed

(54:17):
the family.
Biblically balance, right,biblical balance Filing.
I'll use this as the lastexample.
I'm just setting you up forTrinity and the glories of
Trinity and this is all we cando today.
Why do you need a filing system?
Let's say I walk in your houseor you walk in my house, you see
on the table there's all thesepapers everywhere.
Now, because the mail came in,I hadn't been there for four

(54:38):
days or I hadn't looked at it infour days Pieces of paper
everywhere.
Okay, I got homeschool peopleand their work, I got artwork.
I got all this stuff going onin the house, right?
I mean, you look at that andyou say this is chaos.
We got to do something.
And we got to do somethingabout this.
Everybody goes through this.
Okay, you look at your computer.
You're like I can't find myfiles.

(54:58):
So what do you say?
I got to get a filing systemright.
So what do you start doing?
You start separating thesepieces of paper right into what
Categories?
Right, files that are.
They're all categories.
They're going to be labeled.
Right, this is going to bebeautiful.
You're going to go get your newlabel maker.
You can put some label.

(55:18):
It's going to be a greatSaturday.
And then you know why are youdoing this?
You're doing this so you canthink right, so that everything
has a place, you can thinkthrough it all.
Okay, you're putting a label onthere and then, six months
later, you've got another pilethat is building up over here

(55:39):
and you're like where am I goingto put that stuff?
Because you don't really knowwhere it goes, right.
And so what do you have to doto your filing system and your
category?
You have to change them.
What are you doing?
As you do this, you're tryingto make sense of everything.

(55:59):
That's what you're trying to do, and we all do this.
And if you've ever seen a badfiling system and I've seen some
bad ones done by people thatwere like mathematicians and
everything was just numbers andI'm like that doesn't tell me
anything about what's in therebut if you've ever seen a bad
filing system, you know howimportant it is to have a good
filing system.

(56:21):
Now, in these filing systems,there has to be an emphasis on
the one, because there's got tobe something that holds this
whole thing together and showsyou kind of the big picture of
everything that's there.
But there also has to be themany different file folders and
subcategories, categories andsubcategories right, because
that's the only way you canpreserve the details.

(56:42):
So you've got to have the bigpicture and you've also got to
have the details, and they'veall got to have the big picture
and you've also got to have thedetails and they've all got to
be kept together here.
This is the issue we're alltrying to deal with, okay, and
we're trying to strike a balancebetween the one, the broad
picture, and the many, all thedetails.
And again, there's no people inno place in any time of history
ever who are not strugglingwith this in any time of history

(57:03):
ever who are not strugglingwith this.
Now, that is what leads us tohow we solve it, but I'm not
going to leave you hanging onthis point.
You have to have language andyou have to have logic to do

(57:23):
this.
The filing system is a reallygood example.
Logic and language are linked,because logic is thinking and
language is what you use tothink.
If you don't have language,then you can't think, and then
all you have is, and then allyou have is ugh, ugh.

(57:44):
You don't have anything toorganize with.
So aren't language and logicintrinsic to this whole problem?
Where do we get those?
Okay, where do we get those?
Well, plato realized that weneeded these.

(58:07):
Okay, and he's the guy.
I'll show you the art.
Maybe it's the next picture, Idon't know where it is.
He's the guy on your left.
Have you seen this painting?
That's Plato on the left,that's Aristotle on the right.
And do you see the differencein what their right arms are

(58:28):
doing?
Plato on the left is pointingwhere Universal, the one, that's
what he's about in hisphilosophy, the one he
emphasized, the one.
Now, what is Aristotle doingwith his right arm Down here?

(58:51):
The many, the particular, theindividual.
He's emphasizing that.
That's what these twophilosophers.
They were wrestling with thisvery issue.
Okay, this is truly modern.
I've shown you examples.
Okay, they couldn't solve it.

(59:12):
Plato said we have to have theseuniversals, this one thing that
holds everything together.
If we don't, I mean everythingloses meaning.
All the particulars get lost.
There's nothing there.
So he knew that.
But he didn't believe in theTrinity or God and the Bible,
all that stuff.
So he had to create an abstract, universal one.
It was abstract, it was just anemanation of Plato's mind.
That's all it was.
But he knew this has to besmart.

(59:36):
He's right, you can't haveanything without that.
He was dead on.
But here's the thing it wasabstract.
In other words, it wasn'tnecessarily real.
It was dead on.
But here's the thing it wasabstract.
In other words, it wasn'tnecessarily real.
It was just an idea in his mind.
So it's really floating, right.

(59:57):
There's nothing there.
There's nothing concrete.
What's going on with the Bible?
Okay, where do you get this?
Plato said it's an abstractprojection.
Is there a concrete basis forthese things?
Language and logic are basic toeverything you do.
Anyone want to disagree withthat.
It's basic to everything you do.
People come along, they uselanguage and logic right, every
single day, believers andunbelievers, unbelievers come

(01:00:19):
along, they criticize theTrinity, the Trinity Right,
sorry, contradiction.
Without the Trinity you don'thave a concrete basis for
language and logic.
Where do those tools come fromthat we use?
And if you don't have Trinity,you know three, threeness and

(01:00:40):
also oneness.
That threeness isn't therelanguage going on in the Trinity
Between Father and Son and Sonand Spirit and Spirit and Father
?
Isn't language there?
I mean, wasn't language therein the beginning with Him In the
beginning was the what Is thisnot like?
Right at the center ofeverything.

(01:01:01):
And you're made in the image ofthis word, which means you have
language and you use languageto think, and that's logic.
Animals don't do that.
Okay, they don't have this tool, but we do.
But the only reason we have itis because it's first in the

(01:01:23):
concrete universal.
And that concrete universal isthe Trinity.
And the irony of it now, as youcan probably see, is that
unbelievers come along and theyuse the tools that depend on the
Trinity to say that there's acontradiction in the Trinity and
that was Van Til's entire pointof presuppositional apologetics
is that the unbeliever cannotjustify where he gets language

(01:01:44):
and logic from to say there isno God, psalm 14.1, psalm 53.
To which the Bible says the foolsays in his heart there is no
God.
Because what Proverbs 26.5?
Answer a fool according to hisfolly.
Do not answer a fool accordingto his folly.
What does that mean?
You just contradicted yourself.

(01:02:04):
No, not, if you understand thecreator-creature distinction,
because one phrase means don'tanswer the fool on his own
grounds, as if logic andlanguage just exist on
themselves.
They do not, he says.
Answer them only on the basisthat it does exist, because it's
rooted in the Trinity.
So, yes, answer him, but answerhim on the right grounds, that
is, trinitarian grounds, becausethis is the only way we can

(01:02:26):
even have a discussion.
Every argument and debate forthe existence of God presupposes
the existence of God.
It does.
They're using language andthey're using logic.
Did the debater justify wherethey came from?
I mean, unbelievers use it allthe time.

(01:02:49):
Some of them are very logicalpeople.
They have great vocabulary,their language is wonderful, but
can they give a justificationfor where the language and the
logic comes from?
Justification for where thelanguage and the logic comes
from, or are they actuallyborrowing it from the Christian
triune God and then using it toargue against the existence of

(01:03:10):
God.
It's irony I'm trying to showyou.
It's really absolutely futileand silly.
What's going on out there.
When we get into the Trinityyou're going to realize, gosh,
you know, the bible says all theriches of wisdom and knowledge
are hidden in christ.
Maybe I should have taken thata little more literally, because

(01:03:33):
all of them are all of them.
I mean you're thinking heretoday because god made you in
his own image.
Be glad that you're on, you'resaved by his grace through faith
, right, I mean?
Because actually what he didwas save way more than just you
individually for eternalsalvation.
He saved logic and language andeverything that you have.
And you're sitting here and youshould be saying thank you,

(01:03:58):
thank you, I appreciate you, Iworship you.
I use my language and logic foryou.
I worship you, I use mylanguage and logic for you, for
your glory right, for yournamesake not to try to deny you
All.
Atheism presupposes theism.

(01:04:19):
It has to, it can't get off theground without it.
Atheism and materialism that'sone of the silliest views ever.
Can you please show me a logic?
If you believe everything'smaterial, please show me a logic
.
I would like to see a logic,please.
Can you bring it forth asevidence.

(01:04:39):
How about the number one?
This one always blows me away.
Can anybody show me the numberone?
You say, oh, I'll write it uphere.
No, that's a symbol, I want tosee one.
You draw an apple.
You say one apple.
No, that's an apple, I want tosee one.
Nobody's ever drawn it or seenit, because it's an idea and you

(01:05:01):
can't see those.
So atheists and materialism,which says everything that's
material, can account forconcepts that are immaterial,
including language and logic.
So there, you know, this is veryeasy, and this is what Van Til
was saying, and I'm trying tocommunicate it.
I know it's difficult, becausehe's saying I want you to really

(01:05:21):
think, I want you to reallythink about thinking, and that's
the hardest thing to do tothink about how you're thinking.
Okay, but all this isbackground for the Trinity, and
if you're like I mean, thissounds crazy what you're saying,
that's okay, that's okay, I'mjust trying to take you on a
little ride, okay, and next week, when we get into the Trinity

(01:05:42):
verses, you know, you just havea new appreciation.
It also may be helping yourmarriage, it also may be helping
your family, it'll also helpyou think through politics,
right, because they're allrelated to this question and
you've got to find the balance.
The balance is found in theTrinity and it's concrete.
One is equal emphasis to themany, marriage one and marriage,

(01:06:02):
individuals yes.
Family, yes, individuals yes,balance, balance, balance,
balance, balance.
And God wants us to live abalanced Christian life that
starts with balanced thinking.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
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

(01:06:32):
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.