We are studying God. We are studying the only living and true God. We are studying the one who has revealed himself in the Holy Scriptures. And so it is a subject that we are to approach with noting its high importance and its loftiness. We also noted that the importance of the subject matter is seen in the fact that throughout the history of creation, really, but we could say throughout the history of Christianity. And certainly in our own day, there are downgrade trends in theology proper, where the doctrine of God, the glory of the high doctrine of God is being reduced. Men bringing God down to our level, if you will, and stripping him of his supremacy, his glory, stripping him of the largeness, if you will, the immensity of his being and of his perfections. We noted the proper Christian posture to God is to be one of humility. Remember Calvin, the knowledge of God does not rest in cold speculation, but carries with it the honoring of him. We don't come, if you'll remember as Christians, as scientists with our our beakers and our microscopes to study someone who is the subject of our mastery of inquisition. But rather, God has revealed himself to us. God has disclosed his riches and his excellencies in the pages of Holy Scripture, and it is from there that we come to study him and to know of him. We noted some preliminary helps, and we'll add one this morning. You have a sheet in front of you, but remember some preliminary helps and interpretive cautions. Understanding first the vast and unbridgeable chasm between God and man. We said ontological chasm. Remember that word, simply the doctrine or study of being. There is between God and man a vast chasm, if you will. God is wholly other, not of the same kind, not a constituent fellow. in the category of being as men and angels. We noted Dolezal, God cannot be located on a single chain of being with non-divine things. So when we come to a study of God, we're not studying the uberman or we're not studying some incorporeal perfect man divested of all human imperfection, but rather he is wholly other. He is on a different chain of being than non-divine things. We need to recognize the legitimacy of biblical speculation. And remember, we meant by that the stuff of paragraph six in chapter one, that we have in the scriptures those things that are explicitly laid down or set down. And we also have those things necessarily contained where we go about the exercise of logical inference from two or three or more places of scripture to arrive at what the scripture reveals concerning God, man, and all things. Third, and we'll try and just work through this quickly, third, we need to recognize the revelatory condescension of God when we approach interpretation. That is, God, in his loftiness, as Calvin says, lisps as it were to men because of the vast ontological chasm that there is between the infinite and the finite. God comes down, if you will, accommodates himself two men, and we'll look at that more as we move along in the study. Fourthly, we need to divest ourselves of the tendency to let the text speak instead of letting the Bible speak. The stuff of chapter 1, paragraphs 7 and 9. Scripture interprets scripture. There is a theology that the Bible as a whole represents. We don't rip texts of scripture, such as those texts that say God has eyes or he has an outstretched arm, and then there say, well, God has physical eyes and God has a physical arm. We need to take the Bible as a whole, what it presents to us as a theological corpus, and then from there interpret rightly. Fifthly, we need to commit to the exertion of mental energy. Remember that Deuteronomy 29, 29 is not our catch all or our escape hatch where we can just avoid theological learning. The secret things are of the Lord, but those things that are revealed are for us and his children. We need to exert mental energy as we study the one who is incomprehensible. And so we need to hunker down. Charnock again, though we cannot comprehend him as he is, We must be careful not to fancy him to be what he is not. Basil the Great said, the knowledge of God consists in the perception of his incomprehensibility. You might come to the confession and see the language here where it says, whose essence, speaking of God, in paragraph one, cannot be comprehended by any but himself, and say, well, doesn't comprehend mean no? And so what, are we just supposed to hum God's name and bask in the absence of knowledge and just empty our minds and meditate on nothingness? No. Comprehend, in its pure meaning, means to fully enclose within the grasp, we could say. So to comprehend God would mean that we could fully enclose God within the grasp of our mind and understanding. So when the confession says cannot be comprehended or that God is incomprehensible, it is not saying that God cannot be known. but rather that we cannot contain all that is God within the grasp of our minds. In fact, the Latin translation of Romans 11, 33 uses the term incomprehensibilia with regards to God, oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God, how unsearchable are his judgments, et cetera. And so we need to appreciate the reality that incomprehensibility does not mean we can't know, but rather that we cannot fully contain within our minds the knowledge of God to extent or to exhaustion. So sixthly, we're going to add a preliminary help or an interpretive caution. We need to understand and appreciate the utility of negative theology. You have a sheet in front of you there that is the Confession of Faith at Chapter 2. And notice that negative theology doesn't mean bad things in theology. It means to deny or to negate. And for instance, here we have all things highlighted in paragraph two, or in chapter two, paragraphs one, two, and three that are Denials concerning God, or negations. Notice just the brief introduction references to apophatic theology, or negative theology, theology that describes God by negation, denying to him things that cannot be true of him. The Confession here uses 24 of them. And I just did this quickly. I'm assuming it's 24. I went through them and just bolded and underlined them. But it is not illegitimate to deny things to God and to have the exercise of theology be the negation of things or the rejection, the denial of things that can't be true of God. For example, He is infinite. That is, He is not finite. He is incomprehensible or cannot be comprehended. He is not visible. He is without body. He is without parts. He is without passions, etc. A reminder as well at the end. If you do have any questions, I'm going to try and explain things and qualify things and hopefully define words. But if you have any questions, write them down and please ask me afterwards. We noted the outline to the confession. Paragraph 1, God's essential glory. Paragraph 2, God's transcendent relations. And paragraph 3, God's triune majesty. Again, essential glory, God's transcendent relations, and then paragraph 3, God's triune majesty. We could even lump together paragraphs 1 and 2 and say, God in his essence and attributes and then paragraph three, God in his subsistences or in his personal distinction, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We talked about divine singularity or the unity of God, and we only noted actually one aspect of the unity of God, the unity of singularity, that God's essence is indivisible, that God's essence cannot be multiplied, that God is the only living and true God. There are no rivals to deity. He does not share his essence, or the divine nature is not distributed among many deities, but rather there is only one living and true God. There is also the unity of simplicity, and that will be our study a couple Sundays from now. The unity of simplicity, simply the fact that God cannot be divided into parts, or that God is not composed of a multiplicity of things or parts. God's essence is not a property bundle. God is not comprised of love, mercy, grace, but rather God is identical with all those things that are said of him or predicated of him. But we'll get to that when we get to divine simplicity. So now we're looking, remember, we started by looking at omnipotence. last time, and we finished there. We noted that God is marked by omnipotence. He is all-powerful. We defined omnipotence as, the power of God is nothing other than the divine essence itself, productive outwardly, through which he is conceived as able to do whatsoever he wills, or can will, those things which are not repugnant to his most perfect nature, or imply no contradiction. So, and in the Confession of Faith, we see these things in paragraph one and in paragraph two. But just a reminder, we noted from Psalm 115.3 and Daniel 4.34 and following, that God is in the heavens and he does whatever he pleases. You see, omnipotence, we could say, is the exercise of his supremacy or the exercise of his sovereignty. It is not just the case that God has the right and authority, but rather that he does according to that right and according to that authority. Our God is in the heavens. He does whatever he pleases. He does whatever he pleases among the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain his hand or say to him, what have you done? There were, or there are, or we need to, when we observe God's omnipotence, we need to say that God's power is not limited when we deny to Him the power to perform contradictories. Remember, we made a note of that. The Bible says that God cannot lie. He cannot deny Himself. There are cannots that are ascribed to the Lord God, and that is not to limit His omnipotence. There were two errors in the history of... There are two errors, at least. among those who would affirm divine omnipotence, and the one is the affirmation that God can, and I'm quoting Bob Vink now, sin, err, suffer, die, become a stone or an animal. change bread into the body of Christ, undo the past, make false what is true, and true what was false. There are those in the history of the church that would say God can do those things, that he has an absolute omnipotence where he can sin, err, suffer, die, et cetera. And then on the other extreme, there would be the denial that God has the power to do what he can will. As Abelard, God can do anything beyond Sorry, God cannot do anything beyond that which He does. Remember, we noted that there are, or even in the definition, that God can do whatsoever He wills or can will. There are things that God did not will that nevertheless He could will. We know that in Matthew 3, 9, I could, or God could, raise from these very stones children to Abraham or Jesus on the night of His betrayal where He said, do you not think that I could not call upon my God and He could send to my aid more than 12 legions of angels? So, it is not the case that God cannot do anything beyond that which he does, but rather that God has the absolute power to do whatsoever he wills or can will. And then, finally, we noted that God's omnipotence is not limited or circumscribed to natural mediation. That is, God does not somehow submit himself to his own natural order of things in creation. and is circumscribed by that to only do whatever is allowable within the body of laws and principles that his nature or creation affords. He can act immediately, that is, he can act through earthly agents. He can act by way of Egypt. He can act by way of Assyria, Babylon, the Roman Empire. He can use those immediate means, but he can also act immediately. And we noted that confession, in our confession, chapter 5, paragraph 3, speaks to that particular reality. So he can use immediate means, that is, the means of his natural order, and he can also act immediately. For example, the virgin birth and the resurrection. Moving on, then, to omnipresence. Divine omnipresence. Where do we see this? in the Confession, while we see it in paragraph 1, again, in this sort of summarizing or encapsulating statement where it says, God is infinite in being and perfection, right at the beginning of paragraph 1. The Lord our God is but one only living and true God, whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection. And a little bit later we see it when the Confession uses the language, who is immense, every way infinite. And we'll talk about how that pertains to God's omnipresence in a moment. But first off, a good definition. What is a good definition of omnipresence? Well, very simply, just to define that word, it's all-present or everywhere-present. And a good definition, this is Birkhoff, God, uncontained and limited in no way by time and space or anything else, fills every part of space with His whole being. Again, God, uncontained and limited in no way by time and space or anything else, fills every part of space with his whole being. So, some observations then with regards to God's omnipresence. First off, God's omnipresence is not a product of his omnipotence. God's omnipresence is not a product of his omnipotence. What do we mean by that? Well, we shouldn't construe God as the uber Kris Kringle or the uber Santa Claus, whereby because of his omnipotence and his mastery over time, he can somehow be, if you will, everywhere in one spot. and that sort of thing, as if he can, because of his mastery over time, he can just be in every spot at some particular time, and is in that sense everywhere present. His omnipresence is not a product of his omnipotence. Remember, in our definition we said that God's omnipresence is that God is uncontained and limited in no way by time and space or anything else, but fills every part of space with his whole being. So God is not the uber Kris Kringle. God's omnipresence is not the consequence of his all-seeingness. God's omnipresence is not the consequence of what we could call his omnividarity, the fact that he sees all things. In other words, we don't say God is omnipresent because he has that all-seeing vision, where he can see everything. He is removed from his creation. He is not actually, he doesn't actually fill time and space with his, or fill space with his whole being, but rather he's transcendent and removed from his creation, and because he can see all things, we can therefore attribute some measure of omnipresence to God. That is not omnipresence. That's not what we say when we read that The eyes of the Lord are in every place, Proverbs 15. We're not saying that that is a literal description of God's... Well, first off, that God has eyes, or that God has somehow distributed satellite ocular properties around every spatial part of his creation, whereby he then receives what they transmit back to him, or something weird. That is simply language that the Bible uses to speak to the fact that God is omnipresent and omniscient, to be sure. God's omnipresence, we could say, is an aspect of His infinity. God's omnipresence, we could say, is an aspect of His infinity, and the Confession uses that language twice. when it says, first off, that God is, in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection, and then when it later says that he is every way infinite. Infinity is simply that perfection of God by which he is free from all limitations. That's what infinity means, that perfection of God by which he is free from all limitations. Bovink writes, infinity in the sense of not being confined by space is synonymous with God's omnipresence. Remember the Westminster Shorter Catechism definition, God is spirit, infinite eternal and unchangeable in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. So all of those things with respect to God are infinite. And so that infinity again is that by which God is free from all limitations. He's in no way limited by space, by time, by His universe or by His creation. He is in no way limited by those things. It does not mean that he is, and just bear with me for a moment because this highlights or brings to the fore some heresies concerning God throughout the history of the church. It does not mean that he is extensively boundless in relation to or coextensive with an infinite universe. So it's not the case that we have the universe, including earth and all things, and that God is confined, if you will, but identical to that universe. We might see something of that in pantheism and in panentheism, but nevertheless that's not what we're saying when God is infinite, that he's identical with the immensity that is the universe, but rather that he transcends and is in no way contained in it or confined by it. And it does not mean that he is boundlessly immense as if spread out through the universe, one part here, and another part there. Believe it or not, there are those who in the history of philosophy, as it touches upon things divine, that have said that, that God is extended, His immensity is such that it is a measurable extension to the corners of the universe, if we can use that language, where one part of His being is in one space of that expanse, and another is in the other space of that expanse. That is not the infinity or the omnipresence of God. Dr. James Orr, God is internally and qualitatively absent of all limitation and defect. And we're sort of narrowing our scope down back to specifically omnipresence. Again, we've noted that it is an aspect of His infinity. that perfection of God by which he is free from all limitations. God's omnipresence, we could say, is intimately connected with his immensity. We noted that the confession with regards to omnipresence speaks to his immensity. It says, concerning God, who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible. So God's omnipresence, we could say, is intimately connected with his immensity. Immensity is simply the fact that God transcends all spatial limitations and yet is present in every point of space with his whole being. Turn in your Bibles for a second to the book of Job. Job chapter 11. So if infinity is that perfection of God by which he is free from all limitations, then immensity is that aspect of his infinity where he is not confined to spatial limitations or the fact that God transcends spatial limitations. In Job 11, beginning in verse 7, can you search out the deep things of God? Can you find out the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than heaven, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Their measure is longer than the earth and broader than the sea. If he passes by, imprisons, and gathers to judgment, then who can hinder him? God is defined by, or can be defined by, that aspect which we call immensity, which is simply the fact that he transcends all spatial limitations and yet is present in every point of space with his whole being. we can speak of, and theologians have spoken of, three ways in which we can speak of modes of presence. Remember, we're talking about omnipresence. So, three modes of presence. One would apply to physical things, those things with bodies, and it's called circumscriptive presence. In other words, a body is circumscribed within the limits of the natural world. Our bodies have circumscriptive presence. They are circumscribed, they are confined within and limited to spatial places. Our bodies are limited in that sense. There is definitive presence, which would apply to spirits, angels and men's immortal spirits, whereby we can definitively be said to have our spirits in a certain place. In this case, they are in our bodies. And then with regards to God, the presence with respect to God is repletive. You know what replete is? That really means what we'll read from Jeremiah 23, 23, and 24, that God fills the heavens and the earth. He is not confined circumscriptedly within creation. He is not definitively located. in any location at all in his creation, but rather he is repletively present, which is ascribed to God, Turatin says, because his immense essence is present with all and, as it were, fills all places. Now a lot of this, again, may want to arouse in us the desire to open up that escape hatch and jump out. But hopefully, with all of these words and concepts, which are biblical in their foundation, we will arrive at a higher view of our God when we enter into worship. the laziness of the minds of those Christians that would bring God down to his own conception of himself as revealed in the Holy Scriptures to a place where he is the uber Santa Claus, or he is simply the perfect man or the perfect angel. is we need to rail and fight against the tendency of men to bring God down to our level so that he is more handleable, more tangible, and those sorts of things. He is infinite. He is immense. And hopefully this exercise, if anything, will land us on our knees worshipping the God of heaven and earth. So again, God is not circumscriptively present nor definitively present, but rather is repletively present. Although immensity and omnipresence could be used synonymously, we may better be served by the precision of identifying two aspects of immensity, which is illimitability and omnipresence, or maybe even better, transcendence and imminence. You see, when we say that God is transcendent, that is wholly removed, we're not saying that that has space and time implications, that he is not somehow filling also the heavens and the earth. Or when we say that God is transcendent, we're not setting that in opposition to his eminence, like the deists who say that God is wholly removed from his creation. and only acts upon it or with it by His power, which is dispensed remotely from a place removed. But rather we say that God is omnipresent. He is everywhere, both by His power and by His being. Where do we find this in the Bible? Omnipresence. Well, we could turn to 1 Kings, where we find something with respect to omnipresence. in the Bible. And sometimes we'll notice that these things are coming from different angles and that sort of thing. But in 1 Kings 8, we have something with regards to God's omnipresence. 1 Kings 8. In 1 Kings 8 and verse 27. Excuse me. Yes, 1 Kings 8 and verse 27. Notice, But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built." So you see, when we read that God dwells in heaven or that He dwells in the light that no man can approach unto, we're not properly saying of God that He actually dwells spatio-temporally, that is, with regards to space and time, in a location where, as in another location, He does not dwell. When we talk about God dwelling in heaven, we're not saying that he doesn't dwell on earth. When we're saying, you know, God is in the heavens, and he does whatever he pleases, we're not saying that he's not also in earth or anywhere else, because God is with every aspect of his whole being everywhere, at all places, at all times. And so we need to understand the stuff of 1 Kings 8.27, but will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain you, how much less this temple which I have built. And more on that as we move along. But Psalm 139, if you turn to Psalm 139. And this is where, as we work through this, we need to understand what we talked about in our first, those principles of interpretation or helps interpretive helps. When the Bible uses certain language of God, very often it is not using that language literally. We already talked about eyes and arms and that's easy to understand. But we need to understand as well that when it says God dwells in a particular place, it really doesn't mean that God dwells there as if to take away from him his infinity, his immensity, and his illimitability, as if he does not dwell at that particular point somewhere else in his universe, or that he has been confined to that particular place to the exclusion of others. In Psalm 139, beginning in verse 7, We read this, where can I go from your spirit or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend into heaven, you are there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me and your right hand shall hold me. God is everywhere in the fullness of his being. He is not He is in heaven. He is on earth. He is in hell. And he is not in hell just by virtue of his juridical presence or the power of his wholesome severity. But his being is just as present there as it is in heaven or elsewhere. You see, it is an error. It is an error with respect to the Christian church to say that God is only present in certain places by his power, but he is transcendently removed. That is the stuff of deism and the stuff of heresy to ascribe to God the fact that he is not imminent. in one place with regards to his being. So Psalm 139, 7 to 10, Jeremiah 23, 23 and 24. Here in Jeremiah 23, 23 and 24, we see something with respect to God's omnipresence clearly set down. Am I a God near at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can anyone hide himself in secret places so I shall not see him, says the Lord? Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord? You see, when, and we'll get to this in a moment, but when God uses the language of coming and when he uses the language of going, when we read the Bible saying that God descended upon Mount Sinai. It's not literally saying that God descended upon Mount Sinai as if to say he was absent in his being from that place. More on that in a moment, though. But we need to understand what Jeremiah is saying here. When we're conceiving of our blessed and glorious God in his infinity and in his immensity, can anyone hide himself in secret places? Do I not fill heaven and earth, says the Lord. By way of note, you can jot down Isaiah 66, 1, Acts 7, 48-49, and Acts 17, 27-28, speaking with respect to his omnipresence, and at some point, specifically, with the illimitability of God, that he is everywhere, in all places. Some additional thoughts and clarifications. Omnipresence is not the denial of transcendence. Omnipresence is not the denial of transcendence, as with the pantheists who say that God is the substance of all things. God is identical with the creation. That is, of course, not what Christianity is saying, but rather that he is not limited by his universe, and yet is present in every place with his whole being. Secondly, omnipresence, or perhaps immensity, is not the affirmation of panentheism. It's another word to add to your data bank of vocabulary, which says that God is greater than the universe, but that the universe is part of him, or that the earth is his body. As the universe changes, as the earth changes, so does God, would the panentheist say. There is no change in God, we must say, when he creates, nor is there change in God when he providentially governs and orders all things Nor is there change in God when he redeems. And this may have more application to his simplicity and his impassibility. But contra panentheism, which says God changes because the universe and the earth are part of his body, we, affirming his omnipresence, deny that heretical approach. Additionally, divine transcendence, remember, that simply means his holy otherness. He is transcendent. imminent at this point, but wholly transcendent from men in his creation. Additionally, divine transcendence is not the contradictory of or is not to the exclusion of imminence, as we have already said with the deists who say that God acts upon the world from a distance. They would say that there is the presence of omnipotence in his power. but not the imminence of his being. We say, as Christians, there is most certainly the presence of his omnipotence, God's power, the effects of God's power can be seen everywhere, but that he is most certainly imminent by his being, his whole being in every part of the universe, though he being uncontained by it and not limited by it. What do we do then with the passages of scripture that speak of God descending, for example. In Exodus 19 and verse 20, we read of God descending. So what do we do with passages like this? Is not that saying that God at one point was absent from Mount Sinai and now is present upon Mount Sinai? Aren't the deists at least in a sense correct that God is not filling the heavens and the earth with the entirety of his being. In Exodus 19-20, we read this, then the Lord came down upon Mount Sinai on the top of the mountain and the Lord God called Moses to the top of the mountain and Moses went up. Well, there you see, God can locate himself within time and with space to a point where he was once absent in his presence. But you notice before that, in verse 18, now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace and the whole mountain quaked greatly. This is John Gill. In the above visible tokens of his presence and power, he descended upon Mount Sinai. Otherwise, he is the incomprehensible Jehovah, that immense and omnipotent being who fills heaven and earth and cannot be contained and circumscribed in either." So this isn't an instance of God that would somehow rail against God's omnipresence, the idea that He is present with the wholeness of His being everywhere. But rather it is simply this fire and this smoke and this quaking upon Mount Sinai were visible tokens, God manifesting Himself in and upon Mount Sinai to Moses. So we could say that there is this imminence of being which we see in omnipotence and there is also this imminence of manifestation whereby God reveals himself by visible tokens to his creations, to his creation in this case, the fire and the smoke of Mount Sinai. Also in Genesis 11.5 there is an instance of this before we move on to omniscience In Genesis 11, 5, if you remember what's going on there, we have those who had built the Tower of Babel. And in Genesis 11, 5, we read, but the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. Again, Gil, not locally or visibly, being immense, omnipresent, and invisible. nor in order to see and take notice of what he otherwise could not see from heaven, for he is omniscient. But this is spoken after the manner of men and is to be understood of some effects and displays of his power, which were manifest and showed him to be present." So, you see, we need to understand this, that if we were just to take this out and just hover it in front of our bare reason and read it, we'd say, well, yeah, God moved from one place and came to another place so that he could see, that he moved, in a sense, in his being from one location to another. But we need to see, with the weight of biblical revelation concerning the doctrine of God, that this is God, in revelation, accommodating himself to our understanding so that we might know that he is simply speaking after the manner of men, understanding some effects and displays of his power. God came down, in a sense, but came by way of came in this sense by way of judgment, observing the actions of men and judging those who would construct an abomination. Raymond says this, which is very important, as we're talking about descending, ascending, coming and going, these sorts of things, Raymond on this aspect of omnipresence The fact of God's omnipresence precludes taking the biblical depiction of God's ascending and descending and comings and goings literally. God being everywhere present does not literally come or go to or from specific places where such language is employed. it must be recognized for what it is, metaphorical language indicating or invoking a special manifestation of God's working, either in grace or judgment. So that is important for us to understand, lest we construct or construe a god of deism, where he is not omnipresent, where he is not both transcendent and yet imminent, filling the heavens and the earth, with his whole being. We need to understand that these are ways of speaking in which God is presented as a special manifestation of his working either in grace or judgment. What do we do then with the Incarnation? When we think of the Incarnation, we'll have occasion to look at this when we get to our last three studies, but when we consider the Incarnation, don't we read in the Bible that God was manifested in the flesh, or when we talk about When we talk about Christ coming in the incarnation, are we not saying that God left heaven and came to earth? No, we're really not properly saying that with regards to God, that somehow we have the Trinity and we have the second person of the triune God leaving heaven and coming to earth where he is contained within a human body. That is not what we're saying with regards to the Incarnation. When we say, God left the praise of angels to come into our lower ignominy and suffer the shame of the cross, etc., we're speaking that with the pedigree of the Bible that comes to the level of man to say certain things about God, not that God somehow ontologically, with regards to his being, departed a place and came to another place. This is Cyril of Alexandria. The eternal word subjected himself to birth for us and came forth man from a woman. Without casting off that which he was, although he assumed flesh and blood, he remained what he was, God in essence and in truth. For although visible in a child in swaddling cloths and even in the bosom of his virgin mother, he filled all creation as God and was a fellow ruler with him who begat him. For the Godhead is without quantity and dimension, cannot have limits. So, as He is in the feed trough, as He is even before that in the womb of His Virgin Mother, He nevertheless filled all creation as God. Calvin. Another absurdity, namely, that if the Word of God became incarnate, He must have been confined within the narrow prison of an earthly body, is sheer impudence. For even if the Word is, in His immeasurable essence, united with the nature of man into one person, we do not imagine that He was confined therein. Here is something marvelous. The Son of God descended from heaven in such a way that, without leaving heaven, He willed to be born in the Virgin's womb. to go about the earth, to hang upon the cross. Yet He continually filled the earth, even as He had done from the beginning. Amen. Well, moving on to omniscience then. So we have omnipotence. God is all-powerful. We have omnipresence. God is all-present, or everywhere present. And we have omniscience. God is all-knowing. God is all-knowing. And where do we find this in chapter 2 of the Confession? We find it in paragraph 1, where it says, again, infinite in being and perfection. If God was not all-knowing, he could not be infinite in being and perfection. We have it also in paragraph 1, where it says God is, or who is, immutable. everywhere infinite. Also in paragraph 1 where it says he is most wise. In paragraph 2, God is alone in and unto himself, all-sufficient. We'll touch upon that in a moment. Also in paragraph 2 where it says that he's not standing in need of any creature which he hath made nor deriving any glory from them. And finally in paragraph 2, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature. And we'll talk about what that means here in a moment. What is a good definition of omniscience? That perfection of God, this is Birkhoff, that perfection of God whereby He, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act. Just one more time, that perfection of God whereby He in an entirely unique manner, knows himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act." Where do we find this in the Bible? You can make a note right now, Job 37.16. In Job 37.16, we read with regards to God's omniscience. Also, Psalm 139.1-6. Psalm 139, one to six, Isaiah 40, 27 and 28, and then also Hebrews 4.13. In Hebrews 4.13, we read something with regards to God's omniscience. Of course, all of those other texts I just read, but in Hebrews 4.13, this is what we read concerning the Lord God Almighty. And there is no creature hidden from his sight, but all things are naked and open. to the eyes of him to whom we must give account. And again, those other passages you can go to with regards to a reading of God's omniscience. But let's look at some observations with respect to God's omniscience. First off, God's omniscience is not the product of his omnipresence. God's omniscience is not a product of his omnipresence. The fact that God knows all things is not the result of the fact that he is everywhere by his being. I think sometimes we can construe that idea because God is everywhere, he can see everything, and he can know everything because he is this omnipresent observer acquiring knowledge by that which he sees. that would rub against what the confession is saying when it says he is alone and unto himself all sufficient. If his omniscience is that he has it by observation, by virtue of his omnipresence, then he stands in need of the creation that he has created in order to know things. It would also, again, rub against the second clause, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made. So God's omniscience is not the product of his omnipresence. He does not know because he is everywhere. God's omniscience is not the product of foreknowledge. God's omniscience is not the product of foreknowledge. That is, God doesn't know because he has looked through the tunnels of time to see what would happen in his creation and in his universe. Boving states, strictly speaking, one cannot speak of foreknowledge in the case of God. With him there are no distinctions of time. He calls the things that are not as if they were and sees what is not as if it already existed. And he quotes Augustine, for what is foreknowledge if not knowledge of future events? But can anything be future to God? He quotes Gregory the Great, whatever is past and future to us is immediately present in his sight. And he quotes Marius Victorinus. However the times roll on, with him it is always present. So God's omniscience is not because he is everywhere. God's all-knowingness, his omniscience, is not the product of his foreknowledge. God's knowledge, and this is important, is different from the knowledge of men in many different ways. You see, when we talk about God's knowledge, it is not simply a quantitative difference. Men know some things, but God knows all things to perfection. That is not the distinction that we arrive at or that we are to think of when we think of God's knowledge. Though it is, of course, the case that we only know some things, and God knows all things, it is not only the what that God knows that is different from men, but the how God knows that is different from men. And first, God's knowledge is a preexistent knowledge, or pre-existing knowledge. archetypal knowledge whereby God knows all finite things outside of himself prior to their coming into existence by his own perfect and eternal idea. Again, he's not dependent upon his creation in order to know things. He doesn't have to wait until he somehow dwells alongside time and space and creation as his creation providentially moves forward. God in his omnipresence and omnipotence observes and knows all of those things that take place. That's not the case with respect to God's knowledge. He has a preexistent knowledge whereby he knows all finite things outside of himself and himself perfectly prior, well, all the finite things prior to their coming into existence, and of course himself from all eternity. Second, unlike our knowledge, his is not obtained from without. God's knowledge is not obtained from without himself, or again, he would be dependent upon things outside himself. He would not be alone in and unto himself. all-sufficient. God, unlike our knowledge, His knowledge is not obtained from without. Our knowledge is derivative. It is wholly derived from outside of ourselves while God's is not. Our knowledge is either implanted by virtue of the image of God or it's acquired by way of revelation. God's is not derivative. He does not acquire. Nothing has ever occurred to God. God has never learned anything. And so it is distinct from our knowledge in that sense. Third, God's knowledge is perfect, and absolutely so. Again, not quantitatively, that is, not by what he knows to perfection, but qualitatively. There is no defect or imperfection. This reflects the idea, or absolute, when we talk about absolute perfection, this isn't some rhetorical phrase just to highlight the greatness of God's perfection, but absolute in the sense that it is from himself that he knows all things and he knows all things perfectly. It reflects the idea that God's perfect knowledge is not that of knowing all things in contrast to men who only know some things, but rather that he knows all things we could say intuitively. Whereas we know discursively by going through a process of cognition, observation and acquiring of knowledge, God knows intuitively, that is, immediately, by virtue of his own being. We know discursively from a process of reason and successive acquisition of knowledge, but God knows intuitively. He has the direct perception of truth, independent of any reasoning process. Hopefully you understand what we have in our God. God is not sitting there, you know, watching and then learning and acquiring knowledge. We ought not to construe our God as an omnipresent and omnipotent observer who thereby acquires his knowledge, but rather has all knowledge in and of himself even prior to those things that he knows. come into existence, those finite things. We know immediately, that is, through means, dependently, successively, but God knows immediately, independently, and simultaneously. Fourthly, God's knowledge is, as Burkhoff notes, complete and conscious. That's what Hebrews 4.13, or one of the things, is getting at. All things are open to Him. His knowledge is complete and conscious. Man's knowledge is incomplete, partial, and is not marked by a full and open awareness. We might think sometimes in our pride that we have a full and open awareness of all things, but to God only are all things open and manifest. God's knowledge is, if it had not been clear, fully and completely independent of anything outside of himself. We will see this more when we get to the doctrine of divine simplicity, but this is dolezal. God's knowledge of things is entirely undetermined by the things themselves and hence is not comprised of many distinct acts of cognition. So God, it is not the case that God in time and in history has the perfect mind that is acquiring knowledge as he observes. So he moves from having not known to now having known. That would ascribe immutability to God, imperfection, and that is the God of the heathen. God doesn't acquire knowledge. Again, he doesn't move from needing to know or having not known to now having known. God does not know himself or anything else by way of information, for then he would be informed by something other than himself. His knowledge informs us. He is not informed by us. Just a few more observations, another minute or two. And then please, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. God knows all things, divine and non-divine in his eternal act of self-knowledge. That is, he doesn't know you by observing you and learning you and by virtue of you being you, but he knows you in himself by virtue of his own essence and being. Again, we'll get to that when we get to simplicity, but if we get this in our minds, that his knowledge even of you is not dependent upon you existing. He has pre-existent perfect knowledge of all things finite before having come into existence by his own self and his own perfect and eternal idea. Bhavan, his knowledge of all things is not based on things after they come into existence, for then they would have emerged from the unconscious. Rather, he knows all things in and of himself. For that reason, his knowledge is undivided, simple, unchangeable, eternal. And just to close, we could divide, for the purpose of our understanding, God's omniscience into, one, how God knows what we just discussed, those distinctions from man, how God knows. He does not know by cognition, discursive reasoning, by the acquisition of information. He doesn't move from having not known to knowing perfectly. distinguished between how God knows and then what God knows. His knowledge of things is extensive, what he knows. Burkoff, to close, writes this, the knowledge of God is not only perfect in kind, how he knows, but also in its inclusiveness. It is called omniscience because it is all comprehensive. In order to promote a proper estimate of it, we may particularize as follows, God knows himself, and in himself all things that come from him. He knows all things as they actually come to pass, past, present and future, and knows them in their real relations. He knows the hidden essence of things to which the knowledge of man cannot penetrate. He sees not as man sees, who observes only the outward manifestations of life, but penetrates to the depths of the human heart. Moreover, he knows what is possible as well as what is actual. All things that might occur under certain circumstances are present to his mind. The omniscience of God is clearly taught in several passages of scripture. He is perfect in knowledge, looketh not on outward appearances but on the heart, observes the ways of men, knows the place of their habitation and the days of their life. This doctrine of the knowledge of God must be maintained over all pantheistic tendencies to represent God as the unconscious ground of the phenomenal world, and of those who, like Marcion, Sosinus, and all who believe in a finite God, ascribe to him only a limited knowledge." So hopefully in only 15 minutes, with respect to God's omniscience, and previously to that God's omnipresence, we can at least in actually in the way that Owen might describe, apprehend and worship our God. God in his own essence, being in existence, is absolutely incomprehensible. His nature being immense and all his holy properties essentially infinite, no creature can directly or perfectly comprehend them or any of them. He must be infinite that can perfectly comprehend that which is infinite. Wherefore, God is perfectly known unto himself only, but as for us, how little a portion is heard of him. And that little portion that is heard of him, we glory him, we do know God, and we worship that one who has created us, who providentially guards and guides us, and who has redeemed us. by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Well, let's close in prayer, and then please, any questions or clarifications needed, you can ask away. Heavenly Father, we rejoice in this doctrine, the doctrine of God. We thank you that you've revealed yourself to us in the Holy Scriptures. We thank you that we can learn of you, that we can know you. We may not be able to fully grasp the entirety of your being and your works and your perfections in our minds, but nevertheless, you have revealed to us yourself in the holy scriptures. And you have said that, let him who glories glory in this, that he understands God and knows him. We do pray that you'd help us in this, that you'd cause us to grow daily in the grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord, that we would daily learn more of you and that today, we would learn of you, that you would bless Pastor Butler as he preaches, that you would give him what he needs to proclaim rightly the things of God. And we do pray, Lord, that you would bless those who listen, that saints would be strengthened and nourished by your word, and that sinners would be saved to the praise of your grace. And we pray all these things in Christ's precious name. Amen.