Boy, oh, wow. He doesn't flip a switch. He just holds his laptop and does something. It's crazy. All right. Our topic for this morning is going to be the Trinity. Let's go to prayer. Father, we confess to you that there are great mysteries in your Word. There is so much that is clear. Your instructions are clear. But in the end, we understand, we accept the truth that you are beyond tracing out. But to the extent, Father, that we can understand and know you, I pray that we would, and that the byproduct of that, and even of this study this morning, would be obedience and worship. We pray in Jesus' name, amen. Yesterday I was trying to finalize the material for this, and the word oxymoron came to mind. And I think we all know what that is, but I'll just summarize briefly. That's where two words or two thoughts are used together, even though they seem to have opposite meanings. I looked up oxymoron on the web, and it was a fruitful search result. I saw oxymorons I've never seen before that I thought were pretty amusing. Act naturally. deafening silence, clearly confused. I like this one. Farewell reception and original copy. The reason I thought of oxymorons is that I'd like to add another one to that list. The explanation of a mystery. And that's not what we're going to be able to do this morning. but we are going to meditate on the Trinity. The scripture says many clear things to support our Trinitarian beliefs. We are a Trinitarian church. But at some point, the spiritual realities behind this doctrine will become unsearchable. And I fully expect that questions will arise during this, even the short class that I will be unable to answer and probably shouldn't even try to answer. But we'll deal with that as the occasion arises. Our Trinitarian beliefs are best summarized by the Nicene Creed, where we affirm that we believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible. And then later, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. So the Trinity, we use our language carefully, is three persons in one being and has one substance. What is a person? I'll open that up. Would anybody like to summarize personhood? It's early. It's a little warming up. We use it with reference to people, but here we use it with reference to God, personhood. Well, people have a reason, don't they? A person has the capacity for reason. A person has the capacity for morality. A person is self-conscious, conscious. We ascribe consciousness to a person. A person uses pronouns, I, you. And a person has affections. All those three combined to us would not represent a full-orbed person were it not for affections, emotions. Can these qualities be ascribed to non-persons? They can, but they must be true of a person. It's part and parcel of the definition. Can these qualities be ascribed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Does God appeal to our reason? A verse comes to mind, doesn't it? Isaiah 1.18, come let us reason together. It can only follow that God himself is reasonable if he urges us to reason together with him. In John 16, 13, Jesus says to the disciples regarding the Holy Spirit that when He, the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth. Only a reasonable person would guide you into truth. That's the activity of a reasonable person. So that's reason. Morality also characterizes a person. What is morality? This sounds like kind of dumb college course questions, but I think they're kind of a necessary building blocks. Morality is a clear definition of what's right and wrong, and not that alone, but a clear affinity for it as well, right? And an aversion to what is wrong and an affection for what is right characterizes a moral person. God's morality is evident how? Where's evidence of God's morality? His holiness. What has he done? What has he disclosed? Commandments? The Decalogue? We know on that basis that he is moral. And how seriously he upholds it. It's not merely that he commends it, but he upholds it zealously. Is Jesus moral? Does he uphold the law? Completely and perfectly. Therefore, we know that he is moral, and moral in saying is moral, we mean that he also has a zeal for the law. Is the Holy Spirit moral? Galatians 5.17, the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh. What does the flesh signify, if not immorality? And the Spirit lusteth against it. The Spirit upholds God's law with zeal. Another perhaps self-evident but worthwhile categorization is self-consciousness or consciousness. God speaks of himself personally with the pronoun I. He distinguishes himself from others, and this can be said of all three persons in the Trinity. Does God have affections? Yeah, he does, doesn't he? He can be grieved. He harbors wrath, tenderness, love. He has personhood in that respect as well. I'm gonna borrow something from Gospel Coalition website. I thought it was a helpful diagram and a rich one. the personhood of the Father, personhood of the Son, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, I believe we've established. That's a start. So we're asserting here that Jesus has personhood. Does he demonstrate affections? In the course of his earthly ministry, for example, where does he demonstrate affections? Lazarus. He wept at the tomb of Lazarus. His grief at the pain and death of his friend Lazarus helps us ascribe personhood to him. Anywhere else? The temple. The indignation that he expressed at the temple, the zeal for God's law that consumed him. Julian? Gethsemane. Dread, if you will. Anguish. Loyalty. Devotion. In Ephesians, I'm sorry, Philippians 2, he went to the cross for the joy set before him. That sounds like his joy. And remember at the last, at the Lord's Supper, the night before his crucifixion, he said he longed to have that meal with them. That sounds like an affectionate term, doesn't it? Why did he long to have that meal with them? He knew what was coming, so that made it sort of, for want of a better word, an opportunity. And what did he disclose during that meal? The new covenant, yeah. Yes, and he disclosed to them what was going to happen. He wanted them to know that. So his affections are evident, and I know all this is self-evident, but I did want to assert that all three persons in the Trinity are indeed persons, at least in the way that we, in our limited way, can define personhood. The next question would be with respect to, yeah, Danny, I'm sorry. I did use the obvious fact that it's assumed between the Father and the Son, but what are your thoughts on that? Well, does the Holy Spirit demonstrate, I mean, there's a relational affection that you might be getting at there within the Trinity, but with respect to affection alone, how does the Holy Spirit demonstrate personhood? He cries out for our Father. Groanings. Groanings are ascribed to the Spirit. That sounds like affection. Mike? Can be grieved. Right. And in Acts 5, Peter, why have you grieved the Holy Spirit? Why have you, I'm sorry, why have you lied to the Holy Spirit? Jillian? Okay. Sorry, that was helpful. I actually had written out some, the texts that we just made reference to are a good place to establish the affections of the Spirit. Having established personhood, really we move on to one of the core, the truth that we have to assert against error more frequently than any other, perhaps. The deity, the Godhead, ascribes deity to all three persons in the Trinity. So what is deity? How would you describe deity? This could be qualities or characteristics of God as we know them from Scripture. Okay, transcendence. Godness. Omnipresence, we ascribe to God. Omniscience, we ascribe to God. Eternality, we ascribe to God. If those qualities don't characterize a person in the Trinity, that person himself is not God. There are many proof texts for the Godhood of every person in the Trinity. We're gonna confine ourself to just a handful of them. At this point, I'd like folks to read out some of these. I think for every world religion that asserts the existence of God, God the Father is perhaps the person for whom we seek the fewest proof texts. But let's get a few anyways. Who's got a Bible handy who can read? Mike, Ephesians 4.6. And Danny, or was that just you're putting your pencil in your, but you're okay with that, okay. Matthew 23.9. So Mike, if you can read Ephesians 4.6. One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. Great, thank you. So in that simple verse from Ephesians, God's transcendence, His omnipresence, I'm probably missing one, but there is a great deal of characterization there for God the Father that describes deity to Him. Danny? Matthew 23.9, and call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father who is in heaven. Thank you. Implication there is of God the Father as creator. Creator is another, I didn't mention, but another attribute of the deity. So these in themselves affirm that, scripturally affirm that God the Father is God. With respect to the Son, as you know, if you've had to contend for the deity of Christ with anybody, there are many texts that we can appeal to. I wanted to appeal not to one text, and we've done this as well, but to a pair of texts from which it's easy to grab the understanding that Jesus is God. Both of them will be in Revelation. We could go to Revelation 1, I'd like to go to Revelation 21, verses 5 and 7. Diversify our reading group here. Ken, can you read Revelation 21, 5 through 7? And then, as the Bible closes down in Revelation 22, can somebody read for us Revelation 22, 13? Josh, way in the back. OK. This is Revelation 21 5 through 17 through 7 through 7 excuse me. And he who was seated on the throne said, behold, I am making all things new. Also he said, write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true. And he said to me, it is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give them from the spring of the water of life without payment. The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God, and he will be my son. So those verses establish a connection between God and the term Alpha and Omega. Alpha and Omega, God. Josh, Revelation 22, verse 13. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. And who spoke those words in Revelation 22? Jesus. So Jesus claims to be God. He claims deity when those texts are considered in conjunction with one another. The Holy Spirit. Do we have proof texts for the deity of the Holy Spirit? Can somebody read Psalm 139 verses 7 and 8? Liz, can you read Psalm 139 verses 7 and 8? Whither shall I go from thy spirit, or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there. If I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Thank you. The spirit's omnipresence is in view. 1 Corinthians 2.10. Alicia, do you have your Bible open? I saw you looking. OK. 1 Corinthians 2.10. And while she's looking, Lexi, if you could prepare Matthew 12, 31 and 32. These things God has revealed to us through the Spirit, for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. Thank you. The Spirit of God has described omniscience there. Omnipresence, omniscience. In Lexi verses 31 and 32 in Matthew 12. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. I think 31 and 32. Matthew 12, 31 and 32. Sure. Oh, sorry, 1 Corinthians 10, 12. I know you went before it, but it said the Spirit is from God. It doesn't say the Spirit is God. Why does it word it that way? That reflects, I think, the language of the Nicene Creed, that in a real sense, both the Son and the Spirit have a subordination to the Father. We say in the Creed of the Holy Spirit that He proceeds from the Father and the Son because Jesus sends Him following His ascension. Proceeds, proceeds from, comes from. Okay, yeah, I mean that would be we probably would use that as a proof text for eternality But you reminded me of something else But I think that what we're mainly looking for with these proof texts is a demonstration of the Spirit's deity. I think what I think I've read and understood from Matthew 12 was you can't blaspheme any being other than God. God alone can be blasphemed. It's spoken there, it's said there that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed. We're ascribing deity, Jesus is ascribing deity to him just on the basis of that assertion. I don't think it contradicts what you just said when I look at the wording of it. I mean the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters doesn't preclude that idea that it proceeded from the Lord, that the Lord sent the Spirit over the waters. We can move into some area here where we'll Does he always proceed, or is that a role that the Spirit has, but that he can move and act independently of that role? I can't answer that. the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed? Jesus is indicating that he can be blasphemed. How he's blasphemed, I mean, I looked into that and I think we could spill some ink on how Jesus means that specifically. So how does that relate to the Matthew text that we just read? Where I guess it directly says, anybody who speaks against the word, I'm sorry, who speaks against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, It will not be forgiven. The translation that I saw used the word blasphemed. The text that I wanted read had the word blasphemed in it. That was the key. I guess he's speaking against and blaspheming. I suppose maybe I'm not. Maybe I'm correlating the two. Maybe I shouldn't. Correlating the two? Just the two words. In that text there. Speaking against? That sounds like a translational issue. Again. My mind is wandering again. But my question has to do with Genesis chapter one verse twenty six when Moses wrote he says then God said let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion and so on. And so God created man in his own image. So when Moses wrote those words let us make man in our our our image. Did Moses know that there was a Trinity? Or how many us's were there when Moses wrote that? If he knew, he knew supernaturally by revelation of the Spirit. But the text itself does attest to the plurality of the Godhead. I know that there are assertions that plurality is used to express the bigness of the noun, of the person in question. But on the face of it, that sounds like he says, let us create, and create is the prerogative of God alone. So that would be, that could be a compelling proof text. Yeah. David in the Psalms wrote about the sun right. So they had a conception of some type of Trinity right or am I right or wrong. I don't know if I can speak to their understanding Paul. The New Testament and the role of each person of the Trinity in creation. I mean, it's clear that the New Testament thinks Jesus created all things. All things are from him, to him, and through him. And that he is the firstborn of all creation. And that the Spirit is hovering over the waters. So, if you take the whole Bible's witness to the idea of the Trinity and how it relates to creation and how the whole Bible reflects on that from Genesis to Revelation and how that idea develops. I think it's pretty easy to say, let us make man in our own image. That's not God talking in a royal way and it's not God talking to the heavenly court. It's God talking among the persons of the Trinity. And especially when you consider, let us make man in our image. He's not talking about the image, the shared image of divinity and angelic being. He's talking about the image of the Trinity, of God himself, the personality of each member of the Trinity. Thank you. That's helpful. I like how he mentioned that it's royal language to speak with that sort of sense of plurality, but that's not consistent with the rest of the text. That's helpful. I'm happy to use that as a proof text. To some extent, I wanted to introduce you to proof texts that I looked at and thought, you know, I have not really considered this one as much as I have others. I think it doesn't hurt us to have a tray of texts that we can appeal to. There's one other principle, one other activity that has reference to the Godhead, and it's a word that we use a lot in scripture, but I want us to meditate on it again, and that's the word glory or to glorify, the words to glorify. To glorify is to praise or honor something or someone, to an extreme degree. If you like someone, you might compliment or praise them, but glorifying takes that a step further. When someone or someone is glorified, they are praised to the highest degree possible, you could say. And praise is one thing, glory is another. So to glorify someone is to put them in a place of esteem that cannot be exceeded. We might praise one another and it can be good to do that. It can be encouraging to one another, but men being sinners, we must never glorify other men or glorify men should never glorify themselves. And we've seen the outcome of that in scripture. So glory is for God alone. So it's worth noting who receives glory in scripture. And who do they receive it from? So that kind of glory, that kind of activity exists in the Godhead. So the Father glorifies the Son. John 8, 54 is a good example of that. John is, as you know, a very rich gospel for the Trinitarian beliefs that we have. It undergirds them richly. Mike, do you have John 854? This is Jesus' assertion. Jesus answered, If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me. Of whom you say, He is our God. Thank you. The Father glorifies the Son. John 17, 24. Danny, can you read that? Sorry. This is a little unconventional, so I feel like I'm catching you out a little bit, but John 17, 24. Father, I desire that they also whom you have given me may be with me where I am to see my glory that you have given me because you love me before the foundation of the world. So these are assertions of deity to Christ. He receives glory. God alone can receive glory. The Son also glorifies the Father. Josh, can you read John 13, verses 31 to 32? Thank you. That would seem to establish this activity in both directions. The Father glorifies the Son. The Son glorifies the Father. Who else glorifies Jesus? The Holy Spirit? I should have let you answer that question. I don't know what I was doing there. I'm sure that's the answer. Maybe a harder place for us to find this kind of glory, this kind of activity, might be with reference to the Holy Spirit. But the Father does glorify the Holy Spirit. Can somebody read Zechariah 4.6? Ken, can you read Zechariah 4.6? Zechariah 4.6. This is with reference to temple building activity. God is urging Israel to undertake that initiative. And this is an important type of the church to come, for example. We put Ken on the spot. Yeah, Zechariah. Zechariah 4.6. Then he said to me, this is the word of the Lord to Zerubbabel, not by might nor by power, but by my spirit, says the Lord of hosts. So that's a simple text. The initiative that's required to rebuild the temple, to revive Israel at this time, cannot be accomplished by human might or human power. There's only one means by which that activity can be completed, and that's by God's Spirit at work. I believe that this text demonstrates God the Father glorifying His Spirit, ascribing to His Spirit the ability to do something no man could ever do, and something that God alone can do. It expresses great esteem on the part of the Father for the Son, for the Holy Spirit. So I would assert that here, the Father is glorifying the Holy Spirit. And as we noted earlier, the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the world is to glorify the Son of God. So this to a large extent asserts the reality of the doctrine of the Trinity. But, and we'll get to heresy later, but one of the other challenges that we're going to have is the distinction between the persons. As we know, some heresies blur that distinction, the distinction of personhood. And in other cases, it's almost as if we're blurring it or overemphasizing the distinctions that Scripture makes between the persons of the Trinity. The language that's often used theologically is we are understanding this as a distinction, but not separation. That's the language we choose to use to reflect the fact that we are monotheistic. We worship one God, but within that God there are distinctions in personhood. So the Son is not the Holy Spirit. I think we heard that in John 16, 7 above. Jesus speaks distinctly of himself in the Father. He is not the Father. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. John 14, 26, the Father sends the Spirit. It's a language of distinction. The Father is not the Holy Spirit. And the Son, in promising the Holy Spirit upon His ascension, is asserting distinct personhood to Himself and the Holy Spirit. So there is unity, but there is distinction. But we don't want to overstate the distinction either, because the language of Scripture also reflects inclusive language, I'm really not sure how to put this, but it emphasizes an as-in, is-in relationship within the Godhead. The Son, Jesus, he says that he is in the Father in John 14, 9 to 11. Remember in response to Thomas? He is not the Father, but he asserts there that he is in the Father. And the Father is in the Son in the same text, so it's bi-directional. John 14, 9 to 11. I was originally going to write the verse references here, but boy, it's, we need to do that after the fact. It's a lot of writing to do, but I think that might be helpful. Is the Holy Spirit in the sun? Are there proof texts for that assertion? Isaiah 11, can you read that? Instinct. All right, let's see. Verse 2, and the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him. That's the branch that grows out of Jesse's roots. Verse 1. OK, continuing with verse 2. The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the Lord. Yes, thank you. Excellent. Danny? It's conceived of the Holy Spirit. And when he goes into the wilderness, what is said of him at that point? And Jesus, being full of the Holy Spirit, was sent into the wilderness. So we can assert that as well. So well, yeah. No, no, I'm just saying that there is a unit. Now I'm asserting a unity of within the Godhead, an interim sort of a looking for a word to describe this, but an intimacy that is best expressed by the words is in and is in those words are actually used in places in scripture. So while we have a distinction, we also have a sense of profound unity to the extent that the words is in are used. In this case, I think it supports the doctrine of the Trinity. It would be easy to be wrong on any of this. That's why I'm trying to appeal to scripture. Thank you. I'm not sure. It's in the same way that the text where we speak of the submission of the wife to the husband just as the church submits to Christ, we aren't asserting that the husband is Christ or that Christ is anyone less than God, but we are asserting that the submission of the wife to the husband is not a measure of inferiority. And we use that as a proof text for, if you will, a proof text for Jesus, the Spirit are in submission to the Father, We can use the word greater than, but we don't use the word better than. It's a relationship that does not express the superiority of the Father, only that the Spirit and the Son are in submission to the Father, at least in redemptive history and scripture. So while the doctrine of the Trinity does offend human sensibilities, but it's a good and necessary understanding of scripture. Three persons, co-equal, having each a distinctive role in revelation and human salvation, but comprising a Godhead that remains monotheistic. Obviously, a challenging doctrine. Has it always existed in the church? Has this doctrine always been around? by name? We could say we don't see the word in the Old Testament. What we do have is an early example of it, Ken. Yeah, the creeds. And the creeds are ancient. We'll get to, obviously the Nicene Creed dates from the early 4th century. The church father who is most closely associated with the advent of the word is Tertullian. And his brief ministry, really 20 years, maybe that's just brief by our standards, but his ministry dates from 200 AD. So we're just maybe a little over 100 years from the time of the closure of Revelation that it was summarized and formulated, a time when we have so little documentation. Extremely early. term in church history. Was it challenged? Always, always challenged. The Nicene Creed, I believe, was in response to Arianism, and Arianism denied the deity of Christ. And then around about the same time, modalism, and we've discussed that in the courses. I think last week it was discussed at some length. So while we've, the creeds have asserted the Trinity, the Trinity has been challenged by people who would profess to be Christians, Arian being one of them. Modalism is, can we do a little refresher what modalism is for anyone who might not have been here? Or for those of us who forgot? Ken? Yeah, it's change. Creator, father. Then he became the son. Yeah, that's a flavor of modalism. It's a sort of a sequential disclosure of God by, as one person, revealing him, disclosing himself to humanity with a mode. The mode being first the Father, then the mode being the Son, and then the mode being the Holy Spirit. That's not Trinitarian. Danny? Thinking about the conception and being born of the Holy Spirit, like how is he not the Holy Spirit? And then passages that I was thinking about somebody was talking about earlier in regards to he says the Spirit of the Lord is on me or the Spirit is on me to preach and all that. So we do see that Trinitarian, but as far as conception that how is the Son not the Holy Spirit? Well, I would say the spirit is the agent, initiator, completer of conception, but he is not the one conceived. And now we're moving into the hypostatic union. So that's another mystery that we're not going to go there. Well, not today. This is more than enough for today. Trying to keep it simple. OK, yeah, Laurie. And I think you probably know the text of the thing, like in my mind, you know, thinking, okay, how is he not looking at customs as any part of it, regardless of... That's why you need the... It's like Jesus is talking exactly about the Father and about the Spirit, and this is another example of how this is. Yeah. A rich text. In the sense that once we receive and accept the doctrine of election, we see it everywhere. I believe the Trinity is the same. That text is brimming with Trinitarian language. And it also highlights the fact that really this relation, this glorification is also bi-directional. Because Jesus ascribes to the Spirit You know, it's good for you that I would go and that he would come. He's glorifying the Spirit with that language. You know, I mentioned sort of heretical thinking as Arianism and modalism. And we see that sort of thinking in churches today. Unfortunately, many churches. Can we name a few? Where do we see modalism or Arianism? The denial of Christ as God or the denial of the personhood in the Trinity? Where do we see that? Jose? Oh, he's too busy. Just if you have a question or answer just let me get the mic to you because that way Jose can get it on the audio. So that's why we're passing on the mic. Thank you. Yeah, it's not so much that we can't hear each other, but that we can't hear each other on the video that I'm going to post. But cults, I guess, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. Mormons deny the deity of Christ. Jehovah's Witnesses deny the deity of Christ. they both denied the Trinity, stuff like that. But also some denominations that might be considered denominations, I guess, but like Jesus-only Pentecostals that only believe that there's actual different modes that happen in the New Testament instead of actually having a Trinity. Thank you. And Paul? Unitarians, who believe there's just oneness of God, that there's no Trinity, and Protestant liberals who deny the deity of Christ. Okay. I didn't come across that, but yeah. I was kind of surprised by this. I didn't know this, but Seventh-day Adventists, apparently, deny the Trinity, or mutate it, if you will. And Paul mentioned Unitarians. This gets down to sort of the root of of the denial of the Trinity. Unitarians place emphasis on the ultimate role of reason in interpreting sacred scriptures and thus freedom of conscience and freedom of the pulpit are core values in the tradition. Reformation is an ongoing process for them to be celebrated. Constant study and new experiences can lead to new insights for teaching and community practice. In varying contexts, Unitarians seek to affirm the use of reason in religion and freedom of conscience. I don't know if I want to make them the poster child, but this gets at the major enemy of Trinitarian thinking. I think Paul made reference to this several Sundays ago. What do we lean on for our understanding of the truth? We lean on the Word of God, Revelation. All these cults, with their apprehension or failure to apprehend the Trinity, are falling back on reason. Paul mentioned rationalism. And the problem for us is that if we contend against rationalism, what are we accused of? Not being rational, right? But we are. I personally can speak from personal experience. I've heard far more rational thinking in the church than I ever heard outside of the church. You are very rational people, right? So we are not irrational. But rationality is, rational thinking is not king. It's not the sole arbiter of truth. The Word of God is. So we sift everything through that authority. And truly, on the basis of that, we're thought to be narrow-minded or non-thinking people, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I think that's really the wellspring of most heresy, and certainly the wellspring of most resistance to the Word of God other than our own inbuilt sin. So for the rationalist, human cognition and human thought is the final authority and the final judge as to what's permissible to believe and what conduct to undertake. In that Unitarian summary, I think we heard freedom of conscience. To me, that's sort of a code word of I can do whatever my conscience permits me to do, which by no means is going to constrain me to the word of God. There is revelation in the revelatory view, God's word is the final authority and arbiter. And if our thinking or our conclusions or our opinions are refuted or discredited or aren't supported by scripture, we discard them. So that's an important undergirding principle for Trinitarian people like ourselves to embrace. Our faith is a reasonable faith, it's a rational faith, but we confess an infinite holy God who is ultimately beyond our full understanding, even as He urges us to understand Him better all the time. One comment I wanted to make on with respect to the creeds, you mentioned the Nicene Creed, and I think we could speak to some extent of the Council of Dort, I don't know if I want to go to the point of heresy there, but why did those councils even convene? Why did they summarize beliefs? as clearly and well as they do, they're contending with heresy. So heresy, it's like a Genesis 50 principle, obviously intended by Satan and the enemies of God for bad, ends up producing good by the virtue of the fact that all these creeds have been created and are so clear and wonderful that we embrace them 1,500 years later, 1,800 years later. testimony to the perpiscuity of Scripture, the enduring value and relevance of it, that we can still embrace something that was produced in the case of the Nicene Creed almost 1700 years ago. You know, just a closing remark. Deuteronomy 29, 29 stood out to me when I was going through this. That's the verse, I think we're all familiar with this verse. The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and our children forever. That we may do all the words of this law. So in our meditation on the Trinity, we never want to come to the point where we're just disputing hypothetical, metaphysical assertions. The whole purpose of this meditation is to produce obedience. And it produces obedience by us seeing in our Godhead, our triune God, patterns of humility. and sacrifice, self-forgetfulness, zeal, that even as those things exist in the Godhead, they're meant to exist in us as well. And maybe to that extent, we are to be image bearers in that way as well, even if we are and we are fallen creatures. So that's as much as I want to say. I think we're safe at this point. So let's go to prayer. Father we do confess that you are beyond understanding and yet you have revealed yourself And you desire that we would know and understand you and I pray father that we would that to the extent that we must that we would understand you and that our understanding of your triune wonder would produce reverence and Obedience in us we pray in Jesus name Amen