← Back to sermon library

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.