The External Works of the Trinity Are Undivided

This transcript has been lightly edited from an automated transcription for clarity and readability. While we've worked to preserve each speaker's words faithfully, errors may remain.

1. 00:00

   Matthew Barrett

   Isn't this what the Nicene Creed is after? Isn't this what it's setting you up for? It doesn't have to say exactly the doctrine of inseparable operations, but it's a thread — a fabric that holds it all together. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father: God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. So then what follows? What's the next phrase? "Through Him all things were made." The Son is not one in essence with the Father — these were the words of Arius.

2. 00:56

   Matthew Barrett

   And they created — as we saw yesterday — a major crisis in the church.

3. 01:04

   Matthew Barrett

   It's important to emphasize that, isn't it? We oftentimes think of heresy as something out there, outside of the church, but by definition, it rises up within our own midst. Why did it create such a crisis? Well, what question could be more central to Christianity than who is our God? But did you know that this statement by Arius, in large part, depended on his view of the external works of God in creation? You might be thinking to yourself, "I thought I came to a conference on the Trinity — why is he getting up there to talk about creation?" Believe it or not, the debate over the Trinity has everything to do with the external works of God in creation. Yesterday, you heard an amazing message from Michael Reeves about Arius and the whole story of the church Fathers and how they reacted. But today, I want to invite you through a back door to look at this story from a different angle. We will discover that the Trinity of Nicaea was, and still does, entail this doctrine called inseparable operations. If that phrase is new to you, it means the external works of the Trinity are undivided.

4. 02:38

   Matthew Barrett

   But the question we need to ask this morning is why. So return with me to that story of Arius, and I want you to consider three observations — allow me to summarize some of his views. Number one: for Arius, the Father may create the cosmos through the Son, but the Father is alone in that first work of creation, which is to make the Son. This first work of creation is not the work of the Father and Son's common will and agency, but the Father alone creating — in this case, a Son. Number two: created by the will of the Father, the Son cannot be one in essence with the Father. He is a product — a product of the Father's will — and as a product, the Son cannot, therefore, share the same essence as the Father, let alone, and this is very important, the same glory as the Father. Number three: if the Son is a product of the Father's will, the first of creation, then the Father remains incomprehensible to the Son. However superior the Son may be to the rest of creation, like everything else in creation, the Son cannot comprehend the essence of his Father.

5. 04:33

   Matthew Barrett

   These three observations — well, they were shocking. According to Arius, the Son is created ex nihilo, out of nothing, which means only God the Father, in this case, is the cause of all things. As for the Son, he is a mere instrument — an instrumental cause, at best, of the rest of creation. Now notice: the subordination of the Son in the works of God here is a direct reflection of the subordination of the Son to the very being of God. Don't miss that connection — everything hinges on it. Listen to Arius. He said, "God alone is the cause of all things."

6. 05:29

   Matthew Barrett

   Because the Son does not have being together with the Father. Do you see how he connected those two? Only God can be the cause of all things; the Son does not have being together with the Father. Here's what you need to remember then: if the Son is separable from God in operation, then so is the Son separable from God in essence — even, yes, even subordinate to God in glory. What we say about God's external works, as in creation, reveals a lot, doesn't it, about who we think this God is? So what does Scripture say about the external works of God in creation? This is the same question so many years ago that many of those church Fathers were asking themselves when they were challenged by Arianism. Here's the answer they gave: in Scripture, the external works of the Trinity — and by the way, notice how precise they are — the external works of the Trinity are undivided.

7. 07:03

   Matthew Barrett

   Father, Son, and Spirit perform the same single action because Father, Son, and Spirit hold in common the same single will and essence. We could sum it up this way: inseparable in essence, they are inseparable in operation.

8. 07:31

   Matthew Barrett

   To see the singular, inseparable operation of the Trinity for yourself, turn with me to John chapter 5. During a feast of the Jews, Jesus approaches the pool of Bethesda. Everyone longing for new creation lingered at this pool — those who could not see, those who could not walk, those entirely paralyzed.

9. 08:10

   Matthew Barrett

   Many believed that if the waters began to stir, and if someone helped them into the pool, perhaps they might even be healed. But as you can imagine, in a scenario like this, those who are debilitated the most can easily miss that opportunity as others manage to struggle in before them, especially if they have help. It's at this pool that Jesus shows up. He walks up to a man who — we're not told a lot, but he may have waited there much of his life — and Jesus asks him if he wants to be healed.

10. 09:04

    Matthew Barrett

    The paralyzed man thinks Jesus is asking him if he wants help getting into the pool. He has no idea that the Creator of the cosmos is standing right in front of him.

11. 09:29

    Matthew Barrett

    This disabled man does not need to struggle. He doesn't need to labor to somehow find his way into those waters. The Creator of every lake, every river, every ocean, and sea has stooped down to him. He has found him. He has come to him to make his body new. Verse 8: "Get up, take up your bed, and walk." And at once the man was healed. At once.

12. 10:18

    Matthew Barrett

    And he took up his bed and walked. When that man stood up and walked away with his bed in hand, the Jews became infuriated. Completely overlooking the miracle itself, they complained, "It is the Sabbath — it's not lawful for you to be walking around with your mat, with your bed." They're right.

13. 10:58

    Matthew Barrett

    They weren't wrong. They were following the law carefully. But there's a problem, isn't there — an assumption that is deeply, deeply mistaken. Rather than asking who this healer must be to utter words that bring about new life in this man's otherwise dead body parts, they instead assume he has broken the Sabbath and therefore should be punished. When they were told it was Jesus, verse 16 says they launched essentially a hunting party to persecute Jesus.

14. 11:51

    Matthew Barrett

    Look at verse 17. When questioned, how does Jesus respond? What are you expecting him to say in this moment? Probably not verse 17.

15. 12:13

    Matthew Barrett

    So short, so succinct. It says everything, doesn't it?

16. 12:22

    Matthew Barrett

    "My Father is working until now, and I am working." I am working — my Father's working until now, and I am working.

17. 12:42

    Matthew Barrett

    In Jewish tradition, their rabbis understood that if anyone has the prerogative to continue sustaining the cosmos after six days of creation, it's God. That's not lost on them. Yes, he ceased from his work on the seventh day, but as the Creator himself — the first and efficient cause of the entire cosmos — he must conserve what he has made. "In him" — what does Paul say on Mars Hill? "In him the whole creation lives and moves and has its being." Something Paul, by the way, thought should be obvious even to those who had never heard the name of Jesus, just by looking at creation and its total dependency on a Creator. Jesus' response here is scandalous. Don't miss this.

18. 14:02

    Matthew Barrett

    We can read this in such tame terms. This is scandalous, what he's saying to them. It is provocative. Why? Because he's not only claiming that same prerogative, but he is claiming the same single work — that same singular operation which belongs to God alone. The Jews understood as much, or at least something close to it. Look at verse 18: "This is why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the Sabbath, he was even calling God his own Father." Remember Fred's message yesterday — last night.

19. 14:59

    Matthew Barrett

    He was calling God his own Father, making himself what?

20. 15:10

    Matthew Barrett

    Equal with God. He's not merely praying to the Father as we might pray to the Father — "our Father in heaven, hallowed be thy name." No, no, no — he is calling God his Father. We tend to think Jesus must have been so offensive because his works were supernatural. That's true. However, there is a deeper reason still.

21. 15:49

    Matthew Barrett

    Listen to me right now.

22. 15:51

    Matthew Barrett

    Don't miss this — the text hinges on this. There is a deeper reason still. This is not merely provocative because he does something supernatural, as true as that is. Jesus is claiming to do the same work as God. He is claiming the same action as God.

23. 16:21

    Matthew Barrett

    That's why his words are incredibly offensive to them, because if he's wrong, this is nothing short of blasphemy. Jewish eschatology rested on a well-established hope that the Creator who made and sustains the world would one day — and isn't this our hope — would one day make all things new.

24. 16:52

    Matthew Barrett

    They longed for that day, especially oppressed as they were. They even pointed their children back to little signs, little shadows, little firstfruits in their Hebrew Scriptures that guaranteed: "Yes, we are suffering. Yes, we are in bondage. Yes, we are dying. But child, just wait — a new creation is coming. Those shadows will turn into reality. God has promised us that."

25. 17:31

    Matthew Barrett

    But when it finally came, they did not have the theological imagination to see that if the Messiah makes someone new on the Sabbath day, it must be decisive proof he is from God.

26. 18:03

    Matthew Barrett

    No — he is one with God.

27. 18:09

    Matthew Barrett

    For only if he is one with God, holding in common that same single operation of God, does he dare to have this prerogative to make creation new on a day of rest. Jesus isn't finished though, is he? Look at verse 19: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise."

28. 18:54

    Matthew Barrett

    In the first half of that statement, Jesus is merely acknowledging his origin. Thomas Aquinas says it this way, paraphrasing Jesus — I don't think I can say it better than this: "I am equal to the Father, but in such a way as to be from him." I am equal to the Father, Jesus is saying, but in such a way as to be from him, not he from me. Inseparable operations does not, as sometimes people assume, erase any type of order in their work. The one single divine action is from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. That does not introduce subordination, but respects and reflects their eternal relations of origin.

29. 19:56

    Matthew Barrett

    It is fitting — that's a word we need to introduce more into our Trinitarian grammar. It is fitting, since the Son is eternally begotten from the Father and the Spirit is eternally spirated from the Father and the Son. Don't forget that. I know we're focusing on John 5 and the Father and the Son, but the Spirit—

30. 20:17

    Matthew Barrett

    —as you will hear later today from Michael Horton, is eternally spirated from the Father and the Son.

31. 20:27

    Matthew Barrett

    Notice as well the second half of Jesus' statement, though. By the way, this half a sentence is probably the most quoted phrase in all of the New Testament by the great tradition when they need to defend the inseparable works of the Trinity: "Whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." What does that tell us? What is Jesus trying to tell us? He's telling us — well, what is he not saying? Jesus cannot mean he is a subordinate deity to the Father. Otherwise, he could not say he holds the one divine operation in common with the Father. Look again at verse 19 — it's an impossibility. Thomas Aquinas, in his commentary on John, which any pastor preaching through John needs to have — those three volumes.

32. 21:45

    Matthew Barrett

    He says this — he points out three major weaknesses. He says all three of these need to be excluded, and he's not imposing these on the text. He's saying, what is Jesus himself excluding when he says these words? What is he excluding? Aquinas says he's excluding three major weaknesses from the power of God. You ready? Here they are. Number one: limitation. He says all the things to which the Father's power extends, the Son's power also extends. Number two: difference.

33. 22:33

    Matthew Barrett

    We should not think that the Son's activity is different from the activity of the Father. And number three — this one follows from the other two, doesn't it — imperfection. With the same power by which the Father acts — the same power — the Son also acts, because the same power and the same perfection, let's not forget this is a perfection of God, are in the Father and the Son. And if we were to keep reading John's Gospel, we would add, and the Spirit.

34. 23:13

    Matthew Barrett

    The same power, the same perfection. Do you hear what he's saying? If you say anything else, you are essentially robbing Christ of divine perfection itself. What Jesus claims in John 5 — it's not lost on his disciples, is it? It may take them time to understand it, but it's not lost on them. Isn't this why Jesus's beloved disciple says at the opening of his gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." And what does John say next? "All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." What about the Apostle Paul when he's writing to the Colossians concerning Christ? "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."

35. 24:21

    Matthew Barrett

    "For by him all things were created."

36. 24:26

    Matthew Barrett

    In heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities — all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together, says Paul. The author of Hebrews opens singing the same note: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our Fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God" — there's the doctrine of eternal generation — "the radiance of the glory of God, the exact imprint of his nature."

37. 25:28

    Matthew Barrett

    What does that then mean for the works of God? Hebrews says, "he upholds the universe by the word of his power."

38. 25:37

    Matthew Barrett

    There it is. John, Paul, Hebrews — they do not mean, as Arius did, that the Son is merely an instrumental cause of creation, a subordinate deity through whom God creates the cosmos, as if God creates the cosmos through secondary causes, the Son being one of them. In the same breath as mentioning the Son's share in that single work of creation, did you notice what all three of those biblical authors said? John says the Word was God. Hebrews says he is the exact imprint of God's nature, and Paul says the Son is the very image of the invisible God. Each of them, yes, in their own colorful, beautiful ways — but each of them are claiming that the Son is one with the Father in his operation of creation, because the same Son is one with the Father in essence. The Son, with the Father and the Spirit, is the first and efficient cause of creation. Isn't this what the Nicene Creed is after? Isn't this what it's set you up for? It doesn't have to say exactly the doctrine of inseparable operations.

39. 27:11

    Matthew Barrett

    It's a thread — it's like a fabric that holds it all together. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, right?

40. 27:28

    Matthew Barrett

    Begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. So then what follows? What's the next phrase? "Through him all things were made." Do you see that logic? Now, that logic is crucial. So allow me, just for a minute — indulge me here — allow me to take you deeper into the waters of inseparable operations. I want to show you this logic, this rationale. Now, I'm not going to lie to you — it will feel momentarily like you're holding your breath underwater, okay? But I promise you, I will bring you back up for air.

41. 28:16

    Matthew Barrett

    I promise. First, the three persons work inseparably because they are simple in essence. Gregory of Nyssa says, "As we say that the operation of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, so we say that the Godhead is one."

42. 28:41

    Matthew Barrett

    What do we mean when we say the Godhead is one? What do we mean by that? We mean that the triune God is simple. Now, some of you in here are saying, "Yes, I was hoping this was coming." And some of you in here are saying, "Am I missing something? What in the world is he talking about? What does that mean?" It must not mean what I think it means — and you would be right. Simplicity does not mean God is easy to understand. You've been at this conference for a day; I think you've gathered that much.

43. 29:20

    Matthew Barrett

    It also doesn't mean that God is simplistic, right — like he's lacking depth, he's elementary. No — in classical Christian theology, simplicity means God is without parts.

44. 29:42

    Matthew Barrett

    He's without parts. He's not composed — he's not a compositional being made up of parts. For example, consider several ways God is simple. Unlike finite human beings, God is not composed of matter and form, body and soul — he's pure spirit. Unlike finite human beings, God is not composed of essence and existence — his essence is his existence.

45. 30:11

    Matthew Barrett

    As God, he is absolutely necessary, while everything else depends on him to live, to move, to have its being.

46. 30:20

    Matthew Barrett

    Unlike finite human beings, God is not composed of essence and accidents. There's nothing in God to be added or subtracted — all that is in God is God.

47. 30:35

    Matthew Barrett

    Unlike finite human beings, God is not composed — he's not composed of various distinct attributes, nor do some attributes carry more divinity in them than others. No — his essence is his attributes, his attributes his essence. He is identical with his perfections. And unlike finite human beings, God is not composed of act and potency, as if he has some type of potential that still needs to be actualized so he can become whole. How dare we — how dare we imagine a God like that, as if he is incomplete? No. God is pure act, maximally alive in the infinite splendor of his perfection — completely, absolutely splendid, in the fullness of his everlasting life.

48. 31:43

    Matthew Barrett

    The simplicity of God — maybe that's new to you. You're in good company. Did you know it's right there in our Protestant confessions? In fact, it's everywhere in our Protestant confessions. If you're here and you're Lutheran, the Augsburg Confession begins by confessing the Nicene Creed and immediately says next that their churches believe there is one divine essence, which is called and which is God, eternal, without body, without parts. If you're here this morning and you are Anglican, the Thirty-Nine Articles begin this way: "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions." For Presbyterians — Kevin is here this morning, and I knew we weren't going to get through his message without Westminster or Heidelberg, one of those coming up.

49. 32:57

    Matthew Barrett

    Praise God. The Westminster Confession says the same thing — it's not new, the same thing, practically word for word. If you're a Baptist here this morning, the London Baptist Confession — same thing, it's not new. Isn't it telling, though, when you go to those confessions — don't be too quick to turn the page — because isn't it telling that in each of these confessions, divine simplicity makes an appearance right next to Nicaea, right next to it? Simplicity — let me put it this way — simplicity is a key, essential pre-commitment to Nicene, biblical Trinitarianism. Without it, the Fathers could not say things like, "The Son is true God from true God, of one being with the Father," or that "the Spirit should be worshiped with the Father and the Son." In other words, simplicity certifies that the persons are the divine essence.

50. 34:23

    Matthew Barrett

    They are the divine essence. John Owen, the Puritan, put it this way — notice just how matter-of-fact he is about this — "A divine person is nothing but the divine essence subsisting in a special manner." Why does simplicity matter so much for the Trinity? Simplicity protects us from heresy. On the one hand, it protects us from the heresy of subordinationism — we've seen that; it guarantees that the Son is not a lesser glory, he's not a lesser glory than the Father. And then, on the other hand, it also protects us from the heresy of tritheism, because it guarantees the persons are not mere parts of God.

51. 35:16

    Matthew Barrett

    Each segregated from the other, which would subject the essence of God to division or perhaps multiplication. Second: if the triune God is simple in essence, then there cannot be three wills in the Trinity — there must be one will in the Trinity. One of the major seductions of the last century has been the popularity of social Trinitarianism. Now, it is very diverse as a movement, but in its most aggressive form, the persons of the Trinity don't seem all that different from persons in a human society, in which each person is their own center of consciousness.

52. 36:12

    Matthew Barrett

    Some have gone so far as to say that each person has his own will, resulting in three wills in the Trinity. Naturally, inseparable operations, and with it divine simplicity, are subjected to heavy criticism — and it has been over the last century.

53. 36:39

    Matthew Barrett

    For where there are three wills, there must be three agencies, each person with his own individual, even separable, action. Unless inseparable operations is affirmed, it looks far more like individuals in a human society, where multiple people — much like you coming to this conference — cooperate with one another.

54. 37:06

    Matthew Barrett

    Or a group of people divide up the labor to get a task done, like the volunteers at this conference — "let's divide and conquer," we say. Unfortunately, this is no secret: many evangelicals have been influenced in this way by social Trinitarianism, some drawing equally radical conclusions, I would argue. To make matters worse, some today have even introduced hierarchy — a functional hierarchy within the Trinity — arguing for the eternal functional subordination of the Son to the Father within the immanent life of God, as if to be Father and Son means they are defined by societal roles of authority and submission. And this too has resulted in no little damage to the Trinity's simplicity. For there is no way for the Son to be functionally subordinate to the Father — a Father who is, they claim, superior in authority and glory — apart from each person having their own will.

55. 38:33

    Matthew Barrett

    Although they will deny this is the case, those who hold to EFS, as it's called, I struggle to see how they can avoid this implication. A little attention to history can save us so much pain.

56. 38:51

    Matthew Barrett

    We don't often realize how influenced we are on this side of modernity. In the centuries after Nicaea, the church addressed this very question: is will a property — it's a technical question, isn't it — but a crucial one. Is will a property of person or essence? And they answered: will cannot be a property of person, for if it was, how could we avoid three wills in the Godhead? And likewise, how would we avoid the logical implication of three deities in the Godhead, each acting potentially independent of one another? No, they said — the church Fathers argued that will is a property of their essence, of nature. And yes, the persons are distinguished by those eternal relations of origin that we've heard about. But if Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence, they must hold the same divine will in common.

57. 40:10

    Matthew Barrett

    The one will of the Trinity — why is this technical point so crucial? Well, the one will of the Trinity certifies that in every operation — whether creation, providence, or your salvation, every single operation — no person of the Trinity goes solo.

58. 40:38

    Matthew Barrett

    Due to their singularity in will, Father, Son, and Spirit work by virtue of their one, single, same, simple action — which brings us to our third point: inseparable operations. It ensures that when Scripture — notice this word — appropriates, say, attributes or works to a person of the Trinity, yes, the other two persons are not excluded.

59. 41:20

    Matthew Barrett

    And notice here — this has everything to do with reading your Bible, right? We don't come to a text and see one person, or two, and assume another person must be excluded. This word, "appropriations" — what is this all about? It occurs when something is drawn towards that which is proper, as many theologians have said. One says it this way: appropriation attributes an action or an effect to a divine person in a special way without excluding the other two persons. We could add to that: when Scripture appropriates an attribute or action to a person, it does so in a way that fits their eternal relations of origin, and in a way that is fitting given their personal properties — Father, Son, and Spirit. Isn't this what the Nicene Creed is doing? It's so subtle, isn't it — it's embedded within each of those sentences. As the source or principle in the Godhead, the Father is called Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth. Gregory of Nyssa could then say creation has its beginning from the Father. John Calvin could call the Father the fountain and wellspring of all things.

60. 42:59

    Matthew Barrett

    And yet, at the same time, inseparable operations tells us that creation remains the single work of Father, Son, and Spirit.

61. 43:15

    Matthew Barrett

    Because nothing is drawn towards any person — appropriation — as if to exclude another.

62. 43:27

    Matthew Barrett

    Friends, do you see — are you thinking ahead of me at this point? Do you see the implications here for the Christian life, the consequences for our communion with the Trinity? Do you see how enriching this is? On the one hand, the Apostle Paul can deliver this doxology to the church in Corinth: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

63. 44:14

    Matthew Barrett

    If the Father is the eternal principle of the Godhead, as Gregory and Calvin and others are saying, from whom the Son is begotten, then isn't it fitting that love be appropriated to him as the one who so loved us — so loved us that he gave his only begotten Son?

64. 44:47

    Matthew Barrett

    If the Son is eternally begotten from the Father, then it is fitting that grace is appropriated to the Son, since it's by his wounds, in the end, that we are healed, becoming the recipients of the Father's benevolence. And if the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, then isn't it fitting that fellowship is appropriated by Paul to the Spirit? Because it's the Spirit who dwells in us so that we participate — another Pauline word, participate — in the grace of the Son by virtue of the love of the Father. And yet, I think Paul would say this, and he does in so many diverse ways: such appropriations never exclude the Trinity's inseparable operation to meet us in the abundance of its love, the generosity of its grace, and the fullness of its fellowship. John Owen says, "By what act soever we hold communion with any person" — that's you, in prayer, isn't it — "there is an influence from every person to the putting forth of that act."

65. 46:34

    Matthew Barrett

    Friends, when we say the Nicene Creed — if you go back to your church, and you're bold, and you work with them pastorally, and say, "let's say the creed together"—

66. 46:51

    Matthew Barrett

    There's a danger in which you could go halfway and stop. You could get up here and say, "We need to know what we believe."

67. 47:01

    Matthew Barrett

    Amen. But if you stop there, you're doing an injustice to your people. As Christians, we are not saying this creed merely so that we check a doctrinal box, as key as that doctrine is — we are saying the creed in worship of the Holy Trinity.

68. 47:30

    Matthew Barrett

    This is a liturgical moment of doxology. So if you go back to your churches and you only say to them, "let's get the doctrine right," and you don't move from that doctrine to doxology in that very moment — will they walk away as Christians and understand that I believe in this God, and this Holy Trinity is the very one who brings me into communion, not only with one another, but with himself?

69. 48:22

    Matthew Barrett

    We just sang — we keep singing this song, this Trinity song, don't we? We expect to be bound in peace. We want that invitation of love. But how can we expect that when we don't keep the Trinity central in our worship? How can we expect communion with God when we exclude the Trinity from those doors? And then we ask, "What's wrong with your Christian life? Where is the Trinity? Is the Trinity present in your worship? Does the Trinity infuse your liturgy?"

70. 49:13

    Matthew Barrett

    Or is it simply a doctrine to check off, because — as we've learned yesterday — that will end up on a back shelf?

71. 49:26

    Matthew Barrett

    Inseparable operations is not just something to believe. It is the very spirit by which you worship this God.

72. 49:42

    Matthew Barrett

    One of the tragedies of the past generation — a generation willing to dispense with inseparable operations — is its failure to understand that this doctrine is so foundational to Christian hope. Your people, and maybe this is why you're here, are desperate for a Christianity that can give them hope — they need an eschatology. Did you notice that we never finished John 5? Look at verse 25. Remember verse 21: "For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." And we might ask Jesus, if we were to be a little cocky — like, what? Verse 25: "For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. Truly, truly, I say to you" — verse 25 — "an hour is coming, and now is here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself." The Holy Trinity that worked inseparably in creation ex nihilo can and will make all creation new by that same inseparable power.

73. 51:25

    Matthew Barrett

    That is a promise.

74. 51:29

    Matthew Barrett

    Do you think it's something small — that Jesus, in the name of the Father, by the power of the Spirit, healed one paralyzed man on one Sabbath day? Can you even begin to imagine the extent of this Trinitarian power when the dead will rise on the last day?

75. 52:38

    Matthew Barrett

    Christian, your hope in the resurrection from the dead — a hope on which all of Christianity depends — is but wishful thinking unless the Father grants you life through the Son by the Spirit. We do not rely on three separate, segregated powers, hoping, wishing that they somehow coordinate with one another to come through on our resurrection. No — Father, Son, and Spirit hold the same single, simple power in common. By that same power, we are promised resurrection life from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. In the words of the Athanasian Creed: "The Father is almighty, the Son is almighty, the Holy Spirit is almighty; and yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty."

76. 53:08

    Matthew Barrett

    We didn't think about this ahead of time with this conference, but it's the case that we've now entered that time. Time is so important, isn't it — that time on the church calendar called Eastertide. We celebrated the resurrection — but that's not the way to say it, is it, past tense? We are celebrating the resurrection.

77. 53:35

    Matthew Barrett

    The very resurrection life that you long for — you are hoping for the fullness that's from the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. So I close with these words from the Book of Common Prayer. Let's pray: "Almighty and everlasting God, you have given to us your servants grace, by the confession of a true faith, to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the power of your divine majesty to worship the Unity. Keep us steadfast in this faith and worship, and bring us at last to see you in your one and eternal glory, O Father, who with the Son and the Holy Spirit live and reign, one God, forever and ever."

78. 54:34

    Matthew Barrett

    Amen.