GRACE
https://youtu.be/7-xkVe1Mc6Q
[Todays update]
https://youtu.be/4Bl7_nMr_jE [Grace]
ON VIDEO-
.Lil’ Charlie
.Doctrines of grace
.Calvin, Geneva
.Predestination
.Foreknowledge
.The elect
.Hyper- Calvinism?
.TULIP
.Whitefield- 4 points
PAST POSTS [verses below]-
(790) . ROMANS
8:29-30 ‘for whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed
into the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk
a little. When I first became a Christian I began a lifelong study of
scripture, where I continually read a certain amount of scripture every day for
many years. Over the years I have varied on how fast I should read [that is how
many chapters per day and so forth]. But during the early stages I always took
these verses to teach predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that
God ‘pre chose’ me [and all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The
Fundamental Baptist church I began to attend [a great church with great
people!] taught that ‘classic Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine,
and they labeled it ‘Hyper Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I
never forgot the early understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I
also was very limited in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did
study the Great awakenings and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John
Wesley and other great men of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their
doctrine [which is fine], as a matter of fact Wesley would eventually
disassociate from George Whitefield over this issue. Whitefield was a staunch
Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the doctrine again, simply as I focused
on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually I picked up some books on church
history and realized that Calvinism was [and is] a mainstream belief among many
great believers. I personally believe that most of the great theologians in
history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for those who reject it, they
honestly struggle with these portions of scripture. Just like there are
portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To deny this is to be less
than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic predestination- the term
comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing and studying on the
‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine of free will/choice]
usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’ by teaching that Gods
predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those who would choose him.
This is an honest effort to come to terms with the doctrine. To be ‘more
honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the issue. In the above text,
as well as many other places in scripture, the idea of ‘Gods foreknowledge and
pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice to save us, as opposed to
him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The texts that teach
predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above does say ‘those
whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of
Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us to be like
his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this passage
in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I believe Paul
is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of time that he
would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also predestinated
to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn among many. God
wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he predestinated he
‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the Father give to me
will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way cast out’. Those
who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present tense]
glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’ like it
already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe in the
doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to believe
it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.
ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall we say then to these things? [what things?
The fact that God predestined us and has guaranteed completion of the purpose
he has designed us for!] If God be for us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches
that Christ is the only one with the ‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If
the only person in existence who can ‘officially’ condemn and pass legal
judgment has actually died for us for the purpose of ‘freeing us from a state
of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’ about others opinions and views of us?
Most of us struggle with how others view us. Paul did teach that Elders should
have good character and a fine reputation in the community. But there is
another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can fall into. A sort of ‘concern’
about what the critics are saying. In this context Paul says ‘If the opinion of
the only person in existence whose opinion really matters, is one of “I accept
you unconditionally, I declare you free from what others think, you are my
beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever since I have known you, you have
been pleasing in my sight” [all true scriptures by the way] Then who cares what
others think! Paul also teaches that nothing can separate us from Christ’s love
‘not tribulation or distress or famine or persecution’ IN all these things we
are more than conquerors thru him who loved us. Most times we view this passage
from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want you to see the impact of this statement thru
a different lens. In the American church we have taught people ‘would a good
father not pay the bills of his kids? Would a good father allow his kids to
suffer? If you were really partaking of the New Covenant you would have it
made’. While I do realize that many well meaning ministers have taught these
viewpoints with honest and sincere hearts, I also have seen how this mindset
accuses the saints. It basically tells the struggling believer ‘what kind of
father do you have? If he
[parts]
The 6th session of Trent was the one where the
church dealt with justification [how we become saved in Gods sight].
Rome made a distinction between mortal and Venial sin in the
council- the church said that Baptism is the INSTRUMENTAL CAUSE of
justification. Yet faith is the Root- Foundation and Initial act that
justifies.
Rome also taught that Mortal sin kills the grace in the soul
that brings justification- and when a person commits a mortal sin- they need
the ‘2nd plank of justification’ in order to be brought back into a
state of Grace.
This 2nd Plank is the Sacrament of Penance
[confession]. Catholic Moral Theologians use an example to show the difference
between Mortal and Venial sin.
Drinking- if you take a drink [alcohol] not a sin. If you get tipsy- Venial- and if you get flat
drunk- mortal.
This is a true teaching by the way- not making this up.
Catholic scholars are not in total agreement on all the
Mortal/Venial sins.
Some teach that missing Mass on Sunday is a Mortal sin.
I just threw this in to show you the debates that take
place.
The teachings from Trent are referred to as Tridentine.
The Protestants [early on] rejected the belief that a person
can lose Gods grace once he has it- later on the Protestants would divide-
severely- over this teaching- Predestination and the Perseverance of the
Saints.
But early on all the major Reformers did indeed teach this.
Luther believed in the doctrine of Predestination just as
much- if not more- than John Calvin.
But sometimes in these history shows they get this wrong and
say Luther and Calvin disagreed on it- that’s a common mistake that you hear
every so often.
Luther actually wrote a book dedicated to the subject [The
Bondage of the Will] Calvin never wrote a book solely on the subject.
Okay- as we end this brief study of the Protestant
Reformation- you could also call it a primer on Catholic doctrine [short one].
Why is it important that we study this?
In John chapter 17 Jesus said that he desired unity for all
of Gods people- and many of these divisions- which date back 500 years- are
commonly misunderstood on both sides.
It is common in our day to run across an ex Catholic who
might say ‘you know- I left the church because I don’t believe I need to
confess to a priest’ or ‘the Catholic church teaches you are saved by works’.
The original Reformers did not have a problem with
confession- the Lutherans carried the practice over into their communion.
And like I just showed you- the Catholic church rejected the
doctrine of being saved ‘by works’ [Pelagianism] and simply emphasized the
teaching found in the bible- the book of James- and focused more on James than
Paul [who the protestants focus on].
So yes- there are still differences- but if we are not
informed- then it makes it harder to strive for unity- and at the end of the
day God does desire unity for all his people.
The other day I quoted the great Civil rights leader- MLK.
In one of his famous speeches that’s played when we celebrate his life- you
hear Martin say that not only was he seeking unity among the races- but also in
the church.
He said he wanted to see Catholics and Protestants- as well
as Blacks and Whites- sit down together- he referred to us all as Gods kids.
I think we should strive to achieve the desire of Martin-
and Jesus.
Amen.
Note- Do me a favor, those who
read/like the posts- re-post them on other sites as well as the site you read
them on. Thanks- John
The men he revealed God to- were given to him by God.
He spoke the words that the Father gave him- he did not speak ‘of himself’- meaning not just ‘good teaching’- but he communicated the Father to his men.
Many good preachers- who speak good things- might be missing the mark in the end- if they did not communicate the Father to people.
For instance- you might teach people how to live a positive life [which is good] but Jesus taught that the true riches were not simply living a successful life on earth [measured by material stuff].
He prayed for unity among believers- that when Christians live in harmony- then the world would know- see- God in us.
For the past 2 thousand years- many good men- churches- movements- have seen truth-
And in many cases this divides us. [We can even use this chapter as an example- Jesus clearly teaches the sovereignty of God- the only ones he prays for are the believers. There are aspects of Predestination taught here- which is a good doctrine. Yet- taken to the extreme- it has also been a source of division among many believers].
So- read the chapter for yourself- see the heart- intent- of Jesus.
He is going back to the Father- yet the believer will ‘be with him’ even now.
How?
In John’s gospel he explains it- because if a man loves him he will keep his word- and the Father and the Son will manifest themselves to us.
His leaving them- physically- will not mean they are alone.
But we will continue to have active communion with God- thru the Spirt- and yes-
When we die we will also be with him.
1-
The
ONE
2-
The
soul
3-
The
intellect
Called a Neoplatonist [by later thinkers] because he reintroduced
Platonism [Plato] with some new ideas.
Why?
Although Christianity falls under the category of Theology- yet-
in the 1st few centuries of the Common Era it was also seen as a
‘threat’ to some classical ideas.
It did indeed become the major ‘philosophy’ of the time.
His view of God?
The ONE- in Plotinus thought- was a ‘non being’ and ‘non existing’
[tough stuff- and in a way- nonsense]. Yet later he talks about this One as
existing- but not in the way we understand it.
He talks about The One as potentiality [dynamis] but not as the
way Christians define God.
Some of his ideas had Christian aspects-
True happiness cannot be found in material things [money- etc.].
But he also taught what many of the Eastern religions teach.
That you attain happiness when becoming one with the universe.
Christianity teaches a personal- real God.
Yes- he is Spirit [non matter] but real- with mind and
consciousness.
Some see God as a divine principle- not a real being.
The Greek thinkers saw all matter as evil- and felt when one gets
in tune with the immaterial realm- then he finds peace.
In Christianity- we do practice a form of contemplation-
meditation on the things of God.
We focus our thoughts on a higher realm-
But when we do this- we are not simply ‘connecting’ to the
universe-
But entering into contemplation of God and the things he has done
for us.
There is a debate about how much Plotinus influenced Christianity.
Some of the early Christian leaders had a past in philosophy [St.
Augustine being one of them].
And some think that the historic/orthodox church got off track by
allowing the philosophers to have too much influence on their ideas.
In the end- Plotinus resurrected- in a sense- the teachings of
Plato-
Not as a ‘help’ to Christian thinkers- but as a counter world
view.
Though many of the philosophers had an ‘idea’ of God- and used
terms theologians use [transcendence].
Yet they do not hold the view of most Christians when they use
these terms.
Plotinus taught that existence emanates from all 3- The One, The
Intelligence and the soul- a sort of Pantheism [God is everything].
Contemplation was not simply a passive act- but productive- in a
sense- it is the act of creation [the bible says the Logos- God speaking- is
the act. Yet scripture does say God founded the heavens and earth- thru wisdom
and knowledge. But the biblical teaching is different from Plotinus idea. God
is an actual being- who uses these things to create].
And like others after him- he taught that the perception of a
thing actually can shape- or effect the thing perceived [if a tree falls in the
forest- and no one is there to hear it- does it still make a sound type thing].
REVELATION 6. [Update- just
dropped Pop’s off- some girl was involved in a hit n run- I stopped to help
her. I’ll talk about it on the next video]
On the video I talk about an interesting thing that happened the
other day- I also posted those scriptures at the end.
Revelation 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals,
and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying,
Come and see.
Revelation 6:2 And I saw,
and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a
[parts]
ROMANS 8-10
VIDEO- [I cover stuff on the
videos that are not in the post- here are a few]
.Council of Trent- what did the
Church say?
.Do we get the final say- at the
Judgment?
.What are the Catholic virtues-
did Paul teach them?
.Augustine, Calvin, Whitfield and
Wesley.
.Infusion or Imputation? How bout
both!
At the bottom I added some quotes
from the Catechism of the Catholic church- to show that the official teaching
of the church DOES NOT TEACH SALVATION BY THE LAW- BUT BY CHRIST.
. REMINDER- This is a commentary
I wrote years ago- the videos are new.
.CHAPTER 8- FEW POINTS;
1-
Did God choose us to believe- or did we choose
him?
2-
When Paul says ‘he makes our bodies alive’ is he
only speaking about resurrection?
3-
Does God use difficulty- or is it to be rebuked?
4-
Was Paul a ‘hyper- Calvinist’?
(839)ROMAN 8:1-4 ‘There is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not
after the flesh [sinful nature] but after the Spirit [new nature]’. Now, having
proved the reality of sin and guilt [chapter 7] Paul teaches that those who
‘are in Christ’ are free from condemnation. Why? Because they ‘walk according
to the Spirit’ the ‘righteousness of the law is being fulfilled in them’.
Having no condemnation isn’t simply a ‘legal function’ of declared
righteousness, and Paul didn’t teach it that way! Paul is saying ‘all those who
have believed in Jesus and have been legally justified [earlier arguments in
chapters 3-4] are now walking [actually acting out] this new nature. Therefore
[because you no longer walk according to the flesh] there is no condemnation’!
This argument helps bridge the gap between Catholic and Protestant theology,
part of the reason for the ongoing schism is over this understanding. After the
Reformation the Catholic Church had a Counter Reformation council, the council
of Trent. They dealt with a lot of the abuses of the Catholic Church, things
that many Catholic leaders were complaining about before the Reformation. They
did deal with some issues and reformed somewhat. To the dismay of the more
‘reform minded’ Catholics [with Protestant leanings] they still came down
strong on most pre reform doctrines. This made it next to impossible for the
schism to be healed. But one area of disagreement was over ‘legal’ versus
‘actual/experiential’ justification. The Catholic position was ‘God can’t
declare/say a person is justified until they actually are’ [experientially].
The Protestant side [Luther] said ‘God does justify [legal declaration] a
person by faith alone’. Like I taught before, both of these are true. The Catholic
view of ‘justification’ is looking ahead towards a future reality [The same way
James speaks of justification in a future sense- He uses the example from
Genesis 22, when Abraham does a righteous act] while the Protestant view is
focusing on the initial legal act of justification [Genesis 15]. Here Paul
agrees with both views, he says ‘those who walk after the Spirit [actually
living the changed life] have no condemnation’.
(840)ROMANS 8:5-13 Paul will teach
the impossibility of the ‘carnal minds’ ability to submit to Gods law. Those
who are ‘in the flesh’ [the unregenerate nature- not simply ‘in the body’. We
will get into these distinctions in a minute] can’t submit to God. Society
spends so much time and effort trying to get the ‘lost man’ to do what's right.
The prohibition movement [outlawing liquor], the increase in the severity of
punishment for crimes dealing with drugs. Making the child kidnappers crime
punishable by death. While all these laws are necessary and good [though some
debate the wisdom of the kidnapper one, they think the kidnapper might just go
ahead and kill the victim if the same punishment applies to both crimes] they
have little effect on getting ‘the carnal man to submit’. Paul also says ‘if
the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead dwells in you, then he
that raised up Christ from the dead shall quicken [make alive] your mortal
bodies by his Spirit that dwells in you’. Let’s do a little teaching here. Most
commentators see this as speaking of the promise of the resurrection ‘your
mortal bodies’. I see this more in line with the context of chapter 7. The
discussion of ‘mortal bodies’ [your actual body, the flesh- which is different
than ‘the fleshly nature’ which refers to the sinful nature] speaks of your
actual life now ‘let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies’. Also in
verse 13 of this chapter the same theme is seen ‘if ye thru the Spirit mortify
the deeds of the body ye shall live’. I believe Paul is primarily saying ‘if
you are in the Spirit [born of God] the Spirit of life will make alive your
physical life in such a way that you will glorify God in your body and spirit,
which are Gods’ [Corinthians]. Chapter 12 says your bodies are living
sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God. Now later on in this chapter [8] we do
see the resurrection, which is called ‘the redemption of the body’ [verse 23]
so these two concepts work together. The fact that the believer is ‘training
his mortal body’ for God [thru obedience] is sort of a precursor to the
resurrection! Now, some believers confuse the resurrection of the body and the
work of regeneration in ‘making you alive’ [Ephesians 2]. The work of
regeneration brings your dead spirit back to life [born again] when you believe
[which is a Divine imputation of faith at the moment of conversion, a sovereign
act]. This ‘coming alive’ is purely spiritual. This qualifies you for the
future physical resurrection of the body [Ephesians calls this the ‘down
payment’, the ‘earnest of our inheritance, until the redemption of the
purchased possession’. The word ‘earnest’ here is used in the same way as
‘earnest money’ in a real estate transaction. The fact that we have been
‘sealed’ with the Holy Spirit is our ‘guarantee of future bodily
resurrection’]. Bishop N.T. Wright, the bishop of Durham [the church of
England- Durham is the 3rd most influential post in the Church of
England. Canterbury is at the top] has recently written on the truths of the
resurrection of the body. He is an excellent scholar, way way above my league.
He has been instrumental in ‘re introducing’ the reality of Christ’s
resurrection as well as our future resurrection as a very real Christian belief
[and historic truth as well]. I have read some of Wrights stuff and am a little
surprised at some of the ideas on ‘soul sleep’ and the immortality of the soul.
Bishop Wright seems to side with some of the ideas that certain restorationist
groups [7th day Adventists] espouse, that the Catholic Church kind
of corrupted the ideas of heaven and the soul by being overly influenced by
Greek thought. While it is possible for Bishop Wright to have come to his
understanding entirely thru scripture and history, yet I felt it a little
strange to see him make these arguments. For the most part I like brother
Wright and totally agree with his stance on the future ‘new heavens and new
earth’ as the final place of rest [as opposed to dying and going to heaven now,
which is a temporary place] but there is the biblical reality of a present
‘heaven’ and this doesn’t only come from Greek thought. I have often used the
Christian doctrine of the new heavens and new earth while speaking with the
Jehovah’s witnesses, I always agree on the reality of a future kingdom on
earth. I simply steer the conversation back to ‘who qualifies for it’ and get
straight to the gospel. Well anyway we have a promise of a future resurrection,
and also a ‘quickening of the body now’ [God actually using our physical life
to glorify him]. These are both great truths!
(841)ROMANS 8: 14-18 ‘For as many
as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the Sons of God’. Many of us are
familiar with this verse [I hope!]. We often see it as saying ‘Gods direction
in our lives is proof that we are Christians’ true enough. But in context
‘being led by Gods Spirit’ means living the new life thru Christ. The putting
to death of the old man and being ‘made alive’ thru Christ is what this is
saying. Paul agrees with John [1st John] ‘those that do what is
right [led by the Spirit] are of God’. Paul says ‘we have received the Spirit and
a natural result of this is crying “Abba, Father”. I don’t want to do too much
here, but Paul sees the ‘confession’ and heart cry of the believer as proof, a
result of being ‘a habitation of the Spirit’. A sign, if you will, of being
born of God is confessing/ praying to the Father. Paul quoted David in chapter
4 ‘for this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in a time when thou
mayest be found’ [Psalms 32- actually Paul quotes a different section from the
Psalm, but this theme is consistent with Paul’s view]. Paul knew the reality of
‘the godly calling upon God’ they have an inner cry of ‘Abba, father’. ‘We are
heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ’. For many years this has been a
popular verse among many believers, often times it is used to say ‘God owns the
cattle on a thousand hills’ [which he does] therefore if we are heirs ‘give me
some cattle’! [stuff]. Here Paul uses this term in speaking of our
identification with Christ’s sufferings. ‘If we suffer with him, we too shall
share [joint heir!] in his glory’ [future glorification at the resurrection- we
shall see him and be changed in a moment, at the twinkling of an eye. This
mortal shall put on immortality]. It’s a symptom of modern American
Christianity to view all these scriptures thru a materialistic lens, Paul held
to the promise of a future reward [at the resurrection] that enabled him to go
thru great difficulty and suffering in this present life. He counted the
suffering as a privilege that he shared with Christ.
(843)ROMANS 8: 19-25 ‘the
sufferings of this present time [are you ‘presently’ suffering?] are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed in us’. Paul compares the
difficulty to the reward. The reward here is the future resurrection. Paul did
not see suffering as ‘from the devil’ or the reward as something material
[monetary stuff! The resurrection body will be ‘material’ - real]. Paul teaches
that the whole creation is waiting for this day. Not only will we get a
‘makeover’ but there will be a new heaven and a new earth! The creation itself
longs for this [almost as much as Al Gore!] This resurrection is called ‘the
redemption of our body’. The next verse says ‘we are saved by hope’. John also
says [1st John] that the future reality of the resurrection ‘causes us to be
pure in this life’ [every one that has this hope in him purifies himself, even
as he is pure]. Why? Because we know God has a purpose for our bodies as well
as our spirits! The ‘getting saved by hope’ simply means the future hope of the
resurrection ‘encourages’ us to live clean now. Once again ‘saved’ is a neutral
term. In can apply to all sorts of things. I always found it funny how when you
read certain commentaries, that you see the difficulty Christians have when
coming across these types of verses. There’s a verse that says ‘the woman will
be saved thru childbearing’ geez, you wouldn’t believe the difficulty some
writers have when they come across this stuff. Some teach ‘she will be ‘saved’
thru the birth of a child [Jesus]’ and all sorts of stuff. I think if we simply
changed the word ‘saved’ for ‘delivered’ [which are basically the same thing]
that maybe this would help. But thank God that we have a future resurrection to
look forward to, let this truth ‘deliver’ you from the temptation to think
‘what’s all this suffering worth, why even go thru it?’ Because we have a great
promise at the other end!
(845)ROMANS 8:26-28 ‘Likewise the
Spirit also helpeth our infirmities’ why does Paul say ‘likewise’? He is saying
‘not only does the future hope of the resurrection sustain us, but also Gods
Spirit helps us’! He knows how to make intercession for us in ways that we
cannot. I just finished an hour prayer time, not an ‘official’ intercession
time [which I do a few times a week now]. But an ‘unofficial’ time where I try
and hear what the Spirit is speaking. When you are ‘praying in the Spirit’
[which can include the charismatic expression of tongues] you are depending
upon the Spirit to transcend your limited ability to articulate what needs to be
said. ‘All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are
‘the called’ according to his purpose’. A very famous verse indeed. What does
it mean? It means what it says! Over the years I have heard so many excuses for
trying to get around difficult things. Why do the righteous suffer? Some taught
it was because of their ignorance of scripture. Why did the things that
happened to Job happen? Some said it was because he ‘feared’ that the things
would happen [this group seems to miss the whole underlying reason for the
book. Job’s friends are continually looking for a reason thru out the book. The
point is, sometimes there is no reasonable explanation. I realize you can pick
apart certain statements from Job and come up with ‘reasons’, but the meaning
of the book is God is sovereign and we shouldn’t always think we can figure him
out or ‘work the system’]. Here Paul says ‘whatever is happening to you right
now [even very bad stuff!] will eventually work out for you benefit’. What
about Hitler? Did he love God? I don’t believe so. This scripture says ‘to them
that love God’. Your only responsibility thru the difficulty is to ‘love God’.
(846)ROMANS 8:29-30 ‘for whom he
did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed into the image of his
Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did
predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified:
whom he justified, them he also glorified’. Let’s talk a little. When I first
became a Christian I began a lifelong study of scripture, where I continually
read a certain amount of scripture every day for many years. Over the years I
have varied on how fast I should read [that is how many chapters per day and so
forth]. But during the early stages I always took these verses to teach
predestination in the classical sense. Simply put, that God ‘pre chose’ me [and
all whom come to him] before we ‘chose him’. The Fundamental Baptist church I
began to attend [a great church with great people!] taught that ‘classic
Calvinism’ [predestination] was false doctrine, and they labeled it ‘Hyper
Calvinism’. I simply accepted this as fact. But I never forgot the early
understanding that I first gleaned thru my own study. I also was very limited
in my other readings outside of the scripture. I did study the Great awakenings
and Charles Finney. I read some biographies on John Wesley and other great men
of God. These men were not Calvinistic in their doctrine [which is fine], as a
matter of fact Wesley would eventually disassociate from George Whitefield over
this issue. Whitefield was a staunch Calvinist! Over time I came to believe the
doctrine again, simply as I focused on the scriptures that teach it. Eventually
I picked up some books on church history and realized that Calvinism was [and
is] a mainstream belief among many great believers. I personally believe that
most of the great theologians in history have accepted this doctrine. Now, for
those who reject it, they honestly struggle with these portions of scripture.
Just like there are portions of scripture that Calvinists struggle with. To
deny this is to be less than honest. The Arminians [Those who deny classic
predestination- the term comes from Jacob Arminias, a Calvinist who was writing
and studying on the ‘errors’ of ‘arminianism’ and came to embrace the doctrine
of free will/choice] usually approach the verses that say ‘he predestined us’
by teaching that Gods predestination speaks only of his foreknowledge of those
who would choose him. This is an honest effort to come to terms with the
doctrine. To be ‘more honest’ I think this doesn’t adequately deal with the
issue. In the above text, as well as many other places in scripture, the idea
of ‘Gods foreknowledge and pre choosing’ speak specifically about Gods choice
to save us, as opposed to him simply knowing that we would ‘choose right’. The
texts that teach predestination teach it in this context. Now the passage above
does say ‘those whom he foreknew, he also did predestinate to be conformed into
the image of Christ’ here this passage actually does say ‘God predestinated us
to be like his Son’. If you left the ‘foreknowledge’ part out, you could read this
passage in an Arminian way. But we do have the ‘foreknowledge’ part. So I
believe Paul is saying ‘God chose us before we were born, he ‘knew’ ahead of
time that he would bring us into his Kingdom. Those whom he foreknew he also
predestinated to become like his Son.’ Why? So his Son would be the firstborn
among many. God wanted a whole new race of ‘children of God’. Those he
predestinated he ‘called’. He drew them to himself. Jesus said ‘all that the
Father give to me will come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no way
cast out’. Those who ‘come’ are justified, those who are justified are [present
tense] glorified. Gods design and sovereignty speak of it as a ‘finished task’
like it already happened. God lives outside of the dimension of time. I believe
in the doctrine of predestination. Many others do as well. You don’t have to
believe it if you don’t want to, but I believe scripture teaches it.
(847)ROMANS 8: 31-39 ‘What shall
we say then to these things? [what things? The fact that God predestined us and
has guaranteed completion of the purpose he has designed us for!] If God be for
us, who can be against us?’ Paul teaches that Christ is the only one with the
‘right’ or authority to pass judgment. If the only person in existence who can
‘officially’ condemn and pass legal judgment has actually died for us for the
purpose of ‘freeing us from a state of condemnation’, then who ‘gives a rip’
about others opinions and views of us? Most of us struggle with how others view
us. Paul did teach that Elders should have good character and a fine reputation
in the community. But there is another type of ‘persona’ that preachers can
fall into. A sort of ‘concern’ about what the critics are saying. In this
context Paul says ‘If the opinion of the only person in existence whose opinion
really matters, is one of “I accept you unconditionally, I declare you free
from what others think, you are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. Ever
since I have known you, you have been pleasing in my sight” [all true scriptures
by the way] Then who cares what others think! Paul also teaches that nothing
can separate us from Christ’s love ‘not tribulation or distress or famine or
persecution’ IN all these things we are more than conquerors thru him who loved
us. Most times we view this passage from a ‘Calvinistic’ lens. I want you to
see the impact of this statement thru a different lens. In the American church
we have taught people ‘would a good father not pay the bills of his kids? Would
a good father allow his kids to suffer? If you were really partaking of the New
Covenant you would have it made’. While I do realize that many well meaning
ministers have taught these viewpoints with honest and sincere hearts, I also
have seen how this mindset accuses the saints. It basically tells the
struggling believer ‘what kind of father do you have? If he really loved you
would you be going thru these things’? In essence we are saying ‘tribulation
and distress and persecution’ are all signs that ‘you have been separated from
Gods love’! Paul blows this false [materialistic] mindset out of the water. He
says it is thru these things that we are more than conquerors. It is the
ability to look into the face of Pontius Pilate and say ‘you have no power over
me, my father has permitted these things to take place. I am here to lay my
life down for his glory’. Paul said all these things we are suffering are
opportunities to glorify our father. To look into the face of society and say
‘nay, we are more than conqueror's thru him that loved us’. The early church
set the world on fire when they were laying their lives down for the cause,
refusing to deny their Lord even at the point of death. They were ‘more than
conquerors’.
ROMANS 9-
.PAUL- SPURGEON- AND DAVE HUNT-
DID THEY BELIEVE IN PREDESTINATION?
.HOW DOES PAUL DEFEND AGAINST THE
SEEMING ‘UNFAIRNESS’ OF IT?
.WHAT DID THAT RUSSIAN ATHIEST
SAY?
(848)ROMANS 9: 1-8 Paul returns
to an earlier theme ‘Christ came, as pertaining to the flesh, in response to
the covenants that God made with Israel’ [my paraphrase!] Paul says that
natural Israel played a very important role in the coming of Messiah. He was
[is] the fulfillment of the prophecies that came as a result of Gods
interaction with ‘the commonwealth of Israel’. Now Paul again says ‘they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel, but “in Isaac shall thy seed be called’”.
Understand something here, Paul is not teaching ‘another’ natural lineage to
Christ. The mistake of the worldwide church of God [Herbert Armstrong] which
teaches British Israelism, trying to trace the natural lineage of Europeans and
saying ‘these are the lost tribes’. Paul is simply saying ‘those who are of the
Law, the natural tribe of Israel [Jews] are not automatically counted as ‘the
seed’ [children] but those who ‘are of promise’. Paul also uses this in
Galatians 3 and 4. ‘Of promise’ is simply saying ‘those who have been born of
Gods Spirit [Jew or Gentile] are the children that God promised to Abraham’ he
is the father of ‘many nations’. All who would believe. These themes are building
upon Paul’s earlier theology in this letter. This letter [Romans] has a little
more ‘weight’ than say a pastoral epistle [Timothy, Titus]. Now, I am not
saying it is ‘more inspired’ but I want you to see that even in the book of
Acts you see Paul place special emphasis on ‘I must make it to Rome’! Paul
fully realizes that this letter will be read among the believers and Jews at
Rome. Rome is the capitol city of the Empire. He wants the early believers to
understand the role and purpose of God for Israel. Paul’s efforts are being
seen by some Jewish believers [Jerusalem] as antagonistic. Paul wants to make
it clear that he was not trying to start some type of movement that rejected
natural Israel. At the same time he wants natural Israel ‘my kinsman according
to the flesh’ to receive their Messiah! So in this context Romans is a
theological treatise saying ‘God wants to bring both Jew and Gentile together
as one new man in Christ [Ephesians]’. When he argues ‘they that are the
children of the flesh ARE NOT THE CHILDREN OF GOD[verse 8] but the children of
the promise are counted for the seed’ he is simply saying ‘all people, both
Jews and Gentiles [which includes all races that are ‘non Jews’ even Arabs!]
can partake of this free gift by grace’. The promise is to all who ‘will
believe’.
(849)ROMANS 9:9-23 now we get into
predestination. Paul uses the example of Jacob and Esau [I spoke on this in the
Genesis study, see chapter 25], he says God chose Jacob over Esau before they
were born. He also uses the story of Pharaoh and says God was the one who
hardened his heart. Paul says these things show us that God’s mercy and choice
are a sovereign act. He specifically says ‘God chose Jacob, not on the basis of
any thing he did [or would do!] but because of his own sovereign choice’. Now,
this is another one of those arguments where Paul says ‘you will then say to
me, how can God find fault? If everyone is simply doing the things he
preordained, fulfilling destiny, then how can God justly hold people
accountable’? First, I want you to see that this statement, that Paul is
putting into the mouths of his opponents, only makes sense from the classic
position of predestination. Second, if predestination only spoke of Gods
foreknowledge of the choices that people were going to make [like asking Jesus
into their heart!] then the obvious response to the argument would be ‘Oh, God
chose Jacob because he knew what a good boy he was going to be’. Not only would
this be wrong, Jacob [the supplanter] was not a ‘good boy’, but Paul does not
use this defense in arguing his case. He simply says ‘who are we to question
God? Can the thing formed say to him that formed it “why have you made me like
this”? It seems as if Paul’s understanding of predestination was in the
Augustinian/Calvinistic Tradition. A few years back a popular author on the
west coast, Dave Hunt, wrote a book called ‘what kind of love is this’? He took
on the Reformed Faiths understanding of predestination. Dave was a little out
of his league in the book. He seemed to not fully grasp the historic
understanding of the doctrine. He quoted some stuff from Charles Spurgeon that
made it sound like he was not a believer in predestination. Spurgeon did make
strong statements against certain ideas that were [are] prevalent in classic
Calvinism. Some taught that Christ’s Blood was shed only for the elect. This is
called ‘particular redemption’ or from the famous ‘Tulip’ example ‘limited
atonement’. Spurgeon did not embrace the idea that Christ’s Blood was not
sufficient to cover the sins of the whole world. The problem with Hunt using
this true example from Spurgeon, is that he overlooked the other obvious
statements from Spurgeon that place him squarely in the Calvinistic camp. Some
refer to this as ‘4 point Calvinism’. I myself agree with Spurgeon on this
point. The reason I mention this whole thing is to show you that major
Christian figures have dealt with these texts and have struggled with the
obvious difficulties involved. I think Paul does a little ‘speculative theology’
himself in this chapter. He says ‘what if God willing to show his mercy and
wrath permitted certain things’. He gives possible reasons for the seeming
‘unfairness’ of this doctrine. The point I want to stress is Paul never tries
to defend it from the classic Arminian understanding, that says ‘God knew the
way people were going to choose, and he simply ‘foreordained’ those who would
choose right’. To be honest, this argument does answer the question in the
minds of many believers, I simply don’t see it to be accurate.
(851)ROMANS 9:24-29 Paul quotes
Hosea and Isaiah to show that God has a purpose for both Jew and Gentile. He
uses a few verses from Isaiah 10 and 13 to say ‘except the lord had left us a
remnant, no one would be left’. Now, once again we come up against the mindset
of always reading ‘saved’ as meaning ‘born again’. In context, God ‘saving’ a
remnant simply means ‘he spared them from ruin and total destruction’. There is
a verse in Revelation that says ‘the nations of them which are saved shall enjoy
the new heavens and earth’. Some commentators will show you how some versions
leave out ‘which are saved’ which would leave the text as saying ‘the nations
[that are left, remain!] shall walk in it’. This is the context here. Paul is
saying God always had a few from Israel that remained, he didn’t utterly wipe
them out. Now, this of course fits in with ‘having sins forgiven’, being
‘saved’ or redeemed. There are prophets who say ‘the Lord will turn away
ungodliness from Jacob’ [delivered from sin] and ‘the lord comes to those who
have turned away from their sin’ speaking of Israel. So I want you to grasp the
biblical concept of God saving [sparing] a remnant. The word ‘remnant’ actually
speaks of the part of cloth/ material that is ‘left over’ from the whole piece.
Jesus also said ‘unless those days were shortened, their would no flesh “be
saved”’. Once again meaning ‘no human would survive unless God cut short his
wrath’. Paul also uses this language here ‘the lord will do a quick work on the
earth and cut it short [shortened!] in righteousness’.
(853)ROMANS 9: 30-33 ‘What shall
we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after the law of
righteousness have attained it, even by faith’.
Paul concludes the chapter by summing up his ‘righteousness by faith’
argument. Natural Israel, who sought to become righteous by law, who were
always striving for perfection thru the keeping of the law. They did not attain
that which they sought after. Why? Because they sought it ‘not by faith, but by
law’. No law could ever make a man righteous. The Gentiles, which were not even
looking! They got it. Why? Because they simply believed in the Messiah, it was
the best message they ever heard. They were told their whole lives ‘you are
separated from Gods promises. You are not included in the commonwealth of
Israel’. They never dreamed that the Jewish Messiah would say ‘neither do I
condemn thee, go and sin no more’. They received Gods righteousness by faith.
Israel ‘stumbled’ at the stumbling stone. Jesus is called a precious stone and
also a rock of offence. To those who believe, he is great, precious. To those
who don’t believe he is this tremendous obstacle. The unbelieving world doesn’t
know what to do with him. I was watching Ravi Zacharias the other night. He is a
good Christian apologist. He was telling the story of being in Russia and
speaking to a large group of Atheists. During his talk they were really
aggressive, making motions with their hands and all. He was told ahead of time
to be prepared. At the question and answer time a Russian Atheist asked ‘what
are you talking about when you say God? I have no idea what you mean by this
false concept’. Ravi asked him ‘sir, are you an Atheist?’ He replied yes. ‘What
is an Atheist’? Ravi asked. The man responded ‘someone who denies God’. Ravi
said ‘what exactly is it that you are denying’? The unbeliever has come up
against this ‘rock of offence’. He tries to get around it, to develop all types
of systems and philosophies to deny it. The rock is there, you can either ‘fall
on it’. That is admit he is who he claims to be. Submit and be ‘broken’. Or it
will eventually ‘grind you to powder’. You will pass from the scene and the
next crop of Atheists will rise and face the same dilemma. This rock ‘aint
going away’.
ROMANS 10 [On the video I give a
broad overview of the doctrine ‘the salvation of the righteous’. I cover many
verses not in the post].
.DOES THE BIBLE TEACH ‘A SINNERS
PRAYER”?
.DOES THIS CHAPTER SAY ‘THOSE WHO
CALLED/ASKED- DID NOT GET IT?
.IS THEIR A ‘RIGHTEOUS MAN’S
PRAYER’ THAT BRINGS SALVATION?
. PLEASE- LETS STOP DIVIDING OVER
SMALL STUFF-
(854)ROMANS 10: 1-13 Many years
ago I referenced all the back up scriptures for this chapter [and book!]. The
study was intense because I saw a fundamental ‘fault line’ that ran thru many
in the Evangelical church [the revivalist tradition]. The ‘fault line’ was
reading this chapter as in if it were saying ‘ask Jesus into your heart, or you
won’t be saved’. Now, I have no problem with those who trace their conversion
to an experience like this. But I want to give you my understanding of this
chapter, based on the exhaustive study I did years ago. Also, I will probably
quote some verses and you will have to find them later [I forget where they all
are]. Paul begins with his desire for ‘all Israel to be saved’. I taught in
chapter one how come the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. Because all
who believe ‘become righteous’. After 9 chapters of Romans, we have seen that
when Paul refers to ‘justification by faith’ this is synonymous with ‘believing
with the heart unto righteousness’. Here Paul’s desire is for Israel to
experience ‘all facets of salvation’ [present and future] to ‘be saved’. Now,
he will say ‘Christ is the end of the law to all who believe’ Israel did not
attain unto ‘righteousness’ because they sought after it by trying to keep the
law. But it comes only by faith. Then Paul quotes a kind of obscure verse from
Deuteronomy saying ‘Moses says the righteousness which is by faith’ [note- this
whole description that follows is describing ‘the righteousness that comes by
faith’] and says ‘the word is near thee, in thy mouth and heart’. Paul then
says ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved, with the heart a man believes
and becomes righteous [which according to Paul means ‘justified’] and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation’. In this text, Paul once again is
‘dividing’ the common understanding of ‘salvation’ meaning ‘getting initially
saved’- which is ‘believing and being justified’. And simply saying ‘believers
will inevitably call and be saved’ [in a generic sense]. Why would he do this?
In the context of his argument, he is simply showing the ‘righteousness which
is from the law’ [the man under the law is described as ‘doing something’
continuing under the load and strain of law] versus the ‘righteousness which is
by faith’ [described as a person who believes and speaks, as opposed to ‘does
stuff’]. It is not inconsistent for Paul to use the term ‘confessing and being
saved’ as speaking of something different than meaning ‘accepting Christ into
your heart’. Paul is simply giving a description of those who believe ‘all who
believe will call’. And yes, they will and do experience ‘salvation’. It’s just
in this example Paul is not saying ‘they are saved initially upon confession,
calling’. At least not ‘saved’ in the sense of ‘getting justified by faith’.
Why? Because the rest of the chapter doesn’t make a whole lotta sense if he
were saying this. ‘How can they call on him in whom they have not believed’? He
already showed us that ‘believers are justified’. The very argument Paul makes
distinguishes between ‘believing unto righteousness, and calling unto
salvation’. You can see it like this, there is a verse I stumbled across years
ago. It is in one of the prophets [Old Testament] and it says ‘Gods wrath will
come upon all them WHO HAVE NOT CALLED UPON HIM’. In this context Paul can be
saying ‘whoever calls upon God will never enter judgment/wrath’ [a description
of a particular lifestyle, remember Paul said Gods Spirit makes us cry ‘Abba
Father’] in this light Paul can be saying ‘all who call [both Jew and Gentile-
simply making an argument for inclusion. God accepts ‘all who call’] will not
come under future [or present!] wrath’. This would be in keeping with Peters
scathing sermon in Act’s where he quotes the Prophet Joel and says ‘whosoever
calls upon the Lord shall be saved’. If you go back and read Joel you will see
that in context he is saying ‘at the future time of God’s revealed judgment,
those who cry for deliverance will be spared’. Peter quotes it in this context
as well. He shows Gods future time of judgment and ends with ‘all who call will
be saved’. How do we know that Peter was not quoting Joel for some type of
‘sinner’s prayer’ thing? Because after the Jews say ‘what should we do’? He
doesn’t lead them in a sinners Prayer! I don’t want to be picky, I simply want
you to see context. Paul has already established multiple times thru out this
letter how righteousness comes to those who believe. One of the descriptions of
‘those who believe’ are they ‘call upon God’. They even call upon God ‘to save
them’. In this chapter the reason Paul uses ‘whosoever calls upon the lord will
be saved’ is to simply show God will deliver both Jews and Gentiles. His
promise of salvation is ‘to all’. When he uses ‘believing and being made
righteous’ along with ‘calling and being saved’ he obviously can not be
speaking about the same thing! He even states it this way in his argument. ‘How
can they call unless they already believe’? He was simply giving a description
of ‘those who believe’. This ‘calling for salvation’ that ‘all who believe’
partake of can speak both of a ‘present tense’ being saved, that is from any
and all types of bad things, and a ‘future tense’ deliverance from wrath. Even
when Paul quoted David in Roman’s 4, he is ‘describing the blessedness of the
man unto whom God will not impute sin’ [Psalms 32] if you go back and read that
psalm David says ‘for this shall EVERY ONE THAT IS GODLY PRAY UNTO THEE’. David
uses this in the context of his confession of his sin. So the ‘everyone that is
Godly’ describes ‘the righteous’ and they WILL CALL! Also in 2nd
Corinthians Paul quotes Isaiah ‘now is the acceptable time, now is the day of
salvation’ in the context of ‘God heard you and saved you’. Why would Paul use
this in 2nd Corinthians? They need not be told ‘pray and get saved’. In context
he used it to encourage them to return back into full communion and fellowship
after their restoration and reproof he gave them in the first letter. He is
saying ‘I rebuked you guys harshly, you repented and asked for forgiveness. God
‘heard you’ in his acceptable time, now get over it and ‘be restored’.
Salvation to them came by ‘calling’ but it was not describing an initial
conversion experience. Well, I didn’t realize I would go so long, but this is a
good example of having a ‘holistic view’ of scripture. You try and take all the
quotes the writers are using, put them in context of the broad themes of
scripture. Add that to the immediate context of the letter [Romans] and then
come to a deeper understanding of truth. I am not against those who see this
chapter thru an evangelistic lens, I just think the way I taught it is more
faithful to the text. [NOTE- Thru out this site I have taught the doctrine of
‘the salvation of the righteous’. I mentioned it earlier in Romans and have
spoken on it before. If you can find these entries they will add some insight
to this chapter. NOTE- verse 20 actually has Paul quoting Isaiah ‘I was found
by them who did not ask for me’. This would sure seem strange to say in the
same chapter that taught a concept of ‘all who ask for me will enter the
kingdom’. It is quite possible to ask and pray and confess everything ‘just
right’ and still not find him. And according to this verse, the ones who did
‘find him’ [Gentiles] did not ask! After years of coming to the above
understanding I read a church council [Council of Orange?] and I was surprised
to see how they actually dealt with the issue of believing versus ‘calling upon
God’. They quoted some of these texts to show that before a person could call
upon the Lord, he first needed faith. They used this example to show Gods
sovereignty in salvation. I though it interesting that they came to the very same
conclusions that I did. They even used the same examples! This shows you how
the corporate mind of the church is manifestly expressed thru out the ages. I
think the council was in the 8th or 9th century?
(855)ROMANS 10:14-21 [Just a note
for the previous entry. In the conversions recorded in scripture [Acts] do you
know how many times there is a reference to ‘calling upon the Lord’ during the
conversion? Surprisingly one time. The conversion of Saul [Paul]! During one of
the ‘re-tellings’ of his own story he says ‘I was told to arise, and be
baptized. Washing away my sins while calling upon the Lord’. Wow, could we have
arguments over this one! Do you identify the ‘washing away of sins’ with
baptism or the ‘prayer’? I actually previously taught [somewhere on this long
blog!] how in the 1st century Jewish mindset ‘washing from
uncleanness’ and water were related. I taught it in a way that did not teach
‘baptismal regeneration’ but more along the lines of ‘discipleship’ you might
find the entry under ‘my statement of faith’. The point I want to make here is
Paul spent 3 days after the Lord appeared to him before he actually got
baptized and made an open confession of faith. Paul’s reputation was so bad [he
killed Christians!] that his conversion and confession needed to have all the
weight possible. Others needed to know that he now ‘confessed Christ’. Most
commentators will look to the appearance of Jesus to Paul on the Damascus road
as his conversion. The point I want to make is in the book of Acts, the main
‘altar call’ was actually baptism. This was the normal means to identify with
the believing community. We also see the fact that once people believed, they
then were baptized. The same distinction can be made with ‘confessing’. Neither
can take place until one believes. I would assume that Paul said something like
this at his baptism ‘O Jesus, please forgive me for what I have done. I killed
your people and have committed a terrible crime’. There obviously were some
serious things he needed to confess! But the overall view of conversion in Acts
does not show a ‘sinner’s prayer’ type conversion.] Paul indicts Israel ‘The
word did come to you, you didn’t believe’. He also quotes Moses ‘God said he
would provoke you to jealousy by a nation who were “no people”’. We are
beginning a portion of Romans where Paul will try and explain the dynamic of
Gods purpose for Israel, and his ‘use’ of the Gentile nations to ‘make them
jealous’. When we studied the parables we saw this dynamic at work. Israel was
offended that God [Messiah] was offering equal access to the promises of Israel
thru Jesus. Israel was jealous of this free grace. Paul shows them that Moses
prophesied that this day would come. You also see this in Stephens sermon in
Acts chapter 7 ‘Moses said the Lord would raise up a prophet like me [Jesus!]’
and then Stephen shows how Israel also did not recognize that Moses was the
intended deliverer of the people. So likewise 1st century Israel
also did not recognize their Messiah [the first time around!]. God’s acceptance
of the Gentiles was difficult for Israel to embrace. It took a divine vision
for Peter, and he still ‘fell back’ into a caste system mentality. God is not
finished with these dealings [Paul will say in the next few chapters] and he
will make every effort to show both Jews and Gentiles that they are both
important pieces to this ‘divine puzzle’. He will even warn the Gentiles ‘don’t
get proud, if God cut off the true branches to graft you in, watch out! He
might do the same with you.’ Paul is striving for both Jew and Gentile to live
in harmony as much as possible, he did not want to come off as a defender of
the Gentiles only. He was ‘defending the gospel’.
(857)ROMANS- Let me overview a
little. This entry goes along with the last one [#856- those of you reading
this straight from the Romans study will need to find it under one of the
‘teaching’ sections]. Paul deals with the issue of ‘being provoked by/to jealousy’.
Many times believers remain divided because of pride and jealousy. We often do
not want to accept the fact that God actually is working thru other camps,
groups of Christians who are ‘not like us’. It challenges our very identity at
times! We feel like ‘well, my whole experience with God has been one of coming
out of [name the group- for many it’s Catholicism] and I KNOW that I have found
and experienced God by leaving mistaken concepts about God. Therefore any other
‘defender’ of Catholics is challenging my core experience’. I myself attribute
my conversion to ‘leaving religious ideas’ and reading the bible for the first
time. Though I had various believers witnessing to me, it was the actual
reading of Johns gospel [and the whole New Testament] that clinched it for me.
The reality of ‘whoever believes’ as opposed to religion. But my own experience
should not limit [in my mind] the reality of others who also embraced the Cross
without ‘leaving’ their former church. It is quite possible that other ‘Catholics’
arrived at a serious level of commitment to the Cross, while remaining faithful
to their church. Now I realize this in itself can become an issue of
contention, all I want to show you is we should not limit the power of the
gospel to our own personal experience. During the recent controversy [2008]
over certain Pentecostal expressions of ‘revival’ some old time churches simply
made a case against all the Charisms [gifts] of the Spirit. The fact is most
theologians accept the gifts of the Spirit as being for all ages of the church.
Sure, there have been problems with them, even early on [the Montanists] but
the fact is there has always been some type of Charismatic expression of
Christianity thru out the church age. But the more Reformed brother’s sound
[and are often!] more ‘biblical’ than some of the crazy stuff that happens
under the banner of ‘Pentecostal/Charismatic’. So the divisions exist. In this
chapter [Romans 11] Paul is dealing with a very real dynamic that says ‘I find
my whole identity in the way God has worked with me for centuries [Judaism].
The fact that he began a new thing with other groups who I detest [Gentiles]
has offended me to the point where I can’t even experience God any more’.
Israel could not see past her own experience with God. The fact that God was
‘being experienced’ by other groups in ways that seemed highly ‘unorthodox’ did
not mean that their former experience was illegitimate. It simply meant that
Gods experience with them was always intended to ‘break out’ into the broader
community of mankind. They lost this original intent and used their ‘orthodoxy’
as a means of self identification. An ‘elite’ religious class, if you will. I
find many of these same dynamics being present in the modern church. We should
stand strong for orthodoxy, we also need to expose and correct error when it
gets to a point where many believers are being led astray. But we also need to
be able to see God at work in other groups, we should not use our own
experience with God [no matter how legitimate it is!] as the criterion of
what’s right or wrong.
CATECHISM of the
Catholic Church-
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is
holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet
still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it
shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of
the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a
law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of
concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first
stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and
each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a
teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God. (1610, 2542, 2515)
1964 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel. “The Law is a pedagogy and a prophecy
of things to come.”17 It prophesies and presages the work
of liberation from sin which will be fulfilled in Christ: it provides the New
Testament with images, “types,” and symbols for expressing the life according
to the Spirit. Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the sapiential
books and the prophets which set its course toward the New Covenant and the
Kingdom of heaven. (122, 1828)
1977
Christ is the end of the law (cf. Rom 10:4); only he teaches and bestows the
justice of God.
1982 The Old Law is a preparation for the Gospel.
1983 The New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit
received by faith in Christ, operating through charity. It finds expression
above all in the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount and uses the sacraments to
communicate grace to us.
I TALKED ABOUT THESE VIRTUES ON
THE VIDEO-
I. The Human Virtues
1804 Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable
dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our
actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and
faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good
life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good. (2500, 1827)
The moral virtues are
acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts;
they dispose all the powers of the human being for communion with divine love.
The
cardinal virtues
1805
Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called “cardinal”; all the
others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and
temperance. “If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom’s] labors are virtues; for
she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage.”64 These virtues are praised under
other names in many passages of Scripture.
1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical
reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right
means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.”65 “Keep sane and sober for your
prayers.”66 Prudence is “right reason in
action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with
timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it
guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that
immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and
directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this
virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome
doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid. (1788, 1780)
1807 Justice is the moral virtue that consists in
the constant and firm will to give their due to God and neighbor. Justice
toward God is called the “virtue of religion.” Justice toward men disposes one
to respect the rights of each and to establish in human relationships the
harmony that promotes equity with regard to persons and to the common good. The
just man, often mentioned in the Sacred Scriptures, is distinguished by
habitual right thinking and the uprightness of his conduct toward his neighbor.
“You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in
righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.”68 “Masters, treat your slaves justly
and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”69 (2095, 2401)
1808 Fortitude is the moral virtue that ensures
firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good. It
strengthens the resolve to resist temptations and to overcome obstacles in the
moral life. The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death,
and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and
sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause. “The Lord is my strength and my
song.”70 “In the world you have tribulation;
but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”71 (2848, 2473)
1809 Temperance is the moral virtue that moderates the
attraction of pleasures and provides balance in the use of created goods. It
ensures the will’s mastery over instincts and keeps desires within the limits
of what is honorable. The temperate person directs the sensitive appetites
toward what is good and maintains a healthy discretion: “Do not follow your
inclination and strength, walking according to the desires of your heart.”72Temperance
is often praised in the Old Testament: “Do not follow your base desires, but
restrain your appetites.”73 In the New Testament it is called
“moderation” or “sobriety.” We ought “to live sober, upright, and godly lives
in this world.”74 (2341, 2517)
Down
the road I hope to teach a bit more about the Catholic teaching of ‘the working
of the work’- meaning the Church teaches that the Sacraments ‘work’ regardless
of the holiness/faith of those administering them. It’s a controversy that
dates back to the early centuries of the Church [the Donatist controversy]. The
point I want to make here is the bible teaches that there are things we can
train ourselves to do- acts of prayer- fasting- etc.- that over time will train
the mind to think Godly thoughts [these practices of discipline work over time-
regardless of the way you feel]. I think one of the drawbacks from the
Protestant Reformation was the neglect of ‘works’- the role that good works
play in the Christian life. Paul [in Romans] says ‘as you have yielded your
parts as instruments of unrighteousness to sin- so now yield them as
instruments of righteousness unto God’. I added this section about Virtues
because I felt it covered this theme well.
Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her
seven pillars:
Proverbs 9:2 She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her
wine; she hath also furnished her table.
Proverbs 9:3 She hath sent forth her maidens: she crieth upon the
highest places of the city,
Proverbs 9:4 Whoso is simple, let him turn in hither: as for him
that wanteth understanding, she saith to him,
Proverbs 9:5 Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I
have mingled.
Proverbs 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of
understanding.
ROMANS 11-13
[note- there’s much more on the video than the post]
.ROMANS 11
.ROMANS 12
.ROMANS 13
END NOTES-
.What effect did the Renaissance have on the Reformation?
.How did Erasmus differ from Luther?
.Do Catholics exalt Tradition over Scripture?
.Renaissance artists.
.Do Catholics believe in Justification by Faith?
.Catholic teaching on Civil Authorities [Romans 13].
.What does ‘AdFontes’ mean- and how does it relate to the
Renaissance/Reformation?
Romans 11
.Was Paul a full time preacher- paid?
.Is he teaching universalism here?
.Elijah was not alone.
(861)Romans 11:13- ‘For I speak
to you Gentiles, in as much as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify my
office’. Let me just make a few comments today. How is Paul 'exercising’ his
apostolic authority over the Gentiles in Rome? We know he hasn’t been there yet
[since becoming a follower of Jesus]. He did not have some type of relationship
with them where they contributed to him. He was holding no ‘church services’.
He exercised it by speaking into their lives and caring for their welfare. He
did this by WRITING THIS LETTER! Recently there has been some discussion on
‘Gods government’ and the apostles ‘bringing things into alignment’ [dealing
with the mistakes at Lakeland]. Lots of talk that I am familiar with. What is
Gods government? In the world we have 2 competing ‘world views’- systems or
modes of operation. You have God’s kingdom, and then the worlds system. When
the apostle John said ‘love not the world, neither the things that are in the
world’ he was referring to this system of lies and pride and sin. In Gods
kingdom you operate under his laws ‘love the Lord thy God with all thy heart…
and your neighbor as yourself’. In this family [children of God] you have
different types of ‘gifts’. Some are apostles, others prophets, etc. All these
gifted ones are given for the singular purpose of building you up so you can
have a mature faith grounded in Christ and be the ‘glorious temple’ of God in
the earth. Paul was playing his part by communicating Jesus to these Roman
Gentiles. He did not have some type of a corporate relationship with them where
he said ‘commit to my authority over you. Either I will be your ‘covering’ or
someone else!’ These are mans ideas. Now, we often say ‘Paul didn’t receive
money from the Corinthians, but he did from the other churches’. I have said
this myself. Paul did receive support from the Philippians, but that was
support for his traveling ministry. To get him to the next place. If you read
carefully you will see Paul telling the Thessalonians ‘when I was with you I
did not eat, or take stuff for free. My hands ministered to both me and those
that were with me’ I think he even said he worked night and day. When he spoke
to the Ephesians elders in the book of Acts, he also said ‘I labored when I was
with you, I did not take support from you when I was there. I did this to leave
you ELDERS an example’. Now, the point I want to make is it seems as if Paul
did not take money when he was actually living among the saints. It seems he
took it only for traveling expenses [and of course for his ministry to the poor
saints at Jerusalem]. Now, I believe and teach that it is scriptural to meet
the needs, financially, of laboring elders. The reason I mention this is to
show you that being an ‘apostle’ or any other gifted minister in the church
simply means you bear extra responsibility to bring Gods people to maturity. It
was not some type of office where you were a ‘professional minister’. When I
hear all the talk of ‘Gods apostles are bringing Gods government back into
alignment’ for the most part these are men’s ideas being applied to an American
corporate 501c3 ministry. Gods ‘government’ operates along different lines. So
in this example Paul said ‘I magnify my office’ he was simply imparting some
truth to them for the purpose of their own edification. Paul did not see them
coming under ‘his covering’.
(862)ROMANS 11- let me make a
note on the previous entry. Over the last few years, as well as many years of
experience with ‘ministry/church’, I have seen how easy it is to fall into the
well meaning mindset of ‘I am going into the ministry, this is my career
choice. My responsibility is to do ‘Christian stuff’ and the people’s role is
to support me’[ I am not taking a shot at well meaning Pastors, I am basically
speaking of the many friends I have met over the years who seemed to think
ministry was a way to get financial support]. In the previous entry I mentioned
how Paul seemed to have a mode of operation that said ‘when I am residing with
a community of believers, I refuse to allow them to support me. I will work
with my own hands to give them an example, not only to the general saints, but
also to the elders. I am showing you that leadership is not a means to get
gain’. It does seem ‘strange’ for us to see this. Of course we know Paul also
taught the churches that it was proper and right to support those who ‘labor
among you’. I have taught all this in the past and I don’t want to ‘re-teach’
it all again. The point I want to make is we ‘in ministry’ really need to
rethink what we do. How many web-sites have I gone to that actually have icons
that say ‘pay me here’. The average person going to these sites must think ‘pay
you for what’? Paul did not teach the mindset of ‘pay me here, now’. Also in
this letter to the Romans we are reading Paul’s correspondence to the believers
at Rome. He often used this mode of ‘authority’ [writing letters] to exercise
his apostolic office. Of course he also traveled to these areas [Acts] and
spent time with them. And as I just showed you he supported himself on purpose
when he was with the saints. Basically Paul is carrying out the single most
effective apostolic ministry of all time [except for Jesus] and he is doing it
without all the modern techniques of getting paid. He actually is doing all
this writing and laboring at his own expense. He told the Corinthians ‘the
fathers [apostles] spend for the children, not the children for the fathers’.
So in todays talk on ‘apostles’ being restored. God ‘bringing back into
alignment apostolic government’ we need to tone down all the quoting of verses
[even the things Paul said!] that seem to say to the average saint ‘how do you
expect us to reach the world if you do not ‘bring all the tithes into the
storehouse’! When we put this guilt trip on the people of God we are violating
very fundamental principles of scripture. Now, let’s try and finish up chapter
11. Paul is basically telling Israel and the Gentiles that God’s dealings are
beyond our understanding [last few verses]. God is using the ‘unbelief’ of
Israel as an open door to the Gentiles. He is also using the mercy that he is
showing to the Gentiles as an ‘open door’ to Israel! He will ‘provoke them to
jealousy’. There are a few difficult verses that would be unfair for me to skip
over. ‘All Israel shall be saved’. Paul uses this to show that God’s dealings
with natural Israel as a nation are not finished. Who are ‘all Israel’? Some
say ‘the Israel of God’ [the church]. I don’t think this fits the text. Some
say ‘all Israel that will be alive at the second coming’ I think this is
closer. To be honest I think this can simply mean ‘all Israel’ all those who
are alive and also raised at the return of the Lord. Now, this would be a form
of universalism [all people eventually being saved]. I am not a Universalist,
but I don’t want any ‘preconceived’ mindset [even my own!] to taint the text. I
think God has the ability to reveal himself to the whole nation of Israel in
such a way that ‘they all will be saved’. If I were a Jewish person I wouldn’t
wait for this to happen! Just like the Calvinists argument of ‘why witness’?
Because God commands it. So even though you can make an argument here for a
type of universal redemption at Christ’s revealing of himself to Israel at the
second coming [which is in keeping with this chapter, as well as other areas in
scripture; ‘they will look upon him whom they have pierced’ ‘God will pour out
the spirit of mourning and supplication on Israel at his appearing’. Which by
the way would fit in with ‘whoever calls on the Lord will be saved’ which I
taught in chapter 10. This is a futurist text implying a time of future
judgment and wrath’]. So God’s dealings with Israel are not finished. Paul also
warns the Gentiles ‘don’t boast, if God cut out the true branches [Israel] to
graft you in. He can just as quickly cut you out too’! It would be dishonest
for me [a Calvinist] to simply not comment on this. You certainly can take this
verse in an Arminian way. Or you can see Paul speaking in a ‘nationalistic
sense’. Sort of like saying ‘if Germany walks away from the faith, they will be
‘cut out’. [France would have been a better example! Speaking of the so called
‘enlightenment’ and the French Revolution]. In essence ‘you Gentiles, don’t
think “wow, look at us. God left Israel and we are now special!”’ Paul is
saying ‘you Gentiles [as a whole group] stand by faith. God could just as
quickly ‘cut you out’ and replace you with another group’. I also think the
Arminians could use this type of argument for the previous predestination
chapter [9]. But to be honest I needed to give you my view. One more thing,
Paul quotes Elijah ‘lord, I am the only one left’. He uses this in context of
God having a remnant from Israel who remained faithful to the true God. God
told Elijah ‘there are 7 thousand that have not bowed the knee to baal’. Paul
uses this to show that even in his day there were a remnant Of Jews [himself
included] who received the Messiah. An interesting side note. The prophetic
ministry [Elijah] seems to function at a ‘popular level’. Now, I don’t mean
‘fame’, but Elijah was giving voice to a large undercurrent that was running
thru the nation. If you read the story of Elijah you would have never known
that there were ‘7 thousand’ who never bowed the knee! Often times God will use
prophetic people to ‘give voice’ or popularize a general truth that is
presently existing in the ‘underground church’ at large. Sort of like if Elijah
had a web site, the 7 thousand would have been secretly reading it and saying
‘right on brother, that’s exactly what we believe too’!
ROMANS 12
.ARE SOME GIFTS BETTER THAN
OTHERS?
.HOW SHOULD THEY FUNCTION IN THE
‘BODY’?
. HOW SHOUD WE GIVE OFFERINGS-
DID PAUL TEAHC TITHING?
.HOT COALS ON THEIR HEADS- HUH?
(864)ROMANS 12:1-8 ‘I beseech
you by the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and
acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service [spiritual worship]’.
Most times we see ‘by the mercies of God’ as a recap of all that Paul has
taught from chapters 1 thru 12. This is true to a degree. I think Paul is
honing in on the previous chapters that dealt with the purpose of God
specifically seen in the resurrection of the body. As we read earlier ‘for we
are saved by hope’ [the hope of the resurrection]. Basically I see Paul saying
‘because of what I showed
[parts]
VERSES-
. Ephesians
1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in
love:
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will,
Ephesians 1:6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he
hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Ephesians 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the
forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in
trespasses and sins;
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times
past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the
mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love
wherewith he loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us
together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit
together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding
riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
John 15:1 I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh
away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring
forth more fruit.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken
unto you.
John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear
fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide
in me.
John 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in
me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do
nothing.
John 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch,
and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are
burned.
John 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall
ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit;
so shall ye be my disciples.
John 15:9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you:
continue ye in my love.
John 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love;
even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
John 15:11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might
remain in you, and that your joy might be full.
John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I
have loved you.
John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
John 15:14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
John 15:15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant
knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things
that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.
John 15:16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and
ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit
should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may
give it you.
27 My sheep
hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I
give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man
pluck them out of my hand.
29 My
Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck
them out of my Father's hand.
John
facebook.com/john.chiarello.5
Note- Do me a favor, those who read/like the posts- re-post
them on other sites as well as the site you read them on. Thanks- John.*
No comments:
Post a Comment